Expenses that cost the earth

by Truth not spin Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:11

And just regurgitate the same old diatribe.

Why not have a look:-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldsel...1.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldsel...4.htm

I would also refer you to the work of the economist the extremists love to hate - Bjorn Lomborg - who agrees that malaria is an enormous threat, but his view is that tackling the problem directly not indirectly would be better. wasting $billions on a "likely" causal link will be extraordinarily wasteful compared to using the tried and trusted effective remedial actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

Well worth the time spent to watch his sensible views instead of the rhetoric and spin we see from the extremists.

by Anarchist606 Thu Jun 04, 2009 14:23

Do keep up! the Exxon shill you refer to was dealt with on this site some time ago. http://www.bristol.indymedia.org.uk/article/689538?&con...41895 Reiter sits on the Scientific and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy. The Annapolis Centre is "a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Reiter

And we've also debunked Lomborg; but here's a whole website full of errors he had made; http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Next!

by $pammond Thu Jun 04, 2009 16:07

Denialist posting onto the wrong thread?
I think that the comments on this thread are here by mistake.
My guess is that the Denialist has spun himself into a bit of a mental spin causing him to post to a new topic?
If I'm right it would be a shame to spoil a new and potentially valuable discussion here?
Please feel free to delete this post also.

by Denialist watch. Thu Jun 04, 2009 17:20

WAIT AND SEE!
That is exactly what the Fossil-fuel majors want us to do!
So's they can continue making MEGA-PROFITS while destroying the planet while genociding against Indigenous Peoples!
The very last thing they want is greenhouse gas emissions cut.
Because that means they lose their profits!
So when a denialist says "Wait and see" you know exactly where they are coming from!

by Spam that Spoogle Fri Jun 05, 2009 07:23

The improver of natural knowledge [science] absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Thomas H. Huxley.

Climate catastrophe may be a mass psychosis, but it is a mass psychosis that gives job security to a lot of academics, bureaucrats and petty functionaries…’Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choice.
Professor P. Stott

The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world – to have life and death control over every human being on the planet…If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.
Dr. Arthur Robinson

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong, one of the fathers of the Rio Conference and the Kyoto Protocol.

We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
Maurice Strong

The suggestion that future hazardous climate events could in any way be mitigated by the control of carbon dioxide emissions is absurdity in the extreme.
William Kininmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre.

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations or highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen (MIT)

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H.L. Mencken.

Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
Since religious education isn’t on my daughter’s curriculum, I don’t think that Al Gore should be on it either. (Anon)

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question, and by questioning we arrive at the truth.
Peter Abelard

We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.
The Talmud
I anticipate that within about three years we will be experiencing natural global cooling, and we will be recognizing that the present fears of man-made global warming were just a delusion.
Lance Enderbee, 20 Feb 2008 (Emeritus Professor, Civil Engineering)

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether is exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
Sir Ernest John Pickstone Benn

The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

This is a fundamentalist religious movement. The pushers who have cowed the politicians are ecotheist zealots on a mission from God to save the planet from a phantom menace. They haven’t a clue about economics and if they did it wouldn’t matter.
John Blethen

We appear to have entered a new age of unreason…It is from this, above all, that we need to save the planet.
Lord Nigel Lawson

[AGW] is the greatest scam in history. I am angered, appalled and highly offended by it…This [meteorology] is my field of expertise. And I am telling you that Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and was known as the Weather Man across the USA for many years

The Kyoto protocol is destructive for science and the environment, for public health and safety, for economic growth and for the international fight against hunger and poverty.... Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated.
Andrei Illarionov, Financial Times, 15 November 2004 (Russian Economist, former adviser for Putin)

Is there a ‘Cause’ shop somewhere, selling swords upon which the righteous may fall? Bemused...cooling has been underway since 2002, and that none of the apocalyptic dangers painted daily by the global warming alarmists have any reality outside their fevered imaginations. It is a savage irony that one of the reasons that Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson as leader of the Coalition is because Nelson was starting to show similar signs to the Kiwis of talking sense on the global warming issue. Australian citizens are exceedingly ill-served by the ignorant and stubborn climate alarmism espoused by both current leaders of the Labour and Coalition groups, and their supporters.
Cathy of Townsville

I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies.

[Warming fears are the] worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.
UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

[The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC] are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.
U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?
Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a sceptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined.
Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Centre in Pittsburgh.

Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.
Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingo’s of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles

by Anarchist606 Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:10

The big list of quotes is not interesting and proves nothing. It is the usual collection on right-wingers, oil industry shills and conspiracy theorists. For example:

Stott - Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', eg climate change or tropical ecology. http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=126

Robinson - an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Insti...icine

Strong - former world bank economist, not a climatologist. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_Strong

Kininmonth - a shady lobbyist for all sorts of pro-big business things such as nuclear power. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Kini...month

And so on... All old news and nothing interesting. But then this:

After all the truth is there, and all we have to do is wait for it to prove that just like Global Cooling and all the other fashionable disaster/porn scenarios beloved of some, the reality is very different to what the "End is nigh" doom-mongers would love it to be for their titillation.

So if you've not proved it yet - and your advice is we play Russian Roulette with the climate in the hope that you are right? Wow, and you wonder why denalism is considered a conspiracy theory...

by Anarchist606 Mon Jun 08, 2009 14:05

We sceptics constantly put forward alternatives to the doommonger scenarios you and the other extremist try to dictate. Lomborgs suggestions are just one example.

Lomborg, unlike Lindzen (who you also quote), accepts the middle-of-the-road IPCC consensus on man-made global warming.

So if you side with Lomborg, are you saying that the IPCC are essentially correct? If we can agree that global warming is happening and that it is humans doing it, that's a start.

This is the problem with denialists; you don't offer either a conclusive view on what is happening and why, never mind conclusive proposals about what to do. All you offer is a mish-mash of denialist views - many of which are contradictory, Lomborg/Lindzen for example.

So I am happy to have a debate about how we should respond to global warming as stated by the IPCC, but first you need to confirm if you accept the IPCCs findings, as Lomborg does?

by Martyn Tue Jun 09, 2009 08:35

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negati...back/

Worth a read

This is the conclusion

The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.

An aside on Feedbacks

Here is an easily appreciated example of positive and negative feedback. In your car, the gas and brake pedals act as negative feedbacks to reduce speed when you are going too fast and increase it when you are going too slow. If someone were to reverse the position of the pedals without informing you, then they would act as positive feedbacks: increasing your speed when you are going too fast, and slowing you down when you are going too slow.

Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no.

by Anarchist606 Wed Jun 10, 2009 15:16

The article is bunkum. I am no scientist but I can see the flaw after looking at it for five minutes.

Notice that first Lindzen only uses 1985 to 1999 - 14 years to run his 'experiments' that is supposed to prove something. Why 14 years? Why 1985-99? Notice he reprints the data-set from the met office running from 1900 to 2000, but seems to cherry-pick 14 years in 100 years of data to experiment with. The reason I suspect is that this gave him the best 'fit' for the results he wanted to show.

No I am no expert, but whenever I see research with small sample numbers, it makes me suspicious.