Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 29-10-2007

By Katon

Idiots*: a word derived from ancient Greek, meaning those who ignore public matters. Always something interesting to learn here at TDG. But there’s way too much news today, to fill you in on everything.

Quote of the Day:

Who would have ever thought that I would make Fox News announcing the end of the world?

Vincent Bridges, in his blog, yesterday, on the Lost Book of Nostradamus.

Kat
Related

83 Comments

  2. The Canadian
    Has the The Canadian become the new Pravda? Every time there is a new link to an article in The Canadian it gets more ridiculous. This latest one about the war in Iraq being inspired by extraterrestrials is a hoot. Who needs supermarket tabloids when you can get your daily fill of nonsense on the internet?

    1. Hey Michael
      I agree this article has to be taken not with a grain, but with a whole sack of salt!

      Did Hitler support the Iraq liberation? Quite possibly, but you don’t have to look for space occultist connections for that one. He probably tried to undermine the british position that had all that area under their control after the fall of the Ottoman empire on WWI.

      Are there a lot of UFOs sightings on Iraq and Iran lately? Sure. But those are probably (probably I say, not surely) american spy planes, drones, or even something more exotic still under a black project veil.

      But Hey, reading about Hitler and Aliens is always great fun 🙂

      This story reminds me of all the fuzz caused by the leader of the Raelian cult, that had (still has I suppose) the intention to build a great embassy for our alien overlords, the Eloim, in Jerusalem. The fact that the original symbol of the Raelians had a SWASTICA mixed with the Star of David was something that probably our stellar masters hadn’t put much thought to! 😉

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Definitely to be taken with a sack of salt
        Definitely to be taken with a sack of salt, but also very funny.

        Just my way of poking a bit of fun at myself for sometimes being too serious about politics.

        Kat

  3. * Definition
    While accurate, that definition is no longer applied to the word (and hasn’t for several hundred years). While it had a legitimate medical definition not so long ago, today it is used as a general insult to mean stupid, retarded, ignorant or just plain dumb. But within the context of it’s blatantly rude reference here on TDG today, it’s being used to describe “anyone who does not bow down and offer 100% affirmation of our faith….uh, politics…uh, science”. Plenty of people pay attention to public matters, but agreement is what is demanded. Otherwise, you’re an idiot.

    How tolerant.

    1. those who ignore public matters
      I posted the archaic definition (those who ignore public matters) of the word ‘idiots’ for two reasons. One, it’s the specific definition I had in mind. Two, I don’t know of another word, archaic or contemporary, that means ‘those who ignore public matters’, even though, in light of our ‘what, me worry‘ response to the news that we’re rapidly killing the Universe’s only known biosphere, there’s patently a need for such a word. As you so helpfully pointed out, the word ‘idiots’ isn’t currently being used for anything useful, so I propose that we resurrect it’s archaic meaning.

      >>Plenty of people pay attention to public matters, but agreement is what is demanded.

      Out of hundreds of news sources with various versions of this report, I posted a link to the article at timesonline with your and Bill’s oft-mentioned objections to climate change data in mind, because the timesonline version focused more specifically on the issue of environmental degradation. As the article points out, ‘Climate change was identified as one of the most pressing problems but the condition of fresh water supplies, agricultural land and biodiversity were considered to be of equal concern.’ Even my headline put the emphasis on ‘use of resources’. Since you commented on it, I assume you read the article. Which part(s) of the report do you disagree with (or feel unduly pressured to agree with), and why?

      Kat

      1. What part?
        Just the parts based on unsupported, hysterical rhetoric such as “we’re rapidly killing the Universe’s only known biosphere”. But my complaint had to do more attitudes that attempt to stifle productive debate rather than specific, pseudo-scientific rantings from a political organization and their chosen shills in lab-coats.

        The “Earth-audit” fails to put its statistics into context. Specifically, many of those conclusions are “gross” rather than “net”, many continue a long term trend of improvement and most have an unproven connection to an “end of the world” scenario. In short, when put into historical context, we are not anywhere close to killing the Universe’s only known biosphere (assuming we could do so even if we wanted to).

        Look, when the “experts” fail miserably to predict the U.S. hurricane season two years in row (much to the disappointment of those who are really hoping for a devastating storm season to further their agenda) then the last thing anyone should be doing is predicting the end of the world in forty or fifty years.

        http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

        1. Iffy conclusions?
          >>The “Earth-audit” fails to put its statistics into context. Specifically, many of those conclusions are “gross” rather than “net”, many continue a long term trend of improvement and most have an unproven connection to an “end of the world” scenario.

          Among others, the article mentions these four conclusions:

          …each person in the world now requires a third more land to supply his or her needs than the Earth can supply.

          Thirty per cent of amphibians, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds are under threat of extinction

          …one in ten of the world’s major rivers runs dry every year before it reaches the sea.

          Populations of freshwater fish have declined by 50 per cent in 20 years

          Which of these conclusions, if any, do you think are overstated, and why?

          >>”The “Earth-audit” fails to put its statistics into context. Specifically, many of those conclusions are “gross” rather than “net”, many continue a long term trend of improvement and most have an unproven connection to an “end of the world” scenario. In short, when put into historical context, we are not anywhere close to killing the Universe’s only known biosphere (assuming we could do so even if we wanted to).”

          Can you provide us with links to your sources on this information? I’m curious to see which of these scientists they identify as shills, and why.

          Kat

          1. What people are saying
            The very first comment on that TimesOnLine article:

            [quote]We just need to say the hell with it and enjoy it while it lasts… We’ll have the technology soon enough to harvest other planets resources and/or teraform it so it can sustain life. So we might as well use up earth and get over it.

            digitaljesus, colorado springs, colorado [/quote]

            Truly christian sentiment, indeed 🙂

            Gotta get myself a new cup of coffe now. I don’t know for sure if it’s global-warming related or not, but here in Mexico we’ve been experiencing chilling temperatures since the last week or so. My feet are starting to get numb so I’ll go move around a little.

            I just want to say one more thing. I saw the other day a tv doco when an enviromentalist made the comparisson between the climate change debate and going to see a physician. When you go see a doc, and he tells you he’s worried about your cholesterol levels and that you should change your life style otherwise you might get a heart attack, you don’t go and demand him to accurately PREDICT the exact date when you might suffer the attack. You are entitled to a second opinion of course, but presumably no doctor would dare to make exact predictions, since they are impossible.

            But if you don’t stop eating those chips and begin to do some serious exercise, when the time comes that you finally get that massive coronary, it will be your own fault and you won’t be able to put the blame on the doctors for not being CONVINCING enough.

            You won’t able ’cause you’ll be dead.

            Is it truly, such a bad idea to get our fat behinds up the sofa and start jogging, people? ya know, just to be on the safe side of things? 🙂

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          2. rivers
            About the 1 in 10 rivers running dry, I have some specific questions, such as:

            How many “major” rivers are we talking about? 10? 100? 1000?

            If it’s 10 major rivers, I know which one is running dry before reaching the ocean.

            Also, how many of these major rivers normally run dry before reaching the ocean, without human interference?

