Never mind it is total nonsense

You WILL get poorer. You WILL reduce your living space and the amount and type of food you eat.
After the planned collapse, the "sustainable" world planned for us will be far more like North Korea or China. Rangerkim just gave the game away when he substituted "sacrifice" for "sustainable".

Agenda 21 is the action plan for total control of the world's population.

"This plan is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, the energy market, the transportation system, the governmental system, the health care system, food production, and more. The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. One of the ways is by using the Delphi Technique to 'manufacture consensus.' Another is to infiltrate community groups or actually start neighborhood associations with hand-picked 'leaders'. Another is to groom and train future candidates for local offices. Another is to sponsor non-governmental groups that go into schools and train children. Another is to offer federal and private grants and funding for city programs that further the agenda. Another is to educate a new generation of land use planners to require New Urbanism. Another is to convert factories to other uses, introduce energy measures that penalize manufacturing, and set energy consumption goals to pre-1985 levels. (In the United States), another is to allow unregulated immigration in order to lower standards of living and drain local resources.

All of this sounds unbelievable until you have had direct experience with it. You probably have, but unless you resisted it you won't know it's happening."
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

splish splash

...what's in the pipe already...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/01/1527551/manmade-carbon-pollution-has-already-put-us-on-track-for-69-feet-of-sea-level-rise/

Don't let reality get in the way

Inconvenient truth: Sea level rise is decelerating
"A paper published in the Journal of Coastal Research finds that sea level rise around mainland Australia decelerated from 1940 to 2000. According to the latest NOAA sea level budget, global sea levels rose at only 1.1 - 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, which is less than half of the rate claimed by the IPCC [3.1 mm/yr] and is equivalent to less than 5 inches per century. Contrary to alarmist claims, sea level rise decelerated over the 20th century, has also decelerated since 2005, and there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels."
" The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record."

So while you wait for the sea flood that never comes, a smart meter controls all your appliances and spies on you.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45946984/ns/technology_and_science-security/#.UQwTGVeC_h0

The control grid planned for us is all based on the lie that CO2 controls climate.

"As for those who continue to resist"

We know the difference between "scientific methods that brought us antibiotics, computer chips, space travel" and the pseudoscience of climate models based on a false value for the effect of atmospheric CO2 and the reality that there has been no warming for 15-17 years.

This graph illustrates just how far the various Warmist models diverge from real life.

"The NASA/Hansen Climate Model Predictions Vs Reality, Major Fail"
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee7d9e743970d-pi

When you have absorbed that, look at the rest of Science Vs Pseudoscience data.
http://www.c3headlines.com/modern-temperatures-chartsgraphs.html

Then remember the meaningless "sacrifice" you are being asked to make.

Consensus

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
Michael Crichton

Lie with Statistics: C3 Headlines edition

NickS's right-wing blogger is typical of the blatant dishonesty of, not just the denialists, but of the contemporary Conservative Movement generally.

http://thesnufkin.blogspot.ca/2011/03/how-to-cook-data-set.html

They have no shame, and for the most part, seem completely impervious to rational argument. It is a movement of trolls.

hey nick

tell us about the black helicopters

irec:

there is scientific consensus gravity works. What are they REALLY planning?

mwahahaha!

http://wizardchan.org/wiz/src/1353203494614.jpg

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evil_Liberal_Science_Conspiracy

I've already shown that the the Cons go along with this

and have already siphoned off $400 Million of our money to the Bankster Climate Cabal.
http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/fast_start_finance_progress_report_canada_-_final.pdf

This is a Globalist plan, and Harper is nothing, if not a Globalist.
Agenda 21 is the basic plan to standardize everything to Globalist specifications, crowd people into cities and remove freedom of choice about almost everything.

GLOBALIZATION IS THE STANDARDIZATION OF SYSTEMS THROUGH INVENTORY, MONITORING, AND CONTROL.
Rosa Koire was interviewed by Joan Herron on Malaspina Radio recently, exposing how it is being implemented here in Canada.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bdHohf1Le6U#!
Rosa Koire- Behind The Green Mask

Rosa is a Liberal Democrat Lesbian. How politically correct is that

:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyNKq0UEA9I

liberal democratic lesbians oh my!

nicky, is there ANYONE you don't piss off?

Yeah, and Rachel Maddow isn't a MSM mouthpiece

keeping the false Left/Right paradigm alive.

Maybe, just maybe, heads will be withdrawn from sand/asses in time to stop the tide of the New Feudalism.
http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/jellobiafra/newfeudalism.html

Focus

So while we're busy trying not to exhale what is our govenment doin? Anyone notice our military is helping the French prop up a military dictatorship in Mali? We are bombing people in mud huts with fighter jets and the NDP, Liberals and Greens all support the mission. The French get access to cheap uranium for their "green" economy and we get the gold. Everyone OK with that? Tyee talkin about it?

:)

https://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/01/31-0

So, what have we learned?

Okay, now we've run the course. What have we learned?

Paul Craig Roberts contends . . .

" In my 35 years of experience in journalism, I have found that most readers read in order to confirm what they already think and believe. It is the same for the right-wing and the left-wing. They cannot escape their ideological boxes and are creatures of their biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and their beliefs supported. A writer who tells them something that they do not want to hear receives abuse. These readers cannot benefit from facts and new information and change their minds. They already know everything and only want information that supports their beliefs and advances their agendas. ” Paul Craig Roberts, January 03, 2013."

. . . is he right? What have we learned?

I lived in Mexico City for two years in the late '90's. The city's reputation for air pollution was unimpeachable. It was not unusual for me to awaken in the middle of the night with a clogged nose, coughing. Schools closed when the IMECA reading exceeded 200: as it often did!

Despite that AGW was unheard of. Among my friends, academics and professional colleagues there was no mention of global-warming but lots of talk about air pollution.

IMECA today, 0800 hrs, reads . . .

http://www.calidadaire.df.gob.mx/calidadaire/index.php

. . . Mala @ 109 with many areas of the city at considerably less.

Chilangos are doing something right!

So what to make of this hysterical exercise we have just gone through?

"What have we learned?".

Well . . .

We have an abundance of gullible people ready to believe anything: and pay for it.

Some are extraordinarily malleable when pecuniary benefits accrue.

We have learned that anecdotal evidence refuses to comply: air temperatures are unusually low.

I live on the waterfront, I have sailed the Salish Sea, with great joy, for ten years, and I see no evidence of a rising levels.

Judging by today's responses then what have we learned?

Absolutely nothing!

Really?

I live on the waterfront, I have sailed the Salish Sea, with great joy, for ten years, and I see no evidence of a rising levels.

Seriously? That's your data? Sigh.

How many years before we start to glow then?

Well . . . errrrr . . . yes Booker.

Ten years and no tangible evidence: what the hell else do you need?

You're out of bricks kid!

Story

Ten years and no tangible evidence: what the hell else do you need?

Have you read this series? Have you read any of the science? Sailing in the Salish Sea looking at the shoreline is not generally considered an accurate means of detecting small rises in global ocean levels. The data are easily accessible to anyone interested, so if you want the info, do some reading. Just try to avoid the pseudoscience spread by the Heartland Institute and Koch Industries.

Amazing. And sadly typical.

"Sigh. And sadly typical."

Oh dear Booker, you are in a bad way.

I was an AGE-ista when I believed what my prof said. Then I started to look a little closer: that was four or fice years ago and I'm not at all sad.

Let's start with your friend posting his phoney hald-graph and look a the real one . . .

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

. . . and . . .

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Stop being sad Booker. Learn grow: it's never too late!

Correction . . .

AGW-ista!

Sorry Tyee, here's the corrections . . .

"Sigh. And sadly typical." Oh dear Booker, you are in a bad way.

I was an AGW-ista when I believed what my prof told me. Then I started to look a little closer: that was four or five years ago: now I'm not at all sad.

Let's start with your friend posting his phony half-graph and look at the real one . . .

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

. . . and . . .

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Stop being sad Booker. Learn! Grow! It's never too late!

thanks Story

Story -- thanks! You are so sweet!

I'm glad you are not at all sad, and that the professor is not bothering you any more. Those professors think they are so smart!

Question

"To cut our carbon further, we can abstain from developing so-called "unconventional" oil and gas, such as oil sands, shale oil and shale gas, instead running our vehicles on, say, a combination of biofuels and electric batteries. "

The mania for biofuels has caused the price of maize to double over the past five years. This causes increased poverty for hundreds of millions in Latin America that use corn as their food staple. Wealthy north Americans buy ethanol fuel to ease them from their fossil fuel guilt as Latin American children go even hungrier than ever. The call for more biomass power, that also uses sugar and corn as a base, further compounds the tragedy.

Andrew Nikiforuk said it. This change in attitude is faith driven. The question is whether the faith is a blind one. Has well reasoned intellectual consideration led to an ideology that is driving this massive shift in resources? Is the simple hatred of petroleum and expanded and globalized consumerism driving a faith based cabal of agitators to force this hardship of increased food costs on these people? Why take food from their mouths to run your cars instead of developing nuclear energy? Are we entering a time of a new faith based society?

News Flash

All c02 haters, please go to the Tyee's crash course climate quiz and get your diploma. You will easily become a "qualified settler of arguments with climate change deniers." With this powerfull tool of science you can quickly put an end to this foolish debate.

The same pople who distort the energy markets

For their profit also distort that of food

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2008/jan/28/whyishempoffthebiofuelme

Why, freewilly?

"but we knew long ago we should have been weened off of fossil fuels long ago (Procrastination)."

I can understand not wanting the real pollution associated with petroleum and natural gas development. but technology to handle development safely, exists. We also know that the whole "CO2 controls the climate" business is totally nonsensical.

So, leaving out the Climate Meme, what else is there for denying people cheap reliable energy and the jobs that go with it.

Also, why do few people point out the undeniable evidence of the massive geo-engineering program which blocked out today's beautiful sunshine.
That is the real man-made climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdO8I3p6zJ4&feature=player_embedded

BTW, head cheese dates to at least the Middle Ages and multiple variations on the basic recipe exist throughout Europe.

Head cheese has been very

Head cheese has been very common all across Europe for ever. My family loved it, I could never stand the damn thing. Or any fish.

As far garbage is concerned, we never had any in my 17 years in Hungary, 3 years in Austria and 7 years in England. The cities had some pickups, but in rural areas people had some hole in the backyard for sweepings etc. Everything else was used up one way, or another.

The first time we had any garbage, even then just very little, for 3 families in the same house, when we moved to Vancouver in 1955.

Now we live in a small acreage community of about 300 people with a garbage dump close to the size of what Vancouver's was for a million in the '50s and '60s.

The whole world is now being covered under garbage as the benefit of "gloalization" .

I have to take a truckload to the dump from 2 old people, every few months.

Ed Deak

yup

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/chemtrails/

@willy

You have pretty well hit the nail on the head.

We are the only "natural" causes of CO2 (and others) that have any measure of control over our effects, locally or globally. This isn't so much about climate change, it's about mankind and a stable global society. I doubt very much we will "destroy the earth" through climate change, but we can shift it in such a way that man, or at least modern society, is no longer viable.

This is a multi generational issue. We are dealing with issues such that only the "old people" (like lux, myself, and others) can see the localized effects in our lifetimes. But the problem does exist.

The need for energy resources is constantly growing, The "action plan" has been to ramp up extraction on existing energy resources. This meets the immediate short term need, but increases the environmental change rate in many ways (by an uncertain factor).
There are also a lot of dollar signs being seen by those that own or control those existing resources.

The obvious alternative is to turn to new energy sources, preferably ones that have a markedly lower environmental impact. Solar, wind, wave, or even nuclear - preferably fusion. The problem is the economics of these sources are worse than even the high prices we are seeing in the existing energy resources. All of these will need long term investment to become viable (scale, innovation, or just pure science). But then we come back to an investor choosing between short term high gains through existing resource extraction, and the longer term required for these kinds of projects.

Another alternative is to reduce the emissions during extraction and use of existing resources. This is being done, but still not enough to keep pace, especially with the increased extraction rates required by modern society.

One more alternative I don't see discussed very often, is using technology to reduce the effects on a wider scale. Like the "Solar CO2 scrubber" I mentioned earlier. These kinds of technologies not only reduce impact, they lead to us being able to influence "natural" sources of environmental change.

And here we are arguing if such a problem even "exists". If you don't want to believe the science, just ask the 60 or 70 year olds. Or you can wait until you reach that age - but that will be way, way, too late.

So what can we do about it? Lots of things. EG:

For starters, how about "tax incentives" for all the above, while removing the current ones in place for existing resources. It will drive prices higher, but that will go to shifting the economic balance the other way.

I haven't seen much investment in clean fusion research in a long time. The word "nuclear" scares way too many people whose understanding stops at fission.

And interesting little technologies like that "CO2 scrubber" I pointed out.

Head cheese

Head cheese with some good marketing, will be a big hit again! We will find culinary uses for insects and love it.

'I can understand not wanting the real pollution associated with petroleum and natural gas development. but technology to handle development safely, exists.'

Sure no doubt all sorts of technology exists and will be developed. Like Cruc's panasonic photosynthesis scrubber which will end up cleaning up factory emissions if nothing more , But it could be much more.
Techology will never address our insatiable need to want more. More what? energy no, just crap and consumer junk.

Doesnt it seem wierd we have made so many leaps in technology, yet when it comes to energy creation we havent even come up with a decent battery. Excuse is always...well it should be on the market in anther 5 years

'So, leaving out the Climate Meme, what else is there for denying people cheap reliable energy and the jobs that go with it.'

Maybe its running out? Maybe its becoming more difficult and expensive to obtain? If we dont develop a clean, cheap 'star trekky' kind of energy people will suffer the ecolgy will suffer, and/or we will be paying much more for everything.

Big oil corporations stand to make a fortune wether GHG predictions are true or not. I bet like the tobacco companies they are more aware of the problem than we are. Maybe these corportions are really framing the issue for us peons.

Frivolous comment: take note Hakuin et. al.

http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/study-shows-uncivil-commenters-on-blogs-polarize-discussions-make-more-moderate-people-less-likely-to-participate/#comments

Says the big poo-poo head

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies

http://whatreallyhappened.com

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

God help us! "poop head". Childish! Tyee editors must hang their heads in shame.

Can't you come up with something more adult than that?

QED

:)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/19/aliens-could-attack-earth-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

An allegory

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GEqF6G8FrSE

re An allegory

The aliens wont destroy us quite yet, but they arent going to intervene and give us assistance as that would amount to intergalactic welfare.

And they are definitely not going to eat us, ( not North Americans) we have too many toxic drugs in our bodies, cancer drugs, THC, nicctine and tar, anti-depressants etc...

oops

last responce was to the Fox News story....

under the influence

CBC's 'under the influence' has to be one of the most interesting programs I've listened to. I highly reccomend it. They go into depth on how marketeers capture peoples attention.
How is this related to climate change? Well as a marketing strategy Max Burgers from Sweden have tied their products to climate change and the environment. By asking consumers to eat less they have become more popular than Mcdonalds (in Sweden)

http://www.maxburgers.com/sustainability/Carbon-offsetting/

Part of the solution? maybe....

Whatever Happened To...

...the good doctor (unlucky 13) Viner?

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."

Thirteen years later he's probably retired. To someplace nice and warm. Ten to one he didn't throw away his boots and gloves.

Weather Forecast: UK

"Outlook for Tuesday to Thursday:

Strong winds and wintry showers on Tuesday. Cold on Wednesday with wintry showers and bitterly cold northerly winds. Fewer showers on Thursday with bright spells, but still cold.

Updated: 1525 on Sun 3 Feb 2013.

LATE NEWS.
We found him:
"he was appointed “global director” at The British Council, advising on its climate change programme. Now he has just walked into a cushy job at the £1 billion global consultancy Mott MacDonald as “principal advisor for Climate Change,” where presumably he'll be among the beneficiaries of Britain's vast and pointless DFID budget."

It's a business.

Yes, but...

I have been following this "debate" for over 25 years, closer to 30.

Although the spectrum of responses has widened somewhat, the same questions and issues are still there. The biggest difference is that we now have answers, at least some of them, and these answers all point to there being a very real problem. Whether we are looking at a global 2 degree rise by 2100, or 4 degree, or perhaps 5-7 is still up in the air, but the fact is we will be dealing with the effects of climate change.

In the spectrum of responses, the ones that totally deny the science, and the ones that shrilly push the panic button might have opinions, but neither contributes to finding workable solutions.

If we ignore those extremes, we are left with a relative "center" of people that recognize the issues, and are looking for workable answers. Even this spectrum is wide enough for heated debate.

The comments I find the most telling about human nature, are the ones that admit there is a problem, but take a position of "yes, but think of the economy". Sometimes in derivative ways like food, water, education, or aid. I really have to wonder what kind of future they envision for their grandchildren. Do they really think "money" will magically solve these problems somewhere in the next 87 years?

With all respect to industries that have done work to reduce their impact, and continue to do so, it is simply not enough to keep pace with the problem.
From a business perspective, what do you do with a division that constantly loses money? No matter how much you tweak it? Would you continue to "invest" in such a division for 87 years, until it bleeds the company dry? When do you start firmly restricting it's "budget"? When do you start investing in alternatives?

Historically, we (mankind, society) should really have started "doing something" about this in the 20th and 19th, and even 18th, century. Pushing for steam powered, rather than petroleum, cars is one small example. To some extent, our ancestors can be forgiven because they "didn't know". The same will NOT be true when our descendants look back at us. Remember that as you look in the mirror.

Mankind has come a long way in the last 300 years. Technology has given us the tools to thrive and expand to all areas of the planet. We have started to expand into space. But there is a cost, and lessons to be learned.

"With great power, comes great responsibility."

so cruc,

what should we be backing? Space elevator? L-5 colonies? Lunar colonies? Asteroid deflection? Asteroid mining? Orion type drives? Mars colony? Asteroid colonies?

Priority

Your list isn't anywhere near long enough, but I'll address what you have.

Asteroid mining and asteroid deflection are 2 sides of the same coin. Both are just in reach of current technology.

Orion drives are pretty crude in the big picture. I'd rather see ion drives, not only more efficient and cleaner but the tech is more generalized and can be adapted to other materials easier. Both are rudimentary in current tech, lost of room for development.

Lunar colonies are possible today, but very expensive. And there are a lot of lessons to be learned.

L5/L4 colonies would only be viable as an adjunct to asteroid mining. This might happen anyway.

Materials science is good enough for a space elevator on/off the moon today. Mars might be possible. We have a ways to go before we can do it for Earth.

Mars, and asteroid, colonies are a long ways away. The materials are there, most of the tech is there, but the ROI isn't - yet. Remember your history on why "colonies" get founded.

Dreamer..

why colonies get founded...

various reasons, not the least of which the last place got/was ruined.

anybody bought shares yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/22/space-mining-gold-asteroids

why colonies get founded...

If you are looking for an escape hatch;

I'd recommend a combination of asteroid and comet mining, moon colony, L4/L5, and a lunar-space elevator. Anything less wouldn't have enough diversity to be long term viable.

I'd also recommend a heavy investment in nanotechnology, tele-operations, and closed ecology research.
This isn't like a vacation where you can run out and buy something you forgot. If you forget something long term critical, you're toast.

radio telescope

So l4/l5 are 'pockets' within the oribiting bodies of the moon and earth where a space station might be located without any drift?
Cool!, lets stick our future space stations there!
There was a news item about the dominion observitory near penticiton upgrading their equipment looking for dark matter?. Making maps and so forth
I have been up there a few times 30+ years ago when vacationing in the okanogan. That place has been around a long time and quite the drive back in the day. Quite cool canadians are on top of this sort of science

I think humans are horrible

I think humans are horrible at getting on the same page - especially on a global scale. We need to on climate change, but we'll probably continue to drag our feet. That's why we need game-changing technologies to overcome our human nature.
It's too bad nuclear is so hated -- it's actually very clean, safe, and efficient (but it is considered a toxic pariah and it is seen as too economically painful upfront).
Nuclear and geoengineering might be some of our most effective options, among the millions of smaller renewables and efficiency measures we can and are adopting. Unfortunately, electric cars are only as clean as the grid they run off of.
Don't turn away from technology. It got us into this mess, certainly, but it will require further technology to get us out. We can accomplish it, but we need to innovate, and we need to take some risks (like risking messing with geoengineering to remove CO2 and reduce warming, or risk possible, but low-likelihood nuclear disasters to avoid otherwise inevitable mass-extinctions.)

Nuclear would be fine

IF there were scienists instead of businessmen and politicians running it.

Apocalypse Not

WIRED Magazine studied the science and raises some important facts.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/

(By the way, 4.5k readers 'liked' this to their Facebook account.)

Lagrange points

These are effectively points where the gravity of 2 bodies equalizes in the orbit. There are 5 Lagrange points (L1-L5), but the L1-L3 points are closer to "points" and any drift (effects from other bodies) will get greater and greater. L4-L5 points are nestled into a "pocket" as you state, and orbital dynamics tend to keep things inside that "pocket".

The most stable L4/L5 points in the solar system are the Sun-Jupiter points, which contain a collection of asteroids (leading and trailing Trojans).

There is also a L4/L5 for the Sun-Earth relationship. It is actually more stable than the Earth-Moon L4/L5 points, but obviously farther away and follow a solar orbit instead of a lunar one.

The James Webb telescope will be situated at the Sun-Earth L2 point (joining 2 others already there), on a direct line between the Sun and Earth, but almost a million miles further out.

At least 4500 stupid people on Facebook?

Really?!

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/06/matt-ridley-comments.html

@trevor

'That's why we need game-changing technologies to overcome our human nature.'

Hey Im on exactly the same page myself as are many others. We need a plan, a big freaking plan to get out of the dark ages.
I'm into Fusion, dont undertand it all but I have to trust my instincts and very smart people on this, the holy grail of energy (well for the next few hundred years), we should go for it and support all efforts as a nation. Many have already committed the doe. We backed out of ITER

Lagrange

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jMxTU13rY5o

Apocalypse Not

Remember that article, reread to refresh my mind. It's amazing what different people take away. Here's a couple of quotes:

"Over the past half century, none of our threatened eco-pocalypses have played out as predicted. Some came partly true; some were averted by action; some were wholly chimerical."

"So, should we worry or not about the warming climate? It is far too binary a question. The lesson of failed past predictions of ecological apocalypse is not that nothing was happening but that the middle-ground possibilities were too frequently excluded from consideration."

...

So what would you consider as a valid "middle ground" temperature rise by 2100? 1 degree? 2? 4?
Or are you trying to use this article as a reference basis for total denial? If so, you didn't read it completely.

Sounds like a bleedin' toff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley

And I think the banking record shows something significant. Like that other upper class twit with the secret magic cure for HIV, I suspect a prviledged upbringing led to magic "thinking".

They keep chipping away willy

Chipping away

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130131095316.htm

cruc

In your Magic Circle world it is either one or the other. That's your world where It can never be neither, nor. You believe; full stop. No further discussion required. A Pilgrim seeking a new land free from persecution and ignorance. Interplanetary is probably what you should concentrate on. The Church of Planet New-and-Improved Gaia II leaving on spaceship Mayflower II, real soon. I'll contribute if you direct me to the increasingly ubiquitous 'donate' button. You accept no onus because you have been trained to throw onus onto those that differ from your opinion. Clever, ping pong but not discussion.

@Modesty

I ask questions about your "beliefs" and stated opinions. There are 2 of them in the above comment, preceded by quotes from the article link you supplied.
You haven't answered either of them.

I'll let others judge the veracity of how you *did* respond.

I haven't been formally trained, but I will admit to having been around a few years. My "style" is one that I find leads to true discussion - when engaged in by both sides. Opinions need to be backed by thoughtful analysis and understanding, the "onus" as you state.
Google searches might be useful, but understanding of what you found is critical.

You need to understand that, like Richard Muller, I used to be a skeptic. I am also someone that has a strong general science background and digs deeply into the topics.
From that background I realized that the data had become irrefutable.
I then looked around at the remaining skeptic arguments (and individuals) and realized that they fell into 2 generalized categories, the ignorant and the wilful (often paid). They were no better than the panic button extreme. If that means I take sharper aim at the remaining skeptics, so be it.

To be skeptical is a good trait. To ignore the mounting data is no longer skepticism, it's blind belief.

The data is there, *all* of it. Dig into it, understand it. Base your arguments on that understanding, not the result of superficial search engine results.

I do have a strong interest and understanding of a variety of scientific fields, and can extrapolate from their current state. That such a background causes you to discount my opinions is more telling about you, than me.

Heh heh!

It's like watching you pin an eel to a board, the head and tail are firmly tacked but Modest keeps gamely trying to snake the belly back and forth to avoid the inevitable.

@Hakuin

There are times when your verbal imagery can be subtly disturbing - as well as mildly humorous.

I certainly don't have any conscious desire to pin anyone to a board and watch them squirm. I really can't speak for my subconscious, but am willing to consider the thought when pointed out.

I'd much rather engage in real give and take discussion that increases understanding, of the topic and the individuals. I honestly try to see past the attack vitriol, and to the point being made. Still, when assessments of my personality are made, I occasionally do respond in kind.

If you want a garden

Sometimes you have to weed

chipping away

good description, in the future turning matter into energy may be like sculpture and craft. Even more exciting is energy into matter possible but not practical.

I find it interesting that there are scientists interested in 'fire' and then there are scientists equally interested in super cooling matter, similar and different results, all very promising, yet how do you contain these reactions? How do you build the ultimate woodstove or cooler, its never been done. Yet they are getting closer....

Re: Unconventional Source Estimates

@tamikenn57:
Good question, and sorry for the lag in responding. The unconventional oil/gas estimates are cited by the IPCC and (as seems to be the norm) they do not include methane hydrate deposits, which they note could number in the thousands of gigatons of carbon. They do include shale oil estimates.