Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.
And this is happening...where?
How does investing more in nuclear and tidal mean "more control over our economy"?
Which countries do you mean?
In the UK? Germany?
EXCELLENT response. I particularly enjoyed your summary dismissal (in bold and blue) of his attempted diversion.
Indeed - some of the twisting of facts coming out of the oil and coal industries have been appalling - as obviously Todd is well aware.
Not a reliable source like fictionalized Hockey Sticks?
This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
The warmists keep claiming the science is settled.
What on earth are you talking about?
Who claimed that?
Where are your links to back that up?
Not a reliable source like fictionalized Hockey Sticks?
No - a reliable source like the 800+ peer reviewed research papers confirming the role of human acitivity in climate change that you refuse to look at.
Really - do you think anyone cares about something because it was in an Al Gore film? I couldn't give a shit what Gore thinks, or about the hockey stick, and I doubt anyone else does either.
This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?
How about a nuclear power station?
No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?
Jesus wept...
from bfgrn's post-
the concensus climate scientists have been actively speading misinformation and suppressing inconvenient data for years as is made clear in the climategate I&II emails. which is worse? I think that being lied to by those that you trust is more harmful than those that are the outside opinion. another question; which is worse, the scientist that is willing to lie because he thinks the ends justify the means, or the other scientists that refuse to point out the lie because they fear for their professional standing? how many other scientists were willing to publically lambast Mann and the hockey team other than Muller?
Let me ask you ONE question...do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated?
The oil, coal and auto industries are not regulated? When did that happen?
This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?
How about a nuclear power station?
No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?
Jesus wept...
Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
Certainly Obama is doing no such thing.
I was wondering, Toadsterretard, just when were you declared officially braindead?This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?
How about a nuclear power station?
No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?
Jesus wept...
Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
Certainly Obama is doing no such thing.
Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
.
the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.
the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.
you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.
Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that.
I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought.
The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story".
Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland.
In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed.
I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year.
My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.
My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.
Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.
And this is happening...where?
How does investing more in nuclear and tidal mean "more control over our economy"?
Which countries do you mean?
In the UK? Germany?
This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?
How about a nuclear power station?
No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?
Jesus wept...
Let me ask you ONE question...do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated?
The oil, coal and auto industries are not regulated? When did that happen?
Dishonest obfuscation. Do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines or actively spreading propaganda that makes them billions of dollars?
They have taken the same tact big tobacco used when they denied the link between smoking and cancer, using many of the same institutions and pseudo-scientists.
But according to right wing morons, their beloved polluters and cartels are just victims.
Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?
f
Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap.
Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine.
Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me.
it seems to me that whenever you are shown to be less than correct you simply show distain for the 'one' instance, and then want to change the subject to something else.
someone else, Myles Allen, has been doing the same thing lately.
Professor Myles Allen - Climate Change: So Last Decade - YouTube
at least Allen had the fortitude to respond when his hypocrisy was commented on
[url=http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/26/myles-allen-writes.html]- Bishop Hill blog - Myles Allen*writes
and of course that response brought another, this time from an IPCC reviewer that wanted Mann98,99 and the hockey stick graph out of AR4-
Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline « Climate Audit
Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for “keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies” like the Hockey Stick:
My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change
But it’s not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be criticizing; it’s John Houghton who more or less made the Hockey Stick the logo of the IPCC. Mann was told that IPCC higher-ups wanted a visual that didn’t “dilute the message” and they got one: they deleted the last part of the Briffa reconstruction – Hide the Decline. If, as Allen now says, it’s an “irrelevancy”, then Houghton and IPCC should not have used it so prominently. And they should not have encouraged or condoned sharp practice like Hide the Decline.
In the run-up to AR4, I suggested that, if the topic was “irrelevant”, as some climate scientists have said, then IPCC should exclude it from the then AR4. Far from trying to keep the topic alive in AR4, I suggested that it be deleted altogether. I guess that there was a “consensus” otherwise. If Allen wants to complain, then he should first criticize IPCC.
the damage done by the hockey stick graph is immense, and simply ignoring it will not repair the damage. the warmers have already sucked out enormous amounts of publicity from it but now that it has been proven as a fraud they want to just stop talking about it and the scandals that should be made public.
