BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 95 Pages +
  • « First
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Climate change a different take on what to do about it.

#301 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-January-13, 07:13

View Postonoway, on 2012-January-11, 15:26, said:

The faster we put ourselves out of the picture the happier and more peaceful the rest of the universe will be.

And I am gonna stop listening to the news.


While that is a response to the title of this thread, it hardly seems adequate (or likely|). :D

Perhaps exerting our natural rights and, as devised for our governments, our control over our legislators might be a better start to changing the profligate nature of our presence? Certainly stopping the financial excesses and extreme taxation methods couldn't hurt...
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#302 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-January-24, 10:33

From our friends in the land down-under (where even Carbon has a "price"). A nice round-up of all of the ways that global-warming "science" (read model projections) has been refuted by actual data.

antipodal results
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#303 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2012-February-01, 08:53

Global warming not caused by increased solar activity

Quote

A new NASA study has confirmed that it's greenhouse gases - not changes in solar activity - that are the main cause of global warming.

The study involves an updated calculation of the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat - and show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.

But of course no amount of evidence will change the positions of some folks.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#304 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-01, 09:40

View PostPassedOut, on 2012-February-01, 08:53, said:

Global warming not caused by increased solar activity


But of course no amount of evidence will change the positions of some folks.



And so the "settled science" continues to advance.

It is interesting to note that since the global temperatures (as well as global climate) continue to refuse to go along with the climate model projections, there has now been a switch (3 card monte, anyone) to the heat content of the planet, to explain the continued belief that [CO2] rules the roost. It is the only climate "factor" that the warmist groups can hope to convince the taxpayers to shell out for. As if.

OTOH, belief, like guns and religion are hard to let go of...
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#305 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-01, 13:54

An interesting side note. The statistical interpretation of data.

Briggs vs. Plait

Posted Image
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#306 User is offline   onoway 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 936
  • Joined: 2005-August-17

Posted 2012-February-02, 00:05

I found this quite a refreshing video..whether climate change is caused by people or not it's a terrific approach. http://www.ted.com/t...ainability.html
0

#307 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-02, 19:01

View Postonoway, on 2012-February-02, 00:05, said:

I found this quite a refreshing video..whether climate change is caused by people or not it's a terrific approach. http://www.ted.com/t...ainability.html


Certainly possible, if somewhat idealistic. Sustainable as in "revenue-neutral"....in all senses of the word. This must include associated costs for subsidies, maintenance, replacement etc. All too many alternatives have way too many hidden costs that must remain hidden to make them seem desirable. Altruism, at least in the design sense, is a start. Exploitation, however, runs both ways. Vigilance is the price we must and will all have to pay.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#308 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2012-February-09, 10:40

Scientists melt mystery over icecaps and sea levels

Quote

John Wahr of the University of Colorado in Boulder and colleagues, in a study published on Thursday, found that thinning glaciers and icecaps were pushing up sea levels by 1.5 millimeters (0.06 inches) a year, in line with a 1.2 to 1.8 mm range from other studies, some of which forecast sea levels could rise as much as 2 meters (2.2 yards) by 2100.

Sea levels have already risen on average about 18 centimeters since 1900 and rapid global warming will accelerate the pace of the increase, scientists say, threatening coastlines from Vietnam to Florida and forcing low-lying megacities to build costly sea defenses.

No doubt some childless people see no reason to accept inconvenience now to lessen a catastrophe decades from now. But it is surely time for those of us with children and/or morals to push hard for reductions in CO2 emissions.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#309 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-09, 12:35

View PostPassedOut, on 2012-February-09, 10:40, said:

Scientists melt mystery over icecaps and sea levels


No doubt some childless people see no reason to accept inconvenience now to lessen a catastrophe decades from now. But it is surely time for those of us with children and/or morals to push hard for reductions in CO2 emissions.



Indeed, we need to address serious problems in clean energy sufficiency, for the sake of all humanity.

in a study published on Thursday, found that thinning glaciers and icecaps were pushing up sea levels by 1.5 millimeters (0.06 inches) a year,

meanwhile, in much the same vein

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows. The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

First, replacing the agenda-driven pseudo-science of [CO2] climatology with real concerns and problems, would be a fine start...
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#310 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-09, 16:03

And, in case you are wondering about the origins and support for where that agenda came from, here is an excerpt from Andrew Montford's latest exposé on how the Royal Society became an advocacy group:

2001: Working with environmentalists

On the Royal Society website, it is still possible to see details of a meeting
organised by the Royal Society in the wake of the IPCC’s Third Assessment
Report. Entitled Climate Change: What We Know and What We Need to Know, it was held at the Society on 12 and 13 Decmber 2001.

These records give a strong flavour of the new direction that the Society was taking under
May’s leadership. The meeting was opened by Sir John Houghton, a former
head of the Meteorological Office (Met Office), a fellow of the Society and
the head of the IPCC’s scientific panel. Houghton has been a key figure in the
pushing of global warming as a major policy issue, and is believed to have
been responsible for what was widely perceived as the hyping of the science
in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. The meeting was closed with a speech
by May himself, perhaps an indication of the importance that was attached
to the occasion.
Many of the attendees were prominent scientists involved in research
into climate change and its impact, their names familiar to anyone who
has followed the campaign to keep global warming at the top of the
news agenda: Brian Hoskins, Myles Allen, John Mitchell, Julia Slingo, Martin
Parry, Bob Watson, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Sir David King and Mike
Hulme. But this was not a scientific meeting. As well as the scientists, there
were representatives from a variety of environmental NGOs, including the
Worldwide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace, civil servants, representatives
from the nuclear and energy-efficiency industries and an environmentally
minded oil executive in the shape of Mark Moody-Stuart.

Also on hand was the BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin, who was to speak on the
difficulties of communicating climate change science. Harrabin has been one
of the most frequently criticised environmental journalists in the UK, accused
of being too close to environmentalists and of failing to question scientists
closely enough. He has also been instrumental in attempts to have sceptic
voices sidelined at the BBC, organising a seminar of NGO staff and BBC
decision-makers to address what some perceived as a ‘false balance’ in the
corporation’s output.

Some time after the meeting took place, Houghton issued a report outlining
its conclusions.

Although details are somewhat sparse, it is possible to get a
sense of the mood of the participants. For example, the conclusions of the
‘Communicating Climate Science’ section were as follows:
Efforts to manage climate change will not succeed until we are able
to convey the idea that individual behaviour can make a difference.
Education and communication will have a key role to play and it was
suggested that the media continues to be an effective way for scientists
to reach the general public. Other stakeholders such as local authorities
and environmental pressure groups also have an important role in
communicating climate change science.
…the science can provide compelling arguments that the public can accept once they have reached a threshold of engagement. Scientists
and communicators were urged to avoid claiming certainty where there is
none. The point was made that communication will only succeed by telling
the story clearly, correctly and repeatedly in different ways and regularly
arguing for the need to reduce emissions…
28.The overwhelming impression is not of a meeting struggling with the
science, but with an advocacy movement struggling to get a grip on the
political agenda. The meeting was a strange one to be found under the roof
of the Royal Society.

2005: a Guide to Facts and Fictions about Climate Change

29.In 2005, the Royal Society issued another position paper on climate change
that was very much a low point in the Society’s history. It was remarkable for its
aggressive stance towards those who questioned any aspect of the officially
sanctioned IPCC view of climate science. The document was written by Sir
John Houghton, who had been in charge of writing the IPCC’s scientific report
in 2001, and Sir David Wallace, a physicist and the Society’s treasurer. Entitled
A Guide to Facts and Fictions About Climate Change, the document took
issue with claims that evidence in support of the global warming hypothesis
was exaggerated and that scientists were underplaying the uncertainties in
their understanding of the climate.

It presented what it said were twelve misleading arguments put forward by sceptics, although it did not provide any citations to allow readers to assess these arguments on their own terms or indeed to determine if they really formed part of the sceptic case.
30.The tenor of the document is of swatting away unscientific criticism from
politically motivated attackers, but many of the counterarguments it outlined
were rather tenuous. For example, one of the allegedly misleading claims
by sceptics concerned the reliability of climate models, arguments which
Houghton and Wallace paraphrased as follows:
There is no reliable way of predicting how temperatures will change in
the future. The climate is so complex that it is hard to predict what might
happen. The IPCC’s climate scenarios are developed by economists not
scientists and are often misleadingly presented as predictions or forecasts,
when they are actually just scenarios – the most extreme of which are
totally unrealistic. The IPCC’s findings are dependent on models that are
badly flawed. No climate model has been scientifically validated. The IPCC
2001 predictions showed a wider uncertainty range than that in earlier
reports.

31.Far from demonstrating that these claims were misleading, however,
the authors actually went on to support them: the very first sentence of the Society’s response was in full agreement with the sceptic critique, noting that
‘Climate change is complex and not easy to predict…’.

The rest of Houghton and Wallace’s piece had little to say by way of disputing the difficulties of modelling the Earth’s climate and failed to touch on the other criticisms made.
The story was the same for what Houghton and Wallace called ‘Misleading
arguments - the claims that scientists had been exaggerating the dangers
of climate change by linking individual extreme weather events to climate
change and that the impression of increasing weather damage was due
to social and economic change rather than any difference in the climate.
A close reading of the Royal Society’s alleged rebuttal reveals that they
actually had no disagreement with what sceptics were saying, noting that
individual weather events could not be ascribed to global warming and that
socioeconomic factors were indeed a factor.
The picture that emerges from the analysis above is clear. By presenting
their response as a rebuttal of misleading claims rather than seeking areas
of agreement, the Society managed to sow discord where there was in
fact a measure of harmony. This approach might have been useful for the
purpose of maintaining political pressure, but did little to advance the public
understanding of the science or to enhance the reputation of the Royal
Society or of British science.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#311 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-15, 03:15

Uh oh, looks like the jig is up. Those evil Heartland Institute deniers actually raise funds and have a budget that they are hoping will hit 7 million next year to help fund sites like WUWT. Imagine, providing 90k for improved weather instruments and siting study.

Oh the humanity...

Read all about it

Now, I wonder how much they spent on Cop 15 or Cancun or Durban, to say nothing of the carbon footprint of all those jet flights. The Heartland boys better aim a bit higher, like maybe 7 billion...
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#312 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,551
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2012-February-15, 10:22

View PostAl_U_Card, on 2012-February-15, 03:15, said:

Uh oh, looks like the jig is up. Those evil Heartland Institute deniers actually raise funds and have a budget that they are hoping will hit 7 million next year to help fund sites like WUWT. Imagine, providing 90k for improved weather instruments and siting study.

Oh the humanity...

Read all about it

Now, I wonder how much they spent on Cop 15 or Cancun or Durban, to say nothing of the carbon footprint of all those jet flights. The Heartland boys better aim a bit higher, like maybe 7 billion...


From the turnabout is fair play department, looks like a whole bunch of documents from the Heartland Institute have just been linked onto the interwebs:

http://blogs.discove...te-change-spin/
Alderaan delenda est
0

#313 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,551
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2012-February-15, 10:26

View Posthrothgar, on 2012-February-15, 10:22, said:

From the turnabout is fair play department, looks like a whole bunch of documents from the Heartland Institute have just been linked onto the interwebs:

http://blogs.discove...te-change-spin/


I can't emphasize how amusing it is to see quotes like the following from Al_U_Tard's corporate masters

Quote

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists
(such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.
This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

Alderaan delenda est
0

#314 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-15, 11:31

I trust, and am sure, that full scrutiny will be made of any and all documents released into the public record. So, should any illegal or fraudulent activities be found, that an impartial, judicial investigation can be conducted and the guilty parties be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Just because battle lines have been drawn, it does not mean that unacceptable practices can or should be tolerated no matter what the intention of the combatants.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#315 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2012-February-15, 11:54

View Posthrothgar, on 2012-February-15, 10:22, said:

From the turnabout is fair play department, looks like a whole bunch of documents from the Heartland Institute have just been linked onto the interwebs:

http://blogs.discove...te-change-spin/

Thanks for the link. Not surprised though.
B-)
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#316 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,551
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2012-February-15, 12:04

View PostAl_U_Card, on 2012-February-15, 11:31, said:

I trust, and am sure, that full scrutiny will be made of any and all documents released into the public record. So, should any illegal or fraudulent activities be found, that an impartial, judicial investigation can be conducted and the guilty parties be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Just because battle lines have been drawn, it does not mean that unacceptable practices can or should be tolerated no matter what the intention of the combatants.


Here's the thing...

You've spewed countless posts about Climategate and the like...
We have a 16 page long circle-jerk which consists largely of you and Lukewarm gratifying each other.

Throughout this, you claim that your true motivation is exposing a grand conspiracy to deceive the public...

I'm just curious whether this new relevant will elicit any change in your behavior?
Should we expect to see dozen's of threads over the next few months excoriating the Heartland institute for trying to suppress open discourse?

If its good for the goose, it must be good for the gander...
Alderaan delenda est
0

#317 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-18, 10:22

The only really controversial document has not only shown clear signs of forgery and the hiding of origin, it has been traced to the region where Desmogblog (the first recipient of the documents) is located and not the same origin as the "authentic" documents originated from the Heartland Inst.

Looks like the spin-meisters are afraid of the current trend away from the climate scam giveaway and decided to take matters into their own hands.

Watch for the whiplash, as it is coming soon to a warmist near you.

p.s. No attempt to validate or authenticate was made before the criticisms were levelled. That was a BIG mistake but not surprising considering the generally shoddy nature of the science and approach of the IPCC gang that despite the huge sums of money thrown their way, still can't get it right.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#318 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-18, 10:46

No need for a series of threads to excoriate the Heartland Inst. There are plenty out there looking at the situation with a critical eye.

one

another

yet another

still another

But just looking at the real Heartland documents is revelatory enough. Not a lot of resources can go a very long way...for some if not for all.

Just another massive fail for the CAGW cargo-cult. Thankfully, their time appears to be nigh. :P
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#319 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,547
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2012-February-18, 11:01

Quote

The Heartland Institute disputes the authenticity of one document, but elements discussed in that document are covered in the others, too. The documents show that the Chicago-based group derives its funding from several sources and enjoys substantial support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation and Murray Energy Company. These groups represent the largest private oil and coal interests in the United States, respectively.


Can it really be a shock that anti-warmist are sponsored by fossil fuel billionaires?
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
—- Mark Twain
0

#320 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,788
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-18, 16:59

View PostWinstonm, on 2012-February-18, 11:01, said:

Can it really be a shock that anti-warmist are sponsored by fossil fuel billionaires?


According the the Koch foundation's own records and statement, they gave once to the Heartland Inst. (in 10 years) and that wasn't even for anything to do with climate, as well as being a rather paltry amount ($25K).

The fact that fossil fuel billionaires gave millions (Shell, Exxon) to the CRU and others makes even less sense, but there you go, climate alarmism like religion, nothing sensible there, at all.

$ is green $
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

Share this topic:


  • 95 Pages +
  • « First
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users