sky is falling

[russtafa]

If climate change doesn't work will the left introduce a sky is falling tax.They could teach this in universities:hide-1:

[Ben]

If climate change doesn't work will the left introduce a sky is falling tax.They could teach this in universities:hide-1:

There is overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change. (I don't get the whole conspiracy thing. I really don't.)
Authoress and journalist Naomi Klein points out that there has been research about who the scientists are that deny the science of global warming. They've roots in the Cold War. They're physicists. They defended Reagan's Star Wars program. They think they're defending "freedom" and capitalism from the threat of communism.
When the cold war ended, well, their new enemy was environmentalism. And it started with the anti-tobacco campaign. A lot of these scientists switched from defending Star Wars to denying the link between smoking and extreme health affects. Why? Because they saw the science as a threat to freedom. Just like communism was. And, too, to accept climate change means we'd have to regulate the hell out of corporations, cancel free trade agreements and re-localize our economies.

[Ineeda SM]

If climate change doesn't work will the left introduce a sky is falling tax.They could teach this in universities:hide-1:

Let me make sure I understand the question. You are asking that if climate change never happens, (Which it has for several years now) you wonder if a legitimate congressional body of government should add an extra tax, just for the hell of it. Then you actually suggest we could teach it in our collages.

Maybe that's how the Aussies do things in OZ, but we don't waste our time on your kind of childlike stupidity. Your question sounds like a teenager on crack.

I guess you think this is another one of those wise and clever 'OPINIONS" of yours. Of all the forums on the internet, you had to come here to troll for your personal entertainment.

[russtafa]

Let me make sure I understand the question. You are asking that if climate change never happens, (Which it has for several years now) you wonder if a legitimate congressional body of government should add an extra tax, just for the hell of it. Then you actually suggest we could teach it in our collages.

Maybe that's how the Aussies do things in OZ, but we don't waste our time on your kind of childlike stupidity. Your question sounds like a teenager on crack.

I guess you think this is another one of those wise and clever 'OPINIONS" of yours. Of all the forums on the internet, you had to come here to troll for your personal entertainment.No troll this is how the left dreams up their scams to keep the workers poor and down trodden.You obviously are rich or well off and support the left because that's where left supporters come from.The left gains support from affluent areas in Australia not the working class because we cant be bothered with their nonsense and cant afford it!:(

[Ineeda SM]

No troll this is how the left dreams up their scams to keep the workers poor and down trodden.You obviously are rich or well off and support the left because that's where left supporters come from.The left gains support from affluent areas in Australia not the working class because we cant be bothered with their nonsense and cant afford it!:(

Well then you have got your shit completely backwards from what left and right is in America.

In my country if you are poor or middle class, working class, gay/lesbian, transsexual or any race that is NOT white, you are best served by the democratic left wing party. There are a few in this catagory that are rich or just stupid, and follow the republican right wing. But very few indeed.

If you are very white, very religious, very rich, own or run a very big business like oil, or drug companies, or are a CEO of a big bank, you are better served by the republican right wing. They constantly lie and make up shit that never was to stir up the republican base. Everything Obama has done has been completely lied about through propaganda by the republicans. The right in this country are the biggest fucking crooks on the planet.

What you just said in your reply (Above quote) perfectly describes the right wing republican party in the USA. Take your exact quote above, and replace the word "LEFT" with the word "RIGHT", and it will describe my country's politics perfectly. There are very few rich people who support the left wing democratic party in the USA. They are the rare good rich people who give a shit about ALL people.

That is how it has always worked in the USA. If you want to argue politics with Americans, you better study the American political system first and get it correct. No wonder you offend us so much. I told you in another post that your left may not be the same as our left. I even asked you if you were aware we were talking about American politics and that you didn't know shit about it. You can't argue politics with people in another country unless you have studied their political system first.

I am far from being rich. If I were, I could find much better ways to use my time than wasting it with fucking internet forums. I would be out spending money driving a nice car and fucking a lot of TGurls in my big house. But I can't afford those things.

[russtafa]

Its the left who are introducing this carbon tax in Australia and the upper middle class support it, I'm talking about Australian politics and their supposed Emissions trading scheme.I think this may occur world wide,I am just asking for other opinion's,not personal criticism.

[Prospero]

Business - largely big (I was trying to avoid the cliche) have the short term and stupid issue of their shareholders to look after, so denying climate change is important. They;d otherwise be forced to take all sorts of measures which might cut profits. As for the sheep why buy into the "climate change is a lie" argument... well they are at the very least naive. But then how many Tea party followers see the giant corporations pulling their strings. All they see is "big government." Oh dear... there's none so blind.

[Prospero]

The "left" is shorthand by the "right' globally for those who ultimately wish to impose communism (or whatever its modern day surrogate is) on the free people. It seems this same strand is as alive and well in Australia as it is in the UK, US and the free world.
Let the world nose dive to oblivion as long as we don't have to pay higher taxes to these damn socialists.
Fools.

[Faldur]

Man made global warming is a myth, there is no science to prove it. Climate change happens to all planets. Whether they have Al Gore or not.

[Prospero]

Faldur talks bollocks. The entire scientific establishment bar a few renegades (probably in the pay of big business) accepts that man made climate change is a reality.

[Faldur]

Thats absolute bullshit Prospero, you have opinion pieces only. There are NO FACTS that prove man is responsible for climate change. Ask the people who live on Mars.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_park/photo_gallery/al-gore-is-manbearpig.jpg

[Prospero]

AHEM... the people who live on Mars?
Facts are extremely hard to produce - definitive that is - but the body of evidence that suggests this to be the case is overwhelming. So because YOU have some doubts you wish to gamble on the future of the planet? That is ludicrous. It's rather like Pascal's wager. And he chose faith when there was NO evidence. here there is an immense body of evidence that supports the scientific consensus.

[Faldur]

I completely disagree that there is "an immense body of evidence", there is an equal immense body of evidence that points to the fact that the planet warms and cools by its own accord. And yes I feel contracting the "do something" disease just because "maybe" something could happen is a farce. Its politicians trying to get money and control, thats all it is IN MY OPINION.

And yes there are no people on mars, but yet the planet seems to cool and warm just like ours. Strange huh?

[Prospero]

Thanks Faldur - you are offering further evidence that, as a species, we do not deserve to survive anyway. Did you ever read Collapse by Jared Diamond?
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Collapse_book.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Collapse book.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Collapse_book.jpg/200px-Collapse_book.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/1/13/Collapse_book.jpg/200px-Collapse_book.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed)

A wonderful study on how stupidity leads to the demise of civilisations. His chapter on Easter island is particularly fine.

[Ineeda SM]

Well PROSPERO, maybe it is time for one of those quotes from our friend, Mark Twain.

“A fact is a fact. It means the statements of an issue are proven, confirmed, and verified as total honesty and truthful. When you state a fact you tell the truth. When you dispute the fact, you’re either lying deliberately, or you are just plum stupid.”
....................Mark Twain.

The FACT is that the earth does go through regular hot and cold changes that take hundreds of years to happen. Under normal conditions, mother nature takes care of herself.

But another FACT is, humans spew more than 150 metric tons of poisonous pollution into the atmosphere every day. The proven result is a greenhouse effect that has increased the speed of climate changes that are happening today, that should not have happened for hundreds of years naturally. The pollution is NOT normal conditions, and mother nature is NOT able to clean it as fast as we are polluting it. This means it will get worse, and the climate change will increase in speed unless we do something to help mother nature do her part.

These are proven facts. They are not up for debate as they are happening now and the evidence is overwhelming by hundreds of top scientists that have studied mother natures habits very closely for a very long time.

Those who insist on calling the already proven facts as lies, are just plum stupid.

[Ineeda SM]

Its the left who are introducing this carbon tax in Australia and the upper middle class support it, I'm talking about Australian politics and their supposed Emissions trading scheme.I think this may occur world wide,I am just asking for other opinion's,not personal criticism.

Russtafa. I understand what you are saying. But you must understand that on a site like this one, which originates in the USA, and the majority of users are in the USA, when the people here talk politics, they are talking American politics. Our friends from around the world are welcomed to express political opinions here, but they must understand that most of us Americans do not know that much about political systems in other countries. So anything you say will be understood as American politics are known to us.

So when you just blurt out a sentence that insults Americans because your system is the opposite of ours as far as left ~vs~ right, you are going to get arguments and harsh statements made towards you. You just can't make statements like, The left are the rich trying to hurt the poor and keep them poor." That may be true in OZ, but it's not true here and left wing Americans reading it will be offended.

The funny part is, I now understand why ONMYKNEES likes you. Every time she makes nasty comments about the American left, you unknowingly support her view with equal nasty remarks about the left. But what you are really doing is supporting her right wing conservative rich fat cats that own everything that controls America and hurts the middle and working class. She supports a party that thinks her gender is a freak of nature and should be abolished. Her party sees her kind as mentally ill needing big help. The left wing in America welcomes gay and TG, and all races with open arms as normal people. Put it this way. Every Time you support her American right wing comments, it's the exact same as YOU supporting your left wingers in OZ. Or to put it another way, she would clearly support your Australian left wing. I almost find that really funny.

[Prospero]

Ineeda... you are right. Thank you. When i said that 'facts are hard to produce' what I meant was that the conclusions scientists draw from these facts are hard to prove. Like all scientific theories they are always that - until proven otherwise. Newton's theory of gravity remained that and was a generally accepted explanation - until the theory of Relativity showed that it was correct, but limited. However the generally accepted theory around the evidence that you rightly point to as facts is that we, the human race, are creating a greenhouse effect which, as you rightly say, will do unquantifiable harm to the planet unless we "give mother nature a helping hand " to stem its effects." It's theory but one that the world's scientists, by and large accept and are urging Governments to act upon. However many big business and their political friends and supporters argue that this is nonsense and that the regular climatic changes which do occur are all that is happening. Bush of course found scientific yes men who were prepared to support this position.

[Ineeda SM]

The right wing republicans and their friends want to keep us dependant on oil because they own most of the oil in the western world. If we go green and start weaning ourselves off of our addiction to oil, the right wingers will lose money. They don't care what happens to our planet in the future. They only care about their bank accounts TODAY. They will be dead and gone long before the humans kill our planet.

