The REAL global warming

[Ingot54]

So you agree that CO2 is increasing - good.

No - my reference quoted figures from 1958 to 2008. That reference quoted a miniscule increase. You would have done well to retain the entire context of that statement, instead of singling out the bit that supports your hypothesis. Allow me to requote for you:

Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight.

That is NOT disputed. and nowhere do I see any reference to any cyclical aspects of CO2 fluctuations. I think it is an inconvenient truth that these things are cyclical, and this is not just my own view - it is the widely held view of many scientist who question the alarmist hypothesis.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/australian-nz-scientists-against-agw.html

http://www.auscsc.org.au/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/sceptic-scientists.html

The upshot is that 650 scientists put their names to a document against AGW, which is 12 times more than signed the IPCC hypothesis.

The point is the the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, not just whether human emitted CO2 is x% of the atmosphere currently. Were today's atmospheric concentration of CO2 to remain what it is, it may not be the best of all possible worlds but it would be a good result.

I seem to remember reading articles from several climatologists that clearly state that up to a couple of degrees warming - if indeed it is more than CYCLICAL - can not be a bad thing - indeed the massive increase in vegetation, crops that would flow with this, would be worth it - what a bonus to be able to feed a population that is now (quote) "going parabolic".

It is "widely agreed" that a little cyclical warming is good for the planet.

Furthermore and even more alarming is that CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere - decades, centuries and equilibrium is not re-established possibly for millenia even if you turn off the tap. Other human emitted pollutants are scrubbed far more quickly. The damage from CO2 is not reversible over reasonable time frames.

Hmmm. I thought there were periods in the history of the earth, where CO2 levels were much higher than 387ppm. Guess I was mistaken, because according to your article the CO2 would still be hanging around. Clearly it is being recycled naturally by the natural CO2 sinks.

I noticed the article stated quite clearly that the repiratory CO2 (expired air) from humans (which averages about 1kg per person per day) is DIFFERENT from the CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuel. Unless we are talking about the Isotopic combination, I can not see how this could be true.

I noticed also in another article, that the atmospheric CO2 FLUCTUATES annually, according the the natural seasonal flush of vegetation in each respective hemisphere. If this is true, and such a small change in vegetation can have such a huge influence on atmospheric CO2 levels, then I would be inclined to support the maintenance of forests and discourage deforestation.

But the whole system seems to be in a balance far outside the influence of men. For indeed, temperature rises produce a flush of carbon-sequestering growth, which according to your hypothesis, not mine, would produce a lowering of the CO2 levels, which would restore the temperature balance.

Once you commit to the logic, you have to stay with the logic, and the CC/AGW hypothesis is a very wild horse to ride. You can not commit to an hypothesis, and discard the bits that don't fit. I think that has been tried already (UEA/CRU)

Human activity doesn't directly significantly affect the amount of water in the atmosphere. Relative humidity is more or less constant. If temperature goes up, then water in the atmosphere go up - broadly speaking.

On the other hand, the concentration of greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity.

That's where you and I differ.

You claim any increase is "due to human activity." I claim it is cyclical, because of the miniscule amounts the alarmists are quoting as earth-shattering, and the fact that we have not been measuring for a long enough period of time, not taking the measurements from the correct locations, nor using the historic/organic records appropriately and accurately and consistently.

Which are lovely things to quote, but which proves ... squat.
Did you know that the concentration of Lead in the atmosphere is rising? That is just as much a straw man, which I purposely threw in to illustrate that numbers can prove anything you wish them to prove.

My view remains that concerned nations can VOLUNTARILY do plenty about any emissions, if they seriously believed there was an issue with this. But they DO NOT BELIEVE IT THEMSELVES, otherwise Kevin Rudd in Australia would have committed to decent targets.

Rudd would have done a deal with the Greens, thus satisfying his selfish desire to get himself on the record as being the only leader to have taken steps to combat CC, prior to the peer-group meeting at Copenhagen.

I maintain that the true reason the Copenhagen summit failed was because India and China refused to be bullied into giving up their sovereign rights, and buckling to the demands of the would-be world government-to-be.

The groundswell is purely in your head. No national science academy disputes AGW. All surveys of scientific opinion show a large majority agree with the AGW proposition and the support for AGW amongst climatologists is higher still than in science generally. There are differences of opinion about the rate and magnitude of climate change, but IPCC reports are representative.

You almost caused me hyperemesis there DCraig. What a BS statement if ever there was one. You are throwing around words like "large majority" ... "generally" ... "differences of opinion" as if they are to be accepted. The very use of such expressions allude to there being dissent, non-universal acceptance, minority opinion, lack of unanimity etc.

In fact the minority have the high ground in my view - economically, politically and morally, because they are the group with the most to lose (funding) by telling the truth about AGW.

The point is that there would be a vast majority against the hypothesis of AGW had it not been for the need for solidarity, in order to retain government funding - of governments that have a political (tax-driven) agenda.

I suppose you are against private funding of research on the basis that it is biased in favour of the funding organisation? Fair enough, but these same scientists who are privately funded STILL need to have their work PEER REVIEWED, unlike the publicly funded scientists, whose work is first vetted by the organisation, prior to approval for publication for peer review.

Big difference. The "science" is in the "money."

If the "groundswell" was real, you could point to a national or professional scientific body of international standing that disputes AGW. You cannot.

No such "National Body" can exist without funding - see my comment above. But within organisations there are scientists willing to stand up and be counted, at risk of losing their vocations, to expose the lies. The very nature of "consensus" and the non-scientific role of the CEO of such scientific bodies, assures these organisations that they will remain viable, as long as they do not rock the boat of "Official Government View".

Dr Megan Clark, CEO of CSIRO is at odds with her scientific board, over "control" of publications:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ing-scheme-paper/story-e6frfku9-1225804370996

I note one story about this says: "... the ETS remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters." Says a lot.

You did not answer the question about whether increased concentrations of CO2 cause increase of temperature ...

because I did not dispute it.

So much for high school physics. But there are many studies that show that CO2 rises LAG temperature rises, albeit over hundreds of years, not a snap-shot decade or four.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

What I do dispute is that an increase of 60 ppm of CO2 atmospheric volume globally (which is an increase of .07 hundredths of 1 percent in 50 years) can have the effect you are claiming globally.

Given that CO2 is universally regarded as a TRACE ELEMENT atmospherically (41 hundredths of one percent by weight) I fail to grasp the significance of the physics lesson - lovely in the laboratory ... infinitely lost in the complication of other influences globally.

To balance the energy budget, the earth sheds energy at much lower wavelengths than the energy received from the sun.

Increase the amount of GHGs and you change the Earth's energy budget.

So, Ingot, there you go - greenhouse warming - and not a hypertext link in sight. Go right ahead and dispute the physics.

No need to dispute the physics ... I agree with the physics ... in the laboratory.

But conveniently you are applying a laboratory experiment exponentially across the vast ecology of an entire planetary system, complete with saline ocean sinks of varying temperature, variable water vapour concentration in its atmosphere, variable volcanic contribution both above ground and sub-oceanic, producing Sulphides and Carbon gases yada yada.

Hardly a laboratory Terrarium!

But I have tired of this game of ping-pong, DCraig. I think I have handled my position well, without resorting to partly-representing the facts, and apart from alluding to the fact that you are an apologist for the alarmists, I have not strayed too far from rational argument to cement my case.

I have several grandchildren, and it is my duty to leave this planet in a better state than I found it. Ceding away their freedom to a global political group on the pretense of mythical imminent planetary destruction, based on shaky and rubbery science, is not part of my brief.

It is my mandate to PROVE the facts. I will not roll over and give in to those who would tax me for my natural use of resources, while they let off the hook the major polluters scott-free.

And while they propose to trade carbon Credits on Wall Street:

"Climate Exchange Plc owns the Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. and the European Climate Exchange, which provide futures contracts and options contracts of emissions. Goldman Sachs has taken a major position in this company."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/26491-climate-exchange-trading-in-carbon-emissions

then I will remain suspicious of which of the foxes is really in charge of the hen-house!

While there remain scientists who are willing to put their livelihood and reputations on the line to resist the political manipulation of the alarmist brigade, then I will maintain my hardline resistance to this silly AGW BS.

The religion based on the AGW myth continues today, perpetrated by the Church of IPCC - itself apostate, with a discredited Al Gore as its high priest.

Rather than have a last word myself, I leave you with the very reason we are having this discussion, from another source:

From wikipedia:

"The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming.

The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements.

Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature."

All the best

Ivan (who has enjoyed taking the pi$$ out of your attempt to support unwittingly, those with a financial and political interest in eroding national freedom)

PS - It WAS you on those other forums, wasn't it!

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=182303&perpage=6&pagenumber=3

http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2009/11/history-of-the.html

 

[maiden22]

Skeptical science is hilarious. No wonder you're worried if that's where you're getting your information from. Still, it's hard to back down once you've quoted from somewhere like that.

 

[dcraig1]

No such "National Body" can exist without funding - see my comment above. But within organisations there are scientists willing to stand up and be counted, at risk of losing their vocations, to expose the lies. The very nature of "consensus" and the non-scientific role of the CEO of such scientific bodies, assures these organisations that they will remain viable, as long as they do not rock the boat of "Official Government View".

So you claim that organizations such as the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are "on the take". These bodies have existed for over 350 and 160 years respectively, are not government agencies, are independent and are non-profit. They do not receive funding for climate research. Their purpose is to promote science. They have very high international standing.

And the professional associations such as the American Geophysical Union, 90 year history, 50,000 members worldwide, independent, non-profit, with an elected board. Also on the take?

How about the American Statistical Association, 170 year history, also independent, non-profit. They are on the take too, I suppose?

Or the American Chemical Society, or the Botanical Society of America, or the Ecological Society of America. All independent, all non-profit and all with missions to promote science. We could go on for pages listing similar national bodies.

You are claiming that on an issue as important as climate change they are all corrupt? Lets not mince words - that is exactly what you are saying.

Remember that most of these organizations have elected boards answerable to their membership. Do you not think their membership have rather more than a passing interest in policy recommendations.

You really have slipped into a fantasy world. It is just trash talk - nothing more.

You might also like to reflect on the fact that it has been these organizations pushing governments to act on climate change. Not governments bribing these organizations to assert their support for AGW. If fact most governments would dearly love the problem of climate change to just disappear.

The whole proposition is even more preposterous if you look at the policies and statements of the American organizations during the Bush administration. They certainly were not sucking up to the government position. Equally so in Australia during the Howard years.

 

[dcraig1]

Skeptical science is hilarious. No wonder you're worried if that's where you're getting your information from. Still, it's hard to back down once you've quoted from somewhere like that.

Thank you for your considered critique. Is this the introduction or conclusion? Is there more to come or is that it?

 

[Ingot54]

So you claim that organizations such as the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are "on the take". These bodies have existed for over 350 and 160 years respectively, are not government agencies, are independent and are non-profit. They do not receive funding for climate research. Their purpose is to promote science. They have very high international standing.

And the professional associations such as the American Geophysical Union, 90 year history, 50,000 members worldwide, independent, non-profit, with an elected board. Also on the take?

How about the American Statistical Association, 170 year history, also independent, non-profit. They are on the take too, I suppose?

Or the American Chemical Society, or the Botanical Society of America, or the Ecological Society of America. All independent, all non-profit and all with missions to promote science. We could go on for pages listing similar national bodies.

You are claiming that on an issue as important as climate change they are all corrupt? Lets not mince words - that is exactly what you are saying.

Remember that most of these organizations have elected boards answerable to their membership. Do you not think their membership have rather more than a passing interest in policy recommendations.

You really have slipped into a fantasy world. It is just trash talk - nothing more.

You might also like to reflect on the fact that it has been these organizations pushing governments to act on climate change. Not governments bribing these organizations to assert their support for AGW. If fact most governments would dearly love the problem of climate change to just disappear.

The whole proposition is even more preposterous if you look at the policies and statements of the American organizations during the Bush administration. They certainly were not sucking up to the government position. Equally so in Australia during the Howard years.

DCraig

Thank you for your concerns about the planet.

Thank you for an interesting look inside your character.

Thank you for the responses so far.

Unfortunately, as I said in my post above, I am tiring of this game of ping-ong - of attempting to get you to respond to certain questions, which you continue to ignore.

And I am offended by your putting words in my mouth about your wonderful list of organisations I am supposed to be inferring are "on the take, corrupt".

What I was referring to was organisations which have an interest in seeing the funding of their budgets, so far as government assistance is concerned, continue.

I even gave an example of the CEO of the CSIRO who is well-known to be off-side with her main body of scientists - and has been for some time, because of what they see as "political interference, and agenda-driven policy."

Since you have chosen the course of silence on the damning questions, and exaggeration and verballing me on your own issues, I am officially withdrawing from this discussion.

You might be right, DCraig, but in the way you have conducted yourself in this discussion, I really don't give a toss.

Had you been able to engage on a rational level, answer what is put to you and refrain from putting words in people's mouths to make your own self look pristine, I might have continued.

And ... what if you are right?
What if the world is going to overheat and melt all the ice?
What about the Republic of Tuvalu? Who scared them into thinking they are sinking?
And what about the Maldives, who have NOT measured an increase in ocean levels for 1250 years?
What about the increasing surface area of ice in the Antarctic?
What about the growing body of dissenting scientists? (or even a non-growing body of dissenting scientists?)

What if I am right?
What if the "measured" temperature fluctuations are indeed cyclical?
What if the world is in fact cooling, as we were told in the 1970's?
What if the CC hypothesis is an opportunistic grab for political control of the globe, using climate change to drive the agenda?
What if I am not a victim of conspiracy theory, but I am actually close to the mark?
What if India and China dissented (at Copenhagen) purely on the basis of refusing to cede political control of their sovereign states to a world body?
What if CC is a hoax, and fails to occur?
What if we are unable to free ourselves from the tentacles of big-brother world government, long after we discover we have been duped??

There may be a bit of stuff hanging in the balance here ... Climate Change ... which may actually be a good thing - great for agriculture, if we can get a bit of a temperature rise going, according to some scientists.

Or world political control - politically and legally binding on EVERY COUNTRY, every citizen, every commodity and consumable, every use of normal every-day items, things which will affect the cost of food, water, energy, and of course, the greatest of them all, our FREEDOM.

DCraig - you are too willing to take risks on my behalf. You would sign my freedom and your own, away to the control ... not of an Australian government, under which I am currently fairly contented with life, but to some anonymous yet-to-be-identified world body, who simply doesn't know or care whether you or I even exist. This would be the ultimate communist state - from under which none of us would ever regain our freedom.

Now it's your turn to tell me about the other risk - that of seeing the earth shrivel like a prune under rising temperatures. Of oceans evaporating and sending dense white clouds of moisture into the atmosphere, which will ... well you tell me ... you seem to have all the answers! Oh, but of course, the oceans will not evaporate, the ice will replenish them. Silly me! And you are going to tell me that this time it's different ... that we people have somehow caused a microscopic rise in a trace element, that will somehow cause Armageddan.

But someone needs to tell you about the self-regulating mechanism the earth has used for thousands of years - in fact from its genesis to date - that has seen it shrug off, or coexist with, myriad cyclical changes in atmospheric gas composition, much LARGER differences in gaseous composition - and temperature, than we have today. Guess what buddy ... there is NOTHING new under the sun.

In the amount of geo-time that recordings have been made - about 30 seconds on the world clock - you pop up here and claim that the sky is about to fall, just because of some alarmist proclaiming a hypothesis that global temperatures are rising, because of some backwardly-extrapolated research. Like temperatures have never risen before, and if they do, somehow it will be a disastrous thing.

So DCraig - I will no longer respond to any of your questions directed at me.
Feel free to label me irrational, as you have done in the past.
Even a coward, for withdrawing as your willing sounding board for your ideas.

In fact, feel free to continue labeling me whatever you wish.
I have stood up for my beliefs.
And I will no longer post on the thread.
Reason: Unable to proceed due to the breaking of the rules of debate by the opposing team.

Pity you didn't wish to discuss things like good planetary husbandry - of stopping pollution of the air and the oceans, of depleting the fisheries, of managing the natural waterways of the planet (rivers, lakes etc), alternate energy sources, control of the internal combustion engine situation, of getting potable drinking water and sanitation to populations dwelling in arid areas of the planet, of ridding the planet of malaria etc, and so on ...

We might have found common ground.

But when you come on like this CC 5hit is all there is between us and damnation, then you lose me.

All the best

Ivan

 

[spreader_legger]

Go short Maldives, go long Greenland

The eskimos there describe global warming as weather improvement

DCraig

Thank you for your concerns about the planet.

Thank you for an interesting look inside your character.

Thank you for the responses so far.

Unfortunately, as I said in my post above, I am tiring of this game of ping-ong - of attempting to get you to respond to certain questions, which you continue to ignore.

And I am offended by your putting words in my mouth about your wonderful list of organisations I am supposed to be inferring are "on the take, corrupt".

What I was referring to was organisations which have an interest in seeing the funding of their budgets, so far as government assistance is concerned, continue.

I even gave an example of the CEO of the CSIRO who is well-known to be off-side with her main body of scientists - and has been for some time, because of what they see as "political interference, and agenda-driven policy."

Since you have chosen the course of silence on the damning questions, and exaggeration and verballing me on your own issues, I am officially withdrawing from this discussion.

You might be right, DCraig, but in the way you have conducted yourself in this discussion, I really don't give a toss.

Had you been able to engage on a rational level, answer what is put to you and refrain from putting words in people's mouths to make your own self look pristine, I might have continued.

And ... what if you are right?
What if the world is going to overheat and melt all the ice?
What about the Republic of Tuvalu? Who scared them into thinking they are sinking?
And what about the Maldives, who have NOT measured an increase in ocean levels for 1250 years?
What about the increasing surface area of ice in the Antarctic?
What about the growing body of dissenting scientists? (or even a non-growing body of dissenting scientists?)

What if I am right?
What if the "measured" temperature fluctuations are indeed cyclical?
What if the world is in fact cooling, as we were told in the 1970's?
What if the CC hypothesis is an opportunistic grab for political control of the globe, using climate change to drive the agenda?
What if I am not a victim of conspiracy theory, but I am actually close to the mark?
What if India and China dissented (at Copenhagen) purely on the basis of refusing to cede political control of their sovereign states to a world body?
What if CC is a hoax, and fails to occur?
What if we are unable to free ourselves from the tentacles of big-brother world government, long after we discover we have been duped??

There may be a bit of stuff hanging in the balance here ... Climate Change ... which may actually be a good thing - great for agriculture, if we can get a bit of a temperature rise going, according to some scientists.

Or world political control - politically and legally binding on EVERY COUNTRY, every citizen, every commodity and consumable, every use of normal every-day items, things which will affect the cost of food, water, energy, and of course, the greatest of them all, our FREEDOM.

DCraig - you are too willing to take risks on my behalf. You would sign my freedom and your own, away to the control ... not of an Australian government, under which I am currently fairly contented with life, but to some anonymous yet-to-be-identified world body, who simply doesn't know or care whether you or I even exist. This would be the ultimate communist state - from under which none of us would ever regain our freedom.

Now it's your turn to tell me about the other risk - that of seeing the earth shrivel like a prune under rising temperatures. Of oceans evaporating and sending dense white clouds of moisture into the atmosphere, which will ... well you tell me ... you seem to have all the answers! Oh, but of course, the oceans will not evaporate, the ice will replenish them. Silly me! And you are going to tell me that this time it's different ... that we people have somehow caused a microscopic rise in a trace element, that will somehow cause Armageddan.

But someone needs to tell you about the self-regulating mechanism the earth has used for thousands of years - in fact from its genesis to date - that has seen it shrug off, or coexist with, myriad cyclical changes in atmospheric gas composition, much LARGER differences in gaseous composition - and temperature, than we have today. Guess what buddy ... there is NOTHING new under the sun.

In the amount of geo-time that recordings have been made - about 30 seconds on the world clock - you pop up here and claim that the sky is about to fall, just because of some alarmist proclaiming a hypothesis that global temperatures are rising, because of some backwardly-extrapolated research. Like temperatures have never risen before, and if they do, somehow it will be a disastrous thing.

So DCraig - I will no longer respond to any of your questions directed at me.
Feel free to label me irrational, as you have done in the past.
Even a coward, for withdrawing as your willing sounding board for your ideas.

In fact, feel free to continue labeling me whatever you wish.
I have stood up for my beliefs.
And I will no longer post on the thread.
Reason: Unable to proceed due to the breaking of the rules of debate by the opposing team.

Pity you didn't wish to discuss things like good planetary husbandry - of stopping pollution of the air and the oceans, of depleting the fisheries, of managing the natural waterways of the planet (rivers, lakes etc), alternate energy sources, control of the internal combustion engine situation, of getting potable drinking water and sanitation to populations dwelling in arid areas of the planet, of ridding the planet of malaria etc, and so on ...

We might have found common ground.

But when you come on like this CC 5hit is all there is between us and damnation, then you lose me.

All the best

Ivan

 

[maiden22]

Thank you for your considered critique. Is this the introduction or conclusion? Is there more to come or is that it?

Craig, you really don't need a considered critique - that site is ridiculous beyong belief. However, one quick example:

Look at the section that supposedly demonstrates that overall the Antarctic (west and east ice sheets) is vanishing. It uses two graphs to show this - one of five years and one of three years of data.

This is how it refers to the former - the five-year data:

"With the longer time series, a statistically significant trend now emerges."



As I say, no wonder you know nothing about it - that website is a joke.

 

[dcraig1]

Craig, you really don't need a considered critique - that site is ridiculous beyong belief. However, one quick example:

Look at the section that supposedly demonstrates that overall the Antarctic (west and east ice sheets) is vanishing. It uses two graphs to show this - one of five years and one of three years of data.

This is how it refers to the former - the five-year data:

"With the longer time series, a statistically significant trend now emerges."



As I say, no wonder you know nothing about it - that website is a joke.

The five years of data is all there is from the GRACE satellite measurements.

No, it doesn't of itself indicate long term (eg multi-decade, or multi-century) but that doesn't mean it isn't statistically significant over the observed time frame. Meaning that the decline is probably real over the observed period, and not just an artifact of uncertainties of measurement. What problem do you have with this?

It is important in that the East Antarctic ice sheet appears to be less stable than previously thought.

It is just another piece of evidence in the very large puzzle.

 

[dcraig1]

On the topic of national sovereignty, climate change and international treaties, it should be observed that there are already thousands of international treaties, protocols and conventions already in place for all sorts of things including human rights, aviation, telecommunications, trade, criminal law, maritime boundaries, nuclear proliferation and so on. The Australian government web site shows 3,363:

http://www.info.dfat.gov.au/Info/Treaties/Treaties.nsf/WSearch?OpenForm&Seq=1

It really is stretching it to suggest that one more to provide mandatory verifiable limits on carbon emissions will result in one world government.

 

[maiden22]

The five years of data is all there is from the GRACE satellite measurements.

No, it doesn't of itself indicate long term (eg multi-decade, or multi-century) but that doesn't mean it isn't statistically significant over the observed time frame. Meaning that the decline is probably real over the observed period, and not just an artifact of uncertainties of measurement. What problem do you have with this?

It is important in that the East Antarctic ice sheet appears to be less stable than previously thought.

It is just another piece of evidence in the very large puzzle.

My problem is that it is not evidence - just another of a long line of proxies, estimates, best guesses, inferences and assorted other meaningless nonsense.

As you presumably do not know, GRACE does not measure ice-loss. It measures changes in gravity, and these can be caused by a range of factors.

To then take this kind of proxy over 3 or 5 years and claim that it demonstrates anything of significance is absurd.

Moving on, there is another section on your farcical site that considers whether the MWP existed. It now seems that alarmists are allowing that it did, but was localised to most of the planet.

An exciting new study is produced to demonstrate the limited extent of the MWP, authored by:


Mann et al!

One of the most comprehensively discredited men in the world, cobbling together another absurd temperature "record" from God knows what - although it scarcely matters, because as we know random numbers would do for Mann et al, wouldn't they?

Trust me, that site is a joke, and linking to it will only increase the redness of your face in years to come.

 

[dcraig1]

Moving on, there is another section on your farcical site that considers whether the MWP existed. It now seems that alarmists are allowing that it did, but was localised to most of the planet.

An exciting new study is produced to demonstrate the limited extent of the MWP, authored by:


Mann et al!

One of the most comprehensively discredited men in the world, cobbling together another absurd temperature "record" from God knows what - although it scarcely matters, because as we know random numbers would do for Mann et al, wouldn't they?

Trust me, that site is a joke, and linking to it will only increase the redness of your face in years to come.

Truly lynch mob mentality. Trial by out of context quotes from stolen emails somehow show that Mann's recent work is fabricated?

By all means show genuine scientific criticism, but this sort of nonsense is abysmal.

 

[maiden22]

Truly lynch mob mentality. Trial by out of context quotes from stolen emails somehow show that Mann's recent work is fabricated?

By all means show genuine scientific criticism, but this sort of nonsense is abysmal.

Nothing to do with recent emails - more the thorough de-bunking that his hockey stick nonsense has got (when his data was eventually levered out of him ).

Do we really need to post the whole sorry saga? The hockey stick was one of the greatest frauds and biggest embarassments in scientific history.

This is not lynch-mob mentality. It is treating the previously-exposed with a suitable degree of scepticism.

 

[SAINT]

You are evading the issue. You claim climate change is a hoax, despite vast scientific evidence to the contrary. Your sole evidence for a hoax is some imagined conspiracy.

You then turn around and say supposing it is warming, carbon trading is not the best solution. For my part, I am not impressed by carbon trading as a solution. There are better ways of addressing the problem. I would go further and say that it my view, it is highly unlikely to solve the problem.

I fail to see how you can form any opinion of carbon trading whatsoever, as you can't acknowledge the problem that it is claimed to solve.

I didn't day I was a practicing scientist, though I do have a BSc in physics. But I can spot crap when I see it. And personal attacks such as your post just tell me that you fear actually looking at the science objectively.

PS If you don't like it, go and complain to moderators.

Haha, no I'm spending less time on the site these days due to the nonsense so I will probably spare the moderators.

I don't care about 'winning' some forum argument about something that can't be proved and may never be proved. I was just trying to point people in the right direction of the suspicious profiteering of mainstream media hyped situations.

A 'green' agreement by all countries to adopt emission cuts would do a similar job if there really was an issue. A carbon exchange in a London/Chicago destination merely creates a billion/trillion tax on thin air overnight on every business in the world and transfers more wealth to those who actually own or influence the same media outlets. Add to that- flight taxes, car taxes, personal emission submissions etc and you get the idea of my concern.

It makes me laugh how people actually believe their own hype so much and trust in government and mainstream media to adjust the temperature of the planet!

 

[Black Swan]

A carbon exchange in a London/Chicago destination merely creates a billion/trillion tax on thin air overnight on every business in the world and transfers more wealth to those who actually own or influence the same media outlets. Add to that- flight taxes, car taxes, personal emission submissions etc and you get the idea of my concern.

It makes me laugh how people actually believe their own hype so much and trust in government and mainstream media to adjust the temperature of the planet!:lol:

The lie is so breathtakingly simple perhaps that's why it works...so many westerners believe they finally are stakeholders in the *big* decision of the day...
In the US of A they're fond of using the phrase "blowing smoke up your ar5e"...how apt... it's the miniscule amount of 0.032% C02...

 

[SAINT]

The lie is so breathtakingly simple perhaps that's why it works...so many westerners believe they finally are stakeholders in the *big* decision of the day...
QUOTE]

I agree with this on many issues. Too many westerners exaggerate their own power and influence, even with all that has passed in the last few years.

The distractions and lifestyle mean that taxpayers are too busy or just don't care about the real issues that affect them and are happy to give 2 minutes thought to the news they are fed.

A prime example being bailouts and qe.

Those responsible for destroying the economy by applying minimal regulation, were then given free reign to pump taxpayer money in to prop up bankrupt, failed capitalist experiments in order to protect the broken banking system from its biggest fear- falling prices and deflation.

If it fails we will see collapse and japanese style lost decade(s) and defaults. If it works, then the ponzi system continues and benefits the money lenders further through higher inflation. Either way the taxpayer will get completely stiffed as purchasing power disappears and the prosperity of recent years erodes further with a burden on future generations.

Whilst walking this tightrope, we will also have to apply more of our incomes to save the planet.

Apparently questioning these types of events is wrong though.

 

[jaspertrademaster]

How comforting it is to have a government that knows what is best for me. Apparently I do not know how best to spend my own money.

 

[dcraig1]

How comforting it is to have a government that knows what is best for me. Apparently I do not know how best to spend my own money.

There are already multiple constraints on how you can spend your money and in many cases for very good reasons.

You can no longer buy petrol with lead added as an anti-knock agent. No doubt some petrol heads whinged when that terrible restriction on their "freedom" was introduced.

You can't buy paints with added lead.

You probably can't buy ammonium nitrate without a licience because it can be used to blow things up.

There are any number of laws that dictate that you must spend your money to dispose of toxic substances in a safe and approved manner.

I wouldn't shed too many tears if there were laws that prevented you from spending your money on a plasma TV. LCD and even better LED are much more efficient display technologies.

When it comes to the collective well being, there are and always will be restrictions on how you spend your money. And no reasonable person would would disagree with that.

 

[maiden22]

There are already multiple constraints on how you can spend your money and in many cases for very good reasons.

You can no longer buy petrol with lead added as an anti-knock agent. No doubt some petrol heads whinged when that terrible restriction on their "freedom" was introduced.

You can't buy paints with added lead.

You probably can't buy ammonium nitrate without a licience because it can be used to blow things up.

There are any number of laws that dictate that you must spend your money to dispose of toxic substances in a safe and approved manner.

I wouldn't shed too many tears if there were laws that prevented you from spending your money on a plasma TV. LCD and even better LED are much more efficient display technologies.

When it comes to the collective well being, there are and always will be restrictions on how you spend your money. And no reasonable person would would disagree with that.

Actually, no reasonable person would agree with that, without very serious qualifications and a great degree of scrutiny. Who determines what is the collective well-being? On what basis and on what evidence? How sure can they be that they are correct? What mechanisms of scrutiny are in place, and have the consequences been properly estimated and considered?

Governments may be misinformed, they may be motivated by malice, they may suffer from the madness of zealots that permits wickedness due to the "justice" of their cause.

Not infrequently, people lie or exaggerate - they are convinced that they are correct, and so the lie is justified.

Even if one were to agree with your naive (or totalitarian) post, that would have no bearing on efforts to restrict CO2 emissions, as these are harmless.

 

[dcraig1]

Who determines what is the collective well-being? On what basis and on what evidence? How sure can they be that they are correct?

Science, technology, engineering.

You just go right ahead and argue that for example farmers should not have their "freedom" to use whatever ag chems they want restricted by government regulations and see what sort of reception you get.

See how many people think that is "totalitarian".

The whole argument is beyond stupid.

 

[maiden22]

Science, technology, engineering.

You just go right ahead and argue that for example farmers should not have their "freedom" to use whatever ag chems they want restricted by government regulations and see what sort of reception you get.

See how many people think that is "totalitarian".

The whole argument is beyond stupid.

Any argument is beyond stupid with you because, when someone says something that you struggle with, you ignore it and resort to making up opinions for them.

Your point of view is either naive or totalitarian. Naive if you take government restrictions at face value without demanding intense scrutiny. Totalitarian if you are (or believe that you would become) empowered by an ever-mightier state. I'm beginning to suspect that you fancy yourself as one of the commissars.

I have not stated that there should be no restrictions. However, one should be sceptical when it comes to government-sponsored panics, be they over asbestos, ddt, CO2 or indeed anything else. In the rush to "do something" a great deal of damage can be done, and a great many lives lost.

A little example. The official safe alcohol limits in the UK are 14 and 21 units per week. This has been scientifically established using technology by a committee from the Royal College of Physicians. Or possibly not:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2697975.ece

If you don't want to read it, I'll spare you some time - the article includes the phrases “a feeling that you had to say something”, “it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t” , and best of all "plucked out of the air".