Proved: There is no climate crisis

[Trimdingman]

It was cold yesterday. What is Al Gore's number? If everybody gets in their cars and drives 100 miles per day, will that make spring arrive sooner?

[stephenhawkings]

what is your president putin's number?

[sprinter]

Just as in MMGW, the hype has turned into misstatements of facts. It turns out Ida is not the missing link. But where is the media blitz announcing this fact?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1717...ssing-link.html

[Trimdingman]

Just as in MMGW, the hype has turned into misstatements of facts. It turns out Ida is not the missing link. But where is the media blitz announcing this fact?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1717...ssing-link.html

 

 

The missing link is probably an alien.

[sprinter]

:hysterical:

 

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article719339.ece

 

The global climate challenge may have been on the daytime agenda during the recent World Business Summit climate conference in Copenhagen, but in the evenings many businessmen, politicians and civil servants are reported to have availed themselves of the capital’s prostitutes.

 

“We’ve been extremely busy. Politicians also need to relax after a long day,” says ‘Miss Dina’, herself a prostitute.

 

Good for the economy

Nyhedsbrevet 3F called various escort agencies and prostitutes to hear whether they had been busier than normal during the climate conference – and all agreed; summits in Copenhagen are good for the economy.

[stephenhawkings]

:hysterical:

 

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article719339.ece

i told you it was getting warmer!, even hot, under the collar!

[sprinter]

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_...tdD4ThPi9EDwLAF

[stephenhawkings]

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_...tdD4ThPi9EDwLAF

was that TRIM growing up?

[Trimdingman]

was that TRIM growing up?

 

 

That was Al Gore.

[sprinter]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11534

 

No country in the world would risk as much for “global warming” as New Zealand if it goes ahead with the cap-and-trade energy taxation installed by Helen Clarke’s now-departed Labour Government.

 

New Zealand’s economy is almost completely dependent on its farm exports: lamb, dairy products, beef and high-end white wines. Half of New Zealand’s carbon emissions come from cattle and sheep. If New Zealand taxes its cows and sheep hundreds of dollars per animal for methane emissions and manure handling fees, Argentina would almost immediately displace New Zealand’s farm exports. Argentina has more grass, more cattle, the potential for more lambs, a surging wine industry—and no Kyoto obligations.

 

Based on U.S. and Australian “discussions,” a 500-cow dairy might have to pay $250,000 per year for cattle emissions and manure handling permits, plus a hefty increase in its costs for low-carbon electricity and diesel. An Argentine dairy would pay none of these increased costs—and every dollar of cost differential would be a further incentive for Argentine dairymen to expand their exports at the expense of New Zealand.

 

That would leave Kiwi cities like Auckland and Christchurch without visible means of support.

 

I said this recently to several New Zealand government ministers and business leaders at a private dinner in Wellington. My message was not welcomed. John Key’s new government seems to understand that New Zealand’s economy would be at terrible risk from carbon taxes—but its voters apparently don’t realize it.

 

The Clark government told New Zealand voters that the cost of “leading the world” with a carbon tax would be about $150 per year. That figure is laughably low. The British government now admits its new carbon tax law could cost as much as $27,000 per UK family.

 

The Key government has temporarily suspended the cap-and-trade, but has not dared repeal it. Meanwhile, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is installing his own cap-and-trade, and playing footsie with President Obama on “solidarity” with a U.S. carbon tax. If Australia and the U.S. agreed on some benchmark carbon tax, most New Zealanders would expect their country to join in.

 

Never mind that the earth’s global warming stopped after 1998 because the sun has gone into a startling quiet period. That’s why New Zealand’s many glaciers have been growing recently instead of receding. Never mind that even full member compliance with Kyoto would “avoid” only about 0.05 degree C of warming over the next 50 years—by the alarmists’ own math.

[stephenhawkings]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11534

I guess that takes the US off the 'leader' role when it comes to taxes, being green, and such!

[sprinter]

No surprise here

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle6425036.ece

 

Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.

 

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

 

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

 

Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data, are less unusual than is generally assumed. “Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered,” he said.

 

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.

 

In all the surveys people were asked about both their own research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under the heading “questionable practices”. These included dropping data points based on a “gut feeling” and failing to publish data that contradict one’s previous research.

