CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[waldo]

The CRU Hacked emails have shown us what peer reveiwed science has come to. I scoff at your "peer" reviewed science, it has become a joke.

how so? Any of the attempts by Riverwind to spin that cycle have been soundly refuted - here and across the myriad of web-sites that have been as anal in parsing the denial spin as the original skeptic/denier anal line-by-by parsing of the hacked emails. Besides, the Riverwind-McIntyre whinefest only has so many legs... so many iterations. Anything new?

[Alta4ever]

how so? Any of the attempts by Riverwind to spin that cycle have been soundly refuted - here and across the myriad of web-sites that have been as anal in parsing the denial spin as the original skeptic/denier anal line-by-by parsing of the hacked emails. Besides, the Riverwind-McIntyre whinefest only has so many legs... so many iterations. Anything new?

The only spin I see is the BS you spew, anyone who reads emails, can see what was going on. If It wasn't so damning it wouldn't need your spin.

So what is the next decree on high from the gorical, who will be the next prophet for you and your kind to worship at the feet of?

Its darn cold here today sure could use some of that global warming, or how about maybe a sunspot or two>

Edited December 22, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Shady]

So-called peer review is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Especially since the "peers" have been colluding into silencing and supressing differing opinions. Peer review is as much of a hoax as AGW. Don't fall for it!

[Riverwind]

The sound of settled science:

WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

geezaz! Oh my! A skeptic quoting from Hansen! Are you stating, unequivocally, that Sir Jim places solar variability as a significant causal factor in AGW global warming... relative to CO2? Of course he doesn't, but feel free to show otherwise.

You may find this most recent discussion with Hansen illuminating... almost an hour long covering Copenhagen, hackergate, cap and fade, etc.

good to see Hansen is now one of your go-to guys

ya that post made me ...he's understands the science so little he actually posts evidence that supports an anthroplogical cause for the warming and doesn't realize it...AGW is added to natural any natural forcings...solar forcings do not correspond with todays rising temps, as demonstrated by the link I posted...

and ya I'm still waiting for him to post links as well...I'll be waiting forever...

[wyly]

The only spin I see is the BS you spew, anyone who reads emails, can see what was going on. If It wasn't so damning it wouldn't need your spin.

So what is the next decree on high from the gorical, who will be the next prophet for you and your kind to worship at the feet of?

Its darn cold here today sure could use some of that global warming, or how about maybe a sunspot or two>

1st indication someone has absolutely no comprehension/science of the issue is when they mention their local weather/how cold it is in winter...once they've made that statement anything else they may have to post is irrelevant as they/you don't have the ability to understand...it's over your head....

[Alta4ever]

1st indication someone has absolutely no comprehension/science of the issue is when they mention their local weather/how cold it is in winter...once they've made that statement anything else they may have to post is irrelevant as they/you don't have the ability to understand...it's over your head....

I am very able to understand when someone is full of BS, much like you and it seems most on this forum agree but continue t0 make an ass of yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

Its darn cold here today sure could use some of that global warming, or how about maybe a sunspot or two>

Red flag on that.

[waldo]

I am very able to understand when someone is full of BS, much like you and it seems most on this forum agree but continue t0 make an ass of yourself.

you keep dropping your cutsie references to the "gorical"... hadn't heard that in years, literally. It's really a shame you're late to the party... a typical after the fact sayer of nay who can't actually state anything in relation to actual ongoing discussions - I'm sure we are all less today for missing out on your scientific prowess.

[blueblood]

I am very able to understand when someone is full of BS, much like you and it seems most on this forum agree but continue t0 make an ass of yourself.

Bwahahahahahahahaha. My little poll has worked splendidly.

[wyly]

I am very able to understand when someone is full of BS, much like you and it seems most on this forum agree but continue t0 make an ass of yourself.

weather outside your window is the same as climate?...your own posts put you on the sidelines...

[Alta4ever]

Yes the weather outside my window is the climate.

A little education for the know it all.

cli·mate (klmt)

n.

1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate

So are you trying to tell me that the weather in Alberta isn't part of the climate?

[wyly]

Yes the weather outside my window is the climate.

A little education for the know it all.

cli·mate (klmt)

n.

1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate

So are you trying to tell me that the weather in Alberta isn't part of the climate?

it's waay over your head...

[Alta4ever]

it's waay over your head...

Do you have a better definition of climate? Or does the climate in my local not count because it doesn't fit the result you want.

[Alta4ever]

it's waay over your head...

yes my al knowing peer reviewed god what you say is fact...... or at least what you "beleive" is fact. If you were so concerned you wouldn't be wasting power (enlarging your footprint) on an internet forum. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't heat your home with geothermal heat. How many other carbon footprint increasing luxuries do you also endulge yourself with? If you truely cared you would move from this climate to one were you would have to heat your home you wouldn't do with as little modern convience as possible and eck out a pathetic existance on as little carbon as possible.

I wouldn't be surprised if you ate meat too.

You know if humans are such a blight why not just hold your breath indefinately so you don't produce anymore earth damaging carbon.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Alta4ever

[William Ashley]

I honestly don't think confusion is involved, but I do think that voters can be broken down into a number of different groups:

- people who make money from industries effected

- people who like to kill animals and cut trees down, and don't have the money to snowbird in Florida

- people who beleive god will save them

- environmentalists

- young people

- people who care about young people

- people who know they are going to be dead before there are life changing reactions.

Personally I fit into a smaller group, people who think it is stupid not to modernize technology to be more efficient and more sustainable, if only companies actually had intelligence - which sadly they don't as they've been racking away at inefficient and damaging practices for the last 100 or so years, knowing full well that their practices kill or reduce the quality of life of many things, for a beneifit or useless luxury product that people could live without, and did before they started mass producing.

That is it right there, western society is filled with Idiotic Waste consumers. Thankfully since the Tories have increase the nations debt load, there will be no funds left to health care for the old timers, and thus a large chunk of the problem will be solved in a decade or two.

[M.Dancer]

I fall into the group that likes to have people paid to kill animals and cut down trees for me.

[William Ashley]

what is important to understand is that it isn't just carbon emissions it is the environment as a whole. This includes other forms of toxic pollution, deforistation, strip mining, toxic products, waste (garbage storage), trade systems.. the list is very long... carbon emissions is only the part that has use burn up due to destabalizing temperature rises that cause the earth to tilt and for civilization as we know it to be destroyed by a massive cataclysism.

[Alta4ever]

Personally I fit into a smaller group, people who think it is stupid not to modernize technology to be more efficient and more sustainable, if only companies actually had intelligence - which sadly they don't as they've been racking away at inefficient and damaging practices for the last 100 or so years, knowing full well that their practices kill or reduce the quality of life of many things, for a beneifit or useless luxury product that people could live without, and did before they started mass producing.

Industries and "companies' have become more efficent over time. Do you ever wonder why you can afford to buy a car now where as when the first was built only the super rich could afford one. It had something to do with Henry Ford making the process of producing them more efficient. This story is repeated time and time again in the last hundred years

Market demand drives efficiency.

[William Ashley]

Industries and "companies' have become more efficent over time.

Have gained some efficiency. They arn't efficient. A lot of waste is created. But it is a free market. If only the government charged more for resource extraction, maybe we'd start seeing only useful products made.

Do you ever wonder why you can afford to buy a car now where as when the first was built only the super rich could afford one. It had something to do with Henry Ford making the process of producing them more efficient. This story is repeated time and time again in the last hundred years

How much do you pay for healthcare today? How much do you think you will pay in 20 years? While the assembly line was a GREEEAT! innovation - fact is now we have robotics, that don't require as many people to commute, we have remote technologies that don't require people to commute, and we have toxic storage, and nuclear level heat that can cause the breakdown of chemicals. Fact is given the technological posibilities (far more than I mentioned here), "industries" are inefficient because they are solitary in some cases. The system is not nearly as interconnected as it could be. Likewise the shear amount of potential for harvesting and reuse hasn't been tapped, because of profit margins, not efficiency margins. You can take a chunk of ground to do stuff, but that chunk of ground took hundreds of thousands of years to get to where its at, those forests took millions of years, those almost extinct species, polar bears and fish, took a long time to increase their stock. Fact is they arn't efficient, they have increased profit margins, but not increased efficiency margins, there is a difference in profit and efficiency. Profit takes the central bank or mint and market to regulate, and it creates waste and devaluation of profit usually overtime. Efficiency is a model which takes the bigger picture into account. Sure Ford may have thought, hell I can speed this process up, what was the process making cars, or making a world that doesn't drown people on remote islands. We have a bigger picture, while companies don't have intelligence we better hope to god the public does. There is more than just the company, there is society and our environment, which should mean something to us. It doesn't take a doctor to know outside of the martrix hive we survive from symbiosis with the world around us. Parasites are rarely loved.

Market demand drives efficiency.

Not global efficiency.

Edited December 23, 2009 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

Have gained some efficiency. They arn't efficient. A lot of waste is created. But it is a free market. If only the government charged more for resource extraction, maybe we'd start seeing only useful products made.

How much do you pay for healthcare today? How much do you think you will pay in 20 years? While the assembly line was a GREEEAT! innovation - fact is now we have robotics, that don't require as many people to commute, we have remote technologies that don't require people to commute, and we have toxic storage, and nuclear level heat that can cause the breakdown of chemicals. Fact is given the technological posibilities (far more than I mentioned here), "industries" are inefficient because they are solitary in some cases. The system is not nearly as interconnected as it could be. Likewise the shear amount of potential for harvesting and reuse hasn't been tapped, because of profit margins, not efficiency margins. You can take a chunk of ground to do stuff, but that chunk of ground took hundreds of thousands of years to get to where its at, those forests took millions of years, those almost extinct species, polar bears and fish, took a long time to increase their stock. Fact is they arn't efficient, they have increased profit margins, but not increased efficiency margins, there is a difference in profit and efficiency. Profit takes the central bank or mint and market to regulate, and it creates waste and devaluation of profit usually overtime. Efficiency is a model which takes the bigger picture into account. Sure Ford may have thought, hell I can speed this process up, what was the process making cars, or making a world that doesn't drown people on remote islands. We have a bigger picture, while companies don't have intelligence we better hope to god the public does. There is more than just the company, there is society and our environment, which should mean something to us. It doesn't take a doctor to know outside of the martrix hive we survive from symbiosis with the world around us. Parasites are rarely loved.

Not global efficiency.

Do you think it takes the same amount of energy to produce a computer as it did in the sixties?

We are much more efficient they we were 30 years ago, the problem is that with that efficiency people were able to afford more luxuries and consume more energy. Average home size has increased the number of house hold electronics has increased, the number of vehicles on the road has increased. As I said market demand drove the increased effeicency, its just that the gains in effeciency translates into afforability and that translates into more consumption. All of this is driven by human nature.

The market will also dictate the transfer to other fuels and energy sources, as the current ones become too expensive.

[William Ashley]

Do you think it takes the same amount of energy to produce a computer as it did in the sixties?

It took less. Computers are far more complex today than they were in the 60's. There are blackouts in Taiwan. Both Human and Artificial Power Generation has sky rocketted in the past 50 years. The demand for energy is tremendous. Products have scaled down in size, and have increased energy demand. Energy is more abundant now than then. In the 70's we had the energy crisis, then the 80's we had mass industrialization of computerized technologies, or increased from the 70's, in consumer consumption. The 90's it became household in the western world. With these vastly increased productions the ability to churn out computers increased dramatically, and the power of those computers increased exponentially. Today this tread partially continues, although there has been some stagnation in the consumer availability of more powerful technologies, and instead some bulking up of products for more technologies. It still takes more energy to produce. Today we have electroplating, nanoscale wafers, huge buildings and processing plants, whole departments, and R&D teams that consume vast amounts of energy in developing a computers. So yes it takes more energy overall to make a computer than it did in the 60's. How much energy does it take to mine gold? How much energy to make the wafers that caused blackouts in Taiwan?

The list goes on.

We are much more efficient they we were 30 years ago, the problem is that with that efficiency people were able to afford more luxuries and consume more energy.

Not all people are, what about those people earning dollars a day in factories around the world making mass consume products that might end up in walmart - or your computer. Hell my dells were made in China.

Doubt the line workers made much there.

Average home size has increased the number of house hold electronics has increased, the number of vehicles on the road has increased. As I said market demand drove the increased effeicency, its just that the gains in effeciency translates into afforability and that translates into more consumption. All of this is driven by human nature.

You are gearing efficiency to consumption, and totally neglecting meaningful use, productivity, waste, quality of life, and health risks ---- from those products created. Fact is a chunk of those mass consumed products lowe quality of life and create health risks, be it hearing loss (even computer fans do this - cancer from say those waffer plants in arizona dumping toxins into the local water supply. It takes a tremendous amount of energy - and there is a tremendous amount of waste.

I would say energy production has increased in quanitity - but the effects of that production is to be factored in overall ex. coal fired plants, nuclear plants potential damage mitigating factor think three mile island, the three eyed fish, and chernoble. While newer techonologies such as solar and wind may help we need to look at how they are produced. There are alternative energy systems. None the less bulk up and bulk out is the line I suppose, but we have to start looking at how much cancer causing productivity is like a cancer on our system and whether it will kill us, or if drugs are the answer. I must state though, winners don't do drugs, drug users do.

The market will also dictate the transfer to other fuels and energy sources, as the current ones become too expensive.

You'd like to think that right. What is the market though, an oligarchy of the ultra rich and the legacy of the hard fought market controls of the rotheschilds, european banking and now global banking and the multinational corporation?

[William Ashley]

It took less. Computers are far more complex today than they were in the 60's. There are blackouts in Taiwan. Both Human and Artificial Power Generation has sky rocketted in the past 50 years. The demand for energy is tremendous. Products have scaled down in size, and have increased energy demand. Energy is more abundant now than then. In the 70's we had the energy crisis, then the 80's we had mass industrialization of computerized technologies, or increased from the 70's, in consumer consumption. The 90's it became household in the western world. With these vastly increased productions the ability to churn out computers increased dramatically, and the power of those computers increased exponentially. Today this tread partially continues, although there has been some stagnation in the consumer availability of more powerful technologies, and instead some bulking up of products for more technologies. It still takes more energy to produce. Today we have electroplating, nanoscale wafers, huge buildings and processing plants, whole departments, and R&D teams that consume vast amounts of energy in developing a computers. So yes it takes more energy overall to make a computer than it did in the 60's. How much energy does it take to mine gold? How much energy to make the wafers that caused blackouts in Taiwan?

The list goes on.

Not all people are, what about those people earning dollars a day in factories around the world making mass consume products that might end up in walmart - or your computer. Hell my dells were made in China.

Doubt the line workers made much there.

You are gearing efficiency to consumption, and totally neglecting meaningful use, productivity, waste, quality of life, and health risks ---- from those products created. Fact is a chunk of those mass consumed products lowe quality of life and create health risks, be it hearing loss (even computer fans do this - cancer from say those waffer plants in arizona dumping toxins into the local water supply. It takes a tremendous amount of energy - and there is a tremendous amount of waste.

I would say energy production has increased in quanitity - but the effects of that production is to be factored in overall ex. coal fired plants, nuclear plants potential damage mitigating factor think three mile island, the three eyed fish, and chernoble. While newer techonologies such as solar and wind may help we need to look at how they are produced. There are alternative energy systems. None the less bulk up and bulk out is the line I suppose, but we have to start looking at how much cancer causing productivity is like a cancer on our system and whether it will kill us, or if drugs are the answer. I must state though, winners don't do drugs, drug users do.

You'd like to think that right. What is the market though, an oligarchy of the ultra rich and the legacy of the hard fought market controls of the rotheschilds, european banking and now global banking and the multinational corporation?

Microsoft just got fined over 200 million for some lines of text in their product, anything is posible if the public wants it.

None the less I'm no JFK, but I do say corporations are only as powerful as the guy with the gun not pulling the trigger, so the story goes. Everyone has a life, and a potential time for nappy nappy.

[William Ashley]

Microsoft just got fined over 200 million for some lines of text in their product, anything is posible if the public wants it.

None the less I'm no JFK, but I do say corporations are only as powerful as the guy with the gun not pulling the trigger, so the story goes. Everyone has a life, and a potential time for nappy nappy.

If you can't beat em' shoot em. It's what the military industrial complex would do. And as much as god has the power to change the world, so has a gun.

This is not to say I plan on blowing someones head off, but I am saying that these people who think they have power can quickly be reminded, or their family atleast that all it takes off is one upset person to do something that causes change or potential change.

If this is me buying the organic instead of the regular petrobaked fruit then there ya go, that is change. It just takes people who actually want change.

[Alta4ever]

If you can't beat em' shoot em. It's what the military industrial complex would do. And as much as god has the power to change the world, so has a gun.

This is not to say I plan on blowing someones head off, but I am saying that these people who think they have power can quickly be reminded, or their family atleast that all it takes off is one upset person to do something that causes change or potential change.

If this is me buying the organic instead of the regular petrobaked fruit then there ya go, that is change. It just takes people who actually want change.

Do you like talking to yourself?