What a stretch!

Head injuries are real. The last year has brought so much more evidence that human caused climate change is an impossibility.

Just last week a new paper was published which shows that that sea temperatures have actually declined since the Medieval Warm Period.
http://www.www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011PA002130.shtml
Just the fact that Greenland hasn't been green for almost 1000 years should have stopped the bandwagon years ago, even without the latest cache of Climategate emails showing how the false consensus was arrived at by bullying and isolating any scientist who was skeptical about the concept of a human cause of climate changes.

I don't think we can get anywhere in solving real problems without dumping the false AGW paradigm, embarrassing though that will be.

it's the sun, stupid

when cosmic radiation is high, more clouds form, and the planet cools. when solar activity is high, cosmic radiation is reduced, fewer clouds and higher planetary temperatures. same goes for other planets like mars, which lacks suv's. climate "science" has been bastardized by money, politics and the new green religion. let's focus on real eco issues driven by the rogue ape.

Wow!

Why listen to the 2500 plus IPCC scientists (200 hundred of whom are Nobel Laureates) who compiled years of research, studies, data, etc. to create the largest PEER reviewed scientific paper in the history of the world, which gave a scientific certainty that global warming is human caused, when we could have just called on the Tyee's resident geniuses (judy and not so smart) to give us the real goods! 'Nuff said.

"Wow!" is right, because the IPCC is more than wrong

"many good, smart, sincere people have worked on IPCC reports over the years. Many of them were simply naïve – oblivious to the fact that they were being used by UN officials like pawns in an international chess game."

"what goes on at the IPCC is nothing like what is normally understood by the term peer-review.

I then list six examples of how the IPCC’s peer-review process, such as it is, has been undercut, circumvented, and short-circuited. IPCC rules sound great in practice. But there are no traffic cops enforcing them, and absolutely no consequences when people violate them.

It is foolish, in the extreme, to imagine that just because an IPCC rule exists on paper it is being followed 100% of the time."
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/01/03/interviews/

Please Judy, tell us in your

Please Judy, tell us in your own words what parts of the consensus position on anthropogenic climate change you disagree with, and why?

Let me count the ways

Not in my own words because it would take far too much time and I suspect it is a trap anyway. I will just refer you to:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138

What has astounded me about the 20 year fuss, is how little understanding most people have about basic science.

Again, not in my own words because others have said it better like Michael Crichton on “consensus science”

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

—Michael Crichton, Aliens cause Global Warming [January 17, 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology]

I hope that helps clarify your thinking.

I'm just asking you to put

I'm just asking you to put these arguments in your own words. Not Michael Crichton's, not Donna LaFramboise's.

I'd like to know if you are able to separate the political implications of climate science from the actual, physical basis of climate science.

So, I'll ask again: In your own words, what exactly do you disagree with regarding the consensus position on anthropogenic climate change?

The scientific and political

became mixed up because the US has spent over $80 Billion on supporting the AGW meme. They continue to spend $6 Billion a year on it.

In spite of the money spent, there is no proof CO2 is a controller of climate.

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999) .

If you are really interested, as opposed to catching me out, examine the evidence for yourself. http:www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196

Do not allow yourself to be manipulated by the idea that oil companies control the skeptics. The big money from Big Oil has actually flowed to supporting AGW. BP and Shell supplied most of the money to establish the CRU at the University of East Anglia

The US Department of Energy,(in reality the Nuclear Establishment,) funds most of CRU's on going "research". Climategate 2 showed the DOE supported keeping taxpayer funded data away from examination by outsiders. The US government pays half the tab for the IPCC and private foundations have funded the Green Agenda which was the brainchild of the Rockefeller founded Club of Rome.

Canadians have been very instrumental in exposing the faults in the phony consensus.
Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre would be recognized as the heroes they are anywhere else for breaking the "Hockey Stick." Have you even heard of them?

I am puzzled by the reluctance of many who are not on the gravy train to recognize that there is nothing supporting AGW except a great deal of taxpayer money. There is not only no scientific proof that human generated CO2 can change climate, there is continuously increasing evidence that our Sun is the climate driver, as Max pointed out.

I ask you, why continue to be a slave to a false and destructive paradigm?

The Consensus Position.

Don't try this at home kids, unless you've limbered up first.

plebe, the point is there is no consensus. The consensus is there is no consensus. Flavour of the Month in many trendy 'we gotta do something' thinkfest groups is the ultimate scare, 'the end of the world is nigh' based on aging first-world socialists wanting to take a last stab at ruling the world by clamping down on capitalism and the free market, and throwing in a white-man's guilt trip about burning coal and oil. On his blog Mark Brooks even quotes Naomi Klien, she of Shock Doctrine doctrine. All the links go to more blogs, every one begging for donations. So, it's also a very nice schtick this enviro scare gig. The money just pours in from freaked out teeny boppers that want to be trendy too and aging self-appointed intellectuals that love the guilt because they are so comfortable and uncomfortable at the same time with the success of market capitalism, so that the heavy-duty spielers can all drape themselves in Patagonia and North Face garb and trip around the planet to bath-water slurping gabfests in the neatest of places. (Expect a glossy Condé Nast magazine on Enviro Trends and Destinations soon.) Who covered fashion at Durban? Did anyone report on the Spa? Will Brigette dePape wear a hijab in the next UN gathering at Qatar next year?

Meanwhile, the clamour for our governments to pour our money into wind and solar projects and companies is relentless utopian premature embarrassment. Unsophisticated immature sensationalists assuming to know something about engineering and science, never mind the business aspects. Google 'Solyndra Belly-Up' if you want to see how this scam, or scheme works. They swallowed half a billion of US taxpayers money, plus an extra chunk from Californians too. Closer to home check out Timminco, they are Canadian solar wannabees and they went bankrupt only this week. Another Canadian company, ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. recently booked a quarterly loss of $67.1-million as the company took a big charge for its money-losing solar technology unit.

From an accounting and business and a market perspective the consensus position seems to be that solar is a big bust, and I don't mean that in the mammary sense.

As for climate science. It is blatantly clear that there is none. There is only climate theory. Ask any real scientist.

Judycross says "head injury

Judycross says "head injury are real." Really? The theory that fighting causes CTE is just that, a theory. It's backed up by only a handful of post mortem exams. We don't even know if the pathologists involved are motivated by their personal opposition to hockey &/or violence. I'm surprised that someone as skeptical as judycross (and realisticman) doesn't promote the plausible alternative theory that people whose brains naturally exhibit the characteristics of CTR are predisposed to play hockey -- especially as enforcers. There may be other theories as well.

Why the lack of debunking alternative science and propaganda in the hockey case? Could it be that the profits in violent hockey are nothing like those involved in production and processing of fossil fuels?

Concussions, Conspiracies and Con Artists.

frank2; there will always be pawns to be played.

As I'm sure you know, Petro-China just this week is buying all of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Were there an alternative fuel for the growing number of millions of vehicles in China one can be sure that China would opt for it, for they do not have any oil of their own and this will only to attenuate their finances.

ministry of truth at work

I have repeatedly tried to view the article at http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138
but my Internet Explorer encounters problems and shuts down. Must contain heresies questioning AGW.

I know nothing about hockey and could care less.

and I think equating hockey injuries with climate is Red Herring Country.

Realistic, turning the climate debate into one about capitalism vs socialism also strays into Red Herring Country.

RM please look up the definitions of hypothesis and theory. AGW is a hypothesis which lacks evidence.

Not everyone cares about the fate of NHL players.

The youngsters who learn by watching - that is another issue.

There is no connection between climate change and ice hockey violence. The only lesson the climate campaigners could learn is that people pay to see violence done on the ice, so why not start sticking the boots to climate change deniers?

Granville

I am not a "climate change denier" and neither are the skeptics. The actual "climate change denier" is you!

Climate changes all by itself...always has....always will!

Judy:

The climate changes only when it is forced to do so. And you're right, it has changed all by itself, and mainly due to millenial scale changes in the distribution of incoming solar radiation (Milankovitch cycles). But these occur verrrry gradually. It's why we had ice ages occur every 100,000 years or so for the last million years.

In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide absorbs thermal (longwave) radiation. By increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2, we are decreasing the amount of longwave radiation lost to space. Decreased longwave emission to space increases the energy content of the atmosphere and the oceans.

In your own words, is there anything in there that you disagree with? Please, nothing political, no sound bites, no insults.

did you know?

November 2011 was the 321st consecutive month that global temperatures were above the 20th century average?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20111215_globalstats.html

If you want to pretend that climate isn't changing your odds of being above average or below average are 50/50 in any given month. So we flip a coin. What are the chances of flipping 321 heads in a row?

Fantastic...what a discovery , plebe!

The climate doesn't behave the way the models predict. So it's warmer than somebody thinks it should be....so what!

That still does not give the 3% (what all human activity represents) of a trace gas the power to buck the Sun, cosmic rays, Milankovitch Cycles, where we are in relationship to the spiral arms of the galaxy and anything else that is beyond our control, and change climate.

