Criminals? For trying to prevent a junk science fiasco?

All this article proves is that those who are sponsoring the continuing campaign against petroleum haven't run out of money.

Given that it is now beyond a shadow of a doubt that the climate changes without human input, I fail to understand why the disinfo continues. What benefit is gained, except by those on the Climate Cult's payroll, by continuing? The public has stopped paying attention, but real investigative journalism is uncovering the the slimy nether regions of NGOs such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/12/14/finally-real-journalism-on-ngos/

How about reporting something that really is criminal, like this:
http://climatedepot.com/a/12970/Report-Armed-Troops-Burn-Down-Homes-Kill-Children-To-Evict-Ugandans-In-Name-Of-Global-Warming

@ nora

which is probably not your name.

Try and get in touch with the fact that digging out the sewers under Bangkok or knocking little old ladies over and snatching their purses is more rewarding, honest work than being a shill for big oil.

Lawrence, I'm a shill for common sense!

Big oil has a great deal to answer for, yes!

BUT, attacking them for trying to defend the product and consumers against the nonsense about CO2 being a dangerous pollutant is actually counter-productive.People get turned off when they realize they have been lied to.

Just in case you missed it the first time I posted this, I advise you to look at the graphs , especially the one showing the non-correlation of CO2 with temperature in the years 1905 through 2000. Then look at the one below it which shows how closely the combination of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation correlates with temperature.
http://firsthandweather.com/blog/all-posts/global-warming-joe-bastardi

I might also ask you, who pays for your piping?

The article is good.

Even though it makes me sick to read more evidence that the Manipulators are well trained in their business and still more than willing to practice it.
From Nora's comment above:
"Given that it is now beyond a shadow of a doubt that the climate changes without human input, I fail to understand why the disinfo continues."
Most AGW proponents, including lots of qualified scientist, are well aware that the climate changes without human input. However, they are saying that the pollution we are adding to the system has an effect and that effect is measurable and alarming.
The effect of something as massive as the Tar Sand Project is also alarming in many other ways - some mentioned in the article.

Oh nora

I've been a science junky all my life, and a pretty heavy duty environmental activist.

Your working for big oil, I suggest you find honest work.

For anyone still wondering about global warming I would suggest you put Science Daily on your desk top and check it every few days

Come on "Lawrence"

you know as well as I do that ScienceDaily is a pinko-science website dedicated to publishing "research highlights" from the one-world, carbon-taxing communist cabal of climate "science".

Pfft. They never, EVER, publish the high-impact science of the brave Galileos who dare to question the orthodoxy of the high priests of climate change.

By the way: Geoff, fantastic article. Frightening times indeed...

Nora Farmer

You must be one of those dullards with your head in the (tar)sand. Which planet are you from?
Never mind that - since you are a 'farmer' let me ask you this...on your 5 acres how much can you grow that feeds how many people 5,000, 1 billion? Oh no, wait. I know. You can feed 7 billion people on your 5 acre farm. Because your farm has infinite capacity right? Wrong! The planet has x number of resources which if used up we go hungry and eventually kill each other for food. And that is happening already in Uganda where people kill each other because of lack of resources and a bunch of other things.

So your argument is totally ridiculous and unfortunately people like you are all over the place. Grow like weeds and spread idiotic ideas because of lack of awareness and knowledge about natural systems and life on this planet. I can't wait when we all die out - you included. Mother nature will be much better without us.

Ain't no Global warmin' round Here

Similar problem; similar approach:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011127125429770306.html

I've notice that when people are stuck for facts,

they rely on insults, as you just did Oh, Canada. Your misanthropy is very revealing.

Lawrence, what makes you think Science Daily is all that reliable?
"The site claims to have grown "from a two-person operation to a full-fledged news business with worldwide contributors," which gives the impression that it has reporters posted globally. In fact it has no reporters and only reprints press releases sent by international universities.

"Though the site maintains a Rockville, Md., mailing address, the Hogans recently moved to central New Hampshire, where they produce the website in their home, sharing the work. The site derives revenue from display ads, administered by Google AdSense. Advertisements range from pharmaceutical companies, health services, and food companies."
http://ww.infotoday.com/linkup/lud041510-stern.shtml
Science by press release! Lovely!

And I guess you couldn't be bothered to actually read Meteorologist Joe Bastardi's piece linked above, or you just don't care how outrageously silly the idea is that human generated CO2 does much of anything. Considering the human contribution is 3-5% of the total, and how little CO2 is present in the atmosphere to begin with, less than 4 parts per 10,000, something had to be done to make it look scary. If it had been presented to you properly, instead of in parts per million which automatically triggers the idea of toxicity, you might not have been sucked in.

"The figures are here, not from a right wing think tank, but the US DOE."

http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/greenhouse.png
Mr. Bastardi continues,

"So let me get this straight, if co2 is causing warming, my nation is contributing a figure so small, that the error bar analysis of it renders it as unreliable.

And are you trying to tell me that I will save the planet by reducing this.. to what… .000000012?

This is Alice In Wonderland Science, not of the real world."

"But I want you to think about something. Only in a world where someone is trying to hide something are things not questioned, or questionable explanations are shoved down peoples throats. 2011 had all these extreme events right? Yet the Pacific cooled and the mid tropospheric temperatures cooled dramatically from 2010."

Belief does not make it so.

Critical eye on references, please

I took some time to examine very intersting data on Nora's site reference, especially regardeing the PDO and AMO. Interesting.

The former really became oceonographic data when associated with the variable Equatorial Counter Current and data from El Nino interactions, somewhat investigated in the 80s off Peru, with stepped up data collection during the 90s, given El Nino's destructive behaviour, especially on the California coast.

Then arrived the latter,, for most scientists in the field, less understood processes.

The Atlantic analyses, after the big Quebec-New England ice storm, (notably winds, affecting and being affected by shifts in the mixing of the Gulf Stream/N. Atlantic drift, the Labrador and Denmark currents and their relations to the deep ocean conveyer, and then also the surface, N. Atlantic gyre.

Prior data was very thin.

Weather features that take on more quasi-permanent features and patterns, shift into climate data analysis.

But climate models are not predicated on current satelite images, except in a very few situations (eg. stationary high pressure cells that can produce drought conditions.

Meteorologists take "snapshots" of current weather events and try to predict short term pictures at different locations, up to 5 days ahead with reasonable accuracy. Satelite images, wind humidity, pressure data, etc.

Who really is meteorologist, Joe Bastardi and the Weatherbell Analytics?

I don't need to go there, after reading much of the accompanying article to those graphs.

Some sloppiness on this site, F. or C. temp. on some graphs, as a starter. But of relatively little importance here.

Might have taken some of that data seriously until alarm bells went off with the "FORCING AGENDAS DOWN THE THROAT OF PEOPLE" rhetoric.

Worst is the burning wind mill image, as if a gas pipeline explosion, oil platform fire or underground coal fire was even remotely close in magnitudes to similar disasters, (including pipeline, tanker and, shudder, nuclear accidents).

Nora, I told you before, "all the rest is politics."

Whatever credibility this site, ... "all posts/global warming-joe-bastardi" had, went down the tube with its latter propaganda.

Room for all sorts of criticism, but good science doesn't operate the way of this site.

doggone, how do you explain periodic prolonged drought

occurring throughout history in the region?

Droughts of Southwestern North America: Past and Present
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N41/EDIT.php
"The world's climate alarmists claim that rising temperatures will bring ever worse droughts to precipitation-deficient regions of the earth. One such region is Southwest North America, for which Woodhouse et al. (2010) developed a 1200-year history of drought that allowed them to compare recent droughts with those of prior centuries; and in spite of the fact that the warmth of the last few decades is said by alarmists to have been unprecedented over the past millennium or more, the review and analysis presented by the five U.S. researchers demonstrates that major 20th century droughts "pale in comparison to droughts documented in paleoclimatic records over the past two millennia (Cook et al., 2009)," which suggests that recent temperatures have not been unprecedented."

Just a GD minute, owl

http://www.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/products_services/bio.asp?partner=accuweather&header=b

The point of Bastardi's (bio above) article is that many things could and do have more influence than CO2. Nit picking is one thing but picking straw nits is quite another. When there are no facts to support the position Climate Cultists resort to ad hominem attacks.

Inconvenient Questions Routinely Dodged by Alarmist Advocates
1. Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?

2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?

3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?

4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?

5. Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?

6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth's CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?

7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?

8. Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?

Why are such inconvenient yet crucial questions still left unanswered? What turns mere incompetence into willful ***** is that these 'researchers' were also intentionally ignoring all evidence that disproved their hypothesis."
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9679-eight-questions-to-kill-the-kyoto-climate-protocol-in-2012

Stats, neglicence & neglect

Ah yes, I love statistical data given, unless parametres are confusing.

Nora, I'm surprised you would use this U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) table, sourced from the IPCC, the organization that you claim is lying to us. Perhaps it's a good thing.

But on top of the chart it says "Table 3. Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gasses in the 1990s", whereas directly below the chart it says "Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses in the United States 2004". Which is it, a year or a decade?
The US, or is it global?

Given DOE, I suspect USA 2004, especially where it says "annual increase".

But that would put Mr. Bastardi's numbers, although intended to minimize impacts ("increase in co2 due to the US is .000000015 of the entire atmosphere.") way out of wack of reality. The DOE ammounts are compounded (bankers love it), annual increases that don't reflect set ammounts based on the previous year.

CO2 "Total"(all sources emitted) 793,100 million metric tons, subtract "absorption" of 781,400 mmt leaves the "ANUAL increase in gas in the atmosphere" of 11,700 mmt each year", or about a .685% increase. Even if the US emitted a Cdn. total, it would be far higher than Mr. Bastardi's twisted total.

And then there's interpreting that data.

The totals above only outline CO2 excess emissions, not other GHG emissions that are listed lower in the table. Although much lower in excess numbers, these have much more impact per unit.

Ozone, our skin and planetary UV protector is also a GHG, as are, to some extent, CFCs.

Along comes technology. The Montreal protocal, unlike Kyoto, successfully banned most global production and use of CFCs.

Trouble is, CFCs biggest replacement are the HFCs, these being serious GHGs, not accounted in the DOE tables. (Gotta love sentences full of acronyms :-)

All I reeally see in this data is that we humans are releasing a slew of GHGs, including CO2, and rapidly increasing this activity, more than our planet is able to absorb. Simplistic but...

And (for the political side) many govternments, notably ours and south of our border, don't truly want to deal with this serious problem, if it interupts the flow of product and profit.

Lots of reasons why not, give us the reasons why

Yup, seen all sorts of Climate Change theories, including the altering of equatorial current movement with the closure of American landforms at Panama or the rise of the Himalayas to alter the monsoons.

So Nora, which flavour do you prefer?

Would all our activities, including cutting forests and altering albedo, as well as all our gaseous waste emissions, including CO2, tempt you to consider some human induced climate change?

If not, what do you believe is the specific cause(s)?

So, are you all enjoying being played?

Nice juicy gossip article of the crimes and misdemeanors going on against democracy throughout the government-corporate crime ring.

And it's even worse in the banking sector.

Keep voting, folks, your wishes are coming true every election. /sarcasm

interesting

It's clear big oil is spreading money around big time in the states and Canada.

The number of industry shills falling all over each other in the comments section of this article is testament to that.

Global warming is real, I have been following it for years. Reading Science Daily is simply an easy way to keep track of advances in many areas of the huge field of science.

I assume all you oil industry shills have children and grand children. These are the people that will be affected by the mayhem that will ensue if big oil has it's way.

And of course you'll explain to them that is was the commie pinko environmentalists that caused the problem...

I can not explain

Droughts occurring in certain areas prior to any forcing due to man made pollution.
But I can believe they happened.
Can you believe this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/11
?

You can all tap dance around the obvious

but CO2 doesn't change climate and there is no reason to ration its production. The supposed evidence was manufactured and it seems now the gloves are off after UK police raided the home of a blogger named Tallbloke.

"Lord Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate scientists: Will present to police the case for ‘numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud’

Monckton: ‘I have begun drafting a memorandum for prosecuting authorities…to establish…the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official ‘global warming’ storyline…they will act, for that is what the law requires them to do’"

http://climatedepot.com/a/14156/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-to-pursue-fraud-charges-against-Climategate-scientists-Will-present-to-police-the-case-for-numerous-specific-instances-of-scientific-or-economic-fraud

Aw, nora

Big oil is financing gobs of junk science and your crowd (oil industry shills) are simply inflicting this puerile garbage on the public whenever you can.

What I find interesting is you guys claim that the vast majority of climate scientists who are convinced global warming is a clear and present danger to our planet are conducting some form of hoax.

Why would they do that? What's in it for them?

Why not entertain the concept that big oil is conducting a hoax so they can make gobs more money at the expense of our species.

Lawrence

You're barking up the wrong tree it's better just to ignore Nora, but be prepared to be carpet bombed with junk science from noted fraudsters such as Ian Plimer and Lord Mockingjay.

It amazes me that people passively accept science in their everyday life. From the break system in their cars, to X-rays for cancer, to the running of the electrical grid. They also accept the fact that there are people who have specialized training and education in these fields. But when it comes to something as important and complex as the life systems we depend on as a species, they default to junk science and fraudsters.

...

"What I find interesting is you guys claim that the vast majority of climate scientists who are convinced global warming is a clear and present danger to our planet are conducting some form of hoax.

Why not entertain the concept that big oil is conducting a hoax so they can make gobs more money at the expense of our species."

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." (Karl Popper)

I always find it remarkable ...

how the science on greenhouse gases effecting the climate WAS scientifically settled in the mid-1980s, but once the BigOil campaign got underway in the mid-1990s, suddenly the science is in question. It's laughable. The same propagandists that kept the Tobacco industry from regulation for decades is working this con, and Nora Farmer and others are lapping it up.

How anyone can focus on the collateral argument, which is who is making money off of the green movement itself, and ignore the environmental destruction we have going on is simply folly.

No luck

Let's see if this link posts:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

Talk about grade 3 journalism

No wonder nobody wanted to put their name to it!

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Dumping+Kyoto+keeps+from+being+liars/5870390/story.html

The climatic changes have nothing to do with us, they say?

Global emissions of carbon dioxide increased 5.9 percent in 2010, the largest increase on record, according to Global Carbon Project, an international group of scientists tracking the numbers. This increase, reports the New York Times, is “almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.”

Another study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, traces an estimated three-quarters of the planet’s warming since 1950 to human activities. On top of that, the World Meteorological Organization warned that 10 of the hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 15 years, with temperatures this year registering as the 10th highest on record.

http://www.alternet.org/news/153455/8_stories_buried_by_the_corporate_media_that_you_need_to_know_about/

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/about_journal.html

Funny link, Bucketbrigade

I particularly liked this line:

The reality is that the cuts in energy use being demanded by environmentalists in and out of government would crush the economies of the world. And the cost of their "solutions" would bankrupt us all.

It's as if the author doesn't know that the world is bankrupt already. Let's protect that sacred capitalist economy, folks, because you could not work a day in your life without it.

Good

"The reality is that the cuts in energy use being demanded by environmentalists in and out of government would crush the economies of the world. And the cost of their "solutions" would bankrupt us all."

Good I hope the economy gets crushed, Neo Classical economics is immoral, destructive, stupid and not based in reality. Reminds me of one of my favourite passages from a book:

"It's Project Mayhem that's going to save the world. A cultural ice age. A prematurely induced dark age. Project Mayhem will force humanity to go dormant or into remission long enough for the Earth to recover.... Like fight club does with clerks and box boys, Project Mayhem will break up civilization so we can make something better out of the world.'-Fight Club

What`s even funnier?

The Province put copyright on that lame grade 3 story..

Now that`s funny!

Back in my 20s, I always dreamt that the world

..was fighting back against us, this cancerous-like growth of humanity, by using its own form of radiation through the ozone layer to rid itself of this nasty disease; looking toward the future, maybe it's game plan is to first roast us and then starve out those who still persist.

The Science is Settled - ?

Shills for Big Oil, dinosaurs and now, deniers in belief of the gospel are called "criminals". The science is settled some say. There are some that say the science was settled in the 1980's.

Some said the science was settled in the 1970's. Newsweek, April 28, 1975:

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

...To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

cont..

cont.

...Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. ..."

There is a correlation here with the capital punishment debate. It's repeatedly shown that executing someone found guilty is later and often found to have been a terrible mistake.

So Please!

Don't tell me that there is really only one god and you know this god's name. Neither tell me that the science regarding global warming or climate change is settled. It may well be settled for you. I respect your right to have that opinion, which is all it is.

Piers Corbyn on RT

It is one of life's little ironies, that Russia media is now more truthful than that of the West.
Non-government people who make a living from weather forecasting have to be accurate or they loose clients, so their opinions tend to be more reliable than those who rely on fictional climate modeling using values based more on politics than science.

"According to Corbyn, the solar activity – not carbon dioxide – is behind climate change.

“I don’t believe in man-made climate change because there is no evidence for it. In fact, carbon dioxide is controlled by world temperatures rather than the other way around,” he told RT. “Climate change is going on, and the key aspects of the big, very extreme events that happened in the last 18 months were predicted by us, the Weather Action, using solar activity.

“Carbon dioxide has zero effect, I repeat: zero effect, no effect whatsoever.”

http://rt.com/news/carbon-canada-effect-kyoto-773/

"Scientists Predicted an Ice Age"

This is an oft-repeated myth, Realistic Man. Most scientific papers in the 1970's (you know, not Newsweek) were predicting global warming, not cooling. Try reading them someday - Broecker (1975), for example, is remarkably prescient.

The science of global climate change is well documented, with mountains of observational evidence to support a simple theory: increasing atmospheric CO2 will reduce our longwave radiation emissions to space, causing the atmosphere and the oceans to heat up.

Get over it.

common sense?

I have just one small contribution here, which is a quote from Albert Einstein:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Frankly, I am not interested in your view of what constitutes common sense, for we know it varies from culture to culture,from class to class, from cohort to cohort. Your common sense is your opinion: feel free to speak it, but kindly don't tell me that your brand of 'common sense' somehow has more validity than another.

I confess I snort with laughter at the links herein offered up as 'proof' of one thing or another: let's agree that this does not constitute the scientific method. (Nor common sense, for that matter.) Let me say again that I welcome all opinions, as well as links to thoughtful offerings. Anyone claiming to be educated on a subject would be widely read on every aspect of a debate. Anyone claiming to be educated on a subject would recognize the grey areas. And anyone claiming to be educated on a subject would likely not try to cram their opinion down others' throats...

When you see this happening, folks, I think you can see ideology, spin, and outright bullshit - pretty much what Geoff described in his article.

very nice, VivianLea Doubt

from a philosophical bent, but what's your solution?

I understand re-education programs are generally the workings of state, as people tend not to bother themselves with contrary views, but sharing views cannot be considered prima facie laughable.

So let's approach this along the lines put forth by Bertrand Russell which should be observed for situations in which "experts" agree and disagree:

(1) When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain.

(2) When they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert.

(3) When they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exists, the ordinary man would do well to suspend judgment.

It follows that for us non-experts on the subject, no opinion can be held to be certain. Fair enough. So now the question that remains is, what is the intelligent way to proceed?

Logic would tell us that it does not matter whether one sides with or against global warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. A sane and prudent person would know that whatever the solution is at this juncture, considering the 'controversy', it certainly is not extracting and burning more fossil fuels, the ramifications of which may be deadly.

Of note, here is what Stephen Harper had to say a day or two ago:

The need for Canadian oilsands* (aka tar sands) is "overwhelming" and the government will work hard to combat misinformation about its environmental impact, the prime minister said Friday.

Harper goes on to say,

It is absolutely clear if you look at the trajectory of world supply and demand, of North American supply and demand that the need for this energy is just overwhelming,

almost as if he is projecting himself as a savior to the world -- we will supply your overwhelming needs -- never asking himself what are the 'true needs' of people. Clearly Stephen Harper has proven himself by now as an incapable and dishonest PM, as well as a menace to society.

His only concern is with fulfilling his obligation of the tar sands deal to others who have bought him off. I believe this quote sums it up about Stephen Harper quite nicely:

Canada: Burdened by the laziest elite of any developed nation; people who have made fortunes by selling off the country’s resources and by working for more energetic foreigners. They are most comfortable on their knees, admiring those from larger countries who have purchased them.

~ John Ralston Saul, A Doubter’s Companion

CO2

Does nothing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16203507
Nothing at a!ll
Or maybe this is methane

CO2 doesn't burn,

that's why they use it in fire extinguishers.

The bio-gas is wonderful. The food, not so great!

The point:

These sh%t heads imagine they are in charge of a functioning system. NOT!

@Artemesia re: Piers Corbyn

@Artemesia re: Piers Corbyn on RT

Has Corbyn explained this to the astronomers? The poor, ignorant fools (no doubt blinded by their politically correct ideological agenda) are still claiming that all known astronomical factors (ie. solar activity, the Earth's orbit, cosmic rays/gamma rays, etc.) cannot possibly account for Global Warming, and if they did have any effect, would be responsible for a rather miniscule cooling effect.

Mr Corbyn should set the straight, immediately; such a significant discovery in the astronomical field would certainly qualify him as a very strong contender for the Nobel Prize in Physics.

More Monbiot

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/17/no-bail-out-for-the-planet/

Alberta's Idiosphere

Big Oil's strategy in combating climate change action is well known and still very effective having been honed to a sharp edge in the disinformation campaigns fought on behalf of Big tobacco, the asbestos industry, chemical companies manufacturing ozone layer depleting chemicals etc.

All they have to do is inject uncertainty into the science so the politicians and MSM minions they own have some (in their thin minds) plausible excuse for doing nothing positive as huge amounts of money are made.

The disinformation industry recycles the same 'scientists' in each new campaign. You could follow a few of @Nora's links, compare them to the Climate Change Denier Database at DesmogBlog.com to see who they are.

So, there is no point debating the skeptics - that's all they want from you. There is no debate, the scientific verdict is in - climate change is occurring, human activities have caused it, we are rapidly running out of time to get something done to avoid catastrophe. In fact, a huge amount of ecological and economic damage has already been done but that aside, millions more people are going to die, the beloved global economy is going to be severely disrupted.

As the denial industry churns public opinion in their favour, scientists are finding alarming indications of positive feedback climate change mechanisms (methane release) in the arctic. I despair.

Re: Piers Corbyn

He is making a nice living using what he calls Solar-Lunar effects in doing long term weather forecasting. He did not discover the basic principles since solar sunspot cycles and their effects have been studied for centuries.
The IPCC used a single physicist who reviewed a paper she co-authored which said the sun's effects were minimal. It was know as Judithgate when the story broke last year.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist

Since the revelations of the second batch of Climategate emails, there are calls for the organization to be abandoned. It's sole role was to find a human cause for what was then a supposed unprecedentedly fast global warming now climate change. If this is any, it's minor compared to any and all natural causes.

There are so many things of more importance than how much CO2 gasoline produces. I am very worried about genetically modified food after finding out what it does to our intestinal flora.
Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_637.cfm

And I am still worried about weather modification by geo engineering.

Speaking of scary

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/12/end-nations-canada-us-and-security-perimeter

CO2, not so much!

We will see Judy

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/12/17/Scientists-try-to-gauge-permafrost-gases/UPI-39241324154722/?spt=hs&or=sn

Hold that thought, Vivian

Now recall that only 26% of the eligible electorate bothered to vote in the last election and shake your head. I wish we lived in your kind of world, but in this world, we have to fight a little for what we believe in.

If I find you blog, I promise to be nice, because you are. Merry Christmas!

"Climate" vs "Weather"

It appears that many people STILL don't understand that "climate" and "weather" are not the same thing.

Climate Change

Will affect the weather and it is what the whole fuss is about. The weather will have a direct impact on the way we live. It is already having an impact on the polar bear whose future is on thin ice.
People aren't real good when it comes to change.

25 million tonnes of coal and what do you get?

A new coal plant in China for each day of the year while Canadians find themselves deeper in debt.
BC is helping Canada get rid of coal plants by shipping the coal to China via former public owned BC rail and making a bundle doing it. And business is picking up to 33 million tonnes of coal shipped via BC Rail.
Apprently it was a real money maker when it comes to shipping BC logs and BC coal to China. Who would have thought? Not Campbell, he sold it said it was a money loser because it was only good for shipping coal and logs. Clark made money on the deal. It is to bad she didn't see the future for BC Rail as she takes her part in unloading the train. Clearly Campbell's and Clark's vision cost the province dearly. I guess we could call them committed to world pollution and climate change.

An average day sees over 700 train cars packed with coal arrive. The terminal can load four tonnes of coal per second into the biggest coal ships on the planet.

What is Big Oil really up to or when can we expect to read in the headlines "Ednbridge pipeline is being built" because of economic necessity or the sky is falling or something like that. I say tell it to the poor tar soaked birds who can't get off the ground because their feathers are soaked in the stuff. We're next.
No one could excuse Canada on not doing its part.