Public Servants? How Quaint.....

SharingsIsGood:

Public Servants, such a quaint term, is it really appropriate today? If I had "private" servants that stole me blind and filled my head with bafflegab to disguise what was going on, I would tend to terminate their employment if I wised up.

I know we can fire these guys come election time, IF we had an electorate with a clue about what is going on. A press that tried to keep us informed about more than the latest about Britney and Paris were be very helpful too, of course.

Ooops, gotta go now, seems there is another gangland slaying or a 47 car pile-up somewhere, and that stuff really affects me and my life. I can't wait until six o'clock to see what shiny objects have been polished up for my amusement today.

Oh yeah don't forget that between Governator Arnie and Captain Gordo climate change doesn't stand a chance - we'll be back in Eden anyday now!

what canya really say

about Gord. Looks like he`s got the vision thing going eh?

tongue in cheek - kootcoot

Yes, kootcoot, I could hardly keep from making myself sick when I was keying the word "public" in reference to our arrogant elected official. I know it's our own fault for allowing these people to run things. I take little solace from knowing that the work I did locally helped insure that our MLA is a member of the opposition. If the MSM is going to continue to chant the Liberal Mantra, there has to be another way to get the word out about this government. Once this sitting of the Legislature rises, I believe it is time we saw NDP MLA candidates in coffee shops and in malls listening to people, taking names, handing out flyers and talking about what is really going on.

Gordoccio

What this means is the same old same old. If you grew up in Vancouver you would know what I mean. Gordon Campbell will lie, lie and lie some more just to retain power.

Three things that he must get re-elected for are:

he wants to open the olympics

the BC Legislature Raid and Illegal sale of BC Rail has to be buried very deep and he can't do it before the next election so he needs to do it after

he wants to make sure the sale of BC Hydro happens

after the next election he won't talk about the environment again.

Gordoccio is making a pitch for the next election.

Grumpy: Quote:What does

Grumpy:

Ha! Like in Yaletown? Coal Harbour? I think I've pointed out to you in another thread that this is utter nonsense. Yet you keep repeating it.

You illustrated exactly nothing. Just made up numbers and thought experiments, but no evidence.

The transit mode is not really the point. Greater density would benefit light rail as it would benefit a metro or commuter rail (and the distinction between these is somewhat arbitrary anyway). But I can't see how, by increasing density near existing skytrain stations, and thus making access to transit easier, green house gas emissions will increase.

Thank you ME2! And,...

This is the first time I hear of the issue pertaining to monoculture! Excellent point!

Skytrain: There must be some contractors making millions on this mostly useless gadget/candy-eye project. I don't have any statistics to back up my point, but I urge people to think hard as to why some of the tracks are raised because sometimes it does not make sense and it is not necessary! Sure, traffic will be disrupted for 10 sec. every 8 min. on the side roads (it makes sense to raise it, of course, when there are major arteries intersecting it). Example: Skytrain in Surrey up the slope ( a lot of the track is elevated, but most of it is unnecessary, I feel). I think this is just an example. Maybe I am missing something? If I am not missing anything, this might be just an example of the ill-thought out planning.

Example: Skytrain in Surrey

Example: Skytrain in Surrey up the slope ( a lot of the track is elevated, but most of it is unnecessary, I feel). I think this is just an example. Maybe I am missing something? If I am not missing anything, this might be just an example of the ill-thought out planning.

You have to remember that regular lrt has overhead electrical cantary wires as opposed to the rails and a ground-level electrical line for the linear induction motors of the Skytrain system.

The King George Hwy section of Skytrain is elevated to permit both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to flow unimpeded.

The only "at-grade" line along the system will be on YVR along Grant McConachie Way, and that line will act as a proverbial "Berlin Wall" with a vehicular overpass at Templeton Rd.

The Evergreen line will also be "at-grade" along the rail line in Port Moody.

The Gospel according to Luke

I think Skywalker is really K. Falcon.

How was the helicopter ride KF? You'll be doing it over the Eagleridge Bluffs one day too, because you wouldn't put in a tunnel. Let's hope lives aren't lost.

Liar's Poker

Do you really, really want to stay in the game. These servants of Mammon are using your money to take away more of your money.

Everyone should be getting a firm grip on their wallets any time they listen to this born-again conversion rhetoric from these puppets.

To bad our new lt-gov got dipped in the slimepit. Sadder yet that he allowed himself to be take in this archaic job.

I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD.

>Sure, traffic will be

>Sure, traffic will be disrupted for 10 sec. every 8 min. on the side roads ... Maybe I am missing something?

The delay time is closer to 30 seconds, as the crossings are activated before the train arrives and after the train leaves. Also, Skytrain actually runs as frequently as every 2 minutes in Surrey, in *both* directions, so you'd be closing the crossing 30 seconds out of every 60... this is one of the reasons you don't see Skytrain type frequency on LRT system such as the one in Calgary.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Calgary+AB&ie=UTF8&ll=51.049465,-114.082868&spn=0.001717,0.005847&t=h&z=18

Right on, Stump

....but just to separate the wheat from the chaff...there are two very different Skywalkers on Tyee with two very different world views. Luke Skywalker is likely one of the cast of thousands of media monitors that lurk here....purposely trying to confuse and distract by using almost the same moniker as the commentator that goes by simply Skywalker.

Skywalker makes some excellent comments re: the oligarchy that now rules BC.

That's probably why Luke Skywalker and the forces that guide him brought him onstage.

to be clear, should read:

to be clear, should read:

That's probably why Luke Skywalker and the forces that guide him brought him (Luke) onstage.

Moonwalk

from the press release:

• A new Pacific Carbon Trust will foster economic growth from new opportunities in carbon credit trading and carbon offsets. The Trust will invest in made-in-B.C. offset projects that produce emissions reductions that are permanent, measurable, verifiable, and additional, and that are regulated by government. Projects in energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration – including incremental tree planting – will all be eligible.

So the Govt thinks that climate change is not worth addressing unless it “fosters economic growth.” Carbon credit trading is a license to pollute. Whether its intensity-based targets or carbon offsets, you can’t fool Mother Nature, she only knows her own carrying capacity. Everywhere you look that capacity is being threatened and degraded.

King Gordo’s budget and “green” initiatives are similar to Michael Jackson’s moonwalk--appear to be moving forward while really moving backward.

Quote:"So the Govt thinks

Sounds like something akin to the federal NDP's approach... get with the program.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5939

Bingo Lynn

Lynn,

I think you're right about Luke, check out his first past the post comment over under the Jumbo Devastate the Wilderness article.

Federal NDP poli

I think you need to read the policy again.

Start with this:

BC’s forestry communities are being hurt by the same kind of thinking – shipping raw logs to the US without fighting for value-added jobs here in Canada.

Well…the good news is that the rest of the world is not waiting for Stephen Harper or George Bush. They are already building the New Energy Economy. The world is at a crossroads and Canada can’t afford to take the wrong path. Ordinary Canadians want their government to pick the path of progress. They want to join the ranks of the countries implementing innovative solutions – to create jobs and clean up the environment.

Countries like Australia. Where our cousins in the Labor Party just defeated Stephen Harper’s political soul-mate John Howard. Now Australia has a government that is serious about climate change. A government that believes in respecting the Kyoto Protocol and the UN process.

That’s one less ally for the Harper Government.

The new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has ambitious plans for his country. His “Skilling Australia” initiative and a plan to fight climate change were central to the Labor campaign that promised a Strong Economy and a Fairer Society. Prime Minister Rudd’s proposal to curb climate change includes a comprehensive plan to retro-fit 200,000 existing homes through low-interest loans. A plan that will create green-collar jobs – for construction workers and technicians – at the same time as it will reduce CO2 emissions.

Instead of absolute nonsense like the Campbell plan - delivered by his amanuensis Kevin Falcon - to wrestle CO2 to the ground by building more and wider freeways.

A CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE

From Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

Can anyone out there provide me with any empirical data in support of the theory that humans control climate warming? No, don't tell me that climate is changing - we geologists absolutely know that climate changes all the time, in both directions, and at many scales of time and intensity.

Don't give me results of computer modeling - those are not empirical data, they are the results of very serious attempts to place numbers on natural phenomena, but they are still based on assumptions and estimates, and have not been able to replicate past climate changes, particularly over the last 1500 years. Computer models are currently nothing more than scientific theories set to mathematical music.

Bring us some data, some values that support the concept. Right now the data show correlative changes in temperature and solar activity, modified by ocean current movement and orbital variations, many of which are predictable and which have operated to change climate for billions of years.

Yes, there is an increase in carbon dioxide, but its effects drop logarithmically with its increase. Thus, it doesn't pose a threat. All told the full greenhouse effect, mostly water vapor, does make Earth a habitable planet.

Please don't argue that climate is changing at rates and intensities not ever seen before. That is just not true. Read the data already out there from the geologists and those who study past climate change.

Tell me why otherwise competent scientists argue for their theory but fail to provide any support for their theory other than constant repetition of untrue statements and alarmist exaggerations. Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Is that what is happening?

so your a geologist now mopled

Interesting!

An eyewitness to Intelligent Design?

Doc Gerhard quotes Upton Sinclair thus:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Yep, there used to be many scientists who were happy to assert that there was no empirical evidence linking tobacco addiction to various health problems. Hell, they even claimed tobacco wasn't addictive. Of course it turned out these scientists were getting paid by tobacco companies, although sometimes so indirectly it was difficult to connect the dots.

Perhaps Doc Gerhard would be willing, in the name of full disclosure, to disclose the sources of his income. Maybe I should add - including any that arrives in paper bags as cash ala Brian Mulroney. In the case he's worried about any bags of bills, I won't rat him out to the IRS.

Of course he is apparently a geologist and "emeritus." The emeritus would suggest an advanced age. So just maybe he could also debunk evolutionary science based on his personal experiences observing dinosaurs in the Wild shortly after Adam and Steve were ejected from the Garden.

Of course it might be the case that he is just a better scientist than 90+ percent of his colleagues who are taken in by Al Gore's imagination.

Isn't Kansas the state where teen age lesbians have over run the girls' restrooms in the schools? Or maybe I'm getting my inland flat states confused.

How did you get so snarky GW?

I'm a messenger, not a geologist. I never said I was anything, so how did you make that leap when the statement is preceeded by the name and occupation of it's author?

We are in the process of making long lasting infrastucture decisions on the basis of a very dodgy hypothesis.

I do wish you would stop defending the indefensible and learn something.
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm

Abstract

Current plans and actions to protect the climate lack an adequate basis in the proven results of scientific research. The group of scientists currently offering policy advice has so far failed to demonstrate the alleged mechanisms by which trace gases will damage weather and climate. Moreover, several potentially major influences on climate are being ignored.

Enhanced scientific understanding of meteorological processes might suggest substantially different climate protection activities, if in fact these are necessary or feasible. Substantial further research is required by experts in biology, chemistry, thermodynamics and meteorology to improve knowledge of atmospheric dynamics and assess the extent to which human activities affect climate.

mopled

Nothing in your post set off the words as someone else's quotation.

Go back and have a look for yourself. That's why people use the 'quote' button or quotation marks.

In any case, 'DOC' Gerhard sounds a lot like doc mopled - especially this kind of thing:

Sure is 'scientific' though!

Grasping at straws again, GW

At least kootcoot got that it wasn't me, before he went on to smear L. Gerhard without knowing anything about him. Since Gerhard gives where you can find him, why don't you contact him. I'm sure he would love to enlighten you both.

You are just looking for an excuse to denegrate me, the bearer of bad news for the stupidity that is passing for science these days.

Not at all

Instead of absolute nonsense like the Campbell plan - delivered by his amanuensis Kevin Falcon - to wrestle CO2 to the ground by building more and wider freeways.

I really thought you were claiming to be a geologist; but, to be completely honest about it mopled, whenever I see something from you I kind of just skim it now anyway.

You need to work up some new material. As for denigration, I'd never even try to compete with you on THAT score my friend.

I do think the image of a Green Gordon Campbell is about as credible as that old TV series with Lew Ferrigno as 'The Incredible Hulk'.

At least we are on the same page

about Green Gordo.

I'm posting the very latest science, so don't try to pretend it's the same old same old.

Maybe if you tried reading the information I post, instead of skimming, you'd drop
your silly stance.

In the meantime, take a look at the latest station surveyed in the system used for data collecting of ground temperatures. This is the origin of the dataset used, and massaged, by James Hansen of GISS, Father of Global Warming(at least the front man, anyway)

This is where the warming is...in parking lots, 'cause it's not showing up in the satellite data.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/

Degrees of change

Well, the difference between a nice warm bath and dinner is only a few degrees for the lobster, but it makes a hell of difference in the long run.

infrastructure changes

Those infrastructure changes represent untold economic opportunities and a cleaner environment, plus less land paved and wasted.

Hate progress much mopled?

Must be Religion...

Doesn't mopled remind you of those bible pounding zealots who are never wrong, ever. And when they are, "it was Gods will."

Quote:to be completely

I grab my balls and remind myself that circumcision is torture.

Gatekeeper Choristers

New Arctic Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology - Published online: 30 January 2008

Excerpt: “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.” < > “The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years.” Paper available here:http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/fulltext.pdf

Sequester that suckers!

Your logic is so flawed

Your logic is so flawed mopled I don't know where to begin. I think I'll just leave you to your misconceptions and enjoy my weekend.

Before I do however, consider this. If I got a headache because I drank too much one time, does that mean all headaches are alcohol-related?

Stump, that's too dumb to be believed

Since the climate has been warmer than now numerous times before now without cars and industrialization, that means man-made CO2 didn't do it before. Why should one think it is involved now?

Your headaches or hangovers are irrelevant.

Have a nice weekend and try not to drink so much. It seems to screw up your capacity to think straight.

what if, Mopled

What if we are in for a cyclic warming period and we have global warming being caused by CO2 compounded together? Could we not have a double-whammy? We know that the problems of polution are magnified in extreme heat causing days upon days being unfit for living things.

Any human that pollutes is a sin against nature. The other organisms did evolve to live in a world that has had so many human-created pollutants existing in a very thin layer of air, water and land on the surface of the Earth we consider ours. These pollutants are generally caused by people's burning of fossil fuels and wood, as well as by industrial farming methods and mining. Even without considering global warming, we are destroying great gobs of the planet at an alarming rate.

I think it is time we used the intelligence that we humans think we have for altruistic goals. I think it is time that the wealthiest and most learned people on the planet to design and build for the sake of all living things on the planet. It is time for people with the means to begin building complete public transportation systems that run coast to coast as well in our cities.

It is time to phase-out cars that pollute. It is time to consider every living thing as being important. It is time for people to give up the macho notion: "He who has the most toys wins!" for surely if we don't, we all lose. It is time for people to share.

drinking and thinking

I can think straight enough to figure out that adding 5 billion odd people to the planet might change the variables. Too bad that's beyond your ken.

If anything, your data simply confirms two things. The scientists were probably right when they said the Earth might be entering a cooling trend, and they were right when they said that human actions have changed the equation.

You cherry-pick your science and your scientists Mopled and it shows in your flawed conclusions.

Quote:Since the climate has

Your failure to understand that different actions can still achieve the same result is just stunning. Because I cut myself chopping carrots, does it mean every wound is carrot-related?

Do your really believe the huge increase in fossil fuel burning doesn't impact the environment. Oh, that's right. You do.

Fail.

Sharing, if pigs could fly...

Your scenario about the future just can't happen because CO2 can't change climate and the warming trend stopped 10 years ago.

If we are very lucky, this lack of sunspot activity may not be a sign that we are heading for a cooler period. Agriculture is not as productive in cooler times and we burn more fuel just to keep warm, so costs escalate.

Just divorce CO2 from pollution in your thinking. It is not pollution. Worry about NOX or mercury or human waste flowing into Victoria's harbor.

CO2 is a beneficial trace gas which is only 0.0385% of the atmosphere. Humans are only responsible for about 3% of that already infantesimal amount.

We are a carbon based life form and all life depends on that tiny amount of CO2 being there. The more there is, the better plants grow.

It's not as if we haven't had this conversation before.

About the rest of what you say, I'm fine with that.

Quote:Have a nice weekend

I'm not much of a drinker actually, but fools that can't spot the disaster in waiting their idiocy engenders sure make a fella need a good stiff bourbon.

Even without CO2

Mopled, burning fossil fuels causes pollution even if CO2 were not a problem(as you and a minority of others assert). Making/painting cars, wearing out tires and building highways cause pollution. Per KM travelled, high-occupancy trains are far less polluting than cars and trucks with low occupancies. As green energy technologies improve one can improve trains more easily than the automobiles.

It isn't just the CO2 that is a huge problem.

Green Highways

Green highways, now there's an oxymoron! Anyone who doubts it may wish to visit L.A., San Diego or Seattle. Increasing the number of traffic lanes sure made those cities greener, LOL!

The Trick is.......

.....pick a date -- pick any date. But not one that is anywhere near Green Gord's tenure. That way, he can promise the stars, the moon, the sun........

Sharing

The real pollution has real solutions. Many of them already in place. I don't support the tar sands obscenity either.

I told you. I don't have a problem with clear/cleaner technologies and I prefer decent transit to driving anytime.

It is the CO2 business which has be to addressed because that is to be the basis for taxing and squeezing us.

We will be taxed for a non-problem... "global warming"...
1. which isn't global
2.which isn't happening any faster than what is to be expected coming out of a cool period,
3.which may be reversing
4.on the basis of producing a trace gas which couldn't cause the non-existant problem even if the problem existed.

I can't possibly make it any clearer than that, my darling.

No you can't mopled

Your bottom line, yesterday, today and likely tomorrow is that YOU don't want to pay for it.

It's why, I'd assert, you seem to spend all your waking hours chasing down climate crank change deniers like little ole Timmy Ball and his friends or economists like Bjorn Lomborg.

You must love your money man.

I wonder if you have any children.

In my experience, people with families usually aren't quite so selfish about creating problems their children will have to deal with - or suffer from.

If countering global warming and dealing with greenhouse gases were free I'd be willing to bet you'd be on board in a minute.

I can't wait to hear what your response is to the carbon taxes that are rumoured to be coming to a gas station right here in British Columbia....

Oh, please!

The state of my familyor my finances has no bearing on the lack of scientific evidence for what amounts to a fraud.

Do you approve of fraud, GW?

Lying liars and the liars who quote them

Congrats mopled. You've now descended into outright untruths to prop up your stupid non-theories.

I am in good company

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel and now with KUSI, San Diego

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda...”

That's good company!

You must be joking...once again you're dredging up the same cast of shady bean salesmen you always do.

Mopled you've really got to get out more - you've quoted this guy at least once - probably more - right here at Tyee.

He's the weather channel equivalent of Rush Limbaugh for gods sake.

I couldn't care less about your finances

It's just that your arguments all boil down to the self-same stale complaint about not wanting to pay any taxes.

Why don't you move to Vanuatu, Singapore or one of the Channel islands where there are no taxes?

If it's not important to you and has nothing to do with your arguments then why bring up the subject all the time?

There is no valid basis for a tax

How insane are you? Do you like being scammed? While we are used to being scammed by government, since when does one have to agree with it?

Skeptical Global Warming Scientists To Challenge "Consensus"
Hundreds of experts to meet in New York, will media blackball story to maintain climate myth?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207holocaustdenial.htm
"Of course the fact that the establishment likes to engage in regular mass public deception by claiming the debate about global warming is over and any dissent is tantamount to holocaust denial doesn't bode well for potential media coverage of the conference, unlike December's UN meeting in Bali, which was lavished with endless ninnying importance about the need for a global carbon tax to save the planet from the evils of plant food (CO2).

"Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts are set to meet in Manhattan next month to discuss the other side of the climate change debate that the establishment media prefers to pretend does not exist."

"The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change seeks to "call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis,"

"Of course the fact that the establishment likes to engage in regular mass public deception by claiming the debate about global warming is over and any dissent is tantamount to holocaust denial doesn't bode well for potential media coverage of the conference, unlike December's UN meeting in Bali, which was lavished with endless ninnying importance about the need for a global carbon tax to save the planet from the evils of plant food (CO2)."

"The event is the first major gathering of climate change skeptics and intends to be a launch pad for future conferences, all of which will probably be sidelined, shunned and blackballed by an agenda-driven bias media that seeks to inculcate the fallacy that sober-minded scientists aren't standing up to the mindless fearmongering being pumped out by the global warming cult."

Somethings Awfully Smelly Around Here

Thats what I was thinking about public transit and why the whole concept of more people taking transit to save the planet probably won't go because public transit is smelly the garlic, curry, etc. its all there and when your packed in like sardines forget it. And the whole secret government thing which leaves everybody out in the cold how does that work it stinks all the hush hush whats the big secret? Its doesn't as general public is unable to make any judgments on how its government is doing when kept in the dark. I'm unclear of the carbon tax being a deterrent to using your vehicle as inflationary pricing had already done that and about business it will have to also change because of increased prices making the service industry more viable. And you can plant all the trees you want but they are going to need a safe place to grow and with the premier's plan that just isn't going to be.

mopled

I am often amazed by your dedication to this issue. You no longer even post on any topics except global warming ones. (Or perhaps I've just missed your other posts?)

Now interestingly you brought up previous warming periods such as in the 1400's. I've heard that these occurred in various places, such as mentioned in the book "1421", but I still don't understand why you believe that these previous periods mean the current concern over climate change is unfounded? As stump points out when you have the same condition occur it doesn't mean the same conditions caused its occurrence.

Now as I've said to you before, I agree ideologically with the climate change arguments. Doesn't mean I'm not against politicians pretending they're saving the world with things like carbon taxes on the little guy, just as you are, I assume you're against pollution as much as me. You're probably for halting or even reducing slowly the overall population, as I am.

Yet, the only reason people have suddenly started caring about those issues is because of "global warming". A fact you deny.

Now if you're right we'll wake up one day, pollution free, with a population equal to what our planet can sustain and everyone pissed off about finding out that they've been scammed. I just can't understand that. What are people going to do, start telling each other there was no reason to reduce our effect on the environment and we could have gone on polluting and in anger start tire fires in their backyards?

Think mopled. Its the equivalent of Gordon Campbell "discovering" a crises in health care and funding more personnel and equipment. I wouldn't care what motivated Mr Campbell to do that, I would just be happy with the end result whereas you'd be telling us we could have the same end result without Mr Campbell thinking there's a crises. No we could not.

And that is the crux of the matter. Your reasoning would take us away from saving the environment. You will deny that and say no that you're all for stopping pollution but that CO2 isn't pollution. Who cares? The only thing that has motivated people to actually give a damn about the environment is the possible threat to the economy and our existence. You want to take that out of the equation and still assume we'll get the same end results. That thinking is quite mad and I wish you'd focus more on what we need to do to attain the end results that you claim you want to see than what you believe is a giant conspiracy in regards to the method.

radical agenda

Careful husbandry of our resources and reducing pollution is now a 'radical agenda'?

puh-leeze.

Time for recess, kiddies.

This thread will not be described by anyone as having been worth the time expended reading it. The arguments advanced against Mopled have been very personal and insulting, not to mention verging on the childish. An example of this is suggesting his opinion is invalid since he is not himself a geologist.

God forbid if we cannot comment upon an issue if we do not hold the requisite credentials. this would work a particular hardship upon the maker of that comment, since he maintains he is an authority on everything.

And your collective ganging up on Mopled is no different than the pecking order on a kindergarten playground, without even having to mention that the bulk of the arguments advanced against his opinion have also verged on the childish.

I have two reasons for tending toward being a "denier". One is that there are too many credible scientists in climatology and related disciplines who have advanced serious doubts re GW.

The second is that the GW campaign is actually the anti-oil campaign with GW grafted onto it. Any kind of CO2 sequestration is prohibitively expensive, and so is gladdening to the anti-oilers.

A further thing to think about CO2 is that virtually all the noxious substances in the combustion of oil can be removed. IF CO2 can be proved harmless, as Moped et al claim, what then becomes of the Anti-oil arguments??

In the CO2 issue we see enviros supporting any self-described "expert" who comes down the pipe, repeating the merest thread of alarmist information they can find, while attacking chosen "enemies" with villainous ad hominem accusations.

It is not good enough to point out that such tactics are also in the armamentarium of the neocon. The public deserves better, and if this issue turns out to be a false crying of Wolf, they will be sure we are no better than the Campbells.

Correction

The proper term is "comes down the Pike" (turn pike). The Amurrican use is "down the pipe."

Read that post again please ME2

You'll note that the criticism had nothing to do with mopled as a person and everything to do with the sloppy way he cited and quoted a source who 'was' a geologist.

Why anyone should be particularly impressed by the fact that a geologist is offering himself up as an expert on atmospheric climate change is a mystery to me. But that's another question.

You really need to read a lot more carefully.

I have been reading mopled and Truman Green on this subject for months and they keep presenting the self-same arguments from the same hoary cast of denialist characters every time a subject here at Tyee even touches tangentially the subject of global warming.

The point, in my opinion, is that the science is - as far as possible - decided and it is long past time (perhaps even too late) to start enacting REAL solutions.

Maybe we can use some words from an old song by the Doors (with a small substitution in the last line):

cover it with concrete/asphault

"They paved paradise put up a parking lot..."

Not only do concrete and asphalt redirect rain from aquafirs, and not only do they cover soil and vegetable matter making it impossible for them to grow the plants that filter Carbon from the air; they also release toxic substances into the land air and water.

Concrete is not green - it is grey. 7% of the CO2 released in the atmosphere comes from the production of concrete. 60% of the CO2 from concrete is a direct result of the chemical process that causes limestone to bind with the clays and aggregate within concrete itself. The remaining 40% comes from the fuel used to acquire, separate, crush, roast, mix, transport and apply the materials to make the final product. The resources are dug from open pits that have a deleterious effect on living things above, around and downstream from them. Whole mountains worth of gravel, sand and limestone are used in it's production. Most of the fuel consumed in concrete's production/transportation is done using diesel-powered furnaces and trucks. They cause huge amounts of pollution in and of themselves in addition to producing CO2.

Most concrete has a useful life of about 100 years. Think of it, just about everything built in the last 100 years will need to be rebuilt!

Asphault is an oil and aggregate-based product that is carcinogenic to living organisms that are in contact with it. It leaches oil products into the groundwater.

Why Geologists?

One of the claims about this recent warming trend is that it is unique. That "never before yada yada yada."

Geologists have the expertise to look at the past as it has been recorded in layers of the Earth and in sediments, that is why they play a prominent role in the discussion.

As has been shown by many researchers, we have had these warming periods before. It is therefore logical to assume that those forces creating past warmings are at play now....not that a new influence is causing the same thing to happen.

In the 1960's someone wondered if the extra CO2 that man was producing through his fuel combustion was having an effect on weather.
What started as a question morphed into "fact", through carefully orchestrated public relations campaigns.

Now, with it beyond doubt that:
1. the whole of the solar system has warmed sinultaneously with the Earth,
2. that CO2 levels follow the Earth warming, that higher CO2 levels are an effect, rather than a cause,
3. and the Earth has been warmer than now at least 3x in the last 2000 years,

why the insistance on CO2 being evil?

Now this is where things get tricky, because the major players pushing the false paradigm have been shown to be either personally profiting,( Al Gore, Maurice Strong), or have been rewarded for changing scientific data to support the false paradigm,(Hansen of GISS and Santer of Lawrence Livermore Labs.)

You make call me a cockeyed moralist, but I have seldom noticed that much in the way of good comes out of crime.

While we in the developed world are busy measuring our carbon footprints and will soon pay extra taxes as punishment for having big feet,it is the 3rd World which will truly suffer. Read:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/3788/

As for "the science is settled" argument, that is ridiculous, as many a scientist has pointed out, science is never "settled".

The IPCC cut off date for papers to be reviewed was July 2006 and many papers have been published since showing the impossibility of CO2 being able to warm the Earth by itself or to change climate. New research points to ocean current syncronization as being a major climate changer and the interaction of sunspots and cosmic rays as being a major influence on warming or cooling.

So, tell me again why you think we should be held in thrall to a false paradigm which will divert attention from real problems that need real solutions.

Round up the scientists

mopled,

It is certainly a good thing we're not communicating on paper here. Your boring repeat of the same tedious and essentially meaningless would truly be a waste of trees. You say:

Do you approve of fraud, GW?

Perhaps you can do a citizen,s arrest (on fraud charges) of the few thousand (peer reviewed) scientists who contributed to the recent UN Climate Change Report. I know John Baird and you disagree with those guys, but John Baird doesn't know much at all except how to growl and be rude to oppostition members. Your reasoning powers are suspect, judging by thead hominem drivel you submit ad infinitum. Watch out that the UN committee doesn't sue YOU for libel, you seem to be accusing them of fraud, which was still a criminal offense, last time I checked.

The scientists(?) you insist on quoting are like the last scientist that the tobacco companies could find who was willing to deny tobacco's harmful effects for a price.

As long as you (or Stephen Harper, or George Bush) can find one (a couple more is bonus) scientist willing to disagree with the majority of the rest, the issue is "not settled" and is "open to debate". It doesn't even matter if the hired gun scientist is trained in the field under discussion as long as he has a degree and a palm to grease.

I don't have enough money to buy scientific opinion and reading Gerhard and his ilk seems too much like reading the Brothers Grimm, though they didn't claim to be non-fiction.

Everything is in Doubt

mopled

I met a man who claimed the world didn't exist, other than in my imagination, what if he's right? The evidence of my own eyeballs tells me the world is flat and the sun and moon go around us.

I know there are all those pretty pictures of that round greenish/blue planet hanging out in space, but, hey, I know about PhotoShop too. So I guess I should reserve judgement on first the existence of anything, and then this crazy idea that earth is a sphere.

So mopled, could you be of any assistance in providing me with any evidence that the world is round and/or that Doctor Gerhard exists and isn't just a nom de plume of Osama bin Laden? I can't really get down to Kansas at the moment. I certainly wouldn't want to allow myself to be defrauded though!

Wecome to the club

It's a toughening up. An initiation if you will. Good for the spirit doncha know?

We'll make a man of him yet ME2!

Might I suggest.....

....a good read?
http://www.worldwithoutus.com/

Carbon Dioxide - food if we were plants!

ME2 sums up here something that mopled has repeated ad nauseam concerning the wonderful benefits of plant food (CO2)

Maybe it ain't pollution, but it ain't good in the air in increased proportions, for those who like to breath. A friend of mine, from the Kootenays, at least twenty years younger and in good cardio-vascular condition (i.e. he doesn't smoke and he exercises seriously) is currently in Lima, Peru for a holiday and visiting friends.

He started having difficulty breathing and therefore went to a local physician. The physician told him the problem was from excessive CO2 in the smog. Lima is a city of over six million with the Andes to the east, kind of like a larger Los Angeles with even bigger mountains to trap the smog.

The only advice the doctor could give him was to spend as much time as possible at the beach, near the water as the ocean breeze helps clear the air near the water.

I will let him know that carbon dioxide is good for you, and exists in too small of concentrations to be harmful. After all, there probably isn't any evidence that CO2 is harmful. His shortage of breath and coughing is likely from trying to speak Spanish, eh?

Perhaps my friend could get his doctor's fee back for defrauding him about why he was having respiratory problems. Maybe the doctor should get in touch with mopled, so he doesn't continue blaming carbon dioxide for stuff. Maybe you could send me an email address mopled so my friend (with no respiratory problems here in the Kootenays) can contact you for advice to help him breath while he's away.

The science of selective quotation

The phrase I used was actually this mopled:

The point, in my opinion, is that the science is - as far as possible - decided and it is long past time (perhaps even too late) to start enacting REAL solutions.

This is a very long way from what you attributed to me and what you put double quotes around. You clearly haven’t absorbed the point I tried to make several steps back up this series of comments.

Let me put it another way.

The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests that increases in the levels of atmospheric C02 and other gases created by human interaction with the environment are contributing to a general world-wide increase in temperatures at a rate that is incompatible with sustainable life on this planet.

