Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Bonam]

That was a good read. We need science behind the claims not nonsensical politicians or the likes of waldo.

Hmm yeah, I like the $34 trillion per degree C number. While I admit I haven't done much research in this particular field, it is interesting to be able to put a price-tag on the capability of affecting planetary climate. Presumably, as technology continues to improve, the cost per degree will go down.

His math definitely has to be double-checked, however. One obvious mistake: he said that $34 trillion was 7 years of global GDP. In fact, global GDP is ~58 trillion. So it's in fact only 7 months of global GDP not 7 years. So it's quite possible there are other errors.

Anyway, at $34 trillion per degree, we could turn Venus into an Earth-like planet for a mere ~$14 quadrillion. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Bonam

[waldo]

hey lukin... don't stretch yourself too far with your "interesting perspective" analysis - hey? For those of us less inclined to pour through another of your blind links dropped without comment, is there actually anything noteworthy in it? Is there actually something that might instill a desire to read the slop/hash from the fake Lawdee Monckton, something to allow one to get beyond Monckton's charade and the most basic of facts that he's simply another of those frothing squawkers railing on about "new world order" and a "world government"... notwithstanding, of course, he's just another clown who can't fathom the distinction between world governance and world government!

but hey, kudos to you though lukin... given what's happened to Monckton's standing over the past year, very few have the chops to actually reference anything he has to say/offer anymore...

whaaa! Pliny likes his "science" served from the fact-plate of the charlatan Monckton! Here, Pliny... Monckton at his worst... well, actually... his worst is his best! - there be some good quotes in there, hey Pliny?

[Shady]

***** gentle reminder bump #1 *****

Hey Waldo! Are you still a big supporter of China's clean coal?

[waldo]

Hey Waldo! Are you still a big supporter of China's clean coal?

you have questions waiting for you Shady... why do you refuse to answer them? (I'm particularly keen to have your, uhhh... "insight" on industrialized nation outsource emission practices to China).

I've written several posts concerning China's practices in this thread - you should actually read them instead of repeatedly flapping your beak and making yourself look more of an icehole than you are - your desired answer can be found there. I've also written repeatedly, and in depth, about the IEA roadmap and technology requirements over the next 40+ years - your desired answer can also be found there - try the MLW search feature - hey?

let's add a few more questions for you - hey? What's your definition of "clean coal", how do you see it being applied with respect to China's past/current practices... how do you perceive some distinction (say advantage) that you believe China may hold... I mean, really, there must be something that's got you wildly spinning with a poker up your ass, bleating on repeatedly about clean coal. What's your reason, for such an interest in what you're calling China's "clean coal"... what is it, Shady - what's your point? I recall you saying something about "forbidders" some time back - are you a forbidder Shady?

[Guest TrueMetis]

An interesting perspective.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/10/moncktons-mexican-missive-4/

You know this guy is an idiot right? Aside from making the weather = climate claim in that blog, he's actually guaranteed in the past that northern polar ice would stop declining. He was completely wrong on that point, the guy's a moron. Though I have a quick question.

They were regarded as sacred by the “first nations”, as the indigenous peoples are now coyly called, and archaeologists have had much fun diving beneath the waters in the cenotes to recover all manner of pre-Columbian artefacts and assorted archaeological knick-knacks.

Do Mexicans refer to them as First Nations? It was my understanding that this is generally only used in Canada?.

[Jack Weber]

You know this guy is an idiot right? Aside from making the weather = climate claim in that blog, he's actually guaranteed in the past that northern polar ice would stop declining. He was completely wrong on that point, the guy's a moron. Though I have a quick question.

Do Mexicans refer to them as First Nations? It was my understanding that this is generally only used in Canada?.

Interesting question...

Frankly,and just anecdotally,many Mexican's are "Mestizo" like you...Mixed with indigenous and Spanish bloodlines.I do not know if there are any pure Mexican tribes left...The Aztec's and Mayan's are long gone...Like the Carib's and the Arawaks in the West Indies...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Interesting question...

Frankly,and just anecdotally,many Mexican's are "Mestizo" like you...Mixed with indigenous and Spanish bloodlines.I do not know if there are any pure Mexican tribes left...The Aztec's and Mayan's are long gone...Like the Carib's and the Arawaks in the West Indies...

That's why I ask most Mexicans have more than a splash of First Nations in them, so it seems to me like they would just call themselves Mexicans. I know of one pure tribe left in Mexico, and now they're having problems with drug cartels.

[jbg]

That's why I ask most Mexicans have more than a splash of First Nations in them, so it seems to me like they would just call themselves Mexicans. I know of one pure tribe left in Mexico, and now they're having problems with drug cartels.

What tribe is that? And where are they? I know it's off-topic.

[lukin]

There are becoming more and more scientists skeptical of the human factor. This is a great article.

http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

[GostHacked]

That was a good read. We need science behind the claims not nonsensical politicians or the likes of waldo.

We can turn to some books as well. Currently reading this one

http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-Lawrence-Solomon/dp/0980076315

Basically all of the opponents of AGW deny that any data in their respected fields show that man is the major cause of global warming. These are scientists that overall believe that AGW is true, but in each of their respected fields, they have no conclusive data showing it is all true. The book gets into the hockey stick that Gore liked, and when the correct math was done, the stick went away. There were apparently some flaws in the model and data that was used to render the hockey stick. The article you posted hints on that very fact that the numbers/data seem to be fudged.

If there are no people/scientists coming out against AGW ... why can I easily go to the book store and buy about 5-10 books on exactly this same subject of scientists coming out against AGW. Sure any scientists can write a book on any subject, but it seems like anyone (including the so called inventor of the Internet lolololol) can write a book to.

To me the whole AGW is an economic/political problem and not really a scientific problem.

Edited December 12, 2010 by GostHacked

[lukin]

We can turn to some books as well. Currently reading this one

http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-Lawrence-Solomon/dp/0980076315

Basically all of the opponents of AGW deny that any data in their respected fields show that man is the major cause of global warming. These are scientists that overall believe that AGW is true, but in each of their respected fields, they have no conclusive data showing it is all true. The book gets into the hockey stick that Gore liked, and when the correct math was done, the stick went away. There were apparently some flaws in the model and data that was used to render the hockey stick. The article you posted hints on that very fact that the numbers/data seem to be fudged.

If there are no people/scientists coming out against AGW ... why can I easily go to the book store and buy about 5-10 books on exactly this same subject of scientists coming out against AGW. Sure any scientists can write a book on any subject, but it seems like anyone (including the so called inventor of the Internet lolololol) can write a book to.

To me the whole AGW is an economic/political problem and not really a scientific problem.

Beware GH. I mentioned this exact same book in a previous thread, and waldo ripped it apart. I read the book, and it is a very good book.

[GostHacked]

Beware GH. I mentioned this exact same book in a previous thread, and waldo ripped it apart. I read the book, and it is a very good book.

Which is odd, because some of the scientists in this book work for NOAA and are on the IPCC. But no, we don't need to listen to them. In the end we could both be wrong Lukin, at least we should be able to admit that. And that is what we need to keep doing, having an open mind, and being skeptical at the same time.

[lukin]

Which is odd, because some of the scientists in this book work for NOAA and are on the IPCC. But no, we don't need to listen to them. In the end we could both be wrong Lukin, at least we should be able to admit that. And that is what we need to keep doing, having an open mind, and being skeptical at the same time.

I agree GH. I could be wrong, you could be wrong....all I want is to have the skeptics be given a fair chance to explain why they are skeptical. At one time I truly believed humans were causing climate change. Now, after a lot pf reading, I'm not convinced. It seems more political than scientific. It's interesting to hear the AGW proponents label the skeptical scientists as kooks. The funny thing is they weren't kooks when they believed humans were causing climate change, they only become kooks when they reverse their position.

[Wild Bill]

Beware GH. I mentioned this exact same book in a previous thread, and waldo ripped it apart. I read the book, and it is a very good book.

I'll bet you 3 beer that Waldo never actually read it! Never seems to slow him down with a rebuttal, though.

[lukin]

I'll bet you 3 beer that Waldo never actually read it! Never seems to slow him down with a rebuttal, though.

That is extremely accurate, wild bill.

Here are some posts from waldo with respect to the book GH mentioned.

sorry to burst your bubble... ya, ya, noted denier Lawrence Solomon writes a book titled Deniers - yet not one... not one... of the 10 scientists he profiled is a denier of AGW. That's fraud lukin, that's fraud you're perpetuating. Did you just ignore the reference to the apology the National Post was forced to print?

yesindeedee, Simple... as you say, slowly but surely, the lazy dishonest journalists are being exposed for what they truly are. There's certainly no shortage of critical attachment to Solomon's writings... would you like... more... Simple? It seems we've had a recent rash of like Solomon spewing from the usual suspects - apparently... it has something to do with the recent British HOC exoneration of CRU and Phil Jones - go figure!

So, no he didn't read the book. He just quotes what others have said.

Edited December 12, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

buddies... is there something 'extra' that's got your denial in a tizzy... has the baby-steps Cancun agreement ratcheted up your fervor and determination to actually source the science that supports your unsubstantiated denial? Truly, if that's the case, I trust we'll see a strong departure from your typical past MLW posts and a move to actually bring the baseless denial argument forward... I mean, after all, you've got the Inhofe/Morano list of 400, 650, 700, 1000 to draw from!

[wyly]

Interesting question...

Frankly,and just anecdotally,many Mexican's are "Mestizo" like you...Mixed with indigenous and Spanish bloodlines.I do not know if there are any pure Mexican tribes left...The Aztec's and Mayan's are long gone...Like the Carib's and the Arawaks in the West Indies...

the mayans are still alive and well, as a united tribal/nation no, as a distinct people they are still there...the aztecs are mixed in to the general population but so is every nationality of europe...

[waldo]

There are becoming more and more scientists skeptical of the human factor. This is a great article.

wow! You actually are a neophyte... there's a veritable cottage industry out there that's refuted the previous Inhofe/Morano iterative and growing lists - from 400, to 650, to 700... to the moon!!! Google could save you additional embarrassment next time. I recall one of the more comprehensive efforts, after eliminating the obvious (re: non-scientists) and names that were improperly on the lists (re: protestations from named persons that arose after the fact), worked to categorize the names into a short summary basis... bringing forward, principally, 5 main groupings, 2 groupings that challenged Data and Theory (but, of course, the challenges couldn't stand the test of consensus science), 1 grouping that pleaded to the Ignorance of "we just don't know enough", and 2 that were totally outside the realm of science altogether, (Political and Conspiracy). Of course, the lists are weighted heavily in favour of persons not actually working directly in the related science fields... notwithstanding many 'retirees' no longer even active in science.

there's also a veritable cottage industry that's put together support for the scientific consensus... numerous previous MLW threads/posts have addressed this... links a plenty - MLW search is your friend.

lukin, I expect your only saving grace is you didn't trot out the "Oregon Petition".

[Shady]

What's your reason, for such an interest in what you're calling China's "clean coal"... what is it, Shady - what's your point?

This is my point.

already covered... China is building new more efficient coal power plants... and actively engaged in replacing old, less efficient coal power plants.

I was just wondering if you're a supporter of newer, and more efficient coal power plants in North America as well. That's all.

[wyly]

Basically all of the opponents of AGW deny that any data in their respected fields show that man is the major cause of global warming. These are scientists that overall believe that AGW is true, but in each of their respected fields, they have no conclusive data showing it is all true. The book gets into the hockey stick that Gore liked, and when the correct math was done, the stick went away. There were apparently some flaws in the model and data that was used to render the hockey stick. The article you posted hints on that very fact that the numbers/data seem to be fudged.

the hockey stick has been verified, any errors made by Mann didn't add of to much as others studies taking errors into account came up with the same result...but like so often in life people only hear the one result and that rules the rest of their lives, like 70's ice age myth no matter how many times you demonstrate it was product of media hype and their own perception they refuse to let it go......

If there are no people/scientists coming out against AGW ... why can I easily go to the book store and buy about 5-10 books on exactly this same subject of scientists coming out against AGW. Sure any scientists can write a book on any subject, but it seems like anyone (including the so called inventor of the Internet lolololol) can write a book to.

and who here has every cited al gore as a scientific source? please point them out, I've been waiting a year since Pliny made that accusation of myself and waldo to back it up, still waiting...go ahead and read all the unqualified opinions you want just don't trot them out as experts...

and much as it may pain gore haters he very much is responsible for the internet as we know it...

To me the whole AGW is an economic/political problem and not really a scientific problem.

no you're putting the cart before the horse...it's a scientific problem with economic and political consequences... Edited December 12, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

The book gets into the hockey stick that Gore liked, and when the correct math was done, the stick went away. There were apparently some flaws in the model and data that was used to render the hockey stick. The article you posted hints on that very fact that the numbers/data seem to be fudged.

bullshit! Now... you've resorted to simply throwing shit... for shit-throwing sake.

you know, absolutely know, there is complete and total substantiation to support the hockey-stick... notwithstanding it's relative unimportance in the actual current protestations coming forward from deniers. Repeated, and ongoing, year over year, over a decade plus... new reconstructions have vindicated the original ground-breaking effort... the original effort that, in itself, was loaded with uncertainty and error recognition - that never gets acknowledged by the 'shit throwers'.

as is the denier way, as is frequently becoming your way, it's simply enough for you to "throw shit" without actually doing any investigation. Few... save the likes of the never-ending auditor McIntyre, who has spent his last decade of "blog science" attempting to "break the hockey-stick" really attempts to challenge it anymore. Again, you're not new to these MLW climate change related threads... I know you've been involved in past related discussions concerning the 'hockey stick' - you know the scientific support for the hockey stick exists - yet... you simply choose to throw shit.

on edit: acknowledging wyly's previous post and an admirable patience level... one I simply have no time or stomach for. I guess it's simply time to invoke the ignore list... once again.

Edited December 12, 2010 by waldo

[GostHacked]

the hockey stick has been verified, any errors made by Mann didn't add of to much as others studies taking errors into account came up with the same result...but like so often in life people only hear the one result and that rules the rest of their lives, like 70's ice age myth no matter how many times you demonstrate it was product of media hype and their own perception they refuse to let it go......

According to the historical data that some scientists mentioned in the book obtained, each of their fields did not show that humans are causing the recent warming. It has been getting warmer since the last ice age, at about 1-2 degrees Celsius per century since that time. As the book stated, all these scientists quoted do believe in AGW, however when you put their independent studies together as they are, each of their fields show that nothing out of the ordinary is happening and there is no correlation to burning fossil fuels that create CO2. Why would this be dismissed so easily? Are scientists blinded and hypnotized to believe in the AWG they seem to ignore their own data which shows otherwise?

and who here has every cited al gore as a scientific source? please point them out, I've been waiting a year since Pliny made that accusation of myself and waldo to back it up, still waiting...go ahead and read all the unqualified opinions you want just don't trot them out as experts... and much as it may pain gore haters he very much is responsible for the internet as we know it...

I am hoping that is a joke, because if you think that it is true about Gore creating the Internet as we know it, then we really have a problem here. He may have been part of some legislation for the net, that is about it.

no you're putting the cart before the horse...it's a scientific problem with economic and political consequences...

IF we are really in that much trouble, there is no amount of money in the world that we can print that would make lick of difference. If there really is a problem you do what you can you solve it, regardless of money and resources. If you are diagnosed with cancer, do you pay whatever you can to treat yourself yo stay alive? How much is your life worth? How much is 7 billion lives worth to you? There simple is not enough money to solve the issue, so I can't ever see it as an economic problem. Will an economy really matter if there is nothing to produce or sell?

And if we need to invest in technologies to reverse AGW, then we need to invest in more than 100 billion per year to get these technologies off the ground and working right away, post haste! But since there are skeptics and scientists that oppose the AGW angel, there really is no consensus on the issue itself, let alone what to do about it.

[GostHacked]

bullshit! Now... you've resorted to simply throwing shit... for shit-throwing sake.

Waldo, waldo waldo .. you have thrown more crap and insults at me alone than others have collectively at you. But this is where most normal people and logical thinkers will tell you to go piss up a rope. If this is the way you debate, then you are only hurting yourself in the long run, hell you already have damaged yourself as to your reputation here on MLW. I'd be hurt if I actually gave a damn.

you know, absolutely know, there is complete and total substantiation to support the hockey-stick... notwithstanding it's relative unimportance in the actual current protestations coming forward from deniers. Repeated, and ongoing, year over year, over a decade plus... new reconstructions have vindicated the original ground-breaking effort... the original effort that, in itself, was loaded with uncertainty and error recognition - that never gets acknowledged by the 'shit throwers'.

I think the hockey stick is still debatable. However, I don't think it really shows the whole story. I don't have much 'faith' in it. Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist. He was a politician, meaning he knows what lobbying is all about. And if you want something, you grease some hands with some money. Al Gore is set up for the hugest windfall ever. Gates' money will look like chump change.

as is the denier way, as is frequently becoming your way, it's simply enough for you to "throw shit" without actually doing any investigation. Few... save the likes of the never-ending auditor McIntyre, who has spent his last decade of "blog science" attempting to "break the hockey-stick" really attempts to challenge it anymore. Again, you're not new to these MLW climate change related threads... I know you've been involved in past related discussions concerning the 'hockey stick' - you know the scientific support for the hockey stick exists - yet... you simply choose to throw shit.

Unlike other shit throwers, I am actually taking the time to educate myself on it. Some of these books are not freakin cheap either. I may actually still come out on your side. But when you post I instantly want to glaze over them, because I know what I am getting from you.

If I get to your side, do you have solutions that we can try or are you simply going to shoot me down some more with some crap like 'I told you so'. Simply juvenile.

on edit: acknowledging wyly's previous post and an admirable patience level... one I simply have no time or stomach for. I guess it's simply time to invoke the ignore list... once again.

Might as well do yourself a favour and throw me on that ignore list right now. Trust me, I am going to be a huge pain in your ass.

Edited December 12, 2010 by GostHacked

[wyly]

According to the historical data that some scientists mentioned in the book obtained, each of their fields did not show that humans are causing the recent warming. It has been getting warmer since the last ice age, at about 1-2 degrees Celsius per century since that time. As the book stated, all these scientists quoted do believe in AGW, however when you put their independent studies together as they are, each of their fields show that nothing out of the ordinary is happening and there is no correlation to burning fossil fuels that create CO2. Why would this be dismissed so easily? Are scientists blinded and hypnotized to believe in the AWG they seem to ignore their own data which shows otherwise?

do you want to explain the bold underlined again....what you're claiming is a physical impossibility unless I misunderstand what you've written...

I am hoping that is a joke, because if you think that it is true about Gore creating the Internet as we know it, then we really have a problem here. He may have been part of some legislation for the net, that is about it.

the legislatiion was crucial www...research it before you blindly follow others politcial driven myths...

IF we are really in that much trouble, there is no amount of money in the world that we can print that would make lick of difference. If there really is a problem you do what you can you solve it, regardless of money and resources. If you are diagnosed with cancer, do you pay whatever you can to treat yourself yo stay alive? How much is your life worth? How much is 7 billion lives worth to you? There simple is not enough money to solve the issue, so I can't ever see it as an economic problem. Will an economy really matter if there is nothing to produce or sell?

will the economy matter when everything is dead?...it's a matter of priority there is no alternative...when the Nazi's brought war to the world was cost a factor in deciding to combat it? no, there was no alternative it had to be done regardless the price...

And if we need to invest in technologies to reverse AGW, then we need to invest in more than 100 billion per year to get these technologies off the ground and working right away, post haste! But since there are skeptics and scientists that oppose the AGW angel, there really is no consensus on the issue itself, let alone what to do about it.

you're in serious denial now there is absolutey concensus on CC and even what needs to be done...there is only footdragging and stalling that prevents progress....

[GostHacked]

do you want to explain the bold underlined again....what you're claiming is a physical impossibility unless I misunderstand what you've written...

That seems to be the premise of this book exactly. The author does state that the majority of the scientists he investigated/talked to for the book show exactly what I am saying. They all do believe in AGW, but their independent studies do not show what the overall data is showing. Why is that?

the legislatiion was crucial www...research it before you blindly follow others politcial driven myths...

How is legislation an Inventor of the internet? When did that happen? No matter how much I search I can't find Al Gore's name anywhere that indicates he invented the Internet. And when did he invent it?

will the economy matter when everything is dead?...it's a matter of priority there is no alternative...when the Nazi's brought war to the world was cost a factor in deciding to combat it? no, there was no alternative it had to be done regardless the price...

No an economy won't make a difference if people are dead. IF we are on this course, then we will be forced to go along with it weather we believe it or not. I think that is dangerous as well.

you're in serious denial now there is absolutey concensus on CC and even what needs to be done...there is only footdragging and stalling that prevents progress....

The only stalling is by those who want to trade money to keep polluting or by going to nice spots in the sun to discuss where they are going to hold the next summit. No matter what I say, something is going to be done about it one way or another. My voice in the overall scheme of things means nothing. I am a denier, I make NO apologies about that.

Do you believe the item that is carbon cap trading solves any issue of pollution of CO2 that contributes to global warming? IF so, how much do I need to spend to continue polluting at the rate I am currently at?