Climate Science 101

[Slim]

The Solomon publications are an example. He says they are fraudulent. Where are all the lawsuits? Because one of the scientists demanded a retraction, and got it, does not refute the whole body of work. The same as a CRU e-mail does not refute the whole body of work on climate science. It does add in the factor that there is some definite political interference in the science and perhaps further and future scrutiny is necessary.

I don't know what these 'Solomon' publications are. Care to link me to them? I couldn't find anything on Google.

Anyway, you seem to be accepting the fact that the small amount of (credible) resistance to the established theory of AGW does not discredit the whole of the scientific consesus on the matter. And I agree with you there. Whether AGW is real or not is no longer up for debate.

The fact is that certain things aren't adding up and certain politicians are eager to have legislation enacted that would benefit them and change the economic structure of the globe with all it's inherent turmoil. If anything Waldo should be condemning Al Gore for muddying the waters of the scientific debate but oddly Al Gore is his hero.

Okay, you're implying here that there is the potential for some massive global scientific/political conspiracy involving literally thousands upon thousands of politicians and scientists. Sure, it's a possibility. But so damn remote that it's not worth considering.

On a side note, why do people hate Gore so much?

This is not a scientific debate here. Waldo likes to throw up his cut and paste arguments as though the argument is about science. It isn't, that argument is for scientists. The real debate here is a concern for the planet. There is such fervor and eagerness, especially from politicians to promote the sky is falling, and demand we carry visions of a dying planet around in our heads while some rub their hands together and smack their lips.

Okay, I'll reiterate what I said previously: of course waldo 'cut and pastes' arguments. He has to in order to back up his claims or else we would jump all over him for making baseless arguments.

And again you're alluding to people over-stating the effects of AGW for personal gain. I'm not sure what evidence you have to back this up... especially in the US, there aren't a whole lot of politicians that have thrown their hat in with the AGW-crowd. If what you say is correct, we should have a whole host of politicians standing in line to push the 'Green Agenda'. But I'm just not seeing it, not on the scale you're implying.

Now, for the record, I'm not denying that there are individuals that are jumping on the Green bandwagon solely to make a quick buck. I'm sure there are, and there will likely be more. But that's hardly unique to this particular issue, nor does it mean we should be dismissing AGW because of those crooked few.

Of course, waldo is never 100% right and doesn't claim to be. He is only 95% right or maybe 51% right but however right he is you are wrong 100%. Twenty years from now he will be arguing that the anthropogenic global warming data wasn't real science and those scientists have been effectively discredited. The same as the scientists that predicted the coming ice age in the sixties. The fact remains there was no shortage of politicians and "environmentalists" promoting the ice-age theories and looking to enact solutions regardless of whether the science was correct or not. Should we have erred on the side of caution and started powdering the polar ice caps with black ash to warm things up?

Okay, you're starting to lose me here. Referencing the Ice-Age theory of the 70s is not helping your cause. As Hardner said earlier, it's a dead argument. And it has no impact here.

And I don't have any idea what your first two sentences even mean. You'll have to elaborate on the percentages of being right.

So in conclusion, waldo's arguments are a ruse. A straw man to focus attention on. As though the debate is really about the science.

Your post does not support this conclusion. And there has been lots of proper debate about what to do about AGW elsewhere in the forums. Without the need to make bizarre statements like this:

So waldo let's say you're right 99.9%, where do we go form here? Do you have a nice den somewhere that can accommodate all of us or maybe just a few intellectuals and the dull masses may have to be sacrificed.

[bush_cheney2004]

....On a side note, why do people hate Gore so much?

Because he is an arrogant snot who was consuming 220,000 kilowatt hours per year in 2006. Be careful which Americans you enbrace as AGW heros.

Edited October 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Slim]

Because he is an arrogant snot who was consuming 220,000 kilowatt hours per year in 2006. Be careful which Americans you enbrace as AGW heros.

Heh, arrogant snot, eh. Well I reckon that's a matter of opinion, though I don't doubt he has an ego (as all politicians do!)

I did a quick look on wikipedia and it seems that Gore does indeed use a bunch of energy for his huge house (being rich does have its perks) in the area of 17,768 kWh per month, more than ten TIMES the average American household uses in a year. But, again, supposedly it's all coming from 'green' power sources.

Regardless, none of that refutes his arguments. All it proves is that he's rich. Big shocker. If I was rich, I'd have a huge house, too. But you can't expect personal attacks to undermine his positions on AGW mitigation.

If he was running around telling folks they need to live in tiny houses regardless of income, THEN you'd have a point. Granted, he has argued for people to conserve energy, and having a huge house kinda flies in the face of that... but at least he's using renewable energy and buying carbon offsets.

Anyway, all this is beside the point: AGW is a problem that we need to seriously discuss, and hopefully find logical and practical solutions. That, I think, is what Gore is admired for: bringing the debate to the mainstream for a lot of people.

[jbg]

Because he is an arrogant snot who was consuming 220,000 kilowatt hours per year in 2006. Be careful which Americans you enbrace as AGW heros.

If you saw his movie he is positively scary. His eyes bulge. He looks like a maniac more than like a greedy businessman. Maybe he's both.

[RNG]

Because he is an arrogant snot who was consuming 220,000 kilowatt hours per year in 2006. Be careful which Americans you enbrace as AGW heros.

Because I am absolutely convince he set the whole thing up in order to make a gazillion dollars trading carbon credits. And he's being incredably successful so far.

Edited October 25, 2010 by RNG

[jbg]

Because I am absolutely convince he set the whole thing up in order to make a gazillion dollars trading carbon credits. And he's being incredably successful so far.

I'd say more incredibly than incredably. Unless that's in Canadian.

[RNG]

I'd say more incredibly than incredably. Unless that's in Canadian.

Powerful. Thank you.

[Pliny]

I don't know what these 'Solomon' publications are. Care to link me to them? I couldn't find anything on Google.

It's a book called "The Deniers." Waldo has already written a scathing review debunking it.

Anyway, you seem to be accepting the fact that the small amount of (credible) resistance to the established theory of AGW does not discredit the whole of the scientific consesus on the matter. And I agree with you there. Whether AGW is real or not is no longer up for debate.

On "GW" there is a consensus. On AGW there is not. I bleive the world mien temperature has risen about 1.5 degrees over the last century. That's a fact. The reason why is not settled. Is it the huge concern it is made out to be when we are already working on minimizing our developmental footprint? Should we start redistributing the wealth of nations over it?

Okay, you're implying here that there is the potential for some massive global scientific/political conspiracy involving literally thousands upon thousands of politicians and scientists. Sure, it's a possibility. But so damn remote that it's not worth considering.

There is no "massive, global scientific/political conspiracy." and assuming I am implying that is dead-wrong. There is a scientific consensus of global warming and a belief it's genesis is anthropogenic. While the average person accepts there may be a problem and it does no harm to work towards minimizing the effects of our existence. There are those opportunists who wish to raise the concern to crisis, and in the infamous words of Rahm Emmanuel, not let a good crisis go to waste even if it is a ratcheted up fear mongering, sky is falling promotion by politicians and eager opportunist corporate followers.

On a side note, why do people hate Gore so much?

Where did you get that idea? He is the darling of the environmentalist movement.

The problem is that he hasn't presented a good scientific basis for his radical "political solutions" and has, as I said, simply muddied the waters of scientific debate with his political fear-mongering. People like waldo don't want a scientific debate, if he did he would be debating scientists, he wants to forward his political views which is why he is here on a political forum.

Okay, I'll reiterate what I said previously: of course waldo 'cut and pastes' arguments. He has to in order to back up his claims or else we would jump all over him for making baseless arguments.

You haven't been here that long but he feels the sources of his cutting and pasting deals conclusively with the sources others present. All he has ever offered is his sources are better than your sources and he has far-left propaganda mills that will confirm that.

He is not all that convincing but I will give him that he is persistent like most automatons.

And again you're alluding to people over-stating the effects of AGW for personal gain. I'm not sure what evidence you have to back this up... especially in the US, there aren't a whole lot of politicians that have thrown their hat in with the AGW-crowd. If what you say is correct, we should have a whole host of politicians standing in line to push the 'Green Agenda'. But I'm just not seeing it, not on the scale you're implying.

Have you looked at Europe, the UN, the third world and even here in Canada for the most part, the Conservative party may not show any enthusiasm but the Liberals and NDP all have been behind the "Green Agenda" for years?. America can only be pointed to as the sole dissident nation despite the efforts of the EPA of which I am certain you have heard and know of it's influence on all aspects of American developmental activity.

Now, for the record, I'm not denying that there are individuals that are jumping on the Green bandwagon solely to make a quick buck. I'm sure there are, and there will likely be more. But that's hardly unique to this particular issue, nor does it mean we should be dismissing AGW because of those crooked few.

They are not crooked unless they don't themselves believe in global warming. As long as they do they are just entrepreneurs looking for the latest advantage. Why would you even think it was crooked to make a buck on forwarding what is considered improving the environment? Do you yourself think AGW a hoax?

Okay, you're starting to lose me here. Referencing the Ice-Age theory of the 70s is not helping your cause. As Hardner said earlier, it's a dead argument. And it has no impact here.

Just as twenty years from now referencing "AGW" may be considered to be a dead argument.

And I don't have any idea what your first two sentences even mean. You'll have to elaborate on the percentages of being right.

It's a favourite "skeptic's" argument. You'll have to get in one to understand it.

Your post does not support this conclusion. And there has been lots of proper debate about what to do about AGW elsewhere in the forums. Without the need to make bizarre statements like this:

Once again, you would have to have been around a little to understand it in context which is why I addressed the question to waldo.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Oleg Bach]

I reserve the right to use common words the way they're commonly used.

Well, let's see... pretty much everybody does what they're told because of the "economy" and nobody seems to know what THAT is.

Yah - it's always about "jobs"--- that consist of not generating any real wealth...or quailty of human life or happiness...The mantra is always the "economy"...yet - no matter how hard people work- they are still stressed and poor - divorced - the kids are dragged about to day care..that is now called "early childhood learning" - and the poor kids are ill most of the time because they are deprived of real security and sleep...and the parrots sitting on the highest roosts continue to blurt out...."aaaaauk...the economy.....aaaauk...the environment.." - A new breed of human is forming..one of unisexual blandness - lacking all attributes of honour - faith - reality...or moral fiber..like rats-- all they want is pleasure and food.

[waldo]

The Green Lobby is powerful. Billions of dollars have been given to scientists from governments to write convincingly that ghgs are causing climate change. These scientists either find what they are told to find, or they have their funding cut.

ya, ya – the “Green Lobby” fits well with your earlier “Green Agenda” MLW thread/ramblings. But wait… it seems that thread went a bit cold – you sort of disappeared from it… apparently… your premise wasn’t well received, you had great difficulty in supporting it… and you opted for “Greener Pastures”.

in that same thread, your “Green Agenda” thread, various tangential discussions arose concerning funding sources/avenues… apparently, you took exception to reading all those accounts of the brazillions of dollars Big Oil, the Koch Brothers, the myriad of right-wing think tanks, etc., bring forward to combat the, uhhh… “Green Lobby” engaged in the “Green Agenda”. But you are consistent… for you, it’s simply enough to suggest “governments are purposely funding scientists” to, uhhh… as you say, “write convincingly”.

just “write convincingly”! That’s it… that’s all it takes! Well buddy, your denier side just needs to get better writers (scientists)… you know… more convincing ones. You would think that would be the biggest priority for the channelling of all that brazillions of denier funding - what’s your problem?… other than, as you say, the more convincing writers (scientists) are presenting the more convincing/actual prevailing science – go figure! Why can’t your denier side just find better, more convincing writers (scientists) - why not just acknowledge your denier side’s scientists are shitty, unconvincing writers… at least start there – hey?

With the media on side with the doompreachers, it's easy to see how the mass population has been brainwashed, without thinking critically, that humans aren't causing ghgs. Many scientists who know that climate change is 99.99% natural keep their opinions to themselves to avoid repercussions from the powerful green lobby. Freedom of speech is rare in this debate.

newsflash! Overall, the mainstream media has been doing a pathetic job in presenting the prevailing consensus science disseminated to a level understandable by the general public. That simply reflects upon economics, timelines, a rarity of genuine skilled science journalists, a preponderance of loud, lazy, agenda driven denier journalists… a grab-bag, one subject to an ever declining mainstream readership that is increasingly opting for alternative outlets and one that, by and large, hasn’t the interest or inclination for real critical thinking. You lukin, are the poster boy for the uninformed and non-critical thinker… you are the poster boy for the failing mainstream media.

the scientific approach/methodology does not rely upon your described, “rarity of freedom of speech”… the science itself prevails – always has, always will.

Anyone who wants to know how and why this debate got started need to read "The Real Global Warming Disaster" by Christopher Booker.

yes, we’ve touched upon the failed denier "journalist" Booker several times in other MLW climate change related threads… usually in conjunction with his other British tabloid writing tag-team partner, Richard North – the Telegraph’s tandem-duo of denial journalism. You have a strong reliance on denier "journalists" – hey Lukin? In keeping with your focus, and in this particular British slant, rather than drudge up past MLW thread posts showing the lying, distorting scum that Booker is, let’s just read from another British journalist - Christopher Booker prize for falsehoods about global warming

And finally, waldo, you still haven't told me what you do on a personal level to combat climate change. It's a simple question that you can't answer.

of course, but c'mon... you should expect I’ve read the denier playbook… right?

[waldo]

And finally, waldo, you still haven't told me what you do on a personal level to combat climate change. It's a simple question that you can't answer.

His big game is debunking debunkers and that is all that ever occurs.

His debunkers debunk debunkers of AGW and then when more evidence of a political/economic, and not a purely scientific, argument leaks to the surface he's there putting his finger in the hole, with his army of debunkers debunking debunkers.

as always, Pliny… you’re deep, very deep! Separate from the scientific community/method proper, of course, your deepness presupposes your described debunkers are actually presenting consensus prevailing science in the first place... as distinct from their usual distorted and fabricated, wild-ass howling. But, of course, that’s not what you’re speaking to - what you’re really speaking to, what you have extreme difficulty with, is having your described debunkers exposed for the denying charlatans they are – hey?

[waldo]

lukin - you're nothing more than a parrot, you clearly have difficulty with even the most basic concepts - you beak-off about settled science and doomsday scenarios while not having a clue - any clue - not even a reference point, to understand the recognized and accepted uncertainties.

I wouldn't mention parroting too much, Waldo. All you do is parrot your favourite sources....oh, and they are the only ones that are credible scientists with peer reviewed backing. All others are discredited, by guess who...your favourite sources.

ya, ya, Pliny – those credible peer reviewed scientists, just keep annoying you and getting in the way – hey? Whatever you presume to be my, “favoured sources”… they would be sources that reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus. On the other hand, Pliny, only someone on the outside peripheral sceptical/denying fringe would look to what are, apparently, your favoured sources.

If anything is melting, and GHWB said it best, "it is the economy, stupid". And I think you will find less and less interest and concern with the somewhat undetermined theory of AGW. Funding will be gone because of that and perhaps that fact more than anything else will reveal the truth about it, be it yay or nay.

You, yourself have no clue.

this is very insightful, Pliny – not about what it says; rather, what it says about you. You’re typically very guarded in actually stating your position on AGW climate change. You rarely speak to aspects of climate change and related science… usually one has been left to infer your position based upon your overwhelming disagreement with government involvement/funding, economic aspects, your targeting Gore/Strong/Soros, etc. Here, in this latest exchange, you’ve really stepped out and speak to your uncertainty on AGW…of course, one can only ask you for clarity. In the face of this, your expressed uncertainty on AGW, why would you take exception to, as you stated, “credible peer reviewed science/scientists”, sources that reference your described, “credible peer reviewed science/scientists”, and advocates that may choose to reference either/both? Why do you take such exception to, as you stated, “credible peer reviewed science/scientists – hey, Pliny?

[waldo]

it is entertaining watching him engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed...

The Great Spectator has spoken.

If he used any "wits" he would realize the parrot he is. He has no credibility, as do most skeptics, because he relies entirely on what he reads from others and parrots it as reasons why the there is no room for debate without ever having looked himself.

It is rather impossible to argue with someone who argues no one can really be right but you are wrong.

debate? If you’re talking about MLW debate, the AGW denying purveyors of distortion, fabrication and lies are not interested in meaningful debate… for the most part, the shit-throwing knuckle-draggers can barely string sentences together, let alone, present cogent thought. If you’re talking about a scientific debate, that one is played out regularly within the scientific community – obviously, the scientific consensus on AGW is not one you are willing to accept. Again, as I just asked you: In the face of this, your expressed uncertainty on AGW, why would you take exception to, as you stated, "credible peer reviewed science/scientists”, sources that reference your described, “credible peer reviewed science/scientists”, and advocates that may choose to reference either/both? Why do you take such exception to, as you stated, “credible peer reviewed science/scientists – hey, Pliny?"

[waldo]

Well of course he's going to cite sources, guys. If he didn't, you would all just dismiss him for having nothing to back up his claims.

And really, none of us are climate scientists, so we HAVE to rely on studies done by experts. That's what waldo's doing. And doing it very, very well. I have yet to see any of his points properly refuted.

I have yet to see his refutations actually refute something effectively.

The Solomon publications are an example. He says they are fraudulent. Where are all the lawsuits? Because one of the scientists demanded a retraction, and got it, does not refute the whole body of work.

no – I said Solomon’s portrayal was fraudulent… where he titles his book “Deniers” and played up that title throughout his circus act/dog and pony show presentations. The fraudulent aspect reflects upon the fact that none, not one, of the profiled scientists is actually a denier of AGW climate change. That’s the fraudulent aspect I spoke to. The very fact Solomon openly acknowledges his book title doesn’t portray the profiled scientists – that is the fraud. Of course, what Solomon presumes to leverage is the meme about settled science, while playing off the acknowledged uncertainties within the AGW theory.

The same as a CRU e-mail does not refute the whole body of work on climate science. It does add in the factor that there is some definite political interference in the science and perhaps further and future scrutiny is necessary.

The fact is that certain things aren't adding up and certain politicians are eager to have legislation enacted that would benefit them and change the economic structure of the globe with all it's inherent turmoil. If anything Waldo should be condemning Al Gore for muddying the waters of the scientific debate but oddly Al Gore is his hero.

hey Pliny, for a bit of comic relief, would you like me to quote that post where I show you, quite literally a dozen or so times, referring to Gore as variants of “the Pope”. You know, Pliny… your obsession with Gore. For consistency I’ll repeat my statement on Gore – the statement you appear to attach hero worship to: “Gore – a former prolific communicator, who currently holds no prominent position within the discussion concerning AGW climate change.”

care to really step out, Pliny… care to show what an unknowing parrot you truly are? Why don’t you state what the, as you describe, “body of work on climate science”, the/any Hackergate emails refuted?

you speak to a “political interference” in the science. What political aspect and what interference?

This is not a scientific debate here. Waldo likes to throw up his cut and paste arguments as though the argument is about science. It isn't, that argument is for scientists. The real debate here is a concern for the planet. There is such fervor and eagerness, especially from politicians to promote the sky is falling, and demand we carry visions of a dying planet around in our heads while some rub their hands together and smack their lips.

Pliny deepness on display => “the real debate is about a concern for the planet”. Ergo, expounding on the deepness of Pliny, within that described, “real debate”:

- Pliny Door #1 => caring and concerned for the planet

- Pliny Door #2 => caring and unsure for the planet

- Pliny Door #3 => uncaring and unsure for the planet

- Pliny Door #4 => uncaring and unconcerned for the planet

which actual door are you behind again, Pliny?

Of course, waldo is never 100% right and doesn't claim to be. He is only 95% right or maybe 51% right but however right he is you are wrong 100%. Twenty years from now he will be arguing that the anthropogenic global warming data wasn't real science and those scientists have been effectively discredited. The same as the scientists that predicted the coming ice age in the sixties. The fact remains there was no shortage of politicians and "environmentalists" promoting the ice-age theories and looking to enact solutions regardless of whether the science was correct or not. Should we have erred on the side of caution and started powdering the polar ice caps with black ash to warm things up?

you read all these climate change related threads. You know, you absolutely know, that there is no credibility to the 60s/70s cooling myth… that the myth was media generated. This same mythical point has been beat upon, repeatedly within an assortment of MLW threads. You know this – yet you continue to perpetuate the myth – you are simply a disingenuous provocateur. Perhaps you could actually step forward and identify the politicians and environmentalists that were promoting, as you describe, “ice-age theories”… you could also highlight what solutions were being advocated. You might also speak to what credibility any of those politicians and environmentalists and solutions actually had… uhhh… you know, if they even existed in any place other than your fabricated Pliny world.

So in conclusion, waldo's arguments are a ruse. A straw man to focus attention on. As though the debate is really about the science. So waldo let's say you're right 99.9%, where do we go form here? Do you have a nice den somewhere that can accommodate all of us or maybe just a few intellectuals and the dull masses may have to be sacrificed.

succinct, insightful… the deep Pliny, at his deepest! Yup, according to, ‘his deepness’, science, scientists and their arguments are all a strawman, intended to focus attention away from what Pliny calls, “the real debate”… which in keeping with Pliny deepness, is a debate about a concern for the planet. Which actual door are you behind again, Pliny?

[waldo]

Anyway, all this is beside the point: AGW is a problem that we need to seriously discuss, and hopefully find logical and practical solutions. That, I think, is what Gore is admired for: bringing the debate to the mainstream for a lot of people.

of course, it is also what Gore is, quite literally, demonized for... in his case, deniers (also) want to shoot the messenger (figuratively and/or literally).

[waldo]

Anyway, you seem to be accepting the fact that the small amount of (credible) resistance to the established theory of AGW does not discredit the whole of the scientific consensus on the matter. And I agree with you there. Whether AGW is real or not is no longer up for debate.

On "GW" there is a consensus. On AGW there is not. I believe the world mien temperature has risen about 1.5 degrees over the last century. That's a fact. The reason why is not settled. Is it the huge concern it is made out to be when we are already working on minimizing our developmental footprint? Should we start redistributing the wealth of nations over it?

to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists for both GW and AGW climate change… makes one a denier of the overwhelming scientific consensus. Minimizing our developmental footprint? Really? How’s that working out in terms of reducing reliance on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions? Ah yes, every once in a while, the real Pliny steps forward – “wealth distribution”… there it is. Pliny’s overall (unsubstantiated) boogeyman – c’mon, Pliny… take us down the Copenhagen protocol wording trail, again. I’m as prepared as last time – I have my copy at the ready. Which door are you behind again, hey Pliny?

Okay, you're implying here that there is the potential for some massive global scientific/political conspiracy involving literally thousands upon thousands of politicians and scientists. Sure, it's a possibility. But so damn remote that it's not worth considering.

There is no "massive, global scientific/political conspiracy." and assuming I am implying that is dead-wrong. There is a scientific consensus of global warming and a belief it's genesis is anthropogenic. While the average person accepts there may be a problem and it does no harm to work towards minimizing the effects of our existence. There are those opportunists who wish to raise the concern to crisis, and in the infamous words of Rahm Emmanuel, not let a good crisis go to waste even if it is a ratcheted up fear mongering, sky is falling promotion by politicians and eager opportunist corporate followers.

Pliny, since he called you on your ludicrously inane posit for a scientific conspiracy, I’m sure the astute MLW member, Slim, reads you just shifting your conspiracy goalposts to target your presumed opportunistic politicians/corporations.

On a side note, why do people hate Gore so much?

Where did you get that idea? He is the darling of the environmentalist movement. The problem is that he hasn't presented a good scientific basis for his radical "political solutions" and has, as I said, simply muddied the waters of scientific debate with his political fear-mongering. People like waldo don't want a scientific debate, if he did he would be debating scientists, he wants to forward his political views which is why he is here on a political forum.

that underlying scientific basis is the same underlying scientific basis, regardless of the proposed policy. Generalities won’t win you any points in presuming to denigrate the scientific basis, who is presenting it and how accurate it is. Nor will throwing about go-to denier catch phrases like ‘political fear mongering’. Carry on!

Okay, I'll reiterate what I said previously: of course waldo 'cut and pastes' arguments. He has to in order to back up his claims or else we would jump all over him for making baseless arguments.

You haven't been here that long but he feels the sources of his cutting and pasting deals conclusively with the sources others present. All he has ever offered is his sources are better than your sources and he has far-left propaganda mills that will confirm that.

He is not all that convincing but I will give him that he is persistent like most automatons.

Pliny, are you still smarting? – get over it! Typically, this MLW denier bunch rarely rises above citing denier tripe from the likes of British tabloid journalists, from the denier darlings of the National Post or parroting the latest and greatest “smoking gun” AGW killers raised throughout the denialsphere (typically once every few days, give or take). To be expected, Pliny, deniers (like you) have great difficulty in having to respond to legitimate sources, scientific based articles and/or scientific papers. T2P, Pliny!

Okay, you're starting to lose me here. Referencing the Ice-Age theory of the 70s is not helping your cause. As Hardner said earlier, it's a dead argument. And it has no impact here.

Just as twenty years from now referencing "AGW" may be considered to be a dead argument.

distinction noted for completeness and future anticipated quote potential: Pliny, you persist… you know there was no 70s scientific consensus on global cooling. You know there is a scientific consensus today on AGW climate change (you know it, but just won’t accept and acknowledge it). Why do you continue to perpetuate the 70s global cooling myth… other than for the obvious outlet you presume it allows you to challenge the scientific consensus of today’s AGW theory? Why do perpetuate a myth, Pliny?

Of course, waldo is never 100% right and doesn't claim to be. He is only 95% right or maybe 51% right but however right he is you are wrong 100%.

And I don't have any idea what your first two sentences even mean. You'll have to elaborate on the percentages of being right.

It's a favourite "skeptic's" argument. You'll have to get in one to understand it.

shorter Pliny: I don’t know what nonsense I was just babbling about percentages… but trust me, context is not necessary, I know what I speak.

Your post does not support this conclusion. And there has been lots of proper debate about what to do about AGW elsewhere in the forums. Without the need to make bizarre statements like this:

So waldo let's say you're right 99.9%, where do we go form here? Do you have a nice den somewhere that can accommodate all of us or maybe just a few intellectuals and the dull masses may have to be sacrificed.

Once again, you would have to have been around a little to understand it in context which is why I addressed the question to waldo.

shorter Pliny: WTF! You’re not supposed to actually call me on something like that… but trust me, context is not necessary, I know what I speak.

[GostHacked]

Waldo, do you think a carbon tax or carbon credits actually solve the issue when you can simply pay more if you pollute more?

[waldo]

India and China did ratify the Kyoto protocol... however, they were granted a reprieve from an obligatory reduction on CO2 emissions for 2 specific reasons:

1. their historical economic impact didn't parallel the most significant emission outputs associated with the warming period of industrialization, and

2. a significant contributing influence on their emission levels today reflects directly upon industry production fueled by demand from 'western countries'; i.e. the effective outsourcing of emissions to India/China.

as for the Copenhagen Accord (regardless of where it is... or isn't) - India & China formally accepted their inclusion into the accord... notwithstanding the voluntary measures taken... notwithstanding the position China is forging for itself as a leading advocate for sustainable energy and efficiencies.

That is a problem with the life styles we live. We want cheap products to buy. If we had Americans building items for Americans, the price of said item would be quite expensive. But because we can have it cheaply made in other countries that don't have the environmental restrictions as well with a lack of labour standards, we can get that fancy new smartphone for cheap. And overall that does contribute more pollution to the environment that will have a more immediate impact on our way of life and quality of life.

So we in the west are directly contributing to this problem buy outsourcing and wanting all the bling future generations will have to pay for. The countries that allowed China and India to be exempt needs to be revisited. Is it purely because of C02 or is it because we can have inexpensive items?

Because of your two points, I now have to question the motives for allowing China and India exempt status. Sounds more economical than environmental. Partly why the Cap and Trade proposal by Mr.Internet and his people is seen as nothing more than a money trading scheme. You can offset your carbon output by paying into this fund. You can continue to do so as long as you keep paying. This no way solves or even addresses the supposed problem of C02 greenhouse gas emissions contributing to AWG.

yes, you are absolutely correct in suggesting the west, is an effective emissions outsourcer. We've touched upon this in past MLW threads where we've shown the level of U.S. emissions is effectively 'stable'... not increasing. The U.S., the world's number one consumer, can show an effective stable emissions level, by outsourcing it's emissions to China/India... most certainly that U.S. stable emissions level can't be attributed to any U.S. domestic deployed emissions reduction strategy (obviously), or any industry scaled efficiencies... so, ya - U.S. emissions have been outsourced to China/India.

cap & trade? Would you accept and advocate for 'fee and dividend'?

Waldo, do you think a carbon tax or carbon credits actually solve the issue when you can simply pay more if you pollute more?

above, I took the liberty of quoting a recent relevant exchange of ours... one you opted not to pursue. Notwithstanding your somewhat simplistic summation on cap & trade, I previously asked if you, "would accept and advocate for 'fee and dividend'... As a direct response to this, your latest/more recent question - no, I do not favour the strict traditional definition that surrounds a cap & trade style policy... I do favour a 'fee and dividend' style policy approach. Perhaps take the time to read this op-ed from James Hansen in the 'Australian' newspaper:

Science has shown that preservation of stable climate and the remarkable life that our planet harbours require a rapid slowdown of fossil fuel emissions. Atmospheric carbon dioxide, now almost 390 parts per million, must be brought back to 350ppm or less. That is possible, with actions that make sense for other reasons.

But the actions require a change to business-as-usual. Change is opposed by those profiting from our fossil-fuel addiction. Change will happen only with courageous political leadership.

Leaders must draw attention to the moral imperative. We cannot pretend that we do not understand the consequences for our children and grandchildren. We cannot leave them with a situation spiralling out of their control. We must set a new course.

Yet what course is proposed? Hokey cap-and-trade with offsets, aka an emissions trading scheme. Scheme is the right word, a scheme to continue business-as-usual behind a fig leaf.

The Kyoto Protocol was a cap-and-trade approach. Global emissions shot up faster than ever after its adoption. It is impossible to cap all emissions as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy.

There is zero chance India and China will accept a cap. And why should they? Their emissions, on a per capita basis, are 10 times less than those of Australia or the US.

Fossil fuels are not really the cheapest energy. They are cheap because they are subsidised, because they do not pay for damage they cause to human health via air and water pollution, nor their environmental damage and horrendous consequences for posterity.

An honest effective approach to energy and climate must place a steadily rising price on carbon emissions. It can only be effective if it is a simple flat fee on all carbon fuels, collected from fossil fuel companies on the first sale, at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.

The fee will cause energy costs to rise, for fossil fuels, not all energies. The public will allow this fee to rise to the levels needed only if the money collected is given to the public. They will need the money to adapt their lifestyles and reduce their carbon footprint. The money, all of it, should be given as a monthly "green cheque" and possibly in part as an income-tax reduction. Each legal adult resident would get an equal share, easily delivered electronically to bank accounts or debit cards, with half a share for children up to two children per family.

Sure, some people may waste their green cheque on booze or babes. Such people will soon be paying more in increased energy prices than they get in their green cheque. Others will make changes to keep their added energy cost low, coming out ahead.

There will be strong economic incentive for businesses to find products that help consumers reduce fossil fuel use. Every activity that uses energy will be affected. Agricultural products from nearby fields will be favoured, for example, as opposed to food flown in from half way around the world. Changes will happen as people compare the price tags.

The rising price on carbon will spur energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power, all sources that produce little or no carbon dioxide. Bellyaching howls from coal moguls must be ignored. Let them invest their money in renewable energies and nuclear power.

Australia is blessed with abundant nuclear fuel as well as coal. Nuclear power plants are the ideal base-load power for Australia; their excess power in off-peak hours can be used to desalinate water. Power stations can be sited near coastlines, where cooling water is plentiful.

But all potential energy sources must compete, with each other and with energy efficiency. If renewable energies can do the whole job economically, as some people argue, that would be great. Put a price on carbon and let all parts of the private sector compete.

Fee-and-green-cheque is simple, designed to do an honest job. Emissions trading, in contrast, is designed by big banks that expect to make billions out of the carbon market. That means out of your pocket; every dollar will come via increased energy prices to the consumer, with no green cheque to soften the blow.

I mentioned that cap-and-trade will never be accepted by developing countries. But why would China accept a carbon price? China does not want to become a fossil fuel addict, with the requirement of protecting a global supply line. It wants to clean up its atmosphere and water. It is investing as fast as its can in wind and solar energy and nuclear power.

China knows that these clean energies will boom only if they put a rising price on carbon. It seemed willing to negotiate that approach in Copenhagen, but was handed a cap-and-trade edict. Results were predictable.

What the world needs is a nation that will set an example, stop pandering to special interests, do what is necessary for the people and the rest of the life on the planet. It is a moral issue. We cannot turn our backs on our children and grandchildren. Is it possible that Australia could provide that example, that moral leadership?

[Slim]

I hadn't heard of Hansen's 'fee and dividend' theory before... sounds interesting. I'm going to look at it some more tonight if I get a chance. Thanks for the link, waldo.

It would be nice to see suggestions like this up for discussion more often.

[lukin]

Wow waldo, you certainly were a busy little beaver today. I see your emails to Greenpeace were not a waste of time.

Another great book for people to read exposing The AGW fraud is "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher C. Horner. Greenpeace refers to Horner as a climate criminal. This book is all about how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud, and deception to keep you misinformed.

I'm sure waldo will slam this book even though he hasn't read a single page. He'll prowl the internet looking for quotes from doompreachers who feel threatened by the truth.

[jbg]

I'm sure waldo will slam this book even though he hasn't read a single page. He'll prowl the internet looking for quotes from doompreachers who feel threatened by the truth.

To read one has to be literate.

[Pliny]

as always, Pliny… you’re deep, very deep! Separate from the scientific community/method proper, of course, your deepness presupposes your described debunkers are actually presenting consensus prevailing science in the first place... as distinct from their usual distorted and fabricated, wild-ass howling. But, of course, that’s not what you’re speaking to - what you’re really speaking to, what you have extreme difficulty with, is having your described debunkers exposed for the denying charlatans they are – hey?

As always, waldo...you're shallow, very shallow!

Same old. Same old. Blah, Blah, Blah. Talking to an automaton gets so boring.

It isn't important anymore, waldo. You lost ground in Copenhagen, got your teeth kicked in with E-mail gate, and cap and trade in the US is a no-go.

I do believe the mien temperature rose about 1.5 degrees over the last century around the globe. All we know lately is that weather is occurring, even as we speak. Anything else we need to know besides further studies are occurring?

No? Let's get on with life then. What's that mean for you? An oil change?

[Pliny]

Waldo, do you think a carbon tax or carbon credits actually solve the issue when you can simply pay more if you pollute more?

waldo, cites a paper for you on cap and trade here:

op-ed from James Hansen in the 'Australian' newspaperwaldo's link

It says cap and trade is a failure and Kyoto was devastating.

His fee and credit idea isn't much better.

I note he is a scientist in Space Studies. Is he an expert on climate?

[Pliny]

name='waldo' date='25 October 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1288032139' post='592690']

Pliny, you persist… you know there was no 70s scientific consensus on global cooling. You know there is a scientific consensus today on AGW climate change (you know it, but just won’t accept and acknowledge it). Why do you continue to perpetuate the 70s global cooling myth… other than for the obvious outlet you presume it allows you to challenge the scientific consensus of today’s AGW theory? Why do perpetuate a myth, Pliny?

Politicians weren't even waiting for a concensus, waldo. They trusted the experts back then. Now it appears they are a little more patient.

We'll see in twenty years. Likely, they will have saved the world by then and we will be redistributing wealth around the globe but people will probably have forgotten why.

[waldo]

Another great book for people to read exposing The AGW fraud is "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher C. Horner. Greenpeace refers to Horner as a climate criminal. This book is all about how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud, and deception to keep you misinformed.

I'm sure waldo will slam this book even though he hasn't read a single page. He'll prowl the internet looking for quotes from doompreachers who feel threatened by the truth.

well done lukin... along with your most recent favoured citations of the writings of disreputable British tabloid denier "journalists", without the slightest reservation, in this, your latest "ta da", you now offer up something from a lawyer/senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). That's all anyone really needs to know about your cited source/book.

your repeated pattern has been to throw down links with a pronounced "ta da". Of course you rarely (never?) actually quote from your sourced "gems"... or presume to leverage them with meaningful commentary/extension. For you it's simply a 'fait de compli' to drop a source link to any denier tripe. I wouldn't waste the energy looking for a critical review of your latest "ta da" - Horner is well known, prominently on display and often critically written about... he's the darling interviewee of such "luminaries" as Alex Jones and Glenn Beck - your kind of denier!

of course, for once, you could actually have the courage of your convictions by supporting your denier sourced link with actual detail... something that could be discussed/challenged - you know, go beyond simply dropping a link and pronouncing "ta da". Or perhaps we could have a "ta da" throw down: (1) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Oreskes, Conway); (2) Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (Michaels) - ta da!