Some people, although almost none of them are within the academic and scientific community, suggest this is little more than an artifact about which nothing needs to be done.

Is that FAIR enough for you?

As to denigration and demonization, I see you're up to that again with your remarks about Strong and Gore - not to mention anyone else who disagrees with your point of view. As for anyone profiting from their work – last time I checked we lived in a capitalist market economy… If money and profits weren’t important to YOU, for example, why are you so all-fired concerned about paying the same taxes everyone else does for their own wasteful and damaging life-style?

The point is that your concern with hanging onto your money is hardly any different from the fact that others make a living promoting and encouraging a more sustainable way of life…one is the reciprocal of the other.

Can you honestly say you don't understand why people don't take you seriously?

How about taking this seriously?

Yury Izrael (IPCC C0Chair):

I think the panic over the global warming is totally unjustified
http://www.climatecooling.org/globalcoolingdocuments/YuryIzraelOpEd.htm

MOSCOW. (Yury Izrael for RIA Novosti) - I think the panic over the global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.

There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact because the climate has always been subject to change under the Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist.

Our institute has calculated that if all fuel that has been produced and discovered were burnt in several hours, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) would increase by about 800 ppm (parts per million). This is the ceiling beyond which we won't climb. But even this figure is not sensational - in the Carbonic period some 350 million years ago the Earth had several thousand ppm (10 times more than now). This time was marked by the rapid growth of vegetation that has left us with huge coal reserves. Study of the ice core recovered by Russian scientists from deep Antarctic holes has revealed that in the last 450,000 years the Earth has had at least four peaks of temperature upsurge with fluctuations of 10 to 12 degrees."

mopled

But you don't truly believe this do you? If you did you'd be able to point to all the money and time spent on cleaning up the environment before Al Gore and the IPCC.

There was no big clean up of the environment before "global warming" hit the news mopled.

The only reason its now on the agenda is because of "global warming".

Ah, now we get to the crux

Here is where the main bit of contention is.

Whether it is all right to scare people with a scam for a good intention.

May I remind you of the road to hell.

It is nice that we have finally arrived at the nitty gritty.

If the money and effort had been spent on the environment itself instead of climate studies, (an estimated $50 Billion), there are many messes that could have been attended to....like the giant soup of floating plastic in the Pacific which is killing sea creatures because they ingest it.

Also, the assumption that "There was no big clean up of the environment before "global warming" hit the news" is just that, an assumption. The reality is that there has been attention paid over the last 30 years, and things have been changed and amended and re-planned thanks to people who consider themselves stewards.

The danger of the hijacking of environmentalism is that people will blame it and not the people manipulating it for what will inevitably go wrong.

We have only to look at the news about the inefficiency of and environmental destruction already caused by bio-fuels.

It's a nice day...I'm out of here.

Scheming Green

rockyvoids wrote:

.

Neither do I - and that's a motto ( and a survival tool) to live by under our present government.....the expression of which should come attached to every BC licence plate...as a warning.

mopled

But they weren't. And THAT is the crux of the matter. There was no big push to clean up the environment before "global warming" hit the news. None. Nil. Zip. Nada. Environmentalists were ignored and ridiculed. "Jobs" trumped the environment every time.

So your claim that the studies are taking away resources that would have been spent on the environment is a red herring. History shows conclusively otherwise.

Which means you truly believe people that if your scientists are right and everyone else is wrong that people will get mad that they cleaned up the environment. I don't think so.

OK mopled

No carbon tax then! How about we get into Agriculture Minister Pat Bell's enthusiasm for the 100 Mile Diet, and put a surcharge of one measly penny for each kilometre the food we buy travels?

That way, we can directly control how much we want to pay for the carbon emissions for the transport of the food we choose to eat. And if we grow our own, we wouldn't pay anything at all!

Frank, you still argue for a scam?

Taxing CO2 production isn't going to "clean up the environment". How can it....when it is not a problem? The only thing you can pin on it is faster plant growth, with heavier fruiting and drought tolerance. Hello...that is a BENEFIT!

If you want to stop undesirable growth don't use a flawed argument in support of limits. The developer government in power knows that the AGW/CC scam is no good reason for not paving over everything in the Lower Mainland.

Arguing that some Big Lies can be a goood thing defines you as ends justifies means folks. We really have had enough of that. It is an essentially a road to totalitarian control.

We know how advertising and PR can change attitudes. You can tell people the truth when you expose them to material designed to get them to change habits. We have done it on many things environmental.

I wish you guys were just silly, and not so, perhaps unwittingly, sinister.

There are no valid arguments left and you're grasping at straws and indulging in a herring toss.

You know Mopled

I have to give you credit for sticking to the same line - even if it hasn't changed and isn't any more convincing now than it was the first time I read it....

I wish you had enough self confidence not to call other people - who believe as sincerely as you do in something else - a lot of derogatory names.

It's not becoming; it doesn't advance your cause and it hurts your credibility.

Furthermore, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is a dupe is about the best way I know to destroy your own credibility.

Have the good grace to recognize that people, lots of them, can disagree with you and your position in this case (and in lots of others) without being mindless.

Just a tiny bit of advice.

Let's just skip the rhetoric, folks

But you're wrong, Frank. You quoted Mopled's statement that:

"If the money and effort had been spent on the environment itself instead of climate studies, (an estimated $50 Billion), there are many messes that could have been attended to"

And responded with:

"But they weren't. And THAT is the crux of the matter. There was no big push to clean up the environment before "global warming" hit the news. None. Nil. Zip. Nada. Environmentalists were ignored and ridiculed. "Jobs" trumped the environment every time."

Utter nonsense. While there has most certainly has been considerable feet-dragging by industry and gov't, there HAS been considerable response to environmentalist pressure as seen in mining regulations, in the forest industry (while avoiding the AAC problem), the handling and storage of hazardous substances, and the setting aside of Parks, just to name a few.

We have also been mostly unaware of the environmental achievements through Europe's adoption of the UN's Agenda 21, which have seen the implementation of "green" transit plans which have included the rezoning of cities to help achieve them. It's been a while since I reviewed their accomplishments, but I remember noting how far ahead of us they are in virtually everything.

Please do not interpret all that as an apologia for the status quo. I am in full agreement that concerning our present gov'ts, there's been hardly even one step forward to match their two steps backward.

IMO, the failure of today's gov'ts to react to public pressure goes beyond their basic ideological reluctance to do so. Rather, I think this is due to the inability of today's institutionally-funded Engos to inspire the public lest they offend their benefactors and risk their paychecks.

I am in full agreement with Mopled that re any carbon tax, you can be sure it WON'T be a tax born - or even proportionally shared - by the rich. But it will mollify those who tell us we are bad, bad, bad, for using petrochemicals, and who want to punish us for it.

And just as a postscript to my previous posting, you can be sure that the reluctance of enviros to realise the stupidity of their biofuel promotion flows out of the same hatred for oil that prompts their fixation with CO2, thus justifying their blindness to the law of unintended consequences

mopled

You and I don't have a clue as to the effects of an increase in the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're simply parroting websites you've read and chosen to believe. So its somewhat ridiculous to then claim that everyone else here are idiots or part of the "Big Lie" because they've chosen to believe the side with more experts. You lack the authority to make such a claim.

Since you believe emissions don't hurt the environment then clearly you're not a proponent of decreasing industrial and transportation emissions. Why would you be when you consider those emissions to be good for plant-growth?

You've also declared in a previous post you're against the spending of money even for studying the problem which means you're against scientific study because you may not like the results.

What it boils down to is you're against doing anything to clean up the environment because you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you don't want tax money to go towards even looking for a problem.

In other words you don't believe in what people's own eyes and their common sense tells them to be true. You're peddling fairy-tales in the hopes that people will instead believe a nonsensical explanation of the planet's climate that has the advantage of being good for conventional business.

Who are you "parroting" FranK?

It sounds just like G.West to me, harping on my supposed unwillingness to spend on worthy causes

I don't like being scammed....especially for supposedly good causes. It is the MO of the personality disordered to take advantage of both our dishonesty and our altruism. You can cheat an honest man. It's easy. Bogus charities do it all the time.

