Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Haletown]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

Militaries around the world are now looking at climate change as a source of instability and insecurity in the coming decades. Have they also fallen victim to propaganda from "big environment"?

Or are they smart enough to take advantage of the Warmista fear mongering to make their case for why they need to be funded and prepared for this new "threat"?

The Cold War is over, is the the new Warm War?

Sorry, couldn't resist 

 

[Kilo_302]

Haletown I have no doubt that a military would be inclined to use something like global warming to justify a larger budget, but that still does not explain the scientific consensus in the first place. The vast majority of the world's scientists in relevant fields accept that climate change is occuring and it is due to human activity. Governments and militaries are slowly beginning to plan accordingly.

However, many believe that global warming is a conspiracy.  I would argue that a conspiracy or fraud on this scale would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like absolutely rational people. It is simply inconceivable that thousands of scientists in dozens of nations, in a wide range of different but interconnected and related fields would be producing data that all points to one reality, and all knowingly lie about it. What would they have to gain exactly?  Even an exaggeration of data seems unlikely given that the scientific process requires that the consensus be formed around the most conservative numbers.

Accepting climate change does not play into any one nation's or group of nations' hands. It makes developing far more difficult for the South, and would require us in the North to drastically change our lifestyle. It will require tough choices on everyone's part, which is exactly the reason why politicians have been the last to accept reality. To me it's a question of what people have to gain from either argument. Accepting climate change means accepting a change in lifestyle, accepting that easy solutions to the problems of growth and development are no longer feasible. In short, it requires nothing less than a major shift away from our current economic and energy models. Again, I am not sure who this would benefit, outside of solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers. It is easy to understand why there is so much resistence to the idea of climate change. This also makes it easy to understand the possible motivation behind disputing climate change. The petroleum industry's important and central role in the vast economic growth we have seen since World War II means that it is uniquely positioned as a powerful lobby in North America, and indeed the world. I am not suggesting that all opposition to climate change is funded by oil companies, but they do tend to be the most vocal and the most visible. This is also not to say climate change as a cause of human activity has been undisputedly proven. Scientific theories cannot be proven, only disproven. But if 70 or 80 or even 90 pecent of the world's climate scientists believe it IS happening, and IS a result of human activity, I would argue that on the basis of cost-benefit analysis we should act now. 


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[Fishbone Jones]

However, many believe that global warming is a conspiracy.  I would argue that a conspiracy or fraud on this scale would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like absolutely rational people. It is simply inconceivable that thousands of scientists in dozens of nations, in a wide range of different but interconnected and related fields would be producing data that all points to one reality, and all knowingly lie about it. What would they have to gain exactly?  Even an exaggeration of data seems unlikely given that the scientific process requires that the consensus be formed around the most conservative numbers.

Try reading the thread, entirely, before you wade in. The proof is there in spades.

 

[Haletown]

1.  Change is to climate as wet is to water.  Our climate is a close coupled chaotic system of systems.  Change is normal, is the preferred state.

2.  Many human activity, including the release of GHG's, influences the climate.

3.  Current climate change is within historical parameters.

4. Consensus is to science what guessing is to engineering.

5. The planet is currently in the very late stage of the current inter glacial period and on the verge of the next ice age - buy long underwear futures & get rich!

6.  You can believe the computer models of climate or the actual climate date, but not both.

7. Kyoto was and still is a global socialist ponzi scheme invented by greenie zealots to be used as an excuse for massive wealth transfers between nations that function and nations that don't.

 

[Furniture]

Computer modes are only as accurate as the information dumped into them. If the person/people pumping the data into the model have a particular spin they want to sell they skew the numbers to create the desired outcome. It happens every day in the computer models for weather forecasts, it is done to account for local effects caused by terrain and water sources. If you want to see a perfect example that will only waste an hour of your life watch Deadliest Warrior...

 

[a_majoor]

Lord Moncton is doing a lecture tour of the US and Canada. Here is a link to a blog post that outlines the basics of the lecture for those of us who might not be able to attend:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/#more-58770

edit to add:

The video link is here:
http://union.campusreform.org/group/blog/live-webinar-lord-monckton-at-union-college

and further edit, Lord Monckon provides a link to a video presentation as well:

http://echo-media.hartford.edu:8080/ess/echo/presentation/00a9a818-188a-4ff3-b317-
b7a8695ca3f8

The final paragraphs are very important, I think:

Lord Monckton, sternly but sadly, told those who had raised their hands: “You know, from the plain and clear demonstration that I gave during my lecture, that the IPCC’s statistical abuse was just that – an abuse. Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority. In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.”

That pin, if you had dropped it, could have been heard again. Many young heads were hung in shame. Even their professor looked just a little less arrogant than he had done throughout the proceedings. Quietly they shuffled out into the darkness.
That night, the Gore Effect worked overtime. Temperatures plummeted to 14° F. The following morning, as we drove through the snowy landscape of upstate New York towards the next venue the following morning, I asked Lord Monckton what he had thought of the strange conduct of the professor, particularly when he had abused his authority by asking his students to assent to the correctness of a statistical technique that he and they had known to be plainly false.

Lord Monckton’s reply was moving. Gently, and sadly, he said, “We shall lose the West unless we can restore the use of reason to pre-eminence in our institutions of what was once learning. It was the age of reason that built the West and made it prosperous and free. The age of reason gave you your great Constitution of liberty. It is the power of reason, the second of the three great powers of the soul in Christian theology, that marks our species out from the rest of the visible creation, and makes us closest to the image and likeness of our Creator. I cannot stand by and let the forces of darkness drive us unprotesting into a new Dark Age.”

Amen

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here at home, Dalton McGuinty squares the circle his way ...

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-from-march-2012/article2354494/

... "clean" energy from "dirty" money.  :facepalm:

 

[a_majoor]

Lord Monckton on the Micheal Coren Show: http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2012/03/lord-christopher-monckton-with-michael.html

Alternate link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sDnj_LdoK8k

 

[Haletown]

The insanity that happens when a politician chugs the global warming kool-aide.

"The math is simple: Had OPG used its hydro facilities to deliver the same amount of power supplied by wind, the cost savings to Ontario’s ratepayers would have been the difference between the $32-million per TWh hydro price and the $135-million paid for wind. The 3.9 Twh of wind power that cost Ontario ratepayers $526-million last year could have been bought from OPG for $125-million — a potential saving of $400-million"

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/15/ontarios-power-trip-wind-wastes-water-and-your-dollars/

Have to feel sorry for Ontario.  This green energy policy disaster is a major factor in driving the former economic engine of Canada into Have Not province status. 

A big part.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The entire green movement, everything from elementary school class projects through to the McGuinty and Obama governments, reminds me of nothing more than the hysteria of 800 years ago:

The Children's Crusade of 1212

 

[Furniture]

An interesting opinion piece, seems the Suzuki Foundation doesn't like people questioning their income sources.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/21/david-waterwings-suzuki-lectures-senate-on-need-to-curn-the-rhetoric/

 

[larry Strong]

An interesting opinion piece, seems the Suzuki Foundation doesn't like people questioning their income sources.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/21/david-waterwings-suzuki-lectures-senate-on-need-to-curn-the-rhetoric/

Hello pot..........

 

[Sythen]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/04/20120403-190940.html

Anti-wind protesters journeyed from across Ontario to demonstrate in Toronto Tuesday against the province's green energy subsidy plan.

Farmer Pat Jilesen, who raises hogs near Port Elgin in Bruce County, said his hydro bill has gone through the barn roof with off-peak power alone up 80% between 2008-2011.

The cost of running his business and the price of his food is being driven up, he said.

"And I'd like everybody in the City of Toronto to understand that," Jilesen said at a Queen's Park media conference Tuesday.

More on link. Figured this was a good place for it, even though it could have gone in to Canadian politics somewhere.

 

[Kilo_302]

You guys are condemning millions to death. This isn't political. and upon examining the situation through a cost/benefit  analysis even the most frothing at the mouth insane free enterprise IDIOTS (to use a generous term) must be at least ABLE to read the writing on the wall. You were wrong about A-Stan, and the JSF, and now you are wrong again. When will you lose the ideology, and gain some logic?

 

[MJP]

You guys are condemning millions to death. This isn't political. and upon examining the situation through a cost/benefit  analysis even the most frothing at the mouth insane free enterprise IDIOTS (to use a generous term) must be at least ABLE to read the writing on the wall. You were wrong about A-Stan, and the JSF, and now you are wrong again. When will you lose the ideology, and gain some logic?

Do you have anything of substance to add?  You know to show this cost/benefit analysis or is this just a drive by condemnation by our moral betters?

 

[Journeyman]

When will you lose the ideology, and gain some logic?

Probably about the same time you lose the preachy tone and provide some logical evidence....in your 'holier-than-thou' rants against site members regarding Afghanistan, the environment, JSF...  :

 

[Haletown]

The Environutters have been telling us for years the polar bears would all be gone soon because the Arctic Ice Cap is melting  and the poor cudly-wudly wittle bears will all drown!

How awful.

Ooopsy!


"Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article2392523/

Just another Eco Greeny fund raising scam that was based on fear mongering rather than data.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>You guys are condemning millions to death.

Generally speaking, a warmer earth is a more "humane" earth - longer, wetter growing seasons = more food = less famine and fewer deaths due to undernutrition and conflict over food resources.  A cost/benefit analysis should encourage us to accept a couple of degrees of warming and turn our efforts to mitigating other long-standing and more demonstrably pressing issues which cause large numbers of deaths.

That is, for those who deal in numbers and facts instead of feelings and peer-group trends.

 

[Haletown]

>You guys are condemning millions to death.

You mean like the all those hundreds of millions who have died unnecessary deaths because environmentalists got all worked up over chlorine compounds and instigated an absolute ban on DDT?

 

[vonGarvin]

...??