lemonade
 

This post is a good illustration of what these people think about those who do not consent to be governed by them.

WW

I have no doubt we will have food riots in this country in my lifetime. But it wont be climate change that causes them.

Congratulations the good old USA has finally reached an official public debt of 100% of GDP.

What is really funny is that even common criminals know far more about the carbon cycle than the most rabid greenie, that is why they boost the temperature and augment CO2 levels to get the highest crop yields possible in clandestine growing operations.

The ultimate grow room | Cannabis Culture Magazine


Always remember that science and engineering have built a better world.

Social engineering has proven itself to be far more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

Yeah but if the temperature in the room rises to 451 F his crop yields will go to zero.

Well if we do it will be because there are over 7 BILLION people(and growing) and farmland being sold because the land is worth more to developers AND politicians absolutly screwing farmers by regulating crap they are clueless on.


It certainly won't be because the temperature went up or down a few degrees.

Keystone Pipeline Project
Would have been easier for them to deal with the Chinese when one considers the overwhelming costs associated with doing business in the U.S.A due to the regulatory process.:rolleyes:
And therein lies the problem .

Ally

ridiculous pessimism
 

Crop yield threshold? Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug?

Food riots and high food prices? What percentage of US grain is now diverted to green fuel boondoggles like ethanol? How does that affect the prices? How about the regulatory drought in Central California? Federal policies mandate the dumping of vast quantities of fresh water from the Sacramento river into the ocean, rather than using it for the fruit and vegetable farms in the central valley. How does that affect food prices?
I'll give you a hint, it doesn't make them go down.

Climate change, whatever that means, might affect food prices, but not as much as climate change policies.

WW

N2264J,

For the third time, will you please respond to this?

They can't respond, it ruins the magic spell.

The Earth has been warming for roughly 20,000 years, man had nothing to do with this or any of the previous ice ages.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The science really is settled you see, just not the way they want it to be......

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

There is a video series called "How It All Ends" that will provide insight into the
problem and answer many of his questions. It's an excellent primer on the subject.

The whole series of free videos takes between 4 and 5 hours but he'll pick up a lot.
The link below "The Mechanics of Global Climate Change" is a good place to start.
This section takes 30 minutes:

How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (pt 1 of 3) - YouTube

Short version, the sun gets really hot just before it dies, the Earth turns into a cinder and then freezes permanently. Hopefully, we will have moved by then.:D

Just a hint, but if it takes a guy in a clown suit five hours to "explain" what you want us to believe, then you may be limiting your audience.
If it is all the same to you, I would much rather read something that contains actual results, proofs and data-not just pure speculation.

Most of us are very open to reasonable evidence presented by people not intending to defraud the public.

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

So you mock me when I don't respond and then disparage my integrity when
I do.

That pretty much sums up your rebuttal strategy, doesn't it?

We asked for a response on the geologic/climate record prior to man's existence and how it managed to be both warmer and cooler without people driving SUVs and practicing capitalism, what we got was five hours of a guy dressed like a clown who did not speak to this point.

It should be fairly simple, just explain as far back as the last two ice ages on Earth, describe the mechanism involved with those two massive climate changes.

For extra credit: Has the Earth been both much cooler and much warmer during that period of time?

What exactly is the proper temperature for Earth? What method do you use to determine that temperature? How would you alter that temperature if it was incorrect?

One was caused by Fred Flintstone and the other was caused by the Atlantians gezz everybody knows that.:D

at least he didn't call you a sociopath.

WW

Most people on his side love to dish it out, but don't you dare try to say anything negative to them or their argument. Double standard at it's finest.

Even people that don't stay at a Holiday Inn Express are aware that Earth cools and warms in cycles. There is no point in arguing about that.

The debate is over how much, if any, man is contributing to the current level and rate of warming. Many of you geniuses seem to agree with the minute percentage of qualified scientists that believe humans are not a significant factor in global warming...Rather than the overwhelming majority of scientists, that believe "human induced green house warming" is now occurring.

Now, unlike you APC climatology experts...I'm not completely sure. But, I'm inclined to go with the majority of people that are qualified to have an opinion that anyone should really care about. And, that group of people certainly doesn't include any of you.

Just sayin'.:p

THIS is what it's really about.

United Nations climate envoys have proposed the creation of a global "climate court" that would be responsible for enforcing a sprawling set of rules requiring developed countries to cut emissions while compensating poorer countries in order to pay off a "historical climate debt."

In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with "finance, technology and capacity building" so they can "adapt to and mitigate climate change" while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount "developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare."



Thats ALL you need to know.

U.N. Floats Global 'Climate Court' To Enforce Emissions Rules | Fox News

Durban: what the media are not telling you | Watts Up With That?


It's all about the Benjamin's. WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION( with billions also pocketed by the usual crowd).

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

If his explanation about carbon sequestration, the Vostok graph and the Keeling curve in the link I provided is over your head, maybe you should rethink your contempt for his delivery.

Sounds more like deception by omission .
"The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery".


Ally

Uh huh, The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

It does seem somewhat curious that the people pushing this are also the people pushing for wealth and power distribution for all sorts of unrelated reasons.
The UN has been the classic soap box for the worst kinds of tyranny the world has ever seen. Science has never been their strong point, nor world peace for that matter. Human rights are their alleged currency, and they have always been corrupt and bankrupt.

It is just too hard for most of us poor knuckleheads to understand, just let the UN do whatever it needs to do with your life and money!


The real problem is that not one prediction has come true, man's activities have not destroyed the climate or even caused a meaningful rise in temperature. Natural cycles quite clearly have done so and will do so in the future.

In its entire history, the UN has never made a scientific breakthrough, it has however been continually involved in some of the most corrupt operations on the planet and these have involved the highest levels of its leadership.

Take another look at the Climategate emails, they display the level of corruption we are dealing with here very clearly. They make it clear that the "consensus" is to pull the wool over the eyes of the world.

try this one some time
 

Kind of reminds me of this quote by Churchill -
Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.

The old mans used this one among several others on occasion and it makes the dinner parties a bit more interesting.:)


Ally

Yes, bright shiny objects appeal to you huh? The Climategate emails are hardly representative of climate science. That wasn't even a good try.

You are correct, the Climategate emails and the UN IPCC are doing everything they can to hide the results of real climate science.:D


At this point I would like to invite our gentle readers to examine the arguments and proposals of N2264J, Busboy and LeftWing. It goes like this: All of you are too stupid to understand this, the UN knows what is best for all of us, and all of the evidence to the contrary is meaningless.

If you want to understand the real motives here, the article in "The Nation" provided by N2264J will give you some real insight. As will the UN proposals.

The real message is that both science and economics are going to be ignored to follow this agenda, the implications for those who actually care about humanity are going to be far worse than the "emergency" that has been created.

Science and economics have been turned into a meaningless football that has nothing at all to do with the ultimate goal. Fortunately this attitude has recently run into the cold hard facts of reality.

Ed Zachary.

The result will be extremely high energy prices, followed by extremely high food prices. At the same time the 3rd world countries getting our money(most of it will be kept by the thieves running those countries) will be producing more 3rd world babies who will CONTINUE to starve to death in poverty. Welcome to the start of another world war.

Is that what I said? Thanks for clearing that up for me. I must have misspelled UN. As, it's not clearly visible in my post. :rolleyes:

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

That claim was debunked almost immediately.

The IPCC is made up of scientists from different fields and skill sets who don't have
the background or credentials to critique the work of others so the papers get written and reviewed by a few dozen experts, not the entire organization.

This is yet another example of a breathless assertion made because, as laymen, we head down the path with our pants on fire because we simply don't know what we're talking about.

Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight | Deep Climate

Fair enough, you can just tell us you don't accept the findings of the UN IPCC and don't support their proposed "solution". You wouldn't have any problem with doing that right now would you? That's what I thought.

It does not take much "debunking" for anything the UN says for you does it?

Tell us right now that you support their findings and proposals, and that you applaud their scrubbing of their incorrect predictions on a regular basis from their web site. Breathless and factless assertions indeed.

Can you tell us what portion of any warming or cooling is caused by man and what portion is due to natural cycles?

Can you tell us why the UN stated man's effects will not be changeable for at least a thousand years?

And they really get the message across with hard hitting stories about how women and minorities are going to bear the brunt of everything that has gone on since time began.

Women bear the brunt of climate change
Women, particularly those living in the mountainous regions in developing countries, face disproportionately high risks to their livelihoods and health from global warming, says a U.N. report on Climate Change.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report titled ‘Women at the Frontline of Climate Change: Gender Risks and Hopes' says investing in low-carbon and efficient green technologies, water harvesting and fuel wood alternatives can strengthen climate change adaptation and improve women's livelihoods.

The report was released at the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa, according to a press release issued by the ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) headquartered in Kathmandu.

Impacts of climate change, such as droughts, floods and mud slips are affecting a growing number of people worldwide, according to the report.

“From 1999-2008, floods affected almost one billion people in Asia, 28 million in the Americas, 22 million in Africa and four million in Europe.”

In parts of Asia and Africa, where the majority of the agricultural workforce are women, such disasters have a major impact on their income, food security and health.

“Women often play a stronger role than men in the management of ecosystem services and food security. Hence, sustainable adaptation must focus on gender and the role of women if it is to become successful,” said U.N. Under Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

“Women's voices, responsibilities and knowledge on the environment and the challenges they face will need to be made a central part of governments' adaptive responses to a rapidly changing climate,” he added.

The reports also highlights how organised human trafficking, especially that of women, is emerging as a potentially serious risk associated with climate-related disasters; as floods or landslips disrupt social safety nets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I predict a straw shortage because the UN is grabbing at every one.

Interesting read -
The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com
It just might be that these 'experts 'cried wolf just one too many times.


Ally

What I find puzzling is there are still people who find these climate change advocates credible. This BS has been debunked for years. Retired NASA scientist Dr. John S. Theon is yet another scientist who has repudiated all this man-made climate change nonsense and voiced his conclusions that “climate models are useless”. As chief of several NASA programs from 1982 to 1994, Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research, and oversaw the work of Dr. James Hansen. Hansen is NASA's foremost proponent of man-made global warming. Hansen has compared coal trains to Nazi death trains, and has lobbied for the prosecution of coal industry executives. Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.

Dr. Theon has repudiated all of this. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made," Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. After publicly stating: "climate models are useless" Dr. Theon is on record as saying, “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Dr. Theon is in good company. A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 names more than 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears. This is greater than twelve times as many scientists as the 52 who co-authored the UN reports that American bureaucrats continue to cite. These 650 scientists include: Aerospace engineer, physicist, and NASA Administrator (April 13, 2005 to January 20, 2009) Dr. Michael Griffin; Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology; Geophysicist and former astronaut Dr. Phil Chapman; Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt; Apollo 7 Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham; Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette (formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor); Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist and former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center; Climatologist Dr. John Christy; Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer; and Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility.

In summary, while the vast majority of scientists are going in one direction--repudiating claims of a man-made climate disaster--politicians are going the other direction--embracing such claims and shackling industry on those "grounds." The $64.00 question is why?, as the scientific case for man-made global warming collapses, why are politicians all the more determined to impose draconian controls on industry?

How is this for a reason?: Global warming has become a big-ticket item in the eyes of its supporters. At stake are research funds, jobs for the looters and the ability for despots to control lives all over the globe.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’ | Watts Up With That?

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

You and your fellow climate cranks desperately want to make this about politics but physics, biology and chemistry have no politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

What I find puzzling is you find one guy and that's supposed to be a credible counter weight to 98% of all climate scientists who disagree.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...ientists_e.php

Unless Dr. Theon's work is peer review, it's just an opinion.



.

Wasnt that the point of the E Mails. Dont peer review dissent.

And with physics, chemistry, and biology you have experiments that are repeatable and verifyable; not only that their models actually make predictions that come true.

Or as Michael Mann said:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

Think that made it into any of Mr. Mann's peer reviewed work?

Oddly enough the people you commonly refer to as cranks and sociopaths are the ones pointing to the flaws in the science instead of following the political herd your posted articles fawn over.

It should not be a political issue, but you have done nothing but support the faulty "science" and failed politics in your posts.

It is hard to believe you can post things like "The Nation" article or support the UN proposals with anything like a straight face. No science, but lots of hot air.:D


"My favorite quote of all those uncovered was from the climate criminal who asked his colleagues what would happen to them if it was discovered that climate change was “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation,” as much of the evidence shows. He answers his own question: “They’ll kill us probably.”

The fact is they "killed" all of their own credibility by attempting one of the largest public swindles in history. This swindle has nothing to do with science.
For such "smart" guys they really didn't know much about operational security, but like most criminals they didn't think they would get caught.

Again with your double standards. You got your panties in a wad when someone "mocked" you and "disparaged" your integrity, but you call us a bunch of cranks and sociopaths. It is usually the intellectually challenged that resort to name calling when they don't get their way or when someone disagrees with them.

just have a minute
 

Busboy,

You bring up a couple of interesting points, to which I may return later. One thing that it is essential to realize is that there is not one debate, but several concurrent ones.

The debate to which you refer is, on one level, a strictly scientific one. but it is not "the" debate; rather, it is one of many.

Another debate, about which there is not a consensus, is whether the prescriptions of the various elements of the AGW side of the argument pass the cost/benefit analysis.

Many thoughtful people, including some who think that the Earth's atmosphere is warming and the climate is changing due to human CO2 emissions, think that the AGW solutions will cause a much more immediate and certain catastrophe than will the greenhouse gasses.

WW

WW

Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.
George Orwell

Go Canada
 

People aren't buying what the alarmists are selling any more.

BBC News - Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol

WW

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Not hardly. You shouldn't assume I care what you think about me. I don't.

Let me tell you a story - I was cracking wise once about a denier of the president's birth place in the same way I give climate cranks grief for denying global climate destabilization. Jungle deleted my post and gave me forum demerits for being too political. I crossed the line!

This was after he and Wheeler were having a laugh about me being a watermelon ie green on the outside - red on the inside because, you know, implying someone is a Communist around here apparently isn't all that political.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ha...tml#post810952

You obviously dont understand the term crank. If there any cranks in this debate they are on the same side as the watermelons. See you got cranky when someone "mocked" you. And if you want to equate the word crank with junk, again your side is the one with the faulty models.


But just in case someday one of your models might come true even if they are off by a factor of 100 we should cancel the keystone pipeline cause the Chinese are much better at environmentally refining oil than we are.