...population growth, economic activity, fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming.....

Say, is that a broken record I hear?

Nah. Must be my imagination...

every scientists is aware of what you said. It is elementary.

Indeed they are. But it seems that they often blatantly and deliberately disregard it, for whatever motives, knowing that the general public will not be aware of it.

every scientists is aware of what you said. It is elementary.

Indeed they are. But it seems that they often blatantly and deliberately disregard it, for whatever motives, knowing that the general public will not be aware of it.

I responded to your comment even though I did not post a regression analysis for you to comment on.

Your response was obviously dictated........this is what you do when they do that sort of thing.

Maybe you can comment about the glacier pictures. What is causing it? Martians with torches?

Did I make up the photographs and post them? Am I part of a "conspiracy."

What about corals dying worldwide? Any idea why? Another science conspiracy?

The phrase "blind as a bat" comes to mind.

every scientists is aware of what you said. It is elementary.

Indeed they are. But it seems that they often blatantly and deliberately disregard it, for whatever motives, knowing that the general public will not be aware of it.

I responded to your comment even though I did not post a regression analysis for you to comment on.

Your response was obviously dictated........this is what you do when they do that sort of thing.

Maybe you can comment about the glacier pictures. What is causing it? Martians with torches?

Did I make up the photographs and post them? Am I part of a "conspiracy."

What about corals dying worldwide? Any idea why? Another science conspiracy?

The phrase "blind as a bat" comes to mind.

How does a picture of a glacier that has been retreating for over a century (as the Earth has been coming out of the 'Little Ice Age') prove that CO2 drives climate?

You may want to look at the Sun being a driver of climate, a factor that the IPCC totally omitted from their projections. Isn't that amazing? The Sun, the thing that provides 95% of out heat, being considered of such little importance that it isn't even included.

The Sun??? Who'd of thunk it?

every scientists is aware of what you said. It is elementary.

Indeed they are. But it seems that they often blatantly and deliberately disregard it, for whatever motives, knowing that the general public will not be aware of it.

I responded to your comment even though I did not post a regression analysis for you to comment on.

Your response was obviously dictated........this is what you do when they do that sort of thing.

Maybe you can comment about the glacier pictures. What is causing it? Martians with torches?

Did I make up the photographs and post them? Am I part of a "conspiracy."

What about corals dying worldwide? Any idea why? Another science conspiracy?

The phrase "blind as a bat" comes to mind.

How does a picture of a glacier that has been retreating for over a century (as the Earth has been coming out of the 'Little Ice Age') prove that CO2 drives climate?

You may want to look at the Sun being a driver of climate, a factor that the IPCC totally omitted from their projections. Isn't that amazing? The Sun, the thing that provides 95% of out heat, being considered of such little importance that it isn't even included.

The Sun??? Who'd of thunk it?

Nobody is saying CO2 is the only force.....every scientists working on the problem knows this (elementary stuff).

By phrasing it as you did, you simply engaged in more distortion.......something the skeptics apparently are trained like seals to do.

You are asking me to consider the sun as a force when I just corrected the skeptics position about high CO2 levels in the past with a comment about how the sun was missing from your analysis...........odd.

We have gone down this road many times already........there is no scientific evidence that changes in solar radiation are the cause of the rapid rise in CO2 levels that we have witnessed recently.

Now, some questions:

1) Why do you think BIG OIL does not exist?

2) Why do you think BIG GOVERNMENT does not exist?

3) What evidence do you have that the variables I have touched on are not related? Do you have alternative explanations? Entertain us with them.

4) Why do you think BIG OIL has nothing to gain by stopping positive change on the energy front?

5) Why do you think developing a decentralized, inexpensive, environmentally friendly energy system is a bad thing?

6) Why do you insist that we continue using Stone Age Technology?

1) The petrochemical industry has existed for some years now, and we have all benefitted.

Where do you think you would be now, JR, without the petrochemical industry? You would be stuck in some backwater (presumably) Texas hick town without a pot to piss in, going to work on a donkey. There would be no cars, no air travel, no internet, no television, no phones, no nothing. You would't be enjoying a (relatively) luxury lifestyle in Thailand - indeed, you probably would never have heard of the place. You'd be grubbing in the earth to fill your belly.

Appealing scenario? Not to me.

2) Big government is in it's embryonic form at the moment, but have no doubt, if they can fool enough people about this global warming / climate change charade for long enough, then they will pick up the ball and be off running - you think big government exists now? You ain't seen nothing yet sunshine.

3) The variables you have touched on are just that - variables. They have been with us for millennia. Temperatures have fluctuated, CO2 levels have fluctuated, sea levels have fluctuated... What makes you think that the fluctuations we've seen over the past century are any different from those of previous centuries?

4) The petrochemical industry (what you amusingly refer to as BIG OIL) is one of the biggest investors in alternative energy sources. They have to be, as they know that the supplies of economically recoverable crude are finite, and as global industries they need to be in a position to move smoothly on to the next energy source, whatever that may be. The big oil companies aren't run by brainless idiots, JR. They are big businesses, and it pays them to stay ahead of the game.

5) I cannot rcollect anyone, anywhere on this thread suggesting that it would be a bad idea to develop a decentralised, inexpensive and environmentally friendly energy system. Personally, I think it would be wonderful to have such a system, and I'm hoping it will be available in my lifetime. In the meantime however, we have what we have.

6) You seem to have missed the point entirely here, JR. You see, what the sackcloth and ashes climate-change brigade want to see is a return to stoneage technology. They want to tax people out of their cars (remember the donkey?), tax people out of the skies, make us read by candlelight, eat cabbage and soyabeans.... I could go on.

You think this is advance?

No JR, you can sit in your house in an exotic location, enjoying all the benefits of cheap and available power. You can hurl imprecations at the industries that make it possible for you to be where you are and to do what you do, but the fact remains that without the oil industry, you would have nothing.

People like you cost this world so much money- money that could be put to good use alleviating poverty in Africa and elsewhere.

Bloody timewasters...

So Teabag is not able to answer the questions I posed......figures.

<snip>

People like you cost this world so much money- money that could be put to good use alleviating poverty in Africa and elsewhere.

Bloody timewasters...

Yes. All this human energy being wasted talking, investigating this non-event... think of all the good things these scientists, politicians, media etc could be doing instead of wasting their time on this subject. It is quite appalling that this has been allowed to go on so long. Soon the world will accept that there is no global disaster waiting to happen and all these global warmers will fade away and the world can get on with dealing with other much more real and important topics, like people dying of starvation, terrorism, etc.

...EGAT, who are doing a full court press to get nuclear for Thailand, either don't know, or don't want to know about current developments in clean electricity generation options.

.....

Need to do a bit of research before you make such statements. Was like the second hit when google Egat and Alternate Energy

July 29, 2009

Egat Set to Spend on 250 MW of Renewables Bangkok, Thailand [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) is ready to spend THB 22 billion [uS $644 million] on the establishment of renewable-energy-driven power plants with a combined capacity of 258 megawatts (MW). Egat will use its own cash flow to fund project development.

If Pakistan and India have a nuclear blow-out, such downwind countries as Thailand will suffer consequences.

Thailand is not downwind of India and Pakistan. Africa is.

Why are you people not the slightest bit interested in facts.

TH

Folks,

It is impossible to convince minority fanatics like JR Texas, because they look at this situation through the eyes of faith, not reason.

It is so central to their sense of emotional well-being to believe in global warming, and that BIG OIL (read: capitalism) is bad, that other explanations are barred from entering their consciousness.

Remember Y2K? Billions of dollars spent on the bedwetters' fears of "global meltdown" of computers. What happened? Nothing. Except that a whole bunch of companies got rich providing 'Y2K solutions' to a non-existent problem. They were smart enough to defend themselves by subsequently claiming that if they hadn't alerted the world in time, the predicted apocalypse would have come about.

Expect the same from the global warming scammers, but don't expect any rational debate -- the light of reason scares them.

Here is part of the real reason this mania has taken hold. Al Gore and others like him will milk this so called crisis for billions of dollars.

Gore himself has seen his net worth increase from between $1-2 million in the year 2000 to something over $100 Million in 2009. I have seen estimates as high as $200 million.

It's all about money, and it ain't BIG OIL that is making most of the money.

Bernie Madoff was a piker compared to Gore.

Some reading material for you:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/...illion-in-2008/

This is just in - "Gulf of Thailand will not see rising level even if all the world's ice melts. The heavy presence of mercurial pollutants in the area creates a physical barrier to rising sea levels. However, this will cause havoc to shipping as the boundary between the Gulf and other areas of the world's oceans will face a cliff of seawater up to a hundred feet high. This is a natural phenomenon that had occurred a few thousand years ago in the Red Sea."

This is just in - "Gulf of Thailand will not see rising level even if all the world's ice melts. The heavy presence of mercurial pollutants in the area creates a physical barrier to rising sea levels. However, this will cause havoc to shipping as the boundary between the Gulf and other areas of the world's oceans will face a cliff of seawater up to a hundred feet high. This is a natural phenomenon that had occurred a few thousand years ago in the Red Sea."

Folks,

It is impossible to convince minority fanatics like JR Texas, because they look at this situation through the eyes of faith, not reason.

It is so central to their sense of emotional well-being to believe in global warming, and that BIG OIL (read: capitalism) is bad, that other explanations are barred from entering their consciousness.

Remember Y2K? Billions of dollars spent on the bedwetters' fears of "global meltdown" of computers. What happened? Nothing. Except that a whole bunch of companies got rich providing 'Y2K solutions' to a non-existent problem. They were smart enough to defend themselves by subsequently claiming that if they hadn't alerted the world in time, the predicted apocalypse would have come about.

Expect the same from the global warming scammers, but don't expect any rational debate -- the light of reason scares them.

When, in a "debate," all you can do is attack the messenger and project your own mental faults and mindset on the opposition, you have lost the debate.

As stated many times, the real scientific debate took place years ago.........your side lost.

Responsible scientists and political leaders are focusing on solutions.

When, in a "debate," all you can do is attack the messenger and project your own mental faults and mindset on the opposition, you have lost the debate.

As stated many times, the real scientific debate took place years ago.........your side lost.

Responsible scientists and political leaders are focusing on solutions.

Responsible scientists = Hadley Climate Research Unit

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...climate-center/

And here.

The climate change scam is just another fad, like Britney Spears or adult teeth braces, and will sink into irrelevance as more of these snake-oil salesmen are discredited.

Then we have to ask, what scare will humanity dream up next? So many of these people constantly have to have something to be afraid of in a sort of Sky-God-Angry way.

The scientific debate has past.......your side lost. Get over it and stop crying like a bunch of babies.

Now....maybe this will sink in if I post it one more time........see a trend?

That trend is the result of growing numbers of human beings engaged in environmentally unsound economic activities using Stone Age Energy Technology. It has little to do with changes in energy output from the sun.

It is causing this, among other things:

If we do nothing to free ourselves from BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT--we free ourselves by becoming energy independent using a decentralized, environmentally sound system and is inexpensive--we will only magnify all of our current environmental, social, population, and economic problems.

The last thing we should do is to make all of our problems worse (something your beliefs and decisions will do).

Fortunately, responsible scientists and politicians continue to focus on solutions.

And, by the way, being cute and sarcastic is not part of any responsible scientific debate.

And, by the way, being cute and sarcastic is not part of any responsible scientific debate.

Being dishonest should also have no place in the debate.

See the two links above, re. Hadley.

And, by the way, being cute and sarcastic is not part of any responsible scientific debate.

Being cute and sarcastic is central to any responsible scientific debate.

Skepticism and frank, open debate is how true science works. If your science cannot survive the most close and skeptical scrutniy, it fails.

I advance a theory, someone shoots it down. I take their criticisms on board and re-examine my position. I maintain an open mind and remain prepared to modify my theories and models in the face of new information and ideas.

True scientists should adapt their models to fit the facts; climate change scammers adapt the facts to fit their models and their cherished delusions. (evil BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT, for example)

The graph you repeatedly show on this thread certainly demonstrates a trend -- the trend that it is more likely that dim-bulb humans will fall for silly conspiracy bed-wetting theories than people who have learnt to think for themselves.

Al Gore [Now] Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming!

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=8782

Al Gore [Now] Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming!

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=8782

I'm amazed he actually admitted the fact. I particularly liked this

We also highlighted how the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

(Note the "profit and social engineering".)

And this

In another indictment of Gore’s accuracy in warning about climate change, he has now virtually abandoned scientific “facts” in favor of characterizing his Inconvenient Truth presentation in the context of a religious sermon.

Still think the science is settled, JR?

The grounds upon which you base your belief become ever shakier. Looks like they will soon open and swallow you up.

I would suggest you get to grips with some real science rather than what you read in the "Daily Rag". Your argument might then have a bit more validity.

So you still can't address the "trend" I have posted more than once and can only resort to attacking the messenger (with outright distortions of facts) and being "cute and sarcastic." You seem to be totally controlled by BIG OIL.

Truly, I think only a few posters/readers here agree with what you are saying.........the vast majority can think and use reason to determine whether one argument is more sound than another. Your position is about as unsound as it gets.

The overwhelming SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS WORLDWIDE is opposed to your position. In other words, science does not support a position based on faith and emotion.....science reaches consensus after a lot of hard research and data crunching.

I have gone to the sites where you are getting the endless stream of distorted information that you appear to believe is "science." It is not.

It is like reading an online version of the National Inquirer. I do not think there is anything that can alter your belief system.......certainly real science will not have any impact on your belief system.

But for those who want clarity on this issue (e.g., about the current scientific consensus; about the propaganda movie the skeptics want you to see--a complete distortion of the science surrounding the issue--; about all of the distorted versions of reality they have been posting here), please go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

One for the BIG OILers

Clearly you can't respond to scientific information. Maybe this will help: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

"Declines" are not hidden.....they are right there for you to see if you are willing to look or understand what you are seeing.

Declines and increase are normal and no scientists is denying that.

Gore's Hockey Stick shows ups (increases) and downs (declines)...........he did not hide anything.

And what I posted on the Earth's Total Heat Content over Time shows ups and downs..........as do virtually all charts related to climate change.

It may surprise you, but the earth is not flat. It is round. It orbits the sun. Tthe sun does not orbit the earth. It takes 365 days for the earth to make a complete orbit around the sun.

During that time, the earth gets close to the sun (we call that summer) and its heat increases.

It also gets distant from the earth (we call that winter) and its heat decreases. Up and down......decline, increase...........this is natural.

What happens during one month or one year or two years is virtually irrelevant to climate change models. What is relevant is the long term trend. The long term trend is clear: the total heat content of the earth is increasing.

Over the long span of geological time, we also see heat increases and decreases in both temperature and CO2.......natural cycles.

What is troubling is the rapid rise in total heat content during a very short period of time.........recent history, especially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

This upward trend is associated with population growth, environmentally unsound economic growth, and CO2 increase (among other Greenhouse gases).

Scientists are concerned that we have broken out of a "natural cycle" due to our environmentally unsound economic practices, all underpinned by our allegiance to BIG OIL and Stone Age Fossil Fuel Technology.

In fact, in terms of geologic time, we should be in a cooling cycle, not a warming cycle.......it takes a lot of forcing to overcome a natural cycle and we humans are doing precisely that. [if we were to follow a natural cycle, we would be in a deep freeze in 50,000 years.........but we have already broken out of the natural cycle.]

Humans have adapted to the "current climate." We are changing that climate rapidly.

If you think this is insignificant, ask yourself what will happen if the Yellow River and Ganges dry up........which they are now doing. They are drying up because the glaciers that feed them are getting smaller due to global warming.

What will happen is a human disaster on a scale we have not witnessed before. It will cause a great deal of economic/food insecurity in both China and India......the two countries with the largest populations on the planet (now just over 1 billion each).

That will have consequences worldwide. If you think we have problems now, you have not seen anything yet!

For the life of me, I can't understand why you BOLs--BIG OIL LOBBYISTS--(skeptics is a misleading term for what you are) want to keep us in the dark ages........you seem to want to magnify all of our current problems.

Fortunately, the BOLs have lost the debate. Responsible scientists and politicians continue to move forward on the energy front.

As socially and environmentally destructive as you are, you are also funny in a way. You really think BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT don't exits. That position has people laughing at your posts.

In case you want to know a bit of something about where the BOLs get their money, look here:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_

The video is cute, and it's titled 'Hide The Decline' ....referring to decline in temperatures, which is faulty. It was made in Minnesota, which is cold every year.

Here's a topic that is more suited to be titled 'Hide The Decline.'

Mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the southern Andes, as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, are showing some of the largest proportionate glacial loss.(IPCC)(Mölg)

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However, since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.(IPCC2) (NSIDC) The recent substantial retreat and an acceleration of the rate of retreat since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, may foreshadow a rise in sea level, having a potentially dramatic effect on coastal regions worldwide. lifted from Wikipedia

The Whitechuck glacier in Glacier Peak Wilderness (pictured) shows how it looked in 1973, and again from the same vantage in 2006

You really think BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT don't exits

Not at all. Of course they exist. Just the same as BIG AL and BIG GREED.

Everybody's in this thing for money, power and glory. It is immature to blindly say BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT are bad, but that BIG AL and BIG GREED are good, which you implicitly do by supporting the global warming scam (GWS).

You also seem not to realise that the biggest winner if the GWS nonsense ever got traction would be BIG GOVERNMENT. You know, "global problems need global solutions". Ever hear that?

Fortunately, the systematic scientific fraud at the heart of GWS is now being recognized by even traditional bedwetters as the New York Times

"This could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history (it will take a while to calculate the total amount of grant money achieved by fraud and the cost of climate change legislation “Cap-and-Trade” could have been in the $ trillions). Accordingly, nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud…with the blatant attempt to perpetuate the political agenda of global warming supporters and the UN IPCC." - Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

You GWS groupies been rumbled, and thankfully, in time.

Responsible scientists and politicians continue to move forward on the energy front.

When the GWS nonsense peters out, where will all the GWS groupies go? Off to find another "global scare" supported by "responsible scientists", no doubt.

Well, here it is:

Aliens 'already exist on earth', Bulgarian scientists claim

I think we should impose a cap-and-trade tax on these pesky extra-terrestrials, or it may soon be too late

The scientific debate has past.......your side lost. Get over it and stop crying like a bunch of babies.

Wrong, obviously you've not been keeping up with Climategate.

Wipeout!

And, by the way, being cute and sarcastic is not part of any responsible scientific debate.

So what part of a reasonable scientific debate are you?

The whole arguement supporting climate change is like an old pullover, someone started tugging on a loose thread and the whole lot is falling apart.

The whole arguement supporting climate change is like an old pullover, someone started tugging on a loose thread and the whole lot is falling apart.

Something has fallen apart under the weight of science/reason........the emotion/faith pseudo-scientific position of the BOLs (BIG OIL LOBBYISTS).

The BOLs can't respond to the science of climate change using science/reason.

All they can do, as has been clearly demonstrated here, is to:

1) post sarcastic, cute comments

2) attack the messengers with misleading information (completely distorting facts and positions)

3) project on to the opposition their own mindset and faults

4) backtrack on their own positions (oh.......we never said BIG OIL and BIG GOVERNMENT do not exists...........BS, read your statements)

Too late for that BOLs........you have lost. Get over it...........

It may surprise you, but the earth is not flat. It is round. It orbits the sun. Tthe sun does not orbit the earth. It takes 365 days for the earth to make a complete orbit around the sun.

During that time, the earth gets close to the sun (we call that summer) and its heat increases.

It also gets distant from the earth (we call that winter) and its heat decreases. Up and down......decline, increase...........this is natural.

Did you get this information from your "real scientists"? Honestly, if you can't even get basic planetary physics right then how can you hope to convince anyone on climate change?

So, when the earth is close to the sun it's summer, and when far away it's winter? Please explain why it's not summer in both hemispheres when the earth is close to the sun, and winter in both when it's further away? The progression of the seasons are not controlled by the distance to the sun, but by the tilt of the earth's axis. It's summer in the hemisphere tilted towards the sun, winter in the other. Granted, the effects of the season are enhanced by the distance. If your hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, and you happen to be close to it, it will be a hot summer, the other hemisphere will see a mild winter, but the fact that it is summer or winter depends purely on the tilt of the axis. One theory for how ice ages, or glaciations, get started is a build up of ice in one hemisphere during a winter when the earth is far from the sun, accompanied by less melting of ice in the other hemisphere which experiences a cool summer. This increases the reflection of sunlight from the earth, further lowering the temperature, and a glaciation ensues. You could also have the converse, a hot summer and mild winter when the earth is close to the sun, leading to more than usual ice melt, leading to less heat reflected by the earth, leading to more ice melt, leading to an icrease in CO2 in the atmosphere as the higher temperatures allow higher concentrations to be supported. Solar activity may add to or lessen the effect. Unless mankind succeeds in actually changing the tilt of the earth, or the shape of its orbit, there's nothing we can do about it.

No doubt I could come up with a nice little chart showing the relationship between number of icecreams sold and temperature. We'd probably that see they correlate fairly well. My god, icecreams cause global warming. Hey Al, how about banning these dangerous manmade creations?

To get back on the Gulf of Thailand, I could show you a high resolution seismic image taken 75km off Koh Samui, right in the middle of the Gulf, showing a river channel meandering across a floodplain, beneath the current marine sediments on the sea bed. You could have walked across from Samui to Sattahip, crossing the river, probably an extension of the current Chao Phrya, mid way. The sea level in the Gulf has been rising, at varying rates, ever since the onset of the current interglacial. dam_n those industrial Neanderthaals and their heavy industry.

You are right........it is nice to know somebody reading this thread knows something about science........I left out critical information about the axis tilting.

But note that the earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical.......the earth is not the same distance from the sun all year.......you have the perihelion and aphelion.

Now, what is the subject of this thread........I almost forgot: Will the Gulf of Thailand Rise with Global Warming?

You think the water has been rising for thousands of years, so "no problem."

You know that the earth has undergone massive changes over long periods of time........at one time many of the places that are not currently under water were beneath the ocean (lots of marine fossils prove that).

At one time it was hotter than it is now. At another time is was colder.

The point that keeps getting lost if the pace of change.

In this case, the sea level rise could be rapid (in terms of geological time), particularly if both poles melt.

You can show an association between ice cream cones and global warming............fine. But how many scientists believe that ice cream cones cause global warming.........let me guess: NONE.