May 21st.....end of the world?

[goinbroke2]

OK, just for your benefit Suv, I will answer her question "why would they lie"

 

You heard of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? you know, the guy who was the mastermind of the IPCC report in 2007?

 

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

 

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

 

One would have to conclude then, the answer is BECAUSE IT IS A MONEY MAKER!

 

Don't make me go into the archives and bring out the facts like global warming/cooling was averaging a hundred thousand dollars a year in funding for University of east anglia (more or less) and then it started climbing around 1996 and by 2004 was in the millions and by 2008 it was tens of millions.

 

Nope money can't be the reason.

 

Who benefits from this money I wonder.....oh yeah, any SCIENTIST that wants research money (now) just has to mention "climate change".

 

Nope, can't see why anyone would lie.

 

"HEY, I WASN'T LYING! MY REPORT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!" :shades:

[Cocheese]

We can extrapolate records for hundreds of thousands of years using data from ice cors and fossilized plants and animals.

 

Even if you could rely on the data, it’s still only a small fraction of time the Earth has been alive. And only further proves my point that we really have no clue whether or not this type of weather has been “unrivaled”.

 

Regardless, humans have only been around for a fraction of the planets existence. We don't want to harm the delicate eco system in such a way that it can't support us in our current numbers. I think we're a long way off from that, but we have to do something one way or another.

 

I’m fine if you want to believe that, but tell me what you think needs to be done, and why that will work before demanding it gets done.

 

Prove that. I've heard no evidence that global cooling was ever widely accepted.

 

Goinbroke just did.

 

It never gained wide scientific acceptance.

 

See, now you are backtracking. First you said it didn’t gain acceptance, now you are saying it wasn’t accepted in the scientific field. When you are proven wrong again, what’s your next claim?

 

There were many people already talking about AGW at that point, actually.

 

Prove it.

 

Anyway, you haven't answered your own question; why would the scientists lie?

 

Why does anyone lie? Answer that question, and you’ll have your answer.

 

Listen, I don’t think all scientists are lying. I think when people believe in something so much, they are willing to only see what they want to see. Nobody has ever proven God exists; yet millions of people believe that he does. And have dedicated their lives to him. The difference is, people who believe in God aren’t trying to take money out of my pocket.

 

I also think there are 3 other issues at play.

 

First, funding. It’s a not button issue. Getting research funding is a heck of a lot easier these days if you attach the term “Global Warming” to the title.

 

Second, peer pressure. I doubt many people in this world would disagree with their boss or question the findings of their peers. My guess is most scientists agree to “Global Warming” because the people paying their bills believe in it.

 

And third, disappointment. imagine how hard it would be for someone to believe in something so much, spend a life time researching it, only to find out it’s not real. I’ll take this off topic, but look at Obama. How many people thought he was the savior of the World? 2 years later and we all are witnessing what an utter failure and disappointment he has been. Yet look at those who still are unwilling to admit it. It doesn’t matter what he does, people still defend the indefensible. It’s no different with Global Warming believers. Michael Mann altered his own data to try and prove it was real.

 

That's right, you've managed to discover what virtually every scientist in any field even remotely connected to AGW has failed to - it's all a ruse perpetuated by a bunch of people ignoring facts.

 

First off, you’re lying with the statement that “virtually every scientist in any field even remotely connected to AGW” has discovered. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with Al Gore’s agenda.

 

Second of all, you sound surprised that people would ignore something in order to push their beliefs. Do I need to mention Obama again?

 

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." - Henry Mencken

 

This is why I don't post here anymore. Some of you guys are absolutely beyond belief.

 

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

You do sound like James Cameron when he challenged three of the World’s most prominent Global Warming skeptics to a debate. When he realized he’d actually have to do the debate, he chickened out.

 

Prove to me that something exists, before I have to prove to you it doesn’t.

[akirby]

If someone can explain why Mars is warming at the same rate as the Earth without humans then I'll start listening to AGW theories.

 

And IF the problem was CO2 then why aren't we simply planting more trees and plants? Answer - because that doesn't benefit any of the people doing the research or raising the alarms.

[30 OTT 6]

If someone can explain why Mars is warming at the same rate as the Earth without humans then I'll start listening to AGW theories.

