I'm sure everyone has heard about the unusual snow and cold temperatures so early in the season over in England, Ireland, Wales, and Europe by now. The armchair weather forecasters are calling for a brutal winter season over in Europe this year.

I'm of the opinion that a mini Ice Age is upon us this winter even here in the USA and especially in Europe due to all the dispersant spraying that was done in the Gulf of Mexico disaster this past spring and summer. All that stuff went up into the atmosphere and is now wreaking havoc on the world's weather.

And Global Warming is now officially, truly dead. Global Cooling or Ice Age is now upon us all. Stock up on food, warm clothing, cooking fuel as the electricity will go out a lot this winter as they hope to kill more people in the cold.

Chemtrails?

Boy, you should have been around during the winters in western NY during the '50s -- ice storms, power lines down for days, heavy snow storms, moving in with neighbors who had wood stoves and coal furnaces, reading by candlelight.

Or it could be unusually heavy volcanic activity both in Iceland and Indonesia this year . Or it could be that pesky Southern Oscillation La Nina this year.

or it could be unusually heavy volcanic activity both in Iceland and Indonesia this year . Or it could be that pesky Southern Oscillation La Nina this year.

Or it could be all three, or it could just be what used to be known as weather.

We think it passing strange that way back in time a certain volcano caused severe weather conditions in Britain and Europe and hey presto, one volcano and what do we have. Here in Australia we are having floods and locusts we haven't seen in well, some years, half of the state of NSW is under water, but don't worry there are no people there. Should we blame that on volcanos or La Nina or both? oh! I know, it's GLOBAL WARMING!

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/the-levees-might-just-hold--until-thursdays-rain-20101206-18mxq.html

Ask the "jet"setters with the huge carbon footprints who are having a grand fiesta in Cancun. Note they were wise to avoid Northern Europe this time.

Actually the Brits have gotten a bit of a cold awakening. The British Meteorological Office (MET) revealed an inconvenient truth... for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a little noticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
Global warming has halted: That's what happened to 'warmest year on record' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html)

ask the "jet"setters with the huge carbon footprints who are having a grand fiesta in Cancun. Note they were wise to avoid Northern Europe this time.

Actually the Brits have gotten a bit of a cold awakening. The British Meteorological Office (MET) revealed an inconvenient truth...for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
Global warming has halted: That's what happened to 'warmest year on record' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html)

Tom so "global warming" is attributable to water vapor, in other words, hot air. I wonder if we could get a correlation with the increase in politicians caused by the formation of the UN and all their little dogooding buddies. You know I wish these so called scientists would find their missing decimal points and realise the changes aren't statistically significient or within a 95% confidence interval usually reserved for significient statistical data

All I know is I'm cold. And I finally have a reason to be cheerful that I have a reasonably well padded derrier, I've landed on it often enough recently.

http://www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.1km-297x385.jpg

Is it cold enough to have a 'frost fair '?

River Thames frost fairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs)

We don't have accurate records for the temperatures at the time of the major frost fairs. Estimates suggest that a temperature at or below -15C would need to be sustained for the Thames to freeze.

We have had temps of around that in my part of the country though not for sustained periods. It has been bouncing around between about zero and -18. Further North in Scotland they have been having temperatures in the -20s.

Modifications to the bridges and embankments on the Thames mean it now flows signifcantly faster than it did in the days of the frost fairs so would be harder to freeze over. Non tidal parts of the Thames last froze solid in 1963, after the majority of these modifications.

Though I have never lived near the Thames, I'm further North, I have picnicked on the middle of the local reservoir with friends in my reckless youth.

What is unusual is how early the cold and snow arrived. We have had record snow-falls and cold winters that didn't start until late December in recent decades. We wait to see how long it will be sustained. That and the size of the dreaded heating bills...

The Thames ice fairs also occurred during the peak of the 'Little Ice Age'... that period of cooling prior to the Mann hockeystick graph,and the East Anglia scientists decided to 'hide the decline'.

Here in New York ,residents of Manhattan were able to walk across NY harbor between Manhattan and Staten Island. Compared to that ,this recent Canadian arctic blast is a piece of cake.

So Tom I think we are agreed that most of us have no idea what is normal, except as it relates to our life times. I have seen wild weather events and we are nowhere near the conditions which existed when I was a lad even though it is a little wet around here for the first time in a decade. I'm waiting for the return of snow on the ground as was photographed a century ago, perhaps with global warming this is a falorn hope but who knows, we may yet have snow in December

I remember one Xmas when I was 10 (1957) when it was warm and then the same year Easter it snowed!

I do know that the winter is going to be bad here in Ohio as my coonies have already "retired" for the winter and haven't been up to my back porch since 2 weeks ago.

We get the chemtrails here a lot trying to bring over storms into this area.

Odd that even South Florida had already record low temps this early in the season. I remember back in the winter of 1976-77 it went down to 32 degrees F and snowed in Miami enough to write your name in car windows. There was some dead guy in his car at the end of my walkway when I awoke New Year's Day. It was very cold that night. He lived up the street and was trying to drive himself to the hospital and ended up rearending the car parked in front of my home and dying behind the steering wheel. I didn't hear his car crash into the parked car as I had my reverse A/C on heat and it made quite a racket. Zip bang I had 30 people crawling all over my front yard for about an hour before they took him and his car away. What a way to start a New Year off!

What I think is horrible is the fact that now they are predicting that 35 thousand people in the UK will die due to the extreme cold weather they are having. And what are these people supposed to pay their heating bills with as heating fuel has gone skyrocketing high. Like I said earlier they are trying to kill more people this winter than ever.

Lately we've had an extremely low barometric pressure snow storm that was lower than the big snow storm on Feb 2010 on my barometer. It's now well below zero windchill and close to zero degrees farehheit where I am. And this is not even officially winter yet.

What I think is horrible is the fact that now they are predicting that 35 thousand people in the UK will die due to the extreme cold weather they are having. And what are these people supposed to pay their heating bills with as heating fuel has gone skyrocketing high. Like I said earlier they are trying to kill more people this winter than ever.

Lately we've had an extremely low barometric pressure snow storm that was lower than the big snow storm on Feb 2010 on my barometer. It's now well below zero windchill and close to zero degrees farehheit where I am. And this is not even officially winter yet.

Want to know what is even more horrible? I was contacted by a "broker" this morning to suggest I could profit from these skyrocketting heating oil prices. I don't like it when the goulds come out. What I suggest both you and they do, come and live in a place where it isn't as cold and the heating prices are still affordable, but don't wait too long

Well its happened; snow in December! This may be no surprise to those north of the divide but down here in the south it is somewhat unknown, or, at least, a very infrequent event. It seems that the snow isn't content to fall in Europe, it must fall in Australia as well. So, shall we declare global warming dead, or just still born. For those in northern climes, this is summer here, and we are not close enough to the pole to warrant antarctic weather

As theories go, I think the ice age might be coming back into vogue

Here is a 2000 prediction by the 'settled science' in England.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)

Here is a 2000 prediction by the 'settled science' in England.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)

Just shows you doesn't it, the reasons for things just aren't what we think they are. I had never experienced snow as a child either, it was something distant and happened far, far away and who knows; snow for Christmas? What new experiences does Global Warming hold, the other day I watched my street run like a river for five minutes, and just as quickly it was gone

Hey Paraclete what about the snow in New South Wales Australia? I'm sure that is not a figment of my imagination...

No it has been snowing here in some parts and in Victoria too. Not far from where I live in fact, some very cold days here, had to put the heating back on. But half of New South Wales is under water and parts of Western Australia too. Much bigger floods than Pakistan but as the area is sparsely populated and people don't live in flood prone areas the impact is very much less but it has ruined the wheat harvest, the cherry harvest and many other crops

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/bitter-summer-freeze-bites-eastern-states-as-summer-gives-way-to-snow-and-cold/story-e6frfq80-1225974173962

I was saying something about an Ice Age recently and before everyone including myself shouts; you idiot! Haven't you heard about global warming? Take a look at this
There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/theres-a-mini-ice-age-coming-says-man-who-beats-weather-experts-20101221-1945a.html)

I'm sure that the amount of the toxic Corexix had something to do with this. The kerosene minute droplets going into the air and water circulating around the globe PLUS the manipulated wildly swinging Jet Stream definitely has something to do with this.

There will be many folks in the USA who will be homeless this winter or unable to pay for their heating bills if they do have a roof over their heads.

It is one way of serious population control. Kill off everyone who is homeless. Make millions more homeless and then kill them off in the extreme cold weather. Extreme heat does not kill like extreme cold does. Humans are hard to get rid of in the heat - but just let it get down to say 10 degrees F and you'll see a huge number of homeless die this winter season due to lack of shelter room.

Have them come to Canada, another green Christmas over here.

Forgot to mention that they trashed the Florida orange crop again this year making the growers juice their oranges. Now if you want a fresh orange you'll be forced to buy from California instead. Last year both myself and my son ate California oranges and got ill from them. Don't know what they are spraying on the oranges or what has gone wrong with the California oranges but I won't even buy them this year. I'm leaning towards the oranges being a GMO product as they never made me ill before like that. Or sprayed with the legal toxic spray they are allowed to use out in California.

Have them come to Canada, another green Christmas over here.

Sounds nice and all NK, but Canada is more than jealous of it's borders and you just can't go pick up and move there either. Instead everyone wants to just move to the USA. If I did decide to move to Canada I'd have a hard time getting a job and I would not be allowed to partake of their "free" health care system as I am not a Canadian.

Sounds nice and all NK, but Canada is more than jealous of it's borders and you just can't go pick up and move there either. Instead everyone wants to just move to the USA. If I did decide to move to Canada I'd have a hard time getting a job and I would not be allowed to partake of their "free" health care system as I am not a Canadian.Ok, good luck!

It is one way of serious population control.

Hey no conspiracy theories please and killing off the homeless isn't serious population control as there really aren't that many of them. The problems in Europe at the moment are the result of volcanic activity earlier in the year. This result after volcanic activity has been observed for centuries. Please remember we are five volcanoes away from nuclear winter and we had at least one in the last year
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

You are correct in observing that severe cold is a killer, but so is severe heat, it is just that it seems the temperature drops a lot further into the killer zone than it rises We are no longer well adapted to dealing with cold, relying too heavily on heating systems

Actually, we're freezing because of global warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

Makes perfect sense.

Makes perfect sense.Hello Steve:

If I were to say to you, that airplanes are held up in the sky by string, you'd laugh.. Well, I'm laughing...

People who UNDERSTAND science aren't surprised that airplanes stay in the sky, or that it gets colder because of global warming...

excon

Right, dumb ol' people like me don't understand science. I do understand that you can't get colder by warming up.

Right, dumb ol' people like me don't understand science. I do understand that you can't get colder by warming up.
Um, you'd better read up on global warming.

Right, dumb ol' people like me don't understand science. Hello again, Steve:

Not "dumb" ol' you, but REPUBLICAN ol' you. Your politics prevent you from seeing what's going on around you...

excon

Lol this thread.

Let's stick with 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' eh? (even though global warming is an accurate description of what's happening). Just for those of us who don't read further into a theory than what its name is.

let's stick with 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' eh?

Just going with what the source used.

Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?ref=opinion)

Your politics prevent you from seeing what's going on around you...

Oh, the irony of that statement.

Just going with what the source used.

Bundle Up, It's Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?ref=opinion)

He uses both interchangeably, I'm just suggesting we use one that emphasises the wider range of effects.

Oh, the irony of that statement.Hello again, Steve:

I knew you'd get a chuckle out of it. Happy New Year.

excon

I knew you'd get a chuckle out of it. Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you, too old friend. Heavy on the old. :D

Actually, we're freezing because of global warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

Makes perfect sense.

I read your article with interest but please explain how this means we have snow fall in Australia in December because I cannot see the corralation

I read your article with interest but please explain how this means we have snow fall in Australia in December because I cannot see the corralation

I can't explain it, hence the use of the sarcasm font on Makes perfect sense. Apparently Siberian snow cover can't explain snowfall in Australia in December.

I read your article with interest but please explain how this means we have snow fall in Australia in December because I cannot see the corralation


I think it's called ad hoc hypotheses. Basically, in order to explain anomalies in observations ( it's getting colder instead of warmer).

Depending on your philosophy (perhaps even your politics) science progresses by attempting to accommodate anomalies in observations. In other words, we simply add ad hoc explanations to the current theory. It seems to have gotten to a stage where 'Global Warming' doesn't make much sense. The consensus now is that 'Climate Change' is a better explanation as a theory.

Opposed to this view are those who say they there are too many anomalies in the old theory and simply by changing the name is really re arranging deck chairs on the Titanic; the theory is sunk.

As to how science should progress is really up to your view of science. Is one, two, three, counter examples enough to scrap the theory altogether or should we continue adding hypothesises?

I think scientists involved in this area are loathed to give up their theories without a fight. The idea seems to be that eventually a theory will becomes so cumbersome because of all the additions that eventually it will have to be scraped in favour of a different theory, thus science undergoes a revolution in this area. I think what we are witnessing at the moment is science going through this process.

Just my opinion

Tut

science progresses by attempting to accommodate anomalies in observations

Like Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that conveniently adjusted for the anomality of the "Medieval Warming "period ? (Mike's nature trick according the Climategate emails)

I'm seeing the logic in the solar cycle (we currently or are just coming off an extended solar minimum) hypothesis and the amt of volcanic ash in the stratosphere.

Like Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that conveniently adjusted for the anomality of the "Medieval Warming "period ? (Mike's nature trick according the the Climategate emails)


Hi Tom,

Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.

Yes, apparently even to that extent.

Regards

Tut

Thanks . And yours too.

I'd say Mann's trick given it's political importance was more than adjusting for anomality.

I think scientists involved in this area are loathed to give up their theories without a fight. The idea seems to be that eventually a theory will becomes so cumbersome because of all the additions that eventually it will have to be scraped in favour of a different theory, thus science undergoes a revolution in this area. I think what we are witnessing at the moment is science going through this process.

Just my opinion

Tut
So you want a new theory, here's one it's called volcanic progression. In this theory weather is subject to the amount of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. In years where there is not much volcanic activity we observe a warmer cycle while in those years where there is major volcanic activity we observe a colder cycle as is presently being experienced, couple this with solar maximum and solar minimums and you get longer periods of warming and cooling and extremes. Does this have anything to do with observed concentrations of CO2? well it might since trees grow less during the colder periods and thus less CO2 is absorbed and volcanos emit SO2 a greenhouse gas as well as CO2. This may explain some of the variability in CO2 concentrations being observed

Hello again,

When it's cold, and the scientists say it's because the world is warming, you don't believe it.

I don't know if the reason you DON'T believe it, is because you doubt SCIENCE, or because your politics says you should... When questioned earlier about it, you say that SOME science is more scientific than other science, or that SOME scientists are REAL scientists, but the climate guys are really just model makers and note takes... After all, what can you learn from modeling and taking notes??

Oh, and by the way, climate scientists (as opposed to REAL scientists) are WILLING to compromise their entire field of study, to LIE about their life's work, to become PROSTITUTES, if you will, in order to accomplish some yet unknown political objective... And not just ONE climate scientist is willing to do this - but ALL of 'em.

The right wing thinks their objective is the destruction of America as we know it - NOT the pursuit of science. I have NO idea WHY the right wing thinks that one branch of science wants to do that? I have a hard time believing that one entire field of scientific endeavor is corrupt, when OTHERS aren't. Personally, I don't even see scientists as political creatures.. You do.

But, the question I have is this: Do you doubt your personal scientist, your family physician, when HE tells you his conclusions? Why do you believe HIS science, and why do you think HIS science is different than others?

excon

I'll ask you the same thing . What do you think of the scientists in the "greedy corrupt" pharmaceutical industry ? What about those scientists that defended tobacco smoke ?
You think scientists can't be bought ?
The best answer I have to your question is that most of the top climate scientists have a vested financial interest in their hypothesis... enough so that when research doesn't match their preconceived conclusion the evidence gets ginned .
The climategate emails already prove this is so .They involve all the leaders in the field... ALL of them .
The climategate emails also showed there was a financial penalty to pay for being a skeptic .

Now that the truth has been exposed you see more and more skeptics who have come out and proclaimed their true views . I have given links to some prominent ones .

As for my doctor ? How do I know if a pharmaceutical detailer has influenced the diagnosis and prescription ? Do you not get 2nd opinions before major decisions are made about your health ? Or are you so trusting to think your doctor the scientist is infallible ?

I'll ask you the same thing . What do you think of the scientists in the "greedy corrupt" pharmaceutical industry ? What about those scientists that defended tobacco smoke ? You think scientists can't be bought ? Hello again, tom:

As an individual - YES! Can the ENTIRE FIELD be bought?? Are you kidding?? Al Gore has THAT much money?? Dude! The question IS ridiculous on it's face.

excon

I did not say all of them... primarily the consensus scientists. What do you think are the chances that a skeptic is hired by the Universities that fund the research or get government grants to fund the research of proponents ?

Al Gore is not the major mover at this point. The swill that East Anglia and others passed as consensus made it into the IPCC reports and that is what is moving the consensus.
And what the emails from East Anglia proved is that there was a concerted effort to black ball skeptics research;specifically to prevent it's publication in peer reviewed journals . That is an inconvenient and indesputable truth.

Ex I don't subscribe to the majority is always right theory. Quite often the majority is misled by a small and virilent minority and I think this is where the climate change debate has taken us. Look, my position is this, climate change has been observed. What I have observed is in recent years it has been colder rather than warmer and there has been seasonal change. Could I match this with the theory that CO2 emissions are causing the climate to become warmer, not really, other factors have to be involved. What I have observed is that volcanic activity is followed by periods of cold weather, so a climate model that is just based on the volume of CO2 emissions is flawed, because there is no way to predict the level of volcanic activity. Similarly the solar cycle has an effect on world temperatures, these cycles are somewhat predictable but observations haven't been taken for long enough to be sure. More uncertainty.

So there is too much uncertainly to accept the predictions which have been shown to be flawed in a number of aspects. Is CO2 a factor? It may well be, but so are a number of other gases. What I understand is this. If we stopped all emissions of CO2 immediately there would be no change in predicted temperature rise for 100 years even though CO2 doesn't last that long. What then do we think we are achieving by lowering emissions by 5%? 15%? 25%? 50 %? So you see I'm not refuting the science, but I am refuting the conclusions drawn by some people including the scientists. Some scientists tell us we are in an interglacial warming period, should we ignore them?

So there is too much uncertainly to accept the predictions which have been shown to be flawed in a number of aspects.Hello again, clete:

I'm not a scientist. Therefore the data means something different to them, than it would to a lay person... You're free to make conclusions on it. Just don't try to convince me they're "scientific" conclusions...

If you been reading me, this discussion is totally beside the point in any case... Whether climate change is real or NOT, our shortage of oil IS real.. Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I know you deny that too.. Irrespective of HOW much we have left or not, we ARE going to run out SOME DAY... Consequently, if we wish to maintain our cushy lifestyle, we're going to have to come up with an alternative sometime or other... Yeah, yeah, yeah... I've heard you say that there is NO technology that will replace oil, so we should just WAIT till it comes along...

I say, that we HAVE the resources to solve our problem TODAY, if we have the balls to do it. We actually NEED to do it, but our politicians are so involved with their petty battles, that they're not willing to make the hard choices that will actually SAVE this country.

I've outlined them before... Solar, nuclear, geothermal, wind, the tides, and others in combination will work.. It will STOP all the money we're sending to our enemy's. It'll create millions of jobs right here in America. And, oh yeah. It'll END the climate problem IF there is one. But, it's academic...

NONE of that has ANY thing to do with science or East Anglia.

excon

I say, that we HAVE the resources to solve our problem TODAY, if we have the balls to do it. We actually NEED to do it, but our politicians are so involved with their petty battles, that they're not willing to make the hard choices that will actually SAVE this country.



Ex no one denies that long term we must find alternatives, but they need to be alternatives that don't cause as many problems as they solve. So far only nuclear has demonstrated that potential, many of the others are hardly more than experiemental. You say you have an oil shortage but actually what you have is an unwillingness to exploit the resources you possess. Strategically it may be that you should keep it in the ground and buy it for the time being, even as you say; from your enemies. What history tells us is our enemy today may be our friend tomorrow. Don't make the silly mistake as was done with Japan of creating enemies.

What will save your country is to recognise that you cannot continue to squander the Earth's resources on your life style. You were once an educated nation but today you seem to be incrediably niaive and lacking in understanding with tremendous problems in looking after your own population.
We all face the problem of the population bomb with the final solution one we don't want to contemplate

Philology usually is a good barometer of ideology: when global warming became climate change and now is evolving to “climate chaos,” you can see a case study in deductive thinking, as symptoms are fudged to conform to a preexisting diagnosis. Circular reasoning also is characteristic: we convince the coal-devouring and nuclear-producing Chinese that there is a soon to be big (Western-subsidized) global market for wind turbines and solar panels, given the spread of Gorism among Western elites and grandees, then we frighten Americans that the Chinese will soon capture the entire “green” market that we fostered unless we … (fill in the cap and trade / green subsidy-grant blanks).
Works and Days How Did All That Happen? (http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/did-all-that-happen/)


We all face the problem of the population bomb with the final solution one we don't want to contemplate
And your Malthusian final solution is..?


You say you have an oil shortage but actually what you have is an unwillingness to exploit the resources you possess.
Yup We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas among other resources like coal. We have a luddite aversion to nuclear power that make no sense. ;and yes ,the use of sensible renewables have their place on a regional basis... and exploration of futuristic energy supplies need to be funded... all hands on deck..

What will save your country is to recognise that you cannot continue to squander the Earth's resources on your life style.
Wrong don't think country ,think global... the rest of the world wants to have the life style of developed nations... and the information age is going to require greater energy production... all hands on deck .


BTW... The Manatees in Florida are not fond of this cool weather . Evidently they are taking refuge in the heated discharges of the Florida power stations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12087311
It reminds me of the stories I have read about the Caribou preferring to gather near the Alaskan pipeline . In the winter it provides warmth ;in the summer ,protection from mosquitos.

It reminds me of the stories I have read about the Caribou prefering to gather near the Alaskan pipeline . In the winter it provides warmth ;in the summer ,protection from mosquitos.Hello tom:

Yeah, pipelines are good for the animals.

excon

It is... it was built tall enough so it had no disruption on migration.

Works and Days How Did All That Happen? (http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/did-all-that-happen/)



Hi Tom,

Interesting article:"Philology is usually a good barometer for ideology" . In which era of history?

I was also wondering that if 'climate chaos' is becoming a symptom of our society how do we 'fudge' things which are characterized as chaotic in a preexisting diagnosis.

I would also say that the statement in relation to circular reasoning has far too many ambiguous terms to be considered an example of any type of reasoning, circular or otherwise. e.g. 'Gorism' 'elites', 'green market'

Regards

Tut

Hello tom:

I read the article too... It seems the writer, like you, looks around, see's how cold it is, and concludes that global warming is a hoax.

I hafta ask, do you conclude after looking around, and seeing that things don't fall off the earth, and it looks flat, that the roundness of the planet is greatly exaggerated??

It also looks like the sun goes around the earth... What's up with that?

excon

Ex science proved the things you cite as fact. When science proves that cold means it's warming I'll be convinced .

When science proves that cold means it's warming I'll be convinced .Hello again, tom:

Nahh, you won't.. You run your science through your religious and political filters first. You embrace ID. There is nothing more to be said.

excon

I don't " embrace " ID . I have told you plenty times that I am fully on board with the hypothesis of evolution. I do not see a conflict between the scientific hypothesis of evolution and the religious and philosophical thesis of Intelligent Design. You do because your own 'faith' tells you something else.

Hello again, tom:

You see NO conflict between ID and evolution, yet the world CAN'T be warming if it's cold outside.

Dude!

excon

Yeah I guess it could if AGW was being promoted as a philosophical concept . But presumably there is science behind it... no matter how fabricated that science is.

I don't " embrace " ID . I have told you plenty times that I am fully on board with the hypothesis of evolution. I do not see a conflict between the scientific hypothesis of evolution and the religious and philosophical thesis of Intelligent Design. You do because your own 'faith' tells you something else.

Theory. Theory of evolution.

:p

theory. theory of evolution.Hello Cappy:

Well, there you go, Cappy. It's a THEORY. To science deniers, the word "theory" CONFIRMS their worst suspicions.. How can it be real, they ask, if people are only theorizing about it?? They don't quite understand the rigors of scientific theory, as opposed to their own theory's, such as it always rains on the last day of the month.

excon

The process is theory for sure . What is cool about science (I am not a denier by any means and to call me such is a strawman ) is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along with groundbreaking research . As Ex likes to point out ;at one time consensus science said the earth was flat.

the process is theory for sure . What is cool about science (I am not a denier by any means and to call me such is a strawman ) is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along with groundbreaking research . As Ex likes to point out ;at one time consensus science said the earth was flat.

Precisely! Another embarrassing knee-slapper of history: At one time consensus was that there was a man in the sky that made everything :)

Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think developing green technologies is a bad idea/poor use of money?

is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along Hello again, tom:

So, the thing to do when science tells us something, is to wait until what they told us is debunked, as it surly will be... Dude!

If I lived in a word that was as UNCOUNTONABLE as yours is, I'd turn to God too.

excon

I'm not opposed to green tech per se .I think if there is a market for them ,then development will surely follow. I am ,for instance ,a huge supporter of the private pursuits of biomass conversion of algae.

I am not convinced however that that so called green energy will ever satisfy more than a small portion of the energy needs of this century .

There are also things that go into "green technology " that is not as environmentally friendly as some claim. As an example ;there is still a lot of mining involved in the extraction of rare earth minerals used in so called renewable sources like wind . Not only is there an environmental impact ;but we are FAR from energy independent when we use these minerals... mostly mined in China.

I have also spent a lot of time on these boards on the negative effects of corn ethanol for a number of reasons . Green is not the panacea it is portrayed to be . Is it part of the solution ;probably... But we are a long ways away from replacing carbon based resources (especially since we are afraid of nuclear) .

Hello again, tom:

So, the thing to do when science tells us something, is to wait until what they told us is debunked, as it surly will be... Dude!

If I lived in a word that was as UNCOUNTONABLE as yours is, I'd turn to God too.

excon

You do

I am not convinced however that that so called green energy will ever satisfy more than a small portion of the energy needs of this century . Hello again, tom:

I saw a documentary recently on the subject. I WISH I could remember which one so I could refer you.. I'm sure it was on one of those namby pamby left wing channels like PBS.. In any case, they profiled a solar electric plant in the southwest... It was mirrors that concentrated the sun on an oil tank.. It heated the oil, which boiled some water, made steam and ran turbines...

It was about a 700 acre plant. He said that if we built another one in the desert in a square 90 miles on a side, it would take care of the entire COUNTRY'S electricity needs. I don't know why that WOULDN'T be true.. It's simple math. Yeah, on cloudy days, we can burn some of that natural gas we've got an abundance of.

I say again, we can solve the problem TOMORROW. Yes, we're going to have to build a few more electric cars. That ain't bad.

excon

This debate has turned Quixotic

It was about a 700 acre plant. He said that if we built another one in the desert in a square 90 miles on a side, it would take care of the entire COUNTRY'S electricity needs.
I am somewhat familiar with the Mojave Desert solar plants. They are already large... huge actually ;and they generate a combined 354 megawatts . 3 Mile Island Nuclear plant alone generates 802 megawatts.

I don't dispute his claim about the generation... but you do lose so much in transport to population centers that it makes his solution problematic .That is true with the hydro-electric generation in Niagra ;that is true with T Boone's windmills in Texas ;and it is true in solar power also.

I already said renewables can supplement regional supplies and they are doing so currently. Everything generated in NY must be added to the grid by law. But NY still relies heavily on nuclear,hydro ,and gas .
You know what I've said... all hands on deck. Then perhaps there will be a breakthrough.

Tom the reality of renewables is that they can be located in a distributed manner so as to minimise transport losses and costs, to concentrate production in one massive installation is just business as usual, not a green solution. What ex ignores is the logistics of creating this nirvana of green solar production. We know that here in Australia we have the space and climate to create a massive solar plant also that could generate enough electricity to power the nation but I don't see it happening because the infurstructure needed in distribution is massive, far beyond what is provided by the existing grid

Hello again,

So, the glass is half empty, huh? Nahhh.. If 90 miles square in Arizona is too far away from the population centers, how about one 10 mile square plant in each of the sunbelt states?

That doesn't seem like such a difficult solution.

excon

Hello again,

So, the glass is half empty, huh? Nahhh.. If 90 miles square in Arizona is too far away from the population centers, how about one 10 mile square plant in each of the sunbelt states?

That doesn't seem like such a difficult solution.

excon

Now you are starting to think, Ex, how about a plant the right size to power a city right outside the city so the footprint doesn't have to be large and the distribution costs are low. Still have to overcome the problem of how to power the city at night but the daytime peaks are taken care of. And you know with the right kind of Solar it doesn't have to be outside the city, it can be on the roof.

But, yes, the glass is half empty because it isn't a complete solution, just a part of the moasic. This is the problem, no one renewable technology offers a complete solution. Wave power has the greatest potential but it still leaves out the inland, Hot rocks are good too but in limited supply, so back to nuclear for base load without CO2

Hello again, clete:

We are saying the same thing... It's a combination of technologies, and the solution is available TODAY if only we'd just do it. It's not a technological problem. It's a political problem...

excon

Hello again, clete:

We are saying the same thing... It's a combination of technologies, and the solution is available TODAY if only we'd just do it. It's not a technological problem. It's a political problem...

excon

Hi Ex there is no political will to make revolutionary changes which could have a nasty backlash. It's a matter of a short term political cycle and the need for long term decisions. There has been a lot of talk about cap and trade, restrictions, carbon price, renewables, but actually progress has been very slow. When we really start to see people being employed in the green industries the pace will pick up but until then no one wants to pay the bill. I know that here various initiatives have staved off the building of new coal fired generation but the gun is now at our head, we either do it or head into third world supply conditions. We haven't used the nuclear option so even if we started today we will hit the wall in about two years. We blame the delay in making clear targets and moving legislation forward. The chickens are roosting in the legislature

Show me the numbers that says a scale up in production of green tech is feasible "today" . You can't . At best there is a transition period required that will take decades at a time where world wide energy demand is exploding .

Clete you were right when you called the discussion Quixotic. It begins with this fantasy our political leaders have that there is a shut off switch from the carbon based fuel system to immediate transition into "green renewables" .
Better to invest in technology we know with the goal of making emissions as clean as possible. It was done when sulfer dioxide was the issue.The internal combustion engine burns much cleaner than it did in the 1960s. Tweeking known energy technology would give us greater short term benefits and the time to bridge the gap to alternatives.

show me the numbers that says a scale up in production of green tech is feasable "today" . You can't . At best there is a transition period required that will take decades at a time where world wide energy demand is exploding .

Clete you were right when you called the discussion Quixotic. It begins with this fantasy our political leaders have that there is a shut off switch from the carbon based fuel system to immediate transition into "green renewables" .
Better to invest in technology we know with the goal of making emissions as clean as possible. It was done when sulfer dioxide was the issue.The internal combustion engine burns much cleaner than it did in the 1960s. Tweeking known energy technology would give us greater short term benefits and the time to bridge the gap to alternatives.

You know Tom that they can't because most of these technologies are reliant on the supply of rare earths, if we scale them up we place ourselves in a catch 22, and even if one or two nations achieved the goal, the rest of us will be out in the cold. Take the electric car, a dream that relies on lithium. OK for a few million cars but to have the world run on electric cars, a dream. Wind technology generation also relies on rare earths so we can only scale that up so far. We have to find alternatives to electrical energy to overcome the problem and are we even researching that?

We have to realise that the very concepts behind our civilization, such as endless population growth, individual transport, detached dwellings, infinate instantaneous personal communications, transportation of foodstuffs and manufactures from one end of the world to the other have to be challenged and changed. The day of the free lunch is over.There is no time to adapt, the way we are behaving we will still be debating what to do in fifty years, just as we have for the last twenty

Let's see. It snowed a lot here recently and over the weekend it was WELL below ZERO here and that was not just the windchill either.

I guess they have the HAARP on again here in the USA with all the horribly severe cold weather. Minus 30 some in New York State!! You can't tell me that this is normal.

I can't explain it, hence the use of the sarcasm font on Makes perfect sense. Apparently Siberian snow cover can't explain snowfall in Australia in December.

Yes strange that and it was followed by floods. Now let's expand the theory, it gets colder in Europe, etc, Northern hemisphere, snow and ice, and by the theory of global warming that means more water evaporates in the Southern hemisphere and falls as summer rain. Has anyone found the flaw yet? It cannot be hotter and colder at the same time. The coldest winter in Northern hemisphere and yet this was the hottest year on record. I'm beginning to wonder who is keeping the record, is he sitting next to the air conditioning condenser?

I said it before and I will say it again, natural variability, nothing here to suggest a run away greenhouse effect, in fact nothing that hasn't happened before, particularly in times of volcanic activity. I can expect a chorus of prove it, but my theories are no less unproven than global warming

-5 deg this morning in Texas with a wind chill of -35... gimme some greenhouse effect.

-5 deg this morning in Texas with a wind chill of -35...gimme some greenhouse effect.

How will you take that? With cyclonic winds? Oceans of water? It's not for want of trying you know! We are going full tilt down here pumping CO2

Hello:

Yeah... It's raining here... Freezing cold.. Going to sneeze... Ahh, ahhhh, ahhhhhh, ahhhhhh- Chooooooalgore... Scuse me.

excon

Photos of the huge winter snow storm moving across the US | Plog ? World news photography, Photos ? The Denver Post (http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2011/02/02/captured-huge-winter-storm-moves-across-the-us/2658/)

Here are some pictures of the Chicago snow storm. About the first 30 or so are Chicago and the storm yesterday and this morning.

Stringer

Photos of the huge winter snow storm moving across the US | Plog ? World news photography, Photos ? The Denver Post (http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2011/02/02/captured-huge-winter-storm-moves-across-the-us/2658/)

Here are some pictures of the Chicago snow storm. About the first 30 or so are Chicago and the storm yesterday and this morning.

Stringer

Hmmmmm! A bit of a mess eh? And I complain when I get snow, which is almost never

It actually was kind of fun Clete.

How will you take that? with cyclonic winds?

How do you think we got that -35 wind chill? I was outside 2 minutes yesterday and I'm still cold.

How do you think we got that -35 wind chill? I was outside 2 minutes yesterday and I'm still cold.

Not fun eh?

No, not fun, lol.

You must be a little soft, stringer in Chigago thought it was fun

If it weren't for the travel issues I would not mind it at all. I stoke the fireplace and wait it out . Of course if I lived in an area where it's not a usual event... like where Steve resides ,I'd have a different take .

You must be a little soft, stringer in Chigago thought it was fun

OK, so I'm soft. We're used to cold, we're used to getting a few storms dumping knee deep snow... we're just not used to those -35 wind chills. A good snow storm is fun, especially if we get a day off.

The cold and high winds (http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-02-05/high-winds-halt-turbines) shut wind turbines down across the area... how ironic is that? Yet another example of how alternative energy sources are unreliable. I wonder if wind turbines had anything to do with recent massive bird die-offs. ;)

Yet another example of how alternative energy sources are unreliable.
Yup. Dams break, nuclear reactors leak, oil wells dry up. Oh, those energy sources, alternative or not. Mother Nature just doesn't like us sometimes.

Yup. Dams break, nuclear reactors leak, oil wells dry up. Oh, those energy sources, alternative or not. Mother Nature just doesn't like us sometimes.

I don't recall any recent dams breaking, reactors leaking and Obama won't allow drilling... sometimes Democrats just like us.

Hello Steve:

I don't know why you disdain alternative energy. I spose you LIKE paying through the nose for gas, all the while enriching our enemies... Makes no sense to me..

You know when you turn on your lights, you can't tell WHICH energy source supplied the power.. But, YOUR house, Steve, should be segregated into old sources vs new sources, and it should switch OFF when you start getting electricity from sources you don't like... Certainly, a light that burns energy from wind, is a BAD light and should NOT be used by right wingers..

excon

You know ex, I almost pre-empted your argument by saying "that doesn't mean we shouldn't try," but I thought I'd see if you could misrepresenting my position. Apparently not.

We have oil, lots of oil, but the feds won't let us (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257646/solution-obama-s-fingertips-jonah-goldberg) get to it. We can't build refineries, the feds won't let us. We can't build nuclear power plants, the feds stand in the way, and don't even mention coal, which by the way, is what allows me to flip a light switch and turn the lights on.

Oh, and I've also said many times here I'd love to go solar, but after 50 years of developing the technology I still can't afford it.

We have oil, lots of oilHello again, Steve:

Even IF we have enough to satisfy our immediate needs, we ARE running out. Or, do you, like clete, think we have a never ending supply?

