Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[GostHacked]

it was speculation though I don't know how you can verify how much cooling contrails cause without stopping all air traffic for a week...if we were to assume that it has a cooling effect can we say with certianty it is 2 degrees (C or F)?... perhaps it was going to be warmer that week regardless maybe 1.9 and the contrails had a cooling effective of only .1 degree...

Someone keeps pointing to when the planes were grounded on 9/11 and the subsequent rise/drop in temps. If you understand what clouds do for global warming, then you can understand what a bunch of trails that spread out over a day into a haze do for cooling/heating. I wonder if any studies have been done with the 'persistent contrails'.

[wyly]

Someone keeps pointing to when the planes were grounded on 9/11 and the subsequent rise/drop in temps. If you understand what clouds do for global warming, then you can understand what a bunch of trails that spread out over a day into a haze do for cooling/heating. I wonder if any studies have been done with the 'persistent contrails'.

don't know...maybe it's just news to us but they've already been taken into consideration...there are experiments already underway to make clouds but that's geo engineering something we shouldn't do... Edited January 14, 2011 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

Remember socialism is a "progressive" march. You want a global authority for climate change. Someone else wants a global authority to watch over banks. Someone else wants a global authority to manage the transfer of funds to third world countries. Someone else wants a global authority to catch international criminals. Someone will want a global currency printed by a global authority. Someone will want a global authority to design sustainable cities. Someone will want a global authority to manage resources. Someone will want a global health care system. And that will all mean the necessity for a centralized global tax authority. Then someone will want a global authority to fine recalcitrant national populations recalcitrant to global initiatives. Then, when all that centralization of power is well-concentrated, a power struggle results and the one willing to be the most dastardly, because nice guys finish last, will sieze the reins and we have a totalitarian socialist world. Isn't that great.

I'm just on the watch, Michael.

I don't see how your concerns are particular to global government. These things could happen with any national government too. If the democracy is designed properly, then the risk of this scenario is much lower.

You 're worried about a .6 C rise in temperature? That hockey stick graph looks mighty steep at the end

and scary but the scale is designed to accent it.

The effects of warming? Well, if there were no anthropogenic factor in the climate and it started a warming trend what would we do? Attempt to defy the natural cycle out of a fear of the effects of the warming? We can't control climate and until we can we just have to adapt. No one is arguing that we should continue polluting in an irresponsible manner. What is planned is a vast change in the global economy as a solution. Perhaps climate change advocates are raising the necessity level for change and increased responsibility but they are using jackhammer tactics and I just have to say that implementation of the current political plans would be more sweepingly detrimental in the period of a decade than the effects of warming over a century.

In the same post you say "if there were no anthropogenic factor" and .... "We can't control climate...". Well, are are controlling climate.

A vast change in the economy ? I think I've seen mid-single-digits as a percentage of GDP as proposed investment - not a vast change.

[Saipan]

Well, are are controlling climate.

Can you warm it up, please.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you warm it up, please.

We are doing that.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't see how your concerns are particular to global government. These things could happen with any national government too. If the democracy is designed properly, then the risk of this scenario is much lower.

A little (?) naive. If one can agree that the AGW project is one of the main catalysts behind Global Governance, then one has to examine the underpinnings of Kyoto/Copenhagen.....the West is responsible for the buildup of CO2 and therefore they should pay reparations to developing nations. One doesn't have to project that approach too far to see the giant seeds of Socialism - "let's engineer society to give an even playing field for everyone". Sounds pretty good at first blush, doesn't it? But do you really want to go down that path? Top-down government that is ultimately driven by the elite? Father knows best.....now that is scary.

And how do you get consensus for Global Governance? Even here in Canada, 85% of citizens are against the NDP, 72% are against the Liberals, and 65% are against the Conservatives. How much weight do you think Canada would carry in a Global Governance model?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Saipan]

We are doing that.

Where?

[Michael Hardner]

Where?

See previous posts on this topic.

[Michael Hardner]

A little (?) naive. If one can agree that the AGW project is one of the main catalysts behind Global Governance, then one has to examine the underpinnings of Kyoto/Copenhagen.....the West is responsible for the buildup of CO2 and therefore they should pay reparations to developing nations. One doesn't have to project that approach too far to see the giant seeds of Socialism - "let's engineer society to give an even playing field for everyone". Sounds pretty good at first blush, doesn't it? But do you really want to go down that path? Top-down government that is ultimately driven by the elite? Father knows best.....now that is scary.

That's not exactly what Pliny was talking about. He was talking about a world dictatorship, I think, in the conventional way that dictatorships work.

Top-down government that is driven by the elite ? Where is that not done ?

And how do you get consensus for Global Governance? Even here in Canada, 85% of citizens are against the NDP, 72% are against the Liberals, and 65% are against the Conservatives. How much weight do you think Canada would carry in a Global Governance model?

Are you asking how to get consensus because you want to help us start to plan it ?

How much weight would Canada carry ? I imagine it would be more than our numbers warrant, given our wealth and proximity to power #1.

[Saipan]

Top-down government that is driven by the elite ? Where is that not done ?

In countries that have free elections.

[Pliny]

I don't see how your concerns are particular to global government. These things could happen with any national government too. If the democracy is designed properly, then the risk of this scenario is much lower.

Where is there a properly designed Democracy? For a government to remain an agency of the people, for the people, in an all inclusive manner, it can only govern on the common interests of "all", which implies a very limited role, that is if a diverse and thriving population is desired. It cannot start catering to various interest groups without institutionalizing bias, discrimination, divisiveness, favour and privilege. I am not saying those elements will not exist in society nor do I believe they should not, just that those common interests are elements of a society that only our common bonds will keep us together and strong enough to deal be able to deal with those problems of society. The cohesiveness of a nation lies in the populations agreed upon common bonds. So on a national level the government should be concerned with strengthening those bonds and not in the vote buying of catering to special interest groups.

A vast change in the economy ? I think I've seen mid-single-digits as a percentage of GDP as proposed investment - not a vast change.

I believe you are, perhaps in the interests of debate, being a little obtuse. Look at what has been proposed, such as the failed Kyoto Accord. It's a failed document regarding global economic shifts and transfers of wealth that most can see has little effect, if any on the problem of climate change. Because Kyoto has failed the political direction is to ramp up the political will, grant more power to the global body, "because there is a consensus", to implement even more draconian economic policies. The "political will" is not about reason it is about force. Kyoto failed, as it should have. Of course, the policies are kept alive by various interest groups that have made investments based upon that government policy.

In the same post you say "if there were no anthropogenic factor" and .... "We can't control climate...". Well, are are controlling climate.

Are you saying we ARE controlling climate, or asking if we are controlling climate? I dont' see a question mark so I assume you are saying we are controlling climate. If we are then climate change is not a problem.

To clarify what I said, hypothesize there were no Anthropogenic component to global warming and that our current warming were a natural climatic cycle or event. It can't be hard to imagine this as warming and cooling periods are evident in the past. So hypothesize this warming trend is a natural event without an anthropogenic factor. Imagine we have been totally responsible in our activities and development and recycle everything, do not use fossil fuels at all and, in other words, do not contribute an iota to the release of excess carbon or an increase in greenhouse gasses. Yet the climate has warmed .6C over the last century. The solutions are we either develop the means to control the climate or adapt to the naturally changing temperatures or climate change. Politically what would we do? As there is no perceived anthropogenic component we would only have the option of moving towards climate control. So politically we just encourage that objective with a system of rewards and punsishments. Government after all does not create it's own profits to do these things. It takes it from the wealth of the nation.

Now add in an anthropogenic component of increased green house gas emissions. Solution - decrease green hous gas emissions. The political way of accomplishing objectives, in this day and age, is to economically punish and reward activities accordingly - redistributing wealth basically, as well as paying itself handsomely. (It's a shame they get paid so little compared to the private sector though, really!Heh..Heh). So, primarily they will enact legislation that redistributes wealth, hoping it has an effect and people on the wrong side of the legislation don't just fudge numbers, hide things under the carpet, or develop some way around punitive measures, while people on the right side of the legislation call for increased measures, by fudging numbers, hiding things under the carpet or developing some way to further improve and ensure their good fortune. In other words, the whole scenario evolves into one big lie on both sides of the fence and the truth lies who knows where. Government further promotes distortion by then granting entitlements to the most convincing argument for their privilege or to those furthering it's preferred policy objectives, such as those scientists under the auspices of government encouraged to back those objectives, only if possible, of course (Heh...Heh!).

In the end, the private sector will be doing all the work anyway. "Political will" acts primarily in it's interests but likes the perception of them to be benevolently and efficiently looking after the welfare of the common good, and most importantly - they have to appear to be right(As opposed to wrong, not as opposed to left). It winds up that people get upset with their favour, privilege and entitlements to some and lack of them to others and Despots arrive out of the woodwork because they are willing to do the dirty work, eliminate competition and ingratiate himself to the public, in order to grab the reins of power.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

That's not exactly what Pliny was talking about. He was talking about a world dictatorship, I think, in the conventional way that dictatorships work.

I was talking about how progressivism grows government in any scenario.

Top-down government that is driven by the elite ? Where is that not done ?

We trust the experts. It is supposed to be democratically driven but is increasingly elite driven and that's the point of progressive socialism.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

In countries that have free elections.

There's no elite in the US ? Wow. Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones would really have a field day with you.

[Michael Hardner]

Where is there a properly designed Democracy? For a government to remain an agency of the people, for the people, in an all inclusive manner, it can only govern on the common interests of "all", which implies a very limited role, that is if a diverse and thriving population is desired. It cannot start catering to various interest groups without institutionalizing bias, discrimination, divisiveness, favour and privilege. I am not saying those elements will not exist in society nor do I believe they should not, just that those common interests are elements of a society that only our common bonds will keep us together and strong enough to deal be able to deal with those problems of society. The cohesiveness of a nation lies in the populations agreed upon common bonds. So on a national level the government should be concerned with strengthening those bonds and not in the vote buying of catering to special interest groups.

Right... but how long is a piece of string ? That is, set your definitions for "long" "short" "properly designed" understanding that it can only be subjective and there is no perfection. Ours does well enough, in my view.

I believe you are, perhaps in the interests of debate, being a little obtuse. Look at what has been proposed, such as the failed Kyoto Accord. It's a failed document regarding global economic shifts and transfers of wealth that most can see has little effect, if any on the problem of climate change. Because Kyoto has failed the political direction is to ramp up the political will, grant more power to the global body, "because there is a consensus", to implement even more draconian economic policies. The "political will" is not about reason it is about force. Kyoto failed, as it should have. Of course, the policies are kept alive by various interest groups that have made investments based upon that government policy.

Really ? It seems to me that Kyoto is evidence against your thesis. The replacement agreement was much weaker, showing that global decision making can happen and it doesn't necessarily go against the west (your view) every time.

Are you saying we ARE controlling climate, or asking if we are controlling climate? I dont' see a question mark so I assume you are saying we are controlling climate. If we are then climate change is not a problem.

We are making the climate warmer.

To clarify what I said, hypothesize there were no Anthropogenic component to global warming and that our current warming were a natural climatic cycle or event. It can't be hard to imagine this as warming and cooling periods are evident in the past. So hypothesize this warming trend is a natural event without an anthropogenic factor. Imagine we have been totally responsible in our activities and development and recycle everything, do not use fossil fuels at all and, in other words, do not contribute an iota to the release of excess carbon or an increase in greenhouse gasses. Yet the climate has warmed .6C over the last century. The solutions are we either develop the means to control the climate or adapt to the naturally changing temperatures or climate change. Politically what would we do?

It's impossible to predict what we would do, or how we would debate our way forward other than to say the different opinions would break down along party lines.

As there is no perceived anthropogenic component we would only have the option of moving towards climate control. So politically we just encourage that objective with a system of rewards and punsishments. Government after all does not create it's own profits to do these things. It takes it from the wealth of the nation.

Now add in an anthropogenic component of increased green house gas emissions. Solution - decrease green hous gas emissions. The political way of accomplishing objectives, in this day and age, is to economically punish and reward activities accordingly - redistributing wealth basically, as well as paying itself handsomely. (It's a shame they get paid so little compared to the private sector though, really!Heh..Heh).

But you acknowledge that the objective is to mitigate against change, so the economic outcomes are side-effects according to your own scenario.

So, primarily they will enact legislation that redistributes wealth, hoping it has an effect and people on the wrong side of the legislation don't just fudge numbers, hide things under the carpet, or develop some way around punitive measures, while people on the right side of the legislation call for increased measures, by fudging numbers, hiding things under the carpet or developing some way to further improve and ensure their good fortune. In other words, the whole scenario evolves into one big lie on both sides of the fence and the truth lies who knows where. Government further promotes distortion by then granting entitlements to the most convincing argument for their privilege or to those furthering it's preferred policy objectives, such as those scientists under the auspices of government encouraged to back those objectives, only if possible, of course (Heh...Heh!).

In the end, the private sector will be doing all the work anyway. "Political will" acts primarily in it's interests but likes the perception of them to be benevolently and efficiently looking after the welfare of the common good, and most importantly - they have to appear to be right(As opposed to wrong, not as opposed to left). It winds up that people get upset with their favour, privilege and entitlements to some and lack of them to others and Despots arrive out of the woodwork because they are willing to do the dirty work, eliminate competition and ingratiate himself to the public, in order to grab the reins of power.

The private sector will be doing all the work, in that they'll be refitting their processes according to how the group determines is the best way to operate.

Yes, I can see that this issue is just another one that reflects your general mistrust of government.

[Michael Hardner]

We trust the experts. It is supposed to be democratically driven but is increasingly elite driven and that's the point of progressive socialism.

Increasingly elite driven ? Compared to when, though ? Keep in mind we emerged from monarchies not that long ago.

[Saipan]

See previous posts on this topic.

I don't want to see OPINIONS. I want warmer weather.

[bloodyminded]

ahhh I had seen the term "sockpuppet" before but I'd never looked into what it meant, now I know ...

I've noticed more and more deniers trying to sneak over to the "I knew it was AGW all along" position...

Remember....no living person, 45 years ago, hated Martin Luther King. Every single person alive always thought he was a good man, on the right side of history. It's quite remarkable; we know that tons of folks despised him, but not a single one appears to still be alive!

Edited January 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

I don't want to see OPINIONS. I want warmer weather.

I said -> SEE PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS TOPIC.

[Saipan]

I said -> SEE PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS TOPIC.

I did, and it's still -22C.

[WIP]

I don't want to see OPINIONS. I want warmer weather.

You'll get more warm weather than you can handle after all of ice up north has finally melted.

[Saipan]

You'll get more warm weather than you can handle after all of ice up north has finally melted.

Or when I move to Thailand

Btw, what makes you think all the ice will melt? If ANY AT ALL ice melts THEN New Orleans - or Holland - is no more.

If anyone actually believed that crap only idiots would be rebuilding New Orleans. Which I'm sure even you know is below the sea level.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Saipan