 

And IF the problem was CO2 then why aren't we simply planting more trees and plants? Answer - because that doesn't benefit any of the people doing the research or raising the alarms.

 

I found this:

 

Link

[timmm55]

OK, just for your benefit Suv, I will answer her question "why would they lie"

 

You heard of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? you know, the guy who was the mastermind of the IPCC report in 2007?

 

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

 

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

 

One would have to conclude then, the answer is BECAUSE IT IS A MONEY MAKER!

 

Don't make me go into the archives and bring out the facts like global warming/cooling was averaging a hundred thousand dollars a year in funding for University of east anglia (more or less) and then it started climbing around 1996 and by 2004 was in the millions and by 2008 it was tens of millions.

 

Nope money can't be the reason.

 

Who benefits from this money I wonder.....oh yeah, any SCIENTIST that wants research money (now) just has to mention "climate change".

 

Nope, can't see why anyone would lie.

 

"HEY, I WASN'T LYING! MY REPORT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!" :shades:

 

And your excuse for lying...........is?

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/rajendra-pachauri

The Sunday Telegraph was forced to apologise and pay significant legal costs after publishing an article in 2009 by the journalist Christopher Booker and blogger Dr Richard North making false claims that Dr Pachauri was "making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies". KPMG assessed TERI and Pachauri's financial accounts and cleared both of any wrongdoing in December 2009. Protestations and references to Dr Pachauri's supposed enrichment have continued in British newspapers despite the claims being shown to be incorrect.

[timmm55]

That's right, you've managed to discover what virtually every scientist in any field even remotely connected to AGW has failed to - it's all a ruse perpetuated by a bunch of people ignoring facts.

 

This is why I don't post here anymore. Some of you guys are absolutely beyond belief.

 

Some of these guys are amazing! Who has the time to reply to this crap? They only believe stuff from their own blogs and sites. If we post it's from "liberal" sites and are biased and are unreliable LOL.

 

I'm not aware of one climatology on this site, pro or con. All I see is a lot of hot air and desperation.

 

There's a lot of talk about money in the fight against Climate Change, there's a lot MORE money in keeping the status quo.

[xr7g428]

You left this part out:

 

As well as coming under frequent attack from the sceptic lobby and commentators, there were a number of notable calls for Dr Pachauri to resign his chairmanship of the IPCC when a significant mistake was found in the IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4). The report contained an incorrect assertion that Himalayan glaciers would completely melt by 2035 if efforts to mitigate man-made climate change were not increased. The mistake was dubbed Glaciergate. Pachauri defended the IPCC by calling the Indian government report which highlighted the error "voodoo science".

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, called for his resignation, as did Fred Pearce, an environment consultant of New Scientist, writing in the Daily Mail in October 2010. Journalist Geoffrey Lean argued that "Pachauri must resign" in several articles in the Daily Telegraph, and Tim Yeo MP, then chairman of the all-party Commons Climate and Energy Committee, also urged Pachauri to step down.

Dr Pachauri rejected the calls for his resignation. He argued in the Guardian that "the reality is that our understanding of climate change is based on a vast and remarkably sound body of science - and is something we distort and trivialise at our peril". It later transpired that Dr Pachauri was aware of the incorrect claim before it achieved mass notoriety, but failed to make a correction in the run up to COP15 in Copenhagen in December 2009.

[timmm55]

To bring this back to a debate and conversation, not one of polemics and derision:

 

Here is an excellent hour long anti-Global warming documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk&feature=player_embedded#at=14

 

 

I got it from a website where I found the usual hyperbole, excluding that, but it's definitely worth seeing. The above was impressive, this a short rebuttal/objection:

http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7

 

And here's an Inconvenient Truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8847562857479496579#

[xr7g428]

A little background from some one that was there...

 

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic of global warming[2] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism.[3]

 

The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at

least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United

States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth

increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,

in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was

99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made

no statement concerning the relation between the two.

Despite the fact that those remarks were virtually meaningless, they led the environmental advocacy

movement to adopt the issue immediately. The growth of environmental advocacy since the 1970s has been

phenomenal. In Europe the movement centered on the formation of Green parties; in the United States the

movement centered on the development of large public interest advocacy groups. Those lobbying groups

have budgets of several hundred million dollars and employ about 50,000 people; their support is highly

valued by many political figures. As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern.

