I do expect I might get

I do expect I might get bounced for this comment but here goes. Gordon Campbell is so full of shit it will soone be coming out of his ears. I've said it and will wait to see. The man is a arrogant convicted drunk besides his other faults.

Talking a lot but not saying anything

The Liberals' "green plan" is the most egregious illustration of this government's modus operandi of trying to make it look as though it's doing something while doing nothing. We all know that the cost of the Olympics is preventing the government from spending money on anything else, so any serious policy issue that would require the commitment of funds is off the table and replaced by spin. The best thing the BC government ever did to help protect the environment happened in 1972 and is called the Agricultural Land Reserve. I shudder to think what this province would look like if Gordo the drunken premier had been in power at that time.

Liberal math

Sure the numbers are impossible to follow and even if you did it'd give you a migraine.

But on the bright side we know we don't have to because the Libs are lying and emissions will never actually fall due to their environmental policies.

I know I have fun every day counting Campbell's "800,000 cars that are no longer on the road due to the carbon tax".

I hope he wins in 2009 for the sheer entertainment value.

Oh, do wake up!

Jul 18, 2008
Shifting of the PDO to Cool Mode Assures Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA

Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1F per decade for the rest of the century.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

Thank the Gods for NASA!

So it's all just natural cycles, and we don't have to actually DO anything about our mythical carbon footprint.

So why then has Green Gordo imposed a Carbon Tax...........?

Don J Easterbrook

Is a retired geology prof from Western Washington University. He's also been a guest of the infamous Glenn Beck.

His professional work as a geologist included publishing: Surface Processes and Landforms, a basic geology text, which is available and in print for about $129.

As a climate scientist...nada.

manipulated and loving it

Moving targets!
What do you suppose Gordo's staff is doing all day?
The idea is to baffle and confuse any kind of understanding of his goals; that way he can change his goals according to the latest polls, and still keep a a straight face.
We are manipulated, and far too many are lovoing it!

I know what it feels like to be a liberal target

I'm still for the NDP only because although they are the orignators of legislated poverty at least you didn't feel like they where trying to kill you off as many will testify to. Loving it?Its breaking my heart.
But not my spirt.

GWest

Yes of course, GWest, the venerable profession of climate science has been around for lo these many thousands of years. The art is so well understood that even the ordinary person considers him / herself an expert on the weather. Just ask around.

And so it is only natural that millions of people will - without further thought - believe Al Gore and David Suzuki, the one a politician and the other specialising in environmental alarmism, even though neither has even the faintest academic training in meteorology. But since they are on your "side", that's an inconsequential consideration, right?

Until you are prepared to examine your own chosen "experts" with the same critical eye you employ to discredit those who disagree with them Garth, you will stand quite fairly accused of resorting to the scurrilous technique of ad hominum argumentation.

As the Warmist's arguments become become ever more insupportable - thinner and thinner - it will be interesting to watch how clever will be the excuses of those who value their credibility as they try to wriggle out of this house of cards built of jokers standing in for aces.

Here is the best news of all?

At first I was very concerned for the environment with all the Gore thing and all but he's right the USA has much to concern itself with as at least 280 million more people live on a smaller land mass, cough, cough, fire and flood. But Canada is a beauty no doubt and what makes her so beautiful? Her wonderful clean fresh air as she has little inhabitants on her lands and wonderful oceans at her feet along with vast forests and BC a tropical wonder. We are number one and people in BC have always been environmental leaders thanks to ?. You know. Our watch dog and residence he keeps us clean. So why is it a good news day well thank God Mr. Campbell can't screw that up? Off Shore Drilling?

And when foundations endorse?

Remember they to need to survive.

JACCARD AND GATEWAY

I have been rather unfavourably impressed by Prof Marc Jaccard's sycophantic touting of the Gordon M. Cambpell way of life, following his addition to the Premier's list of science proteges and the awarding of a $120K contract to his consulting company.

Still, I think the various Suzuki Foundation and Sierra Club and WC2 devotees who are also singing the praises of Jaccard and Campbell and the carbon tax should read Jaccard's estimates. The high price scenario is $85 per barrell.

When the Gateway program used that same figure in their analyses, the ENGOs and their "transit" campaigners (who are really just downtown real estate promoters) Fields and Doherty ridiculed it as a very low estimate.

So which page are the ENGOs on? Is $85 a high or low figure? Or does it depend on what the issue is and what the ENGOs contributors and donors need or want to hear?

Here is another enviromental hazard?

Klien and his oil sands and their deal with oil to back off when its comes to profits, illmud I call it but they call it "Tilma".

That Campbell he's a smart one?

Just think of it. First he gives himself and the other politicians and unprecedented raise. Remember nobody actually got their say at least I didn't because they would immediately block me out. That was the first time I ended up in Hell, its where they sent comments that people found offensive on this forum. It was fun though because I read some of the other posts and some of them were halirous. Anyways back to Campbell signs a deal with business that ensures minimal government envolvement. So what are we paying them for?

Okay can't help myself

Its eighteen tons and what do you get?

No smoking hot spot

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=1

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

cont'd

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

cont'd at site
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=1

Oh C'mon ME2

It's hardly ad hominem to post the guy's credentials...he's a retired geologist.

If he wants to go on Bill Moyers and discuss schist I don't have a problem with it - do you. I’m sure he’s eminently qualified.

If he's touted as an authority on climate science, I think the audience deserves to know what he brings to the table.

As for the Glenn Beck reference, have you watched the guy?

If I were trying to polish my image as a thinking individual that's the last show I'd go on. You?

On the other point, I've said here repeatedly that I think Al Gore is a 'politician' and that's about all.

If mopled, or anyone else, brings forward decent scientific data that shows anthropogenic climate change isn't happening I'd be happy to acknowledge it.

So far, the science is pretty much all on one side of the balance. And, from my admittedly short personal perspective, I'm convinced that something very strange is happening to the climate. A good friend of mine who has spent his career doing work in the far north tells me that the changes he's seen in the last 20 years are profound and troubling.

All, I hasten to add, in my opinion.

However, If you see G West arguing that he knows all the answers on the question then I'll happily let you take the piss out of him.

Until then, I think posting people's credentials and information about who they hang with is fair game.

Cheers.

Conversation on a plane

I posted this before but I think its worth repeating. By the way Gordo is now in Quebec City for the premiers conference. Great time to have it when the city is in party mode. But to the point, I wonder if he flew or did he use a more environmental form of transportation?

"Gordon Campbell was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when he turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.'

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to Campbell, 'What would you like to talk about?'

'Oh, I don't know,' said Campbell. 'How about the environment?' and he smiles.

'OK, she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'

Campbell, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmmm, I have no idea.'

To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss the environment when you don't know s**t?"

Some Like it Hot

Some Cool Cats here:

http://icecap.us/

A couple of days ago Gordo

A couple of days ago Gordo was telling us that there better not be delays as the border during the big game show in 2010. Today Minister Day says there will be no delay. Another day Gordo tells us he won't press the PM about environment issues. He sure loves to make official utterances about a range of subject. Two weeks ago he was telling the Yukon leaders they burn too much diesel fuel, wonder what the offical utterance will be tomorrow. He actualy believes we listen to him and are willing to obey. He would do well as a snake oil salesman

realisticman

I always appreciate a title that took a bit of thought

anthropogenic climate change

So much more encompassing than just CO2 emissions.........

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/03/09/hayes/

GWest

GWest writes :

"If mopled, or anyone else, brings forward decent scientific data that shows anthropogenic climate change isn't happening I'd be happy to acknowledge it. So far, the science is pretty much all on one side of the balance"

No, Garth, you would not be happy at all to acknowledge it. Mopled and others have put before you testimony from dozens of PhDs in Climatology, and other qualified experts who have been employed in that field by NASA and have similarly been consultants for the IPCC, and who have come to the conclusion that the data supporting CO2 loading is contrived and unsupportable, and have demonstrated in reasonable depth just why.

You have been convinced to jump up on a bandwagon that is now rolling along too fast for a risk-free jump-off. Too bad, fella. I suppose now you are now waiting for a big name to disembark, so you can retain your membership in the club.

If you require a background villain to enhance a decision that is unavoidable anyway, how about the nuclear power industry that in a few short years has gone from being the universal pariah to our now potential saviour?

Yup, CO2's sure been good for THEM.

Why Not?

Great article- having spent 3 months in Vancouver this spring I have to think that there has to be a different plan than twinning the Port Mann bridge. Ther are simply TOO MANY cars on the road. When the new bridge is full would we then triple the bridge?When transportation is put in the hands of educated ones who have some manner of a plan maybe we could have a chance, but as long as Gordo and his type of corporate funded oligarchy are in charge, I have little hope for the future.

By the way

Forgot to mention this- maybe we need more corporate tax cuts?

I disagree

Apart from observing that there are PhDs and there are PhDs which is, mostly, the point I made relative to Easterbrook, I've actually written very little on the subject.

It's not my field.

I have criticized much of what has been submitted here (more in the past than currently) and I certainly have commented upon the relevance of the information from many so called experts such as Tim Ball.

As for being on anyone's bandwagon, hardly. I completely agree that there a great many phony environmentalists coming out of the underbrush because it’s politically the ‘popular’ thing to do. You can often tell by the kind of cars they drive, houses they live in, holidays and business air travel they indulge in…etc.

My objections to the phony Campbell Tax are well known - perhaps you didn't notice.

I've never been a great supporter of either Al Gore OR David Suzuki so I'm really not sure what you're talking about. And this:

You have been convinced to jump up on a bandwagon that is now rolling along too fast for a risk-free jump-off. Too bad, fella. I suppose now you are now waiting for a big name to disembark, so you can retain your membership in the club.

Simply doesn't make sense to me and sounds far more ‘personal’ than anything I wrote. Sorry.

I have to be careful. The last time I tried to point out that most of the arguments against anthropogenic warming are ones I’ve seen and heard before (and they aren’t any more convincing now than they were when first proposed) on this site, I ended up being banned for a day for being ‘condescending’. I don’t think I was then – and I certainly don’t want to give anyone the impression that I’m looking down on them for what they ‘believe’.

Since I don't think I've ever written anything supportive relative to the nuclear industry I'm not sure where you're going with that either.

I have written that I'm a believer in the precautionary principle, maybe more than once; I am convinced that anthropogenic change is happening to the environment in ways that are empirically clear and from my own admittedly narrow point of view that the ‘science’ supports my own observations.

Other than that, I'm afraid your desire to categorize me as a zealot is mystifying.

Cheers, as always.

Precautionary principle?

Even the precautionary principle requires some evidence of possible harm. The point made very well by expert Dr.David Evans,(a former believer,) is that there is NONE to support the CO2 hypothesis.

NADA!

Just in case you didn't bother to finish it, here is the rest:
"So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005."

The point Dr. Evans makes about the vulnerability of Labour and Liberals in Australia applies equally well to liberals, Liberals and NDPers here,(or should we now say Democrats as Byers suggests?)

It was a bit of genius to turn a scientific debate into an emotional, political one. Nobody wants to be on the same side of an issue with Bush or Harper.

Climbing down off the dark green bandwagon will be tricky, and the backlash will be enormous unless it starts soon.

Oh Really!

Dr. David Evans was described in a brief bio note in an opinion column in The Australian disputing global warming as a former "consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005".
(Perhaps I could be permitted to mention that John Howard, who was the Prime Minister of Australia during that period, had not - at that point - experienced his epiphany about greenhouse gasses and climate change.)

Evans attended the University of Sydney for five years from 1979 studying science and engineering, he then spent a further five years at Stanford University taking a PhD in electrical engineering Finishing his doctorate he then worked for a year in Silicon Valley after which he returned to Australia to write a book on the research he had done for his PhD.

This seemed to occupy him for a year or two but he supposedly discovered "lots more interesting stuff and mainly did my own research until 1999". In the meantime, to support himself, he traded on the stock market and did some programming odd jobs.

Fair and accurate, or not?

Some expert.

Anyone who cares to spend more time on 'Dr Evans'

Could well start here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

Quote:Notable And

Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson on global warming in the New York Review of Books in the Wall Street Journal

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard. See the editorial here.

Freeman Dyson is now retired, having been for most of his life a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Dyson is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.

"numbers game"

A “climate plan” based on the “cost of oil”?
A target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33% is now 73% achieved? lol
A biased Carbon Tax proclaimed key legislation in reducing gas emissions?
To date, this has been the most “un-green” government, destroying citizens, culture and environment equally in some kind of feeding frenzy.
Driving laundry to Alberta at the cost of local jobs and the return of two hour shifts are my favorites; the list to choose from is LONG.
Most BC citizens have been effed by this government at least once and won’t believe this “green” about-face, even for $100. Implementing targets slowly to respect automobile purchases is of little assistance considering what a rip that industry has been permitted to become.
And considering only Vancouver and 2010 are getting any funding.
To tell people living up north they’ll have to learn to do without diesel shows the arrogance and ignorance that is the true legacy of this government. Diesel power has no equal yet, and is everywhere. Why do diesel vehicles pass Air Care so easily? Are diesel emissions comparable to volcano particles, which some believe once blackened the world, for a considerable time ...to then settle?
What of gasoline, evaporating tons of toxic emissions annually, before consumption...something diesel doesn’t do?
Who picks the “poison”? Gore-who left early for dinner? Jaccard, who knows nothing of mercury in light bulbs, the global lead crisis or details of acid rain? The process to “educate and engage” clearly should begin with the policy makers. SILENT SPRING came out in 1962, there is a wealth of information out there. Holding “carbon” solely responsible for climate change is as medieval as accepting mercury or lead for green alternatives. The Carbon Tax Act itself doesn’t even have an interpretation of “carbon” and only has a nod for the interpretation of “greenhouse gas emissions”.
…so, the only legislated policies are promises based on numbers that aren’t there and a tax!
Environmental policy should be above politics and independent of economic theories…sadly, this isn’t leadership and this isn't a numbers game.

Old news realisticman

That piece from the NEW YORK REVIEW of books I mean

Mopled posted the same passage here about a month ago...interestingly, for someone who takes the trouble to read the whole thing (it's a review article after all) it doesn't say anything to counter the scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change.

In fact, quite the contrary.

Now, if you were posting the passage to illustrate how utterly facile and unbelievable the recent conversion to green orthodoxy by our 'Campbell' is - I completely agree with you and second your emotion. Especially as it applies to the 'Campbell Tax'.

Blind faith in any kind of orthodoxy (pro or con) is dangerous.

Climate Archbishop fakes data

When that supposed rebuttal to Dr. Evans GW posted is looked at closely, the links go to that source of climate profundity launched by Fenton Communications..realclimate...cherry pickers and obfuscators at the very least.

Also, as pointed out in the comments on the blog, most of the graphs only go to the year 2000, conveniently leaving out the cooling of the last 8 years.

Gavin Schmidt, a principle contributor to RC, is James Hansen's underling at NASA, GISS. Hansen is busily "correcting" past data (land-based and heat island affected) to show more warming and has been well rewarded by various foundations for his past performances.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/17/nasa-s-hansen-playing-enron-accounting-games-climate-data

"My first indication that something changed came from surfacestations.org volunteer Chris Dunn who wrote to me complaining that one of the sites he'd recently surveyed, Walhalla, SC had been greatly adjusted at GISS for no good reason that he could ascertain, since the site is pristine by climate monitoring standards, and has not gone through any significant changes in the past, and has been operated at the same location (by the same family) since 1916. He wondered why NASA would have to adjust the data for a "good" station. The way I view it, shouldn't good data stand on it's own? That was September 7th. He was using data from NASA GISS published on 8/28.

So he continued to look at the data, and the site. The [sic] on Sept 11th he noticed a change when he downloaded the data again. Something had changed, the data was different. Not only the adjusted data but the "raw" data too.

Watts was pointing out how suddenly, as a result of these "accounting" changes, the data from a weather station deemed sound by GISS standards was altered for no apparent reason. He elaborated:

Whether this was accidental or intentional I cannot say, but it certainly does not look good coming on the heels of NASA GISS's most recent issue of a mistake causing a revision of our temperature history on August 8th. We deserve better accounting than this when so much hinges on this data."

There is yet more fakery:
"James Hansen et al fabricated data for a weather station that closed in July 2004?

The NCDC data base I have access only goes to 2006, they could be making up 2007 and 2008 temperatures as well. Remember this is one of those "high quality" surface stations that James Hansen and his fellow travelers at GISS are using to calculate global warming in the United States. Folks here is more evidence they are making it all up. The Wells site was closed in 2004. Where did these Wells temperatures come from out to 2006?" .
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/07/james-hansen-et-al-fabricated-data-for.html

Changing the data is not quite as good as the water into wine trick, but then for true believers, anything goes.

rebuttal?

I didn't see it as a rebuttal mopled - just a simple expose of the kind of 'science' Dr Evans was involved in.

Go ahead and attack James Hansen.

I think he can handle it - he doesn't need my help.

Cheers old buddy!

environmental degradation & sustainability

realisticman quoted Freeman Dyson who said,"Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard."

