Hold off investing in that Wind Farm

Brazil has developed expertise in deep-sea drilling in recent years
The Brazilian government says huge new oil reserves discovered off its coast could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world.

Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, says it believes the offshore Tupi field has between 5bn and 8bn barrels of recoverable light oil.

A senior minister said Brazilian oil production had the potential to match that of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Oh Really

Human beings are slow learners:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/worldbusiness/09oil.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

We're not going to get out of this one unscathed R/Man.

You can read about that here too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09fed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The source of all truth

Just in case you weren't already aware of it, RMan, God does not reside in Heaven, but instead in the editorial office of the NY Times. :-)

Went to church this am

Put a Pine Beetle in your Tank:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09fuel.html?ref=business

Things are looking up:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html?ref=business

Trade deficit falls -

That's not hard to do considering how many months out of the last 28 that it has been at record levels.

Wrong church! Wrong Pew!

Please also note this: "...deficit with China jumped to the second highest level on record as imports of toys and other goods surged despite a rash of safety recalls."

Further, I think Bernanke's pessimism trumps your single month of tepid export recovery.. and that story was covered in a lot of places besides the New York Times.

Oh and by the way, I assume someone as well churched as you are will have read last Sunday's Times of London...just chock full of 'good' news about the state of the environment wasn't it?

Since you're now into keeping people on message perhaps you won't mind my pointing out that's the subject of this column.

And ME2 - thanks for that

Neither of the stories referenced were editorials.

I'm glad you pointed me to the truth though.

More Growth here too

Record growth in EBRD region, but reforms need a boost

Economic growth across the EBRD region is expected to hit a record high this year but the global credit crunch that began this summer could result in slower growth in the longer term, the EBRD said in its Transition Report 2007.

The Report projects average growth of 7.0 per cent in all EBRD countries in 2007, up slightly from 6.9 per cent in 2006. Economic growth across the transition region has been underpinned by a combination of factors among which are strong domestic demand, rising investment including foreign direct investment, significant remittances from workers abroad, rapid growth in domestic and foreign bank lending and, in some cases, high energy prices.

The EBRD Report said the broad economic outlook remained favourable and noted that transition countries were in the relatively enviable position of facing the recent financial market problems from a position of economic strength. Growth for 2008 is forecast to moderate slightly to 6.1 per cent, with resource-rich CIS as the fastest growing region.

windfall = growth?

EBRD and CIS have had what looks to be overall growth, but the "growth" is generally limited to a few sectors while other sectors have remained stagnant:

1. Wealthy Western Europeans are buying up Eastern European farms and turning them into summer retreats, employing the peasants who have lived on the land for generations to work for them for pennies a day. The development is there because the land is so cheap. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, Western Europeans have been selling off their summer retreats in the Maritimes in favour of land that is cheaper and closer to them. They get more for their money, and just a train ride away. This outmigration of Euros is one of the main reasons that lands in the Maritimes have stayed so cheap over the last 20 years. Here we have a case of foriegn investment supposedly helping one place and hurting another. The sad truth: the Western Europeans get the villas while the local people live in hovels.

http://samvak.tripod.com/nm092.html

2. An oil and gas boon brought on by the increased demand caused by the industrialization of China and India (for the most part) has brought record numbers of rubles for a few. Unless that money is invested wisely in good infrastructure, it is gone forever from the lands of the people from which it has come - just like BC Gas and Alberta Tar sands.

Once the oil is gone, the CIS region will be much like north central Texas - the region will be worthless except to raise a few head of sturdy sheep, goats or possibly some longhorn cattle. In much of Texas, they get 1 longhorn for every 50-100 acres. In parts of parts of Utah, 1 longhorn for every 640 acres. Longhorn cattle can live where just about no other cattle can. They generally require 2/3 the forage of standard cattle and they can eat many plants that other cattle won't touch.

clubofrome - echoes my thoughts

clubofrome said:

I am in full agreement. My earlier posting was in response to realisticman. I posted to show that even using capitalistic measures of "growth" without a thought to the environment, there was no true growth in those places.

Carbon Dioxide

can't really absorb a significant amount of infrared radiation to cause an increase in global temperatures. (And even if it could, humans are only responsible for about 2% of the C02 that gets into the atmosphere. Look it up on Environment Canada). Only water vapour can do that; and its zero-sum depletion is not in the cards; it's absortive value is cyclical as in--you guessed it--the hydrologic cycle.

Besides if global warming is real, not to worry--surely the looming "Peak Oil" will take care of the problem. (Wherin the energy snakes pretend that we're running out of fuel hydrocarbons.)

See: "Abiotic oil". "Deep Oil Wells". Whereby you can find oil just about anywhere if you dig deep enough.

And it's not a 'fossil fuel', eh.

Here's a primer. Google: Brazil discovers giant oil field.

Notice how you can't get anybody to say the words "peak oil" any more since the new fad "global warming" has ruined everybody's reasoning abilities.

Reason: If you believe in Peak Oil AND global warming, you're a complete idiot.

Here's what anybody with a decent IQ already knows:

Why worry about the damage fuel hydrocarbons are doing to the atmosphere when we're supposed to be running out of the stuff.

Think: Global Warming in an age of Peak Oil. What does it really mean?

Thank God, er Truman....

All that worry about peak oil for nothing! We can continue the energy for wealth creation cycle forever! Whew, what a relief. I was reallly worried there for a while we might be poisioning our environment or using up non renewables like oil and oh FOOD at an unsustainable rate. But no, just Google abiotic oil and all is fine. I'm an idiot. I believe in peak oil and there's far more Googling going on with oil reserves and shit than some remote possibility of methane gas 100 kilometers beneath the crust. Even if there was how deep can we drill now? Maybe a 1/10th of that. I'm not convinced that C02 is responsible for GW, so I guess that means I'm half idiot in on your scale. Half an idiot on my scale is as dumb as five dumb guys. Putting your trust in abiotic oil over all the experts, knowing full well the implications of unchecked growth in population and wealth makes you dumber than 10 dumb guys. Why don't you stick to your lab work and theories like HIV doesn't really exist A mind is a terrible thing to waste...

Truman

Here's what anybody with a decent IQ already knows:

I'm not a scientist and therefore can't judge your theory or that of the IPCCs's.

But when a world view requires that we believe millions of people are in on a vast conspiracy then that just isn't a world view that has much credibility in my mind.

I realize that human history is a lot of muddling through and we've certainly been wrong about millions of things but to accept that Bush is right and the scientists are all liars well, that seems like a stretch to me. (Although IAMC doesn't have a problem with that)

The moon is made of cheese

Triton is made up completely of abiotic oil, and at the core of the earth is a chewy chocolate centre.

First, how vast a conspiracy?

Conspiracies are small. There are the few who decide what will happen and those who carry out the orders. Long established networks are activated. The CIA CFR, Bilderbergers have people all over the place in politics,media and academe who understand how to push an agenda.

I pointed out Fenton Communications for one stop propaganda on "global warming". They do PR for the foundations which fund the NGOs whose advertising and PR they coordinate which pushes the agenda.

When guys who understand the truth say so, they are smeared, fired, suicided or compromised in some way to undermine their credibility. JFK, 9/11, AGW/CC....we've seen the same tactics used over and over again used against truth tellers and whistle blowers.

We've been run by a crime syndicate posing as as philanthropists and in government for a very, very long time.

As Truman pointed out, Peak Oil cancels out Global Warming, doesn't it? I agree with him that they are both scams.

Why else are we also getting our knickers in knots about population control....when it is taking care of itself. When people have a decent standard of living, or they move to cities and/or the women are educated and independant, they don't even replace themselves.

Anybody whose handle is Club of Rome, I understand falling for the supposed need to drastically reduce population. Sharing is good...your attitude belies your name.

Please understand how manipulated our thinking/beliefs have been lately. When I see articles on population control showing up in both the Courier and Shared Vision at the same time the topic is all over,in blogs and chatrooms, my antenae go up.

There is a psyop going on. Part of it is:

We (they) are destroying the planet and there are too many of them sharing our depleting resources.

That gets us fighting each other instead of the controllers.

Oil going to come from somewhere, Clubo.

Well Clubofrome, could be, that Truman Green is on to some thing. The oil is going to come from somewhere The following I just read on the CBC site in regards to future air travel.
Experts say that when the volume of traffic — projected to double over the next 10-15 years — is taken into account, the potential for near misses and fatal accidents is growing fast
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/11/09/airport-incursions.html

Air traffic to double! So much for climate change eh, Clubofrome. Particularly when it involves airports and air travel. Haven't you heard? Brazil practically became the second Arabia today.

Change = Learn + Apply

First the cycle of exponential growth and doubling times. Go read about these simple math equations that point to the end of growth in population. You clowns have me confused with someone else... Humans are part of life. We have the right to develop and exploit everything on god's green earth. We can do no more wrong than an earthquake or a lion. We have the right to eat all the fish in the oceans, and then we have the right to go extinct! Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not a scientist! Just becuase we can doesn't mean we should. So you clowns can bark at me all you want, but you show a clear ignorance of what is going on in the natural world. Yes the world is ruled by greedy elites, always has always will be. As long as we feed from the trough and vote status quo we'll be screwed by them. But try and put modern history in perspective guys. This miraculous growth period over the last few centuries is not sustainable. And Jesus H. Christ Woody, do you understand that abiotic oil is a theory? Amazing that a new discovery of oil has been confirmed so quickly in Brazil. I've read of a discovery but no confirmation of reserves just yet. Calm down. Besides do the math as advised above. Add 20 billion barrels of new Brazilain black gold then apply it to the Hubbert Curve and tell me how comforting it is to have two more years of oil added to the equation. The message is proceed with caution. I'm promoting end of growth because I thinks it's the wrong value system. I think we can educate our children and future generations to understand that. How do like them apples?

Global warming

Peak Oil cancels out Global Warming. I LOL'ed.

Let's use a different example to demonstrate how silly that statement is:

Flesh eating disease cancels out obesity.

Holy giraffe sperm, Clubo.

Holy giraffe sperm, Clubo, lighten up, your going to blow a testicle. Truman Green could be correct, maybe not, but, whats the big deal, its only his opinion. Why didn't you comment on the doubling of future air flights? After all you did say, (I'm promoting end of growth because I thinks it's the wrong value system.)

Quote:Truman Green could be

He does tend to present his 'opinion' as though it has some scientific credibility.

Go to your room...

You haven't had enough time doing research, so come back when you've done your math. Try to understand what it means when someone says they're going to double something. Like saying the US will increase it's oil imports by 2 % for the next 25 years. Try to comprehend the math... What is doubling time? What the fu*k is the Hubbert Curve...?

Damn! Another testicle blown...

This is for you Clubo.

Here you are Clubo, the Hubbert curve, named after the ,geophysicist M. King Hubbert
http://www.dieoff.org/page191.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_curve

Lovelock

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23376247-details/Controversial+scientist+predicts+planetary+wipeout/article.do
"I would think a hot earth could not support much over 500 million."

It's coming, considering that no one actually wants to DO anything.....and Campbell & Co. are "huddling" to try to figure out a way too make a buck out of it, rather than anything substantive.......

Climate Audit

I wonder who is on the list of so called experts in their fields that will be attending this climate change conference?
Will Michael Mann and David Suzuki come flying in on their composite hockey sticks?
Have they invited Steve McKintyre ( Climate Watch ), Ross McKitrick, Timothy Ball, Patrick Moore or David Holland to balance out the debate?
Of course not. Because warmists don't debate, they just proclaim. The science is settled, they say.
Politicians will soon change their tune once they figure out that the majority of us just think this carbon thing is over the top.
We are all in support of good stewardship, and all that stuff, but when you talk about the end of the world coming, it turns off most sensible people.
I would love to hear a politician say " I am not spending your hard earned money on this carbon thing. And if that upsets you, then vote me out in the next election. Meanwhile, do you have a sewer you want me to fix, or something? "
Take me to your leader.

IMAC

So Campbell's one of them there "Liberals" too, eh Ronnie?

What Is Wrong With The IPCC

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/La
By Hans H.J. Labohm, Independent Economist in a Special SPPI Report

In the international discussion about climate change, which is now going on for almost twenty years, the IPCC has played a questionable role. From its inception, is has almost exclusively focused on the AGW hypothesis, while systematically ignoring alternative hypotheses. Some main points of criticism of the IPCC include: The hypothesis that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperature has not been proven and is even at odds with the observations. Satellite-based temperature measurements show that the earth has warmed a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1979 and 1998. It is not likely that this is caused by mankind. There is still a lack of scientific understanding, required to model all assumed radiative forcings. The most important one, for which there are not sufficient quantitative data to date, is the variable impact of clouds.

Climate models, which are being used to achieve a better understanding of the climate system, are not suited to serve as basis for predictions. This is, inter alia, related to the stochastic nature of climate. The global climate is very much determined by extra-terrestrial phenomena, of which the fluctuation of sun activity is the most important. Should there still be global warming in the future, for which there are only model based indications, then mankind will not be able to do something about it. Moreover, also according the IPCC, a modest additional warming (e.g., of 2 degrees Celsius) will on balance be beneficial for mankind. The IPCC has ignored the climate projections of astrophysicists, which suggest global cooling. The advent of climate alarmism, fueled by statements of many prominent politicians and the media, has no scientific justification. Many catastrophic consequences of climate change, such as floods and extreme weather events, have been predicted, which are not based on scientific knowledge. Especially the European governments have opted for a climate policy which is completely unrealistic and results in a massive waste of scarce resources. Finally, one should not discount the possibility that the average global temperature will fall considerably in the near future. This might have harmful implications, as opposed to a modest rise of temperatures, which on balance will have positive effects. (more at site)

Spin that would make a used car saleman drool

..as always let's not get into "the more refined details", right, Mr. Campbell? That after all is exactly what your government has depended on so far. So no real difference in policy going on here, just a matter of making it "look like" a success, and then not supplying any of the conflicting details...that will expose the subterfuge. Then once again the public will buy that all is well in BC while the biggest real estate robbery in the history of this province takes place right under their noses.

The question is will you finally admit how devastating your government's policies have been to the environment of BC? Will you rescind the "Special Projects" legislation that takes all the power and control away from communities? Will FOI be made accessible again... and much less costly? Will you provide the courts with the documents being asked for in the Basi, Basi Virk trial so that we the people of this province can find out the more refined details of the behind closed selling out of one of our most valuble public assets and let's not forget the devastating environmental impact of constant CN train de-railments...not to mention, real concerns over the selling of BC rail land for $1. (one dollar, you read it right....where are the details of those sales?)

Truly, truly funny.

Ever tried to get this government to answer even a simple question in the legislature? Ever tried to find out what is happening in Partnerships BC? The details of the sale of BC Rail? Ever tried to find out about the privatization of BC Ferries? About the out-sourcing of medical information? Ever tried to find out any detailed information about anything this government has done?

Ha!...when has that stopped him? Remember this was the guy who said he wasn't going to sell BC Rail, not to mention the selling out of power from BC Hydro, the selling of our water and rivers....

Puhleeeze, our rivers are being sold with the same wrecko eco-spin.

So far there are over five hundred rivers currently under just that threat in BC.

Under whose government is that being allowed to happen?

Do you actually think there will be any level of real transparency or environmental accountability when it comes to the business interests of the "friends" of the BC Liberal party?

Saying and Doing

While it goes against the grain (as supporting Campbell seems an awkward stance to take), it's hard to fault the notion of a truly democratic forum that will hear from all the groups proposed. However, as has been observed, "When all is said and done, a great deal more is said than is done."

Let's wait and see what comes out of such a gathering in the way of action before we condemn it on the basis of its planning, simply because it is planned by one who has demonstrated that he has been essentially untrustworthy.

Lynn, wrong Campbell

Just want to point out that the Campbell being quoted in Barrett's piece is Colin Campbell, science adviser with the Sierra Club, who is helping to organize the Take the Lead conference. Premier Gordon Campbell is not quoted in this article.

I think it's an understandable mistake Lynn

When the surname 'Campbell' is connected to statements like this:

It is not too difficult to imagine that the speaker is the biggest BC CEO of all.

Is his name really Colin Colin David?

And I think you'll find his relationship with the Sierra Club began in 2004 when he was elected Chair of the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club of Canada, BC Chapter. He later took a staff position as Marine Campaign Coordinator. At the moment, the expert in marsupial evolution and the ecology of inland Australia as it was 17 million years ago, he is involved in something the club calls climate change outreach on behalf and climate change issues related to Marine Use Planning.

Now maybe that makes him a 'science' advisor but it sure doesn't say so in the literature I have from the Sierra Club...

Re Warmists

Keep at it Mopled. the evidence is adding up, and will soon have to be realistically faced. The Warmists just haven't figured out a face-saving way to shift focus and back down yet.

Yep, evidence certainly is adding up

Just not for the side of the argument mopled is pursuing.

Check out the state of glaciation in Chile.

I think you'll find that 87% showed a negative rate of variation, ranging from a few meters per year to a maximum of 792 metres at Glaciar Marinelli between 1992-2000. Glacier retreat in the Southern Hemisphere continues, along with negative mass balances and significant ice thinning rates.

This shrinking process will undoubtedly accelerate with atmospheric warming in
the future; it will affect the availability of water resources on glacierized basins.

Current estimates set the contribution of Chilean glaciers to eustatic global sea-level rise during the last five
decades was estimated at about 8.2% of the worldwide contribution of small glaciers on
Earth.

Sanguinary hope mongers (like Ron Erwin and his denialist associate mopled) of the situation in the Southern Hemisphere ought to be run up against the decidedly likely conversion of John Howard who was, until very lately, one of the neo-con political world's most fervent ostriches.

Where did you get that?

It may be time to abandon realclimate and grist as sources and read some real scientists...the unbought kind.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/antarctica_warming_cooling_or_both/

"A major article on this subject appears in a recent issue of the Journal of Climate by William Chapman and John Walsh of the University of Illinois. The two scientists extensively review the literature on temperature trends in Antarctica and conclude “These studies are essentially unanimous in their finding that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed since the 1950s, when many of the surface stations were established.” They note “Recent summaries of station data show that, aside from the Antarctic Peninsula and the McMurdo area, one is hard-pressed to argue that warming has occurred, even at the Antarctic coastal stations away from the peninsula and McMurdo.” Furthermore, they write “Recent attempts to broaden the spatial coverage of temperature estimates have shown a similar lack of evidence of spatially widespread warming.” Like it or not, over the past four decades, and during the time of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases, Antarctica has been cooling!"

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent/
A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?

While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.

This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.

"While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”."

just to rub it in

and speaking of John Howard,I'm sure he would enjoy import of the last lines of the above quoted article:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc
"This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly."

Icing The Hype
Jul 09, 2007
Icy Bay Glaciers Get Up and Go

By Ned Rozell, sitnews.us

Until this spring, pilot Paul Claus would land a Supercub on a gravel bar in Icy Bay to give people an up-close look at a calving glacier. This year he can’t land there because a glacier has rumbled over the gravel bar. The main glaciers in Icy Bay crept forward up to one-third of a mile sometime between August 2006 and June 2007.

“At least three glaciers in the same bay have advanced in one year,” said Chris Larsen, a scientist at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, studying the ever-changing landscape of the area. “To have them advance right now is kind of weird.”

Icy Bay, located just west of Malaspina Glacier on Alaska’s dynamic southern coast, is like a smaller version of Glacier Bay. Like Glacier Bay, Icy Bay didn’t exist when captain George Vancouver sailed past in the late 1700s. Vancouver’s ship artist painted a portrait of an ice wall where the mouth of the bay is currently.

The scientists don’t know whether the advance of the Icy Bay glaciers is the beginning of a long-term push, or a blip before the next retreat. For now, they’ve advised their colleagues flying over the glaciers to take lots of photos this summer to see if the glaciers continue to push deeper into Icy Bay.

See full story here.
http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html
Note: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation shows signs of having changed back to the cold mode(La Nina) which would explain the return to frigid and snowy weather this past winter in Alaska south to British Columbia where Whistler Mountain set a new record with 40% above normal snowfall.

From a major symposium:

From a major academic symposium - I'm surprised you don't know all about it mopled, but then, you think Tim Ball is a climate scientist don't you?

All unbought scientists too, unlike Timmy boy.

Whose credibility is more credible?

GWest, most climatologists agree that the Malenkovich Cycle is playing a part in whatever is happening today with our climate, though none will claim knowing how big or small that part is. Whatever, the cycle can produce a warm Arctic and a cold Antarctic at the same time.

And if you had read all of the related links posted in our recent discussion between the Warmists and the Deniers:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/09/27/GWarming/
you will have noted that all the practicing climatologists quoted stressed that not enough is known about climate modeling to make any reliable long or short-term predictions.

