Here is a thought for you campers


There are some people who live in a dream world,

And there are some who face reality; and then

There are those who turn one into the other.

Douglas Everett

I cannot help but notice as we come into the second week of Copenhagen talks on climate change that the newspapers have fallen silent on the subject. Excepting for a small article on release of several hundred protesters the fickle press have taken the most important conference since time began off the list.

My question is therefore have the delegates living large in CopenhagenLuxury digs at climate talkfest | The Courier-Mail (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26477047-953,00.html) turned the dream into reality or has reality taken on a dream quality. I think we must all realise that in the face of reality the dream of a world cooperating to solve a mutual problem has evaporated into water vapor, hot CO2 and much methane.

We can only hope the effort has fallen apart.

I think we must all realise that in the face of reality the dream of a world cooperating to solve a mutual problem has evaporated into water vapor, hot CO2 and much methane.
They are all waiting for the chosen one to make his appearance . The interesting things that have come out of Copenhagen so far is the clear chasm in positions between developed and developing nations and a leaked secret draft agreement prepared by the Danish government... by a group of individuals known as the 'circle of commitment'.

According to ABC :
The document abandons the Kyoto Protocol, sidelines the United Nations in future climate change negotiations, and hands most of the power to rich countries.
Leaked agreement rocks Copenhagen - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765792.htm?section=world)

Environmental groups are fuming ,claiming that the deal is a “behind the scenes negotiations...focussing on pleasing the rich and powerful countries rather than serving the majority of states who are demanding a fair and ambitious solution”.

Bolivia's delegate Angelica Navarro meanwhile has been ranting about 'carbon colonialism' and is demanding “reparations" from industrial nations.She called for a 'Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights' which Bolivian President Evo Morales says "supersede the rights of human beings". VII ALBA-TCP Summit: Special Declaration for a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights Mother Earth (http://motherearthrights.org/2009/10/17/vii-alba-tcp-summit-special-declaration-for-a-universal-declaration-of-mother-earth-rights/)

There was this Canadian reporter with 2 children of her own who called for a Malthusian restriction of 1 child per couple to reduce humans carbon footprint. International Planned Parenthood is putting on a show about how to increase contraception use in the third world to stop them from making carbon producing babies.

There is a women's rights group calling for more female environmental scientists .
And of course reporters asking scientists about Climategate are being suppressed at gunpoint
http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d12-At-gunpointreporter-stopped-from-asking-Climategate-questions... and... there are plenty of protesters dressed like polar bears.

Suppressing questions at gunpoint, nice. I guess they feel justified since al-AP has determined the science was not faked (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980). I guess it's settled.

Yes check out the way it is spinned .

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'

This is the best defense they have. It was faked but it's accurate .

And the rift is growing at Copenhagen.

Developing countries boycott UN climate talks - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_sc/climate)


in the face of reality the dream of a world cooperating to solve a mutual problem has evaporated...
Yes reality is frequently is the stumbling block to utopianism .

called for a 'Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights' which Bolivian President Evo Morales says "supersede the rights of human beings". VII ALBA-TCP Summit: Special Declaration for a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights Mother Earth (http://motherearthrights.org/2009/10/17/vii-alba-tcp-summit-special-declaration-for-a-universal-declaration-of-mother-earth-rights/)
.

Now we have come full circle and religion has been exposed. This is the Earth Mother religion, the notion that the Earth is a living being to be worshiped and all of this fanaticism associated with climate change is exposed for what it is pagan religion, they will be bowing down before rocks next

yes reality is frequently is the stumbling block to utopianism .

"Greenpeace added (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Summit-G77-Group-Of-Developing-Countries-Walk-Out-As-Protest/Article/200912215499846?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header _0&lid=ARTICLE_15499846_Copenhagen_Climate_Change_Sum mit%3A_G77_Group_Of_Developing_Countries_Walk_Out_ As_Protest) that the negotiations had five days "to avert climate chaos"."

No alarmism there. And in a surprising discovery, scientists have discovered that a surge in sunshine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091214/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingswitzerlandglaciers_20091214171443 ) helped Swiss glaciers melt faster in the 1940's than today. These scientists are really smart people.

"Greenpeace added (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Summit-G77-Group-Of-Developing-Countries-Walk-Out-As-Protest/Article/200912215499846?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header _0&lid=ARTICLE_15499846_Copenhagen_Climate_Change_Sum mit%3A_G77_Group_Of_Developing_Countries_Walk_Out_ As_Protest) that the negotiations had five days "to avert climate chaos"."

No alarmism there. And in a surprising discovery, scientists have discovered that a surge in sunshine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091214/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingswitzerlandglaciers_20091214171443 ) helped Swiss glaciers melt faster in the 1940's than today. These scientists are really smart people.

Not only was a surge in sunshine responsible but

A phase of less sunshine -- global dimming -- from the 1950s to 1980s also corresponded with the advance in the snout of glaciers.

Could it be we have entered a new phase of global dimming?

could it be we have entered a new phase of global dimming?
One environmental subject that is going relatively unnoticed is the deepening Solar Minimum. The number of sunspotless days has continued to expand over the past three years despite the solar cycle 24 to have been expected to have revved up by now. In 2008 73% of days featured o sunspots. 2009 stands at 76% and still growing. This makes 2009 second only to 1913 in terms of spotless days. The trough of Solar Cycle 23 and 24 has reached 768 days which is 58% longer than the average of 485 long term average.
Deep Solar Minimum: Not getting enough attention? (http://www.examiner.com/x-17371-Raleigh-Climate-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Deep-Solar-Minimum-Not-getting-enough-attention)

One environmental subject that is going relatively unnoticed is the deepening Solar Minimum. The number of sunspotless days has continued to expand over the past three years despite the solar cycle 24 to have been expected to have revved up by now. In 2008 73% of days featured o sunspots. 2009 stands at 76% and still growing. This makes 2009 second only to 1913 in terms of spotless days. The trough of Solar Cycle 23 and 24 has reached 768 days which is 58% longer than the average of 485 long term average.
Deep Solar Minimum: Not getting enough attention? (http://www.examiner.com/x-17371-Raleigh-Climate-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Deep-Solar-Minimum-Not-getting-enough-attention)

Hi Tom whilst you are spot on, this isn't exactly what I was meaning. I think you have to be particularly dim to miss all the peripheral evidence that what is happening isn't necessarily attributable to CO2. There are no straight line correlations over anything like reasonable statistical periods but there is tremendous variability in the observations. You and I both know that someone tried to cover this up because it didn't fit the story. To use political parlance; they put spin on it.

Rather than putting our efforts into half-hearted CO2 abatement we should be putting our efforts into preparing for coastal inundation, drought, water shortages, food shortages and mass relocation

Now we have come full circle and religion has been exposed. This is the Earth Mother religion, the notion that the Earth is a living being to be worshiped and all of this fanaticism associated with climate change is exposed for what it is pagan religion, they will be bowing down before rocks next

http://image.patriotpost.us.s3.amazonaws.com/2009-12-14-brief-cartoon.jpg

http://image.patriotpost.us.s3.amazonaws.com/2009-12-14-brief-cartoon.jpg

Brilliant:D

You and I both know that someone tried to cover this up because it didn't fit the story.


It is deeper than that . There is another smoking gun in your part of the world at a station called 'Darwin One ' in Darwin Airport. The data from the Global Historical Climate Network dataset (GHCN) was clearly and intentionally misrepresented .The raw data when graphed shows a decline in temperatures of 0.7 Celsius per century .But the "scientists" there massaged the data to show an increase in temperatures of 1.2 Celsius per century.

With the CRU ,NASA ,the phony Mann hockey stick graph ,the New Zealand NIWA ,and now this revelation at GHCN we are clearly looking at systemic fraud .

I posted the scoop on Darwin (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) earlier but of course it was dismissed because of the source.

Also, there is a ‘ClimateGate: California Edition’ (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU3OTRmNTU0ZjRlNDI2MDc5ZmU5ODE5N2M4ZTNmNjM=) which is apparently based on a study by Stefan Rahmstorf of the CRU email gang. You can actually watch the bay area submerging (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/visualization/sealevel.html) thanks to the state of California and Google.

Hello:

I don't want to break up the pity party, but the reason the Copenhagen conference is in trouble has NOTHING to do with climate change, or even "climategate". It has to do with the inability of the world to organize anything.

Please don't confuse politics with science... But, of course, you will.

excon

I don't want to break up the pity party, but the reason the Copenhagen conference is in trouble has NOTHING to do with climate change, or even "climategate". It has to do with the inability of the world to organize anything.

Perhaps if everyone didn't have their own agenda they could, but that's what makes the world a great place, we're not all alike.


Please don't confuse politics with science... But, of course, you will.

It's not the confusion between the two, it's the mixing...

And by the way tom, best cartoon of the year.

Please don't confuse politics with science... But, of course, you will.
Here is the politics behind Copenhagen.Poor countries have gone from defending their right to economic development as a reason for exemptions to emissions cuts to claiming a ”legitimate” right to vast wealth transfers from the West to prevent emissions. They call it ”climate justice.”

It started with the proposal from Bolivia and will end with Robert Mugabe,Hugo Chavez and the Mahdi-hatter lecturing the West and demanding a shakedown.
U.N. to give Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Mugabe podium at Copenhagen – osmoothie (http://osmoothie.com/2009/12/14/u-n-to-give-ahmadinejad-chavez-mugabe-podium-at-copenhagen/)

George Soros wants the IMF to shell out billions in cash to third world countries for climate control... a pool of cash for kleptocrats to dip into without accountability .
Use IMF money to fight climate change - Soros, International News - By Indiaedunews.net (http://www.indiaedunews.net/International/Use_IMF_money_to_fight_climate_change_-_Soros_9846/)

The World Bank plans to syphon development and disease prevention funds for this fraud.

Meanwhile the phoney's at the UN IPCC ;who were doing the chicken-little act about the urgency now say they will suspend a review of goals for emission reduction until the middle of the next decade .
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6955237.ece)

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.


Maybe they see the new "truths" based on an honest plotting of the data and realize there isn't the urgency they predicted ?

Maybe they see the new "truths" based on an honest plotting of the data and realize there isn't the urgency they predicted ?Hello again, tom:

I don't know. Steve posted something from the AP. I suppose you think THEY have an agenda too, huh? Here's part of what the AP said:
------------------

(AP) – 2 days ago
LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
------------------------

Don't look like THEY think there are any new "truths", and they actually read every single email.

excon

Greenpeace said we only had 5 days to save the world, now we're pushing it back 5 or 6 years? Must not be quite as urgent as thought.

I read the same AP article and posted it on the other OP .

Here is what an article sympathetic to the scientists had to say (emphasis and underlines added for illustration)

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'

You can off the cuff dismiss this all you want ;but unless there is a lot more outrage from scientists against this there will be a loss of the legitimacy that science has been establishing for 500 years.

Science without the full integrity of the scientific method is nothing more than huckester magic and shamanism .

there will be a loss of the legitimacy that science has been establishing for 500 years. Hello again, tom:

You are the one, I believe, who brought up Piltdown Man. That WAS made up science - not too long ago either. Science survived. Global warming ISN'T made up.

excon

Don't look like THEY think there are any new "truths", and they actually read every single email.

