Global Warming backdown

Bugs · February 13, 2010

Wente is a journalist, but she's a print journalist so it's difficult to know whether she chatters. She is far right-of-centre when it comes to Toronto.

And... Is this Hymalayan example going to be reposted over and over again ? We already had 'Global Warming Backdown' from you.

I don't think we need to have this many threads on Global Warming...

Far right? You mean she would prefer if the government didn't run deficits?

If anything marks one as one an aspiring member of the chattering classes, surely it's the easy accusation that someone else is over-the-boundary in terms of respectable political attitudes. I quoted her column. My point is exactly that when such a bland soul pronounces on this fraud, albeit in the nicest possible terms, that it amounts to the eulogy. Good night, Irene.

I didn't notice any jackboots.

Don't you believe in accountability? Surely, you don't think that it was an honest mistake?

Al Gore, come on down. We have some questions ... about your Oscar ... and while we're at it ... how did a yokel like you ever get a chance to embarass the Nobel Committee this way?

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2010

Far right? You mean she would prefer if the government didn't run deficits?

Something like that.

If anything marks one as one an aspiring member of the chattering classes, surely it's the easy accusation that someone else is over-the-boundary in terms of respectable political attitudes. I quoted her column. My point is exactly that when such a bland soul pronounces on this fraud, albeit in the nicest possible terms, that it amounts to the eulogy. Good night, Irene.

I didn't notice any jackboots.

Don't you believe in accountability? Surely, you don't think that it was an honest mistake?

Well, they sure didn't do any worse than you have done by saying there's no evidence of warming.

Oleg Bach · February 13, 2010

It's about so-called natural sustainablity. Those that push this fraud are gangsters. For instance I know of a fellow that donates millions to preserve the wet lands. Yet he also provides money for huge consumer havens call mega malls - all over the world - so with one hand he generates great wealth and power - leading to more toss away wrapers and useless products out of China that in a month over fill out landfill sites...then he eases the guilt by making sure a few ducks have a place to nest? Global warming is not the issue here. The issue is the religion of endless consumerism - Human being are suppose to be more than entities that ingest and shit.

Bugs · February 13, 2010

When massive 200 km long icebergs start floating towards a town near you, no reasonable person can deny something whacky is happening. It's only a question of why, and whether anything could or should to be done. If something has to be done, do we wait until the last possible minute (as we usually do) or would that be too late.

Pardon me if I think more research and intelligent debate is needed, less partisan hype.

Where were you when the fraudsters were cheating us?

You know very well that personal anecdotes don't replace systematically collected data. The global warming never had the science they needed to make their claims. That's N-E-V-E-R. You claim to be on the side of quiet objective research -- but where were you, Sir Bandelot, when ignorance was in the saddle?

This is being kept out of the media. You have to go to British newspapers to get anything like a fair airing of this scandal. There's almost no part of the case that hasn't been dummied up, or interfered with, in some ways. You can talk about research, and all of that, but just clearing out the lies and distortions will be progress.

Bugs · February 13, 2010

Except that I think our boy here started the other thread too.

So what? Honestly, this material is all over the British press. It isn't like the media are giving us the information that will help us all sophisticate our judgement the next time some seemingly scientifically-based cause comes along. Just the opposite. That's why you don't seem to understand the significance of this getting into the Globe and Mail, and Margaret Wente's column. Greenpeace is still out on the street, soliciting funds.

Secondly, this is new information, and this column causes a storm of controvery amongst Ms. Wente's readers. Her responses were record-setting.

Oleg Bach · February 13, 2010

Question: Bugs are you for or against global warming? If you are against it then perhaps you are against living a more natural and less excessive life style. If you believe that the ice caps did not melt in one generation then perhaps you are for eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die syndrome..there is just enough time left to enjoy one life - after than the coming generations will have to endure the mess we left - maybe global warming deniers are simply people who don't give a damn about what happens to the next set of people?

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2010

So what? Honestly, this material is all over the British press. It isn't like the media are giving us the information that will help us all sophisticate our judgement the next time some seemingly scientifically-based cause comes along. Just the opposite. That's why you don't seem to understand the significance of this getting into the Globe and Mail, and Margaret Wente's column. Greenpeace is still out on the street, soliciting funds.

Secondly, this is new information, and this column causes a storm of controvery amongst Ms. Wente's readers. Her responses were record-setting.

So why do you need 2 threads to discuss 1 thing ? Maggie Wente doesn't warrant a thread of her own...

Oleg Bach · February 13, 2010

He needs two threads the same as a glutton needs two plates of food. Consumerism....I wonder how much Bugs consumes and how much he expects to consume within his life time? How can it be possible that an ice cap a mile thick that took a million years to create it self - suddenly disappear in 30 years - a million years compared to 30 does not sound like a cyclical natural phenomena - it sounds like something or somebody gave mother nature a hard push over the cliff from behind.

Bugs · February 13, 2010

I want him to be a good poster so I can enjoy myself here. I'm spending more time here lately. It is winter after all. I'm also jogging now, though... I know... and having the odd cigarette...

It kind of amuses me that you two act in this off-handedly superior manner, talking about my obsessional streak ... you know, this general distaste I have for government-funded plots designed to tap god-knows how many $billions out of our economy, to the service of what? What, exactly?

Why am I obsessional ... well, I posted on the same topic twice? There seems to be something wrong with that.

I just don't understand why you chose to take as the lesson of all of this enviro-tom-foolery that I have my guns on it? Don't you feel as if someone's been caught trying to put their hands in your children's pockets?

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2010

It kind of amuses me that you two act in this off-handedly superior manner, talking about my obsessional streak ... you know, this general distaste I have for government-funded plots designed to tap god-knows how many $billions out of our economy, to the service of what? What, exactly?

Why am I obsessional ... well, I posted on the same topic twice? There seems to be something wrong with that.

I just don't understand why you chose to take as the lesson of all of this enviro-tom-foolery that I have my guns on it? Don't you feel as if someone's been caught trying to put their hands in your children's pockets?

Not really. I think the scientists did a bad job of communicating, mostly. The other errors seem pretty minor so far.

Oleg Bach · February 13, 2010

It kind of amuses me that you two act in this off-handedly superior manner, talking about my obsessional streak ... you know, this general distaste I have for government-funded plots designed to tap god-knows how many $billions out of our economy, to the service of what? What, exactly?

Why am I obsessional ... well, I posted on the same topic twice? There seems to be something wrong with that.

I just don't understand why you chose to take as the lesson of all of this enviro-tom-foolery that I have my guns on it? Don't you feel as if someone's been caught trying to put their hands in your children's pockets?

You are not obsessional. OF course they put their hands in our childrens pockets and ours to boot. This is the way the world runs...In case you have not notice but the crimminals have taken over - look at these disasters and the charitable foundations that filter most of the money into the banks - that belong to the gangsters - they always use emotion - they always find our weakness and milk us like cows...whether it be a black child with flys on the eyes - or the ENVIRONMENT - These crooks always find a way to skim money for themselves - look at the carbon foot print scam....the super rich get to pay for destroying the world..they pay for the privledge and give the money to their friends who simply give it back to them later..emotions - that is what all tyrants rule thought - and YOU are emotional.

Bugs · February 13, 2010

These are definitely good times for skeptics. It remains to be seen whether these are their halcyon days however.

You know what? This isn't really about two sides, like teams, one fundamentally as good as the other, despite the strong feelings of their supporters. It's revealing that you react that way. It isn't the way someone who's first concern is the environment would react. That person would be pissed off at the fraudsters, whether a skeptic or a salary-man.

This is more a bunch of crooks who have committed frauds, as well as every scientific sin, including destroying their data ... I pause for the gasps ... destroying one's own data being worse than incest in the Scientific hierarchy of sins. They were after our money. There never was any reason to believe that their jerry-rigged solutions would mean beans. Curly light bulbs. It's a joke.

This story is about the public recognition of a scam, which was foiled at the last minute. Whoever released those e-mails should get a Nobel prize.

In real life, we can now turn our attention to our environmental problems. Nanicoke is still on my list. At that level, nothing has to change ... we just do things apace, and take care of the water better, toxic chemicals, and all of that. And everybody wants to do that.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Bugs

Oleg Bach · February 13, 2010

Scientists like lawyers are systems persons - they are conditioned not only acedemically to pull the party line but economically as well - You would assume that those with degrees are above taking bribes and are all of a noble mind. Education these days is not about the love and accumulation of useful and new knowledge it is about passing the test - are you corporately compliant and will you do what you are told for a pay check or continued funding..Most sell out.

ironstone · February 13, 2010

Unfortunately,I don't think the people behind the global warming industry are going to go away anytime soon.They have been exposed by their selective use of data,cherrypicking through the information to further their own idealogical agenda.If anything,they will likely redouble their efforts to silence sceptics by any means.Remember,there is an astronomical amount of money at stake here.

Oleg Bach · February 13, 2010

Unfortunately,I don't think the people behind the global warming industry are going to go away anytime soon.They have been exposed by their selective use of data,cherrypicking through the information to further their own idealogical agenda.If anything,they will likely redouble their efforts to silence sceptics by any means.Remember,there is an astronomical amount of money at stake here.

Unfortunately, I don't think the people behind the we are at war terror industry are going away anytime soon either. The supposed left is just as nasty as the right and they feed off us in the middle.

waldo · February 13, 2010

There's plenty of evidence supporting the growth of Antarctic ice. There's also plenty of evidence showing the world hasn't really warmed at all in the last few years. These facts aren't even in dispute. Do yourself a favor next time and spend the 30 seconds necessary on Google before you make yourself look like an idiot again.

excellent... it only took a couple of posts to realize your actual position... why google when you can search past MLW climate related threads - we've beat on this before. In any case, chew on this link in regards your, as you state, "facts" concerning Antarctic ice growing... it certainly refutes your standard skeptic/denier "facts" that (1) surface ice melting on Antarctica is decreasing and (2) sea ice around Antarctica is increasing... make sure you take notice of the NASA article's dozen plus scientific references:

- NASA: Is Antarctica Melting?

as for your suggestion that the, as you state, "world hasn't really warmed at all in the last years"... pray tell – you truly are one of the short-term trendsters after all. In any case, perhaps you could define the actual length of your “last years” reference – certainly, we’ve had no shortage of guys around here try to make sceptical/denier magic over short-term temperature trends. In any case, I provided you statement/linked scientific support that speaks to the warming trend… the one you would presume to deny, without actually providing anything other than your inconsequential mutterings and a suggestion that, as you state, “there’s plenty of evidence”. Put it up then… bring that plenty of evidence forward.

Interesting how you've decided an 8 year time frame is insignificant, but the 10 year one from NASA is? Also, the Earth has warmed and cooled on ~30-40 year cycles for as long as temperatures have been recorded.

anyone can dick about with short time frames that maximize natural influences… that ride the highs/lows of El Nino/La Nina… that are within a completing solar cycle period. 8 and 10 year periods are both too short when doing proper trending… it just so happens over that decade, as NASA showed, there was a warming trend.

The 1920's-1950's were significantly warmer than the 50's to the late 80's. Back in the 70's temperatures cooled and 'scientists' were telling us we were headed for an ice age

that's crockerific! It’s unfortunate you’re such a Johnny-come-lately… we’ve long since dispatched with the nonsense about scientists/70’s/ice age. But you’re a fine parrot, aren’t you?

Since the late 80's we've started warming up again, and not even very quickly at that.
There are cycles, both long (hundreds or thousands of years) and short (decades) at work here that we can't simply explain by Co2 emissions alone, and thus it's worth questioning what factor they're playing.

no one with even a miniscule understanding, speaks of AGW climate change in isolation of natural variations. Now asked for the third time: you challenged the influence of anthropogenic CO2, suggesting “other” factors should/could be considered. I asked you to advise on your favourite “other” factor alternative(s) to anthropogenic CO2. Apparently, you have no difficulty blustering nonsense while offering no citation support for anything you say… while offering nothing to suggest what alternative to mankind’s CO2 influence is causing climate change. Face Palm, indeed! :lol:

Bugs · February 13, 2010

They mean well but have no experience. Growing up on the Oak Ridge Morraine - I experenced nature in it's rawest and most pristine form. The land mass was the oldest in north america - the ridge was the first thing expose after the glacieric melt. I knew kettle lakes where the water was pure as cool satin - there was mud between my toes as I explored the swamps and high ground..THEN I saw developement bury and pave over the largest and most pure water source in the world.

Nature was comforting for me _ I could grab a rock and drop down 60 feet to the bottom of a pure spring lake...I know what conservation is - because I saw and lived in what was meant to be conserved - the modern ones only know high def television...it is not their fault - How can they be accurate and appreciative of what they have never truely experienced?

I grant you are certain sensibility, Oleg. But, in fact, isn't there a lot of protection, now, on the morraine? I think so. Try to get a building permit. Maybe it isn't perfect, but what is it about the environmentally concerned, that nothing is any good unless it is not only perfect, but eternally perfect?

When I was running around what was then Port Arthur, now Thunder Bay, I didn't have any sense of anything being old, but I knew I could run around for miles, throw stones, try to trap rabbits, all that stuff. I remember all the cold weather stuff best, the tobogganing, and hockey, At the time Pee Wee hockey was a new thing, and every kid played hockey. The neighbours, coming over on the weekend with a nice catch of rainbow trout, already cleaned. I remember swimming lessons in Boulevard Lake in the first week of July, and there was still ice in the shady spots, draining, of course, into the lake.

There's a lot of people in this country who get out in nature, even earn their living outside, just as there are even more who hardly get into nature. From what I can see, they ALL want nature protected and kept as pristine as possible. If global warming goes into the trash heap of history, it's no great loss, because the whole thing was a farce. People still want the environment protected, and they still have the force to get what they want.

waldo · February 13, 2010

oh my! Another challenged columnist feeding fodder to the skeptic/deniers :lol:

hey bugs... you have an outstanding question waiting for you... in your other controversial (/snarc) drive-by thread - something about detailing the so-called backdown.

Bugs · February 13, 2010

Scientists like lawyers are systems persons - they are conditioned not only acedemically to pull the party line but economically as well - You would assume that those with degrees are above taking bribes and are all of a noble mind. Education these days is not about the love and accumulation of useful and new knowledge it is about passing the test - are you corporately compliant and will you do what you are told for a pay check or continued funding..Most sell out.

You obviously are no student of history. The world has more rectitude in it now than it had before the British Empire put some starch into the colonials. Even so, bribes are a part of a lot of transactions between members of the public and officials. It is expected, and it is almost like a fee. In other parts of the world, you won't get service if you don't offer something. In extreme cases, the bribe borders on extortion; they will force you to bribe them or you'll go to jail on some charge, doesn't matter what because it's all an extortion anyway.

In the old days, it was worse. It was customary for office-holders to buy their offices, at one time ... bribe them to step aside, in other words. Even in the mllitary, rank was purchased, until Napoleon. When they wanted Wellington to go to Spain, the British had to bump something like 120 higher ranking office-holders, most of them of no military value. If you go back before that, it's all family, but families are marrying daughters to rich merchants to get financial support from their new kinsman.

I'd say that in most of the Moslem world, a bribe is never amiss. You get the feeling that Hindus have the same expectations. In the Chinese bureaucracy, it is probably standard, although I don't know. As for South America ... now, there's a place where money really spends. And Africa? Come on, brother ...

The only places where bribes are inappropriate almost all the time is in Western Europe and North America. Maybe

The truth is, if you don't have family connections, education is the only way you can get on the receiving end of most of these bribes. If anything, there's probably a lot of educated scoundrels who make out handsomely becauset they book the appointments for the minister. These bribes can be like 'bakeesh' ... smallish ... but repeated bites add up. Or they can be big if you want big things done. (It's right, don't you think, that things that hurt the public interest should be cost more?) In Russia, with prices fixed by the state, companies would bid for products with throw-ins, like other industrial staples, hookers, vodka ... etc. Are those bribes? Or do the throw-ins become a kind of 'money'?

Anyway, that's the way it was in Breshnev's time. And that's the way it is in most of the world, outside of (blush) what they call the Anglo-Saxon democracies ... ex-British colonies, mostly. And not all of them, either. Think of Nigeria ...

============================

Actually, while it is understandable that people think educated people would be more cultivated, and have higher standards, it hasn't always been the case. Maybe half of the Gestapo was recruited from law schools during the war. These future lawyers didn't seem to have too many qualms, they were very good with complicated orders, and they could be controlled through ambition. Among other duties, they carried out the early parts of the extermination process.

eyeball · February 13, 2010

You know what? This isn't really about two sides, like teams, one fundamentally as good as the other, despite the strong feelings of their supporters. It's revealing that you react that way. It isn't the way someone who's first concern is the environment would react. That person would be pissed off at the fraudsters, whether a skeptic or a salary-man.

Who says I'm not pissed off? I realize this isn't about two teams but the issue certainly has two contentious components, the environment and the economy.

This is more a bunch of crooks who have committed frauds, as well as every scientific sin, including destroying their data ... I pause for the gasps ... destroying one's own data being worse than incest in the Scientific hierarchy of sins. They were after our money. There never was any reason to believe that their jerry-rigged solutions would mean beans. Curly light bulbs. It's a joke.

Isn't everybody?

This story is about the public recognition of a scam, which was foiled at the last minute. Whoever released those e-mails should get a Nobel prize.

Aside from being pissed off at the time I've invested in speaking in defense of a precautionary principle I'm more concerned about how many other sciences who's findings influence policies re economic/social/medical/fisheries etc etc that are likewise compromised by publication bias and self-interested funding concerns. I suspect every last one of them is now.

In real life, we can now turn our attention to our environmental problems. Nanicoke is still on my list. At that level, nothing has to change ... we just do things apace, and take care of the water better, toxic chemicals, and all of that. And everybody wants to do that.

Why and based on what, how do we know the science underlying the concern about these things isn't a bunch of hooey too? For all we know some environmental consulting firm or other like-minded moral entrepreneur just produced a bunch of fudged data to whip up some fear and create a job for themselves.

So how much is this going to cost me?

waldo · February 13, 2010

This is more a bunch of crooks who have committed frauds, as well as every scientific sin, including destroying their data ... I pause for the gasps ... destroying one's own data being worse than incest in the Scientific hierarchy of sins. They were after our money. There never was any reason to believe that their jerry-rigged solutions would mean beans. Curly light bulbs. It's a joke.
This story is about the public recognition of a scam, which was foiled at the last minute. Whoever released those e-mails should get a Nobel prize.

Gasp!!! :lol:

Out em, out me all, dagnabit! Fill us in oooohh wiseman... define the fraud, define the destroyed data, define the "jerry-rigged solutions", define the scam!

uhhh... by "foiled at the last minute"... do you infer the scam is dead, long live the scam? :lol:

waldo · February 13, 2010

4 statement inaccuracies... count em... four - within the second (WG2) of the sub-group reports. 4 statement inaccuracies over 986 pages. Collapse!!!

far be it from any of the usual suspects around here to take up the challenge - define the actual impact of these statement inaccuracies. I'm not talking about the doubt & uncertainty raised as a result of the trumped up denier campaign... I'm talking about the actual impact of these relative inconsequential statement inaccuracies, none of which percolated forward to the Synthesis Report summation of all sub-group reports, none of which stand as significant IPCC claims/positions. C'mon bugs, own your stated collapse... define the actual impact of these inconsequential statement inaccuracies - waiting..........

waldo · February 13, 2010

If global warming goes into the trash heap of history, it's no great loss, because the whole thing was a farce. People still want the environment protected, and they still have the force to get what they want.

actually, this is a most refreshing post. We usually get these Concern Troll types who cloud their actual denial. To find someone with your obvious gravitas in proclaiming your denial, a loud & proud denial... most refreshing, indeed!

naomiglover · February 13, 2010

Apparently NASA is also behind this conspiracy. According to them, the last decade was the hottest decade on record and 2009 was one of the warmest years.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2010

Apparently NASA is also behind this conspiracy. According to them, the last decade was the hottest decade on record and 2009 was one of the warmest years.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

Of course NASA is behind this "conspiracy", beholden to continued research funding like any other such endeavor. At least hold that and other like minded organizations to the same standard as Big Oil seeking continued profits.

Marc Sheppard continues the beat-down for the collapse before our eyes:

Besides, the time for credibility makeovers has long passed. As U.K. Professor Phillip Stott recently observed:

[A]s ever, capitalism has read the runes,

with carbon-trading posts quietly being shed, 'Green' jobs sidelined, and even big insurance companies starting to hedge their own bets against the future of the Global Warming Grand Narrative. These rats are leaving the sinking ship far faster than any politician, many of whom are going to be abandoned, left, still clinging to the masts, as the Good Ship 'Global Warming' founders on titanic icebergs in the raging oceans of doubt and delusion.

Stott compared the IPCC's fall to that of the Berlin Wall. And he's spot-on -- for just as the latter symbolized the doom of European communism, so does the former signal the death knell for global socialist-environmentalism.

IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ipcc_international_pack_of_cli.html

Edited February 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004