JohnB Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 If you could show that I've displayed "wilful ignorance" or spin or have misrepresented data to fit an ideology, you might have a point. But I haven't, so you don't. Meanwhile Peter Gleick commits and admits to wire fraud and identity theft and still has his job. Think Progress (That's Joe Romm from your side, the guy who wondered when it would be alright to strangle "deniers" in their beds, nice people you hang with) plaster the pic of melted streetlights in Oklahoma over the net and your Bill McKibbon, that moron involved with 350 dot org and who Time called "the world's best green journalist" is blaming it on "Global Warming" rather than the dumpster fire they were next to. If global warming could actually melt glass, then the debate would really be over, wouldn't it? But let's talk about "misrepresenting data" shall we? How about "97% of climate scientists agree...." that is really some 75 out of 77 persons of the more than 3,000 who answered the questions out of the more than 10,000 who were emailed it. Who is doing the spinning here? It sure as shootin' ain't the sceptics. The bit I really liked was where they screened out all solar scientists, people who might think the big yellow thing in the sky may have an effect. Or polar bears? The natives who live in the areas, on the ground all year round say the numbers are up, the "scientists" who fly around in choppers counting white bears against a white background from around 1200 ft are saying the numbers are down. Glad you have such faith in the extremely keen eyesight of those aerial observers. Or how about truncating data to minimise the divergence problem away? Yes, there's no spin there at all is there? If you have troublesome data, just rub it out and hope that nobody ever compares your graph with the originals. Or we could talk about actual readings from real instruments not matching the model predictions, so it must be the instruments that are out. But to make things match we had to find a more accurate way of measuring temps at altitude than the thermometers on weather balloons. But what could be more accurate than the instruments carried by the weather balloons themselves? Of course! We'll use the ground speed as measured by radar as a proxy for temperature and all will work out well. Would you rather talk about the constantly moving goalposts up in the arctic? Go back a few years and it was all about extent, (BTW, the arctic was predicted to be "ice free" this year, how's that one going for ya?) but the extent stopped it's decline, for whatever reason and now it's all about "volume". The handy thing here is that we can't really measure volume properly so we use the model predictions instead. Gee, what do you reckon the odds are that the model will agree with itself? Should we talk about the 10 million plus "climate refugees" that would be driven from their homes by extreme weather and rising seas by 2010? Oh wait, that didn't happen either, did it? Doesn't matter we have the new prediction of 50 million by 2020. And we're ignoring the 4.5 billion that were supposed to have died before this year began. We could talk about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 according to that font of all climate wisdom, the IPCC. I know you've been told that it was a typo, an accident. Well welcome to spinland sonny jim. The drafts and reviewer comments clearly show that this "typo" was picked up in every draft and complained about with every complaint being ignored. The "spin" is coming from the IPCC and nowhere else. Or is spin and misrepresentation of data acceptable if it comes from one side of the fence?
akh Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Or polar bears? The natives who live in the areas, on the ground all year round say the numbers are up, the "scientists" who fly around in choppers counting white bears against a white background from around 1200 ft are saying the numbers are down. Glad you have such faith in the extremely keen eyesight of those aerial observers. I will take particular issue with this argument, and this is a direct result of the media comparisons and laymen comparisons where there should be none. These are two samples using different sampling techniques, and most likely sampled of different sub populations. As such, you can not compare the two! In fact, because of this it would be surprising if they did match. Additionally, these are most likely point studies, and point studies do not reveal an overall trend. You can get a spike or increase in population followed by a rapid decline; the spike and the decline are caused by the same conditions. You can also have deteriorating fitness in a population long before actual numbers decline. You also must consider overall population dynamics. The birth rate may be declining while the population remains steady, there is a delay here before actual numbers decline. So don't draw any conclusions from this illusionary contradiction. JohnB, you should be ashamed . When it comes to predictions, I really think it is a catch-22 situation. You have a situation where the scientists say, we think we are seeing something here. We may need to look at this closer. Then you have the "so what ers" and "who cares ers" who stand on the sidelines and complain about the waste of money, and ask questions like, "whats this mean for me?". The people on the sidelines demand predictions. Then the scientist then try to satisfy the demand for predictions. They make predictions, and when these predictions don't come true, then the people on the sidelines turn and say the whole concept is bunk. You also have the situation where the scientist, in their expert opinions, think that there may be serious consequences, but don't yet have to tools needed to confirm them. This does not mean that they are incorrect in their opinions. In any case, I would take the scientists opinion on climate over a politicians, just as I would take a doctor's opinion of my health over wall street banker's. The major quandary, is that by the time we get all the facts, all the information, and predictions accurate enough to convince the denialist, that it may be too late to change course. At this point, everybody looses. Then there are people who somehow think that they will be immune to at all and only "certain people" will suffer. Which is a calllous reaction at best, and hard to believe considering the global nature of the economy alone. Edited August 9, 2012 by akh
JohnB Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) So don't draw any conclusions from this illusionary contradiction. JohnB, you should be ashamed . Would you rather we used Caribou instead? The result is the same. From AP in 2009; Across the tundra 1,000 miles to the east, Canada's Beverly herd, numbering more than 200,000 a decade ago, can barely be found today. From wildlife spectacle to wildlife mystery, the decline of the caribou called reindeer in the Eurasian Arctic has biologists searching for clues, and finding them. They believe the insidious impact of climate change, its tipping of natural balances and disruption of feeding habits, is decimating a species that has long numbered in the millions and supported human life in Earth's most inhuman climate. Oooooh scary. The article goes on to tell of a really good report that details the decline of the Caribou, the Beverley herd and others. There must be a cause for concern, right? Well, No. Fast forward to 20111 and we find; A vast herd of northern caribou that scientists feared had vanished from the face of the Earth has been found, safe and sound -- pretty much where aboriginal elders said it would be all along. "The Beverly herd has not disappeared," said John Nagy They only miscounted back in 2009 by about 200,000 animals, just a tiny mistake. The problem was twofold; Firstly counting the animals from a chopper and secondly assuming with no evidence at all as to the truth of the assumption, that the herds always use the same breeding ground. I think it says an amazing amount about absolute blind stupidity that when the numbers weren't what they should have been, the first idea that popped up was decimation by climate change and not that they might have gone somewhere else. Nature is messy like that though, it rarely does what we expect or demand. The point being of course that if the methods used can miscount brown animals against a white background by a mere 200,000 or so, can you please give me a reasonable and logical reason to even think that using the same methods will accurately count white animals against a white background? As we Aussies say "Tell him he's dreamin'". Then the scientist then try to satisfy the demand for predictions. They make predictions, and when these predictions don't come true, then the people on the sidelines turn and say the whole concept is bunk. You see, I've always thought that this is part of a thing known as the "Scientific Method". You evolve a theory, make predictions based on that theory and compare the predictions to reality. If the predictions are wrong, then there is something wrong with the theory. If your theory is so poor that it constantly fails to match reality, then why would you believe that its predictions for 100 years are correct? Would you believe a fortune teller that consistently fails to give you the weekly Lotto numbers but believe their Lotto predictions for 50 years from now? Here's an idea! It's bullshit, large piles of putrid cow dung. Enough bovine fertilizer to green the State of Texas. Especially since the prognostications of the climate modellers require a positive feedback of about a 2.4 multiplier to work. This feedback is not in the literature. It has never been observed in nature or the lab, it exists only in the theory of the climate model world. Put bluntly, there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than for this multiplier. (At least we have people who claim to have seen Bigfoot and some photos. ) Without this multiplier there is no reason at all to think that temps will rise more than about 1.1 degrees for a doubling of CO2. IOW, there is no reason at all to either be worried or to "do anything" at all about a complete "non problem". You also have the situation where the scientist, in their expert opinions, think that there may be serious consequences, but don't yet have to tools needed to confirm them. This does not mean that they are incorrect in their opinions. In any case, I would take the scientists opinion on climate over a politicians, just as I would take a doctor's opinion of my health over wall street banker's. The major quandary, is that by the time we get all the facts, all the information, and predictions accurate enough to convince the denialist, that it may be too late to change course. At this point, everybody looses. Possible. It is also possible that these "experts" (and do read up on "expert" predictions v everybody elses and the track record of accuracy thereof) are wandering up the Phlogiston path and wasting everybodys time and money, condemning millions to disease, poverty and early death. The only way to break the poverty cycle is with cheap, abundant power and the only place that this can come from is fossil fuels. This is why China and India are happily watching the West self destruct and building as much cheap power as they can. People are dying in their tens of thousands right now from energy poverty. It's not "predicted", it's happening right now in dozens of nations and more energy is the onyl way end the carnage. But the oh so enlightened West wants these people to slow their progress and use expensive "renewables" instead. I'll say it again. I no longer believe that it is a coincidence that part of the "answer" for every single "environmental problem" for the last 50 years has been for the people with dark skin to remain in disease and poverty. The racist and genocidal policies of the "Green movement" are an affront to any thinking and civilised person and must be fought at every turn. But there is an easy way to tell that even the "experts" don't really believe what they are saying. If the situation is as dire as predicted and everybody needs to reduce their carbon "footprint", then why is it fine for some 50,000 people to fly to exotic locations each year to tell the rest of us to fly less? Copenhagen, Bali, Cancun, South Africa, Rio. Man, this is a good lurk to be on, isn't it? So that is one reason not to believe the "experts", the second is even simpler; Nukes are off the table. When those who are loudest intelling me that there is a problem actually start acting like there is one, then I'll listen. Until then they are just like a tele-evangelist preaching the "good word" before going off to meet his boyfriend somewhere. If the looming disaster was really do dire as to require an all out planetary effort, as we are told it is, then why are nukes not allowed? Simply because it isn't about the environment and it never was. Even the UN now admits that it is about taking money from rich nations and giving it to poor ones. In general I have no problem with this, but I prefer if my government decides how much and when and to whom and not some unaccountable UN dickhead. I'm not even going to go into their asking for 3% of world GDP and control of a military arm to "enforce" UN decisions. But here's a thought experiment for you akh. Let's say we find a magical way to reduce CO2. So with the wave of the wand, CO2 is reduced back to 280 ppm and mankind no longer emits it as part of our society. What will the climate be like in 100 years? Will it be the same? Warmer? Colder? Edited August 10, 2012 by JohnB
IM Egdall Posted August 26, 2012 Posted August 26, 2012 If the looming disaster was really do dire as to require an all out planetary effort, as we are told it is, then why are nukes not allowed? Simply because it isn't about the environment and it never was. Even the UN now admits that it is about taking money from rich nations and giving it to poor ones. In general I have no problem with this, but I prefer if my government decides how much and when and to whom and not some unaccountable UN dickhead. You make a good point here. I believe nuclear energy is the best solution to reducing our carbon footprint. But the public fears nuclear power, made worse by the recent incident in Japan. Plus nuke plants are very expensive to build. Why don't our leaders push for nuclear power to stave off global warming? Because they don't have the consensus of the voters on both issues. Their first priority is to get elected. I for one find this very frustrating. Maybe nuclear power isn't the perfect solution, but it is the best available one. It seems to me many more people will die due to the effects of human-induced climate change than from the risk of nuclear power.
JohnB Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Now ask yourself why people are running around saying that the threat is so dire that we may need to "suspend Democracy" and it is so terrible that it might kill all life on earth, but is not so dangerous as to be worth a single nuclear reactor to help stave off the disaster? How about there is no disaster coming? And there never was. It was a political ploy.
John Cuthber Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 How about, there is a disaster coming: plenty of people refuse to accept it, and the decision to not build reactors in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima is a political ploy?
iNow Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 How about there is no disaster coming? And there never was. It was a political ploy. This conclusion is nonsequitur and does not follow from the assertion that many people have anxieties about doing nuclear power safely. It's as if you're saying, "Because the sky is blue my car is made of smoked gouda."
Ophiolite Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 My regret is that by the time we are deep into the worst effects of global warming I shall be dead and I shall not be able to say to JohnB: "You bastard, you contributed to this situation." so perhaps the forum moderators will permit me to say it now instead.
swansont Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 But there is an easy way to tell that even the "experts" don't really believe what they are saying. If the situation is as dire as predicted and everybody needs to reduce their carbon "footprint", then why is it fine for some 50,000 people to fly to exotic locations each year to tell the rest of us to fly less? Copenhagen, Bali, Cancun, South Africa, Rio. Man, this is a good lurk to be on, isn't it? So that is one reason not to believe the "experts" 50,000 passengers, so it's 100,000 when you count the return trip. Which would represent a whopping 0.0036% of air traffic in 2011. All of airline travel contributed 676 million tons of CO2 last year, as compared to the 34 billion tons produced by humans. That's 2%. Meaning the conference-goers contributed around 0.00007% to the problem. Hey, let's round up and call it 0.0001%. Since the goal of their discussions is reductions in the tens of percent, not traveling is going to have far less of an effect than their success. A 10% target means they're trying to get a factor of 100,000 return on their investment. Sounds pretty savvy to me. But, by all means, manufacture reasons not to trust the experts. http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html Now ask yourself why people are running around saying that the threat is so dire that we may need to "suspend Democracy" and it is so terrible that it might kill all life on earth, but is not so dangerous as to be worth a single nuclear reactor to help stave off the disaster? Who is saying this? 1
JohnB Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) How about, there is a disaster coming: plenty of people refuse to accept it, and the decision to not build reactors in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima is a political ploy? And how many has the Fukushima reactor killed? I can also only conclude that there is a belief in precognition going on since the tsunami was only a couple of years ago and the groups most loudly proclaiming doom and gloom have been doing so for decades and have not changed their anti nuclear stance in all that time. Fukushima has nothing to do with it on any logical or sensible grounds. There are people who simply do not want cheap and abundant power for the masses. Their behaviour is not based on science but on ideology. This conclusion is nonsequitur and does not follow from the assertion that many people have anxieties about doing nuclear power safely. It's as if you're saying, "Because the sky is blue my car is made of smoked gouda." iNow, many people have anxieties that the planet is secretly ruled by reptillian aliens. I'm not going to let other peoples groundless anxieties rule my life. My regret is that by the time we are deep into the worst effects of global warming I shall be dead and I shall not be able to say to JohnB: "You bastard, you contributed to this situation." so perhaps the forum moderators will permit me to say it now instead. Go for your life. But before you get too busy cursing my name could you provide some sort of evidence that things are going to get bad? Could you provide some form of evidence that the 3 times amplification that the models require for the gloomy forecasts to come true actually exists in reality? How about a reasonable explanation as to why a system with a feedback amplification of greater that 2.4 has remained relatively stable for millions of years. Any other system with positive feedbacks of that magnitude would have been off at an extreme ages ago as a positive feedback of more than about 1.1 is inherently unstable. In short, rather than the tired and old name calling, how about some scientific proof for a change? But, by all means, manufacture reasons not to trust the experts. "Manufacture" my arse. How about we do the next conference by telepresence over the net instead and see how many bother to attend? "Bugger all" would be my bet. A far better life is in going to conferences and Bonn, Bangkok, Manila, Tokyo, Addis Ababa, Samoa, London, Rio, then back to Bonn isn't a bad start to the year, is it? (and we're only up to May 2012 for that lot). http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2012 What? Did you think that there was only one conference every couple of years? You may need to revise your figures. Who is saying this? "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." - David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports David Shearman is emeritus professor of medicine at Adelaide University, secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia, and an independent assessor on the IPCC. His most recent book (co-written with Joseph Wayne Smith) is The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, (Praeger, 2007) For one, there have been others. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6878 James Lovelock, you know, the guy behind the Gaia theory and recent convert to the sceptical camp? He now says that we don't know as much about the climate as we thought we did. At least on that we agree, but his opinion a couple of years ago; "I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary toput democracy on hold for a while." Finnish environmentalist and philosopher Pentti Linkola, not well known in the West but has some great ideas. His bold political programme includes [...]'re-education' in eco-gulags [...]. In Linkola's dystopian vision, the resources of the state are mobilisedto clamp down on individual liberty Try reading "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World". Or you could start paying attention to what your leading environmentalists are saying in the media. It's just a thought. Edited August 30, 2012 by JohnB
swansont Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 he next conference by telepresence over the net instead and see how many bother to attend? "Bugger all" would be my bet. A far better life is in going to conferences and Bonn, Bangkok, Manila, Tokyo, Addis Ababa, Samoa, London, Rio, then back to Bonn isn't a bad start to the year, is it? (and we're only up to May 2012 for that lot). http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2012 What? Did you think that there was only one conference every couple of years? You may need to revise your figures. But they're your figures. You're the one who said 50,000 a year. Don't blame me when that number doesn't have the impact you thought it would. "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." - David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports David Shearman is emeritus professor of medicine at Adelaide University, secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia, and an independent assessor on the IPCC. His most recent book (co-written with Joseph Wayne Smith) is The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, (Praeger, 2007) For one, there have been others. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6878 James Lovelock, you know, the guy behind the Gaia theory and recent convert to the sceptical camp? He now says that we don't know as much about the climate as we thought we did. At least on that we agree, but his opinion a couple of years ago; "I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary toput democracy on hold for a while." Finnish environmentalist and philosopher Pentti Linkola, not well known in the West but has some great ideas. Try reading "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World". Or you could start paying attention to what your leading environmentalists are saying in the media. It's just a thought. IOW, nobody who actually makes policy is calling for these things. If these people had any political clout, wouldn't rigid and severe AGW policies already be in place?
Essay Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." - David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports David Shearman is emeritus professor of medicine at Adelaide University, secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia, and an independent assessor on the IPCC. His most recent book (co-written with Joseph Wayne Smith) is The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, (Praeger, 2007) Wow, maybe there is hope for the world after all. ...and there will be Death Panels too, I'm sure === For one, there have been others. http://www.onlineopi...sp?article=6878 James Lovelock, you know, the guy behind the Gaia theory and recent convert to the sceptical camp? He now says that we don't know as much about the climate as we thought we did. At least on that we agree, but his opinion a couple of years ago; "I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." You seem to have made some mistakes here. This link doesn't discuss James Lovelock at all. It seems to be by the author, David Shearman, of the book you link to later in the post. Your chronology makes it seem as if the author of that book, "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World," is Linkola, however the author is Shearman. === And what is this tripe about Lovelock becoming a "recent convert to the sceptical camp?" Got any citations for this? I sure appreciate his Gaia Theory, and find it useful; so I hope that hasn't been discredited also--after his "conversion" to the zealously oblique. Has he also changed his opinion about climate problems possibly being as serious as a war? Doesn't he still think climate science is valid? [Hint: Lovelock displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion."] -James Lovelock http://www.science20...l_warming-91406 ...and also "his highly influential hypothesis that the Earth [behaves as if it] is a self-regulating, single organism" still seems to be valid. Whew! But I'd think Lovelock acknowledging that over-the-top or unfounded alarmism can harm public perception shouldn't be held up as any sort of conversion to the other camp; but rather as a reasonable stance, shouldn't it? === Finnish environmentalist and philosopher Pentti Linkola, not well known in the West but has some great ideas. Try reading "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World". Linkola, in your quote above... writing a novel(?), may be warning about how "greenwashing" can be used as an excuse for almost anything. Some governments will grab at any convenient excuse to frighten a population into relinquishing liberty; just look at the whole war on terror hype. Corporations already seem to be wise to various greenwashing strategies, and some governments adopt corporate strategies to extend their power; so it seems like a worthwhile cautionary vision. An informed and scientifically literate citizenry is crucial to the health of liberty. Or am I mistaken about Linkola? Are you saying he is genuinely advocating for eco-gulags as a good and appropriate thing? That was your purpose, wasn't it; to show crazy leftist ideas? === Or you could start paying attention to what your leading environmentalists are saying in the media. It's just a thought. I just don't hear much in the media about the environment, especially from leading environmentalists; so please keep us posted. I can only imagine that if something got into the media, it might sound rash because it might be a response to Tod Aiken, from the U. S. House Science Committee. I'm looking forward to his new book, 101 Things Women's Bodies Can Do, but I want to first read the book you mentioned, "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World". That sounds like a good follow-up to the book I'm currently reading, by Johan Galtung, entitled "The Fall of the US Empire--And Then What? Successors, Regionalism or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?" [fyi... Johan Galtung (not John Galt) is known as the "Father of Peace Research"] This book, published by TRANSCEND University Press in 2009, is available from www.transcend.org/tup Dedication To a country I love, the United States of America: You will swim so much better without that imperial albatross around your neck. Drown it before it drowns you, and let a thousand flowers blossom! ~J. Galtung Ack! Another ranting radical crazy Leftist; run for your lives! He's pushing for a blossoming, and that is my goal too. How 'bout you; sickened, heartened, skeptical? ~
JohnB Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Swansont. But they're your figures. You're the one who said 50,000 a year. Don't blame me when that number doesn't have the impact you thought it would. A diversion really, would you prefer I said "A large but indeterminate number"? The point remains that this is more about flying around the planet and staying in 5 star resorts than actually doing anything. If it was video conferenced, nobody would bother to go. I'm also surprised that you take the attitude that the priests get special dispensation..... If someone truly believed that the increase in CO2 was in reality dooming the planet they would not fly. Having been involved with the staging of international conferences on the organisational side I can state quite clearly that they cost a mint. IOW, nobody