I think China is a bit sensitive to all the stories about their lousy air quality.
"Automakers are under pressure from governments, environmental groups and consumers to sell models that consume less gasoline and emit fewer gases linked to global warming. China’s government aims to subsidize at least 4 million of these cars by 2012."
Here's another (retired) Republican on the subject:
"whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century."
"Clean and renewable energy technologies are expected to be a major driver of economic growth over the next 50 years. The country that lays the strongest foundation for research, development, production and consumption will reap the rewards in terms of jobs and economic activity, which are expected to be large. Although the U.S. was expected to occupy this position at the beginning of the 21st century,China is emerging as the leader. Also, it appears that the U.S. may continue to fade further unless we take action to reverse the trend."
I'm not finding any links about any Chinese spending on pure GW research.
No, and I don't think you will. Everybody wants clean air, but that is just a bonus for China. Their concern is oil, and their lack of it. That is why they are spending so much on electric car research. Electric cars are their only option.
If China had the oil, coal, and gas reserves that we do it would be drill baby drill !!
All the news reports I skim indicate that the Chinese and every other country is going full bent to develop new energy sources and green technology
You mean like the CFL bulbs we are mandated to use and cannot manufacture in this country due to regulations against mercury? I am sure we are doing a lot of green research. Then because of regulations having the products built off shore. Why would a company go through all the red tape and regulations to build a factory in the USA to make Solar panels? China is making strides toward a cleaner environment. They are not letting the regulations get in the way. My understanding is for every clean coal power plant they build 3 are put up using the older technology. We say clean coal or no power. Same for nuke plants. What are we doing with the billions wasted on environmental research? My guess is most of it goes into fat cat pockets in return for campaign contributions.
It will be "Drill baby Drill" very soon on our land. We don't want to use our coal, India and China will gladly use it. You can thank the Eco Nuts for blocking coal plants being built in this country.
India, China buying U.S. coal mines, shale gas fields
Foreign companies are buying up U.S. coal mines. In a statement on Nov. 12, the chairman of Coal India Ltd., a state-controlled entity and the world's largest coal producer, with a near-monopoly on Indian coal mining, confirmed that the firm was in talks with several U.S. coal companies to buy stakes in mines throughout the continental U.S. According to the Associated Press, Coal India has budgeted $1.2 billion this year alone to buy American, Australian, and Indonesian coal mines. Facing voracious energy demands and a yawning gap between domestic supplies of coal and projected needs, the company is going on a global buying spree.
It is not alone. Reliance Industries, also of India, bought a $3.4 billion stake in three U.S. shale gas companies earlier this year. In March, India's Essar Group acquired Trinity Coal for $600 million; the company has active mines in Kentucky and West Virginia. China's ENN Energy Trading, a subsidiary of one of China's largest natural gas companies, signed a preliminary purchase agreement in early November with Cheniere Energy for 20 years of processing capacity at Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG terminal, located on the border of Louisiana and Texas. And China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd. agreed in October to pay up to $2.16 billion for a 33.3 percent stake in Chesapeake Energy's interest in the Eagle Ford shale play. The deal, if concluded, would represent the largest Chinese investment ever in the U.S. energy sector.
Yes, they will use our coal and oil and figure out a way to blow the polluted air over our way. Unless we get rid of at least some of the corruption in the U.S., we are facing a bleak future.
.Question with boldness and don't believe any one who will profit from there lies!!!
Good point. So ask yourself this question... who profits from the "man is not the cause... there is no proof of MMGW" movement? WHO PROFITS???
I know all about cherry picking data from reading all of gagrices and larsbs post here. The consensus from unbiased scientists though seem to support MMGW.
One scientist on that History Channel program said to deny MMGW is similar to denying the holocaust has happened. You have tons of supporting data showing it has happened, yet opponents, with their own agenda, will look at 3 or 4 "facts" showing it did not happen and say that is their "proof".
Maybe one or two whacks from a hickory switch... but not skinned alive. I'll willing to put in a little "skin" to save the planet, most of us here probably would, and are doing so.
To me though I don't see the need for a long debate over whether MMGW is happening or not. You conserve, recycle and produce the least amount of pollution as possible, while protecting your economic base... simple.
I know all about cherry picking data from reading all of gagrices and larsbs post here. The consensus from unbiased scientists though seem to support MMGW.
I would be interested in the names of those so called unbiased scientists. Are they living off of Federal grants? Who is paying their salary is where you have to start. There are scientists that are not paid by folks with an agenda. Their ideas are more to my liking. I will accept the studies of Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer over James Hansen. John Coleman knows a thing or two about climate and sees through the political BS that has driven the world into a frenzy with wild assertions and little else.
Even if we are in a GW period. It is not worth destroying our economy and moving back to the caves. IF and it is a BIG IF, the most emphatic pushers of the MMGW ideology truly believed, they would set an example. They do not, making the whole idea look like a scam. Some of the loudest voices have the largest carbon footprints. Driving a Prius to the Academy awards, then flying their Gulfstream around the world does not make me a believer.
You have tons of supporting data showing it has happened, yet opponents, with their own agenda, will look at 3 or 4 "facts" showing it did not happen and say that is their "proof".
The data that has been presented by the IPCC might well be cherry-picked. But let's say for a moment it wasn't. Well that data shows a temperature increase that is not anymore extreme then several other scientifically documented temperature increases in history, before man's industrialization. So to my scientific mind, our current increase in CO2 that occurs at the same time as a temperature increase that has been seen many times before w/o CO2-increasing, is not proof at all. It is a weak theory. If the temperature were increasing faster than at any other time in history, then I would say it is a strong proof.
It wasn't that long ago that parts of Greenland were inhabitable. The current melt of the Greenland glaciers may only bring us back to a climate we had about a millenium ago.
If you want to know what the main factor is in the climate consider that the amount of energy from the sun that hits our atmosphere, oceans and land is greater in 1 day, then the total energy man uses from all renewable, nuclear, and fossil fuels in 1 year. It is the sun that created the geothermal energy of this planet, and it is the sun that keeps it from sitting in the absolute 0 (Kelvin) environment of space, freezing the Earth to the core. It is the red-giant sun that it will become, that will end life on Earth some day, boiling off the oceans, in the best display of natural-GW.
Is to redistribute wealth from the US to the 3rd world under world (non US) directives. Is to distract the people from real tasks at hand for the government they have hired to work for them. is to give cause for a bigger government that does not work on the important tasks.
The hackers who uncovered the scandalous email messages between those who were deceiving the world about GW are enemy no. 1 of the redistributers.
Haven't you heard dave, the guilty parties all got together, did a couple of investigative reports...said it was all a misunderstanding.....and cleared themselves !!
That's not all they did - now there's a rapid response team.
Hey, maybe they'll show up here next.
"This month, the American Geophysical Union announced plans to mobilize 700 climate scientists to improve the accuracy of media coverage and public understanding of their field. Separately, a smaller group of scientists organized by John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota said it was putting together a "rapid response team" to bring accurate climate science to public debates."
"We are taking the fight to them because we are . . . tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
What planet are these guys on? They need to come to CA where the utilities have doubled as a result of their GW theories. Now we got Moonbeam as a governor and he is more of a ECO Nut than Ahnold was.
What we are skeptical of are GW fat cats getting rich and the rest of US paying the bills.
PS They can start with our local RAWS measurement device. It is always 6-10 degrees higher than reality. Just part of their scam.
There is only one reason why these freeloaders would be marching in the streets, they are trying to save their grant money so they can continue to live off of taxpayer dollars.
I don't think they would they risk losing their grants by getting "political" if they didn't believe what their studies were telling them. They may be tenured but there's a lot of perks they'd lose by falling out of grace with their university or lab in addition to losing grant money.
You don't think the administration of our colleges and universities are controlled by politics? I don't think they would risk their money source by sticking strictly to science. You have a lot more faith in academia than I do. I think they are just as corrupt as our political system. If the school takes money from the Feds they are beholden to the party in power. There are hundreds of once Christian colleges that have sold their souls to the almighty Federal dollar.
jipster: Good point. So ask yourself this question... who profits from the "man is not the cause... there is no proof of MMGW" movement? WHO PROFITS???
Since what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, let's ask the same question of who, on the other side of the debate, profits.
A big beneficiary is BP - yes, that BP - which was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying group dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill.
BP is the nation's largest producer of natural gas. It will benefit from legislation or policies that support federal subsidies to switch coal-fired power plants to cleaner natural gas.
And let's not forget all of the researchers at universities and think tanks who will have to exit the grant gravy train if man is proven not to be the cause of global warming.
jipster: One scientist on that History Channel program said to deny MMGW is similar to denying the holocaust has happened.
Which, of course, only diminishes his credibility among those who are well-informed regarding this issue. His hysterical statement is the equivalent of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!".
jipster: You have tons of supporting data showing it has happened, yet opponents, with their own agenda, will look at 3 or 4 "facts" showing it did not happen and say that is their "proof".
No, you have tons of data showing that global warming has occurred naturally throughout history, and conflicting data as to whether it has been driven manmade factors.
Those people have to go home and sleep at night. Not buying that they live a 100% fraudulent existence. Nope
I suppose you feel the same way about Bernie Madoff and all the banksters on Wall Street. Man by nature looks out for himself and those he loves. They don't have to be 100% fraudulent, as proven by Climategate. Only fudge a little here and a little there to get the results the guy paying the bill wants.
Colleges have the worst politics of just about any institution or business I've ever read about. But that's internal stuff. And yeah, I don't think the average post doc or prof is doctoring results - it's not like they are working for ExxonMobile. :P
Well, to run the pun into the ground, they are doctoring results, but most anything published in the journals typically gets edited, vetted and peered at.
Not buying the idea that research entities INTENTIONALLY produce FAKE results just for the sake of getting GW grant money.
