Well Crankypants you

Well Crankypants you certainly have that right: hypocrisy!

Environmental Law Professor Michael M'Gonigle has written a measured and responsible assessment to behavior that is anything but measured and responsible.

Multiple hockey sticks do not contribute to the conversation: all are "photoshopped" as is the Mann version.

With a Greenpeace pedigree he must know the futility of confronting "big business" of any logo: Irvin Stowe and Bob Hunter will be turning in their graves. The Phyllis McCormack is long gone Michael . . .

Now we have Copenhagen and money. I will not be there because I am not interested in making money off our woes.

Copenhagen is about cap-and-trade: just another ponzi.

Evidently we now know Obama is heavily invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange: he's got it right, for "himself"!

And that is the ethos we face "for himself".

Locally we must disabuse Mayor Gregor of his "Green" sustainable fantasy. Nothing is sustainable and his green region dream, Portland/Seattle/Vancouver is, at best, another excuse to junket first class at our expense. At worst a sleazy power grab.

Watching the mayor so far, the latter is unlikely but we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Like you, I am terrified and saddened at what climate change is doing to the Earth, and recognize that dramatic action is needed."

Unlike you I am not scared " at what climate change is doing to the Earth . . . " I am scared by what we are allowing the power/money psychotics to do in our name . . .

And that is why Professor Hansen is right.

crankypants

You don't have to go to Copenhagen, just grab a coke, save the world.

http://www.hopenhagen.org/cocacola

the moon is melting

I hope this collection of old-fart gasbags don't forget to mention at this summit the fact that the moon is made of cheese and it is in fact melting... We have a serious threat from lunar warming.

Such a valuable use of time and money by the world’s leaders at the expense of its citizenry. It gives a pretty accurate idea of just how efficiently this new global order will be managed.

Climategate is the real news, not Copenhagen

The Tyee has missed the real news here, it is Climategate, the hacked email incident that may save us all trillions of dollars of badly allocated climate fraud fighting dollars. Blink twice and you miss it....The traditional news media are hushing it up, the UN is hushing it up and so are most governments.

Global warming is a fraud and people are starting to find out about it. For the first time in several years, journalists are starting to use the word skeptic instead of denier to describe people that do not believe in global warming being caused by humans.

In a few years, we will all laugh at the massive fraud of human caused climate change, and cry about what we could have done with all the money wasted on it.

Here is one good quote of many from a hacked email:

- From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial "hockey-stick graphs" that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2258373#ixzz0Z1vo9wK3
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Speak for yourself

"Hypocrisy is an unfortunate but undeniable part of the human condition."

Maybe for some, but not for those of us who like to be able to meet our own eyes in the mirror and sleep nights without benzodiazepines.

"..the root causes of why there is so much resistance to change. Many of them are due to vested, powerful interest (ie. money). "

There is no 'resistance to change', just a demand to see the proof and substance of the claims, based on which change is advocated. This ain't a matter of belief, I should hope, but of science, and for that we have scientists. If they cannot give substance to the claims, I am afraid you will have 'resistance'. It should really be good news that people are not endlessly gullible, but asking for substance, shouldn't it, rather than a fly in the ointment?

"..even the major power brokers are looking a little concerned, not just all the environmentalist lawyers, students, and activists
out there.."

Hee, hee. I have long ago learned that the 'major powerbrokers' may have many and varied reasons to look a little concerned, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with my daily grind. Their lives are so complex and far removed from my neck of the woods, that I would not break my head over them looking concerned, however much or little.

"...job security, comfort, economic and political freedom. This is what keeps electing conservative and liberal governments in Canada."

Nope. I don't expect those governments, any more than their counterparts, to hand me these things on a silver platter. The difference is that I know precisely to what extent I cannot count on them to give me anything, as well as exactly where they'll clip and snip it. With the other guys - they strike me as similar to this fancifully designed critter on the recent show 'defying gravity', the fractal beastie, who swirled and twirled around itself and changed color all the time, while emitting a strange, haunting song. You never know where they are in their mystical cycle.

I'm sorry to so dissect your posting, but it just seems to me you are assuming you know how people think, and maybe you are being a touch condescending and counting on people being slightly more underdogs than they really are. I think more respect for the common man and woman is what this calls for, not any kind of spin or fix. There you probably have your 'root cause'. People can handle that you tell it like it is, with evidence to back it up. They can't handle being handled by another breed of peddlers of some religion.

bakoonin_mik So you are quoting...

a pro-Global Warming PR Hack that is warning us about anti-Global Warming PR Hacks.

Now, that is very funny.

Almost as funny as "if we refuse to debate, then there is no debate and thus we can say the debate is over"

I would like to haul that back to my family farm.

Gee thanks ('blush')

"Dorothy serves as a perfect case"

No one has ever called me 'perfect' before. This is so much more profound than someone slavering over my eye color!

But I would RESPECTFULLY submit that it is not your prerogative to blame me or otherwise, as I have left that with my Gods, who, in contrast to many other such ones, have a keen understanding of entropy.

I am really incensed at your arrogant assumption that I must be a 'lay' person, since I don't agree with you on matters that I now more and more recognize as religious in nature.

You are quite wrong. I understand scientific principles very well, which is why I adhere to them in my query. I am aware that 'weather' is not the same as 'climate', as I learned that in Geography in grade 6 and still remember.

I am not convinced, because I haven't seen anything to convince me. Your rhetorical tidbits from gurus, who are neither scientists nor environmentalists, but nevertheless claim to know all there is to know about who are the villains of the piece, make me yawn. Like all other sermons, they don't convince me. Had you offered even one scientific paper, one book that contains other than rhetoric and massaged hockey-sticks, I would maybe sit up and take notice. As it is...I think that out of the two of us, you are the 'case'.

Pissed off

So, I see your system still cannot deal with Safari repeating.

I do not appreciate having my posts deleted just because your web master cannot correct an error in your system . . .

Please get with it . . .

Dr Alexander

'not far off' at the start of the journey usually means way, way off by the end. Starting from the idea that climate change is bogus and efforts at remediation are a ploy for economic control by shadowy Mustapha Monds leaves one making claims that aren't supported by the evidence... and certainly don't conform to the Occam's razor approach.

Hook, your desires regarding the elephant may still be achieved

Hook, biofuel production resulting from climate policy has already starved millions of people to death. Once climate policy is implemented globally it will result in a billion or more people starving to death. So don’t worry, the desired end result of the climate summit will achieve the desired ultimate aims of the climate agenda and fulfill your desire for a massive and rapid reduction in the size of the elephant: the death of over a billion of the world’s poor.

The environmental do-gooders of Tyee don’t appear to be too concerned about the starving to death of over a billion of the world’s poor resulting from climate policy since I haven’t seen one article and few posts concerning the millions that have already starved to death from climate policy.

They sure love to use their brown faces, while they are still alive, in their advertisements to promote the climate change agenda though.

Chris "Mustapha Monds"?

I don't read enough Desmog Blog to know the conspiracy theory about this guy.

With regards to Occam's Razor, well, follow the money usually works for me. Why else would Shell Oil be a supporter of Hadley CRU?

growth is the problem and will not be solved in "carbonhoggin"

yes, endless population growth is the real problem the world faces. but this is not a problem in the developed world where birthrates are below replacement levels, but in the third world where they are far above replacement levels. all climate change devotees should by definition be anti immigration (from the third world to the first) because as soon as they come over here and start livin' high on the hog they start emitting more greenhouse gasses from their ars*s like we do. the greenhouse gas problem will solve itself if we can get third world population growth levels down AND stop them from coming here (to the developed and rich west). unfortunately most greenhouse gassers are too politically correct or brainwashed by al gore to want to stop third world immigrants from trying to better themselves at the planet's expense.

Blood and Gore

I see Tzeporat has flown off to Copenhagen.

Should we splat a polar bear on the sidewalk in front of the Flack Block in her honour?

Blood and Gore

I see Tzeporat has flown off to Copenhagen.

Should we splat a polar bear on the sidewalk in front of the Flack Block in her honour?

PWB i agree overpopulation is the real problem

But overpopulation doesn't give politicians or NGOs or Environmental groups any funding. Climate change is a false crisis created by humans and it making some people VERY rich. The real problem in the world is third world population growth, since the first world population would shrink if it was not for immigration (we are below replacemnt level). As our technology advances we will eventually wean ourself from hydrocarbons anyway.

I reiterate: The West is not the problem: The third world and its greedy population growth at the expense of the world is the problem along with the left wing liberals who promote immigration into Canada and the west to relieve to population pressures of the third world.

Not pissed off, more like embarassed...

I am not doing the safari thing, neither at my keyboard nor on the Serengeti...

But I see I got 'a double' in there. What happened is, I went back and forth between a weird screen telling me the session had timed out, and one that looked like the page I had just left, with my post still sitting there un-posted. So I managed to do so twice without quite knowing how that happened. You're certainly welcome to delete one of them, I promise not to get pissed off.

"an economic system that ... values stasis"

It does get me to thinking if The Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace would prefer to be static or prefer to grow.

If they could ever say: "I think we are big enough", then I could believe that business could do the same.

QED

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8790

patrickC says that Micheal M'Gonigle has got street cred

Well, so did Jones.

Up until about a week ago.

By the Book

“…strong climate policy is like putting insurance on the planet.”

OK, so it’s a feel-good thing. Then let’s treat it as that, instead of an all-stops-out-backs-against-the-wall kind of panic, which would seemingly require at least the War Measures Act and justify spewing hatred at each other for ‘over-consumption’ seen in snapshots out of context.

This will give us time to really consider, in the cold light of the morning after all the placards and the hype is gone, what we need to do.

Here is my number one on the list:

Getting the ‘climate’ (read: frivolous overgrowth in a struggle for supremacy and the creation of a marginal market) changed start with harmonizing the religions.

Why must we have the religions dealt with? Because they no longer serve the purpose for which they were created: crowd control. We are down to water cannon and tazering and nightsticks. The monotheistic religions are now evil kabbals with lives of their own, the hiearchy of which operate like another sort of gangsters. They are in the way of everyone understanding that we all share this globe and there is no win-lose game that will be other than ‘lose’ for all. Therefore, those parts of the scriptures that do not serve our purpose, to take ourselves into a leaner, cleaner, more orderly and genuinely more peaceful future, must be removed. All kinds of aggressive statements of supremacy and denigration of others, which is in reality hate speech but enjoy an unlawful protection under a misguided interpretation of Freedom of Religion, those must simply go, both from the books and from the minds and hearts. Same goes of course for current economic schools of thought, both Rand-ism and Marxism, as they were parts of the mix that put us in the fix. Something new and far more pragmatic is required, something characterized by intelligence rather than by dogma.

But of course...

"...It is because of this far reaching dependence on oil, and its inescapable and undeniable relationship to pleasure, and pain, that we see such a pronounced and profound level of denial in public opinion."

You cannot convince people of anything by scolding them and slamming their morals and intelligence. Of course it is harder to convince people of anything, if they have something invested in the status quo. But then you should have known that anddone the homework better. Want to scale a straight-up cliff and leave half of your gear at home? Your fault, not the fault of the cliff.

In fact, You make me angry at you and your compadres for botching something perhaps vitally important. Maybe you took up space for others, who would have done a proper job of it. Go someplace else for band-aids for your scraped knee

You can do that now

"Very soon, the people would begin to assert their will against the psychopaths"

Very simple: don't give them more of your money than you can absolutely help. Don't be a good little consumer. Learn how to darn socks and repair stuff yourself. Grow your food. reuse, reduce, recycle. Get over your induced disgust at reusing a piece of dental floss. Also remember my list of ingenious uses for old numbers of the Vancouver SUN. And so on. That's exerting your will in a way they will feel if enough people do so. More powerful than talk.

From the broken record label, at no charge...

steve/a/parr has it right. I

steve/a/parr has it right. I look forward to Michael's positive suggestions in tomorrow's installment.

BTW, anyone wonder why...

WE have not seen a draught document?

If it is so warm and fuzzy and is going to save us from reaching the tipping point, one would expect the Copenhagen folks, and especially our elected representatives, to let us know what the Day One draught document is. You know, the one that is placed in front of the them the moment they sit down.

Perhaps Prof. Jones will put it on his Hadely server.

DOROTHY

Yes, this is true. It is also true that, unlike the past, the world today has some 7 billion people -- none of whom want to die! And it is also true that during any of these radical changes, life (human and otherwise) was depleted to the point and beyond, of extinction.

That is the real concern of most people. Few care if the air stinks and the water is dirty - as long as they can hang on to life.

Voodoo science.

I'm glad that this thread is prompting discussion of what lies at the very root of our multivariate environmental problems, as summarised (well enough for me, anyway) by Cynic.

Re the appeals to Occam's Razor above, Wiki offers this as part of of its definition:

"The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."

This whole hypothesis of "Global Warming" - oops - "Global Change", began with the assumption that over a certain percentage in the atmosphere, CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. AFAIK, to date there is no verifiable science to prove at what level this effect kicks in, or where it did in the past. Everything so far is strictly hypothetical.

To date, the main enviro argument has rested upon the Precautionary Principle in which the most terrible effects are posited as "sure things" if we refuse to see the imminent danger they want us to see.

So much for Occam's Razor, this is just religion. No damn wonder we're being led to worship at the sacrificial altar of Cap and Trade.

first of a series of climategate cover-ups

Well it’s no surprise 95% of the commentaries, including the article, are on the same page:

Cover-up climategate, cover-up climategate, cover-up climategate....

Distract, distract, distract....

Polarize, polarize, polarize....

I assume this is the first of "a Tyee Series" of climategate distractions leading up to Copenhagen.

This approach would be very effective if many of the uninformed still came to Tyee to get their facts. And that vital pool of the uninformed is shrinking daily, especially after the recent climategate scandal.

It’s amazing all the work that is necessary: the constructing and orchestration of articles and commentaries to distract, cover-up, polarize, all for the purpose of covering up lies. The truth, however, requires such little effort to be exposed…. Just a single click of a mouse…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

…and the whole Tyee house of cards along with its “series” of orchestrated articles and commentaries suddenly comes crashing down.

Thank God for the Internet and the intrinsic power of truth.

I wonder if I've fallen down the rabbit hole?

“Let me think. Was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I'm not the same, the next question is 'Who in the world am I?' Ah, that's the great puzzle!”

Harmonize all of the world’s religions … and then rewrite the bible. Christ, it’s too simple. Why didn’t I think of that?

But wait a minute; don’t we first have to recruit a few thousand harmonized missionaries? How else are we going to convert those several billion agnostics and atheists into harmoized believers? Surely some are responsible for part of the world’s woes?

I can hardly wait for ‘number two wabbit’ to hop on the to do list.

simple solution

it's really quite simple... get on your bike and stop eating meat. everything else will settle into place.

" hide the decline'

Heres a link to an American Thinker article explaining in detail what " mikes nature trick " was designed to hide.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/

I second that, PWB

I used to get riled up about climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it. But it's pointless. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, and it amazes me, too, that it's a subject so impossible for people to address. As if it makes a lick of difference if we all reuse plastic bags and ride bikes (which I do) and take transit when we can and pontifcate at Hopenhagen and what-have-you. Because truly, it's all hopeless. Until worldwide population control is addressed- and outside of China I don't think the world will ever be up to it- we don't have a chance.

North of Hope

Re your link "Climatologists under pressure". Yes, thoe poor buggers slaving away in their cubbyholes just for the good of humanity

Quote..."scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance....."

It is really sad that hundreds of other working climatologistts and tens of thousands of other scientists and academics have allied to oppose their findings. How dare they, eh?

It must be distressing to have to take the time to sour their opinions and so prevent the ears of gov't from hearing what they have to say, let alone to have to engage in the academic back-stabbing such contoversies generate.

And now, all their efforts to teach their followers to ridicule the "Deniers" in every possible way - as was done with the bitter ad hominem attacks on Mopled on these threads - is starting to unravel.

Sooner or later hyperbole has to give way to facts. Happy Carbon Trading, guys.

Re: World of Plenty's comment

It's not that simple. A woman in India can have 6 kids and their combined impact on the planet is far less than the Canadian with 1.5 (or whatever the rate is). We are the greedy ones. Women in third world countries, for the most part, have very little control over how many children they bear.

andrew-wood

Thank you for that link. Perhaps the most unbiased and learned to date.

andrew-wood

I echo realisticman: Thank you for that link.

What we want is not the important point

"the world today has some 7 billion people -- none of whom want to die!"

But then we're all going to, aren't we? No one gets out of here alive, last I heard.

I'm not sure I read your letter right. Do you mean that 'climate control' efforts will make our prospects for survival better, all 7 billion of us, or do you mean that the desire for survival is what drives such efforts, whehther they can have such a result or not (most likely not), depending on how much the climate really is or isn't subject to our efforts one way or another...?

I think we must think of the future. We cannot have the extrapolated result of uncontrolled breeding of those 7 billion. We must find a way to hit the brakes, all of us, not just those in the North-western part of the World and places like Japan. We must all follow China and have a one-child policy for at least a couple of generations to set things straight. And we must stop thinking of neigboring countries as not yet conquered territory. Those of us who think that way. We all know who that would be. That is the imperative for any kind of a future.

Yes, it will be wrenching for the culture and the economy and all we know now. This is why I think it can only be brought about by reforming the great religions to the purpose. What Wabbit hole? The enormity of the task did not make the guys who met in Nicaea in 325 go pale around the gills! Are we more lame than they were? They had no problem rolling up their sleeves and thoroughly cook the book to fit the new agenda. Compare to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library to see to what extent it was re-shaped.

So yes, we must recruit lots of 'harmonized' missionaries. Or maybe just 'one to control them all'. How about talking to Eckhart Tolle or some type like him? Or, how about looking closer at 'the church of all worlds' courtesy of Robert Heinlein? In a time where a measurable proportion of people in several countries put down 'jedi' as their religion, whether in fun or not, all things are possible!

Dorothy - you're not in Kansas anymore!

Dorthy declares:
"I understand scientific principles very well."

You've demonstrated no such understanding in your treatment and casual dismissal of the climate change science.

Dorothy says:
"I am not convinced [of the science on climate change], because I haven't seen anything to convince me."

In other words, you've never read the science. That you haven't seen anything to convince you is really an empty statement.

More Dorothy:
"Your rhetorical tidbits from gurus, who are neither scientists nor environmentalists"

Excuse me? Dr Andrew Weaver not a scientist? Professor Weaver is a climate scientist in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and a lead author of a chapter on Global Climate Projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" - Weaver has been named a Guggenheim Fellow, a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a member of the Order of British Columbia. I'm only laying all this out to illustrate your ignorance, more than illustrate Weaver's authority on the topic.

Dorothy continues:
"Like all other sermons, they don't convince me."

If you want a convincing sermon, go to your nearest place of worship. If you're truly serious about the science of climate change, then go directly to the source (IPCC). You're mantra, "they don't convince me" - I'm afraid does not qualify as a scientific counter-argument.

Science has done its job on climate change. The mostly PR hacks who have moved from big tobacco to big oil to craft clever denials of the science are doing a splendid job of convincing and hoodwinking people like you that human caused global warming is actually open to scientific debate.

Alternative Copenhagen conferences – an overview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo1MYWUSKHY&feature=player_embedded

You're not contradicting me here, you know...

"You're mantra, "they don't convince me" - I'm afraid does not qualify as a scientific counter-argument."

But then I'm not trying to present one. First and foremost because science of the kind we are occupied with here does not build on 'argument', but on data. Secondly, you may remember that this was a reply to how the scientists had done an excellent job of 'educating the public'. Well I am a member of the public. That public which you and others like you are castigating for our ingorance and lack of insight. Your recommendation "If you're truly serious about the science of climate change, then go directly to the source (IPCC)" is not to the point. You are the ones who want to see something change, and claim it to be necessary; therefore, the burden of proof lies with you. You won't see things change by dumping on your audience and the more you do so, the more you are admitting that I am right: you haven't educated anyone. Maybe you should follow the example of those who have supposedly succeded in 'hoodwinking me', for, as the wise would have it: don't dwell on your own failures. Instead, study the successes of your enemy. If YOU are serious, you'll do a better job.

andrewwood

andrewwood, you give skeptics a bad name. You need to learn the difference between skepticism and ignorance.

Dr Weaver and IPCC's science is there, but you need to look at it, rather than have someone look at it for you and interpret it for you. They didn't just pull this stuff out of a hat in Kyoto. This science goes back decades, long before climate change became fashionable. However, the small vocal minority of PR spinsters non-scientists denying the decades of climate change science did truly pull their trick out of a hat in the last few years.

dorothy

"... science of the kind we are occupied with here does not build on 'argument', but on data."

You need to review the data. It has changed pretty significantly since Kyoto, and will continue to change.

"...That public which you and others like you are castigating for our ingorance and lack of insight."

You misunderstand. I am not castigating you or anyone else. I am calling you on your intellectual bluff, your constant implication that there is not enough data and science to be "convinced." Right now it's the available climate science vs. Dorthy's failure to be convinced. You can't play the 'burden of proof' card if you haven't read that proof.

"the burden of proof lies with you."

Wrong, the burden of proof lies not with me, it lies with the science. And that proof is there. You've demonstrated either an outright or willful ignorance with respect that that science. Precisely why experts like Weaver refuse to be led into false debates, which threaten to legitimize the unscientific claim that climate change is a myth, a conspiracy, and such.

Further, I'm not the one citing transcendental New Age mystics as the way to solve all our world's problems. Somewhat ironic coming from someone who is accusing climate science as just another "religion" that fails to convince you.

Denying the science on climate change is negligent, willful or otherwise, and ignorance is no excuse. I'm sorry if I lack the grace and niceties you seem to demand, but these are pressing, urgent times. People who deny climate change need to be called out and held to account. So far, you've provided not an iota of scientific data or evidence to counter the mountains of data and science that fails to convince you. Which, in my opinion, makes you little more than a sophist with a hunch. Not good enough. Neither is posting links to articles about "climate-gate" or other non sequiturs.

bakoonin_mik

do you have anything to contribute to the debate besides invective and ad hominem attacks? Please tell me where I am wrong on the scientific method. Otherwise go back to your sandbox.

Dorthy's failure to be convinced, and such

"You need to review the data."

I would probably do so if I was actively looking for information, but that really was not the starting point of my involvement here.

It is quite possible that there is a lot of data sitting somewhere that might be quite good and informative. But the problem here was, that some of the seriously minded environmentalists such as yourself were complaining about how the PR machine had worked against them, and that they could not in the presence of such an adversary win the uphill battle and gain credibility with the ‘gullible’ public. What I then pointed out was that the solution would appear to be to enter into active competition with the PR machine and do some ‘gulling’ of their own, which should be easy as pie if they had solid data to back up their claims.

That is the name of the game in the public scene. You want to be heard, you must learn to speak so people will listen. Simple. Instead, you start socking it to people in a major way:

“People who deny climate change need to be called out and held to account.”

Wow, the heavy artillery! Called out where? Held to account in accordance with what standard? And by whom?

“So far, you've provided not an iota of scientific data or evidence to counter the mountains of data and science that fails to convince you.”

I don’t have to, you still don’t get that. Not as long as “experts like Weaver refuse to be led into false debates, which threaten to legitimize the unscientific claim that climate change is a myth, a conspiracy, and such.”

Please tell me the difference between a “false debate” and a real one? Are you saying that Weaver et al could not make mincemeat out of real or ‘false’ adversaries in their own field, but have to resort to harm-avoidance? Now I’m really worried. Maybe this IS a myth, a conspiracy, and such.

“..Which, in my opinion, makes you little more than a sophist with a hunch. Not good enough. Neither is posting links to articles about "climate-gate" or other non sequiturs.”

Sophist? Maybe at times. Hunch? Hunches are good. I often follow them to my benefit, and that of others in my care. Not good enough? According to whose judgment? Yours? I see. Climate-gate is a non-sequiteur??? I don’t really think so, when you are trying to hit people over the head with the supposedly towering credentials of those who guarded that gate less than successfully.

Enough is enough. You’ve had your say, and it amounts to little more than name-calling and veiled threats, and Hel of a lot of pomposity. You suck in the PR department. And I’m doing you a big favor giving you my sophistry to cut your teeth on. I hope you’re suitably grateful.

Interesting piece, with links, in today's NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&hp

Climate Change is a side show

Climate change is not the central problem that we are facing, any anthropogenic effect on the climate is merely a result of a much bigger problem. That problem is gross overconsumption of resources by humans, so much so that were the richest societies totally eliminated, about 1 billion people, the rest would still be over consuming on average.

Dealing with climate change or any other symptom of this problem without dealing directly with the problem is a waste of time.

The climate change debate is an energy sink perpetuated to pull efforts away from fixing the consumption issue.

Those proposing solutions to climate change have no credibility unless they are demanding reduced consumption and production of everything, and reversal of economic and population growth.

For the 'record'.....

I agree with 'record'.

Copenhagen and all of the warm fuzzy composting and recycling your widgets is just a misdirection.

Earth needs fewer villagers who consume less and who find the 'equilibrium' or 'stasis' or steady state (of being!)!

Whee's the smoking gun?

GWest, your NYT article states the following in its opening remarks:

Quote

"The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said."

Very likely accurate, but certainly not news, since the globe has been warming up following "The Little Ice Age" approx 1350-1850, during which most harbours in what is now Canada and Europe froze up in winter and Europeans starved as crops failed. Nor is there any agreement re what "normal" tempeatures were BEFORE the Little Ice Age.

Furthermore, there is no argument against the fact that we are likely in the final stages of the warm-up between the Glaciations which occur cyclicly during every 100,000 years or so.(the Milankovvich Cycle)

As well, there is a considerable body of evidence which suggests that a significant factor contributing to Global Warming / Cooling is the Sunspot Cycle.

Quote

"These records suggest solar activity has returned to Medieval Solar Maximum highs after a prolonged period of reduced solar activity. Climate forcing by increased solar activity may explain some of this century's temperature rise without assuming unacceptably high climate sensitivity."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1510878h4857754/

Additionally, there is growing evidence that major ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream and the Pacific Decadal Osillation greatly influence climate. What is not known for sure is what is driving what and how.

Since even Mr Gore now claims that Anthropogenic CO2 is reponsible for only 45% of GW, it seems to me that to waste trillions of dollars on CO2 reduction, CO2 sequetration and the illusory cap and trade scam, all based upon a contrived body of highly speculative evidence, is pure lunacy and is obviously driven only by scare tactics and
political expediency.

Debatable

Quote:
Furthermore, there is no argument against the fact that we are likely in the final stages of the warm-up between the Glaciations which occur cyclicly during every 100,000 years or so.(the Milankovvich Cycle)

------------------

Actually, if I remember correctly, Professor William Ruddiman argues that we should be in an advancing Ice Age now, instead of warming, and the reason not can be attributed to anthropogenic causes.

A question about recycling

http://www.spraguephoto.com/countries/Philippines%20-%20life%20on%20a%20garbage%20dump%20Manila.lasso

If the poor in the Philippines eke out a "living" from the stuff thrown away, and if people there are suddenly seized by the light of environmentalism and no longer discard their "stuff", the poor will still be poor -- except they will no longer have even that meagre living available to them.

Has anyone at all given some thought to this particular repercussion?

dorothy

Yep! People don't much give a damn about a hypothetical future that doesn't involve them personally. There are very few actually willing to throw themselves on the proverbial grenade to save their fellow travellers.

Some distinctions are perhaps in place

"There are very few actually willing to throw themselves on the proverbial grenade to save their fellow travellers."

There is, however, still a lot one may do short of being blown to smithereens, no? I mean, last year at a trade union convention I attended, there was a guest speaker, of of these professional shamers, as in 'do you know just how guilty you are?' Indistinguishable from some clergy types I met as a child, but there was passing around of this cute little cardboard wheel, titled 'things you can do to help save the planet'. There were 16 things listed, and all of them except one has been practiced by my family as a matter of course since I don't know when, at least thirty years, and before that, where I grew up. It was all very housekeeping-oriented stuff, things that I was taught were the classy thing to do, long before 'saving the planet' was on the table. So, I am thinking that it's just a question of not doing something simply because we can and no one is looking, just a question of not being rude as a principle you understand?

Just like everywhere else, it's the attitude.

ME2

This is old ground - stuff we've been over before - which you well know.

As for Al Gore, you keep bringing him up and I never do - why is that?

If the past 10 years are the warmest on record - and that's what the article seems to suggest (along with a whole lot of additional data that seems scientifically sound) I'm more than convinced.

It also happens to mesh with my own 'personal' observations and experience. Furthermore, given the current deteriorating situation (pollution wise) I think any improvement is far from a negative outcome.

Furthermore, when a debate generates the kind of heat this one does – especially from a number of people of a particular philosophical bent with whom (your own good self and certain others obviously excepted) I almost always find myself at odds – I tend to think that there is a personal and financial agenda involved; an agenda with which I simply prefer not to identify myself with.

Therefore, while I disagree profoundly with climate change acolytes and hangers such as Gordon Campbell (and his good friend Al Gore) I do not reject what seems to be the reality of the observable and measurable changes in the world since, for example, the end of world war two….I think the world is warming up, filling up and messing up and I think we owe it to ourselves and the future to do something ‘real’ about it besides arguing the point on the web.

Therefore, as in other cases, my position having been stated, I leave the squabbling to the rest of you.

Moot Point

I do not think climate change is going to take out humanity and a large chunk of every thing else living along with it. If our current system survives long enough to threaten the climate much more than it already has - that would be a minor miracle.

Industrialized societies are teetering on the brink of collapse as we speak. Over population, over consumption, peak oil, a corrupt, fragile 'rube goldberg' globalized economy that is one environmental hiccup away from collapse...

My guess is that the trigger will be widespread famine due to drought caused by climate change.

The prospects are bleak even if you discount the threat nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons present.

Anything that cannot go on, will not go on. Our system is not just 'non sustainable', it is self destructing.

Record

Interesting hypothesis, record, but from what little I know about Swidden agriculture and broadcast burning on the Prairies, Veldt, Steppes, and Australian Outback, I have trouble reconciling dangerous CO2 buildup with "greenup" and biomass sequestration in the soils beginning 8,000 years ago.

ME2

Not quite sure what your point is. Are you referring to Ruddiman's theory that agriculture started the increase in GHGs, if only slightly?

Great Article

I feel like people think I work for Exxon too, but really I just want to make them talk about EVERYTHING, and not let the oligarchs get away with creating a commodity of carbon. Carbon is one small part of a huge picture that has been painted by the guided hand of the ruling elite.

I refuse to allow them to fill their pockets with carbon credits while mining corporations use pristine BC lakes for tailing ponds (Schedule II Amendment) to increase profits and murder activists who expose the poisoning and contamination of the environment in Mexico. While they clearcut and slash and burn in domestic watersheds and try to ruin BC rivers for "cheap and easy" private hydroelectric power generation that looks to make a profit off of climate chamge/ melting glaciers in the area!

Against Copenhagen

I am pretty foolish for criticizing M'gonigle when I have to hand in a paper to him today (please read this after the paper is marked, thanks :)

However something did come up in this that seems to be a common occurrence.. What do you propose?
I don't see many solutions here for our entire environmental needs.

Can we use the thing that scares organizations the most a *gasp* real carbon tax?
Never mind the one that passes for one here (although revenue neutral is a good idea), we need big tax on the real culprits (If the BC government didn't pony up to them to pay for the Olympics would be a start).
How about other climactic solutions for the biggest problem which is energy. 75% of world energy comes from fossil fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#cite_note-Renewables2006-2
Since biomass also produces emissions and at a higher rate then other fuels that leaves nuclear, hydro, solar heat,wind geothermal and solar photovoltaic which combined account for 10.04% of world energy production.

When I look at what it takes and what is going to be done, there is low probability of reaching the targets which we will need in time.

Hey Michael, wanna buy an organic farm, preferably high above sea level?

The solution

The only viable solution to our problem is to cut back consumption, taxes, shifting of sources, etc. will not fix the problem, though they may help. We need hard caps on the extraction, production and consumption of carbon fuels, and reduced use of everything. Those who do not have enough now to survive must get it from those that have more than they need.

More stuff to read

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

record

Thanks for the link, it is great and much needed.

dorothy

By all means, dorothy! But it would be encouraging were the things that are out of our immediate control (see G.West's last post) were addressed -- such as the poisons cast so casually into the air, soil and water, and from which we cannot reasonably escape.