Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[nisakiman]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

What??? The whole global warming propaganda is being used to help force in BIG GOVERNMENT. Have a look at the proposals and 'solutions' being offered. They all about expanding the power of government and very little to do with researching new energy alternatives. How can you not see this? Are you implying that BIG GOVERNMENT are AGW skeptics? You're not making any sense.

Lord Monckton warns about global government via global warming treaty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it589JiPs8o...feature=related

ps before you rush into an ad hominem attack, try to address what he is warning about.

That is the most funny post yet Teabag. You actually are not aware that BIG GOVERNMENT has existed for along time now.

Or you can't admit to it. Why? Because if you acknowledge it as a fact, your conspiracy theory to usher in big government explodes.

In a crime, you look for motive. What motive is there for responsible scientists to address climate change?

It certainly is not big money..........BIG OIL has more money to pay scientists to post nonsense on the web. Apparently you don't know what responsible professors and government workers earn (far less than BIG OIL is capable of paying them).

If responsible scientists wanted big money, they would switch to the Dark Side.

It certainly is not to usher in BIG GOVERNMENT because BIG GOVERNMENT already exists.

Here is a thought: Scientists (and responsible politicians) are concerned that climate change is going to exacerbate all of our existing social, economic and environmental problems.

Now.........ask yourself what motive does BIG OIL have for trying to convince you that the science behind climate change is nothing but a grand conspiracy to usher in BIG GOVERNMENT and that an actual debate is taking place?

Here is the answer: They want to maintain the status quo because it gives them massive power and wealth.

Which scenario is more likely?

If you think BIG GOVERNMENT already exists, then you must live in a very small pond. It's growing, yes. And the AGW scam is the perfect vehicle for achieving yet more control.

And to claim that there is any scientific consensus on AGW is simply laughable. There is no consensus. The debate is not over. The science is not settled.

Read this, from a member of the IPCC,

UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK based atmospheric science consultant.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27789

And consensus? Check this out.........

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...5d-6e2d71db52d9

If you really want to learn something, read the whole report. If you can't be bothered to read it, then go back to your "I-know-there-are-fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden-because-it-said-so-in-the-paper" life and don't try debating something that you obviously haven't looked into very thouroughly.

Governments around the world have been quick to realise that AGW is the perfect tool to establish control in a way we haven't seen for generations. We have gained many freedoms over the years, but those freedoms are being repatriated by government under the AGW banner.

Take a look around. Think about it...

[JR Texas]

Speaking of scenarios, what happens if, next time Wall Street sags like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, Uncle Sam just lets it collapse ...let the chips fall as they may.

Ok, off topic, sorry. BTW, JR Texas is doing a valiant job of upholding reason in this thread. He's up against a couple gnarly contrarians who seem to have done their finishing school at a pit bull arena. Hang in there JR, I'd add some more text, but I think this topic should be shuttered. It started out discussing the Thai 'expert's; odd claim that water doesn't rise evenly, then devolved to winking chipmunks and stacking boxes of pseudo experts like a Toys R Us inventory in the first week of December. The boxes are full of air and ready to tumble, and so should this topic.

Thanks Brahmburgers...........you pretty much summed up the situation. And yet another nutty post followed what you said. It really is time to put this thread to bed. It is not possible to teach rocks to turn over.

[cyb]

Speaking of scenarios, what happens if, next time Wall Street sags like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, Uncle Sam just lets it collapse ...let the chips fall as they may.

Ok, off topic, sorry. BTW, JR Texas is doing a valiant job of upholding reason in this thread. He's up against a couple gnarly contrarians who seem to have done their finishing school at a pit bull arena. Hang in there JR, I'd add some more text, but I think this topic should be shuttered. It started out discussing the Thai 'expert's; odd claim that water doesn't rise evenly, then devolved to winking chipmunks and stacking boxes of pseudo experts like a Toys R Us inventory in the first week of December. The boxes are full of air and ready to tumble, and so should this topic.

Thanks Brahmburgers...........you pretty much summed up the situation. And yet another nutty post followed what you said. It really is time to put this thread to bed. It is not possible to teach rocks to turn over.

JR you ever heard of the term flogging a dead horse?

You have being flogging this one a long time now and it has not stirred so maybe your right and time to bury it.

[teatree]

Debate is over.........your side lost..........the only suckers are those that continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL........and who apparently also believe BIG GOVERNMENT does not exits.

For those who want scientific information on the topic of global climate change, please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch (this is where you can source the crackpots)

What??? The whole global warming propaganda is being used to help force in BIG GOVERNMENT. Have a look at the proposals and 'solutions' being offered. They all about expanding the power of government and very little to do with researching new energy alternatives. How can you not see this? Are you implying that BIG GOVERNMENT are AGW skeptics? You're not making any sense.

Lord Monckton warns about global government via global warming treaty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it589JiPs8o...feature=related

ps before you rush into an ad hominem attack, try to address what he is warning about.

That is the most funny post yet Teabag. You actually are not aware that BIG GOVERNMENT has existed for along time now.

Or you can't admit to it. Why? Because if you acknowledge it as a fact, your conspiracy theory to usher in big government explodes.

In a crime, you look for motive. What motive is there for responsible scientists to address climate change?

It certainly is not big money..........BIG OIL has more money to pay scientists to post nonsense on the web. Apparently you don't know what responsible professors and government workers earn (far less than BIG OIL is capable of paying them).

If responsible scientists wanted big money, they would switch to the Dark Side.

It certainly is not to usher in BIG GOVERNMENT because BIG GOVERNMENT already exists.

Here is a thought: Scientists (and responsible politicians) are concerned that climate change is going to exacerbate all of our existing social, economic and environmental problems.

Now.........ask yourself what motive does BIG OIL have for trying to convince you that the science behind climate change is nothing but a grand conspiracy to usher in BIG GOVERNMENT and that an actual debate is taking place?

Here is the answer: They want to maintain the status quo because it gives them massive power and wealth.

Which scenario is more likely?

Yet another straw man post.

Of course big government already exists. The point is that under the cover of saving the Earth (from one of the building blocks of life) it is getting B-I-G-G-E-R. Understand? People will accept 'global governance' (a term used by Gore) if you scare them into thinking there is a need. Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have LOVED the new powers being brought in for the eco-police.

The majority of AGW supporting scientists know that the AGW science is JUNK, but they are being pragmatic - they believe that making CO2 the enemy we will stop us using fossil fuels. Of course this is wrong, all we will get is TAX and government control, but this is one of the big reasons they support it.

You talk about big oil funding scientists, and I know they do fund some of them. But what about the thousands of scientists that are funded by government? What about the scientists who are too scared to reveal their true opinions on AGW in case they lose their top research job with a university or lose their lucrative book deal. Your hypocrisy is all the more stunning considering you don't even seem to be aware of it.

[nisakiman]

Speaking of scenarios, what happens if, next time Wall Street sags like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, Uncle Sam just lets it collapse ...let the chips fall as they may.

Ok, off topic, sorry. BTW, JR Texas is doing a valiant job of upholding reason in this thread. He's up against a couple gnarly contrarians who seem to have done their finishing school at a pit bull arena. Hang in there JR, I'd add some more text, but I think this topic should be shuttered. It started out discussing the Thai 'expert's; odd claim that water doesn't rise evenly, then devolved to winking chipmunks and stacking boxes of pseudo experts like a Toys R Us inventory in the first week of December. The boxes are full of air and ready to tumble, and so should this topic.

Thanks Brahmburgers...........you pretty much summed up the situation. And yet another nutty post followed what you said. It really is time to put this thread to bed. It is not possible to teach rocks to turn over.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

[brahmburgers]

Speaking of scenarios, what happens if, next time Wall Street sags like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, Uncle Sam just lets it collapse ...let the chips fall as they may.

Ok, off topic, sorry. BTW, JR Texas is doing a valiant job of upholding reason in this thread. He's up against a couple gnarly contrarians who seem to have done their finishing school at a pit bull arena. Hang in there JR, I'd add some more text, but I think this topic should be shuttered. It started out discussing the Thai 'expert's; odd claim that water doesn't rise evenly, then devolved to winking chipmunks and stacking boxes of pseudo experts like a Toys R Us inventory in the first week of December. The boxes are full of air and ready to tumble, and so should this topic.

Thanks Brahmburgers...........you pretty much summed up the situation. And yet another nutty post followed what you said. It really is time to put this thread to bed. It is not possible to teach rocks to turn over.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

I see photos of glaciers receding to historic minimums.

I see photos of polar bears with little or none of the pack ice they're accustomed to.

I see photos of lakes forming on Greenland for the first time in recorded history.

It would be more riveting if I was able to see such things first person, direct, but I don't get to Greenland and the high mountains where glaciers run their routes. I doubt you get to those places either. Unless, a whole slew of scientists are intent on skewing the data, the data they convey is convincing. I also give credence to people who reside in such places, such as the Swiss at high altitude, reporting glaciers receding much farther back then they've every been known to be - and not recovering much after the subsequent winter.

If you want to call that 'blind' that's your prerogative. You can also discount gravity and the sun rising in the east if you so choose. And, of course, you can devolved to calling names, which is the easiest thing to do (ask any little schoolkid), especially when you're stumped for a retort.

[teatree]

4.11.2009

Václav Klaus - Czech President

Speech at the Washington Times Climate Change Policy Conference

Many thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such an important gathering in the moment when political correctness tells you not to do it.

We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit and several weeks before the U.S. Senate hearing regarding the cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today’s meeting can’t be an academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic discussion. There is no consensus – neither in science, nor in economic analysis or politics.

I left Prague after signing of the Lisbon Treaty and came here only a few minutes ago, which means that I missed most of your conference. I’m sorry for that.

I have already been at a UN Summit in Copenhagen before. It was in 1995 at the so called Social Summit. At that time, the Summit was attended by then US Vice President Al Gore who – so it seems – will be there again this year. I did also attend, as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, but I don’t plan to go there now. I don’t see any chance to influence the results or to be listened to.

In 1995, there were huge demonstrations there organized by all kinds of anti-establishment groupings – from socialists and greens to anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The difference is that I don’t expect any demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with far-reaching consequences.

My views on the doctrine of global warming and especially on the role of man in it are relatively known. My book with the title “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” has been already published in 12 languages and, two and a half years after its original publication, I don’t have any urgent need to rewrite it.

We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine.

It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas – population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes – that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today’s level of statistical methods. [1] Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and – without waiting for its confirmation – started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won’t carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their consequences).

I don’t see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable future, and for that reason I am not sufficiently motivated to discuss the technicalities of the cap-and-trade scheme. I only protest against calling it a “market solution.” It reminds me of the communist planners who similarly talked about “using market instruments” when they finally came to the conclusion that “planning instruments” did not work. Markets can’t be used by anybody.

We should not deceive ourselves. Cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par excellence, not a “market solution.” How much “to cap” is the decision of the government (and the European failure several years ago – when too many carbon permits were issued – is I hope well known here). The size of the cap defines the price of carbon and this price is nothing else that a tax imposed upon citizens of the country. I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill “is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world.” [2] How is it possible that such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy means that the costs of anti-global warming policy will disproportionally fall onto the poor people? What bothers me is that to “trade” the artificial “good” – the permits – means that a new group of rent-seekers will arise who will make profits at our expense. Why doesn’t anybody say that the carbon permits have no intrinsic value other than by government decree? I could continue along these lines.

But we should return to the beginning. Despite huge scientific efforts and spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is statistically significant. Once again Lord Monckton: “the correct policy to address a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don’t think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.

Václav Klaus, Washington Briefing: Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy, The Willard Hotel, Washington D.C., November 4, 2009.

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=G2mBVPC6Q3ik

[nisakiman]

4.11.2009

Václav Klaus - Czech President

Speech at the Washington Times Climate Change Policy Conference

Many thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such an important gathering in the moment when political correctness tells you not to do it.

We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit and several weeks before the U.S. Senate hearing regarding the cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today's meeting can't be an academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic discussion. There is no consensus – neither in science, nor in economic analysis or politics.

I left Prague after signing of the Lisbon Treaty and came here only a few minutes ago, which means that I missed most of your conference. I'm sorry for that.

I have already been at a UN Summit in Copenhagen before. It was in 1995 at the so called Social Summit. At that time, the Summit was attended by then US Vice President Al Gore who – so it seems – will be there again this year. I did also attend, as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, but I don't plan to go there now. I don't see any chance to influence the results or to be listened to.

In 1995, there were huge demonstrations there organized by all kinds of anti-establishment groupings – from socialists and greens to anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The difference is that I don't expect any demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with far-reaching consequences.

My views on the doctrine of global warming and especially on the role of man in it are relatively known. My book with the title "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" has been already published in 12 languages and, two and a half years after its original publication, I don't have any urgent need to rewrite it.

We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine.

It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas – population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes – that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today's level of statistical methods. [1] Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and – without waiting for its confirmation – started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won't carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their consequences).

I don't see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable future, and for that reason I am not sufficiently motivated to discuss the technicalities of the cap-and-trade scheme. I only protest against calling it a "market solution." It reminds me of the communist planners who similarly talked about "using market instruments" when they finally came to the conclusion that "planning instruments" did not work. Markets can't be used by anybody.

We should not deceive ourselves. Cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par excellence, not a "market solution." How much "to cap" is the decision of the government (and the European failure several years ago – when too many carbon permits were issued – is I hope well known here). The size of the cap defines the price of carbon and this price is nothing else that a tax imposed upon citizens of the country. I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill "is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world." [2] How is it possible that such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy means that the costs of anti-global warming policy will disproportionally fall onto the poor people? What bothers me is that to "trade" the artificial "good" – the permits – means that a new group of rent-seekers will arise who will make profits at our expense. Why doesn't anybody say that the carbon permits have no intrinsic value other than by government decree? I could continue along these lines.

But we should return to the beginning. Despite huge scientific efforts and spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is statistically significant. Once again Lord Monckton: "the correct policy to address a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don't think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.

Václav Klaus, Washington Briefing: Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy, The Willard Hotel, Washington D.C., November 4, 2009.

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=G2mBVPC6Q3ik

Yes, Vaclav Klaus is a cut above the average politician. He actually prefers to speak his mind rather than toe the party political line.

I fear, however, that your post will fall on stony ground. Zealots and evangelists aren't interested in fact or reality.

The one thing that I've noticed in any debate between the "warmists" and "deniers", is that whereas the "deniers" tend to adopt a pragmatic, open-minded approach, for the most part just asking for real scientific backing to the claims being made for AGW, the "warmists" tend towards a shrill "the debate is over!", (it's not); "we are right, you are wrong!",(er, the jury still seems to be out on this one...); "the science is settled!" (it's far from settled); "there is a scientific consensus!" (there most certainly isn't!).

As I said in my last post on this thread, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

It's a religion, and we are the heretics teatree. Beware the inquisition.

[brahmburgers]

4.11.2009

Václav Klaus - Czech President

excertps from 'Speech at the Washington Times Climate Change Policy Conference'

"After trying several alternative ideas – population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes – that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming.I don't think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian vision of the world."

First, a bit of perspective on the venue where the talk was given: It was at the Washington Times, which is a newspaper run with an iron fist by Korean Reverend Moon, a self-made right wing religious guru.

Here's a quote from the good reverend, "This is the time to emphasize and support faith, the time to emphasize and support spiritual values that are based on the faith of each individual,....based on values and on the knowledge of God and spirit world ....promoting family values, and strengthening your faith in God."

BB's comment; that's great for a preacher to say, but for the head man of a newspaper to demand his workers bow to God and 'the spirit world' - is a bit outside objective reporting one might expect from a real newspaper.

Back to the quote from Mr. Klaus; By his own admission, he missed the conference he is commenting upon. It appears that his learning about global warming terminated 12 years ago (at the Rio Summit), and he hasn't bothered to get updated since then.

He asserts that "....several alternative ideas – population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes – very rapidly proved to be non-existent,...."

BB's comment; What a jackass! All the things he mentioned in the above sentence very much exist, and are getting worse month by month. One exception is the Ozone hole over the Antarctic, which is being addressed by the very people that Klaus disdains. Any modicum of credibility for the non-scientist Klaus blew out the window with the above quote.

I used to meet a lot very rich people who resided in a retirement community where I went to clean their chimneys. Some had some conscientiousness about what was going on in the world beyond their gated community. However, many were comfortably insulated, with top quality food, personal swimming pools/saunas, attendants, and a golf course minutes away. They just couldn't fathom the grim realities going on elsewhere on the planet. Their attitudes were like the comedian who said, "If the Ethiopians can't find water and food and shelter, why don't they do what any reasonable person would do ......rent a U-Haul truck, put all their possessions in it, and drive to a place which has plenty of food, sprinklers on the lawn, and lovely houses!"

It's not a whole lot removed from people like Mr. Klaus, who wake up each morning in a nice house or apartment, look out the window, and wonder; "Oh it's not too hot today, I can see some blue sky, a lovely European breakfast is coming in minutes, .....what's Al Gore and all those silly radicals crying about?"

Edited November 7, 2009 by brahmburgers

[awd]

Lately, its been getting cooler and the sea level is high. There goes the theory that warmer temps will bring higher sea levels. What we could use is a little more eyeball to eyeball contact with the natural world. Not 31 pages of internet-addicted "scientists" ranting at their screens.

[JR Texas]

Lately, its been getting cooler and the sea level is high. There goes the theory that warmer temps will bring higher sea levels. What we could use is a little more eyeball to eyeball contact with the natural world. Not 31 pages of internet-addicted "scientists" ranting at their screens.

I see the "pseudo-scientists" are back..........after losing the scientific argument several years ago........and after losing the "debate" on this thread (actually making themselves look foolish), they continue.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Your position is not based on reason/science........you are like trained parrots, repeating whatever BIG OIL wants you to say..........and about the "earth is cooling myth" a bit of scientific knowledge on the subject might help:

"The empirical data has spoken. The planet is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening."

see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

I am convinced that not one of you understands science.

[neverdie]

JR, Would it be possible perhaps for a brief post offering some type of 'Summary' of all things known to man kind.....perhaps you could use the 25 words or less format.

[Scott]

Cut the crap kids.

You can treat each other's opinions with contempt, but treat each other with respect. Ignoring posters also works.

Take your pick.

[JR Texas]

Cut the crap kids.

You can treat each other's opinions with contempt, but treat each other with respect. Ignoring posters also works.

Take your pick.

I believe the "kids" are the ones who continue to ignore science. I have tried using reason--over and over and over again--to get them to embrace science. It is not possible.

As several of us have said before, "this thread should be put to bed."

[brahmburgers]

Methinks there are some agendas in regard to those who actively disregard the overwhelming evidence that the earth is getting warmer. It would be interesting to see who these people work for, or what they've invested in, both monetarily and emotionally. It's not any one thing. Perhaps one person has a house on stilts, just above sea level, and is spooked by the consequences of rising seas worldwide. Incidentally, I used to go to an Island called Caye Caulker off the coast of Belize, Central America. Each year I'd go, the already small island was smaller. The last time I went, the locals had put a corrugated iron fence around the whole island, hoping to save their homes. Obviously, mother nature isn't going to be stopped by 1/8th inch of iron, but I admire their pluck.

Another story. A friend who inherited beaucoup money and is friends with the Rolling Stones (they stay at his place in Malibu every time they tour the States). He had a large wood deck off the side of his house, which went over the breaking waves. I commented that it wouldn't last, and he said he had it engineered to last 60 years and it was solid as a rock. The following year it was washed away by a not-so-pacific Pacific. If the engineered house of a multi-millionaire is threatened by rising sea levels, think how the tens of millions of less fortunates will fare, living in shacks in Bangladesh, Bangkok, Shanghai, and dozens of other vulnerable cities and islands and flood plains.

Well, at least the demise of humans will be a boon for mangroves, sea slugs, manatees, and other shallow salt-water species.

Edited November 8, 2009 by brahmburgers

[nisakiman]

The one thing that I've noticed in any debate between the "warmists" and "deniers", is that whereas the "deniers" tend to adopt a pragmatic, open-minded approach, for the most part just asking for real scientific backing to the claims being made for AGW, the "warmists" tend towards a shrill "the debate is over!", (it's not); "we are right, you are wrong!",(er, the jury still seems to be out on this one...); "the science is settled!" (it's far from settled); "there is a scientific consensus!" (there most certainly isn't!).

I see the "pseudo-scientists" are back..........after losing the scientific argument several years ago........and after losing the "debate" on this thread (actually making themselves look foolish), they continue.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Your position is not based on reason/science........you are like trained parrots, repeating whatever BIG OIL wants you to say..........and about the "earth is cooling myth" a bit of scientific knowledge on the subject might help:

"The empirical data has spoken. The planet is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening."

see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

I am convinced that not one of you understands science.

I rest my case.

[PhilHarries]

Your position is not based on reason/science........you are like trained parrots, repeating whatever BIG OIL wants you to say..........and about the "earth is cooling myth" a bit of scientific knowledge on the subject might help:

Well done JR you got off BIG OIL for a while and onto BIG GOVERNMENT but now I see you are back on BIG OIL again. I was hoping you might actually find something else BIG that you know about like MACS but again you disappoint.

I am convinced that not one of you understands science.

Typical response from someone who is running out of arguements, I am convinced that you don't understand diddly squat.

But what has that added to the discussion? About the same as your BIG stuff, diddly squat.

There is no concensus, there are only the frantic, hysterical bleatings of those who want to get their share of the honey pot before the scam is blown wide open.

But that's the thing with you global warming types, you absolutely must stifle any free debate on the subject. We all MUST kow tow to you people, no arguement, no debate, no dissent.

[JR Texas]

The one thing that I've noticed in any debate between the "warmists" and "deniers", is that whereas the "deniers" tend to adopt a pragmatic, open-minded approach, for the most part just asking for real scientific backing to the claims being made for AGW, the "warmists" tend towards a shrill "the debate is over!", (it's not); "we are right, you are wrong!",(er, the jury still seems to be out on this one...); "the science is settled!" (it's far from settled); "there is a scientific consensus!" (there most certainly isn't!).

I see the "pseudo-scientists" are back..........after losing the scientific argument several years ago........and after losing the "debate" on this thread (actually making themselves look foolish), they continue.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Your position is not based on reason/science........you are like trained parrots, repeating whatever BIG OIL wants you to say..........and about the "earth is cooling myth" a bit of scientific knowledge on the subject might help:

"The empirical data has spoken. The planet is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening."

see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

I am convinced that not one of you understands science.

I rest my case.

You perhaps should give it a rest...........your case was a straw man........a delusion........the last thing the so-called skeptics are is "open minded and pragmatic." They also do not want scientific evidence that contradicts what they have been told is true by BIG OIL.

A case in point is the scientific evidence I just directed you to about the false idea that the planet is cooling............you totally ignored it. In fact, every piece of scientific evidence presented on this thread has been ignored by you and the few others that think like you.

And when your argument falls to pieces as it did last week when I point out to you that BIG GOVERNMENT already exists, you have no intelligent response.

You live in a world of "emotion." I don't. I live in a world of "reason."

And, thankfully, so do most responsible scientists.

[brahmburgers]

But that's the thing with you global warming types, you absolutely must stifle any free debate on the subject. We all MUST kow tow to you people, no arguement, no debate, no dissent.

There is debate, right here on this thread, and other places. I go with the wealth of scientific data from real scientists, and there's widespread agreement that, not only is the planet getting warmer in recent years, but it's likely to get increasingly warmer in coming years. Are thousands of scientists lying and/or skewing the data they retrieve? That would be bizarre.

Whomever wants to deny the majority of hard scientific data can do so.

[teatree]

4.11.2009

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=G2mBVPC6Q3ik

Yes, Vaclav Klaus is a cut above the average politician. He actually prefers to speak his mind rather than toe the party political line.

I fear, however, that your post will fall on stony ground. Zealots and evangelists aren't interested in fact or reality.

The one thing that I've noticed in any debate between the "warmists" and "deniers", is that whereas the "deniers" tend to adopt a pragmatic, open-minded approach, for the most part just asking for real scientific backing to the claims being made for AGW, the "warmists" tend towards a shrill "the debate is over!", (it's not); "we are right, you are wrong!",(er, the jury still seems to be out on this one...); "the science is settled!" (it's far from settled); "there is a scientific consensus!" (there most certainly isn't!).

As I said in my last post on this thread, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

It's a religion, and we are the heretics teatree. Beware the inquisition.

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews...s-religion.html

Edited November 9, 2009 by teatree

[brahmburgers]

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews...s-religion.html

Is that the best you can do to challenge global warming ideas?

He said, she said, then he commented on what she said, and a judge offered an opinion on someone else's opinion .....ad nauseum. What does that have to do with the price of prunes in Bolivia? Anybody can bring a legal case against anyone else for any reason whatsoever. If I want, I can sue the 2nd cousin to the Prince of Bechuanaland for wearing soiled shorts on his veranda at midnight. So blipping what? If you're going to try to refute the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, you're going to have to do better than that.

Join the debate. Offer some scientific data/conclusions from real scientists. Let's see what you've got.

And whomever tossed the word 'inquisition' in to this topic, is silly at best. Inquisition was a long tormented ugly period in western European history. It was basically a catch-22 scenario lorded over by severely sadistic Christians, which literally upheld the notion, 'you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.' The Inquisition destroyed tens of thousands of lives. How does the inquisition relate to the debate about GW?

[teatree]

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews...s-religion.html

Is that the best you can do to challenge global warming ideas?

He said, she said, then he commented on what she said, and a judge offered an opinion on someone else's opinion .....ad nauseum. What does that have to do with the price of prunes in Bolivia? Anybody can bring a legal case against anyone else for any reason whatsoever. If I want, I can sue the 2nd cousin to the Prince of Bechuanaland for wearing soiled shorts on his veranda at midnight. So blipping what? If you're going to try to refute the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, you're going to have to do better than that.

Join the debate. Offer some scientific data/conclusions from real scientists. Let's see what you've got.

And whomever tossed the word 'inquisition' in to this topic, is silly at best. Inquisition was a long tormented ugly period in western European history. It was basically a catch-22 scenario lorded over by severely sadistic Christians, which literally upheld the notion, 'you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.' The Inquisition destroyed tens of thousands of lives. How does the inquisition relate to the debate about GW?

Join the debate??? Thats quite ironic considering that in the minds of the 'warmers' the debate is OVER, the science is SETTLED.

I have been reading this thread for some time now and I have learned that ANYTHING posted on here that doubts global warming is routinely dismissed out of hand as being the work of BIG OIL, anyone who disagrees with the 'warmers' is a stupid right wing redneck who is being manipulated by a BIG OIL that also control the entire world and that because the ocean destroyed a rich man's decking that is proof that global warming is real.

The link I posted previously was simply there to support what Nisakiman said about the religious aspects of global warming hysteria. I can further support this with what is said by Al Gore in his new book where he states that the spiritual aspect of global warming needs to be stressed.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/0...ronment-climate

The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet

http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/2

Understanding that many 'warmers' are part of a religion IS relevant. It means that their opinions are formed from FAITH and not SCIENCE, and that their minds are closed to any kind of debate, no matter what evidence is provided. This is a growing problem and the danger is that this new religion will infect the whole population who will believe that it is their duty to march down the road of oppression and poverty in order to save the planet.

[teatree]

Al Gore, who art in thy fully offset private jet;

Nobel-prized be thy name;

thy carbon-free kingdom come;

on planet Earth (otherwise known as Gaia) as it should be after Copenhagen;

give us this day our daily meat-free diet;

and forgive us our emissions,

though we don’t forgive any other big fat Americans who emit against us;

lead us not into exotic holiday flights;

and deliver us from climate denial;

for the science is settled.

Amen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle6907865.ece

[brahmburgers]

I have been reading this thread for some time now and I have learned that ANYTHING posted on here that doubts global warming is routinely dismissed out of hand as being the work of BIG OIL

Understanding that many 'warmers' are part of a religion IS relevant. It means that their opinions are formed from FAITH and not SCIENCE, and that their minds are closed to any kind of debate, no matter what evidence is provided. This is a growing problem and the danger is that this new religion will infect the whole population who will believe that it is their duty to march down the road of oppression and poverty in order to save the planet.

Sorry to hear you have that perspective. I, for one, haven't mentioned the phrase 'Big Oil'. And you're the one mentioning GW beliefs in terms of 'religion.' I don't see it that way. Though I do believe global warming is happening, and will accelerate, that doesn't mean I agree with every claim of every GW proponent. There are shrill people on both sides of the debate.

You say, "the danger is that this new religion will infect the whole population who will believe that it is their duty to march down the road of oppression and poverty in order to save the planet."

What oppression is associated with GW and the suggested policies to lessen it?

The so-called 'Kyoto Protocols' don't look like oppression. If anything, I think large populated and heavily polluting countries, like India and China got off too easy, shouldn't continue to shirk responsibilities in regards to lessening CO2 emissions and pollution in general. Countries like that hide behind their status as 'emerging nations' in order to justify increased pollution, which is already too high in those places.

And whether or not GW is a looming danger, pollution should be seriously curtailed worldwide. No exemptions for China or any other countries. If you want to call that idea a 'new religion,' then that's your prerogative.

As for carbon credits and such, perhaps we can agree that it's a weird fix. Sort of like allowing rich corporations to buy their way out of polluting. May not be totally flawed, as it's a sort of tax on pollution. In a similar way, I'd like to see a surcharge on other polluting products/emissions. Countries, like businesses, respond with alacrity when something affects their pocketbooks. Just saying 'please don't pollute' won't be enough incentive in itself.

Winds generally blow from west to east. Therefore countries which lie east of others are generally 'downwind.' Thailand lies east of Burma and, further afield, India. A portion of the pollution from those countries affects the air over Thailand. Same goes for haze from open field burning. Tall chimney stacks just put the pollution higher, but it's all essentially going to fall earthward eventually. There are so many facets to the global warming debate. Discover magazine (well written, and well researched science mag), had an article recently about soot accumulation, and how it exacerbates global warming. There's another dimension. GW deniers will deny any aspect of GW. Even if average global temperatures went up by 1 degree per year, the deniers would say it's a conspiracy to enslave the poor, or a religion, ....or something like that.

And agree, Americans are among the biggest polluters (though that mantle has now gone to the Chinese). Americans are also among the worst at wasting energy (even Al Gore's house wastes electricity). Yet Americans are also at the vanguard of inventing and implementing alternative power devices, and also at the vanguard of emission control devices and enforcement. As usual, most other countries, including Thailand, follow the American lead on such things - as witnessed by emission requirements mandated during Thai vehicle registration. It's doubtful Thailand would have come up with such a concept without having seen it implemented in the States.

Americans have a long way to go in the energy conservation dept. But just like the US has more than it's share of fat people, so too does it have many of the most healthy and fit people on the planet. It's an odd dichotomy.

Edited November 10, 2009 by brahmburgers

[teatree]

We're doomed without a green religion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/an...eligion-atheism

[trogers]

Been wondering why there are arks standing in Pattaya and Samui.

[JR Texas]

The scientific debate is over. BIG OIL is funding a massive propaganda campaign (not based on science) to prevent positive change from taking place on the energy front.

It is this stream of propaganda that you have tapped into for your information.

Now you are trying to paint the opposition in your colors.

That is an old "debating" tactic that will not work.

Reagan was a master at it. You are not.

[brahmburgers]

We're doomed without a green religion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/an...eligion-atheism

I read it. It's like semantic masturbation.

They guy puts forth a torrent of words, making sentences, but making no point.

I don't mind reading opinion pieces that put forward clear ideas. I don't know where the author, Andrew Brown, was educated or what his influences were, but I suggest he go back to school and take a course titled, "Making A Point / How to Write Clearly"

[teatree]

I have been reading this thread for some time now and I have learned that ANYTHING posted on here that doubts global warming is routinely dismissed out of hand as being the work of BIG OIL

Understanding that many 'warmers' are part of a religion IS relevant. It means that their opinions are formed from FAITH and not SCIENCE, and that their minds are closed to any kind of debate, no matter what evidence is provided. This is a growing problem and the danger is that this new religion will infect the whole population who will believe that it is their duty to march down the road of oppression and poverty in order to save the planet.

Sorry to hear you have that perspective. I, for one, haven't mentioned the phrase 'Big Oil'. And you're the one mentioning GW beliefs in terms of 'religion.' I don't see it that way. Though I do believe global warming is happening, and will accelerate, that doesn't mean I agree with every claim of every GW proponent. There are shrill people on both sides of the debate.

You say, "the danger is that this new religion will infect the whole population who will believe that it is their duty to march down the road of oppression and poverty in order to save the planet."

What oppression is associated with GW and the suggested policies to lessen it?

The so-called 'Kyoto Protocols' don't look like oppression. If anything, I think large populated and heavily polluting countries, like India and China got off too easy, shouldn't continue to shirk responsibilities in regards to lessening CO2 emissions and pollution in general. Countries like that hide behind their status as 'emerging nations' in order to justify increased pollution, which is already too high in those places.

And whether or not GW is a looming danger, pollution should be seriously curtailed worldwide. No exemptions for China or any other countries. If you want to call that idea a 'new religion,' then that's your prerogative.

As for carbon credits and such, perhaps we can agree that it's a weird fix. Sort of like allowing rich corporations to buy their way out of polluting. May not be totally flawed, as it's a sort of tax on pollution. In a similar way, I'd like to see a surcharge on other polluting products/emissions. Countries, like businesses, respond with alacrity when something affects their pocketbooks. Just saying 'please don't pollute' won't be enough incentive in itself.

Winds generally blow from west to east. Therefore countries which lie east of others are generally 'downwind.' Thailand lies east of Burma and, further afield, India. A portion of the pollution from those countries affects the air over Thailand. Same goes for haze from open field burning. Tall chimney stacks just put the pollution higher, but it's all essentially going to fall earthward eventually. There are so many facets to the global warming debate. Discover magazine (well written, and well researched science mag), had an article recently about soot accumulation, and how it exacerbates global warming. There's another dimension. GW deniers will deny any aspect of GW. Even if average global temperatures went up by 1 degree per year, the deniers would say it's a conspiracy to enslave the poor, or a religion, ....or something like that.

And agree, Americans are among the biggest polluters (though that mantle has now gone to the Chinese). Americans are also among the worst at wasting energy (even Al Gore's house wastes electricity). Yet Americans are also at the vanguard of inventing and implementing alternative power devices, and also at the vanguard of emission control devices and enforcement. As usual, most other countries, including Thailand, follow the American lead on such things - as witnessed by emission requirements mandated during Thai vehicle registration. It's doubtful Thailand would have come up with such a concept without having seen it implemented in the States.

Americans have a long way to go in the energy conservation dept. But just like the US has more than it's share of fat people, so too does it have many of the most healthy and fit people on the planet. It's an odd dichotomy.

Oppression 1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

If the doom sayers are to be believed (of course I believe it is all a hoax) and CO2 is a deadly toxic waste that must be reduced then surely personal CO2 usage must necessarily be monitored, regulated and rationed. Now, almost every human activity invloves the production of CO2, which means EVERY facet of our lives must be micro-managed to the point where the government tells us what we can eat, how far we can travel, what we can buy, how much we can heat our homes in the winter or cool them in the summer. All in the name of 'saving the world'.

That sounds pretty oppressive to me.

As Lord Monckton said in a recent speech when he compared the 'green' movement to a traffic light, 'A significant part of the environmental movement is masquerading as GREEN because they are too YELLOW to show that they are RED.

We have an Orwellian control grid come down on us, but the average person has had his r-complex prodded so many times with AGW hysteria that they will just roll over and accept it.

[JR Texas]

Psycho..................