"Global warming'' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the

media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth.

Within the large-scale climate modelling community--a small subset of the community interested in

climate--however, the immediate response was to criticize Hansen for publicly promoting highly uncertain

model results as relevant to public policy. Hansen's motivation was not totally obvious, but despite the

criticism of Hansen, the modelling community quickly agreed that large warming was not impossible. That

was still enough for both the politicians and advocates who have generally held that any hint of environmental

danger is a sufficient basis for regulation unless the hint can be rigorously disproved. That is a particularly

pernicious asymmetry, given that rigor is generally impossible in environmental sciences.

Other scientists quickly agreed that with increasing carbon dioxide some warming might be expected and that

with large enough concentrations of carbon dioxide the warming might be significant. Nevertheless, there was

widespread skepticism. By early 1989, however, the popular media in Europe and the United States were

declaring that "all scientists'' agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential.

As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in

the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me

about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically

controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989

Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National

Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century.

Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Co... http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

6 of 12 12/11/2002 4:49 PM

participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of

environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with

science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may

disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous

situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself.

In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of

the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being

of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted--an unusual procedure to say the

least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper

circulated for about six months as samizdat. It was delivered at a Humboldt conference at M.I.T. and

reprinted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine.

In the meantime, the global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the

more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in

Sundance, Utah. Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop research and begin acting. I suppose that that

was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it is also indicative of the overall attitude toward

science. Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the

Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep

made an appeal on public television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a

stable climate.

By the fall of 1989 some media were becoming aware that there was controversy (Forbes and Reader's

Digest were notable in that regard). Cries followed from environmentalists that skeptics were receiving

excessive exposure. The publication of my paper was followed by a determined effort on the part of the

editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Hallgren, to solicit rebuttals. Such

articles were prepared by Stephen Schneider and Will Kellogg, a minor scientific administrator for the past

thirty years, and those articles were followed by an active correspondence mostly supportive of the skeptical

spectrum of views. Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society

and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable

man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some

has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed

research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). On the

whole, the debate within the meteorological community has been relatively healthy and, in this regard, unusual.

Outside the world of meteorology, Greenpeace's Jeremy Legett, a geologist by training, published a book

attacking critics of warming---especially me. George Mitchell, Senate majority leader and father of a

prominent environmental activist, also published a book urging acceptance of the warming problem (World

on Fire: Saving an Endangered Earth). Sen. Gore recently published a book (Earth in the Balance: Ecology

and the Human Spirit). Those are just a few examples of the rapidly growing publications on warming. Rarely

has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of popularization by individuals who do not

understand the subject in the first place.

The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported

organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Co... http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

7 of 12 12/11/2002 4:49 PM

to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the

past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical

manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the

great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition

was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of

Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in

climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed

consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the

second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all

scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed.

At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president,

warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge.

Special reference was made to the published petition. In my opinion what the petition did show was that the

need to fight "global warming'' has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience--a dogma to which

scientists are not immune.

At the same time, political pressures on dissidents from the "popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly

admonished "skeptics'' in a lengthy New York Times op-ed piece. In a perverse example of double-speak he

associated the "true believers'' in warming with Galileo. He also referred, in another article, to the summer of

1988 as the Kristallnacht before the warming holocaust.

The notion of "scientific unanimity'' is currently intimately tied to the Working Group I report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued in September 1990. That panel consists largely of

scientists posted to it by government agencies. The panel has three working groups. Working Group I

nominally deals with climate science. Approximately 150 scientists contributed to the report, but university

representation from the United States was relatively small and is likely to remain so, since the funds and time

needed for participation are not available to most university scientists. Many governments have agreed to use

that report as the authoritative basis for climate policy. The report, as such, has both positive and negative

features. Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on large models, and within the report

models are largely verified by comparison with other models. Given that models are known to agree more

with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''), that approach does not seem promising. In addition, a

number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of

the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey

of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. Nonetheless, the body of the report is

extremely ambiguous, and the caveats are numerous. The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary

written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His

summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial

warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say

that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further. On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that

"hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly

matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the summary insists that it agrees with the most

extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the climatology community, until the

past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe.

While the International Panel on Climate Change's reports were in preparation, the National Research

Council in the United States was commissioned to prepare a synthesis of the current state of the global

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Co... http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

8 of 12 12/11/2002 4:49 PM

change situation. The panel chosen was hardly promising. It had no members of the academy expert in

climate. Indeed, it had only one scientist directly involved in climate, Stephen Schneider, who is an ardent

environmental advocate. It also included three professional environmental advocates, and it was headed by a

former senator, Dan Evans. The panel did include distinguished scientists and economists outside the area of

climate, and, perhaps because of this, the report issued by the panel was by and large fair. The report

concluded that the scientific basis for costly action was absent, although prudence might indicate that actions

that were cheap or worth doing anyway should be considered. A subcommittee of the panel issued a report

on adaptation that argued that even with the more severe warming scenarios, the United States would have

little difficulty adapting. Not surprisingly, the environmentalists on the panel not only strongly influenced the

reports, but failing to completely have their way, attempted to distance themselves from the reports by either

resigning or by issuing minority dissents. Equally unsurprising is the fact that the New York Times typically

carried reports on that panel on page 46. The findings were never subsequently discussed in the popular

media--except for claims that the reports supported the catastrophic vision. Nevertheless, the reports of that

panel were indicative of the growing skepticism concerning the warming issue.

Indeed, the growing skepticism is in many ways remarkable. One of the earliest protagonists of global

warming, Roger Revelle, the late professor of ocean sciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who

initiated the direct monitoring of carbon dioxide during the International Geophysical Year (1958),

coauthored with S. Fred Singer and Chauncy Starr a paper recommending that action concerning global

warming be delayed insofar as current knowledge was totally inadequate. Another active advocate of global

warming, Michael McElroy, head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard, has

recently written a paper acknowledging that existing models cannot be used to forecast climate.

One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence

on "scientific unanimity'' continues unabated. At times, that insistence takes some very strange forms. Over a

year ago, Robert White, former head of the U.S. Weather Bureau and currently president of the National

Academy of Engineering, wrote an article for Scientific American that pointed out that the questionable

scientific basis for global warming predictions was totally inadequate to justify any costly actions. He did state

that if one were to insist on doing something, one should only do things that one would do even if there were

no warming threat. Immediately after that article appeared, Tom Wicker, a New York Times columnist and a

confidant of Sen. Gore, wrote a piece in which he stated that White had called for immediate action on

"global warming.'' My own experiences have been similar. In an article in Audubon Stephen Schneider states

that I have "conceded that some warming now appears inevitable.'' Differences between expectations of

unmeasurable changes of a few tenths of a degree and warming of several degrees are conveniently ignored.

Karen White in a lengthy and laudatory article on James Hansen that appeared in the New York Times

Sunday Magazine reported that even I agreed that there would be warming, having "reluctantly offered an

estimate of 1.2 degrees.'' That was, of course, untrue.

Most recently, I testified at a Senate hearing conducted by Sen. Gore. There was a rather arcane discussion

of the water vapor in the upper troposphere. Two years ago, I had pointed out that if the source of water

vapor in that region in the tropics was from deep clouds, then surface warming would be accompanied by

reduced upper level water vapor. Subsequent research has established that there must be an additional

source--widely believed to be ice crystals thrown off by those deep clouds. I noted that that source too

probably acts to produce less moisture in a warmer atmosphere. Both processes cause the major feedback

process to become negative rather than positive. Sen. Gore asked whether I now rejected my suggestion of

two years ago as a major factor. I answered that I did. Gore then called for the recording secretary to note

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Co... http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

9 of 12 12/11/2002 4:49 PM

that I had retracted my objections to "global warming.'' In the ensuing argument, involving mostly other

participants in the hearing, Gore was told that he was confusing matters. Shortly thereafter, however, Tom

Wicker published an article in the New York Times that claimed that I had retracted my opposition to

warming and that that warranted immediate action to curb the purported menace. I wrote a letter to the

Times indicating that my position had been severely misrepresented, and, after a delay of over a month, my

letter was published. Sen. Gore nonetheless claims in his book that I have indeed retracted my scientific

objections to the catastrophic warming scenario and also warns others who doubt the scenario that they are

hurting humanity.

Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all,

unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as

"global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought

regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in

high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do.

The answer almost certainly lies in politics. For example, at the Earth Summit in Rio, attempts were made to

negotiate international carbon emission agreements. The potential costs and implications of such agreements

are likely to be profound for both industrial and developing countries. Under the circumstances, it would be

very risky for politicians to undertake such agreements unless scientists "insisted.'' Nevertheless, the situation

is probably a good deal more complicated than that example suggests.

[Cocheese]

Some of these guys are amazing! Who has the time to reply to this crap?

 

Apparently you do.

 

They only believe stuff from their own blogs and sites.

 

I see you’ve become familiar with Aces and parts/Die. At least we are willing to use our own words to detail why we feel what we feel.

 

If we post it's from "liberal" sites and are biased and are unreliable LOL.

 

Should I remind you of your comments about the #1 rated and trusted Fox News?

 

I'm not aware of one climatology on this site, pro or con. All I see is a lot of hot air and desperation.

 

That’s Al Gore for you.

 

There's a lot of talk about money in the fight against Climate Change, there's a lot MORE money in keeping the status quo.

 

I disagree. I have yet to see anything that suits Al Gore’s agenda that is cheaper than what we have been using for the last 50 years.

 

A 2011 Escape Hybrid 4WD Limited costs $11,000 CDN more than a regular 4WD Limited.

 

The only thing “Green” about going green, is the money that is being funneled into people like Al Gore’s pockets.

[goinbroke2]

And your excuse for lying...........is?

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/rajendra-pachauri

 

Actually I didn't know it was later disproven. Sure seems like every "gotcha" turns right around with another "gotcha" don't it?

Since I remember seeing it in several places I wonder if there were other circumstances for the retraction, ie "couldn't prove it" etc?

 

Or, he really is innocent, don't know. (course if he was against mmgw then being rich "he must of paid somebody off" but I won't go there.hehehe

[suv_guy_19]

If someone can explain why Mars is warming at the same rate as the Earth without humans then I'll start listening to AGW theories.

 

 

It isn't. Solar activity was until recently at a low, and we still had some of the warmest years on record here on Earth.

 

 

[goinbroke2]

I found this:

 

Link

 

Holy crap, what a sight! Listen to the feedback;

 

As there are a number of forcings that influence climate, CO2 doesn't always correlate perfectly with climate. For example, right now we're experiencing cooling because La Nina is temporarily overpowering long term warming. On a more long term scale, mid-century cooling occured while CO2 levels were rising because cooling from rising aerosol levels temporarily overpowered CO2 warming.

 

So, I'm right, but when proven wrong it's because other things we don't know about...but I'm still right.

 

Now if I argued CO2 was the driving force for mid-century cooling when the data clearly shows a break down in correlation, I would be mistaken. Instead, the obvious conclusion is that some other forcing/s was driving the cooling. Similarly, we cannot conclude the sun is driving current warming because the correlation has broken down. Therefore some other forcing/s must be the driving force of the last 3 decades of warming.

 

Again, up might be down but I'm still right because we're going up...even though...were actually down...yeah, that's it...WTF???

 

The breakdown in correlation between sun and climate doesn't prove CO2 warming. It just disproves the argument that the sun is the main driver of global warming.

 

OK, so the meat of what he's saying...to summerize, is, we know what it's not...we think, but we don't know what it is

Or in simpler terms, we can prove the sun isn't warming the earth..but we can't prove c02 is.

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY!

[mustang_sallad]

The only thing “Green” about going green, is the money that is being funneled into people like Al Gore’s pockets.

 

That, and improving air quality. Oh, and preventing premature deaths due to poor air quality. And improving quality of life for people who breath that air. And reducing acid rain. And reducing our rate of consumption of a limited natural resource, preserving it for uses that may not have alternatives. And reducing noise pollution. And creating less waste heat in already hot cities.

 

DON"T BUY A HYBRID ESCAPE, AL GORES GONNA GIT YOUR MONEYS!

