Bonam Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 The problem with having MLW posters argue the science directly is that many of us have no idea what we're talking about. I could open up my old textbooks and do some linear regression on those numbers, and even point out some things that have been done incorrectly by you so far but even I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that and I have experience with it. I'm suspecting you just eyeballed the numbers and came up with your conclusion based on that. We should leave the science to the experts, period, and review what they have to say about it - not what bloggers and the like have to say about it. There is no point discussing what one does not understand. If people here are incapable of understanding the science, at least roughly, then why do they bother arguing about it? If someone with no understanding of the fundamentals tries to review and make arguments based on the conclusions of scientists, they will inevitably make horrendous mistakes the moment they try to synthesize multiple sources, paraphrase any of their sources, or basically do anything at all to try to make an argument besides direct quotation. Really, there is no point discussing the scientific theories, models, data, and analysis if you do not have an understanding of them. It is no better than people who barely grasp arithmetic trying to debate the consequences and implications of the theory of relativity, they will go hopelessly astray even if they start with the best intentions. What we can discuss here is the policies that are proposed/implemented in regards to climate change. These discussions can start from a certain point, for example: 1) assume CO2 levels have a significant effect on the climate and discuss what policies might be best in that light, 2) assume that AGW is non-existent or negligible and discuss how alarmist policies are dangerous, 3) try to quantify the costs of reducing CO2 emissions and compare that to the expected costs of adapting to damage caused by climate change. There are many worthwhile discussions that can be had here. But no one on this board is gonna convince anyone else here as to whether the Earth really is warming or not, or whether humans have a significant effect on that warming. Those things are a matter of science and frankly a read through a few wikipedia articles will give a much better review of that than weeks of arguing here ever could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 As many of you already know - my scepticism of AGW is rooted in the fundamental measurement of temperatures. The Global "gridding", adjustments for numerous issues such as urban heat islands, and the overall "homogenizing" of data is a mish-mash of processes that is impossibly complex. The US National Climatic Data Center provides average temperatures for the Contiguous US states and using their simple calculator, one can come up with some results that may surprise people. I find them much more relevant because it excludes a lot of the "global" issues that make things so complex - but if Global Warming is not happening in the US, who cares! and here I thought since your self-described "big hole" was recently plugged in another MLW thread, we wouldn't see you continue your charade challenging the integrity of the temperature records... or your continued inferences that it's "cooling"... or as you now say in your OP... "moderating". Of course you've many times over, trotted out your parroting of your favourite TV weatherman's unsubstantiated challenges to the integrity of the U.S. surface temperature record... whether it's UHI, or overall normalization facets, I've repeatedly referenced the direct NOAA refutations to your favoured TV weatherman's nonsense. And yet you persist. it's actually quite humorous to see you prance around speaking of your presumed OP exercise that's allowing you to, as you say, "exclude a lot of the "global" issues that make things so complex"!!! Ya, ya... that complexity is a real bitch - hey? Notwithstanding your continued stoopid idiocy targeting short-term trending intervals (in this OP case, you're running repeated 10 year intervals) - duh! But then again, that has been one of your continued failings... in the face of repeated and ongoing attempts, by many MLW posters, to inform you about proper trending practices, you still persist in falling back to your nonsensical short-term trending habit/pattern - go figure! of course, in your OP, you don't actually understand the nature of the data you're referencing. In this case, the actual data used to calculate the Contiguous United States mean temperatures are from the USHCN version 2 data set... data that has gone through most of the same quality control, homogeneity testing and adjustment procedures, as performed against the global data set. So much for your puffed up claim towards "reducing complexity" in any case, about that earlier plugged "big hole" of yours... I trust your OP and additional posts within this thread provide the answer to my rhetorical question, "of course, one can ask Simple if he would change his tune... if only that "big hole"... could be plugged." All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, satellite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be. A potentially serious inconsistency has been identified in the tropics, the area in which tropospheric amplification should be seen. Section 1.1 of the CCSP report says:"In the tropics, the agreement between models and observations depends on the time scale considered. For month-to-month and year-to-year variations, models and observations both show amplification (i.e., the month-to-month and year-to-year variations are larger aloft than at the surface). This is a consequence of relatively simple physics, the effects of the release of latent heat as air rises and condenses in clouds. The magnitude of this amplification is very similar in models and observations. On decadal and longer time scales, however, while almost all model simulations show greater warming aloft (reflecting the same physical processes that operate on the monthly and annual time scales), most observations show greater warming at the surface."These results could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric data sets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report favors the second explanation." The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively. Link: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Satellite%20temperature%20measurements It's not really the measurement that's at question so much as the theory. The theory states that it should be 1.2 times warmer than surface temperature in the troposphere and 1.5 times when measured at the tropics. It is not......so either the surface temperatures are incorrect or the satellite measurements are incorrect....or the theory is incorrect. Either way, there's a big hole to fill because as I say - everything stems from the fact that temperatures are really out of sync with natural climate variation. All of the other stuff is just noise and speculation. Simple... too easy - notwithstanding the fine smackdown TrueMetis just delivered to you... let's examine what you've brought to the table: - Simple presents, as he states, "a big hole"... of course, one can ask Simple if he would change his tune... if only that "big hole"... could be plugged. ... and ya, Simple... is that you complaining about cut&paste... as you cut&paste - whaaa! - Simple keeps harping on his favourite TV weatherman's smoking-gun... UHI. Of course, we've addressed that many times over in previous MLW climate change related threads when Simple's parroted his TV weather guy. Aside from the repeated NOAA refutations that directly address the TV weatherman wizard... Simple still keeps trotting it out. - Simple's key linked (indirect) reference is actually to prominent, very legitimate scientists... several of the same names he's trashed in the past, particularly given their involvements as lead authors or contributors to IPCC reports. Somehow... Simple likes these guys - now... when he thinks he can use something for his purposes! - Simple's main reference is to a copy of a wiki page... hmmmm... careful Simple, watch out - danger ahead! - Simple's wiki article references a CCSP report; specifically CCSP 1.1. Now... certainly CCSP is a most legitimate entity/program... I've referenced CCSP reports many times, along with reports from it's covering umbrella, the USGCRP. If I recall correctly, I held up CCSP & USGCRP reports as examples of separate bodies working to review, analyze and report on climate... separate and independent of the IPCC. One can only assume Simple is reading some dated denier blog reference and can't be bothered to actually check out the basis of his, as he calls it, "big hole". Apparently... Simple doesn't realize CCSP reports are now up to CCSP 5.3 - Simple's reference is to the very first initial CCSP report, CCSP 1.1 (initiated in 2004 with final release in Feb 2006 - a full year prior to the release of the Feb 2007 IPCC AR4 report). perhaps Simple just needs to get a bit current... or actually try to check out his dated denier blog references... or just throw a MLW search out there, hey Simple? So, in the following quote string, another of the MLW usual suspects, previously trotted out a more direct reference to the same 2000 Santer et al paper that Simple's linked wiki article references. ...you must have really scrambled to find that Heartland Institute/Michaels gem. Without offering any comment you dropped a blind link to a dated “article” that references an early 2000 Santer et al study that speaks to what was, at that time, an apparent lack of tropospheric warming from 1979… that is to say, a perceived difference between surface and tropospheric warming rates. The study concludes by acknowledging: a significant difference between models and data in terms of their relative temperature changes at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This discrepancy is probably related to a combination of four factors: forcing uncertainties, model errors, residual uncertainties in the surface and MSU 2LT data, and signal estimation problems. The study conclusion continues to elaborate on each of the four factors and finishes with the statements, These results highlight the difficulty of reliably estimating the climate responses to different forcing mechanisms without multiple realizations for each forcing experiment. All of these factors make it difficult to determine the precise cause or causes of recent observed surface-troposphere temperature trend differences. To better understand these causes, we urgently require additional simulations of the climate of the past two decades. Such simulations should be performed with a variety of models and should explore current uncertainties in key natural and anthropogenic forcings, using multiple realizations of each experiment Imagine… scientists acknowledging discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems… and yet… somehow the Heartland Institute/Michaels clap-trap interprets an author’s (Santer et al) self-serving misrepresentation while at the same time throwing innuendo around – beauty! In any case, you can choose to while away in the Heartland Institute fallacious past… or you can recognize that science progresses – go figure! Santer… one of the most distinguished and recognized atmospheric scientists… has been most busy this past decade since that early 2000 paper – busy in bringing forward a most prolific body of work with multiple papers per year. With this, your latest temperature-GHG-temperature spin-cycle, perhaps you’ll give passing acknowledgment to this 2008 Santer et al paper: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a potentially serious inconsistency between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates. This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations. Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society ... or perhaps you have a more current Heartland Institute response! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Just fiddling around with NASA temperatures for the 48 Contiguous states and here's what came out - no cherry picking here - just the average (mean) temperatures for all decades from 1901: 1901-1910 52.33 1911-1920 52.00 1921-1930 52.67 1931-1940 53.37 1941-1950 52.80 1951-1960 52.96 1961-1970 52.48 1971-1980 52.53 1981-1990 53.18 1991-2000 53.57 2001-now 53.99 It appears that nothing of note was happening until - arguably - well into the 80's - even though CO2 was rising steadily (was it not?)......and then we started to have a blurp - that seems to have levelled out.....but the direct relationship to CO2 is tenuous at best. Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html and it just keeps getting better!!! Clearly nothing sticks with you... you presume to attempt to make relative comparisons (notwithstanding your continued pattern of short-term time period intervals), and you're choosing baselines that match the same 10 year interval periods (yes... I checked). on the other hand, had you chosen to present something like - this - ... well, then we would have a legitimate point of comparative discussion - hey? (graphic from NOAA presenting a time series of annual temperature anomalies from the USHCN version 2 data set... as averaged over the continental United States. Base period as 1961-1990; trends include 95% confidence limits (± one standard deviation). As the graphic shows, for the Continental U.S. (land surface temperatures only), an overall positive mean temperature anomaly trend of 0.070 °C per decade)... of course, this graphic is only to 2007 data, and doesn't include the subsequent warmest temperature records on through to 2010, current day) as for your continued eyeballing tendency (imagining to speak to CO2-to-temperature correlation) based simply on temperature data... that was dealt with in a previous MLW post (repeated, as follows)... and yes, counter to your eyeballing prowess, the CO2-to-temperature correlation is anything but, as you eyeball state, "tenuous". Rather, that CO2-to-temperature correlation is very sound/strong. Well, they sure appear to be correlated to increases in co2 so that would be kind of an unusual coincidence don't you think ? How so? Take a look at the complete record and you'll see that every decade from 1880 right up to 1980 show little or no warming - maybe even a tiny bit of cooling (look at all the blue and white). At the same time, CO2 went from 280PPM to 340 or 350PPM - why didn't the temperature start to rise until 1980 if there is such a strong correlation with CO2? Some people say that the older records have been adjusted and homogenized to make it look cooler so that recent temperatures appear warmer.....but just look at the graphs and explain that "anomole" if you can.Link to all decades: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php?all=y I suspect those are cumulative changes. I have posted the temperature graph already - here it is again: Wiki page They are not cumulative. They are decade by decade comparisons to the 30 year period 1951-1980 and thus show whether each decade was warmer or colder than that period. Your link to a temperature graph is NASA related but is in Wiki - it's a fairly simple graph - one no doubt used by IPCC. This thread was started by showing very detailed Global coverages by decade and I've just asked if by looking at the pictures for all the decades up to 1980 - whether you can see any significant warming. Even NASA claims that two thirds of the "warming has happened since 1975. If that's so, why? CO2 rose more from 1880 to 1975 than it dod from 1975 to current. notwithstanding Simple's keen eyeball prowess in presuming to interpret a historical CO2-temperature correlation from a series of image map presentations on temperatures alone... - historical trends in CO2 concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale (Vostok, Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores, SIO, CRUTEM3v) - here: - CO2 concentration and temperature trend overlay ((Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (NOAA) and annual global temperature anomaly (GISS)) from 1964 to 2008) - here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 There is no point discussing what one does not understand. If people here are incapable of understanding the science, at least roughly, then why do they bother arguing about it? If someone with no understanding of the fundamentals tries to review and make arguments based on the conclusions of scientists, they will inevitably make horrendous mistakes the moment they try to synthesize multiple sources, paraphrase any of their sources, or basically do anything at all to try to make an argument besides direct quotation. Really, there is no point discussing the scientific theories, models, data, and analysis if you do not have an understanding of them. It is no better than people who barely grasp arithmetic trying to debate the consequences and implications of the theory of relativity, they will go hopelessly astray even if they start with the best intentions. I agree, and yet this still happens on MLW. I think some of the problems with climate seem deceptively easy to understand. That fact, combined with a certain type of common-sense-arrogance makes the everyman think that he's just as good as someone who has the talent, and has spent a lifetime working in the field. It's bizarre. What we can discuss here is the policies that are proposed/implemented in regards to climate change. These discussions can start from a certain point, for example: 1) assume CO2 levels have a significant effect on the climate and discuss what policies might be best in that light, 2) assume that AGW is non-existent or negligible and discuss how alarmist policies are dangerous, 3) try to quantify the costs of reducing CO2 emissions and compare that to the expected costs of adapting to damage caused by climate change. There are many worthwhile discussions that can be had here. But no one on this board is gonna convince anyone else here as to whether the Earth really is warming or not, or whether humans have a significant effect on that warming. They might convince someone who hasn't formed an opinion, and someone with an open mind. Climategate got me to look at the issue more closely and form more of an opinion. Before I read about it, I thought there was more opposition to the theory of AGW then there is. But we still can only point to the experts, which is exactly what we should do. The best thing to do is point people towards the sources of information, and away from salesmen, middle men, and interlopers such as Al Gore (who has made deceptive errors in his film) and Glenn Beck (who appears to be a GW believer who lies about it on-air to make his show popular). Those things are a matter of science and frankly a read through a few wikipedia articles will give a much better review of that than weeks of arguing here ever could. Some people, though, are more swayed by people than facts. Even the scientists need to "get" this, IMO. Their poor grasp of how the masses make up their minds, and the resultant gap in good communication is partially responsible for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I think some of the problems with climate seem deceptively easy to understand. That fact, combined with a certain type of common-sense-arrogance makes the everyman think that he's just as good as someone who has the talent, and has spent a lifetime working in the field. It's bizarre. and this is the perfect thread to align with your observed bizarreness... Simple's ongoing campaign to discredit the surface temperature record (whether global or U.S. contiguous), reflects directly upon his parroting of his favoured TV weatherman, Anthony Watts. In the earlier MLW days, Simple actually dared to link directly to Watts' nonsense (directly from his WTFIUWT blog... or indirectly via SPPI references). Obviously, Simple no longer references Watts directly/indirectly, given the severe beat-down NOAA put upon him - to which I was more than accommodating in bringing forward on MLW to refute Simple's favoured TV weatherman. so here we have Simple, a self-proclaimed denier (oh wait, make that a 90%+ self-proclaimed denier... according to his own MLW stated degree of AGW denial), more than willing to accept (to rabidly parrot) the blathering of the charlatan Watts, over the established science... over the work/study of subject matter scientific experts. Watts is renowned for the basic fundamental mistakes he makes - and yet, he's Simple's guy; and he's (one of) the so-called leaders of the denier charge... one of the favoured Fox News interviews - the guy who has been given a completely undeserved and unwarranted mantle of "credibility" - when he has none - none whatsoever. And yet... he's Simple's guy! Watts - the guy who had the temerity to actually label/charge NOAA with fraud! (a recent December 2010 Watts blog post clearly showed the depths of Watts' idiocy (and the degree to which his admiring lappers will accept his fumbling/bumbling). In that recent post Watts continued his year-over-year misunderstandings in terms of attempting to compare temperature records (in this case, Watts presumed to challenge the integrity of NASA/Hansen in his blog post that intended to highlight the difference between the GISS global temperature for Nov.2010 and that from UAH (i.e., the UAH TLT or lower-troposphere temperature)... of course, Watts glaringly showed his complete misunderstanding in how disparate data (data sets) must be compared - he utterly and completely missed the need to align baselines for comparison - a basic fundamental requirement. As expected, his adoring lappers ate the post up... comment after repeated comment decrying the failures of NASA (of Hansen). Eventually, a comment post surfaced that highlighted the error Watts had made... and yet, Watts doubled down and reinforced his misunderstanding, until the repeated refrain of ongoing posts eventually caused him to back-peddle. However, it wasn't a back-peddle to admit his fundamental error... it was a back-peddle that highlighted his complete post was a "social experiment"; one intended to solicit comments to his fundamental error. Of course, Watts has made the same basic, fundamental error, going back years - a repeated pattern of misunderstanding... however, in this case, it was one so blatant he had to trot out his "social experiment" nonsense. And yet, he's Simple guy; Simple's go-to guy! Who needs actual subject matter scientific experts, when you have a TV weatherman to rely upon - hey, Simple?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 and this is the perfect thread to align with your observed bizarreness... Simple's ongoing campaign to discredit the surface temperature record (whether global or U.S. contiguous), reflects directly upon his parroting of his favoured TV weatherman, Anthony Watts. In the earlier MLW days, Simple actually dared to link directly to Watts' nonsense (directly from his WTFIUWT blog... or indirectly via SPPI references). Obviously, Simple no longer references Watts directly/indirectly, given the severe beat-down NOAA put upon him - to which I was more than accommodating in bringing forward on MLW to refute Simple's favoured TV weatherman. Watt's, the scientific expert without a uni degree ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Watt's, the scientific expert without a uni degree ... Just like Al Gore !!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Just like Al Gore !!!!! and who here cites al gore as an expert on climate change?...no one...only in the denier world do posters cite bloggers as scientific experts...and gore does at least have a uni degree from harvard unlike watt's who has nothing... Edited January 6, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 and who here cites al gore as an expert on climate change?...no one... Excellent point. Gore is no more a scientist to be quoted than Limbaugh/Beck/Palin are. If he quotes scientists, then it's up to us to look up the conclusions of the original work. I will say, though, that even as a journalist and blogger he's more accurate than many - and certainly not as deceptive as Beck, who tells USA Today he believes in Global Warming then says the opposite on his show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Excellent point. Gore is no more a scientist to be quoted than Limbaugh/Beck/Palin are. If he quotes scientists, then it's up to us to look up the conclusions of the original work. I will say, though, that even as a journalist and blogger he's more accurate than many - and certainly not as deceptive as Beck, who tells USA Today he believes in Global Warming then says the opposite on his show. it's something those in the denier camp just don't get...lawrence solomon, christopher booker, anthony watts, lord monkfish and the like are not scientists, they're experts of bugger all except how to make a buck selling crap to the gullible and uninformed...waldo has an extensive knowledge of the subject far better than any of the denier bloggers I listed but I wouldn't cite him as an expert either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Excellent point. Gore is no more a scientist to be quoted than Limbaugh/Beck/Palin are. If he quotes scientists, then it's up to us to look up the conclusions of the original work. I will say, though, that even as a journalist and blogger he's more accurate than many - and certainly not as deceptive as Beck, who tells USA Today he believes in Global Warming then says the opposite on his show. Recently, I've noticed that many scientists such as James Hansen, are speaking out against the purveyors of cap and trade schemes (like Al Gore), and trying to get carbon taxation back on track -- since taxing carbon will provide the greatest disincentive for increasing carbon, along with providing the necessary financial incentives for alternative renewable energy. Gore has been a promoter of Cap and Trade right from the beginning; so whatever good things he has to say about promoting the issue of Climate Change, are negated by the problems of corruption and financial manipulation that cap and trade schemes can provide. Evidence for how convenient the pitfalls of cap and trade are to global warming deniers, came to me in an email from a friend over the weekend. Seems he's become a big fan of the Jesse Ventura show: Conspiracy Theory, and wanted me to watch a few episodes. To cut to the chase, after watching a typical misleading 9/11 truther presentation, I went next to Jesse's examination of climate change. And sure enough, Jesse says:"follow the money," again; and ofcourse, he's not talking about the money being dumped to sow doubt and confusion provided by the large energy companies; no, Jesse means the money that Goldman Sachs, and other major investment banks plan to earn from a carbon credits futures market.....and needless to say, Al Gore shows up several times in the episode because of his efforts on behalf of cap and trade. Now, like most conspiracy theories, there is no real search for truth here. Jesse's backers approached this issue the way a mystery writer writes novels: start with the conclusion and work your way back through the plot. Jesse never does explain how large banks hoping to cash in on cap and trade equals no global warming, but he doesn't have to! Cap and trade has provided a convenient target to shoot at, and deflect attention from the facts of climate change, and the malfeasance of the big oil companies. Here's the link if you have the time to waste watching this episode or others in the series. Also, Mother Jones has an expose on how cap and trade could provide yet one more derivatives market scheme to cause a financial meltdown: Could Cap and Trade Cause Another Market Meltdown? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Recently, I've noticed that many scientists such as James Hansen, are speaking out against the purveyors of cap and trade schemes (like Al Gore), and trying to get carbon taxation back on track -- since taxing carbon will provide the greatest disincentive for increasing carbon, along with providing the necessary financial incentives for alternative renewable energy. Gore has been a promoter of Cap and Trade right from the beginning; so whatever good things he has to say about promoting the issue of Climate Change, are negated by the problems of corruption and financial manipulation that cap and trade schemes can provide. Evidence for how convenient the pitfalls of cap and trade are to global warming deniers, came to me in an email from a friend over the weekend. Seems he's become a big fan of the Jesse Ventura show: Conspiracy Theory, and wanted me to watch a few episodes. To cut to the chase, after watching a typical misleading 9/11 truther presentation, I went next to Jesse's examination of climate change. And sure enough, Jesse says:"follow the money," again; and ofcourse, he's not talking about the money being dumped to sow doubt and confusion provided by the large energy companies; no, Jesse means the money that Goldman Sachs, and other major investment banks plan to earn from a carbon credits futures market.....and needless to say, Al Gore shows up several times in the episode because of his efforts on behalf of cap and trade. Now, like most conspiracy theories, there is no real search for truth here. Jesse's backers approached this issue the way a mystery writer writes novels: start with the conclusion and work your way back through the plot. Jesse never does explain how large banks hoping to cash in on cap and trade equals no global warming, but he doesn't have to! Cap and trade has provided a convenient target to shoot at, and deflect attention from the facts of climate change, and the malfeasance of the big oil companies. Here's the link if you have the time to waste watching this episode or others in the series. Also, Mother Jones has an expose on how cap and trade could provide yet one more derivatives market scheme to cause a financial meltdown: Could Cap and Trade Cause Another Market Meltdown? cap n trade is the easier sell, what happens to politicians election hopes when they ask for a new tax?...anytime the government changes the rules we live under opportunists will look to see if there is a profit to made from it, change the tax laws and all the tax experts search out new ways to avoid it and make a profit for their clients...cap n trade is no different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 it's something those in the denier camp just don't get...lawrence solomon, christopher booker, anthony watts, lord monkfish and the like are not scientists, they're experts of bugger all except how to make a buck selling crap to the gullible and uninformed yes, it is one of the facets of the overall bizarreness spoken of earlier... I'm convinced it reflects poorly on the state of our education systems, on failing mainstream journalism and shifting societal influences... as impacting upon declining intellectual curiosity, cognitive reasoning, attention spans, etc. So many people take the 'easy' approach and listen to the loudest barkers, regardless of their credentials/experience/knowledge (or lack thereof). On a personal note, the more I (presume to) understand the more I realize I don't know... but I most certainly can distinguish the denying hucksters and spinmeisters... and have the foundation to explore and attempt to debunk their 'flights of misinformation, fabrication and outright lies'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Cap and Trade was a (brilliant IMO) solution to the problem of how to enforce acid rain reduction targets. The idea was that the amount of reduction was commodofied into a market, and the problem was given to the industry to solve as a whole. The AGW version is more flawed, because it rewards people for virtual reductions, and also because the UN is more porous than the US government in how it administers things. A tax would probably be a better idea at this point, plus it would shut up the rightista pollution lovers while giving them what they've asked for the whole time: an end to cap-and-trade... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 BTW - that was a conservative solution to the problem, that came from the EPA under Bush Sr. I thought I hated those conservatives back then, but I look upon them fondly today in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Cap and Trade was a (brilliant IMO) solution to the problem of how to enforce acid rain reduction targets. The idea was that the amount of reduction was commodofied into a market, and the problem was given to the industry to solve as a whole. The AGW version is more flawed, because it rewards people for virtual reductions, and also because the UN is more porous than the US government in how it administers things. A tax would probably be a better idea at this point, plus it would shut up the rightista pollution lovers while giving them what they've asked for the whole time: an end to cap-and-trade... and what happened to stephan dion when he wanted a carbon tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 and what happened to stephan dion when he wanted a carbon tax? Who could possibly remember that factoid ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 and what happened to stephan dion when he wanted a carbon tax? Who could possibly remember that factoid ? His dog Kyoto? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog selected December 2010 weather reports, ala the lukinWay™ meanwhile, despite the deepest solar minimum in a century, pending the upcoming release of December 2010 temperature anomalies: - for the 2010 Meteorologic Year (Dec 2009-to-November 2010), NASA announced the 2010 Meteorological Year was the warmest in NASA's 130-year temperature record. - for the 2010 year-to-date (January–November), NOAA announced 2010 (January-November), the warmest such period since the 1880 beginning of temperature records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Waldo is wrong again. No surprise. Read the great information from this website. Let me guess, waldo's next post will have the word"denier" in it. http://climatescienceamerica.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Waldo is wrong again. No surprise. Read the great information from this website. Let me guess, waldo's next post will have the word"denier" in it. http://climatescienceamerica.org/ Linking to an entire website and saying "read this" ? That's not just trolling, it's lazy trolling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Linking to an entire website and saying "read this" ?That's not just trolling, it's lazy trolling... it is the way of the lukin - the lukinWay™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog selected December 2010 weather reports, ala the lukinWay™ meanwhile, despite the deepest solar minimum in a century, pending the upcoming release of December 2010 temperature anomalies: - for the 2010 Meteorologic Year (Dec 2009-to-November 2010), NASA announced the 2010 Meteorological Year was the warmest in NASA's 130-year temperature record. - for the 2010 year-to-date (January–November), NOAA announced 2010 (January-November), the warmest such period since the 1880 beginning of temperature records. Waldo is wrong again. No surprise. hmmmm... wrong? That would be..... where? - deepest solar minimum in a century ✓ - statement on formal NASA news/press release ✓ - statement on formal NOAA news/press release ✓ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) hmmmm... wrong? That would be..... where? - deepest solar minimum in a century ✓ - statement on formal NASA news/press release ✓ - statement on formal NOAA news/press release ✓ How can NASA's 130 year old data be valid when NASA has only existed since 1958? What data are they using? Edited January 7, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.