1 of 3 posted... sure, but that is still one of 1000's of others and his research provides backed, provable, data... that was shared.

The difference is... people proving it wrong share the data, people saying it's real, aren't sharing the data. It's hard to dispute people saying it's man made, because they don't share how they calculated the data.

What party lines? They are the same. Swap "global warming" for "terrorism" and the policies, rhetoric and all other things are identical.

And no, it's nothing to do with putting catalytic converters on cars. Try to understand what carbon trading is. Its a hand-over of the right to use energy to the government. The government will issue energy-use permits to companies and people who follow its party line.

What you could very easily end up with is individual carbon allowances -- essentially a communistic issuance of licenses replacing the right to produce value. The hand-over of power is simply enormous, and you clearly don't understand just how much this will fuck your life.

a nation of global warming "skeptics," anti-vac kooks and creationists. the education system of the good ol usa is sure churning out some braniacs. :1orglaugh

You seem to be missing the point... the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 instituted "cap and trade" for Sulfur Dioxide... what is being proposed for CO2 is exactly the same... the current Sulfur Dioxide cap and trade program is considered a success... where is the communism? It's in the bullshit that you hear from the scaremongers... they are hypocrites who have supported the same types of policies in years past but now have chosen to try and scare people with it.

Ya the ozone layer that was going to disappear and we would all be wearing space suits to go outside.. I seem to remember that being the prediction.. thanks for bringing it up. lol

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

That's why we have "Ozone Warning" days here in the south... because it's not a threat... please continue to enlighten us with your bright and shining intellect.

Is the reverse an example of what the Church turns out? IE: Sheep?

good scientists are given the title PHD - not LORD

:2 cents:

You have GOT to be kidding me. Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society
The Royal Society is only THE oldest societies in the world dedicated to knowledge.

Let me educate you:
Martin Rees(Lord Rees), current president of the Royal Society, was elevated to a life peerage, sitting as a crossbencher in the House of Lords in 2005.

Definition: Life Peerage - In the United Kingdom, life peers are appointed members of the Peerage whose titles may not be inherited. (Those whose titles are inheritable are known as hereditary peers.)

Therefore LORD Rees has EARNED that title, but let us not overlook his academic achievements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

Not only does he hold the honorary title of Astronomer Royal he has made important scientific contributions on how our universe works with regards to quasars and blackholes, CMBR, and galaxy formation.

So... you were saying?

Hahahaha... Ozone Warning Days have to do with Air Pollution/Smog in cities. Not Global Warming and not the now gone Ozone hole that wasn't ever over the Southern States.

That's Lord Rees, who also has a PhD and says there is AGW.

This thread is about Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer who works as a business consultant and has a degree in journalism.

:2 cents:

Sulfur dioxide is an actual pollutant, it can be removed via the use of filters. Carbon dioxide is a necessary part and consequence of all life and all living activities. See the difference?

The ozone science was bunk too. Google: dupont ozone hole.

You're a grade-A sucker. How's that public school textbook treating ya? Feel smart yet?

The prison GED program is not what it used to be. :1orglaugh

As with all things, quantity matters.

Take water, for example:

http://blogs.fayobserver.com/faytoz/...10/drought.jpg

http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/projec...ges/flood1.jpg

Neither of those is particularly good for humans, although other species might vastly prefer them over what we consider desirable.

With CO2, nobody is claiming that "CO2 is bad". Only an idiot would think that that's what being said. The issue is that a particular amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might have consequences which could impact the global environment in such a manner that it affects human conditions in a way that most humans would consider undesirable.

Whether the earth warmed or cooled 40 degrees in the next 5 years would not matter to earth itself - but it would matter to us.

And that's the issue with global warming: a change of only a few degrees over the next hundred years or so wouldn't "matter" to earth, but it would matter to us. The balance would shift just a little, with an effect that would be utterly negligible in the grand scheme of things.

The problem is that in the grand scheme of things, a few tens of millions of people dying, a global economic crash and your seafront property becoming sea property don't matter either.

We're not talking about the end of the world. We're talking about a slightly altered balance which could have some major effects on many millions of people - ultimately unimportant, perhaps, but pretty damn important if you're one of those people.

These same people have also been manipulating the weather for years. Like most other things they say they aren't doing it and those who say they are are labeled kooks.

BEIJING -- Heavy snowfall in northern China is testing the country's disaster preparedness and prompting fresh questions about Beijing's efforts to alter its weather.

A massive blizzard over the past week has dumped some of the heaviest snow in five decades on China's usually arid north, clogging highways and collapsing buildings in seven provinces. The storm, which began Monday, had caused at least $650 million in damage as of Friday afternoon and killed more than 40 people in traffic accidents or building collapses triggered by the snow and ice, the government said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125814710015847539.html


BEIJING — Unusually early snow storms in northern China have claimed 38 lives in weather-related incidents and caused more than half a billion dollars in damage, the Civil Affairs Ministry said Friday.

Nineteen of the deaths resulted from traffic accidents related to the storms that began on Nov. 9, the ministry said in a news release posted on its Web site.

The snowfall is the heaviest in the area since records began being taken following the establishment of the communist state in 1949, the ministry said. It estimated economic losses from the storm at 3.5 billion yuan (US$513 million).

More than 4.7 million people have been affected by the storms, which have caused the collapse of more than 7,000 buildings, damaged 297,000 acres (120,000 hectares) of crops, and forced the evacuation of 158,000 people, the ministry said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...SdvlY2vWJ-s63g

No offense, but you're batshit crazy :2 cents:

This is the first global warming thread I have ever posted in... for a reason... trying to explain simple science to people who can't see the change in climate for themselves is a wasted effort. Maybe it's because I am almost 41 years old and have seen more life... I don't know... but it's common sense to me and based on simple earth science... but then again... some of you idiots still believe the bible is an infallible historic document.

Shit me, that's funny! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What do you find crazy? That China admits they altered their weather killed people, destroyed thousands of buildings, and displaced hundreds of thousands? Or that you don't want to believe that it has been going on for years? We've got a man made weather problem alright. Just not the type they are trying to sell you.

The fact that you somehow connect a technology which is only somewhat effective to natural disasters as well as to global warming. The fact that you see conspiracies in every little thing that happens. The fact that you think Alex Jones is even close to a credible source.

...I could go on.

Only somewhat effective? How do you know? It seems to have been pretty fucking effective for their first trial run. Must have had some experienced teachers.

You think I'm crazy. You would have to be a goddamn fool to think they don't have tech well beyond your imagination.

omwebcam is clearly mentally disturbed and I hope he gets the help that he needs

This coming from someone named Glenn Beck. A guy who would sell your ass out for his $50 million dollar contract every day of the week. :1orglaugh I'm getting plenty of help. Just not the type you might think.

Seems you ONLY accept the science that supports your view and ignore the rest. That isn't science, that is more akin to religion. I am almost 40 and have spent the better part of 15 years learning. Science, physics, quantum mechanics, astronomy, you name it. I have a FIRM grasp on the subject over someone who has read a few articles and watched a couple documentaries.

I read all the scientific journals, do my own research into subjects, make informed decisions based on information and evidence. NOT based on a few articles and some documentaries.

Let us look at some REAL facts:

1. CO2 is not a gas pollutant in our atmosphere. Quite the opposite. It is actually quite important. FACT
2. CO2 levels have increased and decreased in natural cycles long before we came into the picture. FACT
3. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans; without this effect CO2 levels would be even higher. FACT
4. Global Warming AND cooling occurred and continues to do so in natural cycles. Long before we came into the picture. FACT.
5. Ice Caps melt and reform in natural cycles. Long before we came into the picture. FACT

6. Man is causing global warming. NON-FACT and at present undecided.
We have no conclusive evidence of this and what little there was now seems to be from fraudulent data discovered by the recent hack. I find it funny that you somehow think the fraudulent activity that has come to light is from unimportant institutions and scientists. You apparently know nothing about it and have read NONE of the leaked information AT ALL.

Do we need to stop polluting? Yes
Are there cleaner forms of energy? Yes
Can we stop or change global warming? No and we shouldn't try
Can we take away or stop CO2 from entering our atmosphere? No and we shouldn't try

The outcome? There are far more (I only listed a few) facts that would cause one to lean towards a natural global warming trend rather than man made global warming.

What I DO agree on, if we don't curb our polluting these things may change. It is idiotic that we have take giant leaps in technology but our energy source and technology is no better than it was 100 years ago.

:2 cents:

Only someone as serially dishonest and self deluded as yourself would consider your anecdotal evidence of changing climate as "simple science". :1orglaugh

Yes but his statement is still false. Having the title Lord does not preclude one from getting a PHD or make them any less a REAL or GOOD scientist.

On s side note, I didn't even watch those videos. I refuse to get any information through Alex Jones. I used to listen to him till I realized he was nuts. Didn't take long.

Here are the parts of what you say that don't fit with the rest:

We know for a fact that we are emitting massive amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, and we know for a fact that if that CO2 has any effect on climate (whether it's cooling or warming), it has negative effects us.

Even if we were to accept everything else you say (which we shouldn't, but going into that subject would lead us to the tired old discussion I've had dozens of times on this board), it would still be a good idea to cut down our CO2 emissions until we knew exactly what the exact long-term effects were.

Since we're talking about something that would be pretty damn big if true, we'd need to have a pretty broad consensus leaning the other way not to take action.

I'm pretty sure that what he was trying to point out is that the title "Lord" in no way lends authority to someone's points of views.

Since Monckton gets most of the attention he gets exactly because he does have that title, I'd say he was making a valid point :2 cents:

Only if I were to believe the hype. If what I believe, global warming is cyclical, then NO we do not need to do anything. Nature is doing its thing just fine and the way it is supposed to.

On the other hand if I BELIEVED in man made global warming of COURSE we should try to fix those 2 things.

You're acting like science is religion, where you either "believe" or not.

It's not.

In most cases, science presents you with a large amount of data which will often contain apparent contradictions. Based on that, you can create hypotheses and theories, the likelihood of which you can test with existing data and new experiments. This, however, will never lead to absolute certainty, since absolute certainty in science is epistemologically impossible.

So instead, you usually end up with a number of competing theories, with varying degrees of likelihood. Eventually, more observations and experiments will eliminate a number of those theories and corroborate one or more others. That will point you in the right direction, and increase chances of those theories and newer ones corresponding with reality, but it will still not lead to absolute certainty.

The problem with the view you express here is that you believe something to be true, and see that as a reason to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

That is not sound scientific thinking.

Now, you did mention in a previous post that you think that AGW is "at present undecided". Treating a matter you consider to be undecided as if it were a decided matter hardly seems like a good idea, because if it actually is undecided, then there's a chance that your view ends up being incorrect :2 cents:

and thats why most of the US folks think it aint happening at all ... heck, 30yrs ago when it was close to december, we kids were dashing and wading thru deep snow in northern germany ... and now? its fucking over 10°C/50°F! no warming? :disgust

lol, but some even believe in GODS CREATION ... boooo ... RIP GOD - VIVA LA EVULOCION!

Ya its such a threat. Im just as far south as you, and I have yet to put on my "ozone" protection suit before going out... :1orglaugh Where was that "hole" in the ozone layer again?

I am done talking to you on this. All you are doing is taking key statements in my posts and taking them out of context. If what you just said was true then why did I add this at the end of my post?
I say there is more data for these events being cyclical rather than man made RIGHT NOW. See what I highlighted in red? By your very post that I quoted, I HAVE come to my OWN conclusion based on evidence I have collected. Just because I use the word believe does not equate my rationale to backwards religious zealotry. I am an amateur but I can point you towards MANY MANY scientists who believe the EXACT same thing.

If I see other evidence to the contrary I will change my views and opinions, just as all others will. I have no problem with that. I am well aware of the changing nature of theories. I have seen some new evidence lately that may force me to reconsider but as things stand today I am unchanged in my views.

I am sorry you seem to be offended that I have a differing opinion than yours.

The post in which you mentioned that you support an end to pollution also mentions that you do not consider CO2 a pollutant. And it mentions that we should NOT try to curb CO2 emissions, and that we should NOT try to stop global warming.

That certainly gives the impression that you consider global warming to be something that is not "at present undecided", but rather something that is clear as daylight.

Well maybe I didn't make myself clear or you didn't gather what I was saying. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere that in and of itself is NOT a pollutant. I made no mention of emissions and if I had I have seen studies the contradict one another. 1. We are not producing anymore CO2 than what is normal and 2. We are emitting far more than what is normal.

If we tried to abolish all CO2 in our world and atmosphere we would cause more harm than having to much. We NEED CO2 in out atmosphere. Again, I said nothing about curbing emissions.

You act as though I am one of those saying man could NEVER have a negative effect on his environment. I never said that.

But nobody's talking about abolishing all CO2 emissions including the natural ones... if only because that's absolutely impossible.

Though, I guess, half a billion square miles of saran wrap could go a long way... hmmm.

But back on topic, it is an absolute certainty that we are releasing far more CO2 than is normal. You don't even need any studies for that (though there are many out there), just some common sense: there are billions of metric tons of CO2 stored in the petroleum, natural gas and coal we burn each year. By burning that stuff, we release the CO2 into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, it took various organisms many millions of years to die off and thereby store their carbon underground in the form of coal, oil and natural gas.

You have it exactly backward. The consequences of taking drastic action will be so economically crippling (and will cause untold amounts of human suffering in the third world) that to take such drastic and economically suicidal measures we would have to be absolutely certain that we had no other choice.