Those statements all revolved around pro and con claims regarding the contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 loading to climate forcing. In my opinion, it was amply demonstrated that there is NO consensus among scientists of equal credibility concerning the issue of CO2.

And if this issue was not so clearly in tandem with the attack on Big Oil, I'd be far more willing to give the warmists more benefit of the doubt.

ME2

I'm convinced you're not convinced - which is fine with me...but, I am persuaded that the vast majority if respected scientific opinion is:
a) Reacting to observed and measurable change in the last century;
b) Looking to analyze actual 'trends'; and
c) Seeking to determine what other possible cyclical phenomena may be playing a part in these processes;
d) All the time acknowledging that the role of human activity is, on the basis of a balance of probabilities and the evidence, not a trivial contributor to current trends and conditions.

Therefore, if human activity is playing a role in these phenomena and if, as I believe they do, humans have within their capacity the ability to change behavior in order to address the harmful potential of their activities then it’s time we stopped the futile arguing and got busy. Thousands of people died in London in December of 1952 as a result of a combination of natural conditions + human activity – pretending wasn’t enough to address that situation then and pretending won’t address the situation now.

In my opinion, this is grade II material. Some people’s fear of governmental peculation ought not to permit the rest of us to forget what we are actually discussing here – processes which may, over time, make ‘that’ death toll 55 years ago seem rather trivial.

I have researched and read all the stuff you and mopled have posted. In mopled’s case, he’s provided the same thing, and variations on similar themes, so often that one’s eyes glaze over. Of course the cycles you mention may play a role, however minor but I’m convinced that human causation is far more germane to the situation and that’s something we can actually do something about.

Eggs-f*cking-zactly

It's like someone with a glandular obesity problem eating at MacDonalds every day and super-sizing to boot. The food may not be the only thing making you overweight, but it's the obvious and easy thing to change to start mitigating the damage.

Nothing you said makes sense, GW

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html

Why the IPCC should be disbanded
Introduction

"The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear, accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias."

"One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how wrong this impression is."

"The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.

Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate.

It's time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten reasons for doing so.

1. The IPCC charter emphasises a human influence on climate, not climate in general

The role of the IPCC is defined in item 2 of its document "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

This extract makes it clear that the name "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is something of a misnomer because the organisation is specifically directed to investigate any human influence on climate. In this context the term "climate change" is analogous to the definition used by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that is "climate change caused by human activity".

The various IPCC reports demonstrate this emphasis on a human influence by their chapter titles and sequence."
(a discussion of the various reports follows)

"We've also seen each report increasing the probability of a human influence in climate but the quality of evidence to support this claim has scarcely improved so it looks like the IPCC is trying to justify its own existence."

"This situation has encouraged the perception that the IPCC is independent and the ultimate authority on all climate science, but it is intent on selling the notion of a man-made influence on climate in order to justify its own existence. To put it simply, if it was shown that there is no significant human influence on climate there would be reason for having the IPCC."

Thank you, mopled

Good to see a well considered and well researched summary of this self-absorbed clique.

Self-absorbed? R/man

Hardly.

That was an "INTRODUCTION" - little real 'consideration' and absolutely NO research; and you should look a little more closely at the folks behind that little website too.

You might want to consider 'who' it is you're plumping for.

You might want to do a little more real "research" yourself by looking at who these people actually are.

Personal responsibility means confronting the consequences of one’s own compromises with the truth - imperfect though that may be.

Look at how mopled titles his 'quote' from someone else (just because they happen to agree with his prejudices) and think about what you're actually writing. Then decide who is making sense and who is calling other people names rather than actually reading and trying to understand.

I think the facts about who the self-absorbed ones are and who is actually making sense is pretty obvious.

Your concern with continuing and enhancing your own international jet-set lifestyle – irregardless of its moral and environmental costs - like mopled's overweening concern and love for his own pocketbook, tends to make your compromises with reality a little too apparent - as Stump so acutely noted.

Well put Lynn

Perhaps we could get Lynden McIntyre and the CBC to focus some piercing light on these issues in the same we he has done with the 'compromises' Canada's 'greenest' Prime Minister made with Karlheinz Schreiber and the truth.

Cooperating with that little farce (the greenest PM cock-up) must be the most embarrassing thing Elizabeth May confronts when she opens her eyes every morning. DO you suppose she'd like a mulligan on that one?

I see now that even Pee Wee realizes he has to distance himself from that toxic swamp of a man.

So much that needs investigating, so little.....

G West,

Quote:

"Perhaps we could get Lynden McIntyre and the CBC to focus some piercing light on these issues in the same we he has done with the 'compromises' Canada's 'greenest' Prime Minister made with Karlheinz Schreiber and the truth."

I"ll second that...I was just thinking the same thing myself. ;-) Maybe he'd take on the Basi, Basi, and Virk trial as well.

I heard Linden McIntyre on CBC quote Schreiber as saying recently, "You must know me by now, Linden, do you think I'm a man who wouldn't leave another ace up his sleeve?" So things may get even more interesting for our "greenest" prime minister.

A good choice of word "compromises", btw, G West....that is what is happening here (under Gordo's mini-Damascus charade)...the sly art of compromise and co-option.

Real environmentalism demands genuine and effective...(and most importantly), immediate change.

The CBC is pushing the Big Lie

The scientific basis for the CO2/Man Made Global Warming was shown to be using incorrect data. Evidence has been presented at a Congressionalcommittee of deliberate massaging of the data at the IPCC.

The debate really is over this time.

"This myth continues despite the fact that there have been NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is not due to natural climate variability, e.g., a small change in cloudiness, or precipitation efficiency, or general circulation of the atmosphere, or a variety of other possible explanations that do not involve manmade greenhouse gas emissions. (One) would do well to be a little more discerning about scientific claims from politicians and actors."

Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Nov 11, 2007
It’s the Sun Stupid

By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Climate Change by Jupiter

The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth. So explained Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume. This one man authored or co-authored 100 scientific books and more than 1,000 scientific papers, he edited the Benchmarks in Geology series (more than 90 volumes in print) and was general editor of the Encyclopaedias of the Earth Sciences. He edited eight major encyclopedias of specialized scientific papers in the atmospheric sciences and astrogeology; geomorphology; geochemistry and the earth sciences; geology, sedimentology, paleontology, oceanography and, not least, climatology

Changes in sunspots and other solar activity, scientists have realized for more than two centuries, correlate closely with the climate of Earth, explaining the ice ages and periods of great warming. But what, Dr. Fairbridge wondered, causes these changes in our sun? The sun’s own orbit, he found, has eight characteristic patterns, all determined by Jupiter’s position relative to Saturn, with the other planets playing much lesser roles. Some of these eight have orderly orbits, smooth and near-circular. During such orbits, solar activity is high and Earth heats up. Some of the eight orbits are chaotic, taking a loop-the-loop path. These orbits correspond to quiet times for the sun, and cool periods on Earth. Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool

Thanks G West

I love it when you tell us all how to think.

How's Vicky, by the way, has she been up to see your etchings?

I feel for Big Oil

Are any of us really losing sleep at night because of "attacks on Big Oil"?

Now I can understand being worried about the state of the asbestos industry, the lawn chemical people and cigarette makers but Big Oil?

Just for G West

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7089318.stm

About thinking things through first.

I've no more love for Big Oil than yourself, Frank, but I've even less love for the current plethora of phonies in the environmental movement who resort to deliberate lies and distortions, straw man argumentation, use junk science, demonize oil industry personnel, and automatically discredit ANYONE who disagrees with them.

For people who claim to treasure freedom of thought and action, such actions are scurrilous, debasing even their own membership's right to accurate information.

What is worse, there are many uncommitted and fair-minded people looking for information, and offering them such obvious propaganda instead simply clouds the issues so completely many just give up looking.

One does not have to be a philosophy major to realise that even though the Oilcos may themselves use such tactics, that does not constitute an ethical reason for doing so one's self. Thinking it does simply perpetuates a practice that yields only very short-term gains while setting the scene for long-term losses.

Your purely reactive response to my observation suggests to me you have some thinking to do about your mode of argumentation.

ME2

Meaning?

How is it that you personally can tell "junk science" from good science? What is your criteria?

Do you believe there is no financial reason for anyone to lie? Do you assume the side with the most to gain financially has the bigger reason to lie? (I would)

Does the number of scientists on one side of the issue compared to the number on the other side mean nothing at all? Does the lack of peer-reviewed articles on the denialist side mean either nothing or a conspiracy? Don't you find such reasoning to be simplistic?

Because I've been hearing that its a conspiracy, that all these scientists are floating the idea of climate change so they can get more funding.

Yet isn't it obvious that industry has a lot to lose and are more than capable of funding thousands of scientists? So why would they need to make up a crisis in order to get funding? Why not just join the other side, tell the truth and get rich?

Its clear to me that the political Right rejects peer-review, rejects PhDs and rejects the idea that scientists might not be acting politically. All because they don't like what it means for their world-view.

But the only reason I even entered this conversation is because I don't understand the motivation of my fellow leftists. It can't possibly just be a love for conspiracy theories can it?

That's right R/Man

Revel in the insanity.

Pretend there's nothing WRONG with that lifestyle and whistle your way to the cemetery.

This is the same part of the world that has built an indoor ski resort on the Arabian Peninsula – would I expect anything more of them?

I do expect more from responsible Canadians.

What are you trying to prove? Such situations do little more than prove how utterly mad mankind has become. You think I don’t know that.

Big Oil etc

Frank, I stand with my concluding statement in my last post.

I stated that the Oilcos were not above lying etc, and you respond with a straw man argument repeating the point ad nauseum, making that the body of your response.

There were plenty of peer-reviewed articles offered by the Denialists in the Sept 27 discussion :
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/09/27/GWarming/
during which I changed my support of the CO2 Warmists to an almost Denier.

With regard to numbers of scientists supporting your side, many of these were also supporters of biofuls too. Good grief !! is it at all possible so many of your gurus could have been wrong??

And since I am not a scientist and therefore cannot properly assess the evidence offered, well, how do YOU choose? Oops, I already know that, so how do you choose those Gurus? Those that share your ideology? You can't do otherwise, can you, since you've already booted out those who don't tow the full party line.

an indoor ski resort on the Arabian Peninsula

Wait until they build the next one - outdoors!

Q.E.D.

You prove my thesis with every flippant comment you write.

What consensus?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/10/shocking-skeptical-global-warming-story-abc-affiliate
'Manmade Global Warming Myth' Shockingly Refuted by ABC Affiliate

You'd better strap yourself in tightly before proceeding, for the following story and video will likely shock you more than anything you've seen in quite some time.

On Thursday, in the middle of NBC's "Green is Universal" campaign, an ABC affiliate in Tyler, Texas, broadcast a segment during one of its news programs focusing exclusively on positions skeptical of man's role in climate change.

In fact, one of the meteorologists involved actually referred to this whole issue as "the manmade global warming myth."

During the piece, not only did the two anchors express a viewpoint contrary to the current media meme, but also the reporter, Molly Reuter, and the station's three meteorologists, unanimously spoke against the view held by Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his sycophant devotees (video available here):
KLTV 7 METEOROLOGIST MORGAN PALMER: Any idea can become mainstream if you just hear one side of the argument...Because of the money involved, because that folks who are writing these papers at a lot of institutions are going after grant moneys and the grant moneys in many cases are funded by folks who might have a very good intention, environmentalists, but unfortunately the papers that are being written are heavily weighed toward the manmade global warming myth.

Shocking, yes? But there's much more:

KLTV 7 METEOROLOGIST GRANT DADE: Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it is. But is man causing that? No. It's just a simple climate cycle that the earth goes through over periods of thousands of years.

KLTV 7 METEOROLOGIST MARK SCIRTO: The late 1800's, early 1900's, we were so cold that parts of Galveston Bay froze over. In part of the first decade, in part of the 20th century it was one of the warmest ever, then we cooled off again, and then in the '50s it was the big drought.

[...]

DADE: Did you hear about the Arctic ice melting? But you don't hear that in Antarctica last winter was the most ice ever recorded on the Antarctic ice sheet. You don't hear that.

SCIRTO: Eventually, what's going to happen is ten or 20 or 30 years from now, this is all going to be gone because we will not be warming anymore.

Be sure to watch this entire video, for the quotes above really don't do it justice. The introduction by the anchors, as well as the reporting by Reuter, represent a shocking honesty about this issue that the major television networks won't dare display.

Now

Now you're getting your 'science' from the weatherman?

Do I have to post another passage from Subterranean Homesick Blues for you mopled?

That's on the same level as getting your news from Ted Baxter.

I suppose you think all that banter between news anchors 'means' they love each other too.

Please, just go away, you're destroying whatever credibility you ever had.

BS, GW

Meteorologists are scientists who understand weather and climate far better than somebody like you who does nothing but uphold the media false consensus about everything.... Tyee's own Gatekeeper Extraordinary.

Your attempt to denegrate by using the "what do weathermen know" argument just shows your MO. You have to know that Meteorology is a science in itself and there are numerous PhD.s in the field.

I'm not going away. I will continue to post the truth about this outrageous scam until everyone understands that it is a SCAM!

Its All We Have

The precious earth we have to be good to her because its all we have. I was listening to a radio show where aboriginals were talking of mother earth and how they showed her the greatest respect for her precious gift of life. I liked their philosophy very much because if they took from the land they believed you had to make it right and give back. I think we could all benefit from their belief system paying homage to a planet who supplies us with all our earthly needs. Its common sense. I don't need a whole lot of proof about what is going to happen to our weather because its all around me the waste, the pollution, the complete disregard for our planet in our everyday lives and that just has to cost.

mopled

I sure hope that you're right mopled but given the substantiated evidence contrary to your opinion, I'd rather be safe than sorry. But then again, one ABC affiliate in Texas says otherwise, well then, global warming must be hogwash.

ME2

Apparently you don't have a clue how I choose so allow me to eniighten you. Since I'm not a scientist I don't have a side, I simply accept what the scientific community says. If tomorrow the scientific community said they found life on some other planet you would apparently try to say they're wrong based on whatever, whereas I would simply accept it.

When the scientific community tells me mankind is having a negative effect on the environment I accept it, you say they're wrong. In spite of not being a scientist either.

In other words you got ticked off because you felt my response was sarcastic, which it was. But aside from your dislike of sarcasm you didn't have a point.

I don't know, is it? Time will tell I suppose. By the way, what exactly is the problem with being a supporter of a biofuel?

So to sum up, you believe the majority of the scientific community is wrong about "global warming" because you, a non-scientist, have read more on the web than they have. And secondly that those who disagree with you are narrow-minded, immune to reason and probably involved in a conspiracy.

Like I said, I just wanted to find out why there were Leftists on the Denialist side. Thank you for your input.

mopled

What's truly shocking about this quote is that people would believe it. Environmentalists can outfund the US government and the oil and coal industries?

Read that back to yourselves, they can't even win a seat in a legislature anywhere in North America but somehow they have enough money to fund university researchers to propagate a hoax?

People who can't stop a valley from getting logged somehow have all this grant money under their control?

Really? Why would the major netwroks not "dare" display contrary opinions? What would be the penalty if they did?

So you'll keep fighting until the world is safe for the oil and coal industries to continue to pollute our planet because none of us will any longer believe its bad for us? Keep fighting until the last windmill is torn down and burned?

Deal with this

"The German newspaper Die Welt conducted a telling study: among German climatologists, 85% stated that the processes of climate change are not sufficiently understood to support predictions about the climate with any certainty, 81% said that the necessary empirical data has not yet been collected, 79% said that our climate-models are not yet precise enough, and 61% didn't think computers have adequate processing power to run the extraordinarily complex models that climate science requires."

The funding for the PR campaign has come from US foundations and most of that money originates from oil money. Oil and coal companies will profit from the global warming scam. Most are into nuclear too.

The funding for the IPCC came from a foundation set up by Ted Turner.

The funding for climate science comes from government, but as Dr. Gray pointed out, the Clinton/Gore admin. would not give Colorado State funding to pursue other possible explanations for the small amount of warming we've had.

It's a government and foundation run scam,
and CO2 isn't pollution.

Fun in Texas

Doesn't really square with this :

In early 2002, Larsen B, an ice shelf about 10 times the size of the Isle of Wight, peeled away from the continent and crashed into the sea. "Nobody believed that Larsen B ... could collapse in a matter of weeks," Mr Casassa said.

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3152351.ece

The peninsula

is being heated by under-sea-volcanos, smarty pants!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527235943.htm

on the southernmost continent and in the Southern Ocean.

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up several years ago. Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of thousands of years.

Scientific evidence the team collected also corroborates mariners' reports of discolored water in the area, which is consistent with an active volcano.

Eugene Domack, a researcher at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York and the expedition's chief scientist, said the volcano stands 700 meters (2300 feet) above the seafloor and extends to within roughly 275 meters (900 feet) of the ocean surface.

He estimated that the volcanic cone contains at least 1.5 cubic kilometers (.36 cubic miles) of volcanic rock.

mopled

So they will benefit from people using less? The so-called laws of supply and demand no longer apply?

So your assertion is that oil companies are funding a hoax to make the world not want to use oil? Something about that strikes me as illogical.

The only thing surprising is that the numbers aren't 100%. I doubt any scientist believes the amount of information available is all they need or want.

Not according to Wikipedia, they don't even mention old Ted. "The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments."

So the US government has only given funds to universities that say they believe in global warming? No others? Not even those who just say they aren't decided, if any? Not even when Bush was elected?

mopled

Ones unknown to Gino Casassa obviously. Or are you saying he's lying? Because he has to be either ignorant or lying, right?

Which sounds to me like they're studying it. No conclusion either way, is that where you stand?

It really isn't about oil

It is partially about shutting down the first world,"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?"
Maurice Strong

And it is about overcoming peoples resistance to nuclear (which Exxon, Shell Royal Dutch is mostly the Queen of the Netherlands, QEliz.2 (Rio Tinto mines in which she is the major shareholder owns lots of uranium )

Then there is the slow starvation of the Third World, always good for population control....after all, look at the wealth that is in Africa.

Bio fuels are driving the cost of food up. Food is going to motors instead of mouths.

Get your head out and smell the globalists!

mopled

Why would oil companies or governments want to shut down the first world? They're a big part of the first world.

Somehow I doubt global warming is a huge hoax perpetrated by scientists to make us like nuclear?

I don't follow this line of logic. How is the slow starvation of Africa due to a hoax?

Which again doesn't jive with your argument since it is scientists and environmentalists like Monbiot (the "gatekeepers") that are decrying this.

Denialists would win this global discussion in an instant if there was a decent internal logic to their argument. There isn't.

Petel

Thumb's Up!

WOW!

This guy sure sounds like a "climate scientist" to me. Perhaps Gordon Campbell could get him to come up and address the Take the Lead Conference. I’ll bet he’d look great in spandex…

Maybe he could get Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton to join one of the panels as well.

Morgan holds the television Seals of Approval from both the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association (NWA). He completed advanced meteorology studies at Mississippi State University, and also holds a degree in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin.

He began "chasing" storms as a Skywarn storm spotter near his hometown of Abilene while still in high school, and continues to pursue severe storms in the Great Plains when time permits. He served several years as a moderator of Stormtrack, the world's largest online forum for storm chasers. Morgan is also a licensed amateur radio operator and enjoys making new friends around the world via ham radio.

Morgan owns two greyhounds and supports the adoption of retired racing greyhounds. He is also a tennis and baseball fan. The Texas Rangers and Dallas Cowboys are his teams. He also closely follows state and national politics and financial markets.

Source: the KTLV website

How much would you like to bet, mopled, that your 'scientist' expert has this qualification?

http://www.msstate.edu/dept/geosciences/CT/BMP/Site.htm

I think I'll stick with the IPCC - where the science is peer-reviewed, if you don't mind.

Like I said you're destroying your credibility.

Do you bet on the greyhounds?

Globalists Love Global Warming

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm
A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

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.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.

In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

cont'd

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves...http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/120307newworldorder.htm
Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming.

Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.

The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker.

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion are being linked with Holocaust denial.

Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.

mopled

Agreed, I do think this. Nothing personal against you, ME2 and Truman though. I've got a lot of time for Alexander Cockburn over at CounterPunch too even though he's a denialist.

Simple, they don't.

Of course they would. If they feel they can't win an argument against the science they will instead adopt the issue as their own and then take control of it. So I expect the Right to do this, I would be shocked if they didn't.

I agree. I don't care how much people think "intensity targets" will help. The population is too big.

cont

Lots of people believe this, not just Brown. Global warming is one of those things that will never go away unless we make decisions as a planet.

That the quotes are also used within right-wing conspiracy circles doesn't surprise me, they've been worrying about the UN black helicopters for decades.

You don't think taxing the consumption of fossil fuels is an obvious element of the overall solution? Why the word "pretext"? The only reason I can think of for the insertion of that word is that Deutch doesn't believe in global warming, he just wants people to think the gov't is doing something while enriching the coffers at the same time.

The same media that gave as much attention to the denialists as the warmists for the first few years of this "debate" by the way.

Do you seriously believe the environment can be saved by not imposing taxes? I don't.

mopled, this is the tinfoil hat stuff you should avoid.

So why was the 3rd world so poor before "climate change" hit the airwaves? Really, is this a "best of" argument because it has no basis in fact or logic and is little more than white noise. No offence.

Oh, Frank

You keep trying to make this logical. It isn't about logic it's about greed and evil and manipulation.

As to tinfoil....The Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conferences, the Council On Foreign Relations all exist and do exactly what is reported above.

The Third World is being asked to use primitive methods such as peddle power for pumping water or expensive alternatives like solar and forgo the use of oil and coal. Biofuels are driving up the cost of food and thousands of sq. miles of rainforest are being cleared to grow them.
That's the real global warming catastophe.

Just as Alexander Cockburn said in his articles....

There is NO CRISIS.

It's MADE UP!

Are you really going to tell me the public hasn't been scammed before. This is just bigger!

You get snooty about Jones and Watson, but you can't turn your nose up at the majority of scientists who do not support the Gore Bull.
http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html

19,000 Scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
77 Skeptical Scientists (Business and Media Institute)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (Telegraph.co.uk)
27 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)

An Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007.
embedded links on original at:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
along with a list of dissenting top scientists.

And a partridge in a pear tree

Bwaaaa ha haa haa ha HA!

I see you're still wearing that same old tattered cutty sark from the National Post.

I'm gonna call up my local weatherman and see what he/she thinks mopled.

I think I'll learn about as much from that as I will looking through the same old stuff that's been sloshing around the looney-net for years!

You are a piece of work, GW

Been studying under Chomsky?

You pretend that the information can be dismissed because it's old when most everything is current or that meteorologists(weather people) are not trained scientists.

What's very funny is that you dismiss meteorology but buy into Hansen's faked and manipulated data which was blown apart by the Canadian team of McIntyre and McKittrick.

No sense of national pride either!

The guy is a JOURNALIST mopled.

You need to do a little more research my friend. Waving Chomsky at me is tantamount to the white flag surrender on your part.

Chomsky would chew you up for a snack.

I'm very proud of Canada, although I'll be a lot prouder when we get busy and start doing something (other than talking) about tackling our own huge contributions to global warming.

As for McIntre and McKittrick - they have about as much retained credibility as little timmy ball. OLD NEWS bud...Old news.

Morgan Palmer

He has a journalism degree with a specialization in meteorological BROADCASTING...that's it, that's all!

You floor me!

You say:
"As for McIntre and McKittrick - they have about as much retained credibility as little timmy ball. OLD NEWS bud...Old news"

Old news...August 2007?
So, using the "Old News" Ruse again?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=789
"In what follows we simply quote, verbatim, from the report and Wegman’s Congressional testimony. The report and hearings are available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Wegman.pdf, http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/hearing.htm and http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/hearing.htm

WEGMAN EXCERPTS

The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.

While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.

“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.

It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.

We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."

mopled

Except that you want me to believe the story concocted by the greedy. Which is why its illogical. If it was logical then there really would be a Peak Oil which you don't believe in. There would have to be as there would be no other reason for oil companies to want to kill their golden goose and replace it with one that produces less gold.

But if I accept your and Truman's premise that there is no such thing as Peak Oil then your argument that big oil is secretly funding interests that oppose it makes no sense.

Which is take over the world? Make people pay higher taxes? You don't see the similarity with the arguments of people that live in Idaho and have bomb shelters and belong to well-armed militias and believe the literature that says income tax is illegal?

Think, why didn't the Third World simply develop 20 years ago? They can't afford the prices of oil and gas mopled. That's why they themselves are looking for methods that can be used at the village level without providing trained engineers to every village.

As for biofuels, I repeat, its the Left, guys like Monbiot that are fighting the concept of growing fuel instead of food. Its guys like Bush that want to do it.

Even though many on your side admit the climate is indeed changing? Which is in fact a crisis. Pretty much the definition of it.

Who is Jones and Watson?

As for majority, you've already been clear in the past that you don't care how many scientists say this or that. You choose what you want to believe. If a majority of scientists say global warming is a hoax and we should stop picking on oil and coal then global warming will go away and you can rest easy.

It's not a ruse

These guys have been at this for years - McKitrick is an economist...McIntyre works in the mining industry.

Apparently McIntyre is also a great squash player (big part of his own bio) and a Commonwealth scholar (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) who didn't go to MIT but does have a B. Sc (Maths) from U of T. Maybe if he took the distance education course in broadcast meteorology from Mississippi State he could be a 'weatherman' too.

I should be impressed?

Even Bjorn Lomborg isn't really denying global warming anymore – now his just quibbling over the price...perhaps you could contact the National Post and let them know.

Frank, old boy

The Right/Left thing is an illusion because the global elite control both sides of the argument... and the oil companies.. and the coal companies.. and the nuclear interests.

You know that, so why harp on oil companies which will not loose a dime to "global warming". Since supply is being manipulated and the price increasing...what profits are the oil companies being denied.
Profits are at record levels.

Warmists keep pointing to a non-existant consensus...which is why I introduced the numbers of skeptical scientists to show that if there is a consensus among scientists it would seem to be one against the idea that we are experiencing anything other than a normal climate cycle.

Alex Jones and Paul and Joseph Watson are prisonplanet.com, which you try to dismiss as "tinfoil" hatters.

Interesting how both you and GW use the same kind of tactics and both of you constantly uphold whatever story is being pushed by media.

mopled

So they're the ones that said "the elites" are trying to use global warming to take over the world?

Assuming you're right about Peak Oil, they will in fact lose money if global warming limits the consumption of fossil fuels. I don't see how or why you'd debate this point. Because as you say...

Yes, so why would they want to move everyone to nuclear power when they're making money hand over fist. It isn't logical.

Yes, it did seem to me that a consensus had indeed been reached. Doesn't mean I believe all scientists think there's no point in doing further study. I'm sure there is. But it would appear that we should be assuming that things aren't rosy when it comes to the environment and start taking the safe course. We don't have other planets to go to, we only get one chance to get it right. If you're right, then who cares if we worried about global warming? But if you're wrong we're screwed. I prefer taking the safe course until the day comes when the Denialists are proven right.

And we're both NDPers, both Canuck fans, both Roughrider fans, both from Saskatchewan. Lots of similarities. But you're wrong about tactics, we're actually quite different in our posts.

As for the media, that's not accurate, we both tend to disagree with the MSM more than we agree.

Mopled, you may have some

Mopled, you may have some valid points, but I can't hear them because of who you're quoting.

I won't listen to another word from Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Craig or Keith Idso or their father Sherwood, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Fred Seitz, Robert Balling, Patrick Michaels, John Christy, John Daly, Sylvan Wittwer and Tim Ball.

Nor will I entertain any information coming from Science and Environmental
Policy Project (SEPP), Greening the Earth Society, George Marshall Institute, Western Fuels Producers Association and its newsletter "World Climate Report", Heartland Institute, Global Climate Coalition, Information Council on the Environment (ICE), International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP), American Petroleum Institute, International Petroleum Industry, Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), Centre for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change or World Climate Review.

These are all scientific and public-relations poison. I take no issue with the $57 million in funding they have received over the past 18 years from energy companies such as Exxon, Shell, Sunoco etc, but I DO take issue with their routine of distorting facts, forging signatures and letterhead of genuine scientists to a body of work not their own, concerns over peer review of their research, falsification of data, misrepresentation of conclusions.... all the things Gore is rightly castigated for, these individuals and organizations are guilty of in spades.

There are too many other good scientists who have legitimate concerns, such as NASA's Michael Griffin, Columbia's George Kukla and London's Philip Stott, to be paying any attention to those who have blotted their copybooks, not merely once or twice, but again and again and again and again and again, all for money or the notoriety of holding a contrarian viewpoint.

And I'm not sure what to make of Michael Crichton. I suppose I'll have to read his book.....

And really, quoting newspaper articles in your defence does NOT become you. If you haven't started on the series about Canwest Global starting today in the Tyee, you should. It'll only confirm for you, as it does for so many of us what Mark Twain said about journalists "...that having failed at ditching and shoemaking, fetched up in journalism on the way to the poorhouse."

Convenient smears

Roy Spenser: his own words.

"ExxonSecrets.org notes that I have given talks on global warming at conservative think tanks like the Marshall Institute, implying that I have some sort of financial relationship with them. In truth, I received no speaking fee for these talks -- but I HAVE been paid for giving talks for environmental organizations in several states. I wonder why ExxonSecrets.org doesn't mention this connection to "Big Environmentalism"? After all, they are the ones who have paid me speaking fees -- not the Marshall Institute.

After 12 years of receiving no compensation for my writings, I was eventually asked to write global warming related articles for TechCentralStation.com (now TCSDaily.com). That website advocated science, technology, and free markets, and was indeed partially funded by Exxon Mobil. While I no longer write for that web site, over a three year period I augmented my "day job" salary by an average of 5% by writing articles. The views expressed in those articles were consistent with the views I had expressed for twelve years for no compensation. (Quite frankly, since I supported the ideals promoted on TechCentralStation.com, I really didn't care who funded it).

The dirty little secret is that environmental organizations and global warming pessimists receive far more money from Big Oil than do global warming optimists such as myself. While professional environmental lobbyists are totally dependent upon environmental crises for their continued existence, atmospheric researchers and meteorologists have day jobs which are not. Some outspoken global warming pessimists have received large cash awards (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the positions they have taken; there are no such monetary awards for global warming optimists. Instead, we have to endure scorn from several outspoken peers in the scientific community, some of whom are successful at thwarting our publication of scientific articles and government funding of our research proposals.

As long as the global warming pessimists can convince the public that we skeptics are simply shills for Big Oil, they do not have to address our scientific arguments. The claims that there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that oppose a manmade source of global warming are, quite simply, wrong. Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, and increasing numbers of scientists are now speaking out about their doubts concerning mankind's role in recent global warmth."

The Denier series in the National Post is written by Enery Probe's Laurence Solomon."Energy Probe is a consumer and environmental research team, active in the fight against nuclear power, and dedicated to resource conservation, economic efficiency, and effective utility regulation."
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm

Lets talk about Gore

Zalm, why do you not question the funding of the NGOs pushing the hysterical and totally unscientific Global Warming nonsense?

Where is the $100 million a year for the next 3-5 years that Gore plans to be spent pushing AGW/CC coming from?

"Madison Ave. Warms to Climate Change
Shops Vie for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection Biz
Published: August 27, 2007
" Four elite agencies -- Crispin Porter & Bogusky, Bartle Bogle Hegarty, the Martin Agency and Y&R -- are squaring off for the business and are expected to present to the former vice president himself early next month, according to executives familiar with the review. The budget for the "historic, three-to-five-year, multimedia global campaign," as the request for proposals puts it, is contingent on how much money the alliance raises. Media spending will likely be more than $100 million a year."
or http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html
"Since his nonelection, Gore has become a millionaire many times over, bringing him, in financial terms, shoulder to shoulder with the C-suite denizens he used to hit up for campaign cash. In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million."

Hmmmmm. Kind of Mulroneyish and not very "Green".

And you carry on about speaking and consultant fees for skeptics. Really!

Let's talk about Gore

because bringing a strawman into the debate is better than being laughed out of the room for denying global warming and climate change.

Correct!

Very good Woody! You searched your answer by Googling/Wiki. Which proves what I said earlier you haven't done any real investigation. Unlike zealothead mopled I'm not a raving lunatic crying this is what truth is. I'm giving you my interpretation, my opinion and then lunatics like you start foaming at the mouth cause you can't comprehend the thought of losing one inch of your precious western lifestyle! Enjoy it while it lasts boys! Cause were coming to get it one day soon!! (Insert: Dr. Evil laughing....")

Gore's hardly a strawman

when everyone is reacting to a movie he made.

His exagerated claims have everyone trembling in fear or carrying on like C of R who assumes that we are doomed and we brought it on ourselves and(s)he's going to enjoy every minute of our burning in the tier of the Inferno set aside for gluttons.

Who doubts we are controlled by an elite!

Just look at what is happening here in the province. Did any of you vote for the Crown to be stripped of assets like Gordo has done?

If I had just walked into this debate, one of the things that would make me wonder is why people are so resistant to good news? Or, why is Lomborg attacked for saying it makes more sense taking care of whatever damage occurs than it does trying to prevent it by limiting CO2? He even buys into the CO2 thesis.

William Nordhaus, an economist with impeccable credentials, takes the Stern Review to task. It's Stern who wants big sacrifices now for small benefit in the future.

"The radical revision of the economics of climate change proposed by the Review does not arise from any new economics, science, or modeling. Rather, it depends decisively on the assumption of a near-zero social discount rate. The Review’s unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of discounting assumptions that are consistent with today’s market place. So the central questions about global-warming policy – how much, how fast, and how costly – remain open. The Review informs but does not answer these fundamental questions."

Now that even the IPCC has revised all the numbers downward, maybe it's time to take a breather and re-examine some assumptions.

And yes, I am certain there is no crisis for the simple reason the crisis scenario was based on cooked data.

mopled

Oh beans mopled, I hadn't even seen the Gore movie until a few weeks ago. I doubt ClubofRome has seen it either. Most of us form our own opinions from reading the opinions of people we've grown to trust over the years, not from a video.

Doesn't the fact that they run government and industry make them the elite? Ergo, whoever controls is in fact "the elite"?

Because unfortunately the bad news is more logical. Billions of people spouting pollution and eating everything that moves seems like a prescription for problems. Being told that its not a problem, we're fine seems kind of silly in comparison.

Because some damage you can't fix by writing a cheque. I think this is a terrible mindset, the idea we can deal with planetary problems by writing a few cheques. Nature doesn't have a bank.

Frank, it ain't broke!

There is nothing to fix. The climate isn't broken and maybe you should review the people you trust. Perhaps you should read Prof David Henderson's article entitled Misplaced Trust. He's
former chief economist of the OECD, is a visiting professor at the Westminster Business School in London and he says:

"Failures of disclosure, such as many journals would not tolerate, have characterized published work that the IPCC has drawn on. The Panel has failed to acknowledge this problem and take appropriate action to deal with it. The issue is simply evaded in the relevant sections of AR4.
So far, despite the prospective high costs of what could be mistaken policies, governments have paid little attention to telling outside criticisms of the IPCC process. As a former Treasury official, with later close dealings with economics and finance ministries in OECD member countries, I have been surprised by the way in which these ministries have accepted uncritically the results of a process of inquiry which is so obviously biased and flawed.
Even if the IPCC process were beyond challenge, it is imprudent for governments to place such heavy reliance, in matters of extraordinary complexity where huge uncertainties remain, on this particular source of information, analysis and advice. In fact, the process is flawed, and this puts in doubt the accepted basis of official climate policies.
In relation to climate change, there is a clear present need to build up a sounder basis for reviewing and assessing the issues. Governments should ensure that they and their citizens are more fully and more objectively informed and advised.
Two broad lines of action could be taken to this end. One is to improve the IPCC process, by making it more professionally representative and watertight. The other is to go beyond the process, by providing for alternative sources of information and advice. An independent expert review of AR4 would be a good place to start."
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=1

This is about money, honey, never mind your self congratulatory being above all that crassness!

Hi Frank!

Who's Al Gore?

Hey Club

I think he's mopled's brother-in-law. Certainly not a dolphin anyway.

mopled

This is about money,

Yes it is. And money is nothing more than a human invention, the planet isn't.

The thing is mopled old chum, as I've said ad infinitum, if the warmists are wrong who cares? We'll have spent money cleaning up our pollution. I don't see that as being a big problem, in fact I see it as a positive even if there is no such thing as global warming whatsoever.

Whereas if you're wrong civilization will pretty much end.

The downside of your being wrong is far worse than the downside of the IPCC being wrong.

Kiss'n Cuzins'

Dang, I was close...

Abiotic solutions

Maybe it's a new cult, called Moonies or Moonbatts or something. I heard that somewhere around here lately, Moonbatts. Quite frankly listening to the person reminded me of an insane cult leader. Everything is fine, no poverty here, move along... Of course, it's like arguing with, no, it's exactly like arguing with a brick wall. Dingbat is a mild term. Personally I fine the theory of "peak oil" far more understandable than what ever Kool-aid the green/mopled camp is serving. You've said it over and over Frank, and still they don't see it. What if they're wrong? What if we are seeing the peak in conventional oil production? Then the Hubbert curve would apply and the need to transition to alt energy would be imminent. Of course, most people have trouble understanding that this transition would have a severe impact on the continuation of wealth production for the sake of wealth production... You know, none of that low lying fruit thing...
Do they ever use their own words to explain their position or just quote others until they're blue in the face?

that's the problem

you don't seem to have the proper respect for what a lowered income means when someone is already in dire straits...and we all expect some kind of monetary crash coming soon. For you it seems, it's all play money and let them eat carbon credits.

I ask again, how will a carbon tax which will flow into general revenue and be balanced by a cut in provincial income taxes benefit anyone other than those paying the most income tax?

What can it do for the environment when there is little in the way of efficient public transportation?

How does one get an fuel efficient car, when there few available except at a premium.

You don't seem to live in the real world.

For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.

If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm — a whopping reduction of 23 ppm. It would cost $1 Trillion for only the first ten years.

Bingaman-Specter is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of global temperature? After all, we are talking about global warming.

IPCC formulas indicate that the multi-trillion-dollar Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by 0.13 degrees Celsius.The difference in mean global temperature between the no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario is a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade.

That minisule amount of cool is probably because CO2 isn't responsible for much warming.

Is that what global warming hysteria is all about?

The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature outcome.

I just read that if one spent $1 every second it would take almost 32 years to go broke.

But I guess money is no object when you are Frank who writes in the Tyee.

mopled

Compared to the planet it is all "play money" mopled. And saying that the warmists are trying to profit off the poor is silly. As if the poor aren't hit by high energy prices right now.

What carbon tax? Where is it?

Raise the price of personal transportation which makes public transportation look more attractive. Discouraging the use of personal transportation would indeed help the air quality.

Economics 110, where there's a demand, supply will surely follow.

Apparently not, the one I'm in is losing species, running lower on water, has deteriorating air quality in many areas and has too many people. In yours none of that is happening it seems.

I'd rather people were "hysterical" about losing their planet than hysterical over money.

As for the numbers, we aren't paying the Martians the money mopled, it all stays right here on earth. I'm also sure the humans that would be paid won't be sticking it in a savings account on Starbase 4 in the Delta sector, it'll be spent on earth. So in fact it won't be costing "humanity" anything at all because everyone we pay it to is still part of humanity.

Funny, your not stupid Frank

But you do refuse to see the point that CO2 has nothing to do with all of the things that concern you.

Your arguments are emotional and irrational. Your only rational is trust in the people you trust. You make reference to all of the going hype like "I'm loosing species".

You can't seem to get that nothing we do in terms of limiting CO2 will do anything except take funds from things that need to be done.

You forget we were just discussing the carbon tax proposition being discussed by Carol Taylor and all those economists like Marc Jaccard on another thread.

It is a mystery.

Frank, G.West (same person, eh)

It's not very ethical of you to steal my word "warmist," eh. Get your own words to describe the GW cult.

Although I guess imitation is the best form of...oh, no! I can't remember.

And here's what would happen if we're wrong and the earth actually heats up as the more sensible warmists claim. Maybe 3 degrees in the next hundred years.

NOTHING!

Common sense should tell us that if this happens the affective differentiation (I just made that up) will be not seriously unlike the difficulty a European would have moving to Africa and adjusting to the the temperature difference, and heaven knows, the Europeans have done quite well in Africa--especially with their total lack of conscience in their treatment of the indigenous population.
(stuff like slavery and sending Paul Wolfowitz to oversee the usury, not to mention murdering Patrice Lumumba).

Except it'd be a bit more fun in winter around here and we'd spend less money on fuel hydrocarbons trying to heat up the inside of factories and houses, not to mention all the other (inside) places where humans gather in the Northern Hemisphere.

It's pretty obvious that neither Frank-Alcibiades-Booker-ov-Frank Burns-Sharing Is Good, etc, (all the same person, obviously), as well as Club of
Rome (whose namesake, the Club of Rome has the reduction of world populations as its secret agenda), has much confidence in the warming cult. They really don't care. They just keep on nagging about what a good way to reduce pollution etc.

Not so good though, because carbon dioxide doesn't heat up anything as it's unable to absorb a significant amount of rebounding infrared radiation.

Another problem with the cult:

The Hubbert Curve would be great except for one fact. (increasing, leveling off, decreasing). The stupidity of this is that the entire theory is a shameless representation of the bell curve--in which it can be said that almost everything that happens starts, plateaus, then declines. Prolem is--what are the true timelines. This is truly the Hal Lindseyification of ultimately recoverable resources. If oil is totally abiotic, its availability will still occur on a bell curve. So what? It's totally stupid and mind boggling that anyone could really believe that fuel hydrocarbons are derived from fossil fuels. (Dead critters and planets BENEATH OCEANS). This is just sheer silliness. See 'abiotic oil' again, people. They've just discoved that Titan's covered with oily lakes.

NO DEAD ANIMALS AND PLANTS THERE, EH.

mopled

Again, I'm not a scientist. I don't judge this parts per million versus that one.

Not at all, they're very rational. Its yours that are emotional.

Instead of trusting you? I should ignore the warnings from scientists and instead put all my faith in you? How is that rational? If we were talking about how long it takes to fry an egg, sure, I'll trust you mopled because I wouldn't care if you're wrong. But since we're talking about the planet's ecosystem I think I need a little more.

You have "evidence" do you that that isn't happening either? Is there a single bad thing your scientists believe in besides that the world will be impoverished fighting pollution?

That's because nothing is being done to fight global warming right now mopled. Everything you're worried about is in the future. Yet I don't see us spending that money on "the things that need to be done". In other words, that straw man is down.

All just talk. When was Kyoto signed? 1993? And they're still just talking mopled. We never will do anything.

Truman, aka mopled aka ME2

You made a mistake Truman/ME2, you used the term warmist while you were posting under one your ME2 handle. I then referred to myself as a warmist in response, as I usually do when people label me.

Excellent, and I'm glad you used capital letters because otherwise I would have been really really scared.

Great, I've jotted down your answer to global warming, "moving". I thought you were going to go with "air conditioning" but you surprised me.

You've been watching too many reruns of MASH ME2, Frank Burns isn't on this forum.

I know, we're terrible, it would be so much more sensible of us if we worried about taxes instead. Guess you signed up for a lifetime subscription to the National Post eh?

Truman aka Mopled aka ME2

Just for the record, have you ever met a single conspiracy you didn't believe in 100%?

Frank-G.West, we know you don't

believe in the C02-global warming cult.

The real pollants are the particles in the

atmosphere that interfere with breathing, not C02 which is necessary for life. Diesel fumes, for instance. This C02 crap is just amazing scapegoating of a harmless substance.

Truman aka mopled aka ME2

And we know you don't believe that anything is wrong with the world's air, water, arable land or furry creatures.

So Truman aka nightbloom do you just believe that God would have raptured us if things were actually bad?

Pollutants, I mean. Pollants are something

else altogether.

Yeah, AGW/CC

I don't believe that. But I've found much of the documentation showing how the scam has been perpetrated. As I've said before, when everything is published, one can't quite call it a conspiracy.

And if you think you don't know or understand enough science maybe you shouldn't be discussing a scientific topic.
I'm sorry, but that is stupid. To keep expressing an opinion on something you admit to knowing little about.

Every new fact I come up with is dismissed as either done by scientist in the pay of Exxon and when that one doesn't work you resort to "We can't afford to take chances"

That an effing ridiculous stance to take when there are more chances of its getting colder than hotter.

If we got colder, times would be a great deal tougher during an ecomomic collapse than they would in a warmer clime.

And that's why we shouldn't be spending money on nonsense like keeping track of our carbon footprints. with the price of fuels going out of sight we're going to need every penny just to keep warm!

Quick question for the editors

Why did you remove the nice photo of Gordon Campbell and replace it with a melting earth?

Pressure from somebody?

Just curious.

WE WERE GETTING A LOT OF INDICATIONS PEOPLE WERE CONFUSED, THINKING THE (COLIN) CAMPBELL QUOTED IN THE STORY WAS (GORDON) CAMPBELL. THE PHOTO, WITH A CAPTION REFERENCING A COMMENT BY COLIN CAMPBELL, SEEMED TO BE A MAIN REASON. -- TYEE EDITOR

Plenty of bad crap in the atmosphere, but

none of it's called carbon dioxide. Funny thing, but real pollutants in the atmosphere reduce the temperature; they don't increase it. And that's only one of the jokes that accompany the warmist cult.

Truman/mopled

How do you manage to not cross the streams from your light sabres when the two of you post at almost the same time like that?

Cause you know

THAT would be bad!

So you're a betting man!

What kind of odds do you get on that from Ladbrooks?

mopled

I'm not, I'm discussing a political topic. If you think you're discussing a science topic you might want to go reread the article.

What's even worse is I'm winning. That's gotta hurt. But then that's because I know this is a political topic, you don't.

As opposed to your "we can afford to take chances" refrain?

Good thing that that we're not eh? 14 years of just talking. Yet you're worried about the fact more talks are planned.

Did you get your rebate yet for the money they haven't spent on global warming yet?

ME2 aka Truman

What's really funny is when somebody thinks scientists have less of a clue about the atmosphere than Tyee posters.

I think you should write to them and tell them that, it might revise everything and you'd be on the news for saving the world by telling scientists what they didn't know.

This just in: Canadians tickled pink

to pay more taxes on petroleum products if the money'll go directly to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

When asked about giving up their SUV's they said. No effing way. (I just made that up).

Problem is if Canada completely disappeared from the surface of the earth there would be no discernible difference in the rate of temperature increase or the amount of total Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

But if you think that's weird how about this headline: Many Canadians (I can't remember the percentage) would be happy to pay more for fuel if it would reduce the usage. (Hee hee, you'd think that'd be kicking in any moment, now.) See why the Rockefellers are so rich. People are really dumb and gladly pay more for a resource that isn't really being depleted. It's all in the packaging, eh.

Here's how the big oil companies see it:

Holy Smokes, we're gonna get way more for our oil--now we won't hafta find that much, eh. We'll be getting money just by raising the price of the stuff we find without spending all that (god) damned money on exploration. God is Great! Gotta love it!

Thanks Peak Oil. Thanks Mr. Hubbert. Now we can buy up all the "alternative" fuel projects, cash in on them AND get more money for producing less fuel hydrocarbons.

Not to mention getting in on all these cap and trade brokerage opportunities.

God is really great.

Truman aka mopled

Of course not, why would billions of people using gallons of the stuff every day reduce the supply? Any idiot knows you just turn on the magic gasoline pump at the station and more comes out.

Unlike everything else in the world there is no limit to our energy resources. Oh, and of course there's no limit to our water or furry animals either. I can't believe anyone would ever think differently.

Truman

Since I outed you as ME2, why not just come clean and admit it?

If paying higher prices would reduce

the usage it would have kicked in forty years ago. Prices are rising monthly; So is usage. Nothing will decrease the usage except people realizing they don't really need as much of the crap produced by this greedy civilization as they think they do.
People gotta sit in traffic for two hours a day to pay for the big stupid houses and big stupid cars they just hafta buy.

One of the last things I would ever do on

earth is use a phony name on Tyee or anywhere else on this planet, as you well know G.West-Alcibiades.

Last things?

All that sounds laudable except you did. You screwed up and referenced a post you made under the name ME2 as being from yourself.

Truman, aka mopled aka ME2

Price no longer affects demand!
Economists the world over have just read this and revised every textbook.

Yes, people will look around, see that there is no limits to our energy resources, no limits on development because all the fuzzy creatures are fine and just decide they don't have to cut back on something they enjoy. Meanwhile in the world where we have a yellow sun...

Why not, no limits on resources, no problems with the earth. Let's cut taxes and spend the money on making both the houses and cars even bigger. That should please all the Denialists.

Truman/ME2

Just coming in over the wire, in case you missed it, OPEC has read Truman/ME2's post and decided to increase production to drive up prices.

And Titan is full of oil - remember

FIRST they said there were seas of liquid hydrocarbons. Then they said there were none. Now, maybe there's a lake full of the gooey gunk. A company prospecting for oil? No, just NASA dithering over whether liquid hydrocarbons exist on the surface of Saturn's largest moon, Titan.

Until recently, many scientists expected the methane in Titan's atmosphere to come from seas, or even an ocean, of liquid hydrocarbons on the moon. And when NASA's Cassini spacecraft arrived at Titan earlier this year and released the Huygens probe, many were hoping for a splashdown. Instead, Huygens landed on solid ground, and Cassini failed to spot the kind of reflections expected of a liquid surface as it flew by the moon.

Then Cassini spotted what NASA scientists believe is a giant methane-spewing volcano on Titan.

Can we get one of those here on earth, Truman?

Ain't science fun!

Now THAT took precise coordination

eh Frank?

Geez Mopled, take a pill

It's not totally unscientific. It has plenty of good science behind it. We're all just arguing about what significance to attach to which parts of it, except for Tim Ball, who is the only one totally convinced that we're actually cooling, not warming. And there's plenty of hysteria on both sides - own up.

Don't let your anger run away with you. You can pick on the warmists's science just like I can pick on Tim Ball's science and we can both have fun, but in truth, neither of us knows what's going to happen. You just want to start a conversation going. Fine. But don't blow off everybody who wants us to use less of everything because its the responsible thing to do (value judgement here - argue it on moral grounds, not on scientific grounds)

I watched Gore's movie, and gave it all the attention it deserved when it showed him riding from place to place in his limo. I'd never heard of carbon credits before this movie, and I'm still more likely to believe in the tooth fairy than in the ability of carbon credits to ease the burden on Mother Earth. Couldn't believe a Nobel found its way into his hands. Kinda like Dubya having the presidency handed to him on a platter for coming in second.

Shit happens.

Sorry, Working Memory

...mine isn't working....

To our resident Private Defective, Frank

Now that you've stopped your babbling, Frank, perhaps you'll have time to find out what's wrong with biofuels.

And I think you're PO'ing GWest, since on another thread someone suggested he and I are the same guy. :-)

Sure nice to be so popular, though. LOL

Strawman Gore

talking about Gore is a strawman Mopled. Talking about the facts or lack thereof in his film would be on topic.

By your reasoning, a discussion about Scorcese's house would be a debate about the Mafia.

silly stuff

Why is this silly?

mopled/green/imac

As soon as you disagree with him you become an idiot. It's mildly amusing watching them self destruct as they rave on... Obviously anti-social, there was no connection to nature as they grew up. With out this connection, the human mind forgets that we, in fact are one of the fuzzy creatures. Once they disconnect from nature they can disconnect from society and any other reality that governs our behaviour. Probably subject to depression, this person has trouble distinguishing from reality and fantasy. People with this type of illness are generally more harm to themselves than to others, but you want to keep sharp objects away from them.

