Clete I'm suprised you still believe in the Ehrlich Malthusian lie.

really tom what makes you think that, ...?

World populations to stop growing in 2050? - Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-05/news/38306527_1_mortality-rate-world-population-uam)

But how would you enforce your new moral restrictions?

Start with segregation and enforced birth control until 25 years of age and a limit on procreation say no more than two children. It puts the abortion industry out of business and introduces some sense into the process but more would be needed, we need a complete change in the moral fabric of the societyIs this what you preach on your christian radio station?
Scary stuff.

No karma I was asked for a personal opinion but I certainly would preach that we need a complete change in the moral fabric of our society if we are going to solve our problems. heddonism is the problem which leds to unwanted pregnancies, etc, etc, etc. at least I'm prepared to say so

I think it's more the lack of caring parenting. Parents now are chasing the appearance of wealth as the main goal of life, kids be damned.

Here we go with this MORALS thing which of course means YOUR morals you want everyone to fall in line with and the deviants are condemned to hell. Good Luck with that.

I see the problem as a logistical one, and the problem of hoarding resources is the root cause of the problem.

when all is said and done ,the human race will regret it's genocidal infanticide .

I think we will regret making abortions obsolete with science instead of religious zealotry, the same dynamic that drives wars and conflicts. Both a waste of human resource.

Tom have you read that article 15.8 billion as a high estimate, no doubt brought to us by the same brilliant minds who brought us AGW modelling

Tal there is a lot of waste of human resource, I suggest you mobilise the waste of human resource you have all around you as a start, it might lead to less abortions

Science and education lead to less abortions, so educate yourself. Or ask the educated females. LOL, Clete, you probably waste as much of your human resources around you as you say we do so what's your problem?

Never mind, you obviously think with your hate and prejudice, and identify paradise and morality with the smell of your own farts. Must be nice to ignore your own stink, and criticize everyone else's. Typical of fundamentalists everywhere.

Tal I ignore nothing each of us must start reform in their own backyard, not be reactionary when it is suggested that is what we should do. You think education and feminism stops abortions, you should let your head see daylight once in while. As to being a fundamentalist, yes I have some views that are only reinforced by what I see in society, particularly "western" society typified by the views of some

I said education and science. Where did feminism come from? Fundamentalist are a closed minded lot that only see what reinforces what they believe.

That is a world view that doesn't allow for any view but your own, you see there are many closed minded people in this world. fundamentalists see the world with a particular world view, that it has moved far from a desirable path,

It's widely regarded as a weed. But the tiny fern Azolla once saved the planet from runaway climate change. Can it do it again? | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/its-widely-regarded-as-a-weed-but-the-tiny-fern-azolla-once-saved-the-planet-from-runaway-climate-change-can-it-do-it-again/story-fnjwvztl-1226991748938)

So there you have it, we don't need those renewables afterall, we can take our time developing them and we don't need stupid market mechanisms that increase the costs either. I know this won't please those who see a tax as a solution to everything and it won't please those who think the market is the answer to everything. but it will be a win for the rest of us sufferring humanity. We can go back to using coal and oil and life can return to normal. Think of the jobs being saved and employment will jump in azolla plantations

This stuff has so many uses, I wonder if it can be converted to fuel

Kudos to the Aussies .

Australia Repeals Carbon Tax Under Tony Abbott In Smart Policy Move - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071814-709543-abbott-repeals-australia-carbon-tax.htm)

yes indeed we have removed a socialist initiative, one that cost the ordinary person dearly, but we are far from dismantelling their objective

Tomder quote.

'Kudos to the Aussies".

Yes, strange how we manage to get things done.

Less even though we have our own brand of B/S we are reasonable people

because we have envirowacko extremists in control of most of the government ;including the unelected 4th branch ;the massive bureaucracy .

and I understand your obscession with firearms, but I still think they need to be controlled. I watch an interesting doco tracing Alexander's footsteps and it revealed the consequence of climate change on a massive scale, proving, in my opinion, that what we are seeing is a long term trend, not some five minute abberation

Fundamentalist are a closed minded lot that only see what reinforces what they believe.

As opposed to the open-mindedness of libs?? Bwahahahaha!!!

Arrest Climate-Change Deniers (http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)

Tim Cook to Climate Skeptic Group: Get Out of Apple Stock (http://mashable.com/2014/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-climate-change/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfMDhlcHZ0N3llaDFpbzBobjBrb2xt dF8ifQ)

Letter: Climate change deniers' words are lies that shouldn't be printed (http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20140226/OPINION03/302260082/Letter-Climate-change-deniers-words-lies-shouldn-t-printed?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1)

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers (http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staff_ordered_to_stop_giving_equal_air_time_to _climate_deniers/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)

Screw free speech! Al Gore is pleased that Reddit is censoring ‘climate deniers’ (http://twitchy.com/2013/12/17/screw-free-speech-al-gore-is-pleased-that-reddit-is-censoring-climate-deniers/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter)

"We’ve tolerated the deniers for far too long in this body,” Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Moonbattery) (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/senate-panel-democrats-bash-climate-change-deniers-84412.html)

Skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity” (http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/05/12/penn-state-climate-ethics-prof-donald-brown-says-skeptics-are-guilty-of-a-new-crime-against-humanity-for-delaying-action-on-global-warming-it-is-really-evil-stuff-it-is-nasty/)

CLIMATE ALARMIST CALLS FOR BURNING DOWN SKEPTICS’ HOMES (http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/)

NASA’s Global Warming Fanatic James Hansen: Skeptics of Our Junk Science Are Guilty of “Crimes Against Humanity" (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/23/climate-sceptic-lawson-thinktank-funding)

A little bit of media rhetoric there speech, I expect that when you look at what was actually said it wasn't as strong. I'm not a climate change denier, I recognise it is happening, I'm just not signed on to the single cause/solution debate. Evidence I see from a number of sources point not only to man made impacts but to something much more long term and beyond our control

I suppose Dinosaurs were responsible for the much higher tempratures when they were around, farting breathing all that air. Apparently driving around in Fred Flintstonemobiles.

Undoubtedly there might of been more carbon dioxide at that time due to volcanic activity and other explanations we were not there to observe, but to suggest that the dinosaurs had any impact on their climate is a adle brained as suggesting we have the ability to reverse what is happening at the moment. What seems to have escaped attention is that in between the time of the dinosaur and now there has been an ice age or ice ages on planet Earth and we are now post ice age and have been only for a very short time, The Earth continues to warm up getting back to a norm we have no real idea about, this is what we are observing and concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are part of that.

Undoubtedly populations who have taken over territory made available by the big freeze are greatly aggrieved at the thought that they might have to move again but nothing is forever as even the city of Las Vegas is about to find out, and no amount of hand wringing and emotive wailing is going to change anything

Exactly... actually there is ample proof the last few hundred years has been an unusual WET period for the south west and its just returning to normal

The ruins from the Anasazi indians proves it...as well as some very old trees in the region.

Yes there are shifting climate patterns on your continent as the events leading to the Dust Bowl of the thirties tesitfy too. It seems there were a number of populations who inexplicably suffered decline, not only there, but in other parts of the world, things were much hotter and wetter in the time of the greeks and vast areas of Asia are now desert which were once flourishing but we have this silly idea that what we have is utopia and must be preserved at all costs. We have forgotten that vast populations moved west for a reason which could generally be described as climate change but those populations have now reached the pacific and have nowhere to go

A little bit of media rhetoric there speech, I expect that when you look at what was actually said it wasn't as strong.

Um, calling for the arrest and punishment of skeptics, threatening to burn down their homes, accusing them of "crimes against humanity"? Sounds pretty strong to me.

Nothing but cheap talk.

Nothing but cheap talk

Shoe on the other foot...

it's just rabble rousing, the lot of it and with this subject there is no shortage of rabble

it's just rabble rousing

No, these people are serious and seriously unhinged. Meanwhile, the feds are seizing vehicles (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/1/feds-raid-sc-home-to-seize-land-rover-in-epa-emiss/) to save the world from climate change.

That's not why they are seizing vehicles - nice spin.

If they are seizing vehicles to stop climate change they are going to need a big car park

Bet it turns up in the Driveway of some EPA official...

I would expect any 1985 car still on the road would not comply with today's standards and the article said 40 vehicles were seized, so smoothy it is unlikely it will turn up on someone's driveway, but this looks like a fishing expedition or maybe the vehicle was reported for blowing smoke

as far as emission s goes ;if it doesn't comply it fails inspection. But then the article goes on to talk of imports with altered VIN . That's a different subject unrelated to emissions . Do they mean that cars with altered VIN that pass emissions tests are acceptable ? Altered VIN usually means there was a car theft.

Yes Tom it might be a rebirthed vehicle imported and given a new engine

nice spin.

Thank you.

Vehicles over 25 years old can be imported into the USA, WITHOUT having to comply with either emmissions or safety standards applicable for that year. They are legally antiques.

In fact a 25 year old vehicle at least in the state of Virginia, which has one of the tougher emissions testing programs, being run on a dynamometer duing the testing.. becomes exempt... as one of my vehicles a 1989 became with this year.

Meaning you can import that 1989 or older right had drive Nissan Skyline LEGALLY without expensive conversions....assuming you can find one..

You want one we can probably find one for you I saw one the other day

Been lusting after them for many years... must cost a fortune to ship a car from Australia to the USA or vice versa.

Don't know but they do import classic cars here from the US of course we do have the problem of conversion

The war is hotting up ahead of the UN meeting as it always does, this time Australians are being told of the aweful cost of inaction in dollar terms, $200 billion, and the whole story is completely dishonest because no matter what we do it won't make one iota of difference, we are already on target to achieve a 20% reduction in emissions and more, and yet the rabid dogs of the climate debate say we are not doing enough as if anything we do matters, mean while the antarctic sea ice is as large as it has ever been and growing. What I say is go tell it to the northern hemishere we have heard enough and our Prime Minister can't even be bothered to attend the meeting, he knows the truth and has more important things to do than listen to rubbish, such as engage in a real war and pacify the natives

there have been fewer warming years than cooling years in the time that it has been measured by satellite . No one's chief minister is going to attend this joke of a meeting because the climate scare mongers have been discredited .
Obama's Lonely Climate Summit – world leaders are staying home | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/obamas-lonely-climate-summit-world-leaders-are-staying-home/)

Hello tom:

I dunno... 125 heads of state ain't chopped liver.

UN climate summit to host 125 heads of state | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/217698-un-climate-summit-to-bring-120-heads-of-state)

excon

Welcome back :-)

Just like his eventual executive fiat on immigration laws ;the emperor plans on delaying his war on energy until after the November elections. This news came from a conference call with reporters and the EPA ;extending the public comment period about new rules cutting carbon emissions from power plants until December.
I guess after the elections he'll have more "flexibility "to impose his dictates .

He also wants to impose a UN climate treaty on the nation while by-passing the Constitutional requirments of a Senate approval.
Obama looks to skip Senate on new UN climate change deal | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/216044-obama-bypassing-congress-on-un-climate-action)

About time you guys came on board

it's bs and your carbon control regulations are bs too.

Yes Tom there Is a lot of it going around these days, but don't forget we have wound back a lot of regulation recently

btw nice of the emperor to go to Queensland lecturing the Aussies on climate change . wtg bogus Potus !
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obamas_climate_posturing_weakens_the_us_helps_chin a_and_betrays_australia/)

He now is officially the US rep to the Aussie Greens

Thanks Tom if Julie Bishop hadn't raised it we would have considered his remarks as irrelevant and rabble rousing among University students, but I expect he was bolstering his case for his "initiatives" against a recalcicant Tony Abbott who has no intention of stepping up and contributing to an international fund when Australia already has over 20% renewable energy generation, is meeting its targets and is closing coal fire power stations that's 500 MW gone.

Lights out at Wallerawang Power Station | Western Advocate (http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/2187882/lights-out-at-wallerawang-power-station/)

We have yet to commit to long term targets but I expect that when we do they will be significant, but we understand that what ever we do it has little impact just maybe 0.2% of world emissions. We may have high per capita emissions but in real terms we represent very little. It is China who has commiteed to nothing except peaking in 2030 by which time they will be 50% of world emissions that he needs to take on, not us

I expect he was deflecting attention from his corporate pals who we were insisting on targeting in multinational tax avoidance in the G20 it is interesting that he thinks climate change is important when it rates 17 in a survey of current issues

he has all but announced that he is taking the cloak off and going full kook fringe for the next 2 years

Yes no doubt he has some reforms he sees as his "legacy". This is the sort of thing that becomes pecular to those who are "king for a year or two" and that is the result of the personality cult that surrounds your presidency. His immigration inititatives may be a ploy to get congress to act but I doubt his ability to get them to adopt his policy on emissions, so I expect we can look forward to more edicts

His immigration inititatives may be a ploy to get congress to act but I doubt his ability to get them to adopt his policy on emissions, so I expect we can look forward to more edicts
it is absolutely a ploy. He is making suckers of everyone left and right. His edict holds no weight . If it did ,he'd have it enforceable on Jan 1. Instead his own White House memo mentions enrollment some time in the Spring. It's a big bluff to get Congress to pass an immigration bill he wants .
If he does go through with this then I just hope President Walker in 2017 tell the country " I don't like the capital gains tax and I'm directing the IRS to not collect it " .

" I don't like the capital gains tax and I'm directing the IRS to not collect it " .


Very droll Tom, a refreshing commentary on the tax debate, I wonder if it possible for him to change tax rates by decree, has it every been tested? But he could direct the EPA to close under preforming power stations or decree that 50% of energy distributed must come from renewable sources

Just a little commentary of the subjest of climate change down under where the balmy trade (cyclonic) winds blow

It took only two days for Abbott's 'conversion' to climate change to be exposed (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/it-took-only-two-days-for-abbotts-conversion-to-climate-change-to-be-exposed-20141121-11rimq.html)

To draw an analogy Florida has the same unfortunate location in relation to violent storms as does the Great Barrier Reef. It would be rediculaous to suggest that the people of Florida unilaterally act to reduce emissions to reduce the incidence and severity of those storms and equally ridiculous to suggest than any action to reduce emissions by Australia has any impact on the Great Barrier Reef. This is bleeding heart politics at its worst. Yes, we must take action to protect the reef but that action is reduction in agricultural runoff, sedimentation, shipping transit, pollution. The crown of thorns star fish, which was a problem long before climate change became popular, is the major reason for reef degradation. This is a natural process, coral grows, they eat it, now if we found a way to harvest and use the star fish that would be a sustainable solution and right up there with harvesing and using that other pest, the cane toad, a far more important problem for Australia's animals than climate change

Pipe that in your smoke and stick it, Obama, it will make a change from that slow working dope in use

.could direct the EPA to close under preforming power stations or decree that 50% of energy distributed must come from renewable sources

Droll indeed ,but it does illustrate the Pandora's box he is opening . He is not taking executive action here to support existing law ....he is taking it to change existing law.
One recent example here in NY is the Sandanista Mayor Di Blasio has announced that NY cops will no longer bust pot heads that are carrying less than 25 gm . This is ;whether I like it or not , legitimate 'prosecutorial digression' .He is not saying that it is now legal to carry . He's just prioritizing the police work .
If he was doing it like the emperor ,then not only would having 25 gm of pot be legal . But the government would subsidize your purchase . He'd change the law .
This is what the emperor is doing and it definitely exceeds his constitutional authority .

The emperor and the EPA are acting stupidly on the coal industry . They have grandfathered in exemptions to old inefficient coal plants and have stopped permits for new modern designed ones. This is exactly the opposite from what they should be doing . They should fast track the closing of old plants and allowing the construction of modern plants with scrubbers and carbon capture devices .
Renewables have their niche but they alone cannot replace carbon based energy . It's funny .... this European probe Philae is now dead in a gully on the comet 67P because it is solar powered and has landed in a shady area . New Horizons in contrast is nuke powered ,and is about the be waken from hibernation to explore Pluto and it's environs.
I'm not saying that Rosetta's mission was a failure . It was in fact a remarkable achievement landing on a comet . However ,had Philae the ability to tap into more traditional power systems ,perhaps as a back up ,then the mission would've had a longer life span.
Plus solar and wind are no where's near the panacea that people think they are . Mining the minerals for those leaves their own foot print on the planet .

Geez Tom they launched that probe 10 years ago!

no they launched Rosetta 10 years ago . Philae had a very short flight . It lasted as long as it's battery pack
.

Tom you and I know nuclear energy has its place and yes Rosetta could have been given more thought, but it was first and who knew there were shadows on comets? Well just about anyone who stands in the shade, but I digress. They just didn't think much beyond existing satellite technology but they also envisaged a scenario where they were getting closer to the sun. Pluto is so far away solar energy was impractiable from the start.

Back here on terra firma there are serious issues to be addressed and executive orders to place emphasis on what's important, because bureaucrats are such dullards, might be needed. You see often legislation is written or enacted by dullards and you get these catch all situations that don't always address reality, like deporting eleven million illegals and leaving children with rights destitute.

None of this addresses the serious issue of climate change and the practicalities of living with the outcomes. Building codes may need to be changed because of the probability of more violent and frequent weather events, greater emphasis might be needed on flood mitigation, undergrounding power lines to avoid storm damage. We have a lobby which focuses attention only in one area and ignores the rest and the fact remains remove all coal fired power stations immediately and the planet will still continue to warm for a century. I believe we are actually beyond the tipping point but not building more coal fired power stations is a strategy and we have to build fast breeder reactors for base load power. hey why are we not burning the methane that is being released from the perma frost?

now you sound like an alarmist . there has been NO warming of the planet in the last 18 years . That means you can trash 73 UN climate models . That pretty much equals the last 20 year warming period . Before that, there was 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age.

No Tom I'm being practical, what I observe is we are seeing more extremes and that was predicted. Yes it is difficult to definitatively say that any particular event is the result of AGW or climate change but things are different. Where I live there has not been snow on the ground in a long time in places where we know snow existed a century ago. No one builds a house with snow roof here anymore. We are seeing temperatures in the high 30's and 40's, celsius that is, in November. During the G20 in Brisbane temperatures were excessive followed a few days later by a serious weather event. Somewhat unusual and various places are experiencing extreme weather events. Maybe our news services are better but the perception is there is a lot more of it. I don't trust the records of temperature either way because the readings are compromised. Didn't you experience a severe weather event in North America last week, I thought that was blamed on hot air from the Pacific destabilising the jet stream

where I live we are entering the second drought in a decade and lakes which survived the earlier drought are drying up so while overall global temperatures may statiscally be static in certain parts of the world they are higher. this graph refutes your claim

46858

However there are signs of change and while I don't think we can change anything, we should adapt

"Now you sound like an alarmist. There has been no warming of the planet in the last 18 years. That means you can trash the 73 UN climate models. That pretty much pretty much equals the last 20 year warming period."

Tom, you obviously don't live in Australia. And yes, I know what is happening weather wise in the US.

Hi Tut, no Tom lives in NY and is no doubt right in the middle of last weeks weather event, I wonder if he has dug himself out yet and I'm very glad we don't get that much snow. Fact is many people, including myself remain skeptical about climate change, particularly the panic to reverse the effect. I don't think we have that much influence, and remember I didn't say no influence. The last two years where I live have been mild summers and I think that has been the influence of volcanic activity and now we are out in the open once again and it is hot. We have just seen the impact on family budgets of the panic to do something in the form of a trading scheme and I know many people don't appreciate the escalation in costs. We live in the now and many of us from week to week and it is government that should bear the cost of change not the consumer and I endorse Abbott's view in this regard

cause and effect; power generators have benefited from a least cost model and they and their stakeholders and corporate customers should bear the cost of cleaning up the mess not the consumer

what happened in Buffalo is called a lake effect storm. That happened because the path Typhoon Nuri took brought it up to the Arctic where it pushed an Arctic Cold front down to the US sooner than normal . That cold air moved across the Great Lakes (specifically Lake Erie ) .The waters of the Great Lakes are still relatively warm. A lake effect storm is when cold air moves over a large lake of warm water . It picks up moisture along the way and freezes it . It deposits the snow /ice etc leeward. There have always been lake effect storms and always will be.

Yes Tom and that is pretty much the view on many of the other supposed AGW effects, there have always been storms, droughts, floods, hot weather, cold weather, need I go on? But there has also been much more ice in the Arctic and much larger glaciers. Which takes me back to my original statement; if there is going to be change we should be working on adapting now, moving buildings back from low shorelines, adapting building codes, undergrounding power, flood control and mitigating impacts through alternative energy where practicable. After cyclone Tracy in 1975 Australia moved to change building codes to cyclone proof new buildings, that's the sort of adaptation needed, forward thinking. I have no doubt cave man thought there would always be seas at the level they were and vast ice fields

I hear now that the brits have a problem with wind generators, apparently they mess up air traffic control radar, I expect a solution will be to fit transponders to every tower but we will see.

they also kill sea birds in Britain and endangered bald eagles here . It's a conundrum for the enviro-wackos.

There are always tradeoffs in environmental issues, Tom, otherwise we would be a complete standstill, So I expect those are blind eagles, not bald eagles. We haven't experienced a big bird kill here but there are noice complaints about windmills and long term psychological effects of living nearby. To paraphase an old saying "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs" you can't cleanup the environment without disturbing someone

personally I think the towers are a nuisance, there are long impacts on roads and highways from transporting components, a certain amount of rural land becomes unproductive. There are additional high tension power lines and unexpected impacts on communities and their operation is limited to available wind

the blind animal killed by wind turbines are bats ....yes even in Australia.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/where-eagles-dare-not-fly-waterloo-looms-as-wind-farms-power-town-revolt/story-e6frg6nf-1226334835470?nk=d74c4c169c35ead93a6b55e5e4775dc4)

Even a comment by a local newspaper, yes our animals and birds aren't immune but hey we could do with a few less bats the ones we have cause nuisance and disease. I expect their numbers have grown since different varieties of fruit etc have increased. I expect that report is the result of dudd environmental impact study before the windmills were allowed. It'a a big industry in South Australia which doesn't have a lot going for it at the moment so i expect they have traded eagles and bats for employment

but the cookes are out, yolkless eggs as a consequence of wind farms. They should be a boon to the slimming industry

Google is pulling the plug on its investment in renewable energy because the technology doesn't work. Now they aren't science deniers . These were scientists hired by Google for the expressed purpose to convert to renewables. Goggle invested a lot of resources into it's project. They boasted they would prove that wind and solar power were not just good for the environment, but that solar energy could be produced profitably on a mass scale to replace coal and natural gas.
Bill Weihl said that within 3 years they would be producing mega-watts from their power plants.
These plants today don't exist and Weihl is gone . They could not even generate enough energy to service their own operation let alone a town or city .

These days renewables supplement the grid ,but will not come close to a dominant role in our lifetime. Like it or not ,we will be dependent on coal ,gas ,oil (and even nukes) long past the time frame of the doom and gloomers predictions. Yes ,continue investments in research of renewables . However the engineers should concentrate on making carbon based energy as clean and efficient as it can be.

Tom we need different kinds of renewable not these highly polluting technologies where there is no net sum gain. Wave energy should be developed rapidly, the surface available for generation is emence and there can be a by-product of fresh water production, and it is base load,

It doesn't surprise me that the gloss is off solar and wind, when I was doing project evaluation it was quite apparent that these were high cost solutions. Nuclear is the only logical short term base load solution if they want to take emissions out of the equation

Nuclear is the only logical short term base load solution if they want to take emissions out of the equation yup ,but that well has been poisoned . Maybe more investment in fusion . The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor may be the key to unlock that door .

Google is pulling the plug on its investment in renewable energy because the technology doesn't work. Really?
Investments ? Google Green (http://www.google.ca/green/energy/investments/)

Google Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Energy)

In Texas: Google Makes 15th Renewable Energy Investment In Texas | CleanTechnica (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/15/google-make-15th-renewable-energy-investment-texas/)

Bill Weihl left in 2011, did you know that? Do you know where he is now?

Yes I was aware of the timeline. The reason this became current was from this editorial last week from some of the lead scientists/engineers on the project .


“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change)

But you totally lied about Google pulling the plug on it's investments. Plus you lied about why that executive left the company. This is not unexpected from us who have been here a while.

wrong again. Weihl left in failure. He did not achieve his goals.He gave the typical bs comment when he left to join Facebook , “It’s time to move on and find something new” ....This after investing $850 million of Goggle's money on renewables .After he boasted that "In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there."
CEO Larry Page ended the failed RE<C as part of and effort to eliminate non-core ventures.... what he called “spring cleaning, out of season.”

Source? I provided mine to show that Google is still investing full steam ahead.
Your lies are tiresome.

Never mind, I've found your source for you: http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2011/11/more-spring-cleaning-out-of-season.html
They closed one initiative and published the results for all. Doesn't sound like they pulled the plug on their renewable energy efforts like you posted, in fact they are pushing harder.

Why is it that you love to sound the failure alarm all the time?

Your lies are tiresome. by all means ignore my postings and I'll ignore your insults . I gave my source the scientists who worked on the project .

Yes I was aware of the timeline. The reason this became current was from this editorial last week from some of the lead scientists/engineers on the project .



What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change)

Tom thanks for that article, it says exactly what I have been saying
To summarise;
Today's renewables aren't the annswer
Find a zero carbon technology
Replant trees
Expect the effects to last along time

Sometimes I think I'm talking to a wall

Tom, ignoring your posting is actually a good idea because it is an attempt at quote mining. Ellipsis dots are used to leave out sections of a text without altering the meaning. You misrepresented the reason why by way of false implication. As N.K. says you want to make it sound like they are pulling the plug on renewables- hence your selective quoting.

The article says what is required is a different economic. The different approach is not a ditching of the idea of renewables.

I don't see anything Google does as relevant. Anything they do would be for marketing impact anyway or have a business case that provided them benefits so you can't use their actions as a endorsement of anything. It is like saying that because I don't buy green energy I'm a Climate Change denier. Fact is I acknowledge change, I'm just not sold on the solutions proposed, or their impacts, or even the extent to which man is responsible. If I put a solar array on my roof it will be because it lowers my energy cost not because I think I can make one iota of difference to emissions.

Getting back to the main debate; why is climate change happening and what can we do about it? Deforestation is one of the great contributors, not only in emissions from burning off, but reduction of the carbon sink and enlarging the extent of arid areas and thus the accumulation of heat. It is a double wammy changing local patterns and impacting global systems. We have got to stop thinking of Climate Change in terms of co2 emissions and think about the other push factors. We can reverse deforestation, it is one positive thing we can do, and if that means the soy bean and palm oil industries go belly up. Though! We can attack methane emissions by insisting on capture technology in the extractive industries, the days of gas flares in the oil and gas industry should be long gone as should the venting to atmosphere of coal mines. These are not least cost operations and if it makes some industries uneconomic. Tough! But it is all for no avail while China roles on without dealing with its industries. Peaking in 2030, what a joke! Where were the howls of protest. Not from OBAMA, Not from the UN lackeys. This was seen as a "historic" agreement. The same sort of agreement Chamberlain made. An agreement to do nothing. In such a climate why should the rest of us do anything?

It is really hard to say with any model what exactly happens when changes occur. All we really can do is look at the past and try to determine our future based on patterns.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations (http://aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm)

Yes dad but the Climate Change lobby rejects any suggestion this is part of a long term cycle or on going warming since the Ice Age. Our God complex has kicked in and they think we can change things. I think the planet will change things, the conveyor will shut down and a refreeze will occur because Ice is the dominant weather pattern

or you can craft a hockey stick model and fix problems by " hiding the decline" and inconvenient dips of cooling periods .
Hide the decline - satire on global warming alarmists - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Well I just guess we do nothing until we can't breathe the air, drink the water, or grow food before we do a damn thing! Great plan, just keep counting money until then.

Tom the inconvenient truth is not that we have runaway climate change, it is that we aren't willing to weigh all the facts, we want to grasp certain facts that will deliver commercial gain or vested environmental outcomes.

Tom I see where you get your facts from, the same place others get their facts from

Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw)

that video is not available here . But yes ,there actually are climate scientists who don't sign on to the orthodoxy ..or as the Goracle calls it 'consensus' .

Really I accessed it from the same site that was running the ones you included in your post, I guess the URL isn't valid or perhaps the climate change lobby has struck again and destroyed the evidence

I found it on an alternate link . Thankfully there are some scientists with integrity .
Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8du_xfPeU)

Because of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNg7iO3db7k

Here is the link to it Tom.

Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8du_xfPeU)

Are we going to talk HAARP again, karma,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNg7i03db7k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?=HNg7i03db7k)

Well resourced N.K.

I thought all along global warming was man made. So now we know for sure.

It is from a reputable source. It's undeniable.

Tutt ,surprised you are playing along with that nonsense.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/30/Point_over_your_head.jpg

Maybe the semantics is what confuses the debate. I call it POLLUTION plain and simple. We all know who does that don't we?

NK The real point is that with almost 2 decades of no warming, some true climate scientists have begun to rethink their assumptions and are breaking free of the bonds of the orthodoxy that has no place in science .

You on the other hand just double down on irrelevant nonsense . But it is what we have come to expect from you . Tutt usually doesn't sink to your levels .

Tal do you believe that C02 is pollution ?

I know for FACT it is poison for oxygen breathing life on earth if in sufficient quantities, and yes humans produce this in higher quantities than nature. It is one of many pollutants, and that's just science which you can prove at home rather easily by trying to breathe it yourself.

Let me know how that works out for you. Destroying the balance of nature (in the air, water, or earth) will kill life. Another FACT. OPINIONS don't matter, and you can deny scientific facts all you want.

Carbon Dioxide Comfort Levels (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html)

dangerous co2 levels humans articles Meltdata.com (http://www.meltdata.com/articles/dangerous-co2-levels-humans.html)

Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm)

CO2 – Why 450 ppm is Dangerous and 350 ppm is Safe | Bob Willard - Sustainability Advantage (http://sustainabilityadvantage.com/2014/01/07/co2-why-450-ppm-is-dangerous-and-350-ppm-is-safe/)

You are obviously NOT a scientist, neither am I but I would listen to them before I would Sarah Palin (drill baby drill) and her ilk.

duh yes it's toxic if we try to breathe pure C02 . However you breathe it every day and it hasn't killed you yet . It is present around 0.02 percent to 0.04 percent of the air you breathe . You falsely equate c02 with soot emission .Calling C02 a pollutant is what is unscientific .

Tal, in excessive quantities OXYGEN is poisonous to oxygen breathing life.

oxygen toxicity - definition of oxygen toxicity by Medical dictionary (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/oxygen+toxicity)

What you really need to watch out for is that Dihydrogen Monoxide. That stuff'll kill you.

Drowning Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatments and Causes - RightDiagnosis.com (http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/d/drowning/intro.htm)

You are correct about the balance being the key. What most of the Eco-religionists seem to miss is that it is a DYNAMIC balance, not a static one. Increases in surface (up to the stratosphere is still surface) CO2 have largely been balanced by decreases in water vapor.

NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/)

I suppose that's why your local weather station gives out air quality warnings because it's no be deal what we breathe, nor if it's more dangerous to some than others. That's just the air, you cannot ignore the water, or earth either. All are but contributing factors of a larger environment.

Go ahead, kill the birds and bees and see what happens to flowers and trees. I don't expect you care for old folks and infants, or children either, huh? I suppose we could wear those useless facemasks like the Chinese do and go about business as usual!

air quality indexes monitor ground level ozone ,particulates ,carbon monoxide ,sulfur dioxide ,nitrogen dioxide .... not C02 . If you are saying we should reduced human emissions of those ,I quite agree . We don't need phony climate science to make that case .

We don't need phony climate scientist telling us there is nothing to see move along either Tom. The effects of man on his environment should not be so casually dismissed.

keep building them strawmen . No one is disputing the need to reduce pollution .That is why the EPA was created . They have done their jobs ,but with all government agencies ,they go looking for new dragons to sleigh . The premise of the AGW crowd ....now just known as "climate scientists " was not about pollution .It was that human emissions of CO2 were causing climate change ;specifically warming . Now 20 years of no warming ,so they shift their argument . You are learning from them as they go from 'global warming ' to climate change. They also went from % of the atmosphere to threating sounding words like 'metric tons' ..... and it's not C02 anymore ;just carbon . Carbon and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. The alarmists would have us believe they are. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant .

Tal the Chinese wear face masks because of particulate pollution, the particals in the air. Photochemical smog will kill you and there is a good reason for controlling emissions from coal burning and it doesn't have anything to do with CO2, but their photochemical smog doesn't just come from power stations but also from antiquated industrial processes and their methods of rubbish disposal. How could you be so niaive as to think they wear face masks to prevent CO2 inhalation?

We have to get rid of the motive garbage in this debate because behind some of the "facts" is an industrial and environmental lobby on both sides of the debate. The vapours from cigarette smoke are a far greater pollutant, but we haven't banned tobacco production, and yet there are those who want to ban coal production. This is illogical and the result of skewed thinking and political interference.

the Chinese wear face masks because of particulate pollution,Actually most wear face masks because they are ill and do not wish to make others ill.

The controversy surrounding global warming is nothing new to science. Controversy has always been with science and will continue to be so, whether in or out of the public spotlight. It is just the way science progresses. The reason for the current controversy is because of the political implications-everyone has an opinion.

If the future of our planet hinged on the controversy that surrounded the orbit of Mercury then the debate would be as equally hot. In historical terms such a debate did take place, but no one except physicists cared, so it largely went unnoticed.

What we are witnessing now is how science actually works in the real world. There is no idealized scientific method whereby scientists see the error of their ways in the face of counter evidence. The majority of scientists will always support the prevailing orthodoxy because consensus is as good as it get when it comes to science. That's just the way science works.

Global warming has now moved to climate change because science will always attempt to save a theory by way of 'fudge factors'. In exactly the same way as physicists attempted to save Newtonian mechanics as an explanation for the orbit of mercury by way of 'fudge factors'. In exactly the same way as science tried to save every prevailing theory throughout its history.

All puns aside, there is nothing new under the sun.

Well said, Tut. As another historical scientist once said, "It still moves!"

Thanks Tutt however excusing the fudges for whatever reason doesn't cut it, because the outcomes has serious impacts for everyone. Climate Change has entered the relms of science fiction, not science fact. Computer models based on half baked ideas and incomplete data are not science, even if there is a Phd on the other end, they are scientific ego massaging, something like my model is better, bigger than your model, or I can't possibly be wrong after all I am a doctor and I have a grant to do this research.

What we know is that changes have been observed. What we think is we can do something to reverse them, beyond that we are in the relm of science fiction.

Thanks Tutt however excusing the fudges for whatever reason doesn't cut it, because the outcomes has serious impacts for everyone. Climate Change has entered the relms of science fiction, not science fact. Computer models based on half baked ideas and incomplete data are not science, even if there is a Phd on the other end, they are scientific ego massaging, something like my model is better, bigger than your model, or I can't possibly be wrong after all I am a doctor and I have a grant to do this research.

What we know is that changes have been observed. What we think is we can do something to reverse them, beyond that we are in the relm of science fiction.

In essence you are right, the problem is computer modeling at the moment. Science can use the most powerful computers in the world to predict climate change but the bottom line is that they are stuck within a two bit information system.

The game changer in the future in the area of weather forecasting and climate change will be the quantum computer and a 4 bit system Commercial viability is at least 50 years away.

At last.

I am a doctor and I have a grant to do this research.

The basic philosophy of all junk science. The basic mission of such science is getting the grant renewed. The result of such science is 15 million words published in the last two years trying to explain the "pause" in global warming.

People tend to give credence to data that agrees with their views.

"The philosophy of all junk science. The basic mission is to get the grant renewed. The result of such science is 15 million words in the last two years trying to explain the 'pause" in global warming"




From my point of view, that's the way it is and that's the way it has to be with science.

For example, it is of little use complaining about having to wear a pacemaker to help an irregular heart rhythm. In the future genetic engineering will do away with such crude devices, but at the moment it is the best science can come up with. This is why scientists apply for research grants. Improvements eventually lead to change. After all, change can't occur in a vacuum.

I can see a similar type of argument applying to climate science. The problem is deciding upon the weight given to those variables you are using in your climate model. It also depends on what you are trying to model in the first place. There can be a number of computer climate models based on this process. So there would be a new model that explains why there has been a "pause" in global warming. In exactly the same way there are probably other models as well. Climate models are continually updated using observational evidence.

It is a bit like the pacemaker analogy. We are stuck with the technology and researchers in this area have a vested interested in pursuing a particular type of outcome. I think climate science works in a similar fashion. We are stuck with the limitations of classical computers and climate scientists have a interested in pushing ahead with the classical technology. Basically they have no choice. I am sure things will change in in a big way for weather forecasting and climate science with the perfection of the quantum qubit.

Tuut this is where I disagree on the application of the word science. Scientific method relies on oberservation of the physical, what happened, how did it happen, what happens if I change something. But computer modelling, whilst it might attempt the same, is not observeing the physical. Climate science which measures temperature in various places and derives an aggregate score with which they can publish a mean average temperature or measure the number of parts per million of a particular gas is science. Computer modelling and making pronouncements is not. They cannot hope to identify all the relevant variables and have demonstrated this on several occasions and so what they publish as a result is a work of fiction

Although it is nothing really, it is good to see Australia's government putting their money where their mouth is, or in this case not putting their money there. Why should all the pain be felt in Australia?

Federal Government cuts funding to UN environment agency by over 80pc ahead of Peru climate talks - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/government-cuts-un-environment-group-funding-by-over-80pc/5932278)

That might mean a few less trees cut down for useless reports

Tut, here is the problem Im having. The science that you speak of is a relative term. In this case the whole community had gotten behind junk science because those that created the figures were not honest in the first place. After they were caught at it the community still lusted after the money. In most science whether it be modeling or chemical bonding there is a line between science and science fiction. Most of science that I know of besides climate cosmology depends on solid facts or solid theory to determine fact from fiction. With the climate clowns it ha been the other way around since the begining. I believe that is where all the controversy is at. From the bad input that started this whole thing and the communities lack or retifying the fiction from the true facts.

Hi dad, I agree with you, the whole thing was politically motivated from the start and the "facts" have been made to fit the narrative through highly selective data.

Look, things are changing, no doubt there have been certain things that don't conform to our norm view, glacial retreat, arctic ice melt, climate changes, sea rises, severe weather events but our records are too short to really establish a norm, if it exists. All we can say is temperature is above/below some twentieth century benchmarks in certain places. They are using averages, but averages are generalisation. Who knows what we would conclude if this were 2000 years ago or 500 years ago or the middle of an ice age

Don't you just love the tokenism of this debate, Australia has just diverted $200m from its foreign aid budget to help pacific nations deal with climate change. What does this mean, it means the UN is effectively cut out of the process and there is no new money. So I ask you why is this news?

Tuut this is where I disagree on the application of the word science. Scientific method relies on oberservation of the physical, what happened, how did it happen, what happens if I change something. Well yes.To the extent of my knowledge I would say that when it comes to computer modelling the question you ask in the beginning determines the final answer.
But computer modelling, whilst it might attempt the same, is not observeing the physical. Climate science which measures temperature in various places and derives an aggregate score with which they can publish a mean average temperature or measure the number of parts per million of a particular gas is science. Computer modelling and making pronouncements is not. This is because computer modelling deals in predictions based on a theory. That is to say, it provides a prediction in terms of how the model stacks up against the observations.
They cannot hope to identify all the relevant variables and have demonstrated this on several occasions and so what they publish as a result is a work of fiction Of course they can't... and they don't. As I said before, weather forecasting and climate science are stuck with a binary system. We can run the data though a supercomputer but this changes nothing. Quantum computers will revolutionize these sciences in the future. In the mean time we are stuck with the implications of such a restrictive system. Nothing new here in the history of science.

All of this is just my opinion. Perhaps this goes someway to answering cdad's question. The best advice I can give is not to hold science up as providing some ultimate truth[s]. Nothing or no one has this honour.

I am sorry if this this somehow deflates the understanding of science, but this is how science has always operated.

The best advice I can give is not to hold science up as providing some ultimate truth[s]. Nothing or no one has this honour.

Your advice has come too late

Science will always course correct as more facts come to light. That's the history of man. It's an ongoing process, to the ultimate truths, so many require, not the ultimate truth written in stone, at any certain point. We can argue causes all you want, but argument ends when the effects blow your house down.

It think it's a foolish premise to think man has NO effect on his environment. Dangerous given the effects of his mistakes in the past. You don't need a computer to calculate dead fish and bird in the gulf and Alaska or destroyed ecosystems around the nation.

Mother Nature didn't do that.

but argument ends when the effects blow your house down.

U.S. tornado numbers among lowest in recorded history in 2014 - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/10/u-s-tornado-numbers-among-lowest-in-recorded-history-in-2014/)

Mud and snow is this years news Tom.

Stop dealing in absolutes, no one has said man has not had an impact of his environment, the debate is whether man can now have an impact on reversing the impacts or stopping the system from cycling through. What we have is tokenism on the part of world leadership, do nothing may actually be an option, build stronger buildings may be an option. The science in this debate is questionable at best because it is a jumble of fact and computer modelling. Yes the oil industry is a major polluter, but this is the result of the profit motive. Stay with what we know, ice is melting, temperature in some places is rising, there are more severe weather events in some places, growing soy beans in the Amazon basin is undesirable for a number of reasons. Let's deal with the ethics of business as usual

or are we?

Fact check: Do Australia, US 'compare favourably' on emissions targets? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-18/greg-hunt-cherrypicking-emissions-reduction-targets/5896148)

Most statistics regading climate change are difficult to interpret and this report no less so, We have met our targets under the rules, but someone wants the rules changed because they show us in a more favourable light than they want or even expect. So we rate unfavourably on a lot of single issue scales but in terms of reductions we did what we said we would do and not without some personal pain for the average person. I predict with more than 20% renewables in our base that we will continue to get across the line without panic and destruction of the economy, and that is the real challenge

Let us use some percentages Australia is 1.11% of the world total, US is 16.16% of the world total. GDP The US is 1, $16T Australia is 12, $1.5T Who gets more bang for their buck.? It actually takes 100 tonnes of CO2 more to produce a dollar of GDP in the US than it does in Australia so what I say is keep on bashing those inefficient economies they deserve it, on a GDP basis we are more efficient and so entitled to use a little more CO2. Incidently Russia requires 4 times the CO2 to produce a $ of GDP than Australia, Shame! I just love what you can do with the right statistics. Just maybe we won the climate war

What you are talking about is the conversion of junk science to public policy . If you go by the bogus modelling then your concern is not the US where significant reductions have occured due to voluntary actions in the marketplace. Your real threats are from emerging economies ;and rogue nations like China. Good luck with that .

Tom both our nations can claim significant reductions because of market shifts and offshoring of our manufacturing emissions to China. We know that China is an inefficient producer of power, etc at this point in time and has no plans to reduce growth in emissions until 2030 which might as well be never. However what I spoke about is efficiency in converting CO2 emissions into GDP, a statistic which no one publishes because it would create too many red faces. China is four times less efficient in converting CO2 to GDP. You think you can write them off as a rogue nation but we are all in this together

Somebody will sell them some modern scrubber equipment soon.

Yes that might bring them back to being about as efficient as Russia

Why would they buy them ? Because they care about their people ? Because the people have a say in how their government and economy runs ? Because they have a 'decent respect to the opinions of mankind' ? They have signaled to the emperor and the world that they intend to grow their emissions until it peaks in 2030 (and the emperor boasted that was a successful negotiation ) . Nah they won't buy them . If anything they will steal the technology when they are ready to employ it.

converting CO2 emissions into GDP
something egg heads contemplate instead of doing real work. Here's a calculator (paid for by the American taxpayer ) to play with when you are bored .
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | Clean Energy | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html)

I'm not that bored yet, I prefer to do my own research, not tainted by oil industry grants

that's an interesting take on the EPA .....not that it would surprise me . The thing to know about oil companies is that their main goal is to make money. So it should not surprise you then that they are some of the leaders in alternate energy research . No they don't want to suppress it . Instead ,they want to be in a position to exploit alt energy when they become viable in the market place. They really are interested in diversification .American based oil companies invested about $9 billion in alternate fuels in the last decade ,representing about 20% of the total research investment in the US .

You and I both know that alternatives like wind ,solar ,biofuels will only be able to supply a fringe amount of the worlds total energy needs in the next century .We are biding our time until the next real breakthrough occurs ....perhaps in fusion technology.

You mean in this century Tom, more like a few decades. I have to agree though that China has little incentive to clean the air, nor invest in it at this time. It still remains a huge untapped market in many areas. I know you are drooling for them to become capitalists though.

Tom we may well solve the energy needs of this and other centuries in innovative ways. If we convert all motive power to electric we still have a massive problem of providing that power and nuclear in any form will be the only way. It requires a change in thinking and maybe Tal the chinese will have the edge in that because they are not just motivated by profit

t
the chinese will have the edge in that because they are not just motivated by profit

the laugh of the year ! As the Chinese economy grew ,the cadres all resorted to extreme plunder. It is as much a hallmark of the regime as the suppression and repression.

The Chinese are stuck in their own monolithic ideology, and struggle to keep up. They cling to their old ways of economics and stifle their own potential. They aren't alone.

Yes they are introspective and have been for thousands of years, it has never been their philosopy to adopt the ways of others, some of their solutions have been unique we tend to forget what their innovation has given us. I think we have less to fear from them than we think but Russia may be different

Once again we find that statistics regarding emissions has deceived us and this time it is because averages have been used to calculate China's emissions. I wonder how many have fallen for this trap and labelled coal a problem when it is only certain types of coal. China gets an instant reduction of 40% when you use real pertinant data, but then who knows the truth

China CO2 emissions: 'Coal error' caused wrong calculations - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33972247)

Is anyone just a little pissed off by this climate change scare mongering where we get data overload and revelations every time they have a meeting about it

More lovelly statistics, while I've been freezing my backside off, I'm actually being told that I'm living in temperatures that are warmer than normal. Snow fell on my lawn in the first time in a hundred years and it's warmer than normal? Has anyone stopped to consider where this data is being taken? I'm not a climate change denier, I agree the climate is changing, I'm just remain uncertain as to the extent that man influences this and whether we have any ability to change anything.

Today the newspapers screamed hottest in four thousand years, at this point I begin to deny the science. Show me the temperature record for the last four thousand years in definative terms for this region. As far as I'm aware indigenous people in any place did not keep temperature records. I agree compared with the ice age of say, ten thousand years ago, it is hotter and it might be hotter than certain other periods, including the little ice age, but I have not observed that it is appreciably hotter now than it was earlier in my life so how the last month could be the hottest in four thousand years eludes me. I expect that what we have is the frog in the pot syndrome.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/july-could-have-been-the-hottest-month-in-4000-years-climate-scientists-say/story-fnjwvztl-1227493098122

More lovelly statistics, while I've been freezing my backside off, I'm actually being told that I'm living in temperatures that are warmer than normal. Snow fell on my lawn in the first time in a hundred years and it's warmer than normal? Has anyone stopped to consider where this data is being taken? I'm not a climate change denier, I agree the climate is changing, I'm just remain uncertain as to the extent that man influences this and whether we have any ability to change anything.

Today the newspapers screamed hottest in four thousand years, at this point I begin to deny the science. Show me the temperature record for the last four thousand years in definative terms for this region. As far as I'm aware indigenous people in any place did not keep temperature records. I agree compared with the ice age of say, ten thousand years ago, it is hotter and it might be hotter than certain other periods, including the little ice age, but I have not observed that it is appreciably hotter now than it was earlier in my life so how the last month could be the hottest in four thousand years eludes me. I expect that what we have is the frog in the pot syndrome.

Climate change: July 2015 the hottest month in 4,000 years? (http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/july-could-have-been-the-hottest-month-in-4000-years-climate-scientists-say/story-fnjwvztl-1227493098122)


CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS !

I trade marked that logo and have that bumper sticker on my car right by the exhaust pipe.

We are now well into the 2nd month of the traditional 'hurricane season' . Remember when Katrina hit and the Goracle and his minions were telling us that we should get used to it because that was our future ,seasons of Cat 5 killer storms would ravage the east coast of the US .
Well this week hurricane Danny formed off the African coast. It is the 1st storm in the Atlantic this season. It is a Cat 1 storm ,now approaching with 80mph winds ....but it is expected to peter out to a tropical storm before it reaches land .

But guess what ! The scientists predicted this ! Yes NOAA ,2 months into the current season predicted that 'Outlook calls for a 90 percent chance of a below-normal hurricane season. ' WTG !!!!! Pretty soon they will be as good as the weatherman on the local yokel news network .

Tom, we are agreed climate change happens, the sahara desert is evidence of this and offers a perspective if current trends continue in some places. Tropical storms happen sometimes with increasing impact as the Philippines can tell you, however it appears the effects of CO2 emissions are averaged out by the planet so that you don't get improvement in specific places when there are reduced emissions, the effect is not localised, or maybe it is. In my nation we could reduce our emissions to zero and it wouldn't make any difference to outcomes despite the fact we are accused of being the highest per capita emitters. The rise of the third world will negate our efforts unless we become savvy and build only nuclear base load power stations, this augmented by renewables may hold the line.

I have said it before this isn't an emissions problem it is a population problem and while population grows we will have the problem. To get a proper perspective on this we need to change the way we account for emissions and calculate the emissions on an end user basis. If we did this we would once again see that the US is the larger emitter of CO2 and the nation that must do the most to reduce the impact. All the energy we expend digging minerals out of the ground so china can supply the markets of the world doesn't make us the highest users per capita.

I did an exercise last week on whether it was economical for me to install solar generation on my residence. You know what? It wasn't? I couldn't see how the power generated would actually meet more than 20% of my consumption which is lower than the average household and most of the power generated would go into the grid at a price lower than I would be paying to buy it back.
I would incure a significantly higher cost for no purpose than to pay for someoneelses power supply. This renewables generation on a household basis is B/S, the emphasis should be on commercial applications

Some bizairre statistics have emerged on emissions, Islamic State (Daesh) is actually good for the environment

Middle East conflict drastically 'improves air quality' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34002865)

Studies show that NO2 emiissions are directly associated with population but they are also impacted by conflict, where there is conflict NO2 emissions are low. This definitely points to human activity being capable of being modified and in particular we need to look seriously at modes of transport to make inroads into emissions. This is not new but it suggests emphasis on reducing the impact of unnecessary journeys and the mode of transport such as less gas guzzling SUV

I did an exercise last week on whether it was economical for me to install solar generation on my residence. You know what? It wasn't? I couldn't see how the power generated would actually meet more than 20% of my consumption which is lower than the average household and most of the power generated would go into the grid at a price lower than I would be paying to buy it back.
I would incure a significantly higher cost for no purpose than to pay for someoneelses power supply. This renewables generation on a household basis is B/S, the emphasis should be on commercial applications


This makes no sense. It doesnt appear that your problem was with the generation of energy but the storage core for your energy plan. That is the trick to getting renewables to work. Also in most cases you need more then one single source to gain an independent solution. What I mean by that is a combination of sources that combine to fit your needs. Solar combined with wind can give you better solutions as you can have the ability to suppliment your electrical needs during a time when the sun isnt shining or not shining as bright.

Right now technology investment is very expensive. The hope for the furture is to find a practical solution that all people can use and isnt so expensive that it drives the average consumer away.

The wind doesn't blow here often I'm sheilded by a hill and storage would not have reduced cost it would have significantly increased it meaning that the payback is somewhat long term. It is better as a commercial proposition because generation is more aligned with consumption wind isn't practical in an urban setting I'm waiting for Dyesol to come on the market that will turn roofs and windows into solar generators which will mean greater efficiency and I might need a new roof

I've been around renewables a long time and I know that in this district wind cannot be more than 20% efficient solar maybe 40% but I wanted to do the exercise

Future generations are bound to ask why we closed coal-fueled generating stations,the cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.

Morning again Tom. Future generations who lived around those cheap coal fired energy plants will be glad they have less breathing problems with their children (and themselves), and may wonder what took so long.

Scrubbing out ash and soot are SOP in modern plants . Carbon capture and sequester (CCS )technology already well into development ,has a far more promising future than your windmills and solar .

Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning physicist who was the emperor's secretary of energy until last year, has declared coal CCS essential.
Why would he say that ? Because he recognizes that the world will not be able to function in this century without utilizing it's most abundant energy source.

You know who has taken the lead ? Not the short sighted US . China's Huaneng Group in collaboration with Peabody Energy, a Missouri firm that is the world’s biggest private coal company have constructed a plant in Tianjin called GreenGen,a $ billion facility that extracts the co2 from a coal plant and, ultimately, will channel it into an underground storage area . If this works ,China ,the world's biggest polluter ;( which has a dozen big CCS efforts in planning or production),will have done more for clean energy than any western envirowacko .

Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning physicist who was the emperor's secretary of energy until last year, has declared coal CCS essential.
Why would he say that ?Because he didn't. He hates fossil fuels:

He is a vocal advocate for more research into renewable energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combating climate change. Chu said that a typical coal power plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.

Because he didn't. He hates fossil fuels:


Looks like according to this article he said it ?

(Quote)

In October U.S Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced $55 million to develop advanced technologies that can capture carbon dioxide from flue gases at existing power plants. A few days before that announcement, on October 12, Secretary Chu issued a “call to action” (http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/Carbon_Sequestration_Leadership_Forum_Letter.pdf) to Energy Ministers and other attendees of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum in London. Noting that coal accounts for 25% of the world’s energy supply and 40% of carbon emissions, Secretary Chu acknowledged that coal would be a major and growing energy source now and in the future. “For this reason, I believe we must make it our goal to advance carbon capture and storage technology to the point where widespread, affordable deployment can begin in 8 to 10 years,” he said.


AEP Commissions Mountaineer Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project | JouleBlog (http://jouleblog.com/2009/11/02/aep-commissions-mountaineer-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-project/)

Next to last paragraph.

He covers both sides I see.

Future generations are bound to ask why we closed coal-fueled generating stations,the cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.

Here is the fellow who was telling me the other day that CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS. You cannot have it both ways Tom. Sequestration is the hope of the coal industry but it is a long time coming. Now you are telling us these climate change events are IMAGINARY PHENOMENA. Your crediability on this subject is forever shot

He covers both sides I see.


As with any politician they tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on who and when they give a speech.


Here is the fellow who was telling me the other day that CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS. You cannot have it both ways Tom. Sequestration is the hope of the coal industry but it is a long time coming. Now you are telling us these climate change events are IMAGINARY PHENOMENA. Your crediability on this subject is forever shot


I dont see it as having it both ways. I see the one Tom seems to be expressing as natural events that take place over the course of time vs the man made changes some seem to think we are making happen.

The latter being based upon bad science and driven by the money mongers. There is no real proof.

Reading from history through science and looking at accounts that we can actually measure then we can form some basis for predictions and one of them is change. It is going to happen no matter what we do. History in scientific form doesnt lie it only tells a story.

I dont see it as having it both ways. I see the one Tom seems to be expressing as natural events that take place over the course of time vs the man made changes some seem to think we are making happen.

The latter being based upon bad science and driven by the money mongers. There is no real proof.

Reading from history through science and looking at accounts that we can actually measure then we can form some basis for predictions and one of them is change. It is going to happen no matter what we do. History in scientific form doesn't lie it only tells a story.

HI dad I was expressing the same thought when Tom told me pointedly climate change happens with reference to emissions. You have to always keep his remarks in context because he shifts in the wind. I see that you are an AGW denier and there is a lot of support for long term change but we are also having an impact it is just we have no measurement of these other contributors to change. We don't know why the ice age lifted and the ice retreated we can only say temperature increased, we probably don't know why there was onset of the ice age but it would seem ice is more prevalent than on no ice so this period we are now in is an abrogation

Here is the fellow who was telling me the other day that CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS. You cannot have it both ways Tom. Sequestration is the hope of the coal industry but it is a long time coming. Now you are telling us these climate change events are IMAGINARY PHENOMENA. Your crediability on this subject is forever shot
No clearly the imaginary phenomena is anthropogenic global warming . But you knew that already .


. We don't know why the ice age lifted and the ice retreated we can only say temperature increased

clearly the cavemen were driving SUVs .

Okay Tom you are on the side of long term change and not AGW and perhaps it was the discovery of fire and cavemen upsetting the balance of green house gases which caused warming and retreat of the ice, I mean thinking about it, they must have had an impact otherwise climate scientists would be wrong, you cannot burn carbon and not have an impact.

Let us understand something clearly, whatever the cause of climate change, mankind does not possess the science to reverse it or even stop it

I frankly don't understand the concern. There was a time in our earth's history long ago when greenhouse gases were at greater concentrations than now . Life was abundant ;vegetation flourished (which meant that 02 had to also be in abundance since that is what plants exhale ) .
Even in times where there was mini-warming and mini-ice ages ,humans were much better off when there was warming .

The concern, Tom, appears to be more intense weather events and unindation due to rising seas, displacing millions from what might otherwise be fertile lands, as far as to humans being better off, we don't know that, as we have no data. There is a supposition that crops will be more productive, however droughts will be more intense.

If you consider what is happening now with the movement of migrants due to war and multiply it several times over you might have some idea of problems to be dealt with. Do you really want millions dumped on your doorstep because you live in a place where crops are productive

The concern, Tom, appears to be more intense weather events talk about lack of data supporting a hypothesis !

Yes the data is subjective because it is based on computer modelling, we have been all over this. As I understand science, you first have a hypothesis, you gather some data which if it tends to support your hypothesis, you develop your theory and try to find data that demonstrates your theory is supported by facts. Let's examine the supporting facts;

Glacial melt, shrinking polar ice caps, increased variabilitity in climatic conditions, sea level rise, higher sea temperature, higher average temperatures, correlation with emission levels, more intensive weather events

The facts that don't support the theory

questionable data sources, slower progression than anticipated, long term trends, ice core data, correlation with emission levels, plateau in temperature, weather events not as predicted

on balance the theory could not be said to be unequivicably proven and more study is needed widening the number of variables examined

I rate existing climate science somewhere between alchemy and witchcraft

Here is some data to consider, man polluting the air, water, and soil, and what he does about it, which for fact is very little, yet has profound effects on the lives of MANY humans, and the wildlife that inhabits those affected environments.

Pollution is one thing carbon another

and tal is wrong on that front too. Humans have made great strides in elimination "pollution" (unless they are the EPA of course ...the biggest polluter in the US this year ) ..


BTW at least one geologist thinks the spill into the Animas River was intentional . Dave Taylor wrote a letter to the editor in “The Silverton Standard” pointing out that the EPA was planning a maneuver that could potentially cause toxins from mineshafts to flood into rivers. He also suggested that the EPA was aware of the possible outcomes, and were going forward with the plan anyway to gain funding.
According to Taylor's theory ,the EPA wants funding to construct a treatment plant ,and to create another 'Superfund site' .
A week before it happened he wrote the letter predicting the EPA would intentionally create the spill . "After all ,with a budget of $8.2 billion and 17,000 employees, the EPA needs new, big projects to feed and justify their existence."

When the BP spill occured ,the emperor was quick to publicly proclaim that he was looking for "a$$es to kick " . He told Ken Salazar (Dept Interior) to "keep his boot on the neck " of BP .
With this spill there is a collective cricket chirping by the government and the press. If the Animas River spill was by the actions of BP ,or Exxon-Mobile ,or the Koch brothers ,this would be the lead story every day in the press .....and the Justice Dept would already be handing out indictments .

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.zEOcMdJas4P5NTxEZvjZFg&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

https://historychickinaz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/climate-denial.jpg

you're right ;
Global warming alarmism is very much a cult . But don't take it from me . Take it from Nobel Prize winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever : 'Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

Take it from Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize Winning for physicist who said “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” In 2008 he was one of 70 Nobel winners who endorsed the emperor. But he started doing legitimate research on warming and he since has stopped endorsing the emperor AND the global warming cult.
He says “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” .He says “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”

MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,”... “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”
“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”
As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”
“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”
The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies Lindzen understands their reluctance.
“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”

But I get it ,these scientists are evil apostates.

Tom no one has ever changed a religious opinion. Galaleo was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day, Columbus was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day. Now it is true that these people may have been wrong about some of the details, after all you cannot know what you don't know. Or can you? Jesus was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day, but he knew a little more than most. Climate scientists claim to know what they don't know, because they think they can predict with accuracy the outcome of adding carbon to the atmosphere and their deciples are absolutely convinced that man can reverse the consequences of his actions. We don't have a very good track record in that regard. Change cannot be revolutionary it must be incremental but climate scientists want revolutionary change. When we say we will do this in the immediate future, something within our capacity perhaps, they say it's not enough and pull another, rabbit, read dire prediction, out of the hat and yet so much of their data and predictions are discredited

My conclusion, climate change is happening, it has been for thousands of years, change is normal and to be expected, perhaps if we have learned this during our short lives we have gained wisdom

meanwhile the EPA is doing what every other Administrator does best under the reign of the emperor ........covering up .


A congressional committee blasted the Environmental Protection Agency today for blocking release of documents related to the Gold King mine disaster, which poured deadly chemicals into the largest source of drinking water in the West.
“It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the EPA failed to meet the House Science Committee’s reasonable deadline in turning over documents pertaining to the Gold King Mine spill,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). “These documents are essential to the Committee’s ongoing investigation and our upcoming hearing on Sept. 9. But more importantly, this information matters to the many Americans directly affected in western states, who are still waiting for answers from the EPA.”
Smith – who frequently spars with the EPA – is chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. EPA director Gina McCarthy has been asked to appear and answer questions about the agency’s role in creating a 3-million-gallon toxic spill into Colorado’s Animas River on Aug. 5. Critics say McCarthy and the EPA have been unresponsive, secretive and unsympathetic toward millions of people who live in three states bordering the river.
For several days, the EPA didn’t notify the states of Utah, New Mexico or the Navajo Nation that the spill was coming their way. McCarthy waited a week before visiting Colorado and even then she refused to tour Silverton, the town nearest the Gold King mine where EPA contractors unleashed the toxic plume into waterways that feed the Colorado River. The agency withheld the name of the contractor working on the project and other details that are generally considered public information. Lastly, the Navajo Nation, which relies on the river for drinking water and farming, received an emergency supply from the EPA in oil-contaminated containers.

EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/26/epa-withholds-mine-spill-documents-from-congress/)



This comes in the wake of suspicions that the spill was deliberate .
Geologist predicted EPA would intentionally pollute Animas River to secure federal funding - NaturalNews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com/050772_EPA_pollution_Animas_River_federal_funding. html)

You fellows are really paranoid, you see plots in everything

plots and incompetence in government . But yeah let's grow the government because they have such a great track record .

Law enforcement is difficult and considering the weight of legislation you have difficult without resources, every decision taken requires fresh resources to enforce it and we know self regulation doesn't work

Here is something I found that adds a twist to the growing concerns over global warming and how to deal with it. I found it pretty interesting. Who knew ?

Your used coffee grounds could do a lot of good | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/09/03/your-used-coffee-grounds-could-do-lot-good/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_675818)

Undoubtedly there are natural resources yet to be discovered, we have been provided with everything we need we just have to uncover it

And just in time for Paris

Scientists worried about cold 'blob' in North Atlantic amid record hot spell (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientists-worried-about-cold-blob-in-north-atlantic-amid-record-hot-spell-20150925-gjuqb9.html)

Now we all have a marvelous anomaly to consider. What is the significance of ocean cooling in the north Atlanic. I'll put my money on the great conveyor shutting down, however no one is game to make that prediction yet, they speak of the process of the Gulf Stream slowing. What significance does this have for the rest of us who are affected by the flow of the vast ocean currents of the world. I have been disturbed by the incidence of the terms east coast low and antarctic flow this year which has certainly seen a prolonged period of cold conditions and violent storms, happily much of it has moved offshore. We have an El Nino at the moment and the unusual prediction of rain.

We do indeed need to consider that all our efforts at modifying the climate are too little too late and to put it in a local context the Bureau of Meteorology is accused of massaging the numbers to support the theory of climate change whereas they say they are homogenising the data to give more accurate results. Either way someone is telling lies

We can debate the causes of this climate change but the real issue is have humans evolved enough to make the right adjustments to what is obviously a growing awareness of the power of mother nature, and the effects it has on humans across the globe.

I don't think we can just bury our head in the sand and holler when we get lucky enough to have dodged it's effects on our locale, when others are not so lucky. At some point we have to ACT instead of react after the fact.

Humans lie about everything and anything especially when we have no clue, and we holler HELP when Mother Nature blows our house down. Those that can afford it have insurance, but none of us can hide from Mother Nature when she does what he does. So the question none can answer is what to do about it?

Have humans evolved? What makes you think we are smarter than the Greeks or the Romans or the Chinese or the Moors. Each of these had a culture and great achievements. We cannot decide what to do until we can definatively define the cause of the problem all we can do is build patches. Tal even if we stopped all emissions today we would not have the desired effect for centuries, we may even be beyond the tipping point and if that is so we will see the onset of another ice age and Mother Nature will do what we refuse to do, control our population and our activities. I think we might need those coal mines

I haven't dodged the effects in my locale, an east coast low is a terrifying experience, feet of rain and hail and they are certainly becoming more prevalent but not one single thing can I do to prevent it. My nation says we will reduce emissions by 25% but we won't do it by cap and trade and we are criticised yet China will be allowed to continue to pollute for decades let us just all stand by and see the march of the windmills across the land and say this is better

Of course we have evolved if we can speak without waiting months for a pigeon to find us and as we find new problems we find better ways to deal with them.

Some evolve quicker than others and some need more convincing. Evolution is an ongoing process.

My glass is half full what about yours?

That's not evolution it is just development. Physically we are the same and if you took the middle east as an example we have learned nothing. We are bigger because there is greater food resource but we are not smarter, in fact people used to do wonders with almost nothing.

My glass is full it is just the contents that are suspect, if we survive our own averice we will emerge with something worthwhile. We have perhaps 6,000 years of recorded history and yet we have the audacity to think we can order circumstance, another thousand years of this and we will have exhausted many resources, with a population of perhaps 2,000,000 we might have achieved sustainability but right now we are an out of control virus. Our real problem is we have outdone natural selection and the brightest and fitest live along side those who don't contribute, this is a problem we have to solve

Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/


Some reason has been injected into the climate change debate it seems there are like myself some people who are willing to agree that climate change is happening but the effects may not be catastrophic but the scientific communty doesn't agree, that is they are hiding behind their consensus


These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

Interesting and basically accords with my view, which is something is happening, man might be contributing and the effects may not be catastrophic. I have said for a long time the data is flawed but Cruz is wrong in saying satellite data doesn't show some warming, it does, but a much lower level than the so called consensus. Come back to what I have said many times, even if we stopped all carbon emissions immediately, the change would continue because we don't have the technology to make large scale changes in the global weather systems. My view further goes to say if there is an emissions problem it is one cause by the northern hemisphere economies and they have the responsibility to fix the problem, anything we do won't make any difference at all because it is within the perimeters of a statistical error. By the way this isn't to say we have not acted responsibly, we have not built a coal fired power station in many years and have even taken some out of service

My view further goes to say if there is an emissions problem it is one cause by the northern hemisphere economies and they have the responsibility to fix the problem, anything we do won't make any difference at all because it is within the perimeters of a statistical error. By the way this isn't to say we have not acted responsibly, we have not built a coal fired power station in many years and have even taken some out of service

yawn . You drank the kool aid too.

Funny how it was warm enough that grapes grew in England and Greenland in the Middle ages. The world didn't end... and the normal cycle continued. Wasn't people that did it then and its not people doing it now.

Not all weather patterns are annual....or even a few years, some are centuries in duration, others thousands of years.

No Tom I recognise that things are changing, it is very obvious that seasons are different, like we have an el nino with rain, I'm still out on the reasons a change is happening because we should not be using computer models to make long term decisions, computer models are opinion, not science and we all have opinions. We cannot forget that there are finite resources and we still have to be looking at solutions to future problems before they overtake us. Not so long ago we were discussing peak oil and a new ice age.

yes, patterns can be long term and there are factors they have to take into account such as volcanic activity which can cause both short term and long term problems. What I would like to know and noone can tell me, what is the norm

Antarctic sea ice maximum at 'normal' level for first time in three years - Science - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-26/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-2015-maximum-coverage/6876596)

Or is it, Antarctic sea ice is normal. I'm somewhat unsure of what this means but I don't think it means a significantly shrinking ice cap even though the ice cap covers a smaller area than last year. I know it has meant some colder periods than usual in recent months around here as apparently the maximum was reached almost three weeks later this year. I'm wondering how this data feeds into measurment of the mean average temperature which is allegedly suggestive of warming. Does it mean that the ice was slow growing and thus indicative of higher temperature, or does it mean it was colder for longer. It would be interesting to know what the calculated volume of the ice is from year to year and how much reference is made to measurements in Antarctica in calculating the average. Perhaps data from Antartica is smoothed

Despite receiving a subpoena from the House of Representatives, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continues to defy the summons to explain itself regarding a controversial climate study it had released back in June.
An aide to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology said the NOAA has refused to provide documents related to a report that suggested there has been no reduction in global warming rates, as was initially thought.

NOAA Scientists Refuse To Comply With House Science Committee Subpoena : SCIENCE : Tech Times (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/101035/20151030/noaa-scientists-refuse-to-comply-with-house-science-committee-subpoena.htm)

What have they got to hide ? that they are a complete fraud ?

Hello tom:

Chairman Lamar Smith:


"It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities."



No ambiguity there—Smith is clearly suggesting that NOAA is manipulating its results to further an external agenda. Even though his office has been provided with the raw and corrected data, as well as the details of the methods and a personal accounting of the rationale behind them, he is still accusing the scientists who published the paper in Science of fudging their results. The evidence seems to consist of the fact that he did not like those results.

I wouldn't give him any satisfaction either..

excon

I wouldn't give him any satisfaction either..



They should then be prepared to have the subpoena enforced .
This report is just another way to 'hide the decline' ;or in this case 'hide the hiatus ' . Even IPCC scientists admits the pause.

If the taxpayers are funding their research then we definitely have the right to demand it be available to our representatives in government .

his office has been provided with the raw and corrected data, as well as the details of the methods and a personal accounting of the rationale behind themHello again, tom:

He's been given the science. But, he wants their scalps.. I'd tell him to stick it too.

excon

A Texas Republican and NOAA are in a standoff over global warming emails (http://mashable.com/2015/10/29/noaa-subpoena-climate-emails/#c1cJe0GOZPqP)

And

Global warming slowdown never happened, federal study says (http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/global-warming-hiatus-study/#6E65qlovf8qB)


Regardless of whether the hiatus was really a hiatus, two things are clear. First, that slowdown is over anyway, given the record-warm 2014 andindications that 2015 may be a repeat (http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/earth-warmest-12-months-record-year/) of that. Second, focusing on relatively short timescales may be distracting from longterm global warming; however, it is important, since governments and businesses make decisions on shorter timescales. Decade-to-decade fluctuations in warming can affect everything from the productivity of agriculture in India to the likelihood that a U.N. climate treaty will be enacted, as a record-warm year can put pressure on politicians to act.The IRI's Goddard, who has published extensively on the challenge of improving predictions of climate on decadal timescales, said she is puzzled as to why the new study discounts the importance of such short-term climate zigs and zags.

Didn't learn anything from Benghazi did you?

Didn't learn anything from Benghazi did you?
Yes ,We learned that Evita is a f~ng liar . Her e-mails proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt .

No ambiguity there—Smith is clearly suggesting that NOAA is manipulating its results to further an external agenda.
Until NOAA gives him the documents subpoena so his committee can independently evaluate the data they were given then why should he believe them when even the UN agency admits there was a pause that can last for decades more ?
The way I see it ; NOAA has constructed another phony hockey stick .

Obviously another case of manipulated and flawed data. Governments always seek facts to support their view and activities and agencies are not above this to improve their funding.

Has anyone thought that our sun will eventually grow hotter, as our knowledge in this area is imperfect, could it be that that process actually takes longer than they think and it has begun, begun ten or twenty thousand years ago.

Elected officials that benefits from the contribution from oil, gas, and energy in the state of Texas, have the same motivation as the government don't they?

Yes Tal there are many people on both side of the dabate who have the motivation to work to advantage their interests. Coal, Oil and Gas don't want change, the environmentalists have a religious view on seeking the holy grail of zero emissions, emerging industries want government support, scientists want their research grants and politicians want to be seen as on the cutting edge.

We have seen this debate swing from dismantling of a clean emissions industry, nuclear, to reestablishment of it, from replacing coal with gas to replacing coal and gas with wind and solar, both industries that have other environmental impacts and some of this is driven by irrational fear. Climate has been changing for at least 10,000 years as the ice age ice caps melted and yet we strive to stop this happening