I agree, global warming is a part of the picture. Many people now use "climate change" instead. However I too think that environmental degradation is the bigger picture. I do believe that excessive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere will cause global warming, as will other greenhouse gases. But if it warms in one place, then it may cool in another so we get climate change. We release more than greenhouse gases, we release many kinds of pollutants. No chemicals should be used or released unless they are studied and tested for damage to animals, plants and the environment. These studies must be made public.
Three things we all need are housing, food and energy. We must get these without damaging the environment too much. Any activity we do will alter the environment. We must be able to get these in such a way so all forms of life can continue to live. We must become sustainable in obtaining all of these three things. We may want more things than the big 3 but sustainability is the key. If we are not sustainable in these, then we will run out of them and we may perish.
To reduce energy wrt food, we should use local foods as much as possible. We must grow them without harmful chemicals. BC and Canada should be self-sufficient wrt food.
We have to look at how we are going to get our energy. We must do a complete and thorough study of all ways we can generate energy, whether it be hydro, coal, solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, wood, biofuels, gas or any other source of energy. All methods must be examined and these results must be public. Only after such a study can we use an energy source. We must do this so our energy sources are sustainable and not harmful to the environment.
For example, with the Site C Dam project, we would look at the costs to the environment, people displaced, farmland lost, water use downstream and the generation of energy without producing GHG’s except for the lost forests which are a carbon sink.
No undertaking such as mining, housing developments, highways, etc. can be done without an environmental and sustainability analysis. We must be careful not to remove too many plants or trees, as we need them to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Other wastes must be recycled rather than thrown into landfills or oceans. Recycling must become a major activity in our sustainable culture.

We must develop a national and provincial energy and food plan so we can look forward and know we can have a healthy life for future generations.

VANCOUVER'S PORT MANN vs TORONTO'S 401

- having spent 3 months in Vancouver this spring I have to think that there has to be a different plan than twinning the Port Mann bridge. Ther are simply TOO MANY cars on the road. When the new bridge is full would we then triple the bridge?When transportation is put in the hands of educated ones who have some manner of a plan maybe we could have a chance, but as long as Gordo and his type of corporate funded oligarchy are in charge, I have little hope for the future.

On what basis are you saying that there are too many cars on the road, chuckstraight7 The average daily volume at Port Mann is about 130,000 vehicles. On Toronto's 401 the volumes at peak points are about 450,000 vehicles, more than triple the volume at Port Mann.

What do you think Toronto should do? Should they follow the advice of "planning experts" like Larry Frank, Gordon Price, and Stephen and Bill Rees and simply reduce the size of the 401, removing some lanes of capacity, telling the vehicle drivers to simply disperse to some other route or else take transit or stop travelling to work altogether, and then turn the surplus land in the ROW over to condo developers?

ME2

Yup, CO2's sure been good for THEM.

Are you on the verge of claiming that the nuclear power industry is behind the whole global warming thingy?

Or even that there is a conspiracy going on among the world's scientists?

Well, Livermore and NASA

are out front in providing stick handling.

It's a fact that it was Ben Santer of LLNL who changed the 1996 IPCC report by throwing out the 5 statements by reviewers that they couldn't find a "human footprint" and substituted a statement of his own that there was, with no corroborating data to back it up. Like Hansen of NASA Goddard, he has been well rewarded.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/santer.html

Actually, the scientists who take the loot didn't originate the scam. It seems to be the the outcome of the Club of Rome's publication of Limits to Growth and the following Stockholm Conference convened by the well conected and ubiquitous Maurice Strong, friend and lackey of the Rockefellers (he sits on the BoD of the Rockefeller Foundation) and sometime business partner of Al Gore. He first raised the spectre when everyone else, including Hansen, were touting a new ice age in 1972.

The nuclear/military complex certainly hopes to benefit from the scam by convincing people that nuclear energy is the only way to "save the planet from burning up."

Is it a conspiracy? So much is freely available in the public record that the word doesn't fit. Better to think of it as a particularly destructive business plan.

mopled

So to be clear, your and ME2's assertion is that the nuclear industry, the military, Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers are conspiring to influence and thereby use the world's scientists to perpetrate a massive scam in order to make some money selling nuclear technology?

That's it in a nutshell?

Or is it impossible to sum up because that may just be the tip of the iceberg and the conspiracy could be far larger?

The other side

I'm curious, when evidence suggests that people on your side of the debate have been given money and airtime is that proof of anything?

I'm thinking of Britain's Channel 4 and their constant airing of anti-global warming programming.

I assume you believe they're a voice of conscience fighting against the tide?

The other side

I'm curious, when evidence suggests that people on your side of the debate have been given money and airtime is that proof of anything?

I'm thinking of Britain's Channel 4 and their constant airing of anti-global warming programming.

I assume you believe they're a voice of conscience fighting against the tide?

Wow

Two identical posts one second apart! I believe that gives me the record. Any challengers?

Where's the balance?

The pretense that there's an even playing field is pretty silly when Gore announces on CNN he's spending $300 Million on pushing the AGW scam .

No sceptic got anything approaching the "prizes" Hansen and Santer recieved.

No sceptic has been on CBC for years except to be slammed and I don't think Bill Good has ever talked to one. The argument has been shut out of most media and only blowhards like Glen Beck have been allowed to interview sceptical scientists.

$5 Billion a year has been poured into "climate science" in the US alone for the last 10-15 years.....who is going to rock that lucrative boat by saying AGW is a crock?

Here's part of Channel 4's director of documentaries answer to Monbiot.

"Of more than 100,000 hours of programmes the channel has broadcast since 1990, Monbiot cherry-picks five and a half hours that were critical of the green movement and claims this demonstrates "a recurring antagonism towards environmentalism" on Channel 4's behalf. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our output – and the UK media as a whole – reflects the consensus on climate change. He disregards recent polemics, including his own film Greenwash, Marcel Theroux's The End of the World As We Know It, and our recent transmission of The 11th Hour. He ignores Channel 4 News's high-quality coverage and our planned transmission of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom

BTW, try reading Engdahl's Seeds of Destruction which documents the Rockefeller interest and support of eugenics and GMO development. There is much more at stake than just furthering nuclear interests in the climate scam.

Rockefeller money, through their various foundations, has been highly active in
promoting the idea of climate catastrophe. It works well with their population reduction goals.
http://www.rockfound.org/initiatives/climate/climate_change.shtml

mopled

Gore has $300 million? Of his own money?

The "scam" that he's pushing is losing so there must be a hell of lot of money on the other side which seems kind of obvious when you look at how much money oil and other energy companies declare they've made in profits every year.

Sounds like TV in Britain, except in reverse. Over there Channel 4 runs attacks on the "GW scam" as you call it.

I'll take your word for it since my brain is fully functioning which means I can't listen to Bill Good for more than 5 minutes.

Not our own. Can-West ran anti-GW stories for years. You've even linked to them I believe. The latest was last week.

$5 billion over 15 years? I hate to break it to you but that's a very small amount of money in the overall scheme of things. Exxon alone has spent more than that over the past 15 years on "executive compensation" and keggers.

Did you read the Monbiot side? His program was subject to severe scrutiny by Channel 4 lawyers that the anti-GW program wasn't. And Channel 4 was found guilty of distorting the views of the people on its program. Monbiot's wasn't.

Well, that's my point. You're always throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks but I want to know your overall view. I don't want to read a piece here and there, I want the whole enchilada on my plate at once because without the big unifying theory the parts just aren't going to convince me.

So let me slightly rephrase my previous question :

Its your assertion that the nuclear industry, the military, Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers are conspiring to influence and thereby use the world's scientists to perpetrate a massive scam in order to make some money selling nuclear technology AND because of their ideology concerning population reduction?

My over all view

is that until we can weed the psychopaths out of business and politics and find better ways of running an economy than having people who own banks run it and allowing them to to charge interest on a fiction ....we're in deep!

The world system is run by a very small group of decision makers. Strong is a lacky. Rockefeller is power along with the rest of the 400 people who own the world. The nuclear/military industry will benefit, yes. One hand washes the other and this is not news.

You seem surprised at corruption. Did you think Acton's saying about absolute power
corrupting absolutely was really a quote from the Brothers Grimm?

The nitty-gritty

So your point is that whether we believe in GW or not, the only people that ever benefit is the few who run the planet for their own interests?

And until that changes we shouldn't jump on any bandwagon, whether it be GW, capitalism or whatever?

I do? Have you ever read my views on the BC Leg Raid?

OK, so we get back to science

You talk about "belief".

Belief shouldn't enter into it.

As to who benefits, I agree with your summation.

But do not try to turn that into ...well yes but they may be greedy and corrupt, but they do it for a good reason....
or as former Liberal Enviro minister Christine Stewart said;
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
From the same source:
"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences
http://www.fdrs.org/quotes_on_global_warming.html#top
Quotes on Global Warming

Do you buy that one? Haven't you seen enough already to start looking at the evidence on the other side of the debate?

Cockburn wrote this last year. At least he's a bonafide lefty. Maybe you need to take it slowly.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html

You should also look at the latest news about what is really happening on Earth. Mother Nature is settling the argument with a demonstration.

Seven graphs to end the warming hype
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/

mopled

When? Where?

Well it does and doesn't. As we've seen from both Campbell and Dion all it means is a chance to raise taxes on average people while not doing anything of substance to stop emissions from rising.

However, you have said in the past pollution is a bad thing. I'm sure you agree that we need to something about that problem. Your argument, as I understand is that the focus on GW takes away from the fight against pollution?

Okay, but what if I agree with what you say is Rockefeller's ideology? That being that the population has to be reduced.

I assume you feel the population should be allowed to increase at the present rate? You believe the world can handle a lot more of us?

Because whether you believe in GW or are just for clean air and rivers, population is the elephant in the room. All efforts to stop either GW or pollution will fail if at the same time the mantra remains "more growth, more people, more stuff".

CO2 isn't pollution, remember?

"And depopulation, like it or not, is just around the corner. That is the central message of a compelling new documentary, "Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family." Longman is one of numerous experts interviewed in the film, which explores the causes and effects of what may be the most ominous reality of 21st-century life: the fall in human birth rates almost everywhere in the world.

Human fertility has been dropping for years and is now below replacement levels - the minimum required to prevent depopulation - in scores of countries, including China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Turkey, and all of Europe. The world's population is still rising, largely because of longer life spans - more people live to old age than in the past. But with far fewer children being born today, there will be far fewer adults bearing children tomorrow. In some countries, the collapse has already begun. Russia, for example, is now losing 700,000 people a year.

Even in the United States, where birth rates are still (barely) at replacement level, there are hints of the dislocations to come: In Pittsburgh, reports The New York Times, deaths now outnumber births and hospitals are closing obstetrics wards or converting them to acute care for the elderly. Pittsburgh's public school enrollment was 70,000 in the 1980s. It is 30,000 today - and falling.

By mid-century, according to one UN estimate, there will be 248 million fewer children than there are now. To a culture that has been endlessly hectored about the dangers of overpopulation, that might sound like welcome news. It isn't. No society gains when it loses its most precious resource, and no resource is more valuable than the human mind. The coming demographic winter will chill us all."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/18/the_coming_population_bust/

De-population?

Sounds good to me mopled!

GWest and Frank

Frank, though I dislike responding to your baiting posts which deliberately misrepresent what both I and Mopled have written, it is still worth restating my concerns re the current promotion of CO2 induced GW.

Mopled has offered many posts which give detailed scientific reasonings suggesting the evidence for CO2 GW is contrived at best and even falsified. Since the scientists offering this evidence have pretty convincing credentials, and lack only "official" support, I don't believe they can be discounted offhand.

GWest has attacked their credentials using arguments that can be used in exactly the same way against Warmist scientists. For not being 100% in support CO2 GW, he covers his ass by noting :

"Apart from observing that there are PhDs and there are PhDs....."

Which, of course, renders argumentation down to a beauty contest.

And then he notes :

"I have to be careful. The last time I tried to point out that most of the arguments against anthropogenic warming are ones I’ve seen and heard before (and they aren’t any more convincing now than they were when first proposed) on this site...."

I say precisely the same thing about CO2 loading. Initially impressive, there is NO new supportive information. There is, however, a rapidly growing body of disputing science which Warmists have studiously ignored, responding only with ad hominum attacks - the first sign of very weak data.

Another of the things which have put me off is the stated urgency for immediate action re CO2 loading which is backed up by invoking the precautionary principle, and thus obviating the need for unassailable proof. Now that's pretty sloppy science, isn't it? - esp when such huge sums of money and national effort are at stake.

I've also pointed out that current and planned effort will achieve little in CO2 reduction and will not affect the status of the nuclear, coal, and petroleum industries, whereas the same effort invested in alternative energy would. Frank thinks that reasoning smacks of conspiracy theory.

experts - Mopled

Mopled, I've read a good many postings by you over time and I'm curious. In your opinion, what makes one person's opinion more expert than another's? It seems to me that you often choose the side of an argument with the fewest adherents.

Here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
the Wikipedia cites a number of sources (including the UN) and all projections have world population growing in all continents except for Europe through till 2150. Granted, like Europe, North America is stabilizing at a number that will allow North Americans to maintain a relatively high standard of living. It has been proving out in the last 50 years that established cultures with access to birth control, good education and meaningful work (for women as well as men) leads to a stabilizing of population.

North Americans now have technology to do the work that used to be given to one's children. Children's work is now school for the most part. Like Europeans, North Americans will continue having fewer babies while importing lower paid workers from other nations to keep a labour-force that doesn't become too demanding for equity from the wealthy. These are the people who pick our fruits and vegetables, debone our chicken breasts, tan our hides, clean our homes and nanny our children. These people do the most important work in our day to day lives are the lowest paid among us.

ME2

Are you familiar with the observations of Charles David Keeling?

You might find it interesting to have a look at his work, based on meticulous observations which have never been questioned.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/charles_david_keeling.html

Keeling

What a wonderful link to a thoughtfully created, tastefully prested site, GWest! Thank you. You have certainly proven to me today, sharing is good.

erratum

prested = presented

GWest re Keeling

Who's arguing that a rise in CO2 is NOT ocurring, Garth? Your site is NOT a "wonderful link" as SIG exclaims. It is yet another of your red herrings and says nothing about your "anthropogenically induced GW".

Here is the ONLY mention. (Bolding mine)

"The increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels has become a serious environmental concern. Central to this concern is the question whether a rise in CO2 constitutes a peril to humans by raising world temperatures, as many scientists now claim. That a rise in CO2 is occurring is unquestionable, however".

Is that the most astounding info you can offer?

hardly

If you prefer to believe that rises in CO2 are not related to human activity then so be it.

Keeling's measurements are the gold standard - no one has ever questioned their accuracy.

Rapidly changing any fundamental parameter in an empirically significant way in what is, at bottom, a closed system, is - in my opinion - a sure recipe for disaster.

Just as the combination of cheap high-sulphur coal led to poisoning the atmosphere over London England in 1952, human activities are affecting the environment world wide.

Keeling did pure science - he carefully measured and recorded the rise in C02 for the whole of his research career.

What we 'do' with that evidence is up to us.

If, on the other hand, one prefers to believe that climate 'change' is a manifestation of a 20,000+ year planetary cycle and a handful of shorter solar cycles then so be it.

I have a close relative who will be getting a PhD in physics in the next few months - I don't pretend to understand what his research is all about - suffice to say that there is a good deal of 'uncertainty' about whether the Higgs boson particle actually exists - which hasn't stopped scientists around the world from spending $5 billion or so on the large hadon collider.

A lot of life just doesn't provide the kind of certainly some people seem to require.

Skeptics are important too.

Suffice to say, as I've said before, that I'm sufficiently convinced we are messing up and it's time to change.

Obviously, as I've pointed out several times before, I'm not at all sanguine about some of the efforts to address climate change such as the jokey Campbell Tax and I'm no cheerleader for Dr Suzuki either.

I’ll heap scorn on Kevin Falcon’s insane idea that widening bridges will lead to a reduction in traffic and pollution and I’ll point out every inconsistency and anachronism in government policy and practice that says one thing and does another.

But, all the same, I think we're messing up.

No doubt many official efforts will be 'religious' in nature and no doubt there will be plenty of profit taking in the process.

That doesn't mean we don't have a problem and that doing nothing - which is the logical consequence of hidebound suspicion and skepticism - is still tenable.

I don't believe it is and I think both the preponderance of the evidence and the precautionary principle demands action.

The ‘science’, most of it at least, satisfies me and further, it accords more or less consistently with my own observations, my very wide reading and what I hear from personal friends who have experience in other parts of the world.

That, pretty much, is about as much certainly as there is. In the end, it’s a question of belief – there aren’t many sure things my friend.

Yet more evidence for natural cycles

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/Summary-bayreuth.pdf
Evidence of Variability of Atmospheric CO2 During the 20th Century
"In 1958 the modern NDIR spectroscopic method was introduced to measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere [Beck 2007]. In the preceding period, these measurements were taken with the old wet chemical method. From this period, starting from 1857, more than 90,000 reliable CO2 measurements are available, with an accuracy within plus or minus 3 %. They had been taken near ground level, sea surface and as high as the stratosphere, mostly in the northern hemisphere. Comparison of these measurements on the basis of old wet chemical methods with the new physical method (NDIR) on sea and land reveals a systematic analysis difference of about minus 10 ppm.

Wet chemical analyses indicate three atmospheric CO2 maxima in the northern hemisphere up to approx. 400 ppm over land and sea since about 1812. The measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1920 �1950 prove to be strongly correlated (more than 80 %) with the arctic sea surface temperature (SST). A detailed analysis of the Atlantic Ocean water during the arctic warming since 1918 � 1939 by Wattenberg (southern Atlantic ocean) and Buch (northern Atlantic ocean) indicates a very similar state of the Atlantic Ocean (pH, salinity, CO2 in water and air over sea etc.) These data show the characteristics of the warm ocean currents (part of global conveyor belt) at that time, indicating a strong CO2 degassing from the Atlantic Sea, especially in the area of Greenland/Iceland and Spitsbergen. More than 360 ppm had been measured over the sea surface.

In 2004 Polyakov published evidence for a multi-decadal oscillation of the ocean currents in the arctic circle, showing a warm phase (strong arctic warming during 1918 �1940 with high temperatures in the Iceland/Spitsbergen area) similar to the current situation, and a cold phase (around 1900 and 1960). Today the Iceland/Spitsbergen area is known for a strong absorption of CO2. This multi-decadal heating of the oceanic CO2 absorption area and larger parts of the Northern Atlantic Ocean was followed by an increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to approx. 400 ppm during the 30s and approx. 390 ppm today. The abundance of plankton (13C) and other biota supports this view.

Conclusion: Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies with climate, the sea is the dominant CO2 store, releasing the gas depending on multi-decadal changes of temperature.

It doesn't "come down to belief". We are talking science, not religion....

Not at all

It's a question of which 'science' to believe; which theory presents the most comprehensive and credible case and whose 'facts' more clearly approximate other observable and measurable phenomena.

As I pointed out, science ain't perfect and constantly requires re-assessment and re-appraisal. That is normal.

In the end, one 'believes' and acts, or does not act, on the basis of personal belief.

History can't even be considered as being recordable until a minimum of 50 - 100 years after the fact.

If climate-change 'believers' are not correct - and current actions aren't taken now, the historians of the future will certainly record the fact.

Write the reciprocal of that equation but fail to act and the degradation and ruin which a possible future historian will write about will not be a pretty story.
And that, really, is what it all boils down to.
Belief.

It's all about belief mopled...and that's all I have to say right now.

Theoretical physicists 'believe' that a postulated particle, the Higg's boson, exists - but they have never seen it, measured it, or 'proved' that it exists.

In science, real science, belief is fundamental.

ME2

Or even that there is a conspiracy going on among the world's scientists?

Frank, though I dislike responding to your baiting posts which deliberately misrepresent what both I and Mopled have written, it is still worth restating my concerns re the current promotion of CO2 induced GW.

There was no baiting. My questions are based directly on your comments. Perhaps you just didn't like the way I summed them up.

Actually you and mopled both believe its a conspiracy. mopled stated above he thinks its based on the power of the "few who own the world" such as the Rockefeller's etc.

You on the other hand say :

Words like "contrived" and "falsified" say Conspiracy(!) by the way unless you're saying the scientists are falsifying their data individually and for no reason other than its a Tuesday or whatever.

So, to sum up, you and mopled believe that a conspiracy among the majority of the world's scientists is taking place.

I don't care what the reason is, what it boils down to is the assertion of a conspiracy. And the reason for that is there is no other way to explain away their data and the theories based on that data.

So everything the "warmists" say is dismissed because "they've been bought off and their results are falsified".

I do not have a PhD in Climate Studies, and I'm willing to bet neither do you or mopled. I do not have the education or the equipment to walk outside and test how many parts per million of CO2 there is in the air. Nor would I know what to do with that information if I did.

I do know however that people that study climate have to use supercomputers to crunch the data and even then the results are not conclusive. I don't have a supercomputer and again, I'm sure you and mopled don't either.

So I don't feel qualified to argue the science and decide which scientist is part of the conspiracy and which is a beacon of honesty.

What I do feel qualified to do however is judge whether or not I think a worldwide conspiracy of scientists is taking place. On that point I find the evidence presented to be less than credible and therefore I will continue to side with the majority of scientific opinion. If that changes, I will change my view too.

Call it baiting all you like.

cont...

I should add that where I agree with mopled is that the threat of GW should not be used as a club to impose additional "energy" taxes on people (with the support of environmentalists) instead of actually doing something about the supposed "threat to humanity".

Especially when those taxes are a right-wing libertarian's wet dream. If the taxes are to have any meaning they have to be progressive, ie. based on income, not flat. And they have to be at a level equal to the threat. Because if the threat is equivalent to 2 cents a litre on Jimmy Pattison's gas then its not a threat at all.

GWest and Frank

Well, I guess we're just going to have to live with our differences of opinion.

However, from here on when I challenge anything either of you say, I won't feel the slightest bit of compunction in altering the intent and / or meaning of what you've written.

The unfortunate thing will be that there won't be much fun in doing so, since both of you think that's normal argument.

ME2

Before you fall on your sword, why not just say where you think what you say is being altered? After all, I quoted you.

Wow...how's that for nonsense

West thinks science is based on belief and Frank misinterprets ME2's

"However, from here on when I challenge anything either of you say, I won't feel the slightest bit of compunction in altering the intent and / or meaning of what you've written," as falling on his sword.

You both demonstrated his point.

As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Oh, I forgot

West's "majority of scientists" doesn't exist....they have never been asked....and if he means the IPCC, well that's a political body. Their name, INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, should give the first clue.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/spinningclimate0608.pdf

The fact that they used scientists as a fig leaf for a pre-set agenda has been attested to by numerous IPCC contributors themselves who have since gone on record in protest.

"Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community. On the evidence presented here, the IPCC’s selection of its chapter authors appears so prejudiced towards a predetermined outcome that it renders its scientific assessment of the climate suspect and its conclusions inappropriate for policy making. "
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/prejudiced_authors_prejudiced_findings.html

Some governments may have been naive, but ours certainly wasn't. Both Harper and Dion didn't even acknowledge letters sent to them by eminent dissident scientists...like Freeman Dyson.

The latest news showing why the AGW/CC hoax is finished...if you want it to be.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/roy-spencers-testimony-before-congress-backs-up-moncktons-assertions-on-climate-sensitivity/#more-1786

Thanks for the misreading mopled

I really appreciate it.

Now go back and read what I actually wrote.

Science is about moving closer and closer - in terms of measurement to a clearer approximation of the world. We 'believe' we have the best explanation available at whatever point measurement and successively closer approximations have brought us.

There are no absolutes...and, as Einstein put it '(t)he only sure way to avoid making mistakes is to have no new ideas'.

Frank

Frank, I have no intention of participating in the type of sophomoric sparring that you and Luke engage in.

For me, the value of these TYEE threads is in the sharing of information and in the testing of ideas. To me, that is what intellectual growth is all about.

Like everyone else, I think my info and interpretations of it is correct, and am prepared to defend such. OTOH, I would prefer not to hold misinformation, and if someone else has a valid point I cannot counter, even though I "lose" the argument, I win by being freed of the misinformation.

You can call that statement sanctimonious if you like.

ME2 and mopled

I take it from the lack of examples you no longer believe I misquoted you.

As for me and my sparring partner Luke, I defend left-wing thinking and he defends right-wing thinking. Neither of us will ever convince the other of anything but I come here to argue, not win.

On the matter of believing in your interpretations, I have no problem with that. However, when they're posted to a forum such as this it would be wrong to believe they wouldn't be challenged.

I've stated why I disagree with your belief that scientists have "contrived and falsified data". You are free to defend your belief or leave my disagreement unchallenged.

mopled

So when have you ever changed your mind mopled? You thought GW was a scam from the start and have always said so.

By the way, if the world decided to spend a trillion on cleaning up the environment would you support that?

Frank

You write :

"By the way, if the world decided to spend a trillion on cleaning up the environment would you support that?"

Another attempt at baiting; more of your kindergarten antics, and a cheap shot to boot, Frank. Mopled has repeatedly said, as have I, that the money being spent on CO2 GW is wasted money, and that if it was spent on things like pollution, we'd see positive environmental change.

mopled

"Kindergarten"? Is that a reaction to your not being able to find an example of being misquoted?

The fact is, 2 days ago mopled stated that we shouldn't shrug and say so what if GW is a scam, at least good things will come of action on reducing our emissions. So when I read that I assume that he's against spending money to reduce exhaust fumes, reduce burning coal and so on.

I find that hard to believe so I'm asking him to clarify.

I'll rephrase the question :

mopled, if the world decided to spend a trillion dollars on getting humanity off the fossil fuels habit because of two things you don't believe in, those being "peak oil" and "global warming", would you still be in favour of the spending in spite of the reasoning? (The old "ends justifies the means" thing)

You're quoting a UN estimate as gospel?? I assume these demographers have never received grant money or ever benefitted from any gov't largesse? How do I know the people producing that stat aren't lying and part of a massive "pretend we're de-populating" conspiracy?

Twisting again Frank?

Let's get this straight. Like everyone else I thought the CO2 AGW/CC paradigm was correct until March of last year. It was the now discredited 'Hockey stick" graph which scared the bejeesus out of me. After seeing Global Warming Swindle I started searching and found
that it had been show to be made up of fiddled data the year before Gore released his movie. There he was in a "cherry picker" pointing to the supposed causal relationship between high average temperatures and elevated CO2 levels on a graph where both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had been disappeared by design.

I'm not quoting gospel from the UN...I'm just offering it as an alternate to "we're multiplying like rabbits and eating the Earth."

You miss the point. Why would anyone send trillions to re-arrange our energy sources if there was no real reason to. Nasty as coal and oil are, they are still better than nuclear in terms of long term pollution and nuclear is the only thing we are being offered. Wind and solar are too unreliable to be anything but bit players and as Lawrence Solomon of Energy Probe points out, coal,oil and gas are the only sources of power that can be shut down or started up or turned down at will. Solar, wind and nuclear need that kind of backup.

We do have the technology to clean up the real pollution coal generates.
Yes, I would prefer non-polluting energy sources, but that isn't a question of spending money so much as getting the dog out of the manger. Why, with the miles of coastline in BC, has there been no serious
attention payed to tidal power for instance?

Here's a BC firm, with a real solution that has been trying for over 30 years to get BC Hydro to pay attention. Instead we get our rivers stolen for the unproven "Hydrogen Highway"

http://www.bluenergy.com/davisTurbinesptypes.html

mopled

Its been almost 3 years since you and Truman were arguing against GW on here. Anyway, irregardless of the timing, you believed you were being scammed by Gore and that made you what you are today. Fair enough. I didn't even see the Gore movie until a few months ago on video. It didn't live up to the hype.

I'll believe we're de-populating when the population actually declines. Not just slows in its growth, but actually declines. Until that time there is no way you'll fix the environment with 7 billion or so people above ground.

Blue Energy was in the Sun years ago. I couldn't tell you why tidal power has never gone anywhere.

I believe that answers my question, thank you.