Truman aka whoever

Tell you what guys, why don't you pool all your theories about the conspiracies behind 911, JFK, Roswell, the Apollo landing, AIDS, never-ending oil, engineering students, the UN, Vietnam, Afghanistan, floridation, Vince Foster, teletubbies, global cooling, global warming and whatever else and start your own website?

I'm sure the world is all ears.

They could probably get Charlie Sheen as a sponsor

I notice Happy on another thread complaining that nobody here has mentioned the NDP loss in Saskatchewan.

How many times have we discussed it on one or another of these stories Frank?

Three at least I'd guess.

Which Green Rules?

Well it looks like the green back has won out over the environment as Colin Hansen, the Liberal's finance minister has just signed a deal with Alberta where nothing thats right nothing should get in the way of corporations pursuit of riches. So when I hear there will be limitations on what the government will actually do for the environment well if the deal Hansen just signed with Alberta is an indicator of what this government's intent is on saving the environment it will be minimal at best.

Democracy! Freedom!

Dang, what if we're wrong Frank! That means that peak oil is a lie! The US doesn't import more oil than its domestic production (for the last 35 years!) and they really are fighting for democracy in the gulf wars! Have we been blinded by the GW conspiracy? Is George Bush really behind the global peace movement?

But on the lighter side - we can always rely on the market club

Have a look at this:
http://club.ino.com/trading/2007/11/09/the-funny-side-of-subprime-sivs-and-cdos/

Arctic Oscillation

Ocean circulation may contribute to warming

Global warming over the past decade or so isn't all about coal, gasoline and other greenhouse gases, space scientists said Tuesday.

Melting Arctic Ocean sea ice may have been caused by a reversal in the ocean's circulation that had been going on for about a decade, scientists from NASA and the University of Colorado said.

Whether that reversal in direction was caused in large part by warmth generated by greenhouse gas is a question for another day.

The scientists used both deep-sea pressure gauges and NASA's twin satellites, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, to measure tiny changes in the weight of columns of water from the surface to the ocean bottom, between 2002 and 2006.

The two GRACE satellites travel in tandem and monitor tiny hair's-breadth changes in Earth's gravity field caused by the movement of water.

Meanwhile, the pressure gauges on the sea floor directly measure water pressure there.

"The close agreement between the North Pole pressure gauges and GRACE data demonstrates GRACE's potential for tracking world ocean circulation," said CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr, who co-authored the study that appears in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

The weight of a column of water in the ocean is influenced by such things as the height of the ocean's surface and its salinity.

A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the Ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006.

That is equal to removing the weight of four inches of water from the ocean, Wahr said.

That much drop in water pressure suggests that the Arctic Ocean changed back to a clockwise circulation, the scientists said. The Arctic Ocean had been circulating clockwise prior to 1990, but had been turning counterclockwise in the 1990s.

The change was sparked by a weakened Arctic Oscillation, which reduced the amount of salt in the upper ocean near the North Pole. That slightly decreased the weight of a column of water, changing the water's circulation direction.

"Our study confirms that many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said project leader James Morrison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but has varied on an approximate 10-year time scale since then.

It was turning strongly counterclockwise in the 1990s, during which time the Arctic Ocean lost a lot of its ice, prompting many scientists to view the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift. continues at
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5746497,00.html

GWest

I think it was 3. But Happy wants to see a big article from the Tyee with pictures showing Sask Leftists in their green and white jerseys crying into their lagers and maybe a pic of you saying "is socialism dead?" LOL

clubofrome

Its even worse than that, it means global warming has blinded us to the fact Queen Elizabeth is a giant alien lizard just like those websites claim.

WE'VE been the DENIALISTS clubofrome!

And here's another - a little less sophisticated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5VeNwG3xms

But funny none the less.

Alien lizards!?

Wow! I read that in the Enquirer, but I never believed it....

GWest

I think I recognized Capitalism from the Tyee, the guy with the bushy eyebrows right?

Yep!

Far as I know that's him.

Good Humour

Really sums up the world of "high" finance! In other news.... Am I the last person to find out that Lewis Black is a gas!? Watched a comedy special of his recently and then spent a couple of hours watching clips of his on youtube.... It was like discovering chocolate!

Lewis Black

Was it the one hour special - Black on Broadway, Club?

You're absolutely right, he's hilarious.

Damn fine chocolate - tasty, with a bite.

Colin Hansen....

minister for economic development and not finance minister as I had stated. The Liberals's flawed trade agreement TILMA helped set up by our prestigious Mr. Corporate Campbell BC's premier gives Coporations a big win over the environment as again nothing should interfer with a coporations rights to unlimited profits.

Didn't see the start

Only caught 15 minutes of the guy, but I was hooked!

...Well I'm off to reverse the circulation of the ocean currents in the Arctic now, seems they have been goofing around...

morechatter

Unfortunately the public will lap up Campbell's words while ignoring his actions.

First past the post produces majority governments and there's not much we can do about what political parties do once in power.

Is there Consensus Amoung Skeptics

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-there-consensus-among-skeptics.html

Summary

If I summarize. I think that the main difference between climate realists, also referred to as skeptics, and climate fanatics is not a different choice of some technical quantity such as the climate sensitivity. The main point in which they differ is their attitude to the society, freedom, and knowledge. Climate realists think that questions like that must be looked at in a very calm, balanced way, and each scientist must be free and independent to reach any conclusions that seem to be implied by the available evidence. They think that the complexity of complex systems must be acknowledged and uncertainties should never be masked. Moreover, the link between scientific conclusions and policies is extremely indirect and requires some people to answer many additional questions whose character is not related to climatology. Climate realists think that we must first answer these questions and then we can perhaps use the answers to influence policymaking.

On the other hand, climate fanatics think that these are moral questions that must be looked at in a very irrational way. Only one kind of an answer must be promoted or allowed. Policies must be created before the evidence is available and evidence must be tweaked to agree with the desired policies. Scientific conclusions must be deliberately exaggerated, cherry-picker, and oversimplified to achieved "sacred" goals. Everyone must be forced to believe the same thing and all infidels and heretics must be ostracized. The desired policies of CO2 regulations are good even if the climate apocalypse doesn't exist - even Marx himself believed these things - which justifies any amount of attacks and lies about the skeptics and the climate itself.

These two groups don't differ in technical details of science. They differ in their basic thinking about man, society, nature, freedom, truth, and science.

Whoops

Among is misspelled.

Motl has hit the essence of what I see playing out on this thread.

Realists vs. Fanatics

Recap: After a quiet first 1800 minutes, Fanatics open the scoring in the 1975th minute warning of possible change in climatic events. Only a brilliant defensive campaign held the score to 1 nil as the the Realists mounted their global media campaign to deny anything was wrong. Well into the 1995 minute, the Realists domininated on offence too, scoring on sheer quality control of the media and brilliant news manipulation! Leading the Fanatics at the half 3 - 1. Fanatics have come out strong in the second half with an inconvenient but well executed plan scoring twice in the 2005th and 2007th minute. Now heading for injury time as several key players have been removed on stretchers due to severe dehydration caused by water shortages and alternating bouts of drought and flood causing pandemics and malnutrition. Locust have also been spotted on the pitch. It should be an exciting finish, and if we've learned anything today it is expect the unexpected!

Realists don't deny anything is wrong

Realists just point out that the probability of CO2 having that much to do with it is zilch. Especially when weighed against the benefits of higher levels.

All of your arguments are based on the false assumption, for which no proof has ever been provided which wasn't found to be cooked, that CO2 is capable of causing the climate to change.

That's all guys!

You're seeming inability to recognize that basic fact as the cornerstone of a scam makes me wonder if you are deliberate obfuscators.

Here is a wonderful resource for anyone who would like to reexamine the arguments put forth by the Warmist clan, but the irony might escape you.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/

Revisionism

Summary

"Climate realists" are people who think everything they don't understand is proof of the existence of a conspiracy.

They think that anything that might cost them a few dollars at some point in the indeterminate future is the work of an evil race called the "elites".

They think people that believe in things like a gradual reduction of population in order to relieve the stress on endangered species and dwindling habitat are fascist tools concerned more about animals than levels of taxation.

That anyone who believes a gradual moving away from using resources that cause air and water pollution are idiots at best and part of the global fascist conspiracy at worst.

"Climate realists" think the evidence on cigarettes, asbestos and cars without seat belts is inconclusive and think its just an excuse for regulation in order to further pave the way for the UN's black helicopters to take over.

"Climate realists" think talking about something for 20 years and wanting to talk for a few more is evidence we're one step away from Rockefeller's minions taking control of the world.

"Climate fanatics" on the other hand are people who are worried more about the health of the world itself and those who dwell upon it than some new idiotic conspiracy theory thrown on top of the previous 400.

"Climate fanatics" believe in listening to what the scientific community says might occur, discussing it for years and then taking steps in the direction that science points. We believe in further study and further discussion at every step but not waiting till the last moment before beginning to take action.

"Climate realists" think even discussion is tantamount to handing the world over to the giant lizards.

mopled

Yes, the Rockefellers pay me to be on this site making the world safe for their takeover.

Road Trip

Things only get tougher for the defending champion Realists as they hit the road for their next match against the stingy and stubborn Division 1 upstarts the "Deliberate Obfuscators."

"Obfuscators"

in the last 20 years this subject has been on the radar what exactly has happened?

Have we got rid of cars? No, more than ever.

Reduced population? Nope, more than ever.

The animals have taken over? Nope, more endangered than ever.

Lots of carbon taxes? Nope, not at all.

Industry has reduced emissions? Nope, not at all.

Cut back on our consumption of fossil fuels? Ha!

Raised taxation? Nope, taxes have been going down.

In other words not one part of your giant conspiracy has actually come to fruition has it? Can you point to even one thing that has actually happened?

All I see is a lot of talk, no action and yet you denialists even think talking is a sign of the apocalypse.

Climate Realists

Could anyone point me to the time management tools the Climate Realists are using?

I have a lot on my plate and thanx to mopled I now realize that if a small cabal of conspiracists can organize the controlled demolition of the Towers of Mammon, cook the books (pun intended) on global warming, and remain under the radar of law enforcement, the media, and governments the world over... they must have a efficiency secret that Steven Covey would kill for.