bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 And the court jester prances across the stage playing his recorder, and singing a tune of proud ignorance... Then the discussion continued... My understanding is that the court jester, or Fool, was meant to tell harsh truths which others might fear to impart to a Monarch or Emperor. So you're being way too generous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hardner, you want shark chum? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12241846 All carbon trading in Europe has been halted as the European Commission looks into thefts of emissions permits.The Czech carbon registry said 7m euros (£5.9m, $9.4m) of permits had seemingly been stolen by hackers on Wednesday. It followed a similar security breach in Austria on Tuesday, and prompted five countries to suspend their registries before the entire system was shut down. OH NOES !!! The thing is, what the hell do these 'hackers' think they are going to DO with the stolen carbon credits? Too funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hardner, you want shark chum? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12241846 OH NOES !!! The thing is, what the hell do these 'hackers' think they are going to DO with the stolen carbon credits? Too funny. funny? Obviously, if left undetected, sell the permits on the open market... or, as is being widely speculated, deliberate sabotage precluded any actual intention to even attempt to recoup the permits in the first place. Again, you think this is funny; rather, "too funny"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 funny? Obviously, if left undetected, sell the permits on the open market... or, as is being widely speculated, deliberate sabotage precluded any actual intention to even attempt to recoup the permits in the first place. Again, you think this is funny; rather, "too funny"? Yes I think it's a freakin riot. Remember the carbon trading market made over 140 billion in 2009. And they complain about a few credits being stolen?? Yeah, it's a laugh riot. OH NOES someone stole my ability to buy credits so I can pollute more. The carbon trading market is a scam Waldo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hardner, you want shark chum? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12241846 OH NOES !!! The thing is, what the hell do these 'hackers' think they are going to DO with the stolen carbon credits? Too funny. funny? Obviously, if left undetected, sell the permits on the open market... or, as is being widely speculated, deliberate sabotage precluded any actual intention to even attempt to recoup the permits in the first place. Again, you think this is funny; rather, "too funny"? Yes I think it's a freakin riot. Remember the carbon trading market made over 140 billion in 2009. And they complain about a few credits being stolen?? Yeah, it's a laugh riot. OH NOES someone stole my ability to buy credits so I can pollute more. The carbon trading market is a scam Waldo. interesting you don't seem to want to discuss 'fee & dividend', in spite of being pointed in that direction, several times. Now... in the absence of any likelihood toward governments placing a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source (i.e., 'fee & dividend'), practicalities begin to set in - you are beginning to see a gradual shift (by some) in the fundamental disagreement about the desirability of using market-based instruments in environmental regulation. yes, the ETS has had significant start-up problems (obviously); however, reconciling those problems against the intended multi-phased implementation strategy is necessary. Equally, there is a requirement to balance those start-up problems against the (relative) successes of the early ETS years. The initial studies of the ETS start-up phase have been done - they are available for you to scrutinize... for you to present some countering foundation for your repeated attacks and denigration of cap & trade. Something other than your/denier standard "scam" bleat. The initial ETS studies seem to suggest, in problem balance, ETS has put in place a system that has reduced emissions... it has "proven" that a multinational cap & trade system can/might work. Ultimately, the next phases of ETS will require concerted efforts to reduce/eliminate the realized start-up problems. Just so we're clear... I favour a 'fee & dividend' strategy; in it's absence, in the high-probability it can't/won't be realized, I'm open to discussing options that begin to show - 'possibly' - that cap & trade has value-add. Is it enough... will it be enough? Of course not. as for your self-described, 'laugh riot', you obviously have difficulty with understanding the impacts of negative publicity and reputation impacts, particularly related to markets. The permit amounts stolen are enough to attract thieves; however, given the (balanced) successes of ETS and it's next phased deployment strategies, there is no shortage of speculation that there is more than simple thievery behind the latest stolen permits issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 funny? Obviously, if left undetected, sell the permits on the open market... or, as is being widely speculated, deliberate sabotage precluded any actual intention to even attempt to recoup the permits in the first place. Again, you think this is funny; rather, "too funny"? Almost as funny as the whole "global warming" scam. Waldo, rather than giving me a big, multi-boxed reply, explain why during the spate of mild winters such as 1990-1, 1991-2, 1994-5, 1996-7, 1997-8, 1998-9, 1999-2000, 2001-2, 2005-6, 2006-7 and 2007-8 the mildness and snowlessness was attributed to "global warming" and then the recent spate of snowy winters, such as 2008-9, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are also attributed to global warming. Which is it, Waldo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Almost as funny as the whole "global warming" scam. Waldo, rather than giving me a big, multi-boxed reply, explain why during the spate of mild winters such as 1990-1, 1991-2, 1994-5, 1996-7, 1997-8, 1998-9, 1999-2000, 2001-2, 2005-6, 2006-7 and 2007-8 the mildness and snowlessness was attributed to "global warming" and then the recent spate of snowy winters, such as 2008-9, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are also attributed to global warming. Which is it, Waldo? Snow isn't caused by it being very cold, it being to cold will actually prevent snow. The extreme amount of snow was caused be humidity, and what caused that humidity? Increased temperature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Snow isn't caused by it being very cold, it being to cold will actually prevent snow. The extreme amount of snow was caused be humidity, and what caused that humidity? Increased temperature. So both snow and snowlessness is caused by global warming? What about the intense cold we're having now, as oppoed to the mildness of all of the winters I listed as "snowless" above (except the second half of the 2006-7 winter)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 So both snow and snowlessness is caused by global warming? What about the intense cold we're having now, as oppoed to the mildness of all of the winters I listed as "snowless" above (except the second half of the 2006-7 winter)? That "intense" cold is only true for parts of North America, Europe, and Asia. The Artic and the rest of the world on the other hand was warm. That warmth in the Artic had a lot to do with all the snow. Here's a temperature map illustrating that. People need to pay more attention to the global part of global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 That "intense" cold is only true for parts of North America, Europe, and Asia. The Artic and the rest of the world on the other hand was warm. That warmth in the Artic had a lot to do with all the snow. Here's a temperature map illustrating that. People need to pay more attention to the global part of global warming. That looks more like a patchwork mouse than a global pattern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 That looks more like a patchwork mouse than a global pattern. That's because this is a month's worth of Data, what pattern do you expect to see in a month? The point should be obvious even to you, that 'intense cold" we are having isn't actually happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 That's because this is a month's worth of Data, what pattern do you expect to see in a month? The point should be obvious even to you, that 'intense cold" we are having isn't actually happening. You're saying it's not -12C outside my house when the normal low is around -4C? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 You're saying it's not -12C outside my house when the normal low is around -4C? I'm saying it's a local event that doesn't have any effect on a global phenomenon. This has been explained many times before I don't know why I bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'm saying it's a local event that doesn't have any effect on a global phenomenon. This has been explained many times before I don't know why I bother. I feel a need to verify supposedly "global" events with real-world ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Almost as funny as the whole "global warming" scam. Waldo, rather than giving me a big, multi-boxed reply, explain why during the spate of mild winters such as 1990-1, 1991-2, 1994-5, 1996-7, 1997-8, 1998-9, 1999-2000, 2001-2, 2005-6, 2006-7 and 2007-8 the mildness and snowlessness was attributed to "global warming" and then the recent spate of snowy winters, such as 2008-9, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are also attributed to global warming. Which is it, Waldo? When was a scientific organization proclaiming this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Almost as funny as the whole "global warming" scam. I feel a need to verify supposedly "global" events with real-world ones. of course you do... it fits your insular view and feeds your denialist propensity to shout "scam". Weather versus climate... huh? What's that, says jbg... TrueMetis presents you with the December 2010 (combined) surface temperature anomalies... and in reply, you state, "That looks more like a patchwork mouse than a global pattern"... because, as I said, "it fits your insular view and feeds your denialist propensity to shout "scam"". have another: a one week, land only, anomaly isolation... it's a big world out there, hey jbg? Take your insular glasses off and you just might see it! Have you ever traveled outside your local burg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 interesting you don't seem to want to discuss 'fee & dividend', in spite of being pointed in that direction, several times. Now... in the absence of any likelihood toward governments placing a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source (i.e., 'fee & dividend'), practicalities begin to set in - you are beginning to see a gradual shift (by some) in the fundamental disagreement about the desirability of using market-based instruments in environmental regulation. That is something I had said at the start. Because it won't work. It does not solve any problems. If we are in a real global emergency regarding weather, there is no amount of money you can spend to fix or even mitigate the issue. You don't cap and trade it .. you simply cap it and be done with it. But then the argument comes up about society not advancing fast enough, economies would be devastated, blah blah blah ... back to no solution. as for your self-described, 'laugh riot', you obviously have difficulty with understanding the impacts of negative publicity and reputation impacts, particularly related to markets. The permit amounts stolen are enough to attract thieves; however, given the (balanced) successes of ETS and it's next phased deployment strategies, there is no shortage of speculation that there is more than simple thievery behind the latest stolen permits issue. Personally any money market is a scam, and the carbon trading market is no different. I wonder when it will get a bail out like a good deal of the world's banks over the last couple years. It would not surprise me one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'm saying it's a local event that doesn't have any effect on a global phenomenon. This has been explained many times before I don't know why I bother. Me neither. jbg seems to me to playing dumb on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Me neither. jbg seems to me to playing dumb on this issue. maybe he's not playing dumb... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Me neither. jbg seems to me to playing dumb on this issue. maybe he's not playing dumb... No. I have no reason to believe some mass compilation when very few real live weather stations' data jives with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 jbg seems to me to playing dumb on this issue. maybe he's not playing dumb... No. I have no reason to believe some mass compilation when very few real live weather stations' data jives with it. nope... jbg is not playing at dumb... he's the real deal! However, it's always a good day when one can definitively align a denier position to conspiracy. Here jbg has stepped up on his earlier fraud labeling and attached it to his, as inferred, claimed conspiracy of reputed agencies/institutions and thousands of working scientists... all collaborating to 'fraudulently' present records (and implications therein) of global temperature warming. He has also placed himself amongst the fringe of the fringe of deniers - few "self-respecting" deniers actually have the presence to challenge the warming anymore. now, for as often as we hear him tout his legal-beagle status, one might expect jbg to be more reserved and cautionary in his most liberal assigning of the fraud label... on the other hand, it's entirely possible that over time, morally bankrupt influence has permeated his bankruptcy practice and worked to compromise his self-proclaimed progressive thinking/positions. Again, the same challenge as was made per one of the more recent jbg fraud/fraudulent assignments: jbg, fraudulent? Well... now, in keeping with your self-proclaimed legal-beagle status, I will not directly call you a shyster... I will simply offer a U.S. focused legal definition of fraud... along with the 5 elements required to prove said fraud, and allow you an opportunity to show us your lawyerly best - hey? fraud definition: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Debates over due to lack of interest. You'll have to come up with some scarier stuff there, bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Pliny, buddy... does that mean you won't be responding to the following... evah! Does that mean your Mr. Wizard persona won't be returning? As for the scale... Pliny... are you suggesting you'd like to, "hide the incline"? Oh my!No. I would like it to be scaled properly and not to the benefit of creating alarmism. the scales are fine, lil' buddy... you just don't like the presentation... why do you want to 'hide the incline', Pliny? I would rather it be presented in a real sense and not propagandized. They may be fine for your purpose, the illegitimate use of science to further a political agenda. the data shows... what the data shows. So we're clear and not entering into purposeful Pliny vagueness, the focus of discussion had been CO2 atmospheric measurement... somewhat out of the blue you dropped a reference to 'temperature' measurement. In either case, the scales of presentation are simply de facto; i.e., temperature degree or CO2 ppm. I appreciate you would like to flatten out the scales on either of those... flattened to the point no discernible result/effect could be visually ascertained. But again, Pliny... why do you favour a presentation that, "hides the incline", hey? Why does your denier self favour a graphic presentation that hides any discernible rise/trend in either temperature or CO2 ppm? Why be hiding the incline Pliny? Why use, as you say, an illegitimate graphic presentation to hide the incline and further your denier agenda - hey? Pliny, was your bravado... false? After all your bluster, aren't you up to actually challenging the world-wide CO2 monitoring 'network'... or even the Mauna Loa location/results? you appear to have something to say about volcano isotopic signatures... if you really have a bone to pick, perhaps you should properly direct your stated uncertain confusion. Given the standard Pliny pattern, I suspected this was simply another trail of Pliny false bravado, wrapped in uncertainty and couched in questioning and indirect challenge/claim. To that end, let me broker the exchange for you; let me help - hey, Pliny? Now Pliny... I don't really have a dog to hunt in this here exchange... remember, I'm simply the broker! Per the quote string, as follows, your initial confidence was tempered with your follow-up question on your own certainty; in turn, followed up by your latest statement highlighting your uncertain confusion (notwithstanding the basic confusion in your own wording... did you mean to say, "claiming the signatures of carbon isotopes from volcanic activity and fossil fuel burning cannot be differentiated is ignorant"... would that be a cannot... or a can?) now, as I say Pliny, I don't have a dog to hunt in this, your latest fixation... from my perspective, when you challenged the location of Mauna Loa, I presented you with the methodology behind eliminating volcanic CO2 impacts (from ongoing fissure leaks) related to the relatively rare temperature inversions at Mauna Loa. I expect if you really wanted to make your claim (?) concerning isotopic signature, you would step forward with something substantive that presumes to suggest the like ratios of 13C/12C between CO2 fossil fuel burning and volcanic eruptions (where volcanic CO2 is mostly from buried carbonate rocks and/or (sea)water). You could do that, hey Pliny? As well, if they'll help for reference purposes, I have ready bookmarks to earlier Pliny CO2 isotopic misunderstandings, ala your Mr. Wizard persona... let me know, hey Pliny? I'm here to help Pliny. The graphs used in the example were taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There is no mention of compensation for any volcanic activity that may have occurred in the area. Why would they use Mauna Loa? Convenience?A true representation of global CO2 emissions? It doesn't really matter, because carbon dioxide from a volcano will have a different isotopic signature than carbon coming from fossil fuels. The atmospheric carbon isotopic composition is changing, and this change matches the isotopic signature that would be expected if the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Wrong. The burning of a volcano or burning of fossil fuels will both have a similar isotopic signature. Is the isotopic signature of volcanic activity not similar to the burning of fossil fuels? Let's not deflect from the fact that claiming the signatures of carbon isotopes from volcanic activity and fossil fuel burning cannot be differentiated is ignorant. If I am confused then the person making that claim must be totally confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 You're saying it's not -12C outside my house when the normal low is around -4C? Why is it such a mystery to people that in addition to warmer warm spells we'd also have colder cold spells? All it takes is more energy to move the heat farther into the polar regions and the cold farther out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Why is it such a mystery to people that in addition to warmer warm spells we'd also have colder cold spells? All it takes is more energy to move the heat farther into the polar regions and the cold farther out. Record colds still happen, but (from an article I posted here) they were happening at 1/2 the rate of records highs in N. America. Not sure why jbg insists on not getting it. 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.