More imaginary scenarios based on an imaginary effect

"The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice is expanding, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polar bears are thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping, Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more and many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists, former Vice President Al Gore is now under siege by his fellow global warming activists for attempting to link every bad weather event to man-made global warming and scientists from around the world continue to dissent from man-made climate fears at a rapid pace."
Links embedded in original:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14051/Climate-Depot-Special-Report-AZ-Climate-Reality-Check--SubPrime-Science-Exposeacute-The-claims-of-the-promoters-of-manmade-climate-fears-are-failing--Presented-to-UN-Summit-

Climate denier Depot

I note that Judycross is posting info from the notorious political pseudo-science Climate Depot blog. 97% of working climate scientists take climate change seriously, and the other three percent either don't agree with each other or are paid by petrofuel interests. Re Arctic ice rebuilding, that is merely a lie.

climate depot is

Climate Depot is written by Marc Morano, he was a producer for Rush Limbaugh. In 2004, he was one of the first "reporters" to hype the John Kerry swiftboating story. In 2006, James Inhofe hired Morano to be his "Director of Communications."

Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.

Strawman!So what!

He's not "nice"!So what!

Classic diversion when you will not debate the issue.

When the threads are followed on the Warmist side, through foundations who fund Tides and Tides Canada...the money is all coming from the same elite! But they give pennies to skeptics.

Banksters want more money and they want to do it by taxing breathing.

"The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of U.N.-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates. There’s just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.

Whether the fund, which was formally created at a U.N. climate conference in Durban, South Africa last December, will get all the money it wants to spend is open to question in an era of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity. Its spending goal comes atop some $30 billion in “fast start-up” money that has been pledged by U.N. member states to such climate change activities."
http://rmiglobal.org/2012/03/24/double-secret-immunity-climate-fund-cronies-insinuate-un-link/

Its sad and depressing how violently they deny, and the paranoia

Judy et al.

This just in.

http://www.bluelyn.com/2012/04/27/cryosat-2-mapping-polar-ice-of-the-arctic/

North pole ice continues to thin. Actual satellite used. But i suppose the satellite is part of the UN conspiracy to steal our freedoms and must also be discounted. Sad.

Shouldn't they be modeling the climate change

that is really happening?

What if, as numerous astrophysicists predict, the world gets colder?
"The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers."
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201204200075

What would then be the impact on our cities? If we are prepared for the opposite of what really happens, the costs could be enormous. Cooling means shorter growing periods and less/more expensive food.

If this were just an academic exercise, it wouldn't be so scary, but this warped thinking
could influence city councils and regional districts. There was talk of building a higher sea wall a few years back, and that's the least of it.

http://www.climatecooling.org/#Fact

patrickC, your data is a year old

Check this out:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-4-nsidc-arctic-sea-ice-extent-touches-the-normal-line/

And whatever is happening in the Arctic doesn't mean humans are responsible, especially since Antarctic ice is at record levels.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images
/S_timeseries.png

Even Lovelock has left the fold.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

judy, judy, judy

One much more accurate and comprehensive source of climate info can be easily found on this site: http://thinkprogress.org/introduction-to-climate-progress-and-its-top-posts/

All your disinformation has already been discounted there and elsewhere.

I consider you and your ilk a threat to humanity as much as any terrorist. I hope the world soon understands the danger of people like you who manipulate and misinform for their own twisted purposes, and that you soon receive appropriate condemnation.

Judy Crosseyed

Of course, Judy also believes that 9/11 was a plot by the U.S. government (and/or maybe the Jews), that evil forces are seeding our skies with chemtrails, and that the position of the stars and planets govern our lives. Maybe she even believes that there's a conspiracy to sap and replace our precious bodily fluids!

And yet some bozos still take her climate change denying conspiracy theories seriously. A real disconnect from reality.

Classic diversion is rich coming from Judy

Accusing me of classic diversion is rich coming from Judy. I didn't say Marc Marano wasn't nice, he might be a lovely person, but I implied his climate science cannot be trusted, if it is funded indirectly by Exxon Mobile. The same goes for Anthony Watts.

Diversion? Me? Judy where do you get these websites? They are from all over the place. The Runymede Institute? A UK based economic monetary research organization, I couldn't find anymore on them. Their front page article call people who disagree with Ted Nugent, pinkos. And Judy gave us a link to a list of pictures. Where do you get these websites?

Do you even read these articles yourself you link here? I see that your posts are just a cut and paste from the website you link, you don't even write these most of the posts yourself here on the Tyee. One link a few days ago was about supernovae affecting life on Earth. If you had read carefully, like I did, it clearly states at the bottom of the page that as CO2 goes down, so does global temps, and as CO2 rises, so does global temps.

Accusing me of diversion is rich coming from Judy, this Tyee article is about the effects of sea level rise here in the Lower Mainland. And now I have to read about UN climate funding and Ted Nugent from Judy. That's diversion.

Joe Romm?

Are you serious?
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2011/05/joe-romm-lies.html

You are seriously nasty though, and like most bullies resort to threats when confronted by facts.

You are the one pushing a totally false paradigm which has already thrown farmers off their land in Uganda and Honduras for carbon credit plantations, killing a few, cost billions in government grants for made to order science and I'm the menace?

Get your head out of the hole that Romm, Friedman and Krugman occupy and come out into Svensmarks universe.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/27/lawrence-solomon-censored-science/

Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth

http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf

Physics lesson

Melting Arctic Sea Ice does not raise the level of the oceans, only melting glaciers on land such as Greenland and Antarctica. But every climate scientist and physicist knows this. So a link to a series of photos of Arctic Sea Ice in the winter is a diversion.

High school physics: melt an ice cube in a glass of water and the water level doesn't go up. Instead, Judy, you should have tried to find for us a series of photos that show that the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers are gaining mass. Oh yes, you can't because they are losing mass fast. The melt water runs into the oceans and residents of Delta will need house boats.

Please, Sidney Ball....

Don't include Judycross's climate change denying ideas with those of us who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Not the same thing at all. Just like the scientists who support climate change, a great many professionals in fields like engineering, architecture, pilots, chemistry, certainly believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And we probably have just as much proof for our "theory" as the professional climatologists have for theirs.

bot and sold

more automated spam messages paid for by the gas and oil industry

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22judy+cross%22+gas+and+oil

Name your Red herring

That Arctic- melting- sea- rising horse manure was suggested by someone else..patrickC, I believe, but the article itself implies it.

The problem is, ice is growing at both pole and on land as glaciers expand, so shoreline flooding isn't happening except where a tectonic plate is sinking. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

You don't like Runneymeade?
Fine...here's the story from a source maybe more to your liking.

http://occupycorporatism.com/uns-green-climate-fund-seeks-ambassadorial-immunity-from-legal-action/

Judy Cross= ass

Maybe if you get off yer arse and take a walk around in the environment, you might see things happenning. Trees dying, droughts etc. Great lakes not freezing etc. Quoting studies don't compare the the changing world around us. Or better yet, register your address and picture. In 10 years if things get worse there will be laws to publically flog asnd jail people like yourself for contributing to the wrong adjenda.

The lynchpin of all climate change deniers....

....seems to be that "sure there may be climate change going on, but is sure isn't caused by human activiies".

How terribly funny that Ok Orch

is capable of seeing through the 9/11 fairy tale,(only 2 planes,but 3 buildings collapsed),
but can't seem to get that 0.04% CO2 is incapable of changing climate while ignoring the role of things like the Sun.

Forest_Lover confuses effect with cause but is too close minded to examine the evidence. There is no longer a correlation between the rise of CO2 and temperature and bullying an elder who has lived through warm to cold to warm and now probably cold again, does nothing to support the CAGW case. It really just exposes how threadbare the case is when proponents resort to threats.

It's been warmer and it's been colder. Warmer might actually be better.

Historical Temperatures - Charts/Graphs
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

Right on RickW!

Except how can I be a "climate change denier" while agreeing, nay, INSISTING the climate changes?

BTW,can you show me the proof that humans cause climate change?

Where is it?

RickW

Who cares whether it's caused by human activities or not. If you believe all that the scare mongers spew forth then the snowball has already built up enough momentum that nothing will stop it. Might as well try figure out how to live with it sensibly.

It's silly articles like this one where people suggest putting wind generators in a place like Horseshoe Bay that really shows how imbecilic some of these future plans really are. And just when was the last time you saw the blades turning on that demonstration tower on Grouse Mountain?

To all who are pooh poohing judycross, you're falling into a trap of your own making.

Here's an interesting little read.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change#comments

Landscape Amnesia and denial

"Landscape Amnesia" is the term used by geographers to describe the changes that have been much forgotten, except in some oral stories, database or text. "Creeping normalcy" suggests how this, often destructive, process takes place.

Hunters, fisherfolk and others, who most depend on the land, waters and associated but limited resources, are usually the first to notice changes.

But these can be frequently forgotten within a couple of generations. For example, just ask most young Cambodians about the Killing Fields of the KR near the end of the Vietnam war.

Big fish, what are those, lots of jellies, eh, big Cod?

Ah Judy, where do you find the time? Real research can take years, even just to peer review multitudes of textual reports. And yet you still comment to the point of nearly matching the total comments here. Are you being funded for all the time you spend to justify your denials?

Where on this map is your point? Start with a single issue, rather than all over the place.

We appreciate your dissenting position, as all good science requires some questioners.

But you are very inprecise in just what part of the debate you disagree with.

Denial of all places you in a plausibility difficulty.

Do you deny rising sea levels or excuse these as some sort of natural cyclical phenomina (which usually occur over a very extended period of time, in human terms)?

Do you delink sea level and ocean ph changes from a changing climate?

Do you view Climate Change in the same natural cyclical vein, completely unrelated from human activity? Its obvious that CO2 emmissions is not your culprit. How about deforestastion, methane release or rising albedo?

At present, you come across like that shill for "Ethical Oil." Looking at the sites that you've been giving us, many of these turn out to be very questionable. The big picture you try to weave is full of holes.

Narrow your focus while viewing the largest picture, beyond politics.

climate change: kinda like cancer

Judy et al: suppose you see 10 oncologists, 9 say you have an aggressive cancer that requires drastic action, one says you're fine and don't need to do anything. If you decide to run with the advice of the one, rather than face the problem, then you have the mentality of a climate change denier. Denial is always the easy way out in the short term. The data and science had me convinced 20 years ago. I've been walking to work for 20 years. Our household burns < 1 tank of gas a month. We used to fly 2 or 3 times a year, Now we fly once every two or three years. I'm here to report a lower carbon lifestyle isn't bleak: My wife and I revel in the multitude of arts, sciences and other media at our fingertips. If you live in a world of ideas, not so much of things, it's a golden age. And we're not screwing our grandchildren in the process.

It's interesting how in recent years in Germany it's become OK to talk about the Nazis and the Holocaust, now that Oma and Opa are dead. Previously it was taboo, because it would upset Oma and Opa, and they'd talk about how "we had suspicions, but nobody really knew". I suspect 60 years hence the same will be true in the families of climate change deniers and Oil Nazis.

And yeah, Judycross, what about that arctic albedo and marine H2CO3? Let's see your scientific chops, if you have any. Don't reference some article. Speak in your own words.

Owl...you are out-to-lunch

The whole point is that none of the stuff you just spouted is true.
The oceans aren't rising. The temperature has been flat for the last 15 years even though CO2 keeps going up and you dingbats keep chanting the same mantra.

The game is over, but those sucking the golden tit of government and foundation grants for junk research don't want to give up their cushy jobs.

Oil funding flows to foundations who pass it on to other foundations who pass it on to the shepherds of popular opinion.It doesn't flow to old ladies with attitude like me!

"The Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts, created by the founders of Sun Oil, has granted at least US$82-million over the past decade and at least US$40-million has been granted by other U.S. foundations."

The Tyee is even mentioned:
"In B.C., seven environmental groups were paid a total of US$505,000 for the Tar Sands campaign in 2010. Five of these groups were new as of 2010: Living Oceans Society, the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, the Northwest Institute for Biological Research Society, the Tyee Society and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation."
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/01/17/vivian-krause-oil-sands-money-trail/

The "low carbon lifestyle" is pointless

What is it for, since CO2 doesn't do anything to climate except help plants grow better?

Is it so you can feel self-righteous about denying your tourist dollars to those whose livelihoods depend on them?

Your self-sacrifice is like spitting in a rainstorm. The Carbon Nazis are wrong if only because it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period when CO2 levels were lower than now. That fact has been demonstrated by newly published research.

"Daily Mail reports that the researchers, in their study, showed that ikaite is a reliable way to study past conditions of the Earth's climate. Studies of the rare mineral derived from sediment cores off the coast of Antarctica deposited over 2,000 years ago includes those deposited in the so-called "Little Ice Age" about 300 to 500 years ago. The Little Ice Age occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. Previous studies have documented both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in Northern Europe but it was never established with certainty that the conditions extended beyond Northern Europe."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321868#ixzz1qfdJQnmY

Follow the money

"those sucking the golden tit of government and foundation grants for junk research don't want to give up their cushy jobs." Yeah. The world's crawling with wealthy scientists. Oh hang on, no there isn't any. Sure are a lot of wealthy folks in the fossil fuel racket though. When something smells like BS, follow the money.

Don't kid yourself

Most are happy just to get the work, but a few, like James Hanson get well rewarded by yet other foundations and of course well paid speaking engagements.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

still waiting

I don't fell self-righteous, I feel responsible and cautious. And what about that albedo and H2CO3? No science background? Still waiting....

stinkylinks

Judycross, You have a penchant for posting links, but I've noticed that you never reference any peer-reviewed scientific journals. That speaks volumes to me.

The articles I link to do, but I suppose you don't bother

to read them because you would have to venture outside the sheep pen.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0012821X

I don't respond to nonsensical requests or meaningless questions wvdk. Why don't you tell me how much "Man Made" CO2 Is In The Earth's Atmosphere? That is more to the point.

A Small Cog in The Wheel, JC

http://ecojesuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Desertification_ENG.pdf

Judy, I'm "Out of touch"?

Judy, I'm "Out of touch", now that gets quite intersesting. Must be a real blockhead.

Beenn at it for 30 plus years.

Ya bin to any good science conferences lately? Personally know any presenters and discuss their topics? Didn't think so, then again I could be wrong.

It seems I need to restate the previous quetion(s) into agree/disagree or yes/no columns, to get clarification, not rhetoric, from you.

For example

3. There is no significant direct or indirect evidence that CO2 is raising global mean temperatures, regardless of increasing atmospheric concentrations of that gas.

You obviously AGREE.

Pedologists (soil scientists) have verified that higher temperatures cause most soils to release more CO2 (not just Tundra methane). Oceans? Chicken and the Egg? Tipping points?

Have to step back a notch.

1. Global average temperatures are stable, normally fluctuating and possibly even cooling, all over the mid term (100 years?).

Agree or not.

2. Both alpine and continental glaciers are currently receding in nearly every global region at a higher rate than at least since Roman empire days.

Agree or not.

Been up there lately, other than in BC, these last 2 La Nina years?

4. Climate fluctuations over 250 years are natural events that human activity (burning of forests and fossil fuels, etc.) have little or no effect on.

Agree or not.

Don't feed me more site references, some of which are pretty good, others ludicrous.

Choose yay or nay on those 3 questions and explain answers where you wish. Short and simple is good.

Credibility requires straightforwardness, more than anything else.

When did you get the idea that you are some kind of climate

Grand Inquisitor? Do I have to answer or have my fingernails pulled out.

Why do you jerks keep trying to make this about me? I'm a nobody.

Temperatures are flat, CO2 is up and the climate keeps responding to the Sun as it always has.

That's it...that's all.

So, how much of the 4/100 of 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "man-made"?

Anybody?

Does anybody here support Geoengineering?

Control the weather...control the planet! Then you can win big on crop insurance or the new "weather as a commodity" market run by Goldman Squid.

Introduction To Weather Derivatives
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/05/052505.asp#axzz1tPcMcCln

"Why in the World are They Spraying?" Official Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3__ssxTvNc

Throw him under a Bus!

The king of Gaia conveniently changes his mind.

Well; he does have a new book coming out.

Those that wish to continue their warming beliefs, will go on believing because now it's all co-mingled with other assorted mixed bugbears, like capitalism and energy companies. Not to mention that those now labeled as deniers are generally not at all welcome in the new, leftie 'polite' company. It will take many years of freezing their collective arses off before reason is accepted again and the left leaning press can bring themselves to face the horrifying truth. Once they do, and not before that, it's still super-trendy to fear doom.

"(James) Lovelock said.

'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

Above here 'snert' referenced this development too. Any serious adherent to the hallowed climate-warming cult will know of Guru James Lovelock.

For those inclined to Google for more depth, type into the search slot: 'James Lovelock changes his mind'.

Be careful around buses James.

lovelock = glorywhore

The scientists I know think, as I do, that Lovelock is a flake and always has been. I don't know or care what he's changed his mind about.

Judycross: an online magazine with the word 'science' in the title is not the same as a peer-reviewed journal. Your calls for 'proof' of man-made CO2 betray the fact you don't understand that science never assumes to prove anything, only disprove things. You are clearly not a scientist and way out of your depth holding forth on matters scientific. All the coal, oil, gas etc. that humans have burned over the centuries produced CO2. It's the combustion reaction. And this man just produced CO2 by exhaling. It's called respiration. So yes, I suspect there's some man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

35 years ago in my economics class the prof told us that the health of the economy depended on the price of oil more than all other factors combined. I asked "so what happens when the oil's gone?" He replied "by then, scientists will have figured out how to get energy out of rocks or something" (exact quote, it burned into my mind). I thought to myself 'you might know your economics, but you don't know your science or you'd know there's no stored chemical energy in rocks'. As for the 'or something', 35 years on it hasn't magically appeared yet. I find it both fascinating and disturbing that the public puts blind faith in the scientific method to provide them with technological wonders, solve crime, cure disease, etc. then dismiss that same scientific method as conspiratorial nonsense when it tells them things that rock their comfortable world view.

The Lady Doth Protestith Too Much

Climate change deniers and naysayers appear to be protesting too much. If this was truly about scientific purity, then we would hear more critiques about other "bad" science. Of which there are many examples (e.g. tobacco industry "science", fish farm "science", nuclear power "science").

But most (if not all) of the focus is to defend the use and sale of oil. Full stop.

Thus, one can't help but conclude that "bad" science (allegedly) is ok, except when it impacts the oil industry. Then it's not ok.

Great coverage as always.

Energy from Rocks

It happened before. A 150 years ago everyone heated with coal and wood and then we got energy from the rocks as in oil. What the next energy is who knows. Rather than try and change what may not be man caused any way and even if it is ain't likely going to change in our world system lets see all these eco groups put their money into something productive that will actually help us live with the change. I have never seen a workable solution given by any of these eco groups next to living in a cave. Quit using cars in not a workable solution.

Big oil

The more I read the Tyee the more I see a basic resentment that people are making money off oil rather than a real concern along with workable solutions to the environment.

JudyCross

Judycross is obviously a conservative troll trying her best to reinforce Harper's climate change denials. We saw what happened to Harper's little darling Daniel Smith of the Wild Rose tea bagger party in Alberta after she insisted the science on climate change is not in yet. True conservatives sent her and her extremists viewpoints packing.

Here's a thought for Judy.

"It’s fine to be a die hard liberal or conservative, but if you have unwavering support for a political party regardless of what they do, it’s hard to accept that you actually believe in anything. It’s okay for a mom to support her child’s decision to become a professional clown as long as it makes them happy. But that doesn’t mean you’re a good parent, it just mean you’re the mother of a clown."

you're right

You're right, woodworker, man-caused change being true won't cause much change in our world system. That's why the solution is mostly a personal DIY thing. Don't wait for eco groups, industry or govt. to solve it for you. As I posted above, I've been pursuing a low-carbon life for twenty years (and still enjoying life).

It feels to me like we're on a speeding train and we know the bridge is out (the oil'l be all gone) somewhere up ahead. On a personal level I'm trying to slow the train down. I don't resent the oil industry, I'm just calling it to account for hitting the accelerator.

Judy, Judy....

Cognitive dissonance is caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. A person with strong views on a particular subject finds it hard to change their minds, even with a huge amount of evidence stacked up against them.

A person genuinely interested in knowing what's true will often ask questions and try hard to grasp your point of view before they dismiss it. A closed minded individual will not do this and changing their mind is pointless. Such ignorance, arrogance and selfishness make a sharing, caring society impossible.

The climate debate on Aus TV

I just watched this one hour documentary from ABC, Australian TV.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/

Each side of the debate tries to change the mind of the other. They don't change the mind of the other. It's all a matter of risk: do we risk the hurting the economy if we work toward a low carbon economy or do we risk climate change if we do not? There is not much science in the video, it is more about the debate of each side.

Interesting conversation at the end of the video talking about journalism and the debate on TV. The media think they should give each side equal time to be fair, and then somehow the public will triangulate and make an informed decision. But what has happened is that the percent of scientists who think global warming is man made is vastly different from the percent of the general public.

Bravo!

Well done 'Name goes...'. You watched the whole thing. So did James.

His critique positions him along with other spawn of Satan. It is cheery though.

By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: April 27th, 2012

"Those of you who don't live in Australia will be lucky enough to have missed last night's travesty of a documentary I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change by the Aussies' gag-inducingly PC state broadcaster ABC. Better still, they will have been lucky enough also to have missed the even more ludicrously biased panel discussion afterwards in which an outrageously parti-pris greenie moderator, a greenie "social researcher" (whatever that is), a greenie youth activist, the head of the ultra-greenie, even-worse-than-the-Royal-Society CSIR and two more greenie plants in the audience bravely took on an evil mining magnate (my new hero Clive Palmer) and an evil climate change denier (Nick Minchin) in order irrefutably to demonstrate that anyone who does not deny the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming must perforce be the spawn of Satan. ..."

What?

".....anyone who does not deny the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming must perforce be the spawn of Satan. ... So 'greenies' are irrefutably demonstrating that they themselves are spawn of satan? You can't get your facts right, but try to get your 'quotes' right.

Does anybody here support Geoengineering?

Absolutely! Would make a great weapon!
I mean, look at what the Chinese are doing to the US mid-west:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/sjt/drought/WCToutlook.pdf

Believe it

Yes, believe it from Judy.

1. "the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined"

That's if you compare recent years to 2005.

But category 5 hurricanes were only supposed to strike the US once every 100 years.

In 2005, 3 category 5s struck the US, Rita, Wilma and Katrina, although the latter had lost some of its power just before devastating New Orleans. Another category 5, Emily, just missed.

Other records include the deepest low pressure eye ever recorded (Wilma at 882 milibars) and the season's latest, which officially ends in November (Zeta, Jan.3, 2006).

Haven't had a season like that in 6 years, 2 year's of La Nina dampen such monster storms' intensity, but I'm quite sure that the insurance industry won't lower their rates on such a short term basis.

Kerry Emanuel, a meteorologist from MIT, a former climate change skeptic, and Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Tech, seperately concluded that, prior to Katrina, Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had nearly doubled over the previous 35 years.

2. "big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s".

This spring these mini monsters struck in Tornado Alley earlier than ever and bigger than ever. And the season is not 1/3 over.

Climate change may or may not be responsible for these. The jury is still out on the causes, but to manipulate or deny the evidence is ludicrous.

Who's out to lunch, Judy? The statements you made above surely place your credibility out there on anything else you say.

Owl...what do you do for a living?

Because you seem more like somebody defending his rice bowl at the cost of truth than someone who is interested in the truth.

Come on, Kerry Emanuel was a skeptic, until his brother became Obama's right hand man. His other brother wants to put grandma out on the ice.

NOBODY has proved...or CAN prove that CO2 can change climate. The idea violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....a cold body can't pass heat to a warm body....the end!

So whether it rains or freezes on your plastic bejesus, man doesn't change climate by adding 4% more CO2 to the 4/100 of 1% already there........gotan idea of how small an amount we are talking about, even though it can be deceptively measured in frightening tons?

CO2 can't change climate.

You want peer-review?

I give you peer-review:
Everything you might want to know about CO2
http:www.co2science.org/subject
/subject.php

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/03/new-peer-reviewed-study-falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects-within-the-frame-of-physics-by-gerlich-tscheuschner/

"The stable stationary value of the earth's global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness"
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c171tn430x43168v/?p=ad1e44ae55754e548ae474618bfb4102&pi=8

If it were not for the funds still flowing in from governments and foundations, there would be no reason for this conversation.

The Zombie Greenhouse Theory has been dead for a long time.

Weather events,

tornadoes, firestorms, hurricanes, droughts, floods etc. are all driven by atmospheric and oceanic energy. As the atmosphere and oceans warm, the increased energy creates more intense weather events. It's not a complicated principle. What's more complicated is the psychology of denial. It's easier to engage in now that one can easily find support for any crazy idea on the Internet. Psychologists call it 'confirmation bias'. Type 'moon landing hoax', 'Holocaust hoax' 'flat earth' or whatever into Google and you'll find a fraternity of true believers. Why bother with unsettling empirical evidence? Judy, Realisticman et al have already found their comfortable, constructed alternate reality.

a cold body can't pass heat to a warm body....the end!

your cold microwave oven turns microwave radiation into kinetic molecular energy in water molecules, warming your food. In the same way, infrared radiation from Earth is transformed into kinetic molecular energy by CO2 molecules, making them warmer...Not the end!

Judy, so you found one 5-year old peer-reviewed article questioning climate change. There are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles presenting evidence contrary to your beliefs. Nice try, though.

Nine doctors tell you you have cancer, go with the one who tells you there's no problem. It's easier that way.

Dodo heads don't read Peer-reviewed papers anyway

They just call people deniers and think that ends it all. They believe in faith-based-science, where the data magically changes when High Priest Hansen waves his Magic Mouse over it proving that the Arctic is melting even though he got rid of the data sets from anything close to the Arctic Circle.
JEESH!

Some people seem to think writing well is a substitute for logic.

Just for the record, since there is an assumption
that I support the NeoCons,
the last political party I belonged to was the Canadian Action Party.

They want to reclaim the Bank of Canada from the Goldman Squid Banksters, so we can have all the education and medical attention we need without incurring debt, just like we used to until 1974.

Ask the NDP about who creates the money supply and they will either change the subject or stare blankly.

I'm not assuming

anything about you other than that you have little or no scientific training. Stay with what you know. You may well be right about the Bank of Canada. Have a nice day, I'm off to work.

I never claimed training

and if you let that stop you from examining the evidence I present, there just isn't any real conversation possible.

I know about lots of things, and the Climate Boondoggle is one of them.

Well Spotted

But no, I didn't write out James's quote. I copied and pasted it - as it is. We know what he means.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100153921/abc-even-worse-than-the-bbc/

Ehrlich, Lovelock, even Gore himself are backtracking. My reality is that I rather hope that warming is coming. I wish the rabid preachers were right. I like it nice and warm.

Evidence?

Hey Judy, meteorologist, now retired, was one of my vocations. How about you?

Climatologists, although connected to meteorologists, use different methodologies to hone their crafts.

I have no desire to challenge your notions of Climate Change,(still don't really know if you think that the more recent changes are unusual or not), or the possible links to CO2 emissions, as you've already made up your mind, and as you put it "there just isn't any real conversation possible."

But when I challenged your so called "evidence" about hurricanes, tornadoes and melting glaciers, you conveniently evade the evidence I presented, deriding one MIT researcher in the process.

Regardless of researcher motives, do you deny that those category 4 and 5 hurricanes of 2005 were far beyond the frequency and intensity of anything in the past 100 years or longer? Or that they never actually happened?

Or the mega tornadoes so far this spring? Or long term glacial recession?

Are these "imaginary scenarios" as you put it?

At this point in the discussion, I don't care if the causes are due to little green aliens' ray guns.

But I am challenging just 2 or 3 of your so called pieces of "evidence" that you presented in your "More imaginary scenarios..." comment.

What comes back are no straight answers, just name calling and arrogant belittlement. Take your own advice, "JEESH! Some people seem to think writing well is a substitute for logic."

And fiction writers can ignore, deny or twist the evidence in front of their noses.

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper

Judy linked us to a review of a paper written by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Their original paper was in the International Journal of Modern Physics B (2009). A year later a rebuttal and debunk of their work was published in the same journal
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

Here is an article that disproves their article. Good luck trying to understand it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

But I did some more digging on these two people. Gerhard Gerlich used to belong to a now defunct organization European Science and Environment Forum http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
originally created by the tobacco industry which promoted the idea of "junk science" and over regulation.

It never takes long to follow the trail back from the deniers to funding by Exxon and big oil or the smoking lobby.

Owl...anybody can claim credentials on the internet

Which is why I make no such claims. OK? So your claim to expertise is just so much fairy-dust!

I am the one who has been called names, so trying to make others the victims of my terrible virtual tongue, is sleazy. Notice I say the action is sleazy, not the person.

May I remind you Al Gore has no credentials, neither does Maurice Strong. Do you know the head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer who headed up the government owned OIL company. So all of those three have no scientific credentials and two of them were engaged in the Chicago Climate Exchange and all have had connections to Big Oil, Gore,is a major shareholder in Occidental Petroleum and Strong ran Petro Canada under Trudeau and then got big at the UN. He introduced the Climate Thingy and Agenda 21. In 2005 he had to flee to China because money went missing from the UN Oil For Food program (which starved Iraq),when he was administrator of the fund.

Are these guys really to be believed and I who has nothing to gain may not be? I'm offering others work to back up what I say, which gets dismissed as fiction.

Tornados/ice storms/hurricanes
Weather/Climate changes for better or worse all the time and the changes can't be caused by CO2.

I have offered two papers of the required type... Peer-Reviewed and never refuted above.

Here is something much simpler from Australia, which has a Federal carbon tax. There are many good links at the bottom of the page.I do hope you bother to examine it.

If I have hurt you feelings, I'm sorry, but I never was a "nice"person. I get tired of the conversation that drones on around how I am a "Climate Change Denier" because that is the only talking point the person has and considers that enough to discredit me..... when I keep saying the climate changes on its own, without any help from us.
Sigh!
The Rice Video - Carbon Dioxide in perspective by The Galileo Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

credentials

Of course it's absolutely crucial who is making the claims or offering the proofs. It would be naive to suggest otherwise.

"May I remind you Al Gore has no credentials, neither does Maurice Strong."

If your lack of credentials (judycross) does not invalidate your argument, then neither does their's. So it comes down to the science... which isn't on your side, but does also factor in a number of other things which can (apparently) influence climate, such as methane, to choose another greenhouse gas with much greater impact on the climate. It's always possible to cherry-pick one aspect of a complex issue, and then go further and cherry-pick the outlying contrarians which dispute the consensus view. Doing so does build some meager storehouse of weaponry to do battle on the Internet, but it does not make for good public policy, nor should initiatives which address climate change (real or not) that also have a myriad of other benefits to a beleaguered ecosystem, be held hostage to demands of absolute certitude by a very small and largely discredited minority of nay-sayers.

why?

Yea, there are so many things I could say that are wrong, wrong, wrong with this whole project. I mean, why waste time on "positive" thinking about "survival" when you can have fun picking fly shit out of pepper.

How beutifully you miss the point

Pachauri, Strong and Gore not only have no credentials, they are pushing a false paradigm for private profit!
Also, there is no consensus..that is part of the flapdoodle, but there are over 450 peer reviewed skeptical papers and over 1000 scientist that think CAGW is poppycock.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/

Pray tell what benefits has this nonsense provided to the ecosystem? That is just sanctimonious twaddle.
Do you mean wiping out orangutan habitat for biodiesel plantations?
The ecosystem benefits from the wee bit extra CO2 we give it, all 4% of the 4/100 of 1% that is in the atmosphere.

So, back to Falsification etc.by
Gerlich & Tscheuschner
Headbutting therebutters
Introduction

It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation.
Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded
antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the
current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the
trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.
more:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/headbutting-the-rebutters-gerlich-and-tscheuschner/

credentials?

Anthony Watts does not appear to have published any articles in peer reviewed journals on the subject of climate.
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

And no verification that Watts ever completed his degree.

Marc Morano has never published research in a peer-reviewed journal on any subject. His only education appears to be in political science.
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

Me?
A physics degree completed before the age of the internet. And now I have Google to check the credentials, and to follow the money. I am not a climate scientist, I'll leave the research to them.

It Depends on the Weather.

No longer a minority of naysayers.

http://www.gallup.com/video/153650/Americans-Economic-Growth-Wins-Environment.aspx

Down Under.

"ACCORDING TO THE Lowy Institute's annual poll, Australians are losing their conviction on climate change. The last poll, published in June 2011 showed that just 41 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement, "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs" down from a whopping 68 per cent in 2006."

This Did NOT Help.

Decade of droughts over for Australia.
April 27, 2012 Source: AAP

Australia will be drought-free next week for the first time in over a decade.

The last drought-hit areas, Bundarra and Eurobodalla in NSW, will be lifted out of exceptional circumstances support next week.

"The extended period of drought, which made things tough for many on the land, is finally over," Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig said in a statement today.

"The seasonal outlook is brighter than it has been for many years and the improved conditions are a welcome reprieve for farmers across Australia."

Let's hold judgement until after Monsoon.

India likely to avoid drought again in 2012

April 27, 2012
Reuters
New Delhi

"India is likely to avoid a drought in 2012 as monsoon rains needed to irrigate 60 per cent of the farmland in the major grains producer are likely to be average.

India is the world's second-biggest producer of rice, wheat, sugar and cotton.

Rains during the June-September season are likely to be 99 per cent of the long-term average, Earth Sciences Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said on Thursday, raising hopes for bumper harvests and a chance to rein in high inflation."

Stay Cool.

Oh, please stop the nonsense.

Watt and Moreno run the sites which happen to have links posted to the relevant PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH.
Didn't you look at it? Or are you just hoping no one else will?

And using desmogblog to debunk Watt and Morano is rich...really!
This article says they have 6 full time people on staff to blog and call people deniers. OMG....are you one?
http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2012/02/email-2378-oct-2009-desmogblog-warmist.html

Sure you have physics degree. And I practice neurosurgery on the side.

credential redux

Judy:

You're exhibiting a double standard regarding proofs and credentials that is self-serving, to bolster what the vast majority of the scientific community considers nonsense, and further, your protestations of just being in this for the public good are not believable unless you can offer some way to fact check your claim to be a disinterested observer.

The most likely explanation is that you have a vested interest in the debate. Until you prove otherwise, the safest assumption is that you are probably an oil industry-funded communications person, with the express job of sowing doubt and confusion on this issue.

It's up to you to prove otherwise if you want to be taken seriously.

regards,
Chris Keam

Follow the money....not always.

Chris et al.

While it is true that a lot of the fake climate science sites are funded by the Koch brothers, Exxon, et al (even the Fraser Institute is funded by Koch for that matter) its a mistake to think that all ardent deniers (or skeptics, a term Judy may prefer) are in their pay. They are, in my view, most often motivated by ideology and world-view, not money. Judy's allegiance to conspiracy theories about 9/11 is all part of a package of ideological fixation that is almost always unshakable by argument or facts.

I think its important to see this reality for what it is. There is a very strong strain of deep suspicion in our culture that is stronger than fact. If we dont see it clearly we cant be effective.

On the right this deep suspicion takes the form of very radical libertarian-ism, which holds that the only true value is economic freedom. All other values pale into absolute insignificance in comparison.

From this perspective one is very inclined to accept the premise that those who say global warming is a problem are motivated by a desire to further limit economic (and thus individual) freedom. This makes them either dupes or evil, to be fought tooth and claw.

On the left this same sort of conviction takes the form of deep suspicion of corporations and/or any individuals with a lot of money - and thus too much power.

PC

Nice try, but there is still no proof of CAGW

I have no double standard...
Warmists do. Fake data, missing data, destroyed data, Climategate, all point to something terribly wrong, yet Climate Cultists keep trying to make this about me!

"Human Caused Global Warming is not being researched; it is being promoted. Al Gore and his fellow investors have spent over a hundred million dollars in creating a crisis of human-caused global warming out of (quite literally) thin air. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They expect to reap billions in profits from the trading of Carbon Credits, a "license to pollute" available for a price and subject to brokerage fees. One of the people Al Gore relied on to create this scheme was Ken Lay, late of ENRON, aka the Crooked "E". Al Gore plans to use Carbon Dioxide to do to the world what Ken Lay did to California using electricity; loot the people"
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

Now BC Hydro is trying to irradiate us 24/7 with microwaves...all in the name of conserving energy to prevent a warming that isn't happening by a process that is physically impossible.

Viewpoint — Reasons to refuse a smart meter
http://www.gulfislandsdriftwood.com/opinion/148903705.html

You shills for this outrage disgust me

Defend the specific evidence you claimed

So Judy, do you know what Cyclogenesis is and where it applies? Do you know how to read and interpret weather station and preliminary surface weather maps? Have you ever studied atmospheric physics or fluid dynamics, both necessary to meteorological analysis.

You might be able to learn the most rudimentary basics in a few weeks, but the subtelty of making reasonably accurate predictions is the meteorologist's craft.

You are incredibly quick to dismiss others' credentials and motives if they don't fit your frame; stupidity and conspiracy are your excuses. "Dodo heads" ++?

Again, forget CO2's role or non-role in real or supposed climate change. You'll be arguing that issue for a very long time.

I challenged some of your stated "evidence" and once again you slid away from defending the statements you made. You deflect the challenges to your evidence by changing the specific topic, and by including vitriolic accusations.

Your thesis hasn't got a leg to stand on if you don't directly address and defend your evidence on the items that you expressed and I have challenged, namely that

1. "the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined" (this is ususlly determined over decades and centuries, not a 6 year period).

2. "big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s".

Anything else is deflection and surely diminishes your credibility.

More to the point

Forced sterilization in India under filthy conditions in the name of
"Climate Change". The ultimate aim of Ecofascism is population reductiuon by any means from starving and freezing in the dark to forced sterilization and abortion.

"Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india

And you smoggers want to divert attention by discussing how many tornadoes fit on the end of Gore's
pin(head).

Sidestepped again

Some of the evidence provided was challenged but remains undefended. The precise questions were, once again, sidestepped. (Short attention span possible.) Thesis unsubstantiated without required evidence. Credibility, zero.

Just like that young woman who shilled for "Ethical Oil", never got a straight answer to precise questions.

Must be in the Big Fossil Fuel and Conservative "Talking Points" playbook".

If you can't answer a question or have to admit that you were wrong, just change the subject as you vehemently deride those who question you.

Here we go again...

It is like playing whack-a-mole, or being caught in an endless tape loop of Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch.
The smoggers never stop and it is clear not only do they have no understanding of science, but they have lost any human values they might have had once, but they do excel at beating dead horses.

It has already been established that there is NO CONNECTION BETWEEN EXTREME WEATHER, CLIMATE CHANGE and THE HUMAN ACTIVITY RELATED 4% OF THE .O4% OF THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH IS CO2.

For any normals still following this, here is an impeccable source,explaining the skeptical case.
"David Evans has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He helped build the carbon accounting model for the Australian Government that tracks carbon in plants, debris, soils, and agricultural and forest products. He researches mathematics -- Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials. David also has a keen interest in monetary history, banking, and detecting scams."

http:// joannenova.com.au/2012/04/david-evans-explains-the-skeptics-case-youtube/#more-21372

How many ways?

Good grief, Judy, I'm not questioning your climate change viewpoint, but I am challenging a couple of statements that you presented as evidence to back up your viewpoint.

Either show me evidence that backs up your statements or admit that you were wrong about those particular statements.

You can still keep your climate change position, regardless.

But to avoid and deflect what you previously stated is surely disingenuous.

The "endless tape loop of Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch" is because you put yourself into that loop by not providing a straightforward answer to those 2 questions.

They don't ask if climate change is a cause of these events, let alone if that's human induced.

They only challenge what you said about reduced hurricane and tornadic events.

But you continue to refuse defending those specific statements that you made.

Exactly why should others pay attention to your thoughts if you constantly avoid defending what you have stated?

You can put an end to that "endless tape loop" by defending or correcting those statements you made. All else is subterfuge.

Which statements again, Whack-a-mole?

Since the connection between CO2 and climate change is broken...there is nothing left to discuss. As I said, the weather/climate is not under our control.

Where is your proof that it is, because the person who proposes an hypothesis has to prove it, not the other way around. Stop dancing around with your smary pretend victimhood and give me the bleeding proof CO2 changes climate. Let's see it. Where is it?

Also, tell me what is going to cause the flooding of Vancouver that we are supposed to be preparing for? Vancouver is on the rising North American Plate.

You do know that nothing out of the ordinary is happening now.
At this rate it is centuries before we would need to think of doing anything:
"The mean sea level trend is 0.27 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.24 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1910 to 2010 which is equivalent to a change of 0.09 feet in 100 years."
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=822-071

No great change from over 100 years
ago either.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php

Please don't quote me

Judy has quoted me. "Whack a Mole" was a comment I made about her two weeks ago on another Tyee article about Asian Coal Plants Polluting BC
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/04/09/Asia-Coal-Pollutants/

near the bottom of the list of comments.

The global mean of sea level rise currently is 3.1 mm/y which is 3cm per decade and 30 cm per century.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

This is a graph Judy once posted herself in the same two week old Tyee article.

So, because you did use it, it is very approriate

What trivia you make mountains of. 30cm per century is till not going to flood Delta and the Colorado chart is for GLOBAL sea level rise.

The links I provide are for actual tidal readings in VANCOUVER.

Suffering from selective dyslexia too Whack-a-Mole?

stuff left to discuss

"Since the connection between CO2 and climate change is broken...there is nothing left to discuss."

I thought science was all about an ongoing study of phenomena? Not very rigorous of you to declare the science over at this early stage judycross. We have figured out many phenomena to the nth degree of certitude and yet true scientists still study, observe, and refine their knowledge. What is there to fear from further inquiry?

And another mole pops up.

But this horseradish about CO2 has been going on for over 20 years.

As I said....what ever is going on, CO2 isn't doing it. that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The graph Gore used showed temperatures rising 800 years before CO2, he just used slight-of-mouth to diver our attention from what was clearly shown on the graph.
It is terribly funny that the same group that said "the science is settled", now wants to continue with "further inquiry". What is the purpose of inquiring into the role of CO2 in climate change, when it has been shown it doesn't have enough influence to make a difference.

What should put paid to the lunatic claims, is that it is the temperature of the Earth and oceans that determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You guys mix up cause and effect.

Getting back to my question...where's the proof CO2 changes climate?

Put up or shut up!

Where is your proof?

angyr mistake or ignorance?

"it is the temperature of the Earth and oceans that determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Not sure anyone is making that claim. Your argument just went from having trace amounts of credibility to exhibiting a near-perfect vacuum.

You are avoiding coming up with proof

that CO2 changes climate, so ask me to prove what I say,which is easy because it is true:
http://agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic&superid=1&topicid=395

You practice a double standard when it comes to Warmist Holy Writ. You guys remind me of the bandits in Treasure of The Sierra Madre, "Badges, badges, I don't have to show you no stinkin' badges."

It is up to those who propose a hypothesis to prove it, so stop dancing around and avoiding the question.

Again...where's the proof CO2 can change climate?

Judy, Judy, Judy

I'll say this one last time. Climate change is complex. There are many factors. You choose one you think you have a rebuttal for, and refuse to see that there are additional factors that the scientific community acknowledges as contributors to the effect. It's the only way you can stay on message. The hysterical manner in which you scream your supposed facts and figures just shows how desperate you are to avoid facing up to the facts. Your credibility is non-existent, your arguments faulty, and my time wasted. Good-bye.

You are the one who avoid facing the fact that among the

"the many factors" Which is a HUGE concession, CO2 IS THE LEAST EFFECTIVE.

You smug smoggers have allowed governments to push through legislation which warps our lives!

Legislation resting on a bought consensus with lots of government money...$80 BILLION spent in the US alone continues to buy a lot of junk science.

So. you have no proof CO2 can cause climate change. You concede that "many factors" because "Climate change is complex" and you want to keep the conversation going while
BC Hydro installs hackable meters which broadcast microwaves every 6 seconds so we can be fried by real man-made emmissions.

CO2 is safer than microwaves.

Will you continue to defend the junk science pillar on which rests this blatant violation of our rights not to be irradiated and to generate CO2 so plants and nature can flourish?

I didn't proof read the above

Because I just came back from the City Council meeting in which Adriane Carr put forth a motion allowing customers to opt out of having a smart meter,at no cost. I overheard a woman talking about having to sleep in the corner of her living room because of the smart meter on the bedroom wall.

Thanks guys! You smoggers have so much to be proud of. The bird and bat kill is enormous from wind farms,land grabs from poor peasants in Honduras and Uganda for biodiesel plantations, cutting rainforest in South East Asia for more biodiesel, but this time endangering the few remaining orangutans in the wild.

And all the time being smug and self righteous about it!

Your actions aren't green anymore, unless you count the color of gangrene.

Ditto, Chris K.

Judy, still no defence of the 2 challenged statements you made to back up your opinions.

Some of what you outline may be true, as far as the interpretations go, but by refusing to specifically defend the challenges presented to you about the staements you made, namely that of decreases in tropical cyclonic and temperate tornadic activity, why should anybody believe the other stuff you spout? Likewise, derogatory name calling doesn't help your case.

Why you might refuse to do so?

a. you don't want to reveal your sources.

b. you forgot where you supposedly read those statements. It's certainly not your well recorded personal experiences.

c. You made it up as you progressed along that thread.

d. you don't think that the verification of specific statements that you made are worthy of a valid and reliable response to us "Dodo heads" and "smoggers".

I suspect c.

But you are too slippery to give straight answers, talk about "whack-a-mole".

I agree with Chris K. and I won't be reading your comments any more, except for a little comic relief.

We'll meet again. I sometimes say, Have Fun, as I depart my conversational companions, but I don't think you know what that means as you post your angry and disrespectful rants.

So, bye for now. But don't post any more statements if you refuse to defend them.

Just more bafflegab Owl

What statement(s) do I need to defend?
How long do you plan to keep that stupid dodge running, so you don't have to come up with an answer to my question?

You guys still haven't given any proof that CO2 changes climate so
you are all bull and that's no lie.

Tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones, hot, cold, dry,wet

CO2 doesn't have any effect on any of the above.

That is my position!

Refute it!

Focus on all you say, not just selective bits

Judy, reread your own "More imaginary scenarios" post above.

In that paragraph, starting with "The antarctic ice..." among many other claims you made, I chose 2 that I have some expertise in.

You stated and I challenged "the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined,... big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s." Those are the statements you need to defend because you made them.

I have many questions about your other claims in that paragraph, but I selected 2 items that I have expertise and considerable evidence to back me.

I chose not to contest some of your other statements because, as a scientist, I would need to take considerable time to research the actual raw data behind your claims in that paragraph, not just how someone interprets them on a website.

On the other hand, you can't even come close to proving the selected statements that you made, on simple data evidence, but you expect proof of much more complex interactions.

It is your "dodge". Everything from windmill bird and bat kills to malaria to BC Hydro smart meters. (I feel much the same about the latter, but don't claim expertise there. In any event, it's a red herring to this particular discussion.)

Talk about that "Whack-a-mole", you're all over the map.

Nuf said, no more, good bye.

I don't give a fig about what you think I ought

about what you think I ought to answer, especially about something which is inane.
First you have to establish the connection between CO2 and weather.....there isn't one, which is why nobody answers my request for proof that CO2 can change climate.

Also, you are no scientist...you are an internet entity.

So why bother to discuss whether storms are more frequent since you haven't proved a connection.CO2 doesn't affect weather....so why are we talking about it? Because you don't seem to get cause and effect or no correlation means no causation and you want to divert attention from the lack of evidence to support the destructive boondoggle?

Here we go, another Warmist prediction shot to hell by evidence.

Extreme Climate Change Risk: Scientists Find Himalaya Severe Rainfall Evidence 'Baffling'
Researchers analyzing data for extreme climate change risk continue to discover evidence that the predicted results are not happening - lack of extreme rainfall in the Himalayas is most recent example

Rainfall extreme climate change risk
Read here. The "scientists" associated with the UN's IPCC had predicted severe weather events would increase both in frequency and intensity due to global warming. Unique areas of the world, such as the Himalayas, were considered to be especially vulnerable to these events.

To assess the extreme climate change risk that the Himalayas faced, researchers set out to document the severe rainfall events that were long predicted.

"Nandargi and Dhar decided to present "a brief review of the available information and data for extreme rainfall events that were experienced in different sectors of the Himalayas during the last 137 years" in an attempt to determine "the impact of climate change on the extreme one-day rainfall of the Himalayan region, in the context of rising temperatures."...Working with data obtained from 475 measurement stations...said that there is an increase in the frequencies of extreme rainfall events from the 1951-1960 decade onwards," but only until "there was a sudden decrease in the frequency of extreme rainfall events in all the four categories in the recent period of 2001-2007...concluding words of the two scientists, "it is somewhat baffling as to whether climate change has any impact on extreme rainfall events in the entire Himalayan region..." [S. Nandargia, O. N. Dhara 2011: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Conclusion: The extreme climate change risk promulgated by the big global insurance companies and their scientific minions has proven to be without merit when the actual empirical evidence is closely scrutinized.

Previous severe-weather, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.(links)
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-droughts-floods-more-frequent/

Get those ducks straight in a row

Yes Judy, you are correct. "You are no scientist...you are an internet entity."

"Why bother to discuss whether storms are more frequent"? (and intense) Because you made the statements that they are not.

Events evidence first, please, connections later.

Got it

Judy, finally figured out your threads.

You mimic the C3 site you gave us, nearly to the letter, including the very crass adjectives (crossed out here and there) on this and similar sites. You even use the same style of site reference techniques. Any connections otherwise to this and such sites?

At least they have the good grace to occassionally use careful terms like "could" or "may" here and there.

Some of their data and interpretations merit more examination, but the overall data presentations and total negatively forwarded items sugest a very unscientific agenda.

Once again, the language more resembles Tea Party rhetoric than scientific discourse.

By the way, who funds all this selective data funding? Tried to track it down without success.

But you might as well have simply directed us to their data without your copied inflamatory diatribe.

You are really tiresom

You keep playing the same dumb game, making me wrong about nothing at all...........and you won't(can't) come up with the proofs for the CO2/Climate Caper.

It's pretty pathetic, and anybody can see your transparent game.

Gotcha..didn't I. Posted the whole thing,ensuring you won't attempt to misinterpret it. Tee hee!

Somebody who is funded by foundations which launder money from other foundations, shouldn't bring up the topic of funding.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/19/vivian-krause-suzukis-funding/

Criteria

Read your 2 links, interesting but meaningless in this context

Truly odd, I never challenged your overall global climate change viewpoints. I went out of my way to avoid the CO2 issue, allowing for your and other viewpoints. For all you really know, I may agree with you on the CO2 thing.

I questioned 2 items that you presented as evidence for your point of view and you esssentially ran away. Truly sloppy methodology.

I read your latest source posts on those 2 exact items amongst many, and found what you referred to, but, except for a couple of items, these were as unsubstantiated as your own posts.

Didn't quetion your global tropical storm statement, although that was tempting.

Dug deeper, not to discredit the researchers (as you love to do), but to find the contexts that the data statements were made in.

Interpreting data can be both honest or disingenuous, the more bias expressed, the more likely that the conclusions are tainted.

Proofs of events are relatively easy to gather compared to proofs of causality and interactions.

We have proofs of black holes from various data sets, but we are far from verifying their origins, processes, interactions or even their composition to some extent.

But you really couldn't compile and reference your own data on even those straightforward events.

"Just examine all the information on all the sites I give you, sift through it all and you'll agree with me, otherwise you're a moron/smoggger/dodohead"

You and your sources fail to provide all the data sets required to validate your US hurricane landfall statement.

Scientists have to be both precise and carefull to get valid results.

Conspiracy is a very hefty accusation to place on the thousands of scientists who work in the climate and related fields.

Much easier to validate Koch brothers and Harperite scientific muzzling and manipulations.

Too bad commentors don't have to adhere to similar criteria as most scientists do.

Delta, Tsawwassen and Richmond

So why do we continue to allow development at the mouth of the Fraser? Stop development of any sort in the lowlands or all of BC will have to pay for the mistakes in the future.

Ditto all the Gulf Islands.

Queen of the Nile

OwlRol, don't waste your time with JCross. She (if it's a she) is like Cleopatra - Queen of Denial. She thinks reading lots of websites that confirm her bias makes her very knowledgeable. Twice above I asked her to show her scientific chops by telling us in her own words her thoughts on decreasing arctic albedo and tundral CH4, and marine H2CO3. Huge issues in climate change, as you would know. Both times, no response. She doesn't have the basic knowledge to debate intelligently, even though she's now including the phrase 'peer reviewed' in her google searches.

Millions of people believe the Earth is 6000 years old, despite mountain ranges of compelling evidence to the contrary. There's no competing with blind belief, particularly when that belief makes you comfortable -"there's no problem, so I don't need to do anything, Yay!"

Jcross: I hope you live another 50 years to see the increasingly obvious error of your ways - time is not on your side.

There is no issue except CO2 , Owl

because the issue is about man-made catastrophic climate change.

Since the way we supposedly change climate is by adding an extra 3% to the 0.0395% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are being penalized by taxation and restiction in our CO2 generating energy sources......
IT'S ALL ABOUT CO2!

Such pathetic nonsense you guys spout. While CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere, the satellite derived 10 year temperature trend is +0.3C in 2100

And now the Holy Sanctum of the CAGW Cult declares it's cooling!

HadCRUT Scientists Connect The Dots: Global Warming Has Switched To Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years
The fanatical green, anti-CO2 activist Bill McKibben has urged everyone to 'connect the dots' - so be it - HadCRUT researchers did just that and confirmed that global warming morphed to global cooling despite huge increases in human CO2 emissions"

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/04/connect-the-dots-global-warming-hadcrut-warming-turns-cooling.html

Ho Ho, Ha Ha!