Well, he obviously can’t, but he sure doesn’t want anyone else to tell him what to do either.
Sorry, who are you replying to? Cannot understand from the context…
[quote=“fred smith”]
And you know because you were there? [/quote]
Because! 
Nevamind.
Then you are being intellectually dishonest; the very next post is [url=Nicotine and AGW: 'teach the controversy' - #2 by Fortigurn
and you are being intellectually dim… very dim…
Your connections are specious and precious. I will invent a new word for your postings: sprecious.
Your conspiracy theorizing is so rote as to be beyond boring…
Divea: Nevahmind? Yeah… that’s what I thought… let’s all just never mind… very good suggestion. I have been espousing the same for 10 years. Glad we are all on the same page if not plage haha get it?
On what basis do you say this?
[quote]Your connections are specious and precious. I will invent a new word for your postings: sprecious.
Your conspiracy theorizing is so rote as to be beyond boring…[/quote]
Evidence please. Connections aside, I note you have failed completely to address any of the science in those posts. I thought that would be the case.
Apropos of nothing, I suppose … this little bit of nonsense in the TT made me laugh:
[quote]China has now declared information on air quality to be an internal affair, in which the United States and other countries should not interfere.
“China’s air quality monitoring and information disclosure involve the public interest and are up to the government,” Deputy Environment Minister Wu Xiaoqing said at a press conference on June 5, World Environment Day. “Foreign consulates in China taking it on themselves to monitor air quality and release the information online … also contravene relevant environmental protection rules.”
While the data published by the Beijing municipality and by the United States Embassy are similar, Mr. Wu was unhappy that foreigners “use their own countries’ standards to assess China’s air quality, which obviously is inappropriate.”[/quote]
Article: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/frank-ching/2012/06/27/345740/Air-quality.htm
There you go again being sprecious.
Any comments on what one is supposed to make of the nicotine business? Or would you first like to delete that before we move ahead? is this about climate change or conspiracies involving the sale of tobacco products?
As to the rest of your spreciousness, so what? would you like us to look at the science of phrenology as well?
Key issues that will quickly deflate your little rant:
-
HOW MUCH is man contributing to CO2? What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is manmade? What percentage of the total atmoshere is CO2? What percentage of that CO2 increase is manmade?
-
What other factors are in play? sun?
-
How reliable are the computer models in question? Be careful here. This has been the cross on which most of your past adherents have found themselves thoroughly nailed.
-
ASSUMING all of the top three, then what? What are you going to do at what cost to achieve what result? This is the final nail in the coffin. TWENTY years of “effort” and all you have to show for it is anniversary parties in Rio? What is this some ageing rock band doing yet one FINAL tour? I feel as if the histrionics and hysteria are worthy of campy Streisand followers. What have all the NGOs and UN and international conferences achieved? Scroll through these fora and weep. Raising awareness, showing solidarity and pulling publicity stunts is all of the progress achieved to date.
Rather than use tobacco and its promotion to show how the science was being abused, why not use the same case but show how the adherents of ACTION by climate change alarmists and their lies and bloviations about our ability to do anything about it at all were just a cover for their own research and grant proposals and that they were either personally benefiting or were too stupid to wake up and smell the coffee and thus are deserving of more green wash marketing and useless devices with cute polar bears on them.
29 gigatons of CO2 [manmade] to the 750 gigatons [natural]
Fact from here: skepticalscience.com/human-c … ssions.htm
Fairly elementary stuff? No?
Ah… steviebike… stealing my thunder. With children, you have to let them answer sometimes and not always provide the information… otherwise, they don’t grow as human beings and individuals… Well, there you are. An incredible amount of change from manmade sources that is SURE to be the cause of all weather changes…
Well, raising awareness is good if there is really is a problem. In the end, governments didn’t act in a massive way, perhaps because they thought the science was a little sketchy. The NGOs failed to get governments to take serious action, such as really act on Kyoto. So if there is a lack of results, then it is the governments’ fault. NGOs cannot guarantee action by governments.
As to the problem itself, I have become definitely become more skeptical over the last few years about AGW. I have enough experience with environmentalists to know that they too are largely faith based. However, I feel that the assumption that environmentalists are trying to con people for money with this sounds very political and has not been proven or even established.
I mean, how do you prove motivation? Well, leaked statements etc. The only damaging leaks I’ve heard about is when people tried to suppress research that mitigated against AGW in the name of “the cause” (The U of E Anglia thing). This sounds more like fuzzy religiosity than cynical con-artistry.
Why then do you, Fred, assume the whole thing is a pack of lies as opposed to an error in science? And that the motivation is fraud rather than saving the planet?
Fred doesn’t offend me… 
Anyway… have a look at this:
[color=#0000FF]The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria[/color]
[quote=“James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming and the scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory, and who’s electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere”]
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” [/quote][/quote]
This is the final nail in the coffin and I’m not surprised it isn’t being discussed. The “godfather” of the movement himself says this stuff was waaaaaay overblown and that they were WRONG. But naturally that doesn’t stop the proponents of the naturalistic religion from driving that ideologic train.
No comments are needed, the text is clear.
I want you to address the science. It’s very simple.
[quote=“fred smith”]1. HOW MUCH is man contributing to CO2? What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is manmade? What percentage of the total atmoshere is CO2? What percentage of that CO2 increase is manmade?
-
What other factors are in play? sun?
-
How reliable are the computer models in question? Be careful here. This has been the cross on which most of your past adherents have found themselves thoroughly nailed.[/quote]
No, the science was not being abused. The science contradicted the tobacco industry’s claims consistently. The tobacco industry simply covered it up and lied to the public.
Not if all that is achieved is raising awareness. One would imagine that the vast bulk of any money and effort should be devoted to solving the problem.
Then, why continue to fund the NGOs if they have achieved nothing but awareness in 20 years?
So 20 years of nothing achieved except “raising awarness” and you think that this is not political? or self-serving at best?
There was a massive coverup of conflicting information by scientists. This is directly counter to everything that they have been taught to uphold sorta kinda like the Fortigurn example of doctors peddling cigarettes. same same. But not in the way that he would like to discuss but like all the rest of the climate change alarmist fanatics, he doesn’t see the discrepancy in dishonesty for a “good cause” and being faithful to one’s profession.
Because this is the fifth or sixth such “movement” and the chief purpose of all has been to take from the productive and give to the unproductive.
Fortigurn:
I have read your “science.” You don’t understand any of the commentary do you? This is why you cannot formulate in your own words what you think the key arguments are. This is also why you don’t see the irony of your constant harping about nicotine and doctors and say global warming and climate-gate scientists. Remember it is the scientists of global warming alarmism who were hiding the evidence not some evil oil or coal company, right?
Anyway, we have had our little discussion long enough, haven’t we? I disagree with you. You disagree with me. BUT the world leaders are acting in ways that are in accord with my vision of the climate change urgency and not yours… Ooops… guess you will have to go back to playing guitar on the streets… or whatever it is that you concerned citizens do to fill your days… If you worked at McDonald’s, at least I could respect the fact that you had a job and were earning your keep. Time for you to find a new cause to devote your precious sensibilities to. God. When the save the whales movement first started, I thought that it was painful and now… there is no end to the new causes that this mindless generation of narcissistic self-absorbed useless fuckwits will find “important” and “life-threatening” and “necessary to save the world.”
Has anyone seen the previous to “Enlightened” the movie? Some warped messed up middle aged woman and her “crusade” which just so happens to involve her narcissistic need to feel important and do good. God help us. All the signs are there that we need another good cull of the weak and feeble-minded… Jesus…
[quote=“fred smith”]Fortigurn:
I have read your “science.”[/quote]
Then please address it. I summarized, in my own words, the entire history of anthropogenic climate change science, from 1824 to the 21st century. Throughout that summary I identified every single key argument, and demonstrated how the evidence from multiple independent sources, and the data from numerous interdisciplinary sciences, all converged on the same conclusion.
You have not addressed any of this at all. You consistently attempt to avoid addressing the science, which is telling; you know the science contradicts you completely.
This speaks volumes about you.
These were not damaging leaks, and there was no attempt to suppress research that mitigated against AGW.
Sorry 
There is a very good and valid argument here. The point that you have. Is it worth it? The amount of CO2 humans create, overloads the system, but what are the benefits of doing this? Weather changes and patterns are still unpredictable to us, so it’s hard to know the impact. I really see no point arguing over that. It’s pollution in it’s general sense that bothers me. As for possible solutions in regards to energy reduction, it is about reducing pollution and saving us money – utopian but I can dream.
Sorry
There is a very good and valid argument here. The point that you have. Is it worth it? The amount of CO2 humans create, overloads the system, but what are the benefits of doing this? Weather changes and patterns are still unpredictable to us, so it’s hard to know the impact. I really see no point arguing over that. It’s pollution in it’s general sense that bothers me. As for possible solutions in regards to energy reduction, it is about reducing pollution and saving us money – utopian but I can dream.[/quote]
The numbers mean nothing out of context.
Nature absorbs more CO2 than it produces. Humans produce more CO2 than it absorbs. Didn’t think that would be hard to understand. Include with that the destruction of forests and rain forests which aid nature in absorbing CO2, we are not only producing more CO2 that we absorb, we also limit nature’s ability to absorb the excess CO2. You guys did read the entire article that you quoted from, right? (Aimed a little more at Fred than Steviebike)
e04teacherlin is right. It would be equally accurate to say nature, left alone, “produces” no CO2 at all. Google “carbon cycle”. There is a baseline level of CO2 in the air that is continually being removed and augmented - but it’s not the same CO2 from moment to moment because it’s being circulated through living organisms, the earth, and the sea. The state of the system is stable and self-maintaining, even with a certain level of disturbance.
Measuring atmospheric CO2 is therefore a bit like a doctor measuring blood cholesterol levels. It’s not an indication of how much cholesterol you’re putting into your body, but a measure of how well your body is maintaining a sensible circulating level (cholesterol is used by, and synthesized by, your own body, principally as a raw material for steroid hormones, so it’s under active management). If the levels are “off”, it’s because your body is unable to cope with something you’re doing to it - and not necessarily excess cholesterol going in.
That’s why I think Steviebike has a better approach - focus on pollution in general, and its negative effects, and see what we can do to reduce it considerably. Understanding the earth’s interlocking control loops, and then setting some arbitrary limit for anthropogenic emissions, seems like a slippery task, at best.
In fact, who cares what the limit is? Does it matter if it’s 2GT/year, 20, or 50? Are we seriously considering polluting simply because we can? Is nobody interested in whether we need to? Whether we are getting something of benefit in return? The bizarre thing about the modern world is that we’ve achieved what the pundits said we would: freedom. Provision of everything a human could need, for a relatively low labour input. And what did we decide to fill our leisure time with? More work!
How much of what goes on in the world is done in the name of “creating employment”, I wonder? Pick a random middle manager in the local government, or Cargill, or IBM, or Asia Pulp and Paper - would the world stop turning if they stayed at home this year? If the corporation folded entirely, would humanity crumble? An awful lot of the pollution and waste that goes on is 100% unnecessary, and it would be 110% unnecessary if people would learn how to stop doing things. Fred’s fulminating about money-wasting NGOs is really just the edge of that big picture.