Something stinks!

I would never rely on the government to provide accurate data when it concerns greenhouse gas emissions. It's no secret that neither the Federal nor Provincial government is genuinely interested in reducing CO2 levels. So I am sure this is just some trick to try and convince the public that there is no need to worry about global warming since they are reducing these harmful pollutants right now. Well this is one voter who doesn't believe this malarkey for one second.

Hey, I got some Bre-X shares for you!

I would not believe any statistic that cones from any governmental agency. In Canada, bureaucratic fiddling of the books is a national pastime.

Crooks are over seeing crooks and statistics are nothing but damned lies. Unlike the UK, which has the independent National Audit Office, which audits government figures, Canada has a beleaguered Auditor General, which has a small budget to fight wide spread government fraud.

So any statistical numbers that come out from government hare as about as useful as a Bre-X share!

don't step in it

Dang! I thought maybe I'd forgotten to log off.
Now I will go back out and read what others have to say.
Offhand though:
I would not trust these bozoz to measure the height of the tide let alone how much gas emissions Campbell and Arnold think is just fine

I know better but:

When Uranus is the only planet not warming there is bound to be trouble..........have you checked the rest of your anatomy?
Sorry I could not resist the temptation.

Guess I should have read the article

They included the sources that indicate people in BC are travelling less by car.

Hey Grumpy, that means SkyTrain must be working eh? :)

If the Sun ever shines again

go outside and sit in it. Notice how warm you get..got it?

The sun

Yes, it feels warmer in sunny spots than it does shady spots. Is that the crux of your argument?

The air smells fine too, does that mean the cars going by don't produce pollution?

Munroe, Faith=Religion Not Science

So you will cheerfully pay higher taxes on Faith alone? Interesting!

You know we really can't call a conspiracy what is so out in the open! It is all there for anyone to see.
Take a look at Fenton Communications' client list.....See all those wonderful Foundations who contribute to all those wonderful Green NGO's all being groomed and managed by the same PR firm.....which doesn't like to be called a PR firm.
http://www.fenton.com/pages/3_ourwork/1_clients/clients.htm

If nothing else, it sure is an efficient way to keep people "on message" and make sure the money is there for it. One stop shopping!

Fenton Communications has close ties to the Tides Foundation which in turn funds the David Suzuki Foundation. Well the various Suzuki Foundations do all that good work, and if the money comes with a string or so, well, they do such good work, and we should have faith.

All are well meaning people who for some weird reason just got it all wrong.

It's because they love the earth so much that they are willing to sacrifice so much.......of us.

Have you bought your carbon credits yet?

Frank

I remember when you did this with "should we be in Afghanistan"
I disengage from the merry-go-round.

Look at the video and look up Avery. Do your bleepin homework and stop being a [EDITED FOR OFFENSIVE CONTENT -TYEE EDITOR] obscuratist.

Carbon credits

And you will cheerfully pollute the planet till the cows come home secure in the knowledge there's no such thing as emissions... interesting.

Sure, so let's only believe scientists who were born billionaires and totally independent. And self-educated too so that their profs didn't influence them.

I doubt munroe has bought any carbon credits lately but I bet he has a monthly natural gas bill and probably forks out a sizeable chunk of cash for gasoline too. Hereafter collectively referred to as "fossil fuel credits".

Quote:I remember when you

I'm always happy to argue why we should be in Afghanistan and anywhere else that wants us too. Assuming there is in fact a place called Asia and a country called Afghanistan and that Harper doesn't just shoot one of our soldiers himself now and then and claim he was killed far away.

Too bad, it was fun.

Me? I'm not the one refusing to believe people who have studied the issue. I'm the one that is taking the side of the majority of peer-reviewed scientific opinion. Ergo, doesn't that mean you're the gate-keeper for the oil industry?

What's your contribution to the fossil-fuel consumer economy every month?

Look up Obscurantist Frank.

I have a 21 year old vehicle which has 163,000 Km on it. I do much walking. Everything I own is second hand.

Do not deliberatly confuse pollution with CO2 emmissions.

Do not mistake deliberately constructed false consensus for the truth

Dear Mopled

Faith has nothing to do with confidence. I know a number of people at Suzuki and I know they are much better placed and educated to evaluate the data then I am.

I believe, however, you have confirmed for me that my confidence is not displaced. If a conspiracy theorist is willing to go so far as to tar the Suzuki Foundation with being on a "string", then they have tainted their position, in my opinion.

Quote:Do not deliberatly

If we don't want pollution shouldn't that mean less "emissions"? Let's assume that it does.

So when people like Monbiot write in their book that we need to reduce emissions because its hurting the world and you disagree doesn't that mean you're on the side of those wanting to burn old tires and toss our garbage into every virgin stream?

Monbiot by the way is against the whole carbon credits bit. Just as he's not impressed by reducing "emission intensities".

And don't mistake consensus for rule by and for the interests of the elite. And don't mistake paid-off shills for independent voices.

Obscurantist :
1. opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge.
2. deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.

That certainly sounds like the fossil fuel industry and its herd of paid-for shills to me.

Exxon Nuclear since 1968

Uranium prices are up something like 1500% in a fairly short time and the Feds are talking burying nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield again.

British Petroleum and Shell are sponsoring a conference this month in London put on by Monbiot's publisher The Guardian on Global Warming (all .6*C in 100 years worth). Both firms along with Suncor are heavily into wind and solar.

The fossil fuel companies got on board Global Warming a long time ago. Sorry I had to be the one to break the news, Frank. Oh, by the way, there is no boogie man either, besides being no Santa Claus.

Frank, you're not understanding the

point about the Middle Ages being warmer.

The point is that if the temperatures in the Middle Ages were roughly similar, equal or above those of today then it is not a catastrophe for temperatures to rise to the level of the Middle Ages today as humans beings will be able to cope today at least as well as they could seven hundred years ago. When you consider the technological advances made since then, the 1 degree per hundred years that they're speculating for the next hundred years obviously means absolutely nothing.

Fossil fuels

So your point is that uranium prices mean the fossil fuel boys are lambs? Does this mean that Uranium City in Saskatchewan is the richest town in Canada? Good for them. You might have also noticed the rise in price at the gas pumps too.

So who's richer, the uranium industry or the oil industry? The scientists of the world are being funded perhaps by Lorne Calvert on the sly?

As for BP and Shell, if their little investments in wind and solar constitute "heavily", then what word describes their oil operations? Grotesque?

Now since the fossil fuel industry is "on board". How are they doing? Have they reduced emissions caused by the burning of oil? By how much? Cause I heard the burning of fossil fuels is actually on the increase but that doesn't jive with your view that the oil companies are all global warming believers now and only running wind and solar operations.

As for the Canadian Shield, the government wants to dump oil-caused emissions there too.

Truman

Fine, so since there's no downside to polluting the planet you and I should go buy a pair of Chevy Avalanches with 8.1 litre engines? Maybe we could get other Tyee people to join in and we could get a group discount.

If no one is worried about pollution/emissions then the first thing I want removed is all those taxes on gasoline because those Avalanches do have a nasty litre per 100km ratio.

And I want to get a low efficiency furnace instead of a heat pump because making Canada warmer is a good thing. In fact, maybe Harper will give me a tax credit for increasing my emissions.

And forget natural gas, I want a furnace that runs on blue coal.

ov,did you say 'paid shills?' You're not

serious. And yes we do deny that global warming is going on to the extent claimed by the global swarmers.

And we do deny also that Carbon Dioxide has the ability in an open system to cause global warming of temperatures. Water vapour does almost all of the solar radiation absorption duty--between 70 and 90 percent depending on the source of information.

And yes there is overwhelming evidence that other planets in our solar system are heating up slightly also, concurrently with increases in our atmosphere, which makes it sensible to believe that the increases share the same cause.

There's no people on the other planets so it's probably not humanogenic, eh, or even alienogenic.

So it's probably the sun, you guys. Smarten up.

Glaciers go down to the sea; that's what they've always done, eh. And then they break off in the water. Nothing new going on.

Frank, you might think this is old-fashioned

but there's this place in the bible which claims that no good fruit can come from an evil tree or something like that.

Yes, pollution's bad;it kills thousands of people every year who have compromised respiratory capacity.

We should figure out ways to stop polluting the atmosphere. But this totally stupid nonsense that C02, which is needed by all photosynthetically-derived life on earth is causing our atmosphere to heat up to the extent that human's can't cope, is not supported by any serious science.

As a matter of fact, Frank, it's a joke.

Aw, how do you manage to miss the point so

No, that Exxon profits from the GW/CC scare and the oil and uranium industries are connected at the top.

Nobody wanted nuclear for 39 years and they still don't, but they now have been braiwashed into acceptance. They think the world is going to bake and they are more afraid of that than radiation leaking into the water table.

Exxon will finally realize profits from its 1968 $2 billion investment. That a lot of money to have put on the shelf for that long a time.

The Oil companies will prosper as always, but we won't if the CO2 lunacy goes further.

And which "emmissions" are you talking about? If you mean NOX ok, if you mean harmless CO2 that is something else again.

Are you really that confused or is this a show for slower folk?

Serious science

Considering the burden of proof on the word "serious" around here I don't think we can believe much. I would go back to my earlier points if anyone wants to try and "prove" there was a middle ages and the earth isn't flat. I know you can't.

As for pollution, good luck with telling people that we're too insignificant to cause global warming but pollution is a serious problem that we have to address. If the earth can shrug off our gasoline emissions then it can can shrug off our coal burning.

Exxon

Exxon is profiting from the global warming scare? How so? Fuel efficient cars are good for a gasoline company I assume?

No it isn't. Exxon sells more gasoline than that on a slow weekend. You may want to do some research and study up on just how much gasoline is sold on this planet in a year.

Ah yes, because without CO2 emissions we wouldn't have an economy. I think Baird and Harper agree with you.

The Nuclear Industry benefits

because it is being pushed as "clean" just because it does not emit CO2.

Hello...is anybody out of the trance yet?

We are a carbon based life form...so is everything that grows on earth. CO2 is a component of the LIFE CYCLE. It's levels have been higher before cars and industrialization than now. All peer reviewed Frank.

Get it?

We are being scammed by people we trusted!

Punch line

We are selling far more dollars worth of gasoline than we are of nuclear power. We will continue to do so as long as the opil companies can. And as you said, the oil industry owns or will own every type of energy there is so they will profit the same regardless of what our energy future is.

So, tell me why it is that we are being scammed when the same people profit either way?

We will be taxed

and charged for CO2 emmisions. Hello?
Carbon tax, Carbon trading....ring a bell?

Bye I'm off to dinner.

mopled

You left out who is the big benefactor of this carbon trading scheme.

Ov Why do you want to punish

the victims....us? Wouldn't a smarter way to go be to demand better milage through legislation.

We need an energy policy, not blind taxation.

Campbell just gave away how many rivers in BC for run-od=the river electricity generation.

The tax money you want to give away for alternate energy projects will go to already private generators. Hydro was forbidden by law to do anything more. Remember? It was one of Campbell's first things to do when in power....gut Hydro!

Get your brain in gear before you start taxing people.

The usual suspects

The biggest beneficiary of carbon trading will be the carbon traders....like Goldman Sachs, the biggest brokerage house on Wall Street which has just gone on to the business.

Your exhale has been commodified Frank. Ever hear your elders complain in their querilous tones, why next they will be taxing us for breathing? Well, they finally figured out how to do it. And as far as I can tell, you and Ov want to be the first in line to get your tax stamp.

We should get off oil as soon as possible, but we are not the problem. The people who make the rules are. The people who make the vehicles are.

Did you realize that the rape of Alberta proceeds on the lowest royalties of any oil producing jurisdiction in the world?

Any you want to tax us too, Ov?

Evil govdernments

Very old news. Except to Albertans.

Anyway, so that's it? The whole global warming conspiracy comes down to governments wanting to find a new way to tax us?

Not the nuclear, wind and solar industries which are owned by the oil companies anyway, not the rich elites who will also make money with or without global warming, it all comes down to government taxation.

Sounds like you have to put down the Fraser Institute anti-gov't pamphlets for awhile.

The Devil is in the details

Just as in religion, you seem to be looking for one Satan. All sorts of agendas are running simultaneously.

Dr. Avery points out in that video I posted earlier....Frank, did you bother to watch it?
http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=31990@wbbm.dayport.com&cid=6

that Benjamin Santer of Laurence Livermore Labs, who was the lead author of the IPCC science section in 1996, removed five statements that said there was no "human fingerprint" on the warming we've been experiencing. He then inserted a statement that said they had found a human fingerprint...with no supportive evidence

He then admitted what he had done publicly about 6 mos later. In spite of that, he is still in charge!

Laurence Livermore Labs is the prime lab for the US Department of Energy, which used to be The Atomic Energy Agency. The long standing complaint has been that the DOE has never supported green renewable energy research and that over 95% of its funding goes to support nuclear research.

Just like James Hansen, in 2005 Santer got a good boy prize too.

We are not the victims

Here in the developed world we consume at a rate that puts the ecological footprint equivalent to four planets, whereas if we consumed at the same rate as the 90% which make up the rest of the world we would be approaching sustainability. The victims are the poor little brown people that have to starve so that we can burn biofuels in our SUVs.

Taxation is an effective means of changing human behavior, and at the same time is revenue generating, unlike police enforcement which costs money and resources. Europe uses much less gasoline because the tax on gasoline is so high. It's an incentive not to consume. So I say bring on the tax and raise it to however high it takes to get people to reduce their consumption to sustainable levels.

Best way to reduce waste is to reduce consumption.

Frank, I was under the impression that the Fraser Institute doesn't really mind government at all provided it's corporate controlled.

So don't burn biofuels

and stop falling for the scam that CO2 is our enemy!

Most of Europe has no oil or gas. The taxes are high to discourage use because of balance of payments considerations...it has always been true and has nothing to do with the Global Warming Scam.

Ov, all I can say is Go Sacrifice Yourself if you want, but leave the rest of us out of your need to be a martyr for nothing.

You want to tax the only means of transportation for most of the population.
Where is the public transportation that people can substitute for their cars?

Where is the guarantee that gas tax money will not be spent on more fripperies like the Olympics?

Fraser Insitute is a group

Fraser Insitute is a group of taxpayer frauds, as they are the Liberal's voice and guide on BS!
Check Campbell's Greening of BC, not.
http://www.wildernesscommitteevictoria.org/videos.php
and at Google Video at:
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=ring+legislature
Money now clearcutting right down to OUR rivers, and f--k the future!
Now that R Klein is gone let's see what and where his big reward for selling out ALB and Canada?

First build the transportation

It can be done with bond issues. Then you can tax gas. But at least get the system in place first, otherwise you risk the money disappearing. $2.00 a litre would shut down not just individual drivers, but the transport of everything we depend on...like FOOD.
Actually, Campbell and Arnie are pushing the hydrogen highway idea. That's where the privatized power will go, but that's a long way off.

I post when I feel moved by the issue involved and I know something about it. I tend not to post when I don't.

mopled

No, I asked why I should spend the time watching a Dr Avery without knowing why his opinion is more important than the others you dismiss.

Besides I still have yet to watch the video Maestro asked me to watch "proving" global warming is a socialist plot.

A conspiracy requires one Satan. You can't have a multi-headed hydra of a conspiracy where the only payoff is to one head, democratic governments taxing us more. (They can do that without global warming by the way) What is the gain for the other heads of this beast? Nothing.

Meanwhile, every little thing is being waved as if its proof of a wife-ranging conspiracy involving energy companies, scientists, gov'ts etc. If David Suzuki's mutual funds manager bought shares in a nuclear energy company it would suddenly be waved as proof of the biggest conspiracy in history according to the "global warming is a hoax" set.

I just don't buy it. There's no Satan, there's no motive, there's no payoff. In fact, the evidence shows the business and gov't "elites" fighting against the ecology movement for the last 40 years. That evidence shows the elites funding anybody that has a degree and says its a hoax. Then suddenly they start to take the ecology people seriously and try and figure out how to profit from it and the reaction is that all those 60's hippies were the seed of a massive global conspiracy by gov't to sell carbon credits? C'mon.

And again, Monbiot and lots of other ecology types are against carbon credit trading. Yet they're still labeled gatekeepers and King Canutes because being anti-carbon trading isn't good enough if they have the gall to believe the science on global warming.

Also I find it bizarre to claim that CO2 is one of the basis of life and therefore that the scientists are wrong. That's like someone telling me that computers don't actually have a tiny little man inside making all those calculations. I am pretty sure that anyone with a PhD in a scientific subject is well aware of what CO2 is. Telling them its important is probably not going to give them a eureka moment.

ov

You're right, the Fraser Institute is not against government, its only against the power of government being used to help people instead of simply acting as the strong arm for the business and finance sectors. When it comes to gov't ripping up contracts, attacking rights of workers and throwing people in jail, they're all for big government. I'm sure the FI boys would be all in favour of the return of debtor prisons too.

Frank, you're not that dumb

Benjamin Santer was rewarded, just like James Hansen for deliberate distortions of the science.

Ben Santer of Laurence Livermore Labs...so nuclear oriented that they applied for a "permit to pollute" with 450 lbs of DU a yearfor the next 5 years, the area near Tracy, California, for weapons tests.

Ben Santer ADMITTED PUBLICLY
to having changed the 1996 IPCC report after everyone else had left, from it saying THERE IS NO HUMAN FINGERPRINT ON GLOBAL WARMING to the opposite.

The fakery is so blatant.
The ties to nuclear interests are equally blatant.

Are you really going to walk around carrying your own bucket of sand for your head for the rest of your life?

The evidence shows government and foundation funding for the Global Warming Hoax...with Exxon playing at being the big bad wolf. It's called collusion. Do you really doubt that they are capable of it?

It's all a scam Frank...and you are the mark.

Thanks, ov

Thanks for the link to the Georgia Strait article. What a clear case it makes.

Watch that Sigh of Relief

The Georgia Straight article is just another typical enviro-jihadist rant.

Like many religions theirs is right and there is no room for any other discussion; discussing is over.

Then;

QED, the writer exclaims. Well, glad you're happy now. Ever wonder if the PR guy at Exxon decided that it's better to join 'em and cease the PR battle? The price of oil can now go up and the enviros will be happy. More of the Amazon forest can be cut down - as it is for soy bio-diesel (distributors have already built warehouses way up river, while the trees are still burning and before the roads are in and before the crop has been planted), move into bio-fuels in N. America, too bad about the price of corn/maize going up.

No room for discussing as to why last years hurricane season was a flop. Wasn't it supposed to be big hit? Any answers as to why today we read that Argentina is suffering a freeze? The Straight article is tainted since the writer continually criticizes select media in a typical and disparaging way. It's nauseating and sophomoric.

Here's an interesting chat from PBS:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/_GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf

Czech President Vaclav Klaus

Vaclav Klaus agrees with professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

Of course, future generations, if the global elite are successful, will not possess the capacity for “bemused amazement,” as they will be bio-chipped, medicated, surveilled via the pantopticon and, to use the Matrix metaphor, reduced to mere batteries, that is to say rendered into a greatly reduced, through the coming Great Culling (i.e., “population control”), slave class in perpetual service to their psychopathic rulers, the heirs of Al Gore, Tony Blair, and the Gang of Eight.

“The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature,” Klaus notes, and follows with specific suggestions:

“Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures.”

Certainly not, but then the idea here is not to save the planet and humanity from fantastical climatological cataclysm, but rather, as noted above, impose a water tight social control mechanism, one far more effective in frightening the blinkered masses than the current emphasis on manufactured terrorism, almost effortlessly forgotten, unlike “climate change.”

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=897

The G8

The G8 are eco-fascists? You read that and yet somehow you bothered to keep reading?

realisticman

Being as you believe all the scientists of the world are involved in a massive cover-up and that only scientists who write articles that aren't peer-reviewed can be believed I assume you also think the moon is made of tasty green cheese that the mandarins of the dairy industry have prevented us from enjoying?

Roquefort a la manderine

Frank, I often enjoy your considered eloquence but don't assume that I believe one thing or another. I am not convinced either way on the warming subject. I do have a distaste for pop-science and much of the panic is related to an underlying mindset that is fashionably contra innumerable phenomena, including human progress.

Objective proof is hard to find, I therefore, remain undecided and quite content to wait until, like many panics that have passed this way before, this little storm will blow over.

Meanwhile, when's the sun gonna shine in Vancouver?

realisticman

Sorry, but being able to reference the dairy industry was too delicious an opportunity to pass up. I'm still reading your link.

You reference "pop-science". I can understand the term being tossed at some 2nd year biology students out for a hike and having a free-ranging discussion but how can you use it when referring to the majority of the world's scientists studying this subject and submitting articles for peer-review?

But I do. I always make my own bias quite clear. When I don't know I say I don't know. Just as here I state I'm not a scientist and I'm not a science teacher like Davey-boy either. When you take a position contrary to my own I just naturally assume that that is what you believe.

As I said above, I am pre-disposed to accept the "global warming hoax" because it agrees with my own inherent beliefs which is that all that pollution we generate can't be good. On the other hand, if the scientific consensus had come out against me I would have changed my mind and bought that 8.1 litre Avalanche to pull my little twin Mercury engine ocean cruiser :-)

Frank, G.West always has such admiration

for the peer-review system too. I remember especially when he advised me that my ideas on evolution amount to zilch because they haven't been peer-reviewed or published. (Co-incidence?), but peer-reviewers have points of views also. At best the peer-review system can only be relied upon to check data and facts--not the interpretation of data and facts. Peer-reviewers have opinions, like the rest of us. By the way, are you filling in for G.West these days, Frank, or are you...oh never mind. The intelligence level, syntax, sense of humour, impeccable grammar and spelling, sense of irony, political point of view, disgust with anything mildly not on board with conventional science etc. are all exactly identical to those of G.West.

Pathetic Frank

That you jump all over Kurt Nimmo's editorial comment and ignore the truth of the Czech President's statements. Here they are unadorned:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621%2Cdwp_uuid%3D73adc504-2ffa-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8%2Cprint%3Dyes.html

We are being driven to work against our own best interests by faked science by paid off scientists and I'm not talking about the pittances handed out by Exxon, but the really big sums from the Heinz Family Foundation, the Department of Energy and the Dan David Foundation to both James Hansen of NASA and Ben Santer of Livermore Labs.

Truman

Truman, are you suggesting I'm G West? You and I pre-date G West's participation on this forum by a couple of years so you should know better. As for "filling in", I'm insulted, I'm the original, G came much later.

And yes, G and I do share many political views although we disagree strongly with each other on things like Afghanistan which we argued on here and in email for 2 months.

For what its worth, we also call the same town, home. So yes, there are similarities.

But I think our senses of humour are different and I'm less emphatic but you and G may disagree.

mopled

The Czech prez is entitled to his enlightened opinion but very little has ever been said in the Czech Republic that has swayed my belief on any issue and I doubt this will be the first.

And I wouldn't call my one-liner "jumping all over" his comment.

As the quote by the scientist in the Georgia Strait said, wouldn't there be more money in saying this issue needs more study than by claiming the need for a lot more study to be over and it being the time for some action?

If funding is the raison d'etre of the "global warming hoax" there wouldn't be any consensus ever found. But it seems that isn't the case.

Beware the New Inquisitors

Frank, when I read, "...when there is no other side...", and this is a position increasing taken as gospel I know that we are nearing if not within, a new inquisition. Having lived through the Global Cooling pandemic I take umbrage, particularly when the gospel is riddled swipes at other things such as mass-media and globalization in attempts to make it legit. Au contraire, the linking lessens the strength of the message whether it's a leftie or a rightist wielding the plume.

Truman Green, be careful not to give GWest too many plaudits.

realisticman

And did you take that same view when Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney were pushing the return to the 1800's via Friedman and his Chicago-school economics? And you had people like Eric Malling of W5 declaring "there is no alternative"?

Or do you believe that there is no single path for a successful economic system?

As for Global Cooling, I too lived through it, it wasn't ever more than a blip on the media screens. It would pop up here and there in discussions but nothing in comparison to global warming.

That's because there was not the

media blitz that we've experienced around warming.
Cooling is still slated to happen, but after 2020 due to sun cycle change. Having to have the heat on this late in the season is a first for me, though. At least it's not snowing, as it did in Sweden last week.

Mopled

We've not experienced a "media blitz" saying global warming is happening, we've instead experienced a "media blitz" about the issue of global warming. I would suggest we have heard more about the consequences of going green than we have the consequences of not doing so.

By the way, my heat is on this morning too. But its not a first. We've never turned our heat completely off, there have always been cool days in the summer season around here.

Are you perhaps suggesting we are not seeing the warmest years on record?

Anyway, I'm out of here for a couple of hours, father's day lunch with my daughters at a restaurant. See all you gents when I return.

The key word is record

We haven't been keeping records that long, but since the Medieval Warm Period's average was 2-5* warmer than now, who knows how warm we've been compared to what has happened within the historical period of the last 2000 years.
BTW I just remembered this oldie but goodie:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
It is worthwhile checking out the names of the 60 scientists who wrote to Harper last year saying in part:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

mopled old bean

For the sake of argument let's say this is absolutely true. But, like the idea that scientists have never heard of carbon being the basis of life, would not scientists already be as well aware of the historical record to at least the same degree as people watching a PBS special on how climate has changed and forced the movement of peoples in the past?

I know I'm quite up to date on how people settled in places along the southern coasts of Asia while other places such as Europe were still locked in ice. Now, if I know that, I am pretty sure the scientists around the world studying this issue are aware of that. For example, grapes used to be grown in Nova Scotia according to the Vikings. Well, grapes are being grown in Nova Scotia again today. Just as scientists have also told us the North used to be a lot warmer. Do we disbelieve them?

In other words, I doubt there's a single scientist anywhere that thinks temperatures have never changed before.

One thing is for sure though, previous temperature variations have had a considerable impact on life on this planet.

As for the list of 60 names you provided. I did see Tim Ball who has been pretty much discredited and a few others such as economists who I doubt have any more reason to have their names on that list than I do.

But that aside, have they submitted their findings that mankind is having no effect on the environment to the proper places? What were their findings? Were they based on models? What were the results?

Interesting term. What does it mean? That Joe Scientist looked outside on a tuesday and found it to be cold? Somehow I'd like a little more evidence that we're not pitching toward the abyss than that.

Its all well and good to say, "No, mankind has no effect on the environment, let's switch to coal-powered F-350's for everybody" but I would like there to be some actual research done. Something other scientists can check and say, "Dr Ball is right. The fact the warmest years are all occurring lately is just a big co-ink-a-dink"

If their research is accurate it will take only a few weeks for all those greedy scientists looking for funding to raise the cry that they need more dollars to study this thing.

Carbon offsets

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2104395,00.html

Read this article and then come back and tell me with a straight face that business and gov't created the global warming hoax to sell carbon credits.

The whole thing is just a huge fiasco as Monbiot has said. It will never work and I imagine the whole scheme will be discarded within a few years.

This would of course mean the only way of saving the planet will be technology which won't happen either in my opinion. The technological solution is popular for the same reason as Harry Potter books, people love simple, "magical" answers to complex problems.

But, on the other hand, if in 50 years we haven't done anything and the temperature hasn't changed then I'll buy you all dinner at a great French restaurant, in France.

footnote : Yes, I know magic is only one of the reasons that Harry Potter is popular. I realize the books also have good characters and a nice tempo to the plot.

Whoopee

Frank, you just admitted it has been just as warm before now during the MWP.
Halle-bleepin-lujah!

So, why are everyones' knickers in such a twist over the present +.6*C in 100 years when it was warmer before ndustrialization
and we are still warming up after the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period?

It's a great opportunity to push agendas!
You've seen how everything is been blamed on Global Warming...anything goes.

You keep looking for a one theme scam.
A carbon market is just one of the "business opportunities." The development of new infrastructure....as in Arnie and Gordo's Hydrogen Highway. And such wonderful opportunities for the taxation of such willing serfs. A reason to ration energy...great opportunities for graft on that one. The imagination soars, but I'm going to bed happy.

Grapes in Nova Scotia again.
Actually, a Viking settlement was found in Newfoundland which is a bit colder than NS.

BTW, Tim Ball has only been discredited in the fevered imagination of Ross Gelbspan who runs realclimate along with his fake Pulitzer. Don't use that excuse for not acknowledging the presence of 59 other heavy hitters, like Freeman Dyson. For shame Frank at that pitiful attempt to dismiss real opposition.

Doc Avery

The good doctor Avery is an agricultural economist by training?

I watched a bit of your video mopled and he actually said there's been no warming for the past 8 years. I wonder how he explains 9 of the last 10 years being the warmest on record?

He writes off the IPCC, as you did, by claiming Santer made a change to the report. A change that occurred in chapter 8 and which, according to the article at Wikipedia on the subject, was no big deal. Also, his statement was backed up by later reports. Your and Avery's writing off of the IPCC would have some validity if the 1996 report was the subject, but there's also a 2001 and 2007 report which have backed up the 1996 report.

It was fun though hearing him throw out sound-bites like "I can give Gore 1/10 of one percent". How enlightening to hear that an economist is the go-to guy on climate change.

Obviously Avery has no credentials, a tenuous grasp on the truth and can be easily dismissed.

More on the IPCC

Everything below is quoted from an interview with Santer

This criticism of you and your work on the Second Assessment is still propagating itself across the Internet like some sort of meme.

This is rather frustrating. I can’t alter what people wrote about me on some op-ed page. It’s unfortunate but beyond my control. Likewise, I have no control over the weird and wacky motives that climate-change skeptics ascribe to me.

In 1996, at the time of publication of the IPCC Second Assessment, I was a messenger bearing news that some very powerful people did not want to hear. So they went after the messenger. They were very good at it. I’m sure there was no personal animus involved. I just happened to get in the way and had to be discredited.

Any apologies from these people as the science became clearer?

No. No apologies. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was the major instigator of the unfounded allegation that shenanigans had gone on during the IPCC’s Second Assessment. The GCC accused me of “scientific cleansing” at a time when “ethnic cleansing” was being committed in Bosnia.

The GCC was one of the many now-defunct industry groups?

Yes. The GCC was a consortium of energy interests. It was heartening to see—even back in 1996—that a number of GCC members were very unhappy with the “scientific cleansing” charges. BP, Shell, and a number of other companies eventually resigned. They stated that the GCC was not conducting a responsible debate on climate-change science and was not representing their best interests. This felt like a small but significant victory.

Been away, but it's

Nice to know I've not been forgotten.

For those interested in assessing the value of Václav Klaus, the Czech Republic's answer to Margaret Thatcher, as a witness for or on behalf of anything serious that doesn't involve his own solipsism, I'd recommend the following:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20153

It's written by another Václav...Havel, and translated by a well-respected Canadian (still available online).

Reports I've had from Czech since last I visited there are, with respect to the new Václav's record,...somewhat mixed.

As for global warming skepicism - why say anything more on the subject? My views are already well known. Although I will mention that there was an excellent article in the New York Times two or three weeks ago on its impact in Alaska.

errata

That's skepticism.

My apologies.

mopled

So, why are everyones' knickers in such a twist over the present +.6*C in 100 years when it was warmer before ndustrialization
and we are still warming up after the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period?

I "admitted"?? I'm not a scientist mopled so what's this "admitted" bit?

Again, do you think it will be a eureka moment to the scientists of the world if you tell them there used to be people called vikings?

I think its safe to say they know that already and that knowing there have been temperature fluctuations in the past won't be news. I said all this earlier, I hope you do me the courtesy of reading my posts because I assure you I read yours.

We've been over this. The scam artists in the carbon markets are not the people studying or funding the research on global warming. There's no connection.

C'mon mopled, there's no shortage of reasons to tax people. Putting it forward is simply evidence of the lack of evidence on your side of the equation.

Uh-huh, fact is I have more credentials than some of the people on that list. Such as economists. And Tim Ball is discredited, he discredited himself when he sued the Calgary Herald for lost income opportunities working for Exxon.

GWest

Personally G, I don't think you and I "sound" at all alike but its just occurred to me that you and Truman are both lefties and both of you disagree with me on Afghanistan therefore you must be the same person.

Now that IS funny!

But have you noticed how much Adamwest and Elliot 'sound' alike Frank?

Btw, have you driven through those miles and miles of dead pine forest lately?

So Santer should sue

That he doesn't would seem to indicate Avery is right.
I think as far as sins go, I'll take Klaus over Gore anytime. Part of the problem is that because the Bushies have been such monsters, people forget what the Clinton/Gore administration was responsible for...starving and bombing Iraq for all those years. Did Mr. Compassion Gore ever challege Madeleine Albright's thinking on 600,000 dead Iraqi children?
How about Waco? Did Gore ever ask Janet Reno why there were international observers present when they burned to death over 80 women and children.
Gore, Campbell and Schwarzenegger are not our friends guys. If they sold used cars, you'd walk away.

Al Gore

I have no reason to defend Al Gore or for that matter Bill Clinton and Arnie. I'm an NDP voter, by what weird gymnastics could I possibly support people like Gore, Clinton and Arnie?

As for Santer, if doesn't sue he's a liar? Oh c'mon. He lets the facts speak for themselves. The follow-up IPCC reports reinforced his position. Not everyone sues at the drop of a hat.

Santer is the follow up report

He's still the guy who picks and edits the science at the IPCC. As to him not suing...maybe it's because his shenanigans were reported by the NY Times. Like the good boy prize he got. Add that to the $1.25 mill he got in 05, and the boy is doing very well doing the bidding.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/santer.html

June 2, 1998

The New York Times reports today that Dr. Benjamin Santer, atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, has been awarded a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant of $270,000 for research supporting the finding that human activity contributes to global warming.

We recall that earlier MacArthur "genius" grants have gone to Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, both noteworthy for forecasts of famines, cancer epidemics, and other population disasters that were somewhat wide of the mark.

Dr. Santer breaks new ground by having admitted to altering Chapter 8 of the most recent IPCC report, deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate. According to the journal Nature, the changes were made to make the report conform to the IPCC Policymakers Summary, a political document. Nature editors said that the U.S. State Department had urged the head of the UN science advisory group to prevail upon chapter authors to make such changes.

Santer also edited a crucial graph in Chapter 8 (Fig. 8.10) from his original published version, leading readers to believe that human influence is present and increasing with time, and selected data for Figure 8.7 (discovered by climatologist Prof. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia) to suggest that aerosols could account for the discrepancy between calculated and observed temperature trends.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project congratulates Dr. Ben Santer on his success. We feel certain he has a bright future in his field of research.

We also express our deep appreciation to the New York Times for not putting this story on page 1.

Pretty blatant!

I forgot to point out above, Santer did his fiddling during the Clinton/Gore admin and according to Nature, at their behest.

* PDF about IPCC procedures

Search for "grammatical". It explains their version of the scientific method unambiguously:

* Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

No kidding. Steve has correctly predicted that it would make my jaws drop. ;-) Those 2500 people first determine what the "big" conclusions should be and then they will spend 3 months by "adjusting" the technical report so that it is consistent with the summary for policymakers and with the overview chapter. We are probably expected to believe that it is physically impossible that anyone among these 2500 people has a chance to find any inaccuracy in the overview in 3 months.

These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it. Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report so that it looks consistent. Very nice. Is it legal according to the existing laws? I don't know. But I am sure that the people behind this outrageous plan are something that I won't write here. ;-)

Embedded links in original
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/ipcc-ar4.html

Mopled, I suspect this will turn you on

which was my first thought when this information synchronistically appeared in my inbox. It sounds entertaining enough that I might tune it in myself even though I haven't listened to CoastToCoastAM (originally the Art Bell Show) in a few years. Tuesday's (tomorrow) guest is David Wilcock whose credibility credentials include being the self proclaimed reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. The following quote from the previous link should be enough to whet your appetite.

each planet and moon in our Solar System is now being zapped with a higher intensity of energy that is creating measurable changes in temperature, brightness, magnetic field strength, storms and even the speed of rotation in the case of Saturn.

All the evidence to prove this already exists in NASA studies — it just has never been put together under one roof until now. It explains, for example, why Pluto is getting hotter and hotter even as it drifts farther and farther away from the Sun. We have gathered well over 100 different mainstream scientific references to make the case.

‘Global Warming’ on Earth certainly is being made worse by our widespread industrial pollution — but there are greater energetic causes at work that are creating "global warming" on the Earth AND on all the other planets, where no SUVs exist.

Minor imporvements

Given the numbers it is not beyond imagination that a series of minor efficiencies, a change in fuel, the normal reaction of motorists to rising gas prices, a relatively mild winter and a host of other factors may have contributed.

However, it is interesting in the face of the global warming folks' insistence that "the science is settled" that we cannot figure out with certainty this relatively trivial question. A few dozen variables at most as compared to the several thousand, if not hundred thousand, which go into climate models purporting to a)show co-relations between CO2 and warming, b)show human contribution to this CO2 induced warming, c) project temperature rise and climate decades into the future, d) assess the economic impacts of this.

One reason why I am deeply skeptical about the entire CO2/human induced global warming story is the improbability of a 90% certainty in a modeling exercise of this sort.

JC

Jay, in your long history of posting to this board I am led to believe that you're not a scientist, is that true?

Based on your long history of posting to this forum I am skeptical of your reasons for skepticism. I believe your skepticism has little to do with the science because I think that if the IPCC had come out and said they're 90% sure that global warming does not have a man-made component that you would have had very little problem with that number.

In other words I think your skepticism has more to do with politics than science. Which puts you in good company because I believe most of the skepticism toward the science on global warming is rooted in people's politics and has little to do with science.

Oh, Wow! Frank!

I just showed how they faked the whole thing and you attack someone for agreeing...the science is not settled. Get along little doggies! Don't you dare step out of line, the whip will be cracked. Attacking the messenger, not the message, is SOP for a lack of a valid argument.

Good going Frank.If you can't win on the bad, faked science try to win on the phony right/left split.

I know I would have had no trouble with the 90% sure of there being no human fingerprint on global warming....because the idea there is is so preposterous, not because of my "politics". I would describe myself now as Left Libertarian. I used to be NDP, but not for a long time.

Let's turn it around Frank. Couldn't it be true that you're willingness to believe in impossible things is politically driven?

"mopled" stands for what exactly?

You did? Strange, I missed that.

As for Jay, don't worry, he didn't even read any of our blogs.

Exactly, glad you agree that's what your attack on Santer was.

mopled, I know the politics of the various commentaters quite well (including Jay's), I hate to break the news but its almost always a left/right split. For all the hand-wringing out there what with people saying that every 2nd issue isn't a left vs right thing, well, it always ends up as one.

As for the "bad, faked science" can you personally tell bad science from good science? If not, who do you rely on to tell you one from the other? Serious question.

Because if tomorrow Tim Ball or a social scientist told you the earth was flat would you take his word on that too because it just makes sense according to your own "observational evidence" and then call the 99% that disagree "gatekeepers"?

You've regurgitated my own statement. Yes, as I said a couple of days ago, I'm pre-disposed to believe emissions from industry, tailpipes etc are bad. Call me whatever you like but even though I'm not a climate scientist I was 99% sure even before I ever heard of the IPCC that exhaust fumes and smokestacks were not helping. From what I've read, my layman's opinion is not exactly being challenged. Except by you.

Now apparently I'm the only one here that states upfront my own particular politics and bias and why I believe what I do. I also said earlier, which you may remember, that if the 90% had gone against me and declared exhaust to be good for mother nature I wouldn't have called the IPCC "gatekeepers". I would have said, "huh, I didn't see that coming" but accepted it and gone out and bought one of those roomy and powerful Chevy Avalanches (which I might anyway unless I see some serious attention paid to this issue).

So that's what it boils down to mopled. You see 90% of the scientists against you and you claim they're all liars and its a big conspiracy. Whereas if I saw 90% against me I would change my mind.

left-Libertarian

Why not just say anarchist? "anarcho" is pretty educated on this subject and if he was here I'm sure he'd ask you the same question.

Maybe not the ONLY one

Well put Frank!

Some scientists may be wrong; some may be liars; some may even be in it for the $.

On balance though, I'll take their word for the science - on average - and continue to wonder about the agenda of folks who are more interested in attacking the evidence than the problem.

Is that left-wing?

Remember Galileo? He had some problems with false orthodoxy too.

Galileo makes my case, not yours

He also would have grasped that warming is due to our relationship to the Sun, not to what we exhale.
Far more money goes to AGW consensus scientists while dissenters are vilified, but at least they don't suffer threat of torture or house arrest, as did Galileo.

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

Consensus? Enough money and Consensus is real easy to achieve.

Jay Currie, now you've got it...

I too, had to chuckle at the inability of the global swarmers to figure out what would have been a trivial problem if their anthropogenic C02 hypothesis was correct and operating in within a simplistic positive concurrence ratio as they pretend. So now I'll solve the puzzle. (Partially, as one sees only darkly in this area)

None of the industrial indicators have resulted in concurring downgrades. In fact they've occurred in inverse ratio.

Therefore: The 2.3% diminishing of C02 emissions must be caused by anamolies in the hydrologic cycle. (which I'll explain in detail, if you like--you know evaporation, transpiration, water pooling, rainfall runoff, condensation, stuff like that).

According to Environment Canada humans are only responsible for 2% of C02 going into the atmosphere. Water vapour is responsible for up to 90% of the absorption of certain frequencies of solar radiation; therefore the greatest cause of C02 emission must have something to do with local weather hydrologics.

As the rappers annoyingly always say: "Know what I'm saying?"

So get our your rainfall, temperature etc. graphs. The answers gotta be in there somewhere. Or maybe it's beyond locating in the rather chaotic climate-weather patterns.

Mopled

I disagree. There was scientific consensus behind Galileo - he just offended the Church more courageously (or stupidly if you prefer) than the others did.

Just because a lot of politicians and capitalists have lately climbed on the bandwagon doesn't prove a thing.

I do agree with you that Gore is boring, verbose and overly sincere! And I certainly agree that opportunistic investors are always looking for a chance to make a profit - what else is new?

I think you're a conspiracy theorist mopled - plain and simple - and not just in this regard. Wait till the next time Tyee decides it needs to post another story about 9/11 and POTUS...you'll have lots of new and explosive revelations for us all then, eh!

At least Truman admits to the fact.

All due respect to Commoner

but I don't think he's as well informed as he might be.
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

more

But humans could not double the CO2, because they only put 3% of the CO2 in the air. If they put twice as much in, it would do whatever it does in 9.7m instead of 10m. If humans stopped putting any CO2 in the air, it would do whatever it does in 10.3m instead of 10m. In other words, nothing humans do with CO2 could be of the slightest relevance to global warming, even if oceans were not regulating it.

(The weaker peaks and shoulders of the peaks absorb in longer distances. While strongest absorption occurs in 10m, weaker absorption for CO2 occurs in about 300 meters. But a 3% increase in CO2 is still only a 3% reduction in the 300m distance for the weak absorption areas.)

The Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. A 3% increase in CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel by 3% before total absorption occurs.

In other words, at mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 1,000m instead of 300m. Reducing those distance by 3% is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact.

All due respect to Gary Novak

Just let me uncross my eyes a moment mopled.

Not exactly an easy read mopled..

'You really want to live by a model that installs the coal industry as the savior of "global warming"?'

Realclimate

I share Cockburns dislike of the purported implications....todays "Sun newspaper" has Gordo telling us how we are all going to have to sacrifice on Global Warming...

To be honest with you...I really just don`t know..except what I observe, feel, sense..and somethings going on...I`ve seen cloud formations and atmospheric activity I`ve never seen before in my lifetime.

Like today and almost every day?

You're right, the sky didn't look like that until sometime in the late 90's It's called chemtrails. Here's what it looks like over New York....pretty much the same as here.
Our clear sky today is rapidly disappearing.
http://www.presenting.net/cts/cts.html

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/playing_god.html

Photos clouds over Courtenay B.C.

Check these out...photos taken by my daughter of clouds over Courtenay B.C.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clousseau/

Very beautiful but not what I mean

Here's something from '03 originaly from Straight Goods.ca
http://www.rense.com/general34/eva.htm
Request For Chemtrail
Data Gets Evasive Government Reply

Truman

(which I'll explain in detail, if you like--you know evaporation, transpiration, water pooling, rainfall runoff, condensation, stuff like that).

I have a better idea. Explain it to all the scientists. Since its you and mopled that claim they don't know or understand any of this stuff.

I would have hoped our universities would explain stuff like rainfall and evaporation to climate scientists but apparently not.

Once you send in your lessons to realclimate and the IPCC and all the other "gatekeepers" I'm sure they'll smack their foreheads and ask why they were never taught it.

Then you can do the talk show and lecture circuit and rake in big bucks for explaining rain.

experimenting?

I know what you mean mopled...and it is interesting..I wonder if it is in the experimental stage...the Courtenay cloud formations I found strange.
Did you read the front page of todays Sun
this story: "Plan to alter ocean chemistry hits rough seas."
U.S. agency tries to halt "seeding of the Pacific Ocean with iron dust to reduce global warming.

Get this: Planktos Inc; which has offices in Van. and San Francisco, wants to set sail this month from Florida to dump more than 45 tonnes of iron dust into the sea near the Galapagos Islands.

The Iron nutrients would stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which would then absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide- an experimental process Planktos compares to reforestation.

A for-profit "ecorestoration" company, Planktos plans to sell carbon credits from this and other projects to firms such as Vancouver`s Wedgewood Hotel and Spa, which has agreed to buy 5,000 tonnes of carbon credits.

wow

Did all the man-made clouds...

Did all the man-made clouds disappear for a while after 9/11 when all aviation over the continental US stood down for security reasons?

Or is this a military conspiracy?

I think the Chinese are using howitzer launched projectiles to seed the skies over China...(with mixed success); in the West we prefer to use airplanes I guess.

There were a number of interesting characters selling various methods to end the drought in the 1930s.

I think they called themselves 'Rainmakers'.

Pretty hairbrained

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=9712fc39-561f-4dd8-b4e1-ad6c6e0487d1
It took a bit of searching.
On page 2 the article mentions Ken Caldiera of the Carnegie Institute. He's actually from Livermore Labs, and it was he who criticised Edward Teller's plan to put something reflective in the atmosphere....which is just what happened anyway.

Caldiers is big on "ocean acidification", unfortunately, because that is just as ill informed.... at best.
http://nov55.com/acd.html

Frank all serious scientists already know

that the hydrologic cycle drives the absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere. And they all know that because water vapour (thankfully) is the essential absorption molecule (90%), it follows that it's the interplay among components of the hydrologic cyle that determines absorptive capacity of other trace gases. Sort of a hydrologic butterfly effect, you might say.

In other words the best hypothesis regarding the relationship between C02 in the atmosphere and temperature increase or decrease is that a temperature increase either causes or allows an increase in the incidence of C02--which is what serious scientists already understand, and what is represented in the examination of ice, carbon dioxide and snowfall accumulation studies as the 'timelag.'

Look it up, Frank. None of this is particularly complicated, but there's not a lot of carbon credit or global swarming grant money in it, eh.

I'll try to work out an analogue for you in the next hour or so relating to why it's just gotta be true that the relationship between temperature and water vapour (pre-existing in the model) must drive C02 absorptive capacity and/or C02 incidence--not the other way--around as the swarmers pretend that they believe.

It's only logical, eh.

The problem is that there's little predictive linearity in any long-term climate model that the swarmers (or serious scientists) have been able to construct. The natural algorithms are likely completely chaotic, and the exact relationships among the molecules are probably beyond current climatology.

While not a pure analogue of the water-vapour-temperature C02 question, the big idea of the business-man scientist to drop tons of iron into the sea in order to sequester C02 in plankton, is an exact analogue of the entire anthropogenic emission farce: Really goofy.

G.West

The Discovery Channel did a program on chemtrails available here.
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/Chemical_Contrails.htm

Rainmakers in the 30s and earlier

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=91

Thanks mopled - the link said the video was unavailable.. I'll check it again later

Truman

The problem with your "serious scientists" is that they don't exist. Guys like an agricultural economist? Tim Ball?

As I tried to explain to mopled, I'm not a scientist. You're not going to be able to teach me climate science here on the Tyee. I put my trust in numbers like "90% of the world's scientists agree that...". For what its worth, most scientists believe that water vapour is a result, not a cause of climate change.

Now, same question for you that mopled never answered. Whom do you trust to tell you what is good science and what is bad science? Or do you decide for yourself based on your own scientific knowledge?

Warming not humans or CO2

http://nov55.com/gbwg.html

The claimed consensus view is so far removed from real science that it's an ethical problem rather than a science problem. For example, the suggestion that since oceans have layers, they cannot regulate CO2 in the air, is a flight of fantasy so far removed from the science that it is not about science. Contriving a position from strings of such absurdities in conflict with real science is the entire basis of the global warming hype. It's not what science consists of.

A behind the scenes clincher for the contrivers is that CO2 levels are supposedly higher than any time over the past 650,000 years, which means humans are doing something nature does not do. They do not deny that humans add 1% as much CO2 per year as already in the air, or that humans add 3% of all sources, the other 97% resulting mostly from decay. The net effect is that natural CO2 supposedly does the equivalent of filling a bucket, and everything humans add is overflow. There is nothing similar to a fill level for CO2 in the atmosphere. Natural variations are greater than the human input.

Frank wrote this, not too surprisingly:

"For what it is worth most scientists believe that water vapour is a result, not a cause of climate change."

Which proves beyond all doubt--reasonable and unreasonable--that Frank has absolutely no understanding of the issues in this discussion.

Unless, he's trying to be funny, in which case I applaud. But here's an analogue of his statement: White birds cause snow, not the other way around.

The question is really about whether increased temperatures are caused by OR cause retention of C02 in the atmosphere in the long term. Core samples indicate that there's a 4 to 8 hundred year time lag, with the incidence of C02 increasing after increases in temperature.

No Frank, water vapour is not the result of climate change, and not a single scientist believes this. (Basically because it's a totally meaningless sentence). Water vapour is the result of the evaporation of water, eh.

Truman

Truman, since you missed this link a few days ago, here it is again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

The title?

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

And here's the first paragraph, pay close attention, these guys get paid to be scientists.

In other words Truman, your much vaunted "water vapour" theory has no legs.

But if you're still sure that rain caused global warming and scientists don't understand it or the dark art called "evaporation" you're missing your chance for a lucrative book deal.

Of course I have one thing you don't, the ability to read.

mopled

Still waiting to hear who tells you bad scinece from good science mopled. And your reasons for believing them would be nice too for extra carbon credit.

Real climate

By the way Truman, there's a comments section at Realclimate. Feel free to tell them about rain, I'm sure they'll be impressed.

I don't believe Frank

That's the difference between us. You're stuck with the Church of Global Warming and it's propaganda centre realclimate.

I've presented respectable sources which either you don't or refuse to understand.
I'll repost somebody impeccable.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/#notes
this time try reading it.

You might get a clue about the corporate and foundation shenanigans from this.
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/

mopled

So you decide what is good science and what is bad science by looking on the web and finding someone to disagree with a consensus on anything and then take that side?

I'm still reading the long article (activistteacher) you posted but so far it looks like the grand conspiracy behind global warming only got started after Kyoto. That doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the conspiracy have to have led to Kyoto?

If there was no grand conspiracy by the "elites" until after Kyoto then why was there a Kyoto at all?

The crux

As we've been discussing this for 6 days, I have to ask, what is your wished-for result?

That global warming be declared a fraud, or conspiracy and that all participating scientists be jailed or something I assume?

That we continue to pump out pollution at the same ever-increasing rate secure in the knowledge that it doesn't hurt the planet?

That there be no tax increases on things like gasoline in order to deter consumption?

Helping along global warming

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html
Remember in January when the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its good friends in media trumpeted that 2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States?

NOAA based that finding - which allegedly capped a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" - on the daily temperature data that its National Climatic Data Center gathers from about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country.

Few people have ever seen or even heard of these small, simple-but-reliable weather stations, which quietly make up what NOAA calls its United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).

But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.

But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly.

To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
con't

Climate Science U of Colorado

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/R-321.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley - Part I

more at site

For sure Mopled

We should definitely be relying on other data for our climate stats. That's for sure.

Maybe we could use the Hudson's bay archives as a source - like Tim Ball.

I have about 30 years of diaries from a long-dead relative who kept daily temperature readings throughout the early years of the last century.

Maybe I should write a book on the climate too.

You're scratching the bottom of the barrel my friend.

Read the sunspots

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4

BTW, West, your comment above is inane!

What

You're telling me you don't know where Tim Ball got his data?

You just posted a reference that questioned temperature statistics based on data gathered in the 20th century and you fail to recognize the main guru of the GW debunking fraternity here in Canada got his data from the Hudson's Bay archives taken from two fur trading posts from the 1700s on.

You're not as clever as you think you are mopled.

Maybe you should do a little more research yourself if you can't see the parallel I was pointing out.

As some have said before, it's just not worth the trouble. Once a conspiracy theorist, always a conspiracy theorist.

Are you a fan of Hutton Gibson too?

More red herring

The reason your comment remains inane is thatthe evidence for AGW theory is primarily based on the temperature collecting stations. That they are located in such conditions is the reason for the discrepancy between the satellite data and that from the ground based stations.
or didn't you look at:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

A Coincidence Theorist like you just refuses to see patterns. I'm actually a conspiracy realist..WMD's, Bay of Tonkin ......

SO

You're denying that the guru of global warming skeptics in Canada is Tim Ball, and that his data is far more tendentious than anything the US figures for the 20th century are based upon. Very interesting.

Conspiracy theorists will use just about anything they can cherry pick to prove their point. The fact is that the vast preponderance of evidence doesn't support your arguments and you really haven't much other choice. Typical pseudo-science.

DO you believe in the rapture as well?

If I were inclined to call something inane, I think that might be it. However, that's more your style than mine - I'll just let people draw their own conclusions.

I think you and Hut would get along just fine while you discussed the fact that the Holocaust is a figment of the Jews' imagination.

You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep.

What the....?

I post an article by R. Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University and you go off on such a tangent.

What does any of what you just posted have to do with either me or the subject?

You have just given a prime reason why you are not to be trusted....your fevered imagination knows no bounds when you are trying to discredit the truth about a false consensus.

Climate change is normal. Period!

Not at all

Re-read what I wrote.
All of it - and remember that I recall your positions at other times on other subjects.

I know who can't be trusted.

I absolutely refuseto be smeared

by whatever the BLEEP you're accusing me of.

Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the scientific evidence I've posted on this topic and the evidence there for all to see, that those at the forefront pushing the AGW/GW are BEING WELL REWARDED.

Just who do you work for?

Well mopled

When you take what had otherwise been a civil discussion and smear it with this:

and this:

Not to mention what you've just said above here relative to an issue I've explained numerous times - well, I don't think it is hard to understand where I'm coming from.

When you can't get people to agree with your views, you're not the least bit shy about using the kind of thing I've just quoted, now are you?

No one pays me to write here and further, much of what you write and say has little if anything to do with the 'scientific' consensus either. You're much more interested in calling people down apparently.

You think it's perfectly fine to call people you disagree with names. Look back over what I wrote and the sequentia of it and you'll see who ought to be more careful about the ad hominem remarks mopled.

The Deniers Series

Just in case you missed these, or didn't know they existed:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

I've read them mopled

And I'm not convinced.

Particularly given the source and the record of that newspaper and its owners.

The Aspers have a very high opinion of themselves which I don't happen to share.

As I said before, the preponderance of evidence and the majority of scientific opinion - to a certainty of somewhere between 60 and 90 percent - is good enough for me.

Combined with the evidence I've seen on my own and the testimony of non-scientific observers from Canada's north I'm perfectly prepared - guided by the precautionary principle and the state of the atmosphere much of the time in certain parts of North America (not to mention Asia and Europe) to accept that we are polluting ourselves out of existence.

I think it's long past time we started doing more - no matter that it will be costly - and stopped arguing about it.

If, in the end, you're right and I'm wrong...well, no harm done. Most of the kinds of changes we'll make will be positive for health and life in general anyway. And if I'm right and the scientists whose work I respect and accept are also correct; well, we may have saved the world for a better future.

That's worth it in my view. That's my agenda.

Stop confusing pollution with CO2

We're dealing with a scam!

Get down off the cross of self sacrifice....puleeze!

What scientists whose work you respect?
Name some!

I'm not.

I agree there is a scam going on - we just disagree about who is engaging in it.

Good bye.

How about Dr. Nir Shariv!

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

more at:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0

mopled

The last article you quoted suggests that we should spend a lot more money on research and proceed cautiously assuming the IPCC report is at least a strong possibility, albeit not proven. What would be wrong with writing policy based on the IPCC until its proven wrong?

Trust Fakery?

The IPCC assigned a role to CO2 that it is incapable of based on ignoring data that disproved their central point. The only reason for demonizing CO2 is to make nuclear more attractive. That this has worked can be seen by the 1500% rise in uranium prices.

The precautionary princlple would dictate that one doesn't proceed to impose costs which have no hope to doing anything except creating inflation. Taxing and fining the production of CO2 is a worse than useless direction to take because it diverts money and attention away from real pollution issues....like sewage from Victoria. I'd much rather see attention paid to cleaning up the oceans. It would be nice if a campaign against the biggest destructive force, the US Military, were started instead of the diversion that is Climate Change. How about a campaign against the Sonar experiments of the US Navy which drive whales and dolphins crazy with pain and destroys their hearing, ultimately killing them. That would be useful. Where is the uproar about DU polluting Earth?

This hysteria about a natural process is, to put it mildly, counter-productive.

As Dr. Patterson points out, we are likely to be entering another cooling period after 2020. Cooling is far more detrimental to food production than is warming.
Our energies should be concentrated on how to make up for lost food production due to global cooling.

All good reasons

and which ones are you spending time researching and posting on?

There isn't any reason why these causes can't be pursued while at the same time reducing CO2. First acknowledge that there are no technological fixes to the CO2 problem, the solution is to cut back on consumption. Until then I can only assume that you are an apologist for perpetual economic growth.

DU is a major concern and this weekend at the Maritime center there will be a few of the world's experts on this subject: Moret, Deagle, Webre, Kyne. This will be at the 911truth conference, even though it is really a separate issue. If you go come on over and introduce yourself; I'll be going under the name of 'ov'.

Ov, can you balance your checkbook?

If we spend money on CO2 reductions, we then have less money to clean up after ourselves.

I do not mean to be insulting, but it it really is that simple.

Given that CO2 is not a problem ....
PLEASE GET THIS....we WASTE TIME ENERY MONEY doing anything about it other than planting more.

We should just be taking advantage of it while we can. CO2 is a plant fertilizer.
Enrichment by CO2 in greenhouses increase growth rate. Plant things...everywhere. You'd be amazed what can be grown in small spaces.

When the cooling happens, the CO2 levels will go down by themselves through a balance between ocean and land. When it is warmer due to the sun's activity, sun spots in fact, oceans warm and can hold less CO2, vegetation on land grows more rapidy, but so does the natural life of the soil. As the forest litter breaks down, it also contributes to increased CO2 levels. CO2
stays mainly below something like the first 30 ft, meters, I don't remember, but it tends to sink.

We contribute only 3% at mostof the levels of CO2 to the atmosphere. That includes everything we do.

Present day levels are around 380 parts per million and they have been higher at around 400 ppm three times since we have been recording them over 180 years. A record which the IPCC refused to examine comprising 90,000 chemical analyses
taken from 1852 on through the 1950's.

Quite simply, we have been lied to by a well managed media campaign.

Cheque book is the bottom line eh?

Question: All good reasons and which ones are you spending time researching and posting on?

Answer (inferred): Nada, none, absolutely zip.

It's another manifestation of West

When did you stop beating your wife!
What are you talking about? More red herring.

Mopled, you pretty well nailed the entire

'C02 heats up the atmosphere' scam. Congrats!

It's amazing how identical the default agendas of 'OV,' 'West' and 'Frank' are, eh: "Even if it's a scam, it's still good."

Naw Truman

You don't get it. I think you're the 'scam'.

Sorry bud, but you can't expect any kind of respect if you're not prepared to show it as well...and this thread just proved again and again that you'de rather call people names and laugh at them than actually have a real discussion. You and Mopled don't seem to have a clue about what constitutes civil behavior and it's too bad really, you have so much more to offer.

Why should anyone bother - you're just rude and ill-mannered.