Every survey that says climate change is NOT man made, was commissioned by the right wing conservatives and oil producers. Of course they want to say it's all bull shit so they can continue to own the planet with oil addiction.

[Ineeda SM]

I completely disagree that there is "an immense body of evidence", there is an equal immense body of evidence that points to the fact that the planet warms and cools by its own accord. And yes I feel contracting the "do something" disease just because "maybe" something could happen is a farce. Its politicians trying to get money and control, thats all it is IN MY OPINION.

And yes there are no people on mars, but yet the planet seems to cool and warm just like ours. Strange huh?

You may disagree all you wish, but the facts support to the contrary.

As for Mars. Yes it goes through climate changes. But it does it at a much higher speed. It only takes Mars a few decades to show the changes. That is not so strange after all. Because the atmosphere on Mars is what ours is heading towards because of mans pollution. They say Mars used to be thriving with life until a major disaster occured. Some day, someone will say the same thing about Earth.

[russtafa]

i would say one volcano can pour out just as much or more ash and toxic gas than most countries in one whole year?

[Ineeda SM]

i would say one volcano can pour out just as much or more ash and toxic gas than most countries in one whole year?

The toxic gases from a volcano are very small. The worse is the ash that eventually falls to the ground, and leaves the air clean again.

Man puts over 150 metric tons of poisonous pollution into the air EVERY DAY! That's equal to 1,800 metric tons a year. If any volcano shoots that much ash in one day, we won't be alive in a year to talk about it. The earth would go into a nuclear winter and kill us all off.

[trish]

I completely disagree that there is "an immense body of evidence", there is an equal immense body of evidence that points to the fact that the planet warms and cools by its own accord. And yes I feel contracting the "do something" disease just because "maybe" something could happen is a farce. Its politicians trying to get money and control, thats all it is IN MY OPINION.

And yes there are no people on mars, but yet the planet seems to cool and warm just like ours. Strange huh?I thought you said you looked at the facts. If you had you would know there is an immense body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that the climate shift that has been measured over that last century and a half is due to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that were once sequestered in the coal and oil resources that we've been burning at an accelerated rate since that start of the industrial revolution. Have you been to a library recently? Looked up the scientific literature (as opposed to the shlock intended for amateur deniers)?

That planets warm and cool of their own accord is true. During their formation some five billion years ago the planets in our system collapsed converting gravitational potential energy into heat energy. Had they access to more material they would've ignited into stars. They didn't. Through the next billion years or so, they continued to capture more material (meteors) whose gravitational potential was converted into heat, but by and large warming due to gravitational collapse was over about four and a half billion years ago. The heavier planets contain various radioactive elements whose decay also adds heat. The heating due to radioactive decay can slow the cooling of a planet, but it cannot raise the temperature. That's about it. There are no other energy sources on or within a planet that would allow it to "warm of its own accord." By the On-Its-Own-Accord Theory (OIOA-theory) the Earth can only be cooling. But alas it's not cooling. Measurements tell us its warming at an accelerated rate since the onset of industrialization. What other sources of heat are there?

Well there is of course the Sun. But the Sun delivers energy at a relatively constant rate. The fluctuations are of an order of magnitude that precludes the possibility of warming the Earth or Mars or any other further out planet to any significant degree. Indeed during the past decade Solar activity is at an all time low. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
I recall discussing solar variation and its effect on planetary climates not too long ago. You might want to check out
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=779554&postcount=24
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=782865&postcount=26
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=782866&postcount=27

This is also the precession of the Earth on it's axis that periodically increases or decreases the exposure of the poles to solar radiation. However the current orientation of the Earth should be such as to cool, not warm the planet. Now that we have eliminated the possibility that the Earth's climate is due to fluctuations in the solar energy flux, we're left with the question, "What else could be heating the Earth?"

Well of course the answer has to be the Sun. There is no other source. But it's not the variations in the Sun's output that's causing our current heat imbalance. It the increased opacity of our atmosphere to infrared wavelengths. Earth receives electromagnetic energy of all different wavelengths from the Sun. Some is reflected back into space. Some is absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. The energy that is absorbed is eventually converted to heat energy. The Earth then radiates that energy away from its surface in the form of electromagnetic waves in the infrared band. The radiated energy that isn't reabsorbed by the atmosphere will escape into space. When the climate is stable, energy in equals energy out. But if the atmosphere is too opaque in the infrared band, then the "escaping" radiant energy will be blocked, reabsorbed and prevented from actually escaping into space. Then we have a heat inbalance...more energy comes in than leaves. The inbalance causes increased average global temperatures, shifts geographical temperature and pressure gradients, diverts ocean and air currents etc. as the climate seeks a new state of equilibrium.

So what causes the atmosphere to become opaque to infrared wavelengths. Greenhouse gasses that weren't there before, namely the gasses that were sequestered for eons in coal and oil have been unlock and spewed into the atmosphere...giga-tons of carbon dioxide daily. That output is measurable. The theory I outlined above is well understood...to the point of being a quantifiable theory. The theory together with our measured output of greenhouse gasses makes predictions of global heat imbalance in agreement with the actual measurements of average global temperature rise, glacial melting and gradient shifting. (To argue that volcanic releases of carbon dioxide rival the output due to the burning of fossil fuels is also to argue that the output due to burning fossil fuels rivals that of volcanic releases. If one can effect the climate, (and the assertion that the two sorts of output have yields of the same order of magnitude is true), then so can the other.

Humans have definitely played a significant role in the current measured climate change.

You can argue what can be done about it, if anything. The effect of a carbon tax, or the effect of carbon trading, or the effect of any particular conservation program can be debated; i.e. you can have an opinion on what to do. You cannot have an opinion on the science. You can either accept it or be wrong.

[Stavros]

The New York Times published a long article based on the data collected at the Mona Loa observatory in Hawaii, which I think offers a very useful introduction to some of the basic arguments about climate change: useful for those who claim its not true as well as those who do believe. I offer it as a factually based presentation.

Here is an opening extract:
When Dr. Keeling, as a young researcher, became the first person in the world to develop an accurate technique for measuring carbon dioxide in the air, the amount he discovered was 310 parts per million. That means every million pints of air, for example, contained 310 pints of carbon dioxide.
By 2005, the year he died, the number had risen to 380 parts per million. Sometime in the next few years it is expected to pass 400. Without stronger action to limit emissions, the number could pass 560 before the end of the century, double what it was before the Industrial Revolution.


Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hawaii%20climate%20change&st=cse

[Faldur]

There is no PROOF that man made global warming exists, that is the one point that you can post all the wordy articles and papers you would like, and it will get you no where. Its pure speculated opinion, or to some of us, it looks to be the feel good religion of our age.

http://www.reappropriate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/manbearpig1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/S9WCM3dXE5I/AAAAAAAAC80/q5m0ykG61_U/s640/al_gore_house.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8JzDZhPs4To/SyJrxdIbTGI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/x045ujLC53M/s400/time_iceage.jpg

[trish]

There is no PROOF that man made global warming existsYes, there is. From the measurements of the increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the quantitative model of heat inbalance due to the infrared opacity of carbon dioxide one can deduce (i.e. predict) the increased average global temperature. Taking into account the other factors that also come into play the predictions match the measurements to within the expected margin of error. This is as close to a proof one ever comes to in the geological sciences. One can be as certain of the existence of man-made global warming as one can be [of] continental drift.

[Faldur]

Here's a forward thinking lawmaker..

Just hours before a vote Wednesday on a GOP plan to block Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) called climate change a bigger public health threat than AIDS, malaria and pandemic flu.
Capps and several other liberal Democrats spoke out Wednesday morning in opposition to the legislation, authored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
The lawmakers, who were joined by officials from the American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the Upton bill would harm public health.
Capps pointed to a 2009 article in The Lancet, a medical journal, that said climate change could be the “biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”
“That makes climate change a bigger public health problem than AIDS, than malaria, than pandemic flu,” Capps said. “That’s why we need to take steps to address this cause behind this growing public health problem.”

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

[trish]

I won't address the issue as to what threat is more of a danger to public heath, it depends on what measurements are determined as being relevant, and that can be a matter of opinion.

[Ben]

No troll this is how the left dreams up their scams to keep the workers poor and down trodden.You obviously are rich or well off and support the left because that's where left supporters come from.The left gains support from affluent areas in Australia not the working class because we cant be bothered with their nonsense and cant afford it!:(

I don't think it's a left vs. right issue. I think it's a class issue.
Take, say, England. Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party serve and kowtow to corporate structures of power. So, it's about power. Who has it. Who doesn't. (If we lived in a meaningful democratic society where everyone participated in the decision-making process, well, you'd see hope and change. Obama serves the same myopic corporate power structure that Bush served and Clinton served and Bush Sr. served. Real CHANGE occurs when we elect representatives. To serve our interests.
We don't elect leaders. We should cringe when the word leader is mentioned. We, again, elect representatives. We employ them to serve us. And they would simply administer what we want. But in Democratic theory, well, it doesn't work like that. It's supposed to be an elite group of individuals who govern for their own interests and the interests of the owners and the rest of the populace are supposed to be passive spectators.)
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, said, and I quote, "THOSE WHO OWN THE COUNTRY OUGHT TO GOVERN IT." And that is the way it has always worked. There were some gains made. Like the period between, say, 1950 and 1973. Where a robust middle class [and hence some semblance of democracy] was created. But that was and is abnormal.
Political stripes, again, are negligible. I mean, look at Kerry and Bush. Both are from very rich families, both attended the same private Ivy League university and both were in Skull and Bones. And both would've served the same systems of power.


What Is Power?

by Niall Ferguson (http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10040)


http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7682

[Stavros]

Take, say, England. Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party serve and kowtow to corporate structures of power. So, it's about power. Who has it. Who doesn't.

Hmmm..when I was a politics undergraduate the literature on power stressed that is is a relationship -often an unequal one- so that its not just about 'possession' but what one party does with power. Foucault was in vogue at the time with his argument that power is a horizontal rather than a vertical relationship, which is why I find your statement about the UK (please, not England) and the relationship between government and the major corporations to be a facile one. The horizontal concept allows one to see the way in which some firms are embedded in economy and society to the extent that they cannot be said to be 'on top' of it: a supermarket chain like Tesco, for example, or the famous oil and gas company BP. The supermarket dominates the town I live in, but nationally has a lot of agribusiness in its pocket; while BP apart from its chain of gas stations is a major producer in our North Sea. But it goes further: the main shareholders in these firms are pension funds, so for example £1 in every £7 that is paid to an old age pensioner in the UK comes from BP -not sure how much Tesco contributes. They are so big they are part of our 'national wealth' which is why the UK government was terrified of the consequences of BP being bankrupted by last year's disaster in the Gulf of Mexico -in our current economic condition, BP -like Tesco, Shell, and a few others- is too big too fail.

But if you think this means the companies bark and the politicians bow, you are mistaken -in last week's Budget the Chancellor introduced a tax on North Sea oil production to the dismay of -the oil companies; even Rupert Murdoch who seems to get his way more than most other CEO's is having his main Sunday tabloid newspaper, the 'News of the World' involved in a phone hacking scandal that had led to the police arresting a former and current editor and which, potentially could lead to the paper being shut down -Murdoch of course may just decide newspapers are yesterday's industry anyway, but my point is that the relationship between the corporate giants and government is not as simple as you seem to think, CEO's don't always get their own way, neither does the Govt -its a relationship of power that is fluid rather than being set in stone.

To 'Kow-tow' was the act of bending before the Emperor of China, in this country David Cameron, Nick Clegg, as well as the CEO's, still kow-tow, but to Queen Elizabeth II...now that's power!

[Ben]

Business - largely big (I was trying to avoid the cliche) have the short term and stupid issue of their shareholders to look after, so denying climate change is important. They;d otherwise be forced to take all sorts of measures which might cut profits. As for the sheep why buy into the "climate change is a lie" argument... well they are at the very least naive. But then how many Tea party followers see the giant corporations pulling their strings. All they see is "big government." Oh dear... there's none so blind.

As Noam Chomsky articulates: it's an institutional/corporate requirement to destroy the natural environment. So as to make human existence more and more difficult.
And, as Chomsky explicates, corporations are going to serve their own interests [again, an institutional/corporate necessity] regardless of the impact on others. Namely the fate of the species. And, too, it doesn't matter if the banks crash the worldwide economy. They simply get a bailout. But there is no bailout with respect to global climate change.
So, the core of the problem is you've these institutions who are going to serve their own interests regardless of how it impacts the planet or the people of the planet.
It's called an externality. Meaning the costs to others in a market transaction.

YouTube - Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck)

[Ben]

As Noam Chomsky articulates: it's an institutional/corporate requirement to destroy the natural environment. So as to make human existence more and more difficult.
And, as Chomsky explicates, corporations are going to serve their own interests [again, an institutional/corporate necessity] regardless of the impact on others. Namely the fate of the species. And, too, it doesn't matter if the banks crash the worldwide economy. They simply get a bailout. But there is no bailout with respect to global climate change.
So, the core of the problem is you've these institutions who are going to serve their own interests regardless of how it impacts the planet or the people of the planet.
It's called an externality. Meaning the costs to others in a market transaction.

YouTube - Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck)

It's also required by law to maximize investor return. Take, say, Rex Tillerson. CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil. Well, he's required by law (and if he doesn't do it, well, they simply bring in someone else who will) to maximize shareholder return. He can't think about: pollution or global warming. That isn't his job -- or function. So he has to, well, forget about the fate of the species.

YouTube - Noam Chomsky and Bill McKibben on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O3cNc2JoMA)

[markyboy21]

Firstly, the temperatures of other planets in our solar system are increasing, as solar radiation is increasing, hence an increase on earth. Secondly, most of the research that is taking place in western contries is funded through research councils which are top heavy with industrialists who have vested interests. Thirdly, two of the most influential proponents of global warming were
M. Strong of the UN and Al Gore, and both are positioned with companies to make a fortune from carbon trading. Finally, who has made big profit from carbon trading so far; well in the UK, the electricity generating companies made £13,000,000,000 in the last but one tax year (we have only just finished the current tax year),while BP and Shell both made around £20,000,000. Therefore, the companies who are producing the most CO2 are making the most money and as for the scientists who are pro global warming they are either government employees or linked to industries with vested interests; also of the so called 2000 experts most are not climatologists, as 90% of the world's climatologists don't believe in the myth.

[russtafa]

Firstly, the temperatures of other planets in our solar system are increasing, as solar radiation is increasing, hence an increase on earth. Secondly, most of the research that is taking place in western contries is funded through research councils which are top heavy with industrialists who have vested interests. Thirdly, two of the most influential proponents of global warming were
M. Strong of the UN and Al Gore, and both are positioned with companies to make a fortune from carbon trading. Finally, who has made big profit from carbon trading so far; well in the UK, the electricity generating companies made £13,000,000,000 in the last but one tax year (we have only just finished the current tax year),while BP and Shell both made around £20,000,000. Therefore, the companies who are producing the most CO2 are making the most money and as for the scientists who are pro global warming they are either government employees or linked to industries with vested interests; also of the so called 2000 experts most are not climatologists, as 90% of the world's climatologists don't believe in the myth.I thought some people have got to be making a bundle out of all this hysteria

[markyboy21]

Worldwide carbon trading estimates are £125,000,000,000 per annum.

[markyboy21]

Sorry, that should have been $126,000,000,000 and those are the figures for 2008 which will eventually cost the world $10 trillion per annum.

[russtafa]

Bloody hell no wonder they love this scam so much

[trish]

...the temperatures of other planets in our solar system are increasing, as solar radiation is increasing, hence an increase on earth.Not true. I've already addressed this issue. The solar flux as been monitored closely ever since we learned how to measure it more than a century ago. For the last dozen years it been thoroughly scrutinized by the SOHO, a solar observatory occupying the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun. The solar flux is relatively constant and its variations are insufficient to cause planetary climate instability on Earth, Mars or bodies beyond. I recall discussing solar variation and its effect on planetary climates not too long ago. You might want to check out
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...4&postcount=24 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=779554&postcount=24)
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...5&postcount=26 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=782865&postcount=26)
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...6&postcount=27 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=782866&postcount=27)

This is not to say that average global temperatures on planetary bodies are of fixed value, but any discovered variations would not be due to variations in the Sun's energy flux. Mars, for example, is swept yearly (the Martian year) by duststorms. When these storms kick dust high into what little there is of the Martian atmosphere it changes the albedo of Mars. Exposed dark rock absorbs more of the Sun's energy, and light dust high in the atmosphere reflects more of the Sun's energy. The wreaks havoc with attempts to measure average global temperatures on Mars since we have so few stations there. Moreover the varying albedo no doubt does create a corresponding variation in the average global temperatures there. But once again, these are not due to an increase in the solar output.


Secondly, most of the research that is taking place in western contries is funded through research councils which are top heavy with industrialists who have vested interests. This is not a scientific argument, and it doesn't explain why climatologists worldwide generally agree that the release of long sequestered greenhouse gasses have contributed significantly to the measured energy inbalanced that has taken place over the last century and a half.


Thirdly, two of the most influential proponents of global warming were
M. Strong of the UN and Al Gore, and both are positioned with companies to make a fortune from carbon trading.This is not a scientific argument either. Moreover, Al Gore may be influential among some politicians, businessmen and laymen, but he holds no degree in Earth science, has done no work in climatology and holds no sway with those who do in fact do the research, perform the measurements, analyze the experiments and write the papers.

You can argue the politics of global warming all you want, but politics has no say in the science. You can have an opinion about carbon tax, carbon trading etc. My opinion is that there's nothing much we can do to reverse the trend. We've already released tetra-tons of once sequestered greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The verdict of science, however, is in: the Earth's climate is seeking a new equilibrium to counter the heat inbalance caused in part by the accelerated use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.

[Stavros]

it's an institutional/corporate requirement to destroy the natural environment. So as to make human existence more and more difficult.

Really, Ben there are times when I wish you would stop quoting other people and think things through yourself -it is impossible to deny that industrial development has 'destroyed' the natural environment where plant has been erected, much as the natural environment was 'destroyed' to build the house/apartment in which you live and the paved roads on which your cars drive, and so on. But if this is taken as an inevitable part of urban growth, then it is human need that has 'destroyed' -or changed- the environment, and it was the growth of cities and the impact of the industrial revolution which lay behind the anxiety expressed in Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' -a feeling some people had and still have that we have lost our connection to the land, to 'nature'. And its hardly new, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society have been around for more than a hundred years, and they have not been armchair environmentalists either.

It is nonsense to suggest that environmental destruction is a requirement when there are laws -and not just in the USA- which oblige companies to provide environmental impact statements on major projects and adhere to them -its not my fault if the federal regulators who were so assiduous in applying the Environmental Protection Act (introduced by a Republican President in 1970) in Alaska in the 1970s, couldn't be bothered in 2010 (under another Republican President) in the Gulf of Mexico -the law is there. But so too are a new generation of people who work for these corporations who value the environment just as much as you and the most militant fringe in Greenpeace. In addition, there are examples of corporations acting to minimise environmental damage and to repair it if it happens, because nobody benefits from it -Deepwater Horizon was an accident that damaged BP's reputation and value as a company, it was not a deliberate act of sabotage which is what you/your Chomsky quote would suggest.

[Prospero]

You can publish all the clever articles you like and all the smart-ass scientific stuff - as far as I'm concerned the world is flat. The notion of it being a globe is just the feel-good religious idea of our times.

[arsenalfc70]

Climate change is real, CO2 is totally related to high temperatures on Earth history, and the results are catastrophic, worse when done by humans!

[Faldur]

Climate change is a faith based religion, it takes faith in something that cannot be proven. Something you have to believe in and trust. And in the mean time thousands rake in trillions of dollars off the believers who keep pouring there money into the church.

Genius, they make Christians look like little leaguers.

[trish]

Perhaps you would like to meet a point rather than simply repeating your favorite falsehoods. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=910704&postcount=25

[Prospero]

All hail the church of the septic-sceptic... (fully funded and supported by Haliburton Inc.)

[Faldur]

All hail the church of the septic-sceptic... (fully funded and supported by Haliburton Inc.)

I knew Dick Cheney was involved in this somehow.

[trish]

I knew Dick Cheney was involved in this somehow.We all did.

But look. You can't prove or disprove any hypothesis in science simply by pointing out who would and who wouldn't profit were the hypothesis true. The existence of man-influenced global climate shift has been proven. The ensuing politics is irrelevant to that point.

[Faldur]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155237/al-gore-is-super-awesome

Excelsior!

[trish]

no soap radio

[Ben]

Strange. The vast majority of Americans believe in God. A completely IRRATIONAL BELIEF SYSTEM. But the vast majority of Americans don't believe in the science and scholarship of climate change. That's called: a massive propaganda campaign -- ha! ha!
Plus what's the harm in switching to alternative sources of energy? For one thing, well, you bring about competition into the marketplace. (I thought that was what capitalism was all about. Of course we don't have pure capitalism. It'd be an absolute disaster. We have state capitalism. And no one, anyway, believes in pure capitalism. By pure capitalism I mean no state intervention. Okay, who will build roads and schools and highways?
The banking sector doesn't believe in capitalism. Nor does the oil sector. They believe in corporatism. The political class doesn't believe in it. Maybe Ron Paul actually does.) And so by bringing competition into the marketplace, well, you reduce pollution, you reduce air pollution. What's the harm in that? That brings health benefits. Doesn't it???
But, as mentioned before, Naomi Klein pointed out: there has been research about who the scientists are that deny the science of global warming. They've roots in the Cold War. They're physicists. Not climate scientists.
They defended Reagan's Star Wars program. They think they're defending "freedom" and so-called capitalism from the threat of communism.
When the cold war ended, well, their new enemy was environmentalism. It started with the anti-tobacco campaign. A lot of these scientists switched from defending Star Wars to denying the link between smoking and extreme health effects.
Why? Because they saw the science as a threat to freedom. Just like communism was. And, too, to accept climate change means we'd have to regulate the hell out of corporations, cancel free trade agreements and re-localize our economies. So, a renunciation of everything that neo-liberals stand for.

[onmyknees]

The right wing republicans and their friends want to keep us dependant on oil because they own most of the oil in the western world. If we go green and start weaning ourselves off of our addiction to oil, the right wingers will lose money. They don't care what happens to our planet in the future. They only care about their bank accounts TODAY. They will be dead and gone long before the humans kill our planet.

Every survey that says climate change is NOT man made, was commissioned by the right wing conservatives and oil producers. Of course they want to say it's all bull shit so they can continue to own the planet with oil addiction.

As I scrolled through this thread I wondered how long it would take you to come out from under the rock and blame big oil, Dick Cheney, Haleburton, right wingers, Bush, et al...wasn't that the reason you all gave for invading Iraq? Different issue...same answer from you. You really need some new material dude. Excuse me while I take a nap after reading your comments. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Stavros]

The right wing republicans and their friends want to keep us dependant on oil because they own most of the oil in the western world

I don't think this can be right. The 'Western world' presumably means Western Europe and North America -?

a) there isn't enough oil and gas in the UK and Norwegian North Sea (the primary source of European petroleum), Canada and Alaska combined to create dependency- (the UK North Sea alone doesn't meet national demand here)

b) the USA's main sources of oil are Canada and Mexico, with a hefty percentage from Venezuela and the Middle East where most of the oil is owned by state corporations -

c) the Oil is 'owned' by the companies, who in turn are owned by the shareholders, and I don't think the independent oil companies are therefore owned by 'right wing republicans', if only because I am one of them...

d) the dependency on petroleum has been hard to break because crude oil and natural gas are still amongst the cheapest sources of energy in the world, with crude oil's versatility providing a vast range of products from gasoline and plastics, to acetate and film -the change will take place over time and it has to because oil and gas are finite resources, but the technology to make alternative energy as cheap and efficient as oil and gas is still being developed. Solar energy can power your home, it can't power Los Angeles...

[Ineeda SM]

The right wing republicans and their friends want to keep us dependant on oil because they own most of the oil in the western world

I don't think this can be right. The 'Western world' presumably means Western Europe and North America -?

a) there isn't enough oil and gas in the UK and Norwegian North Sea (the primary source of European petroleum), Canada and Alaska combined to create dependency- (the UK North Sea alone doesn't meet national demand here)

b) the USA's main sources of oil are Canada and Mexico, with a hefty percentage from Venezuela and the Middle East where most of the oil is owned by state corporations -

c) the Oil is 'owned' by the companies, who in turn are owned by the shareholders, and I don't think the independent oil companies are therefore owned by 'right wing republicans', if only because I am one of them...

d) the dependency on petroleum has been hard to break because crude oil and natural gas are still amongst the cheapest sources of energy in the world, with crude oil's versatility providing a vast range of products from gasoline and plastics, to acetate and film -the change will take place over time and it has to because oil and gas are finite resources, but the technology to make alternative energy as cheap and efficient as oil and gas is still being developed. Solar energy can power your home, it can't power Los Angeles...

Stavros, you are partly correct. We are talking about the right wing republicans in America only. I can't comment on those in your part of the world.

We get 64 percent of our oil from the middle east. Many of our big business CEO's, including many republican politicians have large stocks in them, and own all of the oil on American territory. Yes there are stockholders, but these guys are a big part of them. George Bush alone owns over 40,000 acres of oil wells in Texas. They love having this country dependant on oil. They receive great profits from it. If we go green, they lose big money.

[Ineeda SM]

As I scrolled through this thread I wondered how long it would take you to come out from under the rock and blame big oil, Dick Cheney, Haleburton, right wingers, Bush, et al...wasn't that the reason you all gave for invading Iraq? Different issue...same answer from you. You really need some new material dude. Excuse me while I take a nap after reading your comments. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

You must need a nap after dreaming up so many lies about me. I never once mentioned Cheney, Halliburton, and never ever said oil was the reason we went into Iraq. I have given the real reason why we went into Iraq many times, and it had nothing to do with oil. But your retarded brain only reads what it wants to, so you can show us all what a fucked up troll you really are. Go back to your beauty nap. You need it. They say you build brain cells when you sleep. You better make it a very long nap. Not that it would help.

[Ineeda SM]

All hail the church of the septic-sceptic... (fully funded and supported by Haliburton Inc.)

LMFAO! I like you hun. You always make me laugh.

[markyboy21]

Trish you argue that it's science not politics that is the key to global warming, yet the main promoter of this cause is a political body, namely the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up by the UN in 1998. This body's remit has not been to weigh the evidence and but just to promote global warming. As for the 2500 climatologists it keeps quoting, the figure is actually 53, most who are closely linked, whereas, more than 90% of the world's climatologists don't believe in global warming. As far as the science is concerned even your luminosity figures show a steady increase in solar energy,which is part of 300 year warming trend, since the Maunder Minimum. Furthermore, the IPCC also likes to omit data that doesn't fit in, like the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Cooling (1940-75 when there were unprecedented increases in the CO2 rate).

[Stavros]

We get 64 percent of our oil from the middle east

Small point: US imports from the Middle East are around 23-25% of the total -US imports most from Canada, and then Saudi Arabia, but even with supplies from the UAE, Qatar and Iraq (not even sure if there are imports of signifcance yet) the US is getting oil from Latin America (Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador), and Africa -Nigeria and Angola.

[Stavros]

namely the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up by the UN in 1998

Set up in 1988...

[trish]

Trish you argue that it's science not politics that is the key to global warming,I also argued a few of the scientific points themselves, which you haven't met and cannot meet with political argumentation. (The Medieval Warm Period, as the name suggests, was an European, not a global, phenomenon and similarly for the Little Cooling. Surely you know the cooling of specific regions is predicted by the model of global warming).

[markyboy21]

Trish the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Cooling were both global events and because they don't fit neatly with the IPCC's models they have tried to discredit them. It is because of these political tactics that more and more environmentalists have been questioning the facts about global warming and realising it is a myth. This is why Dr Patrick Moore (the cofounder of Greenpeace) doesn't believe in global warming. The Green Movement worldwide has been taken over by the left and politicized.

[trish]

the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Cooling were both global events Analysis by independent universities around the world, not all with researchers associated with the IPCC says otherwise.

[markyboy21]

Trish I suggest you read the study of Dr's Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Havard-Smithssonian Centre for Astrophysics (published in January 2003) which looked at the data from 140 expert studies of climate history over the last 1000 years. Only 2 studies found no evidence of the Little Ice Age, while only 7 denied the Mediaeval Warm Period, with 116 confirming it. The results were unequivocal in confirming the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and also showed the world was warmer in the middle ages than in 1998.

[trish]

I'm familiar with Soon and Balliunas. Both are proponents of the hypothesis that the Earth's climate shift is due to variation in the solar energy flux. I have already explained why this hypothesis doesn't work. The Nature article I cited with debunks this hypothesis in the case of alleged climate change on Mars post dates the study you mentioned. Neither the community of climatologists nor astrophysicists find much of value in Soon and Ballinunas work in climatology, a subject in which neither is expert. Being astrophysicists one might hope they could offer an explanation for the frequency and magnitude of the variability their hypothesis requires of the solar output and an explanation of how the variability manages to avoid detection by SOHO and past observers of the Sun's activity and yet which seems to be of sufficient magnitude to drive cliimate change on Earth, Mars and allegedly even on Pluto!!

Try making actual arguments rather than citing politics, politicians and others without credentials who claim to be authorities.

[markyboy21]

Trish we were arguing about the Medaieval Warm period and the review of 140 expert studies, 116 of which prove that this took place and because you can't dispute this evidence you are harking back to ground we've already covered. Do you work for the IPCC or one of the firms cashing in on the carbon trading? Makes me wonder!

[trish]

Do you work for the IPCC or one of the firms cashing in on the carbon trading? Makes me wonder!Once again you display your propensity to argue science with politics. It can't be done. (And btw, no, I don't work for the IPCC and if you read any of my posts you know I'm not a big supporter of carbon trading).

... we were arguing about... the review... by Soon and Balinunas, who are astrophysicists not climatologists. Climatologists (not only those associated with IPCC but from independent universities and research institutions around the world) disagree with the findings of Soon and Balinunas. Tree ring evidence, ice core samples, historical evidence and the 116 expert studies suggest the Medieval Warm period was local.

...you can't dispute this evidence...Did you post some evidence? I thought you merely cited a review (by two climate quacks) of the evidence. Soon and Balinunas claim the Medieval Warm period was due to a fluctuation in the solar energy output. They also claim the warming of the last hundred and fifty years is due to an increase in solar energy output. They provide no explanation for such solar fluctuations. They give no account of why the increase goes undetected by SOHO and other observatories and observers. They claim there is a general warming of solar system bodies when NASA and other space agencies, universities and observatories find no support for their claims. Neither do Soon and Balinunas present any theoretical criticism of the greenhouse model, which quantitatively predicts our current climate (while taking into account the rate of carbon dumping over the last century and a half). Which greenhouse equations are incorrectly derived? Is the infrared opacity incorrectly computed? They don't say. All they do is present a fallacious review(which is years old now and stands refuted) of 140 studies by real climate experts.

...we were arguing about the Medaieval Warm period and the review of 140 expert studies, 116 of which prove that this took placeNot true (italics mine). Here is what Clim Res (the same journal that published the Soon-Balinunas paper in 2003) says about the article you cited:
"The paper that caused the storms (Soon & Baliunas, Clim Res 2003, 23:89 – 110) evoked heavy criticism, not least in EOS 2003 (84, No 27, 256). Major conclusions of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past mil- lenium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide’ (p. 104). While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."__Clim Res 24:197–198, 2003 (boldface mine).

[Faldur]

Today's global climate change warming/cooling, (or anything else you can think of discussion), brought to you by...

http://manbearpigawarness.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/8/9/1189027/6950027.jpg

[markyboy21]

Trish your quote "may be true... cannot be concluded convincingly..." needs translating. It doesn't say "it's not true" and it's not convincingly concluded because of the use of localised data. However, if tree ring studies of Bristlecone Pine, or Ice Cores are used for example they are not found everywhere (they are localised due to factors such microclimate, soil, latitude and altitude) ,which is why different types of study were required. Therefore, when tree ring studies and Ice Core studies show a Medaieval Warm Period, even though they are different geographical zones and the study types are different it is reasonable to conclude that the climate changes were the same. Furthermore, 116 out of 140 studies sounds pretty convincing to me.
While were on this subject I would like to point out that I used to work as a Scientist, and was a member of many environmental pressure groups and conservation bodies, but as the science on environmental issues became ever more politicized I began to question some of the issues more. (Similar to Dr Parick Moore the cofounder of Greenpeace, who also thinks likewise). I still believe in saving energy, as fossil fuels are a finite resource and they also contain toxins and pollutants.

[russtafa]

What i find more disturbing than global warming is plastics and polystyrene's in the environment and that environmentalist's seem more wrap'd up in this global warming than this more immediate threat to our ecosystem

[trish]

I prefer to quote in it's entirety, "they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper." Of course the conclusions of the 2003 review have been proven untrue by independent evidence, as I said before.


I would like to point out that I used to work as a ScientistSo Mr. Anonymous Markyboy wants to remain anonymous and yet have his opinion accorded the weight and authority due to a Scientist with a capital S, and at the same time Mr. Anonymous Scientist accords to his alleged colleagues none of respect and authority to which said Scientist thinks he is due. So which is it? Are we to respect the integrity of climatologists who actually sign their name to their work, or are we to respect your anonymous authority?

[markyboy21]

I'm not making a share of the billions of dollars from this scam like said scientists. Furthermore, just because one posts an unfavouable review doesn't mean that one's anonimity should be relinquished. If you think that true names are required on here the forum would soon be empty. Perhaps you should refrain from discussing topics with strangers.

[trish]

Once again, that is not a scientific argument. It addresses no scientific points. As a scientist you should know that you cannot prove a scientific claim with a political argument. That goes double when the political argument is fallacious. Most climatologists make five figures. A few of the big names in academia might break the six figure mark. The only climatologists who are making millions or billions, if any, I wager work for oil companies.


If you think that true names are required on here the forum would soon be empty. Perhaps you should refrain from discussing topics with strangers. Your the one who argued by appeal to authority, your authority. So who are you? I'm just pointing out that unless you reveal your identity the appeal to your own authority falls flat.

[Stavros]

If I could take this discussion a step back, I do think that what the growth of the debate on Climate Change and Global Warming has generated is a mini-industry similar to the one that exploded in the 1980s with the growth of the HIV/AIDS epidemic: media coverage, documentaries, research, academic journals, and above all, international conferences.

The fact that the UN has a major role to play at the policy level on CC/GW and that every so often there are major Summits on the issue attended by heads of state, followed by the preparatory work of the 'Confererence of the Parties' not to mention the conferences organised by special interest groups (geographer, meteorologist, geologists et al) does mean that someone somewhere is making a lot of money out of this. I estimate that one of the multinationals I used to work for spent more than $250,000 in air fares alone sending a delegation to Tokyo in the 1990s, and that doesn't include hotel bills (the firm had a contract with Crowne Plaza if you like that kind of thing), meals, and the cost of the literature and videos that are made for these events and handed out to the media and so on. If you were then to calculate how many 'man-hours' are spent on this issue -which for most MNC's is a reputation as well as a practical issue [as in emissions reduction in plant and so on] plus the cost of the paper that is produced in prodigious quantities and then copied 5 10 or 50 times, the manufacturers and repairers or photocopying machines are also making a lot of money....

ok, now back to the argument....

[Ben]

What i find more disturbing than global warming is plastics and polystyrene's in the environment and that environmentalist's seem more wrap'd up in this global warming than this more immediate threat to our ecosystem

Any assault on the environment presents a problem. Deforestation is a huge problem. Air pollution is a huge problem. Dumping toxic waste in our drinking water is a huge problem. Soil erosion is a huge problem. The vanishing bees are a huge problem, too.
Even if one thinks that science is akin to astrology, well, there are benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: less pollution, less air pollution. So, there are added health benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And what's the harm in adding competition to the marketplace? I thought capitalism is, again, about competition. (Albeit it's dishonest to say we've pure capitalism. We don't. We've state capitalism. The state plays a substantial role in markets... and, oh!, bailouts -- ha! ha!)
Even ol' Bill Clinton decried the monopoly (and old Adam Smith was against monopolies as they unduly influence prices) power of oil companies. Especially ExxonMobil. (Even Rex Tillerson knows that global warming is real. But, from an institutional standpoint, well, he has to lead a propaganda campaign. But his role, as CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil, is to expand lender return. Which would make his job impossible if he openly acknowledged the science of climate change.)

[markyboy21]

Trish you seem to be directing your argument against me and not the facts. I haven't done the research, I'm quoting the research. The only mention of my background was to highlight that I'm not the usual sceptic who works for a company with vested interests, but an environmentalist who like Dr Patrick Moore can see the flaws. Perhaps you could enlighten us on your views of the cofounder of Greenpeace and why you think he is wrong.

Stavros your right to an extent, except it's not a mini industry as in 2008 the carbon trading figures were $126,000,000 and thy're estimatedto reach $10 trillion.

Ben I agree with your views on deforestation, soil erosion, toxic waste etc., but not on the air pollution including CO2 as a pollutant, as I don't buy into the Global Warming myth and CO2 is essential for life. Reducing the emissions of other air pollutants like NOx and SO2 have less important, due to the focus on CO2. However, the effects of acid rain much easier to demonstrate and more difficult to dispute, there's just no money making venture attached to it.

[trish]

My argument is directed against an unsubstantiated appeal to authority, against the theory that global climate change is driven by variations in solar output (which is the theory espoused by the authors you cite and which I have directly addressed in prior posts to which I've linked), and the veracity of the review to which you allude. You yourself have not directed your attention to the data or the theory but only cite a review of the data. Why do you think their review (that of Soon & Baliunas) is correct when just about every other expert in the field since 2003 disagrees? Their perspective on the data is at odds with the community and their proposed mechanism for climate change, which may in the future help explain the climatology of extrasolar planets, is inapplicable to climates within the solar system as the variations in our own closely monitored Sun's output are insufficient to substantially effect our climate.

[markyboy21]

Trish I answered this in post 65 of this thread when you raised the point in post 63. That was when in your reply you started to get personal, rather than reply with a counter argument. I'm still awaiting your reply about Dr Patrick Moore.

[trish]

However, if tree ring studies of Bristlecone Pine, or Ice Cores are used for example they are not found everywhere (they are localised due to factors such microclimate, soil, latitude and altitude) ,which is why different types of study were required. Therefore, when tree ring studies and Ice Core studies show a Medaieval Warm Period, even though they are different geographical zones and the study types are different it is reasonable to conclude that the climate changes were the same.This does not show the Mediaval warming is global, only that one has to look for different signatures of warmth in different locals. Soon-Baliuna may claimed in 2003 to have found such signatures. In 2011 the climate community still disagrees.

For the sake of argument let’s suppose Soon & Baliunas are right in asserting the Medieval Warm period was global, in spite of the fact the overwhelming verdict of the climate community is that they’re wrong. Let’s also suppose they’re correct in taking the cause to be a fluctuation in the Sun’s energy output. Never mind the fact that this last hypothesis is untestable as there is no experimental proposal to measure the solar output before, during and after the Medieval Warm Period. Let’s, for the moment, accept both assertions.

Okay, what would those concessions that say about the hypothesis that the global climate shift observed since the industrial revolution is due to the release of vast amounts of carbon dioxide that were locked for hundreds of millions of years in the coal and oil that we’ve burnt since last century and a half? That theory makes no predictions about the Medieval period whether they be global or local. No prior climate event has any bearing on the greenhouse hypothesis. Moreover, the solar constant has been monitored since we first learn how to measure it in the early nineteenth century. It has been closely monitored in the twentieth century and very closely monitored by the SOHO observatory for the last dozen years. No variations in Solar energy output can mathematically account for the energy inbalance Earth now experiences. The theory that solar fluctuations, whether they can be blamed for the Medieval Warming or not, cannot account for the current warming trend. The solar fluctuation theory is a no go, the Soon-Baliunas review notwithstanding.

[markyboy21]

Trish the IPCC First Assessment Report 1990 included a graph of climate change over the last 1,000 years, J.Houghton et al, which included the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. When this data was used to challenge global warming, the IPCC were eager to get rid of this data. Hence, the email "We have to get rid of this Mediaeval Warm Period". This email was sent to Professor David Deming ( a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma who had won praise in the community of climate change scientists for his borehole temperature data analysis) from Professor John Overpeck of the University of Arizona ( a lead IPCC author. The second IPCC report 1995 then dropped the Houghton Graph on grounds of insufficient data. Next the 6,000 borehole study of every continent over 20,000 years further confirms the Houghton graph. The IPCC countered with the infamous Hockey Stick Graph by Dr Mann, but the result could not be verified by McIntyre and McKitrick, who using Mann's algorithm found that using random and meaningless data (red noise) 10,000 times, the hockey stick shape was there for more than 99% of them. Then the catch 22 of Nature who had published the original study in 1998, they would only allow McIntyre and McKitrick 500 words to explain the flaws in Mann's work, but as in the editor's view this was not enough Nature wouldn't print anything. (Booker,C The Real Global Warming Disaster)
Therefore, data is ok to use until it against the cause, then when sufficient data backs up the existing data, new data is invented and when this is discredited it won't be printed.
"everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." from George Orwell's 1984.
I'm still awaiting your answer on Dr Patrick Moore.

[trish]

..the IPCC First Assessment Report 1990 included a graph of climate change over the last 1,000 years...So what. My claim is that the unlocking of fossilized carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has been major contributing factor in the accelerated warming rates we've seen over that period. But I see once again the argument you are mounting against that hypothesis is political. We all now about the hacked emails, five independent agencies looked into it and found nothing untoward.

It puzzles me why you're so anxious to have me comment on Patrick Moore. His expertise is in ecology, not climatology. His driving motivations in forming Green Peace and later Green Spirit Strategies has been political and economic, not scientific. His break with Green Peace was inspired by what he saw to be their political tactics and showboating. I can agree with that assessment. He is not researcher and his break with the conclusions of climatology are not based on original research but what he sees to be political and economic pressures and conflicts. As I’ve said before, these are not so much arguments against the hypothesis that greenhouse mechanism is responsible for the current warming trend as they are arguments against the political organizations and corporate institutions that push solutions of various kinds. Moore is pessimistic that climate science will ever reach the degree of accuracy that would allow one to select against one quantitative greenhouse model over another. But this is hardly a criticism of the greenhouse hypothesis, more a complaint that we may not be able to achieve further empirical focus. As far as I know, he has offered no salient criticism of the greenhouse mechanism, no mathematical analysis pointing out errors in the its derivation from first principles; nor has he offered any serious alternative that can quantitatively compete with the existing greenhouse models.

[TJ347]

"Climate change" ended the Ice Age. I suppose all the people burning wood to keep warm were responsible for that.

[trish]

No. Now you're just making shit up. One: burning wood merely releases carbon dioxide that's already in the carbon cycle. Think about it. The wood you burn isn't from fossilized trees. Two: The ice ages are not due to fluctuations in the solar energy output. We know this because...Three: The ice ages correspond to the period of the axial precession of the Earth; i.e. periodic changes in it's orientation with respect to the Sun periodically vary the amount of the Sun's energy absorbed by the polar regions which in turn can have a significant effect on climate.

[Ineeda SM]

"Climate change" ended the Ice Age. I suppose all the people burning wood to keep warm were responsible for that.

Now THAT is just ridiculous.


Trish the IPCC First Assessment Report 1990 included a graph of climate change over the last 1,000 years, J.Houghton et al, which included the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

Markboy21, unless you can come up with indisputable scientific evidence (NOT political) from a scientist or specialist in the field of climatology, that can contradict what Trish has clearly pointed out many times, then you have already lost the debate. Arguments about climate change based on politics are just opinions without evidence, and a moot point.

[TJ347]

It was a joke, however poorly crafted it may have been.

I don't claim to be a climatologist, nor will I make dozens of pseudo-intellectual posts on this decidedly complex subject which simply parrot the "findings" of those qualified experts whose positions I wish to believe. That said, let's assume that climate change is in fact real; what are we going to do about it? We talk a good game, but when push comes to shove we aren't willing to sacrifice our conveniences, especially in the US, making the arguments about issues like this pointless.

[Ineeda SM]

It was a joke, however poorly crafted it may have been.

I don't claim to be a climatologist, nor will I make dozens of pseudo-intellectual posts on this decidedly complex subject which simply parrot the "findings" of those qualified experts whose positions I wish to believe. That said, let's assume that climate change is in fact real; what are we going to do about it? We talk a good game, but when push comes to shove we aren't willing to sacrifice our conveniences, especially in the US, making the arguments about issues like this pointless.

Many people DO want to see something done. It is the right wing that wants us to remain addicted to the oil, coal, and nuclear energy sources that they own and stay rich on. They are the ones paying for special studies that will be in their favor to give the right wing base just enough doubt to stop the forward thinking.

[TJ347]

Many people DO want to see something done. It is the right wing that wants us to remain addicted to the oil, coal, and nuclear energy sources that they own and stay rich on. They are the ones paying for special studies that will be in their favor to give the right wing base just enough doubt to stop the forward thinking.

Yes, I know we on the right are a bunch of oil owning old meanies, apparently comprising half the voting public based on the numbers. So while half the American public are idiots believing dubious data pushed by the wealthy, the liberal other half base their commentary on factual data, is that correct?

Anyway, my commentary wasn't about whether people want to see something done, but the observation that they aren't willing to take any active role in doing anything, slacktivist activities aside. Oil is so evil, yet do all those who say so ride public transportation wherever possible or drive Priuses? You're against oil, coal and nuclear energy, but what do you use to heat your home? What do you propose the rest of us use to heat our homes? With the vast majority of your environmental-friendliness proponents, it never goes further than lip service, and unless you yourself are driving a solar powered car with coconut shell wheels and wearing clothes you've handmade out of hemp, you're another one talking the talk which makes you even worse than the people you claim are duping the rest of us. Hypocrisy: when you just can't stand something... or stand doing something about it yourself.

[Ineeda SM]

Yes, I know we on the right are a bunch of oil owning old meanies, apparently comprising half the voting public based on the numbers. So while half the American public are idiots believing dubious data pushed by the wealthy, the liberal other half base their commentary on factual data, is that correct?

Anyway, my commentary wasn't about whether people want to see something done, but the observation that they aren't willing to take any active role in doing anything, slacktivist activities aside. Oil is so evil, yet do all those who say so ride public transportation wherever possible or drive Priuses? You're against oil, coal and nuclear energy, but what do you use to heat your home? What do you propose the rest of us use to heat our homes? With the vast majority of your environmental-friendliness proponents, it never goes further than lip service, and unless you yourself are driving a solar powered car with coconut shell wheels and wearing clothes you've handmade out of hemp, you're another one talking the talk which makes you even worse than the people you claim are duping the rest of us. Hypocrisy: when you just can't stand something... or stand doing something about it yourself.

Now you are just being ridiculous again. You are blaming me for something beyond my capabilities. Typical right wing response. When you are wrong and have no defense, make them look bad to take the attention off yourself. If you read my last comment, you would have read that I told you people want to see the changes, but are being held back by the rich who own the main energy sources. And they just happen to be right wingers.

Do you realize that the amount of money the GOP wasted on Bush's illegal Iraq war, could have converted the transportation system throughout the country to an alternative energy source. Or we could have put millions of people to work rebuilding our infrastructure. Or we could have paid off the mortgages of those extreme cases who will lose their homes without help. Or we could have converted most homes for heating....etc....so many things that kind of money could have done for Americans and America. But OH NO! Invading and killing those who were no threat to us was more important. Bush had to have his personal revenge on Saddam for his daddy.

We have the technology NOW to do it. We just need to kick some republican asses and get them to fund it. But that is never going to happen. The GOP will make sure it doesn't happen. They like watching their bank accounts grow every day from oil profits.

[TJ347]

It is beyond your capabilities to use public transportation or drive a Nissan Leaf/Honda Insight/Toyota Prius because of the rich who own the main energy sources? I see.

You believe the money the government wasted on the Iraq War was supported by Republicans alone, with none of your sainted Democrats in favor? I see.

You think railing at length against George Bush, who isn't in office anymore, makes more sense than focusing on the man in office now and addressing his failures? I see.

Even though there aren't millions of people qualified to perform such work, nor would there be sufficient money to train them after calculating the cost of all major infrastructure projects, you believe that millions of people could have been put to work rebuilding our infrastructure if there was no Iraq War? I see.

You believe, despite the fact that most people publicly acknowledge that we owe China generations deep and can't borrow any more because the world knows we're effectively broke, the mean old Republicans have a secret hoard of cash that would pay for the homeless to construct a magical, high-speed, cross-country monorail system or somesuch? I see.

All this, yet you have the audacity to say that I'm being ridiculous? If you think the left has all the answers you're a fool; if you think the right has all the answers, you're an idiot.

[russtafa]

I am not about to give up my air conditioner or my heater or oven or stop driving my truck to save the world it can go to hell!

[markyboy21]

Trish the science is the Houghton graph, the University of Michigan 6,000 borehole study, and the McIntyre and Mckitrick study that I have listed previously. The politics are the use of the Houghton study and then trying to discredit it when it no longer backs their view; the use of secretive unverified data in the Hockey Stick (Mann refused to to show the data to the House Energy and Commerce Commitee); and also the catch 22 trick, where McIntyre and McKitrick were only allowed 500 words by the editor of Nature (who published the Hockey Stick graph) to explain their findings, yet the editor's view was that 500 words would not be enough to explain their views properly, so he didn't have to publish. The science is being used by the sceptics and the politics by the pro global warming camp.

[Ineeda SM]

I am not about to give up my air conditioner or my heater or oven or stop driving my truck to save the world it can go to hell!

Why would you have to? That's not what going green is about. This is why you argue about it, because you don't get it.

[Ineeda SM]

It is beyond your capabilities to use public transportation or drive a Nissan Leaf/Honda Insight/Toyota Prius because of the rich who own the main energy sources? I see.
No and I never said those things. In my own personal case, I can't afford it because I am retired on a small fixed income. I said you were blaming me for things beyond my control. We were talking about the country changing how we make power and keep the air clean. The technology to make cars that don't use any gasoline..... I don't have a magic wand to pull out of my ass to make those things happen. Like a good little brainwashed republican, you twisted my words so you could reply as a smart ass.


You believe the money the government wasted on the Iraq War was supported by Republicans alone, with none of your sainted Democrats in favor? I see.
You are 2 dimensional in your thinking. The dems supported the troops, not the war. That has been voiced by the dems from the beginning. You can't just say fuck our soldiers just because you are against the reason they are there.


You think railing at length against George Bush, who isn't in office anymore, makes more sense than focusing on the man in office now and addressing his failures? I see.
Obama hasn't had a failure. The economy is in constant recovery, and we have added over a million new jobs. Like it or not, the stimulas helped. Obama inherited the mess we are in from Bush. He didn't cause any of it. In fact he has helped it. As much as you republicans love to cry to the contrary, it is just the plain simple facts.


Even though there aren't millions of people qualified to perform such work, nor would there be sufficient money to train them after calculating the cost of all major infrastructure projects, you believe that millions of people could have been put to work rebuilding our infrastructure if there was no Iraq War? I see.
Absolutely without question. You do not understand economics at all do you. The war has cost us 20 times the amount the government normally gives to the states for infrastructure. If that is too difficult for you to figure out, use a calculator.


You believe, despite the fact that most people publicly acknowledge that we owe China generations deep and can't borrow any more because the world knows we're effectively broke, the mean old Republicans have a secret hoard of cash that would pay for the homeless to construct a magical, high-speed, cross-country monorail system or somesuch? I see.
No I never said that. Again you are twisting my words Mr. Typical Republican. I said building monorails and high speed trains was one of the examples of how we could have spent the war money. And I never said the homeless would do the work or that the train was magical. Many other countries have had them for years. Wow what an imagination you have.


All this, yet you have the audacity to say that I'm being ridiculous? If you think the left has all the answers you're a fool; if you think the right has all the answers, you're an idiot.

Yes you just proved that you are being ridiculous. Obvious misquoting for your own arguments, making shit up that I never said.....And I never claimed that any party or person had all the answers. I just offered up some better uses for the wasted Bush dollars than going to illegal war with it, and killing American soldiers for nothing.

[trish]

... the science is the Houghton graph, the University of Michigan 6,000 borehole study, and the McIntyre and Mckitrick study ...Sorry, but you don’t get to decide what is or what isn’t science, the community f climatologists has something to do with that. The climate science that deniers protest is the proposition that the release of fossilized forms of carbon that have been pumped by the giga-tons into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate since the start of industrialization (not signing of the Magna Carta nor the Mediaeval ages, but the start of industrialization) has increased the opacity of the atmosphere in the infrared band diminishing the rate at which radiant heat escapes into space. In thermodynamic response the Earth warms until it can once again radiate at a rate that matches the rate of energy capture. This is basic physics. So basic it can be derived in mathematical form from first principles. Given the increases in measured concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the mid 19th century the mathematics says the average global temperatures today should be about half a degree centigrade higher.

There is really no reasonable denial of greenhouse theory, it is as certain as thermodynamics. What can be reasonably questioned is whether the measured increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses since the beginning of industrialization is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, order of magnitude booking on estimates of the coal and oil that have been consumed over the relevant time period indicate the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to corresponding rise in atmospheric greenhouse concentrations. One can also reasonably question whether there is some other energy source contributing to the current warming. Soon et.al., for example, speculates that fluctuations in the Sun’s energy output contributes to global warming. If correct, such fluctuates can only contribute to the warming, compounding the heating problem already caused by greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately for Soon et.al. the SOHO observatory detects no fluctuations of the required scale, and NASA has debunked all claims that such fluctuations are responsible for the alleged warming of other solar system bodies. Fluctuations in solar output are not in the running. Soon’s theory is dead in the water as it cannot explain nor can it contribute to an understanding of the warming since the start of industrialization. This is not to say fluctuations in solar output have never caused a climate event on Earth in the distant past, though identifying such an event and verifying solar fluctuation as the cause would be tediously difficult. In any case, the truth or falsity of such a claim would be irrelevant to what happened and is happening during the period of the world’s industrialization.

That industrialization has had a direct effect on Earth’s climate follows directly from our understanding of elementary thermodynamics, elementary atmospheric physics & chemistry and observations of the electromagnetic spectrum of the Solar energy output. There is no alternative theory, there can only be additional contributing or attenuating factors.

[TJ347]

No and I never said those things. In my own personal case, I can't afford it because I am retired on a small fixed income. I said you were blaming me for things beyond my control. We were talking about the country changing how we make power and keep the air clean. The technology to make cars that don't use any gasoline..... I don't have a magic wand to pull out of my ass to make those things happen. Like a good little brainwashed republican, you twisted my words so you could reply as a smart ass.


You are 2 dimensional in your thinking. The dems supported the troops, not the war. That has been voiced by the dems from the beginning. You can't just say fuck our soldiers just because you are against the reason they are there.

Obama hasn't had a failure. The economy is in constant recovery, and we have added over a million new jobs. Like it or not, the stimulas helped. Obama inherited the mess we are in from Bush. He didn't cause any of it. In fact he has helped it. As much as you republicans love to cry to the contrary, it is just the plain simple facts.


Absolutely without question. You do not understand economics at all do you. The war has cost us 20 times the amount the government normally gives to the states for infrastructure. If that is too difficult for you to figure out, use a calculator.

No I never said that. Again you are twisting my words Mr. Typical Republican. I said building monorails and high speed trains was one of the examples of how we could have spent the war money. And I never said the homeless would do the work or that the train was magical. Many other countries have had them for years. Wow what an imagination you have.

Yes you just proved that you are being ridiculous. Obvious misquoting for
your own arguments, making shit up that I never said.....And I never claimed that any party or person had all the answers. I just offered up some better uses for the wasted Bush dollars than going to illegal war with it, and killing American soldiers for nothing.

Firstly, cars that don't run on gasoline aren't something new. The earliest cars were battery powered, but in those days people didn't need to go very far or do so very quickly. In the modern day, Tesla Motors seems to be furthest ahead in generating acceptable range and speed just this moment, but the development of that technology is costly, which is why Tesla vehicles are pricey. And that is not the fault of the rich in general or Republicans.

Secondly, neither your sainted Democrats nor the Republicans have supported the troops sufficiently to my liking, given the number who have not received appropriate medical/psychological care since returning home. Further, you sound like a moron when you claim "Democrats supported the troops, not the war" like Democrats knew beforehand that there were no WMDs in Iraq. They supported the war just like the Republicans did, up until a significant number of American voters began to complain. That's political expediency, sir, not clairvoyance.

Thirdly, my primary point with respect to infrastructure was, I thought, quite clear... Even if there had been no Iraq War, the money spent on the war would not have gone to the infrastructure projects you mentioned. My secondary point was that the money to train the "millions" you said could have been employed in such projects wouldn't be there once you totalled the cost of completing all major projects, nor are there even millions who could have been readily employed in infrastructure associated fields. That being said, your claim that "the war has cost us 20 times the amount the government normally gives to the states for infrastructure" is entirely irrelevant, as is whether or not other countries have monorail and high speed trains and how long they've had them. So, as it's ultimately not an understanding of economics, but an understanding of logic that's needed to comprehend what I was saying here before, you clearly came ill-equipped.

Lastly, how ironic that you claim I'm a typical Republican (despite the fact I've stated I don't support every aspect of the Republican platform), and yet you constantly parrot Democratic talking points. Or are we to believe you came up with "The war has cost us 20 times the amount the government normally gives to the states for infrastructure..." yourself? Say what you will about me being a brainwashed Republican, I'm able to base my comments in logic and express my own thoughts, and if you can't similarly do that, then the only thing ridiculous would be for me to continue to reply to anything you have to say on matters of any gravity.

[markyboy21]

Trish I dont't need to, anyone with reasonable intelligence could look at the two definitions listed below, and see that the Houghton graph, the Bore Hole study and the catch 22 research are all scientific; whereas, the rest of what I had in my previous post was political.

Politics is the process observed in all human (and many non-human) groups interactions by which groups make decisions including activism on behalf of specific issues or causes.

Science is an enerprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of TESTABLE explanatios and predictions about the world. (Both definitions from Wikipedia).

[russtafa]

In Australia our government wants to put a big tax on carbon which means gas, coal and electricity.The out come that will be old people will not be able to run their air cons in the summer or heat their homes in the winter .Workers wont be able to run their cars to work.Small business work be able to run their business's

[TJ347]

In Australia our government wants to put a big tax on carbon which means gas, coal and electricity.The out come that will be old people will not be able to run their air cons in the summer or heat their homes in the winter .Workers wont be able to run their cars to work.Small business work be able to run their business's

And what are Australians doing to counter these governmental efforts as far as you know? I'd imagine any elected official supporting a move which would generate an outcome such as you've mentioned would certainly be put out of office in the next election.

[Ineeda SM]

Firstly, cars that don't run on gasoline aren't something new. The earliest cars were battery powered, but in those days people didn't need to go very far or do so very quickly. In the modern day,
I know. That is why I said we have the technology today to get off the oil addiction.


Secondly, neither your sainted Democrats nor the Republicans have supported the troops sufficiently to my liking, given the number who have not received appropriate medical/psychological care since returning home. Further, you sound like a moron when you claim "Democrats supported the troops, not the war" like Democrats knew beforehand that there were no WMDs in Iraq. They supported the war just like the Republicans did, up until a significant number of American voters began to complain. That's political expediency, sir, not clairvoyance.
Wrong! I know you republicans love to claim that the dems supported the war to take the blame off yourselves, but it's not true. The dems were against the war from the beginning. The told Bush they would give their authorization to make war, but with strict caveats that he allow the weapons inspectors to complete their jobs first. Bush openly agreed to this in public. Then he reneged on his promise and went to war anyway. The dems supported the troops, but they never supported the war.


Thirdly, my primary point with respect to infrastructure was, I thought, quite clear... Even if there had been no Iraq War, the money spent on the war would not have gone to the infrastructure projects you mentioned. My secondary point was that the money to train the "millions" you said could have been employed in such projects wouldn't be there once you totalled the cost of completing all major projects, nor are there even millions who could have been readily employed in infrastructure associated fields. That being said, your claim that "the war has cost us 20 times the amount the government normally gives to the states for infrastructure" is entirely irrelevant, as is whether or not other countries have monorail and high speed trains and how long they've had them. So, as it's ultimately not an understanding of economics, but an understanding of logic that's needed to comprehend what I was saying here before, you clearly came ill-equipped.
You are not replying to what I said. You are stretching the truth for your own benefit. I was making an observation on what the Iraq war money COULD have been used for. Or what we could have done with it for things this country needs badly instead of spending it on war. America divides up $200BILLION to states for infrastructure. 20 times that is roughly $4.2TRILLION, which is what Bush's illegal war has added to the debt. And that would have been more than enough to put unemployed construction workers back to work and train new workers also. It would have created millions of good paying jobs. But we decided to kill 5,000 American soldiers and 30,000 Iraqi people for Bush's revenge for his daddy. Yes that's a much better idea.


Lastly, how ironic that you claim I'm a typical Republican (despite the fact I've stated I don't support every aspect of the Republican platform), and yet you constantly parrot Democratic talking points. Or are we to believe you came up with "The war has cost us 20 times the amount the government normally gives to the states for infrastructure..." yourself? Say what you will about me being a brainwashed Republican, I'm able to base my comments in logic and express my own thoughts, and if you can't similarly do that, then the only thing ridiculous would be for me to continue to reply to anything you have to say on matters of any gravity.

Not one of your comments are provable and have no logic of any kind. You spout childish remarks with name calling, you make things up that were never said or never happened so you can argue with people, you twist everything everyone says that you don't agree with so you can think you are making clever retorts at them, you never check your comments or anyone elses for facts..etc... Yes you are a republican all right. No question about it. You condemn everything left wing, and lie your ass off to praise everything right wing. If it walks like a republican, and talks bull shit like a republican, it must be a republican.

[TJ347]

That industrialization has had a direct effect on Earth’s climate follows directly from our understanding of elementary thermodynamics, elementary atmospheric physics & chemistry and observations of the electromagnetic spectrum of the Solar energy output. There is no alternative theory, there can only be additional contributing or attenuating factors.

And yet clearly the experts disagree, as there is no scientific concensus on the matter. Thus, we're reduced to either quoting whatever expert supports our own position and ignoring any contrary evidence, or saying nothing in acknowledgement that we honestly don't know the truth. I am saying that I do not know, and have yet to see sufficient conclusive proof to allow me to alter my position on this matter.

[trish]

No, they don't disagree. There is indeed a consensus among the experts. To say the experts disagree is like saying experts disagree that humans and all other primates have a common ancestor. The physical mechanism behind the hypothesis of greenhouse warming is simple enough for anyone to understand that it is a logical consequence of basic physics. The basic equations are simple enough for a good undergraduate or a first year graduate student to grasp and derive, though actual calculations on collected data requires hours of computer time. The theory is simple, well understood, the evidence for it is overwhelming and there are no viable competing theories from which to select.

[trish]

Science is an enerprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of TESTABLE explanatios and predictions about the world. Yes. The industrial age greenhouse gas hypothesis is predictive, testable and explanatory. Moreover, the hypothesis has passed all tests within the margins of error allowed by the sundry methods of measurement and the appropriate consideration of mitigating factors. Soon's solar fluctuation hypothesis predicts the SOHO observatory and others should've measured increasing solar energy outputs. Soon’s hypothesis fails the test. I don't see you proposing any theory that can viably compete with the greenhouse hypothesis. What mechanism are you proposing? What are it's testable predictions?

[hippifried]

Mechanism? Oh that's easy. "If it's promoted by any liberals, it must be denied at all cost!"

[TJ347]

No, they don't disagree. There is indeed a consensus among the experts.

Are these "your" experts? Because I'm certain evidence can be provided for you if necessary wherein scientists clearly state that they do not agree with what you claim is the concensus take on the issue.

[trish]

Of course there are scientists who clearly state the evolution is incorrect and conflicts with the evidence. You can find a few experts who insist that the red-shifted light of stars is not due to recession. That doesn't mean there is no consensus among the biologists on the issue of evolution or among astronomers on the issue of cosmic expansion. It only means there are a few experts who disagree with the consensus. In science there never is absolute proof like there is in logic and mathematics. But global warming is about as certain as plate tectonics. Half the deniers will concede that warming has been taking place since the industrial revolution, they simply deny the greenhouse hypothesis. But the greenhouse hypothesis, as I explained many times now, provides a simple, elegant, explanatory testable mechanism. Moreover it is the lone survivor among other attempts to explain global warming. The greenhouse hypothesis is basic physics. It may not be the sole cause of the energy imbalance that accompanies industrialization, but the consensus of experts, and the conclusions of basic physics are that the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to the industrialization warming trend.

Is this a liberal science. No. It's just science. I don't give a fuck if we do any about global warming or not. I'm pessimistic about most the proposals I hear. We already let lose enough fossil carbon dioxide to disrupt the prior thermodynamic equilibrium. I have no stake in carbon trading, carbon taxes and the rest of it. Those policies simply slow the rate at which we will release the remaining store of fossil carbon.

[russtafa]

In Australia our government wants to put a big tax on carbon which means gas, coal and electricity.The out come that will be old people will not be able to run their air cons in the summer or heat their homes in the winter .Workers wont be able to run their cars to work.Small business work be able to run their business's Please look at Australian carbon tax on YOU TUBE

[markyboy21]

Trish there is no dispute over the factors that infuence climate, namely the angle of the earth towards the sun; the position of the earth in it's orbit around the sun; the albido effect (cloud cover); the greenhouse effect; solar radiation and cosmic rays. What is in dispute is that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the recent climatic changes. If the IPCC's simple model of global warming is correct then why has the temperature fallen since 1998, when the model predicts a continuing rise in temperature (the overall trend, not blips for single years)? Furthermore, if this global warming is so convincing why does the IPCC have to use unverified data (Hockey Stick); block the publishing of scrutiny of it's data; and also use false photography (the polar bears taken by Amanda Byrd near to land, yet portrayed as two bears on the last remnant of ice in the sea)? Also, how do you explain the study of world temperatures going back 500 million years which show CO2 levels up to 18 times as high as today's, and wre even 10 times higher in the Ordovician glaciation?

[trish]

there is no dispute over the factors that infuence climate, namely the angle of the earth towards the sun; the position of the earth in it's orbit around the sun; the albido effect (cloud cover); the greenhouse effect; solar radiation and cosmic rays.Agreed. If all the factors that influence climate could somehow be held constant, one would expect the climate to maintain a dynamically stable equilibrium. When one or more the factors undergoes a significant change, one expects a corresponding shift the location of that equilibrium in state space (or in the worst case, a runway trajectory leading to no stable equilibria). The orientation and position of the Earth are well understood. We have both measurement of them over the last two hundred years and we can calculate from the current orientation and position backwards two hundred years. There is nothing in the Earth’s orientation and position over the last two centuries that could significantly be the cause of the industrial age climate shift. The albedo of the Earth has been monitored since the late sixties by satellites. There are measured changes in albedo (which is not due to changes in cloud cover as much as to changes in the reflectivity of various portions of the Earth’s surface; e.g. the melting of glaciers diminishes the reflectivity and consequently increases the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth and exasperates warming. So yes, the diminishing albedo is a caustic factor of the industrial age warming period. Solar radiation and the energy carried to the Earth by the solar wind, as I explained before, are fluctuate periodically around an averages that remains relatively constant. These fluctuations are dwarfed by the energy variations caused by the periodic variations of the Earth’s orientation and position within the wind and relative to the Sun, as I explained in prior linked posts. What’s left? The dramatic increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses.

The greenhouse model does not predict a continuous, monotone increasing rise in average global temperatures. All of the factors dealt with above (mostly those having to do with the Earth’s orientation & position ___ precession, rotation and orbital___ create rises and falls each with its own period. The model predicts a statistical upward trend which is born out the data which has been verified by over the last decades by hundreds of independent institutions, universities, government organizations (around the world).


Also, how do you explain the study of world temperatures going back 500 million years which show CO2 levels up to 18 times as high as today's, and wre even 10 times higher in the Ordovician glaciation?First of all, what does that have to do with the industrial age period of warming? Second, can you tell the orientation of the Earth’s axis 500 million years ago? As you said, this is an important factor that influences climate. We know this factor hasn’t varied appreciably in the last two hundred years, because this factor is known to vary periodically and the period has an order of magnitude of a hundred millennia. Because of the long length of this period, the precession of the Earth hasn't changed much since 1800, yet the precessional period correlates nicely with the periodic advance and recession of the Earth’s ice sheets.

[markyboy21]

Trish the trend since 1998 does not follow the model, and furthermore, since 1998 the temperature on the graph has fallen by more than the previous century's gain. I'm still awaiting your explaination of the CO2 levels in the Ordovician glaciation.

[Faldur]

http://pictureperfectsandiego.com/files/2009/12/disney-chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

[trish]

Kids, don't try this at home.

[russtafa]

Wow Trish i love your graph's.No graph no sunshine

[Faldur]

Trish might be on to something here, pretty reputable thinker weighed in with his global warming thinking.. Pope Charlie (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/18/article-0-03FBBB70000005DC-22_233x379.jpg

[Ben]

YouTube - Thom Hartmann and Bill McKibbon on Catastrophic Climate Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5TwgLg-OQ8)