Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not necessarily. I believe that TimG and I discussed "do nothing" as a legitimate approach to the risk, with some provision to contribute to global efforts for adaption if necessary.

I didn't call him a denier (whether or not he is one isn't clear to me yet) and we moved on.

"....what do we do about it" leaves little room for doing absolutely nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

"....what do we do about it" leaves little room for doing absolutely nothing.

Except I think I explicitly called out that option in, or near, the OP.

[wyly]

Your use of names like "Bitsy" is very Grade 4.

I don't start fights but I will not back away from one...

bitsy bitty started that with calling me "wily" which is so grade two...she's a troll, she's a scientifically ignorant troll, she's a scientifically ignorant, dishonest, troll...she should find a seniors knitting thread or maybe a seniors square dancing thread, any thread but one that involves science...

And I've contributed constructively to answering the question posed by the OP here:

any contribution you offered to the OP ended when you denied AGW and a doing nothing approach, what more can you offer?

Thus, even assuming AGW is real (it isn't) a right-leaner would balance the costs against the benefits of action.

...you stated your position (nothing) and therefore you can no longer possibly have anything relevant to add to the debate...this thread is for those who ASSUME AGW/CC is real and want to discuss what to do about it...you staying here after you stated your view indicates you're only here like bitty, trolling for a fight, as you are doing now with me... Edited October 6, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

If AGW is real, what we should do is throw away our money in order to make Maurice Strong richer. Or provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money.

although this is a somewhat predictable response from the likes of yourself, if you've reconciled to the reality of AGW, what does your desire to piss it all away reflect upon?

btw, as a foreign interloper, are your purposeful targets an attempt to appear germane to a 'Canadian board'?

You must admit my examples are good ones.

no - clearly your past posting record confirms your denier position... one lacking in even the most rudimentary understandings. Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

I did. I suggested using the carbon tax to "provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money".

Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

Do you have any modes other than "personal attack"?

Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

And I've contributed constructively to answering the question posed by the OP here:

If AGW is real, what we should do is throw away our money in order to make Maurice Strong richer. Or provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money.

I did. I suggested using the carbon tax to "provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money".

jbg... ya, what wyly said! And, oh ya:

Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

[bloodyminded]

These last few posts raise an (obviously) good point...but the point is being ignored, as was Michael's reasonable and civil request along the same lines.

There are lots of threads on this subject; hell, a person could even start a new one.

What's the problem? Is the existence of this thread itself an affront to certain sensibilities? It's not an advocacy of the Nazis or of pedophiles.

[GostHacked]

Your use of names like "Bitsy" is very Grade 4.

Maybe you should go over and look at Bitsy's profile.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showuser=6544

[dre]

These last few posts raise an (obviously) good point...but the point is being ignored, as was Michael's reasonable and civil request along the same lines.

There are lots of threads on this subject; hell, a person could even start a new one.

What's the problem? Is the existence of this thread itself an affront to certain sensibilities? It's not an advocacy of the Nazis or of pedophiles.

I beg to differ! The advocacy of Nazis and pedophiles, may not be blatant in this thread but its clearly bubbling away below the surface.

[bloodyminded]

I beg to differ! The advocacy of Nazis and pedophiles, may not be blatant in this thread but its clearly bubbling away below the surface.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If they are in fact decreasing the suggestion that this can be linked to a 0.5 degC increase in average temps is absurd. The tendency to claim a link between pretty much anything bad and GW even when there is no rational reason to do is one of the reasons why AGW alarmism is just another religion.

It actually caused by the more extreme heat waves, which is caused by the increased water in the atmosphere screwing up the hydrological cycle, which is caused by a 0.5 increase in average global temp. It also causing droughts in Russia. In Russia the average temperature change is much higher than the global average. At about 1.19, (link) but hey rather than listening to climate scientists and agricultural scientists about the effect climate change is having on crop yields I should listen to you.

Not necessarily. I believe that TimG and I discussed "do nothing" as a legitimate approach to the risk, with some provision to contribute to global efforts for adaption if necessary.

I didn't call him a denier (whether or not he is one isn't clear to me yet) and we moved on.

It's happening much to fast for that, even if humans could adapt with all the technology we have available most animals could not hope to adapt in time resulting in a massive decrease in biodiversity.

[betsy]

I don't start fights but I will not back away from one...

bitsy bitty started that with calling me "wily" which is so grade two...she's a troll, she's a scientifically ignorant troll, she's a scientifically ignorant, dishonest, troll...she should find a seniors knitting thread or maybe a seniors square dancing thread, any thread but one that involves science...

Liar. You deliberately called me other than my name a couple of times before I started calling you Wily. Well actually I like the name Wily better than the mis-spelled wyly. It suits you.

"Wyly" can also make others think you just didn't know how to spell.

Start a fight my foot. Anyone who goes back to read the flow of this thread can easily see who started it. Who's really being dishonest.

Anyway, did you hear me complaining when you started calling me Betty or Bitty or Bitsy? Nah.

Bullies like you are all the same. When push comes to shove, you couldn't even take it like a man....assuming you're a man, of course. When given the same dose of medicine....you couldn't hack it. You whine and groan and scream bloody murder.

Well kindergarten Wily....boo-hoo-hoo...run along to your mama.

any contribution you offered to the OP ended when you denied AGW and a doing nothing approach, what more can you offer?...you stated your position (nothing) and therefore you can no longer possibly have anything relevant to add to the debate...this thread is for those who ASSUME AGW/CC is real and want to discuss what to do about it...you staying here after you stated your view indicates you're only here like bitty, trolling for a fight, as you are doing now with me...

Baloney! I was responding to another poster when I mentioned Gore. You deemed it was offensive for me to even mention his name! You challenged my credibility by wilfully ignoring my reason for bringing him up and wilfully mis-interpreting the article...and I called you to it. You couldn't defend your posiition. How can you? It was just a senseless rant, really. So you resort to name-calling. Now you try to play the victim?

Now you're even resorting to degrading seniors!

Profiling seniors as "knitters," or "square-dancers?"

Why do you include the seniors in this discussion? Why do you hold seniors in what seems to be such contempt? What do they have to do with this?

Mind you, it's exactly the same way you included Harper....and religion....

SO who's the troll?? Y O U!

But then of course, you're just a little boy.

Edited October 6, 2010 by betsy

[jbg]

Liar. You deliberately called me other than my name a couple of times before I started calling you Wily. Well actually I like the name Wily better than the mis-spelled wyly. It suits you.

"Wyly" can also make others think you just didn't know how to spell.

Start a fight my foot. Anyone who goes back to read the flow of this thread can easily see who started it. Who's really being dishonest.

It's interesting that many of the more intolerant AGW believers are schoolteachers and students. In other words children, or people who spend a lot of time with children.

Maybe that is the mental level of some, but not all, since Michael Hardener is actually one of the more thoughtful posters here. Even though I disagree with him on many subjects. Ditto Bloodyminded and Dre. The "Bobsy Twins" or "W Twins" are another story entirely.

[betsy]

I did exactly that... went back and saw your purposeful manipulation. You offered just enough leading verbiage (bait) in your initial post to clearly show your intent. You obviously revel in the minutia and inconsequential and thought to railroad this thread, despite the repeated attempts by others to keep it on theme. If you really need to get your Gore-on, perhaps you could take it to another of the many available climate change related threads.

You see what you want to see. Another classic symptom of extremism. I tell ya, you got the bug!

Here, to make it easier for you....let me show you the transcript.

It all started on Page 12. I responded to one of the posters.

If everyone does their part.

Betsy replied:

That is the problem.

If Al Gore, the greatest spokesperson for the environment couldn't inconvenience himself to be a model of example.....relying on voluntary cooperation from everyone is a hopeless exercise.

Wily butted in with this on post #177:

and just how many people would be aware of the GW issue if Gore had restricted himself to sitting in tiny room with only a solar powered laptop, burning a candle for light?...it's a global issue that everyone needs to made aware of and Gore has done that... but to educate an entire planet takes enormous amounts of time, cash and energy...

Betsy replied to Wily on #194, providing the links that backed her statements. She also explained why she mentioned Gore.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202#ixzz11Lk4tFBF

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

We won't get into Al Gore on this topic. I mentioned him on my reply to one of the posters for the relevant reason why we couldn't count on everyone to do their share.

The other poster and Betsy indulged in small conversation:

That some interesting stuff Betsy. If you are going to support a cause and tell everyone about it, you should at least have done your part before lecturing others about the hockey stick. He should be looking at spending the money to convert his main home to the green technology.

Betsy responds to Gosthacked on #205

Yes. Especially if he's going to make a career out of it (what with his endorsement power as a former VP of the US and his experience with dirt-digging media and anti-GW)...I would've prepared everything before I even started just so there's nothing to throw at me. I mean, why give your opponents ammunition?Imagine, GW Bush even beat him to it, as far as going green is concerned.

Wily butted in again on post #206 and started the first mispelling of Betsy's name and the tone became deliberately insulting.

which is all BS because you never looked into did you Betty...

his lecture fee is a standard 100,000K for ex VPs, the same as Sarah Palin and she has done what exactly???

his homes energy still more BS-The think tank said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information.

Parker said Gore has been purchasing the "green power" for $432 a month since November. The Gore home is also under renovation to add solar panels, Kreider said.[/u]

and no he does not own a private jet, most of his flights are commercial airlines and private when necessary

Waldo joined the fray on #208

Clearly...the first deliberate insult was thrown by Wily.

As for the rest of your post here....

no - since you clearly have nothing of substance to add to this thread, you simply continued to pollute it with yet another tangential attempt to throw the thread of intent/message. There are many other thread outlets for you to foist your reverence towards Fearless Leader... you could genuinely show the debate maturity you self-proclaim and quit attempting to trash it with your efforts.

[as I said, it was another MLW member's very astute commentary in response to your question - I could give a rats patooey as to whether you respond to it or not; however, I certainly have no reservations in pointing out that you didn't... and I surmise you didn't because, as it clearly shows now, you're one of those the commentary targets - and you felt it's pointed barb.

well... despite your MLW religulous posting bent, I wasn't inclined to overtly claim you as a part of the extremist religious camp... thanks for coming out and self-identifying. I've expressed my thoughts on Gore a few times in the past - as I did in this thread... a past prolific communicator who holds no real significance today. You however, in keeping with your religulous self, shouldn't be demonizing - or are you harbouring false gods?

.....like most of your previous post....still the same immature, senseless rant.

Btw just out of curiousity, which is the clone....you or Wily?

Edited October 6, 2010 by betsy

[waldo]

betsy, jbg - are you now both content and willing to let the thread move forward, as intended/requested... or do you still have pent-up, denialist, climate change related frustrations driving you to continue to attempt to de-rail the thread?

[betsy]

The "Bobsy Twins" or "W Twins" are another story entirely.

To tell you the truth it crossed my mind they're one and the same. Oh well....

[TimG]

which is caused by the increased water in the atmosphere screwing up the hydrological cycle, which is caused by a 0.5 increase in average global temp.

The "noise" in the system far exceeds .5 degC. Attributing any effects to this rise is an exercise in voodoo.

It also causing droughts in Russia. In Russia the average temperature change is much higher than the global average.

Droughts go in cycles - i.e. over a course of century different areas of the globe will go through cycles of drought. There is zero evidence of any change to the duration, size or severity of droughts over the last 100 years. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/

They rather than listening to climate scientists and agricultural scientists about the effect climate change is having on crop yields I should listen to you.

Right. You mean the scientists who think farmers are idiots who will not adapt to changing conditions by growing different crops or changing techniques.

It's happening much to fast for that, even if humans could adapt with all the technology we have available most animals could not hope to adapt in time resulting in a massive decrease in biodiversity.

There is zero evidence that the minor changes in climate so far have cause any serious problems anywhere. In the cases where problems are blamed on climate change there no credible evidence to support this attribution. Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Holy... thread got trashed!

[waldo]

Holy... thread got trashed!

tis the way of the denier

[dre]

Right. You mean the scientists who think farmers are idiots who will not adapt to changing conditions by growing different crops or changing techniques.

With all your whining about how science is a global left wing conspiracy you still havent given us an alternate source of information thats better. Its like you expect pepole to just take your word for it despite the fact youre constantly caught making errors, omissions and mistatements.

[TimG]

With all your whining about how science is a global left wing conspiracy you still havent given us an alternate source of information thats better.

It is called reading the scientific claims and understanding what they are based on. If they have a reasonable supporting evidence that can be independently verified then I don't question them. If they are dubious extrapolations from limited and unreliable data then I consider them to be no better than an astrology column in the newspaper. The same goes for claims that depend on a computer model that cannot be tested in a lab to verify its correctness.

I should make it clear - saying I do not consider the arguments to be credible does not mean I believe the opposite view. In most cases I feel we simply do not and cannot know what the future will bring. The only thing worse than making decisions in the face of uncertainty is making decisions with a phoney sense of certainty.

Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

The "noise" in the system far exceeds .5 degC. Attributing any effects to this rise is an exercise in voodoo.

Says the none scientist.

Droughts go in cycles - i.e. over a course of century different areas of the globe will go through cycles of drought. There is zero evidence of any change to the duration, size or severity of droughts over the last 100 years. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/

I don't accept blogs as sources link me the actual study or piss off.

Right. You mean the scientists who think farmers are idiots who will not adapt to changing conditions by growing different crops or changing techniques.

You mean the same idiots that caused the dust bowl? Ya I trust them.

There is zero evidence that the minor changes in climate so far have cause any serious problems anywhere. In the cases where problems are blamed on climate change there no credible evidence to support this attribution.

Zero evidence for those that ignore the evidence.

[TimG]

I don't accept blogs as sources link me the actual study or piss off.

In other words you enjoy remaining ignorant. If you actually read the post you would have see a reference to the study itself. Of course such studies are usually behind paywalls so linking to the actual paper provides zero useful information. The blog summarizes what is in the study.

You mean the same idiots that caused the dust bowl? Ya I trust them.

Right. On one side you have people who's liveyhood depends on keeping the land productive. On the other side you have scientists who only get funded if they can find a "problem" that attracts attention. Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

In other words you enjoy remaining ignorant. If you actually read the post you would have see a reference to the study itself. Of course such studies are usually behind paywalls so linking to the actual paper provides zero useful information. The blog summarizes what is in the study.

I've looked for the study and when you google it you find a site that's not working and the blog you sited not good signs.

Right. On one side you have people who's liveyhood depends on keeping the land productive. On the other side you have scientists who only get funded if they can find a "problem" that attracts attention.

Actually you have large company's who I trust much less than the 1930's farmer's on one hand and on the other you have scientists who are payed to discover the truth. Why is it people seem to think scientists make such a huge amount of money? Most scientists make f#ck all.

[TimG]

I've looked for the study and when you google it you find a site that's not working and the blog you sited not good signs.

Try this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2722.1

Actually you have large company's who I trust much less than the 1930's farmer's on one hand and on the other you have scientists who are payed to discover the truth. Why is it people seem to think scientists make such a huge amount of money? Most scientists make f#ck all.

$10 is a fortune to someone who has nothing. Scientists have no work if they don't get funding. They face the same pressures as any other business operator who has to attract customers or die. It does not make a difference if the sums are small.

In any case, I am sure the vast majority of scientists believe what they publish. The only issue hear is understanding the biases that might affect the interpretation of the data. Most people have no problems understanding that studies funded companies may be baised for the same reason. I don't understand why you refuse to accept the same problem exists for each individual.

Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Try this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2722.1

Thank you. I'll have to see about getting a subscription to read the whole thing.

$10 is a fortune to someone who has nothing. Scientists have no work if they don't get funding. They face the same pressures as any other business operator who has to attrach customers or die. It does not make a difference if the sums are small.

Scientists get funding for being right.

[TimG]

Scientists get funding for being right.

ROTFL. Can you give me one example of a scientist who lost their job because they were "wrong"? The get funding for producing science that sells. Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG