Look who is talking "Conspiracy Theory" now

"A Galaxy of Excuses"

"Afraid of Answers"

Mitchell, you're the one peddling conspiracies.

You and David Icke are in the same club now.

climate warming

Well the right wing nuts are again seizing on a few lines in the article that suit their positions. I'm not a scientist but I can tell you this. I used to live in Prince George B.C.. When I was growing up in the late 40's and 50's there was talk of a return to the ice age. I remember walking to school in grade 1 in -45 F. I remember the Fraser River where it meets the Nechako River had ice piled so high under the old CN rail bridge that they had to dynamite it to free it up. I remember all the cold weather that stretched well into March. I remember going out on Halloween and plowing through snow 2 to 3 feet high. I remember ice on the outdoor rinks from early November until late March. That was every winter I can remember there until I moved away in 1972. That doesn't happen anymore. There isn't any talk of a return to an ice age instead we talk about a superheated planet that will change living conditions irreversibly. I can also tell you that until the last 3 years, all the robins returned south for the winter. Now I see them all year round here in Maple Ridge.

I think the only conspiracy is the one perpetrated by Dr. Alexander, ME2 and others of their ilk. Let me ask you this. If you hooked a CO2 pipe to a room and filled it with people, will they live? That's exactly what we are doing. We are poisoning our earth and you guys are in denial. Wake up and smell the roses while there as still some!

The Science

A lot of what you have to say is accurate, but your statements on the e-mails i have an arguement with. Maybe one e-mail was taken out of contect. Maybe even a lot more had quotes taken out of context. Thats not the big issue here. The big ger issue with it all is the outright vehemenence with witch these same so called "Scientists" tried to quash any opposing views against their so called science.

It was also the glee in their e-mails when one of their sceptic's passed away. How they openly admitted they wished he had died sooner.

They put such passion into their work to prove their science. But the problem was that they put even more passion into trying to make sure anyone who had an apposing view was never heard from.

The science is supposed to be able to stand up to scrutiny from anyone with an apposing view. It is supposed to deal with research and the conclusions reached from irrifutable facts, based on your research.

When you throw away or manipulate the facts and push an Agenda, you should no longer refer to yourself as a Scientist. You have now lost that credibility. What you have to say now no longer holds any weight.

That is the bigger issue of the e-mails. That is more of what they represent. And i don't think we should be wasting billions upon billions of dollars until a real debate on the issue can be had. Where both sides a heard from.

Excellent Analysis

People still will take it as gospel and spout the "Denier" word when they refuse to even listen to the other side of the issue. Just call everyone a denier. How simple it is.

Of course, the people you call deniers are the ones saying give us both sides of the issue. not just one side. Let us make a decision.

Didn't the "esteemed" Mr Mann himself have to step down while these e-mail issues are being investigated. You know, i have not heard any word on him actually denying any of these things they say were in their e-mails.

So who are the real deniers here? The ones who want a debate on the issue or the ones who want none?

This is a classical case of

This is a classical case of "We don't want the facts to get in the way of a good story".

It just goes on and on and on...

From the article above:

"While this is a very big deal, it does NOT remotely suggest that climate change is a hoax. For evidence of that, you don't need a satellite, you can look out your kitchen window.

Sea ice is disappearing from the arctic so fast it could be gone forever in as little as 30 years. The Met Office predicts 2010 may be the hottest year on record and that this decade was the hottest ever "by far".

Yadda, yadda!

Does the writer know that the no longer esteemed Met Office is about to lose its contract with the BBC after yet another gaffe? First last year was going to be toasty and now this winter was supposed to be toasty too. Wrong.

Met Office admits they botched snow warning

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/met-office-admits-they-botched-snow-warning/

Now another crack in whack!

January 20, 2010
UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

They originally got this from one guy in Delhi. It was just his opinion and not based on ANY studies!

The Met Office is completely discredited.

http://www.viprasys.org/vb/f150/met-offices-longer-term-forecasts-criticised-333494/

Don't blame it on the weather, blame it on the computers:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152405/Met-Office-computer-blamed

The Chinese are watching and when they are convinced that the IPCC is nothing but a humongous scam factory for ideologues and unemployable washed-up academics they will just pump out more crap and the planet may suffer as a result. The phony IPCC is HURTING the planet with it's scamming!

Latest mass mea culpa:

"The UN climate change panel said "the chair, vice-chairs, and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-01/20/content_9351678.htm

If they can still sell this warming crap they deserve some kind of prize.

Excellent Analysis

Only a Zeolot for climate change would go so far as to say that driving to the corner store to buy milk is what will destroy the planet... Thats the kind of arguement that leaves me sitting here shaking my head.

But seeing as how you have not moved into your cave yet, you are still living in your home, with internet connections and heat, you obviously don't practice what you preach.

If the planet is in that bad a shape, that driving to the store is going to doom us all very soon, then please, do your part and go live in your cave. Quit your job ( fossil fuels are burned somewhere in your life) and send out smoke signals to get your message across. Obviously you are too far gone to be reasoned with.

And on it goes

It seems we now have the great planet saver ( who has made multi millions from this already for himself) Mr. Al Gore, now appoligizing for the claims he made at Copenhagen.

As each great planet saver falls, and ends up having to appolagize for using false data to press their claims, another brick gets removed from the climate change wall.

The irony of it all is that they are tearing down that wall themselves. Who will be next to remove a brick?

Polarized Debate

At least you seem to be ok with having a debate reef.... Too many don't want to have that debate.

The funny part is that the people pushing the climate change "Crisis" are the ones making the multi millions of dollars off of it.

Al Gore, who is preaching total planetary destruction if we don't get in to cap and trade, set up his own company trading carbon credits that will probably make him a billionaire before the next decade is out. So that begs the question of where exactly his true feelings lie.

Also, wasn't the biggest early propent of the cap and trade system "Enron". Now there is a name we should all remember.

But more to your very own point, without the fanatacism of the world is going to end in 10 years if we don't all go live in caves and stop our polluting, if we are wondering how much we are going to be putting CO2 into the atmosphere over the next couple of hundred years, then will that problem not be solved of its own accord by then?

If the oil reserves in the world are expected to be depleted within the next 100 years at maximum, then i assume that well before then we would have to have other new sources of energy available or discovered by then, otherwise this world will go back to the dark ages like the flip of a switch. After all, oil is a "Non-Renewable" resource. It will run out.

Given the possibility of this scenerio, will not the total output of CO2 into the atmosphere drop down to near zero by that time. Just wondering.....

"This Satellite Could Help Save Humanity"

Really?

It appears that humanity can't save humanity!

Hmmmm! kind of a strange reaction for a right winger.

Don't see how you can accuse Gore of being anthing but and investor who puts his money where his mouth is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

Not much that's hypocritical there, in my view.

I don't like the guy or his sales pitchman style much either, but you can hardly call him a piker.

If the next 20 years see as much degradation of the environment as the last 20 have we're going to be in a lot of trouble...

The first paragraph of that email is as follows

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).

strange reaction

It has nothing to do with being right wing or left wing G-West, It has to do with listening to both sides and deciding where you stand after that.

But with climate change, you don't get that. Just look at Booker's comment above. It's alway's ends up with the word "Denier" in regards to anyone who may have a different opnion.

If you want to know and hear both sides, then you are some big bad denier..... When you hear that kind of arguement, whats the point...

They must have worked

They must have worked long and hard over the holidays on this one. Still trying to prove that pigs can fly

Wrong Assuptions

It is unlikely we could double atmospheric CO2 by our measly additional 3% a year.Most importantly the lifespan of CO2 is only 5 years. It gets recycled into plant matter and sequestered in the ocean at a constant rate as shown in a recently published paper.

"Controversial new climate change results

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

There is no danger from CO2 and if warmed a bit, we'd be better off for it. The Earth greened up 6% during the last 25 years.

My main question here is why is it impossible to get a comment on climate stemming from other than the climate cabal here at The Tyee. Desmogblog isn't exactly a neutral source of info and it is pretty funny to read an article blaming the instruments for giving the wrong readings because reality doesn't conform to the climate models.

God, I can't wait for this nonsense to be over and done with so we can pay attention to real problems.

No it doesn't Steppeup

I'm more than happy to listen to both sides - I wasn't objecting to anything other than your facetious claim that Gore was doing something wrong by investing in what he happens to believe in.

God knows, if he invested in Enron he must have taken a bath on that one.

The point is simply that you were just throwing mud.

As for the right-wing reference - that WAS for you, I think you are a right winger and, on form, there's usually nothing wrong - from a right wing point of view - with folks investing in stocks, bonds and other venture capital operations to make a profit.

Now me, I'm a left winger and I don't invest in the stock market for ethical reasons.

I think people should build productive enterprises which make real things and employ real people.

Gore ain't my kind of guy - but I'm not going to attack him any harder than I would Bill Gates

About whom, btw, I heard a joke the other day:

Q: What's the difference between God and Bill Gates?

A: God doesn't think he's Bill Gates!

I meant assumption

Worth reading as an antidote to the spin.
Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (Volume 1) (Paperback)

~ Steven Mosher (Author), Thomas W. Fuller (Author)

"Steve McIntyre struggle for years to get accurate data out of the hands of an elite team of scientists in England and the U.S., only to be stymied by continued refusals and runarounds. At the beginning the data concerned work highlighted by your host, Anthony Watts, about the fidelity of the temperature records here in the United States. Later, it revolved around the data used in construction of proxy temperature records, such as the Hockey Stick Chart, now infamous for shoddy analysis and poor sample selection. Climategate, written by Steve Mosher and Tom Fuller, is an account of the events leading up to the leaking of over 1,000 emails and assorted files that exposes the unethical and perhaps illegal practices used by the Hockey Stick Team to protect their turf as well as their information. These rock star scientists dined with the elite and feasted on government grants, but it was all predicated on ‘hiding the decline:’ Making sure no-one saw how shaky their data, analysis and conclusions actually were. Hide the decline didn’t refer to temperatures–it was worse. It was a decline in the quality of their data they were trying to hide. This book puts it all into context–and in context it is worse. Mosher actually played a small part in bringing the details to light (although your zany moderator Charles the First was more instrumental), and Fuller covered the story for examiner.com from day one of the scandal. Here’s an excerpt: “In Chapter 6 we introduce the Army of Davids that will start the laborious process of documenting all the surface stations in the US. McIntyre starts dissecting the Jones 1990 paper and his intense focus on individual cases finds a sympathetic ear in Anthony Watts, who launches an even more detailed look at individual cases in the US. Discussions about UHI and data and code turn from a focus on Jones 1990 to a focus on NASA and their GISSTEMP code, which is eventually released."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/18/climategate-the-crutape-letters-now-online-at-amazon-com/

Right Wing

That would be me..as a general rule... and why wouldn't Gates think he was God, after all, we keep giving him all our hard earned money...... I had to get the wife a Microsoft Office program for the computer the other day, i got the cheap one for $170.00..... No wonder.... hahahahahaha

Steppeup

Free yourself - install Unix OS and all the office and word processing tools you could ever need are available on open source and free...and for gosh sakes get rid of IE if you're still using it - Firefox and Google both hae better options.

If the DSCOVR satellite can save humanity and only needs money

Then perhaps IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajenda Pachauri and his intimates at TERI can cough up the cash. They are in it for the good of humanity. So they say. Best if they could do it before the Himalayan glaciers melt in 2035. Har!

Actually, seeing how the IPCC is running things under the chairmanship of Dr. Pachauri, I would suggest they replace him Karlheinz Schrieber. Karlheinz seems to have a better grasp of the importance of documenting facts and keeping good notes.

Anyhow folks. The junkets and media attention are coming to an end. The wheels are coming off the AGW wagon. Hopefully, we can devote our attention to things such as saving our native salmon runs and reducing our production and exposure to pba and estogen-mimicking hormones and the like.

Computer Operating Systems?

Unix is alright, however, my favourite is still BeOS.

If Bill Gate's mother wasn't on the Board of Directors of IBM, we would have never had to suffer the ravages of Microsoft.

Let's talk about the role of goverments

For those of you who have forgotten IPCC stands for
InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

This has been a government sponsored scam from the beginning. An estimated $79 Billion has been spent by governments and the funding continues.
Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus
A case study in one job 'saved.'

"More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

Mr. Mann is the creator of the famous hockey stick graph, which purported to show some 900 years of minor temperature fluctuations, followed by a spike in temperatures over the past century. His work, which became a short-term sensation when seized upon by Al Gore, was later discredited. Mr. Mann made the climate spotlight again last year as a central player in the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which showed climatologists massaging data, squelching opposing views, and hiding their work from the public."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html

Worse, they fund the NGOs who lobby them and agitate for lunatic laws and regulations
and say it's "policy".

WORLD NEWS
TAXPAYERS FOOT BILL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CAMPAIGNERS

BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.

The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe – more than half the pressure group’s 2009 budget.

The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas insisted that the groups’ aims and objectives were in tune with EU policy.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners

Now tell me all about how "Big Oil" is warping things.

AGW's.....

....are much like those people who wander out into the bay, wondering where all the water suddenly went.......

mopled

"God, I can't wait for this nonsense to be over and done with so we can pay attention to real problems."

"We"???

You only post on this one topic. You ignore every other topic at the Tyee.

its a meme

I can remember when - only a couple of years ago - when only myself and Mopled questioned GW, and were summarily dealt with by extremely rude invective - ad hominum attacks. Since it was you, GWest, a poster I'd come to respect, who gleefully joined in with the crowd in the scurrilous ganging up on him, I started to give credibility to the various links he went to such efforts to post while ignoring the kindergarten invective you folks poured upon him. Thanks, Mopled, for hanging in there.

During the last Forty years one observation I've made - one in which I've come to place complete trust - is that when people resort to ad hominum argument and apply Political Correctness to enforce their pet project, it that such is ALWAYS to avoid answering charges re their own false data, or to avoid constructive challenges to their critic's data.

I saw this first in the environmental anti-logging propaganda, and then in the pro-FN campaigns, and now see the unaddressed issues now coming to the fore to haunt their proponents.

A similar set of circumstances illustrating "The Law of Unintended Consequences" will increasingly come to light as proponents who push the Precautionary Principle far, far beyond its intended use. Their irrational reasoning, based upon the self-serving "The End Justifies The Means" will, like the dishonesty already mentioned, also blow-back upon their credibility.

An example of where such purely faith-based reasoning can lead one astray is seen where the unwary enviros and GWers instantly embraced the concept of carbon taxation. This is most evident in the Cap and Trade scam, wherein Corporations can "pay" for their production of CO2 by being "forced" to plant a carbon equivalent in CO2-gathering plant biomass in Third-world countries "desperately in need of investment"

So what happens in the reality of this game-playing? First, the companies bribe gov'ts to allow them to force subsistence farmers off land they'd traditionally worked for millennia - but without "legal" title. Then they plant crops like ceeal grains, rice and sugar cane, and the value of these products as biofuels drive food prices to the peasant out of sight, PLUS yielding a nice profit to the companies.

more below

its a meme

The so-obvious yet purposely unaddressed flaw buried in this AGW mess was linked by Mopled in one of his earliest posts. Irrespective of any flawed data, to date NO-ONE has produced a testable model which can verify the assertion that CO2 is a candidate for a serious greenhouse gas. One does nave to be a scientist to understand why.

The simple and often stated fact is that Climate science is barely into its infancy. Beyond the not insubstantial fact that it complicated by the mysteries of Chaos Theory, we are still unaware of how - though we know it does - the variety of ways the Sun drives our climate.

In short, the AGW / CC theory has become a meme, self-sustaining without supportive evidence.

correction to "meme" above

last sentence should read "In short, the AGW / CC theory has become a meme, self-sustaining without < needing > supportive evidence."

Just an idea....

Instead of this article focusing on the personalities via the e-mails, why did it not focus on the REAL evidence, the globally used computer programs, especially the one at the CRU in East Anglia? "HARRY READ ME is the climate program designed to eliminate all evidence of any temperature declines from all climate model computers. This in itself is indisputable, incontestable evidence which all on its own settles not only the colicy infant "science" question but, more to the point, HARRY READ ME solidifies the fact that this corporate greased fringe science has for decades been systematically infiltrated- (in much the same manner as this or any climate topic blog has been). Climategate revealed for once & for all that much of what passes for climate science operates by using paid science trolls. Sound far fetched? Try to remember that paranoia about the truth is now considered normal. For example: Obama counters his own emerging growing unpopularity by openly announcing that he intends to use trolls to spy on any climate (or other) dangerous "dissident" websites guilty of suspecting any political conspiracies. They never seem to learn that s/he who uses character attacks & specious invective only aids & abets scepticism. And if certain blog moderators don't care to see themselves as cheap hacks, as tawdry, "for hire" blog mercenaries, or as distasteful disinfo blog trolls? Well, too bad. Getting the genie back behind the climate gate is well nigh impossible now. And this tells us why the world at large is fast overcoming its appocoholic fear of change addiction & is in recovery mode at last, no longer taking seriously ANY of this politicized purchased junk science, end of story.
Mopled is a kind of modern day hero, not to mention one with the patience of a saint. And the resident trolls who live under the climate bridge know who they are. Methinks they doth protest too much

Give a monkey a Stradivarius

his chances of making music are no better than with a fiddle.

Seriously, the article really boils down to the lame excuses made by underperforming technicians, artists, athletes and others:

"It's not me, it's my equipment that is at fault"

Folks, there is plenty of good equipment and observation platforms to provide usable data. There must be, the IPCC inasmuch tells us so with their certainties of impending disaster (tongue-in-cheek on this statement).

The problem lies with elements such as interpretation, assumption, publication bias, funding bias, bias due to financial ties, politics and scientific dishonesty.

Until those problems are dealt with, then any money spent on sending DSCOVR into space is just money down the rat hole and can be better spent elsewhere.

The argument that DSCOVR can help save humanity has the same effect on me as someone saying to me " the cheque is in the mail".

Nice try Folks. The weather is not climate, and a satellite is not science.

Nope!

Mopled is a kind of modern day hero, not to mention one with the patience of a saint.

NOT

He's one trick pony who cares deeply about a single thing - that he gets to hang onto his own shekels and keeps them from being spent on anything that might actually benefit anyone BUT himself.

He knows nothing about science and persists in posting the exact same stories, spun thirteen different ways from Sunday, every time any story with climate-change implications pops up here at Tyee.

[OFFENSIVE COMMENTS DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

To Add To GWest's Astute Observation Above:

EVERYONE who insists nothing can or need be done to ameliorate climate change (currently in the form of warming) is ONLY interested in getting through this life (preferably in comfort and style) and to hell with anyone else - a typical rightista stance.

Talking about Observations...

"Canadian weather data being ignored, researchers allege

By Richard Foot, Canwest News ServiceJanuary 21, 2010

Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada. Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer (for measuring) everything north of latitude 65 degrees."

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadian+weather+data+being+ignored+researchers+allege/2466343/story.html

After all, northern Canada is only a few million square miles of territory and only about a quarter of the planet's Arctic. So what, cold is just - cold. And when you're hot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzewk-FMgS0

Talking about Astute

"they "misread 2350 as 2035". "

Lighten up! What's a few hundred years between friends? Anyway, I like this gig. Do you guys always have to be right about everything?

"India criticises UN warning on Himalayan glacier melt "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8467480.stm

realisticman

"Anyway, I like this gig. Do you guys always have to be right about everything?"

Yep, we do, otherwise Soleprobe's elitist fascist gatekeepers kick us out of the commune after crushing our throats with their iron heels.

ME2

mopled wasn't alone back then. Have you forgotten about Truman Green and the woman whose handle I can't remember now but was quite vexed about this issue and 911?

And the fact is I haven't treated mopled badly, I've given him the respect he's due in spite of constantly being called "gatekeeper" and a number of other names.

But when a person ignores everything that others write, refuses to answer their questions and instead keeps posting the same articles from the same people in response one does indeed get a little miffed.

Its like having an argument with a butterfly. There's seemingly no intelligent flight path, just random movements.

mopled isn't a scientist, I'm not either. I admit it but
mopled thinks anyone that isn't a scientist posting on the subject is a "gatekeeper", except for himself.

Although we can argue the numbers the overall facts are pretty clear. Keep polluting our living space and our society will eventually collapse. Keep having more babies than the environment can support and you will exhaust your resources.

These are pretty simple concepts and I find that those who spend their time trying to stand logic on its head and prove black is white or white is black have an agenda.

Psychological analysis RickW?

"we see in others what we fear the most in ourselves"

Not so fast

Frank, after I was told in April of 2008 I would be allowed only 2-3 comments a day because I "strangle the conversation", I began to think of the Tyee as a grandchild of Operation Mockingbird.

Real pollution and CO2 are very different things and the AGW pushers refuse to notice the difference. Very unscientific and a clear example of the white is black agenda being run by the creatures who pretend to be green.

G.West's comments are really offensive but are allowed to stand. I'm certain similar comments by me would be held to a different standard.

When one can't refute what the person says, attack character and motivation. None of you know doodly-squat about me, yet you assume I have "rightist" leanings and am selfish because I insist on posting articles which expose the fraud.

Maybe I just don't like government sponsored scams

Look at the pretense that I keep posting "same old stories" when what I posted yesterday were both published this week and the latest scientific paper I noted was published in November...brand new, but obviously unwelcome news for the Alarmist claque. It is harder to make a case that humans will cause a thermogedon by CO2 production when there has been no change in the proportion of CO2 naturally sequestered and the portion that remains in the atmosphere for over the whole time since 1850. Couple that with the clear evidence that higher levels of CO2 follow warming instead of causing it and the idea should have been still-born.

The information posted by realisticman should give a truthful person cause for alarm. The Russian data was supposedly unavailable because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.(turns out that wasn't true) What was the excuse for not including Canadian data?

The argument of "what if it is real" makes little sense given the "solution" proposed will make no difference except to the bank accounts of the already filthy rich...Gore, Strong, Pachauri and Goldman Sachs...all heavily involved in carbon trading. Oh, I almost forgot that paragon of virtue, George Soros who wants government to guarantee his investments in the scam will pan out..

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-15/soros-says-u-s-needs-carbon-cap-to-unlock-clean-energy-finance.html

That is the reason this zombie science keeps walking. The elite have too much to loose. So do the people who depend on handouts from foundations which fund the disinformation.

mopled

"G.West's comments are really offensive but are allowed to stand. I'm certain similar comments by me would be held to a different standard."

I don't think that would be the case. Have you read anything by soleprobe? The person doing the moderating is only human, not a computer, and can't be 100% fair all the time. Geez, I used to think Elliot and Wilf got away with stuff I could never do and Luke certainly got away with a big one. But Elliot did eventually get banned.

"When one can't refute what the person says, attack character and motivation."

Which you've done to me on numerous occasions.

"None of you know doodly-squat about me, yet you assume I have "rightist" leanings and am selfish because I insist on posting articles which expose the fraud."

Actually you have posted personal stuff long ago back when we were still on the same side but I sincerely wish you the best. If you told me you won the lottery yesterday I would be sincerely happy for you. I swear I have absolutely nothing against you personally.

And on the subject of carbon credit trading, cap and trade, carbon taxes and so on, I don't disagree with you. But you ignore the fact we agree a scam is a scam.

But on the subject of CO2, changing climate and so on on the one side you have the majority of scientists and, importantly, common sense, and on the other you have data that you say disproves the argument that we have a problem.

I'm not a scientist, I can't judge your data. But the idea that burning fossil fuels doesn't hurt our environment even though burning those same fossil fuels would kill us if we were in an enclosed space, makes no sense to me.

Offensive

What are you talking about? I referred to the fact someone had called you a 'saint'. Here, let me quote it for you again... Mopled is a kind of modern day hero, not to mention one with the patience of a saint…

I suggested that this kind of hagiography was both ill-considered and inaccurate.

Furthermore, I recall several conversations from times gone past when I made the effort to actually question both your 'scientific' CV and the main reason you're against spending ANY money on the environment when you averred yourself that the only 'real' problem you had was with the fact it might cost you some money.

Anyway, referring to self-admitted characteristics is hardly 'offensive' and, in the end, who cares?

As I've said before, the real value of arguing on the internet is on a par with competing in the special Olympics - even if you win, most people still recognize that you're retarded.

No offence Mopled, If I had two dollars for every time someone said something personal and offensive about me I'd retire and do nothing BUT post on the internet.

Because we are not in an enclosed space

And the noxious fumes from burning gasoline are taken care of by catalytic converters. That's why Vancouver has Aircare and coal burning plants have smokestack scrubbers.

Taking the tack of "I'm not a scientist, I can't judge your data." sure doesn't prevent you from making ex cathedra statements about what you claim to know nothing about...including your assumption of a closed system and "the majority of scientists:

From 2007:
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while the IPCC claim the majority endorse the theory.

http://www.dailytech.com Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm

I'd really be interested to know what personal information I have divulged that would cause anyone to accuse me of being a shill for Big Oil...very common, or as here, as selfish, because I refuse to uphold something that is increasingly clear a criminal enterprise.

My happiness that the scam is falling apart knows no bounds. Those who continue to defend it, in light of the revelations of wrong-doing, will in the end be repudiated by the public.

U.N. abandons Copenhagen deadline – countries not signing on – spokesman says the deadline has gone “soft”
20 01 2010

The COP15 balloon appears to have lost all it’s air. Nobody’s signing up.

Excerpts from reports in the Guardian and the Financial Times
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/u-n-abandons-copenhagen-deadline-countries-not-signing-on/

mopled

"Taking the tack of "I'm not a scientist, I can't judge your data." sure doesn't prevent you from making ex cathedra statements about what you claim to know nothing about...including your assumption of a closed system and "the majority of scientists:"

And your not being a scientist certainly doesn't stop you from making sweeping statements that the data is rigged, that its all a massive conspiracy, that CO2 emissions are good for the environment, that there's been no change in the climate of northern Canada over the last few decades, that the world's militaries that are planning for climate-based wars are wrong, that catalytic converters have fixed our emission problems and so on.

Sorry, I must have entered the wrong room

And here I thought this blog comment section might have been about the now internationally recognized & legally exposed trillion dollar global scam (no, not the fake pandemic one, & no, not the Wall Street one, I mean the other one, the carbon fleecing, carbon credit default swaps & derivatives, carbon based life forms scam, the one that taxes the little guy for exhaling). Albeit this one has one clear message, "Just treat us like political priests & believe us, as those who you think you elected, no matter what absurdity we tell you, no matter how much of your taxes we throw at this or that fiction. In return we will "take care of you", oh, & of course save the planet, not too tall an order for insider globalists, so not to worry". I thought this blog might have been about enjoying the now clearly exposed warmageddon scam masquerading as an excuse to impose international governance, with its overweeningly selective fear focus, its billions of dollars in tax funded budgets, & its lobbyist fed & guaranteed annual trillion dollar incomes, assured by manufacturing hysterical, "fear based" concern about the unnaturalness of nature and the threat of natural climate change. Seems I was wrong. Climate seems to only be an excuse for the same old blog shows of testosterone dominance, bullying, reassertion of the blog pecking order, & general random chimp faeces throwing. In other words, I accidentally mistook this for a respectful setting which tolerates & even embraces different points of view. In fact, it seems that this blog is filled with monopolists who in every way mimic the climate scam itself, chest beating, and all. Nice work if you can get it.

Mia, where, exactly

And where, exactly, Mia did anyone say you couldn't hold another point of view?

If you think suggesting someone (someone you like apparently) is a saint - or a near saint then maybe you should recognize that the people who disagree with that 'saint' and you might not be convinced that you're interested in a constructive discussion either.

Think about it. As for the claim that those who think climate change is nothing to worry about are white knights spending their own money, that's hardly supportable...any more than the suggestion that there aren't a lot of neo conservatives who think the 'right' kind of world government is something they'd be happy to live with.

No one's beating their chests and one man's fiction - in the realm of public opinion - can often qualify as another man's fact...

You're the only one throwing monkey shit my friend; and that's too bad because you might have something interesting to say.

Cheers.

Gee, West

Thanks for the back handed, condescending "compliments", my fav.
I'm out of here.
I gotta go clean off the soles of my shoes.
I expect you will pick up your cheque at the usual drop.

Mia

We had to change the usual drop location because soleprobe discovered it while moving through the city in full camo hunting us gatekeepers..

Short 'n sweet thanks

As a silent observer, until now, much thanks to mopled, realisticman, & me2 for your collective modest role in bringing to the freighted subject the disinfectant of natural sunlight, for using even handed, respectful restraint, for foregoing the goading & the sarcasm, & for shining the reality based light of day on to conflated, fear laced, guilt mongered politicized topics like "man kills planet, elected man saves it by killing planet killing man" and other grimm fairy tales. Too bad too many others may have been intimidated into silence or have left the nasty room, or both. Credentialed shills are how humanity at large got sucked into this version of the Big Lie in the first place. Read THE GREEN AND THE BROWN. Hitler used the entire faux Rousseau green gambit with enormous short term success, seamlessly merging greenshirt selective human species culling with brownshirt fascist rigidity & hatred. And we can see just how that one turned out. It is those who truly have nothing to gain & who ignore profit who can & do get us back out OF THE BIG LIE leg hold traps into which too many too often fall, fear first.
As for the ever present multi persona blog vampire doomed to lurk in the shadows, I recommend studied indifference. It is a parasitic creature & has no actual life of its own.

These weren't 'your' words?

Climate seems to only be an excuse for the same old blog shows of testosterone dominance, bullying, reassertion of the blog pecking order, & general random chimp faeces throwing

If I'm mistaken you have my apologies...however, I think that it's someone else who should be apologizing.

Know what I mean?

I was wondering how long before someone started calling 'me' a fascist....nice stuff!

Bye now!

Mia

You've cottoned on quickly to the tenor of the diatribe here by those gatekeepers that imagine they see everything clearly through their militant glasses. It took me much longer than you. Any issue at hand is generally, in itself, irrelevant. Debate is a risk with a possible downside for them so they doggedly sloganeer in unison and raise their invective at any contrarian comment that might imperil their clique, in the hope they will expunge any stain upon their general gospel.

r'man

Tell the truth, in a previous life you were a Baptist preacher weren't you? I'm right aren't I?

Mia, r'man, mopled and whoever else

Tell you what, go get 50 of your closest friends to come over and help even up the odds.

More on the Meme

Right from the very start, I’ve found this Climate debate emotionally stressful, since the majority of my opponents here are Lefties like myself, sharing in almost every case the same Social concerns. My reticence to bitterly attack them as I do the neacons is the result of knowing that we differ only in how we interpret the same information, though not in our general overview. My beef with them derives from the knowledge that their practice in interpretation is driven by their hearts more than cold logic. Since I know that GWest ‘Walks his talk” – and I’m sure he’s far from alone – by actively participating in such as soup kitchens and other social/environmental causes, I offer criticism of his and other’s opinions re AGW with considerable caution.

And so, despite their acknowledged good intentions, my primary beef with them lies in their resorting to “The End Justifies The Means” argumentation. Sure, oil is, as the famous essay asserts, “The Devil’s Excrement”. It is just as certain that the Oilcos are totally without ethical merit, and it is even more certain that oil is a major pollutant. Those certainties alone are what REALLY lies behind the push for the current Anthropogenic CO2 scam – nothing else – seemingly rendering proof unnecessary, almost redundant.

The fact that cannot be escaped, however, is that every nation today is totally dependant upon oil for our economic well-being. No nation is at all likely to give it up. Nor is there a substitute for it within the posited time-frame required other than the even more polluting coal, or the Nuke which most people oppose (wrongly, I think). The so-called “green” alternatives such as Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Geothermal, are all Blue-sky alternatives, since the time-frames required for building adequate numbers are too long – if the Warmist’s are right, besides requiring self-defeating subsidies.

At this point the fall-back argument - the fear-inducing Precautionary Principle - comes into play, prostituting an idea intended for cases where an undesirable outcome is possible, even while unlikely. Such a case might be seen where gas mains running under streets have, and so might, blow up. The Precautionary Principle is then invoked to put into place doubly and even triply redundant safety precautions, despite the cost’

Such is NOT a justifiable reason for invoking it in the case of AGW. There is no provable case that if has happened in the past, just as there isn’t one for it happening in the future. What we have here is identical to the Christian’s invocation of Hell as a deterrent to sin - CO2 :-). Belief - not proof – is all that is required.

As has been consistently pointed out here by others, it is a criminal waste of money to spend billions upon a project backed only by “maybes” when so many other things so desperately in need of fixing remain unaddressed.

Me2

I'll take that as a compliment. But one which, in fairness, I'd have to say is based upon what seems to me at least a couple of false premises.

I assume that you'll grant me the opportunity to address some of what you've said.

You allege that spending billions to address the eventuality that science claims the evidence points toward is a feckless and wasteful exercise because there are better things upon which to spend the money.

This is unfair - for two reasons:
First, because you haven't made the case in any kind of convincing way that the science is simply a 'maybe' - in fact, quite the contrary. The contra arguments to AGW are not empirical in themselves and possess a 'maybe' factor far more profound than the evidence they are meant to refute. They depend, in large part, from data that is far more tendentious, speculative and uncertain than that which is presented for the AGW side. Furthermore, the contra case depends upon the contention that the universe is exclusively a cyclical clockwork kind of thing - ie. events always repeat themselves and evidence of a thing which happened once implies that it will happen in precisely the same way again.

Second, there is no parallelism in your equation. Simply because billions would not be spent to counter AGW does not mean that the same monies would be spent on the good works we both recognize need addressing. In fact, quite the contrary.

If the world community were to recognize the need to alter its behavior in respect of addressing AGW (which I agree is a difficult, costly and not necessarily easy thing to have it do) I would suggest that such a project would make it more, not less, likely that other improbable but worthwhile and altruistic projects might be next on the agenda.

Cheers.

ME2

Very well said!

AGW is a scam, get over it.

They faked, fudged and destroyed data and now it turns out they cherry-picked the stations themselves.

"For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a link to US weatherman John Coleman’s magisterial demolition of the Great AGW Scam. I particularly recommend part 4 because that’s the one with all the meat. It shows how temperature readings have been manipulated at the two key climate data centres in the United States – the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina. (Hat tip: Platosays)

This is a scandal to rank with Climategate.

What it shows is that, just like in Britain at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature data records have been grotesquely distorted by activist scientists in order to exaggerate the appearance of late 20th century global warming. They achieved this – with an insouciant disregard for scientific integrity which quite beggars belief – through the simple expedient of ignoring most of those weather station sited in higher, colder places and using mainly ones in warmer spots. Then, they averaged out the temperature readings given by the warmer stations to give a global average. Et voila: exactly the scary “climate change” they needed to persuade bodies like the IPCC that AGW was a clear and present danger requiring urgent pan-governmental action.

The man who spotted all this is a computer programmer called EM Smith – aka the Chiefio. You can read the full report at his excellent blog. In the 70s, the Chiefio discovered, GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations.

Here’s an excellent example of this: Bolivia."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/

Links in original

It's still a scam

Even if the data was pulled from some scientists Arsehole, the zeolets will just scrape of the shite, and hold it up high and still proclaim that you can't argue with the data. It came from a scientist. It's proven.

It seems that almost every day now, we are being shown the proof that all this data really did come from someone's arse. But please, don't try to argue this point with a "believer"....

hmm!

For a newbie Steppeup, and someone who said little more than a few days ago that you were interested in substantive and constructive discussion and criticism, it hasn't taken you long to get down and dirty has it?

mopled

The "climate change isn't happening and if it is its not because of humans" set cherry picks data all the time.

They just keep coming up with this or that and throwing it at the wall to see if it will stick and if it doesn't who cares because tomorrow some guy somewhere will come up with a new theory or piece of "evidence" and you and the Fraser Institute will hail him as the new messiah.

It would take too much time to go through all the stuff like sun spots, other planets, changes in the magnetic field, Greenland 1,000 years ago, temperature gauges set near Wal-Mart heating vents and so on that your side comes up with and then gradually abandons. But the end result is the same.

Add to that the over-the-top hyperbole that some of you (I'm looking at you Mia) come up with calling us gatekeepers, advocates of eugenics, fascists and so on when you're not telling us to kill ourselves if we really think humans are the cause and you still wonder why I don't take you seriously?

Besides, Copenhagen is dead. Your side won. Frank Stronach and Al Gore haven't been declared Terra's first kings.

It's still a scam

Not when every day another headline appears showing data being fudged..... And each new headline shows a more blatent distortion of the facts than the last one.

Now it is just taking data from "warm" location weather stations, and ignoring or dropping any data from cold areas. No wonder it is so easy to show warming.

How many more headlines need to come out, how much data needs to proven as being manipulated, before anyone will say "hold on here" something is not right. But no, it is still the same old arguement that you can't argue with the data.....after all, it's proven, you know....

Dr. A

Ah....a rightista responds!

I shall henceforth refer to you as Sally Brown.....
"All I want is what I... I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share"

UN IPCC?

You have to be some freak with the conscience of a hamster to promote scams that come out of this bankster founded, blood-soaked criminal gang called the UN with all their other hodgepodge of acronyms.

Or someone who lost their job selling overpriced and expired lottery tickets to poor pensioners and needed a similar gig.

errata

Oops! I dun make error! AGW - not as anthropogenic global warming, but AGW - as ANTI-global warming! My bad............

However, as Lucy van Pelt was wont to say: "I never made a mistake in my life. I thought I did once, but I was wrong."

I suppose I ought to refer to climate change deniers as AGWaD's. I rather like the sond of that.

DEAR MOPLED, ME2, REALISTICMAN

Just passing through & wanted to postscript: Virtual CLIMATE reality troll caves don't hold a candle to the real thing. It is gorgeous, really beautiful, sunny, refreshingly cold, a classic late winter day outdoors. Leave these inmates to run the virtual asylum. Then, AFTER the sun has set, go on line & catch up on the latest real world news, the exponentially growing expose of climate lies & carbon cheating is "virtually" everywhere! Such delightful fun. Read the real legal ramifications & the inescapable hard facts story of Carbongate which is exploding out there: Doomed Planet
“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/12/12/carbongate-the-great-carbon-heist/
Scandal between the covers
January 19, 2010
The first book on the Climategate scandal has just been published - Climategate: The CRUtape Letters by Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller

From the publishers
https://www.createspace.com/3423467

The Climategate scandal covered from beginning to end - from ‘Hide the Decline’ to the current day. Written by two authors who were on the scene - Steven Mosher & Tom Fuller - Climategate takes you behind that scene & shows what happened and why.

For those who have heard that the emails were taken out of context - this provides that context & shows it is worse when context is provided.

For those who have heard that this is a tempest in a teacup - we show why it will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change.

And for those who have heard that this scandal is just ‘boys being boys’ - well, boy. It’s as seamy as what happened on Wall Street.

AND..
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/ecology-and-compulsion
Ecology and compulsion
by Justin Jefferson
January 10, 2010
Even assuming that ecological viability itself were in issue, it is still entirely unjustified & unjustifiable to jump to a conclusion that government is able to centrally plan the ecology & the economy, by bureaucratic command-and-control.

sail the Northwest Passage soon

Among all this philosophical wrangling, I just HAVE to point out - wouldn't leaving out temperatures taken at the poles and higher elevations get rid of the very data that clearly shows global warming? I suspect that having permafrost, glaciers, and ice floes and sheets disappearing at the rate they are means there are dramatic warming trends in these areas rather than cooling trends. Perhaps the confusion lies in what current data is being compared to what previous data?

You seem to have misunderstood the skew

Regarding strategically deleted weather observations stations from cooler areas. This is the key bait and switch move of revisionist climate data strategy.
When you remove the cold spots, the rest are going to look warmer when averaged. See? They LEFT OUT the stations, reduced the original number of 6,000 weather data stations, eliminated the cold info, got the stats down to 1,500 stations, dropped the Arctic and Mountain stations, like in Bolivia, Siberia, while the percentage of stations at warmer (meaning lower) elevations tripled, while the ones at higher (colder) elevations dropped to exactly ONE station, exactly ONE THERMOMETER LEFT NORTH OF LATITUDE 65. The Antarctic is steadily cooling and very short on stations.
In other words they got rid of the proof sourced from the colder regions by dropping any stations located in the natural freezing locations, like in RUSSIA & CANADA, like on mountain tops, like in key Arctic locations, ... So this is how they skewed the remaining data when they revised the data averaging. Big clue: They left out vast tracts of historically cold locations and then averaged warmer ones. This is about money, not climate, about keeping the money flowing to those who benefit from reorganizing how we lived, based on lies. Now? Too late. The frozen cat is out of the proverbial bag.

Just one tip

DON'T sail the Northwest passage any time soon. You will get frozen in AND DIE. Check out the data on Arctic ice reformation. Historically, as distinct from hysterically, the Northwest passage freezes, then thaws, refreezes. Despite warmist demonization of all things natural, the Arctic has its own unique rhythm. My hubbie has worked there seasonally for decades and sees this is true. While over all the Arctic warms up about every seventy years, in between everything is generally unexpected, from tundra to ice roads and back again, frigidly cold yet with great stretches of water, selective melt from so many undersea volcanoes, or, as in 2007, when the ice disappeared, turns out the ice was driven out of the Arctic by wind. We know almost NOTHING about how climate works, the corrupt Hansenesque scheme is such that they are trying to make sure we never do learn anything real. Open your eyes. Again, this is not about climate. Climate is being used as a pretext for the global plan for rearranging governance. It is a big boys game. Keep your eye on the ball, not just the players. When in doubt, ALWAYS follow the money. This is a multi billion dollar scam, and even when IRREVERSIBLY exposed - AS IS NOW HAPPENING - the mealticket holders are not going to let go easily. Or, as Lenny Bruce used to say in his stand up routine: "Even if you are caught red handed in bed with a chicken and even if your wife walks in on the two of you, DENY DENY DENY!"

PACHAURI THE MIDAS TOUCH MAN (Midas Muffler MAN?)

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal - Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html

GLACIERGATE: Part One

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

From The Sunday Times
January 17, 2010

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Jonathan Leake & Chris Hastings

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest & most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" & was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

GLACIERGATE: Part Two

The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal & it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis. "Since then I have obtained a copy & it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif." The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

GLACIERGATE: Part Three

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

GLACIERGATE: Part Four

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: "Even a small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120 metres [394ft] thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300 metres thick so to melt one even at 5 metres a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.” Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".
Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.

GLACIERGATE: Part Five

Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public. The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC's finding. He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist. Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”
Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment. The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN: CARBONGATE REDUX

CARBONGATE – Global Warming Study Censored by EPA
25
06
2009
Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management

by Richard Morrison

Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps & its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide. The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research & is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, & new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN: CARBONGATE REDUX II

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

Read the censored report here:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Mia

Ain't it "strange" though, that mammoths could remain soldily frozen for the last 5-6,000 years (or thereabouts), and the meat of which could and was, fed to huskies, and now is facing decompositon because of the melting "perma" frost?

TRUE "CON"FESSIONS: "I knew data hadn't been verified"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

GLACIER SCIENTIST: "I knew data hadn't been verified"

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers
23
01
2010
The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.

The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants.

TAWDRY SCIENCE

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

CHILLING ERROR

Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’. The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal & his team cited as their source. The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121. Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, & saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’ In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-dataverified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG
h/t to WUWT reader “Konrad”

NOT REALLY RICK

No stranger than giant old growth massively huge fossilized trees found down in the bottom of arctic mine shafts. Warm. Cold. Warm. Cold. Not climate CHANGE. Climate CHANGES.

WOOLY HEADED MAMMOTHS

Wooly mammoth species was first recorded in (possibly 150,000 years old) deposits of the second last glaciation in Eurasia.
They were derived from steppe mammoths (Mammuthus trogontherii)
It disappeared from most of its range at the end of the Pleistocene (10,000 years ago), with a dwarfed race still living on Wrangel Island until roughly 1700 BC. Most woolly mammoths died out at the end of the Pleistocene, - as a result of climate change - and human hunting pressure.
In 2008 a study conducted by the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Spain determined that warming temperatures had reduced mammoth habitat considerably, putting the woolly mammoth population in sharp decline, before the appearance of humans in their territory. Glacial retreat shrank mammoth habitat from 7,700,000 km2 (2,970,000 sq mi) 42,000 years ago to 800,000 km2 (310,000 sq mi) 6,000 years ago. Although a similarly drastic loss of habitat occurred at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, human pressure during the later warming period was sufficient to push the mammoth over the brink.
The study employed the use of climate models and fossil remains to make these determinations.

The News Hour GlacierGate Debate

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOknLq1uQiI

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SGr6Dqy4o&feature=related

GlacierGate Debate

I really liked that the two segments were listed under the comedy designation.

Both the Roman and the Medieval Warm Periods

were warmer than the piddling amount of warming that was in the 1990s.

"New Peer-Reviewed Research: Atlantic Ocean Was 2.7°C Warmer During Roman Warm Period, 2.2°C Warmer During MWP

Read here. Analyzing sediment cores from the northeast Atlantic Ocean, researchers looked back some 2,400 years. Roman and Medieval Warming peak temperatures were significantly warmer than current period, while atmospheric CO2 was substantially lower. Why was Atlantic so much warmer in past?

"pervasive multidecadal- to centennial-scale variability throughout the sedimentary proxy records can be partly attributed to solar forcing and/or variable heat extraction from the surface ocean caused by shifts in the prevailing state of the North Atlantic Oscillation," as well as to "internal (unforced) fluctuations."

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/11/new-peerreviewed-research-atlantic-ocean-was-27c-warmer-during-roman-warm-period-22c-warmer-during-m.html

I wish all you Warmists would just bother to learn a little history. How do you think the Vikings managed to last on Greenland for 400 years.

There is no question anymore. AGW is a great big fraud...so why does anybody continue to support it? That is the real question for me.

More news

News Now report on RK Pachauri conflict of interests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93DkYAC1Z90&feature=channel

Fasten Your Seatbelts

Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg

By Marc Sheppard

Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda. Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked. Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate — American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”
And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.
As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.

You Fastened IN?

NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections — some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Taken for a Ride, Now In for Quite A Drive

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.
Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.
But it gets worse.

Prior to publication, NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the cherry-picked stations’ data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant outliers, adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize” stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jive closely with the mean of its five closest “neighbors.” But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors, it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always result in warmer readings.

Take Off!

GISS – Garbage In / Globaloney Out

The scientists at NASA’s GISS are widely considered to be the world’s leading researchers into atmospheric & climate changes. And their Surface Temperature (GISTemp) analysis system is undoubtedly the premiere source for global surface temperature anomaly reports.
In creating its widely disseminated maps & charts, the program merges station readings collected from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) with GHCN & USHCN data from NOAA. It then puts the merged data through a few “adjustments” of its own.
First, it further “homogenizes” stations, supposedly adjusting for UHI by (according to NASA) changing “the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly & annual variations.” Of course, the reduced number of stations will have the same effect on GISS’s UHI correction as it did on NOAA’s discontinuity homogenization – the creation of artificial warming.

Artificial Warming

Smith cited boatloads of problems & errors he found in the Fortran code written to accomplish this task, ranging from hot airport stations being mismarked as “rural” to the “correction” having the wrong sign (+/-) and therefore increasing when it meant to decrease or vice-versa.
And according to NASA,
“If no such neighbors exist or the overlap of the rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part of the non-rural record is dropped.”
However, Smith points out that a dropped record may be “from a location that has existed for 100 years.” For instance, if an aging piece of equipment gets swapped out, thereby changing its identification number, the time horizon reinitializes to zero years. Even having a large enough temporal gap (e.g., during a world war) might cause the data to “just get tossed out.”
But the real chicanery begins in the next phase, wherein the planet is flattened & stretched onto an 8,000-box grid, into which the time series are converted to a series of anomalies (degree variances from the baseline). Now, you might wonder just how one manages to fill 8,000 boxes using 1,500 stations.
Here’s NASA’s solution: For each grid box, the stations within that grid box & also any station within 1200km of the center of that box are combined using the reference station method. Even on paper, the design flaws inherent in such a process should be glaringly obvious.
So it’s no surprise that Smith found many examples of problems surfacing in actual practice - Hawaii for starters. It seems that all of the Aloha State’s surviving stations reside in major airports. Nonetheless, this unrepresentative hot data is what’s used to “infill” the surrounding “empty” Grid Boxes up to 1200 km out to sea. So in effect, you have “jet airport tarmacs ‘standing in’ for temperature over water 1200 km closer to the North Pole.”

An isolated problem? Hardly

From KUSI’s Global Warming: The Other Side:

“There’s a wonderful baseline for Bolivia — a very high mountainous country — right up until 1990 when the data ends. And if you look on the [GISS] November 2009 anomaly map, you’ll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia. But how do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven’t measured the temperature for 20 years?” - Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world – with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Remember that single station north of 65° latitude which they located in a warm section of northern Canada? Joe D’Aleo explained its purpose: “To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory, they either have to rely on that location or look further south.”
Pretty slick, huh?

And those are but a few examples

In fact, throughout the entire grid, cooler station data are dropped and “filled in” by temperatures extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to overestimate warming…
…And convince you that it’s your fault.

Government and Intergovernmental Agencies — Globaloney In / Green Gospel Out

Smith attributes up to 3°F (more in some places) of added “warming trend” between NOAA’s data adjustment and GIStemp processing.
That’s over twice last century’s reported warming. And yet, not only are NOAA’s bogus data accepted as green gospel, but so are its equally bogus hysterical claims, like this one from the 2006 annual State of the Climate in 2005
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/bams2005/annsum07-10.pdf “Globally averaged mean annual air temperature in 2005 slightly exceeded the previous record heat of 1998, making 2005 the warmest year on record.” And as D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years.
Even when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, they’re basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAA’s warm-biased data. And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansen’s Sunday claim that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second-warmest year overall, and the Southern Hemisphere’s absolute warmest in 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, without laughing hysterically? It’s especially laughable when one considers that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year (2009) to be tied with 2006 for the fifth-warmest year on record.

So how do alarmists reconcile...

... one government center reporting 2009 as tied for second while another had it tied for fifth? If you’re WaPo’s Andrew Freedman, you simply chalk it up to “different data analysis methods” before adjudicating both NASA & NOAA innocent of any impropriety based solely on their pointless assertions that they didn’t do it. Earth to Andrew: “Different data analysis methods”? Try replacing “analysis” with “manipulation,” & ye shall find enlightenment. More importantly, does the explicit fact that since the drastically divergent results of both “methods” can’t be right, both are immediately suspect somehow elude you? But by far the most significant impact of this data fraud is that it ultimately bubbles up to the pages of the climate alarmists’ bible: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report.
And wrong data begets wrong reports, which – particularly in this case – begets dreadfully wrong policy.

It’s High Time We Investigated the Investigators

The final report will be made public shortly, and it will be available at the websites of both report-supporter Science and Public Policy Institute and Joe D’Aleo’s own ICECAP.

This from the meteorologist:

"The biggest gaps & greatest uncertainties are in high latitude areas where the data centers say they ’find’ the greatest warming (& thus which contribute the most to their global anomalies). Add to that no adjustment for urban growth & land use changes (even as the world’s population increased from 1.5 to 6.7 billion people) [in the NOAA data] & questionable methodology for computing the historical record that very often cools off the early record & you have surface based data sets so seriously flawed, they can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment or decision making by the administration, Congress or the EPA.
Roger Pielke Sr. has suggested: “…that we move forward with an inclusive assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC. We need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with formal assessments chaired & paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.” Certainly, all rational thinkers agree. Perhaps even the mainstream media, most of whom have hitherto mistakenly dismissed Climategate as a uniquely British problem, will now wake up & demand such an investigation. And this from the computer expert:
"That the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse & with too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs, like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes & the bias. What is claimed is that “the anomaly will fix it.” But it cannot. Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of “anomaly” but accept 3 degrees of “adjustment” with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp is “a perfect filter”. That is, simply, “nuts”. It was a good enough answer at Bastogne, & applies here too.

"Nuts"

Smith, who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time, refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single word: “Nuts.”

And that’s exactly what we’d be were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse.

Actually, Weather Is Climate

"It is statistically appropriate to point to this year’s frigidity as evidence that the theory of man-made global warming is suspect." Sure is cold out there, unusually so. By “unusual,” this means the temperature is on the low end of the observed temperatures from previous winters. Of course, we don’t have any more than about 100 years of reliable measurements, so it’s possible that the freeze we’re experiencing now isn’t as unusual as we suspect. But, anyway, it still sure is cold. If you recall, a lot of global warming models predicted it would be hot & not cold, & to risk redundancy, it sure is cold. If global warming climate models said, “It is impossible that this winter will see temperatures below X,” & temperatures did, in fact, drop below this threshold, then the models would be inconsistent with the observations. The model would be falsified. But global warming climate models never make statements like that. They say that any temperature is possible, even if this possibility is low. Certain temperatures have probabilities as low as you like, but they are never precisely zero. (To anticipate an objection: “that number was practically zero” is logically equivalent to “she was practically a virgin.”)

mopled

You brought up Greenland as I predicted you would. How did the Vikings last there? Its not impossible given the fact that people have been continuously living on Greenland ever since.

In fact I believe the guy that invented the PHP language is a Greenlander.

Just goes to show that if you keep your population in line with your resources a society can survive in some harsh places.

BREAKING CLIMATE SCAM NEWS

UK Parliament to investigate Climategate and CRU data issues

EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the U.S. Senate

EU MPs get the message (an earful)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y&feature=player_embedded

U.N. abandons Copenhagen deadline – countries not signing on – spokesman says the deadline has gone “soft”

FRANK-LY, MY DEAR

Rumour has it that Greenland was apparently called just that because it was GREEN.

BENEFICIAL WARMING

The Medieval Warm Period linked to the success of Machu Picchu, Inca Empire

According to Wikipedia, the Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around AD 800-1300 during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying

“…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”.

WARM=LIFE, COLD=DEATH

Here is the abstract:

The rapid expansion of the Inca from the Cuzco area of highland Peru produced the largest empire in the New World between ca. AD 1400–1532. Although this meteoric rise may in part be due to the adoption of innovative societal strategies, supported by a large labour force and standing army, we argue that this would not have been possible without increased crop productivity, which was linked to more favourable climatic conditions. A multi-proxy, high-resolution 1200-year lake sediment record was analysed at Marcacocha, 12 km north of Ollantaytambo, in the heartland of the Inca Empire. This record reveals a period of sustained aridity that began from AD 880, followed by increased warming from AD 1100 that lasted beyond the arrival of the Spanish in AD 1532. These increasingly warmer conditions allowed the Inca and their predecessors the opportunity to exploit higher altitudes from AD 1150, by constructing agricultural terraces that employed glacial-fed irrigation, in combination with deliberate agroforestry techniques. There may be some important lessons to be learnt today from these strategies for sustainable rural development in the Andes in the light of future climate uncertainty.

THRIVING IN WARM PERIODS

Opportunity knocks, again, in the Andes
by Nicholas Asheshov
Living in Peru

The last time global warming came to the Andes it produced the Inca Empire. A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake not far fromMachu Picchu and their report says that “the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries.”
The four centuries coincided directly with the rise of this startling, hyper-productive culture that at its zenith was bigger than the Ming Dynasty China and the Ottoman Empire, the two most powerful contemporaries of the Inca.

“This period of increased temperatures,” the scientists say, “allowed the Inca and their predecessors to expand, from AD 1150 onwards, their agricultural zones by moving up the mountains to build a massive system of terraces fed frequently by glacial water, as well as planting trees to reduce erosion and increase soil fertility.

“They re-created the landscape and produced the huge surpluses of maize, potatoes, quinua and other crops that freed a rapidly growing population to build roads, scores of palaces like Machu Picchu and in particular the development of a large standing army.”

No World Bank, no NGOs.

The new study is called “Putting the Rise of the Inca within a Climatic and Land Management Context” and was prepared by Alex Chepstow-Lusty, an English paleo-biologist working for the French Institute of Andean Studies, in Lima.

IT WAS THE BEST OF TIMES

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about AD 800–1300, that may also have been related to other warm & cool anomalies around the world during that time. It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age.

Holocene climatic optimum

The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.
This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago.

Mia my dear

"Rumour has it that Greenland was apparently called just that because it was GREEN."

Rumour also has it that Canada is well governed. Neither is true.

Save the planet! Ban warming summits!

The leaked emails of ClimateGate explain how scientists hid the Medieval Warm Period (when Vikings settled Greenland) & present cooling - the only way for the present warmth to be "unprecedented".
Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (1974)

"THRIVING IN WARM PERIODS"

But you don't believe the world is getting warmer so why would you bother posting about it?

"Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report"

Would this be the same CIA that thinks climate wars are in our future?

Is the Cooling Climate Starting to Effect Believers Resolve?

Is the Cooling Climate Starting to Effect Believers Resolve & Faith in So-Called Global Warming?
As the Earth is starting its natural 30 year cooling cycle, believers appear to be heating up & getting more & more vicious in their responses to questions. Some are already writing hate lists, including people who are providing the most intelligent arguments showing calmly that AGW is false. Is this cooling starting to shake up the resolve of "Global Warming" believers? Are they getting concerned that cooling temperatures are going to make it harder to pass laws that redistribute wealth, & reduce individual freedoms as a "cure" to so-called "Global Warming"? Is this year the start of the end of this political, versus scientific, movement? Early Call: Watch the dogmatists all move en masse back to the global cooling camp & yet again predict a new Freeze Armageddon from the same figures, anything to somehow keep their climate jobs. Global warming believers appear to be from two different camps yet the similar. One camp honestly believes there is global warming & some can be convinced otherwise when lies & fraud are revealed. The other camp has a lot to be gained financially & will easily support lies because the love of money is more important to them than the truth. The AGW community is clearly cutting off its nose to spite its face. Legitimate questions are answered with condescending insults as the world receives daily revelations of escalating fraud from East Anglia, NASA, NZ, the EU, exacerbated by the fact that Copenhagen devolved into a money grubbing political circus. This is not a good time for the scientist, academic, environmentalist or government employee who has become a dependent living off the avails generated by global warming fears. Meanwhile, fleeing the deadly cold, American refugees illegally stream over the border into Mexico.

As For Me-uh....

I am really going to miss this moderate time, this brief window of climate optimum conditions. I do not relish the approaching cold period & I personally wish there could be another Roman or MWP, an climate optimum time when the temperatures were said to be far warmer than now, yet when society, culture, agriculture and well being all thrived. Who would not prefer prefer a planet where it is possible to grow one's own food, versus an icebox planet? But then, that Nature can be a real Mother.

Climate

While Mia has most certainly come up with a tour e force body of reasoning in support of Denier arguments re Global Warming – Climate Change, may I respectfully suggest to her that the info presented is too much, too fast, and would be far more effective if one point at a time is thoroughly examined. Now, having dispensed with my own advice, I find I’ll have to split this one :- )

I found her offering of the Ecology and compulsion site, which illuminates the underlying issue for neocons in their opposition to “environmentalism”, VERY interesting
:
Quote
“The issue is not native vegetation itself: (biodiversity) it is whether some people should be able to indulge their fancy of having a ‘pre-1788’ botanical museum imposed on other people’s property, paid for by the subject property-holders, or by the productive portion of the population under compulsion.” – insert mine.

And her personal comment upon that statement below, (and her concluding remarks)

Quote
“Even assuming that ecological viability itself were in issue, it is still entirely unjustified & unjustifiable to jump to a conclusion that government is able to centrally plan the ecology & the economy, by bureaucratic command-and-control”

To which, as a Socialist, I would reply that given the abject failure of “The Market” to at any time in humanity’s history to have real concern for either economic or environmental sustainability, who then – other than gov’t – has the power to redirect us away from our current path? Even though you’ve correctly identified the tendencies of SOME Lefties, You’ve fingered the wrong villain, Mia.

Her recounting of how politically-driven “science” has initiated and sustained the CO2 scamming is well done, though I note she missed, among a few other things, the notorious “Hockey Stick” The major thing she missed, and which has still to be discussed here – likely because the supportive science is still yet to be fully gathered – is the relatively recently discovered Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon which heavily mediates weather / climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and which even has observable consequences in the Southern Hemisphere. Do some research yourselves, you Warmists, for this one, piled atop the rest of all your faulty data, spells doom for all your CO2 contrivances.

Onthebay had some things to say about the Northwest Passage, so he might find the following site interesting
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/tag/pacific-decadal-oscillation/ :

Yes, I found out that Mr Ambler is not a scientist, so I visited his blog and then the Huffington Post. If anyone is interested in knowing why so many of us hold the Warmist idea in such low esteem, read their response.- It’s a beauty, beating even some of the postings on Tyee..
http://www.desmogblog.com/harold-ambler-huffington-post-global-warming-misinformation

More below.

Climate con't

Frank asks “But you don't believe the world is getting warmer so why would you bother posting about it?” In that one statement he shows that Warmists cover their learning disabilities with the attack mode .

Your mention of the warming periods in the Equatorial regions is important since the research on the PDO shows that the PDO phenomenon is responsible for GLOBAL shifts in climate, and not just in the Northern Hemisphere. They are also tied in with temperatures and currents in the Southern Oceans. They are responsible for massive changes in climate all over North America on a CYCLICAL basis, requiring not one molecule of CO2 for “forcing”. It is very likely that various minimums and maximums the Warmist scientists try to explain away – since they cannot link them to CO2, which follows, not precedes, GW. The Little Ice Age, for which Warmists have no explanation, just as the Maunder Minimum, etc, also belongs to our consistently evolving “Climate Changes”

Here’s something from one site.
“This suggests that the PDO has been a pan-Pacific phenomena for at least the past few hundred years. Major oscillations in the hydrologic balance of the Sierra Nevada correspond to changes in the sign of the PDO with extreme droughts occurring during PDO maxima. Four droughts centered on A.D. 1710, 1770, 1850, and 1930 indicate PDO-related drought reoccurrence intervals ranging from 60 to 80 yr”

That was written in 2001. Could it possibly have anything to do with the recent wildfires in California? .
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-485XJJR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1177542129&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=238c8e6cd12257e33e42f1d8f42be41c

And here’s a quote from another, for which I can’t now find the URL.

“New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases”.

The difficulty I’m having with researching the PDO, apart from using this old, warn-out brain and balky lap-top, is that there seems to be no post 2001 info available to peons like myself, though there has to be lots around, but I’ll keep looking. Shit, even DFO has recent papers re it’s relationship to fisheries management.

Actually, NO

The confusion over the Himalayan Glaciers is a lot simpler than that. Science has the story in this month's issue.

In fact, the mistakes in the para of the report that have everyone with their knickers in a knot came from an unpublished WWF report where two digits were transposed - turing 2350 into 2035...from the original 1996 paper published in Russia

The fact of the matter is that losing all that high altitude ice by 2350 is still a very significant event.

Arguing about the time to launch the lifeboats is still a futile exercise when we're travelling on the galactic equivalent of the Titanic.
Cheers.

Actually, it's thick

Just like many people who seem to swallow the baloney dished up by the government and grant financed global fearmonger crowd.

I presume you've all checked the Sundays.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Swiss cheeseish.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Ultimately this whole shebang is really a battle between those fanatics that think they know best and the end justifies the means. That end is the wholesale rearranging of the economic system of the world and specifically changing the capitalist system into some sort of world socialism. The frightening of the youth that are correctly concerned about pollution has been extrapolated to encompass a structured myth related to exhausts from industry, power plants and private transportation vehicles. This is the socialists & transit lobby writ large. "More study Needed" is just code so they can continue to live off of the state within their cloistered and manipulating social engineering halls of academe. The co-opting and turning-on of star-politicos like Al Gore and other mega-traders is a price they will pay for cover-story prominence. Good marketing strategy.

Like most overplayed schsticks this one is crashing with the eloquence and spectacle that only the Hindenburg can match.

We look forward to the next fear-engendering PR virus from these dedicated Trots. Perhaps an asteroid will be spotted heading our way and only if we immediately stop everything and bury ourselves below the planet's surface in socialized caverns will we be able to survive.

Any man in this day and age who calls himself a real man

Any man in this day and age who calls himself a real man and isn't a socialist is not worth paying any mind to.

As George Orwell wrote in Homage to Catalonia, there are plenty of messy problems in a class-free society organized on anything like an equal basis. At the same time, such as society is head and shoulders better than the conservative fascist state we live in now.

Since the same Banksters are in charge

no matter what system we use, isn't it time to do something about them? Then maybe things will sort themselves out. Why do we give private interests the power to create money out of nothing and then charge us interest for it?

In the meantime, another IPCC "blunder" surfaces.

"UN climate change panel blunders again for wrongly linking global warming to rise in severe floodings "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html

Just for the record

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is
perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was every invented.
Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . Bankers own the earth. Take
it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of
a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again . Take this great
power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then
this would be a better and happier world to live in . But if you want to
continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then
let bankers continue to create money and control credit."
--- Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest
man in Britain in the 1920's, speaking at the University of Texas in 1927

Gates

ClimateGate
GlacierGate
TemperatureGate
FloodingGate

After Watergate, that was the end of it.

How many more Gates do these people need before they shut up and stop writing these ridiculous articles? Innumerable... as long as they get paid.

However, take comfort, the truth will always be provided... free of charge.

"Any man in this day and age who calls himself a real man"

Any man in this day and age who calls himself a real man while lying through his teeth on behalf of a the blood-drenched, bankster-founded UN is worth less than nothing and should NEVER have a place or say in governing the lives of the innocent.

HI, THERE, ME2

Quick note to you. The specific comments you thought were mine, such as in identifying a "villain", were actually a case my late night oversight, a shameful oversight in that instance of attribution to source. I admit I was too busy having such fun sharing reliable academia's healthy scepticism & journalism's remarkably late about face on this contrived, Club of Rome premeditated weather paranoia issue. Admit it, identifying humanity itself as a C02 exhaling evil monster satisfies not only the fear & self loathing necessary for some but fulfils the unaddressed religious urge otherwise ignored until now by modernity's growing secular indifference. When this all started I thought it was the usual fringe element, - perhaps a new sense of purpose for at loose ends, marginalised, politically correcting quasi Marxists, et al. I recalled the 60s comedy act, "Beyond The Fringe", specifically one skit, a very funny bit involving a motley little collection of cult followers listening to one pompous idiot who then declared the time for appocalypse on his GMT watch, two minutes hence to the end of the world (still found on Youtube). As AGW pedantry & time wore on, I began to realize more fully that the Club Of Rome gang know all too well that generating this kind of carefully orchestrated panic predictably fulfils a far deeper need for certainty, no matter how bleak or doom skewed or wildly unrealistic the prophesies or prognostications may be. As an independent minded & irreligious person myself, I may well have initially underestimated exactly how easily so many, globally, would follow as directed, go over to the dark side on cue, & collude in demonizing the eternally quixotic aspects of nature, even while simultaneously thinking they were genuflecting to paganism & worshipping with such seeming reverence for the planet. Harsh weather changes of Bibilical proportions had to be caused by them, they reasoned, since Earth Mother would never turn on them, right? Wrong.
I do agree w/ you that my overnight edu-blitz, while a heap of fun for me, may potentially overwhelm those unused to the academic, &, pardon the pun, rarified atmosphere offered by daily reality based research.

What did I miss since I last posted.....?

Cripes All Mighty!

BTW RickW. I welcome being called "Sally Brown". She was the English nurse who worked with Dr. Albert Schweitzer for many years.

I cannot think of a good poem in response to the one you provided for me, however perhaps a quote from Carl Sagan:

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense"

Next

http://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-global-warming-alarmist-endorses-book-that-calls-for-mass-genocide.html

Mia

"Are they getting concerned that cooling temperatures are going to make it harder to pass laws that redistribute wealth, & reduce individual freedoms as a "cure" to so-called "Global Warming""

This is the real issue for you isn't it Mia? All the denials about climate change are really nothing more than a concern that policies in its name could be used against your bank account.

Because as I've noted before, all your "facts" aren't about science, its about politics and your aversion to changing your lifestyle.

That's why there's all the nonsense about eugenics and Greenland ad nauseum. I suggest you read the book "Collapse" (and not some looney website's take) if you want to find out what went on in Greenland.

You hate hearing it, but I'll say it again, population control will have to happen.

Frank, you are really going in for self-parody now

What rational person would agree to "change lifestyle" for the benefit of thieves?

Population control is already happening on a purely voluntary basis, or hadn't you noticed that most of the industrialized countries have birthrates lower than that needed for replacement.

Maybe what you really don't like about the mention of eugenics is that the all the Saints of Socialism from Shaw and the Webbs to Tommy Douglas thought it was just dandy until the Nazi's carried it to its logical conclusion.

Also..

As a life long conservationist, before environmentalism itself morphed into planet phobia & refocused on benign gas mirages, I was aghast to see true environmentalism hi-jacked by corporate interests. I watched closely as real concern for pollution has been largely redirected away from real & deeply concerning actual, concrete pollution, replaced by a computer generated theory devised by indoor dwelling geeks. And, worst of all, all focus was so readily shaped toward C02, & the equally unproven "closed ceiling/sealed planet" theory. I note the ignoring, the carefully cultivated ignorance about our planet's own natural thermostat, the wholesale consumption of the AGW foundation stone, an unproven theory of an enclosed system, a greenhouse globe with finite capacity to release its own gases, a planet sans its own thermostat. Then there was the matter of the rapid politicization of a contrived issue, a scam directed toward encouraging the notably ironic concept of humanity saving humanity from humanity, while at the same time lobbyists made certain that politicians pandered to the biggest offenders, corporate generated polluters, remained unchecked & unregulated. What I felt we had here was a sort of Wall Street hey day equivalent for international polluters, a toxic waste generating global corpocracy. I watched as real pollution worsened daily, with no accountability. And worse yet, I saw appallingly little global solidarity directed AT government by the people. Instead this solidarity was being orchestrated BY government, with little to no real initiative that did not seem to perpetually have its hand out for government funding. Sickening to see how readily those who cried righteously about "corruption" had & have become themselves so easily corrupted by corporate funding. So where is there any distinction? Isn't that a case of just another set of (in this case leftist) lobbyists, funded by right wing interests with government as the interface, a group either unwilling or unable to be independent activists who would be unwilling to be compromised by government manipulated interference? I saw seemingly miniscule initiative carried out by these same masses to hold corporate pirates' feet to the flames of "Do No Harm". And I witnessed pitifully few with any real built in radar for con artists, regardless of from which political spectrum. The day I hear that we as consumers are going to massively boycott corporations & force them to return to the real business at hand, the job of cleaning up their own real pollution, will be a day to truly celebrate. Meanwhile, the price of hybrids drops & once again the electric car is resurgent, despite Big Oil's suppression. It may not seem like much, but it is well nigh time that humanity stopped assuming TOTAL responsibility for the full burden of CORPORATE FUNDED pollution. Can the guilt & go legal on this bunch. They cannot thrive without us. Rumour has it we are many, while they are few.

Dr. A

Betcha she didn't say what my Sally Brown said.....

mopled

It's actually the lawyers who are in charge. All else in this society stems from that noxious brew.....

But ol' Bill Shakespeare had a solution for that.

mopled

Thanks for confirming its political for you.

And gee, why am I not surprised you compare Tommy Douglas to the Nazis?

You've been spending too much time on your loony websites, next thing you know you'll be on about the big alien abduction conspiracy.

Keep it coming my friend, you're the best ad for our side there is.

Tommy Douglas

wrote his Masters thesis on the merits of eugenics.
Sad but true. My parents' hero was so conflicted as a preacher that he turned socialist, promoting BOTH socialised medicine AND his day's equivalent of death panels. I guess single minded people are unaware of this.

Mia

High time that humanity stopped taking full responsibility? Since when has your side taken ANY responsibility?

Your side is the ally of corporations because you don't want our governments to be passing stricter laws against emissions.

Any corporation that doesn't want to be pay more to combat its emissions just has to post your and mopled's links.

Mia

I'm not surprised you hate Tommy Douglas either. And kudos for finding a spot to bring in your Republican-inspired "death panel" line.

Peel away a denialist's outer shell and you always find a Republican.

Here's a thought

Maybe this comment section will end up heating up a cooling globe with hot air rhetoric, (versus hard core consumer activism)

Truth is

I spent decades admiring Tommy, perhaps a tad too much. My realism arrived embarrassingly late in life, and the need to accept the limits of even so called heros was hard won.
You should take something for that touch of personal attack nasty. Maybe Vitamin B5? It is a proven anti stress assist.

Mia

You'd know, you've posted more hot air on this topic than anyone else.

And there is help for AGW denial, too

Take care. The up against the denial wall kind can prove virulent if it festers uncleansed.

IPCC - Another Mistake

The IPCC has admitted to another mistake in their analysis:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

Add this to Climategate and Glaciergate and the reduction in surface climate stations used in the estimates of the world mean annual temperature, especially stations in cold areas and at high altitudes, surely few people are left that believe anything coming out of the IPCC, NASA, CRU and Environment Canada.

He who forfeits freedom for security deserves neither

There is a principle by which the powers to be merge & incorporate internationally in order to collectively achieve their global means. In every sense this is a corporate piracy model. Within any manufactured crisis, in this case a climate change agenda — one world government — including radical redistribution of the world’s money, imprisonment & involuntary enforcement of eco laws such as arbitrary conversion of food farmland into tree farms— global corporate entities make repeat use of the Hegelian principle. The formula, as many know, is to create a thesis on one side & an antithesis on the other. What the powers to be do is to throw the often over eager tax generating dog one warmish bone, tossed in between all of them, intentionally causing endless internal rankling, dissension & division. It works similarly to the way in which this comment section may be being "managed". While the rabble argue & fight over the once warm & now cooling dog bone, the powers that be are better able to achieve their means behind the scenes. That result is called synthesis. This Hegelian principle has been used over & over in all kinds of situations. climate, disease, the economy.

Don't be too quick to forfeit complicated freedom

Does anyone out there think that this scare mongering might be just exactly what the powers to be desperately need in order to usher in the same post democratic version of a one world Rulership or Governance/IMF Bank/WHO Health/U.N. Military/Foreign sourced Police/Misanthropic (but Often seemingly charming) Climatistas, all miraculously at the same time on the same page about the inescapable need for global governance, "leaders" such as Obama, Gordon Brown, Sarkozy, etc., & so many others who now openly discuss the NWO? About 65% of people are readily scared by simple suggestions, even the very thought of any potential threat, terrorists around every corner, fake pandemics, collapsing economies, ice-caps melting & seas rising etc. etc. You can be sure just by paying attention to AGW and, to be fair, the many other kinds of fear based rhetoric, that eventually, sooner or later, the trend shifts toward the irreversible formulation of a "soft despotism" version of totalitarian government, to be overseen by invisible yet omnipresent corporate entities which owe nothing to humanity, indeed loathe it, & which know no allegiance to any formerly sovereign nation. In any such scenario, democracy would be the biggest danger. Constitutions would become void. Habeus Corpus would evaporate - as indeed it already has in the EU. Our most basic, currently taken for granted civil rights would go out the window on the pretext that all the communitarian (google it) harsh restrictions & abuse the emerging governance gang want to incorporate into law will be for our own good. My own extended family narrowly escaped just this scenario. Imagine, then, becoming a refugee yet having no place on earth left to go that is any longer welcoming, democratic or free. If you still buy the idea that government is there to look after you, I have some swamp (wetlands?) you may be interested in buying.

Glaciergate: Hitler's Last Straw

I just found this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-6U5MwyDM

FOR THOSE WITH A SENSE OF HUMOUR

YouTube - Glaciergate: Hitler's Last Straw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-6U5MwyDM

Mia's Dissertation

I'm cheap, always been cheap, but in today's speak, I'm frugal. I hate waste because I know I've paid for that waste. If I can use anything fully and effectively, I will have less waste. Sure I drive but not a Prius, I just drive a 2002 and drive as little as I have to. For me to get a reasonable payback on a Prius so I didn't waste too much money, I would have to drive a lot of city miles, but I usually walk or bike in the city. What a waste.

Same for everything, cut our waste and the environment is better off. In the house, more efficient appliances that have an economic payoff, if they are too expensive, I would be wasting money that could be put to better use. Anything that costs money without a reasonable payback to me is a waste.

I find corporations that produce things but are regulated and don't receive subsidies are easier on the environment than those that produce virtual things or need to be subsidized to survive.

Since steel has a very high carbon footprint, wind mills are hard on the environment and are not economic. Wind mills are subsidized by the feds, the provinces and some silly consumers, need steel towers and require excessive visits by maintenance people, and the power is not assured. Solar is generally the same except on remote lights. But some governments, NGOs and con-men love windmills.

Others are focusing on CO2 rather than toxic emissions. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury and pesticides are floating around in the world's atmosphere with little recent focus. But these types of pollution can cause health concerns for plants and animals, including humans. The biggest sources are coal fired plants without pollution control, like most of the thermal power plants in Ontario unlike the rest of North America. One scientist claimed that Ontario's thermal plants are dirtier than most of the ones in China, they are just far enough away from Toronto not to be noticed.

Mia

"He who forfeits freedom for security deserves neither"

Your posts are entirely political.

mopled and Mia

"Glaciergate: Hitler's Last Straw"

You both post the same link a minute apart? Looks like you're both on the same mailing list.

RickW. I am at a loss to find a good poetic reply.

I was heading down the path of reaching into the many quotes from the Firesign Theatre and decided I should stop right there.

BTW, why has this turned into a "Bash Mia-fest" and lost sight of the "Satellite that can save humanity"? Mia had/has lots to say, and you guys who don't like what she says come up with the same old predictable stuff and then resort to the same-oel same-ole political/corporate/shill/denier/don't-want-to-give-up-lifestyle/self-hating environmentalist/blah blah blah stuff?

Just recycling old material isn't going to put the wheels back on the wagon.

So, here is my suggestion. How about supporting the idea that all the countries not attend any Climate Change conferences for the next year and put the money together to fund the launching of the "Satellite that can save humanity".

After all, the US Stimulus plan has already budgeted 9 million dollars to ready the DSCOVR for launch. The only thing needed now is a launch vehicle. Actually, the total proposed cost to launch is only about 138 million dollars, about what COP15 cost.

So, instead of sending money to Greenpeace/Sea Shepherd/Suzuki Foundation/WWF/Friends of the Earth/etc etc, where 80 percent of the money goes to executive fees and junkets (just like the Fraser Institute--- honestly, it's hard to tell the difference these days), send it directly to NASA.

Frank... Mia is political?!

And nobody else here is?

Damn near wrecked my keyboard when I spilt my coffee on that one.

Frank, if you saw my high school photos, you could very well say that my mother dressed me funny.

Dr Alexander

"BTW, why has this turned into a "Bash Mia-fest" and lost sight of the "Satellite that can save humanity"?"

They weren't interested in discussing the Satellite. They wanted to have a political debate calling everything a "-gate".

"Mia had/has lots to say, and you guys who don't like what she says come up with the same old predictable stuff and then resort to the same-oel same-ole political/corporate/shill/denier/don't-want-to-give-up-lifestyle/self-hating environmentalist/blah blah blah stuff?"

Oh please. This entire thread is full of the same old bullshit loony website crap that gets spewed forth by the same people every time this topic comes up.

If you think its okay for the usual suspects to come on here and post their usual diatribe against everyone they disagree with and then you and ME2 act all sanctimonious when someone replies to them in the same vein then its simply a case of you guys thinking your shit doesn't stink.

Fact is I don't give a rat's ass and will sit here continuing to respond to any and all in the same manner they talk to me. And if you think that's bad form then you can get back on your horse and go back to hypocrisy town.

OMG...denialism incarnate

Frank, dear boy.....all this "Gate" stuff is new!

Your response is what's old.

The IPCC is political pretending to be scientific.

"Just today the lead author for the Asia section of the report, which contained the false glacier quote, admitted that he knew the statement did not rest on any peer-reviewed science. Why did he include something that had no scientific basis? In his own words (Dr Murari Lal):

‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action...It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’ -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe

They wanted to impact policy-makers and politicians. Let's be clear: this is no longer science. This is politics, specifically of the fear-mongering type. When Asian countries affected by glacier melt read this, they understandably should be concerned. This is no minor claim. They want action to be taken, by both their own countries and the world as a whole. If action isn't taken, the glaciers will melt in 25 years with potentially disastrous consequences.

The problem isn't simply that the IPCC caused that sort of alarm with unscientific claims. That would be a problem in and of itself, but the real troubling concern is far deeper. They wanted that alarm. Even worse, they intentionally created that alarm by including a false statement and claiming it was science.

A supposedly scientific organization making alarming claims without any proof in order to 'impact policy-makers and politicians' should not be so easily dismissed as Pachauri would like. I guarantee it won't be."
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/24/the-ipcc-meltdown-and-what-it-reveals-part-i/

mopled

FYI, Watergate wasn't about water. You don't have to put the phrase "-gate" behind every other word. Show some creativity.

"The IPCC is political pretending to be scientific."

And you're grinding a political axe while pretending to be a scientist as long as "new info" keeps pouring in on your and Mia's mailing list.

The IPCC and others are at least out there doing scientific work. Collecting data, putting forward theories, running experiments, trying to explain the data as best they can.

What is your side doing besides creating idiotic youtube videos and playing on people's fears of change?

Frank, don't be an angry bully

You should welcome Mia. Erudite contributors shouldn't be bullied out the door just because you suspect that they are not inclined to join your NDP-Forever Rat Pack.

"They weren't interested in discussing the Satellite. They wanted to have a political debate calling everything a "-gate". "

No, Frank. The reason people started posting "New!' data is because the writer of the fluff piece above started off on a satellite then went into the usual gospel sermon as though it was a given, to whit:

" does NOT remotely suggest that climate change is a hoax. For evidence of that, you don't need a satellite, you can look out your kitchen window.

Sea ice is disappearing from the arctic so fast it could be gone forever in as little as 30 years. The Met Office predicts 2010 may be the hottest year on record and that this decade was the hottest ever "by far"..."

when the international press is giving us daily exposées with more and more admissions of falsifications and fraud completely refuting the very gospel mantra that the writer of this piece has just foolishly published!

An aside for fellow humourist DR ALEX

This lone fire sign's paltry post of FIRESIGN THEATRE QUOTES:

"Why, he's no fun, he fell right over."

"The whole world is spinning!"
"That's lucky for us! If it were flat, all the Chinese would fall off!"

"The sun isn't going down; the horizon is moving up"

"Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs!"

There's a whole dead cat in every bar of Dead Cat Soap."

From the top secret government training film:

"Gentlemen, I have something awesome to reveal to you.

Go ahead sir.

Two flying saucers just landed on my plate.

You mean the eggs, sir?

Let's just call them the phenomena.

Well, sir, I think you've got your phenomena scrambled.

Sir, uh, pass the syrup, general?

That's a good idea, Chuck, but syrup won't stop them. Next?

Uh, pardon me, sir, but are you nuts?

Ha ha, that's just what they want you to think."
__________________

"You can wait here in the sitting room or you can sit there in the waiting room."

"What a shocker this is! Hemlock Stones, that dynamo of detective energy, has switched a new light on current events, sparking the positive hope that he'll run the negative force to ground!"
______________________________
Fudds first law of opposition:

If you push something hard enough, it WILL fall over
__________________
AND: Now for something completely different: Tolstoy:

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Tolstoy

True story for Realisticman

Thanks. Guess what? In my town, we were the only housein our entire neighbourhood with an NDP election sign posted on the lawn. Holocaust escapees often tend to lean that way once they finally feel safe in the lands of milk and honey
The town, btw, was Toronto.
The sign may have been a sign of courage.

r'man

Go back and read the bloody thread rather than regale me with folk tales resulting from your deteriorating memory.

You and your merry band were in full parade long before I posted a single thing on your thread.

If you didn't like the direction the thread took then you shouldn't have been posting such infantile garbage before I showed up.

Mia

And then you discovered Tommy Douglas was a Nazi sympathizer... I'm not sure where you lived in Toronto but I assure you the NDP does have quite a few supporters in that little burg.

If you live near Chilliwack why not go up on the mountains and tell me how that haze you see coming up the valley doesn't exist.

Dear, dear Frank

I have never pretended to be anything at all....just another keyboard tapper in the ether.

As for the IPCC doing"scientific work", do you include Ben Santer's throwing out committee reports saying they couldn't find a human cause for warming and substituting his own opinion as being "scientific"?

Ben Santer
IPCC II Expert Approved Statements:
•
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
•
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
•
“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
•
“While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
These Statements Were Replaced by Lead Author Ben Santer with
•
“There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
•
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report
and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists. Avery and Singer 2006"
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ben_Santer.pdf

"playing on people's fear of change" is a pretty good description of what climate alarmists are doing...since climate changes by itself, but tax changes need politicians playing on peoples' fears.

mopled

By the way my dear boy, your statement that you wished the IPCC and so on would just go away so we could concentrate on other things?

You never did square that with the fact that most of us have been able to discuss other subjects over the last few years whereas its only you and Mia who seem unable or unwilling to discuss anything except this topic.

Satellites Saving Humanity

Now there is an oxymoronic little concept. Right up there with friendly aliens coming all the way here just to rescue humans from themselves.
BTW, so good to know that as this comment thread evolves it proactively resists the push to devolve, as more participants speak up each hour, some questioning the party line, others examining the evidence, many with the courage not to feel bullied into on line submission. This is what makes it worth getting involved in debates about such key policy shaping issues, offering us all a chance to celebrate different perspectives, not just commonalities, but without the gutter stuff or the ad hominen hostilities.

mopled

Your Ben Santer post shows a guy actually working on something other than making youtube videos to upset the hoi poloi. Something your side specializes in.

How'd you let that one get by your editor?

Mia

You know how it goes, Location, Location, Location.

The sign may have been a sign of intelligent and well-considered thought going into where hang the family hat.

Mia

I find that comment quite interesting since its you that has driven people like Booker, Camero409 and Jeffrey J away with your assaults on logic and decorum.

You only desire "debate" when the participants are all of the same mind.

Sorry to piss on your party.

Mia, I am thankful that you halted yourself before you got to:

Nick Danger, Third Eye.

However, you could have continued on with Ralph Spoilsport. Or The Adventures of Hemlock Stones:

"I'll est necessary que je remain ici"

"Oh. Canadian"

Is this fraud too big to fail?

In his excellent article Timothy Carney writes about the synergy between the companies that have adopted the going green mantra, are committed to saving the planet in their marketing campaigns and the global warming fraud promoted by leading climate research centers. The East Anglia E-mails revealed that Siemens Corp was one of the companies that was one of the targets for global warming research funding.
"I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK -- looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases."
Manning's e-mail, written in October to a colleague at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit reveals an intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. Manning's e-mail shows there is incentives for climate scientists to convince people there is a climate disaster coming, to get more money.
And scientists aren't the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture.

Founding Members of the US Climate Action Partnership

Alcoa
• BP America
• Caterpillar
• Duke Energy
• DuPont
• FPL Group, Inc.
• General Electric
• PG&E
• PNM Resources
• Environmental Defense
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change
• World Resources Institute

As Carney points out governments have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into climate research. News organizations have staked their credibility on the claim that climate science is "settled." With all this on the line for scientists, media, business, and government, are they really going to let some contrary data get in the way? Not likely? We are going to spend trillions of tax dollars to solve a problem that is based on fake science. This fraud too big to fail?

Frank-Gate

As for getting on my horse and heading back to Hypocrisy Town. My horse it is. I was going to take the AGW wagon, but I am afraid the wheels seem to be falling off of it.

Mia

"Founding Members of the US Climate Action Partnership"

Ever heard of astro-turfing?

It doesn't serve corporate interests to be against bunnies and sunshine so they join the organizations and make them ineffective.

They're pretty transparent for most of us.

MORE BREAKING NEWS

Now Roger Pielke Jr. points out that another curious purge has been spotted:

Excerpts:

There is another important story in involving the Muir-Wood et al. 2006 paper that was misrepresented by the IPCC as showing a linkage between increasing temperatures and rising damages from extreme weather events. The Stern Review Report of the UK government also relied on that paper as the sole basis for its projections of increasing damage from extreme events. In fact as much as 40% of the Stern Reivew projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of the Muir-Wood et al. paper.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Dr. Alexander

No problem, assuming you guys ever do discuss anything besides the weather I look forward to seeing you on another thread.

"MORE BREAKING NEWS"

More from your anti-climate change mailing list huh? I guess mopled will have the same post any minute now?

Global Warming Petition: What is Climate gate?

http://cammackay.com/?p=68

Climate gate occurred on Nov 20, 2009 where a hacker or insider released thousands of e-mails and data files onto the internet from the University of East Anglia in Britain. What is of significance is that these e-mails and data files point to corruption at the highest levels of the climate change community. Evidence of fabricated temperature data, peer review manipulation, Media spin doctoring and a general overall abdication of ethics and responsibility in regards to the scientific profession.
If you have not heard about this story you are probably not alone as the main stream media has been very reticent to give this story and give it the coverage it deserves. You can read some more about this
here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
and here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
and here
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-good-overview-on-climate-gate

What is a Royal Commission?

A Royal commission is created by the head of state, (Governor General) on advice from the government to look into controversial matters requiring clarity in order to provide sound advice and guidance. A Royal Commission has judicial powers beyond the scope of a normal court and is governed by the legislative mandate awarded the commission. (For example subpoena witnesses, issue search warrants, and abide by standards of evidence)

Why a Royal Commission on Global Warming?

If Canadians are to be asked to pay substantial tax increases and forgoes a substantial part of our standard of living I feel we are entitled to know the facts. It is now quite clear that the global warming theory has not been subject to the rigorous standards of skeptical peer review and much of the evidence is not valid. The debate has been over before it has begun and as a result opinions and billion dollar decisions are being based on biased and misleading information. If we are to go forward and have a “world war II” like effort to combat global warming we need to establish the following:
A. Global Warming is occurring at an accelerated rate;
B. That Global Warming is primarily caused by the emission of Carbon Dioxide from human activities;
C. That the proposed laws, policies, and prescriptions recommended by the United Nations, if enacted and enforced will have a material effect in stopping the alleged global warming.
If you believe in global warming or not, a royal commission is a good starting point to determine whether should put WWII like resources to combat this issue or simply ignore it. To make such a determination we need unbiased evidence and analysis. I feel that the only logical course of action is to have a Royal commission.
My terms of reference outlined in the petition are only suggestions, if you have better or additional terms please forward them to me below. The main purpose is to bring some attention to this issue and establish a royal commission. If you agree on that point I urge you to sign the petition, by clicking the link below or anywhere else a link is present within this Document. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours Truly;

Cam MacKay

P.S. If you feel this issue is important and would like to help in anyway it would be most appreciated! Send me a comment or an e-mail to

.
I would also urge you to e-mail a copy of this link to any friends or acquaintances who feel the same as you.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/royal-commission-to-determine-extent-of-global-warming.html

Mia

"If Canadians are to be asked to pay substantial tax increases and forgoes a substantial part of our standard of living I feel we are entitled to know the facts."

Of course the fact that we aren't probably doesn't come up much in the circles you travel in does it?

Royal Commision

Sure, I think we're all for it but I'll add one more thing to your list.

Abide by the result. Don't claim its all a conspiracy funded by Frank Stronach when you don't hear what you want to hear..

This is just another Conspiracy Theory Article.

Considering how NASA is so firmly populated by pro-AGW types, it seems just as likely a theory that NASA does not want this satellite up at Lagrange as it has every opportunity to provide evidence against AGW.

Mitchell, this article has lots of sizzle but no steak. How about finding out who pulled the satellite from its STS-107 (2003) time slot. That'll tell you and us something. Otherwise, you are just finding finding conspirators under every rock.

At any rate, if this Gore-Sat ever got launched, the camera would most likely be pointed in the wrong direction.

Frank. The weather

is Climate

Dr Alexander

Whenever you feel like discussing something other than climate then I look forward to seeing you on other threads.

"...recommended by the United Nations"

Every nation needs to withdraw from the criminal UN. The UN needs to be disbanded and every nation needs to set up their own commissions independent of these private bankster funded criminal organizations. Every nation in the western world has their own competent scientists, who can't be bribed, to present unbiased scientific evidence to their governments about any theory.

It was the Canadian scientists who couldn’t be bought off or silenced by these UN criminals who blew the lid off this hoax. Let each nation run its own affairs and stop following the elitist banksters who keep trying to take over the world for their own self interests through their alphabet soup of criminal think tanks and gangs of criminal bureaucrats.

But there’s one problem that must be dealt with prior to this: our criminal governments are owned by the global criminal banksters and have no interests in listening to the people nor their unbiased scientists who can’t be bribed.

Some addresses

But 1st a quote from Firesign Theatre. This seems to sum up the thinking of the deniers.

"How can you be in two places at once, when your not anywhere at all?"

And for some addresses to counter the hacked e-mails.

Climategate Addresses

One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results.

From “Climatologists under pressure”

At

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/follow-money-trail-to-global-warming.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.desmogblog.com/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1155915.html

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/breach-in-global-warming-bunker-rattles-climate-science-at-worst-time/article1389842/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&hp

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

http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy

Above just early attempts at whitewash

The latest article in the series presented above is at least a month old and none of them cover the fact of the faked New Zealand data or the recently discovered NASA/GISS outrages, let alone the discoveries of the last few days. The IPCC is under close scrutiny and more and more irregularities keep showing up.

"The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers
24 01 2010

"All the years I’ve been in TV news, I’ve observed that every story has a tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we say it “has legs” and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye and finding things everywhere.

Remember our friends at World Wildlife Fund? Those schlockmeisters that produced the video of planes flying into New York with explicit comparisons to 9/11?Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.

A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:
* Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]

.(sample only, more at site)

Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:

* Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
* Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

Not only should Pachauri resign, the Nobel committee should be deluged by world citizenry demanding they revoke the Nobel prize granted to the body that produced this document."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

Frank

Before Beers shuts this thread down, I'd like to note that some time ago I read an article about the Greenland settlement, which lasted some 3-4 hundred years. The colonists were typical farmers who raised cattle, among other things.

When the climate cooled, they left en masse, back to their homeland, primarily because they could no longer grow and cure hay to overwinter their cattle.

Only a very few stayed behind to hunt seals and fish, and the article speculated that this was probably due to opposition from neighbouring cultures.

And so yes, Frank, Greenland was named so because it really was "Green"......At the time it was named. LOL LOL

ME2

According to Jared Diamond in the book Collapse, when Greenland was settled it was about as "mild" as it is today. And we don't think its very "green" now do we?

After that? Well, from the book, "[Greenland] went through several runs of cold years in the 1300s, and then plunged in the early 1400s into the cold period called the Little Ice Age that lasted until the 1800s."

Cattle grazing was a pretty dumb idea and all it did was cause the resources of the settlement area to be degraded.

The Inuit didn't raise cattle and in spite of being further north, thrived, the Norse died.

Western Settlement collapsed before Eastern Settlement because it had a shorter growing season and only one access point to the sea. The last inhabitants of Western Settlement starved and then froze to death.

Even at the best of times farming on Greenland was a very dicey proposition and it simply couldn't be done over the long term because it just wasn't good land and the climate caused lots of bad years.

Now as long as Greenland was in close contact with Norway they could survive those bad years. However, at the same time as the climate got a bit colder Norway went through the Black Death and then neglected Greenland as other trade opportunities became available.

Without Norway, and with a cooler climate, and nutrient depleted soil and hostile Inuit the settlements were doomed.

THERE ARE NO "SIDES" The (righteous) left is also the right

A number of notable World Wildlife Fund heads:. Prince Bernhard, of the Netherlands, served as the first president of the fund from 1962-1976. He not only founded theBilderberg group-- which heavily influences the agenda of nearly every nation in the Western world-- Bernhard is also a former Nazi SS officer. Hence, some prone to using reductionist reasoning seem to assume eugenics is therefore only a Nazi thing. Not necessarily so. The environmentalist movement was formed by Sir Julian Huxley who was the founder of the Eugenics Society.

"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically & psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, & that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)
The WWF & these other organizations are actually offshoots of that same eugenics society.
WWF is implementing an agenda to consolidate 200 global ecoregions & is one of the largest contributors to depopulation efforts worldwide. Both of these planks coincide with U.S. state department memos from1974 penned by Henry Kissinger. Indeed, Julian Huxley was a top eugenicist from a very eugenics-friendly family (see T.H. Huxley). After eugenics was stripped of its good name in the post-World War II world, Huxley coined the term "transhumanism" to encompass eugenical beliefs inside a general belief in human "advancement" through scientific processes. A number of other notable WWF heads may reveal some of the agenda at hand. HRH Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip) was also a president of the WWF from 1981-1996. He stated more than once that:
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation"

Encyclopedia Britannica

eugenics:
Study of human improvement by genetic means. The first thorough exposition of eugenics was made by Francis Galton, who in Hereditary Genius (1869) proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, supported Galton's theories. U.S. eugenicists also supported restriction on immigration from nations with "inferior" stock, such as Italy, Greece, and countries of eastern Europe, and argued for the sterilization of insane, retarded, and epileptic citizens. Sterilization laws were passed in more than half the states, and isolated instances of involuntary sterilization continued into the 1970s. The assumptions of eugenicists came under sharp criticism beginning in the 1930s and were discredited after the German Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of Jews, blacks, and homosexuals

CO-DEPENDENTS: Eugenics & The New Environmentalism

"For the environmental extremists attending the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, fighting global warming is not just about reducing carbon emissions or promoting alternative energy. Rather, public documents released by some of the most important organizations represented at Copenhagen reveal an absolute obsession with population control & a bizarre belief by environmental extremists that population reduction is the "cheapest" way to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. You see, to many of those gathered in Copenhagen, the math is simple. Less people = less carbon emitters. In fact, a carbon offset initiative launched by the Optimum Population Trust even allows people to offset their "carbon footprint" by making online payments to support "family planning" in poor countries.
As bizarre as this may seem, it is actually happening.
These new "population carbon offsets" are being offered by the Optimum Population Trust. The OPT calls itself "the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment". The truth is that the OPT does have some really big names associated with it. Just some of the world famous individuals involved in the Optimum Population Trust include Sir David Attenborough, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich & Dr. Jane Goodall. One of the stated goals of the OPT is to "advance the education of the public in issues relating to human population worldwide and its impact on environmental sustainability".

In his report on this new carbon offset initiative, John Vidal, the environment editor for the Guardian, noted that many of the participants at the Copenhagen summit could easily offset the carbon emissions that they would be producing during their travel to the conference by paying for one (unborn) child in Africa to be killed....
Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.
"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports."

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/category/eugenics

Same link as above

"fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth."

So if "climate change" is the world's biggest problem, who is the enemy?
Well, it turns out that humanity itself is the enemy.
The U.N. report is very clear that no human can ever be "carbon neutral"....

"No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

So if no human can ever be "carbon neutral", what does that mean?
It means that you, me, our families and everyone else on earth is a part of the problem.
The fact that we exist is a problem to them.

THE "OTHER" FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

QUOTE: These radical environmentalists actually believe that there will be unprecedented global disasters if radical population control measures are not enforced across the globe immediately.
Of course by now most people who will read this article know that this bizarre population control agenda is even represented in the White House. Barack Obama's "science czar", John P. Holdren, once co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" in which he advocated population control measures that are so wild and so bizarre that it is difficult to believe that a sane individual actually authored them.
What follows are actual quotes from Holdren's textbook....
Pages 787 and 788....
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would haveto meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Pages 786 and 787....
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838....
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Keep in mind that Holdren is now Barack Obama's top science advisor."

"SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF"

QUOTE: (same link)
But even some of the richest people in the world are absolutely obsessed with population control. Back on May 5th, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other of the wealthiest people in the world gathered for a clandestine meeting in Manhattan. The meeting was supposed to be so secret that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told that they were at "security briefings".
So what was so important that so many of the wealthiest people in the world had to gather for a secret meeting?
Population control.
what we do know is that in the name of fighting "climate change", the United Nations and the global elite plan to pursue a radical population control agenda. According to their own documents, the number one problem the world is facing is "climate change" and the number one cause of "climate change" is overpopulation.
Knowing that many nations on earth will never willingly submit to open population control measures, the global elite will likely implement their population reduction methods by subtle means. Let us just hope that they are not successful in their attempts to eliminate as many people as possible.

Interesting

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/wind-turbines-leave-clouds-and-energy-inefficiency-their-wake

India, China won't sign Copenhagen Accord

January 23, 2010

"The Indian and Chinese governments have had a rethink on signing the Copenhagen Accord, ...

Only four countries -- Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives -- have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, ..."

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article93870.ece?homepage=true

Does this mean that Canada has to give back it's Fossil Award? When it's all said and done, Canada comes out looking like a hero - again.

R/M old man....

A fan of Darth Vader I see............

Population Control All Ready Exists

The "global elite" wouldn't be such without keeping about 3 billion people at the $2/day income level.....

re: India, China won't sign Copenhagen Accord

realisticman is right about this. The utter irony of all the Canada-bashing that went on in Copenhagen.

Pretty hard to watch these "street theatre" and "news conferences" in the same light.

As it turns out, Harper doesn't deserve the "Fossil" award any more than Gore and the IPCC deserve their Nobel Prize.

Population control already exists Mk. II

It's called War.

RickieW

So who are your hero's from Copenhagen?

I bet you won't answer.

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate

"AGW theory is toast. So’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern Review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC. But if you think I’m cheered by this you’re very much mistaken. I’m trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I’m finished there won’t be anything left to say: the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

It looks like The Tyee may qualify for atoll status.

mopled

It feels that way to you because you're in an echo chamber.

Frankly, Frank, I don't give a damn for pigeonholes

Frank:
"This is the real issue for you isn't it Mia? All the denials about climate change are really nothing more than a concern that policies in its name could be used against your bank account.

Because as I've noted before, all your "facts" aren't about science, its about politics and your aversion to changing your lifestyle."

My bank account is empty.
I spent three decades of savings on a Prius back in 2004.
And yes, it is true. I would have an aversion to anyone trying to change my lifestyle, my carbon neutral wood stove winters heated with my own blow down wood, my pure unsullied well water, my minimalist recycled waste, my proactive personal composting program, my vinegar, baking soda and lemon juice household cleaning items, my organic food. I would only change one thing, and give it up readily and that, despite a lifetime of great care, would be my fNH b-cell lymphoma, created from toxic root canals and an non green I(but nevertheless AFRICAN green monkey polio virus laden) polio vaccine. So I agree with you totally that if anyone tries to come between me and my hybrid car, or my back to the land life, or my less is more philosophy, or my satisfyingly simple lifestyle, I am definitely going to have a serious aversion to that.
I walk the talk. And in virtual reality the fact is that you know less than NOTHING about me.
So, pigeonholing by presumption and just reactive toxic waste random lambasting, is that your whole schtick? If so, so sad.
Amazing that no one uses the "suggest as offensive" tab for your attacks, but then most here appear to be a good humoured, tolerant bunch of Canadians.

Mia

You're the last person that should accuse anyone else of "pigeon holing".

And as for being offensive, you were being that long before I signed on to this thread. But by all means click the button, knock yourself out, I don't give a rat's ass.

"And in virtual reality the fact is that you know less than NOTHING about me. "

And you know even less about me. But lack of access to facts outside your mailing list isn't your strong suit is it?