For a long time I have been saying global warming wasn't happening the way scientists have lead us to believe, that is something other than CO2 is the culprit well what do you know? This has been confirmed

Cosmic Rays And CFCs Are Key Culprits For Ozone Depletion And Global Climate Change - Science News - redOrbit (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112861610/global-warming-caused-by-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs-053113/)

Appearently a new study shows CFC is the problem not CO2 so now we can all go back to behaving sensibly about CO2 while finding more ways to limit CFC emissions

What is also confirmed contrary to recent announcements is that cooling not warming is the trend I wonder what this will do for the pronouncement that CO2 is pollution

Nothing new (sort of) - I know scientists who knew about CFCs decades ago, but also CO2.
There is an insidious lobby in the US and possibly elsewhere to put a lid on any talk of global warming, and there are Congresspeople who claim to have been threatened by lobbyists who can get them ousted, and have.
As for cooling? Gimme a break. Look at the snowcaps disappearing like crazy. Some ocean currents are bringing cold water down as Arctic ice melts, cooling certain coastlines, sure. But overall WARMING is indeed the statistical trend.
It won't be Kevin Kostner's Water World - we will be in a lot of trouble way before then. It will be a few billion people not having the drinking water they rely on from mountain snow melt.

We are in an interglacial warm period .Not sure how long it will last . The last ice bridge between Asia and the Americas melted some 8,000 years ago. Long before the advent of the internal combustion engine.

I think the debate should be reignited, warming period or not, things are changing but not for the reasons we have been given. The present solar cycle is somewhat benign, and despite dire predictions CO2 doesn't appear to be the culprit, so we have taken action on CFC, should we attack methane a far more risky element than CO2 and give CO2 a rest

Cfcs are the problem. There are changes in weather pattern. And wild life is highly getting affected.

They are doing it aginsn the climate change nuts are denying the research

All I can so is Yankee go home and preach your message there

Climate campaigner warns of burning need to keep coal in the ground (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-campaigner-warns-of-burning-need-to-keep-coal-in-the-ground-20130603-2nm1u.html)

Geez, now we're back to CFCs. Besides we're entering a cooling phase (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/).

Around 1250 A.D. historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D. glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D. negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”

A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,

“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”

Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed...

Read the rest here :
To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/)

Geez, now we're back to CFCs. Besides we're entering a cooling phase (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/).

Beat me to it .

beat me to it .

Double the fun.

Based on one person's study you are saying 'the crisis didn't happen' (implying it's over?) and that his theory is 'confirmed' (how many theories about anything in the universe are actually 'confirmed?). Two specious arguments.

Anyone who uses ice ages as argument is completely oblivious to the rates of change happening now.

Nothing is happening now, it's called weather.


Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980)

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

ow many theories about anything in the universe are actually 'confirmed?
That's funny... I said the same thing for years about the "settled science " .

that's funny .... I said the same thing for years about the "settled science " .

And that's what I'm saying Tom the "settled science" isn't settled in fact it has been the greatest load of garbage foisted on a guillable public since satan sudduced Eve. I heard a politician say yesterday that renewables aren't sustainable

This one should interest you being close to home
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/new-york-tab-for-100-renewables-put-at-367b-20130409-2hhys.html

Food for thought on the sustainability of renewables

Sun shines on local schemes in search for path to renewables (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/sun-shines-on-local-schemes-in-search-for-path-to-renewables-20130530-2neoz.html)

since satan sudduced Eve.That's a tall fable in itself!

food for thought on the sustainability of renewables

Sun shines on local schemes in search for path to renewables (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/sun-shines-on-local-schemes-in-search-for-path-to-renewables-20130530-2neoz.html)

A grant to turn it into a museum and tourist destination. Well done!

a grant to turn it into a museum and tourist destination. Well done!

Yes that's all most of it is good for, museum exhibits, sort of like a science fair in the middle of nowhere, you can't get any further from anywhere than White Cliffs

That's a tall fable in itself!

You might think so, but interestingly we are all bearing the consequences and they are very obvious

When it comes to settled science we should remember Albert Einstein

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”

I'm trying to think of a well known scientific fact that hasn't been refuted, often over and over, and who is to say when it's over.
Why the sky is blue, I guess.

At best ,the speculation I've seen about climate change are hypothesis . It really didn't help the man made anthropogenic climate change crowd when their scientists were caught falsifying data .

Speaking of false data, seems the Obama administration is vastly underestimating the number of victims of wind energy companies it refuses to prosecute.


A new study found that the federal government underestimated the number of birds that die colliding with wind turbines across the country.

In fact, bird deaths were found to be 30 percent higher than previous estimates given by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009.

“I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States in 2012,” writes K. Shawn Smallwood, author of the study that was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

“As wind energy continues to expand, there is urgent need to improve fatality monitoring methods, especially in the implementation of detection trials, which should be more realistically incorporated into routine monitoring,” Smallwood added.

Wind turbines have been a dividing issue among environmental groups, as different priorities are placed on promoting renewable energy to curb global warming versus saving wildlife.

“It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,” said Tom Dougherty, a former National Wildlife Federation employee. “But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high.”

Last month, environmentalists and bird enthusiasts watched in horror as the rare White-throated Needletail flew into a wind turbine and died on the Outer Hebrides.

Read more: Feds underestimate how many birds killed by wind turbines | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/23/study-feds-underestimated-how-many-birds-get-killed-by-wind-turbines/#ixzz2ZyLn2P4T)


Meanwhile, as Virginia's two Democratic senators introduced legislation to end Obama's offshore drilling ban while the House passed their own version, the admin joyously announced an auction of 112,800 acres (http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-nations-second-offshore-wind-renewable-energy-lease-sale.cfm) off the Virginia coast for wind energy leases instead.

Save the birds from this reckless and ugly expansion!

A recent study revealed that 1.4 - 3.7 BILLION birds are killed by cats in the US each year. It was part of a three-year Fish and Wildlife Service-funded effort to estimate the number of birds killed by predators, chemicals and in collisions with wind generators and windows.

Could be the same source that your 573,000 birds killed by wind turbines came from.

Sure, those big blades are a concern. So is the entire problem of huge gulping consumption of finite energy sources.

Oh - and cats.

A recent study revealed that 1.4 - 3.7 BILLION birds are killed by cats in the US each year. It was part of a three-year Fish and Wildlife Service-funded effort to estimate the number of birds killed by predators, chemicals and in collisions with wind generators and windows.

Could be the same source that your 573,000 birds killed by wind turbines came from.

Sure, those big blades are a concern. So is the entire problem of huge gulping consumption of finite energy sources.

Oh - and cats.

It's not illegal for cats to kill sparrows and I'm sure they're no match for a bald eagle.

It is illegal to kill birds protected by the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts, yet only wind energy companies are being exempted from penalty and prosecution while others are not - while the administration is underestimating the impact. Why is that?

It's not illegal for cats to kill sparrows and I'm sure they're no match for a bald eagle.

It is illegal to kill birds protected by the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts, yet only wind energy companies are being exempted from penalty and prosecution while others are not - while the administration is underestimating the impact. Why is that?

Good point. Probably the same old reason - once the wheels are in motion, etc.

More unintended consequences of the war on global warming. Aside from the fact that paper grocery bags "require more energy to produce and transport" and those reusable bags can be hazardous to your health, it's come to this...

Plastic bag ban leads to nationwide increase in shoplifting rates (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/24/plastic-bag-ban-leads-to-nationwide-increase-in-shoplifting-rates/)

Not only that speech but you have to cut down trees to make paper bags, whatever are they thinking. Around here we are insisting on biodegradable bags and that thing with the green bags, it has come and gone

Trees are renewable, recyclable and biodegradable plus our forest growth has exceeded the harvest since the 40s.

Ok so forest products it is then, filthy great paper mills, pollution, etc its preferable to a bi-product of petroleum which is there anyway

Ok so forest products it is then, filthy great paper mills, pollution, etc its preferable to a bi-product of petroleum which is there anyway

I love wood, love to saw, cut, carve, nail, paint and stain it. Wonderful stuff.

Trees are renewable, recyclable and biodegradable plus our forest growth has exceeded the harvest since the 40s.

We have maintained the same levels of forest in the US since 1900 and many areas in the plains have been returned to wild as our farmlands became more productive and efficient

Some how you don't get it, using wood puts CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later, there is a great deal of waste in the forest products industry, yes wood is renewable but it still has a footprint and is better left absorbing carbon. This is a planet wide thing it isn't about whether you have more or less forest, it is whether you are a consumer of rain forest timbers or worse still the soya grown where the forest was cut down. How efficient are your farmlands when farmers are sucking on the government teat? Stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel

some how you don't get it, using wood puts CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later, there is a great deal of waste in the forest products industry, yes wood is renewable but it still has a footprint and is better left absorbing carbon. this is a planet wide thing it isn't about whether you have more or less forest, it is whether you are a consumer of rain forest timbers or worse still the soya grown where the forest was cut down. How efficient are your farmlands when farmers are sucking on the government teat? stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel

God left us as stewards of the planet to use the resources . A forest over grown is a forest that will burn . The US is a net carbon sink because we for the most part properly MANAGE the forests (at least we did until foolhardy environmentalists took steps to prevent managed logging )

Yep, we actually do have more trees than 100 years ago (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)...



In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.