[goinbroke2]

That, and improving air quality. Oh, and preventing premature deaths due to poor air quality. And improving quality of life for people who breath that air. And reducing acid rain. And reducing our rate of consumption of a limited natural resource, preserving it for uses that may not have alternatives. And reducing noise pollution. And creating less waste heat in already hot cities.

 

DON"T BUY A HYBRID ESCAPE, AL GORES GONNA GIT YOUR MONEYS!

 

 

You forgot more rainbows and sunshine, cute puppy dogs and love for all.

 

I've said I'm all for helping the earth/being green/not polluting/etc. The difference when you make blanket statements though paints everybody either "for" or "against". There are many who pollute and don't even realise it (throwing garbage out car windows for example). Yes, they need to be educated and not only fined but shown WHY it's bad to throw garbage everywhere. On the other hand, demanding that anything that can be thrown out a car window must have a $5000 return "core charge" is rediculous. And THAT is what the enviro nazi's are pushing. Huge financial burdens imposed on very specific rich western countries while no burdens on other countries. THAT is when it turns into a politically driven "scam" and not the altruistic effort to "save the planet" some try to push.

 

I'm not against cat converters or more precise fuel inj etc. I like clean air. I'm just not willing to give all my money and all my personal freedoms away because "something MIGHT be happening that MIGHT be caused by man".

 

The longer this rolls on the more proof they don't know/can't prove anything/are proven wrong becomes apparent. THAT is why the need for "ACT NOW!!!" They know if people sit back and look at the facts, or more importantly, look back at their other claims, people will realise they are full of scare mongering shit!

[suv_guy_19]

The longer this rolls on the more proof they don't know/can't prove anything/are proven wrong becomes apparent.

 

No it doesn't. I'm not even sure what you're talking about anymore.

[goinbroke2]

I thought you don't post here anymore? :shades:

 

 

Maybe we should type slower for you to catch up? Then you'll know what we're talking about? maybe?

 

Isssss ttttthhhhhhiiiiisssss bbbbeeeeetttttttteeeerrrrr,,,,,,,ssssssuuuuuvvvv???????

 

Ok, here it is, real simple like...note I don't use the word scientist because although there were some involved, the majority of the crap is being spewed by non-scientist special interest groups.

 

alarmists said the world was going into an ice age...but it never. (in their own time frame)

alarmists said the world was going into nuclear style meltdown and all the calamity that goes with it.....but it never. (in their own time frame)

alarmists decided that since the general population understands the earth cycles hot/cold/hot, that they couldn't use the scare tactics twice...so they changed to "the climate" is going to be extreme. Well, sometimes the climate is extreme...so that proved nothing, BUT, the important thing is to blame people for any extreme. NOW, anytime anything extreme happens (or even regular weather) it's blamed on man! (that is man in rich western countries)

 

Every snow storm is because of man (but there was a bigger one 300 years ago....doesn't matter, THIS one was caused by man, specifically man in RICH WESTERN COUNTRIES)

 

Every hot summer day is because of man (but there were hotter....you get the idea)

 

Bottom line, we've seen everything that's happening has happened before.

Are we harming the earth? Maybe, maybe not, they can't PROVE it! And THAT is the problem!

 

Prove there is a problem and people will agree to fix it. Do the "hurry, hurry, hurry, sign here NOW!" and people get sceptical...even if it is true people get sceptical. When something smells fishy..NOBODY wants to sign it.

 

 

 

You don't have to answer if you don't want, I'd understand, I know your not posting here anymore.....(or any less )

[timmm55]

 

 

 

Maybe we should type slower for you to catch up? Then you'll know what we're talking about? maybe?

 

Isssss ttttthhhhhhiiiiisssss bbbbeeeeetttttttteeeerrrrr,,,,,,,ssssssuuuuuvvvv???????

 

 

 

You're an a__

 

Anything to contribute? Other than a childish attitude?

[jpd80]

Since better than half of all man made CO2 comes for coal fired power generation,

I don't understand the huge rush and panic aimed at car fuel economy and emissions.

perhaps we should be looking at more advanced versions of nuclear power and

making cars to don't create as much CO2 during manufacture or better still, why not

go back to building cars that last longer and get away from this throw away mentality.

