Ohhhhh I see so making homes more energy effecient and trying to create jobs is outrageous and crap. Hate to tell you but even if you deny Climate Change it still make sense to retrofit houses to become better energy users. Just the price of oil alone would make that a good thing.
Newf, quit being a troll. Fierobear didn't say anything about energy efficient homes. Of course we all want to save on heat and cooling bills.
You still have not provided any proof there is Anthropologically generated Global Warming.
Arn
Only 43 pages?
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 08-17-2011).]
Newf, quit being a troll. Fierobear didn't say anything about energy efficient homes. Of course we all want to save on heat and cooling bills.
You still have not provided any proof there is Anthropologically generated Global Warming.
Arn
Only 43 pages?
Yet that's just my point, bear read the title and linked it as more "proof" of whatever conspiracy he believes... when if you actually read the article it has to do with retrofitting poor homes and the reasons the program failed, which has little or nothing to do with his theories.
Also why would I have to provide proof of Anthropologically generated Global Warming?? I never once claimed to know the reasons for the warming temperatures or other evidence or to be an expert in climate. I have always stated and continue to state that my opinion is in agreement with the majority of the credible science that has been shown on the subject.
Oh... and still calling me names, huh? Yawn.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-17-2011).]
Ohhhhh I see so making homes more energy effecient and trying to create jobs is outrageous and crap. Hate to tell you but even if you deny Climate Change it still make sense to retrofit houses to become better energy users. Just the price of oil alone would make that a good thing.
But using money the government doesn't have, and has to borrow from China, ISN'T a good idea. They are using global warming and "green" as a justification for having to spend money we don't have.
If you were to use the same arguement then the recent heat waves in North America would prove the opposite... but of course that would mean you would have to ignore the science.
No, if you say the heat waves are global warming, then you have to address why there is more COOLING. An enhanced greenhouse effect CANNOT cause MORE COOLING.
No, if you say the heat waves are global warming, then you have to address why there is more COOLING. An enhanced greenhouse effect CANNOT cause MORE COOLING.
Hmmmm did I ever say heat waves are global warming?? Who says there is more "COOLING"??
Please enlighten us to what an enhanced greenhouse effect can and cannot cause with your expertise in this area.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-17-2011).]
Huntsman: Trust Science on Global Warming Thursday, 18 Aug 2011 08:04 PM
LAKE CITY (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman leveled criticism again Sunday against Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and his positions on evolution and climate change.
He stressed the potential impact on the party of positions like Perry's in a taped interview that airsed Sunday morning.
"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party–the anti-science party–we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012," Huntsman said on ABC's "This Week."
Huntsman said taking a position like Perry's "that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and, therefore, in a losing position."
Huntsman said in a tweet Thursday that he trusts scientists on global warming and believes in evolution, even it makes him seem "crazy."
The former Utah governor's tweet came the same day that Perry told a New Hampshire crowd that he supports teaching evolution and creationism. Perry said earlier this week that climate change is an unproven scientific theory.
Global warming IS an unproven scientific theory. So what is your point, tbone, if you have one?
Just contributing this as a follow up to the Rick Perry story saying he does not believe in Global Warming. I think its interesting how different some of the Republican candidates are on the whole issue.
Just contributing this as a follow up to the Rick Perry story saying he does not believe in Global Warming. I think its interesting how different some of the Republican candidates are on the whole issue.
I just hope they have the courage to call it what it is - a scam. I'll vote for that!
Keep in mind "While many people are watching this year’s ice extent closely, the effect of climate change on ice extent in a single year is different than its effect in the long term."
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-06-2011).]
Keep in mind "While many people are watching this year’s ice extent closely, the effect of climate change on ice extent in a single year is different than its effect in the long term."
Even if the arctic ice things is really an issue, we aren't going to pass a carbon tax. It's not going to happen.
Keep in mind "While many people are watching this year’s ice extent closely, the effect of climate change on ice extent in a single year is different than its effect in the long term."
Here is a recent article about how NCAR is basically saying "no matter what happens, we were right!" Are you f***ing KIDDING me? Who is dumb enough to still believe this s***?
NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author of the study said, “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
=================
So...anything can happen, we can't really predict one way or the other, or it might stay the same, but no matter what happens, we're right, it's GLOBAL WARMING.
I'm not going to read every post here, and maybe it's already been said, but the human population on this planet has increased like no other species. We think we can bend nature to our own ends with no repercusions. No other species has this ability and nature is pretty much self governing, but our species can alter this planet like no other. Nature normally controls population growth and it's not always pretty. If we keep growing the population there is no way the planet will be able to support us and we will have major effects on the natural systems. Sometimes we don't know what those effects are until we are experiencing them.
Here is a recent article about how NCAR is basically saying "no matter what happens, we were right!" Are you f***ing KIDDING me? Who is dumb enough to still believe this s***?
NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author of the study said, “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
=================
So...anything can happen, we can't really predict one way or the other, or it might stay the same, but no matter what happens, we're right, it's GLOBAL WARMING.
Why not try to read what she actually is saying rather than assuming, missing the actual results of the paper, and echoing the denial bloggers opinions.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-13-2011).]
Why not try to read what she actually is saying rather than assuming, missing the actual results of the paper, and echoing the denial bloggers opinions.
BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
========================================
In other words, anything could happen - more ice, same ice, less ice. They are BACKPEDALING, because they can't get it right. So ANYTHING that happens proves them right? LOL
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 09-13-2011).]
BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
========================================
In other words, anything could happen - more ice, same ice, less ice. They are BACKPEDALING, because they can't get it right. So ANYTHING that happens proves them right? LOL
Sorry but that's not what they are saying at all, nice try though, keep on spinning.
Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.
Don't give me that crap. You've skipped RIGHT OVER the point, and done your usual bullshit.
Oh.... skipped over the point where she agrees with Climate Change and says that the effects of it are complex, or some insinuation that the right wing bloggeshpere are trying to project on the report?
Good science is always open to learning and refining IMO, which seems to be exactly what the report is showing.
I've rarely read any reports that the Climate trends have to show a steady slope without variability to show a general trend.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-13-2011).]
Oh.... skipped over the point where she agrees with Climate Change and says that the effects of it are complex, or some insinuation that the right wing bloggeshpere are trying to project on the report?
Good science is always open to learning and refining IMO, which seems to be exactly what the report is showing.
I've rarely read any reports that the Climate trends have to show a steady slope without variability to show a general trend.
Or, it could be simpler than that. They could be covering their asses, so that no matter what happens, they look like they predicted it. Consider that, if you will.
Lawrence Solomon Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 10:08 PM ET
New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.
CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.
Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
Long discussion of this report just posted at RealClimate.org :
quote
While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change.
The Inuit people of Northern Canada knew that report was a crock. So did the residents of Yellowknife and other Northern communities who have had to deal with the greatly increased numbers of polar bears.
Of course yours truly knew it was a crock from the get-go. Polar bears have survived millenia of climate change, including the last ice age and the subsequent warming period that cleared North America of its glacier cover.
Thanks for the post. It is refreshing to see somebody smelled the odd smell
OK, let's say we figure out how to cool the Earth down. What is the cooling tipping point? How fast can we reverse the effect of cooling? What would be the consecuences and side effects of doing so?
blah blah blah, scientists are stupid, the weather is changing, no it is not, it's natural, we're causing it, blame big business, blame mankind - or maybe it's the government?
That's what I though. Most Canadians I've known are fine people. I'll continue to believe that, and that newf is some kind of anomaly.
Cast that line Bear...
It really doesn't bother me what you think of me but forgive me if I don't judge others from just their opinions on here, I like to believe there is a lot more to a person than what the write on the internet but hey keep on hating if it works for you!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-15-2011).]
THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government's clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.
On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
It says it has been "directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price."
Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.
"Beat the Carbon Tax - Buy Now" or "Buy now before the carbon tax bites" are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, "you should be very cautious about making these types of claims".
There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that "choose to link your price increases to a carbon price".
Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you've raised prices because "the overall cost of running (your) business has increased".
It's all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade. Replacing even a portion of our cheap, coal-fired power with renewable energy is hellishly expensive. It also requires costly adaptation of existing infrastructure.
That's a big reason why electricity prices have hit the roof already. So when we accelerate the process with the carbon tax, the pain will escalate. That's the whole point of carbon pricing. A record number of households have had their electricity disconnected because they can't pay their power bills.
Household energy costs are estimated to have risen 17 per cent since July, with the result that the ranks of the energy poor are swelling.
In NSW, the Energy and Water Ombudsman has reported an 18 per cent increase in complaints from people whose electricity has been disconnected.
Then there are all the little immeasurables. For instance, last winter the price of Lebanese cucumbers in NSW skyrocketed because soaring energy costs forced the biggest grower to shut off heat lamps in some of his growing sheds. Result: fewer cucumbers - so prices rose to meet demand.
But no matter how Orwellian the tactics, no matter how many carbon cops are sent into hairdressing salons to interrogate barbers on the precise nature of their price rises, the truth remains: Australia has gone out on a limb, imposing a carbon tax that will send businesses to the wall, cause undue hard-
ship to families, and tether Australians more tightly to government handouts.
And soon, we will send billions of dollars overseas to buy useless pieces of paper called carbon credits. Invest-ment bankers, lawyers and carbon traders will get rich, as will all the usual spivs and scam artists ready to stick a bucket under the government spigot raining taxpayer cash.
It doesn't matter how many fairy stories the Greens tell about how the carbon tax will "save" the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu. Or how many gullible people believe hurricanes, floods and earthquakes are the result of man-made global warming. Eventually, the truth will out.
Even the International Panel on Climate Change, whose bureaucrat-written summaries cherrypick the most alarming scientific forecasts, is holding back in the face of runaway alarmist rhetoric from politicians.
In fact, leaked draft copies of the IPCC's latest special report into "Extreme Events and Disasters" reveal declining scientific certainty about the threat of human-produced greenhouse gases.
"There are a lot more unknowns than knowns," says BBC environment correspondent Richard Black.
The rising toll of extreme weather events cannot be blamed on greenhouse gas emissions, according to Black, who has seen the draft.
"Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability," says the IPCC report. In other words, the effect of human-produced greenhouse gas on the climate is insignificant when compared to natural climate change.
Since he's dropped in for 26 hours, US President Barack Obama could explain to his new best friend Julia Gillard why he decided not to impose a carbon tax on his ailing economy. Or why Canada has prudently ruled out a carbon scheme, and New Zealand is scaling its back and China and India continue to sit on their hands. Durban will be fun.
