Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

[Cairenn]

The Congress passed it, the Supreme Court ruled in legal. It was NOT crammed down the throat of MOST folks, only some. Those that seem to feel that they have theirs and if you can't afford or qualify for insurance, then it is YOUR fault (and I guess they also feel it is your 'duty' to just die) need to accept things and go without are the ones that are upset.

Let me tell you about a couple of those folks.

One is a lady in her early 60s. She went to college, got a degree in math, and computer programming. Got jobs, bought a home, worked until around 2000. Mainframe programmers are not needed now. She found a part time job with no benefits that pays her less than 150% of min wage. Her home is a mid 50s era, 3 bedroom with a carport. She drives a 2000 Durango. Very moderate life style. She did help her now ex get custody of his children, from their ill grandparents (5 year olds should not have to call 911 for granny's diabetic seizure-why the grand mother caused by not taking her insulin). She does own a farm in Ark, the land worth is substantial, but she is a 'small farmer', not one of the big agri businesses. She helped her step daughter with her college and expenses like a car.

She has had asthma since she was a child. After years of looking she found some insurance, but it has high premiums, a very high deductible and no coverage for routine health care. Obamacare will be helpful to her.

Then there is the step daughter. She had ovarian cancer when she was 12 and thyroid cancer when she was 16. She finished HS and went to college, worked while she in college as a prison guard. She got her degree, and is now working for Child Protective Services. She has insurance through the state, right now. The only way today that she can get insurance is by working for someone. She couldn't start a business or even work for a start up business. She is tied to a government or big business job. Not because she is lazy or wants a handout, but because she is NOT insurable.

Obamacare that you dislikes will help both of these women and many other folks. Years ago, there was used bookstore that I went to a lot. The owner was telling me that he had been offered the space next door for expansion, but he had to turn it down. He worked there full time, but he couldn't afford to hire another full time employee. His wife, who would have loved to work there, had to keep her job, because she had lupus and needed the insurance.

 

[Pete Tar]

He is a fraud . Another public sector worker making millions . The rich get richer and the poor and the middle class pay . They dont want us all to have the same luxuries as them ....

This statement confuses me, because I was positive that at one point somewhere you said that Obama was attempting to create class warfare and resentment against the rich by trying to tax them. Have you fallen for the trap yourself?
(apologies if it wasn't you, couldn't find the post)

 

[Jazzy]

He is a fraud. Another public sector worker making millions. The rich get richer and the poor and the middle class pay. They dont want us all to have the same luxuries as them. Hypocrites all of them. The only way they will pass a carbon tax here is if they force it on us like the Healthcare scam they crammed down our throats.

You are a fraud, Joe.

You read a scandal sheet which is funded by the fossil fuel industry, which has caused you to slander and abominate a man whose scientific career I have followed for fifty years, who is probably one of the most respected scientists there ever has been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

James E. Hansen
AKA James Edward Hansen

Born: 29-Mar-1941
Birthplace: Denison, IA

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Scientist, Astronomer, Physicist

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Greenhouse effect and global warming

As a high school student, James E. Hansen was inspired by reading Robert Jastrow's Red Giants and White Dwarfs, and took the subway across New York to Dr Jastrow's office, arriving unannounced to ask Jastrow's advice on pursuing a career in science. He studied under James Van Allen, becoming one of the world's leading experts on global climate change and mankind's impact on weather phenomena, and eventually succeeded Jastrow as Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Hansen was among the first prominent scientists to speak out about the dangers of global climate change. He has said that unless the United States and other advanced nations take the lead, the effects of climate change will render the earth "a different planet". As NASA's top climatologist, his research has shown how trace gases and aerosols in the earth's atmosphere prevent the escape of infrared energy, thus causing the planet to effectively simmer and warm. Using global thermometric records to document the resulting changes in Earth's surface temperature, he has quantified both the natural greenhouse effect and the additional effect of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other man-made pollutants, and concluded that the human impact on climate has now surpassed natural effects.

In 2006, Hansen made headlines when he complained that the Bush administration had attempted to "muzzle" climate scientists at NASA, limiting their access to reporters, and that he had been ordered to remove web postings that contradicted the administration's positions on scientific matters.

Career:

University: BA Physics and Mathematics, University of Iowa (1963)
University: MS Astronomy, University of Iowa (1965)
University: PhD Physics, University of Iowa (1967)
Scholar: Astrophysics, Kyoto University (1965-66)
Scholar: Astronomy, University of Tokyo (1965-66)
Scholar: Leiden Observatory, University of Leiden (1969)
Scholar: Astrophysics, Columbia University (1969-72)
Teacher: Geological Sciences, Columbia University (1978-85)
Professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University (1985-)

Dan David Prize 2007
American Geophysical Union
National Academy of Sciences 1996
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1972-81, Director, 1981-)
NASA Research Associate (1962-69)

Official Website:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Content from External Source

Willard Anthony Watts, on the other hand...

Ironically, Watts has done more to strengthen the scientific evidence for AGW than refute it (guess he really is an environmentalist). A conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute, published his "academic" work based on the Surface Stations data claiming that NOAA's weather stations did not meet regulatory code and had collected unreliable data that exaggerated maximum temperatures. Watts' data, however, was collected by volunteers using only microsite data. When the data was reviewed in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, the authors found that the stations Watts flagged as unreliable were indeed unreliable...in the opposite direction. They had actually underestimated the maximum temperatures. Good catch, Anthony!
In 2011 Watts was back again, claiming to have new "research" that would prove the unreliability of the weather stations and shake the very foundations of AGW theory. In fact, when the paper was finally released, it came to essentially the same conclusion as the aforementioned Journal of Geophysical Research study: minimum temperatures at a number of stations were biased slightly upward and maximum temperatures biased slightly downward, thus canceling out the bias when averaged.
Watts is a former radio and TV weatherman, but as is typical of media weathercasters he has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Surprise, surprise.

Content from External Source

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

Affiliation with Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?. Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website, "devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public." The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[51] Watts explained the funding by stating, "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around." and added, "They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind".

Content from External Source

 

[JRBids]

Shoreham Nuclear plant ? Thank the environmental left wing wackos like the Sierra Club . Long Island has always had high electric rates . I heard form a guy who was doing construction on the plant that there were a lot of second hand parts being used at Shoreham ?

Hand wave.

 

[JRBids]

He is a fraud . Another public sector worker making millions . The rich get richer and the poor and the middle class pay . They dont want us all to have the same luxuries as them . Hypocrites all of them . the only way they will pass a carbon tax here is if they force it on us like the Healthcare scam they crammed down our throats , http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/...now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

Another hand wave. Why can't you answer Jazzy's question:

It's only five minutes. Watch it and explain to me how this scheme actually allows a Ponzi stratagem?

 

[JRBids]

The Congress passed it, the Supreme Court ruled in legal. It was NOT crammed down the throat of MOST folks, only some. Those that seem to feel that they have theirs and if you can't afford or qualify for insurance, then it is YOUR fault (and I guess they also feel it is your 'duty' to just die) need to accept things and go without are the ones that are upset.

The other people upset are those who get 85%-90% of the health care for FREE now, including where I live all the cops and teachers (yeah, I know it weird, I'm a lib and against the public sector unions, because where I live they make more money than the private sector and get taxpayer guaranteed pensions and health care -- then move to North Carolina when they retire cause the taxes here are too high).

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I've said it earlier, Carbon Tax must be aimed at industry rather than the consumer.

Businesses pass along taxes to the consumers.

 

[Joe]

Another hand wave. Why can't you answer Jazzy's question:

Ok its outright theft . At least a ponzie scheme seems make one think they will prosper . How does carbon credit do anything other then redistribute wealth ? Or hurt the economy ? Pay to pollute . When will we be forced to pay to exhale ?

 

[Joe]

You are a fraud, Joe.

You read a scandal sheet which is funded by the fossil fuel industry, which has caused you to slander and abominate a man whose scientific career I have followed for fifty years, who is probably one of the most respected scientists there ever has been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

James E. Hansen
AKA James Edward Hansen

Born: 29-Mar-1941
Birthplace: Denison, IA

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Scientist, Astronomer, Physicist

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Greenhouse effect and global warming

As a high school student, James E. Hansen was inspired by reading Robert Jastrow's Red Giants and White Dwarfs, and took the subway across New York to Dr Jastrow's office, arriving unannounced to ask Jastrow's advice on pursuing a career in science. He studied under James Van Allen, becoming one of the world's leading experts on global climate change and mankind's impact on weather phenomena, and eventually succeeded Jastrow as Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Hansen was among the first prominent scientists to speak out about the dangers of global climate change. He has said that unless the United States and other advanced nations take the lead, the effects of climate change will render the earth "a different planet". As NASA's top climatologist, his research has shown how trace gases and aerosols in the earth's atmosphere prevent the escape of infrared energy, thus causing the planet to effectively simmer and warm. Using global thermometric records to document the resulting changes in Earth's surface temperature, he has quantified both the natural greenhouse effect and the additional effect of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other man-made pollutants, and concluded that the human impact on climate has now surpassed natural effects.

In 2006, Hansen made headlines when he complained that the Bush administration had attempted to "muzzle" climate scientists at NASA, limiting their access to reporters, and that he had been ordered to remove web postings that contradicted the administration's positions on scientific matters.

Career:

University: BA Physics and Mathematics, University of Iowa (1963)
University: MS Astronomy, University of Iowa (1965)
University: PhD Physics, University of Iowa (1967)
Scholar: Astrophysics, Kyoto University (1965-66)
Scholar: Astronomy, University of Tokyo (1965-66)
Scholar: Leiden Observatory, University of Leiden (1969)
Scholar: Astrophysics, Columbia University (1969-72)
Teacher: Geological Sciences, Columbia University (1978-85)
Professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University (1985-)

Dan David Prize 2007
American Geophysical Union
National Academy of Sciences 1996
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1972-81, Director, 1981-)
NASA Research Associate (1962-69)

Official Website:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Content from External Source

Willard Anthony Watts, on the other hand...

Ironically, Watts has done more to strengthen the scientific evidence for AGW than refute it (guess he really is an environmentalist). A conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute, published his "academic" work based on the Surface Stations data claiming that NOAA's weather stations did not meet regulatory code and had collected unreliable data that exaggerated maximum temperatures. Watts' data, however, was collected by volunteers using only microsite data. When the data was reviewed in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, the authors found that the stations Watts flagged as unreliable were indeed unreliable...in the opposite direction. They had actually underestimated the maximum temperatures. Good catch, Anthony!
In 2011 Watts was back again, claiming to have new "research" that would prove the unreliability of the weather stations and shake the very foundations of AGW theory. In fact, when the paper was finally released, it came to essentially the same conclusion as the aforementioned Journal of Geophysical Research study: minimum temperatures at a number of stations were biased slightly upward and maximum temperatures biased slightly downward, thus canceling out the bias when averaged.
Watts is a former radio and TV weatherman, but as is typical of media weathercasters he has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Surprise, surprise.

Content from External Source

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

Affiliation with Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?. Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website, "devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public." The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[51] Watts explained the funding by stating, "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around." and added, "They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind".

Content from External Source

James E. Hansen Worshipper Gets Debunked
How can I be a Fraud ? at What ?
By P Gosselin on 9. August 2011
By Ed Caryl
A reader who goes by the name of “renewable guy” and I had a recent exchange on the credibility of James Hansen and his crew at GISS a short time ago. He gave me the following list of 9 observations to support Hansen and GISS:
1. “Observations show that the planet is changing in accordance with global warming theory.”
It is nice to see someone admit it is a theory rather than “settled science.”
2. “The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming. Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)”
Not quite. See here. All the papers in the list above depend on models. When actual data is used no heat accumulation is seen. For sea surface temperature changes see:read here.
3. “The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release).”
Two related papers, the first one refutes Santer: read here and here. Figure 9 of the second paper by Hoinka shows no long term trend of tropopause height over the period 1979 thru 1993. There is however, great year to year variability.
4. “Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006).”
Not anymore. The ozone hole closing is counter-acting the warming affect. But this study is still using models, read here. The models depend on the temperature increasing. What if the temperature doesn’t follow the rules? And it has not over the last decade plus.
5. “The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006).”
Same as above; two sides of the same coin. If the jets move poleward, the tropical zone gets wider.
6. “There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).”
Have you heard of UHI? Here is an excellent compendium of the problem. Even NOAA knows the truth about that, and has known it for over 20 years, read here. There is also the increased reporting phenomenon; blame the Internet. This, and satellites, are responsible for much of the recent extreme weather reporting. NASA also knows.
7. “A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009).”
I found this paper change was 1.7 days over 50 years. There are cyclic changes in temperature. The beginning year in this study was 1954, a relatively cool year for the twentieth century. If the study had begun 20 years earlier, the change would have been smaller, see here. The earth has been slowly warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Seasons were much longer during the Medieval Warm Period, when grapes were cultivated in Scotland, as they can be cultivated now (with proper care, it’s still not as warm as southern England). In the last two thousand years, there have been two other periods when the growing season in northern Europe was as long as now: the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. The cycle is now turning colder and will repeat learn about it here.
8. “Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008).”
Not quite, the sun has a much larger effect: read and learn something here.
9. “Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010).”
Sure, since 1985. Look again in another 25 years. All the above points have the same problem. If you look at a particular section of data, or a model, for just a few years, trends can be seen that disappear over a longer time interval. The sun and long ocean cycles last from 70 to several hundred years. Making judgements over shorter intervals is foolish.
Models have problems such as lack of spatial and time resolution, and assumptions that may or may not correspond to how nature actually works. Due to the complexity of the actual climate system, even a tiny piece of garbage in the input to a climate model will quickly make the output all garbage. If one knows anything about Chaos Theory, one will doubt any present or even future climate model.
The sun, ocean cycles, recovery from the little ice age, and urban heat island effects, account for all but about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C of the recent warming. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 0.5 to 0.6 degrees C for CO2 doubling.
=======================================

Content from External Source

Content from External Source

 

[Joe]

George Carlin On Global Warming Scam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0

 

[Cairenn]

So your science comes from a comic? not a scientist.

 

[Jazzy]

Businesses pass along taxes to the consumers.

But in this case the taxes have just been given to the consumers. But more importantly still, they have been given to everyone else.

There's no government involvement. It's just an algorithm applied to your bank account, putting it in credit.

 

[Jazzy]

Ok its outright theft . At least a ponzie scheme seems make one think they will prosper . How does carbon credit do anything other then redistribute wealth ? Or hurt the economy ? Pay to pollute . When will we be forced to pay to exhale ?

You still didn't watch. Or if you did, you didn't listen. How about interchange here? Enough of your tiresome assertions.

Where can a Ponzi Scheme exist in Hansen's proposal? Point out where.

If taxation money has already been taken from the fuel producers, and given to the public, it means that in your case, if you're not buying anything you are receiving money which gives you the choice to purchase alternative energy supplies or even move house. It is YOU that has increased options.

The producers will have to charge more to cover their taxes, but the customer already has more money in his pocket, as well as the increased choices of the guy who's not buying, if he wishes.

If the taxation is coupled exactly to carbon content, across a level playing field, then it makes no difference to the producers, but a hell of a difference to the consumers. They become free to find alternative renewable energy.

The producers can always convert their carbon into plastic monomer and sell it off that way. We will be needing many cubic miles of polythene to catch and guide fresh water.

People like Al Gore will have to pay more or become more efficient. That should make you happy when the sea's lapping at your verandah.

 

[Spongebob]

Keep on paying your carbon taxes - safe in the knowledge that you are "saving the planet"...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ing-stopped-15-years-ago-uk-met-office-admits

Despite playing a key role in advancing climate change hysteria, the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service, known as the Met Office, quietly released a report last week conceding that so-called “global warming” actually stopped more than 15 years ago. The startling admission shows once again that United Nations theories and climate models are wildly inaccurate at best, experts say, meaning multi-trillion dollar schemes to deal with alleged human-caused “climate change” are at the very least severely misguided.

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

How on earth does this -


become a 'startling admission' that global warming stopped over 15 years ago?

Red means warmer, there's more red than blue.
WTF? Where's the concession that it stopped?

 

[Pete Tar]

Damn it! April fools. Got me.

 

[Oxymoron]

It's a British tradition, at least a 1000 years in the making, to let their little old ladies (their men long gone!) be found in a mummified state. Don't knock it. It's a cultural grindstone bigger than you.

That's rich coming from the ex pat frying his brains in the sun daily whilst at the same time advocating shutting down the power stations and taxing energy out of existence for those who need it.

No, 'don't knock it'. Guess it's a case of 'I'm alright Jack' in your fantasy reality.

I should send them all a postcard.

I'm sooo polite... I don't know how I do it!

 

[Oxymoron]

Damn it! April fools. Got me.

Interestingly the article is from Oct 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

PUBLISHED: 22:42, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 14:59, 16 October 2012

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Content from External Source

Ah, it was 'Debunked' tho, it has actually GONE UP 0.8ºC in the last 140 years... Shock horror... quick put more carbon tax on before it goes up another 0.8ºC... possibly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

The Met Office also explained that Rose is essentially trying to go down the up escalator (Figure 1) by focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend.

"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
​

Content from External Source

 

[Oxymoron]

Dallas is converting all of it's buses to CNG. CNG work great for them. I know that Wal Mart is exploring it for trucks. If Wal Mart decides that it will work and be affordable, we will start to see more semis on the road using it.

That's great but the operative word is 'IS'. Why did they not convert years ago, why has the legislation only just come in to make it viable.

The reason nothing to do with being eco friendly, it is because the price of Natural Gas fell through the floor last year as there was so much of it they had trouble storing it. Also they were shutting down drilling rigs for the same reason. Consequence... Lobby for new CNG laws.

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archive/2012/08_09/index.cfm

• he natural gas futures market sank a bit week-over-week. At the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), the September 2012 natural gas contract fell 23.8 cents per MMBtu to close at $2.933 per MMBtu yesterday.
• Working natural gas in storage rose last week to 3,241 Bcf as of Friday, August 3, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR). An implied storage build of 24 Bcf for the week moved storage levels 465 Bcf above year-ago levels.
• The Baker Hughes Incorporated natural gas rotary rig count declined by 7 to 498 active units on the week ending August

Content from External Source

Even CNG is FOSSIL fuel... what about CLEANER technology.

 

[Oxymoron]

Not quite true. Scientists have been warning us of climate change/global warming since the 70s.

[...] I stated "But global warming has been an issue since before the 80's. ..." which I should not need to point out, includes the 70s. The reason I stated 'before the 80's is because Maggie Thatcher made it a big issue in the early 80's whereas prior to that it was hardly heard of and in fact the headline news and at least one song in the 70's referred to 'the ice age is coming'.

Many have it that Maggie did not want to be reliant on coal and oil, (think miners strikes and Middle East Cartels) and wanted to go nuclear but there was a LOT of public opposition, (I wonder why?). What actually amazes me more is that 'public opposition' was actually taken into account. Ah 'the good old days'.

She is reputed to have said 'Never mind the funding, just find me a good reason to move away from fossil fuel'.

Thus, allegedly, Global Warming was born.

 

[Jazzy]

it has actually GONE UP 0.8 ºC in the last 140 years... Shock horror... quick put more carbon tax on before it goes up another 0.8ºC... possibly.

String a few words together, and it'll be all right on the night? Well here are a few for you: "A picture is worth a thousand words":



http://www.operationnoah.org/node/110

It shows the past thousand years, and you can see earth's natural slow cooling (by life processes fixing atmospheric CO2) and Man's sudden interruption... ...blather any way you wish, the plain obviousness of it all is astounding.

There's a longer one plotted over 450,000 years (ice cores) which makes the point quite clearly, as its last point is also the highest point in the graph.



It also shows CO2s steepest upward slope at that point, and an increase in CO2 exactly the same increase as the difference between an ice age and temperate conditions, but ON TOP of temperate conditions.

Eee but fortunately we have icecaps to melt yet. Aah but, if they do, we will warm up even faster. Oooh, but they are melting...

 

[Cairenn]

I believe that a lot of the 'ice age' talk was in connection to the Nuclear Winter discussions.

We also have a LOT better knowledge of both weather and climate, than we did then.

 

[Steve]

NASA explains it all...
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

 

[Jazzy]

I believe that a lot of the 'ice age' talk was in connection to the Nuclear Winter discussions.

There were 42 papers on climate change in the mid seventies. 6 suggested a possible Ice Age, which without Man's interference is expected to arrive soon in geological time - 18,000 years..

We also have a LOT better knowledge of both weather and climate, than we did then.

Ee by 'eck. I blame WEATHER SATELLITES.

 

[scombrid]

How does carbon credit do anything other then redistribute wealth ? Or hurt the economy ? Pay to pollute .

Have you studied existing cap and trade pollution reduction programs such as that for sulfur?

 

[Joe]

Have you studied existing cap and trade pollution reduction programs such as that for sulfur?

Wait I thought sulfur was good ? " One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the atmosphere, a scientist suggested today. "

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Here are 3 iconic graphs showing our effect on the climate:

http://scienceblogs.com/significant...conic-graphs-showing-the-climate-fix-were-in/

 

[Jazzy]

Wait I thought sulfur was good? One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the atmosphere, a scientist suggested today.

Sulfur when oxidized becomes sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide gas in the presence of water vapor become hydrosulfurous acid. This oxidizes in the presence of air to sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a strong acid.

Burning sulfur in copious quantities will indeed lower atmospheric temperatures (volcanic eruptions liberate quantities of sulfur and carbon dioxide), but both trees and ocean phytoplankton weaken and die in acidic conditions.

And what is happening right now? Forests and phytoplankton are in distress due to acidification of air and sea..

Is it a good idea, then?

 

[Oxymoron]

Sulfur when oxidized becomes sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide gas in the presence of water vapor become hydrosulfurous acid. This oxidizes in the presence of air to sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a strong acid.

Burning sulfur in copious quantities will indeed lower atmospheric temperatures (volcanic eruptions liberate quantities of sulfur and carbon dioxide), but both trees and ocean phytoplankton weaken and die in acidic conditions.

And what is happening right now? Forests and phytoplankton are in distress due to acidification of air and sea..

Is it a good idea, then?

And what is happening right now? Forests are in distress due to being chopped down.

Is it a good idea, then?

Your last post appears at odds with your previous post "The volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere built to an excessive amount, melting Snowball Earth." (I think that's a good thing isn't it?)

"Seaborne photosynthetic organisms were once again able to fix carbon".

So here, according to you, the sulfur and CO2 are obviously good for the planet's photosynthetic organisms which 'despite the high temperatures and pollution' are able to thrive and, (according to your constantly changing constants), able to "fix carbon as carbonates, and very slowly temperatures lessened".

So what happened that they could thrive to such an extent that they overcame and reversed the dreaded 'Global Warming', (bearing in mind the last time this happened was not long ago in geological terms and mankind lived far better after the thaw than before i.e. 'in the Iceage'

Photosynthetic life FIXED atmospheric CO2 as sea-floor carbonate deposits.

The Earth lost its CO2 blanket and froze to the equator, preventing the fixation of further CO2. The earth being coated with a thick skin of ice did NOT prevent vulcanism, however.

The volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere built to an excessive amount, melting Snowball Earth.

Seaborne photosynthetic organisms were once again able to fix carbon as carbonates, and very slowly temperatures lessened and Life migrated inland from the coastal margins and colonized inland, causing more carbon to be fixed, this time as FOSSIL FUEL deposits.

Previously you state in response to my opine about fuel from water.

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

Yes that is the accepted version. I am merely opining, I think it is likely possible but not public.


Originally Posted by Jazzy "It hasn't been, isn't, and won't ever be possible. It's one of the basic rules of physics that constants are constant"

Also seems a bit contrary to your later hypothesis that 'yes it is possible but it is not safe'.

Should I really be persuaded by your 'science', I ask myself?

 

[Jazzy]

And what is happening right now? Forests are in distress due to being chopped down.

And being gassed. You are doing the gassing bit, unless you're a lumberjack as well.

Is it a good idea, then?

Sulfur dioxide is NEVER a good idea. You could cool the earth using it, but not without killing that which you wished to preserve. How did that idea creep in? Ah, I see you think I'm recommending it, when quite the reverse is true.

Your last post appears at odds with your previous post "The volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere built to an excessive amount, melting Snowball Earth." (I think that's a good thing isn't it?) "Seaborne photosynthetic organisms were once again able to fix carbon".So here, according to you, the sulfur and CO2 are obviously good for the planet's photosynthetic organisms which 'despite the high temperatures and pollution' are able to thrive and, (according to your constantly changing constants), able to "fix carbon as carbonates, and very slowly temperatures lessened". So what happened that they could thrive to such an extent that they overcame and reversed the dreaded 'Global Warming', (bearing in mind the last time this happened was not long ago in geological terms and mankind lived far better after the thaw than before i.e. 'in the Iceage'.

"According to you, the sulfur and CO2 are obviously good for the planet's photosynthetic organisms." is a reading error on your part. Kindly adjust yourself.

AND you don't see...

Snowball Earth was CAUSED by ocean photosynthesis stripping the atmosphere of CO2 in the first place, faster than the volcanism was putting it in. The earth would be at -70 deg average temperature without any CO2 at all in its atmosphere..

The volcanic CO2 built up in the atmosphere by the relative "shutting off" of ocean photosynthesis raised the average air temperatures to maybe 40 degrees C (I'm guessing!) before the snowball melted. And the oceans rose three hundred and fifty feet, the atmosphere settling down to Saharan over Gondwanaland.

Ocean and land photosynthesis brought temperatures very slowly downwards by absorbing the excess atmospheric CO2, which was a continuing process before land animals existed, and continues today, modulated by Earth's Milankovitch Cycle, as ice ages, which are short periods within a scenario of progressively reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, until the atmosphere becomes cold enough to descend catastrophically past its atmospheric temperature tipping point. Sorry about that long sentence. You might find yourself dozing off in the middle there.

Snowball again. Etc.

Now very fine and dandy, you say, the bugs and the volcanoes have it all worked out*. But their calculations never included you, sunshine. They don't really mind being frozen to a weeny weeny winkle, or fried like an egg and buried under a hundred yards of water. You DO.

"It hasn't been, isn't, and won't ever be possible. It's one of the basic rules of physics that constants are constant" seems a bit contrary to your later hypothesis that 'yes it is possible but it is not safe'.

It would if I referred to the exact same thing. But I didn't.

Should I really be persuaded by your 'science', I ask myself.

If you wish to know of anything I am aware of, you only have to ask me.

* Methane has joined the party of entities/processes that don't care about you, too. He was at the party while only a baby but now he's grown quite tall...

 

[Oxymoron]

And being gassed. You are doing the gassing bit, unless you're a lumberjack as well.


Sulfur dioxide is NEVER a good idea. You could cool the earth using it, but not without killing that which you wished to preserve. How did that idea creep in? Ah, I see you think I'm recommending it, when quite the reverse is true.


"According to you, the sulfur and CO2 are obviously good for the planet's photosynthetic organisms." is a reading error on your part. Kindly adjust yourself.

AND you don't see...

Snowball Earth was CAUSED by ocean photosynthesis stripping the atmosphere of CO2 in the first place, faster than the volcanism was putting it in. The earth would be at -70 deg average temperature without any CO2 at all in its atmosphere..

The volcanic CO2 built up in the atmosphere by the relative "shutting off" of ocean photosynthesis raised the average air temperatures to maybe 40 degrees C (I'm guessing!) before the snowball melted. And the oceans rose three hundred and fifty feet, the atmosphere settling down to Saharan over Gondwanaland.

Ocean and land photosynthesis brought temperatures very slowly downwards by absorbing the excess atmospheric CO2, which was a continuing process before land animals existed, and continues today, modulated by Earth's Milankovitch Cycle, as ice ages, which are short periods within a scenario of progressively reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, until the atmosphere becomes cold enough to descend catastrophically past its atmospheric temperature tipping point. Sorry about that long sentence. You might find yourself dozing off in the middle there.

Snowball again. Etc.

Now very fine and dandy, you say, the bugs and the volcanoes have it all worked out*. But their calculations never included you, sunshine. They don't really mind being frozen to a weeny weeny winkle, or fried like an egg and buried under a hundred yards of water. You DO.


It would if I referred to the exact same thing. But I didn't.


If you wish to know of anything I am aware of, you only have to ask me.

* Methane has joined the party of entities/processes that don't care about you, too. He was at the party while only a baby but now he's grown quite tall...

Is this the type of 'evidence' you rely on?

Volcanic eruptions may have contributed to the inception and/or the end of ice age periods. One suggested explanation of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is that undersea volcanoes released methane from clathrates and thus caused a large and rapid increase in the greenhouse effect.[citation needed]​ There appears to be no geological evidence for such eruptions at the right time, but this does not prove they did not happen.

Content from External Source

So basically, apart from the above nonsense, you are saying it is down to the Milankovich Cycle and other normal factors which have changed climate and land masses since year dot... That's cool... ice cool in fact. These are the major factors which Climatologists who dispute the 'Humans are Causing Climate Change', philosophy; point to as a major factor for temperature change.

But yes, I would like you to expand your theory, because I am having some difficulty understanding how in 'normal' conditions; this works. If we break it into steps it may help.

1) Lush vegetation and animal life and other 'sinks', strip CO2 thus cooling planet.
2) Iceball Earth results

Conclusion: CO2 is stripped by CO2 sinks, far faster than volcanoes can produce it.

Ergo, at some point the World must cool and a New Ice Age must happen.

This seems a tiny bit 'simple' and does not take into account the 'extremely long', (to me), timespans or how these 'switches' are accomplished. Especially when you are saying it needs to go to extremes of temperatures for thousands of years for the process to work. But what the heck, it has happened many times in the past and 'something' must cause it, although I suspect this is only a small part of the explanation; solar weather and orientation being far more of an impact.

But you are saying 'By gad, these feckless humans, (especially those freezing to death in the U.K), have the nerve to try to keep warm by burning stuff, thereby adding to the CO2 emitted by these damn volcanoes'. How on Earth am I finally going to get cool here in Tenerife if the sinks cannot cool the planet down?

I know, I'll introduce a BS tax, (which goes to the really rich) to stop these upstarts from keeping warm until I can get my way and have all the power stations shut down and they can go back to dieing quietly and the surviving few can use horse and carts and igloos.

'Ah where are my sunglasses?'

Now I understand that YOU, may appreciate a bit of respite from the Sun, but others don't get enough of it and we would like some too. So, I suggest it is not a bad thing if we actually can help in preventing or slowing down an onset of a new Ice Age; not that we appear to be doing a very good job of it at the moment as it is still snowing here and very very cold... not that YOU care.

 

[Oxymoron]

Is 'Climate Change Agenda' the road to New World Order governance?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed:“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

Content from External Source

 

[Oxymoron]

Should energy pricing cartels be the next LIBOR scandal?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/libor-like-manipulation-gas-markets

The City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, is investigating claims by a whistleblower that Britain's £300bn wholesale gas market has been "regularly" manipulated by some of the big power companies, exploiting weaknesses that echo the recent Libor scandal.

Separately, the energy regulator Ofgem has been warned by a company responsible for setting so-called benchmark prices, ICIS Heren, that it had seen evidence of suspect trading on 28 September, a key date as it marks the end of the gas financial year and can have an important influence on future prices.

Content from External Source

 

[Jazzy]

Is this the type of 'evidence' you rely on?

No. Maybe you feel you have to, but mine is multi-sourced in my soft tissue.

But what the heck, it has happened many times in the past and 'something' must cause it, although I suspect this is only a small part of the explanation; solar weather and orientation being far more of an impact.

A little grace there? LOL. Malenkovitch IS "orientation", and the sun's output is very slowly increasing. It's increasing enough to suggest, with all life processes working, it will one day blow away the earth's life with increasing temperature until only thermophilic life will remain - and then phut.

But you are saying 'By gad, these feckless humans, (especially those freezing to death in the U.K), have the nerve to try to keep warm by burning stuff, thereby adding to the CO2 emitted by these damn volcanoes'. How on Earth am I finally going to get cool here in Tenerife if the sinks cannot cool the planet down?

A small volcanic island in deep ocean isn't that bad a position. Equatorial continental centers will be the hottest places. People freezing to death can kindly avail themselves of insulation, heat recovery, renewable firewood forestry, windmills, watermills, hydroelectric, tidal barriers, OTEC power stations, and get off their fat arses. IT applies to you. The first thing is to fully appreciate the progression of earth's last one billion years of average temperatures and gas proportion changes, and to be able to account for each of them, knowing the stimuli available, which are solar output, human atmospheric dimming, photosynthetic life, CO2 proportion, vulcanism, icecap quotient and atmospheric albedo, methane proportion, sulfur proportion, Milankovitch cycle position, galactic position. A bit of a list but well within your capacity. It's like the multiple cues we use to judge the weather in the short term, extended to encompass an understanding of what we as active participants must do, co-operate to act, not just to prevent approaching disaster, but also to GEO-ENGINEER a better world, where we MANAGE earth's atmospheric CO2 to hold the sea level where it is right now, or even a bit lower.

(Hari Seldon) "As Milankovitch progresses, we can INCREASE CO2 so that the next ice age never happens. We will have stabilized the controllable parts of the earth. Continents will continue to drift, and vulcanism occur, so it will be a task of constant adjustment. Over millions of years, atmospheric CO2 content can be progressively reduced to balance the increased output from the sun".(/Hari Seldon)

We have to acknowledge that we are geo-engineering it by burning fossil carbon FIRST. And secondly, the acceptance of the first leads naturally to management of the changes being brought about by our increasing population before we either limit it, or it gets limited "naturally".

There's a moral point here, that our present actions (those we do merely to exist) are progressively limiting our children's future options.

I know, I'll introduce a BS tax, (which goes to the really rich) to stop these upstarts from keeping warm until I can get my way and have all the power stations shut down and they can go back to dieing quietly and the surviving few can use horse and carts and igloos.

Look, -----, I have already pointed out Hansen's proposition and you keep returning to your stupid straw man.

'Ah where are my sunglasses?' Now I understand that YOU, may appreciate a bit of respite from the Sun, but others don't get enough of it and we would like some too. So, I suggest it is not a bad thing if we actually can help in preventing or slowing down an onset of a new Ice Age; not that we appear to be doing a very good job of it at the moment as it is still snowing here and very very cold... not that YOU care.

As usual you go off-topic. You begin to see what I'm trying to point out to you, and there's a lot of detail we haven't covered at all, but you make a break for it, and the discussion seems to end...

 

[Oxymoron]

No. Maybe you feel you have to, but mine is multi-sourced in my soft tissue.

Too much information...

A little grace there? LOL. Malenkovitch IS "orientation", and the sun's output is very slowly increasing. It's increasing enough to suggest, with all life processes working, it will one day blow away the earth's life with increasing temperature until only thermophilic life will remain - and then phut.

What really... that's so amazing

A small volcanic island in deep ocean isn't that bad a position. Equatorial continental centers will be the hottest places. People freezing to death can kindly avail themselves of insulation, heat recovery, renewable firewood forestry, windmills, watermills, hydroelectric, tidal barriers, OTEC power stations, and get off their fat arses. IT applies to you.

Yeah yeah, we've heard that record Ming.... snore '... _ _ _ ...'

The first thing is to fully appreciate the progression of earth's last one billion years of average temperatures and gas proportion changes, and to be able to account for each of them, knowing the stimuli available, which are solar output, human atmospheric dimming,

Over the last one billion years?

photosynthetic life, CO2 proportion, vulcanism, icecap quotient and atmospheric albedo, methane proportion, sulfur proportion, Milankovitch cycle position, galactic position. A bit of a list but well within your capacity.

Where did you derive that from? I am not a climatologist. Are you?

It's like the multiple cues we use to judge the weather in the short term, extended to encompass an understanding of what we as active participants must do, co-operate to act, not just to prevent approaching disaster, but also to GEO-ENGINEER a better world, where we MANAGE earth's atmospheric CO2 to hold the sea level where it is right now, or even a bit lower.

I don't know about you but I find the weather forecast is not normally very accurate or useful, 'a 50% chance of rain with some sunshine', doesn't really do it for me, I look out the window and smell the air.

(Hari Seldon) "As Milankovitch progresses, we can INCREASE CO2 so that the next ice age never happens. We will have stabilized the controllable parts of the earth. Continents will continue to drift, and vulcanism occur, so it will be a task of constant adjustment. Over millions of years, atmospheric CO2 content can be progressively reduced to balance the increased output from the sun".(/Hari Seldon)

That's the long range forecast out the way then. "In the year 2525... if man is still alive... if woman can survive... we may find..."

We have to acknowledge that we are geo-engineering it by burning fossil carbon FIRST. And secondly, the acceptance of the first leads naturally to management of the changes being brought about by our increasing population before we either limit it, or it gets limited "naturally".

Ah... now you are making sense... even if the whole 'man affecting climate thing is phony or exaggerated grossly', it doesn't matter. The reason being is because we will have to geoengineer anyway... to prevent next ice age occurring... 'so let's start now... like the guy who created a huge bloom in the ocean.

There's a moral point here, that our present actions (those we do merely to exist) are progressively limiting our children's future options.

Yes yes... morals... I like it. Let us gaze into a crystal ball and see what our children's children will be left with. I see it clearly now... a highly radioactive wasteland with babies and infants on the west coast of america suffering from radiation sickness... Oh no, that's what is happening now from Fukushima.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukush...a-health-impacts-on-american-children/5329553

As usual you go off-topic. You begin to see what I'm trying to point out to you, and there's a lot of detail we haven't covered at all, but you make a break for it, and the discussion seems to end...

No, I am here, in the moment... prepared to discuss sensibly. But I do not see a solution of 'paying to pollute' or 'taxing energy out of existence' or 'turning off the power and letting people freeze to death' or 'irradiating our children and their children's children', as viable.

Let's talk about how we may possibly geoengineer and or viable clean energy sources that do not cost the Earth!

 

[Cairenn]

Hypothoroidism is NOT radiation sickness.

I want to see a better report and some acknowledgement from PEERS. I have not have time to research that and it might be worth placing it in it's own thread.

 

[Jazzy]

Over the last one billion years?

Well, not the human input. The point is still true.

Where did you derive that from? I am not a climatologist. Are you?

I'm merely itemizing the factors. You aren't up to climatology, probably because you don't follow argument.

the whole 'man affecting climate thing is phony or exaggerated grossly'

That's plain denial.

The reason being is because we will have to geoengineer anyway

You are already denying the whole of your own geoengineering here.

All you do with this topic is DENY. What baffles me is where's the gain for you?

like the guy who created a huge bloom in the ocean.

Denial with opportunity to once more smear. I cannot see why you do this.

Yes yes... morals... I like it.

You don't appear to possess any. I should avoid this topic if I were you.

No, I am here, in the moment... prepared to discuss sensibly. But I do not see a solution of 'paying to pollute' or 'taxing energy out of existence' or 'turning off the power and letting people freeze to death' or 'irradiating our children and their children's children', as viable.

If all you are going to is burn straw men then discussion with you isn't viable.

Let's talk about how we may possibly geoengineer and or viable clean energy sources that do not cost the Earth!

Your geoengineering right now, alongside your absolute denial of it, is going to "cost the Earth".

There is nothing cheaper than applying all our efforts straight away. Anything and everything else will cost more.

If you live in a cottage which has a wood stove, and eat food which can be collected from your surroundings then your thermal impact is zero. There's your baseline. If we all hit that (!) then we are still in trouble with all the fossil carbon in the air, and some of the long-term inertial effects of our "work" are still going to play through. We will HAVE to deliberately geo-engineer some palliation.

If you persist in denial, a day will arise where the "authority" (it will be an emergency one) will SHOOT you or your children's children, to prevent the deaths of people working hard to overcome this problem. When it happens it will certainly be a scenario of your own making. You will have been "free" until then, free, until you are shot. It's a form of logical suicide, but rather like the man who shot his ex-employer in a plane, but killed himself and all the other innocent passengers as well.

 

[MikeC]

Yes yes... morals... I like it. Let us gaze into a crystal ball and see what our children's children will be left with. I see it clearly now... a highly radioactive wasteland with babies and infants on the west coast of america suffering from radiation sickness... Oh no, that's what is happening now from Fukushima.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukush...a-health-impacts-on-american-children/5329553

That "research" is of debatable quality - The source is highly dubious - the publishers - Bentham Science - use the "author pays" model - ie if you want to get published they will do it - if you pay them.

I can't find any info as to who does the peer review they claim.

Bealles list of predatory, open access publishers has this to say of them:

Among the first, large-scale gold OA publishers, Bentham Open continues to expand its fleet of journals, now numbering over 230. Bentham essentially operates as a scholarly vanity press.

Content from External Source

Which is to say their authors are people who want to see their name in print and can't get it otherwise.

 

[Cairenn]

I thought that might be the case. I have checked out some reports on other 'pay to publish' sites and I found experiments that had major problems, such as testing the toxicity of a chemical and using 100 times more than it was used, then declaring that it damaged the test species. DUH If I ate a 100 times more salt than recommended, it wouldn't be good for my health--and that was only ONE problem in that study.

 

[Oxymoron]

String a few words together, and it'll be all right on the night? Well here are a few for you: "A picture is worth a thousand words":

Trot out the debunked hockey stick if you really must. It simply shows how you are grasping at straws and FAKED science to match your fake agenda.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

The Rise and Fall of the Hockey Stick Graph

Eee but fortunately we have icecaps to melt yet. Aah but, if they do, we will warm up even faster. Oooh, but they are melting...

Content from External Source

Yep as they have done for millenia... unfortunately they come back... like the Sahara wasn't always desert... things change... mountains rise... continents drift... get used to it... You may think you are powerful but it's in your head... like Canute.