As to what I believe....that's the wrong word, since we are supposedly talking science here. I've seen enough facts to convince me that we are dealing with a scam and at great risk I will repeat them.

1. All the planets in our solar system warmed at the same time we did and some have no atmospheres and some have atmospheres with no CO2.
2. Warming has happened before, this situation is not unique.
3.It is now beyond doubt that first the Earth warms and CO2 levels rise in response.
4.Climate change happens regularly with the El Nino/La Nina Pacific system playing a big role as we now see demonstrated with the recent shift from a long and characteristically warm El Nino to the cooler, wetter La Nina.
5. There is too little CO2 to make a difference to temperature. The gas that accounts for 95% of what's called the greenhouse effect is water vapor.
6. The data purporting to show an unprecedented rise in global temperature
has been corrected and it is now understood that it was warmer numerous times even before all these "emmisions" caused by industrialization and autos.

I would think a person given all that evidence would agree that blaming a beneficial trace-gas for what is clearly unrelated to it, is a most peculiar action to take, which of course leads to speculation about why such cultism is in vogue.

The real denialists are the ones who pretend the CO2 hypothesis is still valid.

The CO2 hypothesis is dead Frank...speaking of parrots..it is a Norwegian Blue dead parrot.

What you are responding to is the $100 million a year being spent for the next 3-5 years on making us think we are guilty for all of the very far fetched things being blamed on non-existant extra warming.

The fairytale is that a trace gas can change climate Frank.

mopled

Then you're mistaken. Because it isn't about "facts" since you don't know the science well enough to do more than choose what to believe.

Your #1 through #6 mean diddly to me mopled because you don't have the credentials to claim that you know the facts and the IPCC don't. I'm willing to bet the top scientists of the world know about the solar system and historical periods when the world warmed for a few years.

And it still comes down to the fact that you support emissions from cars and industry because you have convinced yourself that those emissions are actually good for the environment whereas most people, even without a scientific background, would say there's no way those emissions can be a good thing.

That's the reason I don't pipe car fumes into my kid's bedroom. Because I don't believe you when you say emissions are good. When you convince me that doing that would be good for kids I'll believe the rest of your story.

In the meantime, go on believing man has had no effect on the environment. And ignore the fact that that island you're on has fewer and fewer people on it with you.

More on the real 'green' gordo

And his plans for what was once a crown utility dedicated to serving the needs of the people of this province...and not just a small cirle of Campbell's friends:

http://ourrivers.ca/content/view/65/29/

Sch***k, I said CO2 is good

not "emmisions", and did not I say we have no effect on our environments.

Where did you go to school to argue that way? Is there a training place for obscurantists?

You have conveniently forgotten all the supporting evidence for statements 1-6.
I didn't just make that up.

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-08-2007/0004701174&EDATE=
Or
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=1
"IPCCV TEMPERATURE PROJECTIONS CHALLENGED AS 3-FOLD EXAGGERATION
A calculation error by IPCC that points to threefold exaggeration of projected temperature increase this century has been revealed by A British peer and an Australian climate mathematician. Bali may all have been unecessary.

Independent Mathematicians Hand IPCC Potentially Major Problem:

Expected Temperature Rise 1 degree, Not 3.

In a move that could mark a significant turning point in the history of the greenhouse warming debate, Viscount Christopher Monckton and Dr David Evans produced a document with a mathematical proof that the IPCC have overestimated the effect of greenhouse forcings by as much as threefold.

The document attached was distributed to all delegates of the plenary session on Thursday 13 December, 2007 at the UNFCCC conference in Bali.

There are thousands of scientific papers related to climate change and greenhouse gases, almost all of which assume that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a significant effect on temperature. The Monckton and Evans paper attacks the most central point underlying all the others. They used the Stefan–Boltzmann equation,and another method, to show that the IPCC is exaggerating the effect of CO2 on global temperatures.

Joanne Nova, International Climate Science Coalition, said:
“Almost all papers published on greenhouse gases and climate assume that temperature
sensitivity of the climate to small changes in greenhouse gases is significant. Only a
small proportion of papers address that topic exactly, and if a few central papers are
wrong, the whole debate changes.”

BIO’s
Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley is a Nobel Prize winning contributor to IPCC reports. Viscount Monckton has been an outspoken critic of the Kyoto Treaty and the IPCC scientific process. He was science advisor to Margaret Thatcher, his articles have been published in many prominent papers worldwide, and he is presently a member of the House of Lords.

Dr David Evans has six degrees in Maths, Stats, and Electrical Engineering, including three from Stanford."

Then read:
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

The fact of the matter is

The fact of the matter is that we, as a society, are going to fall apart if we don't find new and better ways to live; better ways to use our resources and less wasteful and environmentally friendly approaches to how our cultures work.

Big cities are going to become unsustainable, roads and oil-burning transporation methods are going to become a thing of the past.

Anyone who pretends this isn't coming is walking around whistling while the furniture is burning...

Maybe start reading here:

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011642.shtml

There's plenty of other bad news for the future mopled - global warming may well be the least of it.

But I can see your going to keep wailing.

btw, how's your other pet conspiracy theory coming?

Any more fresh evidence that George Bush blew up the twin towers?

Interesting comment

Not a conspiracy but ....

An email from Prof. Lindzen [rlindzen@MIT.EDU]

"I would suppose that you are sometimes accused of thinking that the global warming issue is a conspiracy. Whenever such an accusation is made to me, I respond that no conspiracy is needed. However, increasingly it is evident that conspiracy has played a role.

For example, Tony Socci, who played a significant role in the Singer affair, is now the spokesman of the American Meteorological Society in Washington. John Firor, who was for many years the administrative director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, was also the chairman of the board of the Environmental Defense Fund. R. Napier, president of the World Wildlife Federation - UK, is also chairman of the board of the UK Meteorological Office (which includes the Hadley Center).

Jim Hansen is closely associated with Michael Oppenheimer who was long the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense, and, apparently Michael was on the EPA review panel that recommended the funding of Hansen to get into climate modeling (after NASA had cut funds for the New York lab). Oppenheimer, despite only being a minor author of 3-4 peer reviewed scientific papers on climate, is now a professor at Princeton University. It would be interesting to know who endowed his professorship.

There are many other examples of such interlocking relations between environmental activism (in political or organizational form) and seemingly authoritative academic bodies. I doubt that these relations are accidental.

Moreover, intentional slander seems to be a standard tactic. One matter which involved me was the accusation by Gelbspan that I had lied about a debate in the UK with Bert Bolin. I informed Gelbspan that I had a tape of the debate. Gelbspan said that he wasn't interested. Much of this happened quite long ago, but the situation only seems to be getting worse. My hope is that this is simply a fever before the disease breaks."

mopled

Emissions and CO2 go hand in hand mopled. I've noted, and you have too I'm sure, that if we as a society decide we want to reduce our "greenhouse gas" emissions things like car and industrial emissions seem to be what we're talking about. What other emissions would you be talking about?

And as for us having no effect on our environment, that is in fact what you're preaching when you claim that changes in climate are not influenced by man.

I didn't suppose that you had. However, we cannot have a scientific debate about evidence here, as I've told you repeatedly. It would be a complete waste of time for non-scientists to quote websites back and forth.

What we can discuss is what to do about it if the IPCC is right or even if you're right. But its totally pointless to discuss whether global warming is happening on Neptune as it enters its summer.

Then why don't we settle the question

before we take action?

Speak for yourself about the ability of scientific topics to be understood by the layman....if they are not lied to and indoctinated first.

Layman can also spot inconsistancies when they are as glaring as those I pointed out.

You can't win this one....and trying to denegrate me only shows the poverty of your position. "You must believe because all the nice people say so and who the hell are you to say anything anyway" is how it strikes me.

Frank, yes, CO2 is part of car exhaust, but please do look at the progress made over the years of controlling the bad stuff. Go look at the stats at AIRCARE. More MPG is certainly desirable.

Smokestacks have scrubbers. What is the point of using 30% of the energy produced by coal to sequester CO2 in the ground, if it is not doing anything bad? All it does is even the playing field for nuclear power.

Human Footprint-Ben Santer-Livermore Labs-DOE-Atomic Energy Agency-Department of the Army. The military loves nuclear waste since that's where they get their DU supplies for weapons. Lots of entities benefit from the scam. Gore and Strong both trading carbon credits, for instance.

Neptunes summer?
We have another example of how you distort and attempt to obscure. All the planets warmed over a period of years at the same time Earth did. You can not dismiss that damning fact so lightly...or rather you could, most don't.

You just keep illustrating how an obscurantist works. The more you write, the more you display your talents.

Get it Straight Gavin

To continue the humor:

Everybody knows the Duuuhbya was reading "My Pet Goat" while the charade was run by Dick Cheney from an "undisclosed" location. Though there is actual testimony concerning Dick Cheney's totally weird response and strange orders re:aircraft approaching the Pentagon.

GW, I would recommend you check out the video clips of a skyscraper fire in Spain since 9-11 and note how even 24 hours of a fire didn't lead to collapse. And don't tell me about jet-fuel, which won't burn hot enough to melt steel beams, though thermite will. While you are at it, you could explain how WTC #7 could be "pulled" on command (and pre-broadcast on BBC by accident.

This whole issue is out of place here, but you brought it up, and the only conspiracy about 9-11 is the "official" story that comes from George and Dick holding hands and not under oath (as if swearing to God means anything to them, they swore to uphold the constitution as well).

Stanford hardly counts

Are you sure he doesn't have six degrees on a beige belt in Kung Fu? When I see someone with SIX degrees, I see someone, quite possibly, who didn't want to grow up and leave school and likely still hasn't.

I used to think Stanford was a good school and could have and almost did go there. Now I can't hear the name without thinking of Condomleeza Oil Tanker and how smart she be. She couldn't even understand the collapse of the Soviet Union and that was supposedly her specialty and strong suit.

Of course now her expertise is evident all over the Middle East which is going through the "birth pangs" of a new era. Spare me the expert credentials, by the way mopled did you ever graduate from anywhere?

The school of hard knocks, baby!

Citing the credentials of Dr. David Evans means that he is an expert mathematician which is pertenent to the discovery made by him and Monkton that the IPPC had overestimated the temperature by 2 degrees.

Very funny ploy, an ad hominem (ad academia?)directed at a university in order to discredit the bearer of bad tidings.

Did you go to the same training school as Frank and GW, kootcoot?

About 1/3 of the people at the June Van9/11Truth meeting agreed global warming is a crock, btw.

So CO2 is a "benefit", eh?

mopled:

http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=708

The worst case is the South Saskatchewan as measured at Saskatoon. And that, of course, has three tributaries, all heavily subscribed - the Red Deer, the Bow and the Oldman. All of the irrigation water for Alberta is pretty well taken from the Bow and the Oldman, and very little of that water gets back into the river. It’s all evaporated or it goes into crop production.

And the Bow in addition has glacial sources that are very important in hot, dry summers that are dwindling very rapidly in the Bow and Hector glaciers.

And in those same basins, we see declining snowpacks. Snow is on the ground for shorter periods of time and the total snow that falls has been decreasing over time.

And then looking ahead, we are expecting another 4 to 5 degrees of warming, depending on what our will to control greenhouse gases turns out to be. So overall, it’s not a very rosy picture because evaporation increases in proportion to duration of the period above freezing and air temperature.
So the Prairies are going to bloom, are they?

mopled

What question? The one where you try and tell me that emissions are good for us?

Why? You clearly don't understand them.

Bullshit, you quote one side of the debate and ignore what the other side has to say. Everything you post is filtered.

Just more MPG? How about less emissions? Because we haven't made the huge progress you claim.

So you want more coal power? Coal is clean is it?

Newsflash for you mopled, you don't have enough data on the other planets to claim anything because we haven't been closely observing the other planets for very long at all. And considering the length of their years its ridiculous to assert anything at this point.

You're a "fundamentalist" mopled. A "true-believer" that sees conspiracies behind every rock

Credentials Cremendtials

.

Citing credentials means the idividual by whatever means collected some pieces of paper by applying himself to a program and satisfying whoever was in charge of the program. Duuuuhbya went to Yale and Harvard for chrissakes, that doesn't mean he is smart enough to come in out of the rain. Indeed without the benefit of rich white man's affirmative action (being the result of sperm from an alumnus), he never could have even gotten into Yale, much less graduated.

And then there is Condi, EXPERT in the Soviet Union from Stanford. It's a wonder a piece of the Berlin Wall didn't fall on her head.

I would recommend that mopled buy some low lying oceanfront property, hey, it ain't like sea levels are likely to rise or anything. Or better yet, get some underwater real estate, it should be drying out and emerging anyday.

You got me now!!!

mopled asks:

I didn't go to a training school, and I have no idea where they (frank,GW) may have gone. But I give up because there is no way to refute, argue with or dispute at all with anything you say now that you have pointed out the below.

I leave the field to you, because how could 1/3 of the people at such an affair possibly not be right?!!! BTW if it were 2/3 of the people would that make it more or less right/correct?

All of the posters have the same style

There must be a school they go to to learn how to twist and shout.
Rick...drought has nothing to do with CO2. that's called conflation.
KootEvans has enough credentials to qualify to correct the IPCC's math. BTW. the IPCC managed to do all their calculations without the Stephan-Boltzmann equation, which is like trying to do geometry without Pi.
It's pretty silly taking umbrage at the man because Condi Rice is incompetant.
My pointing out the 1/3 of Truthers who don't buy into the AGW nonsense was done so that anyone reading this would not be able to infer from what you said that I was alone in being both a 9/11Truther and a Skeptic on AGW. Just pointing out the techniques here folks.
And Al Gore did just buy waterfront property and Dubai just keeps making more of it and people keep buying it..

Ah, Frank. You have surpassed yourself my man. The King of Twist.

My position is: CO2 is a trace gas which can warm the Earth in a trace gas way....infinitesimally. It can not change climate. I object to scamming the public, and mostpeople would also object, except maybe those who like the idea of sacrifice, especially when it is others who do the sacrificing.. Shove the rest, that is yours.

You make things up.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
Global warming on other planets

Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, Pluto, and others share the fate of Earth

mopled

And the rest of emissions from cars and industry? Do those also not hurt the environment? Because people are asking that all harmful emissions should be reduced wherever possible.

But the people you quote don't believe mankind's emissions hurt us. They believe that the Earth is such a big place that we're too small to have an effect on it. Therefore, they obviously believe we don't have to cut back on our emissions of anything. Which of course is nonsense.

And the reason your side of the debate won't stop the world from understanding there's a problem is because of people's common sense. Everyone knows emissions from cars and smokestacks aren't good for us and no matter how much you twist data trying to prove otherwise it will never pass the smell test.

I know you don't read what others have to say and I realize also that anyone that disagrees with you is part of the Big Lie funded secretly by Al Gore and Maurice Strong and how your scientists are so much smarter than everyone else's, but regardless, no one else buys the "solar system is heating up everywhere else" crap that you're peddling.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Or a funny quote from Monbiot that applies to you

"Nothing", he said. "The climate has always changed. This is just another natural cycle."

"So even if every scientist of every kind and every persuasion agreed that manmade climate change is happening, you would still place your own opinion above theirs?"

"Yes."

This, I suspect, must now be the position of most of those who still deny that man-made climate change is happening: that there is nothing - no evidence, however compelling, no scientific consensus, however robust - that could persuade them of the opposite case. Could there be a better definition of religion?

As eloquent and considered a response as I'm used to from you.

Every month for the last 2 years you've been announcing how the global warming people have been shown to be frauds and hustlers. Yet somehow its your side that continues to fall into disrepute.

buying waterfront

People have been doing that again and again for generations - even though the ones in Florida and along the Gulf Coast are under threat from the wind and flooding on a regular basis.

Human's stupidity got them into this mess - the stupidity of people who fail to recognize it may well doom us all.

Not much to crow about I'd say.

lots of topic still to discuss

All this talk with Mopled, like sitting on a Gordon Campbell Ministry of Education roundtable, is a waste of time. Nothing one says will make him or her have a change of mind.