They also assigned more than twice as many hacks (http://thevimh.blogspot.com/2009/12/going-rogue-11-climategate-5.html) to fact-check Sarah Palin's book. The authors also failed to note that one of them doing the fact checking is a little too cozy with the Climategate group (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/StOhWJ6OReI/AAAAAAAABNM/ZfS2Dj6AK2k/s400/GoreHypnosis.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html)

Hello climate change deniers:

Here's ANOTHER reason why you righty's should embrace the fix. You're not liking illegal aliens too much, are you? So, when the lower lands around the world begin to flood, where to you think those people are going to go?

excon

I posted earlier on how one of the AP hacks fact checking the CRU emails is a little too cozy with the Climategate gang, now they're covering for The Goracle's claim that the polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years (http://www.newsrunner.com/display-article/?eUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wrcbtv.com%2FGlobal%2Fstory .asp%3FS%3D11674992&eSrc=NBC+-+WRCB+3+-+Chattanooga+TN&eTitle=Gore%3A+Polar+ice+may+vanish+in+5-7+years).


New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a U.S. government agency eight months ago.

One U.S. government scientist Monday questioned the new prediction as too severe, but other researchers previously have projected a quicker end than 2030 to the Arctic summer ice cap.

"It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this," said former U.S. Vice President Gore, who joined Scandinavian officials and scientists to brief journalists and delegates. It was Gore's first appearance at the two-week conference...

"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.

Asked for comment, one U.S. government scientist questioned what he called this "aggressive" projection.

"It's possible but not likely," said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. "We're sticking with 2030."

On the other hand, a leading NASA ice scientist, Jay Zwally, said last year that the Arctic could be essentially ice-free within "five to less than 10 years."

The AP failed to mention that the actual scientist Gore used as the source for his proclamation threw him under the bus (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece).


In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

At least the AP furnished an appropriate image of the clueless Mr. Gore...

http://images.worldnow.com/AP/images/11674992_BG1.jpg

And in a delicious bit of irony (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/15/journalists-freeze-waiting-get-global-warming-conference), reporters covering Copenhagen, including AP hysteria writer and mouthpiece for Gore and CRU Seth Borenstein, had to wait in line outside for hours in near-freezing temperatures to get in. Borenstein had "never been so grateful " to get a little warmth.

Hello climate change deniers:

Here's ANOTHER reason why you righty's should embrace the fix. You're not liking illegal aliens too much, are you? So, when the lower lands around the world begin to flood, where to you think those people are gonna go?

excon

I expect, ex, they are going to climb that hill you live on and camp next to your place and you, out of the goodness of your heart, are going to feed them. Bless your little cotton sox!

Now let's get real. No amount of stuffing about with the environment and industry is going to fix the problem. If the system is broke, the problem is going to persist for long time, CO2 has a life of thousands of years and the biggest polluters, US, China, India, etc, etc have no intention of changing the way they do business. If, on the other hand, this is a natural process, see what I said above. One interesting little statistic, so you can see how ridiculous this really is. Mankind emits 130% of the Carbon Dioxide emitted by the worlds volcanoes. We are not the only emitter of CO2. We have done a good job of riding the planet of those other emitters of CO2 , trees, but the volcanoes remain. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TURN THEM OFF?

I expect, ex, they are going to climb that hill you live on and camp next to your place and you, out of the goodness of your heart, are going to feed them. Bless your little cotton sox!

Now let's get real. No amount of of stuffing about with the environment and industry is going to fix the problem. If the system is broke, the problem is going to persist for long time, CO2 has a life of thousands of years and the biggest polluters, US, China, India, etc, etc have no intention of changing the way they do business. If, on the other hand, this is a natural process, see what I said above. One interesting little statistic, so you can see how rediculous this really is. Mankind emits 130% of the Carbon Dioxide emitted by the worlds volcanoes. We are not the only emitter of CO2. We have done a good job of riding the planet of those other emitters of CO2 , trees, but the volcanoes remain. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TURN THEM OFF?

Did you just say that trees emit CO2?

Where did you learn that?

Did you just say that trees emit CO2?

Where did you learn that?

I think it is known that trees both emit oxygen and CO2, They take in CO2 in daylight and emit oxygen and reverse the process at night. They are a balanced system, it is a great shame that humans don't display similar balance

Trees need energy to grow. This energy is released from the food made by photosynthesis in a process of respiration. This process occurs in the mitochondria of the tree's cells 24 hours a day. Some of the food is combined with oxygen and the reaction releases stored energy for growth. Respiration uses between a quarter and a half of the food produced in photosynthesis. Respiration uses oxygen and releases energy, carbon dioxide and water. This is the reverse of the photosynthesis which collects the sun's energy, combines it with carbon dioxide and water and releases oxygen.
Forestry Insights (http://www.insights.co.nz/magic_habitat_htw.aspx)

The last gasp and it is so momentous that we are not even allowed to know what was agreed.'Meaningful' climate deal reached | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/world/meaningful-climate-deal-reached/story-e6frfkz9-1225811944522)Could Obama be looking for another Nobel Prize. I'll give him one for BS

That's amazing. Last headline I read was the UN officials were asking delegates to stay over time because nothing was reached . Is there any other world leader making such a proclamation ?

Big headline here is

global warming agreement .Obama races home ahead of blizzard.

Hello again, Righty's

You know, every time you allude to the cold weather as evidence that global warming isn't real, all you do is solidify in my mind, your total lack of understanding of the science involved.

But it DOES entertain me.

excon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41327000/jpg/_41327968_snow4_ap.jpg

OK then some real science or shall we say more science fraud.
The Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)in Moscow accused the Hadley Center of deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia's weather stations that fit its theory of global warming and ignoring the rest.The Russians say that it overestimated the Russian temperatures by over 1/2 degree C.The conveniently ignored weather stations that account for over 40% of the Russian land surface.

Russia has 12.5% of the worlds land mass so that is a significant swath of the earth to ignore. And which part of Russian was ignored? You guessed it ;Siberia.
You will recall that Siberia was also the place where that smoking trees were found. In 1995, a paper by the CRU asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from 12 carefully selected trees of 252 cores sampled in Siberia's Yamal Peninsula.A larger sample of 34 tree cores showed no recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren't used. This coolaborates the larger sample from the Russian weather stations that shows no significant increases in temperatures .
You also recall that a single tree ring (known as YAD061) was used to justify the phony Michael Mann hockey stick graph. Mann's graph made the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

It was the phoney Mann graph in the IFCC reports that led to first Kyoto and now the Copenhagen charade.

I keep on citing scientific evidence and you keep repeating the charge that I don't understand the science without citing evidence that I am wrong. I think your understanding is the political talking point you keep going back to ;which can be summed up this way "common sense tells you that we can't keep throwing garbage in the air". That may or may not be true but that is not really a scientific argument.

I keep on citing scientific evidence and you keep repeating the charge that I don't understand the science without citing evidence that I am wrong. I think your understanding is the political talking point you keep going back to ;which can be summed up this way "common sense tells you that we can't keep throwing garbage in the air". That may or may not be true but that is not really a scientific argument.Hello again, tom:

I don't argue the science with you because I'm not a scientist. The only thing I DO argue about, is whether the science is believable... You're no different, only you supply some stats you found to bolster your argument. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

And, THAT'S what we argue about here - politics...

Because, it's POLITICS that has you believing in ID - not the science... And, as long as you believe ID is science, you have NO credibility with me in these conversations. So, cite all the stats you want. Ain't going to change nothing.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I don't argue the science with you because I'm not a scientist. The only thing I DO argue about, is whether the science is believable... You're no different, only you supply some stats you found to bolster your argument. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

And, THAT'S what we argue about here - politics....

Because, it's POLITICS that has you believing in ID - not the science... And, as long as you believe ID is science, you have NO credibility with me in these conversations. So, site all the stats you want. Ain't gonna change nothing.

excon
Time to stop arguing ex. The conference in Copenhagen vanished in a puff of politicians hot air. We will have to call Obama puff the magic dragon from now on. What a crock, "we will try to limit warming to 2 degrees". That's essentially what he said, "but don't hold us to it". I'm wondering how do you measure this? Where will you take the readings? What hallowed institutions is appointed to harvest the statistics? I expect it will be the UN.they should have at least agreed on that, perhaps they will take their readings on their highest mountains

Time to stop arguing ex.Hello again, clete:

As long as YOU confuse politics with science, you give me ample reason to go on.

excon

Hello again, clete:

As long as YOU confuse politics with science, you give me ample reason to go on.

excon

Ex there was not a vestige of science in Obama's announcement, it was pure politics so the one confused is you.

Climate Change is peusdo science, an if here, a what if there, feed some more statistics into my model and I'll tell you the future. After two weeks talking we are no further ahead. I actually think that the only thing predictable was the outcome

Ex there was not a vestige of science in Obama's announcement, it was pure politics so the one confused is you. Hello again, clete:

Copenhagen is politics. Global warming is science. Because the politics is a failure changes NOTHING about the science.

Do I think you're going to misunderstand that too? Yup.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Copenhagen is politics. Global warming is science. Because the politics is a failure changes NOTHING about the science.

Do I think you're gonna misunderstand that too? Yup.

excon

Do you honestly think they were talking about science at Copenhagen, Ex, They were talking about gaining economic advantage. What was agreed at Copenhagen, somewhat reluctantly, is that we are all in the same boat and must all contribute, but contribute what? All I can see is an agreement to contribute money.

What science do you think they presented at Copenhagen?

Where are the scientific papers?

What ground breaking discoveries were presented?

The science is not settled, EX, the reasons for climate change are not known and settled beyond reasonable doubt. What we have is a broad set of theories ranging from solar and galactic cycles to emissions, deforestation, global warming and global cooling. Some are contradictary, some are complementary. What there is is a consensus that in the interest of risk management we should reduce a factor which we think we have some control over.

Do you honestly think they were talking about science at Copenhagen, Ex,Hello again, clete:

NO. They're politicians. They were talking about POLITICS.

Do you think you're talking about science when you talk about ID?

excon

Hello again, clete:

NO. They're politicians. They were talking about POLITICS.

Do you think you're talking about science when you talk about ID?

excon

This is a waste of your time and mine ex

This is a waste of your time and mine exHello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

Not quite all, Ex. I'm very much a Darwinian, hence my views on the western Asian conflicts. The Caliphate is not survival oriented.

The prophets of climate change doom are not using science, they're using religion to influence politics. They got you, and I normally respect your skepticism.

It looks like Obama will go down swinging.

He put the prestige of POTUS on the line for olympics in Chicago. Strike one!

He's done it again in Copenhagen. Strike two!

Will 3 strikes put him out? One can only hope.

Excon doesn't believe me when I tell him that I fully support the Darwin theory and only point out that ID does raise legitimate unanswered questions about evolution.

Because of that he completely discounts the evidence I and others have presented that shows there was a legitimate flaw in the gathering and examination of AGW evidence .

And it is becoming clearer by the day that there was a systematic attempt to manipulate the evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.

He can say that only a few of them did it and it doesn't represent the majority of the warming proponents . That may be true also ;but the evidence most often cited;and is at the core of the political controversy has been proven to be the evidence gathered and manipulated by the hucksters. If it can't be independently and honestly duplicated it fails the test .

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

C'mon, Ex,

It seems like when you can't answer evidence AGAINST man's responsibility for any perceived climate change, you bring up ID.

That seems like a sidestep to me.:D

Hello again, tom:

I don't argue the science with you because I'm not a scientist. The only thing I DO argue about, is whether the science is believable... You're no different, only you supply some stats you found to bolster your argument. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

And, THAT'S what we argue about here - politics....

Because, it's POLITICS that has you believing in ID - not the science... And, as long as you believe ID is science, you have NO credibility with me in these conversations. So, cite all the stats you want. Ain't gonna change nothing.

excon

That is exactly the point of the e-mails documenting selective data inclusion and exclusion.

I don't know how you always bring up ID, but during this cold spell along the east coast, did the homo sapiens "evolve" a layer of fat and fur to deal with the cold or do the INTELLIGENT ones wear clothing DESIGNED for winter weather?

Evolution is based on genetic mutations that are naturally selected for. The actual science demonstrates that it is genetic mutations that lead to cancer, not new genetic information.

http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic/


G&P

Hello again:

Well, that gotcha going, huh?

excon

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

Ex in case you haven't noticed I have tried to discuss scientific issues with you but when ever I do you talk about throwing trash in the atmosphere as if I want climate change to happen. I am like everyone else, I want the minimum impact on my lifestyle, whether that be climate change or paying for someoneelse's mistakes. I have been green for years, built a solar house in the eighties, drive a four cylinder car, stopped burning wood for heating years ago, recycle, even watch television in the dark. Why should I pay just because some tree hugger in Europe, who may never have been out of a city, and who has a bigger carbon footprint than I do, thinks he should be able to pass on the costs of living in the wrong place. I greatly regret that Tuvalu and the Maldives are going to sink beneath the waves but logic says that if that is going to happen and you know it is, move, you can be easily accommodated in a number of places..

Tuvalu are a coral reef ring sitting atop a sinking volcano . Maldives are coral islands sitting atop a volcanic ridge . As you know ;the rise and sinking of volcanic islands is a naturally occurring event. When and if the volcano's that formed the islands become active again they will again arise.

The Catskill mountains close to where I live are the cyclical remnants of the rise and erosion of the Acadian Mountains . The earth is not static .It is in a constant state of change. That is why Washington State where Excon lives is constantly under earthquake hazard and the top of Mount St. Helen blew it's top off in 1980 .

Tuvalu are a coral reef ring sitting atop a sinking volcano . Maldives are coral islands sitting atop a volcanic ridge . As you know ;the rise and sinking of volcanic islands is a naturally occurring event. When and if the volcano's that formed the islands become active again they will again arise.

The Catskill mountains close to where I live are the cyclical remnants of the rise and erosion of the Acadian Mountains . The earth is not static .It is in a constant state of change. That is why Washington State where Excon lives is constantly under earthquake hazard and the top of Mount St. Helen blew it's top off in 1980 .

Tom You really should read what is said, I don't need a geography lesson.

I greatly regret that Tuvalu and the Maldives are going to sink beneath the waves but logic says that if that is going to happen and you know it is, move, you can be easily accommodated in a number of places..
I didn't suggest trying to stop the process, just that the people should move just as EX should if it bothers him, or you should. I used to live at the foot of Mt. Buckaroo, an extinct volcano, beautiful wild place. There is a time and a place for choosing to live on the edge and there is a time to go. I don't think I should have to compensate the people of the Maldives or Tuvalu for their life style choices but if they need rescuing we should rescue them by relocating them. We should not play King Canute and try to stop the tide.The same goes for people in Africa. No use bringing them here though as this place is going to become as hostile as their own, it is already struggling under long term drought conditions.

Hello again:

Well, that gotcha goin, huh?

excon

Understood, Ex.

Who would we argue with if not for you?:)

Tom You really should read what is said, I don't need a geography lesson.

I didn't suggest trying to stop the process, just that the people should move just as EX should if it bothers him, or you should. I used to live at the foot of Mt. Buckaroo, an extinct volcano, beautiful wild place. There is a time and a place for choosing to live on the edge and there is a time to go. I don't think I should have to compensate the people of the Maldives or Tuvalu for their life style choices but if they need rescuing we should rescue them by relocating them. We should not play King Canute and try to stop the tide.The same goes for people in Africa. No use bringing them here though as this place is going to become as hostile as their own, it is already struggling under long term drought conditions.

I don't think I should have to pay for aid that helps bushfire victims. They moved to the bush in the first place. They are the idiots who live amongst trees. Don't complain when your house burns down. I don't want to know about it or pay for it. But, I do. And fortunately for the world that's how it works and how it should work.

We can't just dismiss the Pacific Islands as an insignificant bunch of savages. Just like we can't dismiss the people who live in rural Victoria who's entire lives were wiped out last year.

One right winger (well center right I suppose) is making a bit of sense.

It’s reckless to be a sceptic on global warming | Malcolm Turnbull - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6962198.ece)

I don't think I should have to pay for aid that helps bushfire victims. They moved to the bush in the first place. They are the idiots who live amongst trees. Don't complain when your house burns down. I dont want to know about it or pay for it. But, I do. And fortunately for the world that's how it works and how it should work.

We can't just dismiss the Pacific Islands as an insignificant bunch of savages. Just like we can't dismiss the people who live in rural Victoria who's entire lives were wiped out last year.

I think you really need to review your priorities because you seem confused. As a person who has fought bushfires I can tell you I didn't have to do it but if I didn't my house might be next so go tell it to the greenies with their tree preservation orders. The environment in Victoria was ripped apart because common sense does not prevail in these areas, not because people live in the wrong place, too much pettifogging officialdom and all this garbage about arresting climate change is more of the same. It only took a couple of years to see the folly in Victoria, unfortunately none of us will be alive to see the folly of climate change exposed. I haven't dismissed the people of Tuvalu as insignificant savages (your words not mine), I say time to move before you are washed away by one big wave, just as I would say to the people of Kings Lake, when you see smoke time to go. Trying to arrest climate change is as futile as trying to stop the Victorian bushfires once they started.

Do you really think climate change and rising sea levels is a recent event? Things change, central Australia was once under water and will be again and there is nothing we can do to stop it. The present sea level is the result of the last ice age and the slow retreat of the ice

And I say time to move from the bush before your house is wiped out by fire and the taxpayer has to foot the aid bill.

P.S. I applaud your bravery as a volunteer fire fighter. I'm not at all questioning the heroics of fire fighters. Just the mindset of people living in trees complaining about fire.

We have these idiots living in southern California that on a yearly basis live with the threat of massive wildfires. After the fires the rain comes and makes it one big mudslide. Why would you live there?

We have these idiots living in southern California that on a yearly basis live with the threat of massive wildfires. After the fires the rain comes and makes it one big mudslide. Why would you live there?

In all honesty there are parts of the world I would not live in for various reasons, mainly associated with extreme weather conditions, but then how are the tornados down your way. People get used to anything, the threat only turns into reality once or twice in a lifetime

In all honesty there are parts of the world I would not live in for various reasons, mainly associated with extreme weather conditions, but then how are the tornados down your way. People get used to anything, the threat only turns into reality once or twice in a lifetime

True, most of us live with some adverse weather events. I live in tornado alley, I can recall seeing one in my lifetime. In southern cal that threat is pretty much an annual event. The brush burns, houses are destroyed, the rains come and the mud flows. Much of this could be prevented but environmental groups get in the way. They don't like controlled burns, they don't like hand clearing the brush, they don't like anything that might possibly upset the habitat of some useless bug.

True, most of us live with some adverse weather events. I live in tornado alley, I can recall seeing one in my lifetime. In southern cal that threat is pretty much an annual event. The brush burns, houses are destroyed, the rains come and the mud flows. Much of this could be prevented but environmental groups get in the way. They don't like controlled burns, they don't like hand clearing the brush, they don't like anything that might possibly upset the habitat of some useless bug.

Yes it is the same here, but controlled burns are done regularly because we know what the cycle is, we time it at eleven years between major events and that is even with management. The possibility is this will be a big year for fires we have already had two fire weather events. Do you know those dills in Copenhagen want to count the fires and the hazard reduction in our CO2 targets? So in the interests of saving the world we won't have bush fires.

I've been in my major fires, seen the mountains dripping fire like lava from a volcano, lived in a blackened landscape, etc, no more

People have to be protected from themselves but sometimes you can't do that, just too many people, too many dills on both sides of the argument.

Don't have tornadoes here just lovely little winds called willy willies, rip the tops out of trees and chuck them about, rip the roof off the house next door and leave everything else untouched, Sometimes the bush on my property looked like a giant's playground