 

Somewhere between the shrill voice of the extremist and the snipes of non-believers lies the truth,

there is sufficient man made CO2 to affect the weather, it is changing but I believe the rate will

give us a bit longer than the scientists are predicting and that global weather is far more complex

and much harder to model than the experts would have us believe.

 

I believe in progressive change but legislation and taxation should not be used as blunt tools

for leverage when technology is not ready to implement change, the two have to work together.

We as consumers will ultimately have to foot the bills, it's just that they have to give us all time

and enough wages to do it, heck we can't be expected to give over all of our incomes on new

technology before it is commercially viable.

 

My two cents.

[mustang_sallad]

I thought you don't post here anymore? :shades:

 

 

Maybe we should type slower for you to catch up? Then you'll know what we're talking about? maybe?

 

Isssss ttttthhhhhhiiiiisssss bbbbeeeeetttttttteeeerrrrr,,,,,,,ssssssuuuuuvvvv???????

 

Ok, here it is, real simple like...note I don't use the word scientist because although there were some involved, the majority of the crap is being spewed by non-scientist special interest groups.

 

alarmists said the world was going into an ice age...but it never. (in their own time frame)

alarmists said the world was going into nuclear style meltdown and all the calamity that goes with it.....but it never. (in their own time frame)

alarmists decided that since the general population understands the earth cycles hot/cold/hot, that they couldn't use the scare tactics twice...so they changed to "the climate" is going to be extreme. Well, sometimes the climate is extreme...so that proved nothing, BUT, the important thing is to blame people for any extreme. NOW, anytime anything extreme happens (or even regular weather) it's blamed on man! (that is man in rich western countries)

 

Every snow storm is because of man (but there was a bigger one 300 years ago....doesn't matter, THIS one was caused by man, specifically man in RICH WESTERN COUNTRIES)

 

Every hot summer day is because of man (but there were hotter....you get the idea)

 

Bottom line, we've seen everything that's happening has happened before.

Are we harming the earth? Maybe, maybe not, they can't PROVE it! And THAT is the problem!

 

Prove there is a problem and people will agree to fix it. Do the "hurry, hurry, hurry, sign here NOW!" and people get sceptical...even if it is true people get sceptical. When something smells fishy..NOBODY wants to sign it.

 

 

 

You don't have to answer if you don't want, I'd understand, I know your not posting here anymore.....(or any less )

 

Two ideas for you:

Severity of consequences.

Burden of proof.

[suv_guy_19]

I thought you don't post here anymore? :shades:

 

Read what I wrote again. I said I don't post here anymore, not that I want. That means I don't generally post here anymore.

[RangerM]

That isn't true from what I've read (and I'm no expert on this, so I leave it to the experts). The warming we've experience over the last century and a bit is pretty much unrivaled in terms of speed.

It's a bit tough to make the claim that the "speed" is unrivaled, since we are comparing data measured using more precise instruments to data from proxy; especially given that there are variables (cloud cover, weather, etc) that cannot be established from proxy (at least none that I've ever heard about, fill in the blank here if you can)

 

We also are coming (still?) out of the "little Ice Age", and it's been established that prior to that the Earth was significantly hotter than now (also admittedly, from proxy measurements), so the "speed" may be as much indicative of the low as the high.

 

Also, much of the "unprecedented" types of statements involve timeframes of what could best be described as non-geologic. One Thousand (or even 10,000) years is relatively short on an Earth history scale.

 

weak. You can't make a blanket statement that all of the climate data we've collected over the years is misinterpreted or falsified, just as you can't go and say that it conclusively points towards anthropocentric global warming. I am 100% certain that plenty of data has been misinterpreted, hell I misinterpret data at my job all the bloody time. That doesn't mean I just give up and say that whatever science I'm trying to grasp is just blind faith. You always have to make the best guesses from your current level of understanding, and strive to improve your understanding. A select few qualified people have made their best guess that we may not be having a noticeable impact on the planet's climate. A MUCH larger number of equally qualified people have made their best guess and it suggests that we may indeed be responsible for the intense climate change we're currently witnessing.

The point was that people outside the closed circle of a certain group of climatologists have taken much of what has been said on faith, just as the ones following the guy predicting the end of the world. Hell, even the climatologists themselves (the one's that agree on AGW) don't necessarily know each others' methods. Science is no less competitive than the Olympics.

 

How do I know the data is questionable? In the past when data sets and the methods of manipulating them have been provided, people whose expertise is mathematics have provided proof that the calculations used to support the conclusions of AGW were flawed.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

 

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

 

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

 

More recently you have complaints of freedom of information requests being used to harass scientists.

 

Now I ask you to look beyond the "harassment" aspects of this article, and ask yourself one question.....If the conclusion is (relatively) certain, and the science is there to support the conclusion, why aren't the data available on a public website--even as it's generated? If the goal is to arrive at the correct conclusion, why would you not wish for people (even those whose expertise may not be climate, but mathematics, meteorolgy, geology, etc) be able to analyze and provide input? You might say that those with an agenda would then be free to muddy the waters, but eventually those people are found out, and the "concensus" is made wider by virtue of increased numbers of those in agreement.

 

I agree that science is often a "best guess" however the stakes are WAY TOO HIGH in this case to rely on a guess.

Edited May 28, 2011 by RangerM

[mustang_sallad]

I agree that science is often a "best guess" however the stakes are WAY TOO HIGH in this case to rely on a guess.

 

So in that case, what do we do? We're not certain, the stakes are high, so what do we do until we're absolutely certain? Do we do nothing in the mean time and hope for the best? Or do we play it safe in the mean time and hope that maybe somewhere down the road, if we find out that we're not affecting the climate, we can justifiably relax on the CO2 front, and enjoy the fact that we actually still have some fossil fuels left thanks to our conservative approach?

 

On which side should we impose the burden of proof?

[RangerM]

So in that case, what do we do? We're not certain, the stakes are high, so what do we do until we're absolutely certain? Do we do nothing in the mean time and hope for the best? Or do we play it safe in the mean time and hope that maybe somewhere down the road, if we find out that we're not affecting the climate, we can justifiably relax on the CO2 front, and enjoy the fact that we actually still have some fossil fuels left thanks to our conservative approach?

 

On which side should we impose the burden of proof?

It's not a matter of picking sides. It's deciding what is the most prudent course of action.

 

Right now the U.S. is mired in debt that cannot possibly be dealt with as 10000 baby boomers every day enter an entitlement system that is not capable of fulfilling the promises made. The U.S. economy (read: jobs) isn't growing fast enough to keep up with population growth. And the U.S. government is simply piling on more obligations.

 

Soon--if things don't change meaningfully--the U.S. won't be in a position to save itself, and people think we're going to save the planet? Balderdash!

 

The question of "what do we do" is best answered by first putting us in position to deal with the problem (assuming it is a problem). We should be prepared to react IF the scenarios predicted actually happen. If they do, and we're in worse shape than we're in now, then it really doesn't matter because there's nothing we could do.

Edited May 30, 2011 by RangerM

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Men in white coats to justify there job and multi-million $ research budgets said we would be heading back to the ice age in 70's, in the 90's they said my house would be under 20 feet of water due to global warming by the year 2,000, these men in white coats can twist the numbers to suit so suit tell governments what they wanted to hear so the research money does dry up, having been ripped of for $10,000's of global warming taxes once the Arthur Daley British Government & EU got on the bandwagon, l have gotta say, it is all just a damm blatant con (Not 1 buck of global warming tax revenue ever got spent on combating global warming in the UK it gets spent elsewhere). Now the end of the worlds coming 21st May the latest EOTW shit, gotta admit to putting off a haircut just in case though on the 21st.

 

All tossers the lot of them its about we time we woke up, strung the lot of them all up and its about time we got a you've been "CONNED" big time tax rebate from the profits of doom profiteers, so they can't make money off the backs of, rip off the hard working majority who pay taxes who have work for a living.

 

Not against a oil conservation tax as oil will run out sooner or later, the Californians not just Arnie will go down in history with future generations once the oil runs dry worldwide as the biggest arseholes that ever lived on God's earth as they consume squander more oil than China. Our world needs some form of population control if we can cut it in half in a civilized way then we half the pollution & oil consumption, the problem is nobody talks about it the subject which "is" the No1 Taboo subject at the moment.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds