Climate Change IV - Rise of the Eco-Fascists

Yes, very good summary. So good and so clearly on the side that climate change is happening and is man-made that I believe Fred never read but instead is relying on the AFP summary. :laughing:

Agreed Mucha Man, but I think from Freds perspective hes not interested in the content, its the fact they include details of areas that are debatable. My guess is he feels this is a sign of progress, a move from near certainty to include areas of debate. He will argue this shows that the theory behind global warming is crumbling as the warmists are forced to take a more moderate and reasoned approach, given time they will be forced to admit its all unknown and the hoax will be exposed.

Perhaps if Fred had read it, and got to the part where it says methane and co2 levels are higher now than at any time over the last 800.000 years, he might be shaking his head and saying “fools the earth is only 4000 years old”.

I had another friend send me that link about the guy who quit his job, I agree with Dr.Mcoy, typical over hype from Anthony Watts, meaningless in a scientific sense as that gets done though papers and peer review, just someone who got upset with others in the society he belonged using “climategate” evidence of wrong doing. Ever notice how often the deniers wheel out some “star” retired for 20 years to make a point, this guy must have some other nutty beliefs like dowsing, they all seem to have at least one.

When I first looked at the index, I thought somebody changed the name of this thread to Climate ‘Change IV - Rise of the Eco-Facts’.

It would be funny if they did.

Well, lookee lookee. Rising methane. Rising CO2. Rising temperatures and rising sealevels but pretty much on track to be similar (especially when compared with those coming out of the Ice Age) to the past 140 years or so. Except the climate alarmists are saying this is all due to CO2 levels since 1950 or so. I still think that this is more about coming out of the past mini Ice Age ended 1850 or so and maybe our temperatures will rise to levels like those in the 1100s or 1300s. Has me on the edge of my seat. Cannot sleep. Cannot eat. World ending as we know it. Wine back in England… sounds good to me. A greener Greenland? Sounds good to me. As to the rising sea levels… certainly has given a number of Pacific Island nations cause to laugh all the way to the bank… because you all are so stupid… naive… need to expiate. Give me the money. I will spank you and call you all the names that you want. Fools. Oh… and I am laughing AT you.

Heres a decent article for you Fred, written by skeptic Chip Knappenberger, I think using skeptics to explain why you are wrong is a fairly effective way of demonstrating your position is that of what the author describes as an “Ultra-skeptic”, one who makes claims “which are simply unsupported by virtually any scientific evidence”

The Validity of Man-made Atmospheric CO2 Buildup (Part I in an occasional series challenging ‘ultra-skeptic’ climate claims)

Reading for you, Medieval Warm Period care to back up your claim temperatures were “globally” warmer in 1100’s or 1300’s ? Do include levels of certainty, especially with regard the southern hemisphere.

While impossible to attribute any single weather event with absolute certainty to rising global temperatures, you can see the havoc caused by droughts in China and Russia this year alone, and the subsequent rise in crop prices. Glibly thumbing your nose at the potential destructive power of mother nature can only be described as ignorance. I wonder if your attitude to the planet was made into an analogy for a guest renting a house, what sort of tenant you would be, and what sort of shape you'd hand over the property to the next tenant? 
The cap and trade, as I have said many times, seems to me to be an incredibly flawed system to tackle carbon emissions, as well as being prone to loopholes for spinning money (reduced to misrepresenting peoples positions are we?). But do carry on with the insults, like the childish renaming of the series of threads to include "Eco-facist" , potty mouth insults do well to show, thats all you got.

More wackiness (gee Mick, I hope that isn’t too harsh for you…delicate fella that you seem to be) from the Warmist crowd:

quote from article:

[quote]Smoking produces two green house gasses that are altering our atmosphere and are directly related to climate change; it is just one more challenge for the world to over come. … rming/1566[/quote]

Huh…I thought it was cow farts we had to worry about?

*I do not smoke.

Climate Craziness of the Week

Also an further update on Dr. Lewis’ APS resignation:

Isn’t it a bit funny how some are already trying to lesson the significance of Dr. Lewis’ action by demeaning his contributions?
Pretty sad.

Isn’t it a bit funny how some are already trying to lesson the significance of Dr. Lewis’ action by demeaning his contributions?
Pretty sad.[/quote]

I’m not aware he made many contributions to much of anything, hes not a climate scientist so certainly not in this field, I saw he had a couple of papers on nuclear power plants.

Seems the most notable thing he’s done is to write a controversial letter in his twilight years. Which Anthony Watts compares to “the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.” Whats up with that?

A good video that ties together Fred Smith (he’s mentioned very quickly), Nike vs New Balance (I like New Balance - fits my wide wide feet), BP, ENRON, cap & trade and much much more…also mentions algore…:smiley:

BIG GREEN 3, Green Gold: BP, GE & the World’s First Carbon Billionaires
"Venture capitalists, investment banks, corporations, oil companies, lobbyists, politicians and environmentalists stand to make big money off of Big Green. Find out how the environmental movement could make Al Gore the world’s first carbon billionaire, as Joe Hicks looks into the business side of Big Green. "

These guys are complaining that cap and trade will promote solar energy and other clean energy systems. But that is the point of it. Isn’t it? Sounds like it may work.

We’ll have to watch the elections closely. If the Republicans are going to take over, then keep your money invested in war making companies. If the Democrats are going to keep control, then invest in green technology and solar power.

There’s a downside there, somewhere.

See, no one is thinking about this in a clever way. If they could make a solar-powered missile launcher, then everyone would be happy! Thinking caps, people.

mmmmmmbbbbllllllmmm…nothing to say…mmmmmmbbbbbllllleee…

Are you really surprised? Individuals want to make money, corporations and elected representatives twist the law, this is not new.

But the skeptics forget, correlation does not equal causation. To infer a fraud, needs to falsify the science, an error in the IPCC report does not falsify the theory behind global warming, nor does leaked emails, or a hockey stick.

Global warming is easily falsifiable, if the current trend of warming could be explained without anthropogenic warming. However it cant, and when what we know about greenhouse gases is plugged in, it works perfectly.

I'll leave with this thought, actually on the financial side and policies being passed under a green umbrella, I think the right wing have a point.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]See, no one is thinking about this in a clever way. If they could make a solar-powered missile launcher, then everyone would be happy! Thinking caps, people.[/quote]GuyIT -
I have long been a proponent of solar & wind power generation. I even installed a wind powered (windmill) electric generator at a house I had in South San Francisco back in the mid-80s.

But, unfortunately, solar and wind are both having problems when done in large scale applications.
I just read a story about the bottom falling out of the solar market as Spains Gov’t looks to decide on ending the subsidies that have propped it up.
Spain’s Solar Deals on Edge of Bankruptcy as Subsidies Founder
(same article is reprinted in Bloomberg & The Barcelona Reporter under - “Spanish Sunburn” title)

And the articles abound on the infiltration of organized crime into both wind & solar in Italy and other parts of Europe. All as a result of the Gov’t subsidy monies handed out blindly to anyone willing to put up a wind mill or solar panel and fill out the requires paperwork.

Along with tidal and geothermal, I still think these sources provide a valid answer for future needs.

So you’re saying tidal powered cluster bombs then? Rad!

Now that’s a good topic of conversation for 3 AM on Hanrin beach!

There is quite the anti-windmill backlash here in Essex County SW Ontario, and it will play out well in the municipal elections next Monday. Not only are they quite the eyesore, when indeed they are actually functional, but some asshat of an engineer actually has a plan to install them in Lake Erie! :noway:

Some had been asking about past warming and cooling of the planet and wondered how to differentiate todays warming trend from natural previous events. I saw the Geological Society released a statement, which discusses previous warming events, sun spots, volcanic activity, El Nino as well as other naturally occurring events.

A statement by the Geological Society of London

In the conclusion this point is made, and its been said in this thread by many other sources, and is why there is a wide consensus on global warming, but worth saying again.

It might also be worth taking a look at this video, (for those that are interested), the poorest people are those that will feel the effects of climate change the worst. I doubt rich businessmen, bankers, doctors or lawyers in the west have much to worry about, but hope they dont live in denial that our way of life has caused changes to our climate and brought about suffering to people who have nothing to contribute to this problem.

When The Water Ends: Africa’s Climate Conflicts

An interesting article on how the insurance industry is backing climate change. hardly could one accuse them of being irrational tree-huggers. … scepticism

I can’t believe none of yinz posted and commented on this story:

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming

Say what? :astonished:

How the heck is a guy like me supposed to make heads or tails out of this? So, are they saying now that no warming took place since 1998?

So, no warming since 1998… is that right? If yes, then, how does that jive with this:

How can nine of the top ten hottest years on record have happened since 1998 (and 2010 be tied for the hottest) if no warming happened after 1998? Are they saying that the earth got hot and stayed hot but didn’t get hotter? But, isn’t the earth supposed to keep getting hotter as more GHG are put into the atmosphere?

Ninety percent certain? I thought this was settled conclusively?

And the guy that wrote it is head environmental correspondent. No wonder there is no understanding. It makes no sense to me.