This is great news for those who care about the environment because trees store CO2, produce oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — remove toxins from the air, and create habitat for animals, insects and more basic forms of life. Well-managed forest plantations like those overseen by the Forest Stewardship Council also furnish us with wood, a renewable material that can be used for building, furniture, paper products and more, and all of which are biodegradable at the end of their lifecycle.

stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel

Completely agree... Me ;I burn logs in my fireplace ;not corn.

some how you don't get it, using wood puts CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later, there is a great deal of waste in the forest products industry, yes wood is renewable but it still has a footprint and is better left absorbing carbon. this is a planet wide thing it isn't about whether you have more or less forest, it is whether you are a consumer of rain forest timbers or worse still the soya grown where the forest was cut down. How efficient are your farmlands when farmers are sucking on the government teat? stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel

Dude, almost every scrap of wood is utilized it's very efficient. More trees suck up more CO2, and our levels of emissions are at a 20 year low - without any silly emissions trading schemes.

completely agree ... Me ;I burn logs in my fireplace ;not corn.

Don't have a fireplace but I use plenty of apple, cherry, hickory and mesquite during grilling/smoking season. I don't think corn would give the desired result.

We need a lot more trees then to arrest the rising CO2 emission from refineries, and all that shale oil bubbling out of the ground in many locations in the US, and Canada, not to mention another oil rig burning in the gulf. Heck we never cleaned up from Exxon Valdez!

Drill baby drill and frack some more jack, and let the trees clean up the mess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-2012_n_1792167.html


Also, while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood.

"Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem," Pielke warned.

Yep, we actually do have more trees than 100 years ago (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)...

I don't know what those managed forests look like where you are but here they are softwood, not native to the land, they create a monoculture where animals don't live, Nothing lives there but the trees, they are clear felled and replanted every twenty five years and the spores in the air cause asthma. Our wonderful cedar forests were all lost a century ago. I suspect you might have something similar

I don't know what those managed forests look like where you are but here they are softwood, not native to the land, they create a monoculture where animals don't live, Nothing lives there but the trees, they are clear felled and replanted every twenty five years and the spores in the air cause asthma. our wonderful cedar forests were all lost a century ago. I suspect you might have something similiar

You would be wrong.

Um no ;our conservation efforts began in the late 19th century. Yes damage was done to ancient forests ;but a lot was preserved ;and many more untapped as they are on federal lands . Even here in the East coast the forest areas are massive ,diverse ,and teaming with life. I live within a short commute of NY City ,and still walk in thousands of acres of unpopulated woods.

Bush tried to give the federal land to oil companies, but Obama stopped him. Whew, that was close.

And Obama is leasing our beautiful oceans to wind energy companies to ugly them up with wind farms. What's your point?

Bush tried to give the federal land to oil companies, but Obama stopped him. Whew, that was close.

There are plenty of Federal lands that are 'wastelands ' . A small section of the Arctic would've been perfect and the human foot print would've been very small. Conservation allows for human activity .

Unfortunately Tom conservation doesn't address making things better, merely preserving what we have, conservative environmentalism, not proactive

Unfortunately Tom conservation doesn't address making things better, merely preserving what we have, conservative environmentalism, not proactive

Do you believe everything you hear? I mean geez Clete, we have to live here too.

I believe what I see, Speech, outcomes. I, like a lot of people, are sick of poli-speak, I was into renewables long before it was fashionable, into understanding how to do things better. Do you know speech there are still people who think driving machinery straight up and down hills is the way to do it because it's easier, doesn't matter that it doesn't preserve water in the soil. They think clear felling trees is the way to do it, creating monoculture is the way to do it. Your poli's might be on message, mine might be on message, but I'm looking for something better, outcomes

I think you drank the kool-aid.

No speech I'm still alive and what we drink here isn't koolaid

no speech I'm still alive and what we drink here isn't koolaid

Well sir, reports of the US' environmental demise are greatly exaggerated. Unless maybe you live in Los Angeles, there's no hope for them.

We could stand to improve a few things here at home.

We could stand to improve a few things here at home.

Tal, there's always room for improvement but just as with race, the economy, the "war on women" having an honest conversation about the environment is not on the left's agenda.

I could easily say the same about the right's agenda speech, just sick of debates and ideas descending into rock throwing contests. Be great to have an agreement of good ideas and work on a process to implement a good plan of action. Works is what moves us forward, not throwing rocks.

Dude, that all sounds good and stuff but when the "war" itself is mythical there is no basis to even begin an honest conversation. It's just like the wage discussion we were having, I said "poor" and you turned it into a black/white thing.

That's another thread. Stick to this one. And my experience with the environment is the short cuts to safety, even if its expensive or technologically challenged safety still has to be first. We seem to fall short, in both life and treasure.

What is both life and treasure threatening is an agenda that says no matter what ;if we get our way energy prices will 'necessarily skyrocket' . An agenda that necessitates that even though we've never pumped as much oil ,we will still face ever increasing costs at the pump and probably face shortages next year because of the bizarre practice of mandating that ethanol from corn be mixed into the refinement. An agenda that forces oil to be transported on trains because we stubbornly refuse to allow the job creating construction of a pipeline. The killing of a whole industry like coal ,which has already made great strides in retooling their plants to make their emissions cleaner than ever . Meanwhile our coal and our oil get exported because we are destroying the domestic market ;and get sent to markets that have no such restrictions and controls .

That may be another thread but the strategy is the same. No matter how much evidence we produce - even from the very feds just looking for an excuse to halt something (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/liberal-myths-751360-4.html#post3510519) - you guys cry foul and expect us to believe our faucets going to be blow torches (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-come-rev-2-a-741180-53.html#post3502679).

Well sir, reports of the US' environmental demise are greatly exaggerated. Unless maybe you live in Los Angeles, there's no hope for them.

Speech reports about many things are greatly exaggerated, we live in a society where each media outlet must top the next, thus we wind up discussing things that may not be the truth. Nothing has been more exaggerated than global warming, an idea that was invented to promote the now discredited idea of nuclear power. All global warming is is poli-speak. Are things changing, undoubtedly, but the idea that we can turn off the faucet is ridiculous, As fast as you nation or mine closes coal fired power stations the chinese start them up and the weird thing is, there hasn't been a coal fired power station built here in many years yet our emissions are the same or growing

I see Al Gore hasn't started flying comercial or tore down or even cut the utilities to his several megamansions yet.

Since he's king green turd... I'll take his lack of real concern since he has don't anything himself in his own life to mean he doesn't even believe its real either.

And now Lurch is poisoning the earth (http://freebeacon.com/analysis-john-kerrys-carbon-footprint-is-enormous/) as he tries to save the world.

British Scientists have said there has been no climate change in worldwide temperature for the past 16 years!

British Scientists have said there has been no climate change in worldwide temperature for the past 16 years!

Exactly and whatever changes have been observed have been used for political purposes. We are continually presented with data from observations taken near an active volcano as evidence that temperatures are higher. There are places where temperatures are higher and these are in the polar regions and even this is inconsistent

This was the summer that was supposed to be clear sailing across the ice-free arctic circle. Instead, the northwest passage has been frozen all summer long and instead of shrinking, the arctic ice sheet has expanded by 920,000 square miles (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html) since last August.


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

He Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAED5FF000005DC-408_638x431.jpg

Darn it, this globe just won't cooperate.

Winter is coming... AGAIN this winter I plead that anybody that wants to complain about global warming... SEND ALL global warming to Pittsburgh PA.

No one bothers to build backyard rinks anymore because we now always get above zero temps in the middle of winter... in Canada.

I wonder how the eskimo's are handling it over in Alaska?

I no longer bother going swimming in the summer since its usually colder than when I was growing up.

I wonder how the eskimo's are handling it over in Alaska?
Global Warming Changing Inuit Lands, Lives, Arctic Expedition Shows (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html)

I keep telling you global warming isn't happening, what is happening is climate change and in some places it is changing for the better and in some places not. If we had a small " ice age" this would slow down the release of methane in the artic a good thing apparently. It might shatter the dream of open waterways in northern climes but I can tell you from where I sit open water is over rated and the polar bears think so too.

This latest change may be down to volcanic activity and in any case on the evidence "normal" is lots of ice

Global Warming Changing Inuit Lands, Lives, Arctic Expedition Shows (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html)

That was six years ago, how is that helpful?

Hello again,

All I know is global warming MUST be TRUE because it's UNUSUALLY HOT here today...

I say that, because for SURE, this winter some winger will say it CAN'T be true, because it's snowing outside.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Hey Ex it unseasonably hot here too but we always have a hot week in September, so natural variation this year is hotter than others. I can't get excited about global warming but I know a century ago they had photos of snow on the ground here. I can sign on to climate change because climate is continually changing. I don't think it is a bad thing and we have to live with what we have now

Hello again,

All I know is global warming MUST be TRUE because it's UNUSUALLY HOT here today...

I say that, because for SURE, this winter some winger will say it CAN'T be true, because it's snowing outside.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Excon

And after 2 years of heat and drought we've had a fairly mild, fairly rainy summer. Anyway, I thought you guys loved science. Six years ago they predicted by 2013 that summers in the arctic would be ice-free. It's 2013 and it's been iced up all summer, expanding by 60 percent since last year - and a 15 year cooling trend is now expected. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)


She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

Read more: Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eUsN9GTw)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg

And in other climate change news...


If Congress authorizes military strikes against Syria, is global warming to blame?

According to Francesco Femia, co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, the Syrian conflict that has caught the attention of the world was preceded by the “worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent.”

The severe drought, combined with massive crop failures and poor agricultural policy on the part of the Assad regime, forced mass migrations from the countryside to cities that were already hard-pressed by refugees from Iraq, Femia argues. Military analysts overlooked these factors and argued that Syria would be immune to the civil unrest that had previously swept through authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes.

“But under the surface of what seemed to be a stable country, there was a large-scale environmental and human disaster happening,” Femia told “Moyers & Company.”

“Climate change primarily manifests itself through water,” Femia added. “But it varies; different kinds of water, different ways. It can lead to more extreme weather events: either a drought or a major storm or an amount of rainfall that’s unusual and leads to flooding. It’s not just scarcity, it’s too much, too little and unpredictably.”

“Climate change is going to have security implications across the globe and conflict is just one area of concern,” Femia said.

Read more: Did global warming cause the Syrian civil war? | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/09/did-global-warming-cause-the-syrian-civil-war/#ixzz2eUtEV0kp)

That's right, we may end up launching an "unbelievably small" attack on Syria all because of climate change.

That's right, we may end up launching an "unbelievably small" attack on Syria all because of climate change.


You forgot the sarcasm/humour font. Some people might think you are being serious with this comment.

True, but oh well.

You forgot the sarcasm/humour font. Some people might think you are being serious with this comment.

How can you be serious about such a humourous subject, it's a laugh a minute

how can you be serious about such a humourous subject, it's a laugh a minute

I visualize someone tossing a water balloon out a window on a flyover.

I visualize someone tossing a water balloon out a window on a flyover.


Now there is an idea

Sept 13, ready to turn my furnace ON

Sept 13, ready to turn my furnace ON

I'm about to turn mine off, usually do it 1st of October

Will have to turn mine on soon too.

Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 | Real Science (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013/)

And this was the year the Arctic was supposed to be ice free

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/global-warming-crisis-didnt-happen-751861-7.html#post3547283

And this was the year the Arctic was supposed to be ice free



It just goes to show we don't know everything, the genuses who gave us global warming have been leading us around by the ring in our noses

Hello again, flat earthers:

Some people understand science, and some don't. Some people understand that weather ISN'T global warming, and some don't. Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.

excon

Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.
The lead climatologists promoting the nonsense of AGW certainly don't ,or if they do ,they distort the record with falsified data to "hide the decline" i.e. the fluctuations during various periods of geological time. None of them even come close the including other variables in their calculations that may include geological events ,but also solar and other cosmic events . I doubt if they've even heard of Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis,

Theories, and hypothesis fade from the minds of men getting out of the way of floods, and hurricanes, and tornadoes.

Hello again, tom:

I doubt if they've even heard of Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis,I'm NOT a scientist, and I have NO idea who that is.. But, BECAUSE I'm NOT a scientist, I can CHOOSE to believe what 97% of the worlds scientists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/) TELL me, or I can believe the other 3%.

Because I BELIEVE in science, I absolutely BELIEVE what scientists tell me. Of course, I'm also aware that science is DYNAMIC. What is today, is likely to CHANGE tomorrow.. Does that mean you DISCARD what you know today? I don't think it does.

What I DON'T believe is that scientists HAVE an agenda OTHER than pure science.. Yes, there are those who work for the oil companies, and THEY have an agenda. And, there are those who work for somebody else with an agenda.. BUT, the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists work for higher learning institutions what have NO agenda OTHER than science...

Those are the people who tell me man is affecting the climate of the planet, and I BELIEVE it... Besides, as I've said here TIME and TIME again, something bad happens when we throw our trash into the air. Nobody has to tell me that.

Excon

Hello again, tom:
I'm NOT a scientist, and I have NO idea who that is.. But, BECAUSE I'm NOT a scientist, I can CHOOSE to believe what 97% of the worlds scientists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/) TELL me, or I can believe the 3% who aren't.

Because I BELIEVE in science, I absolutely BELIEVE what scientists tell me. Of course, I'm also aware that science is DYNAMIC. What is today, is likely to CHANGE tomorrow.. Does that mean you DISCARD what you know today? I don't think it does.

What I DON'T believe is that scientists HAVE an agenda OTHER than pure science.. Yes, there are those who work for the oil companies, and THEY have an agenda. And, there are those who work for somebody else with an agenda.. BUT, the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists work for higher learning institutions what have NO agenda OTHER than science...

Those are the people who tell me man is affecting the climate of the planet, and I BELIEVE it... Besides, as I've said here TIME and TIME again, something bad happens when we throw our trash into the air. Nobody has to tell me that.

excon

The emails confirmed that the scientist from those institutes of higher learning doctored their results with falsified data to achieve predetermined results. That appears to be that superior science you speak of .

Hello again, tom:

the emails confirmed that the scientist from those institutes of higher learning doctored their results with falsified data to achieve predetermined results. That appears to be that superior science you speak of .Nahhhh.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding NO EVIDENCE of fraud or scientific misconduct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

Excon

If you were as open minded on the subject as you pretend to be then you should look up the hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark . As for the findings... if the hockey stick graph that is the basis of the whole AGW hypothesis was developed with excluded data from a significant period ,then the premise of the evidence that supports the hypothesis is flawed. It is a stretch to believe that they did not commit fraud when their emails indicate that they knew of the variations and intentionally hid them from their data.

Hello again, tom:

then the premise of the evidence that supports the hypothesis is flawedCall me close minded if you wish, but in MY non scientific view, you can't throw your trash into the air and expect NOTHING bad to happen.. I simply reject, out of hand, ANY hypothesis that says you CAN.

Look.. I can't SEE that the earth is round.. Yes, I KNOW scientists have shown me pictures, but they could be doctored for all I know. Nonetheless, I simply take their word for it.

Excon

I'm about to turn mine off, usually do it 1st of October

Usually only need my furnace on from mid Oct to mid Mar

Hello again, tom:
Call me close minded if you wish, but in MY non scientific view, you can't throw your trash into the air and expect NOTHING bad to happen.. I simply reject, out of hand, ANY hypothesis that says you CAN.

Look.. I can't SEE that the earth is round.. Yes, I KNOW scientists have shown me pictures, but they could be doctored for all I know. Nonetheless, I simply take their word for it.

excon

Let's not get back to this trash in the air nonsense. You join the flat earth society if you want to ex or the round earth society if that pleases you but please don't tell us a naturally occurring substance is pollution. That is a political view, not a scientific one. Science has stumbled from one view to another since the enlightenment released man to pursue scientific reason. Many of the ideas they have explored are wrong and research wrongly applied, so if it is all the same to you I won't take their word for it

Take their word for it when there is a significant dissenting view (and no ;they all don't work for the oil companies) ;and we have the evidence that they doctored their results... Take their word for it when the very models they constructed have not held for almost 2 decades .

Don't worry abot ex Tom he is a clone

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," will be published on Sept. 27.It will dial back the alarm of the harm cause by so called 'man made AGW' .

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for Policy-makers showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'. She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. 'The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)

What is it they say about computers... garbage in, garbage out?

Comparing weather stations reading that 30 years ago when they were installed were in the middle of a field... with no development around... to today when they are surrounded buy large structures and several acres of asphault parking lot adjacent to it.

Well DUH... create made made heat Island aorund a weather station... I'm niot surpriised IT sees a difference... Doesn't mean there is a change a few hundred yards away where it ISN'T developed.

If you change the criteria the data is collected under... then you can't use the date from before that change as a reference because it was collected under different conditions. But facts aren't part of Liberal "Science" tology.

We can't believe that either it's all based on flawed data and computer projections.

It's time to understand we are in a period of long term climate change in which the actions of man are incidental to the outcomes

we can't believe that either it's all based on flawed data and computer projections.

it's time to understand we are in a period of long term climate change in which the actions of man are incidental to the outcomes



I have in the past proven that MANY of the "weather Stations" they are claiming the changes were measured at... when they were installed were in the middle of a grassy undeveloped area... but today are surrounded py pavemtn, ashphault and man made structures... By links that showed pictures of them before... and now. I'm not going to waste my time digging them up again. Because most of the Global Warming crowd also believe Obama is a demi-god... and their capacity to process data rationally is in question.


That renders any long term comparisons invalid because the basis of the data collection is no longer consistent.


Input flaws raw data.. and the results WILL be flawed as well.

If indeed man made structures/activity affect the data Smoothy, then you have proven beyond a doubt that man affects his environment in some way. Also we know removing the forest, and putting stuff in the land, air and sea, changes ecosystems, some times very dramatically.

Its very possible that man has speeded up a situation that possibly was going to happen anyway, and highly likely that he changes the balance of nature in some ways also. Now we can argue about what that is, but there are a lot of man made bubbles of activity around the world and a good example I submit is the Chinese experiment that has devastated their air quality and their search for more energy is eroding the farmlands at huge rates.

Now you can ignore it, and minimize the effects of man activity on the planet (Its quite profitable to do so), but that only hides the problem, not solves it, and it sure won't solve itself.

Hello again, flat earthers:

Some people understand science, and some don't. Some people understand that weather ISN'T global warming, and some don't. Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.

excon

Scientists predict an ice-free arctic by 2013, and instead of being ice-free the ice expanded by 920,000 square miles and we're the flat earthers? Bwa ha ha ha!

If indeed man made structures/activity affect the data Smoothy, then you have proven beyond a doubt that man affects his environment in some way. Also we know removing the forest, and putting stuff in the land, air and sea, changes ecosystems, some times very dramatically.

Its very possible that man has speeded up a situation that quite possibly was going to happen anyway, and highly likely that he changes the balance of nature in some ways also. Now we can argue about what that is, but there are a lot of man made bubbles of activity around the world and a good example I submit is the Chinese experiment that has devastated their air quality and their search for more energy is eroding the farmlands at huge rates.

Now you can ignore it, and minimize the effects of man activity on the planet (Its quite profitable to do so), but that only hides the problem, not solves it, and it sure won't solve itself.


You are missing the point I was making... you can't compare a mearurement in the middle of a grassy field... and one in the middle of a parkling lot 30 years late and claim the pemprature is rising...

Its no different than measuring the middle of a field... then measuing the inside of an occupied building at the same physical location before and after the building is put up.


Changing the conditions of a test during the test... invalidates the data collected. And the test results as well.

Hello again, smoothy:

Changing the conditions of a test during the test... invalidates the data collected. And the test results as well.In MY world, scientists KNOW how to collect and evaluate data.

Excon

You can claim that man made the temperature rise. Same collection METHOD, different CONDITION, for comparison. You can't ignore your own observation of the difference between a location with man, and without.

Your methodology is flawed. Temperature over time is what changes water to steam, and more heat changes it to a GAS, still water, but the components have been broken down and separated and just as heat changes water, it changes CHEMICAL composition.

I guess you never look at the air quality reports on your local weather station either. Then you would know the differences in highly industrial areas and very low industrial areas. Rural, and urban. Hell don't you remember during the Olympics in China they had to shut down the industries to clear the air of pollutants? They wanted to hide how NASTY it was.

How do you ignore that data?

Hello again, smoothy:
In MY world, scientists NOW how to collect and evaluate data.

excon

2007, arctic will be "ice-free"
2013, arctic 920,000 square mile ice expansion

Their evaluation of the data was "gravely flawed" is the correct term.

They may have missed a few variables.

Hello again, Steve:

2007, arctic will be "ice-free"
2013, arctic 920,000 square mile ice expansion

Their evaluation of the data was "gravely flawed" is the correct term.Nahhhh... If you understand the science, then you'd get a sense of the TIME involved. Given that I DO understand the science, I can report that if they MISSED that projection by even a decade or two, it's STILL accurate.

Plus, given those same variables, NO scientist worth his salt would narrow down a projection like that to a particular year or even a particular decade.

excon

They may have missed a few variables.

yes the extrapolated from a few obseravtions without checking their enviromment, thevariables they missed were the ability of sea water to absorb heat, the vegitation in urban areas, the variability of climate. What we had here were some academic nerds

Less burning of fossil fuels, replacement of old coal burning power facilities, natural gas conversions, emergence of wind a solar power. The price of gas going up. Just to name a few of those variables. Doesn't solve the problem, but delays the effects.

They may have missed a few variables.

No, ex said the know how to evaluate data. You guys wouldn't trust anyone else that is as consistently WRONG about their evaluations as climate scientists, not your doctor, not your financial adviser, probably not your spouse. Yet you do so with politicians and climate scientists. Why is that?

Hello again, Steve:
Nahhhh... If you understand the science, then you'd get a sense of the TIME involved. Given that I DO understand the science, I can report that if they MISSED that projection by even a decade or two, it's STILL accurate.

Plus, given those same variables, NO scientist worth his salt would narrow down a projection like that to a particular year or even a particular decade.

excon

More accurately, you believe the dogma more than the data.

Hello again, Steve:

More accurately, you believe the dogma more than the data.Nahhh... Actually, I believe ME. I KNOW that you can't throw your trash into the air WITHOUT bad consequences... The MOMENT when we'll be awash is BESIDES the point. That you cling to a DATE certain to debunk the theory, DEBUNKS your debunk.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
Nahhh... Actually, I believe ME. I KNOW that you can't throw your trash into the air WITHOUT bad consequences... The MOMENT when we'll be awash is BESIDES the point. That you cling to a DATE certain to debunk the theory, DEBUNKS your debunk.

excon

Your arguments, like your bats, are steadily devolving my friend.

Your arguments, like your bats, are steadily devolving my friend.

Low blow, but congrats. :D

Low blow, but congrats. :D

Just trying to relay it in terms he can understand. :D

I think we should tear up the pavement on the city streets... and tear town the cities and make them live in tents... solve the heat island effect and water runoff issues right away...

Hello again, smoothy:
In MY world, scientists KNOW how to collect and evaluate data.

excon

Apparently they don't... not the liberal ones anytway.

You can claim that man made the temperature rise. Same collection METHOD, different CONDITION, for comparison. You can't ignore your own observation of the difference between a location with man, and without.

Your methodology is flawed. Temperature over time is what changes water to steam, and more heat changes it to a GAS, still water, but the components have been broken down and separated and just as heat changes water, it changes CHEMICAL composition.

I guess you never look at the air quality reports on your local weather station either. Then you would know the differences in highly industrial areas and very low industrial areas. Rural, and urban. Hell don't you remember during the Olympics in China they had to shut down the industries to clear the air of pollutants? They wanted to hide how NASTY it was.

How do you ignore that data?

My methodology is spot on accurate... but then, you are part of the crowd that believes the end justifies the means...

What I don't get is ex can believe in evolution but he can't believe that the Earth can have naturally occurring cycles of heat and cold with a narrow range. Don't you understand what we are are talking about here, 1 degree Celsius, it's not something your body can detect, you need an instrument to know it has happened

The same people think Obama is the smartest man to ever be president... and that he has never done anything wrong.

That's why they don't "get it".

Well I sure some of your early presidents were smarter, but smart doesn't cut it unless all your team are smart too. What BO suffers from is a lack of smart opponents

well I sure some of your early presidents were smarter, but smart doesn't cut it unless all your team are smart too. What BO suffers from is a lack of smart opponents

I'm absolutely certain MOST of them were smarter. And except for Jimmy Carter they were all better leaders (Jimmy Carter was still a better man in his youth) BO lacks a cabinet that has a clue... the man has such an inferiority complex... he only wants people around him that are dumber than he is... and for those of use on this side of the planet... its painfully obvious.

Hello again, clete:

what I don't get is ex can believe in evolution but he can't believe that the Earth can have naturally occurring cycles of heat and cold with a narrow range. Oh, I do... But, when you throw tons and tons of trash into the air every day for years and years, it DOES effect the "natural" cycles...

How can you talk about "natural" cycles, and IGNORE that?

Excon

Hello again, clete:
Oh, I do... But, when you throw tons and tons of trash into the air each and every day for years and years, it DOES effect the "natural" cycles...

How can you talk about "natural" cycles, and IGNORE that?

excon

Because Ex I don't believe CO2 is trash, now if you want to talk CFC which just might be the cause of some atmospheric problems I can understand that some cycles might be affected. But let us ask ourselves who benefits from using CFC

Hello again, clete:

Because Ex I don't believe CO2 is trash,Ok, we might be getting somewhere... Do we have a linguistics problem here, or scientific one??

Let's try this.. If I started calling CO2 a wonder gas instead of trash, would you agree that MAN is causing wonder gas to rise in our atmosphere?? Or you deny that burning stuff RELEASES wonder gas into the sky, and once there, wonder gas causes the earth to warm??

I'm just trying to figure out if it's the word you don't understand, or the science?

Excon

Hello again, clete:
Ok, we might be getting somewhere... Do we have a linguistics problem here, or scientific one???

Ok, you don't like the word "trash" Let's try this.. If I started calling CO2 a wonder gas instead of trash, would you agree that MAN is causing "wonder gas" to rise in our atmosphere??? Or you deny that burning stuff RELEASES "wonder gas" into the sky, and once there, causes the earth to warm???

I'm just trying to figure out if it's the word you don't understand, or the science??

excon

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low (http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-co2-emissions-us-drop-20-low-174616030--finance.html)

And for good measure...

A Sigh of Relief for the White House on Fracking (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/a-sigh-of-relief-for-the-white-house-on-fracking-20130916)
A new comprehensive study concludes the process at the heart of the nation's energy boom doesn't significantly contribute to global warming.

Hello again, Steve:

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year lowCouple things...

The author offers NO PROOF of the above claim, and WRITES about what government officials say, but offers no links... He's also politically INVESTED in fracking by his other writings..

Nonetheless, that doesn't disqualify what he says.

What disqualifies what he says, is that he makes NO mention of the fact that fracking has its OWN problems with pollution. It REEKS of one way reporting... I expect it here, but not from AP.

That's NOT to say that our trend toward natural gas isn't good. It MIGHT be... But, one way reporting like this DOESN'T convince me.

Excon

Sort of like we are supposed to TRUST Obama and the Democrats are really trying to help us despite a complete lack of evidence to back that up? And lots of evidence to the contrary?

Hello again, Steve:
Couple things...

The author offers NO PROOF of the above claim, and WRITES about what government officials say, but offers no links... He's also politically INVESTED in fracking by his other writings..

Nonetheless, that doesn't disqualify what he says.

What disqualifies what he says, is that he makes NO mention of the fact that fracking has its OWN problems with pollution. It REEKS of one way reporting... I expect it here, but not from AP.

That's NOT to say that our trend toward natural gas isn't good. It MIGHT be... But, one way reporting like this DOESN'T convince me.

Excon

You know ex, before the internet there were no links, reporters just cited their sources, and the sources were all cited.

The first one on CO2 emissions being at a 20 year low:


Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels.

You remember Michael Mann of "hide the decline" fame? You know it had to irk him to acknowledge the drop in emissions.

The 2nd, on fracking, linked to the report (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110) by "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science." I guess you didn't actually look that deep did you? Not to mention the fact that the National Journal is hardly a right-wing blog.

And in further developments, leaked info on the latest IPCC report points to yet another 'miscalculation' (i.e. more wrong computer models). Instead of the dire predictions from 2007, the report supposedly will say the rise in temps is not going to be so extreme, will likely result in no economic or ecological damage and could possible result in a net benefit for us humans.

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html)
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

But I have no expectations that this will matter to you true believers, it goes against your dogma.

Hello again, Steve:

it goes against your dogma.I call it science - not dogma. Plus, it just makes sense to me..

You can't throw your trash on the ground because there's negative consequences. You can't throw it in the ocean because there's negative consequences.. What makes you think you can throw it into the air and everything will be fine?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
I call it science - not dogma. Plus, it just makes sense to me..

You can't throw your trash on the ground because there's negative consequences. You can't throw it in the ocean because there's negative consequences.. What makes you think you can throw it into the air and everything will be fine?

excon

When you ignore the evidence that contradicts your sermon, it's dogma.

So don't ignore the fact that things are actually being done to clean up the air, water, and land. That's not a sermon, or dogma, but positive action to correct a problem.

You know faith without works and all. Pray but get busy. Talk is easy and cheap. Accomplishes little by itself.

So don't ignore the fact that things are actually being done to clean up the air, water, and land. That's not a sermon, or dogma, but positive action to correct a problem.

You know faith without works and all. Pray but get busy. Talk is easy and cheap. Accomplishes little by itself.

Um, I'm the one whose been pointing out the good news. It's never enough for you guys because the results are not what matters, it's the policies you want to force on us in spite of the facts.

And in further developments, leaked info on the latest IPCC report points to yet another 'miscalculation' (i.e. more wrong computer models). Instead of the dire predictions from 2007, the report supposedly will say the rise in temps is not going to be so extreme, will likely result in no economic or ecological damage and could possible result in a net benefit for us humans.

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html)
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

But I have no expectations that this will matter to you true believers, it goes against your dogma.

About time someone came clean. So much for the science now we have to deal with the religion of climate change

We readjust expectations and course correct with the new data that suggest we are on a good path. You still have to collect the data.

WE used to call "readjust expectations" flip flopping just a few years ago.

How can you co from proclaiming the Polar icecaps going to disappear due to global warming... to we have more Polar Ice than ever recorded in history due to global warming? In one breath?

I'm wondering when the projections of the onset of another ice age will reemerge

i'm wondering when the projections of the onset of another ice age will reemerge

I think the entire Global Warming cult is bipolar.

Well done smoothy

We readjust expectations and course correct with the new data that suggest we are on a good path. You still have to collect the data.

I assume that after all this good news you'll "readjust" your agenda?

Hello again,

So, NOBODY wants to tell me why it's OK to throw your trash into the air?? It's OK if you want to call it CO2 instead of trash... I like wondergas myself. But, it's doing the same thing no matter what you call it.

Do you DENY that CO2, I mean wondergas, in the atmosphere warms the planet? Do you DENY that burning fossile fuels PRODUCE CO2?

Nobody, huh? You just want to call names, don't you?

excon

I've said this for a long time... let the democrats curtail their OWN CO2 emmissions first... and if it works then we will consider it.

But since Al Gore the Founder of this Cult doesn't care (based on his own actions)... why should we.

Hello again,

So, NOBODY wants to tell me why it's ok to throw your trash into the air??? It's ok if you wanna call it CO2 instead of trash... I like wondergas myself. But, it's doing the same thing no matter what you call it.

Do you DENY that CO2, I mean wondergas, in the atmosphere warms the planet?? Do you DENY that burning fossile fuels PRODUCE CO2?

Nobody, huh? You just wanna call names, don't you?

excon

Ex you've been sticking with this same line for years even though no one here that I know of is arguing on behalf of pollution.

ex you've been sticking with this same line for years even though no one here that I know of is arguing on behalf of pollution.

speech the point is it isn't pollution, that is a very dumb expression of policy. If you want to regulate emissions of certain gasses, fine, but don't define a natural substance as pollution. Carbon Dioxide is not the same as Sulphur Dioxide although they may be produced by similar processes. Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow, Sulphur Dioxide kills plants

speech the point is it isn't pollution, that is a very dumb expression of policy. If you want to regulate emissions of certain gasses, fine, but don't define a natural substance as pollution. Carbon Dioxide is not the same as Sulphur Dioxide although they may be produced by similiar processes. Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow, Sulphur Dioxide kills plants

I know this, but ex insists on calling it "trash." I keep suggesting that if he wants to do his part he should stop breathing but so far he resists that kind of commitment.

Are you two saying that the stuff that belches from factories is good for you and the plants? Go ahead, put your petunias in a room filled with emissions and see what happens to you and the petunia.

Emission are not natural, they are man made and a bi product of burning fossil fuels. You both flunk elementary science classes I see.

Nature balances, humans do NOT.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)


Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

*The debate at the bottom is some fascinating stuff, and also the data from the studies on the side links. Like this one.

CAIT 2.0: WRI's climate data explorer (http://cait2.wri.org/wri/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?indicator=Total) GHG Emissions Excluding LUCF&indicator=Total GHG Emissions Including LUCF&year=2010&sortIdx=&sortDir=&chartType=#

Oxygen is the essential component of all breathing gases.

The air we inhale is roughly composed of (by volume):
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
0.96% argon
0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases

The permanent gases in gas we exhale are 4% to 5% by volume more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% by volume less oxygen than was inhaled. This expired air typically composed of:
78% nitrogen
13.6% - 16% Oxygen
4% - 5.3% Carbon dioxide
1% Argon and other gases

If plants cannot replace the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and oceans cannot absorb it, you will suffocate if not for mother natures own way of cleaning the atmosphere. Storms.

If plants cannot replace the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and oceans cannot absorb it, you will suffocate if not for mother natures own way of cleaning the atmosphere. Storms.

And there are those who want to tell us there is no intelligent design, what I am saying to you there is a difference between a confined space and open atmosphere, we are talking about small concentrations of CO2 400 parts per million not the 20% oxygen represents.

Have you seen China lately? The visibility is almost nil where there industry is concentrated. 400 parts per million is a danger to certain humans when the temperature is a 100+ for extended periods or why issue health alerts to the population?

No big deal huh? What's a few deaths among billions.

Hey... if you are allergic to green and want to pave everything over like the city dwellers do... they should learn to breath less as a result. They don't own any property or plants that put out oxygen.. they are 100% CO2 generators and that needs to stop. THey are using more than their fair share of the planets oxygen.

We should get rid of all the city dwellers then... have the EPA do it.

Hey... if you are allergic to green and want to pave everything over like the city dwellers do... they should learn to breath less as a result. They don't own any property or plants that put out oxygen.. they are 100% CO2 generators and that needs to stop. THey are using more than their fair share of the planets oxygen.

We should get rid of all the city dwellers then... have the EPA do it.


you seen China lately? this is nothing new it is a few years since I have been to China but even then I didn't see the sun for any of the time I was there and I travelled extensively. That is not CO2 pollution it is photochemical smog caused by transferring western industry to China.

Yes smoothy we need to stop the growth of cities without consideration of proper balance. Who invented the skyscraper and wall to wall concrete I wonder seems there are a lot of bad ideas in the name of progress. How do we do this? Population control. It was tried very unsuccessfully in China so I expect we will have to allow nature to do it for us

this is nothing new it is a few years since I have been to China but even then I didn't see the sun for any of the time i was there and I travelled extensively. That is not CO2 pollution it is photochemical smog caused by transferring western industry to China.

Yes smoothy we need to stop the growth of cities without consideration of proper balance. Who invented the skyscraper and wall to wall concrete I wonder seems there are a lot of bad ideas in the name of progress. How do we do this? population control. It was tried very unsuccesfully in China so I expect we will have to allow nature to do it for us

We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.

Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...

We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.

Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...

Seems to me such Ideas have been tried, but perhaps a licence to procreate would not be a bad idea as would compulsory birth control if you cannot find somethingelse for those dumb kids to do. It might give a new meaning to the term marriage

Smoothy I don't agree with the idea of sterilizing people on the basis of IQ but you could impose severe fines for breaking birth control laws and having a child under a certain age.
I think we would be better off if we didn't have coed schooling, at least there would be less opportunity for contact and more likelihood of concentration on lessons. So strict segregation of the sexes, if we can ban alcohol until 21 we can ban sex too

Seems to me such Ideas have been tried, but perhaps a licence to procreate would not be a bad idea as would compulsory birth control if you cannot find somethingelse for those dumb kids to do. It might give a new meaning to the term marriage

Smoothy I don't agree with the idea of sterilizing people on the basis of IQ but you could impose severe fines for breaking birth control laws and having a child under a certain age.
I think we would be better off if we didn't have coed schooling, at least there would be less opportunity for contact and more likelyhood of concentration on lessons. So strict segregation of the sexes, if we can ban alcohol til 21 we can ban sex too
I said that tongue in cheek because the Left here do everything to encourage teen sex... free condoms etc and keeping everything from the parents...

You don't have to encourage a teen to have sex. You do have to encourage them to use a condom.

Handing them condoms and birth control pill and telling them have at it... it will be our secret is encouraging them. And explains why HPV is epidemic in the young today.

We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.

Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...



It is also a waste of time trying to educate some older people as well.

That's about as polite as I can put it.

It is also a waste of time trying to educate some older people as well.

That's about as polite as I can put it.

We all know it's a waste of time trying to educate liberals... they only believe what they want anyway and don't want to be confused by things like facts.

We all know its a waste of time trying to educate liberals...they only believe what they want anyway and don't want to be confused by things like facts.


By the "facts" do you mean something like the fact that forced sterilization was discredited as being racist and based on a belief in pseudo-science. Are these the types of facts you are talking about?

By the "facts" do you mean something like the fact that forced sterilization was discredited as being racist and based on a belief in pseudo-science. Are these the types of facts you are talking about?

THe FACT that Obamacare is a disaster... the FACT that Global warming has always bneen nothing but a hoax based of faulty logic tailored to get a certain result.

You really like going off on tangents don't you?

THe FACT that Obamacare is a disaster...the FACT that Global warming has always bneen nothing but a hoax based of faulty logic tailored to get a certain result.

You really like going off on tangents don't you?

I never go off tangent. You said, "We should start by sterilizing the dumb kinds around the time they are old enough to procreate".

The issue at hand is straight forward. Do you stand by this racist statement?

I never go off tangent. You said, "We should start by sterilizing the dumb kinds around the time they are old enough to procreate".

The issue at hand is straight forward. Do you stand by this racist statement?

How about you going back and reading it all for once... including the other posts following it...

Also how about the world stop feeding people that breed like flies that can't even feed themselves... the problem will self correct... That's the Natural Order after all. Its been that way since the first life on this planet. But I gues the natural order is Racist as well...

We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.

Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...

By full quote you means this?

I have not resorted to selective quoting. Unless you can show how the full quote changes the sterilization aspect.

In what way do subsequent quotes change or modify your statement of sterilization? They don't.

If I were you I'd rethink these pseudo science views on race. The whole nasty business in modern times was started by the so called, "natural order of things".

By full quote you means this?

I have not resorted to selective quoting. Unless you can show how the full quote changes the sterilization aspect.

In what way do subsequent quotes change or modify your statement of sterilization? They don't.

If I were you I'd rethink these pseudo science views on race. The whole nasty business in modern times was started by the so called, "natural order of things".

Maybe your fellow countryman can explain it to you, the one I was talking with... if you find yourself standing in a hole... stop digging. So put the shovel down.

Maybe your fellow countryman can explain it to you, the one I was talking with.....if you find yourself standing in a hole...stop digging. So put the shovel down.


To your credit you realize this is a good option.

To your credit you realize this is a good option.

I'm on top of a hill, you are standing in the hole.

I'm on top of a hill, you are standing in the hole.


You gave yourself the opportunity to stop digging, but for some strange reason you seems to want to further the discussion. The longer it goes on the worse it looks for you.

In recognition of the fact that climate change didn't happen the Australian government today sacked the Climate Change Commissioner and the Climate Change Authority

in recognition of the fact that climate change didn't happen the Australian government today sacked the Climate Change Commissioner and the Climate Change Authority

Can your Prime MInister talk with our Demi-god and try to talk sense into him... I know its an exercise in Futility... since he hates Americans so much (meaning Obama not your prime-minister))... maybe he'd listen to an outsider.

Can your Prime MInister talk with our Demi-god and try to talk sense into him.....I know its an exercise in Futility...since he hates Americans so much (meaning Obama not your prime-minister))...maybe he'd listen to an outsider.

They are on the opposite side of politics, we had an election and removed the idiots from power, no more photoops, no more policy on the run and climate change is officially on the back burner, with them went their fellow travellers and lackeys

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/commission-key-to-keeping-public-informed-20130919-2u2l6.html

We had an election too Clete, and totally rejected the rich guy and his ideas, and the right has been crying foul ever since. They cried foul at his first winning election and can't believe he won again.

And their power and influence continues to diminish.

We had an election too Clete, and totally rejected the rich guy and his ideas, and the right has been crying foul ever since. They cried foul at his first winning election and can't believe he won again.

And their power and influence continues to diminish.

And so far you've gotten what you deserved, shame the rest of us have to suffer because of it.

You gave yourself the opportunity to stop digging, but for some strange reason you seems to want to further the discussion. The longer it goes on the worse it looks for you.

You can continue tqalking with yourself... I was't talking to you then... and you still don't get it... and I'm not talking with you about it either since you don't want to go back and read the conversation...

they are on the opposite side of politics, we had an election and removed the idiots from power, no more photoops, no more policy on the run and climate change is officially on the back burner, with them went their fellow travellers and lackeys

Commission key to keeping public informed (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/commission-key-to-keeping-public-informed-20130919-2u2l6.html)

We have another three years and 3 months and a few days of this idiot to suffer through...

Thank god he can't constitutionally steal another election. Pretty sad when that's the only good thing that can be found to say about an elected official.

We had an election too Clete, and totally rejected the rich guy and his ideas, and the right has been crying foul ever since. They cried foul at his first winning election and can't believe he won again.

And their power and influence continues to diminish.

In our election one of the rich guys got elected, well almost, we will know tomorrow and guess what, he wants to oppose everything. I think it goes with money, the my way or the highway approach, no matter what your political persuasion

You see we don't have the problems you do because the guy who has the most seats in the house runs the government, doesn't always mean he gets his way, but Obamacare could not have happened under our system without majorities in both the house and the senate, what is called representative democracy, unfortunately you live in an autocracy and so you have these difficulties

Just to inform you of the facts, Obama Care passed the house and senate because he did indeed have the votes, so again stop pretending you know what you talk about when it comes to OUR government. SHHEEEEESH, all you had to do was Google it before you rattled on.

Just to inform you of the facts, Obama Care passed the house and senate because he did indeed have the votes, so again stop pretending you know what you talk about when it comes to OUR government. SHHEEEEESH, all you had to do was google it before you rattled on.

Way I heard it he passed it by Presidential decree when the House and the Senate couldn't agree on which version should go forward and took a holiday. You have been bleeting about it over there ever since

It never got a vote on the Senate floor after it went to committee, and was rammed through without a vote on a technicality under the pretext it was a budget issue (which it could) and not a law... (which it can't).

They did that because Scott Brown got elected and would have prevented a super-majority.

Way I heard it he passed it by Presidential decree when the House and the Senate couldn't agree on which version should go forward and took a holiday. You have been bleeting about it over there ever since

The president cannot decree law, emperor or not. Doesn't work that way here. The house and senate passed it simultaneously, within parliamentary rules and it was ruled constitutional (the mandate part) By SCOTUS.

They have been bleating over it and it was a BIG deal during the campaign with Romney's vow to repeal it, but he lost, and still they bleat. Except we call it SQUEALING (as in pigs), but bleating (as in sheep) is as good.

But they have every right too.

The president cannot decree law, emperor or not. Doesn't work that way here. The house and senate passed it simultaneously, within parliamentary rules and it was ruled constitutional (the mandate part) By SCOTUS.

They have been bleating over it and it was a BIG deal during the campaign with Romney's vow to repeal it, but he lost, and still they bleat. Except we call it SQUEALING (as in pigs), but bleating (as in sheep) is as good.

But they have every right too.

I though bleating was the appropriate term as that is what sheep do when they are shorn and this appears to be a tax and therefore shearing of the sheep

Okay it's a tax, to help pay for health care as a collective. Not as bad as the right making it harder for poor people to eat.

Okay its a tax, to help pay for health care as a collective. Not as bad as the right making it harder for poor people to eat.

I didn't say I'm against the approach. Our Medicare has worked well even though it took a while to get used to the changes and it has been through some interations, including our Labor government, its instigators, pushing private health insurance.

In our system the poor people don't pay the levy (tax) and the idea is if you are privately insured you don't either. What happens is people get caught in the middle, no money, no insurance and very long waits for electives. But it doesn't impact on their income

Now I can see your system would hit some people very hard

Actually it's a tax deduction for people who opt into the state exchanges but what will hit some who don't get insurance and pay what appears to be a fine of 100 bucks a year will be hit with some pretty hefty medical bills for emergency room visits or any prescription they may need.

As for employers who choose to make everyone part time workers to avoid providing insurance, they lose tremendous leverage in getting a better rate from existing insurance carriers since they too can make use of these exchanges as well. Many businesses are already exploiting this option, and find that they can expand with the added competition and have options they never had before.

The sad part here Clete, is the naysayers and repeal crowd who already have insurance don't want the ones who don't to have it. They are the ones who are too lazy to read the darn thing and its been available online for almost 4 years. Sure there is room for improvements and changes, its an ongoing process, but the tax/fine thing isn't one of them.

The real fear is that in time people will actually embrace the options and opportunities that ACA will afford them and those that holler repeal will be shouted down and look pretty silly for their obstruction attempts. That's why the emperor was re elected decisively and with a clear majority of voters.

It seems someone thought you need a big stick to make people comply but $100 doesn't seem a big stick. I thought the impact was greater with the complaints of much higher insurance costs and penalties for no insurance. The whole thing is poorly engineered if it interferes with the employer/employee relationship but then I always thought the pushing employers to insure employees a difficult path

Just to inform you of the facts, Obama Care passed the house and senate because he did indeed have the votes, so again stop pretending you know what you talk about when it comes to OUR government. SHHEEEEESH, all you had to do was Google it before you rattled on.

Nice fiction Reid et al "deemed "it passed.


The president cannot decree law, emperor or not. Doesn't work that way here. The house and senate passed it simultaneously, within parliamentary rules and it was ruled constitutional (the mandate part) By SCOTUS.
And yet the emperor has more than once rewritten key provisions of the law ;illegally delayed implementation , granted exemptions ,and unilaterally changed the tax status of individuals in states that opted out of setting up their own exchanges. (the subject of the next cout challenge to Obamacare making it's way through the courts )
IRS Rewrites Obamacare To Increase Taxes, Center For Individual Freedom (http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Blog_and_News/post/IRS_Rewrites_Obamacare_To_Increase_Taxes,_Center_F or_Individual_Freedom/)

But this is a debate that should be on the Obamacare op.

Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.

Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Solar-activity-drops-to-100-year-low-puzzling-scientists/articleshow/22719807.cms)

Is this affecting climate ? Could we be going into another mini-ice age ? Hmmmmmm...

Rebuttal to post #189.

Tom all due respect but the IRS has rewritten nothing since the law gives the states flexibility to cross state lines and partner with other entities in the management and consolidation and certifications of both QHP (qualified healthcare plans) and the consumers that enroll in them.

This also goes to exemption for plans to be grandfathered that already meet the federal criteria for certification and allows for any changes that are negotiated through HHS for those that don't. I will also point out that some who do not lose some credits and subsidies through the tax code unless they make some modifications that are clearly defined but not written in stone and have some flexibility in their continuing to provide insurance to some group coverages. An example of this are those plans that have a multi state consumer base that have different taxing systems but a central taxing jurisdiction.

So lets not take contrary over simplified blog food as accurate on its face.

That will be decided in court . When the constitution says that executive branch decides who can be taxed then the moves made by the emperor will comply with constitutional law. I don't particularly care what wording the Dems added to the 2,000 + word law they shoved down our throats .

Not who, what is taxed. Do you think an employer who bears PARTS of the cost of providing insurance for it's employee should pay the same taxes as those who make part time work and no insurance?

Why should employers be taxed or not based on the benefits they provide ? I don't get the left . They jack up taxes in areas with high unemployment thinking that those decisions will increase employment...

Not who, what is taxed. Do you think an employer who bears PARTS of the cost of providing insurance for it's employee should pay the same taxes as those who make part time work and no insurance?

The mechanics of the situation is if they make more money they pay more tax, I though you liked the situation where the capitalist screwed the little guy and made more money, something about the myth of job creators, well now they are creating part time jobs, sort of sharing the joy around

why should employers be taxed or not based on the benefits they provide ? I don't get the left . They jack up taxes in areas with high unemployment thinking that those decisions will increase employment ...

The left isn't interested in what works, they are totally invested in a government panacea, i.e. they believe in fairy tales.

It never got a vote on the Senate floor after it went to committee, and was rammed through without a vote on a technicality under the pretext it was a budget issue (which it could) and not a law...(which it can't).

They did that because Scott Brown got elected and would have prevented a super-majority.
Yup U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7: But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
This was not done with Obamacare because Ted Kennedy had just been replaced by Scott Brown, who voted Nay to the conference committee bill in the Senate. Reid and Madame Mimi "deemed" it to have been done.

why should employers be taxed or not based on the benefits they provide ? I don't get the left . They jack up taxes in areas with high unemployment thinking that those decisions will increase employment ...

Because benefits are a part of a compensation package to get a worker to work for you. Take away the benefits and replace it with money. Naw, you guys think you can take away the benefits and replace it with less hours.

What would you do if your boss did that to you?

What are you talking about ? If an employee gets a benefit then it's the employee who should be taxed for the "income "... not the employer who gives it.

Then keep your benefits, and give me cash and I will benefit myself. How about that? Well spoken by a fellow that has benefits already right? And of course YOU pay taxes on those benefits too right?

If my benefits are excluded from taxation then I guess the government thinks it's OK to tax my employer instead to compensate for the tax loss ? You see ,under the old arrangement ,employer provided benefits are tax deductible to the employer and non taxable to the employee. But you see taxing the employer as a way to force employers to pay for your policies .

I have been saying all along that employers don't have to pay a tax for rising costs. Even the larger employers are restructuring how they pay for health care and seeing more bang for the buck and saving more money to boot.

Issues in S and T, Summer 2003, Restructuring the U.S. Health Care System (http://www.issues.org/19.4/relman.html)


Such reform, seemingly utopian now, may eventually gain wide support as the failure of market-based health care services to meet the public's need becomes increasingly evident, and as the ethical values of the medical profession continue to erode in the rising tide of commercialism.

Well that's a nice way to put it...

Germany’s Effort at Clean Energy Proves Complex
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw)
Ya think?


It is an audacious undertaking with wide and deep support in Germany: shut down the nation’s nuclear power plants, wean the country from coal and promote a wholesale shift to renewable energy sources.

Irina Lucke spent most of last year on the low sandy island of Borkum in the North Sea supervising the assembly of the 30 soaring turbines that form the wind farm, which probably will not generate electricity until next year.

But the plan, backed by Chancellor Angela Merkel and opposition parties alike, is running into problems in execution that are forcing Germans to come face to face with the costs and complexities of sticking to their principles.

German families are being hit by rapidly increasing electricity rates, to the point where growing numbers of them can no longer afford to pay the bill. Businesses are more and more worried that their energy costs will put them at a disadvantage to competitors in nations with lower energy costs, and some energy-intensive industries have begun to shun the country because they fear steeper costs ahead.

Newly constructed offshore wind farms churn unconnected to an energy grid still in need of expansion. And despite all the costs, carbon emissions actually rose last year as reserve coal-burning plants were fired up to close gaps in energy supplies.

A new phrase, “energy poverty,” has entered the lexicon.

“Often, I don’t go into my living room in order to save electricity,” said Olaf Taeuber, 55, who manages a fleet of vehicles for a social services provider in Berlin. “You feel the pain in your pocketbook.”

Mr. Taeuber relies on just a single five-watt bulb that gives off what he calls a “cozy” glow to light his kitchen when he comes home at night. If in real need, he switches on a neon tube, which uses all of 25 watts.

Mr. Taeuber may not have any light at home but at least he has cleaner air. No wait, emissions actually ROSE last year. So what exactly does he have now? Does anyone care, or are you happy that ridiculous progressive energy policies are taking people back to the stone age?

Well that's a nice way to put it...

Ya think?

Mr. Taeuber may not have any light at home but at least he has cleaner air. No wait, emissions actually ROSE last year. So what exactly does he have now? Does anyone care, or are you happy that ridiculous progressive energy policies are taking people back to the stone age?

It is a fact of life that we are all paying for Thatcher's jaunt into nuclear energy and the fable that Global warming would be the result if we didn't. It must be tough for german's. Here we also know what a 250% increase in power prices means after the society went mad with solar installations but interestingly we haven't built any coal fired power stations or any nuclear ones either and we haven't regressed to the stone age

Well that's a nice way to put it...

Germany’s Effort at Clean Energy Proves Complex
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw)
Ya think?



Mr. Taeuber may not have any light at home but at least he has cleaner air. No wait, emissions actually ROSE last year. So what exactly does he have now? Does anyone care, or are you happy that ridiculous progressive energy policies are taking people back to the stone age?

We are well on our way to a same fate..
New Rules On Power Plants Will Kill Coal Industry - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092013-671984-epa-rules-will-send-energy-costs-up-sharply.htm)

Maybe all those laid off coal workers can get jobs building bridges and roads, to their former plants and mines.

Well maybe they will or they will build wind turbines and nuclear plants

maybe all those laid off coal workers I wonder whatever happened to those horse carriage manufacturers... their jobs should have been preserved!

I wonder whatever happened to those horse carriage manufacturers...their jobs should have been preserved!

Well they became auto workers but what happened to the farriers?

Did they replace the horse carriage before the auto was viable ? The trouble with libs is they put the cart before the horse.

well maybe they will or they will build wind turbines and nuclear plants

Wind turbines are inefficient blights on the landscape . Nukes work for me ;but everyone has developed a phobia about them.

You can continue tqalking with yourself....I was't talking to you then....and you still don't get it...and I'm not talking with you about it either since you don't want to go back and read the conversation....

I understand the part about talking to oneself and the bit about going back and reading the conservation. However, the rest of your sentence is largely unintelligible.

I have already read the conservation and rereading changes nothing in relation to your social Darwinism. I also invited you to defend this position. More specifically in relation to natural order and sterilization

You have the microphone. Go for it.

wind turbines are inefficient blights on the landscape . Nukes work for me ;but everyone has developed a phobia about them.

Tom nuclear is both expensive and as we have seen with Fukashima fraught with problems when things go wrong, not to mention the difficulty of disposal of waste, not enough wars to spread the spent uranium over the planet

Solar is becoming viable but of course only in certain parts of the planet and wind really only blows enough in a few inhospitable places but neither solar or wind are long term solutions. I love hydro myself, build a hydro generator and you have it for a century but the environmentalists won't let you build dams

surprise, surprise!

Now they tell us once again, global warming is actually happening and guess who caused it? I'm wondering why do we need to be told this over and over again, and now there will be no ice at the North Pole in the summer of 2050, well I don't know about you but I don't think I will be here to check whether this prediction comes true and if their predictions are anywhere near true nor will the rest of us because the unstated consequences of that piece of computer extrapolation are somewhat dire and I haven't heard anyone mention permafrost, did they forget about that? No Ice at the poles means massive release of methane and maybe they haven't noticed, it is a greenhouse gas

Another wonderful prediction; Australia will have 100 days above 20 degrees Celsius, guess what, scientific dudes have you asked anyone here what the weather is like, like we have at least 240 days of SUNSHINE now and it is early spring and the temperature is over 20 degrees in some places it is even 33 degrees C

I understand the part about talking to oneself and the bit about going back and reading the conservation. However, the rest of your sentence is largely unintelligible.

I have already read the conservation and rereading changes nothing in relation to your social Darwinism. I also invited you to defend this position. More specifically in relation to natural order and sterilization

You have the microphone. Go for it.

I don't like repeating myself... and I was quite clear the first time.

I don't like repeating myself...and I was quite clear the first time.

Don't worry smoothy, it takes a while for the signal to travel this far we haven't got the NBN yet

I don't like repeating myself...and I was quite clear the first time.


You were not clear the first time. Some parts were decipherable, but the rest was unintelligible. Would you like to have another go at it?

surprise, surprise!

now they tell us once again, global warming is actually happening and guess who caused it? I'm wondering why do we need to be told this over and over again, and now there will be no ice at the North Pole in the summer of 2050, well I don't know about you but I don't think I will be here to check whether this prediction comes true and if their predictions are anywhere near true nor will the rest of us because the unstated consequences of that piece of computer extrapolation are somewhat dire and I haven't heard anyone mention permafrost, did they forget about that? No Ice at the poles means massive release of methane and maybe they haven't noticed, it is a greenhouse gas

Another wonderful prediction; Australia will have 100 days above 20 degrees celcius, guess what, scientific dudes have you asked anyone here what the weather is like, like we have at least 240 days of SUNSHINE now and it is early spring and the temperature is over 20 degrees in some places it is even 33 degrees C

Throughout history the 'end of the world ' 'chicken little's' have been disappointed periodically that their predictions have not come true. So although this new IPPC report greatly dials back the alarm;they just can't help themselves in keeping their basic premise in tack ( warming is man made.. the science is settled... people who don't believe their orthodoxy are "deniers " [a not so subtle attempt to smear them with the same pejorative used for holocaust deniers] ) . Call it job security . The east side a Manhattan can be a great place to work ,and most government and nonprofit funding has gone to global warming alarmists .

You were not clear the first time. Some parts were decipherable, but the rest was unintelligible. Would you like to have another go at it?

If you are as intelligent as you think, you could figure it out.

Throughout history the 'end of the world ' 'chicken little's' have been disappointed periodically that their predictions have not come true. So although this new IPPC report greatly dials back the alarm;they just can't help themselves in keeping their basic premise in tack ( warming is man made ....,the science is settled.... people who don't believe their orthodoxy are "deniers " [a not so subtle attempt to smear them with the same pejorative used for holocaust deniers] ) . Call it job security . The east side a Manhattan can be a great place to work ,and most government and nonprofit funding has gone to global warming alarmists .

Funny how they retreat on previous claims but up the ante saying our only hope is geo-engineering.. Even odder is their apparent deep concern on how to address the actual data that puts a huge scientific kink in their agenda... yes, we can admit the politics of global warming trumps the science (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/20/climate_report_struggles_with_temperature_quirks_1 20017.html).

If you are as intelligent as you think, you could figure it out.

I don't think I am intelligent and at no stage have I ever made such a claim.

Hello again,

I wonder how the round earthers dealt with the flat earthers. At some point, they just ignored them. That's were we are. We're moving ahead despite your lives in la la land.

excon

Yes ex life continues as we know it, at least until 2020 after that you are on your own

Hello again,

I wonder how the round earthers dealt with the flat earthers. At some point, they just went ahead and ignored them. That's were we are. We're moving ahead despite your lives in la la land.

excon

Interesting comment coming from the side worried about the political fallout over the science not supporting their alarmism.

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.
[Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.
[Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.]

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/)

MIT? Oh they're full of flat earthers.

There is always a calm before the storm. I suggest we keep watching and make preparations just in case.

There is always a calm before the storm. I suggest we keep watching and make preparations just in case.

We bought a bag of ice.

I rather like warmer weather myself...

I rather like warmer weather myself....

Yes smoothy but all the ice gathers are going to be out of business

Yes smoothy but all the ice gathers are going to be out of business

Naw... there is that nagging problem of the Polar Ice packs being larger than ever in recorded history... thing like facts get in the way of the average rants of the lefties and environazis..

Naw....there is that nagging problem of the Polar Ice packs being larger than ever in recorded history....thing like facts get in the way of the average rants of the lefties and environazis..

Yes but it is a long way to the poles to gather ice, what we have here is people wanting their own local supply of ice. If they keep going the way they are they just might get it.

What I note is the IPCC haven't noted the advances in coping with their perceived problems just reinteration of the problem, the never ending problem

Personaly I up for a round of shoot the messenger

I would rather focus on the relationship that changing weather patterns have on humans, animals, birds, insects, and all the critters of land, sea and air.

Ever wonder why people build where the forest burns every year? Or in a flood zone? Or a tornado alley? They know its coming, yet the build there any way.

I can say that my house is built in a place that could potentially burn in a forest fire. I wouldn't have it any other way . I am willing to pay the risk in insurance costs . What I would not do is beg the Federal government to pay to rebuild my home in the event of a disaster .

Good luck with the insurance company replacing your home and the stuff in it.

But I hope you and yours don't have to go through it to be honest.

Good luck with the insurance company replacing your home and the stuff in it.

But I hope you and yours don't have to go thru it to be honest.

Thanks . I had a house fire related to my fireplace. The insurance company gave me no issues on replacement costs. Nor did they give me issues for damages related to Sandy .

I would rather focus on the relationship that changing weather patterns have on humans, animals, birds, insects, and all the critters of land, sea and air.

Ever wonder why people build where the forest burns every year? Or in a flood zone? Or a tornado alley? They know its coming, yet the build there any way.

Weather patterns have existed and have been changing before the first forms of life existed on this planet... and they will be changing eons after the human race has died off... most likely as a result of lowest common denominator interbreeding.

But I hope you and yours don't have to go thru it to be honest.

Yes been there done that and wouldn't want to do it again, therefore I now live in a house that would take a bulldozer to damage it and I no long live in a area where a serious fire could start. Once I was young and stupid but no more.Today we have fire weather, high winds, higher than average temperatures, school holidays all factors that are high risk

Wait.. the next crisis celeb will be earthquakes are caused by taking too many potatoes out of the ground. Dreamed up By the save the spud federation.

That can only happen where the potato is native so good luck with stopping the consumption of spuds. If you do you will solve two crises, Earthquakes and Obesity

My personal theory is the earthquakes are caused by obese people and therefore we need immediate rationing. One spud a day, meat one day a week, pork only once a month and we must stop murdering the ubicuitous chicken before it attains maturity

My house has been in tornado alley for over 60 years and I've been in it over 40, so far it's never been hit by a tornado.

Hello again,

I'll bet the flat earthers joked about those dumb round earthers too..

I won't try to convince you that science is REAL.. But, I WILL make fun of you.

excon

Pejoratives is the only argument the AGW crowd has left since all the climate models ,crafted with bogus data, have been debunked .

Ex it depends what science you are speaking about, what is real is temperatures are rising and climate is changing, ten thousand years ago the same thing happened and man was not involved. Now we think we have the power to change everything, this is pseudo or voodoo science, I haven't decided which yet but I do know enough about computer modelling to know garbage in, garbage out

Ex it depends what science you are speaking about, what is real is temperatures are rising and climate is changing, ten thousand years ago the same thing happened and man was not involved. Now we think we have the power to change everything, this is pseudo or voodoo science, I haven't decided which yet but I do know enough about computer modelling to know garbage in, garbage out

Except average global tempratures have been falling... not rising...

Met office proof that global warming is still 'on pause' as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html)

Except average global tempratures have been falling...not rising....

Met office proof that global warming is still 'on pause' as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html)

The problem here Tom is we are falling for the three card trick, speaking about short term averages and in generalities. We have just passed through the hotest September on record here and yet we have had cooler wetter summers, very confusing. The reality is that in some places temperatures are higher but the oceans have become a heat sink and we don't know where this leads. We should have had an el nino by now but although there might be early indications it hasn't happened. I am a skeptic because I don't believe the modelling, I think it is deeply flawed, but long term studies tell us there is variability and we don't know the dimensions of this

Hello again,

I'll bet the flat earthers joked about those dumb round earthers too..

I won't try to convince you that science is REAL.. But, I WILL make fun of you.

excon

Ex, the flat earther is you. You keep ignoring the science has shown the alarmism was uncalled for, the computer models were wrong, and the politics trump the science.

It's like all you need to know about Obamacare is the people that wrote it don't want it, the people crying wolf when it comes to AGW are looking for ways to spin the fact that their 'science' was wrong.