Here's news pf another brand new paper published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics, authored by Nicola Scafetta, 2012: Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation models.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/05/scafetta-ipcc-warming-claim-is-erroneous-ipcc-projections-for-the-21st-century-cannot-be-trusted/

It is really silly to keep asking me to explain things when scientists do it so much better.

Just for the record

Realisticman totally supported the carbon tax and said on the Tyee back when that issue was being argued : "We have to deal with global warming, we must do something".

I assumed that he was saying that only because he totally supported Campbell and said so. He denied that accusation and repeated that a carbon tax was necessary to do our part in the fight against global warming.

What a surprise to see him now say global warming is bunk.

odds are:

1 in 2^321, or 1 in 4.27 x 10^96.

The sun is the climate engine, and no one denies that. But the sun's output has not been increasing. It is not responsible for the observed increase in temperatures over the 20th century:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/solar-variability.gif

(Observant readers will note that Judy appears to be unable to stick with a single coherent argument - first she asserts that there is no warming (there is); then she attacks the IPCC (which anyone can comment on); then its an attack on the idea of scientific consensus (is she skeptical of evolution too? of the atomic theory of matter? of the germ theory of disease?); then its all about the oodles of money climate scientists are raking in (?); then "it's the sun" (it's not); and finally she pulls out the trace gas argument". And she still can't say why she disagrees with the basic idea that increasing CO2 will lead to a warmer planet, in her own words.)

For the Record

Frank. Before I did enough research I was inclined to believe what some people said. I even believed you when you wrote; "As far as global warming goes, I think it will mean the end of Canada because there is no way we are going to remain a low population, militarily weak, land of plenty in a world with far too many people and declining resources."

Then later you told us, "I'm still against the carbon tax, still think it won't help the environment."

Abroad we had commentators from The Economist to the Sydney Morning Herald saying things like this," When arguing for the carbon tax, Mr Campbell faced the same political obstacles that have stymied such plans elsewhere," the report says.

Only environmentalists were enthusiastic. Businesses feared it would add to costs and slow the economy. The leftish New Democratic Party (NDP) worried it would hurt the poor. But these fears have proved groundless.

"The carbon tax has been good for the environment, good for taxpayers and it hasn't hurt the economy," says Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.

Read more: smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/where-the-carbon-tax-is-working-nicely-20110725-1hwka.html#ixzz1ihV8NdpQ

If I'm not mistaken the NDP now supports this tax. Didn't Carole James, Mike Farnworth and others say that opposing Gordon Campbell's Carbon Tax was a mistake and now they agree that is good policy?

Then of course, we had Climategate.

climategate

was a politically motivated hack and release of private emails to try and discredit leading climate scientists in the runup to both Copenhagen and Durban.

As the scientists involved have been investigated and unanimously acquitted of any scientific malpractice by 6 (or is it 7, I can't keep track) independent panels, the only true revelations from the illegal release of private correspondence are that scientists are humans too.

Nice non sequitur by the way (what does climategate have to do with a carbon tax? answer: nothing!)

A plebe is just ...

Quite right. Totally unrelated. As I said, this climate stuff is really quite lucrative. Did you see the British minister's new pad? Probably about the same size as Al Gore's.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063488/Climate-Minister-buys-castle-16-bathrooms--massive-carbon-footprint.html

Climategate 1&2

Only an insider could have have even understood the significance of most of the emails. I think it was probably a disgusted whistleblower and no matter who did it, the emails are both real and revealing. They are not "private", they are work related and US taxpayers paid for the work.

I am nothing and nobody, so trying to make this about me while ignoring the evidence is just a typical propagandist trick. There was no meaningful investigation, there was only a whitewash.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/climategate-ii-handy-guide-to-spot-whitewash-journalism-the-top-10-excuses-for-scientists-behaving-badly/

By the way plebe...where is your evidence CO2 can change climate? Got ANY?

Can you answer this very important question?

Tell us, do!
The carbon tax is totally meaningless except as another revenue grab.

realisticman

Hypocrites abound everywhere, but the size of the Climate Minister's house still doesn't make climate science wrong.

r'man

I didn't change my opinion on the carbon tax, as you well know. I still oppose it although the NDP doesn't.

The facts didn't change but you want to play both sides, you want a carbon tax but don't believe there's a reason for one.

"The leftish New Democratic Party (NDP) worried it would hurt the poor. But these fears have proved groundless."

Not at all, the carbon tax is yet one more tax for not-being-rich the Libs have given us.

Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors

Google it.

Frank

Didn't get your rebate huh Frank?
To help offset the cost of the carbon tax, lower-income British Columbians will receive an annual Climate Action Credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child;...

The tax doesn't bother me Frank. I think that it's a good idea that people choose more fuel efficient vehicles rather than belching monsters, if that is a result then okay.

There initially certainly seemed to be irrational opposition which appeared to be targeted towards Gordon Campbell, rather than the tax. Perhaps that influenced me. The NDP changed its mind, which it had to.

r'man

Fact is you would have opposed the carbon tax if the NDP had introduced it on the grounds global warming isn't happening.

Hello Plebe.....

Where's the proof CO2 can change climate?

I'm waiting......

Bit of a stretch but ok

Bit of a stretch to compare the two issues, but I get what the author is saying here.
Basically we are ignoring two serious issues out of short term self interest. In the long terms we are going to see terrible impacts from climate change, and if more isn't done to protect our athletes (brain injuries are certainly not limited to just hockey players) we are going to see more of them decline mentally at young ages.
I cringe at what we may see happen to Sidney Crosby as he grows older, and I am very fearful for what will happen as a result of our changing climate.

Comparing the two issues is a bit of a stretch but if you can cram two good points into one article hey why not?

Let's stretch just a wee bit more

Humans are able to change climate....just not the way you have been led to think.

Here's an oldie:
"The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) will enhance the U.S. military's long-range radio communications and surveillance by injecting high-frequency radio energy into the fluctuating ionosphere, 50 to 800 kilometres above the earth.

Although HAARP's use of high-frequency radio energy or "heat" into the ionosphere could have serious global repercussions, no concrete knowledge exists about the impact of these enormous amounts of energy being injected into the upper atmosphere. Rather, HAARP is an on-going experiment designed to modify and manage the ionosphere to suit military purposes without serious consideration about the consequences."
http:sfu.ca/cmns/research/newswatch/pcc/95-3.html

Here is something more recent: http://indianinthemachine.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/another-haarp-this-time-in-canada-west-of-saskatoon-near-asquith-i-wonder-how-saskatchewan-farmers-feel-that-weather-wars-are-now-a-reality/

OK...now can we stop ignoring the real cause of man-made-climate-change?

Sorry, bad link

http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/research/newswatch/pcc/95-3.html

occam's razor (for judy)

"is a principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false."

- Wikipedia

The simplest explanation is the great heater in the sky

So, where's the proof that it is CO2 and not the Sun?

You keep forgetting that it is up to those that propose an hypothesis to prove it. You pretend that it has been, when the fact is, it is impossible.

"In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi."
http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

So,where's your proof?

Here I am ...

...trying to save the planet, taking my bike to work in the rain and then Etna joins in with a bunch more in Indonesia, Chile, Hawaii, Alaska and all the others and just makes my job a bit harder! Maybe I'll turn down the thermostat too.

You have to admit that this video is beautiful but it makes me cry when I think of the emissions coming out of the tailpipe of my little fuel-efficient 4 cylinder hybrid and this fat puppy. How many Prius's does this equate to?

youtube.com/watch?v=hCLINwrZLTE

Its okay realisticman,

Its okay realisticman, volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, which is only about 1% of human CO2 emissions (around 29 billion tonnes per year).

I had an awesome bike ride in today in the slush!

Everyone is off the hook

The latest is that CO2 can save us from the next ice age. Hoorah! Now we can burn anything we want and will only be doing a good deed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/new-paper-agw-may-save-us-from-the-next-ice-age/

What's not to like?

But Judy!

I thought you didn't believe that little itty-bitty amounts of CO2 could change the climate. I though you said it was all about the Sun. No, wait, I forgot - you said it was HAARP. No, sorry, scratch that, you said the IPCC conclusions were a actually a conspiracy, that scientists are making money hand over fist, that Al Gore Is FAT!!

Troll.

That's the joke!

"There was an ice age during the Ordovician – with atmospheric CO2 10X the current (unprecedented) level.
CO2 levels were much higher for almost all of modern geologic history. The only thing unprecedented is the ignorance of the experts."
http://www.real-science.com/scientists-worried-chicago-crushed-ice

This paper allows the climate crazies to dismount the tiger of AGW now that it has been proven impossible. They can say, "Oh, look, we were right that CO2 stores heat, but it it turns out to be a good thing after all. Sorry for the inconvenience".

Troll yourself! I'm real and that is my name. That disqualifies me from the troll designation...plebe. Who are you?

Hockey is one of the most

Hockey is one of the most famous sport game and ice hockey is my sports game and my favorite team is Boston Bruins when any match come i buy cheap Boston bruins tickets from TicketDove.com because this is one and only site who give me cheapest rates tickets.