Topics
IAC Prime Member
|
| | | |
The CODE
|
12/5/2009 1:02:18 PM
BoB does ClimateGate...?
" Bob Dylan has star billing at the climate change summit in Copenhagen…
or at least, his music does.
The United Nations has adopted one of his songs, A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall,
as its unofficial anthem for the talks.
This is a song best known for channelling the fears of a generation living under
the threat of nuclear war. "
BBC ONLINE NEWS 5/12/2009
???
Float me Away
" Look at the sky, one day it’s blue
Next day it’s black, what you think about that
Look at the rain, coming down,
Falling all around, on everybody’s town "
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/5/2009 1:32:43 PM
Climate Gate is an invention of Fox News. I think Larree even deleted his blog about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html
|
|
The CODE
|
12/6/2009 1:15:25 PM
Interesting angle to take on this Holo!
I didn't know Fox News had Offices and a Studio
at the University of East Anglia in the UK!!!
Float me Away Now! Whoa!
;-{}
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/6/2009 3:45:07 PM
Let me clarify. If not for Fox News pushing this story beyond belief, nobody in US would've paid any attention to it, it's so dumb and insignificant.
|
|
Paul groover,s Hangout
|
12/6/2009 4:13:28 PM
The head scientist in the UK has resigned over this. The talks in Copenhagen are a sham based on lies. Co2 is nothing to worry about it is a gas like any other gas it goes up it goes down what,s the big deal. I have not heard of one case through history of people dying because there is to much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it has been at much higher levels than it is now in the past did anyone die no did the polar bears become extinct no in fact nothing happened. There is no big deal only lies and spin to make you believe there is something wrong so they can implement another ponzi scheme on the people of the world. In the words of the great rappers Public enemy Don,t believe the Hype because that,s all they got
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/6/2009 4:32:25 PM
Sure, go on thinking that what a couple scientists gossip about has anything to do with the bigger picture.
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
It's a conspiracy !!!!
You people are wacks and you probably don't believe in evolution either.
|
|
Paul groover,s Hangout
|
12/6/2009 4:43:46 PM
The last refuge avoid the question slam all people with other views and hope they go away. I have the emails and documents from the University i could send them to you if you want. Then you can make your own mind up if this real. I know it is because i have read these documents and emails i did my own research
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/6/2009 6:52:10 PM
You let us know when you have conspiratorial emails from the other 98% of the scientists in the world that make up the consensus on global warming, OK?
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/6/2009 7:41:47 PM
Just read the 2 articles I posted on this blog and shut up.
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
12/7/2009 12:56:39 AM
---- Updated 12/7/2009 1:13:45 AM
"the World IS flat!!! ...I heard it on T.V. today, Larree!! ..."whenever a thing is happening over there we can see it right now ...happening from HERE!!" ...exactly as it happens... see?? ...HERE!! ...that means the world is "flat" ...technically, "here" is as far as you can see... -M-
PS===> Mikhail Gorbachev is the "REAL" Green-Czar!!
see===> http://www.gci.ch/
THE GREEN CROSS
|
|
The CODE
|
12/7/2009 11:40:03 AM
ClimateGate: Global Warming and the Fudge Factor
1,200 Limo's, 194 Private Jets, Caviar etc etc...
Some Conference this is turning out to be!
|
|
The CODE
|
12/9/2009 1:09:51 PM
MadOff & Gore! Larree that would be a great
double act - behind Bars!
(Worth paying money to see I would say!!!)
Dopehagen is starting to disintegrate already
as far as I can see, will be interesting to see
what the final outcome will be?
ROCK!
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/9/2009 2:11:13 PM
from HuffPo
COPENHAGEN — “Climategate” has muddied the good green message that was supposed to come out of the United Nations climate change talks here, forcing leaders to spend time justifying the science behind global warming when they want to focus on ending it.
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stirred the pot Wednesday with a Washington Post op-ed calling on President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen talks over climategate and the “agenda-driven science” it exposed.
Obama will surely ignore the call. And the Environmental Defense Fund’s Peter Goldmark told POLITICO Wednesday that climategate isn’t coming up in private meetings among nongovernmental organizations in Copenhagen and is not an issue for negotiators.
But again and again this week, U.N. officials and government leaders have felt the need to defend climate science in public — something few of them would have thought necessary just a few weeks ago.
“Now, we know that skeptics have and will continue to try and sow doubts about the science of climate change,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a briefing to an overflow crowd at the U.S. center here Wednesday. “These are the same tactics that have been used by defenders of the status quo for years. Those tactics only serve to delay and distract from the real work ahead, namely, growing our clean energy economy and finding innovative, cost-effective ways to reduce harmful” greenhouse gases.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took a similar tack in New York Tuesday, telling journalists that nothing made public from the private e-mail accounts of prominent climate scientists casts doubt on the causes or effects of climate change. In fact, he said, climate change is occurring “much, much faster than we realized, and we human beings are the primary cause.”
And in Copenhagen Tuesday, the World Meteorological Organization and the British Meteorological Office teamed up on offense, releasing new figures showing that the current decade is the warmest on record.
“These figures highlight that the world continues to see global temperature rise, most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and [they] clearly show that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed,” they said in a statement.
Robert Watt, the head of communications for the Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute and a former policy adviser in the British government, said environmental leaders should “relish the opportunity to explain the science” behind global warming.
Still, he acknowledged that all the climategate talk has created a “tricky” problem of public perception.
“People do come up and say, ‘I see so many different things in the media,’” Watt said. He blamed the press for creating a “fake equivalence” between climate change believers and climate change skeptics. “It’s not that sort of debateabout opinion but, rather, a debate about facts, about observations and science,” he said.
“I think this is a completely annoying distraction,” added Kim Carstensen, leader of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Initiative. “It’s very clear that this has been done to discredit climate research. ... It’s a bluff. There’s nothing in it; it’s just a huge distraction.”
But one person’s distraction is another person’s tool. And for those who oppose an international agreement or cap-and-trade legislation in the United States, climategate is a useful one. A group of House Republicans cited the controversy Tuesday as they outlined their plans for a Copenhagen trip, and the negotiator for Saudi Arabia — a country not exactly itching to end the world’s dependency on fossil fuels — raised it at the opening session of the U.N. conference Monday.
In her Washington Post op-ed, Palin said that climategate has taken the “radical environmental movement” to a “tipping point.”
Not so, said Goldmark.
“It’s another Internet frenzy thing,” Goldmark told POLITICO Wednesday. “These things get a life, and they reproduce themselves like little bacteria. ... Our attitude is, it’s the same old stuff from the same old people, and it doesn’t change the science at all. None of the NGOs pay a lot of attention to it.”
Goldmark added: “I don’t think it’s an issue in the conference for the people negotiating.”
But even he acknowledged that it’s too soon to tell whether climategate will have an effect on the politics of climate change — or on the prospects for getting a cap-and-trade bill through the U.S. Senate.
“I’m not saying it couldn’t have a political consequence, but it’s not attached to a real-world event yet,” he said. “We’ll see in a couple of months what it does.”
|
|
The CODE
|
12/9/2009 3:32:22 PM
This is a bit long winded Holo (like the subject!),
but worth a read in answer to your last post:
Joe Bastardi is a long range weather forcaster
for ACCUWEATHER.COM (based in the USA!)
Joe Bastardi's Europe Column
POSTED: 7:36 a.m. December 9, 2009
SPECIAL ON WMO "REVELATION"
So Just how was the WMO measuring temps 50, 500, 2000 years ago.
I wanted to avoid this, but I have to bring it up.
You gotta love these guys. Warmest decade on record?
The warmest you have ever measured with the way you measured it.
Perhaps.
But it does'nt hide the fact that since the peak in 1998, the earth has
cooled a bit, when the models said it would be warming. The satellite
data is only 30 years old in addition to this. Thermometers world wide are
BIASED warm since they are mainly in URBAN SETTINGS. There are
many more close to a place that would have them read warmer than outlying areas. In addition, getting rid of 2/3 of the thermometers in Russia, mostly in
outlying areas, is going to have a bit of an effect on temps.
Besides, just how were you measuring temps in previous warm periods.
Just how are you calibrating thermometers. Just what are you throwing
out and keeping in. Look, this global warming situation is not much
different than what led to the banking crisis here in this country,
or if I really want to get both sides of the political sides mad,
what happened in Iraq, no matter how you feel. People are playing
with info to suit their needs. My only need here is to be right,
because if I am, who are you going to trust in 10 years, or if
my son does this, 40 years, someone who was in search of the right
answer in this to get the overall forecast right, or people who have
a vested interest in making sure that they are not questioned.
My point is my search allows for the room to be wrong.. their
search has no room, for if they are wrong, they are discredited
to a point where no one will listen again to a thing they say.
You know its funny, these people talk of future generations
and how they want to save them. By doing what, limiting them first?
And over what. One says CO2 pollutes the air.
CO2 IS PART OF THE AIR.
Its not something foreign to it. Its like saying water vapor, the
number one greenhouse gas, pollutes the air.
And by the way, just what is the "normal" temp of the earth?
Will one of these geniuses tell us that. What is the best temp
to sustain life on the planet in the most optimum way. I will tell
you this. If it does get 1 degree colder like I am forecasting by 2030,
there will be alot more unhappy people about that than if its warmer.
But the point is, what did you expect. These people arent dumb..
they know that its a matter of time before the average person
wakes up (they already are) and right or wrong swings the other way.
They know how much cold is coming the next 3 weeks into major
population centers of the northern hemisphere, though a couple of
months ago they had no idea (since we had cold winters forecasted
from July, we certainly had some idea). And they know the same kind
of any way the wind blows mentality will take over if it does get cold.
So they better darn well make sure no matter how cold you are getting,
you think its getting warmer.
Look here is what I am asking, exactly opposite of what comes out of
Al Gore and the rest. Dont believe me, go look for yourself. People
are getting so used to having things handed to them, including now
"science" they wont fend for themselves. That makes you a puppet.
Why when you were blessed with a life, would you simply become that?
So I dont want you to believe me, but go back and study this.
Spend 30 minutes a week. The information is out there. I would
look at sites such as ICECAP and get my hands on the book Climate
Change Reconsidered. Its not like weapons of mass destruction where
only a few people saw what was there, or the banking crisis.
This is something that the average person can do.
If you want this to be about the science, then let it be about
the science.
Go look back through all the data, and understand that you cant
measure at the time of Rome, or the Vikings or the Great Depression
the way you measure things now. And the fact that the people measuring
it would be discredited and CAN NOT TURN BACK no matter what from the
ones with the scientific reputations on the lines, to the ones that
are trying to jam a forced solution down the throat of the world,
should speak volumes as to who the people after the right answer are.
Al Gore, who doesnt have the guts to debate anyone on this issue,
a man who may soon be a carbon billionaire, claiming people who
are fighting him are in the pockets of polluters. You do the math.
ciao for now!
|
|
Magnetfisch
|
12/9/2009 3:36:10 PM
---- Updated 12/9/2009 3:53:55 PM
1969, Woodstock Festival; Mauna Loa annual mean data: 324.62 ppm CO2
1981, Metallica formed; 340.11 ppm CO2
1991, U2, Achtung Baby; 355.48 ppm CO2
2001, The Cure, Greatest Hits. Inuit (an early instrumental song of ours*)); 371.07 ppm CO2
2008: Kings of Leon, Only By The Night; 385.57 ppm CO2
RealClimate (climate science from climate scientists)
*"Several coastal villages are now actively trying to figure out where to move entire communities", BBC, 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6230731.stm)
|
|
Bryon Tosoff
|
12/9/2009 4:00:18 PM
Worst dump of snow and cold snap in years happening in the many parts of the USA and Canada in the last few days, Global Warming aint happening there it seems
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
12/9/2009 8:23:50 PM
We just had a very large snowfall in Kansas and it is bitter cold ... but that does not mean that global warming isn't happening ...
I'm no scientist ... I don't know much about a lot of things ... the experts on both sides probably know less ... one thing is for sure, the icecaps are melting at a staggering pace and I believe it is obvious that global warming is happening ...
Now who or what is causing this is the question ?
Man has a tendency to screw up everything natural ... so I'm betting that it is probably us causing it ...
We are responsible for much of the animal extinctions on earth ... as well as plant life and we will be responsible for our own species demise without a question in my mind ...
I can tell you the climate IS changing ... and at least in Kansas it IS getting warmer ... It is easily seen when one opens their eyes to nature ...
We now have quite an abundant amount of Armadillos here ... They like warm weather and have NEVER have come this far north until the migration started a few years back ... our other wildlife species and populations have also changed dramatically in the last 10 to 20 years ...
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/9/2009 11:43:34 PM
Code, your weatherman seems out of it. Even most of the skeptics don't deny that global warming is happening. Like Sam says, some doubt it's caused by man.
The scientific community has facts on its side. There's a pretty wide consensus. Larree makes me chuckle because he has a song complaining about big oil yet he doesn't realize that they're the one with the agenda here, that are muddying the water.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/10/2009 1:01:51 PM
Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced their latest temperature measurements, which indicate 2009 is on track to be the either the 4th, 5th or 6th warmest year on record -making this the warmest decade on record.
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
12/10/2009 1:12:59 PM
Volcanic eruptions have spewed out much more greenhouse gases than mankind has ever done or will ever do. Just check the statistical estimates. The fact that the earth's magnetic field is weakening, allowing more solar radiation to get through, is the likely cause of climate change. I'm certain that mankind hasn't caused this weakening of the field. It has happened quite a few times in the earth's history... most of them when man was supposedly still in an algae/slime state. -M-
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/10/2009 2:27:07 PM
Sure Psyches Muse, an 88% majority of the scientific community is wrong and you're right. Volcanoes are the culprit!!!!!!
|
|
Bryon Tosoff
|
12/10/2009 2:44:56 PM
volcanoes culprits too
Quote
"Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."
unquote
Supposedly a small factor that works out to 1 percent for the volcanoes and 99 percent for us, what about the cows and sheep, they fart and belch too, all these are opinions conjectures and whatevers.
|
|
The CODE
|
12/10/2009 3:45:15 PM
Hollo - Are YOU A Scientist? This guy sure 'aint!!!
"Earths core temperature is MILLIONS of Degrees"
(NOT!)
One born every minute!
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
12/10/2009 4:26:52 PM
No one knows what the Earth's core temperature really is ... but it is estimated by several top scientist using logic and Volcanic measurements and such to be around ... 7000 ºC or 12632 ºF ...
Which brings me to something I always wonder why never gets questioned ...
We are living on a living ticking bomb ... and why does no one ever put out studies about what we are doing to the inner earth ?
It is my theory, that we are causing just as much damage pumping oil from the earth as we are burning it ...
Oil is a coolant ... oil also creates an almost impenetrable layer of protection ... we are depleting that layer of protection and insulation ... it is my belief that we are releasing hell to the surface ... We are just as likely to burn up from the inner heat inside the earth as we are burning up from the Suns fury ...
It doesn't take a rocket to see what nature is telling us ... the dumb animals know what's happening ... and the smart humans are too stupid to see it ... sigh ...
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
12/10/2009 6:55:49 PM
---- Updated 12/10/2009 6:59:12 PM
Damn Colin, you got a lot of conspiracy theorists to come out of the woodwork with this blog!
And now back to the MUSIC:
Love's facing Technology (by THE CODE)
We scream and shout, shout so loud
Why don’t we talk about the way things should be
Lately I can see, You don’t want to change
Holding back is the way to keep it the same
I whisper to you, Hey, you're not free
The way you hold back causes your pain
I run and I cry, my tanks are running dry
But I won’t be no part of your games, Oh No!
Love...Love today, Loves facing technology
Love...Love today, Loves facing technology
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/10/2009 7:23:19 PM
All of you failed science in school.
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
12/10/2009 7:31:20 PM
haaa haaa.... NO.
If we were talkin' computer science, I actually ROCKED it all the way to a Bachelors.
But YES, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, unlike Colin's Son, I never really got enough exposure to it.
All I can say is: I HOPE the conspiracy/EcoFearMonger-types are wrong.
and now back to more music by THE CODE:
Frustration
Chorus
I can see that you need - HELPING OUT
What’s the use of all this - FREAKING OUT
All you people burning - BURNING OUT
I hear your voices - SCREAM and SHOUT
F-F-Frus-tration, (Know what I’m talking about!)
Now I’m getting JUMPY, with all this hanging around
Always looking for SOMETHING, SOMEONE, ANYONE?
Come on turn me on
Where you are is what you got
Faceless people pull all the shots
Get yourself ready, Right NOW,
cause it’s time we pulled on out
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/11/2009 1:45:56 AM
Global warming is a given. The conspiracists think that it's all been falsified and the entire scienfific community is lying.
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
12/11/2009 2:55:14 AM
---- Updated 12/11/2009 2:57:03 AM
Good Tactic Holo.
A Politically Correct, Liberal, Conspiracy Theorist, and he's calling his political enemies conspiracists....
Takes one ta know one, eh?
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/11/2009 3:43:58 AM
Do you really think the concept of global warming is a conspiracy? If so you're an idiot.
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
12/11/2009 4:32:36 AM
DOH !
|
|
The CODE
|
12/11/2009 6:10:35 AM
Hollo - SUCK on this for a few moments!
December 7, 2009
The CIA's Global Cooling Files
By Maurizio Morabito, The UK Spectator, 5 December 2009
Sparked by an older ICECAP story on the CIA files on the Ice Age consensus
of scientists in 1974, Maurizio unearthed the CIA files and blogged on it here.
The threat of a new ice age loomed so large in 1974 that American intelligence
collated a report on the likely effects. Maurizio Morabito unearthed it.
A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods
and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic
change’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations’. The scenario is eerily familiar
although the document - never made public before - dates from 1974.
But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling,
not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists.
‘A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems’,
written by the CIA for ‘internal planning purposes’ in August 1974, goes a
little way towards explaining why some people over a certain age experience
a sense of deja-vu when climate change is mentioned; in the mid-1970s there
really was a lot of scientific discussion about global cooling. With the benefit of
hindsight, reading it makes one feel wry and embarrassed. So many of the terms
bandied about 35 years ago are still being employed by today’s fear-mongers
about the very opposite phenomenon. It is as if climate scares had to follow a set
pattern. Back in 1974 the usual disasters were projected: the ‘new climatic era’
was said to be bringing famine, starvation, refugee crises, floods, droughts, crop
and monsoon failures, and all sorts of extreme weather phenomena. The Sahara
would expand. World grain reserves, already at less than a month’s supply, would
be depleted. A list of past civilisations brought down by ‘major and minor’ cooling
episodes was given, which included the Indus, Hittites, Mycenaean, and the Mali
empire of Africa. Any possible benefits to climate change were barely mentioned.
More parallels can be drawn. According to the CIA report, in 1974 climate science
was developing ‘a successful climatic prediction model’, as indeed it still is.
Government intervention had brought together eminent scientists who had previously been at odds with each other then had established a ‘scientific consensus’ on ‘global climate change’. The scientists claimed this pattern of cooling would cause ‘major economic problems around the world’. Dealing with this would, of course, require the creation of several new government agencies. The media at the time seized on all of this, just as it is doing now. Newsweek and the New York Times described the global cooling threat. How is it that the parallels between that 1970s panic and today’s have been so little remarked upon? And it doesn’t stop there.
There have even been recent attempts to label the ‘global cooling consensus’ a
‘myth’, most notably in a well-publicised article by Thomas C. Peterson,
William M. Connolley, and John Fleck published by the American Meteorological
Society in September 2008.
It’s easy to miss what you do not look for. Mentions of a global cooling consensus
appear as far back as 1961. I found the CIA report referred to in a 1976 newspaper
article and was doubly amazed to discover it was available as a microfiche in the
British Library. So what would have prompted the CIA to compile such a dossier?
The most likely explanation is what it describes as the loss of ‘a significant portion’
of the USSR’s winter wheat crop in 1972. The harvest was so poor that the CIA
saw geopolitical ramifications. Its report says that ‘the politics of food’ is a complex
business, which cannot be understood by ‘existing analytical tools’.
So to address a political problem, they asked scientists to come up with a solution.
Precisely the same thing is happening today. One might almost conclude that, in the world of climatology, theories are made to order.
Or is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except
in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god? This might be
the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling: that we need to
grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise - much as it pains politicians and scientists - that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.
See Maurizio’s post here.
ICECAP Note: Tom Peterson is NOAA NCDC chief alarmist under Tom Karl.
Tom engineered the removal of the UHI adjustment in USHCNv2 in 2007.
William Connelly is part of the Real Climate propaganda team and is the prime
filter on the climate content of Wikipedia, keeping non AGW information out.
Both are key players in the fraud that the emails provided a window into.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/11/2009 9:02:14 AM
You're kidding, right?
|
|
The CODE
|
12/11/2009 1:13:58 PM
HA HA HA Holo!
We will have to agree to disagree on this subject!
Watch this Guy (sadly gone now) and have a chuckle!
ATB
|
|
HunkaFunk
|
12/11/2009 6:44:46 PM
---- Updated 12/11/2009 6:51:43 PM
People have died from C02:
Example in point-lake Nyos:
A pocket of magma lies beneath the lake and leaks carbon dioxide (CO2) into the water, changing it into carbonic acid. Nyos is one of only three known lakes to be saturated with carbon dioxide in this way, the others being Lake Monoun, 100 km (62 mi) away SSE, and Lake Kivu in Rwanda. On August 21, 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby villages.[2] Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event. To prevent a repetition, a degassing tube that syphons water from the bottom layers of water to the top allowing the carbon dioxide to leak in safe quantities was installed in 2001, though additional tubes are needed to make the lake safe.
Don't underestimate carbon dioxide, and it's potential danger to living organisms, and don't forget the hole in the ozone layer caused from fluorocarbons. The commercial bandwagon on climate change may be a bit over the top, and it's very costly to go "green" to reduce carbon footprint (and some of that push is a scam). But the consensus among many prominent, and respected scientists is that man is causing global climate change, unprecedented in our history. None of us are "tools", just trying to be informed...so... inform us.
TF
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
12/13/2009 7:52:45 AM
When I mentioned volcanic activity I was referencing that on a per incident basis certain of these eruptions have individually spewed more noxious substances than man has ever cumulatively done since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. By the way carbon dioxide is actually GOOD for the planet... the more of it we have the "GREENER" the planet becomes... imagine having rainforest from top to bottom. If you're for a "GREEN" planet you should rest easy as the CO2 levels increase. The plant-life will actually love us for it! ...More plants = more food/habitat for animal life... it's a win/win... unless you've invested too close to the shorelines.
-M-
|
|
Kevin White
|
12/13/2009 9:08:24 AM
What appears to be happening is a bunch of scientist found funding in a chicken little premise of screaming "the earth is warming" ... and found that it would rain money every time they yelled loud enough.
So they continued to shout it loudly. Most folks sort of ignored it until some fairly large action was proposed and some political figures started getting involved.
So the movement "got legs" and people who criticized it got steamrolled, but held their ground ... asking if it were true, why could no correlation be found.
Then big business found purpose to cap and trade ... and they started pushing for it. Now ... the question needs to be asked, "Why is BIG BUSINESS pushing so hard for something that a bunch of scientists came up with?" ... anyone else smell anything?
Well, the trouble is ... now that they have everyone's full attention and the really hard questions are being asked, people are starting to realize there might not have been as much science as conjecture behind the movement.
So far all they've been able to ascertain is that over the last 50 years, the earth has warmed.
How far will it warm? Unknown.
Why is it warmer? Unknown. (The only known being sunspot activity ... and yes, even recently the correlation holds.)
Is this just a normal cycle of the planet? Unknown (it just may be)
Will the earth cool down? Unknown.
What is known? Not a lot.
So ... now that the whole thing has come under global scrutiny, the global warming community is finding itself sorely short of solid answers.
They must need more money to really get it sorted out.
|
|
LyinDan
|
12/13/2009 11:26:28 AM
Refuting Joe Bastardi:
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Prior temperature analyses, most notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our rationale was that the number of Southern Hemisphere stations was sufficient for a meaningful estimate of global temperature change, because temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.
The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.
This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which has now increased to about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Still further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which shows largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).
Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.
************************************************
Find your favorite BS, and find the refutation here:
Actual Science Discussions with references
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/13/2009 12:26:00 PM
They don't care about actual science, Lyin Dan.
|
|
The CODE
|
12/13/2009 1:57:21 PM
Scientists! - Yeah Right!
Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his
organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030
was "a mistake." Greenpeace said in a July 15 press release that
there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program pressed
Leipold until he admitted the claim was wrong.
ATB
|
|
Kevin White
|
12/13/2009 8:19:10 PM
---- Updated 12/13/2009 8:32:34 PM
I've read the science. I understand it.
There is no question that temperatures have risen over the last 50 years. The question unanswered is "why?", and to what extent the input of man has contributed.
It may be that over the course of time the earth has periodically always done this.
In fact, we're about due for a mass extinction ... and we've had several over the years.
Perhaps this is a regular thing (gets really hot and then everything dies off)?
Who knows?
So let's say it is our fault. Wait, let's say it's not our fault. Feel better either way?
See?
If it isn't our fault, then there is nothing we can do to solve it ... and all we've done is go through a lot of pain for nothing ... on perhaps a false premise.
If it's warming, it's warming ... and what I would spend more time doing is figuring out how to cool the earth on a MAJOR scale ... so that we don't go down with the mother ship ...
Forget what we've done, it may be just shit that happens periodically on the planet ... which is the most likely scenario (see: Occam's Razor)
|
|
LyinDan
|
12/13/2009 8:29:53 PM
---- Updated 12/13/2009 8:37:58 PM
"figuring out how to cool the earth on a MAJOR scale ... so that we don't go down with the mother ship ..."
Actually, it's merely looking for ways to retard the heat increase, rather than actually cool off. And that's what decreasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is all about. :)
'Major' atmospheric shifts happen all the time on a temporary basis, due to volcanic activity, for instance. Even those cause catastrophic events for humans, see 1816. It's the continuous CO2 adding that could cause longer term problems. So, let's not be doing that.
Even if we go back to dinosaur climes, humans will survive just fine. It's just going to be very, very inconvenient, what with having to move major cities and populations and all. Massive societal moves can screw up certain society's dominance. Look at the Mayans, for instance.
Oh, and I don't pretend to be a dedicated climatic researcher and understand every jot and tittle of the science and the calculations. That's what real scientists are for. But considering the major number of such studied peeps who have concluded that the change is due to human activities, I would have to go with them, rather than the noise generated by vested interests and ignorant peeps on the internet who are are superficially knowledgeable. :)
|
|
Kevin White
|
12/13/2009 8:38:53 PM
Agreed.
Plant trees. LOTS OF THEM.
They're wonderfully effective CO2 to O converters ... and they're pretty.
Just leave my fucking car out of it. It didn't do anything.
:^)
|
|
jingo
|
12/13/2009 10:35:53 PM
I agree with Dan abot studied peeps and vested interest. The problem is that the studied peeps have a vested interest. There are tons and tons of cash to be made, I am just not trusting enough to believe that we finally have a bunch of altruistic saints running the show.
Sea levels rise and fall, glacial periods come and go, and as Kevin states mass extinctions occur. Continents move, ecosystems evolve and disappear. This rock does crazy shit.
Are we accelerating warming? Probably, to some extent. That needs to be quantified. Since none of us are climate scientists, perhaps someone can cut and paste some info on quantification. Surely this has been done. How do the measures that are being considered stack up to this quantication? Anybody know?
I am all for cleaner energy, but this sense of urgency and boogey man mentality makes me wonder why the rush? Somebody afraid he will die before he gets the chance to cash in?
Take the boots to me if you want. DILLIGAF?
|
|
Kevin White
|
12/14/2009 7:58:48 AM
One must certainly question why Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Edison Electric Institute and NRG, General Electric, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Nike Inc.support the Waxman/Markey Cap and Trade Bill.
PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Wal-Mart ... many others also behind it.
Corporations successfully pressured the U.S. chamber of commerce to change its opposition to W/M C&T Bill.
Why?
|
|
The CODE
|
12/14/2009 2:48:06 PM
Glad to see a consensus starting to come together here!
In my mind GW is all about EXTRA taxes, taxes, taxes!
("The last act of any Government is to Loot the Country")
ROCK!
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
12/14/2009 9:58:18 PM
You think that's a consensus? You're crazy.
|
|
Paul groover
|
12/15/2009 4:48:18 AM
Just Imagine someone behind you with clicker he/she took a breathe there did you see that you owe us taxes now that,s C02. Good ol cap and trade make everyone pay while big business makes a killing and i do mean killing out of everybody on this planet. I think the architects of this are insane save the planet it is more like save there own bacon because they have so much toxic debt it is impossible to get rid of. Nobody wants it what better way to get rid of it that turn it into carbon credits and hope nobody notices that it is a pigs poke wrapped up in shiny new green paper but it,s the same old toxic debt when you open it. How they will laugh suckers they bought it again. Break out the champers book that private jet were going on holidays except you will not be breaking out the champers or booking holidays thats for sure. You will be to busy getting chased round the block by the climate hunta.
When there is all the power and more you need hidden right in front of your face in fact all around you everywhere you look there is untapped energy in the form of electro-gravitic energy. All in all governments and big business have come to mean suffering for all that come in contact with them. We would be better off without them. The quickest way to get rid of them is for us to realize who they are what they represent and walk past them leave them behind. Do you normally hang out with people who wrap themselves in flags and shout slogans at you?.
|
|
The CODE
|
12/15/2009 9:58:01 AM
Do us a favor Hollow!
Post something meaningful please!
;-)
|
|
LyinDan
|
12/15/2009 10:00:18 AM
More dumb than crazy. As incredible as it seems, as technology promotes more communication and sharing of opinions, the result seems to be a dumbing down of the entire mass of knowledge, lost in a sea of mediocre thought.
|
|
The CODE
|
12/15/2009 10:19:16 AM
Yep! Sharing of opinions!
Loves facing Technology
Definition of Opinion
O`pin´ion
n. 1. That which is opined; a notion or conviction founded on probable evidence; belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive knowledge; settled judgment in regard to any point of knowledge or action.
Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is so far gained by evidence of probability, that it rather inclines to one persuasion than to another, yet not without a mixture of incertainty or doubting.
|
|
Paul groover
|
12/18/2009 9:33:48 PM
Definition of Opinion
O`pin´ion
n. 1. That which is opined; a notion or conviction founded on probable evidence; belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive knowledge; settled judgment in regard to any point of knowledge or action.
Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is so far gained by evidence of probability, that it rather inclines to one persuasion than to another, yet not without a mixture of incertainty or doubting.
+1
|
|
Kevin White
|
12/19/2009 1:08:50 PM
Regarding LD's point about climate change forcing massive migration:
Consider that if the Incan's had benefit of plane's, trains, huge ships, international thruways and all of the other venues of mass transport, they might have remained exactly where they were and as food sources/farming shifted globally, simply purchased elsewhere?
Times have changed. If climate change forces one area into a drier cycle, then another area will arise more wet ... farm there. :)
|
|
Bryon Tosoff
|
12/19/2009 1:24:12 PM
---- Updated 12/20/2009 12:03:01 PM
Climate change is caused by the planet we live on and the aliens that live beneath the earths surface who are adjusting the earths core temperature, manipulating the gravity field forces and by spewing out more volcanic eruptions and working with the alien friends who have increased more solar activity and the breaking down of the earths atmospheric protection allowing the poor earth to be bombarded with harmful gamma rays. As well these perpetrators just are preparing the earth for themselves and are slowly killing us off through these means as they dont like cold climates
thats the real story behind Global Warming......
|
|
The CODE
|
12/20/2009 3:23:01 PM
These Guy's should be reading this blog!
"Climate summit most chaotic show on earth!
The UK's climate change secretary has said the UN Copenhagen summit was the "most chaotic show on earth" and arguments "strangled" negotiations.
Ed Miliband said he was disappointed China and India did not want legally binding targets, and Sudan and Venezuela almost overturned the accord.
Delegates largely backed a US-led climate deal which included limiting temperature rises to less than 2C.
But the 193-nation summit ended with delegates taking "note" of the deal."
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |
|