Lord Monckton Heads Down Under to Remind Australians there is No Global Warming - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 01:32:20 pm
content: British IdiotLord Monckton returns to Australia in a month’s time for his third national speaking tour. Previous tours have been supported by one of the world’s richest women, coal and iron ore mining magnate Gina Rinehart, and also by a mining industry association.Denialist buffoonery, daveland should diney this idiot entryhttp://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/09/lord-monckton-heads-down-under-to-remind-australians-there-is-no-global-warming/

author: JoannaK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 04:18:41 pm
content: Don't want to wish anyone harm, but for some reason I somehow can imagine that man wondering around middle of nowhere (aka central Australia) ... +50C day temp, no shadow whatsoever.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-08/heat-wave-creates-new-australian-records/4457282

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 04:46:02 pm
content: Talking of Australian heat waves and bush fires I hope Dave is not at risk of getting burnt out.

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 07:12:01 pm
content: "The forecast coming from the bureau's model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees," said David Jones, head of the bureau's climate monitoring and prediction unit.Man, no wonder Dave is so busy. ** No, I'm not so stupid as to really think it's the same David Jones. It's a joke - just like when I claim that, in addition to Bob, Dave is my uncle.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 09:50:56 pm
content: Agenda 21 too!Might as well throw in Roswell, with a special guest appearance from Elvis to complete the slide showDave.

author: mark5009
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 10:24:53 pm
content: For those that haven't seen it, the Hamster Wheel's interview with (pseudo-)Lord Monckton is very funny

author: notsob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 10:31:45 pm
content: Dave's bare feet versus bush fires, eat your heart out chuck

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2013, 10:45:00 pm
content: I'm just going to leave this right here.http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/11/29/global-warming-on-mars-neptune-and-pluto/

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 12:31:56 am
content: Anthropogenic Global Warming? Load of old bollocks. Start here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/or watch this if you can't be arsed:....Runs...

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 12:57:06 am
content: Quote from: Sionyn on January 09, 2013, 01:32:20 pmThat guy always reminds me of Arnie inTotal Recall.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 02:07:19 am
content: Forest Mims the III is an "expert reviewer" on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCChttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 05:36:04 am
content: How we know they know they are lying...http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htmEasy

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 10:26:59 am
content: AGW is a conspiracy by the new left now?Can't it just be "wrong", if it is? Does it HAVE to be a conspiracy?Occam's Razor and all that.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 10:53:31 am
content: Quote from: Noize on January 10, 2013, 02:07:19 amThat "expert" is also a creationist IIRC. I wouldn't consider him much of an authority in the earth sciences.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 11:28:45 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 10, 2013, 10:26:59 amThat's not nearly as interesting!If it's wrong, then that's just normal ongoing science doing it's jobDave.

author: SLJ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 11:43:52 am
content: Only a moron or someone being paid by the oil industry would actually think that global warming is not happening now.The debate at this point should only be is it something mankind triggered this time around or are we in a natural cycle, and how do we prepare for it as soon as possible.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 11:45:37 am
content: Quote from: GK on January 10, 2013, 12:57:06 amJust to be clear..........

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 12:40:10 pm
content: he sure looks like this guy

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 12:59:18 pm
content: they have their freedom of speech correct? moronic or not is another story?

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 01:10:50 pm
content: Yeah we'll let him come into Aus, you can't ban people because they have crazy eyeballs.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2013, 04:35:53 pm
content: The real point is it no longer has to be right or wrong, global warming is now political and therefore a bloody good excuse to tax us all further and a reason to stop developing countries from further development and spoiling the markets with cheap labor and goods that cannot be controlled by the present invested interests. Global warming = protectionism.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 01:25:34 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on January 10, 2013, 04:35:53 pmThat just made me think of something... One place that I worked made vehicle engines.They had a Euro 6 emissions compliant engine in Europe a varient of that engine in the US, but sold Euro 3 engines in China because the Chinese emissions standards are lower and the engine is a cheaper for the Chinese market because it doesn't have as many emissions related parts.Some googling showed me that the Euro 3 emissions standard was from the year 2000. For that engine it is allowed to have up to 3 times NOx emissions and 3 times the particulate matter as a Euro 6 engine.

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 02:22:28 am
content: ApparentlyAlaska has cooled down 2.4 F since 2000.

author: necroscope
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 02:41:01 am
content: Quote from: SoftwareSamurai on January 11, 2013, 02:22:28 amVictoria australia has had wet cooler summers the last few years but this current summer has been the hottest since records began,I think you need to to include all the statistics on record to see any accurate data and not just take a selective sample from 12 years in a selected region and quite possibly more ice melting at the pole could cause a cooler temp down toward alaska.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 06:47:59 am
content: I live at about the same latitude as Brisbane. While the Gold coast is sweltering here it is one of the wetter summers, still raining now from last night. You can almost see the plants growing.As to engines, it is a moot point about emissions, as the most common thing here is to remove the catalytic converter when it fails and replace it with a plain box. Very expensive even though there is a thriving export trade here making them for most manufacturers worldwide ( cheap power, local raw materials and convenient transport on deadheading ships) but locally they are expensive.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 11:23:29 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on January 10, 2013, 04:35:53 pmi understand your point. you understood the issue (and probably have the hardproof or "faith" to say otherwise) and hence made judgement to ban (well if you are serious in your OP). what about other majority of people who dont understand the issue? they just believe it with salt and grain. your action trying to promote banning the person will result of you yourself being condemned by those uninformed majority for violating "freedom of speech". its been discussed in another threads that...1) anykind of "freedom of speech" should be ok... correct? even if in the form of insult and "misinformation"... correct?2) "freedom of speech" that causes riots should be taken down, but thats just the policy of the media providers, there is no hard rules and regulations to say so... correct? did you follow the thread?now this person hasnt causes any riots yet, so?. maybe this "global warming" issue can be proven right or wrong by scientists, so they can justify for banning the person. what about "freedom of speech" relating to something that cannot be proven? so where is the borderline? i'm not specifically talking about this GW BS, i'm talking about general issue of "freedom of speech". imho to ban this person, you need to lay out a very good proof to show to the "management", not just simply empty talk. all the greatest scientists should already gather round with the hardproof to ban this person beyond reasonable doubt, but where are they?. just a thought cheers

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 12:23:08 pm
content: Up till about 2008 I used to believe global warming was the greatest threat to the planet. (Never mind that in the 80s the big scare was 'global freezing/snowball Earth.) Then I happened across this:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.htmlIn particular one graph:Can you see the problem? Either that graph is total bollocks, or 'the threat of global warming due to CO2 increase' is total bollocks. They are logically incompatible. One or the other is false, no squirming out of it.Intriguing! So I started looking around.Well, well! I'd pretty much reached a conclusion that there was some kind of massive conspiracy to falsify the science of global climate change (and 'why' becoming clear), when the CRU emails leak occurred. Confirming that yes, there is a massive conspiracy to falsify the science.Since then it's been an interesting journey.One thing is for sure. You can really tell which news sources individuals primarily rely on, by their thinking on this. Mainstream media readers will be all yelling "you bastard denialists, how dare you doubt the majority of climate scientists, who are certain the planet is overheating dangerously, and it's our fault for dumping such unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the air!"While people who also read widely on this topic on the net know that's not the case at all - not one element of the above quoted statement is true. For those who'd like to do some reading:http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_CRU_emails_links.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_quotes.txtNot that I expect anyone actually will.(Btw, the "!_" prefixes are an artifact of how I archive stuff, and my laziness in not creating an actual web site. No other significance.)Btw, don't joke about Agenda 21. It's not funny at all.http://everist.org/archives/links/!_Agenda_21.txtBut then, if you don't know why Agenda 21 exists (or believe it does), I doubt you would have heard about the reasons behind it either:http://everist.org/archives/links/!_Global_Cull_links.txtIncidentally, google 'british met admits no global warming'Now I have to pack for a weekend drive to west of the mountains. 40+ degrees I gather. Global climate variability is alive and well, same as always. Meanwhile a thousand ships are stuck in ice off China, Greenland is looking like it's starting a new ice age all on its own, northern Europe is experiencing record cold, and it just snowed heavily in Jerusalem.Edit: Have you ever taken a walk in a coal mine? It's a very illuminating experience (despite the 'everything is black' aspect.) You see that massive amount of coal, tens of meters deep, extending over hundreds of square miles (and similar all over Earth) and realize... Hey, all this carbon was once in the atmosphere! And Earth was much the same!Btw, did you know plants can't live below 150 ppm CO2, and are stunted below 220 ppm. Earth was at around 310 ppm in the 1950s (near the lowest it's ever been in geological history) and is now up around 380 ppm. I read that a lot of the world's deserts are starting to green up recently. It's not a coincidence -http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/Since I've learned that CO2 is NOT is significant driver of global temperatures (the controlling factor is water vapor, with a major influence being water droplet nucleation in the upper atmosphere caused by the cosmic ray flux - and *that's* controlled by the Sun's solar wind output, which is quite variable - and probably influenced by a spin coupling from Jupiter and Saturn, but anyway...) I'm quite inclined to think that the *best* thing we can do is to burn as much coal and oil as possible. Get the carbon back into the ecosystem, and re-green the deserts. Local climate wetness is controlled by the presence of plants, and the water retaining mat of vegetation on the ground. Not the other way round. There are deserts partly because there isn't enough carbon in the air to build the plant material to provide the necessary water-retention and local temperature moderation.If you don't think clouds/water vapor form the vastly dominant control of surface temperature (and incidentally this isn't my theory, it's the *real* majority of climate scientists) just think about what happens at night. Hot day, no clouds in evening = rapid temperature drop at night. Hot day, with clouds in the evening = stays hot all night.How much CO2 variation would it take to achieve that variation in thermal loss to space? A very great deal, is the answer. An amount in 'percent content', not 'parts per million' content.edit 20130114: fix spelling error

author: dda
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 12:49:47 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 11, 2013, 12:23:08 pmThat global avg temperature line looks awfully smooth, does it not?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 01:18:47 pm
content: Quote from: dda on January 11, 2013, 12:49:47 pmYes, it's a guestimate, based on rock formation chemistry. Same with the CO2 estimate I expect.Except in the recent epoch in which data is more accurate.Doesn't matter to the principle being demonstrated.Note the graphic (and article it's from) reference a source for the data. Go check it yourself if you want to argue with it.The thing which struck me, was how high CO2 has been in the past. And notice, we're here to talk about it. Therefore no thermal runaway occurred, and Earth never ended up like Venus.

author: SLJ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 03:07:38 pm
content: No doubt the earth has survived many fluctuations in average temperature and climate change. What the difference now is from the past is the high number of humans on the planet and our fragile systems of agriculture and infrastructure which support us. Unfortunately they can be vastly affected by drought and the incidents of severe weather brought on by these temperature changes. Whether we caused it or not is a moot point as time goes on and we are forced to adjust to the changes.I for one think purchasing property on the coast close to sea level is a bad long term investment at this point.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 04:10:36 pm
content: We may go extinct, but the planet as a whole will go on totally unconcerned, just a minor blip and a very short line in the fossil record that is all.................... KT boundary is a sub 1mm line, but is ovr a milion years in the making, and there is big uncertainty in the dating of events either side of the line.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2013, 05:45:02 pm
content: I think the main reason there's more concern about CO2 nowadays is that the atmosphere was much different back 600 million years ago. This matters because it alters how CO2 behaves. It becomes more apparent when you look at a closer time scale, down to hundreds of thousands of years, that this is not a natural cycle:

author: Obi_Kwiet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2013, 06:57:33 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 11, 2013, 01:18:47 pmLiterally no climate scientists think this. The vast majority of earth's CO2 is locked up in rocks and cannot be released short of reforming the entire crust. Climate change has to do with variation in the relatively tiny amount of accessible CO2 which isn't going to destroy life, but at worst could cause some ecological shifts that would be rather inconvenient to human infrastructure and political boundaries. It's wouldn't be the end of the world, but it might take some adjusting to depending on the severity. Really all we need to do is make sure that changes happen slowly compared to our political flexibility. It's not like earth hasn't seen these kinda of CO2 concentrations before. It's all coming from organic matter, after all.

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2013, 03:44:25 pm
content: Quote from: necroscope on January 11, 2013, 02:41:01 amSo, by that logic, we can't just take Australia (a selected region) having the hottest recorded year (a selected period) and all the brush fires (a selected event) as evidence of Global Warming?And we can't just take Victoria (an even smaller selected region) having had wet cooler summers the last few years (an even smaller selected period) as evidence of Global Warming?

author: SLJ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2013, 06:12:58 pm
content: Small increases in the average global temperature will cause direct changes in ocean currents which in turn cause cooler, warmer, dryer, and wetter than normal regions at the same time around the globe along with steady increases in extreme weather events. I was told this at Goddard Space Flight Center 15 years ago. So far I have not seen anything to disprove what I was told.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2013, 06:17:32 pm
content: Far more likely to see circulatory current disruption from volcanic activity in the north Atlantic ridge.

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 08:31:35 pm
content: Inside the new climate row as Mystic Met Office goes cool on warmingWorst set of predictions ON RECORD?http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/12/met_predictions/Oh No!

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 09:38:56 pm
content: The MET office replaced the piece of seaweed with looking out of the window.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 10:16:20 pm
content: Michael Mann's "Hockey stick" was discredited as a fraud a couple of years ago.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018173/climategate-sack-no-longer-credible-michael-mann-from-ipcc-urges-climatologist/http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/Quote from: tom66 on January 11, 2013, 05:45:02 pm

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 10:30:41 pm
content: The brilliant thing (**in theory) about science is that one paper or person falling over doesn't disrupt the process.This graph has been produced by more than Mr. Mann, regardless of whether or not he is a fraud (it is irrelevant), numerous data sets have been produced which all show a rapid rise in average temperature over the past 100 years or so.Some data sets compiled together (credit Wikipedia):It is ridiculous to contend that global warming is not happening; it is. Is it AGW? I do not know.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 10:44:52 pm
content: The graph shown is a CO2 time series.QuoteOne link says ...Quote?? Is it tongue in cheek stuff? He seems to be a political journalist not any sort of scientist.the other link shows an earth temperature time series not a CO2 time series. But has a similar shape to the graph on wikipedia. Which I guess is called a hockey stick to belittle it.Not knowing what the Hockey stick controversy is, your links don't show anything but misguided bluster.I am all for exposing bad, incompetent and fraudulent science, irrespective of what point of view it holds, but I would like to see an accurate graph of historical CO2 levels.Have you a better graph of historical CO2 levels?Until your journalists can produce one I guess we are stuck with a hockey stick.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 11:21:43 pm
content: The black line in your graph is from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that report to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who set the UN's policy on climate change. They have all the data from around the world to make their report for the UN.Remember the emails some Russian Hacker got from the CRU.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/Why do we have to get taxed? Why not the tax energy companies at source? It is a political issue not an environmental issue. By the way I do believe we have cut consumption down because ofacid rain, pollution etc. But not to make a relatively few rich and a lot more people people poorer.On another note Al Gore just sold his TV company to Al jazeera for $300 million. The head guy pushing AGW just received $300 million of oil money. Nice.Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2013, 10:30:41 pm

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 11:55:43 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 11, 2013, 04:10:36 pmThere's a problem with that assumption. Due to an issue not many people are aware of, that involves a direct risk to the survival of Earth's biosphere, which we *have* created. (Unlike 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (AGW), which is a deliberately created false myth, and was never a threat to life on Earth.)Since the nuclear age began, we humans have used nuclear reactors to produce a vast amount of high level, long half-life radioactive material. We dig uranium ore out of the ground, and in reactors transmute fractions of it (and other initially stable elements) into a range of extremely dangerous unstable elements, with half-lives ranging from decades to millions of years. Almost all of them are also biologically active, exhibiting both food-chain concentration, and in several cases extreme chemical toxicity.We still have no way of safely isolating these wastes from the environment for the necessary time spans - geological ages. Most of the materials are stored in ways that are not at all stable in the long term. Much of it is still in nuclear power reactors on land and sea, spent fuel pools, nuclear warheads, and various industrial equipment.All of which depends critically on humankind's continued ability to maintain an ordered, educated society with technical and industrial capacity to maintain the isolation of such dangerous radioactive materials.So far there have been less than half a dozen major loss of nuclear containment accidents, and each one has resulted in thepermanent(in terms of multiple human life-spans) loss of habitability of large areas. The most recent (Fukushima) is ongoing, uncontrolled, and only 2 years into what will be decades of tragedy. Those who follow that disaster's unfolding understand that even with the present rate of radioactives leakage it will eventually result in most or all of Japan becoming uninhabitable. In one quite possible further development (#4 SFP collapse) it could make most of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable - and of course eventually the whole Earth would suffer terribly.That's just ONE nuclear complex where things went very bad. There are hundreds of nuclear power plants world wide, all of them potential Fukushimas - if for any reason we humans lost the ability to safely maintain them. Not to mention all the nuclear waste storage facilities. Or there's also the possibility of unexpected external catastrophe - such as a major asteroid strike, destroying dozens of reactor sites.It is a known, inarguable historical fact that complex human societiesareprone to chaotic and usually irreversible collapse in circumstances that are all too common. (Ref: The Collapse of Complex Societies, by J Tainter.http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=tainter&sts=t&tn=collapse+of+complex+societies)There are many who feel that our present global industrial civilization is particularly susceptible to such a collapse, by reason of its high complexity, interdependence, critical reliance on various increasingly rare resources, and several political factors. Some even feel that such a collapse is inevitable, and given present circumstances, possibly in the near future.Now for the truly cringe-inducing logic. If present day industrial civilization collapses, all nuclear containment systems will fail. Over various durations, but theywillfail. Some by rapid meltdowns as reactor sites run out of fuel for backup cooling systems, staff attrition, etc. Others by slow corrosion, weathering, human scavenging in ignorance, and so on. Wind and water will spread the contamination across the globe, slowly but surely. Shorter-lived isotopes will be decaying away, but there are plenty of stores of very long-lived radioactive poisons.I've never been able to find estimates for global total tonnages of the various dangerous isotopes we've created via the nuclear power and weapons programs. But given the results at Chlelyabinsk, Chernobyl and Fukushima, I think it's quite possible that total release to the biosphere over a few hundred years after a collapse of industrial civilization, could result in a global background radiation level high enough to destroy all higher forms of life on Earth. Either directly, or via gradual genetic damage accumulation over generations (look up 'epigenetics'.) Complex lifeforms require a low background radiation level.Depending on the actual isotopic ratios and amounts of radioactive materials leaked into the environment, the Earth may be rendered incapable of supporting higher life for millions of years.This is the real and most critical existential threat Earth faces, that absolutely is our fault and which we should be taking urgent action to prevent, no matter what economic pain is involved.Not some hypothetical AGW, renamed to 'climate change', then 'climate disruption' as the spin-masters fine tuned their publicity campaign, and which turns out on closer investigation to have been coordinated by a small group of individuals motivated by political ideology and greed, then sold to the public via a fully controlled mainstream media complex.The fact that we have the major publicity scare of AGW, based on deliberately falsified science, for profit and ideology, while the true and much more serious threat to life on Earth goes completely unaddressed (again mostly for reasons of profit) makes me despair for the human race and Earth.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2013, 11:58:08 pm
content: I would completely agree with taxing energy companies for dirty polluting energy sources, but not just energy companies: polluting industries, for example.Gore is a shady character and I've never trusted him. I agree with some of his points but not with himself. Like all politicians (former or not), he rarely has other people's interest in mind. It's either power or money. Or both, in many cases.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 12:17:31 am
content: One fallacy is that energy companies are against carbon tax. No they are not going to get taxed. The most expensive or riskiest operation of an energy company is prospecting, so if you get paid more for less you are laughing.

author: cwalex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 12:19:02 am
content: Quote from: Noize on January 13, 2013, 11:21:43 pmI don't really follow the politics much but I think that is what the new carbon tax in Australia is for. The power companies pay the tax or reduce their CO2 output to reduce the tax they pay. Either way the tax will end up in higher prices to the consumer. Also applies to other industries creating CO2.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 12:37:26 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 13, 2013, 10:30:41 pmThe problem is, it's now known that there has been widespread deliberate manipulation and falsification of the raw temperature record data, by many people and groups involved in the core of the climate change conspiracy.There have even been articles that follow the movement of key people from one organization to another, and the sudden appearance of data falsification at their new place of employment.Google 'temperature record manipulated' for a sampling.Or start chewing through those links lists I posted earlier in this thread. (A lot of work, I know.)By the way, when the CRU had people demanding to see their raw original data, they pulled a 'sorry, the dog ate it' act.QuoteGoogle "no global warming since" and you'll find it far from ridiculous. Bear in mind that you'll be see two distinct groups contending, and each one saying the other group is lying, and claiming reasons for why they are. You're going to have to figure out which one actually is lying.One hint: there is a lot of money involved, but it isn't necessary all about coal and oil. Carbon credits markets (and various other schemes) represent potentially billions of dollars to some people too.Another thing to look up: 'medieval warm period'. Again you'll see that dichotomy of claims, and you're going to have to choose for yourself. Make a note of who (what groups and web sites) were on each side. This information is very useful once you start to get a feel for who'd lying and who isn't.One thing I've noticed over the last 5 years or so, is the repeated waves of media hysteria about one or other aspect of AGW, and then later it will turn out (based on independent sources, and sometimes retractions by the originators) to have been a load of distortions and often outright lies. One of my favorites is the 'all the ice is melting!' line. Here are some useful graphs of actual sea ice extent measurements. Keep this handy for the next media wave of "OMG it's all meltiiiiiing!" panic.http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/Comparing the media hype to the actual data tells you a great deal about the motives of the mouthpieces.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 01:10:15 am
content: There's a record dating back to 1659, called the "Central England temperature."Is that falsified too? Because it shows warming, too. I do not believe that the powers that be have planned for the past 50 years or so to slowly increase the temperature record. If I were going to be an evildoer, I would increase it over a period of a few years. After all, 50 years is hardly worth it..... all that effort and only a few more years to enjoy being supreme ruler of Earth's peoples? (which, though AGW, is a very silly way of doing it. Religion works better.)

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 01:30:32 am
content: That's after the medieval warming periiod. Which is before the medieval mini Ice age.Quote from: tom66 on January 14, 2013, 01:10:15 am

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 01:42:42 am
content: Look the global temperature goes up and down and for the last 300 odd years it has shown upward trend. And then it will show a downward trend Que? manuel. That massive globe of flame nothing to do with it yeah really. Look just give all your money to cunts because that's want you want to do. And lower your living standards and change nothing.Quote from: tom66 on January 14, 2013, 01:10:15 am

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 02:06:20 am
content: If anything I'm suggesting less money go to these "so-and-so's" (language has been sweetened a little.)As a result of living frugally I spend much less money and use less energy because I try to be lighter on the planet. (Oh, and I save money, did I mention that part. Kinda important for me, I live on £20/week for food.) Sustainability isn't a bad thing. I buyalmostno electronics new. I always fix something if I can, reducing landfill. (Oh, and did I mention the saving money bit. That works for that too.) I ignore advertising as much as I possibly can too. (Money=saved.)So, I mean, I really don't care if the planet is warming or not. The data suggest it is. I continue living like I am. It gives me income to spend on the things that matter.The evildoers comment though, I feel, is appropriate, in a tongue-in-cheek manner. People are suggesting an elitist conspiracy. Presumably brought in the mid 50's or so, when evidence was first showing up of warming. Assume your average elitist conspirator is 30 years old when they join Evil, Inc. 50 years later and 50% of Americans and 33% of Britons are still skeptical. Kinda wasted your life there...!

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 02:15:39 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 14, 2013, 02:06:20 am

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 03:02:52 am
content: But seriously what is the point of that post if you didn't mean it. Where is the wit. Satire?Quote from: tom66 on January 14, 2013, 02:06:20 am

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 03:12:03 am
content: Low information Americans (use to be called "morons" over here) are just now finding out that when you tax people that produce something that they use that THEY (the little peps) pay the tax. Not only that, but when you ding an employer, the employees get dinged too. All just to be fooled into giving the politicians more money to throw away.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 03:52:01 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 13, 2013, 11:55:43 pmHabitability for us fragile humans maybe. The areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant are said to beteemingwithlife, mainly due to the absence of humans.Quote from: TerraHertz on January 13, 2013, 11:55:43 pmAny non-crackpot citations for these two strong assertions?Quote from: TerraHertz on January 13, 2013, 11:55:43 pmBirds are nested in the remains of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Are you suggesting that background levels would exceed those right at the exploded reactor? Note also that the highly radioactive isotopes have a short half life, and the very stable isotopes are not very radioactive. Many of the highly radioactive isotopes have half lives in the order of minutes to years.

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 03:58:46 am
content: I've noticed another thing. Long lasting "long half life" radioactive materials, are that because the have low emissions. If they are "HOT" their half life is short. The hotter, the shorter.P.S. I saw that documentary. It's amazing that the life develops a resistance to the radioactive levels, and that this can help us with existing cancer treatment.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 04:12:10 am
content: How many camps are there in this issue anyway?I'm absolutely sure I have oversimplified the varying positions taken but here's my feeble attempt1) Those that believe global climate is trending upward in temperaturea) Those that say its our activities that are causing itb) Those that say it's a natural phenomenon2) Those that don't believe things are heating up.As for 1) (wether in a or b) There are those that think there is no threat from the temp rise and those that think there is and possibly more subgroups who argue as to the immediacy of the threat if there is one.Is anyone arguing that emisions can continue unchecked (ie left to economic demands)To know what position to take on this matter without religious conviction seems more daunting than gathering the raw data and doing the science oneself

author: cwalex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 04:51:43 am
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on January 14, 2013, 04:12:10 amI tried to look into it to find the real answer but I lost interest because the info is so contradictory and with the vested interests in some of the info... I just gave up and now my point of view is that we may as well try to reduce out CO2 output. More of a just in case, you know the future of my younger family members etc, don't want them to have to deal with problems after I'm too old to care or dead.A bonus is that all this stuff is funnelling more R&D into better technologies for more efficient solar and battery performance, not to mention I would love to have an electric car that has comparable performance, accelleration and travel distance to a fossil fueled carI know you can buy electric cars now or hybrid cars but price is still in the early adopters range IMO

author: Jschool
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 08:56:48 am
content: I'm only in my 30s but I'm old enough to remember butter being the devil - oh wait, now it's margarine -- oh now you can eat butter again, anti oxidants are great -- no, wait they cause depression and cancer, fatty foods are bad for you and make you fat -- no, you need to eat more fat to lose weight! Not to mention that 30 years ago we were on the cusp of an ice age if you listened to the same people who now say the earth is about to turn into a giant fireball.I think global warming (or, climate change is the new phrase once the warming didn't pan out) is to many a replacement of religion in their lives. Everyone wants something to believe in or to be part of a cause or group and in an age where religion is reduced in peoples' lives they look for a more scientific alternative not realizing that it can go 180 degrees against their "belief" the next day. This is destructive to science, too, because people become emotionally attached to a belief in a theory and refuse to consider evidence that contradicts it.The LHC is already starting to disprove long held beliefs about physics (as of the last articles I read - for all I know it could have changed back by now).In the end it's not going to matter. There's nothing we can do in the next 50 years to permanently destroy the habitat short of lighting off nukes all over the planet. But within 30 years we could see buckypaper, cheap plastic solar, and carbon nanotube batteries literally change everything. Once these materials are mass producible at a cost effective this whole debate will be rendered useless.I guarantee you one thing, though. Just like fracking is now being demonized by the same people who were screaming the loudest for clean energy before, those very same people will find *something* to complain about whenever everyone has a roof covered in solar panels. They blind migratory birds, they destroy clouds -something. Until you change your name to Moondust and live in a treehouse and compost your own crap, they won't be happy. And even then, they'll find something wrong with your compost.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 11:18:37 am
content: Quote from: alm on January 14, 2013, 03:52:01 amAs you said, mainly due to the absence of humans. But, quothWikipedia,QuoteQuote from: Jschool on January 14, 2013, 08:56:48 amThe scientific consensus changes, therefore it must all be rejected?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 11:29:04 am
content: Quote from: alm on January 14, 2013, 03:52:01 amYou really should try a simple google or two before asking questions like that. Just because Fukushima has dropped of the mainstream media's radar, doesn't mean no one is reporting on it any more. Here's some suggested search terms:fukushima number four sfp collapse earthquakeOne sample:http://www.change.org/petitions/fukushima-spent-fuel-pool-4-risks-u-s-health-and-safetySummary: Unit 4 SFP contains not only a large stock of used fuel, but a full reactor load of new fuel, which was removed from the reactor during maintenance. The Unit 4 building is severely damaged. Another strong earthquake could crack the pool, allowing the cooling water to drain. Then the fuel would burn, and since it's in the open air the contamination would be extreme. The entire site would be too radioactive for workers or machinery to function, so there'd be no way to stop it.Re the worsening contamination problem in Japan, try 'japan radiation rising'.At Fukushima there are three reactor cores completely melted down, and sunk into the ground below the reactor buildings. All of the reactor buildings are so seriously damaged that there's no possibility of containment of the continual outgassing from the melted corium. The isotopes blow whichever way the wind is blowing, and everywhere they settle the background radiation level is slowly but continually rising.The buildings are so cracked that ground water flows into the basements, is contaminated, then drains to the ocean. Where it enters the Pacific Ocean food chain. Google 'radioactive bluefin tuna'For anyone who thinks Chernobyl wasn't so bad, watch the video here.http://enenews.com/prepare-yourself-photographer-likeJapan is going the same way, except with one difference- the Japanese government is much more gung ho about lying and keeping the population from understanding what is happening, than the Russians ever were. The government is even ordering doctors to cover up radiation-related illnesses!As for the 'birds nesting, abundant wildlife' etc, remember that the mutations and birth defects rate will be similar for such creatures as for humans. But there are no nursing homes for deformed wild animals, so they die and you don't see them. Plenty of mutant insects and plants being found though. Just look for the reports.Also, lets see how it goes after a longer period, and many, many generations of accumulating genetic errors.Incidentally, people who think species like mammals can 'adapt' to higher radiation levels in a few generations, have a serious misunderstanding of how evolution works.For a while after the Fukushima disaster I was keeping an archive of related news stories and links. Then I stopped. It was too depressing.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 11:32:21 am
content: Still wonderingIs this graph the correct graph for CO2? Seems to be going up.Can someone provide the correct one if it is not.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 12:34:20 pm
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on January 14, 2013, 11:32:21 amThat unfortunately depends on everyone's definition of "correct"In the sane real world, if this wasn't a subject anyone in the publish sphere gave a toss about, you would take the latest data from the largest and most highly respected research group working on the topic as being the most "correct" (or heck, even Wikipedia these days), and that would be the end of the argument.However, given that this topic lives in the penthouse at crackpot central, that kind of regular scientific thinking goes out the windowSo you won't be able to convince anyone using that silly tactic!Dave.

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 12:49:50 pm
content: Quote from: cwalex on January 14, 2013, 04:51:43 amWhy do so many people think it's a good idea to kill all of the plants to save the planet?

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 02:32:32 pm
content: Quote from: cwalex on January 14, 2013, 04:51:43 amAh, the precautionary principle. It kills people in developing countries and prevents development. I've linked this before, butpleasewatch this:Excellent post Jschool.Somebody said once: 'Climate change alarmists are selfish and hypocrites. If they are so concerned about man-made plant food causing global warming, they should stop breathing out, permanently. Then, if they're right, problem solved.'

author: Jschool
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2013, 05:18:36 pm
content: Quote from: andersm on January 14, 2013, 11:18:37 amNo, neither do you re-engineer the entire world economy based on the alarmism of the hour.Especially when technology already exists in the lab to solve the supposed problem through a gradual market driven process that won't uproot our daily lives.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 06:09:52 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Up until about 16 years ago, since the 50s, there was a measurable period of Global Temperature Increase. But it has remained more or less flat since that time, and there is a consensus of scientists on this point. Global temperature has undergone both cooling and warming periods in recent history, I.E. the Roman warm period, the Medieval warming, the Little Ice Age, and others. These facts, while problematic for the Carbon Forcing theory, in no way disprove it, but they do tend to increase doubt, which explains why Michael Mann attempted to sweep them under the rug, with his fraudulent Hockey Stick paper.--Now, while our gracious host is absolutely correct that facts are facts whether one believes them or not. AGW, which is based on Computer Modeling, however, is not a fact but merely a theory which has considerable support in the Scientific Community. Government response to this consensus consists of taxing Conventional Energy Sources and pounding sand down various Alternative Energy Rat Holes, the absolute worst being Ethanol, or wasting energy converting food to booze.--Meanwhile the US has dialed back its Carbon Footprint to 1987 levels, as a result primarily of the Government's failure to suppress the Natural Gas Boom, but also due to reduced economic activity. This has been seen before. Energy usage in the USSR was stagnant until Gorbachev crossed his Rubicon, then it spiked, strictly increasing, as economic activity was much less constrained.--Therefore, if you want to reduce CO2 output, it does not really matter all that much, in fact, exactly which Taxes, Anti-Business Regulations, or Alternative Energy Pyramid Schemes, you employ. They all work really well to reduce CO2 output. So you should support all of these various programs. And besides, as our Gracious Host will, most times, but not every time, tell you; that if you do not "You are an idiot"."Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."Chief Dan George 1899 - 1981Best RegardsClear Ether

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 05:58:40 pm
content: Yes He will. Just before he locks the thread!

author: TinkeringSteve
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 11:21:03 pm
content: Some demonstrations of how much Monckton thinks, to put it friendly, accuracy is worth:(the video maker has more of it... Monckton never ceases to deliver)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 11:37:15 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 17, 2013, 06:09:52 amI did not say it was a fact. I was in fact careful to point out that I was referring to the general prevailing scientific consensus being a fact.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2013, 11:44:28 pm
content: Quote from: Jschool on January 14, 2013, 05:18:36 pmI agree.But I for one do support the general taxing of dirty non-renewable fossil based energy, and putting that money back into renewable research and/or industry subsidies etc. Unfortunately the governments make a meal of it, as alwaysThere is no need to "re-engineer the world economy", that of course would just be a money grab from those in power, as has always happened since the dawn of time.For those who think there is some big global conspiracy going on, with the scientists in on it etc. That's just BS. It's just the old game of the scientists doing their thing as they always have (some make mistakes, but in general the system is eventually self correcting), and the government and the peons going bat-shit crazy over the whole thing.Dave.

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2013, 01:08:14 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 17, 2013, 11:37:15 pmIf you're saying that aconsensusamong scientists makes it a fact,I'd say you're wrong.If you're saying that itisa fact that there is a "general prevailing scientific consensus" agreeing that AGW is true, then againI'dsayyou'rewrong.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2013, 01:31:43 am
content: Quote from: SoftwareSamurai on January 18, 2013, 01:08:14 amThat's because you are an ardent AGW denierTime to lock another GW thread, thanks. Plenty of other forums for that.Dave.