Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

[jmdrake]

Nobody's suggesting a ban on soda because they're not a fucking power plant that burns hundreds of tons of coal everyday, stop being a demagogue.

Cows aren't "fucking power plants" either. Yet there are all sorts of proposals to ban eating meat. It makes no sense that there are none to ban soda. Meat at least supplies protein. Carbonated soda supplies....? I asked a serious question and you decided to be a prick. Back off your climate change cool aid. Or at least take the carbon out.

As far as the other planets warming, I'm sure sun activity is one of the only factors that can cause them to warm, but earth has other factors, including CO2 emissions from industry. So we have to look at more than what mars is doing, because we're different.

And we have too because.....? Al Gore told you? Yes we're different. There are no SUVs on Mars. None on Jupiter either. That makes them perfect "control" planets. If you have a hypothesis that soy milk causes breast cancer and you look at people who drink soy milk and those that don't and they have the same cancer rate you don't say "Well the people who drank the soy milk were different from the ones who didn't so that's why the cancer rates were the same". If you did, you'd be laughed out of any science conference worth it's salt. Yet that's basically what you're saying with global (really solar) warming.

And East Anglia, though it is one of the top researchers, is far from the only one. Many other institutions have gotten their own ice cores and other raw data, so it seems to me that you are suggesting that they are all in on it. So you might as well just give up on this whole liberty thing, because they've got us far outnumbered.

*sigh* Did you even understand what I was saying about peer review? A few top scientist can drive a field. It's not "majority rules". It's funny that a day after I (attempted) to explain this to you this clip was posted at RPF. One scientist explains how the emails showed attempts to crush dissenting scientists and to force journals to only cover what they wanted covered.

YouTube - Patrick J. Michaels discusses Climategate on CNN

As for being outnumbered, did you pay attention to the primary returns last year? As a whole the liberty movement is outnumber on every front. So? Is that a reason to "give up"? Or is it a reason to fight harder? I was right when I disagreed with 70% of Americans who thought Iraq was behind 9/11. I was right when I disagreed with the majority of Americans who either voted for John McCain or Barack Obama. I was right when I disagreed with the majority of Americans that bought into AGW. Now a (slight) majority of Americans agree with me. There is strong evidence that a majority of scientists agree with me to. (30,000 climate scientists against the IPCC report compared with the 3,000 who signed on, many of whom later recanted). But I could care less if every scientist agreed with junk science. It's still junk science.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[BenIsForRon]

There are hundreds of journals out there. Phil Jones and his buddies don't have their fingers in all of them. I posted an article written from people at Arizona State. I have no reason to assume their science is compromised. Look at the literature cited section. That's a lot of people.

I know it may be harder to get a skeptical article written, but I know its not impossible. There just haven't been that many at all.

And on your planet thing, mars and jupiter haven't been heating at similar rates to earth. As I said, even with solar flares, earth has other, compounding factors.

 

[idirtify]

It’s fine to separate the idea of conservation from government coercion, but good luck trying to credibly separate the concept of “AGW”/ “Climate Change” from government coercion. The latter two are not separable, and that’s one of the reasons the concept is so objectionable. It’s fine to voluntarily engage in conservation practices in your daily lives, but how would you like it if the ENVIRONMENT POLICE were to come to your home and enforce your compliance by LAW? I’m guessing you wouldn’t; even you “environmentalists” AND warmists.

Maybe we should go ahead and take a look at a tiny sample of what we all may soon have to get used to dealing with in our own homes if the warmists win:
“What did you eat yesterday?”
“Why did you eat meat?”
“Where did you buy it?”
“What did you spend on it?”
“Where did you eat it?”
“What did you do with the leftovers?”
“Why did you not eat the previous leftovers?”
“What did you do with the previous leftovers?”
“How did you get there?”
“Where did you go to the bathroom?”
“How many times?”
“Why didn’t you recycle it?”
“What was your total kilowatt usage”?
“Why was it so high?”
“Where all did you travel?”
“Why did you go to those places?”
“How did you get there?”
“What was your total fuel usage?”
“Why did you use so much?”
“What all did you buy?”
“Why did you not reuse instead of buy?”
“Why did you not buy used instead of new?”
“What all did you discard?”
“Why did you not recycle or reuse?”
“Did you wash clothes?”
“Why did you wash them? Were they really too dirty to wear another day?”
“Did you mow grass, water the yard/garden, blow the snow?”
“How much energy did you spend?”
“Why did you spend so much when you could have done it by hand?”
“How many chemicals did you use?”
“How did you dispose of them?”
“OK, that will be all for today. We will see you again tomorrow. As always, you will be receiving your carbon-credit/debit statement at the end of the month. Be sure to pay all dues/fines/fees/taxes by the due-date. Have a nice day.”

The “Global Warming / Climate Change” mentality is the motherload pot-o-gold for government, and the perfect setup for world government. It should not be hard to see how global environmentalism could become the new legislated morality, where government intervention and coercion would increase exponentially. For those of you who fear great harm due to climate change, your collective fears will only serve to create a far worse danger. Like the monsters of your nightmares, governments thrive on fear.

 

[misterx]

To each his own. For my own part when they can accurately predict the weather each day for a particular local for 365 days then I'll believe that they can see a larger picture 50 years from now. As it stands I can get three different predictions from three different sources and my weather "rock" is the only thing correct 100% of the time.

It's much easier to forecast trends than to predict the weather at one specific point in time. For example, you can say with 100% certainty in September that the weather will get colder over the coming months, but you can't guarantee what the temperature will be the next day, or that it won't get warmer over the next week.

 

[jmdrake]

There are hundreds of journals out there. Phil Jones and his buddies don't have their fingers in all of them.

They have their fingers in all of the top journals. The 2nd and 3rd tier journals really don't count. I know researches who won't even submit work to certain journals because they see it as a waste of their time.

I posted an article written from people at Arizona State. I have no reason to assume their science is compromised. Look at the literature cited section. That's a lot of people.

And you've read all of the papers that were cited to make sure that none of them used data from the IPCC?

And on your planet thing, mars and jupiter haven't been heating at similar rates to earth. As I said, even with solar flares, earth has other, compounding factors.

Yes they have.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

When the ice caps on earth melt, the ice caps on mars melt. When the ice caps on mars expand, the ice caps on earth expand.

[edit] Actually there are some reports that global warming has happened faster on Mars. Those solar powered Mars rovers must be taking a heavy toll.

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Hits_Mars_Too_999.html

Besides, CO2 is released as a result of warming. Here is an article from people that take your side that admits this.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm

Second, the best way to get Mars to release its CO2 spontaneously is, well... to warm it up.

The release of CO2 is caused by warming. Not the other way around.

 

[misterx]

The release of CO2 is caused by warming. Not the other way around.

Half truth. The reason it is called a runaway greenhouse effect is because the release of CO2 into the atmosphere causes more warming, which releases more CO2 which creates even more warming.

 

[jmdrake]

Half truth. The reason it is called a runaway greenhouse effect is because the release of CO2 into the atmosphere causes more warming, which releases more CO2 which creates even more warming.

Whatever. It's "running away" faster on mars despite the fact that the only SUVs on mars are solar powered.

Yep. That must be what caused mars to warm 4 times faster than earth.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Yes they have.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Did you even read that article? The whole second half is other scientists debunking his reasoning.

I think we're done here anyway. I've stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you've said that it's not. We've both given some reading to support our arguments. I think anybody willing to look into will see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has more radiative potential that water vapor.

 

[Bruno]

Did you even read that article? The whole second half is other scientists debunking his reasoning.

I think we're done here anyway. I've stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you've said that it's not. We've both given some reading to support our arguments. I think anybody willing to look into will see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has more radiative potential that water vapor.

Have you checked this out, Ben? The Global Warming Skeptics Handbook II. Free download

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/?p=991

 

[klamath]

It's much easier to forecast trends than to predict the weather at one specific point in time. For example, you can say with 100% certainty in September that the weather will get colder over the coming months, but you can't guarantee what the temperature will be the next day, or that it won't get warmer over the next week.

Have you ever looked at a long term general area forecast. They have a very poor record. They can't even get an accurate El Nino forcast which is a cyclical pattern.

 

[Noob]

Whatever happens, the world is screwed.

 

[silverhandorder]

They are studying CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The article you cited even concedes that CO2 is a green house gas. The difference is your article states water vapor is 90%, the one I quoted has it at 60% on a clear day, over 70% on a cloudy day.

Anyway, its crazy to argue this on this forum. There are about a thousand different theories... It's warming! It's cooling! CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas! CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it isn't that important!

As long as we can agree that this has no place in politics.

 

[jmdrake]

Did you even read that article? The whole second half is other scientists debunking his reasoning.

Sure I read it. The "debunking" was based on the fact that Mars wobbles. But these same scientists admitted that the earth wobbles too! There "debunking" was churlish.

Here. Please read this part that you apparently missed.

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

I think we're done here anyway. I've stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you've said that it's not. We've both given some reading to support our arguments. I think anybody willing to look into will see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has more radiative potential that water vapor.

I think anyone willing to look into it will see that Mars heated up 4 times the rate that the earth did during the same period and realize that the who AGW argument is at best bad science and at worse a hoax.

And for the record, even your own side knows your wrong about the global warming potential of water.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/KeyIssues/climate_change3.html
Q What is the global warming potential of water vapor? Are the anthropogenic water vapor emissions significant?
A Water vapor is a very important part of the earth's natural greenhouse gas effect and the chemical species that exerts the largest heat trapping effect. Water has the biggest heat trapping effect because of its large concentration compared to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in concentrations of 3-4% whereas carbon dioxide is at 387 ppm or 0.0386%. Clouds absorb a portion of the energy incident sunlight and water vapor absorbs reflected heat as well.


Combustion of fossils fuels produces water vapor in addition to carbon dioxide, but it is generally accepted that human activities have not increased the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. However an article written in 1995 indicates that water vapor concentrations are increasing. [S.J. Oltmans and D.J. Hoffman, Nature 374 (1995):146-149] Some researchers argue there is a positive correlation between water vapor in the air and global temperature. As with many climate issues, this one is still evolving.

 

[Noob]

Climate Alarmists Push Forced Relocation At Cancun Summit

Not content with merely pushing world war-style rationing and the complete de-industrialization of the planet, global warming alarmists meeting in Cancun Mexico this week will propose the forced relocation of entire populations in the name of offsetting man made climate change.

The shocking proposal appears on page 6 of the executive summary of the Special Climate Change Program.
As a means of mitigating climate change, encouraging sustainability and reducing CO2 emissions, the document calls for, “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.”

Relocation of populations has historically been achieved by force at the hands of an authoritarian ruling elite, to the “substantial harm” of the target settlement, with loss of private property and harrowing social dislocation, and in some cases genocide, being three primary outcomes. The most odious example in recent history was of course the forced transfer of Jews from wartime Germany by the Nazis.

Political scientist Norman Finkelstein notes that forced relocations are often justified by the ruling authorities as a necessary solution to a drastic crisis, which is precisely the rhetoric used in the Cancun document.

The proposal by climate alarmists to forcibly relocate communities against their will is yet another revealing indication that the green movement has dispensed with all pretense of liberal legitimacy and has openly bared its teeth as an authoritarian and despotic undertaking.

Yesterday we reported on how ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society published a series of papers to accompany the conference which stated that wartime-style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-alarmists-push-forced-relocation-at-cancun-summit.html