The Next Generation of Children

The next generation won't be the pathetic politically correct climate pu$$ies like this one and I promise they will mock and ridicule all of us for leading environmentalism down the wrong road.
STOP SCARING MY KIDS FERAKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a problem . . .

Regularly contributing to this blog and Frances B's, noticeable are the same few pseudonyms: time and time again! One could accuse us of being a closed minded clique.

Our concerns range from Rafe's salmon to AGW and apparently only about a dozen of us care.

I suspect most people do care but lack the education to participate.

Most, even university grads, cannot read or write coherently. I know I have taught and lectured at many U's . . huh!

This video is certainly

This video is certainly manipulative and sensational but people are rarely moved to action by cold facts or analysis. The point is that the earth that we are screwing up doesn't just belong to us, it belongs to our children and their children. More than a few times, I've wondered how I would (and maybe will) explain why I didn't do more.

The way the public debate is unfolding is manifestly useless. AGW is neither fact nor fiction; it is an opinion based in science. That opinion is shared in greater or lesser part by every relevant major scientific organization. So, let's stop wasting time with conspiracy theories and quibbling over who will pay to fix the problem. Instead, let's get on with creating a sustainable future.

This is not a level playing field. While those who are concerned about the fate of the planet bear the twin burdens of both educating and selling people on the need for change, those who want to continue as usual simply need to spread doubt. Doubt should be a strong reason to limit our effects on the biosphere but instead doubt is being used to justify unlimited economic activity. Afer all, we've never had serious environmental issues before, right?

There are plenty of good reasons to limit our use of fossil fuels and our impact on the environment. They include: peak oil, decline in biodiversity, pollution, the effects of overpopulation, and ocean acification. We don't need to state AGW as a fact.

Hey! Leave those kids alone.

You got it soleprobe.

AGW

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14287/Nature_Study_Debunks_Kilimanjaro_Glacier_Myth.html

Limited comments

I don't read all of the articles on the Tyee, however, as someone else suggested, it is obvious that the regulars who comment on nearly every article "published", have the same thing to say about everything. Why don't you limit yourself to one comment per week? Go do something constructive the rest of the time. Most of you are not scientests, so have nothing to add to any climate related issue. Most of you deniers don't know weather from climate.

Okanagan Orchardist

Just use the "best comments" feature. That's why its there.

Frank and freebear on limiting comments

I took your suggestion. Who would have thought that "freebear's" comment "Aw f..k it! was one of the more intelligent comments that could have been made on the article under discussion? Give me a break!

Okanagan Orchardist

It doesn't say "most intelligent comments", its just whatever the editor selects, basically if its not me and Wilfrid calling each other names, its a "best comment" which is nothing against you freebear old bean.

Limited comments = Limited Reading

One commenter who only reads a few lines tells people to shut up. Another commenter who doesn't read all the articles tells people to shut up. The one thing they have in common is limited reading.

Climate change

I do not believe the science behind vaccines one iota. And I know that individual responsibility for climate change is a joke.

Our forests' functions of uniform storage and release of water counteract stress of drought, and freeze-thaw damage. Leaving the Boreal forest intact will delay the permafrost melt for decades.
The focus of forestry should be to maintain intact forests.

ONE THIRD OF ALL GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GASES ARE PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF CURRENT FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. LOGGING IN THE BOREAL FOREST RELEASES MORE CO2 THAN ALL THE CARS AND TRUCKS IN CANADA!

Five years after a tree is cut 60% of its carbon is now located in our atmosphere and it takes 250 years to re-sequester that carbon into a tree.

Current human dominant ethics are the root of the causes to our predicament and these current dominant values see Earth as a resource to exploit and do not meaningfully value the interdependence and interconnections of ecosystems.

We are educated (indoctrinated) to need more, buy more, consume more, and instead of fixing this problem they (government and industry) remold the image of our illness into "green" energy, "sustainable growth", and "personal responsibility"

Current schooling on the "Development Models" are assumptions of convenience (that produce a state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty and contribute to an easy and effortless way of life) and these assumptions of convenience have NO TRUTH. These "development models" are fatally flawed in teaching us that society, economy, and environment are three equal circles that intersect/overlap and produce an area of "sustainable growth" mathematically calculated to be a 4% growth rate. THIS IS A MYTH.

The TRUTH is that both the economy and society exist WITHIN the greater circle of our environment, and a growth rate of 4% is totally unsustainable for our environment.
(There is no economy outside of nature and no society/human health outside of ecology).

Kin-centric values are holistic and recognize the whole; the complete picture of our landscape and environment, of which humans are one small part. Kin-centric values systems are the correct choice to be our dominant value system, and are the type of value systems that are reflected in Indigenous peoples' cultures.
Thanks to ecologist Herb Hammond for some of these lessons!

Nuclear Nightmares ...

are getting weirder :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIK95Cv-SVI

Nuclear economics ...

glows without any private green ; Wall St wants Nukers real cost risks transferred to tax-payers:

http://tinyurl.com/NukeWallSt
[note bene ; table 9 / pg14]

Nuclear Bhopal

Governments in China Russia or India may not care, but Indian public is skeptical:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2616/stories/20090814261609700.htm

Anti-nukes in India :
http://www.sacw.net/article1095.html

And so they are also moving beyond nuclear :
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=330846

Beyond Nuclear

Soviet-style centrally planned supply-side energy systems are so 20th century :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue_WCZnavl4

Meanwhile, long before we reach Peak-Nuke with ever greater spiking costs, renewables keep dropping :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330572870415610.html

Stop confusing them with facts, and.....

Stop wasting your time, Seth. These doughheads believe that if they can't understand the science, why then you and I can't either. Simple enough, eh?

And they call US "deniers" :-)

Wow, AGW! Has there been

Wow, AGW! Has there been more talk on Tyee than this?

TALK look. Not action!

"Albertans strongly support environmental protection including government subsidies for renewable energy."

Huh, Oilbertie you godda be kiddin'.

Listen to Global Research's conversation: Helen Caldicott Interviewing Andrew Nikiforuk on the tar sands.

TS devastation is mind-boggling: areas bigger than some countries laid waste and intoxicated, all so we can enjoy our drive to the movies: then the conversation, inevitably, segues to CO² and the troposphere!

I am not a believer in AGW but I sure as hell want to leave a clean world for my great grandsons.

But it wont happen with brave talk here . . .

The ether is redolent in protests, global warming, the snows of Kilimanjaro and why we are going to hell in a hand basket: for scare tactics it beats out H1N1 by a country mile.

And of course there are a hundred and one causes more imminent than AGW. So why do we not tackle them?

Because, in my experience, jaw, jaw, jaw has a cathartic, therapeutic if you like, calming effect: we do not tackle them because action involves change, commitment and risk.

One robust protestor, of my acquaintance, on every issues, will not change his life style because his wife wont let him: he assuages his guilt by reciting little parables about donkeys in holes etc.

Sin embargo . . . toxic air, toxic water, toxic food! They are killing us and we are slaughtering "rag heads" for the privilege thereof.

Well jaw, jaw, jaw wont get us anywhere until we come in from the 'burbs, take the bus and forsake the mall: huh when pigs fly!

What is this? The umpteenth post: are we bored yet?

Now, please, stop this inane gibberish!

C'mon, ME2

Stop wasting your time, Seth. These doughheads believe that if they can't understand the science, why then you and I can't either. Simple enough, eh?

As always, the science is one thing, the execution (or the engineering and construction, as I prefer it) is quite another.

For Seth to quote a 3-year payback is obscene in the extreme, and there isn't enough paper in the world to draw the fishbone chart to create the scenario he just wrote so simplistically. He hasn't accounted for all kinds of costs. Fine. Salesmen never do, but you don't have to slag us all too.

When Dubai (now desperately casting about for financial, water and energy security of all kinds as the last of its oil sputters out the wellhead) builds its first 3.xG reactor, I'll believe it. Until then, it's a nice pipe dream - speaking as an engineer

Don't let facts get in the way

But there has been no global warming since 1998. Even those green house gas emissions have gone up.

I realize there is a whole industry dependent on the global warming hypesteria, but like the swine flu, it is just a concerted effort to move wealth around.

Ecologists Gone Wild

Look, the weather channel has enough problems accurately predicting the weather. And all the expensive computers in banks can't even predict the stock market. So these environmentalists and global warming jihadists are trying to tell me their models are accurate enough to predict cataclysmic weather for the entire earth?

Really, if you use your common sense it is so easy to see through the global warming arguments.

Al Gore Set to Become World's First Carbon Billionaire!

It's true, I am not a scientist. In my case, it's more a case of the singers (money-hungry lapdog globalist politicians) not the song (human caused climate change) but there is no shortage of scientists who declare alarmist warmers don't know what they are talking about:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22621/Scientists_Speak_Out_Against_Alarmist_Warming_Theory.html

And in the other corner - "Cover Girl for Climate Change", "Eco- Activist Rock Star" and "Enviro-Hero" Tzeporah Berman!
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/city/vancouver-women/2009/10/15/cover-girl-climate-change

Now, according to the VanMag cover story:

"Berman represents the rapid evolution—and increasing split—under way in the environmental movement both here and abroad. She’s gone from blockading logging roads to blockading coal plants. She’s less concerned with saving this furry mammal or that one, and more concerned with pricing carbon, expanding transit, and tightening up building codes. To her, the ideologically driven fight over “wild” rivers is a costly diversion we simply don’t have time for, especially given that many of the proposed projects in question, like Bute Inlet, will be built in previously logged and industrialized valleys. “Wars have been lost,” she says, “because the generals were still fighting the last war.”
http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Green_Light?page=0%2C1

So you see, fighting to save furry animals, fish, wild rivers and forests is an old war. According to warmists, we need to get with the program, get behind Berman ("one of the world's most powerful environmentalists") and elect people like Gordon Campbell.

And so that Al Gore (with the assistance of the international banking syndicate who will collect the earth's new global carbon tax and effectively become the earth's new government post-Copenhagen) will become the world's first carbon billionaire!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=2

Janie Jones

Great Post. Exposes totally this fraud. With all the trillions that will be made by a handful of private citizens as a result of new climate change legislation I am convinced that almost everyone who actively promotes this scam is on the take. The rest can be easily woken up to this hoax via the three links you posted.

One Carbon Ring Consortium To Rule Them All

Thanks soleprobe. Just to kick it in, here's one more:

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90090

Wrong Link

Although if you want to know who's really at the centre, that's a good one too.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics
http://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-companies-support-global-warming-alarmists-not-skeptics.html

whether the weather

"Look, the weather channel has enough problems accurately predicting the weather."

That's a great quip that probably resonates with people who don't give things much thought, but it's also pretty much dead wrong. The Weather Channel and most meteorologists do a pretty good job of predicting the weather.

Billionaires are people too

Even Ralph Nader's not that jealous :
http://onlythesuperrich.org/index.php

The real question for Denial-saurs is why they need to hand over billions$$ to King CONG (CoalOilNuclearGas) in pursuit of Soviet-style centrally-planned energy dependency.
http://www.ecoglobe.ch/motivation/e/clim2922.htm

The options for a carbon-free future are so much more liberating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQF09NG00V8
[allow an hour for full viewing]

Not such a great quip

"Look, the weather channel has enough problems accurately predicting the weather."

I've got news for you both. Weather's not climate. Back to the drawing board, Bobby.

Graphical Facts

From those hysterics at NASA :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/SST.glob+Nino3.4.pdf

Temperature trends rising since 1980 ; annual variations correlated with el-Nino / la-Nina effect. Next year's looking hot.

But hey - what's the worst that could happen?
http://www.gregcraven.org/

This one is for you Janie Jones

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_clears_carbon_dioxide_of_most_blame/

By the way

If one is going to use the evidence of this computer model to criticize the focus on CO2, I'm left wondering how the skeptics will square that position with their ongoing dismissal of computer models of the climate in general?

Baring the truth

Just reading these posts gives me hope that common sense from average, working folks will prevail over the global warming extremists. Their language, tone and approach to anyone who challenges their models is a sign that it is the jihad of urban activists. The only thing preventing them from prevailing is the cost of their proposals and policies which govt bureaucrats are finally assessing.

Fear mongering, panic and misdirection are the currency of the activists. We average citizens should not let them peddle their propaganda and mis-truths.

A “carbon-free future” means the end of all life.

“…carbon-free future are so much more liberating.”

or “the end of all life on this planet is so much more liberating”

Without truth and only funding, it’s no surprise that the claims are getting more absurd.

Nice Try Chris... In fact, you should thank "Climate "Deniers"

Because it is the so-called "Deniers" that are forcing the AGW crowd to visit and re-visit their data and models.

Clearly, the science is "not settled".

Science

is an ongoing process. I think you will find the research community will continue their studies without the hectoring of websites such as Prison Planet. This updated model continues to point to human inputs as the cause of climate change and further, shows CO2 to remain the biggest contributor.

The bigger issue is the skeptics criticism of computer modelling however. It seems altogether too convenient that this negation of the process is shelved when it provides a hook to hang one's disbelief upon.

"The only thing preventing

"The only thing preventing them from prevailing"

Seems to me that however slowly the progress, proponents of action against climate change are prevailing, and in fact advancing. Despite the best efforts of skeptics, the 'average, working-class' person', esp. in the 'Western' world seems to be on-side and doesn't fear action on climate change as much as they fear seeing the process hijacked by the same short-term approach which created the problem in the first place.

No nukes nuts

Ok Zalm you got some numbers to go with your rant. Just one set would do - no need to paper the world. I didn't say the entire conversion could be done in three years. Over the period of conversion maybe ten years each new nuclear plant investment pays the overall economy back in an average of three years. A real engineer would figger that out so I'm guessing your engineering diploma is custodial.

Red on the other hand is most amusing. No matter how times he takes a beating he's chin up for another. At least he tries very hard to justify his belief in his "renewable" church. Biggest donors at his church collection plate - you guessed it Big Oil.

James Hoggan's book exposing Big Oil's finance of the Denialist campaign shows the tactics they use on their anti nuke campaign. Red just pass's it on in his commentaries.

I'm amazed a person can devote so much time to watching youtube.

The Indian article was great. Forgot to mention that 10000 people died at bhopal and total deaths attributable to Chernobyl - 75. Remember we had atmospheric nuclear tests right into the seventies. Lotsa chernobyls there. And there are lots of Bhopal type plants scattered over North America. Where's Red's church on that?

As for insurance, with Big Oil astroturfer's like Suzuki. Pembina, and Greenpeace ready to sue a nuclear plant if the toilet backs up, a million dollars for a spilled coffee at MacDonalds, a nuclear could could not survive with liability protection.

I'm surprised nuclear in Sask has 3 to 1 support (well educated folks) with that massive Big Oil funded antinuke campaign. Pembina is one of their favorite astroturf orgs.

Recently there has been a lot of no nukes horseshit in the media all emanating from the astroturfers, quoting each others bull as fact, using the same tired arguments, and coming to the usual conclusion.

This critique of an Big Oil funded turfer article on the front page of a massively Big Oil funded magazine would be a good place for Red and Zalm to begin their learning process.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

Had Big Oil/Coal not been so successful at buying a stable of no nukes politicians and compliant astroturfer's like Pembina and Greenpeace, and the Big Oil owned and run Nuclear Rejection Commission not made nuclear plants so expensive with mindless and endless bureaucratic delays, hundreds of millions of people now sickened and dead from coal plant produced radioactive waste, dust, mercury, and arsenic, in the Canada and most of the rest of world would be alive and healthy. Global warming and peak oil would be unheard of.

Whether it was making sure George Bush got elected by supporting Green Leader Ralph Nader, reelecting Canwest/Gordo and Harpo, or driving us right over that as little as ten years civilization ending Climate/Peak oil crisis with their silly "renewable" religion, by supporting Big Coal/Oil's fight against nuclear power, greenies seem bound and determined

THE END.

to kill lots of folks in very big ways.

If I Had a Hammer

Not any wonder that Big Al is having to abandon "fact" based arguments for "spiritual" based ones:

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth Sequel Stresses Spiritual Argument on Climate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate

Or that courts agree with him:

Judge Rules Activist's Beliefs on Climate Change Akin to Religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief

And it's not that Gore's any stranger to international financial scams:

Money-Washing Scandal Slams Gore and Cronies
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2635money_washing.html

Or that it runs in the family:
Communist Ties
http://crm114.com/algore/hammer.html

And yeah lots of people got killed in very big ways.

Bhopalnerbyl

"The Indian article was great. Forgot to mention that 10000 people died at bhopal and total deaths attributable to Chernobyl - 75"

I think the total number of deaths attributable to Chernobyl is still very much a cause for debate as cancer rates in the area are still be studied. I'd also be curious to know the pop. density of Bhopal and environs as opposed to Chernobyl, which, to me, would have an impact on immediate fatalities.

As well, my grave concern with a wholesale switch to nuclear power would be a question of how we would be able to keep them secure and ensure the proper screening of employees to eliminate or reduce the risk of sabotage or incompetence. My guess is that once you start to factor in those costs, the per-unit cost of the electricity would start to climb. In comparison, one can't do much damage to a solar or wind farm, or cause them to poison the air and water of the surrounding environment.

Those would be important questions requiring answers IMO before we threw the nuclear switch.

Chris, Science goes in the direction of the funding.

Nowadays, science is funding, profit, and career-entrenchment driven, not curiosity driven.

It is the "Prison Planet sites" and the like that are forcing the AGW cadre of scientists to visit and revisit their data and observations and to revise their theories and projections.

It is also thanks to the interested regular folks who choose to question what is being fed to us, that are also responsible for a serious examination as to the veracity of the scientific, political and corporate claim of humans causing global warming.

People are asking questions. In fact, now that people are paying attention to all this, in part due to all the fearmongering, they are asking better and more insightful questions.

The AGW establishment now find themselves having to answer these questions and the answers are quite unconvincing. There is plenty of "we didn't account for this or that" and "we have to revise our weighting in order for our models to meet the observations of the last few years" etc etc.

So what we have found out is that climatologists are no better at predicting the climate than meteorologists are at predicting the weather. We know the limitations of a meteorologists ability to tell us what kind of weather we are going to get over the next few days and take it with a grain of salt. What is happening now, is that people are also understanding the same thing about climatology and realizing that the same grain of salt needs to be applied to their prognostications.

Today, we are hearing squeaks on the axles of the AGW wagon. It is only a matter of time before the wheels start falling off.

Chris, if you want an article on Chernobyl

Then this is the one to check out:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

"So what we have found out

"So what we have found out is that climatologists are no better at predicting the climate than meteorologists are at predicting the weather. We know the limitations of a meteorologists ability to tell us what kind of weather we are going to get over the next few days and take it with a grain of salt"

Really? Didn't we already put this nonsensical statement to bed?

I'm more curious Doctor to have you explain away the flip-flop that currently seems to be underway regarding computer modelling.

"Nowadays, science is

"Nowadays, science is funding, profit, and career-entrenchment driven, not curiosity driven.

It is the "Prison Planet sites" and the like that are forcing the AGW cadre of scientists to visit and revisit their data and observations and to revise their theories and projections."

Bad science doesn't get much funding. It's a poor investment.

Prison Planet isn't doing anything except telling its readers what they want to hear. Call me when they break a story instead of linking to one.

Janie Jones, you forgot to mention

that Al Gore's daughter Karenna is married to Andrew N. Schiff.

Chris, It is a sad day when Prison Planet

is doing the job that the Mainstream Media is supposed to be doing.

And, if you are so dismissive of the "Prison Planet" type of sites on the internet, then what the heck are you doing on the Tyee?

Prison Planet vs The Tyee

Prison Planet:
"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. "

The Tyee:
"We welcome visual and written submissions and story ideas on a wide variety of topics of interest to British Columbians. "

One is a link farm for cherry-picked news articles. The other commissions original work and often runs stories that has even its biggest fans calling for its head. I assume you can discern the difference and figure out why one might consider the Tyee to be a better source for information.

security

I would suggest that security is very lax at those Bhopal type facilities all over the civilized world. Can you imagine if one went off in Calgary. With all those minimum wage dudes in charge of security, its certainly possible.

With a modern reactor,a Chernobyl type accident is as likely as a giant asteroid strike. The civilization ending global warming/peak oil crisis from which only nuclear power has any chance of saving us is getting close to a sure thing.

The Gore Connection

Yes, Dr. Alexander, that was a bit of an oversight on my part.

For readers not as in the know as the good doctor, Andrew Schiff is a descendant of Jacob Schiff who despite his sterling bio over at Wikipedia, according to the Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949 " . . . sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”

More on the Canadian connection to this fascinating story:
http://www.infobomber.org/1917-russian-revolution-courtesy-of-the-us-usual-suspects/

There is certainly always more to learn. It was a nice touch Hammer actually owned the asbestos shafts they dumped the Tsar and family down.

And while I'm at it, what is the carbon footprint of Obama's wars?

Security risks

"I would suggest that security is very lax at those Bhopal type facilities all over the civilized world. Can you imagine if one went off in Calgary. With all those minimum wage dudes in charge of security, its certainly possible.

With a modern reactor,a Chernobyl type accident is as likely as a giant asteroid strike."

Not sure if you missed my point, but what about the security risks from a proliferation of nuclear plants (and the attendant requirement for bullet-proof security), regardless of the tech used to prevent a Chernobyl-type accident?

So Chris, using your "link farm" measure of usefulness

OilbertaRedTory is to looked upon with disdain as he posts a lot of links in his comments, some of which is "copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner".

Sorry to beat up on OilbertaRedTory. I feel that his efforts contribute to the discussion.

As for the Tyee being a "better source of information"? Sure, just like Al Gore is a better source of information. O.K. O.K. I know we are supposed to take it easy on poor Al as he is rapidly becoming the Jimmy Swaggart of Global Warming and well on his way to being a liability.

With regards to The Tyee being a better source of information. Practically speaking. Nah. Just one more source out of many. All with faults and all with nuggets in the rubble. And all with an editorial bent.

Oilberta isn't a

Oilberta isn't a website.

Honestly, you guys move the goalposts so often I can hardly tell if we're playing by football, rugby, or Aussie rules.

Why not address the issue now raised a couple of times?

Why are the computer models all of a sudden great science when a sliver of (exaggerated) data agrees with your premise? Was it not just last week that computer models couldn't possibly be worth considering?

The Al Gore obsession is a thin veil over clear inconsistencies in the skeptics' approach. Climate change is an issue of science, not the campaign for the job of U.S. or even the high-school president. Further, if we are going to bring personallities into the equation, it's worth noting that the skepticism camp has more nuts in it than the hidey-hole of an industrious squirrel with OCD.

Half a century squandered ...

waiting for political leaders to control the Nukers :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwPlZZ8cBac

Meanwhile cost of energy for renewables just keep dropping :
www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2002.ppt

And Nukers still can't get a grip :
http://tinyurl.com/NukesOops

Nuclear Deaths by Chernobyl:

For those whose lips don't tire when they read :
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylebook.pdf

But desmogblog is a website

With regards to computer models, the strength of the model lies in its predictive ability. Whether or not it matches a snapshot in time is irrelevant regardless of whether it is supportive or contrary to one's position.

If somebody would produce a computer model that was generated ten years ago that accurately followed what has happened in the last few hundred years and what has happened up until today, then I will give it some credence. If the computer models are all works in progress and require re-jigging, then they are works in progress and have not been validated.

With regards to moving goalposts, I will say that those who changed the issue from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" as the champions of goalpost movers. With that name-change, there are no goalposts anymore. Burson-Marsteller could not have done a better job.

You have said that the skepticism camp has a lot of nuts in it. What is the relevance of that statement?

You talk about "slivers" and "exaggerated" data. Explain why they are slivers and exaggerated.

With regards to the "Al Gore" obsession. He is the champion of Global Warming. He is making presentations, he is testifying before government agencies, he is influencing non government agencies and he stands to gain financially from everything that he wants implemented. In other words, he wants to change what I do, how I do it, and how much and where my money goes.

G*d Damn Right I am going to snipe at Al Gore. In my books he is a grifter. Unfortunately he is a well connected and influential grifter and I am going to fight tooth and nail not to get conned by him and those of his ilk.

Climate Change is not just an issue of science. It is also an issue of politics and economics. And if it is not an issue of President or the like, then what the heck is Elizabeth May and the Greens doing running for political office.

Squirrels

I heard the squirrels are behaving especially stange this year. Maybe those chemtrails are not to prevent global warming after all.

Nuclear Security ;

1,750 accidental 'asteroids' in 7 years :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/nuclear-power-stations-inspector-watchdog

Yep - modern nuclear security sure is lax.

OilbertaRedTory

You're sense of humour is one of the reasons why I keep coming back to The Tyee.

OilbertaRedTory, It would be nice to see

you make more contributions to the Kaption Kontest

Last post for today

Can't be cooking the planet with too many Google searches!

"You have said that the skepticism camp has a lot of nuts in it. What is the relevance of that statement?"

If you want to hold up Al Gore as the climate change spokesmodel, then it's only fair to take a look at the behaviour and motives of the people championing skepticism. The drug-addicted, hate-speech spewing Rush Limbaugh comes to mind most immediately.

You talk about "slivers" and "exaggerated" data. Explain why they are slivers and exaggerated."

Prison Planet's headline:
Al Gore Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming.

First sentence:
"In a new development that is potentially devastating to the agenda to introduce a global carbon tax and a cap and trade system, Al Gore admits that the majority of global warming that occurred until 2001 was not primarily caused by CO2."

Relevant quote from actual article:
""The other issue where science could be an inconvenient truth for climate politics is the basic question of what is causing the greenhouse effect. Earlier this year Gore phoned two scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute, which is above the Manhattan coffee shop where the Seinfeld characters hung out. Drew Shindell, Schmidt, and colleagues run state-of-the-art computer calculations on how much various greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. The relative impact of each, they were finding, was different from what simpler models had suggested. As they reported last week in Science—findings that Gore got hold of last spring—methane accounts for about 27 percent of the man-made warming so far, largely because of how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols. Halocarbons have caused 8 percent of the warming; black carbon (sooty emissions from burning wood, dung, and diesel), 12 percent; carbon monoxide and volatile organics, 7 percent—and carbon dioxide, 43 percent."

So, as you can see, CO2 still remains the most largest single contributor to GHG according to the study. The article is technically accurate, but very misleading IMO. Further, an adjustment in the numbers doesn't strike me as 'potentially devastating.' Your mileage may vary.

Red again

What no mention of the hundreds of millions of people killed or sickened by highly radioactive emissions from coal plants. Lots of coal plants in the Ukraine. Lots of Russian atmospheric nuclear tests before that too.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

By comparison, we have 3 japanese workers killed in a fuel plant accident to add to the 75 at Chernobyl an accident which can never happen again. I would say the Red and his green freaks with their giant coal builds right to the present are the equivalent of a asteriod not a bunch of backed up toilets and broken water water pipes at old nuclear plants.

The cost of "renewables" is at a minimum 10 times that of nuclear and since the cost of nuclear is dropping precipitously that gap is increasing annually.

Keeping up with the tour :

"Climate Instability"
http://est.sandia.gov/earth/docs/National_Security_and_Climate_Instability.pdf

I put a dollar in one of those change machines.  Nothing changed.  ~George Carlin

Sucking Energy Through Hype :

Nuclear accidents can never happen :

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

Again.

Solar Energy Totally Hot

while keeping cool :

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/05/sun_shades_cool.html

Bias

Yes, Dr Alexande, if you're looking for an unbiased editorial staff - esp re GW - yer outta luck on the TYEE :-)

Its tolerance of dissenting opinion, however, is what makes the TYEE well worth visiting.

Nuclear France vs Renewables Denmark - The Winner is:

Hey, OilbertaRedTory, OILY for short. An appropriate name since you are determined to do what you can to make sure there is no substitute available for Oil when the Oil Crash occurs. What is Chevron promising you a free Hummer complete with a free lifetime supply of fuel – for being a bonafide player in the Fossil Fuel disinformation campaign?

A picture is worth a thousand words:

The results of Denmark’s INCREDIBLE SUBSIDIES on Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy are shown here:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKELEC.pdf

Note that only half of the Wind Energy shown is actually used in Denmark - half must be exported, where it displaces Cleaner & Greener Hydro. Denmark produces 881 gms CO2 per kwh generated (the highest in Europe). Nuclear France simply took a basic USA LWR design, standardized it and without much effort replaced virtually all their fossil fuel power generation. They produce 83 gms CO2 per kwh generated. See:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf

Table of Carbon Intensity of various nations. Your Germany & Denmark are at the BOTTOM of the list:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cI/page_335.shtml

All France has to do is continue there Nuclear build at a modest pace, complete electrification of transport & JOB DONE! Your Denmark & Germany aren’t anywhere close to being Carbon Neutral.

Of course, that was a result of your “…Soviet-style centrally planned supply-side energy systems that are so 20th century…”. Hmmm, free Health care for everyone, including home doctor visits in the middle of the night. 4 day, 32 hr work week. 2 months payed holidays every year. Terrible what that Soviet style France has done. But your own favorite American Wall St., George Bush, rape-and-pillage Capitalist Specials, support no health care, 3 weeks paid holidays and 10 hr workdays, 5 days a week. And they’re pouring money into your Wind Power Scam because they get 60% back within 5 yrs due to unbelievable accelerated depreciation subsidies.

Kopenhagen Kountdown

Is this the global warming thread that will wake us up?

Greenpeace's Biomass/Biofuel/CHP SCAM blown apart

John Mackay has a critique of Greenpeace’s CHP plan, on pages 144 to 154 of his highly regarded paper, " Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air"

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

CHP works best with Nuclear Power, small reactors like Hyperion, Toshiba 4S or Slowpoke 3, buried underground supplying heat & electricity to Northern communities, mine sites etc. Also large nuclear plants do cheap CHP desalination. To see how Denmark’s Wind plus CHP plan is a failure:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/#more-1886

Denmark is going to have to PAY other countries to take its Wind Energy. And if they try to balance their Wind Power with their CHP, they will produce excess Heat, not needed, in particular at peak load times around 5-8 pm when electricity usage supplants heat. Denmark’s Wind Special wouldn’t work if they couldn’t rely on other countries to accept the Wind Energy, without REALLY EXPENSIVE energy storage. And they still must import Nuclear Electricity from France.

And the Greens, Denmark, Germany & Greenpeace are all big on Biofuels & Biomass burning. One of the most heinous crimes against both humanity and nature. Raping the Soil of nutrients in a completely UNSUSTAINABLE way. Depleting phosphorous from the soil that must be replaced with fertilizers, when Peak Phosphorous is a particularly SCARY coming event. Forcing subsistence farmers to move from coastal areas where Biofuel production is maximum, to tropical rainforests, where they must clear the forests to plant food crops. Wasting vast quantities of precious fresh water for Biofuel & Biomass production. Corn & Soybean which once went for livestock feed is going to Greenpeace’s biofuel production, leading to decimation of natural forested land for replacement livestock feed & human food production.

The Green’s Biofuel, Biomass burning Earth Killing Scam:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=advanced-biofuels-will-st

The Dirty Truth about Biofuels:

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/pf_bio.htm

Indonesian Rainforests decimated to supply energy according to the Greens / Greenpeace’s No Nukes Scam:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kessler/indonesias-rainforests-an_b_337920.html

Alice Friedemann - Peak Soil, Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America – the Green’s plan ain’t so green:

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

Allons enfants de la Patrie ...

Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

http://videos.sortirdunucleaire.org/spip.php?article206

Aux armes citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons

Or perhaps a gentler transition for les maudits anglais:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-2bN5rhNLs

Nuclear Subs are a cheaper source of Power than Solar

An excellent video on the absurdity of the Greenpeace / Greens / EU nutty Green Plan. Pain & suffering for the old, the sick & the poor. Lot’s of big bucks for the rich (notice how Greenpeace seems to have no problem with the extravagant energy wasteful lifestyles of its rich patrons like Gore & the Rockefellers)

http://www.ivc6.com/greenfieldtv/outofcontrol2.html

Germany with it's 15 yrs of massive subsidies, in 2006 only got 4.8% of its electricity from Wind and 0.35% from Solar. 47.5% from filthy Coal.

Sunny Spain has had a rude awakening, about Solar Energy, after figuring out that all they are getting for taxpayer costs of $26.4 billion is a miserable 450 MW average output or an ASTOUNDING $58,670 PER KW!! And Germany's Solar program, by 2013 it is expected to be 1375 MW avg. Which will cost the German taxpayer US$113 billion, that’s $82,000 per kw. See:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/09/germany-crunched-by-the-numbers/

I recall awhile back the Canadian Gov’t was interested in getting a basic Nuclear Submarine. Well now, the latest & greatest US Nuclear Submarine, the Virginia class, arguably the most technically sophisticated machine every built. Designed in three years, built in five. The latest build at $2 billion each. Each Sub has a GE SG9 50 MW nuclear reactor. With a 33 yr period between refueling. So let’s see $2B for 50 MW or $40k per kw. So compared to Spain & Germany’s $58k to $82k per kw for unreliable, intermittent, no-power-when-you-badly-need-it Solar, the Nuclear Sub is pretty cheap. Now Ontario is embarked on a similar Mega-Subsidy 44.3 to 80 cents per kwh program as Sunny Spain & Germany.

Conclusion. Cancel Ontario’s megaSolar subsidies and buy the latest and greatest US nuclear subs. Park one in dry dock, run a power cable from it to the nearest grid node, and keep the other sub for Canada’s Navy. Cost: about the same as Ontario’s Solar subsidy program.

Yeechhts

Don't you hate it when your sources turn anti-Nuke on you ?

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=493&Itemid=66

Krummel! Can't even rely on German nuclear engineering :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-635788,00.html

Sheesh - it's like asking a coke-head to switch to crack:
http://www.everythingnuclear.org/

“…CO2 still remains the most largest single contributor to GHG …

If you ignore water vapor which is 95% of all GHG

And mankind’s contibution to GHG whether you include or exclude water vapor is insignificant.

U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000)

Man-made and natural GHG Excluding Water Vapor
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 99.438%
% Natural: 96.230%
% Man-made: 3.206%

Methane (CH4)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 0.471%
% Natural: 0.384%
% Man-made: 0.086%

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 0.084%
% Natural: 0.080%
% Man-made: 0.004%

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 0.007%
% Natural 0.0067%:
% Man-made 0.0005%:

Total naturally occurring GHG (excluding water vapor): 96.70%
Total manmade contribution GHG (excluding water vapor): 3.29%

Man-made and natural GHG Including Water Vapor

Water Vapor
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 95.000%
% Natural: 94.999%
% Man-made: 0.001%

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 3.618%
% Natural: 3.502%
% Man-made: 0.117%

Methane (CH4)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 0.360%
% Natural: 0.294%
% Man-made: 0.066%

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 0.950%
% Natural: 0.903%
% Man-made: 0.047%

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
% of All Greenhouse Gases: 0.072%
% Natural: 0.025%
% Man-made: 0.047%

Total naturally occurring GHG (excluding water vapor): 99.72%
Total manmade contribution GHG (excluding water vapor): 0.28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Small correction:

The last lines should read including water vapor:

Total naturally occurring GHG (including water vapor): 99.72%
Total manmade contribution GHG (including water vapor): 0.28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Kooks in the Kamps

Chris, you have still not indicated the relevance of nutty people in either the pro or anti warming camp.

I avoid characterizing any person or persons as a nut as, well, who the hell am I to put a label on someone I don't really know. What yardstick does one use? Do I compare everyone else to me? To Mother Theresa. Or do I compare them to Yuri Geller? Or maybe Howie Mandel? You might say I am a hypocrite because I poke fun at Al Gore and consider him to be a nut.

Al Gore is not a nut. He is a businessman and he is a self-proclaimed champion and lobbyist for carbon dioxide reduction and trading. He is a major player in an investment company that stands to cash in big time should we all be carbon rationed. He is, therefore, fair game for criticism and for calling out his B.S. when he delivers it. The fact that he was vice president of the U.S. once counts for diddley-squat. He is a lobbyist now. No different from Karlheinz Schrieber and just as trustworthy.

I have yet to see the pro-AGW folks correct Mr. Gore's mistakes, misrepresentations, exaggerations and conflicts of interest. I have not read anything from the Tyee contributing authors correct Al Gore's misrepresentations, but I have on Prison Planet and the like. Ergo, one has to look at a lot of sources for comparative material.

With regards to slivers and exaggerations. That was your characterization, not mine. In my best recollection, I have yet to use hyperbolic terminology to indicate any flaws in the pro-AGW theories. What other sources choose to use is their business. Hyperbole makes for good press. It does not make for good argument. Furthermore, when hyperbolic fear-mongering does not pan out, people tend to tune out the next hyperbole as "wolf" being called twice.

At any rate, Chris, I wish I had your ability to determine, who is, and who is not a nut, as I probably would have saved myself some grief in the past. The same goes for determining websites that are bona fide as opposed to being fronts for special interest groups.

As for being able to use hyperbole, I do that all the time. Just not here (except for wheels falling off the wagon comment I have made before, if which I apologize)

Oily & the AstroTurfers LAMBASTED by REAL GREEN Humanitarians

Oily, don't you hate it when REAL GREENS NOT ASTRO-TURFERS like yourself, realize that Nuclear Power is the ONLY SOLUTION:
Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace – who has an actual CONSCIENCE – realizes Nuclear is Salvation for the Earth & its good citizens:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

James Lovelock, the World’s Foremost environmentalist, not an Astroturfer like Oily & his buddies says: Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution:

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, endorses Nuclear Energy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/what-stewart-brand-creato_b_329851.html

Gwyneth Cravens, a former No-Nukes protestor, takes a brave and compassionate stance - Nuclear Energy: The Power to Save the World:

http://www.cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/content/blogcategory/7/30/

Steve Kirsch, how the AstroTurfers, like Oily, Greenpeace, the Greens, David Suzuki & Al Gore are deluding the World in a reprehensible, pro Fossil Fuel Renewable Energy Scam:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html

Greenpeace leader in the hot seat, caught lying about the Greenland Ice Sheet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE&feature=player_embedded

Brazil Energy Realists send Greenpeace running with its tail between its legs:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Brazil_defeats_greenpeace.html

Greenpeace anti-nuke Arctic Explorers have to be rescued by a Russian Nuclear Powered Icebreaker ( the Wind powered version just wouldn’t do the job):

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/euroarctic/amnessida.asp?programID=2460&Nyheter=0&grupp=2581&artikel=892464

Radio-glowing Greenies

and re-inventing fire :
http://www.youtube.com/user/RockyMtnInstitute#p/u

Don't ya just love a plethora of salvations ?

'One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.'
Richard Dawkins

The Copenhagen Countdown ads

Why is it that these UN ads always seem to exploit brown people in their advertisements? The brown people they bomb, poison, starve, rob and displace always seem to make good image for their ads.

“Hey, don’t you wanna help the brown people? Then jump on board the Climate Change Train and you’ll make a lot of brown people happy.”

When Rainy Days and Gas-days

get you down :

Watervapour - clouds - rain : water cycle.
Human addition to water cycle : .....

Human additions to Carbon cycle:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

A little concentration can't hurt; care for more Kool-Aid ? In ppm ?

Counting Down the White Man's Burden

Making a lot of brown people happy:
http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

Making a lot of yellow people happy :
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/05/content_11316039.htm

"Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!"
Rudyard Kipling

OilbertaRedTory, you bring up the most interesting stuff. Chris,

I have reached the point of seeing myself flogging the same dead horse so I will leave the last word to you.