            And then, for how many cases is this a bad thing? All of them? Most of them?

            On top of all that, there are some major rivers that don’t run into any oceans in the first place.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          3. Running out of water
            As of last week Atlanta Georgia had less then 90 days of water. The Bees are dieing off, and the reason is not yet understood. We are abusing the only planet we have. How hard is this to understand. Weather , the sun, cycles we don’t fully understand. Whatever the reason, we are destroying to much, too fast. And waiting for more evidence is criminal, and show a general lack of respect for others in the here and now , and those yet to be. Thats how I feel.

          4. action and evidence
            If you want to follow a course of action to help this, it is normally good to know what you are trying to accomplish.

            Sure, some things we can do are obvious, such as reducing water consumption. Don’t water you lawn in bright sunshine. Don’t wash your car as often. Don’t run your shower until you actually get in it. There is much obvious waste we can avoid.

            Many things can be done that will improve the situation, and that have little or no chance of hurting anything.

            However, when statements are made such as “1 in 10 major rivers run dry before they reach the sea…”, do you really object that I ask more questions?

            That statement could represent a huge problem, or it could be completely empty of meaning. I reserve the right to at least try to find out.

            If other people are not interested in finding out what is happening, that worries me. But of course I can’t really help them, other than ask questions.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          5. The Colorado River
            Runs dry miles from the sea. Within the last 50 years. We’re beyond watering the lawn less. Over population, over use. And the lack of Snow Pack year after year.

          6. indeed
            Indeed that is the one case I know about as well. The Colorado feeds (waters) Las Vegas, the better part of Arizona, and parts of California. Perhaps some other places as well, I am not sure.

            But it has nothing to do with water shortages in US Georgia. The 90 day prediction assumes that water usage stays normal, and nobody reduces usage. Well, they better reduce usage. They can’t fix the climate in 90 days. I wish them luck, and hope it rains there. Also they should get the water usage act together. You probably agree with that last part.

            There are water shortages sometimes in Florida (Jacksonville), and in England. But that is just bad water management. Both Florida and England are basically swamps.

            I say we need water management, and in general resource management. Limiting the population – I don’t think there is a good way to do that. The negative effects of trying to enforce lower population will probably be worse than dealing with some reasonable population increase.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          7. Minor comment
            [quote=earthling]Sure, some things we can do are obvious, such as reducing water consumption. Don’t water you lawn in bright sunshine. [/quote]

            I actually wonder if things like this are contributing to the problem. Water doesn’t disappear when the sun evaporates it, it continues to be part of a cycle (though, obviously, it may have disappeared from the catchment you live in). But sometimes I ponder whether our lack of watering perpetuates a cycle of desertification – without water evaporating, contributing to humidity, the land grows ever more arid. I’ve read about cities, with their lack of vegetation/soil, actually change the local weather – and this would seem in a similar vein.

            Anyhow, just a minor comment on how trying to be environmentally conscious may actually be contributing to a worsening of effect.

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          8. maybe both
            It is only one resourse, but still, managing water can work.

            The Netherlands and Belgium would be a useless swamp, without water management.

            Souterhn California and Arizona woule be a useless desert.

            As bladerunner has pointed out, the Colorado river has run dry for something like 50 years before reaching the sea. BUT, the population that the Colorado supports is supporting, over those 50 years, has increased by something like 3-fold.

            It is the same amount of water, approximately. Just better managed.

            Aside feom that, many many people eat produce made in California, Arizona and so on, al fed from the Colorado River, in the rest of North America, and other parts of the world.

            Some people advocate getting local veggies, and not buy the stuff that is trucked in or oven flown in. To save on the fuel cost and the pollution.

            But how about the energy (electric, coal, natural gas, oil etc) that is used to heat and light the hothouses in the winter, in the north?

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

      2. Trust the UN?
        [quote=Kat]
        Out of hundreds of news sources with various versions of this report, I posted a link to the article at timesonline with your and Bill’s oft-mentioned objections to climate change data in mind, because the timesonline version focused more specifically on the issue of environmental degradation.
        [/quote]

        I stopped reading at the part where it says, “says UN”. Credibility is not their strong suit.

        If you’re in the market for an organization that excels at stealing $billions with dictators like Sadam Hussain or forcing children to provide sex in exchange for food, the UN is a good bet. Climatology, no, I wouldn’t trust them so much.

        Bill

        1. UN
          So what, in your opinion, is the UN’s agenda for hiring these 1400 scientific shills to skew the evidence, and tell us that environmental degradation is so bad, humanity’s very future is at risk? What about the scientists themselves — just in it for a few bucks?

          And what about things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch – a heap of debris floating in the Pacific that’s twice the size of Texas, and which consists of 80 percent plastics, weighing some 3.5 million tons? Are concerned marine biologists just more scientific shills of the UN?

          Kat

          1. IPCC
            Well some part of this UN science stuff is lacking.

            In particular, http://www.ipcc.ch, yes these are the climate change experts who just got a Nobel Prize.

            I have asked them by email, I have called them on the phone.

            They will not reveal their method (the computer simulation programs), nor their actual data.

            They present fine reports. These reports are analysis and discussion of the data that come from the simulations. But they do not react to questions about the method or the actual data.

            Some people give me the run-around. Others claim ignorance. Greenpeace claims ignorance.

            I am not saying that these people do anything wrong in a scientific sense. But I am saying that keeping the actual evidence secret is immoral.

            And highly suspect – what are they hiding? Why do they not care about the public’s interest in this? Do they have an agreed-upon set of conclusions, and nobody is allowed to question that?

            If anyone knows where this stuff is, please let the rest of us know.

            If anyone has an idea why I should not know about these things, please tell me.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          2. Great Pacific Garbage Patch: Man, that’s FUCKED UP! 🙁
            Quite disturbing the reading of that article, even with the tongue-in-cheek attitude that made me giggle a couple of times.

            I think that, 100 million years from now, future paleontologists (probably humongous sentient cocroaches) will be able to quickly identify the geologic stratum where homo sapiens thrived and died, by the color of all our polymer junk. Can you picture it? I sure can, and it’s pretty harrowing.

            Ironic, but harrowing.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. Not the tongue-in-cheek article
            This link, which I also posted in the comment above, isn’t to Mark Morford’s column — it’s to the science article that his column was based on.

            Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

            Kat

          4. Google Earth
            I know it’s kind of morbid from my part, but do you think that continent of trash can be viewed with Google Earth or something? I just find it odd that they do not submit a picture of something so massive.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          5. Have a look at the trash
            Here’s a four-page LATimes article, published August, 2006. Here’s their flash animation titled Altered Oceans, which includes a link to a sobering, if not shocking, 2 1/2 minute video about the ocean trash.

            Check out those 18 photos too, especially #s 9 and 12.

            Kat

          6. Err. thanks… I think 🙁
            That trash is spookier than a picture of Satan himself.

            That would be an appropiate costume for today: garbage pile! Oooooooooh!!

            I don’t know, our cousins the chimps have the habit of throwing their feces. Looks to me like we haven’t evolved that much.

            PS: And here I am now, with a styrofoam cup drinking my coffee, and feeling guilty as hell. What do I do now? Supposedly Mexico city is beginning to separate garbage, but even if you have two different cans, when they collect it they end up back together in the truck!

            Si el equilibrio es Dios
            y el equilibrio murio
            …¿qué pasó con Dios?

            if the balance is God
            and the balance is dead
            …what happened to God?

            Café Tacvba
            (mexican band extraordinaire)
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          7. UN
            Of the 1400 how many were forced to sign? How many are scientists that know something about climate? How many owe their existence to UN grants? How many refused to sign? How many are children? How many really exist? How can anyone possibly believe the UN?

            The motivation is money, power, and the desire to make you believe that the situation is hopeless without UN intervention and control. How’s it working on you?

            Bill

            You are attempting to change the subject from climate change to floating garbage. This is poor technique in an argument. You can do better.

          8. I can give you some names Bill
            Hey Bill, I of course don’t have all the names of those 1400 scientists, but I can give you the names of the mexican team that are part of the IPCC, all of the investigators of the Mexican National University, that means the only connection they have with the UN is being part of the IPCC, but they are members of academic institutions, they’re not on the UN payroll.

            The scientists are:

            * Carlos Gay García; Director of the Centre of Atmospheric Sciences.

            * Graciela Binimelis de Raga

            * Víctor Magaña Rueda

            * Cecilia Conde Alvarez (these three are also from the same Centre)

            * Francisco Estrada Porrúa

            * Ana Rosa Moreno (both from the Faculty of Medicine)

            * Blanca Jiménez

            * Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo (both are from the Institute of Engineering)

            * Omar Masera Cerutti

            * Carlos Anaya Merchant (both from the Centre of Investigations on Ecosystems)

            These names were taken from this news article (sorry, it’s in spanish)

            http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=330166

            one of the scientists, Cecilia Conde, told the interviewer that on their meetings with their fellow latin american scientists, one of the main concerns they had in common was the rapid loss of bio-diversity, because if the temperatures increase by 2 degrees (Centigrades I presume) we could lose 30% of the local flora and fauna in the region.

            Hope this info helps

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          9. nice
            Perhaps some of these fine people can help me with my problem. The problem of finding the method and data they used.

            I know a lot of the work is secondary – given some predictions about temperature change and humidity and such, what are the consequences. And what can be done to mitigate resulting damage.

            But still, somewhere in the must be the method and data predicting these climate changes.

            Can you ask any of these people? You are closer. Or can you find contact information, so I can bug them myself?

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          10. contact info
            The website of the Centre of Atmospheric Sciences is

            http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/

            which I’m sorry to report, appears not to have an english version. A big mistake, but well, what ya gonna do with the low resources these guys must have.

            I managed to find these e-mail addresses

            Dr. Carlos Gay García (Director of the Centre)
            cgay@servidor.unam.mx

            Dra. Ma. Amparo Martínez Arroyo (Academic Secretary)
            seac@atmosfera.unam.mx

            Dr. Victor O. Magaña Rueda (General Meteorology)
            victormr@servidor.unam.mx

            Dra. Graciela Lucia Binimelis de Raga (Micro & Meso-scale interaction)
            raga@servidor.unam.mx

            I hope this info can help. I’m sure scientists of this caliber would be more than able to respond an e-mail message sent in english. As for WILLINGNESS, I honestly cannot say. I assume they are busy with both their faculty teaching and ongoing investigations.

            But you should definitely give it a try & contact them. Tell them you’re asking on behalf of a group of fine intelligent people who gather at a VERY IMPORTANT website called Daily Grail 🙂

            I think we all are very interested in see what they have to say.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          11. method and data
            >>Perhaps some of these fine people can help me with my problem. The problem of finding the method and data they used.

            Gotta spring for the big books.

            Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO-4): Environment for Development is available on this page as a 576-page paperback book for $80.00. The paperback is also available now at Amazon UK for £30.00. Looks like it will eventually be available via Amazon US too.

            Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis is available on this page in paperback for $85.00. The hardback is available now at Amazon US for $165. The paperback is available now at Amazon UK for £42.75.

            More listed here.

            Kat

          12. thanks
            Thanks Kat for the references.

            I actually do have the “Physical Science Basis” report, it is availabe for free in PDF format. Comes in a few chunks. I read most of it, hoping it would contain what I’m looking for. But it doesn’t, the computer simulation method is not even referenced.

            However, I will keep looking and asking.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          13. pdfs of physical science basis
            Hummm. Taking the Amazon UK link to the paperback of Climate Change 2007, I see that the book is 1056 pages long. Somehow I doubt they managed to put all that in a few – or even several – pdfs.

            Kat

          14. no Kat
            really I have those things

            all the 1056 pages

            do you call me a liar now? really I have this stuff

            and the simulation code, or the references are not in there

            or, maybe if you say I am liar, tell me where it is.

            Please ?

            It is not in there Kat, really.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          15. To Earthling – about the data
            Thanks for the link to the pdfs. You’re right – there’s lots of them, and they’re all huge. After waiting a long time for it to download (even with broadband), I took a look at the pdf on model reliability — not to read the whole thing (at least, not right now), but to better understand what you’ve been saying about the data not being there.

            Yep – the book is just an analysis of the data, not the data itself. So, like you, I went looking for data — with a little help from some urls in the pdf I mentioned above.

            Many of the news articles about the report said that the UN team analyzed 20 years of data. From what I found, it looks like that’s a bit of an understatement.

            For instance, here’s one paragraph from the pdf:
            “The global model intercomparison activities that began in the late 1980s, and continued with the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, have now proliferated to include several dozen model intercomparison projects covering virtually all climate model components and various coupled model configurations (see http://www.clivar.org/science/mips.php for a summary).”

            So I tried that url. CLIVAR won’t let you see that page — the url redirects to their main page. But on their main page, you can put your mouse over Data, and take the last link in the list – ‘Global Datasets’. After you go to that page, just under the Global Datasets title you’ll see two links – Air-Sea Flux and SST. Click on Air-Sea Flux, then click on the first link on that page, and you’ll go to http://oaflux.whoi.edu/ Click on Data Access – http://oaflux.whoi.edu/data.html -, and it tells you how to download some of their data – in this particular area.

            The page that CLIVAR won’t let you see is titled something like ‘Catalog of Model Intercomparison Projects’. So I put that phrase in parentheses, and googled it. Here are Google’s search results for (Catalog of Model Intercomparison Projects). What you’ll find via this link is that a zillion agencies and departments in every scientific area have been doing these intercomparison models of all sorts of data.

            To find at least part of the data the UN team(s) analyzed, you’ll need to go to each of these agencies/departments, and look for a download page like the one I mentioned above. The reason you can’t find all the data on the internet is that these agencies/departments don’t post all the data they collect on the internet. They do post some of their data on the net, but apparently they don’t use the public internet for sharing massive amounts of data with other agencies/departments.

            Try that google search link, and see if you can’t find some considerable chunks of the data you’re looking for. Maybe if we asked red pill junkie nicely, he’d check for the atmospheric data at the websites of those Mexican researchers he listed, and translate some interesting parts into English for us.

            Kat

          16. Hey, I’m not Jack Nicholson!
            Sorry, your comment reminded me of that wonderful movie “A Few Good Men” 🙂

            From the beginning of this thread I tried to see if I could fin something about the models used by the UNAM (University of Mexico) academics for earthling. So far the result has been a bit sterile. I did find this page

            http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/mclimaticos/

            Which it’s supposed to deal with the climatic models. But unfortunately if you click on the link of “projects” and “products”, you find that most of this page is under construction 🙁

            But there are some e-mail address of the people involved with the modeling. The chief of the group is Dr. Julián Adem Chain
            adem@atmosfera.unam.mx

            He’s a mathematician who has done a lot of work concerning precipitation models for the northern hemysphere. He has a PHD Applied Math and Atmospheric Sciences by the International Meteorological Institute, University of Stocholm, Sweden (1955-56).

            I also found the person responsible for Mathematical modeling of Atmospheric Processes, Dr. Yuri N. Skiba

            skiba@servidor.unam.mx

            There are pdf files on these pages, but I’m pretty sure they won’t help earthling in any way. Not only because they’re in spanish, but also because they seemed to be pretty basic and aimed for high-school students or something. They discuss the effects of climatic change, but they don’t deal about what sort of data they used.

            But in the end I think Kat is right. Most of this data won’t ever be available in the commercial Internet. Not because of some conspiracy agenda, but simply because exchanging that info using broadband or DSL is impossible. The universities must be using Internet 2.0 to exchange all these info. We are probably talking about TERABYTES here, since the computer modeling of atmospheric events is used with the most powerful super-computers available to man. Something you earthling I’m sure must have already deduced.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          17. thanks
            Thanks to Kat and Red, for the help in looking for these things.

            It is true that the data for this are quite voluminous, they must be. Another aspect is the software used to generate some of the data. The software is relatively small, and that is what I am after. It will take me some time to follow these leads.

            Thanks for the help, I appreciate that a few people here are actually interested in finding these things.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          18. here is the thing
            The PDF collection of this stuff is right here:

            from some university.

            No Kat, this stuff is available, and it does not say anything about my specific question. You can doubt it all you want, but it is there.

            And my question is important, if you like it or not.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          19. Academia and Climate
            Hi RPJ,

            What are the credentials of these people? Are they staff members that have found lucrative grants in climate change and global warming when their actual credentials are unrelated to climate? One day you have a PhD in botany or literature; tomorrow you’re a climatologist. Who is to say different? This may not be the case in Mexico but it would not be unique to Mexico.

            Members of academia are often given grants to study specific topics. As we have often discussed here on TDG, people in academia can support the pre-determined, establishment conclusions (Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change) or they will find themselves selling used cars the next semester.

            Bill

            BTW, I’m a believer in global warming and climate change. The climate change has been on-going for billions of years and the global warming for several thousand. Mankind wasn’t around for most of it.

          20. Hi Bill
            I don’t know if the info I just wrote to the query of our buddy earthling answers your questions. If you’re asking me if I have the means to certificate the credentials of these academics, I’m sorry but I am unable to do that.

            I did find this about one of the investigators, Dra. Graciela Lucia Binimelis de Raga, who deals with Micro & Meso-scale interactions.

            These are some of her lines of research:

            -Micro-physics of clouds & aerosols, since 1990.
            -Turbulent processes on the planetary limit layer, since 1995.
            -Air pollution, since 1996.
            -Modelling of convecting clouds, since 1998.
            -Cloud Chemistry, since 1999.
            -Meso-Scale convection interaction, since 2001.
            -Clouds & Aerosols on the High Troposphere and Low Estratosphere, since 2002.
            -Cloud electrification, since 2003.

            These are some of her current peer-reviewed publishied papers:

            -Baumgardner, D., G.B. Raga, M. Grutter and G. Lammel, 2006: Evolution of anthropogenic aerosols in the coastal town of Salina Cruz, Mexico: Part I Particle dynamics and land-sea interactions. Sci. Tot. Env, 367, 288-301.

            -Raga, G.B. and S. Abarca, 2006: On the parameterization of turbulent fluxes over the tropical Eastern Pacific. Atmos Chem. Phys. Dissc., 6, 5251–5268.

            -Baumgardner, D., G.B. Raga, M. Grutter, G. Lammel and M. Moya, 2006: Evolution of anthropogenic aerosols in the coastal town of Salina Cruz, Mexico: Part II Particulate phase chemistry. Sci. Tot. Env. (aceptado).

            -Pozo, D., I. Borrajero, J.C. Marín and G.B. Raga, 2006: A numerical study of cell merger over Cuba. Part I: Implementation of theARPS/MM5 models. Ann. Geophys. (aceptado).

            -Pozo, D., I. Borrajero, J.C. Marín and G.B. Raga, 2006: A numerical study of cell merger over Cuba. Part II: Sensitivity to environmental conditions.

            She has a degree on Atmospheric sciences by the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, and a PHD in Atmospheric Sciences by the University of Washington (1989).

            I dunno, seems to me the lady know quite a bit about clouds 🙂

            Regards

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          21. IPCC and the ultimate slam dunk put down
            Hey Bill,

            There was a link here a couple of weeks ago that led to a new paper by a couple of Germans. I just finished reading it (114 pages!) and it is awesome. It trashes the whole GW enchalada as being junk science. For anyone who really wants to get past the abstractions, it puts you in the front row of the discussion. I think anyone here can successfully wade through it if you skip the math. (I never liked Navier-Stokes equations, myself.)

            This link may get you guys the paper:
            http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

            No one can seriously believe anything these GW guys are spouting after this thorough trashing.

            X_O

          22. Opposition to the issue
            Good morning everyone,
            As always there’s a bit of opposition to the Green agenda here. And quite right, too. The opposition runs two ways – getting proof of the science, and it’s all a great big conspiracy with a political/economic agenda.
            Let’s deal with both issues. First of all, the science cannot prove anything, even if it was freely available. To that extent science never could prove anything.
            As for the conspiracy idea, absolutely. It is the nature of politics to get the best out of any situation that arises. I’m still waiting for the nuclear agenda to be pushed more ruthlessly as the ‘only answer’. And that’s just for starters.
            The result of all this is that detractors seem to think that the public is being hoodwinked. And whilst I accept the above arguments, this is where I disagree.
            I have eyes that see, a mind that thinks, and I look at the world about me and see that something is going wrong with nature. Yes, you could say I don’t have a long enough life lived to realise that it’s only a long-term pattern. But I ask, could it be due to man, as the ‘powers-that-be’ are saying?
            It is a simple question, with two simple answers – yes or no. If we decide ‘no’, and we are wrong, then we’re finished. If we decide ‘yes’ and we are wrong, then does it really matter anyway?
            Logic, reason, commonsense – they all point to the latter as the sensible course. Tell me I’m wrong?

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          23. Ok, you’re wrong.
            [quote]I have eyes that see, a mind that thinks, and I look at the world about me and see that something is going wrong with nature.[/quote]

            The geological equivalent of a nanosecond of one’s person’s anecdotal experience in observing the weather around him contains even less proof than a political organization’s barely concealed attempts to redistribute the world’s wealth in the cause of global socialism.

            Obfuscating the issue (not you specifically Anthony) by trying to get people to debate snake oil science is devious, but also very transparent. If the science were solid, it wouldn’t be so hidden and it wouldn’t be so easily contradicted.

            The climate change charlatans have tried this many times in the last hundred years, always to be proven false. But obviously that hasn’t stopped them. The march of political agendas is ruthless and persistent. Will these people be embarrassed and shamed when none of their doom and gloom predictions come true? No, they never are. One, the media provides plenty of cover. Two, they will have moved on to a new tact. “We must act now, just in case” is seductive, but dangerous. Yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn’t mean you sell all your worldly possessions and worship its miraculous ability to predict time.

          24. Already answered
            I’ve already answered all your points in my above comment, Anonymous. Now tell me, are you absolutely sure that there is nothing else to the issue, such as the possibility of man being, even partially, to blame?
            If so, then your absolute conviction is far more than science can ever offer for anything. Nothing is that absolute.
            Yes, we have to keep a close eye on what the powerful do with the agenda, and not let them get away with their scams, but the issue is still far too important to discard with absolute conviction that you’re right.
            Being wrong is too dangerous.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          25. Nothing?
            [quote]Nothing is that absolute.[/quote]

            Well, that’s an “absolute” statement. And self-contradictory. And false (so I guess you’re right LOL). I can think of plenty of absolutes. Many involve the evil of crimes against children, some are found within nature and the universe, while others involve the human condition. The inevitability of death is an absolute. “Being wrong is too dangerous” is my point. Just from the opposite perspective.

            There is nothing wrong with pursuing a green agenda. Everyone wants a cleaner environment. But taking advantage of that universal desire by using unproven science and irresponsible predictions to essentially scare people into accepting an agenda is the greater danger. The political evil that we known mankind is capable of is a far greater threat than environmental effects of good people trying to live their lives. When the green agenda focuses on the greater threat of environmental damage being caused by rapidly expanding, and very socialist, nations then maybe they’ll have a little more credibility. But they still have the task of providing proof. Merely pointing to known cycles in climate change and then trying to associate the latest cycle with human existence isn’t cutting the mustard.

          26. Really?
            You’re trying to attach a political agenda that is not there in my arguments. Anyone who uses green issues for either ‘political’ agenda is, in my mind, wrong. Similarly, I rarely accept that anything would be as bad as the doommongers predict.
            I don’t accept that, in cleaning up our environment, we have to revert to ‘unicycles’ either. There is plenty of green tech on the drawing board that is purposely not being developed because it would threaten oil.
            With this tech, it is quite possible to continue our lifestyles in a sustainable way. Yes, the big multi-nationals may lose total power over economies as companies could be smaller with this easier tech, but the average lifestyle should not change. And with national politics back in the hands of elected politicians, that’s an obvious bonus – or do you disagree with democracy as well?
            Bearing these points in mind, what’s the problem with airing on caution?

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          27. …
            [quote]You’re trying to attach a political agenda that is not there in my arguments.[/quote]
            Yes, there is. YOU may not be trying to push such an agenda, but let’s just call it guilt by association. 😉

            [quote]do you disagree with democracy as well[/quote]

            Yes, of course. How could you NOT come to that conclusion. :rolleyes

            [quote]what’s the problem with airing on caution?[/quote]

            What’s the problem with sterilizing all women of child bearing age just in case aliens invade for the purpose of breeding a new generation of slaves?

            You don’t make massive changes to human civilzation based on a “what if”, especially when the justification is based on doom merchants and questionable evidence. There are real dangers with such social engineering. Not the least of which is an erosion of civil liberties for the “common good”. While some may have noble intentions, in doesn’t negate the fact that political agendas are in play. Ignoring that fact, and it’s potential implications, because you really want push cool technology is hardly responsible.

          28. What if
            Anonymous said:

            ‘You don’t make massive changes to human civilzation based on a “what if” … ‘

            Anonymous, you’ve just wiped out the entire history of philosophy and science.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          29. Of course…
            [quote]Anonymous, you’ve just wiped out the entire history of philosophy and science.[/quote]

            Yes, I have that power.

            However, back on planet Earth, it would be more accurate to say I’ve dealt an all powerful blow to science fiction, fantasy and Nigerian money scams.

          30. Speaking of opinion and obfuscation…
            >>”The geological equivalent of a nanosecond of one’s person’s anecdotal experience in observing the weather around him contains even less proof than a political organization’s barely concealed attempts to redistribute the world’s wealth in the cause of global socialism.”

            I find it unsurprising that you agree with Bill’s conspiracy theory about the UN’s (supposed) “real agenda” — although neither of you have posted a shred of evidence to back up your opinion.

            >>”Obfuscating the issue (not you specifically Anthony) by trying to get people to debate snake oil science is devious, but also very transparent. If the science were solid, it wouldn’t be so hidden and it wouldn’t be so easily contradicted.”

            No one here has been discussing any of the science, mainly because it’s not possible to publish 20 years of scientific reports and the recent analyses thereof, in brief newspaper articles. The science is only available in several lengthy and therefore relatively expensive books, which apparently no one here has read, not least because they just became available.

            You quoted Anthony as saying, ‘Nothing is that absolute’, and then responded with, “Well, that’s an “absolute” statement.” All of your statements have been equally ‘absolute’, in spite of the fact that you haven’t linked to any research that backs up anything you’ve said.

            Kat

          31. GW/CC
            [quote=X_O]

            No one can seriously believe anything these GW guys are spouting after this thorough trashing.

            [/quote]

            Hi X_O,

            It took me awhile to get through that article. You are correct, of course. It should be the final nail in the GW coffin. It’s a great article. And Algore gets a Nobel Prize.

            Unfortunately, most of the followers of the GW religion don’t want the truth. They prefer a disaster that can be blamed on someone else. They envision themselves as saviors in battle with those that would destroy the Earth. Logic and reason are lost those that battle phantoms and witches of their own invention. It’s silly, but the religious zealots love it.

            I suppose it’s time for folks like you and me to relax and enjoy the show. It will be costly and inconvenient and it will likely result in the deaths of millions in third-world countries. It won’t stop until the saviors realize who profits from a witch hunt.

            Bill

          32. Global warming
            Hi Bill,
            I think the probability of man being at least partly responsible for climate change is high. How does this make me a religionist?

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          33. GW religion
            [quote=anthonynorth]
            I think the probability of man being at least partly responsible for climate change is high. How does this make me a religionist?
            [/quote]

            [quote=anthonynorth]
            I have eyes that see, a mind that thinks, and I look at the world about me and see that something is going wrong with nature.
            [/quote]

            Hi Anthony,

            Have you read the paper linked by X_O? Are your conclusions supported by science or faith?

            Bill

          34. Reason
            Hi Bill,
            You asked:

            ‘Are your conclusions supported by science or faith?’

            A nice attempt at entrapment. My conclusions I come to by ‘reason’ – from the reasonable arguments of science, which can never be absolute; from the reasonable evidence I see about me.
            ‘Reason’ is, of course, the opposite of faith. Hence, by not being faith-based, I cannot be being a religionist in my views.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          35. Conclusions
            Hi Anthony,

            Take it easy, Anthony. I am trying to answer your question, not entrap you. Hardly anyone reads the comments anyway. Let’s just have a reasonable discussion.

            The troposphere has decreased in temperature over the last 50-years making a runaway greenhouse effect a non-event. Ice core samples indicate that warming and cooling are cyclical and CO2 increases lag rather than lead the warming periods. Man’s contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is 3.2%; CO2 comprises 0.1% of the greenhouse gasses. That’s where my conclusions come from. That, and the fact that Cher is a GW supporter.

            You failed to answer my question about the paper X_O linked. Science is based on facts, experiments or observations rather than feelings or what you call “reasonable evidence”. If you have evidence, please elucidate.

            If you are basing your conclusions on something other than facts, you’ve got yourself a faith-based religion, partner. Specifically, what facts or evidence leads you to your conclusion that GW is anthropogenic?

            Bill

          36. Probability
            Hi Bill,
            You missed out probability from your assessment of science. There are a large body of scientists who, in their assessment, give a high probability to man having an effect on climate change. Now, to dismiss this is to say they are deluded, lying, or all of them are working to another political agenda. Either facts, or probability, will be welcome in disputing this.
            I don’t go on this alone, but realise the dangers of man having a disproportionate effect on a system above what can be termed a ‘natural’ cycle.
            A further point is that spurting something back into the atmosphere over a mere hundred years or so that was slowly taken out over hundreds of millions of years has got to have an effect.
            Even with all this, I do not say global warming is man-made – simply that there is a high probability. And bearing this in mind, shouldn’t we air on caution and take measures if we are able to?
            To me this is a reasonable argument, and has nothing to do with a religious, or political, agenda.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          37. I think that’s valid
            [quote=anthonynorth]A further point is that spurting something back into the atmosphere over a mere hundred years or so that was slowly taken out over hundreds of millions of years has got to have an effect.[/quote]

            Carbon is basically solar energy stored in an organic matrix. The light of our home star that was collected by plant life over the course of hundreds of millions of years, and that was transmitted to animal lyfe through the normal food chain cycle.

            We can reasonably agree that all the energy sources found in our planet derive directly or indirectly from our home star. Now, releasing all that energy through the course of 4 human generations is bound to unbalance the equilibrium of an already complex and whimsy climate system.

            We could think, that our planet is so huge, and the climate depends on SO many factors, that some puny million tons of carbon released into the atmosphere would have a neglible effect. But in nature it’s all about aplying the necessary leverage to the weakest chain in the link. Like an elevator that’s full to it’s maximum capacity, and it only takes the weight of a FLY to make it collapse to the basement.

            The forces of nature always tend to follow the path of less resistance, and the breaking of the weakest link in the chain can make a whole system to collapse. Plancton is from our perspective almost nothing, but if plancton disappears one day all the life on Earth would suffer the consequences, and eventually the blow would reach the top of the pyramid: man.

            In the end, I think we all could agree the world would be a better place if our dependancy of oil would stop. It’s all going to end anyway, and sooner that we would like. Mexico is the 4th main exporter of oil to the US, and right now the government has announced that our proven reserves will last only 9 years.

            9.

            Yes, we have found ample deposits of oil in the gulf of Mexico, and those could last 60 more years or so; but they are so deep and it’s so difficult to extract, that only the most powerful oil companies are capable, and right now it is not yet a good idea in terms of cost-effectiveness. But if oil prices keep rising, eventually someone is going to extract that oil. And what next? Tar deposits that are less efficient and more polluting? When are we going to call it quits?

            Besides, look at all the problems that arise from our oil addiction. That money eventually ends up in the wrong kind of hands. From a current political perspective, looking for new energy alternatives should be a matter of National Security for the US government.
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          38. Politics
            Hi Anthony,

            To err on the “safe” side is a dangerous path. Unfortunately, it has everything to do with politics. The UN has everything to do with politics.

            The purpose of the UN is to redistribute the wealth to the poorer nations, and line the pockets of the UN administrators as well. Put another way, the UN would like to tax you. With the ability to tax comes the ability to exert control. Your sovereignty begins to erode.

            Our contribution of CO2 is puny compared to what the planet contributes to the atmosphere naturally. The planet is going to warm or cool despite what we do with CO2. Our money, time, and efforts should be used to control pollution that actually fouls the atmosphere rather than limiting a gas that helps plants grow. Why not put the money into weather research or oceanography research instead of chasing 3.2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? The research might yield other ways that we can “pollute” something that helps us as much as CO2. The rain forests love it.

            Bill

          39. Religion or not?
            Hi Bill,
            My point to you is that I am not a religionist just because I am prepared to air on caution because of a probability. I see you don’t answer that point.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          40. GW Religion
            Hi Anthony,

            I have already answered your point. On what data do you base your belief?

            Unless we are discussing statistics, and we are not, probability is not science. Your belief is not based on something that can be measured, observed, or the result of experiment. IMO, it is built on faith, not science. It is more akin to faith-based religion.

            Bill

          41. No
            No Bill, you haven’t answered the point. I say my conclusion is based on reason. Whether you accept the facts or not is another issue. It seems to me I must have a ‘belief’ because I disagree with you.
            Worrying.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          42. Fanatical about probability
            Hi Anthony,

            It’s perfectly fine to disagree with me. But our discussion must center around data, observations, measurments, or experiments. I will not take issue with your religion because it can be neither proved or disproved.

            I can see that you are sincere. I’m guessing that your higher education did not include much science.

            Bill

          43. Clever
            Clever post. Though no ‘high road’ here, I’m afraid.
            You’re an intelligent man, Bill. Such a waste.

          44. Non-GW religion
            >>”Are your conclusions supported by science or faith?”

            By your own admission, you haven’t even read any of the UN’s science. You also haven’t posted any evidence to back up your adamantly-expressed opinions — nor can you, since you don’t know what the official UN reports actually say.

            Kat

          45. Huh?
            To what “adamantly-expressed opinions” do you refer? I gave no opinions on the report nor did I claim to have read it. What I did say was ……….

            I stopped reading at the part where it says, “says UN”. Credibility is not their strong suit.

            If you’re in the market for an organization that excels at stealing $billions with dictators like Sadam Hussain or forcing children to provide sex in exchange for food, the UN is a good bet. Climatology, no, I wouldn’t trust them so much.

            Bill

          46. adamantly-expressed opinions
            >>”To what “adamantly-expressed opinions” do you refer? I gave no opinions on the report nor did I claim to have read it.”

            Let’s take a look…

            >>”I stopped reading at the part where it says, “says UN”. Credibility is not their strong suit.
            “If you’re in the market for an organization that excels at stealing $billions with dictators like Sadam Hussain or forcing children to provide sex in exchange for food, the UN is a good bet. Climatology, no, I wouldn’t trust them so much.”

            Many large – organizations have problems with the corruption of some affiliated individuals. Can you provide us with any supporting evidence for UN corruption specifically in the area of climatology?

            >>”Of the 1400 how many were forced to sign? How many are scientists that know something about climate? How many owe their existence to UN grants? How many refused to sign? How many are children? How many really exist? How can anyone possibly believe the UN?”

            Posting this in the form of questions doesn’t negate the fact that in the process you’re casting unsubstantiated aspersions on every scientist who worked on the report.

            >>”The motivation is money, power, and the desire to make you believe that the situation is hopeless without UN intervention and control. How’s it working on you?”

            Can you provide us with any supporting evidence for these claims?

            >>”You are attempting to change the subject from climate change to floating garbage. This is poor technique in an argument. You can do better.”

            That’s rich!

            >>”What are the credentials of these people? Are they staff members that have found lucrative grants in climate change and global warming when their actual credentials are unrelated to climate? One day you have a PhD in botany or literature; tomorrow you’re a climatologist. Who is to say different? This may not be the case in Mexico but it would not be unique to Mexico.”

            Posting this in the form of questions doesn’t negate the fact that in the process you’re casting unsubstantiated aspersions on every scientist who worked on the report. I’d say red pill junkie did a pretty good job of showing just how unsubstantiated your aspersions are.

            >>”Members of academia are often given grants to study specific topics. As we have often discussed here on TDG, people in academia can support the pre-determined, establishment conclusions (Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change) or they will find themselves selling used cars the next semester.”

            You offer no evidence that this is the case with regard to the recent UN report, which is what we’re discussing.

            >>”The purpose of the UN is to redistribute the wealth to the poorer nations, and line the pockets of the UN administrators as well.”

            You provide no substantiating evidence.

            Above, you’ve asked, ‘What are the credentials of these people?Are they staff members that have found lucrative grants in climate change and global warming when their actual credentials are unrelated to climate? One day you have a PhD in botany or literature; tomorrow you’re a climatologist. Who is to say different?’ Should you not apply these same questions with regard to people such as Gerhard Gerlich, the co-author of the pdf linked by X_O?

            A very brief look through my search results on Gerhard Gerlich turns up the fact that Gerlich is a professor of mathematical physics, and this page. Quote:

            “When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers [of which Gerhard Gerlich is one] have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen – a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Some did not even have a college degree, such as Dick Groeber of Dick’s Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Did Groeber regard himself as a scientist? “I sort of consider myself so,” he said when asked. “I had two or three years of college training in the scientific area, and 30 or 40 years of self-study.” Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Some were not even found to reside at the addresses they had given.

            “A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration’s 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter).”

            Here’s a partial list of the signers (including the 25 meteorologists), in case someone here has time to research their climatology expertise (or lack thereof).

            I doubt that Bill will read it, but for you other TDGers, here’s a refutation of the ‘science’ in the pdf in question, written by Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Gee, take a look at his Publications [including pdfs of many of the articles] — published in Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Nature, Deep-Sea Research, Quaternary Science Reviews, Science, Earth Planet Sci, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, and more.
            And here’s a 2007 update on that refutation, also written by Severinghaus.

            Here’s another refutation – and more (including 558 comments, as well as links to discussions at other websites, and a link to 264 blog reactions).

            And here’s an April, 2006 [damned liberal media] article about [i.e., which purports to tell] how and why Exxon [supposedly] started ‘climate change dissent’ — Enemy of the Planet. The author even has the gaul to quote the damning leaked memo. [/snark]

            Kat

          47. Brilliant
            Good morning everyone,
            Brilliant comment, Kat – excellent research.
            There is clearly a counter-movement coming to the man-made climate change debate, and I think it would be worthwhile to offer a possible – that’s POSSIBLE – reason why.
            As counter-measures to global warming continue, there will have to be a new look at certain forms of tech already on the drawing board.
            Multi-nationals are ignoring most of these, and paying only PR lip-service to others. The easy answer is to say they don’t want this tech because of the danger to oil production. But this is only half the story.
            The main point about fossil fuels is that they need huge integrated organisations to deal with them. This is why multi-nationals gained such a hold. And in guaranteeing big corporations, they manage to control politicians by controlling the economy.
            The new tech is of a simpler nature, and does not need huge organisations to run it. Hence, companies could become much smaller, and the power of the multi-national will be smashed.
            The upshot will be multi-nationals will disappear and the ecomony, and power, will be back in the hands of elected politicians – i.e. the electorates.
            The only reason any of the big corporations are paying any attention to the issue at all is that they want to replace, eventually, with nuclear power, which requires an equally large organisation, and diverts people from alternative systems – the real agenda.
            Multi-nationals, therefore, are in a fight for their existence. They must not win.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          48. Blind faith in the UN
            [quote=Kat] Can you provide us with any supporting evidence for UN corruption specifically in the area of climatology?[/quote]
            Yes, I can. Remember that the report was just released. They are two-years into the UN Food-for-Oil Scam and still inditing people. So try UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud to learn about moving weather stations and fraudulant data.

            [quote=Kat]
            Posting this in the form of questions doesn’t negate the fact that in the process you’re casting unsubstantiated aspersions on every scientist who worked on the report.[/quote]

            [quote=Kat]

            Can you provide us with any supporting evidence for these claims?

            [/quote]

            Yes, the UN Food-for-Oil Scam was orchastrated within the UN. They want money, power, and control. It couldn’t be more obvious. Just Google UN Food-for-Oil Scam.

            [quote=Kat]I’d say red pill junkie did a pretty good job of showing just how unsubstantiated your aspersions are.[/quote]

            I would agree with you, for Mexico. RPJ provided excellent data for Mexico. Many of the team had climate backgrounds with a botanist, a sludge engineer, and a technical secretary sprinkled in. But some of the other 1390 signers moved a weather station.

            [quote=Kat]
            You offer no evidence that this is the case with regard to the recent UN report, which is what we’re discussing.[/quote]

            I think we’ve covered this

            [quote=Kat]>>”The purpose of the UN is to redistribute the wealth to the poorer nations, and line the pockets of the UN administrators as well.”

            You provide no substantiating evidence.[/quote]

            Read the Charter for the Kyoto Accord. Again, you can Google it yourself. Try UN Kyoto Scam.

            [quote=Kat]Above, you’ve asked, ‘What are the credentials of these people?Are they staff members that have found lucrative grants in climate change and global warming when their actual credentials are unrelated to climate? One day you have a PhD in botany or literature; tomorrow you’re a climatologist. Who is to say different?’ [/quote]

            But you didn’t answer it. Why? RPJ did for Mexico. That leaves 1390 or so. Do you know the names of the signers or what countries they represent? Google won’t help much here

            Bill

          49. Why
            You left out the most important part of that last quote, so here it is in full:

            Above, you’ve asked, ‘What are the credentials of these people?Are they staff members that have found lucrative grants in climate change and global warming when their actual credentials are unrelated to climate? One day you have a PhD in botany or literature; tomorrow you’re a climatologist. Who is to say different?’ Should you not apply these same questions with regard to people such as Gerhard Gerlich, the co-author of the pdf linked by X_O?

            After the quote, you said: “But you didn’t answer it. Why? RPJ did for Mexico. That leaves 1390 or so. Do you know the names of the signers or what countries they represent? Google won’t help much here”

            I provided more info on Gerlich than you did. I also provided info on the scientist who refuted him. As the one agreeing with Gerlich’s research, you should be the one supplying us with his scientific credentials. I’m sure we’d all like to know if he was one of the German signers who was being paid by the German coal industry too.

            I note you didn’t comment on the refutation — or the expose on Exxon.

            Kat

          50. Fraud and fiction
            Hi Kat,

            You don’t seem particularly interested that someone moved a weather station to skew the data. What other fraud did the IPCC perpetrate to manipulate the results? When an article contains the phrase, “UN says”, you are reading fiction. Why bother?

            Bill

          51. When a discussion involves Bill.
            I think. Why Bother? Because its not a discussion anymore. Its all about how self-righteous and smug Bill is. Bill also gets a lot of info from Rush Dimbug/Foxxed News. Bill Go Google it yourself!!!

          52. Hey Bill
            Man, this thread is getting more and more complicated to follow!

            I only wanted to tell you that, after I checked the link earthling provided yesterday

            http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

            I downloaded the pdf file concerning the Technial Summary (18.6Mb). There is where one can find the names of all the scientists that made the study, plus the name of the scientists who evaluated it. I’ll refrain of posting it here, for obvious reasons.

            Hope this helps

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          53. Change
            [quote]I think the probability of man being at least partly responsible for climate change is high.[/quote]

            This is getting rediculous. Climate change is not a new concept. The climate is always, and has always been, in a state of change. Hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc etc etc. Can man affect the climate? Sure. So can a beaver or an algae bloom. But that’s a far cry from proving any type catastrophic global change that is leading to the end of the world in forty years. As long as the loony zealots are allowed to control this issue, everyone should err on the side of caution. And that doesn’t mean accepting their agenda. It means rejecting their tactics, goals and lunacy.

          54. Oh dear
            Calm down, Anonymous, my dear fellow. Most reasonable people know exactly what I meant by ‘climate change’, in the context of this discussion.
            Note, Anonymous, I said ‘discussion’.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          55. Note…
            Note that Bill and Anonymous have both failed to address the issues of overuse of resources, pollution, extinction of species, etc.

            I find it amazing how easily what could have been a discussion about a much broader subject has been narrowed down to a conspiracy theory about global warming via the posting of a few unsubstantiated, though strongly-expressed, opinions.

            Kat

          56. Its Their M.O. Kat
            No matter what you present as proof. There is a shadow in their minds, that colors everything that is different then their mind set. And it does seem to be set.

            Atlanta Georgia, less then 90 days of water, the Colorado running dry before receaching the sea. The Bee’s dieing off. It means nothing.

            And as for the garbage out at sea. I have seen pictures. About 2 years back. Coustou’s son was at Portland State University. Lots of film footage. From the outer Hawian Islands, Pictures of dead bird chicks, and sea mammals. Bic lighter parts, plastic stuff in their guts. Garbage everywhere on the beaches, and in the coral reefs. It kills them. It will kill us if we don’t change the way we live.

          57. hey bladerunner
            We agree on the issue with the Colorado.

            What are the other 9 major rivers? I don’t know. Do you?

            And you correctly say that the Colorado has been in this condition for something like 50 years. Why do we panic now?
            The population that depends on that water have gone up considerably, as I said before. Water management.

            Ask the Dutch.

            I agree that there are these problems. But I don’t stop with that. It does not help to complain, we have to find the right solutions.

            The right solution is NOT to stop living.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          58. I don’t know.
            I wasn’t sure even how the subject came up. I do also know that parts of the Amazon River dried up this last year. Something that’s never really happened before. Deforestation, no lock up of water. So you get flooding, then drought. And one or two rivers in Europe did not do well this past summer, lack of winter snows. Less water for irrigation=food, and power plants. Not living, or breeding may just happened because of lack of water/food and population shifts. Sea levels may rise, but there will be less fresh drinking water. Population die-offs will happen. Its happening now. Look at Lake Chad, that part of the reason we have Dafur.
            Population control, education about resorces, reduce, reuse, recycle. Try to be smart about purchases. I do the best I can. And try to educate those around me. Even my ass backward parents put a ground heat pump in this summer. They use half as much fuel oil now. Our water heater is on its last leg so we’re looking at solar options. If anyone has info on Solar water heater let me know! We don’t all have to be energy hogs. And we can still live very, very, well.

          59. precisely
            As I said, and as you also said in this last post, there are many things we can do that will help, and not hurt anything. We should do those things, who in their right mind would not?

            At the same time, we should keep looking for the reasons why things go bad. We should noy just try top arrest the bad people, like Bush, or Stalin or Mao. Putting the culprits in jail doesn’t help anything.

            population control ? I am not so sure. Do we want fewer people ? or smaller people?

            Who gets to decide what people get to live, or how big they can be?

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          60. or narrower
            My beef with all of this is not if climate change is happening or not. Apparently it is.

            Also, it is evident that in some (many?) places it is getting warmer. This certainly has an impact on the environment in those places, and it can have an impact on the species of animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, algae, and so on.

            What my beef is just this:

            All this is being blamed on the CO2 and CH4 (methane) changes in the atmosphere. And this is a political consensus.

            The result is that measures to reduce the CO2 are supposedly the solution. Nevermind the CH4. Nevermind anything else.

            And the evidence that it really is the CO2, and that the problem can be controlled by limiting the CO2, is not there.

            The one part of the evidence that I personally can examine with my best understanding is being withheld.

            All this bothers me considerably.

            But nobody wants to talk about specifics. Especially the environmentalists don’t want to talk about specifics. The people who say they have solutions do not want to talk about specifics.

            That bothers me considerably.

            Many people offer solutions, and tell us what to do. But they don’t tell me why this will work if I ask them directly.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          62. time out
            That link times out from where I am. Maybe a temporary problem, I check later.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

  4. climate change – fact or fiction
    Climate change is happening – there is no doubt about this here in England. In my lifetime I have seen winters change from freezing cold, with snow and frosts, to mild autumnal affairs. We are beginning to experience extremes of weather, and the general trend is much warmer. I used to live near London, only a few feet above sea level, but now live 750 feet up in the Mendip Hills – such is my concern over climate change and rising sea levels.

    As to the precise cause, this I feel is due to a variety of reasons, with both good and bad science to back them.

    However I have a theory on climate change that seems to have passed science by: given the millions and millions vehicles in use around the world, each with a minimum of 4 wheels, with each wheel being full of compressed air – would this not have an effect on the Earth’s atmosphere? (I have not included compressed air systems, liguid oxegen etc.) I sure someone with the right background could calculate the tonnage of air no longer available for the biosphere to use.

    Whatever the cause, we ignore climate change at our, and future generations peril.

    Regards

    Nostra

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal