Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[aesop081]

People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree.

Let me fix that for you :

"People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far more about it than you do, cannot even agree amongst themselves."

The falacy of the whole crisis has been show clearly enough. "Climategate" was just the final nail.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Not wishing to be branded as one resorting to ad hominum reasoning, I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

Thus far, you've repeatedly dodged the request and posted irrelevantly that "some of the southern permafrost is softening, and it is no coincidence that Russia is having record wildfires."

No one is arguing against the world getting warmer

The point is how much of it is naturally cyclic (there's a reason Greenland was named Greenland) and how much is my personal fault because I own a Jeep and a Harley? IPCC has been unable to produce credible evidence to support the latter proposition's gloom & doom to justify legislation that my lifestyle and taxable income must suffer.

You are more than free to wring your hands and gnash your teeth.
But if you have no evidence beyond the discredited IPCC (see the clarification requested three-times), relying instead upon unsubstantiated supposition ("it's no coincidence....),
....then keep your hands out of my wallet.


ps: Actually.....you do understand that the early 19th century spanned 1800-1820ish -- global warming wasn't really an issue 

Actually, the problem is because of the following we can't actually tell if the world is warming:
1.  Weather Stations being located in increasingly urban areas where concrete jungle acts as heat sink for solar radiation (vs previous years when data gathering occurred in more rural areas free of such a heat sink effect).
2.  Shifting of weather stations to the south and yet still "averaging".  Saw recent GISS temperature map that had eliminated the most northerly station and instead has used 1,200 km smoothing to 'extrapolate' the warmer southern temperatures north (and when you think about the size of the land mass that impacts, its impossible to beleive that doesn't skew the numbers up).
3.  Outright manipulation of temperature data by some weather services (won't comment if this is out of self-interest as they like the travel to places like Bali and Cancun, or out of Machiavellian belief that the ends justify the means in terms of "Saving the Environment", or a combination of both).

Bottom Line:  I'm not confident the planet actually is warming....only that where the alarmists are choosing to measure is getting warmer if you take the data they're providing at face value (which is something they at this point haven't earned).  It would be a very interesting statistical analysis to compare only the rural gathering stations to eliminate the urban heat sink factor as see what we have then.

Until then, I'll focus on protecting rainforest and other critical ecosystem....I should add that I find the motives of the alarmists highly dubious when with the hundreds of billions of dollars they are trying to command they say not-a-word about the rampant deforestation that is taking place.....


Matthew. 

 

[Journeyman]

I posted:

I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

You responded:

When have I ever called cliamte sceptics a corrupt cabal? This habit of one-liners which deflect any sort of challenge to the sceptical line of reasoning on this thread really has to stop if it will be of benefit to anyone.

You are what we call "a troll." You make declarative statements, and when asked for clarification, you waffle. (At this stage, I felt "obfusticate" had too many sylables).

You are clearly of the camp, "if I repeat something often enough, it will become fact"


Oh, and Cdn Blackshirt apparently doesn't believe the earth is warming. I do. 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I didn't say I didn't believe it was warming....I said that after doing a lot of digging I don't believe in the data being provided to us which says that the planet is warming (inferring I'd like an unconflicted 3rd party to start collecting and distributing it).

As an example, as air traffic increased in the last 20 years, what bias do you think is being collected by the following station [note: I just remembered seeing this photo earlier and it's not quite as terrible as it looks....that's more a parking mat as opposed to a runway....can post different shots if others would prefer or they can do their own assessments at www.surfacestations.org]

 

[jhk87]

I posted:

You responded:
You are what we call "a troll." You make declarative statements, and when asked for clarification, you waffle. (At this stage, I felt "obfusticate" had too many sylables).

You are clearly of the camp, "if I repeat something often enough, it will become fact"


Oh, and Cdn Blackshirt apparently doesn't believe the earth is warming. I do. 

Actually, I posted the link to the Inter-Academy Council's IPCC review site. Besides making accusations of torlling and asking the same question over and over, what are you doing?

 

[Haletown]

Actually, I posted the link to the Inter-Academy Council's IPCC review site. Besides making accusations of torlling and asking the same question over and over, what are you doing?

Do you mean the infamous Inter-Academy Council  that spends huge $bucks, operates in secret and just like the Team at CRU and elsewhere refuses to release their data ?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/missing-documents-unfulfilled-promises/

Maybe it is a different Council Inter-Academy Council.


You seem to be  very trusting of "authority"  . . .  if I made a reference to Pigs, Milk & Apples would you understand ?

 

[Kirkhill]

ps: Actually.....you do understand that the early 19th century spanned 1800-1820ish -- global warming wasn't really an issue 

This your point JM? - The Year Without Summer

And there's nothing in my wallet for him to pick....the power of plastic.

 

[jhk87]

How egotistical.
If "our understanding" was that certain today I hardly think we would have a thread 59 pages long, and counting, on a website that really exists for a whole another topic.

There are also forums and books and citizens' groups devoted to debating the theory of evolution. It hardly means there's a problem with the theory of evolution.

 

[jhk87]

Not wishing to be branded as one resorting to ad hominum reasoning, I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

Thus far, you've repeatedly dodged the request and posted irrelevantly that "some of the southern permafrost is softening, and it is no coincidence that Russia is having record wildfires."

No one is arguing against the world getting warmer

The point is how much of it is naturally cyclic (there's a reason Greenland was named Greenland) and how much is my personal fault because I own a Jeep and a Harley? IPCC has been unable to produce credible evidence to support the latter proposition's gloom & doom to justify legislation that my lifestyle and taxable income must suffer.

You are more than free to wring your hands and gnash your teeth.
But if you have no evidence beyond the discredited IPCC (see the clarification requested three-times), relying instead upon unsubstantiated supposition ("it's no coincidence....),
....then keep your hands out of my wallet.


ps: Actually.....you do understand that the early 19th century spanned 1800-1820ish -- global warming wasn't really an issue 

Actually, any time any other evidence has been brought forward, it has been ignored or countered with a sceptic blog. See previous posts.

 

[jhk87]

Do you mean the infamous Inter-Academy Council  that spends huge $bucks, operates in secret and just like the Team at CRU and elsewhere refuses to release their data ?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/missing-documents-unfulfilled-promises/

Maybe it is a different Council Inter-Academy Council.


You seem to be  very trusting of "authority"  . . .  if I made a reference to Pigs, Milk & Apples would you understand ?

I generally take experts seriously, as apparently, you take outrageously biased websites very seriously. Especially when the experts have years of education and a career in their field to worry about. Those making poartisan websites hardly have the same level of accountability. This has been the point. What sort of accountability does nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv have? None. This is the point that has been dodged and dodged and dodged.

Oh, and if you're going to use Orwell references in an attempt to be demeaning, don't accuse others of trolling.

 

[Haletown]

I generally take experts seriously, as apparently, you take outrageously biased websites very seriously. Especially when the experts have years of education and a career in their field to worry about. Those making poartisan websites hardly have the same level of accountability. This has been the point. What sort of accountability does nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv have? None. This is the point that has been dodged and dodged and dodged.

Oh, and if you're going to use Orwell references in an attempt to be demeaning, don't accuse others of trolling.

Please tell us why you think Donna's website is biased . . .  she puts out facts, not opinions

The fact that all those "impartial" scientists have hung their careers on the global warming bandwagon is a reason for them to support their cause. . . .  no hairy scary global warming and no more R&D money shoveled off the truck for them,  no more trips to Bali & Cancun and no more flattering, fawning press telling us & them how they are saving the world. Scientists are humans too, subject to the foibles of ego and they crave fame & glory just like everyone else.


They profit from the AGW hysteria, Donna doesn't get paid to do it . . .  so who's the honest broker in the debate.  Same same for Steve McIntyre and a host of others who have  an honest interest in the topic and refuse to stop thinking because Al Gore says "the debate is over". 

Scientists and scientific consensus have been wrong before . . . think about " the earth is flat" or "the sun revolves around the earth" or more recently "ulcers are caused by stress". 

The question if you would understand a reference to pigs, milk & apples was asked in all honesty to find out if you did understand how people with a political agenda use the  authority of science to stop discussion.  Deference to authority is a well used political control mechanism and my question was put forward as just that  - a question to see if you were aware. 

Since you get the Orwell reference, do you think there is a possibility, a probability, it could be going in with respect to the global warming issue?

 

[a_majoor]

I generally take experts seriously, as apparently, you take outrageously biased websites very seriously. Especially when the experts have years of education and a career in their field to worry about. Those making poartisan websites hardly have the same level of accountability. This has been the point. What sort of accountability does nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv have? None. This is the point that has been dodged and dodged and dodged.

Oh, and if you're going to use Orwell references in an attempt to be demeaning, don't accuse others of trolling.

Since, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in multiple fora, these "experts" are hiding and manipulating data and pushing for one and only one interpretation of their position (and working very hard to demonize equally qualified scientists who happen to disagree with the interpretation fo the data or the hypothesis [I one spent a very fascinating afternoon with Dr Chris Essex, who not only outlined how much Climate change alarmists manipulated the data, but also many personal anecdotes on how he, personally was the recipient of tactics like being blackballed form attending or presenting at conferences, pressure applied against his employer, disinvited from TV shows where he was to present etc.]), perhaps these experts are using their credentials for a different purpose.

Like the man said, "follow the money" and the alarmist's motivations spring into sharp focus. A checksum of sorts can be made in medicine, during the Nixon Administration a "War on Cancer" was declared, and suddenly a mad rush was on to demonstrate that any and all research projects really did have a direct bearing on cancer. Flash forward to the 80's and the same thing happened with AIDs.

Now since it is trivially easy to debunk AGW and other climate alarmist positions (for example, the temperature of Mars is rising and falling in close synchronization with that of the Earth, so unless you can prove NASA has sent millions of SUV's to explore Mars we really don't have to go any farther), then it is up to you to interpret the actions and motivations of the climate alarmists. Since you are apparently willing to simply follow "expert opinion" without question, and use ad homienem attacks rather than examine and present arguments based on the facts, I will leave you at this point. Reality is catching up with climate alarmists and they are fast becoming irrelevant in the current political climate anyway (heh).

If you want to enter a debate and take action for the long term good of Canada and the world, focus on economics. If you want to take personal action in that arena (or protect yourself from foolish politicians and greedy bureaucrats), clear you personal debts.

 

[Haletown]

Ok, I wasn't going to do this but in the spirit of Christmas I am inspired to share some background info related to the this Global Warming Super Thread.  Just for the entertainment value, to illustrate the quality of debate, the intellectual vacuity  and the maturity of the responses the thread has provided. 

The MilPoints are a non issue, the pettiness of the attempted insults are very revealing. 


Couple of day ago, I received an email from milnet.ca:

Subject Milnet.ca: TheHead thought Haletown was Grinchy (-100 MP)

"Subject: Re: The Global Warming Super Thread
Link: http://forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/32987/post-1000377.html#msg1000377
Amount: -100 MilPoints
Notes: Oh there has been nothing educated from any of the shit you spew."

and again today . . .

Subject: Milnet.ca: TheHead thought Haletown was Inappropriate (-100 MP)
"Subject: Re: The Global Warming Super Thread
Link: http://forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/32987/post-1001154.html#msg1001154
Amount: -100 MilPoints
Notes: Once again you post like a whiney child with insults and no substance.  Nice opinion piece. "

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm getting pretty tired of this "My experts are right and yours are all ass clowns" rhetoric, the obfuscation and the just plain stubbornness to even glance sideways at someone else's opinion. After all these pages there is not even one iota of compromise. All the crap, from both sides has been covered more than a couple of times, and nothing new has been forthcoming for quite awhile.

Time for everyone to take a rest.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There has been a couple of requests to reopen this thread to post a couple of relevent articles.

Here's the only warning.

If we get back into arguing the same old same old, with no new info. If you want to be sanctimonious and write off the other side as clowns because they don't agree with you or generally we get in to the same  :argument: as has been happening too frequently, we'll lock it again.

If it gets locked again, it won't get reopened as easily next time, and the offender causing the lock goes to warning

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

There has been a couple of requests to reopen this thread to post a couple of relevent articles.

Here's the only warning.

If we get back into arguing the same old same old, with no new info. If you want to be sanctimonious and write off the other side as clowns because they don't agree with you or generally we get in to the same  :argument: as has been happening too frequently, we'll lock it again.

If it gets locked again, it won't get reopened as easily next time, and the offender causing the lock goes to warning

Milnet.ca Staff

My vote for the record:  Ban the offenders. 

The thread has exceptionally more value than most of the Off-Topic Stuff discussed as it is a current political, scientific and economics issue commanding budgets that approach military spending in some cases.

Many thanks for the staff's consideration....


Matthew. 

 

[Sapplicant]

Real vs. Fake. Which christmas tree is better for the environment.


Personally, I'm on the side of the real trees. As long as there's still a market, you know for sure there's gonna be many, many, many acres of land set aside for growing trees. If global warming and greenhouse gasses truly are a threat, then this is the kind of operation that not only covers it's own "carbon footprint", but might help to cover up others as well. Unless every just burns their trees after christmas, instead of mulching them  >


Merry Christmas everyone  :christmas happy:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Personally, I'm on the side of the real trees. As long as there's still a market, you know for sure there's gonna be many, many, many acres of land set aside for growing trees. If global warming and greenhouse gasses truly are a threat, then this is the kind of operation that not only covers it's own "carbon footprint", but might help to cover up others as well. Unless every just burns their trees after christmas, instead of mulching them  >


Merry Christmas everyone  :christmas happy:

Yup. Just be reaaaaalllllll careful with them.
I wonder how many carbon credits one of these is worth 

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

 

[Sapplicant]

I wonder how many carbon credits one of these is worth 

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

Well, look at it this way...

That house won't be using anymore AC, heating, power for appliances, etc...
And, if the cars were in the garage....

Plus, when they rebuild, they can have have it built to LEED standards!  ;D

 

[jhk87]

Actually, the msot sustainable way is to "rent" a tree, whereby you basically pay  to borrow a tree that's being silvicultured and then reuturn it at the end of the season. This has several advantages, not the least of them being that you avoid having needles everywhere. Personally, I purchased a Norfolk pine - but then again, I live in an apartment anyhow.

For the sake of it, I'll post an article by Preston Manning on the subject of a "green" economy. With any luck this should break the "lie, libel, liberal/ con-servative" mould that seems to engender mud-slinging:

http://www.manningcentre.ca/content/our-quality-life-depends-green-economy

Although I disagree with his  proposed methodology - creating a carbon market isn't really going to work - his central idea, that environmental degradation is bad not just for the environment, but the economy as well, highlights the falsity of the "economy-vs-environment" dichotomy.