Topic: The Global Warming Super Thread

[Thucydides]

Maybe the same idiots who signed up to this piece of stupidity

"the United States Navy is reportedly slated to spend $12 million at a rate of $15 per gallon on a biofuel-gasoline blend -- a purchase justified by the proposition that dependence on oil is a national security threat.

"We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said, according to a National Journal report last week. "Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.""



http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/us-navy-paying-15gallon-green-fuel/250266

He needs to read the "No Oil" thread. Shale oil, fracking "tight oil" shale, using the FT process to reconstitute natural gas to liquid fuel (or break down coal into a clean liquid...); we're swimming in the stuff...

[E.R. Campbell]

The honest environmentalists, the folks who want clear air and water, have lost the "shouting" war to the extremists who want to punish humanity for being the dominant species on the planet.

The green extreme relies upon bad science and a hard left, Marxist misapprehension of economics and history to make their "case." Thus, they have no case, but because they shout loudest, and with some skill and imagination, the media (which is, generally, scientifically and economically illiterate) glorifies them and gives their non-existant "case" some legitimacy. It's the blind leading the blind, who then inform the sheep.

[E.R. Campbell]

Good news, according to the Globe and Mail which say's Canada pulls plug on Kyoto climate-change accord.

The report goes on to say that Canada, by withdrawing, will not be liable for $14 Billion in penalties because we, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, never met the targets to which Jean Chrétien agreed.

Why did we agree to such unrealistic targets? The Chrétien government was trying to outdo the Clinton administration in being "green." It was all domestic political window dressing, neither Canada nor the USA had any plan to meet the targets.

[Thucydides]

The idiots who signed on for $16/gal fuel were only following the crony capitalist script:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/11/navy-buys-biofuel-for-16-a-gallon/

Navy buys biofuel for $16 a gallon
POSTED AT 7:00 PM ON DECEMBER 11, 2011 BY J.E. DYER
   
This is going to help the Defense Department weather looming budget cuts, for sure.  Teaming up with the Department of Agriculture (which has a cheery Rotary Club ring to it), the Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.

You won’t be surprised to learn that a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a “strategic advisor” at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy.  Glauthier worked – shock, shock – on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.

The Navy sale isn’t Solazyme’s first trip to the public trough, of course.  The company got a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Solazyme’s partner in the biofuel sale is Dynamic Fuels, a Louisiana company owned jointly by Tyson Foods and Tulsa-based Syntroleum.  Tyson and Syntroleum are distinguished by having profitable lines of business that do not rely on government grants to unprofitable “green” projects.  This does not make their biofuel product price-competitive with fossil fuels, however.  (They were induced to develop biofuel manufacturing processes by a combination of subsidies and tax breaks.)

The Dynamic Fuels plant was opened for business in Geismar, LA in 2010, becoming by far the largest biofuels plant in North America – and reportedly, in combination with a plant in Finland, a producer of 94% of the world’s biofuels.  This is great boosterism stuff, but the biofuels produced by Dynamic Fuels are still considerably more expensive than the fossil-fuel alternative.  Dynamic Fuels has begun supplying aviation biofuel to KLM, the Dutch flag carrier, but of course, the use of more-expensive biofuels by commercial carriers has to be subsidized by governments.

If governments stopped subsidizing biofuels, their artificial “profitability” would disappear overnight.  Price-wise, they can’t compete with fossil fuels.  The day may come when they can, but subsidizing them while they don’t is not a method with any record of success for encouraging price efficiency.  What it does instead is create languishing public dependencies and tremendous opportunities for cronyism, as demonstrated in the Solyndra scandal.

As the Institute for Energy Research article (top link) indicates, the US has enormous reserves of both conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas resources.  Opening them up for exploitation would, among other things, ensure that the US armed forces could buy cheaper fuel – cheaper than today’s prices – produced in the USA.  At a time when federal debt is spiraling and the Defense Department is facing budget cuts that are guaranteed to gut the fighting forces and render them ineffective, it seems to border on insane to eschew a ready, significantly cheaper alternative and require the armed services to quadruple what they pay for fuel as a proof of concept – apparently with the idea that the forces should buy more of the 4-times-as-expensive fuel.  This is, after all, our national security we’re talking about.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

[Haletown]

message from the UN to Canada"

"the new push towards a universal, legal climate agreement in the near future.

I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort. Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions."


Isn't  it wonderful when UN leeches and other assorted world government wannbe marxist progressives whine?

Can't wait for Suzuki and May to get their  CBC time to do their whining.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/email-from-unfccc-we-wont-let-canada-out-of-the-kyoto-convention/#more-53024

[GAP]

You would whine too if you stood to lose 14 billion dollars for graft....er.....assisting third world countries with their climate change costs.....

[cavalryman]

Can't wait for Suzuki and May to get their  CBC time to do their whining.

Your wish has been granted:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/13/pol-may-kyoto.html

[SevenSixTwo]

Your wish has been granted:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/13/pol-may-kyoto.html

"Reuters news agency reported that China called the decision "regrettable" and called on Canada to continue abiding by its commitments on climate change."

HAhahahahahahaha

[Haletown]

From the Greenies are Morons file . . . jaw dropping dishonesty & conspiracy.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/national-academy-of-sciences-appointee-caught-making-up-stuff-to-win-lawsuit-rico-lawsuit-follows/

It has always been know many greenie climate scientologists invented data, hid declines, refused to publish methods etc, but these idiots believed that just because they were being made famous in an eco-documentary movie, the laws didn't apply to them.

Let us hope the end up with massive fines, much jail time and every verdict in every case where they the expert witnesses gets tossed.

[Thucydides]

The crying begins:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black/environment?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoveringTheSecretsOfVancouver+%28Discovering+The+Secrets+Of+Vancouver%29

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black
December 13th, 2011 Posted in environment
Give me a break…

From our Venezuelan newspaper: China and India lead condemnation of Canada’s Kyoto withdrawal

I’ve spent a total of 14 weeks in China this year, and although the people are REALLY green focused, the reality is they are 10x as bad as we were in the worst era of our polluting. The government there knows now is the time to build -when it’s cheap, and does little to reign in polluters… in fact, they are the biggest polluters. India has problems that would take a book to explain.

The reality is that we are cleaner than since the beginning of the industrial revolution, have more trees than ever, and have water that we can drink in every city.

So what’s the problem?

We put an end to extortion, as well as an end to a dark era where we were sucked into making our manufacturing unaffordable. We have stopped wealth creation instead of enriching the Global Warming Cartel.

“It is regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of the international community for Canada to leave the Kyoto Protocol at a time when the Durban meeting, as everyone knows, made important progress by securing a second phase of commitment to the protocol,” said Liu Weimin, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry.

Canada stopped the transfer of our wealth dead in its tracks.. now the howling from the cartel begins.

[ModlrMike]

This from the CBC comments section sums it up:

"If our reputation is based on handing over fourteen billion dollars to thieves to buy friends, then it's not worth having."

[Haletown]

This from the CBC comments section sums it up:

Quote

    "If our reputation is based on handing over fourteen billion dollars to thieves to buy friends, then it's not worth having."

Somebody at the CBC has some 'splaining to do.  Letting some common sense filter through in their comments is a CBC Corporate No-No.

Can't be Progressive and have common sense.  You have to have "beliefs".

[GAP]

Wow.  Sent a complaint into Advertising Standards Canada. http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/consumerSubmission.asp  If they get a myriad of complaints it will make things tough for David Suzuki and his advocacy slush fund.

Well, that was a bust.....

Re: Our Case #17213 – David Suzuki Foundation – Internet Advertisement
Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) received your e-mail expressing concern regarding the above-mentioned advertising.
ASC administers the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, the principal instrument of advertising self-regulation. The Code's clauses set the criteria for acceptable advertising. Consumer concerns about advertising messages in Canada are evaluated against the criteria contained in the Code, available on ASC’s website listed above.
In light of your concern, ASC staff carefully reviewed the advertising. In our evaluation, the advertisement is not directed to children, but rather to adults. The website uses mature language to explain its purpose, and a credit card is required to respond to the campaign. Additionally, we did not find that the website presented issues regarding climate change in a manner that was exploitative or misleading. After careful evaluation, we did not identify an issue under the Code with this advertising and have closed our file on this matter..
Thank you for taking the time to write and for your interest in our self-regulatory process.
Yours sincerely,
Amy Kedrosky

[Old Sweat]

I got the same reply this morning.   

[ModlrMike]

As did I. Clearly they were looking at a different site than I was. 

[Thucydides]

The observations of this expedition make nonsense of the "hockey stick" and other nonsensical predictons about AGW. The date is pretty important as well:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/survival/stories/why-the-british-were-doomed-to-lose-the-race-to-the-south-pole-6617203?click=pm_latest

Why the British Were Doomed to Lose the Race to the South Pole

One hundred years ago today, Norwegian Roald Amundsen became the first person to reach the bottom of the world. But for his competitor, British explorer Robert Falcon Scott, the race ultimately proved deadly: Scott and his team froze to death on their return trip. What many people don't realize is that the rivals were unevenly matched from the start. Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Edward Larson, author of the new book An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science, tells PM the story.
By Stephanie Warren

December 14, 2011 12:00 PM

How did the journey to the south pole become a race?

Scott happened to be the captain in charge of the first British expedition to the Antarctic, the Discovery expedition. There were scientists on this and other expeditions doing all sorts of research: paleontological, meteorological, magnetic. The idea of getting to the pole sort of grew on Scott over the course of these expeditions. He was superfluous to the science, so he was free to try for the pole. So, on Scott's final expedition, the Terra Nova, he announced that he would try to get to the pole.

Meanwhile, while Scott was preparing to go, Amundsen announced that he was trying to take an expedition to the north pole. He was a wonderful explorer. He'd already been to Antarctica, been the first to traverse the Northwest Passage. While he was planning this, two different explorers, Frederick Cook and Robert Peary, claimed to have reached the north pole. They never did, but they claimed it. So Amundsen quietly changed his destination. He didn't tell anyone what he was doing. It was only after he was on the way, only at his last port of call that notices were sent to the world of what he was doing.

When did Scott find out that he had competition?

Scott heard about it only when he was at his last port of call in Australia. But by that time, it was too late to change his plans. He had planned a very deliberate trip to the south pole, because he didn't know he would be in any kind of competition. Which was sort of interesting, because he didn't know how to mush dogs [Scott's team used man-hauling instead of dog sleds], and Amundsen did, because of his Northwest Passage expedition.

What Scott was planning to do was use tractors and dogs and ponies to place food and supplies across the ice shelf [for the party bound for the pole to use]. He planned a slow, deliberate route. It was designed for safety—ironically, since it, of course, didn't work out that way. But Amundsen went with just one party, and they just dashed down and dashed back, with dog sleds and skiing. They basically just raced down to the pole and raced back. So you had a very uneven competition.

Why didn't Scott make it?

The plan itself should have worked. He wouldn't have beaten Amundsen, but he should have gotten down and back successfully. He had a lot of bad luck. The weather turned cold, which was the big thing, and half of the ponies that were crucial for bringing food down died early in a freak accident. The seals on the stores of fuel broke, and fuel leaked out, so they didn't have enough fuel, which contributed to them freezing to death.

But Scott also made some terrible, terrible mistakes. He planned on four people going to the pole, but then he changed his mind at the last minute. He had food and supplies for four people but ended up taking an extra person at the last minute. The guy didn't even have skis; he had to walk.

Still, Scott would have made it despite the mistakes—he fell only 11 miles short. It took a combination of bad luck and poor choices. Even if he had made it, though, he was doomed to fall behind Amundsen. Amundsen's human accomplishment was remarkable. The scientific accomplishment of Scott's expedition was magnificent.

What was so scientifically interesting about Antarctica to them?

The British ran a series of expeditions that were primarily scientific research expeditions to Antarctica beginning in 1901. Before that, no one even knew there was a continent in Antarctica. They didn't know anything about the place. They knew there was some land down there, but they thought it might be an archipelago, and that the pole could easily just be on an ice cap.

But research suggested that Antarctica was probably a continent, based on the type of seafloor debris dropped by the icebergs that floated north, and they had some clues that Antarctica governed the global climate and the currents from the oceans, from the cold down there. The fossil records in South America, Africa, and Australia suggested that there was a southern continent and that it was once connected to Antarctica. So there were things pointing to a scientifically interesting body of land down there that no one had ever explored.

What did the scientists in Scott's party find out?

There were endless scientific discoveries that had nothing to do with Scott: that Antarctica was a continent; that it was once, indeed, much warmer; and that there was once rich flora—the whole area was once vegetated; and that it had then gotten colder but was now warming up again. They documented quite a lot of glacial retreat. They also made it to the south magnetic pole and did the first extensive work in terrestrial magnetism, to determine exactly how magnetic lines lay, which are curved. Before they did that, you didn't know exactly where a compass was pointing.

They took a seismograph down and established that the Ring of Fire continues on around through the Ross Sea. They determined the life cycle of emperor penguins. They studied how glaciers move.

In combination with other scientific expeditions, they established for the first time that there was a global ecology, that the entire world is interconnected, and that the most central feature in that system for determining climate and weather and the ocean currents is the Antarctic. Most of the fresh water in the world is in this huge, 9000-foot-high reservoir of ice, and it plays a huge role in governing the global ecology.

It was amazing what Amundsen did, but he didn't do any science. He didn't have any pretensions to do any science—he was simply trying to make it to the pole and back. And he did it magnificently, obviously much better than Scott. Scott never intended to be in a race. He thought his expedition was going to do first-rate science, and in typical British fashion, bag the pole on the side. And his lack of focus certainly handicapped him.

Read more: Why the British Were Doomed to Lose the Race to the South Pole - 100th Anniversary of Reaching the South Pole - Popular Mechanics

[Haletown]

This is going to be fun.  Real science, the kind where the release their data and methods, unlike the Climate Scientology Crew.

"What these eminent scientists are predicting is significant: “We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009–‐20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6°C.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/16/polar-amplification-works-both-ways/#more-53159

Somewhere, Al Gore is crying and David Suzuki is saddened as they come to realize their opportunity to monetize the fear mongering over AGW is just about over.

[Thucydides]

Climategate 2.0 exposes more of the scam:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?
By Maxim Lott
Published December 16, 2011

The Climatic Research Unit, a key climate science facility at the School of Environmental Sciences, a part of the University of East Anglia in the UK.
Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be
"Yes."

The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Professor Phil Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.
Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.
The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.

"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”
Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.

"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.

"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told FoxNews.com.

"Not with us, it won't," he said.

The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.

When contacted by FoxNews.com, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.

However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.

"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.

But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."

McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."
"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.

Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told FoxNews.com that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public.

"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told FoxNews.com.

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.

"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.
"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/#ixzz1gjXIjkTp

[Haletown]

Maybe all the hyperbole and fear mongering was a little over the top after all.  Kinda puts paid to the whole positive feedback loop theory.

Accurate data, global coverage, full surface to space profile.


http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/16/thirty-three-temperature-update-well-bel

[Thucydides]

Sticking a fork in Jeffrey Simpson

http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/12/so-what-is-jeffrey-simpson-really.html

So, what is Jeffrey Simpson really talking about???
Simple: Moral Superiority.

Nowhere in his column will one find even the slightest hint of an explanation of how sticking with the Kyoto crowd would actually solve a damn thing.

Rather, it's all about doing it because it's the right thing to do, while carefully avoiding any use of the word that best describes such action: "Symbolism".

"It’s said, for example, that since Canada “only” contributes 2 per cent of total emissions (while being among the largest per capita emitters), it should really do very little. Ponder that argument. Has it ever been seriously advanced – in war or peace – that Canada isn’t doing its part in world affairs? Did Canada say in two world wars, “Sorry, since we can’t be the decisive actor alone, we’ll take a pass”? Should Canada refuse to give foreign aid because its aid alone can’t eliminate poverty? Should Canada withdraw from a multitude of international institutions because it’s smaller than other member countries and thus can’t do much by itself?

To put the argument this way is to see how false it rings against our traditions of responsible international participation.

This is akin to the pernicious folly of the “ethical oil” argument now embraced by the Harper government (and the oil industry, of course) to justify doing little to reduce emissions from the oil in the tar sands.

In secular philosophy and organized religion, ethics has been about defining and pursuing the notion of the “good.” This “good” is usually set as an optimum, never attained but always kept as a goal. Ethics is not about claiming virtue because behaviour is better than the worst possible behaviour, but rather it’s measured against the nominal sense of the “good.”"

Here's the difference: Canada's involvement in those wars had nothing to do with symbolism. We fought against REAL tyranny that was murdering REAL people, and destroying REAL freedoms and rights. And our foreign aid went to fighting REAL poverty amongst REAL people suffering REAL horrific consequences.

There was nothing theoretical or contrived about any of it...you know, as is the case so blatantly with AGW.

Here's what Simpson's column, and basically every other similarly Liberal Left scribbling, goes out of its way to NOT mention...

The Kyoto targets of a 6% reduction relative to 1990 would have required Canadians to park every vehicle in the country, shut down every source of electricity not generated by hydro or nuclear fission, shut down every mode of transportation, every furnace in every home, our entire agricultural industry...and still not have achieved that target.

Which clearly is a preposterous notion.

So the only alternative left would have been to tax Canadians up their collective arseholes on virtually every aspect of their daily lives to raise kabillions of dollars to buy "carbon offset credits" in foreign countries. Or in other words, send kabillions of our dollars to foreign governments, such as Russia, China, and only God knows where else, so they could spend it all on......what? "Green" stuff? Right, which is the kind of inane fantasy only a leftist could believe.

Can you even begin to imagine the snickering going on around tables in foreign capitals by primarily socialist/communist/fascist leaders and bureaucrats as they gleefully toast the hordes of useful idiots in the west who demanded that their primarily democratic governments dump truckloads of primarily US dollars in their laps???

Oh, no, the usual suspects will say. "Carbon offset credits" would also be traded on international exchanges. You know, like the one in Europe in which Interpol discovered that, of the $7 billion worth swapping hands over its first couple of years of operation, no less than $5 billion worth vanished in a haze of presumably green smoke in one of the largest frauds in history.

Forget about the Chicago exchange that finally shut its doors because the markets arrived at a point where a carbon offset credit wasn't worth a plugged nickel...literally!

Why? Because who in hell actually knows what a "carbon offset credit" really is??? In fact, it's no more than a concept ( meaning, pretty much pulled out of somebody's *** ) that can't be seen or touched, that has no real intrinsic value, that is tracked on computer screens, that is traded in far off places nobody knows, by people nobody ever heard of. Cute, eh? the JP Morgans of the financial world spent fortunes preparing for this market. 3% in, and 3% out on billions worth of imaginary fluff mandated by governments sucking up to millions of voters scared shitless by environmentalist zealots relentlessly hammering at them with the all too predictable doom and gloom of the new religion of Anthropolitical Global Warming! All of it pumped up until hell won't have any more by an MSM crammed to the gills with guilt ridden Liberal Lefties whom reliably don't feel sufficiently important or worthy enough unless they're on some mission to save the human race from itself, and for the most part, owned by the same interests in far off ivory towers whom also are the principle players in financial markets...the same ones looking to do big business in trading carbon offset credits. Who the hell wouldn't want a piece of that action!!!

Which isn't entirely new...kindly drop a sheckle in the dish on your way out, thank you very much you evil and sinful, and otherwise insignificant, little person.

Hell, they've even got their "heresy" routine to go with it. You either accept "the truth" as they proclaim it, or you are pretty much a worthless "piece of crap" equivalent to whacked out holocaust deniers. In the glorious days of the supreme power of Vatican Inquisitions, a conviction of heresy generally ended in a very public burning at the stake, lest anyone else should get silly ideas about just exactly who is calling the shots. We're more civilized now: The AGW fundamentalists burn heretics on the stake of public opinion, with the MSM at their beck and call at every turn. Again for the very same reason, lest anyone get stupid ideas about defying their self-proclaimed mandate to save the human race from itself.

The sickening irony in all this is that back then, damn few people could read, nor had any education worth mentioning. So they, understandably, relied upon and trusted their leadership to look after their best interests.

Relatively speaking, we...especially in the western world...are educated up the ying yang. Yet nevertheless the vast majority still defer to others to do their own reading and learning for them, and thereby hand their personal power off to veritable strangers of whom they don't know a damn thing about. Least of all what it is that motivates their decrees from on high...which also hasn't changed much: Money, and power over the ignorant masses.

And so we have Durban conferences that, more than anything else, are about scheming ways to suck no less than $100 billion per year out of the most modern and successful civilizations on the planet.

Is climate change real? Of course it is! There was never, ever a time in the multi-billion year history of this planet when climate was not changing. And there's not one single GD thing anyone can do about it, either!

Except learn to deal with it.

You don't deal with it by dragging billions of people into yet more poverty.

You don't deal with it by crushing hope for better lives and opportunity.

You don't deal with it by herding the masses like so many sheep with fear and threats.

You don't deal with it with ideological/fundamentalist contrivances.

You don't deal with it with gross exaggeration, deliberate manipulation of the facts, misrepresentation of the truth, and just out and out filthy lies!

And you certainly don't deal with it with unfettered zealotry and bigotry!

The one thing that pisses off the usual suspects in all of this is that people like me have the audacity and gall to question their authority, their self-esteemed holiness, and their idiotic quasi-socialist/communist ideological balderdash.

What is going on with all this AGW crap has nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with climate change.

No, all this AGW crap is nothing more or less than the usual suspects figuring out ways to EXPLOIT climate change to their own ends. PERIOD, END OF STORY!

Yep, that old adage is still all too sadly evident: The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

[Thucydides]

Nobody expected the Inquisition....

http://surecures-remedy.blogspot.com/2011/12/shades-of-galileo.html

Shades of Galileo

Recently, a second round of emails taken from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were released online. This release -- dubbed "ClimateGate 2.0" -- is once again revealing that those scientists and politicians pushing an alarmist view of Earth's climate being in danger due to manmade carbon dioxide emissions have engaged in deception, distortion, intimidation and even criminal activities as pertains to Freedom of Information legislation.

As bad as the revelation has been, the response by those whose careers and financial interests are dependent upon such alarmist dogma has been draconian.

Donna Laframboise who hosts the excellent climate change skeptic blog No Frakking Consensus and is the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert recently reported on how fellow blogger Roger Tattersall -- who runs Tallbloke's Talkshop -- was recently subjugated to officially sanctioned persecution.

Tallbloke just happened to be one of the first people to report and link to the latest batch of released emails. Because of it, last week the police came to his home and seized both his computers and router and even attempted to coerce access to his blog. You can read more about it via a National Post article authored by Ms. Laframboise: Climate Crackdown.

And Tallbloke was not the only person being targeted. As it turns out, the U.S. Justice Department had sent a formal request to blogging company WordPress to have all communications and records ("evidence" as they put it) for Tallbloke as well as Jeff ID at the Air Vent (http://NOconsensus.wordpress.com) as well as noted Canadian mathematician -- and co-destroyer of Michael Mann's hockey stick -- Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog.

This is more than a little disturbing. The original ClimateGate emails clearly revealed criminal breaches of Access to Information laws on both sides of the ocean. Did the U.S. Justice Department send the police out to seize the computers of those involved? No. Did they send any notice to the University of East Anglia or Penn State (Michael Mann's employer) to have their data files and emails frozen as "evidence" of a crime? No.

The only action taken in response to the original ClimateGate release were complete whitewashes (greenwashes as it were) by both UK officials who barely lifted a finger in their examinations and Penn State who didn't even depose key figures who would have revealed a great deal about what was really going on.

And yet average citizen bloggers who simply redirected readers to information from another source that was out on the internet are being treated as criminals. Why? Because they did the one thing that is not to be tolerated when dealing with climate change alarmism: they were skeptics.

It just goes to show, one cannot question the supposed science nor the stances of the religious leaders of the day without facing totalitarian authority.

Science is the child of skepticism.

When skeptics are treated as heretics, you are no longer dealing with science. You are dealing with the blind faith of a religion.

[Haletown]

Steven nails it  . . .

    I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
    I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
    I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
    I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
    I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
    I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
    I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
     I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
    I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
    I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
    I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
    I will stop making up data where none exists
    I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
    I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
    I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
    I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
    I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
    I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
    I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
    I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
    I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles  like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
    I will admit that there is no missing heat
    I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
    I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
    etc. etc. etc.





http://www.real-science.com/new-years-resolutions-climate-scientists

[Thucydides]

The Senate of Canada holds hearings:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/progress-canadian-senate-listens-to-global-warming-skeptics/?print=1

Progress: Canadian Senate Listens to Global Warming Skeptics

Posted By Tom Harris On January 2, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 32 Comments

On December 15, four leading scientists appeared before the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to challenge global warming advocacy. The hearing was the first of its kind in Canada. (Video of the hearing can be found here [1].)

Guelph University Professor of Economics Dr. Ross McKitrick [2] led off the hearing, explaining that the foundation of the climate scare — the science as promulgated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — cannot be trusted:

    The so-called Climategate emails confirmed the reality of bias and cronyism in the IPCC process. … IPCC Assessments are guaranteed merely to repeat and reinforce a set of foregone conclusions that make up the party line.

McKitrick explained how his research showed that much of the warming seen in the IPCC surface temperature record is almost certainly a result of urbanization, agriculture, and other land use changes, not greenhouse gases (GHG). He also found that the 50-year record of temperatures measured by balloons does not show the warming trend forecast by climate models.

University of Ottawa (U of O) Professor of Earth Sciences Dr. Ian Clark [3] addressed the committee:

    We have not really seen any global warming for the past 10 years. … This is in stark contrast with the IPCC forecast of an increase of some 0.2 degrees per decade.

Clark explained that 20th century warming is merely one of a series of warm periods in the last 10,000 years. During these intervals, carbon dioxide — the greenhouse gas most targeted by governments around the world — was relatively steady:

    CO2 had nothing to do with these warming periods.

Clark continued, showing that the last 500 million years show no correlation between temperature and CO2. He explained that water vapor is in fact responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect. Clark also promoted the theory that the Sun, not CO2, is driving climate change. He concluded:

    It is time to turn our attention to real, tangible environmental problems.

U of Ottawa Distinguished University Professor Dr. Jan Veizer [4]  spoke next:

    Many people think the science of climate change is settled. It is not. … [The Sun] drives the water cycle; the water cycle then generates climate, and climate decides how much jungle, how much tundra and so on we will have, and therefore drives around the carbon cycle. … The sun also warms the oceans that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of the climate.

Veizer explained that solar output must be amplified to explain recent warming:

    The IPCC argues that because no amplifier is known, which is an invalid assertion, man made greenhouse gases must be responsible. … However, this is an assumption. … There is no actual empirical experimental proof that carbon dioxide is a driver.

Veizer then showed that changes in cloudiness can account for much of the past century’s warming. Clouds have an enormous impact on temperature, he explained, and cloud extent appears to be controlled largely by cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, which are regulated by the Sun.

Carleton University Professor of Geology Dr. Timothy Patterson [5] discussed how his research in the fjords of British Columbia revealed consistent correlations between solar cycles and climate over the past 5,000 years:

    Hundreds of other studies have shown exactly the same thing. … The sun, and not variations in carbon dioxide, appears to be the most important driver of climate change. … Solar scientists predict that by later in this decade the sun will be starting into its weakest solar cycle of the past two centuries, and this will likely lead to unusually cool conditions on earth, which may persist for decades. … It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world.

Patterson explained how his research on the Tibbitt to Contwoyto winter ice road in northern Canada leads him to “project a period spanning several decades where conditions will remain suitable for continued extensive use of the ice road.”

With the exception of Alberta Senator Grant Mitchell — who asserted that “to believe these arguments is to believe some kind of strange conspiracy theory” — committee members appeared open to the scientists’ testimonies. Patterson encouraged Mitchell to attend one of the large earth sciences conferences where the skeptical point of view is supported by many researchers.

Yukon Senator Daniel Lang challenged the scientists:

    Do everything you can to get out and to have that public debate … especially since, as Mr. Patterson’s research has indicated, we may well be looking at a cooling period for quite some time. If that is the case, then we really better have a look at what we are doing.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/progress-canadian-senate-listens-to-global-warming-skeptics/

URLs in this post:

[1] here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW19pPFfIyg&feature=related

[2] Dr. Ross McKitrick: http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/ross.html

[3] Dr. Ian Clark: http://www.earth.uottawa.ca/details.php?lang=eng&id=55

[4] U of Ottawa Distinguished University Professor Dr. Jan Veizer: http://www.earth.uottawa.ca/details.php?lang=eng&id=63

[5] Dr. Timothy Patterson: http://http-server.carleton.ca/%7Etpatters/

[Thucydides]

Unintended consequences:

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/b8adf28ac78f88f3.html

Atmospheric Environment 46 (2012) 545-553

Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010e2050 climate simulation L.J. Mickley a,*, E.M. Leibensperger a,b, D.J. Jacob a, D. Rind c

a School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 29 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

b Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

c Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA

a b s t r a c t

We use a general circulation model (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies GCM 3) to investigate the regional climate response to removal of aerosols over the United States. We perform a pair of transient 2010e2050 climate simulations following a scenario of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, with and without aerosols over the United States and with present-day aerosols elsewhere. We find that removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases in a spatial pattern that strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible outside the United States, but annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4e0.6 K in the eastern United States. Temperatures during summer heat waves in the Northeast rise by as much as 1e2 K due to aerosol removal, driven in part by positive feedbacks involving soil moisture and low cloud cover. Reducing U.S. aerosol sources to achieve air quality objectives could thus have significant unintended regional warming consequences.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States - Results from a transient 2010-2050 climate simulation.pdf
1318K Download

[PMedMoe]