But then you are saying researchers aren't "human and governed by human-nature". Because Humans and Human-nature have been shown that they can be bought time-after-time. One of the most famous examples was the O.J. trial where Johnny Cochrane and his bought-assistants showed enough data to get O.J. not guilty. To continue the court analogy, in the case of MMGW the court, judge, jury and press are all getting paid by the Prosecution, that only wants a certain outcome. Anyone presenting a fair discussion of the facts and all the facts, is not given a fair chance.
Anyway I think the oneous is on-you larsb, to tell us why the prponents of MMGW don't follow the rest of Humanity, and Human Nature. Most people are bought and paid for. Scientists are no different, as there's plenty of scientists who have shown how cigarettes are good for you, asbestos is a great product, and BP's oil-drilling technology is fool-proof. All bought and paid for.
Most of the data on AGW went through the UEA to the IPCC. Their credibility is suspect at best.
Climategate mortally wounded the global warming hoax, and despite whitewash laden exonerations, the damage wrought on the University of East Anglia by Phil Jones and the motley CRU has been permanent.
For evidence of just how bad the damage of Climategate was for the UEA, observe how warmist-friendly Louise Gray frames her story ‘Global CO2 expected to rise to record levels’ (emphasis mine):
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are expected to reach record levels this year, according to a new study, despite the recession and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The research, led by the University of Exeter and involving the University of East Anglia, found that growth in CO2 levels fell in 2009, though by less than expected, because of the economic recession.
In a pre-Climategate world, the idea of the UEA taking a back seat to Exeter would be unthinkable, CRU was the big name in climate research and maintained one of the key climate datasets in the world. Post-Climategate, the UEA brand is tarnished so badly it needs to be downplayed for fear the credibility of the study be tarnished by association with Jones et al.
Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol
ATHENS, Greece — In a mea culpa of sorts, former Vice President Al Gore on Monday said he made a mistake in supporting corn-based ethanol while he was in office, admitting he was more interested in farm votes for his presidential run than what was best for the environment.
Gary says, "So why should we believe anything he promotes?"
Well, it sounds like you are saying "Because AlGore is a goofball idiot, Global Warming is not a fact."
That's poor logic and a little bit simplistic. I hope that's not what you meant.
Where AlGore stands on GW has nothing at all to do, not one iota to do, with the response we need to or don't need to make in regard to taking care of our planet.
A couple of years ago you were a big supporter of Al Gore and his beliefs. Apparently that has now changed. If you were wrong then, could you be wrong in some of your other beliefs about GW?
Like it or not. Al Gore is the front man for MMGW and AGW/CC. UEA and Phil what's his name was the scientist pushing the agenda. Both are discrediting themselves more and more. We have wasted $10s of billions on Corn Ethanol and not saved enough foreign oil to fill a tanker ship. In fact if the MIT report is accurate we have used more energy producing Corn ethanol than we have saved. Of course the GW Liberals poo pooed the MIT scientific findings as it did not fit their political agenda. Don't forget that Ethanol was supposed to be a huge improvement in our fight against AGW,
If you do as little harm as possible, that can't be the wrong way to go.
As little harm as possible to WHOM? Those that have lost their jobs due to climate change legislation? Do you really believe pushing the pollution over to China or India is the right way to do things? How about the Gulf damage caused by the rabid GW cult? Doing Nothing is always preferable to doing the wrong thing.
larsb: So assuming that EVERY one of the THOUSANDS of scientists who claim MMGW are crooks is also incorrect and ridiculous.
We can turn this question in its head - do you believe that EVERYONE who claims that there is no manmade global warming is somehow a shill for the oil industry? Because that is how proponents of the theory of manmade global warming dismiss those who poke holes in that theory.
As I said above, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"Pushing pollution" is not the way - of course not. Elimination of pollution is the best answer in almost every case.
"Gulf damage" by the rabid GW cult is an odd way to put it. Farmers were already polluting the Mississippi River before anyone started working on Ethanol.
And you seem to love to jump all over ANYTHING anyone EVER wants to do with "green" in mind. Just because the Ethanol project did not succeed does not mean it was a terrible idea.
Great ideas have failed throughout the history of mankind. I don't think you can fault "eco weinies" for ideas that are good on paper that fall through in reality. At least they are TRYING to help.
Farmers were already polluting the Mississippi River before anyone started working on Ethanol.
To grow corn year after year, it takes lots of fertilizer. Yes the Gulf Dead Zone has grown since the increase in growing corn for ethanol. And so far the Feds have not admitted it is a sham. Only Al Baby has admitted pandering to the ethanol industry for votes. Ethanol was and is a political issue. Just as MMGW is a political issue. It is a way to generate money for the wealthy that buys the ads that generate the votes.
It is the Eco Weinies that come up with the ideas that may or may not improve our planet. It is the Bernie Madoff types that come up with the ways to make money while looking green. And the Eco Nuts buy into it. And the middle class pays the bill.
I believe the thousands of scientists who claim MMGW fall into at least 4 categories: 1) those who have a partial picture - only having the very, very small piece of the data-set, who then rely on the IPCC and other data-set-controllers to paint the general picture. Group 1 are the worker-bees who benefit by having grants, expeditions, grad students working for them. 2) the cheerleader-follower types (fools), 3) ecologists who have always been looking for an issue to use to limit human activity, and thus indirectly achieve their other anti-development goals, and 4) those in the higher power circles of the movement who take all the Group 1 data, make cases to keep or dismiss data, and then generate their reports, and promoting it to the media. It is this group that is the group who have the business and political savey to make the big-bucks.
They all are out for themselves or their cause and either are too foolish to think for themselves or are falling for the ruse, don't ask too many questions, or the few percent who really run the MMGW theory (business).
In my experience, that's not how scientists work or behave.
They won't "put their name on a study" if they are only given a small portion of the data they need to reach a valid scientific conclusion. They have reputations to uphold, and those reputations are important to their livelihood.
They won't "put their name on a study" if they are only given a small portion of the data they need to reach a valid scientific conclusion. They have reputations to uphold, and those reputations are important to their livelihood.
That is flat wrong. The head scientists at the IPCC did exactly that.
New Delhi, Feb 1: The UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) claims about ice melting from the world's mountain peaks was based on a student's essay, a media report said.
The IPCC report had said that reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was caused by global warming.
The report had also cited two scientific papers as its primary source of information.
According to UK newspaper The Telegraph, one source was the geography student's dissertation and the other an anecdotal article in a mountaineering magazine.
There is so much erroneous "Data" on GW, no one can be certain of the content or its origins. I don't think that most of US have a problem with making certain changes to our lifestyle that do not impact us negatively. There is no good reason to live in the dark on the say of a UN panel that has been discredited and should be disbanded. The legislation proposed and already implemented is causing harm and will mostly impact the lower middle class and the poor. That is what I find unacceptable. When they get the politicians out of the lab we may get data that is believable. I don't see that happening. Which makes it ALL suspect.
You don't need all scientists to do X. As I said you only need a few % - the leaders or Group 4 as I said in my prior e-mail.
Let's say you, gagrice, houdini1, and I are scientists. Steve is going to be the Group 4 Leader that we're sending our data or scientific reports into. We're the worker bees getting grants, making field trips, and writing papers. So you, I and houdini all take temperatures for months and find our temperatures are 1F higher than the average of the last 10 years. we write a report, send our report to Stev who enters the data into his datatbase. Meanwhile gagrice is noting that his temps. are 3F lower than normal this year; he writes his report including a LaNina occurrence this year, and Steve gets that data. We've all done legitimate, scientific work, and can claim we didn't lie, although each one of us might have different equipment than last year, or take our temperatures at a different time of day or different location than 10 years ago.
So Steve gets our data. Now Steve gets to apply his own rules for determining what data to further analyze. ALL data collected is rarely used in science. I have lab books from my college days that explain the scientific, probabilistic methods - such as a Q-test (which you can google) to discount discordant-data. So Steve could use certain reasoning or *'s to note deep in any analysis that he has reasoned gagrice's data was in error or such a rarity, and was therefore not included in his analysis.
And if Steve has a career and ego based on his life's-work of this theory, and he has speaking engagements around the world at 1st class conferences, and millions of $ in investments in low-CO2 ventures, I'm sure Steve could convince himself that he has not stepped over any ethical-line.
I see people from lawyers to doctors, to debt collectors and finance people playing in grey-ethical areas all the time. If you want some good common-day examples, just look at your doctor and hospitals. They are pushing record amounts of prescription drugs at us, and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies are doing so not just for our health which is a part, but they are doing so because they are making more profit. Or the doctor's will send you at the slightest suggestion for all kinds of expensive hospital tests. The medical system certainly wants to help patients, but mostly they are concerned with profits at the end of the day.
Here's a great example of how things get done. Use: - a few events (partial data) to scare the public, - get the mostly ignorant of the facts media to jump on the story giving them your version, - get some former government officials as lobbyists in D.C. who have access to the Power-Brokers (access you or I would never get), - get some donations to their campaigns, - meet them for lunch and dinner, and voila ... get some Congressional legislation to start a whole new bureaucratic machine/program that benefits your cause.
This example is only bout $50M. How many billions and billions of $'s are the incentive in the MMGW-machine? And it only needs to be the few % at the top of the machine who know the whole-truth, and it is exactly that group who has the most to gain.
I love that example the other day where Gore admits similar. He knew the whole corn-ethanol boondoggle that has cost us billions over the years, was mainly a political maneuver to gain him support (power) and the farmers and politicians of those states support. They were all just washing each others' feet. This sort of stuff is the norm, unfortunately.
No it only takes a few - the leaders. It was not everyone at BP that caused the leak in the Gulf. BP has thousands of employees who all try to do a decent job and report the data to their bosses. There a few people who decide what data to be concerned about, and what they dismiss.
There were a few people in BP who gave orders to "save-money" or "move-forward", and "don't include that data" or "that data is flawed, we're not going to have a failure". The rest of the employees are either in the dark that their data was dismissed, or they fall-in-line with their boss' decision.
BP or the IPCC is not a democracy where thousands of voices are weighted equally, like you're inferring. A scientist collecting weather data, or a field engineer at BP are working for someone, and basically are told what to do and do not know what their "bosses" are doing.
If you have a job, do you know if you boss or his boss know that they get accurate data, and always consider your advice or data. Is your organization mainly about "doing good" or are people mainly concerned with making $ and seeing to their own self-promotion?
You know, they could fake numbers till their eyes pop out,
(which I refuse to believe they are doing in large numbers)
and that still does not change the fact that glaciers and other ice packs all over the world are shrinking, with a few exceptions, of course.
And droughts are increasing.
And extreme weather events are increasing in number.
There is more to climate change than just heating up and measuring temps.
There is no way anyone should be convinced either way right now. We should all be wondering what's really going on climatically and stop arguing over the political side of the issue.
Comments
"Automakers are under pressure from governments, environmental groups and consumers to sell models that consume less gasoline and emit fewer gases linked to global warming. China’s government aims to subsidize at least 4 million of these cars by 2012."
Siemens Close to China Electric-Car Charging Contract (Business Week)
Here's another (retired) Republican on the subject:
"whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century."
NY Times
"Clean and renewable energy technologies are expected to be a major driver of economic growth over the next 50 years. The country that lays the strongest foundation for research, development, production and consumption will reap the rewards in terms of jobs and economic activity, which are expected to be large. Although the U.S. was expected to occupy this position at the beginning of the 21st century,China is emerging as the leader. Also, it appears that the U.S. may continue to fade further unless we take action to reverse the trend."
The Rise Of China's Clean Energy Industry (CattleNetwork.com)
That last link also talks about China's emissions research, but there's a lot of "China may be doing X" hedges in there.
I'm not finding any links about any Chinese spending on pure GW research.
No, and I don't think you will. Everybody wants clean air, but that is just a bonus for China. Their concern is oil, and their lack of it. That is why they are spending so much on electric car research. Electric cars are their only option.
If China had the oil, coal, and gas reserves that we do it would be drill baby drill !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You mean like the CFL bulbs we are mandated to use and cannot manufacture in this country due to regulations against mercury? I am sure we are doing a lot of green research. Then because of regulations having the products built off shore. Why would a company go through all the red tape and regulations to build a factory in the USA to make Solar panels? China is making strides toward a cleaner environment. They are not letting the regulations get in the way. My understanding is for every clean coal power plant they build 3 are put up using the older technology. We say clean coal or no power. Same for nuke plants. What are we doing with the billions wasted on environmental research? My guess is most of it goes into fat cat pockets in return for campaign contributions.
I bet I could if I could read Mandarin. :shades:
India, China buying U.S. coal mines, shale gas fields
Foreign companies are buying up U.S. coal mines.
In a statement on Nov. 12, the chairman of Coal India Ltd., a state-controlled entity and the world's largest coal producer, with a near-monopoly on Indian coal mining, confirmed that the firm was in talks with several U.S. coal companies to buy stakes in mines throughout the continental U.S. According to the Associated Press, Coal India has budgeted $1.2 billion this year alone to buy American, Australian, and Indonesian coal mines. Facing voracious energy demands and a yawning gap between domestic supplies of coal and projected needs, the company is going on a global buying spree.
It is not alone. Reliance Industries, also of India, bought a $3.4 billion stake in three U.S. shale gas companies earlier this year. In March, India's Essar Group acquired Trinity Coal for $600 million; the company has active mines in Kentucky and West Virginia. China's ENN Energy Trading, a subsidiary of one of China's largest natural gas companies, signed a preliminary purchase agreement in early November with Cheniere Energy for 20 years of processing capacity at Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG terminal, located on the border of Louisiana and Texas. And China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd. agreed in October to pay up to $2.16 billion for a 33.3 percent stake in Chesapeake Energy's interest in the Eagle Ford shale play. The deal, if concluded, would represent the largest Chinese investment ever in the U.S. energy sector.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-18-india-china-buying-u.s.-coal-mines-shale- - -gas-fields
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Good point. So ask yourself this question... who profits from the "man is not the cause... there is no proof of MMGW" movement? WHO PROFITS???
I know all about cherry picking data from reading all of gagrices and larsbs post here. The consensus from unbiased scientists though seem to support MMGW.
One scientist on that History Channel program said to deny MMGW is similar to denying the holocaust has happened. You have tons of supporting data showing it has happened, yet opponents, with their own agenda, will look at 3 or 4 "facts" showing it did not happen and say that is their "proof".
U.S. taxpayers..... by not getting skinned alive !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Maybe one or two whacks from a hickory switch... but not skinned alive. I'll willing to put in a little "skin" to save the planet, most of us here probably would, and are doing so.
To me though I don't see the need for a long debate over whether MMGW is happening or not. You conserve, recycle and produce the least amount of pollution as possible, while protecting your economic base... simple.
I would be interested in the names of those so called unbiased scientists. Are they living off of Federal grants? Who is paying their salary is where you have to start. There are scientists that are not paid by folks with an agenda. Their ideas are more to my liking. I will accept the studies of Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer over James Hansen. John Coleman knows a thing or two about climate and sees through the political BS that has driven the world into a frenzy with wild assertions and little else.
Even if we are in a GW period. It is not worth destroying our economy and moving back to the caves. IF and it is a BIG IF, the most emphatic pushers of the MMGW ideology truly believed, they would set an example. They do not, making the whole idea look like a scam. Some of the loudest voices have the largest carbon footprints. Driving a Prius to the Academy awards, then flying their Gulfstream around the world does not make me a believer.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The data that has been presented by the IPCC might well be cherry-picked. But let's say for a moment it wasn't. Well that data shows a temperature increase that is not anymore extreme then several other scientifically documented temperature increases in history, before man's industrialization. So to my scientific mind, our current increase in CO2 that occurs at the same time as a temperature increase that has been seen many times before w/o CO2-increasing, is not proof at all. It is a weak theory. If the temperature were increasing faster than at any other time in history, then I would say it is a strong proof.
It wasn't that long ago that parts of Greenland were inhabitable. The current melt of the Greenland glaciers may only bring us back to a climate we had about a millenium ago.
If you want to know what the main factor is in the climate consider that the amount of energy from the sun that hits our atmosphere, oceans and land is greater in 1 day, then the total energy man uses from all renewable, nuclear, and fossil fuels in 1 year. It is the sun that created the geothermal energy of this planet, and it is the sun that keeps it from sitting in the absolute 0 (Kelvin) environment of space, freezing the Earth to the core. It is the red-giant sun that it will become, that will end life on Earth some day, boiling off the oceans, in the best display of natural-GW.
While turning a deaf ear to the NRDC, WWF and BWF lobbyists, no doubt.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Is to distract the people from real tasks at hand for the government they have hired to work for them.
is to give cause for a bigger government that does not work on the important tasks.
The hackers who uncovered the scandalous email messages between those who were deceiving the world about GW are enemy no. 1 of the redistributers.
Now it's as if the scandal never happened.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Hey, maybe they'll show up here next.
"This month, the American Geophysical Union announced plans to mobilize 700 climate scientists to improve the accuracy of media coverage and public understanding of their field. Separately, a smaller group of scientists organized by John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota said it was putting together a "rapid response team" to bring accurate climate science to public debates."
Taking on the global warming deniers club (Pittsburgh Live)
"We are taking the fight to them because we are . . . tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
Scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics (STLtoday.com)
What planet are these guys on? They need to come to CA where the utilities have doubled as a result of their GW theories. Now we got Moonbeam as a governor and he is more of a ECO Nut than Ahnold was.
What we are skeptical of are GW fat cats getting rich and the rest of US paying the bills.
PS
They can start with our local RAWS measurement device. It is always 6-10 degrees higher than reality. Just part of their scam.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Since what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, let's ask the same question of who, on the other side of the debate, profits.
A big beneficiary is BP - yes, that BP - which was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying group dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill.
BP is the nation's largest producer of natural gas. It will benefit from legislation or policies that support federal subsidies to switch coal-fired power plants to cleaner natural gas.
And let's not forget all of the researchers at universities and think tanks who will have to exit the grant gravy train if man is proven not to be the cause of global warming.
jipster: One scientist on that History Channel program said to deny MMGW is similar to denying the holocaust has happened.
Which, of course, only diminishes his credibility among those who are well-informed regarding this issue. His hysterical statement is the equivalent of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!".
jipster: You have tons of supporting data showing it has happened, yet opponents, with their own agenda, will look at 3 or 4 "facts" showing it did not happen and say that is their "proof".
No, you have tons of data showing that global warming has occurred naturally throughout history, and conflicting data as to whether it has been driven manmade factors.
Not when there are so many legitimate studies which need to be done and would also qualify for funding.
Not buying it. Nope. Never will buy that.
Those people have to go home and sleep at night. Not buying that they live a 100% fraudulent existence. Nope
.
.
I suppose you feel the same way about Bernie Madoff and all the banksters on Wall Street. Man by nature looks out for himself and those he loves. They don't have to be 100% fraudulent, as proven by Climategate. Only fudge a little here and a little there to get the results the guy paying the bill wants.
I don't think those situations are analogous at all.
Well, to run the pun into the ground, they are doctoring results, but most anything published in the journals typically gets edited, vetted and peered at.
But then you are saying researchers aren't "human and governed by human-nature". Because Humans and Human-nature have been shown that they can be bought time-after-time. One of the most famous examples was the O.J. trial where Johnny Cochrane and his bought-assistants showed enough data to get O.J. not guilty.
To continue the court analogy, in the case of MMGW the court, judge, jury and press are all getting paid by the Prosecution, that only wants a certain outcome. Anyone presenting a fair discussion of the facts and all the facts, is not given a fair chance.
Anyway I think the oneous is on-you larsb, to tell us why the prponents of MMGW don't follow the rest of Humanity, and Human Nature. Most people are bought and paid for. Scientists are no different, as there's plenty of scientists who have shown how cigarettes are good for you, asbestos is a great product, and BP's oil-drilling technology is fool-proof. All bought and paid for.
No, I bet you aren't.
And neither am I.
So assuming that EVERY one of the THOUSANDS of scientists who claim MMGW are crooks is also incorrect and ridiculous.
Are there some who "game" the system? I'm sure there are.
Is that number more than a few percent? Probably not, based on what we know about human nature.
Climategate mortally wounded the global warming hoax, and despite whitewash laden exonerations, the damage wrought on the University of East Anglia by Phil Jones and the motley CRU has been permanent.
For evidence of just how bad the damage of Climategate was for the UEA, observe how warmist-friendly Louise Gray frames her story ‘Global CO2 expected to rise to record levels’ (emphasis mine):
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are expected to reach record levels this year, according to a new study, despite the recession and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The research, led by the University of Exeter and involving the University of East Anglia, found that growth in CO2 levels fell in 2009, though by less than expected, because of the economic recession.
In a pre-Climategate world, the idea of the UEA taking a back seat to Exeter would be unthinkable, CRU was the big name in climate research and maintained one of the key climate datasets in the world. Post-Climategate, the UEA brand is tarnished so badly it needs to be downplayed for fear the credibility of the study be tarnished by association with Jones et al.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/8157-the-incredible-shrinking-u- ea
ATHENS, Greece — In a mea culpa of sorts, former Vice President Al Gore on Monday said he made a mistake in supporting corn-based ethanol while he was in office, admitting he was more interested in farm votes for his presidential run than what was best for the environment.
So why should we believe anything he promotes?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40317079/ns/us_news-environment
Well, it sounds like you are saying "Because AlGore is a goofball idiot, Global Warming is not a fact."
That's poor logic and a little bit simplistic. I hope that's not what you meant.
Where AlGore stands on GW has nothing at all to do, not one iota to do, with the response we need to or don't need to make in regard to taking care of our planet.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I do still believe that the jury is still out on whether or not man's pollution is affecting the environment in a negative way.
I think better safe than sorry. If you do as little harm as possible, that can't be the wrong way to go.
.
.
.
As little harm as possible to WHOM? Those that have lost their jobs due to climate change legislation? Do you really believe pushing the pollution over to China or India is the right way to do things? How about the Gulf damage caused by the rabid GW cult? Doing Nothing is always preferable to doing the wrong thing.
We can turn this question in its head - do you believe that EVERYONE who claims that there is no manmade global warming is somehow a shill for the oil industry? Because that is how proponents of the theory of manmade global warming dismiss those who poke holes in that theory.
As I said above, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"Pushing pollution" is not the way - of course not. Elimination of pollution is the best answer in almost every case.
"Gulf damage" by the rabid GW cult is an odd way to put it. Farmers were already polluting the Mississippi River before anyone started working on Ethanol.
And you seem to love to jump all over ANYTHING anyone EVER wants to do with "green" in mind. Just because the Ethanol project did not succeed does not mean it was a terrible idea.
Great ideas have failed throughout the history of mankind. I don't think you can fault "eco weinies" for ideas that are good on paper that fall through in reality. At least they are TRYING to help.
No I don't. I've never accused anyone of that.
People trumpet ideas which hit themselves in the pocketbook. That doesn't make the idea wrong or right in every case though.
To grow corn year after year, it takes lots of fertilizer. Yes the Gulf Dead Zone has grown since the increase in growing corn for ethanol. And so far the Feds have not admitted it is a sham. Only Al Baby has admitted pandering to the ethanol industry for votes. Ethanol was and is a political issue. Just as MMGW is a political issue. It is a way to generate money for the wealthy that buys the ads that generate the votes.
It is the Eco Weinies that come up with the ideas that may or may not improve our planet. It is the Bernie Madoff types that come up with the ways to make money while looking green. And the Eco Nuts buy into it. And the middle class pays the bill.
I just ignore the political aspect.
To me it's just science. Unsettled science, but that arctic ice ain't meltin' it's own self.
They all are out for themselves or their cause and either are too foolish to think for themselves or are falling for the ruse, don't ask too many questions, or the few percent who really run the MMGW theory (business).
As does natural warming and cooling.....
That correct.
But it's shortsighted to think that nothing produced by 6 billion people and their lives can possibly ever have an impact on the environment.
We already know that water pollution is a real side effect.
We already know that air pollution is a real side effect.
NO one can say definitively "Man has no effect at all on global climate."
And until we can quantify those impacts, we need to study them more.
They won't "put their name on a study" if they are only given a small portion of the data they need to reach a valid scientific conclusion. They have reputations to uphold, and those reputations are important to their livelihood.
That is flat wrong. The head scientists at the IPCC did exactly that.
New Delhi, Feb 1: The UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) claims about ice melting from the world's mountain peaks was based on a student's essay, a media report said.
The IPCC report had said that reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was caused by global warming.
The report had also cited two scientific papers as its primary source of information.
According to UK newspaper The Telegraph, one source was the geography
student's dissertation and the other an anecdotal article in a mountaineering magazine.
There is so much erroneous "Data" on GW, no one can be certain of the content or its origins. I don't think that most of US have a problem with making certain changes to our lifestyle that do not impact us negatively. There is no good reason to live in the dark on the say of a UN panel that has been discredited and should be disbanded. The legislation proposed and already implemented is causing harm and will mostly impact the lower middle class and the poor. That is what I find unacceptable. When they get the politicians out of the lab we may get data that is believable. I don't see that happening. Which makes it ALL suspect.
SOME SCIENTISTS did X = ALL SCIENTISTS do X
is not a true statement.
Let's say you, gagrice, houdini1, and I are scientists. Steve is going to be the Group 4 Leader that we're sending our data or scientific reports into. We're the worker bees getting grants, making field trips, and writing papers. So you, I and houdini all take temperatures for months and find our temperatures are 1F higher than the average of the last 10 years. we write a report, send our report to Stev who enters the data into his datatbase. Meanwhile gagrice is noting that his temps. are 3F lower than normal this year; he writes his report including a LaNina occurrence this year, and Steve gets that data. We've all done legitimate, scientific work, and can claim we didn't lie, although each one of us might have different equipment than last year, or take our temperatures at a different time of day or different location than 10 years ago.
So Steve gets our data. Now Steve gets to apply his own rules for determining what data to further analyze. ALL data collected is rarely used in science. I have lab books from my college days that explain the scientific, probabilistic methods - such as a Q-test (which you can google) to discount discordant-data. So Steve could use certain reasoning or *'s to note deep in any analysis that he has reasoned gagrice's data was in error or such a rarity, and was therefore not included in his analysis.
And if Steve has a career and ego based on his life's-work of this theory, and he has speaking engagements around the world at 1st class conferences, and millions of $ in investments in low-CO2 ventures, I'm sure Steve could convince himself that he has not stepped over any ethical-line.
I see people from lawyers to doctors, to debt collectors and finance people playing in grey-ethical areas all the time. If you want some good common-day examples, just look at your doctor and hospitals. They are pushing record amounts of prescription drugs at us, and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies are doing so not just for our health which is a part, but they are doing so because they are making more profit. Or the doctor's will send you at the slightest suggestion for all kinds of expensive hospital tests. The medical system certainly wants to help patients, but mostly they are concerned with profits at the end of the day.
But now you are accusing 1000s of scientists of doing this?
.
..
.
.
??? :shades:
- a few events (partial data) to scare the public, - get the mostly ignorant of the facts media to jump on the story giving them your version, - get some former government officials as lobbyists in D.C. who have access to the Power-Brokers (access you or I would never get), - get some donations to their campaigns, - meet them for lunch and dinner, and voila ... get some Congressional legislation to start a whole new bureaucratic machine/program that benefits your cause.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm
This example is only bout $50M. How many billions and billions of $'s are the incentive in the MMGW-machine? And it only needs to be the few % at the top of the machine who know the whole-truth, and it is exactly that group who has the most to gain.
I love that example the other day where Gore admits similar. He knew the whole corn-ethanol boondoggle that has cost us billions over the years, was mainly a political maneuver to gain him support (power) and the farmers and politicians of those states support. They were all just washing each others' feet. This sort of stuff is the norm, unfortunately.
There were a few people in BP who gave orders to "save-money" or "move-forward", and "don't include that data" or "that data is flawed, we're not going to have a failure". The rest of the employees are either in the dark that their data was dismissed, or they fall-in-line with their boss' decision.
BP or the IPCC is not a democracy where thousands of voices are weighted equally, like you're inferring. A scientist collecting weather data, or a field engineer at BP are working for someone, and basically are told what to do and do not know what their "bosses" are doing.
If you have a job, do you know if you boss or his boss know that they get accurate data, and always consider your advice or data. Is your organization mainly about "doing good" or are people mainly concerned with making $ and seeing to their own self-promotion?
(which I refuse to believe they are doing in large numbers)
and that still does not change the fact that glaciers and other ice packs all over the world are shrinking, with a few exceptions, of course.
And droughts are increasing.
And extreme weather events are increasing in number.
There is more to climate change than just heating up and measuring temps.
There is no way anyone should be convinced either way right now. We should all be wondering what's really going on climatically and stop arguing over the political side of the issue.