Paging Algore! Cleanup in isle 7!

[JakeYYZ]

No. Not a Dr., but I'm an idealist ........ I believe that there are some things one should be able to depend upon.

1. Scientists who let the data speak for itself, and not on its behalf.
2. MSM that report ALL the news - even when it goes against pre-conceived biases.

Needless to say, my idealism has taken a hit over the past few days.

[Rockie]

I used to be an idealist way back in my teens, but as I got older I found it wasn't working for me. You should try being a realist sometime. It's way more interesting and you can suss out the fraudsters much easier.

[mdscientist61]

Hey Dr. Jake, fess up. That was you that signed that petition card wasn't it?

Nope, it wasn't Dr. Jake who signed that card.

That was the legendary Dr. Edward Teller

He's the one that they call father of the h-bomb. As a side note, he also was involved with President Reagan's Start Wars missile defense program.
He died in 2004 at age 94.

http://whyfiles.org/186ed_teller/2.html

The other 8999 scientists who signed petitions probably work in head offices of the oil companies, or related industries. They might be somewhat biased in their views on things.

[JakeYYZ]

The words, as I use them here, mean something somewhat different from their common usage.
I am an idealist in the sense that I believe the Science community and MSM ought to behave in a certain way. In other words, there is an ideal state that ought to be achieved.
Scientists are supposed to be the purist expression of realists. For them, it is all about the data. The data is never right or wrong in a moral sense, it simply is. What the data shows can't be denied. An idealist will gladly ignore or denigrate data that conflicts with his ideal view of the universe, but a scientist does not have that luxury. Scientists are not supposed to behave this way, even a little bit. But now, it seems, they knew exactly what they were doing, that it all amounted to "tricks", and that data is expected to respect a foregone conclusion, instead of the conclusion being drawn from the data. These (former) scientists ought to be drummed out of the scientific community. Of course, that is me being an idealist, in which I define what I think the proper state of the universe ought to be.

[Rockie]

These (former) scientists ought to be drummed out of the scientific community. Of course, that is me being an idealist, in which I define what I think the proper state of the universe ought to be.

Oddly enough I agree with you. Now what to do with the thousands and thousands of other scientists all saying the same thing that behave just as you would have them? Don't they count in your world, or do you automatically paint all of them with the same coloured brush you like the best?

Also what would you do with the biased frauds trumpeting the ant-GW side? Or are they all paragons of honesty in your book?

[JakeYYZ]

Let’s wait to see how this unfolds. In my universe, their work would be expunged from all scientific databases, with the assumption that it is all fatally compromised by their zealousness, unless specifically shown to be honestly data-driven work, on a case-by-case basis. Pro or anti gw, makes no difference to me. That is the best I can hope for.

[grimey]

Oh this is rich. According to the petition project over 9000 US scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing science that CO2 (a greenhouse gas pumped into our atmosphere by the billions of tons) will adversely effect our environment, but that there is substantial evidence it's beneficial to us. How could we miss that?

Doesn't this kind of amateurish crap embarrass you?

Anyone who bases their conclusions regarding a scientific concept on a petition is deluding themselves. Newtonian physics weren't believed to be correct because lots of scientists agreed with it, it was believed to be correct because experimental evidence supported it. Einstein wasn't believed when his theory of general relativity supplanted it based on popularity, it was because experiment after experiment showed the theory to be more correct than Newton's. The global warming question (whether it's occurring or not, and what is or isn't causing it if it is happening) shouldn't be decided by polls, it should be decided on the evidence. To do otherwise is to base your conclusions on an argument from authority, and is not logically valid. There's a peer review process for a reason. It isn't prefect, but it works far better than non-random polls or petitions.

[Spokes]

Nicely said Grimey. Thats the best post I have seen on this subject in a long while.

[The Old Fogducker]

There has been a deafening silence in the "Lamestream Media" regarding the confidential emails released a few days ago.

The difficulty right now is that CBC especially and to a slightly lesser extent, CTV's staff bought into man-made GW personally as well as professionally.

If you have ever spoken with them in a relaxed atmosphere over a brewski or two and smoothly steer the conversation to man-made global warming, their personal views come to the forefront.

That makes the story a hundred times more difficult for them to follow and bring to air, and they are waiting for more info to come along to prove or disprove the situation.

If another big story comes along soon, or an open confession, then the news agencies will claim they were duped too ... in some kind of Bernie Madoff style massive ripoff and manipulation scheme. If that is the case, they will be relentless in going after the hoax perpetrators .... they would have to, to save face not only professionally, but to retain personal standing among their friends too. They are personally over-invested and have unwittingly become openly biased.

So for now, the reporters are like hens sitting on eggs waiting for the hatch to begin.

The individual staffers aren't totally to blame, radio & TV audience preference polls would have shown that the great unwashed viewer out there wanted to get more stories on GW and climate change ... in response, newsroom management would have specified more coverage to enhance station ratings.

So ... lets watch which way the wind blows over the next few weeks ... until then, my bet is they will "maintain radio silence" on the matter.

I wonder if they'd like their crow parboiled before being placed on the BBQ?

[canwhitewolf]

yup

[Jastapilot]

Increased CO2 has been observed by satellite imagery to aid in thr growth of worldwide plant biomass. After all, it's what they breath, makes sense. Imagine that, a natural earth process to act as a carbon sink!

[The Old Fogducker]

Here's Al Gore bellowing into microphone about "someone" playing on our fears ... http://www.entertonement.com/clips/mvrj ... ryAl-Gore-

Who was the fear monger Al? Why of course it had to be the man of great scientific vision ... the man who created the internet ... http://www.entertonement.com/clips/hrhl ... -Internet-

A man whose verbal abilities challenged those of Winston Churchill ... one of Canada's most charismatic leaders, Stephane Dion, took the theme of one of most motivating speeches ever delivered in the Canadian House of Commons from Al Gore ... http://www.entertonement.com/clips/tkst ... erAl-Gore-

Lest you think my satirical look at the issue of GW is politically motivated ... let me prove you incorrect ... http://www.entertonement.com/clips/ppvq ... itAl-Gore-

The people of Canada care ... Quebec cares even more so .. http://www.entertonement.com/clips/fngl ... ent-Truth-

Mr Gore's motives are pure ... unsullied by any profit motive ... http://www.entertonement.com/clips/swcc ... 't-Know-Me

[Rockie]

The following editorial appeared in Wednesday’s Washington Post:

Last weekend was a good one for climate-change deniers. A hacker stole and released scores of documents, including personal email exchanges, from a server at Britain’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a premier climate-change research centre. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” proclaimed one skeptic.

Not quite. Assuming the documents are genuine - the authenticity of all has not been confirmed - critics are taking them out of context and misinterpreting at least one controversial email exchange. None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change. But a few of the documents are damaging for other reasons.

According to one of the stolen emails, Climate Research Unit Director Phil Jones wrote that he would keep papers questioning the connection between warming and human activity out of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” In another, Mr. Jones and Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann write of organizing a boycott of an academic journal until it fires a “troublesome editor.” Other emails speak of withholding data from climate-change skeptics. Many - including us - find global warming deniers’ claims irresponsible and their heated criticism of climate scientists unconvincing. But the point of peer review is to let ideas stand or fail on their own, in public.

Whatever else comes out about the stolen documents, they have become examples of how not to react to climate-change deniers. You need not dig very far into the stolen documents to discover why climate researchers shouldn’t overstate an already strong case. One discusses how scientists can’t account for a recent, measured lack of warming - a fact that climate-change deniers use to ignore the massive body of evidence that global warming could be a dire threat. Really, it demonstrates that the Earth’s systems are extremely difficult to predict in detail.

By our reckoning - and that of most scientists, policy-makers and almost every government in the world - the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.


Hey OFD, why don't you and Al just have it out and be done with it. Best man wins the planet.

[Siddley Hawker]

From another board, global warming has been/is being blamed for a whole raft of stuff.

Darfur.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/darfur-climate

The release of deadly frozen viruses.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0928-02.htm

An increase in the cat population.
http://www.thestar.com/article/190006
Well, maybe the arrests in Toronto yesterday will help alleviate that one.

An increase in prostitution.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/clim ... erous-work

And last but not least, heart and lung disease.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091125/ap_ ... ate_health

[The Old Fogducker]

A copy & Paste from one of my broadcasting acquaintances ....

Venus Flytrap Climate Scam
by Charles Adler - 25/11/2009



Among my favorite emails in the last couple of days are those coming from people who say if I am willing to trust the science on vaccines, why I do I shrug off the science on Man Made -Sorry EVIL Man made-Sorry Evil Planet polluting Polar Bear hating climate change?

A scientist is a scientist I am told. So let me get this straight. All scientists are the same? James Hansen is with NASA. He is Al Gore's favorite scientist.

James Hansen may be at NASA and may be a poster child for the Armageddon crowd. But just because he is at NASA doesn't make him a rocket scientist.

He is not. -- James Hansen won't get you to the Moon. James Hansen won't get you to North Bay - James Hansen we are told is an expert on radiative transfer models and attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere.

This we are told led him to the same computer codes being used to understand the Earth's atmosphere .

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology. And he is Al Gore's hero. What do you know today that you may not have known yesterday.

You know that James Hansen the all time darling theoretician of Evil Man Made Climate Change is an expert on Venus. If the Climate catastrophe crowd has its way Earth will become just like the planet Al Gore's hero is intimate with--Cold and in hospitable to human life - no humans messing with Venus -never have been never will be- No humans No Suv's No Oil Sands. He understands radiative transfer on Venus.

Now I am not going to waste much time in discussing why if I trust a dude who creates a vaccine and a doctor who administers it more than I trust Captain Venus.

The climate crowd is all about creating a giant Venus Flytrap --it's what Kyoto was about and what Copenhagen is about.

The Venus Fly trap is a carnivorous plant that catches prey, usually insects. Kyoto and Copenhagen are catch basins for your wealth ...which gets put into a fed ex plane to be transferred elsewhere.

It's transferring wealth from your pocket to someone who deserves it more than you.

Remember all you did to accumulate your wealth was to work for it. The person who is without your wealth did not have the opportunity you had to work for it. So you are morally bound to hand your money over to them.

I know what you are thinking. You're thinking that this is no different than being mugged or having your home invaded.

You would be right. But these home invaders aren't on crack. They're on climate ideology, and I think I should let the cat of the climate bag at this point and point you in the direction of Copenhagen, Denmark where some of our scientists and government officials will be eating cheese and drinking wine and signing away some of your current and future wealth.

The head of the United Nations climate office says richer nations must come to Copenhagen pledging funds to poorer nations to make progress on a new agreement to curb global warming this year.

“Finance is the key to a deal in Copenhagen,” said Yvo de Boer is the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"Money, in fact, is the oil that encourages commitment and drives action,” he said in a conference call with journalists.

Essentials of deal would include finance, emissions cuts by rich countries, pledges by poorer countries to reduce the rate of growth of their emissions, and a structure to monitor those commitments.

In the realm of finance, a number of poorer countries are demanding that richer nations collectively pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year to help them cope with an already changing climate.

Mr. de Boer said he had been encouraged by a call from Britain on the E.U. to contribute funds from public sources totaling about $15 billion annually.

But he said that “the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand — all industrialized countries need to provide clarity on the financial support that they are willing and able to provide,” and he stressed that “until they do that, it is impossible, or almost impossible, to expect developing countries to make significant moves either.”

Mr. de Boer acknowledged that it would be “physically impossible, under any scenario” to finalize a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen.

But he said the meeting of more than 190 nations “must see the end of negotiation and the beginning of technical process to work out all the details.”

Those details should be concluded during 2010, he said, so that it is ready to take effect in 2012, when parts of the Kyoto Protocol expire.

The head of the United Nations climate office said Wednesday that richer nations must pledge funds to poorer nations to make progress on a new agreement to curb global warming this year.

“Finance is the key to a deal in Copenhagen,” said Yvo de Boer , the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, who was referring to the Danish capital where a global climate summit takes place in December. “Money, in fact, is the oil that encourages commitment and drives action,” he said in a conference call with journalists.

European Union nations are divided over whether to come forward first with a pledge of public money to unlock stalled negotiations. Mr. de Boer’s comments appeared partly aimed at pushing nations like Germany and Poland to settle differences over the matter, and to allow European leaders to put money on the table by the end of this week.

But the battle over funding within the E.U. reflects the broader difficulties in reaching agreements on what Mr. de Boer termed “four essentials” that would make up a global deal. Those essentials include finance, emissions cuts by rich countries, pledges by poorer countries to reduce the rate of growth of their emissions, and a structure to monitor those commitments.

In the realm of finance, a number of poorer countries are demanding that richer nations collectively pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year to help them cope with an already changing climate.

Mr. de Boer said he had been encouraged by a call from Britain on the E.U. to contribute funds from public sources totaling about $15 billion annually.

But he said that “the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand — all industrialized countries need to provide clarity on the financial support that they are willing and able to provide,” and he stressed that “until they do that, it is impossible, or almost impossible, to expect developing countries to make significant moves either.”

Mr. de Boer acknowledged that it would be “physically impossible, under any scenario” to finalize a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen. But he said the meeting of more than 190 nations “must see the end of negotiation and the beginning of technical process to work out all the details.”

Now you might be asking yourself the question, "How much money is Canada willing to turn over under such a scheme?

I don't know.

You might be asking will the Canadian people be cosulted before someone strokes a cheque in your behalf.

You might be asking well since we have a nominally conservative government - and I say nominally conservative because their actions are always predicated on soothing the jangled nerve endings of the wombats, whippets and wing nuts who will be only to happy to tell the media that Canada is not doing its part to help mother earth.

Our nominally conservative government will mother these parasites as always not wanting to risk yet another minority government or even worse loss of government - first you lose the PR war and then you lose your government.

Does anyone have any clue as to how expensive it is to run a country where the government is intimidated by Suzuki Sycophants and Al Gore Groupies and Venus Fly traps?

[The Old Fogducker]

Mr de Boers statement was enlightening ....

From Charles' article, in part, "...... Mr. de Boer said he had been encouraged by a call from Britain on the E.U. to contribute funds from public sources totaling about $15 billion annually.

But he said that “the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand — all industrialized countries need to provide clarity on the financial support that they are willing and able to provide,” and he stressed that “until they do that, it is impossible, or almost impossible, to expect developing countries to make significant moves either. ......”

Gee, could we shorten Mr. De Boers statement regarding "contributions" be summarized as saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

That sounds similar to the underlying theme of so many shortwave radio programs I used to listen to during the 1960s from Radio Moscow, Radio Bucharest, Radio Prague, etc. Could it be that I've some dim recollection of having heard it before?

Why, yes it does! Here's where it came from ..... Karl Marx. Of course, it is now just not PC to bring up such an incendiary figure and concept in today's kinder, gentler world.

According to the "Progressives" .... the history revisionist crowd, anyone with 5 interconnected brain cells knows the "Cold War" was just a giant hoax perpetrated upon the "running dog lackeys of the paper tiger military industrialist complex" to ensure the slavery of the masses.

After all, in the last 30 or so years, mankind has thrown off the evolved behaviours of thousands of generations and made the world a far less threatening place. Therefore, we have no need for our decadent western societal excesses like TVs, refrigerators, air conditioners, cars, electric stoves, etc.... after all, they are just trappings of an unjust society that rapes mother earth right?

OFD

[canwhitewolf]

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... arbon-tax/

[canwhitewolf]

10 mins to Expose Global Warming Scam

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514

[The Old Fogducker]

Very good canwhitewolf ... but surely you must be in the pocket of Big Oil, or Big Pharmaceuticals, or Big something.

Absolutely anything but Big Common Sense.

Regards,
OFD

[Rockie]

Absolutely anything but Big Common Sense.

If you don't mind my asking, what common sense principle are you applying that convinces you GHG global warming is a myth? Is it because common sense tells you GHG's don't really exist? Or maybe they exist but not in enough quantity to actually warm the planet?

[canwhitewolf]

Very good canwhitewolf ... but surely you must be in the pocket of Big Oil, or Big Pharmaceuticals, or Big something.

Absolutely anything but Big Common Sense.

Regards,
OFD

**********************************************************************

surely you jest

[Flyboy_high]

Climate Change is real.
Climate change does effect us all and will only have a greater impact the further we go if we do not act in Copenhagen.

Cut emissions.
Invest in green technology such as wind, solar, wage, Geo-Thermal and algae as a future second generation Bio Fuel to replace fossil fuel.
We need to shift from dirt coal, possibly dangerous nuclear and totally shift both our mindset and actions.

Algae can be grown in salt water, fresh water and even semi treated waste water. It sucks CO2 out of the air just by growing it. It has a growth and production cycle in as little as 10 days.

The sceptics can say their bit but I do know that the way we have done things the past 100 years is not going to work for another.

[Flyboy_high]

I do ask this, what if the billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the do cause climate change? Once we do pass the 2.0C mark change will not be possible. We are currently sitting at about .7C increase. Will you all feel satisfied that you kept going about your life ignorant rather small?

I just find to much effort on an old way of thinking.
But then again, your presumable older generation made the mess, leave it up to us to clean up.
I could be wrong, I think you are, but regardless of that fact if we go towards out future with no change, who wins? Really…?

[Jastapilot]

I do ask this, what if the billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the do cause climate change? Once we do pass the 2.0C mark change will not be possible. We are currently sitting at about .7C increase. Will you all feel satisfied that you kept going about your life ignorant rather small?

I just find to much effort on an old way of thinking.
But then again, your presumable older generation made the mess, leave it up to us to clean up.
I could be wrong, I think you are, but regardless of that fact if we go towards out future with no change, who wins? Really…?

Who is truly ignorant here? The Global Warmers(oops I meant Climate Change since we're actually cooling right now), or the Skeptics(aka Heretics)? There's the million dollar question. What scientific fact is this magic number 2.0C you quote come from?

[The Old Fogducker]

canwhitewolf ... yes, indeed I jest.

Many don't pick up on some aspects of my sense of humour.

OFD