who actually makes policy is calling for these things. If these people had any political clout, wouldn't rigid and severe AGW policies already be in place? That would depend on whether you wanted to hit one nation at a time or try for them all under some "International Agreement". Perhaps you could read what powers and funding are being asked for at some of these conferences? It also presupposes that AGW is something more than a means to an end. Essay. ...and there will be Death Panels too, I'm sure You know, the funny thing is that my copy of Mien Kampf was published in New York in 1937. It was a private printing complete with researched footnotes to show exactly where it was wrong. The idea was an attempt to alert the American people as to just what type of lunatic was running Germany. Nobody listened to them either..... Face the facts. There really are Malthusian people out there who think the world would be much better off if 9 out of 10 people dropped dead. Denying their existence doesn't make them go away, it just means you refuse to see them. Concerning Lovelock. Is he closer to my "denialist" position of "there doesn't appear to be much to worry about and the alarmists are overblown" or your "we need to act immediately to stave off catastrophe". He was in your group, he's now in mine, even the article you link to says so. His previous comments include; Civilization in its present form hasn't got long. Florida will be gone altogether, the whole damned place, in not too long. billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable Whereas he now says; "The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;” "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that", Do a search if you wish through the climate threads here and see whose arguments his recent statements are closest to. And since I'm the resident "denier" that puts him rather fully now in the "denialist" camp. He's not saying anything that I haven't been saying for bloody years. But I'd think Lovelock acknowledging that over-the-top or unfounded alarmism can harm public perception shouldn't be held up as any sort of conversion to the other camp; but rather as a reasonable stance, shouldn't it? And there lies your problem. If his is a reasonable stance then so is the stance of the vast majority of "deniers", but you can't see that, can you? Oh, and from your link re "religion" It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. Wow, something else us nasty denialists have been commenting on for years. Or am I mistaken about Linkola? Are you saying he is genuinely advocating for eco-gulags as a good and appropriate thing? That was your purpose, wasn't it; to show crazy leftist ideas? Who brought left or right into it? Linkola is quite serious and if you want the left to claim his insanity as its own go right ahead. My purpose was to show that rather than left or right, there is an authoritarian segment who are willing to use climate change to advance their own agenda. (Quick Tangent) I don't really believe in the left/right political spectrum as there is no place on it for anarchy and as such cannot be considered a complete and accurate spectrum. I believe that the true spectrum is from anarchy (no government at all) at one end through to statism (total government control) at the other. The traditional left/right are really both in the middle trying to balance social control and collective conditions on the one hand and individual liberties on the other. The only difference is that those traditionally classed as "Left" tend towards collective/state answers slightly more than those on the "Right", but there is really little difference between them. If anarchy was zero and statism was 100, the right would sit at about 45 and the left at about 55 for the most part. However, the statists, those who think old style soviet government and full central planning were really great ideas are hiding inside the "left" and it is these people who will use climate change to advance their political agenda. They will do this by talking about "International Co-operation" and similar buzzwords. You might think I'm foolish or wrong, but just answer one question. Where did all the people who wanted a soviet style government in the West go to when the Soviet Union collapsed? Did they all collectively decide that they were wrong and go home? Or did they join Green parties and work to forward their agendas under the guise of "Environmentalism"? It really isn't about left or right, it's about authoritarianism or individual liberty. The left has Statists that dream of power and controlling lives under the principles of Gaia, they are no better or worse than the Statist on the right who would see us all in chains living under strict "Gods Laws". Environazis or god botherers, their final solution is the same, only their language differs. Even their motivation is the same they both believe that they and they alone know what is best for all mankind. You and I will be "allowed" to live our lives in a state "acceptable" to them. So long as we say nothing and show due deference to their overwhelmingly superior morals and intellect, otherwise things will get "unpleasant". Fast. /Tangent So please keep left and right out of it. Science doesn't have a political side, it just is. Cheers.
zorro Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Correct. Global Warming is Politics not science. The maxes we see are because the Sun is approachintg max (2013) and its magnetic field is reversing. Climate heating was predictable some 50 years ago. The same conditions will happen in 10 to 20 years. So don't worry. zorro http://forum.chaosco...p?topic=6719.90 http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ Edited October 16, 2012 by zorro
swansont Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 If it's the sun, how come it wasn't insanely hot in ~1958 and thereabouts? Why wasn't 2009 as cool as other years with no sunspots? Why was 1998 so hot when the sunspot activity was low?
zorro Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) If it's the sun, how come it wasn't insanely hot in ~1958 and thereabouts? Why wasn't 2009 as cool as other years with no sunspots? Why was 1998 so hot when the sunspot activity was low? swan: (you must live in a sauna, just kiddin): as you see in my post above, these cycles are not exact peak to peak. no one knows for sure but it is postulated that the inner Son's iron dynamo goes unstable and generates distortions in it's magnetic field. I happen to think it is due to the positioning of Jupiter's magnetosphere in respect to the Suns's and the Earth's. Please note that Jupiter's orbital period is around 11years in SYNC with the Sun's storm's cycle. zorro ... Edited October 16, 2012 by zorro
mississippichem Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 swan: (you must live in a sauna, just kiddin): as you see in my post above, these cycles are not exact peak to peak. no one knows for sure but it is postulated that the inner Son's iron dynamo goes unstable and generates distortions in it's magnetic field. I happen to think it is due to the positioning of Jupiter's magnetosphere in respect to the Suns's and the earth's. Please that Jupiter's orbital period is around 11years in SYNC with the Sun's storm's cycle. zorro ... That doesn't even attempt to answer swansont's question. He didn't ask about the cause of solar maxima. Read it again, try again.
FrostySnow Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Facts... the Queen alone owns 6,600 million acres.. http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/ shall i check the others? Personally, I am no climate scientist... but I am tired of people who refuse to see the following things: Facts: - There are 7 billion people on earth. That is almost 50 people per square kilometer of land. - Humans have altered nearly the entire surface of the earth. Cut down forests, built roads, built cities, etc. - We have a LOT of factories, cars, and we use a lot of energy. - CO2 can absorb heat. This is already known for more than 100 years, and can easily be tested in labs. - The CO2 concentration is much higher than before, and going up fast. - The CO2 concentration keeps a nice trend with our world's energy consumption, and the energy consumption keeps a trend with the economy. So, economic growth means more CO2 in the air. - There is some heating of the earth, and weather systems are changing. And that happens just when CO2, which is a gas that can absorb heat, is released in huge quantities in the atmosphere. That's too much to be coincidence. And since humans already changed the entire earth, don't you think there is a big chance we can actually heat it up by a few degrees as well? Now, if you wish to deny (note the use of the word deny, rather than skeptic) that there is a big chance that humans have something to do with climate change, then be my guest. But don't come to ME to ask to prove the climate change. Instead, you can prove to me that this is really a coincidence. And you better prove it and be certain about it... because this isn't something to make jokes about. If we get it wrong, we're screwed, as is explained pretty well in this (if you're a skeptic/denialist: watch it, it's pretty simple to understand!). I'm also tired of skeptics. If this was a very fundamental problem, then we could argue about it forever, and use scientifically rigorous methods. And then skepticism has its merits. But it has become a political and an engineering issue. What do we build? Fossil, nuclear or sustainable? And that is something which cannot be postponed indefinitely... I cannot argue with the skeptics, because they just say "maybe", which is in fact the truth (we're not 100% sure). But politicians need a simple YES or NO, and so far, the skeptics have been put into the 'nothing is happening' camp, which leads to the conclusion that fossil energy is good. This is how it's been put in the media. For all other real scientific climate debates, I would refer to some excellent threads in this forum. They include nice graphs and figures and explain both sides quite well.
swansont Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 That doesn't even attempt to answer swansont's question. He didn't ask about the cause of solar maxima. Read it again, try again. Seconded, but tying it in with Jupiter garners an additional Whisky Tango Foxtrot. 1
zorro Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) That doesn't even attempt to answer swansont's question. He didn't ask about the cause of solar maxima. Read it again, try again. swan ask's: If it's the sun, how come it wasn't insanely hot in ~1958 and thereabouts? Why wasn't 2009 as cool as other years with no sunspots? Why was 1998 so hot when the sunspot activity was low? I most certainly did. Swan questions a distortion from temp with Sun activity, He neglects to present the avg. temp of the earth charts from NASA on those years nor the NASA distribution charts of solar activity for 20 years before his periods and 20 years after. Obviously he is not serious here, which is ok, and i came back with a snippet if he were in a sauna. I note that he has yet to let us know if his sauna is still working. zorro ..... Edited October 16, 2012 by zorro
vampares Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 The warming is at the poles and cooling may occur at the equator. This is a concept that does not bother me much. Chemtrails bother me to no end. This is a blight on my environment. And the Centipede© clouds. The answer to global warming is not spraying Titanium Dioxide everywhere, is it?
overtone Posted December 8, 2012 Posted December 8, 2012 My purpose was to show that rather than left or right, there is an authoritarian segment who are willing to use climate change to advance their own agenda. Or, short version, authoritarians exist. Many of them want to use nuclear power to advance their agenda, as well. GMO technology. Islamic terrorism. With sufficint research, I suspect one could find an example of some authoritarian using bunny rabbits to advance their agenda (I'd chekc Australian politics a generation ago). The ease with which nuclear power can be bent to the service of central authority is one of the many arguments against adopting it as a major response to CO2 boost hazard. Others would be the high cost, the high risks (even the cost creates risk - no mone left over for other approaches if the nukes prove a bad idea), the irrevocability of creating all that dangerous waste, the reliance on finite and irreplaceable resources, the sudden and catastrophic manner in which nukes fail, and so forth.
King, North TX Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 "The climate is changing." "We've got a possibility of a snow tornado." ...Yup, that's what some weather person just said there is a possibility of... So that's not new, right? We've always had "snow tornados!?" When I was a kid, I lived almost dead center tornado alley, north central Texas. We had tornados drills aplenty and severe thunderstorms were commonplace. Now, according to the data, more actual tornados are occurring further east and north. I blogged about it once. But now there's talk of a snow tornado? That's a new one for me...
LaurieAG Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Hi John, How about there is no disaster coming? And there never was. It was a political ploy. I heard a very interesting article on ABC Radio National about 9 months ago. A US professor was working out of one of the Sydney universities and he was an expert on power networks. He said that since Australia had introduced its National Electricity Market (NEM) in 2000, on average, 45 % of Australian electricity was delivered from another state and 65 percent, on average, was lost before it reached the receiving states borders. That means 65 percent of 45 percent, 30 percent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of our national electricity generation is wasted into our atmosphere from long line transmissions. So, how did Australian politicians solve their collective neglect to actually build power stations remotely close to where the power was going to be required??? They introduced a Carbon Tax and the figures have come in for the first 3 months of the tax with a 15.6 percent increase in electricity prices. When you add that up with the other 15% increase in the six months prior to the introduction of the tax, our electricity bills are 50 percent more than they were 12 months ago and very little has been spent on clean energy. And to top things off we are now linked to the European system which has a much lower carbon credit and as a result our most polluting power generation plants will not be closed because they are economically viable on the European rate (but weren't on the original Australian rate).
overtone Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 They introduced a Carbon Tax and the figures have come in for the first 3 months of the tax with a 15.6 percent increase in electricity prices. When you add that up with the other 15% increase in the six months prior to the introduction of the tax, our electricity bills are 50 percent more than they were 12 months ago and very little has been spent on clean energy. My arithmetic says 32%. Not sure what the point is, there - bad Australian politics? I doubt anyone considering the nature of the CO2 boost and what possible responses there are would be surprised at any involvement of bad politics.
Recommended Posts