When the BC Government

Actually does something that is more than spinning money while accepting every reach around from the oil, pipeline and foreign power takeover folks I'll give them some credit.

Not that it's likely to happen soon.

What's boring is the fact that one has to keep repeating it.

Hmm!

Seems as if 'lord' Monckton is a slightly updated version of lord Ha Ha of WWII fame...he's also a big backer of a lunatic theory about AIDS which involves, if I remember correctly, regular and forced testing for the virus of everyone (presumably in Britain although I'm sure he has a 'plan' for the rest of the world too) and the enforced and permanent quarantining of any person who tests positive.

Just another typical British Roman Catholic Dingbat of the type that was thick on the ground during the Thatcher years....I'm inclined to think that the less attention paid to such crackers the better.

It does, however, provide an interesting illustration of exactly how close to the bottom of the barrel the Fraser Institute must now go to find a noon-time speaker…Perhaps they can book David Irving next.

Why Are Oddballs Like This Guy Winning?

Climate change is simply undeniable.

We now have pretty good evidence that the earths temperature peaked about 10 years ago, and the earth is in a cooling phase.

If oddballs like Lord Monckton, are "Winning" it is simply because the average person knows that the planet no longer feels warmer, and the warmists are getting more and more extreme.

In the interest of visual presentation balance...

Perhaps a photograph of Al Gore should be included in the article.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0506/al_Gore_VietnamImage1.jpg

By the way, both images are quite worthy of the Kaption Kontest

Illahie

Did you mean to write this sentence in this manner?

"Climate change is simply undeniable."

Because I believe it is at odds with what you went on to say.

David Irving won't be allowed in the Fraser Institute

I read a David Irving interview in the Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung some time ago.

It turns out that he is a believer in AGW.

So, he won't be rubbing elbows with Preston Manning and Brian Tobin.

Lordship

Imbecile.

Lordship. Imbecile. Who knows for sure?

But if he is an imbecile, he is a wealthy and well-connected one. He will not feel the pinch and squeeze and nickel-and-dimed-to-death taxation and dubious "carbon-mitigation" measures the way you and I will.

Come to think of it, after having just said that, perhaps he is an imbecile.

After all, who do you know that doesn't do anything self serving these days? Suzuki? Berman? Gore? Campbell?

Oh yea. They are REALLY working for you and me.

Frank

Climate change is simply undeniable.

The world has always experienced climate change. The last ice age ended 10-15 thousand years ago. That is not very long ago. The Queen Mother lived to be 100 years old. Ten thousand years is as long as the combined livespan of only 100 centenarians living back to back.

During the last ice age, the ice cap above where I now sit was about 5000 feet thick. You can easily tell how far up the mountains the ice was during the last ice age. The mountains which were under glaciers are rounded. The portion of mountains which rose above the glaciers are jagged and sharp edged.

Climate change is real. Global warming is bogus.

Even deniers hate air pollution.

Fossil fuels kill around 20,000 Canadians a year from air pollution effects, and causes another $25 billion or so in other environmental damage (dirt,soot,engine damage,paint, health care). When you add that to the $80 billion annual wholesale cost of Canada's fossil fuels, even global warming deniers could see the benefit of eliminating Canada's fossil fuel use.

For the rest of us science is now showing us that we are a little as ten years away from a civilization destroying climate/peak oil crisis making solution urgent.

A world war scale effort converting from fossil fuels to mass produced nuclear power paid for by very quickly ending domestic use of fossil fuels is the win win solution even the deniers could accept. Depending on the amount of nuclear steam heating (small towns, tar sands, cogen), Canada would need to build between 150 and 250 gigawatts of mass produced nuclear power at $1000 a gigawatt with payback periods as little as two years for the average plant converted. All that is required is the political will.

Measures such environmentally destructive wind, run of river, and dam projects and silly carbon taxes/cap n'trade schemes are really just fiddling while Rome burns.

As electric car usage slowly builds, BC's vehicles could be fueled by BC's abundant supplies of cheap natural gas. Using Utah's example, natural gas as a vehicle fuel could be made available as of yesterday at less than 30 cents a liter equivalent. As fossil fuel conversion advances more and more natural gas for use vehicle fuel would become available.

With mass production of Atomic Energy Canada's proposed ACR-1000, an enormous job boosting domestic and export market would be created.

So far, Canwest/Gordo has committed us to spending $45 billion producing 1 gigawatt baseload equivalent of intermittent run of river and wind power worth maybe $7 billion on the current springtime spot market, doubling our power rates to pay for it. The power will be worthless in a little as ten years with new nuclear fusion and nuclear waste burning Gen IV reactors coming on line. Ontario was recently quoted $2 billion a gigawatt for baseload nuclear on a onetime reactor build – 5% of Canwest/Gordo's pirate power contracts.

Unfortunately, Gordo is bedded down with Pirate Power board of director appointments to party hacks and massive campaign donations. Harpo with his apocalyptic religious views and Big Oil/Coal campaign donation base refuses to consider climate/pollution abatement, support AECL, nuclear or any other Canadian technology.

Sadly. as the solution is simple.

Lousy hitpiece

How is it "bizarre" to say we are being pushed to relinquish our basic liberties to a worldwide, technocratic, unelected government? That's EXACTLY what the Copenhagen Treaty is about!

It's sad that environmentalists think its acceptable to forcibly engineer society to reduce CO2 emissions, which are by no means proven to cause warming at all!

red herrings

The amount of time passed since the last age or the Queen Mum's longevity has nothing to do with climate change. What you are really saying Illahie (as far as I can tell) is that humans cannot affect the climate. I'd like to see the proof of that, or even a logical argument for such a position. I have never seen a single convincing point made in favour of the position human's can't have an impact on the global climate. One only has to look at the weather changes that accompanied the Krakatoa explosion: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/02/2815.ars and realize humans can match or exceed those volumes of gas and particulate emissions to figure out that not only is it possible we can affect climate, but it's entirely probable. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming bulk of informed opinion supports the possibility of man-made climate change.

So, no doubt your mind won't be changed, but I would like to see you put up more proof for your opinion than ancient ice and really old royalty.

basic rights

"How is it "bizarre" to say we are being pushed to relinquish our basic liberties to a worldwide, technocratic, unelected government? "

Please point to a single 'basic right' that will be relinquished in dealing with climate change.

In the U.K. there is a saying...

"Thank Heavens for titles as it makes the lunatics easier to spot"

Quite honestly, making disparaging remarks about folks with titles is engaged with as much enthusiasm as those Brits who live and breath with every correct usage of cutlery, and gnashing of teeth with every inadvertent public flatus, displayed by the Royal Family.

So, Lord Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is an easy target.

On the other hand, the reverence and adulation given to Al Gore, and the blind faith exhibited by those that defend him is just as astonishing. Al Gore can do no wrong thing, say no wrong thing and repeat his "reformed politician" b.s. until the paint peels off the barn door.

Al Gore has that kind of charisma that reminds me of the Rev. Jimmy Jones.

My solution to the deniers?

No more Mr. Nice Guy! Promise to hold them accountable for any future climate-change derived disasters. Deny them any help. Round them up and ship them to Bangladesh - at this time under 5 feet of water - and tell the Bangladeshi's "These are the people responsible for your plight, do with them what you want."

basic rights

Chris Keam: The rights that allow us to heat our homes and move around freely. Haven't you noticed that the first things the self righteous social engineers are going after are related to transportation and energy?

There's already talk about issuing annual "carbon rations" to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

No Chris Keam, the onus is on you

.. to PROVE that humans are the cause of global warming. Models are not proof. Conjectures and correlations are not proof.

Show us "The Experiment" that proves the contention that humans are causing global warming.

If a natural state is humming along, there is no onus on us to prove it. If you say that the natural state is being altered, you have to prove it, not us.

The Nose On Your Face...

Again, there ain't no mystery at all to why this fruitcake denier crew are winning.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it." (Excerpt from The German Ideology by Marx and Engels (1845-1846)

Which is not to worship unduly at the feet of Marx, but simply to acknowledge an astute observation, from where e'er it comes.

I mean, who owns and controls the main desseminators of ideas across society, if it is not the ruling class owned MSM, and such "think tank" propagandists as the Fraser Institute?

Like I said, there is no mystery here at all, but as plain as the nose on your face.

the price at the pump reflects our concern

Why are they winning? Follow the money. Although there may be salvation in going green, vis a vis job creation and new technology, there is still more easy money in oil. Until it hits costs that punish the wealthy, the deniers will flourish.

And as for why folks would rather believe the deniers, it’s because everyone knows, whether anthropocentrically induced global warming is real or not, life-style changes will be costly. And no one is prepared to willingly accept pain if pleasure is a product of denial.

Climate change is undeniable, and so is global warming. What isn’t as black and white is how much change/warming is the product of human activity.

If our behaviour is the source, it’s too late to reverse what is taking place … it’s the product of something that started with the industrial revolution.

lolwut?

"The rights that allow us to heat our homes and move around freely."

Those 'rights' aren't being taken away. A right exists w/out reliance on technology. Free speech isn't taken away if you don't have a computer or a megaphone. Your right to move isn't taken away because restrictions are placed upon fossil fuel use.

Dr Alexander

".. to PROVE that humans are the cause of global warming. Models are not proof. Conjectures and correlations are not proof.

Show us "The Experiment" that proves the contention that humans are causing global warming.

If a natural state is humming along, there is no onus on us to prove it. If you say that the natural state is being altered, you have to prove it, not us."

Given the immense weight of scientific research, I think the onus is on the fringe to prove that this is a natural state we are experiencing. Also, note that I didn't even ask for incontrovertible proof, just some logic-based arguments that don't involve the Queen Mom.

I'd sure hate for my doctor to wait until he had proof a disease would kill me to prescribe treatment. By then it would be too late. The proof would be my corpse.

Why Are Oddballs Like This Guy Winning?

"Why Are Oddballs Like This Guy Winning?"

They aren't winning, we are all losers (oddball climate change deniers included) when we follow the wrong leaders. I feel like a buffalo who has already been forced to follow the herd over the edge at "Head Smashed-in Buffalo Jump". Here we are listening to Munctonesce morons on the way down. Nothing really hurts: we haven't yet landed, and the cool breeze swirling around us doesn't feel all that bad (though I have some feeling of impending doom) as I fall ever faster towards oblivion.

Chris... Nope!

To question that an existing state, or dynamic, has changed from a previous one puts the onus on the questioner as it is the questioner who believes that there is a change.

Immense weight of scientific research is not proof. It is conjecture, theory, supposition but not proof. Proof can be established. But in the absence of proof, it is all still conjecture.

So far, I have seen no convincing evidence, let alone proof, that the exhaust emissions out of my motorcycle is altering the dynamic of the Earth's atmosphere.

With regards to your physician waiting for proof of the disease causing your death before prescribing, that is more likely in private health care systems where the insuring party is also the owner of the hospital. In addition, the interaction between a physician and patient is not a scientific experiment except in terms of clinical trails. Even then, medical knowledge is not always proof. The fact that only recently it was acknowledged that many ulcers were treatable with antibiotics rather than anti-acids is indicative of medical science being something different from the pure physical sciences.

My bottom line follows along the extraordinary claims principle. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So far, I have not seen the proof required.

Please point to a single 'basic right' that will be relinquished

Chris Keam wrote: “Please point to a single 'basic right' that will be relinquished in dealing with climate change.”

The “single ‘basic right’” not to be robbed:

… through the implementation of bogus carbon taxes on every single item that emits CO2 when manufactured or produced in order to stop something that is beyond the total elimination of human produced CO2 to stop: “climate change”.

But most really know it's not about the environment but it's about passing global legislation to suck the wealth out of the "developed" countries and bring them all down to "underdeveloped country" status. And in the process the band of global pirates will make a financial windfall as well.

Chris, show me proof of:

A good lot of people who believe that humans are causing global warming are saying that we have ten years to turn things around otherwise we would have reached the tipping point and are we are all in for a big climactic mess.

Well, I have heard my fair share of scare-mongering in my day (including the impending Ice Age that we all heard about in the Seventies) and am not the type of person to make ka-ka in my pants until the Boogey Man actually does jump out of the closet.

So, what exactly is this brink? What exactly is going to happen ten years from now. Is a replica of the St. Roche going to be able to sail through the ice-free Northwest Passage like it did in the 1940's? Are we going to have droughts like we had in the Dirty 30's? Is there going to be some kind of climactic "chain reaction"? Well, exactly what kind of reaction? Model it for me so I can assess it for myself.

In the meanwhile, I will continue wearing my tried and true Stanfield's instead of reaching for the Depends.

And perhaps listen to some George Carlin on my reel-to-reel.

"Extraordinary claims

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Why is it an extraordinary claim that a huge increase in our population and emissions will over time have an effect on our climate?

Soleprobe, you have hit it on the nail.

Ken Lay and Al Gore made strange bedfellows indeed.

Al Gore's Stranded Polar Bears (Another Hoax Exposed)

Thank you Doc

For those who may have not seen this interesting clip:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0

new link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ

mikev

"I know it hurts the poor, but I don't mind fossil fuel becoming more expensive"

I understand where you're coming from because we want emissions to go down. But as George Monbiot (author of Heat) pointed out, the poor aren't the problem.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

It creates cynicism when Berman makes big money making speeches to corporate types, Suzuki is jet-setting, Hoggan donates to the Liberals and they all support taxes on the poor.

"Going green" until the poor stop using energy so that the well off don't have to change their standard of living is the wrong way to go about things and is not going to win enviros any friends among social justice advocates.

Monbiot would agree if we emailed him and asked for his opinion.

Mitchell Anderson

One day, hopefully not too far ahead, even fanatics like Anderson will have to swallow very hard and admit that they were duped by Al Gore and his band of Greenzis and that we carbon dioxide spewing human beings have next to no effect on the climate of this planet.

Poking fun at "oddballs" in the opposing camp is all part of the fun of journalism I suppose but if Anderson wants to see a clear example of global warming hysteria proven false he should check out wattsupwiththat.com and see how the data used to create Al Gores famous hockey stick temperature graph was deliberately cherry-picked. That graph is pure fiction.

Chris, Extraordinary Claims coupled to huge population increase

Well Chris, I take it you are modeling an increase in population and emissions. Not unreasonable, however, you have to prove that the increase in population will actually result in an increase in emissions. And these increases in emissions will have to be proven to be of consequence.

A very engaging and thoughtful "thought experiment" that you have tossed at me.

Perhaps I can cut to the quick of my own situation. For my whole adult life, I have, in addition to the well meaning and professional people, seen and dealt with political and scientific hucksters and grifters. Their ability to engage in mischief and serve their own interests has put me in the position of being careful so I don't get conned or fleeced.

So, my personal requirement for proof may be more than most people, but it is there and it is there for good personal reasons. I refuse to apologize for my high standards.

Your yea-or-nay threshold may be different than mine. That difference in threshold brings about positive qualities of personalities that I may not have.

So, based on our life's experiences, we form the opinions that we have and put in the thresholds that we use for our own safety.

So, in the end, I am not saying that you are wrong, or that you are right. What I am saying is that I have an opinion that is different from yours. I write what I write to throw things out for people who have not made up their mind. Just as you do.

A big applause for Mitchell

His contribution today must be right up there with the most comments in one day.

For me the proof that

For me the proof that climate change and global warming are a bogus concern is the government/corporate media bandwagon. Run the other way! Al Gore? Does he ever mention that the number one environmental degrader is the livestock industry? No. So what's he up to? What's his purpose? The answer is pretty simple really. He's an elite. His purpose is to divert, to fool, to con us away from facing the truth.

We're not responsible. This system, this way of living is not our fault. It's being foisted upon us by the elite, we are being told how to live our lives and I say fuq them and fuq their system. I want love and peace, for everyone. Period.

The answer is money reform, and the elite know it. Watch out.
http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/

Proof

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is undeniable,and it has been for over 20 years. It's incredible to me that people are still spouting the nonsense that we have seen in some of the comments here. The same old lies are trotted out month after month, year after year. That's why they have earned the label "denialists". This isn't about debating the evidence, it's about spinning it, or outright lying about it. There is no point in showing the evidence to these people -- if they haven't figured it out by this late date, they never will.

Even when the arctic is ice-free in summer, several years from now, they'll deny that. Even when atmouspheric CO2 reaches 450 ppm, they'll deny that. Some of them have an agenda, some just like to be contrarian, and some are paranoid conspiracy theorists. The media should steer clear of them.

There aren't enough Doctors of Optometry to help ...

... those who refuse to open their eyes.

The scientific ethic requires that we argue rationally, in good faith, from shared evidence to shared conclusions.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html

Which begs a question : why do the deniers need a Coal/Oil/Nuclear/Gas-based pollution waste-production economy that limits prosperity while concentrating power and capital in anti-market oligopolies ?

Visible climate change effects :
http://www.youtube.com/user/Cop15

Monckton's errors :
http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

Rights of the poor to control their economic destiny :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGTO2Nm5lng

Impending doom

CO2 is heavier than air, right? Then the Warmists have merely overlooked the real problem.

Maybe the sky IS falling !!!

That thought sent me to Googling, where I found out that it it the wind that keeps it safely mixed in the atmophere. That immediately alerted me to the potential danger of too may windmills interfering with the action of the wind, being yet anoher example of man's tinkering with nature.

"Impossible" you say? "Prove it" you say? Oh no, I don't have to. Just imagine what would happen if suddenly the CO2 started settling to the ground, sickening us unto death. That vision is too horrible to even contemplate.

I say we should start banning windills now, before it's too late.

Before we were born ...

... the scientific observations and discussions concerning anthropogenic global warming started :

Callendar, G.S. 1938 "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64:223-237.

Callendar, G.S. 1949 "Can Carbon Dioxide Influence Climate?" Weather 4 :310-314

A quick easy to read review ...

... for those unwilling to use their synapses for the good of humanity:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

A free pdf :
Peterson, Connolley, Fleck 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Coolng Scientific Consensus'
- especially the review of climate science literature 1965-1979 [and graph]

Well, I was there in the Seventies

And the Global Cooling trumpets were blaring loudly.

One of the trumpets was Prof. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. As was John Holdren

They were telling tales of impending woe and catastrophe. I remember seeing a segment on CTV's "Here Comes the 70's" (which is famous for its programme introduction scene)

So, for the past forty years we have gone from Cooling, to Warming, ultimately to Changing.

Changing? Change? What a completely useless characterization. So, you run in into your pal in the hallway and declare:

"Hi Fred. By the way, your status has changed"
"What do you mean? Is it better, worse?"
"No, just changed. Go home and do something about it"

I cannot help but admire, in a perverse way, the clarion call of "Fight Climate Change". It is indeed a testament to the best Madison Avenue talent money can buy.

With regards to Callendar's 1938 and 1949 papers, what experiments did Callendar do and what processes did Callendar take to make his/her conclusions?

Another way to deal....

....with the troublesome global warming messages...

http://www.cafepress.ca/cp/moredetails.aspx?productNo=109925795&pr=F&showbleed=false&colorNo=0&tab=1&Zoom=1

Dr Lazy and the Spoonfed ...

... wasn't that a band in the Seventies ? I'll check with my granny.

Meanwhile, back on the telly:

this guy was using his mind-power to bend spoons - he was, y'know - psychedelic or something, so he got his powers telepathetically from extraterritorialists.

Just amaaazingly groovy.

They don't show any good sh*t on TV anymore.

Just believe anyway, eh ?

Dexpite the constant challenges to offer proof that Anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming, Warmists respond only with "there is a consensus of thousands of scientists", but when they are reminded that there is also a similar consensus of opposing scientists, the best they can come up with is...."but those are bad scientists".

To date, I haven't seen a shred of proof offered by Warmists that ACO2 causes "Climate Change", or just what kind of change they mean. It can quite comfortably mean anything, of course.

And they call US gullible.

Well ME2, according to Al Gore it is a case of

Just STFU!

There are benefits to going Green

This 2 minute educational video helps us understand how accumulating carbon credits can be fun too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7RU6_WCF94

Note for Vancouver residents:
Can also apply to Backyard Chicken-Keepers.

ME2's Impending doom

I think that ME2 has it all wrong. The real problem with CO2 being heavier than air is that the extra pressure will cause our heads to pop.

We should all move up to to the top of the mountains where the air is thinner and remain there until the air has cleared.

Climate change denial "Lord"

As Hitler's propaganda master Gobel stated: "Stick to a very few statements (not necessarily facts) and repeat them often. People will eventually start to believe them.
Undoubtably, these guys are all being supported by the industrial complexes that have vested interests in this issue. Wonder how many of them have grandchildren who will have to live with the results.
I understand that Prince George will have California's climate by 2050, the way things are going now. Good luck regrowing dead pine trees!

Because the sheeple are

Hypnotized!

Erroneous thinking as opposed to erroneous beliefs

Personally, if I see the kind evidence that satisfies my scientific standards, then I change my erroneous thinking. Besides, it does not really matter what my opinion on Global Warming is because we do not have the democracy we need to do the People's work as opposed to the Politician and Corporate work.

In that respect, I don't lose any sleep over the implications of combatting a true or faux Global Warming. The Maurice Strong's of the world decide this stuff. They don't consult me. Or you. They just take your money or send you or your kids to war.

On the other hand, if you start seeing a pattern that you may have been scammed by Al Gore and his gang, what is the consequence of you changing your belief.

You went through a great deal of trouble to present someone else's thoughts and postulations of how some of us can be lead down the garden path of "erroneous thinking" of not acknowledging humans catastrophic impact on global climate.

I would say that you want me to go down that path.

Will you also?

What price will you pay if you find out that you had the "erroneous belief"?

Or do you already know the price and it is too costly to even attempt going down the path of "erroneous belief" introspection.

My friends and associates know where I stand on this. Some like me, some don't because of it. I could really care less. What I do in life is beyond being popular or notorious. I gave that up in my post-teenage years in the 70's.

Have a nice day.

Excellent comment, rangergord.

When a guy (I'm thinking Al Gore here) can win the Nobel prize for his contribution to global environmental awareness and then go on to actually congratulate Gordon Campbell on his "green policies", something is definitely wrong, disturbingly wrong with this picture....not to mention the credibility of the Nobel.

Ummmm...what level of global environmental awareness is actually being demonstrated here?

On the contrary, it demonstrates the increasingly superficial level of understanding of those who continue to endorse and control our badly failing economic and monetary systems - systems that were not only built on but have become dependent upon that same superficiality to prop up and disguise the increasing cracks in the faulty foundations of our economic systems.

I wrote Gore a letter when he congratulated Campbell to inform him that he may want to re-consider... that is, once he had done some real research into the true state of things in BC.

I got a nice sanitized reply, both letter and envelope on oh-so-green recycled paper.

Appearances, after all, are everything these days.

Certainly that is the sad and tragic state of things in both BC and Canada at present.

Even the supposed best of world leaders, like Obama (stumping for the Olympics no less), are unable or unwilling to make the vital connections for real change.

And too many can't seem to see the real forest for all the fraudulent trees they have planted.

"When the best lack all conviction......."

And when some of the worst....are now leading Canada.

The big picture has been intentionally and now successfully obscured.

There is hardly a hope in hell anymore, that we will free ourselves from the camouflaged muck that serves as truth these days or from the suicidal quicksand of compromise that our sheeple ruling class continue to mire and sink us in.

Dr Alexander - perhaps a false dichotomy

In the main, I find your contributions here worthwhile reading even when I can't say I agree with them.

I've already written all I care to on this subject at this time - at least in so far as I care to engage any more deeply with the idea and the dangers of 'denial' as presented above here.
I’m happy though I don’t have to partner up with Lord Silly buggers the inbred twit calls himself – I’d think I’d find it uncomfortable to have him (and Timmy Ball for that matter) batting on my side.

On the other hand, I agree with you about Al Gore (and find him an unwanted partner in this debate) and several of his local acolytes although, as you know, I part company with your opinions as regards the state of the current 'science'. Still, I'm old enough to remember that the ‘global cooling scare’ to which you've referred never came close to reaching the status of a 'consensus' as Chris has described above us here.

That being said, I'm disinclined to hold the fact that you're not convinced against you; but, I fail to understand exactly what 'costs' you're alleging will attend to the acceptance of what you describe as being an 'erroneous' belief.

I've seen far too much degradation of the natural world (not to mention the human one) in my few short years of active observation to accept the notion that continuing along the present arc will not be more costly in almost every measurable way than changing the way we live and the way we interact with the environment irrespective of whether or not the current scientific consensus is proved false

In short, I question what seems to be your claim - namely, that the cure can be worse than the disease.

Cheers.

erratum

There should be a 'whatever' between 'with' and Lord Silly bugger, the inbred twit, calls himself...

A cure is worse than the disease if there is no disease

G West. You are the consummate gentleman.

If I may be brief.

Six or so years ago I was quite convinced of Global Warming and had great concern as I was living in Scandinavia, which would have been in danger of loosing its Gulfstream conveyor belt, leading to unpleasant living conditions. I continued my reading and migrated over to a position of not buying into the Global Warming theory over a 3 to 4 year time period.

With regards to "costs" there is often a "psychic" cost of changing one's mind or having found out that you were lied to and the like. Almost everyone has this part of themselves. Except for psychopaths who tend to be our political and corporate figures.

They do not engage in the kind of discussions that go on in this site. They don't care. I tip my hat to lynn for point this out rather nicely.

Some people embrace their particular position on Global Warming/Global Scamming to the point of it being almost religious-like. It is a "bell curve" of sorts, from the socio-psychopath on one side to the religious on the other.

I am a firm believer in preserving our lovely planet as best as possible. I used to work for the DFO and I am positively livid when I see things going on that I feel are having an effect on the salmon and can be controlled within our means (in this point, I am religious).

My concern over the environment can be traced back in to Seventies I was part of the protest trying to stop 2-4D being put into Okanagan Lake. That is just one facet of many.

But I also believe we have too many people on this planet. My way of reducing the population is to take advantage of the observation that every well to do society has a declining birth rate and is only compensated for by immigration. So, if we could make every society on this planet healthy and prosperous, within a few generations we would be down to a third of the people we have now. Pollution of all sorts would be down equally.

Quite frankly, I like my plan better than the war-and-disease plan that is currently employed.

Just to jump on something on examining one's belief.

The next time somebody says they want Vancouver to grow, ask them why. Tell them you believe that Vancouver should shrink and not grow.

consumate...

G West is the consumate gentleman; perhaps you are the consumate reasoner, Dr. Alexander. Okay, without discussing the complexities of Hadley cell circulation, Rossby waves, and thermohaline currents (but glad they were brought up)...I find myself intensely curious about the "psychic costs" of changing one's mind.
I agree with your prescription, by the way, although I disagree with the idea that people are 'sheeple'. If there are, indeed, 'psychic costs', I would think the conclusion to be drawn is that polarization, ideaology, and dogma are what generate those...
Though if anyone cares to get into the fine details of Hadley cell circulation, Rossby waves, and ocean thermohaline circulation, perhaps even the more obtuse might begin to grasp the exquisite beauty and fine-tuning of the processes of our litle blue sphere that humankind continues to tamper with unmercifully and without foreknowledge of the consequences...

Green is something to be feared.

Saving the planet is the most fascist movement ever created by humans. You have to save the planet from something and that something would be people. The opportunity for abuse is clearly obvious and those with some knowledge of history can easily see where this is leading.

THE CARBON INQUISITION !

When did I ever mention "sheeple"

There are leaders, there are followers and there is everyone else in between.

Psychic costs are the sort of things we deal with on a daily basis or not so daily basis. The mixed feelings you get when you mull around in your mind if you should give a panhandler some of your spare cash. Feeling betrayed by your religion when you find that one of the clergy was involved in illicit sexual activity. Getting ripped off by somebody. The feeling that you got screwed due to somebody in your work getting a promotion instead of you due to nepotism or the like. Buyers remorse. Getting a terrible meal and service in a restaurant and still tipping because it is expected but not deserved and you wish you where not emotionally handcuffed in this way. Being non-conformist about an issue and getting the bum's rush by your friends. Not getting externally validated. Realizing that the road to middle-class comfort and joy is, for the most part, a charade.

That all sounds like a downer. The psychic boost is when you see what to believe to be true unfold itself. To have people pay attention to you. To be given praise and promotion at work. To see someone else's anonymous act of kindness. To do your own taxes and programme your pvr-dvd player.

I have been long-winded but basically, who really likes to admit that they were wrong?

With regards to Hadley cells etc etc I like to stay away from jargon and academic p***ing contests. I get enough of that as it is and I would rather spend the time cheating death on my sportbike.

Chris

Consensus and unusually nasty storms, you say.

Whatever happened to the 2009 hurricane season? A blip?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/hurricanes/2009-10-22-hurricane-season_N.htm

Positively fizzed so far. Do we have consensus on that?

Whatever happened to sunspots?

http://spie.org/x37587.xml?highlight=x2418&ArticleID=x37587

Do they affect the weather on Earth?

http://science.jrank.org/pages/6609/Sunspots-Sunspots-weather.html

Oddball demands

What accounts for the greenhouse effect in earth's atmosphere ?

What effect do 'greenhouse gasses' have on earth's atmosphere ?

What is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere ?

Are CO2 levels falling or rising ?

What is the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

What is the effect of decreased CO2 ?

What effects, if any, do water vapour, methane, sulphur compounds and aerosols have on the atmosphere?

What proportion of the change in CO2 levels do you attribute to human activities, if any ?

What are the optimal levels of 'greenhouse gasses' ? Within what range ?

What, if anything, is the difference between climate and weather ?

***
Please provide references for your answers.

Population and Pollution

"So, if we could make every society on this planet healthy and prosperous, within a few generations we would be down to a third of the people we have now. Pollution of all sorts would be down equally."

Sorry, but that's probably not true. If they lived the way in the healthy and prosperous manner of the Western World's current lifestyle, there'd be very little change in our pollution levels. Probably referenced up-thread, but here it is again.

"People who claim that population growth is the big environmental issue are shifting the blame from the rich to the poor."

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 29th Septeember 2009

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

OilbertaRedTory, you are asking a lot of questions.

So, I will be kind and ask you only one question.

When do we know the battle for Climate Change is won?

errata

"If the way they lived was in the healthy and prosperous manner of the Western World's current lifestyle."

Hard to cook and compute at the same time.

Dr. Alexander

To answer your question above:
a) When oil is no longer required for transportation.

b) When there are only quiet vehicles travelling the roads (i.e. noise has much to do with the world's "psychic" being.) I could not believe the EPA in the US warning that electric cars would be dangerous because they don't make noise. Argh!

c) When renewable power is in the majority (not including idiotic BC Hydro mega-dams).

d) When nuclear power plants are no longer discussed (unless the science evolves to dispose of the wastes and safety issues).

e) When everyone on earth can independently feed themselves.

I know, i know, wishful thinking, but achievable.

Another Milestone

"China's annual auto production has exceeded 10 million units for the first time, as the country's car makers boost output to meet the growing demand. The record was broken after the 10-millionth car rolled off the First Auto Works Group's assembly line in Changchun, Jilin Province. The group estimates that output is likely to hit 12 million units for all of 2009."

China Today 2009-10-21

Vancouver goes to bikes, China goes to cars.

China has some catching up to do

if they want to match North America. Especially the 2.28 vehicles per household part.

Motor Vehicle Production (US)
2004 11,960,000

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001569

Well Oldcynic. That's Great!

And it's defined in terms that people can relate to. Why not make those stated desires as the thing to aim for. No one can make a cogent or logical argument in opposition of what you said and thus, if the so-called leaders of the world set this up as a target, with defined milestones, it would be much easier for everybody to get on board.

You have then managed to make the reduced production of carbon dioxide by humans as a byproduct of your actions.

It has been said that even if Climate Alarmists are wrong, the impact to society would exhibit many benefits so let's carry on with fighting Climate Change even if it is a flawed theory.

So, you don't even have to worry if climate modellers are wrong or right, the desires that you have presented are laudable in their own right and, right or wrong, carbon dioxide production by humans is reduced.

And the climate will respond by...... doing whatever it does with slightly less carbon dioxide.

Dr Lazy and the Spoonfed ...

... on that 70s show :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Some people don't 'get' absurd.

Battling on ...

... with calculations :

http://www.350.org/

The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple 'ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

cheating death

I am glad to know, Dr. Alexander, that you are cheating death on your sport bike, but distressed that you think I would be in favour of an academic p****** contest...the girls seldom win those, by virtue of anatomy.
I do hope the point didn't get lost, which is that complexity does not lend itself to facile solutions or cut and dried answers...and that responding to complexity with denial is ...silly. The much-vaunted precautionary principle was born of the idea that we do not and cannot know, predict, or anticipate everything. The melting of polar ice will most assuredly have some effect on thermohaline currents, which may be significant for the Scandinavian countries...I could go on and on but others have already done that.
The more important point for me is that I have never experienced those particular 'psychic costs' you describe...perhaps I am not 'emotionally handcuffed'...but in any event, I routinely change my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs on a variety of topics and issues. To be wrong is not a failing; to fail to correct it is. I think it was Clausewitz who said something like 'war is the absence of imagination', which could easily apply here. Lack of imagination ...the ability to understand that the same social/political environment that passes for current reality will not solve current problems...it has not.We need more voices speaking up from their particular fields or endeavours or perspectives - not less - and we need to stop making those who ask "what if/ what about..." pay the psychic costs of marginalization. I do not believe that there are leaders and followers - only people.
By the way, I am a student - but not an academic. The hallowed halls of Canada's universities will gladly accept my exhorbitant tuition, but they'd never admit me as a member of their circle ;)

nuclear waste sloved

Been solved. Gen IV reactors now being built burn it for fuel.

"When do we know the battle for Climate Change is won?"

When the world population is down to few million consisting of a small wealthy ruling class supported by a larger subservient class living at a bare subsistence level.

Then the great leaders will say, “We have won, the climate is no longer changing. We decree that you can all now use your own dung to heat your mud huts.

Re- re -re processing Nuclear failures :

Nuclear Waste Problem Solved !
http://tinyurl.com/ReprocessThis
Oops - sorry about that.

Nuclear Waste Problem Solved !
http://tinyurl.com/ReprocessCosts
Oops - sorry about that.

Nuclear Waste Problem Solved !
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/repository/index.shtml
Oops - sorry about that.

Nuclear Waster Problem Solved !
http://www.permanentradwastesolutions.com/NewSol.html
Oops - well, eventually something might work.

***
Curiously, even Atomic Energy Canada admits the still-on-the-drawing-board ACL 1000 is only a Gen III design. Gen iv just takes a little more taxpayers funding ...

VivianLea, all I can say is

You are not cut of the same cloth as most people. I tip my hat to you.

Doctors of Denial ...

... still can't diagnose a simple carbon-induced fever in the atmosphere. And, like the homeopathic scammers, prescribe more carbon-belching as the cure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVV3QQ3wjC8

OilbertaRedTory...

nothing like a real, laugh-out-loud moment to start (or end) the day...cheers!
Dr. Alexander, thank you...but I do believe it is just some old homespun...

Doctors of Deception

Oilbertaredtory, that was a funny clip but homeopathic practice has nothing to do with trauma. The only thing left that traditional sickcare does well is trauma.

As for curing disease: after more than 100 years they still haven’t cured the common cold.

What about the International Energy Agency?

Rangergord,

Is the International Energy Agency part of your so-called "cult"? See http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=290

The IEA only recently conducted a thorough assessment of the world's major oil wells and now acknowledges peak oil is a real concept and is coming soon. World production dropped by 7% last year. As I tell a climate change denying friend in Ottawa, peak oil is real and many of the strategies that reduce CO2 emissions will use less oil. I don't know what he thinks is going to fuel his 13 year-old daughter's life. He's a former geologist and trots out the tired notion that higher prices will 'create' new supply. To that I reply with Scotty's line from the original Star Trek series: "But Captain, I can't change the laws of physics". You have to expend energy to produce energy. Google EROEI (energy returned on energy invested).

Sorry, but you have to look at the energy balance. You have to get more (net) energy out of the process than you put into development, extraction, processing and distribution, otherwise you're moving backwards!

Fleecing the people

I mentioned "sheeple" in regard to our current ruling class -

the highest order of sheeplehood.

They rule out of weakness of character.

I thought I was letting them off lightly.

They are more like "the walking dead".

My deepest apologies to sheep everywhere.

"Come to the Carnivale, My Friend"

Who is this dinga-ling and why is he saying such awful things about me?
I happen to be able to read information and at one time (maybe in the '70s) I thought I could think.
Basically the message from the Think Tanks seems to be: "The Public is wrong" whatever they imagine
We will see about that

Dr. Alexander

Exactly. Setting achievable goals is ultimately the way out of this mess.
We all spend far too much time arguing the issue rather than pursuing logical solutions.

Sadly, its unlikely any government representatives would address the issue using common sense or desirable goals. Common sense does not prevail either in Victoria or Ottawa!

give up meat to save the planet

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

If Al Bore controlled the lemmings

he would be the Ron Hubbard of climate control. And the furry minded little beasties would be PROUD to sing his praises as they paid him their hard earned dollars.
It's a scam.

realistically, lemmings dream of flying ...

but their dreamworlds end suddenly too :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ripOKeiB4mo

How's Harper's non-recession going for you ?