CarletonPlace.com

Rex schmeks!

Schmeks?  I wouldn't want to get that close. :~D

Rex seems to be saying little more than "consider the counter arguments;  maybe the world's not warming".  And he's recommending Ian Plimer: Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science.

It is important that people be informed rather than just "taking sides".  It does seem that Plimer has a lot to explain away though.  For every argument there will be a counter-argument.  The claim that Polar Bears are endangered for example has been challenged but the original claim was probably never understood.  It's a population of Polar Bears that may be endangered, not necessarily all Polar Bears.  The polar regions have been losing ice sufficient that nations are lining up to put their shipping through the Northwest Passage.  Someone will say that it hasn't really changed because the ice reforms.  But that misses the point that the original ice is gone.  Does anyone seriously argue that Glaciers aren't disappearing?  Even Greenland's ice sheet has diminished though maybe not quite as predicted.  Or that ocean water levels aren't rising?  Or that weather patterns are changing?

I do think Rex is making the same mistake in his article that he accuses others of making.

He says: "Not that these studio meteorologists were making the elementary mistake of confounding weather with climate, for this is a distinction familiar now even to kindergartners".

But isn't that exactly what he's doing when he says: "Now, however, Toronto in July is cool and I am waiting in vain for the lips of just one forecaster to ask how can this be".

I remember one year(maybe 1992) where we went through a whole summer with weather very like what we've had so far.

A lot of people are pinning their hopes on a lack of sunspots cooling the weather.  This is a cyclical event which I think occurs in approximately in 11 year cycles.  But that doesn't argue against Global Warming.  It would simply mean that there will be short periods wherein the warming will be moderated by the Sunspot cycles.  It's like El Nino giving us a mild winter occasionally.  Definitely does not shoot down global warming claims.

Oh Burled, well said.  Excellent counter-argument! 

Aylmer, you crack me at least once a day.

Wow, that's an eye opener.  Maybe the advocates could step up to support Lowell as the metrosexual??

They say the wet weather is due to NAO , North Atlantic Oscillation

An interesting perspective:

Earth bears scars of human destruction: astronaut

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1832826

Michael Ignatief had a glow? Was it anything like the Blue Man in Watchmen? When is Jane Taber and Oliver Cromwell, er… Jamie Oliver…. Laurence of Olivier…. Olivia de Haviland coming back to Talk Politics?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-pmos-revolving-door/article1238186/

Michael Ignatief had a glow? Was it anything like the Blue Man in Watchmen? When is Jane Taber and Oliver Cromwell, er… Jamie Oliver…. Laurence of Olivier…. Olivia de Haviland coming back to Talk Politics?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-pmos-revolving-door/article1238186/

Twice glowed, once shy?

What's in a sunspot:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/another-little-ice-age-solar-activity-and-climate-change.ars

LOL.... one flush or two?

lol  That's a "heady dose", but it is seems maybe misplaced.  Can't argue with you though.  It is your thread. Rex Shmeks! 

Backroom astrologers? ROTFL.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/no-better-than-a-moose-in-rut/article1276736/

Like we needed more confusion. Now email hackers have provided ammunition to determined global warming deniers. A couple of days ago, much encouraged, Lowel Green said ocean levels weren't rising because the water levels at his place in the Bahamas hasn't changed for years. He's also said he can't afford to retire, but I digress.

UK hack reveals climate science's ugly side, little more
Someone broke into the e-mail system of a British university and made off with the private correspondence of members of its Climatic Research Unit. The resulting firestorm has probably told us more about the status of climate science than the actual e-mails do.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars

According to the speakers on the panel, all of these measures of sea level rise line up within the margins of instrument error, so they felt pretty confident in the basics.

Those basics show an accelerating sea level rise. Anny Cazenave, who chaired the session, noted that the average change over the years from 1950 to 2000 was about 1.8mm per year. Over the last 16 years, however, she said the average was 3mm a year.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/scientists-track-the-oceans-rise-as-the-globe-warms.ars

The IPCC and next month's Copenhagen conference will undoubtedly agree on an arbitrary % of carbon reductions for each nation. Like the flawed nonsense of the Kyoto accord the only global warming will come from the hot-air expelled by the participants.

http://climatechangefraud.com/

Hey elbowsoup, we can play ping pong with these urls, but first:

If it's true that there has been no global warming, how do we explain rising sea levels, melting or "missing" glaciers, the mounting evidence for ice loss in Antarctica, and the lineup of nations ready to navigate an ice-free Northwest Passage?

Of course climate changes. During the many eons of Earth's existance there have been many periods of warming/cooling...just don't blame it on the SUVs we drive or cows' farting. There was  a much higher concentration of CO2 during the planet's early years caused by volcanic activity. The junque science that is the flavour-of-the-day does not stand up to scrutiny...being a "denier" is not politically correct.

It's cyclical climate change, for crying out loud.  In the Middle Ages, people roasted oxen on the frozen Thames in London, England.  In the late 1800s there was skating on the Mississippi River in CP.  In the mid-50s people were yelling about a mini-ice-age.  Climate changes in cycles--and it doesn't matter what PEOPLE or COWS do or not do.  It's cyclical climate change.

Burled, I think you're outnumbered.  LOL.  After watching the hype that was created during the H1N1 "pandemic" and the villification of the Harper government over the torture of Afghan detainees; the only thing I'm certain of is that its very easy to create enough fog to cloud the public judgement of such events if you scare enough people and you come out swinging first.   Add to that emotionally laden labels like "denying the facts" instead of "refuting the facts"  and you get a population that is easily manipulated.  An old liberal trick. 

Outnumbered or not, I wasn't ascribing responsibility. I'm just asking who took the glaciers.

I should add though that because there have been cyclical changes as acknowledged above anyway, it doesn't do anything to demonstrate that this has been one of those "cyclical" events.

My complaint is about tactics and deliberately shutting down scientific debate and free speech.  Take Ben Stein's Movie "Expelled" and substitute climate change as the subject and you get an interesting parallel. 

I wonder if they take into account all the ships that have been added to the oceans. With over 35000 ships sitting in the water, don't forget the millions of other smaller water craft, private yachts, anything built on water Airports palm islands etc.It must have some impact in the rise. Also add all the sunken ships into that equation. Maybe the heat expelled off all these ships is warming the water. Every degree counts. So therefore we have global shipping climate change. Eat your heart out Al Gore I want the billions for this one. Or could it be all the heat off bURLeds computer searching constantly for that next URL.

Imaginative dodge as always Shadowdog. Do the math and get back to us. How many ships of what size will raise the global temperatures how many degrees? And how would that not be manmade warming exactly??

I don't think there are many of us who are qualified to evaluate all the data Ladybird, Shadowdog excepted of course. And of course we have lots of reason to be sceptical of our "leaders". Let's start holding them accountable. Canadian politicans don't even raise these issues during their election campaigns these days, and I agree with your complaint: "My complaint is about tactics and deliberately shutting down scientific debate and free speech".

But could it be that we individually are also to blame as we'd rather deny than understand. We have better things to do it seems.

I was just playing with that response bURLed. Just incase it works ,fill your coffee cup to the top then add add a golf ball and make sure the cup is on your lap to feel the experience.

Hoping to Escape by the hair of your chinny chin chin again Shadowdog? I'm sure we all believe that was one of your deep water bombs.

Hilarity!  Who the heck is George "the Moonbat" Monbiot? "Canada is the greatest threat to world peace on the planet?"  Since when?  Isn't the Moonbat missing something here?

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/12/06/12055301-sun.html

..... and with your spirit.

Hey, this would account for the disappearing glaciers.

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

The WMO uses three temperature sets - one from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and two from the US, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the space agency Nasa.

Asked whether the controversy surrounding e-mails hacked from CRU could have any bearing on the results, Mr Jarraud replied that all three datasets showed the same result.

Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office made the same point: "The datasets are all independent, and they all show warming," she said.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in North America were there conditions that were cooler than average," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400905.stm

I listened to a business report the other day that posited that Canada would have to close down all of it’s

major industries in the country to meet carbon reduction targets and/or the government would have to take control of these industries and that we should be aware that the communities affected by such an action would be “hard hit”.

Are they out of their vulcan minds? Only the little communities would be affected? Talk about minimizing and obfuscating. All of Canada would be affected. An not in a nice way. The government should take control? Are we talking about communism here? Where does this end?

If we close down all those industries, we would no longer be a rich nation and therefore we would be allowed to continue polluting and the rich countries would have to help us as a developing country, hmmmmm

This is what makes sense to me.  Not the holier than thou showboats at Copenhagen giving out fossil awards and carving up the world's resources like it was Paris 1919.

Very defensive Ladybird. Did you steal our glaciers? :~D

This seems to be the position of many.

The glaciers appear to have shown up in my back yard.  

Hah. I knew it!

"Oh, flay me, George, flay me, you great big, greenhouse-gas emitting hunk of Canada-bashing flatulence, you"?

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/12/13/12137231-sun.html

“Interplanetary Zombies who made crop circles?”

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lisa_vandusen/2009/12/13/12137276-sun.html

Who’s she calling a zombie?

The Full Monty….

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/monte_solberg/2009/12/14/12145171-sun.html

“I had the sense that Mann was pulling together the data for the first time—that nobody had ever bothered to inquire independently into the hockey stick before.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/2/

Show us the glaciers Ladybird.

Goodness Greeness!

You have never seen anything like this - but it is one of the latest security gadgets - and it is so cool!

It has a hidden compartment and thieves will never dream of looking here for valuables!

Place this realistic looking item in your refrigerator in the vegetable compartment with your most valuable small items inside for safe-keeping.

The bottom snaps off to reveal a secret hiding place. The ideal way to protect cash, jewelry and other valuables while at home or traveling.

Thieves will never dream of looking in this book for valuables, now that you have the opportunity to buy this unique protection of your valuables.

One of the coolest safety gadgets this year from bimbambanana.com

Well, it is Iceberg Lettuce.

Awesomeness!

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/15/peter-foster-canada-s-galileo-government.aspx

My goodness! So much for Wikipedia:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/terrence-corcoran-my-climategate-email-cameo.aspx

http://www2.macleans.ca/category/opinion/mark-steyn-opinion/

This just cracks me up.  (Sorry Burled.)  It reminds me of an old Omni magazine article on "end of the world" predictions through time.  If I can find it, I'll post it (for a laugh).

Many are the opinions Ladybird. And mankind's follies and misstatements are the source of endless amusement. But why have the glaciers been disappearing if there hasn't been global warming?

Well lets see, over the years the glaciers get bigger and stretch further into warmer waters that cause them to break off and disappear, so actually they have gotten bigger.

Ho Ho Ho Ho.

Well, the question is are "all" glaciers shrinking?  Seems to be some dispute about that:

Someone actually replies to a question. Thanks Ladybird.

Have you gone thru those references yourself? I simply looked at the 28 or so that directly referenced glaciers. They are repetitive which of course makes it seem like they have lots of data. They are contradictory. They are dismissive. Source references are few and far between. But, interestingly, they mostly support the notion that there has been global warming!!! They just want you to believe it's not happening now while quietly admitting that it has been happening.

But let's remember the question: But why have the glaciers been disappearing if there hasn't been global warming?

It seems we have agreement that there has been global warming based on those urls. But we are not supposed to accept it today because there has been declining warming?

So, whether man-made or natural, it's apparently not relevant since we are supposedly in a freeze. I guess because of reduced activity with sunspots.

It seems to me the question would now be, how does a 11 year sunspot cycle mean the end of global warming? Seems to me, it'd just have to be a pause.

Is it possible that the glaciers have been "disappearing" for say, the last 10,000 years and we are just noticing it now?  

That's just one more tree to hide behind as it were. There was a glacier of 2-3 km height towering over where we now stand about 10,000 years ago. It was necessary for that glacier to disappear for plants of the south to re-establish here. And thus allow fauna such as mankind to become established.

Even the urls that you referenced generally agree that remaining glaciers have been relatively stable except for recent accelerated declines. Then of course they go off course and tell us 1. They're melting, but more slowly now and 2. Thus it's a freeze.

Here are 2 other examples off the cuff. Curious isn't it how they're not explained or even mentioned in the 28 urls that I did go through.

Athabasca Expedition Team Sends Wake-Up Call From the Columbia Icefield

http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1483

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/

Maybe there will be more evaporation in the future and the deserts will bloom with food to feed the rising populations, Also a slight increase in temperature in the northern areas, would allow us to cut back on fuel to heat, use solar power more efficiently and save on pollution. Maybe Florida will turn into a flourishing jungle. Maybe we need climate change to survive. Does anyone really have the answers or are we guessing and maybe making the wrong move by trying to stop climate change. I know bURLed , lots of maybe's. I believe the earth will take care of it's self , either way.

You do dream in technicolor Shadowdog, but at least you are being honest and I guess saying you don't want to worry about it?

But what does it mean when someone says "the earth will take care of itself"? Of course it will. But many species including humans may disappear or be irreparably damaged if these problems are real. The rocks of the earth and its molten core will sail right along just fine. Is that the comfort that you are offering?

Better the optimist than the pessimist.

As in "we don't need to swim to safe ground" because the waters aren't rising? It is true that Natural Selection will sort this out for some. :~D

As in not all change has to end in doom and gloom.

I'm trying to get to an understanding based on fact. Is that what you are doing?

Hide under the covers or turn on the lights. What's the choice?

Depending on how you look at it , climate change may be the answer that keeps the earth rolling along. It may kill us or lower our population before we kill the planet. Do we all freeze to death or sweat it out in the jungles. The fact is bURLed no one really knows.. Enjoy it while you can.

Maybe this, maybe that. Shadowdog, am I right in concluding that if there is global warming it is in your view because there are too many people?

With the latest round of information on climate change it is just a bunch of maybe's. The proof on paper has been skewed, and many scientists believe we are cooling. So they are full of maybe's as far as I can tell. Logic will tell you that if we cut the population in half then the pollution we create will be cut in half. I am not talking about the populations that already are starving and under developed, we need to cut back the populations of developed countries causing the pollution. If you think we have problems now, what do you think it will be like when the population doubles?.

Those particular "maybes" are just more trees to hide behind Shadowdog. Besides, are you replying to global warming or pollution? The question is about global warming. Or maybe you are admitting that CO2 is a pollutant?

Either way, not much of a solution buddy.

Pollution, global warming, acid rain all just names to throw around so someone can make some big bucks. Scare tactics. You didn't answer my question bURLed "what do you think it will be like when the population doubles?." Let me rephrase it as a choice..A or B ... "Doubling the population will" A: cause more pollution/global warming. or B: It will have no impact. I know you have a hard time answering questions so what is it A or B.

why does this guy burled fight with everyone on this board??  what a waste..

Doubling of population is hypothetical Shadowdog. Like one of your maybes.

Now maybe you can clarify what YOU ACTUALLY SAID.

Besides, are you replying to global warming or pollution? The question is about global warming. Or maybe you are admitting that CO2 is a pollutant?

Well, I'm highly amused.  Burled since when do you and I fight about anything?

"hypothetical" isn't that what climate change is. You have a real hard time answering the question, and it was so simple. A or B. I should have said URL:A or URL:B . Population will double in about 50-60 years, as we gain more people every year, stopping green house gas/pollution/acid rain etc will become more challenging. Or these hypothetical diseases of climate change will keep the population under control. The answer is simple and costs nothing, control birth rates. Less people means less money for the rich, so that won't happen. We will fork over billions/trillions to fight a losing battle against so called man made climate change and the results will be that the rich get richer. Of course the other cure would be to go back to the horse and buggy. Cutting the (GHG)emissions by 50% and raising the population 100% does not add up.

You make a lot of assumptions Shadowdog, but at least we can disentangle your intentions now. Curbing poplulation growth will solve all the problems. Great, thanks for that.

Who you calling a trilobite Ladybird? :~D

Happy New Year to everyone. Don't overdo the Baby Duck though!

You're welcome bURLed, all our low-energy light bulbs, home insulation, efficient cars, boilers and washing machines have so far failed to stop emissions growing illustrates how difficult cutting them will be to achieve. At the very least it will give us more time to come up with something else that may work. Running out of oil may help speed up new technologies.

Have you got any news of the iceberg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkWj6VhSoBM

The mystery is finally solved!!!!! Long may your big jib draw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Gh8sfDyLk

Well, well, I was wondering about this possibility. This seems far more tangible to me.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/08/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

Following comments are not directed at anyone, just general observations:

Anything that gets published, however superficial or unfounded, will be cited by someone to support their comfortably held opinions. IF the "opiners" are ever challenged(let's see some data please), they change tack.

When you are pinned to facts it's much harder to stray. To go from "there is no global warming" to "there is climate change" to "ok, there's global warming, but it's not man made" to entirely dismissive "there are more important problems", for example. Amazing how imaginative people can be when their cherished beliefs are challenged. You know who you are. :~D

That's why I tried to make the point with glaciers. One issue at a time. If glaciers have been disappearing, what is the explanation if it's not global warming. If we have agreement because no one is able to refute the evidence, we can proceed to the next logical step. Is it a man made problem?

It is a shame that our scientific and political establishments haven't given us clear guidelines so that we can judge whether changes are taking place. Instead, we are expected to just accept based on statements from scientific organizations that don't want to give the data away. Their databases generate money for them. And the last thing a politician such as Harper would want is to upset his constituency. Heck, even Lowell Green can be accepted by some as credible in this environment. When he turns his furnace down, it's global warming; when he turns it up, it's global cooling.

IMHO of course.

My position is this:  There are a lot of "IF" statements all around.  I dislike the extreme positons that are taken by the hard core environmentalists with their end of the world scenarios.  I don't believe CO2 is the culprit that its made out to be.  I think climate change is a result of multiple factors some which haven't been fully explored or have been silenced.

I don't want to see Canada's financial underpinning destroyed through the influence of climate extremists and crazy CO2 ponzi schemes.  I also don't think that Canada or Canadians are the climate criminals that the activist left from within Canada tries to manipulate us into thinking we are.  I think the slandering of Canada at Copenhagen is mostly their doing.

IF CO2 is the culprit; then Canada can have little impact on the process going forward.  The big emitters China, India and the U.S.A. have to take responsibility for that.  Canada has no choice but to go along with the U.S. on any climate fiscal policy.

I don't agree with the Liberal mantra that Canada has somehow lost our place as leaders in the world.  This is a conceit.  We were never looked upon in that way.  

I do think there are better things to do in the world with our tax dollars than pouring endless resources into a carbon scheme black hole with little prospect of any (environmental) return.

The only real evidence that we have of human made damage to the atmosphere is the ozone hole.  So yes, it's possible for this to happen.  What affect does a huge hole in the ozone have on climate?  It's a question that's just as relevant.

This isn't to say that dumping sludge from the oilsands into pristine lakes doesn't disgust me and we should get away from that dependence as soon as possible.  This isn't to say that factory farming, mono-farming, overfishing, deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction aren't real for me.  I find it extremely disturbing.  These are things we can and should do something about. 

IF CO2 is the culprit, tackling the things we can will go a lot further than Kyoto or Copenhagen.  Events such as these have proven to be useless. 

Investigation into Climategate to ascertain whether the emails were hacked or leaked by a whistleblower conducted by the National Domestic Extremism Team.  Those darn Brits.  What will they think of next?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/8/statement-from-norfolk-police.html#comments

For several decades, Canada managed to present itself as the friendly giant of environmental issues. The 1989 Protocol on CFCs, an early turning point in combating the depletion of the ozone layer, was born in Montreal, and American environmental campaigners like Al Gore are always quick to heap praise on their northern neighbour.

But these days, Canada is looking increasingly like the dirty one of G8. The WWF report noted that Canada is one of the few countries on the scorecard whose emissions are still rising, and that Canada's Conservative government isn't doing enough to combat climate change.

http://www.nben.ca/environews/media/mediaarchives/09/august/7_Canadas_Dirty_Secret.htm

Interesting presentation on CO2 and how it affects our planet..

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

We are to trust a weatherman to predict global weather?

These are already much aired anti-global warming dodges. Preaching to the converted only.

The Polar Bear issues were already discussed above. There are endangered Polar Bear populations, but the global population seems to be healthy.

CO2 is natural he says. Duh. Plants need it he says. Duh. So it can't cause harm apparently. So there will be no problem being locked in an air-tight room since there will be a nice healthy increase in expired CO2 until you yourself expire? As to quantity, it's not a valid assumption that a small portion of something can't be harmful. Consume 1 little bite of a Destroying Angel mushroom or 1 little seed of a Castor Plant(you know, the one the terrorists extract ricin from)and you won't have to worry about global warming or global cooling.

That there have been other periods of inter-glacial warming doesn't mean this is one. It's not like you can say, 5 pm, barbershop is closing and, oh ya, earth will start to warm up. It's basic logic. Nor has it been claimed that CO2 was the cause of past global warmings as John would have you believe.

Those who said hurricanes would increase because of global warming were probably over-extending themselves. Unless we are entering that period of "relative" global cooling that some are trying to proclaim of course.

An Inconvenient Truth: The IPCC is not the only source of information.

John is grasping for straws and his best hope is that since there was a let's say "build up" of CO2 from 1940's to 1970's without global warming then CO2 is not the cause now. Let's accept it for the moment and point out that: 1) Where is it writ that the warming happens immediately? 2) Where does he present the other data that might be a mitigating factor for that time, such as solar activity/inactivity which he hides behind for another of his points?

He's quick to point to cooling since 2002. But cooling within what, global warming? And why? Low sunspot activity? This too was already discussed above. If the answer is sunspots, apparently that's an 11 year cycle and it'll only moderate global warming for that period of time.

He tells us that there has been increased polar ice recently but fails to give any details. If there is a relative cooling now, there might be an increase in new ice. But the old ice has apparently been disappearing, so again an admission of global warming I guess. IS HE BASING HIS CLAIM ON THE SAME IPCC DATA THAT HE SAYS CAN'T BE TRUSTED???

No facts again. 1 guy with an organized presentation who comes across like a tele-evangelist. I guess it's convincing if you want to believe. Or are afraid to consider the other possibilities. But this presentation is not ready for prime time. I wouldn't be sending him any money.

Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen of NASA states that we have already passed what is considered the threshold for "maximum permissible concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

A study by the Pentagon suggests the impacts of climate change could be disastrous, with the possibility that climate change could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism. Among potential consequences, if climate change occurs abruptly or at the high end of scenario projections, might be catastrophic droughts, famines and riots.

As a measure of how seriously the Central Intelligence Agency takes the issue, in September it launched the Center on Climate Change and National Security.

According to Warren's logic, NASA, the Pentagon, the CIA and the UN, of course, are involved in a vast socialist conspiracy, along with conservationists and other "parasitical vested interests," to fleece all good and righteous western industrialized countries of their hard-earned cash, all in the name of combating climate change.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Climategate+convenient+sideshow/2354327/story.html

sorry Burled, I read in one of your earlier posts "It is important that people be informed rather than just "taking sides"."    

I thought this presentation did a great job to describe many of the things discussed here which is why I posted it. 

I can play the debate game too... 

Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen of NASA states that we have already passed what is considered the threshold for "maximum permissible concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Is there any supporting details around this?  What is the basis of such a claim?  and around we go....

A study by the Pentagon suggests the impacts of climate change could be disastrous,...

I think we all agree that this would be true in the same way that "A study by Burled suggests dissappearance of the sun could be disastrous.." would also be true.

...it (CIA) launched the Center on Climate Change and National Security.

Probably launched at threat level "orange" too!     So I wonder if this is a shift of staff from the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" program??

I find it (both sides) all very interesting.

Climate change is just another way of grabbing money from hard working citizens. Back in the caveman days it would cost you 4 clams and a dinosaur tooth if you ran your cooking and heating campfire after the sun came up. I'll have to read through my ancient scrolls bURLed to get you the exact facts and stats.

@Robin

My point was that the url was largely a rehash of items already discussed in even this thread. And pointing to the absurdities of some of the claims. Plants use CO2. Give me a break. It was a critique of the points themselves; not of the giving "The Wizard of Oz" an opportunity to present a contrary opinion. :~D

As to:
Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen of NASA states that we have already passed what is considered the threshold for "maximum permissible concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
Is there any supporting details around this? What is the basis of such a claim? and around we go....

Where I add the italics, the content is not mine. The italics are intended to single out the salient issue. Which was to demonstrate that there are many sources of information besides the IPCC. The same applies to your subsequent observation re the Pentagon.

I guess I could have just said, "read this url and you will know that there are other sources of information than the IPCC". But there are folk on the forum that are allergic to urls, so I try to present the gist up front. The article itself is simply an opinion piece written by the author to refute another columnist's claims. So you take it cum grano salis. But breaking the italicized part into bricks means you destroy the house.

By the way, I haven't even expressed my own opinions. No one's been interested enough to care I guess. Sob. Whichever side, I'd want straight answers to basic questions before pronouncing to the world how things are. Which is what most of this thread has been getting.

Hey, who ever said communication was easy. And the disappearance of the sun wouldn't be a disaster for a full 8 minutes. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to hear why/how.

So, yes, bring on the counter arguments. I'm with you on that as I said. But I don't think you are expecting blind acceptance of any old nonsense?

Wait a second Burled.  You haven't expressed your own opinion?  Don't keep up in suspense.  I'm asking now.

(Who you calling the Wizard of Oz?  Better be Robin.)

Hey Ladybird. The wizard is the weatherman who's balloon is full of hot air and promises to get us to Kansas. Not you.

Since you ask, I think the preponderance of data supports global warming however it is qualified by short term activity, especially when I look at the repetitive nonsense that opposes it.

Here's an article to whomever has the gumption to openly ask what might be happening to weather rather than confusing it with climate. Lots of numbers. Not from IPCC! Concerning the recent cold weather in Eurasia and parts of North America.

Ironically, as these inhabited parts shiver, the atmospheric system that's causing it, the Arctic Oscillation, has covered Greenland and the Arctic Ocean with air that's equally as extreme, but in the warm direction.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/why-the-us-and-much-of-europe-are-shivering-in-the-cold.ars

Whether you agree or not; you have to admit that Monte’s writing is deliciously funny. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/monte_solberg/2010/01/15/12486336.html

Same old emissions seeping from another nutrition-starved cONSERVATIVE to the detriment of the environment though Ladybird. Nothing new. Will he write a silly article this week about Global Warming because of our unseasonably warm days? Not bloody likely. He either didn't see it or he's deliberately ignoring my last posting. Or maybe he uses Flaherty's calculator. Over to you. :~D

Now, now Burled.... I have stated my position, you have stated yours and what else can be said?  LOL.

I merely draw attention in this thread to those persons with exceptional wit and a flair for writing.

NASA: 2009 tied for 2nd-warmest year, 00s hottest decade too

Relevant to this morning's discussion of reproducibility, NASA also describes how to repeat its analysis. The people responsible for the work have also provided a helpful explanation of why NASA has decided 2005 is the hottest year on record, but a slightly different approach favors 1998 as the record holder.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/nasa-2009-tied-for-2nd-warmest-year-00s-hottest-decade-too.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

I love arguing by proxy with you Burled.  Take that!

Ok, but this is just a repeat of the IPCC concerns, already addressed. That's why my last post was NASA data and analysis, not IPCC. This does not address NASA concerns of previous post. That's what you need to explain away.

Where the Himalayan glaciers are concerned, it's another IPCC knock, but at least 3 of the 28 urls that you posted already acknowledged this quarrel, and the objection was not that the Himalayan galciers weren't melting, but that they were doing it way slower than would be required to be melted by 2035 as was the claim accepted by the IPCC. The explanation was that their elevation would slow down the melting.

Nice try though. :~D

Holy Smackdown, Batman!

Holy nothing new from the turpitudinous tergiversater.

Now that's more like it.

See?  See?  lol  Rex makes me laugh

Has National Geographic gone rogue now? Or are they grasping as ozone holes? 

"Efforts by scientists and environmental activists to close the hole...." 

 Are you kidding me?  What a bunch of claptrap.  Now that the shenanigans at IPCC have been exposed; the ozone hole has been (re)discovered?  And by golly now we can explain why the earth isn't heating up when it should be.  All that CO2 must be leaking out of the hole.  Or wait weren't we warned 20 odd years ago that the ozone hole would bake the planet?

Lets add another hole to the settled science of climate warming/cooling/leaking.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100127-ozone-hole-global-warming/

And indoctrinating children about those nasty seal hunters in Newfoundland.  Who is NG in bed with these days?  WWF to be sure.  What does the WWF do besides part people from their money?  Do they actually do anything for the billions of guilt money they extort?  If you donate to WWF; are you guaranteed passage at the Pearly Gates.  Will you even get an autographed photo of Pamela Anderson?   I know... let's adopt a baby seal!  That should rake in millions.

 http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/Animals/CreatureFeature/Harp-seals

Are you going pro-rogue Ladybird? :~D

Why bother with NG when I can make this stuff up myself?

Masterpiece Theater and Trailer Park Boys just repeats again? Try this, you don't even need a tv. Lively, and dare I say it, entertaining. Dec 1, 2009, so it's not a live broadcast. Go Elizabeth!

CIGI Debate Series: Live Broadcast of Munk Debate on Climate Change

Panel Discussion with Elizabeth May, George Monbiot, Bjørn Lomborg, and Lord Nigel Lawson

http://www.munkdebates.com/

Yes I saw this one (and you just wait Burled - have I got one for you).  Between Ms. May's screeching (speaking of trojan horses) and the Moonbat frothing at the mouth; their theatrics were way over the top (as usual).

Hmmmm, control the world indeed!  I freekin knew it.

Anyone for a slushy?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/

Take THAT, Elizabeth!  Who will save the endangered Moonbat?

Too many repeats here Ladybird. Would you be good enough to synopsize with pointers to the supporting data so that they can be properly addressed? Be sure they don't rely on IPCC data to refute IPCC data. That'd be silly. To make it easy, weed out the unsupported opinion pieces and it'll be easy to use whatever remains.

Holy National Post!

‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2518632

I thought that an actual real climate scientist  did in fact have a lot to say that nobody has heard before.  Primarily because he's so dangerous, the IPCC had to shut him down.

Take away climate change and lots of people will lose lots of money. You just can't stop the billions from flowing into the hands of these climate change fanatics. Must be lots of little brown bags of money being handed out.

That was worth waiting for. Thanks Shadowdog.

It's not enough to oppose the IPCC Ladybird. Every organization has its detractors, often with their own agendas. And it's clear anyway that IPCC has probably been lax in some cases. Which of the above actually sways your opinion .... I'm assuming that it has valid supporting data that contradicts IPCC data.

Having been caught with their hands in the cookie jars; the "leading" scientists (?) involved in the whole IPCC mess are fessing up themselves.  I'd say that's evidence.

Here's another non-IPCC study you'll have to explain away Ladybird.

The head of the largest climate change study ever undertaken in Canada says the Arctic sea ice is thinning faster than expected.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html

What does that mean Burled? I have never said that climate was static.  We have lots of evidence from the historical record that climate changes and none of it had anything to do with "anthropogenic" causes.  What I object to is the hysteria created by shady groups with an axe to grind.  

Since when does the CBC report facts about climate change?  No, they report on "stories", "alleged" facts and "tall tales" because it sells, because saying a thing doesn't make it fact but once having said it; the tale takes on the characteristics of fact.  That's what people buy especially if they are told that they are "bad" and who wants to be "bad".

You can save yourself by making a contribution to the WWF.

As I stated above Ladybird, I am trying to get agreement that there is global warming so that we can proceed to the next step, a determination whether it is attributable to anthropogenic causes. So, I can take it you agree that there has been global warming? And that it should be considered to be happening now?

Meanwhile, as to sources. Are you saying the CBC is not accurately reporting that a major Canadian study supports global warming? Or that CBC should be added to a list of banned sources? Or that the study should be dismissed because it is reported by CBC? Do they not tell you the source of the report so that you can pursue it yourself?

Even the National Post, which you seem to think can be relied upon, is reporting as per above that IPCC didn't falsify the data. Frankly, when it comes to promoting the retelling of a comforting fairy tale, namely that global warming simply isn't happening, you'll have a hard time finding a bigger Mother Goose than The National Post and its columnists. At any rate, I've referenced NASA data, Pentagon data, and others, but you have seemed to be unmoved.

Lets say there is global warming, we should be happy then that it is not global cooling,it has happened in the past, how do know that it is not a good thing. We only hear about the negative. Maybe the planet will warm just enough that we are not so reliable on fossil fuels for heat etc. Maybe the ice melts will help replenish and flush some of the depleted lakes and rivers, maybe the heat will cause more evaporation and create more rain to wet the deserts and make them fertile. All we get is the negative, islands will drown, sea levels will wipe out cities. So move those people before they go under rather than waste billions on carbon credits worth nothing to the environment. I would rather buy stocks in suntan lotion and umbrellas, than parkas and snowblowers. I know bURLed, lots of maybe's, but the same could be said of all the global warming predictions we have been hearing for years. Embrace Global Warming as your friend.

I'm sure there were business opportunities when New Orleans "drowned" too Shadowdog. Hallelujah, right? I'm not arguing that Global Warming was the cause of that disaster. I am suggesting that you have a very shallow understanding on this.

Kind of shallow to use New Orleans and then say your not saying it caused that. At least I can look at it both ways, not just from one side that may or may not be right to all us shallow people. Your definition of shallow...."one that does not agree with bURLed" Ippc should give you a call because you have obviously seen the future and know all about it. If you look at New Orleans it was a disaster waiting to happen. Too bad those brilliant scientists you agree with couldn't have seen that one coming.

Yes, to anthropogenic causes of "pollution" and doing something about it. 

 No, to anthropogenic causes of climate change. 

 Yes, to global warming caused by long period solar activity and the recent warming adding more "greenhouse" water vapour to the atmosphere. 

 Yes, to the Arctic ice and some glaciers diminishing for a spell since the ice cover isn't nearly as thick or permanent as the other pole (resulting in more water vapour in that particular part of the globe) and increased ice cover in the Antarctic and some glaciers.

 And yes to the current global cooling. 

"All this has happened before and all this will happen again." Bill Adama

You are determined to trivialize the dire consequences that are predicted to attend global warming. If it is real, the predictions say it will mean starving, displacement, disease, drowning, etc for millions/billions. But as usual for you, I guess they'd just be collateral damage, right? You can hope to be one of the lucky to benefit and sell chewing gum to the richer survivors. Big profits for you! I think I see "your other side" pretty clearly Shadowdog. Get serious.

Yes, I do trivialize it.  The doomsday scenario's whole purpose is to scare the hell out of people so the population can be manipulated.  Can you not see how extreme and dishonest it is? 

Wasting my time with Shadowdog, I almost didn't see your update Ladybird.

ok then, down to business:

Yes, to anthropogenic causes of "pollution" and doing something about it.

Agreed.

No, to anthropogenic causes of climate change.

This is what we will need to pursue.

Yes, to global warming caused by long period solar activity and the recent warming adding more "greenhouse" water vapour to the atmosphere.

You are putting all your eggs in the "water vapour" basket then? But are agreeing to Global Warming? Are the ozone holes still players here? What if co2 is the cause of increased atmospheric water vapor?

Yes, to the Arctic ice and some glaciers diminishing for a spell since the ice cover isn't nearly as thick or permanent as the other pole (resulting in more water vapour in that particular part of the globe) and increased ice cover in the Antarctic and some glaciers.

So, that's a yes for Global Warming apparently.

And yes to the current global cooling.

This does seem to contradict the above entries???

Just trying to clarify so we can proceed peacefully. Never mind Adama. Though he did have 2 separate personas counting Lorne Greene. lol

bURLed you use the words "predicted" and "if it is real"....talk about wasting time ,your reply reads like the headline of National Enquirer. Nice to see you admit you have absolutely no idea of what will take place either, whether it will be for worse or better. Just because URL's are screaming at you about global warming doesn't mean you have to believe them all. There is not one scientist that can predict what will actually happen unless he has come from the future. Humans will adapt and may end up better off than we are today.

Well of course we you'd be better off Shadowdog. Your preferred solution is the removal of people, as you have stated. No people, no problem, right?

Were you actually able to read the whole thread? There'll be fewer surprises if you try that.

Lower population would easily fix our problems.I never said remove people, so don't come on here and throw crap around. bURled quote "I am trying to get agreement that there is global warming so that we can proceed to the next step," . Try all you want your not going to get everyone to always agree with you. It doesn't matter (except to you)who is right or wrong the replies are just opinions. Not everyone will agree with you all the time, but don't let that worry you, it won't cause any permanent damage, or maybe it has. Watch your BP.

I know it's one of your many challenges Shadowdog, but please, try to actually inform yourself about the thread before responding. You might be able then to understand that the only person responding was Ladybird and the comment was to her.

Your own "contributions" are simply a monotonous repetition of mean-spirited, uninformed, unsupportable, simplicities that pass as wisdom for you. We've heard them already! But we can never get enough.

Why don't you put it in the title Private for LadyBird only. You don't want feedback then don't say I said something I did not. You only want everyone to agree with you or you try to hang them. Why don't you just block me if you don't like what I have to say. If I am mean spirited it is to you give you back what you dish out to so many.

Flail away Shadowdog. But looking for a pat on the back because you think you are contributing by having your peculiar genius saying there is a bright side to potential disasters of epic proportions is worthless and worse than mean-spirited. I'm starting to think you can't help yourself though.

Twist it all around again bURLed. Try the ignore button, it may help you sleep.

How does that work Shadowdog? You tell people to get off your threads if they don't like what you say. And then you go to the threads of other people(Ladybird's in this case) and tell everyone that they should just ignore you if they don't like what you say there. Seems like you are the only one who has a say.

If your intention was to disrupt a serious dialogue which was attempting to provide the data so that folk on the Forums could make informed decisions, congratulations. I think you klled it. You should join the picketers that you hate.

Quel dommage.

Blah URL blah URl blah, that's all you contribute.

The problem Shadowdog is that you don't have an "off" button.  Fortunately, I do.

A simple "I don't agree with you shadowdog" would be fine and maybe an answer to as why, without twisting around what I said.

My point Shadowdog.  You can't give it up can you?  All that blah blah blah nonsense.  It's all about having the last word isn't it? Scoring points wouldn't you say?

I don't agree with you Ladyburled

Oh, Rex must be feeling better… dishing out the best gustatory prose of the day.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2648590