Mopled has been able to pull a significant number of thoughtful writers away from the topic of the article: Gordon Campbell's 42-page throne speech. Perhaps the moderator will let the topic stay up for a couple more days while the rest of us have a bit more time to digest (hopefully, without our producing extra-orinary amounts of greenhouse gas) the significance/hypocracy that may abound in the text of the speech.

Best wishes all. I decided to begin skipping over Mopled the moment, he or she quite offensively referred to me as "darling".

Nothing one says will make him or her have a change of mind.

But it's so much fun watching mopled twist and turn to explain away everyone elses facts -- sort of like the creation "scientists" allowing for dinosaurs.......
Now he insists that "...drought has nothing to do with CO2". Try telling that to Venusians:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/venusenv.html

Frank, it's not 1 year yet

It was in March of 07 I saw Global Warming Swindle and that started my investigations.

Who is now in disrepute on the skeptic side and who decides that? Fenton Communications?
And you do go on about emmisions pretending I like them.... strawmen and red herrings is all you have come up with.

The religion is all yours since you believe in impossible things, like CO2 can change climate with no evidence to support it.
Where's the evidence Frank or is this Faith Based Science your pushing. Lovelock and Gaia perhaps? No wonder you are confused since you get your info from realclimate which is still pretending Mann's Hockey Stick isn't broken. That was the only thing holding up the whole CO2 is evil construct.

Sharing, that's a pretty silly thing to get all huffed up about. I don't know your sex, you don't know mine....Last I heard darling was not considered offensive.I promise to never refer to anybody as darling again if that makes you happy. As for others participating, come on, anybody can post anything and others could take it up while we all thrashed out the CO2 question.

Rick...what facts? I'm the only one presenting facts. Tell me a fact, Rick W.
One that you can back up with replicated research. So far all one gets from alarmists is believe on the IPCC.

How about this?

From today's Sunday Times of London, by Pope Brock:

Most climatologists outside the Bush administration now concur that the Arctic is melting like a candle, and a good deal faster than anyone expected. In 2007 parts of the Arctic Ocean reached 8F above normal, another record, while Nasa satellite data reported at summer’s end just half the volume of Arctic ice there had been 48 months before. “It’s beyond our worst-case scenarios,” says Michael Byers, professor of global politics at the University of British Columbia, “and quite terrifying in terms of its potential scope.” Or, as Mark Serreze, senior scientist at a Colorado “snow-and-ice data centre”, recently told the Associated Press: “The Arctic is screaming.”

[Emphasis mine.]

That was last year

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+finds+Natural+Cause+for+Rapid+Arctic+Warming/article10216.htm

Study Finds Natural Cause for Rapid Arctic Warming
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007111325923.html
Global warming may not be the culprit after all when it comes to Artic changes

Climate data can be difficult to analyze. Take for instance global temperature changes. Whereas the Northern Hemisphere has been warming, the Southern half of the planet is cooling. While Antarctic Ice is at near-record levels, the Northern Pole is warming at an unprecedented pace-- much faster than global warming models predict.

A new study published in the journal Nature identified a possible cause for this discrepancy. It identifies a natural, cyclical flow of atmospheric energy around the Arctic Circle. A team of researchers, led by Rune Graversen of Stockholm University, conclude this energy flow may be responsible for the majority of recent Arctic warming.

The study specifically rules out global warming or albedo changes from snow and ice loss as the cause, due to the "vertical structure" of the warming ... the observed warming has been much too weak near the ground, and too high in the stratosphere and upper troposphere.

This study follows hot on the heels of research by NASA, which identified "unusual winds" for rapid Arctic ice retreat. The wind patterns, set up by atmospheric conditions from the Arctic Oscillation, began rapidly pushing ice into the Transpolar Drift Stream, a current which quickly sped the ice into warmer waters.

A second NASA team, using data from the the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, recently concluded that changes in the Arctic Oscillation were "mostly decadal in nature", rather than driven by global warming.

mopled

Don't be so coy, read your own posts back to yourself. You haven't stated at all anywhere that you would support an assault on emissions either through taxation or an enforced reduction.

Everyone who declares peer-reviewed research is all part of the Big Lie.

I've been to your web sites. I haven't seen any that say "CO2 is good but mankind is changing the environment and we have to do something fast".

Instead, you and they are pushing the line that CO2 is good and global warming isn't happening or if it is happening that it isn't due to civilization's emissions.

If you disagree with them then say so. Because so far you haven't.

Instead you use the same language that they do, calling others "alarmists" which obviously implies you're not alarmed by what is going on with the climate.

And as for the "Global Warming Swindle" that program has no credibility anywhere. Even people appearing on the show have said they don't support it. Use google and read for yourself some of the stuff scientists have said about the show instead of getting all your information solely from the denialist echo-chamber.

Remember 1922

Commerce Department Study Finds "Unprecedented" Arctic Melting
Report Dated Today…85 Years Ago

November 2, 2007

Washington, D.C., November 2, 2007—The story is ominous, chronicling the melting of glaciers, the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and the eradication of seal habitat. It could have been written yesterday, but it was actually written 85 years ago today.The story summarizes a report to the U.S. Commerce Department from the American consul to Norway on changing climate conditions throughout the Arctic. The changes noticed at the time turned out not to represent any long-term threat to the region. The 1922 story reminds us that current stories of allegedly “unprecedented” changes in sea ice, temperatures, and animal habitat need to be seen in the context of natural climate variability.

The original November 2, 1922 article:

Arctic Ocean Getting
Warm; Seals Vanish
And Icebergs Melt*

(By the Associated Press)

The Arctic ocean is warming
up, icebergs are growing scarcer
and in some places the seals are
finding the waters too hot, ac-
cording to a report to the Com-
merce Department yesterday
from Consul Ifft, at Bergen ,
Norway .

Reports from fishermen, seal
hunters and explorers, he
declared, all point to a radical
change in climatic conditions
and hitherto unheard-of tem-
peratures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report
that scarcely any ice has been
met with as far north as 81
degrees 29 minutes. Soundings
to a depth of 3.100 meters
showed the gulf stream still very
warm.

Great masses of ice have
been replaced by moraines of
earth and stones, the report
continued, while at many points
well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared. Very few seals and
no white fish are being found in
the eastern Arctic, while vast
shoals of herring and smelts,
which have never before
ventured so far north, are being
encountered in the old seal
fishing grounds.

mopled

What???

The BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.st

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

WorldWatch
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1673

The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-sound-alarm-over-melting-antarctic-ice-sheets-436551.html

SharingIsGood

Gordon Campbell has so far refused to take a pro-environment stand when it conflicts with business. Unless his deeds match his words, he's a fraud.

Remember the Post and WMD's

"The Washington Post recently ran a shocking above-the-fold article warning us of "Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica." A new paper by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory shows a net loss of ice where most scientists thought the opposite would occur.The Post went full-bore with this one, spreading the article on to an entire interior page."

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
"Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month. At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records. Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed towards its annual low point, there should be about seven million square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois' web publication Cryosphere Today shows, that there is nearly 30% more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year."

Concerning Antarctica as a whole, the IPCC's new climate compendium notes "the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region." Other studies, such as Peter Doran's in Nature in 2003, show actual cooling in recent decades. (There is a small area of significant warming in the peninsula that points towards South America, but this is less than 2% of Antarctica's total land mass.)

There's brand new evidence, just published in mid-January in Geophysical Research Letters, of a striking increase in snowfall over that peninsula. The few snowfall records that are available elsewhere in Antarctica show considerable variation from decade to decade, so discriminating the "signal" of increased snowfall caused by global warming from all the rest of the "noise" may be very difficult indeed.

"We see the same problem with hurricanes and global warming. Their strength and numbers vary considerably from year to year. 2005 was the most active year ever measured in the Atlantic Basin, while 2007 was one of the weakest in history. How do you find the fingerprint of global warming amidst such variation?"

"And further, the bottom line is that there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica."

"One of the tired tropes that reverberate throughout global warming reporting is that inconvenient facts get left out. In this case, it's blatant. Midway through the Post's page-long article comes a statement that "these new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate." Wouldn't that have been an appropriate place to note that, despite a small recent loss of ice from the Antarctic landmass, the ice field surrounding Antarctica is now larger than ever measured?"
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12679