Climate change

[Cliff Beer]

OK, here's a different approach. You gotta admit that the GT40s.com crowd is a pretty conservative bunch, right? In other words, a lot of NRA, anti-gov't, republican, ex-military, slightly older, caucasian, independent-minded, individualistic, self-made types here, right? Certainly there are some democratic, more liberal folks here but, on balance, it's a pretty conservative group. Given that, it's not surprising that Al Gore/gay whale lovin'/tree huggin type viewpoints aren't real popular (see above). But, let's stay open minded and realize that over the last 20 years there's been a very real, significant and (what appears to be) lasting change in popular thought about the importance of maintaining, and not damaging, the environment, at least in most first-world countries. Don't you think that we're perhaps on to something real here? Or, is this whole change just a big conspiracy theory driven by greed and self interest? The latter seems unlikely to me.

Here's another thought - what if the conservative viewpoint here is wrong and the environmental damage becomes too severe and progressed to do anything about? What then? I'd like my four kids to have a great environment in which to grow up in (as I did when I was a kid). Personally, I'll take the more "green" approach and hopefully be proved wrong!

[Keith 'Baron' Hardy]

Originally Posted by mikewegener

The democrat liars cite statistics from 05 or computer models that have been rigged to support their fascist goals.

Mike

I confess I only have a limited understanding of US politics because I spend most of my time trying to find any sense in ours - but I would have thought that the words "Democrat" and "Facist" would be considered extremely oxymoronic and therefore mutally exclusive?

[Ian K]

Here's your "Glaciers are growing" crap:

Are glaciers growing or shrinking?

Yes, a few are, and some of those are still signficantly smaller than they were 10
years ago. But, the majority are still shrinking.

I was tech support for a research project back in 1997/8 that went to the
Maldives to examine the pollution issues caused by India's rapid and unregulated
industrialization. The data collected, heck, the video collected, was extremely
disheartening, and it wasn't caused by cows or humans breaking wind. It was
industrial pollutants trapped under the cloud cover, breaking the cloud cycle.

So, while there may be some exaggeration regarding climate change and global
warming, and yes, the earth does go through "natural" periods of both, one "fact"
remains - the warming trends are lasting longer and the temperatures are moving
higher. Sea levels are rising, and have been fairly rapidly over the past few years.
Part of that is due to polar ice melt, but much of it is also attributed to water
temperatures rising as well - as water gets warmer, it expands.

Ian

[JimmyMac]

The climate change theorists and associated doomsday predictions have been headlining the TV news channels here in the UK all day today. (BBC & ITN)

A planned distraction from the MPs expenses claims just published this morning and the current scepticism no doubt.

[Iron Sheik]

Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2

,,GT40s.com crowd is a pretty conservative bunch, right? In other words, a lot of NRA, anti-gov't, republican, ex-military, slightly older, caucasian, independent-minded, individualistic, self-made types here, right?

I would not say "slightly older",,,more like older than dirt (Lawrence welk old).

As the children and the grand children of the above marry into non Caucasian, pot smoking, tree hugging anti individualistic folks, their legacy will be DUST in the wind.

[WEGENER Engineering]

Keith - I know that it would sound strange to call the purveyors of everything good, loving and caring evil fascists but the reality is that the democrat party supports an all encompassing government that will regulate my every move. Obama said that " we all cannot eat all the food we want, drive our cars and set our thermostats at 72 degrees". He also wants "a civilian security force better equipped than the armed forces of today"
While you may be OK with all that I am not.

Ian - I always enjoy when "crap" enters the discussion. It always shows where the author comes from. When the argument hits hard the "crap" usually comes out.

Cliff - You described me to a "T". Thank You. I believe that we all should be good stewards of our environment. I was raised to waste not, want not.
I recycled before recycling was hip. I do not litter and reuse paper for notes. I was reminded of the starving children when I sat down with my parents for dinner and turn the lights off in rooms not used.
You are right. I am worried about my son's future but that has nothing to do with the fact that "global warming" is being used to control every aspect of my life, tax me to death and take away my right to pursuit of happiness.
I believe in technology and the brilliance of the human mind but we cannot change nature and to believe otherwise can only be dreamed up by egocentric narcissists like Al Gore and Adolf Obama.
The originator of the global warming theory has denounced it himself. Gore is clinging to it because it guarantees world domination for him and his democrat buddies.
The world will go on. Our children will have to wear a sweater and eventually the liars in the government will be exposed as the frauds that they are.
Mike

[Molleur]

wegener, +1 buddy!

[Ian K]

Mike,

Originally Posted by mikewegener

Ian - I always enjoy when "crap" enters the discussion. It always shows where the author comes from. When the argument hits hard the "crap" usually comes out.

You are 100% correct, I supplied data for the hard hitting argument, and I am waiting
for your "crap"

Seriously, while agree that some of the issues are the natural cyclic warming/cooling
cycles the Earth has experienced before, the trend is still pointing towards longer and
warmer warming cycles, and shorter and warmer cooling cycles.

Ian

[WEGENER Engineering]

Ian
The theory of global warming caused by greenhouse emissions has been disproven by the fact that the planet cools at a rapid rate. During the heyday of that argument there were newsclips of a rise in sea levels of 0.25" (you'd think a moving body of water could not be measured that precise, an inuit girl in congress crying over her fear of those rising water levels destroying her family hut, drowning polar bears, a movie full of lies and the government in britain flying aircraft equipped with infrared sensors over neighborhoods to see if energy is wasted. We also had at least one suicide in britain because of guilt over a carbon footprint.
Today I should be sitting in my office, flooded by the Pacific ocean, enduring unbearable heat. You know what. Here in the high desert it has been cold, it has hailed and there was rain. In June.
So what do those that have to lose the most from a debunked theory do?
They change the parameters and call it "Climate Change"
So if the "Inconvenient Truth" equals a certain outcome, kinda like a+b=c with "c" being slowly roasting, how can the the new outcome be a+b=d with "d" being the new iceage? There is something foul in this math and instead of declaring co2 a toxin maybe the democrat "dogooders" should look towards the missing sunspots or exploring the changing temps on mars and venus.
But that would not help them enslaving us......
Mike

[Ian K]

Mike,

Originally Posted by mikewegener

Today I should be sitting in my office, flooded by the Pacific ocean, enduring unbearable heat. You know what. Here in the high desert it has been cold, it has hailed and there was rain. In June.

What many fail to grasp is that weather patterns are affected by surface temperatures,
water temperatures, and precipitation. Due to increased global temperatures and melting
ice, there is more precipitation in the air. This not only allows for rain, snow, ice etc. to
come down on us, but it also affects the current ocean current cycles as the density of
the water changes. These changes cause the air currents to shift from their normal behavior,
thus causing more "stormy" weather and temperature fluctuations. So, while you may have
experienced unexpected cold storms, rain and hail in June in the high desert, the overall
trends are still moving towards warmer air and water temps. There has also been less
solar activity recently, with 2008 having 200 days without sunspots, the lowest total
in 50 years, which also contributes to current "cooler" weather. The sun also goes
through its own cycles of hot and cold. However, it remains to be seen if the sun's
cooling trend will have a dramatic effect upon the earth's own warming trend.

As evidenced by last year's spike in hurricane activity, which is the direct result of
increased water temp, both surface and deep temp, as well as 2005's record setting
year, and the general trend to above average activity, the data supports warming.

Ian

[Cliff Beer]

well, a good healthy debate here obviously, and that's good. One thing/theme that seems clear is the common concern around the fact of individuals and groups using environmental "concerns" to advance their authority and control...to tax, regulate and limit behavior. That's a very valid worry. Let's try to tackle that problem while at the same time ensuring a healthy environment, not at the expense of the environment.

[craig]

Instead of trying to stop all these global warming induced hurricane's, tornado's and such. Al Gore should figure out how to contain them in some sort of giant horse corral and harness their energy..

[WEGENER Engineering]

Strange, I remember vividly a report that stated that there were less hurricanes than expected and that the hurricane activity was actually called benign. I know that all liberals are waiting for the next Katrina with a big "I told ya so" but Mother Nature is letting you guys down big time.
No matter how the pseudo scientists on the government payroll twist reality it looks like this one is not gonna happen. the precipitation you mention would come from clouds that in turn would block the sun's rays
effectively cooling the oceans and allowing less evaporation thus completing nature's cycle.
There are a lot of very smart people speaking out against "Global Warming" and their voices are not allowed to be heard by the WhiteHouse fascists.
Even with my second grade education I think that I would be able to rigg up a computer model that claims the earth stops rotating unless we all dress in tree bark. All I need to make it a religion would be a sympathetic media and and a good education in lawyer speak - because as we all know a lie becomes truth if repeated enough times. Was that Goebbels or Harry Reid who said that? I always confuse the two.
Ian, I know you are a good guy and we all know that these sites are monitored. I understand that you are probably just protecting your job and trying to please those that control your every move.
I still love you.
Mike

[Ian K]

Originally Posted by mikewegener

the precipitation you mention would come from clouds that in turn would block the sun's rays
effectively cooling the oceans and allowing less evaporation thus completing nature's cycle.

Again, there is plenty of evidence that shows that the cloud cycle is broken in certain
areas of the world. Secondly, the clouds are not cooling the earth enough to make a
difference - evaporation is happening faster than the cycle can keep up with. With
warmer air, the clouds are not forming quickly enough, and in some areas, not at all.
The moisture hangs in the air not as clouds, but as humidity. And, as you said yourself,
the rain is falling in areas where it doesn't normally fall like the high desert, where it
doesn't affect ocean water temp at all.

Ian, I know you are a good guy and we all know that these sites are monitored. I understand that you are probably just protecting your job and trying to please those that control your every move.
I still love you.
Mike

Actually, my current job is not impacted at all by this discussion. About a decade ago,
perhaps it might have been affected me somewhat (actually, the two big research groups
I was contracted out to lost most of their major funding over the past 5 years, though
they may be getting some new funding soon), but I was in an independent department.
Currently, I am further removed, working in an entirely different department, higher up
the chain both personally as well as where my group falls. Again, there may be some
researchers and projects out there which are more sensitive to the topic that might come
to me for help, the reality is my job in no way depends on it.

Ian

[WEGENER Engineering]

Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2

well, a good healthy debate here obviously, and that's good. One thing/theme that seems clear is the common concern around the fact of individuals and groups using environmental "concerns" to advance their authority and control...to tax, regulate and limit behavior. That's a very valid worry. Let's try to tackle that problem while at the same time ensuring a healthy environment, not at the expense of the environment.

I go with Cliff on that one
Mike

[Ian K]

Originally Posted by mikewegener

I go with Cliff on that one
Mike

Me too.

Ian

[Pete McCluskey.]

CLIMATE CHANGE: It's official: the world is cooling, not warming - 30 August 2008


Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

[Colin Artus]

Why not mosey over to Watts Up With That? where the Warmista arguments are given a measured critique. I would add that the most basic level of common sense rings alarm bells when supposedly scientific bodies such as the UK Met office, claim their climate models can accurately predict climatic conditions 20,50, even 100 years from now. They can't manage two days into the future with more than 50% success.

[JimmyMac]

This is a French energy company doing their PR on the Brits.

Despite low inflation, our energy and water charges will be be compounding by the winter and some pensioners who were there in 1948 will be dying of hypothermia again.
But that's OK as they will be using less carbons !

I especially disliked the corruption of the Union Jack flag.
They must think we are greener than we believe.

Green Britain Day on 10th July with EDF Advert, Ad - EDF Energy - Video Clip

[Pete McCluskey.]

The madmen are in charge of the Asylum.

Wong's silent treatment.

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth | June 19, 2009

Article from: The Australian
STEVE Fielding recently attended a climate change conference in Washington, DC. Listening to the papers presented, the Family First senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses they provided directly contradicted the reasons the Australian government had been giving as the justification for its emissions trading legislation.
Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: "What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
"In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science."
Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: "A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist." Think about that for a moment with respect to our government's climate policy.
On his return to Canberra Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.
Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving dangerous global warming, to help him, and the public, assess whether cutting emissions would be a cost-effective environmental measure.
After all, the cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is about $4000 a family a year for a carbon dioxide tax of $30 a tonne. The estimated benefit of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.
The questions posed were:
* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
* Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?
As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister's advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions.
We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean.
Que? What is it about "carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased" that the minister's science advisers don't understand?
The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer.
And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister's advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate.
These are not adequate responses.
It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change's green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society's energy usage that will be driven by the government's ETS legislation.
All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong's advisers may yet provide.
Geologist Bob Carter, carbon modeller David Evans, hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth attended the meeting between Steve Fielding, Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen. Sackett has so far declined to answer Fielding's questions on this page.