 

The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees of anonymity.”

[macattak1]

No surprise here

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle6425036.ece

 

Is this peer reviewed information? I thought not! Even if it were its all lies! Many people here on BON can be broadly quoted as verifying that Scientists Do Not Lie, do not have personal agendas, and are so above reproach that only if they work for the cigarette companies are they capable of deceit. In fact, scientist that deal in Global Warming and Evolution are much like the Pop and Incapable of Transgression.

 

Please stop this senseless post besmirching scientist's 'diety' like integrity. A lot of people here on BON, at the end of the day, hang their hat on science and scientists.

 

Science is incapable of creating anything but truth!

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

Nobody says that about science....at least not initially. In the end, science will always come to the truth.

[Trimdingman]

Nobody says that about science....at least not initially. In the end, science will always come to the truth.

 

 

That is true of pure science. However, the cancer of politics can infect and destroy any fine institution.

[macattak1]

Everything is OK in the end.

If its not OK, its not the end.

[stephenhawkings]

so we still have no proof that climate change does not exist, while we can't prove a negative, allegedly, you can't disprove it either. so the stale mate continues!

[sprinter]

For our friends that suffer from Eco-Anxiety :rolleyes:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5329857034306331360

[Trimdingman]

so we still have no proof that climate change does not exist, while we can't prove a negative, allegedly, you can't disprove it either. so the stale mate continues!

 

 

I think that there is more onus on the proponents of an idea to provide proof than there is for the non-believers to have to dis-prove it. Try telling that to a religious organization. This is more of a religion than science.

[stephenhawkings]

I think that there is more onus on the proponents of an idea to provide proof than there is for the non-believers to have to dis-prove it. Try telling that to a religious organization. This is more of a religion than science.

i beg to differ religion doesn't offer any proof what so ever, while climatologists can measure and document rising CO2 levels, granted we can't 100% predicted how this will affect the environment it is measurable and provable, whether or not you can believe something that is proven or not is fine, yet idiotic, i will give you a pass as to what rising CO2 levels mean for now.

Edited June 7, 2009 by stephenhawkings

[stephenhawkings]

For our friends that suffer from Eco-Anxiety :rolleyes:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5329857034306331360

hilarious entertainment!

I wish I had a nickel for every Fbomb they dropped, really makes it smart sounding.

looks like the rounded up all the snake oil salesmen.

 

Al Gore was a good whipping boy for them to whip, why didn't they nail him more?

The Gore clan has a cattle operation, why isn't that and the associated methane targeted?

scared of the secret service? or just not wacko enough?

 

Walla Walla Washington!

[matthewq4b]

i beg to differ religion doesn't offer any proof what so ever, while climatologists can measure and document rising CO2 levels, granted we can't 100% predicted how this will affect the environment it is measurable and provable, whether or not you can believe something that is proven or not is fine, yet idiotic, i will give you a pass as to what rising CO2 levels mean for now.

 

 

CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere no one is really debating that.

 

What is up for debate is that it is affecting the climate to the degree that the Global warming crowd claim. Personally I feel the link between CO2 levels and the climate change are tenuous at best. And out right propaganda at worst.

I do not buy in to the man made global warming cause at all.

 

What is a given for sure is the affect of higher CO2 levels are having on the worlds oceans. That is a quantifiable result based on hard science and chemistry. That is actually the real threat not the made up man made climate change.

 

The of the CO2 that is removed form the atmosphere the oceans remove about half of it. As the levels of CO2 have increased the rate of removal has increased as well. But not with out side affects. The salt water bodies remove CO2 by converting it to carbonic acid (basic chemistry) The more CO2 that is available in the atmosphere the more carbonic acid can be produced this action is absorbing more CO2 and helps keep things in check. But net result of this is a gradual changing of the oceans PH balance making it more acidic. Any one that keeps fish at home in an aquarium knows how critical the ph balance is in keeping a healthy tank.

 

The mass die off's of coral reefs has now been linked to the change in the oceans PH balance in some areas. The threat here is not climate change but the damage being done to the oceans. Life on land can not survive with out healthy stable oceanic plant and animal life.

 

 

Forget the bogus climate change crap and concentrate on the real issue.

