yeah

here they seem to like the truth

huge tanker vessels full of LNG in our harbours

boy! I sure am glad our PM hasn't been running around the Middle East pissing off Al Quaeda and suchlike with mindless support of whatever Israel wants to do, or worse, invading muslim homes with guns drawn or shooting children at checkpoints - or even say hanging around with people that do. Just think of the awful risks he'd be putting us to with all those sitting duck LNG tankers in our waters, just waiting to be blown sky high with a few RPGs or light planes stuffed with fertilizer. Yessirree Bob! , it's sure good to know the politicians and oil companies have got our backs!

JudyCross

So which conservative / oil lobby group are you funded by? I've noticed you have your BS comments on climate change in many places on this site. It appears you have a large amount of time on your hands to try to promote your agenda.

Apparently James Lovelock hasn't had much of a clue on global warming for quite some time, and his recent comments are completely contrary to measured data.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/

http://theconversation.edu.au/james-lovelocks-climate-change-u-turn-6668

pretty sure it's Heartland Institute,

Hayes

Oily hypocrites

"In the simple-minded, comic book world in which many environmentalists live there’s only one acceptable view about climate change – the one they themselves hold. Intelligent people couldn’t possibly have compelling reasons to see the world differently. There must be some (condescending and dehumanizing) explanation – one that allows skeptics to be peremptorily dismissed, to be banished to that category of social rejects who need not be taken seriously.

We must be stupid. Or mentally ill. Or brainwashed by FoxNews. Most offensively of all it’s said that we’re being paid by big, bad oil companies to express particular views.

Well if oil money is corrupt and evil – and if green activists really believe that those who take it are nefarious and untrustworthy – why are there no websites analogous to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets about the very long, very close relationship that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has enjoyed with Shell (aka Royal Dutch Shell)?"
nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

Well, that's a big enough sample

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9169032/how-to-use-greasemonkey-to-selectively-remove-content-from-a-website

Warming over?

I guess someone forgot to tell The Economist

http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

There is none so blind as (s)he who will not see...

The Economist is now a big joke

and not just because of their Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Sustainability stance. They are just part of the media drum core which is pushing phony science and the New Feudalism of Agenda 21. Don't be fooled by the glossy paper and the plummy accents.

The Arctic isn't warming faster than it has at any other time.
It certainly isn't warming as fast as it did in 1922. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/ 2008/ 03/ 16/ you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-v anish-and-icebergs-melt/

The link again

http;//wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

One more time

Here is the text of the Washington Post (Associated Press) 1922 article:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

UPDATE:

The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artice or see the link to the original PDF below:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

Judy Cross comments

Thank you Judy Cross. It's nice to see someone is doing a bit of reading on the subject of Global Warming. Your newspaper might try doing the same. I have a file folder on my computer with 177 articles (had to stick to the more pertinent ones) all written by scientists around the world disclaiming the man-made nonsense and exposing the comments of many who are now apologizing (or hanging their heads in shame for being caught)for the unsubstantiated data they previously used to con the public. Al Gore and his wealthy cronies and his friends in Nato are still selling their snake oil to anyone who will listen.

177 articles, hmmmm

However, the "177 articles" quote the same 5 so-called scientists that have no peer-reviewed papers written on climate science and whose expertise lies in other fields, but, are acknowledged by the Heartland Institute which is financed by Exxon and Koch Oil.

One of the same scientists was a shill for the tobacco companies and provided "scientific" expertise that provided doubt and allowed the tobacco industry to contribute to suffering and death. He should have been charged with manslaughter and sued.

Another after severely rebuked for his non-scientific views on climate change has left the League of Denial Heroes and is practicing making money these days from gold trading.

Name the scientists who you profess know better? Name those scientists apologizing for what you perceive as the unsubstantiated data used to "con the public"? How is NATO involved? Any more demons to pronounce to us unwashed and ignorant? Perhaps there are better venues for you to exorcise these demons from your persons?

There is much to criticize about climate change initiatives. You are wasting your efforts on parroting organizations supported by big oil.

One thing I have noticed about Denialists, they will go to great lengths to create noise, however, these days this noise appears to be resembling an irritating snore.

But, back on track...thanks to Nikiforuk for all his research and writing which are accessible in the Tyee archives.

It appears our Premier is becoming masterful in the art of the oxymoron.

It is well acknowledged by the LNG industry that 10% of the natural gas delivered to LNG plants is used for the liquefaction process and other energy requirements of the plant. A natural gas co-generation plant is usually part of the plant.

The use of natural gas as an energy source was always in the plans for the proposed LNG plants in Kitimat unless Rio Tinto (Alcan) was willing to supply some of their private hydroelectricity from their Kemano power station.

Rio Tinto, however, would get a better price from BC Hydro for any surplus power they generate given the current government policy forcing BC Hydro to purchase electricity at high prices from private producers.

Consequences?

The thing that deniers like judycross WILL NOT acknowledge is - what are the consequences for each side if they are wrong?

Let's do a thought experiment. For the climate change believers - if they are wrong, if we take actions to support their views - it will mean that humans won't get rich as quickly. Their actions will be constrained - they can't do everything they want to. Technologies will be developed and money spent on them which perhaps would not have been spent for many years later.

And what if the deniers are wrong? Well, it will mean at a minimum a radical change in many hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives - perhaps even millions or billions. And possibly the death of almost all humans on the planet along with the rest of the ecosystem. Certainly many people and animals will die.

So which course of action is the saner one? Myself, I'd rather spend more than I have to now to avert a possible disaster later. But if you want to believe that everything will turn out all right, that's your privilege - just stop arguing actions (or lack of them) that prevent me from safety in the event it doesn't turn out as you say it will!

consequences?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg

Judycross on "warmist recants"

JudyCross: And another Warmist Recants

“German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenhol has 'second thoughts'on global warming...”

Varenholts does not appear to be a credible witness in climate questions.

He has been a very public figure for years, but he seems to have been all over the map and irritating all sides on the issue, including the very conservative Christian Social Union.

His most vocal support comes from Das Bild, Germany's tabloid, but none so far from more serious publications, let alone scientific journals.

Yet on global warming his position is more moderate than Judycross insinuates.

According to Die Zeit, Varentholts underlines that he does not deny climate change. He agrees that we must get away from fossil fuels because they are non-renewable.

However, he apparently he believes that the sun gives us more time to make these adjustments because solar activity plays a larger part in global warming than the scientific community states.

Not much of a recantation, I would say, and hardly a ringing endorsement by a leading alarmist.

There is no longerany doubt.. There is no greenhouse!

The famous experiment by Robert W. Wood, at John Hopkins University, with two carton boxes/greenhouses, in 1909, is being mentioned everywhere, and on many websites,* as simple experimental evidence proving the fallacy of the greenhouse gas effect theory (GHE).

"According to the GHE theory, the small greenhouse with a glass cover had to reach a temperature of nearly 15°C higher than the other small greenhouse with a salt rock (halite) ceiling. This is because salt rock is a material which is “neutral” to infra-red, while glass can theoretically “trap” almost 80-85% of infra-red outgoing from the heated bottom of the greenhouse, and significantly increase the temperature, by “backradiating” the infrared (IR) waves.

Nothing of that took place, and both greenhouses showed almost the same temperatures inside, with a discrepancy of “scarcely one degree”. For years this experiment was sufficient to dispel giving any scientific ground to the greenhouse gas effect theory. But several decades later, many GHE advocates “forgot” this experiment."
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9845&linkbox=true&position=1