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

[cyb]

Teatree,

Please please get some help for if not your sake then for the sake of other thaivisa members.

[plachon]

As this thread refuses to go away, and a few die-hard global warming sceptics are still pissing in the wind of empirical evidence and scientific concensus from around the world, then here is an article from the Director of Worldwatch Institute, Lester Brown, to rile them up:

(Note the point about the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland observation that glaciers have been in retreat for the 18th consecutive year, which tends to contradict a few contrarians here views that we have been entering a cooling cycle over last decade.)

Earth Policy Release

November 10, 2009

THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY

http://www.earthpol icy.org/index. php?/plan_ b_updates/ 2009/update84

By Lester R. Brown

For the 193 national delegations gathering in Copenhagen for the U.N. Climate Change Conference in December, the reasons for concern about climate change vary widely. For delegations from low-lying island countries, the principal concern is rising sea level. For countries in southern Europe, climate change means less rainfall and more drought. For countries of East Asia and the Caribbean, more powerful storms and storm surges are a growing worry. This climate change conference is about all these things, and many more, but in a very fundamental sense, it is a conference about food security.

We need not go beyond ice melting to see that the world is in trouble on the food front. The melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is raising sea level. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely, sea level would rise by 23 feet. Recent projections show that it could rise by up to 6 feet during this century.

The world rice harvest is particularly vulnerable to rising sea level. A World Bank map of Bangladesh shows that even a 3-foot rise in sea level would cover half of the riceland in this country of 160 million people. It would also inundate one third or more of the Mekong delta, which produces half of the rice in Viet Nam, the world’s number two rice exporter. And it would submerge parts of the 20 or so other rice-growing river deltas in Asia.

The worldwide melting of mountain glaciers is of even greater concern. The World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland has recently reported the eighteenth consecutive year of shrinking mountain glaciers. Glaciers are melting in the Andes, the Rocky Mountains, the Alps, and throughout the mountain ranges of Asia.

It is the disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau that are of most concern, because their ice melt sustains the flow of the major rivers of India and China––the Indus, Ganges, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers—during the dry season. This ice melt thus also sustains the irrigation systems that depend on these rivers.

Yao Tandong, one of China’s leading glaciologists, who predicts that two thirds of China’s glaciers could be gone by 2050, says “the full-scale glacier shrinkage in the plateau region will eventually lead to an ecological catastrophe.”

It will also lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. China is the world’s leading producer of wheat. India is number two. (The United States is third.) In contrast to the United States, most wheat grown in China and India is irrigated. With rice, these two countries totally dominate the world harvest. The projected melting of these mountain glaciers in Asia represents the most massive threat to food security the world has ever seen.

The prospects for the harvests of wheat and rice, in these two countries, each with over a billion people, are of concern everywhere. We live in an integrated world food economy, one where harvest shortfalls anywhere can drive up food prices everywhere.

Rising temperature also directly affects crop yields. In a study published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, an international team of scientists confirmed the rule of thumb emerging among crop ecologists that for each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the norm during the growing season, we can expect a 10-percent decline in wheat and rice yields. In a world with limited grain stocks—a world that is only one poor harvest away from chaos in grain markets—a crop-shrinking heat wave in a major grain-producing region could lead to politically destabilizing food shortages.

The delegates are gathering in Copenhagen against a backdrop of spreading hunger. For much of the late 20th century, the number of hungry people was declining, but it bottomed out in the late 1990s at 825 million. It then turned upward, reaching 870 million in 2005 and passing one billion in 2009. The combination of rising seas, melting glaciers, and crop-withering heat waves could push these numbers up even faster, forcing millions more families to try and survive on one meal a day.

We are in a race between political tipping points and natural tipping points. Can we cut carbon emissions fast enough to keep the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from becoming irreversible? Can we close coal-fired power plants fast enough to save at least the larger glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau? Can we head off crop-withering heat waves of ever greater intensity? These are food security issues. This is what Copenhagen is about

[cyb]

Plachon.

Teatree is going to love you............NOT

[teatree]

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance'

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday.

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances.

He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."

However, some have criticised the move as "Orwellian" and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.

Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business."

Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...-allowance.html

Edited November 13, 2009 by teatree

[JR Texas]

The biggest restriction is the one BIG OIL is imposing on your ability to move away from emotion to reason........to think independently and clearly.

Your belief system is dominated by what BIG OIL wants you to think.

That is the "conspiracy" that you are not seeing.

Your belief system makes a "debate" impossible. You are in a mental prison (no freedom there at all).

That is why you have nothing to say and keep posting pseudo-scientific pap over and over again.

Failing an intelligent response, all you can do is project onto the other camp your own faulty belief system (I don't think you understand that you are doing this, but it is crystal clear to most readers).

One more time: Your side lost the scientific debate a long time ago.......the scientific debate is over..........responsible scientists and political leaders are focusing on what to do about the problem.

The problem is CLIMATE CHANGE.........maybe you can finally accept that instead of using the phrase "global warming" over and over and over again.

One more time: BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT already exist.

One more time: There is no financial incentive for responsible scientific researchers to participate in a global climate change hoax..........all could make far more money embracing your position and supporting BIG OIL.

One more time: BIG OIL has an enormous financial incentive to convince the public that the debate is not over, that there is massive uncertainty, that it is a hoax to create BIG GOVERNMENT, etc.

You have been taken for a ride by BIG OIL and don't even know it.

If you want more freedom in your life, you should support the development of a new energy system that will:

1) maximize the probability that BIG GOVERNMENT will be less necessary to solve problems, and

2) emancipate you from BIG OIL.

[teatree]

Czech president Vaclav Klaus:

Communism and environmentalism — we are talking about two ideologies that are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralist master-minding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do. There is a huge similarity in this respect.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

[cyb]

Czech president Vaclav Klaus:

Communism and environmentalism — we are talking about two ideologies that are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralist master-minding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do. There is a huge similarity in this respect.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

Omg teatree.

You are really scraping the barrel now, If you are going to argue the toss at least have some street cred.

Edited November 13, 2009 by cyb

[JR Texas]

Czech president Vaclav Klaus:

Communism and environmentalism — we are talking about two ideologies that are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralist master-minding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do. There is a huge similarity in this respect.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

So, you are, as predicted, unable to respond to my post. And now, by your post, you are intimating that capitalism (BIG OIL capitalism) does not engage in "centralist master-minding of our fates." Give us a break! Open your eyes!

If you want freedom..........how many times do I have to say it before you get it...........if you want freedom from BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT then start embracing the idea that we need a new energy system.

And, for the record, virtually every cultural construct that I can think of attempts to control minds.........the issue is not controlling minds...........the issue is the degree and extent of that control.

Absolute freedom is something humans can't handle at this stage of our evolution. That is why we have rape laws and laws telling us that we can't rob banks.......etc. The entire legal system is set up to protect us from our collective faults.

I think your parents must have tried hard to control you.........along with your teachers..........and who knows who. You dislike controlling people.........you dislike controlling governments, etc. Guess what, so do I.

I love freedom..........I also know that as long as we continue to support BIG OIL we will not be free from BIG OIL/BIG GOVERNMENT.

[cyb]

Czech president Vaclav Klaus:

Communism and environmentalism — we are talking about two ideologies that are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralist master-minding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do. There is a huge similarity in this respect.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

So, you are, as predicted, unable to respond to my post. And now, by your post, you are intimating that capitalism (BIG OIL capitalism) does not engage in "centralist master-minding of our fates." Give us a break! Open your eyes!

If you want freedom..........how many times do I have to say it before you get it...........if you want freedom from BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT then start embracing the idea that we need a new energy system.

And, for the record, virtually every cultural construct that I can think of attempts to control minds.........the issue is not controlling minds...........the issue is the degree and extent of that control.

Absolute freedom is something humans can't handle at this stage of our evolution. That is why we have rape laws and laws telling us that we can't rob banks.......etc. The entire legal system is set up to protect us from our collective faults.

I think your parents must have tried hard to control you.........along with your teachers..........and who knows who. You dislike controlling people.........you dislike controlling governments, etc. Guess what, so do I.

I love freedom..........I also know that as long as we continue to support BIG OIL we will not be free from BIG OIL/BIG GOVERNMENT.

The facts are, That big oil want you to pollute this earth.

It is in their best interests (big profits) The guys that head big oil are not going to be around when the earth dies. what the f///// do they care?

[brahmburgers]

Czech president Vaclav Klaus:

"Communism and environmentalism — we are talking about two ideologies that are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom."

That's almost ludicrous. What crazy rock did Mr. Klaus crawl out from under?

I'm an environmentalist. I plant trees, I recycle, through discussion with others, I encourage husbandry for the planet, its species, its seas, and its contours, etc.

I avoid driving my (internal combustion) truck as often as possible. I put together several solar heated pre-heat devices for hot water. I have only PV solar at one of my properties (no AC).

What do the things mentioned above have to do with Communism? How are such activities against individual freedoms?

Are there some sort of stern Green Corps forcing others to show a benevolent attitude toward the environment? If someone mentions carbon credits or such, then that's someone mentioned something. So what, people mention all sorts of things. Should we run and hide in a cave every time someone mentions something odd?

Teatree, by quoting people like Klaus, you're showing your silly bias, which has no leg to stand on. By the way, no one is saying CO2 is a toxic chemical. It's the overall affects of too much CO2, much of it produced by human activity, that could have a dire affect on world climate changes.

[teatree]

The calls for CO2 rationing are starting to hit the mainstream media.

UK climate targets 'unachievable'

UK government plans to make carbon emission cuts of 80% by 2050 are physically impossible to achieve, according to a new analysis.

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers says there is not enough time or capacity to build the wind turbines and extra nuclear power stations required.

Under current plans, the targets will not be met until 2100, it argues.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change accused the institution of having a "can't do, won't do attitude".

IMeche also called for a major investment in geo-engineering.

It is calling for a "war" on climate change with a beefed up government department in charge.

It could also mean the introduction of some form of carbon "rationing" for individuals to make people aware of how much energy they are consuming.

The UK's Climate Change Act passed into law in 2008, putting a legal imperative on the government to cut emissions by 80% of their 1990 levels by 2050, with a mid-term target of 34% cuts by 2020.

But the report investigates how practical these targets are to reach and concludes that they cannot be met with the current approaches to cutting carbon.

They would not, in fact, be reached until the year 2100.

Competition for resources

According to the analysis, even if the UK managed to cut the demand for energy by 50%, it would still require an extra 16 nuclear power stations and 27,000 wind turbines by 2030 to be sure of hitting the target.

Dr Tim Fox is head of environment and climate change at the Institution. He says that the problems of building the infrastructure haven't been thought through.

"We'll be competing for the engineering resources to deploy those wind farms in a global market where lots of other nations are trying to de-carbonise at the same time.

"The most current analysis shows that by 2013 we won't have enough of the specialist construction vessels to assist in the construction of the offshore wind farms.

"Not only that, but by 2016 there's not enough turbine manufacturing capacity in the world to be able to deliver the turbines to all the projects that need them at that time.

"We've done an assessment of the level of kit that is needed and it is at a level of building and construction and deployment that is unprecedented in modern times.

"We need the government to adopt an engineering programme management type of approach laying out the best combination of solutions, rather than the current approach which is to almost blindly assume that mitigation can be achieved regardless of whether in practical terms it can be delivered on the ground."

Back to rationing?

According to the Institution, this co-ordinated approach would combine cuts in emissions, adapting to inevitable changes and employing geo engineering to absorb carbon from the air. The Institution suggests that the shortfall in emissions cuts could in fact be made up by deploying 100,000 "artificial trees" by 2050.

Artificial trees would capture CO2 from the air, but this is still an untested technology.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The Institution of Mechanical Engineers' can't do, won't do attitude is sending out a defeatist message ahead of the crucial climate change talks in Copenhagen.

"The truth is that if we act now we can not only beat climate change but gain from the green benefits that will flow in terms of jobs and investment from going low carbon. That's what our transition plan is already doing, so it's a shame the Institute is not embracing the vast opportunities available for engineers in the shift to a low carbon economy."

The report calls for a warlike mentality to combat climate change, arguing that it needs much tougher tactics and a new enhanced government department to meet the challenge.

According to Dr Fox: "It's time to go to war on climate change. It is attacking us and we must fight back."

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre on climate change, supports the Institution's approach.

"In wartime we could look over the gate before and see the enemy at the gate, but this is much more difficult now with climate change. We can see it in the southern hemisphere, but that's unlikely to bring about significant action from us, so the enemy is at the gate in many parts of the world now but it is not so immediately obvious for us."

"We are seeing some of the early migratory pressures, the early signs which are not caused by climate change but are exacerbated by it, and that is something we are starting to see.

"I'm not saying that the migration we see today is caused by climate change, I'm saying that the stresses these people are under are being exacerbated so that will see an increased rate, and we are seeing that now."

Professor Anderson also suggests that we may need to see some form of carbon rationing like food rationing in wartime.

"When you have something essential like energy that you can't ration just on price - you have to ration it in a more equitable way.

"So I would suggest for the high reduction rates that we now need, we need something based on equity and whether it's personal carbon trading or whatever, we have to make sure the poorer parts of our communities have access to energy regardless of price.

"So that means for the rest of us, who consume lots of energy we are going to have to make significant reductions to our levels of emissions - there is no way round this."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8358077.stm

[JR Texas]

I am really tired of reading these long, dull diatribes that you keep posting. Is it possible for YOU to make a point.

If the point of the diatribe was that we likely will not attain CO2 emission goals...........that might be true if BIG OIL succeeds in its campaign of misinformation.

As I have stated many times, it is time for new thinking and global action on energy (and population).

BIG GOVERNMENT and BIG OIL want to drag this thing out for eternity.

Why? For financial reasons.........they like CONTROLLING you.

They love it when you swallow their views and vomit them up on ThaiVisa.

The path you are on will not lead to freedom.

You are already in a mental prison.

[ballzafire]

JR is right.

"Human-induced" global warming is a LIE foisted on the public as a means to impose the globalists' dream of world govt by means of global taxation of CO2 usage. But, it's ludicrous! CO2 is not the culprit. We could actually benefit from MORE CO2, to stimulate plant growth, which in turn means more food. But, I digress.

It turns out that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. And what generates more water vapor? It's heat from the sun. And what generates varying amounts of heat from the sun? It's sunspots (which create magnetic looping structures that heat the corona to millions of degrees). More sunspots, more heat. Fewer (or virtually none at all, like we're witnessing now) less heat, and therefore a cooling trend (like we're witnessing now).

But where do the varying amounts of CO2 come from? By far, the biggest source is not from human activity at all but from THE OCEANS. But there's an 800 year lag. So, the increase we're still witnessing now is due to heating that occurred in the past (large bodies of water like the oceans take a long time to heat up and cool down). So, the pseudo-scientist politicians like Al Gore have it all wrong. Humans are merely innocent bystanders in a much larger process (a cycle, actually) that is controlled by the sun.

I recommend everyone watch the excellent British documentary by Channel 4 that aired a few years ago that explains all this via interviews with ACTUAL climatologists who explain what their data show. It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and is excellent.

Here is a direct link to the video in its entirety and I HIGHLY recommend everybody watch it if you haven't already. It really puts the miscreant "human-induced global warming" advocates in their place! :

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

[nisakiman]

JR is right.

"Human-induced" global warming is a LIE foisted on the public as a means to impose the globalists' dream of world govt by means of global taxation of CO2 usage. But, it's ludicrous! CO2 is not the culprit. We could actually benefit from MORE CO2, to stimulate plant growth, which in turn means more food. But, I digress.

It turns out that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. And what generates more water vapor? It's heat from the sun. And what generates varying amounts of heat from the sun? It's sunspots (which create magnetic looping structures that heat the corona to millions of degrees). More sunspots, more heat. Fewer (or virtually none at all, like we're witnessing now) less heat, and therefore a cooling trend (like we're witnessing now).

But where do the varying amounts of CO2 come from? By far, the biggest source is not from human activity at all but from THE OCEANS. But there's an 800 year lag. So, the increase we're still witnessing now is due to heating that occurred in the past (large bodies of water like the oceans take a long time to heat up and cool down). So, the pseudo-scientist politicians like Al Gore have it all wrong. Humans are merely innocent bystanders in a much larger process (a cycle, actually) that is controlled by the sun.

I recommend everyone watch the excellent British documentary by Channel 4 that aired a few years ago that explains all this via interviews with ACTUAL climatologists who explain what their data show. It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and is excellent.

Here is a direct link to the video in its entirety and I HIGHLY recommend everybody watch it if you haven't already. It really puts the miscreant "human-induced global warming" advocates in their place! :

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

You are of course completely correct that climate changes are driven primarily by sunspot activity, ballzafire. But you won't convince the likes of JR to look at the situation rationally.

The biggest restriction is the one BIG OIL is imposing on your ability to move away from emotion to reason........to think independently and clearly.

Your belief system is dominated by what BIG OIL wants you to think.

That is the "conspiracy" that you are not seeing.

Your belief system makes a "debate" impossible. You are in a mental prison (no freedom there at all).

That is why you have nothing to say and keep posting pseudo-scientific pap over and over again.

Failing an intelligent response, all you can do is project onto the other camp your own faulty belief system (I don't think you understand that you are doing this, but it is crystal clear to most readers).

One more time: Your side lost the scientific debate a long time ago.......the scientific debate is over..........responsible scientists and political leaders are focusing on what to do about the problem.

If you see what I mean.

A closed mind.

Note the "the scientific debate is over". That after saying "Your belief system makes a "debate" impossible".

No, JR, it is you who have a "belief system". It is you with whom it is impossible to debate. All you do is repeat the mantra of "BIG OIL".

I, and most people sceptical of the outlandish claims made about anthropogenic climate change would be prepared to accept the concept of AGW if the hard evidence was there to convince us. We don't have a "belief system". We have an open mind, as any real scientist has. However, the hard evidence is distinctly lacking. All there is is conjecture, computer models programmed to produce predictable results and a good deal of difference of opinion amongst the people who are supposed to be the experts. Hardly a sound reason for bankrupting the world in pursuit of a chimera.

[ballzafire]

Thanks for your input.

What did you think of the video? Convincing, huh?

Maybe JR will take the time to watch it, too, and come to a clearer, more rational understanding of the matter, as we all must...

[JR Texas]

Thanks for your input.

What did you think of the video? Convincing, huh?

Maybe JR will take the time to watch it, too, and come to a clearer, more rational understanding of the matter, as we all must...

Is it possible for either one of you to post something that is not misleading and based on science? First, you distort my position. Second, you post statements that are blatantly false and not reflected in the scientific data.

There is no evidence that radiation from the sun is causing the increase in warming that we are witnessing.

There is no evidence of global cooling.

Human induced global warming is a fact.

CO2 does come from many sources........so what? It always has.

The problem is the human-induced release of formerly sequestered CO2 due to our addiction to fossil fuels (also massive deforestation).

Plants do thrive on CO2. But you are missing the point...........the increase in CO2 is causing climate change........ecosystems are changing.........species are being lost.......we are on the verge of a massive food-production disaster..........

And people will have to start moving from formerly good places to live to new places.........we are setting in motion a human migration time bomb.

How can get you to understand this? I am not sure. But let me just say this: Our way of life....social and economic...is semi-fixed. We live and work within certain environmental parameters that have been stable for decades. That stability is unraveling due to climate change.

It does not happen overnight........is is a slow process in terms of human time.........but in terms of geological time, it is actually an extraordinarily fast process.

Closed mind? The scientific debate is over...........that is not a closed mind......it is reality. Try becoming familiar with the actual science related to the subject we are discussing.

The debate now is about what to do about the human induced problem of climate change.

BIG OIL would, however, like you to think the debate is not over............and you believe everything they want you to believe.

You are willingly constructing your own mental prison..........and, at the same time, you are enthusiastically embracing servitude.......the exact opposite of what you seem to want.

[brahmburgers]

What did you think of the video? Convincing, huh?

Yes, I watched the video and must admit it is compelling. No kidding.

Then I looked it up on Wiki, and found some science evidence was tweaked to fit the agenda of the filmaker, Martin Durkin. From

Reactions from scientists Sulphate aerosol and greenhouse gases effect on climate change based on Meehl et al. (2004) in Journal of Climate

• The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major industrialised countries and China, India and Brazil. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO₂ driven by temperature, but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."^[9]
  
• The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about the The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO₂. On the issue of volcanic CO₂ emissions, it says:
  

A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.

^[12]

• Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO₂ and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."^[26]
  
• The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, shortly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:
  

Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.

^[27]

• Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed".^[28]
  
• On July 5, 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks — namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years.^[29]
  

In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.

• Volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan.
  The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science… Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.
  ^[30]
  
  

  
  

Edited November 15, 2009 by brahmburgers

[teatree]

I am really tired of reading these long, dull diatribes that you keep posting. Is it possible for YOU to make a point.

If the point of the diatribe was that we likely will not attain CO2 emission goals...........that might be true if BIG OIL succeeds in its campaign of misinformation.

As I have stated many times, it is time for new thinking and global action on energy (and population).

BIG GOVERNMENT and BIG OIL want to drag this thing out for eternity.

Why? For financial reasons.........they like CONTROLLING you.

They love it when you swallow their views and vomit them up on ThaiVisa.

The path you are on will not lead to freedom.

You are already in a mental prison.

Nobody is forcing you to read them, you could try ignoring them if you don't like what you read. Your endless spouting off about BIG OIL and 'The debate is over' is tiring to me, too. I tend to ignore what you post because you keep recycling the same old tired points again and again. Why not do the same for me?

I have stated my opinions time and again, have a look at my previous posts if you want to see them. I try not to get into debates with the 'warm mongers' anymore because I see it as a waste of time, like trying to debate with a creationist. So I try to just post news that most people won't get to see otherwise.

The point of the article I linked to was to show that carbon rationing IS being planned, something for which you called me a psycho for in a previous post. Perhaps you should actually read my posts then you might understand my position.

As I have said before, if the whole 'environMENTAL' movement was going to lead us to clean, renewable energy, electrically powered cars, solar panels and wind turbines so that I could get off the grid and live total energy independence, I would fully embrace it. But if you look at the solutions they are TAX and CARBON RATIONING. There may be a token effort to build a few wind farms etc to make it look as though something is being done, but the focus is on squeezing as much money and independence out of the people as possible.

You may want to look at who owns and controls BIG OIL. The belief you seem to have that it is an independent entity marauding around the plant, taking control of governments and starting wars is a display of childlike naivety. It's true that big oil and big government work in unison, because they are both controlled by the same interests. They are using AGW to disempower the everyday person and empower their own position.

[teatree]

JR is right.

"Human-induced" global warming is a LIE foisted on the public as a means to impose the globalists' dream of world govt by means of global taxation of CO2 usage. But, it's ludicrous! CO2 is not the culprit. We could actually benefit from MORE CO2, to stimulate plant growth, which in turn means more food. But, I digress.

It turns out that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. And what generates more water vapor? It's heat from the sun. And what generates varying amounts of heat from the sun? It's sunspots (which create magnetic looping structures that heat the corona to millions of degrees). More sunspots, more heat. Fewer (or virtually none at all, like we're witnessing now) less heat, and therefore a cooling trend (like we're witnessing now).

But where do the varying amounts of CO2 come from? By far, the biggest source is not from human activity at all but from THE OCEANS. But there's an 800 year lag. So, the increase we're still witnessing now is due to heating that occurred in the past (large bodies of water like the oceans take a long time to heat up and cool down). So, the pseudo-scientist politicians like Al Gore have it all wrong. Humans are merely innocent bystanders in a much larger process (a cycle, actually) that is controlled by the sun.

I recommend everyone watch the excellent British documentary by Channel 4 that aired a few years ago that explains all this via interviews with ACTUAL climatologists who explain what their data show. It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and is excellent.

Here is a direct link to the video in its entirety and I HIGHLY recommend everybody watch it if you haven't already. It really puts the miscreant "human-induced global warming" advocates in their place! :

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a good video. It twist the facts a little but is largely accurate. A far better film in my opinion is 'Global Warming - Emerging Science and Understanding'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFxxdH67kwY

[JR Texas]

Good work Brahmburgers..............I would like to emphasize this quote:

"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future."

It is interesting that we seem to be the only people focusing on the science of climate change.

It is also interesting to see the struggle between reason and emotion on this thread.

They actually don't understand that they are being totally controlled by BIG OIL.

They don't understand that both BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT already exist.

They don't understand anything about science.

They don't understand that they are building their own prison.

You have to give BIG OIL credit for that.........they know how to sell stuff, even crap.

Over and over again they post crap.......we take the time to point out that the crap smells........they ignore it and post even more crap.

And they refuse to engage in a scientific debate....this is not a debate....it is an illustration of how some people can be totally controlled by others to the point of being completely blind to reason.

Not even one comment on what Lester Brown said about the food production problem and climate change......just one example.

They are looking foolish to the extreme........you would think they would recognize that and call it a day.

It is scary that people can become controlled so absolutely.....even to the point of exploiting themselves.

Beliefs matter...........fortunately the scientific debate took place and was dominated by reason..........an overwhelming consensus surfaced: Climate change is real and largely human induced.........and is a serious threat to the survival of our species.

Nothing BIG OIL can do will reverse that consensus..........only solid scientific data can do that.

And the data is not cooperating with BIG OIL.

BIG OIL is a bit scared. It does not want to lose its control over the masses......control that results in huge profits.

BIG OIL wants to prevent positive action on the energy front.

So it is funding a massive disinformation campaign to cause "doubt."

We are in an information war.......WWI, WWII, and now Information War.

I hope the public can see through this..........and I hope they get furious at what BIG OIL is doing with the cooperation of BIG GOVERNMENT.

It is time to create a better world. To do that we must focus on two things: 1) energy, and 2) population.

[mgjackson69]

>>> The hydrologist, now an employee of Team Consulting Engineering, called on the public not to panic over the IPCC findings <<<

There is the key phrase

[ballzafire]

Thanks for your input. What did you think of the video? Convincing, huh? Maybe JR will take the time to watch it, too, and come to a clearer, more rational understanding of the matter, as we all must...

Is it possible for either one of you to post something that is not misleading and based on science? First, you distort my position. Second, you post statements that are blatantly false and not reflected in the scientific data. There is no evidence that radiation from the sun is causing the increase in warming that we are witnessing. There is no evidence of global cooling. Human induced global warming is a fact. CO2 does come from many sources........so what? It always has. The problem is the human-induced release of formerly sequestered CO2 due to our addiction to fossil fuels (also massive deforestation). Plants do thrive on CO2. But you are missing the point...........the increase in CO2 is causing climate change........ecosystems are changing........

.....[further baseless rant snipped]...........

JR,

I had you all wrong. I thought you were an intelligent, scientifically-trained individual. From your reply, it's quite clear that you are not. My apologies (but DO watch the video. It may enlighten you to some truths...)

[JR Texas]

Thanks for your input. What did you think of the video? Convincing, huh? Maybe JR will take the time to watch it, too, and come to a clearer, more rational understanding of the matter, as we all must...

Is it possible for either one of you to post something that is not misleading and based on science? First, you distort my position. Second, you post statements that are blatantly false and not reflected in the scientific data. There is no evidence that radiation from the sun is causing the increase in warming that we are witnessing. There is no evidence of global cooling. Human induced global warming is a fact. CO2 does come from many sources........so what? It always has. The problem is the human-induced release of formerly sequestered CO2 due to our addiction to fossil fuels (also massive deforestation). Plants do thrive on CO2. But you are missing the point...........the increase in CO2 is causing climate change........ecosystems are changing........

.....[further baseless rant snipped]...........

JR,

I had you all wrong. I thought you were an intelligent, scientifically-trained individual. From your reply, it's quite clear that you are not. My apologies (but DO watch the video. It may enlighten you to some truths...)

Are you a comic?

[ballzafire]

Are you a comic?

Get real or I'll put ya on ignore... ...

[JR Texas]

Are you a comic?

Get real or I'll put ya on ignore... ...

Are you a joker? Are you actually trying to be serious?

[thaihome]

Here's an interesting piece, not about the science, but the practical aspects of what is being considered.

TH

Costly Carbon Cuts

Proposed Strategies Would Hurt the Most Vulnerable

By Bjorn Lomborg

Monday, September 28, 2009

COPENHAGEN -- In speech after rousing speech at the United Nations summit on global warming last week, politicians emphasized the need to protect the world's most vulnerable, who will be hit hardest by climate change. The rhetoric did little to disguise an awful truth: If we continue on our current path, we are likely to harm the world's poorest much more than we help them.

Urged on by environmental activists, many politicians are vowing to make carbon cuts designed to keep expected temperature rises under 3.6 degrees (2.0 Celsius). Yet it is nearly impossible for these promises to be fulfilled.

Japan's commitment in June to cut greenhouse gas levels 8 percent from its 1990 levels by 2020 was scoffed at for being far too little. Yet for Japan -- which has led the world in improving energy efficiency -- to have any hope of reaching its target, it needs to build nine new nuclear power plants and increase their use by one-third, construct more than 1 million new wind-turbines, install solar panels on nearly 3 million homes, double the percentage of new homes that meet rigorous insulation standards, and increase sales of "green" vehicles from 4 percent to 50 percent of its auto purchases.

Japan's new prime minister was roundly lauded this month for promising a much stronger reduction, 25 percent, even though there is no obvious way to deliver on his promise. Expecting Japan, or any other nation, to achieve such far-fetched cuts is simply delusional.

Imagine for a moment that the fantasists win the day and that at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December every nation commits to reductions even larger than Japan's, designed to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius. The result will be a global price tag of $40 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose cost findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press next year. That phenomenal cost, calculated by all the main economic models, assumes that politicians across the globe will make the most effective, efficient choices. In the real world, where policies have many other objectives and legislation is easily filled with pork and payoffs, the deal easily gets worse.

Yet the real tragedy is that, by exaggerating the threat of global warming, we have awoken the beast of protectionism. There are always forces in society that demand that politicians create more barriers to trade because they cannot compete on an even, fair playing field. Global warming has given them a much stronger voice.

Already, politicians are responding -- and using the fear of global warming to create "green fences" against free trade. The U.S. House has passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill with clear provisions to impose new trade tariffs on countries that don't agree to emission reductions. Eyes are on the Senate, where John Kerry sees these as "sanctions" against "renegade countries."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has repeatedly called for a Europe-wide tax on imports from nations whose global warming efforts do not measure up to Europe's. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently backed the idea.

There is a real and growing prospect of an all-out trade war being waged in the name of climate change.

The struggle to generate international agreement on a carbon deal has created a desire to punish "free riders" who do not sign on to stringent carbon emission reduction targets. But the greater goals seem to be to barricade imports from China and India, to tax companies that outsource, and to go for short-term political benefits, destroying free trade.

This is a massive mistake. Economic models show that the global benefits of even slightly freer trade are in the order of $50 trillion -- 50 times more than we could achieve, in the best of circumstances, with carbon cuts. If trade becomes less free, we could easily lose $50 trillion -- or much more if we really bungle things. Poor nations -- the very countries that will experience the worst of climate damage -- would suffer most.

In other words: In our eagerness to avoid about $1 trillion worth of climate damage, we are being asked to spend at least 50 times as much -- and, if we hinder free trade, we are likely to heap at least an additional $50 trillion loss on the global economy.

Today, coal accounts for almost half of the planet's electricity supply, including half the power consumed in the United States. It keeps hospitals and core infrastructure running, provides warmth and light in winter, and makes lifesaving air conditioning available in summer. In China and India, where coal accounts for more than 80 percent of power generation, it has helped to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

There is no doubt that coal is causing environmental damage that we need to stop. But a clumsy, radical halt to our coal use -- which is what promises of drastic carbon cuts actually require -- would mean depriving billions of people of a path to prosperity.

To put it bluntly: Despite their good intentions, the activists, lobbyists and politicians making a last-ditch push for hugely expensive carbon-cut promises could easily end up doing hundreds of times more damage to the planet than coal ever could.

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and the author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."

Edited November 16, 2009 by thaihome

[JR Texas]

Here's an interesting piece, not about the science, but the practical aspects of what is being considered.

TH

And this link will take you to a page explaining why the scientific community does not take him seriously:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

The world's poor are hurting now.........climate change will push the poor over the edge in terms of the pain it will bring.

But there is hope: If we engage in a global research and development project to produce an energy system compatible with 21st century economic, environmental and social needs--one that is low cost, environmentally sound, and decentralized--the poor will prosper.

In fact, not only will the poor prosper, everyone will prosper. Jobs will be created globally. And more jobs equals more taxes.

The taxes will be more than enough to pay for the cost of a global energy research and development project that will produce a new energy system......one that will solve many of our economic, social and environmental problems.

Such an energy system will not only reduce our current social, economic and environmental problems (thus lessening the need for BIG GOVERNMENT), it will also stop the OIL WARS........something is costing us a fortune and hurting the poor.

Lomborg is clueless.

[teatree]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...-been-lost.html

Kind of a victory for those that believe in natural climate change. We've managed to put the brakes on and hopefully we can all get the bandwagon back to sanity.

The comments are the most interesting part of the article. They represent the growing skepticism and outright rejection of the AGW by the general public.

[teatree]

I remember being called a tin foil hat wearing kook for suggesting a few years ago that meters in cars would charge you for each mile you drive in the near future in order to save the Earth. Well, here it is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...rs-1821268.html

Dutch first in Europe to adopt green tax for cars

The Dutch government is to become the first country in Europe to introduce a green tax to replace annual road tax on cars.

Drivers will have to pay per kilometer driven in a bid to end chronic traffic jams and cut carbon emissions. The system, which will use Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to monitor cars, could be used as a test case for other countries weighing options for easing crowded roads. Singapore has a similar scheme for charging according to the amount of travel.

When the plan takes effect in 2012, new car prices could fall by as much as 25 per cent with the abolition of purchase and road taxes. Instead, an average passenger car will pay €.03 per kilometer (£.04 per mile), with higher charges levied during rush-hour and for travelling on congested roads.

But the Dutch Transport Ministry said trucks, commercial vehicles and bigger cars emitting more carbon dioxide will be assessed at a higher rate. The GPS devices installed in cars will track the time, hour and place each car moves and send the data to a billing agency.

Edited November 17, 2009 by teatree

[thaihome]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...-been-lost.html

Kind of a victory for those that believe in natural climate change. We've managed to put the brakes on and hopefully we can all get the bandwagon back to sanity.

The comments are the most interesting part of the article. They represent the growing skepticism and outright rejection of the AGW by the general public.

Just for JR's benefit, here's my personal favorite.

TH

Has anyone noticed the days are getting shorter? The sun does not shine today as long during the day as it did in July. Soon we will not have any sunlight.

I have checked the rate of loss of sunlight and it appears that unless we can save the planet by next March then temperate zones will be in full darkness. However, if immediate action is taken then it may be possible to turn things round by the end of December.

The science is settled, and we have little over 10 weeks left to save the world. This is obviously an emergency.

It amazes me that people have such closed minds that they refuse the believe the evidence of their own eyes. Some are even pointing out that there was a period of increasing daylight during the first half of the year, as though that proves something. They need to be locked up immediately, firstly to remove their poisonous ideas from circulation, and secondly pour encourager les autres.

Can I appeal to everybody to respond generously to my appeal asap. Send whatever you can to me by next April 1st so that we can save our daylight, otherwise millions will die.