 

We can continue to lead the lives we have and have grown a custom to but we can not do it with a world population projected to hit 9 billion by 2050 and every one of us trying to increase our standard of living and hence the amount of CO2 we dump in the atmosphere. Our current live styles are sustainable but with a much lower world population. Barring a mass die off of the species through a pandemic we are going to have to adjust how we go about increasing our standard of living.

If we fail to do so and end up crashing the ecosystem of the worlds oceans we will accomplish the goal of drastically reducing the worlds human population any way.

 

The problem will solve it's self one way or anouther on it's own. Either through a catastrophic die off of humans from our actions or through our intervention in trying to stem the increase in carbon emissions.

 

Carbon taxes are not the answer in fact just the opposite is the answer. Governments need to make the so called green technologies have lower taxes. For example corporations that generate wind electricity to so with no taxes. That will give them the competitive edge against traditional forms of power generation with out passing along an increased tax load to the consumer for carbon based consumption. It should also allow them to to price their product below that of traditional forms of power generation creating a demand for the product.

 

Rarely can you force change by charging more for some thing. But you sure can force it by making something cost less.

 

Matthew

[DUCKRACER]

CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere no one is really debating that.

 

What is up for debate is that it is affecting the climate to the degree that the Global warming crowd claim. Personally I feel the link between CO2 levels and the climate change are tenuous at best. And out right propaganda at worst.

I do not buy in to the man made global warming cause at all.

 

What is a given for sure is the affect of higher CO2 levels are having on the worlds oceans. That is a quantifiable result based on hard science and chemistry. That is actually the real threat not the made up man made climate change.

 

The of the CO2 that is removed form the atmosphere the oceans remove about half of it. As the levels of CO2 have increased the rate of removal has increased as well. But not with out side affects. The salt water bodies remove CO2 by converting it to carbonic acid (basic chemistry) The more CO2 that is available in the atmosphere the more carbonic acid can be produced this action is absorbing more CO2 and helps keep things in check. But net result of this is a gradual changing of the oceans PH balance making it more acidic. Any one that keeps fish at home in an aquarium knows how critical the ph balance is in keeping a healthy tank.

 

The mass die off's of coral reefs has now been linked to the change in the oceans PH balance in some areas. The threat here is not climate change but the damage being done to the oceans. Life on land can not survive with out healthy stable oceanic plant and animal life.

 

 

Forget the bogus climate change crap and concentrate on the real issue.

 

We can continue to lead the lives we have and have grown a custom to but we can not do it with a world population projected to hit 9 billion by 2050 and every one of us trying to increase our standard of living and hence the amount of CO2 we dump in the atmosphere. Our current live styles are sustainable but with a much lower world population. Barring a mass die off of the species through a pandemic we are going to have to adjust how we go about increasing our standard of living.

If we fail to do so and end up crashing the ecosystem of the worlds oceans we will accomplish the goal of drastically reducing the worlds human population any way.

 

The problem will solve it's self one way or anouther on it's own. Either through a catastrophic die off of humans from our actions or through our intervention in trying to stem the increase in carbon emissions.

 

Carbon taxes are not the answer in fact just the opposite is the answer. Governments need to make the so called green technologies have lower taxes. For example corporations that generate wind electricity to so with no taxes. That will give them the competitive edge against traditional forms of power generation with out passing along an increased tax load to the consumer for carbon based consumption. It should also allow them to to price their product below that of traditional forms of power generation creating a demand for the product.

 

Rarely can you force change by charging more for some thing. But you sure can force it by making something cost less.

 

Matthew

 

Matthew. Very good analysis. I never looked at this from that angle. I also like the tax structure you described. Nuclear power should have no taxes for at least 15 years.

[DUCKRACER]

i beg to differ religion doesn't offer any proof what so ever, while climatologists can measure and document rising CO2 levels, granted we can't 100% predicted how this will affect the environment it is measurable and provable, whether or not you can believe something that is proven or not is fine, yet idiotic, i will give you a pass as to what rising CO2 levels mean for now.

 

Scientist can measure and document. Gotcha! Many scientist have shown a direct correlation between gobal temprature and solar activity. Totally distinct from CO2.

[TomServo92]

Scientist can measure and document. Gotcha! Many scientist have shown a direct correlation between gobal temprature and solar activity. Totally distinct from CO2.

 

Can't tax solar activity.