Is it better to wait to replace it, or is it better to BEGIN the process NOW?? Me? I'd say NOW. You? Nahhh...

excon

PS> Did you notice that I didn't say anything about throwing your trash into the air??

Is it better to wait to replace it, or is it better to BEGIN the process NOW??

Now? Now?? Did you just miss that after 50 years of developing solar technology I still can't afford it? The first patent for wind turbines was issued in 1891. What's this begin the process now stuff?


PS> Did you notice that I didn't say anything about throwing your trash into the air??

Thank you.

Now? Now??? Did you just miss that after 50 years of developing solar technology I still can't afford it? Hello again, Steve:

Hold on, podner... If your only complaint is that it's taking too long, I agree.

If what's lacking in that race, is investment, we should DO that. If what's lacking is technology, we should invest in that too. If it's because we're lacking in education, we should invest there also.

Or, is it your view, that we should do NOTHING to help these industries and let them limp along on their own, and MAYBE in another 50 years, they'll have something?? I think it is.

Contrarily, I believe transferring BILLIONS of our dollars into the HANDS of our enemy, every single day, is reason enough for government to tackle the problem. Frankly, I think it's a national emergency. You?? Not so much.

As I said before, the government can only do a few things, like give subsidy's, or tax breaks. They're giving HUGE subsidy's to the oil industry, who don't really need them... We should take them from the oil company's and give them to green industry. That wouldn't add any tax burden.

Now, of course, the oil companies will complain, and you'll listen... I won't... They DO make BILLIONS. Did I say, they make BILLIONS of $$$$'s. Why are we subsidizing them?

It also occurs to me that you believe investment into these technologies WON'T accomplish anything. It'll be like pushing string - a total waste of money. TIME is the only answer, if there's any answer at all... Dude!

Is that what you believe?? That we should just stand on the sidelines and accept our fate?? Really? Are you sure you're a capitalist? Do you NOT believe that investment produces results??

excon

By all means invest, but don't tie our hands in the mean time which is what the left has done. I can't power my '86 4Runner with a wind turbine and I'm not keen on paying $7-8 a gallon for gas which is what Obama WANTS (http://blog.heritage.org/?p=49628).

In other words, I'm all for alternative energy. I'm against punishing the people in the process.

Hello again, Steve:

Even IF we have enough to satisfy our immediate needs, we ARE running out. Or, do you, like clete, think we have a never ending supply??

Is it better to wait to replace it, or is it better to BEGIN the process NOW??? Me? I'd say NOW. You? Nahhh...

excon

PS> Did you notice that I didn't say anything about throwing your trash into the air???

Here we go again misrepresenting the position. I have not suggested we shouldn't be conserving oil and developing alternative energy but I am against having to pay for it. It is a business risk that needs to be taken by business. Nor do I agree with disrupting and destroying economies in order to force change

Ex fails to realise this is a political game being played between nations. It is not about the environment either present or future. My economy runs on coal generation which is cost effective and makes us competitive. Why should we destroy our economy because of carping by people like ex who couldn't care less about our survival. I've said it before ex, CO2 emissions are a northern hemisphere problem.

Wind energy has proven to be successful where there is constant strong winds. Solar energy is successful where there is frequent sunshine. Neither respond very well to the prevaling conditions in a north american winter, but they do work very well where I live and have been adopted. I have investment is alternative energy, so ex put your money where your mouth is. What the alternative energy geeks dismiss is that no matter what solution they come up with it is only part of the picture because the population is so dependent upon energy that it needs a constant flow provided by base load generation

Why should we destroy our economy because of carping by people like ex who couldn't care less about our survival. I've said it before ex, CO2 emissions are a northern hemisphere problem.Hello again, clete:

I've been convinced for a long time that the only reason you deny global warming is because you think the remedy for it will "destroy" your/my economy... That's right wing gibberish...

Nothing I've suggested will destroy ANYTHING... In fact, it'll be the engine that will renew our economy... Besides, I haven't said anything about STOPPING stuff. I'm talking about STARTING stuff, making a lot of money, creating a lot of jobs, and reclaiming our lead in the world.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I've been convinced for a long time that the only reason you deny global warming is because you think the remedy for it will "destroy" your/my economy... That's right wing gibberish...

Nothing I've suggested will destroy ANYTHING... In fact, it'll be the engine that will renew our economy.... Besides, I haven't said anything about STOPPING stuff. I'm talking about STARTING stuff, making a lot of money, creating a lot of jobs, and reclaiming our lead in the world.

excon
EX, I don't deny that CO2, etc might have an effect on warming the climate, what I am skeptical about is that it is the main reason why the climate change we are observing is happening. Look around you, the snow, etc might be because of volcanic activity, it certainly isn't because the planet is a little hotter although you have to work hard to find out where. Some of us have lived long enough to know that the conditions we live with aren't the worst, just more of the same.

Ex, I don't know why you follow the socialistic dream of renewal through new technology, every new technology we employ reduces the opportunities for employment, yet we have a growing population. Within your dream is the old capitalist dream of making lots of money which is contrary of your socialist dream. You make money by exploiting mature industries. Very few make money by developing new technologies. Reclaiming your lead in the world is another dream, history is against you, the more innovative places in the world are not in the US now, the twentieth century was your century, your greed overtook you and the twenty-first century belongs to someoneelse. You are like the eight cylinder engine, a dinosaur of the twentieth century