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

[PhilHarries]

The problem is JR, you GW boys have been caught cooking the books. This is being billed as the biggest scientific fraud in a generation. But you all just bury your heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist like little kids hiding behind the sofa from the monsters on TV. Unfortunately the monster is out of the jar and no amount of investigations are goning to get it back in again. The general public have lost faith in scientists and they joing the ranks of bankers and politicians as world pariahs (well not quite that bad).

Anyway just to show I, unlike you GW types, have an open mind and will consider both sides of the arguement this global warming stuff is all old hat and has been around a long long time:-

It all began with a very depressed Swede. On Christmas Eve, 1894 – devastated by the collapse of his marriage to his lovely assistant, Sophia – Svante Arrhenius, a 35-year-old physicist, decided to take his mind off his troubles by tackling a complicated mathematical problem. So he sat down to work out what the effect of different amounts of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” would have on global temperatures.

Whole piece here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...-of-change.html

Sorry if this has been posted before but I only rejoin this debate occasionally as I'm tired of seeing the same old guff being recycled to support a dubious scientific theory.

PS your arguements would probably have more effect if put a little, or a lot in some cases, more succinctly. Less verbage, less herbage = more impact.

[H2oDunc]

If anybody fancies doing the actual mathmatecics to once and for all lay this crap to rest he it is.

* All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:

o m = meter

o cm = centimeter (0.01m)

o km = kilometer (1000m)

o g = gram

o kg = kilogram (1000g)

o J = Joule

o kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)

o W = Watt

o s = second

o °K = degree Kelvin

Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.

* The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangable for purposes of temperature variance.

* All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.

It has been theorized that the use of antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.

All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of

r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km

A = p r² = p (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²

We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):

1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²

1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)

175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s

That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:

100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s

We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:

175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr

Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =

55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2

Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:

V(tot) = 4/3 p r³ = 4/3 p · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³

V(earth) = 4/3 p r³ = 4/3 p · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³

V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³

= 8,694,154 km³

Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:

1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K

1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K

1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K

Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as

1,214,400,000 kJ/km³

1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ · 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ

But to be accurate, the troposphere is not the only thing warming up. It has been often claimed (correctly) that the oceans are a major heat sink. So let us now calculate the amount of energy required to raise the ocean temperature by a single degree Kelvin. The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values: 1,347,000,000 km³[8]. The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³·°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin:

4.186 J/cm³·°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K

4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K · 1,347,000,000 km³

= 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°K

As before, since we are considering a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, this is equal to

5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ

We now add the values for the troposhpere and the oceans together to obtain the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of these two areas combned by a single degree Kelvin:

5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ + 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ

= 5,638,532,558,180,617,600,000 kJ

Now, remember from earlier calculations the total amount of energy that is available from the solar irradiance that can intercept anthropogenic carbon dioxide:

55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ

So if we know the energy required to raise a single degree, and we know how much energy can be intercepted by the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, we can calculate how many degrees of temperature rise could possibly happen. Remember, please, that we are making the following assumptions in these calculations:

* We only include the energy required to raise the temperatures of the troposphere (where the carbon dioxide is) and the oceans (climatic heat sink). No energy calculations are included to this point for land masses or for upper atmospheric levels, each of which would, in reality, contribute in some way to the amount of energy required.

* We are assuming that 100% of the available solar irradiance is being absorbed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This includes shortwave solar irradiation which is actually reflected back into space without being absorbed, and it also includes radiation that is absorbed through other means such as photosynthesis.

* We are assuming 100% conversion of that intercepted energy by anthropogenic carbon dioxide into heat, and not calculating how much of that heat is dissipated back into space through emission.

All of the above are extremely comservative assumptions. Inclusion of them will only decrease the expected temperature increases due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Now, the actual calculation we have been waiting for:

Energy(required) / Energy(available) = Ratio

5,638,552,558,180,617,600,000 kJ / 55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ = 102.03

It would require 102 times as much energy as is available to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years.

In other words, if ALL of the solar irradiance that the antropogenic CO2 could intercept were converted into heat, and if it took no energy to warm the land masses and the upper atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would only warm by about 0.01°K in 100 years.

So anybody still wantto continue with the argument ?

You will still get the GW nutters saying its all down to us as they are quasi religious about this and anybody who disagrees is a heretic!

[RickBradford]

This is a tragedy because we have real environmental problems that have been pushed into the background by the Warmists. The oceans are being trashed and emptied of fish, the soil is being abused, the air is dirty. People are dying of starvation and pollution-enabled diseases.

But mega bucks are being thrown in other directions because of phoney science allied to systematic fraud on an impressive scale.

Powerful stuff, this global warming -- it maims and destroys even when it's not happening.

We have to abandon the fudged Warmist science, and if they've left any uncorrupted data behind, we can figure out the truth and then we can start saving the planet. A lie like AGW never saved anything in the long run.

[chuckd]

Lies, attempts at diversion, character assassination/science assassination attempts, distortion of facts, manipulation of viewpoints for effect aside.......here is something that was written some time ago, but it is interesting and applies to Southeast Asia.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipc...egional/300.htm

It does not matter that it is dated.........as stated many times before, the actual scientific debate is long since over.......responsible scientists and politicians are searching for solutions to the problems created by BIG OIL and irresponsible politicians inside BIG GOVERNMENT.

By the way, lawsuits against BIG OIL and irresponsible BIG GOVERNMENT are already taking place (old news).

The BOLs and the people they represent have set themselves up for a series of massive, global, collective lawsuits because they have engaged in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into thinking that global warming/climate change is a myth, causing massive environmental, health, and social problems.......not to mention engaging in illegal activities (e.g., stealing private emails from a research institution).

What they have done will cost us a fortune to fix.........they should pay for it. They will pay for it.

We saw the same thing happen earlier with the tobacco industry.......same tactics.........same end result: BIG LAWSUITS.

But this time the amounts will be vast. BIG OIL is about to pay for what it has done to present and future generations.

This makes for interesting reading..........just substitute BIG OIL for the tobacco industry:

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=2115

Remember: Centralized energy equals slavery...........decentralized energy equals freedom.

Here come the ambulance chasers trying to get their cut of any law suits.

Here is a short list of the world's five largest oil companies. I am assuming JR's lawyers are suing BIG OIL in order of their ranking size in the industry.

1. Saudi Aramco, owned 100% by the Government of Saudi Arabia.

2. National Iranian Oil Company, owned 100% by the Government of Iran.

3. Exxon Mobil, owned 100% by investor's like you and me.

4. PDV, owned 100% by the Government of Venezuela.

5. CNPC, owned 100% by the Government of China.

Anybody want to volunteer to serve a Judgement notice to the King of Saudi Arabia, or Ahmed Ahmadinajad, or Hugh Chavez?

[JR Texas]

Thanks.....the last I heard from you, you stated that CO2 could not rise in the atmosphere because it was too heavy.

BOLs nonsense and attempts at distraction aside.....here is more food for thought related to Thailand: http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2833

700 million dollars to Asian climate investments

New funds to support low carbon energy technologies in Asia via the Asian Development Bank.

Marianne Bom

04/12/2009 14:05

The Asian Development Bank is planning to channel around 700 million dollars from two new investment funds to developing member countries to help them meet the cost of the combat against climate change.

The funds are part of a broad global initiative. Industrialized donor countries in 2008 pledged over 6.1 billion dollars for the Clean Technology Fund and Strategic Climate Fund. The climate investment funds (CIF) are being made available to multilateral development banks, including the ADB.

“The CIF provides concessionary funds for ADB to work together with developing member countries to transform to a low-carbon growth trajectory and strengthen their resilience to threats posed by climate change,” says Xianbin Yao, Director General of ADB's Regional and Sustainable Development Department, according to a press release from the bank.

The funds will support the deployment of low carbon energy technologies, such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal power, as well as energy efficiency measures for industry, commercial buildings and municipalities. They will also support pilot programs on climate resilience and forest investment.

BIG OIL should pay for all of this.........the lawsuits, in fact, will make them pay.

The way out of this crisis is simple:

1) Move from centralized energy to decentralized energy (sue BIG OIL and use the money to pay for most of the R&D cost)

2) Reduce population levels worldwide

[Groongthep]

Here is a short list of the world's five largest oil companies. I am assuming JR's lawyers are suing BIG OIL in order of their ranking size in the industry.

1. Saudi Aramco, owned 100% by the Government of Saudi Arabia.

2. National Iranian Oil Company, owned 100% by the Government of Iran.

3. Exxon Mobil, owned 100% by investor's like you and me.

4. PDV, owned 100% by the Government of Venezuela.

5. CNPC, owned 100% by the Government of China.

Anybody want to volunteer to serve a Judgement notice to the King of Saudi Arabia, or Ahmed Ahmadinajad, or Hugh Chavez?

With all due respect to chuckd here are the stats I found on the worlds largest oil companies. ExxonMobil the largest of the 100% privately owned companies is way down the list at number 17.

Leading Oil and Gas Companies Around the World1

Rank by

2007 Oil

Equivalent

Reserves

Company Worldwide

Liquids Reserves,

Million

Barrels Worldwide

Natural Gas Reserves,

Billion

Cubic Feet Total Reserves

in Oil Equivalent Barrels,

Million Barrels

1 Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Arabia) 3 259,900 253,800 303,285

2 National Iranian Oil Company (Iran) 3 138,400 948,200 300,485

3 Qatar General Petroleum Corporation (Qatar)3 15,207 905,300 169,959

4 Iraq National Oil Company (Iraq) 2,3 115,000 119,940 134,135

5 Petroleos de Venezuela.S.A. (Venezuela) 3 99,377 170,920 128,594

6 Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (UAE) 3 92,200 198,500 126,132

7 Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (Kuwait) 3 101,500 55,515 110,990

8 Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nigeria) 3 36,220 183,990 67,671

9 National Oil Company (Libya) 2,3 41,464 50,100 50,028

10 Sonatrach (Algeria) 2,3 12,200 159,000 39,379

11 Gazprom (Russia) 0 171,176 29,261

12 OAO Rosneft (Russia) 17,513 25,108 21,805

13 PetroChina Co. Ltd. (China) 11,706 57,111 21,469

14 Petronas (Malaysia) 5,360 82,992 19,547

15 OAO Lukoil (Russia) 15,715 28 15,720

16 Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. (Egypt) 2 3,700 58,500 13,700

17 ExxonMobil Corporation (United States) 7,744 32,610 13,318

18 Petroleos Mexicanos (Mexico) 11,048 12,578 13,198

19 BP Corporation (United Kingdom) 5,492 41,130 12,523

20 Petroleo Brasilerio S.A. (Brazil) 9,613 12,547 11,578

21 Chevron Corporation (United States) 7,087 22,140 10,870

22 Royal Dutch/Shell (Netherlands) 3,776 40,895 10,767

23 ConocoPhillips (United States) 6,320 25,438 10,668

24 Sonangol (Angola)3 9,035 9,530 10,664

25 Petroleum Development Oman LLC (Oman) 5,500 30,000 10,628

26 Total (France) 5,778 25,730 10,176

27 Statoil (Norway) 2,389 20,319 5,862

28 ENI (Italy) 3,925 11,204 5,840

29 Dubai Petroleum Company (United Arab Emirates) 2,3 4,000 4,000 4,684

30 Petroleos de Ecuador (Ecuador)3 4,517 NR 4,517

31 Pertamina (Indonesia) 3 903 20,538 4,414

32 EnCana Corp. (Canada) 927 13,300 3,201

33 Occidental Petroleum Corporation (United States) 2,228 3,843 2,885

34 China National Offshore Oil Corp. (China) 1,490 6,232 2,555

35 Devon Energy Corporation (United States) 998 8,994 2,535

36 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (United States) 1,014 8,504 2,468

37 Repsol YPF (Spain) 952 8,137 2,343

38 Canadian Natural Resources (Canada) 1,358 3,666 1,985

39 XTO Energy (United States) 308 9,441 1,922

40 Ecopetrol (Columbia) 1,450 2,439 1,867

41 Chesapeake Energy Corp. (United States) 124 10,137 1,856

42 Talisman Energy Ltd. (Canada) 749 5,464 1,683

43 Apache Corp. (United States) 1,134 2,446 1,552

44 EOG Resources (United States) 179 7,745 1,503

45 Romanian National Oil Co. (Romania) 2 863 3,550 1,470

46 BHP Billiton Ltd (Australia) 565 4,727 1,373

47 BG Group PLC (United Kingdom) 393 5,572 1,345

48 Hess Corp. (United States) 885 2,668 1,341

49 Marathon Oil Corp. (United States) 650 3,450 1,240

50 Shell Canada Ltd. (Canada) 808 1,400 1,047

Notes:

1 Ranked in order of 2007 worldwide oil equivalent reserves as reported in "OGJ 200/100", Oil & Gas Journal, September 15, 2008.

2 Information from Energy Information Administration Country Analysis Briefings.

3 OPEC member

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To learn more about the world oil and gas industry, please check out the following PetroStrategies classes:

A Layman's Guide to the Oil & Gas Industry

The Oil & Gas Industry in Perspective

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information about the world oil and gas industry, check out the following references:

Fundamentals of Petroleum, Fourth Edition, Kate Van Dyke, Petroleum Extension Service, c 1997.

The Petroleum Industry: A Nontechnical Guide, Charles F. Conaway, Pennwell Publishing.

Oil: Anatomy of an Industry, Matthew Yeomans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated 11/24/09

[RickBradford]

The attitudes of ideological supporters of a greenhouse hypothesis based on manipulated data is reminiscent of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth," but now these charlatans have been caught with their pants round their ankles and even the mainstream media is joining in the cluster-<deleted> which is all these people deserve.

"Global warming" is a problem only in an ideological sense, for us well-off Westerners.

For millions living in dire poverty, of course, it has often proved to be a death sentence, since a corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists pushed the idea of planting crops for biofuel not food, and contributed to the rapid doubling of food prices in Third World countries.

Global warming -- it maims and destroys even when it's not happening.

[chuckd]

Not to worry, Groongthep.

Your list is based on oil reserves and my listing is based on several factors. Factors considered on my listing are such things as global oil production, oil reserves, refinery capacity and refined product sales.

My source is:

http://www.energyintel.com/DocumentDetail....ument_id=245527

JR never responds to my posts anyway. He's been mad at me ever since I said his avatar was a very large dummy.

[RickBradford]

JR never responds to my posts anyway.

Not responding to requests for debate seems to be the hallmark of the main group of eco-grifters as they circle the wagons in a futile attempt to disguise their complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

[brahmburgers]

"Global warming" is a problem only in an ideological sense, for us well-off Westerners.

When inhabited islands slowly disappear, or when large low-lying cities worldwide get flooded, is it only a problem for well-off westerners?

Ok, in a sense it does impact on westerners who don't inhabit such places. It will be mostly westerners' money and aid agencies which tangibly assist the displaced millions. When East Timor (or former Yugoslavia, or Kuwait) gained a tenuous cease-fire, it was western countries which came to the scene to offer assistance. China wasn't on the scene, nor any other Asian or Arab countries. Ok, a few, like Thailand came around to assist E.Timor, but only belatedly, after being prodded by 'westerners.'

For millions living in dire poverty, of course, it has often proved to be a death sentence, since a corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists pushed the idea of planting crops for biofuel not food, and contributed to the rapid doubling of food prices in Third World countries. Global warming -- it maims and destroys even when it's not happening.

What an alarmist! Yes, there are hundreds of millions in poverty, and most often, they'll continue to wallow in poverty, despite some decent efforts by the UN and mostly western countries. Suggestions and funding are offered - though they're not always the best ideas, and rarely channeled directly to the people most in need. Yes, there are glitches. But by far the biggest impediments to improvements for the poorest/neediest are the related people in their vicinity, namely the people who steal money and equipment and food earmarked for their fellow countrymen and women.

It's such a gargantuan and tarnished topic, that it's easy to find fault if one chooses.

What are you yourself doing to aid the most disadvantaged? Even if you're channeling money to the poorest people you know, it's quite likely the money is being squandered along the way, and the little that trickles down is probably being spent foolishly.

[PhilHarries]

It's such a gargantuan and tarnished topic, that it's easy to find fault if one chooses.

What are you yourself doing to aid the most disadvantaged? Even if you're channeling money to the poorest people you know, it's quite likely the money is being squandered along the way, and the little that trickles down is probably being spent foolishly.

And this is what worries me about such issues as "Carbon Tax". It's easy for governments to tax people but what happens to the tax dollars they raise?

We know what happens, and what will happen in this case. The money will just get absorbed and spent on funding more scientists and more researchers and more analysts to produce more guff. Or, more likely, it will just get absorbed into the government spending on items like nuclear submarines.

Since the GW brigade won't respond to the current scandal of fraudulent figures used to support their case I wonder if they'd like to speculate what the outcry would be like if the boot was on the other foot? Like if the sceptics had been caught fiddling the figures to support their cause. We are only asking questions, is that a crime? Are we to be treated like the heretics in days of yore and burnt at the stake? Apart from the fact that burning at the stake is banned under the glbal warming prevention dictat a true and democratic society is based on discussion. But "The Organisation" has ruled, and any discussion beyond that is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

[teatree]

The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner

I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-be...s-tell-them-to/

The comments from other scientists at the bottom are very interesting too.

[RickBradford]

@brahmburgers

What an alarmist!

The irony of me being called an alarmist by a supporter of global warming scare stories is almost too rich for words.

However, it wasn't me who said it, it was Professor John Beddington, almost the UK"s Chief Global Warming Bedwetter, who made the point last year:

The rush towards biofuels is theatening world food production and the lives of billions of people, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser said yesterday.

Professor John Beddington put himself at odds with ministers who have committed Britain to large increases in the use of biofuels over the coming decades. In his first important public speech since he was appointed, he described the potential impacts of food shortages as the “elephant in the room” and a problem which rivalled that of climate change.

“It’s very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food,”

[chuckd]

Rick:

Maybe the reason the GW'ers think there are too many people on the earth is so they don't have to use the food to feed them.

They can use it for fuel for their cars.

[nisakiman]

I have to admit to unreserved admiration for JR.

I really mean that.

He doggedly, blindly ploughs on, despite the overwhelming evidence against his arguments. He never loses faith with the movement.

Anyway, I'm thinking of changing sides. I read in the paper this morning that Gordon Brown compared "deniers" to flat-earthers.

Well, if the best, most successful Prime Minister in parliamentary history says AGW is real, then it must be so. Yes?

No?

Errr. Maybe I'll think about that.....

[JR Texas]

Thank you for the positive words........in fact, you are only projecting your own views/faults on the opposition........something that happens after the debate has been lost.

And you lost........big time.......global warming and climate change are real.......people are focusing on solutions now.

I want to think Groothep for supporting my concept of BIG OIL. Why he thinks govt. control over oil companies and foreign control is not part of my BIG OIL concept is strange to me.........but continue adding to the list.

BIG OIL is BIG FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY.............it is worldwide.........ownership takes many forms. I forgot to add the entire automobile industry as a component of BIG OIL.

One BOL said that I was misleading the public about BIG OIL and that BIG OIL was working hard to move us past fossil fuel use to a second generation energy system (did not use those exact words but that was the meaning of his post).

I disagree..........look at this: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/st...ays-exxon-mobil

Here is the title: Transition from oil to renewable energy 100 years away, says Exxon Mobil

Oil giant claims ‘no viable alternatives’ will emerge in the next century.

Are we really to believe that a company that is investing is renewable research is actually doing so to accelerate the transition to renewable energy? 100 years away? Give me a break!

They are doing a small amount of R&D for two reasons: 1) public image control (makes them look like they are doing something positive), and 2) legal tactic (they are getting sued with more lawsuits to come and this helps them a bit)

BIG OIL also wants the second generation energy system to be big and centralized so that it can be controlled by them..........no power shifting to the individual.

CENTRALIZED ENERGY = SLAVERY

DECENTRALIZED ENERGY = FREEDOM

BIG OIL is funding a massive propaganda campaign that entails the assassination of science and reason (all of the National Inquirer like websites that supposedly provide the public with scientific info. on global warming/climate change) as well as attacks on scientists/politicians who are focusing on solutions (e.g., Al Gore, James Hansen).

You remember James Hansen? He brought the issue of global warming before Congress over 20 years ago.

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonse...gainst_humanity

He said something interesting (see link above and download the speech) about the BOLs (Big Oil Lobbyists/skeptics) and BIG OIL.........and it is very similar to what I said about their "crimes against humanity." Here is an excerpt:

Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and

stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.

Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running

out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not

obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must

move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to

carbon-free energy promptly.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of

moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global

warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated,

including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term

consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for

high crimes against humanity and nature.

"Mobile energy device"............I like that...........what we need is a decentralized, mobile energy device. Remember my images of INIAC transforming into the Blackberry? We can develop it, but we have to decide to develop it.

BOLs........what you are doing is crystal clear........at first it seemed clever in a small way........now it is boring.

Distortion of facts.......embracing emotion/religion as your guide to science.......manipulating data..........engaging in character assassination attempts to destroy the messengers.........engaging is science assassination attempts to confuse the public........deliberately manipulating viewpoints for effect......responding to hard science that contradicts your view with sarcastic comments and laughter.......stealing private emails and manipulating them for effect.......projecting on the opposition your own faults/viewpoints..........YOU HAVE LOST.

And more than that, because of your actions massive lawsuits are coming your way..........I predict that the public (when the truth comes out and is widely acknowledge) will want to send all of you to prison or worse.

You have engaged in irresponsible and unethical behavior at a time when we must attack the problem of global warming/climate change. Your actions have caused a delay in the response..........because of that countless people remain in poverty, wars have erupted and deaths have occurred over oil, huge amounts of tax dollars are being spent each year to buttress the activities of BIG OIL.........the cost of cleaning up your mess is rising.........your oil/centralized fossil fuel energy has blood in it.

Without question, you should be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity.

[brahmburgers]

I listened to the 11+ minutes of the debate hosted by BBC (the link is in this blog, about 12 posts earlier). There was the host and a pro-GW person and an anti-GW person, and government rep.

Several things impressed me about the debate. First off, it was civil, with no one getting worked up in a froth. Secondly, the men were articulate, intelligent, and spoke well, without the stuttering and filler words so common when people speak without scripts (the opposite of someone like Thaksin, who is bumbling and infantile at his best).

To a great extent, the interviewees had scant little to contest. There was a lot of talk about the exposed emails, but the differences in perspective were rather slight. The climate change topic and whether or not (and to what extent) it's caused by human activity was discussed in a civil and mature manner, with no name-calling/labeling. Let's hope the Copenhagen talks are somewhat along those lines.

It was interesting to note that the country which is making the most noise about the emails is Saudi Arabia. Since the leaked emails put a chink in the armor of GW veracity, it's perhaps not surprising that the #1 exporter of oil (Aramco, et al) based in Arabia, would make the biggest fuss about anything that might support a policy (carbon trading, lessening use of fossil fuels) that could put a dent in sales of crude.

Edited December 6, 2009 by brahmburgers

[teatree]

CENTRALIZED ENERGY = SLAVERY

DECENTRALIZED ENERGY = FREEDOM

Once again, could you tell us how carbon tax going to lead to a decentralised energy system.

[JR Texas]

I listened to the 11+ minutes of the debate hosted by BBC (the link is in this blog, about 12 posts earlier). There was the host and a pro-GW person and an anti-GW person, and government rep.

Several things impressed me about the debate. First off, it was civil, with no one getting worked up in a froth. Secondly, the men were articulate, intelligent, and spoke well, without the stuttering and filler words so common when people speak without scripts (the opposite of someone like Thaksin, who is bumbling and infantile at his best).

To a great extent, the interviewees had scant little to contest. There was a lot of talk about the exposed emails, but the differences in perspective were rather slight. The climate change topic and whether or not (and to what extent) it's caused by human activity was discussed in a civil and mature manner, with no name-calling/labeling. Let's hope the Copenhagen talks are somewhat along those lines.

It was interesting to note that the country which is making the most noise about the emails is Saudi Arabia. Since the leaked emails put a chink in the armor of GW veracity, it's perhaps not surprising that the #1 exporter of oil (Aramco, et al) based in Arabia, would make the biggest fuss about anything that might support a policy (carbon trading, lessening use of fossil fuels) that could put a dent in sales of crude.

There is a lot of "civil talk" going one here: http://en.cop15.dk/?gclid=CIGQv8nRt54CFZAvpAodLGqwog (read the blogs)

One thing that is surprising me is the talk about an energy transition seems to be focusing on centralized energy forms, not decentralized energy forms. I, of course, do not agree with that position and think it is time for the human species to take a giant leap into the future with regard to energy.

(By the way BOLs, an army is centralized with many components........the important part is control from the top......the same for our global fossil fuel energy system......it has many parts, but there are a few generals at the top that orchestrate it.........but please continue adding to your list.)

I take it for granted that there really are some people who are honest skeptics w/ an understanding of the science of climate change......but what we have seen presented on this thread is not information from skeptics that are interested in exploring "truth."

No, what we have seen is something else........no need to say what I think about them again.

I want to emphasize two points:

1) CO2 is rising.......CO2 is a greenhouse gas........CO2 increases are leading to global warming (along with other gases and deforestation,etc)..........global warming is leading to climate change.

Over the past 800000 years CO2 levels never moved beyond 300 ppm. It is only during the recent past (very recent in terms of geological time frames) that CO2 surpassed 300 ppm. Around 1957 CO2 was about 310 ppm.........1970 it was about 320 ppm..........1990 it was about 350 ppm........now it is about 384 ppm. That is a dangerous, upward trend, itself directly related to fossil fuel energy use (controlled and pushed on us by BIG OIL).

2) In Asia, global warming/climate change is going to have a major, negative impact on food production. For a good intro. to the topic, see this:

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/pre...hagen_washpost/

This will NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAILAND. Combine that impact w/ rising sea levels (coupled with the supposed sinking of Bangkok, something I am not sure of because that info. came from a BOL), and Thailand will be negatively impacted.

Certainly, the economies of Asia will be negatively impacted........and two of them are economies that are keeping the global economy from total collapse at the moment: India and China. Both have nuclear weapons.

I wonder if that has anything to do with this:

And what about this? What could be causing it?

Looks like the oceans are storing a lot of heat........wonder if that might have any negative impact in the future.

[RickBradford]

@brahmburgers

I absolutely agree with you about the BBC debate.

Allowing for traditional British understatement (where saying "I would put a slightly different interpretation on the data than this gentleman" means "This nimrod is talking through his hat") it was a great example of how this whole topic should be discussed.

The obvious follow-up question is: why has the debate become so polarised? Why is it that both Gordon Brown and David Milliband have in the last 2 days used the word "flat-earthers" to describe climate-change cynics, while slurs of "CO²mmunists", "quackery", and "zealots" fly in the other direction?

Saying that it comes about because the issue is so important, won't wash: issues are not solved by name-calling.

One phrase I often hear is "It's so important that we get this right and make the right decision."

But whoever says that is speaking from the position that they have already decided for themselves (and for the rest of us) what is "right", and so all that remains to be done is to force those with a different viewpoint into line.

Where this false sense of certainty has come from, I'm not sure, but there seems to be a large dose of ego and narcissism involved, where it is impossible to imagine oneself being wrong. A suggestion often made is that it may have emerged from the abandonment of traditional religion and family values, leading to extreme individualism, where being "wrong" is a powerful blow to the ego.

Humanity's many problems are poorly served by divisive and polarised thinking.

[dumball]

So why all the concern ? Bankok is slowly and determindly sinking into the morass on which it was built , lack of foresight then and ditto for today , it is futile to talk of the future to Thai , even tomorrow does not exist in thier eyes .

When the murky , polluted waters are swirling around thier waists , Thai will still not concede westerners know shit about shenola , "Only Thai smart , Falang stupid " .

[JR Texas]

So why all the concern ? Bankok is slowly and determindly sinking into the morass on which it was built , lack of foresight then and ditto for today , it is futile to talk of the future to Thai , even tomorrow does not exist in thier eyes .

When the murky , polluted waters are swirling around thier waists , Thai will still not concede westerners know shit about shenola , "Only Thai smart , Falang stupid " .

No comment Dumball.............but I just noticed we have gone over 1000 post here.......congratulations. And we just keep going around in circles.

I had a vision............we reached the 9,999th post.............I was getting really upset with the BOLs by this time..........I was inside my big house talking to myself (actually I don't have a Texas accent as you might expect) about big oil........then the BOLs came to my door...........and this is what happened:

[RickBradford]

You certainly go around in circles, with your tired old charts and graphs.

We progress in a straight line at unravelling the truth and exposing these global warming scientist scammers for what they are: crooks driven by the overweening desire for money, power and glory.

I would like to have a measured debate with a moderate climate change supporter, but I don't think there are any. That is because their basic position is so rigid. "This is what is happening, you are causing it, we must impose trillions of dollars of tax to stop it, and that's it." No room for debate. And that's why their "arguments" all go round in circles, because they inevitably retreat to this same point, and the idea that dissent is treason.

As they say, you can always argue with a Warmist, but then again, you can always argue with a barnyard animal, for all it'll get you.

My vision is of the first President Of Europe, Herman Van Rompuy, setting out realistic conditions for "global management our our planet", as he puts it.

"The constitution of Man is so composed that the individual cannot function efficiently without the alignment of each and every part and organ of his anatomy. As the average individual is incapable, in an unformed and uncultured state, as witness the barbarians of the jungle, so must he be trained into a coordination of his organic functions by exercise, education, work toward specific goals. We particularly and specifically note that the individual must be directed from without to accomplish his exercise, education, and work. He must be made to realize this, for only then can he be made to function efficiently in the role assigned to him.

"Any tenets of rugged individualism, personal determinism, self-will, imagination, and personal creativeness are alike in the masses antipathetic to the good of the Greater State. These willful and unaligned forces are no more than illnesses which will bring about disaffection, disunity, and at length the collapse of the group to which the individual is attached."

He may not say it, of course; that's what visions are all about.

Edited December 6, 2009 by RickBradford

[nisakiman]

Just read this in the paper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...o-new-poll.html

It would seem that considerable numbers of people can see through the smoke and mirrors approach of the AGW lobby.

A pertinent point in the article is this:

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Professor Phil Jones, who headed the CRU and who has stood aside after the leak of the emails, has received more than £13 million in funding for his research.

Good work if you can get it, what? No wonder they wanted to keep the AGW ball rolling.

[RickBradford]

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will, in the future, occupy a major portion of the intelligence community's assets."

This was the assessment of the CIA, after a querulous conference held among the U.S.'s leading climate scientists.

And the precise climatic change they were talking about?

"The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally called the Neo-Boreal or Little Ice Age."

The official document, from 1974, is eerie in its similarities to today. The certainty among some scientists despite skimpy data, squabbling between scientists, the political interventions and funding, oh, it's all there. There was even talk of war to grab food resources, almost identical to the numerous groups today who state that global warming will cause water shortages and hence trigger wars for control of a disappearing resource.

Interesting reading, but only for those with a serious interest in researching the history of this subject as opposed to simply spouting dogma, is here.

A good summary of the same situation is available here.

Edited December 6, 2009 by RickBradford

[teatree]

Just read this in the paper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...o-new-poll.html

It would seem that considerable numbers of people can see through the smoke and mirrors approach of the AGW lobby.

A pertinent point in the article is this:

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Professor Phil Jones, who headed the CRU and who has stood aside after the leak of the emails, has received more than £13 million in funding for his research.

Good work if you can get it, what? No wonder they wanted to keep the AGW ball rolling.

Where did the 13 million pounds come from? Let's think....was it government??? The same organisation that is going to benefit from carbon tax????

[brahmburgers]

To me, climate change is a sideshow to the real problems stemming from an overburdoning population of one species on a finite planet.

Overpopulation, decimation of habitat, rapacious killing off of species, runaway pollution, peoples' general ignorance of husbandry of this planet - those are the most pressing issues.

I personally don't care a whole lot if some islands disappear and/or some large cities sink in their own muck. People can travel to higher ground. Desertification is also a serious problem in many places (not least; Beijing), yet even those problems take a back seat to the problems mentioned in the 2nd paragraph above.

I think many people believe in GW because it appears to be a tool to lessen use of fossil fuels, and a way to lessen pollution in general. Everyone, on both sides of the debate, can agree that pollution is completely out of hand.

A couple sobering observations:

Astronauts can see haze covering each large city, when viewed from space.

Jacques Cousteau, inventor of the aqualung (scuba), has dived in waters worldwide, reported that diving in Arctic and Antarctic waters, showed noticeable affects of man-made pollution. - and that was about 25 years ago.

As for taxes, I haven't been convinced that taxes are a way out of pollution problems. It so happens, human nature is such that, waiting for voluntary action won't work, so then it becomes necessary for actions which compel compliance. Just as few people would pay taxes voluntarily, so there are tax protocols in place to force people to pay a share. People use the benefits of taxes (schools, bridges, police, roads, etc) but don't appreciate that taxes pay for them. Taxes for carbon emissions reduction are a harder sell because the benefits are farther afield and difficult to explain.

As for governments wasting money based on false data (whether intentionally falsified of otherwise) the list could go on for pages ad infinitum.

If leaders of polluting countries could be trusted to implement pollution reducing measures, then much of the problem would be moot. But leaders are people, and people are flawed and selfish and most often only think about what they can gain for themselves and their families in the short term. That's why quotas/goals (for carbon emission reductions and such) are bandied around in conferences like Kyoto and Copenhagen.

Edited December 6, 2009 by brahmburgers

[RickBradford]

And, by the way, The Maldives aren't going under, either.

[JR Texas]

To me, climate change is a sideshow to the real problems stemming from an overburdoning population of one species on a finite planet.

Overpopulation, decimation of habitat, rapacious killing off of species, runaway pollution, peoples' general ignorance of husbandry of this planet - those are the most pressing issues.

I personally don't care a whole lot if some islands disappear and/or some large cities sink in their own muck. People can travel to higher ground. Desertification is also a serious problem in many places (not least; Beijing), yet even those problems take a back seat to the problems mentioned in the 2nd paragraph above.

I think many people believe in GW because it appears to be a tool to lessen use of fossil fuels, and a way to lessen pollution in general. Everyone, on both sides of the debate, can agree that pollution is completely out of hand.

A couple sobering observations:

Astronauts can see haze covering each large city, when viewed from space.

Jacques Cousteau, inventor of the aqualung (scuba), has dived in waters worldwide, reported that diving in Arctic and Antarctic waters, showed noticeable affects of man-made pollution. - and that was about 25 years ago.

As for taxes, I haven't been convinced that taxes are a way out of pollution problems. It so happens, human nature is such that, waiting for voluntary action won't work, so then it becomes necessary for actions which compel compliance. Just as few people would pay taxes voluntarily, so there are tax protocols in place to force people to pay a share. People use the benefits of taxes (schools, bridges, police, roads, etc) but don't appreciate that taxes pay for them. Taxes for carbon emissions reduction are a harder sell because the benefits are farther afield and difficult to explain.

As for governments wasting money based on false data (whether intentionally falsified of otherwise) the list could go on for pages ad infinitum.

If leaders of polluting countries could be trusted to implement pollution reducing measures, then much of the problem would be moot. But leaders are people, and people are flawed and selfish and most often only think about what they can gain for themselves and their families in the short term. That's why quotas/goals (for carbon emission reductions and such) are bandied around in conferences like Kyoto and Copenhagen.

In one sense you are correct.........overpopulation is probably our most serious problem. But we can't do much about that. We should have targeted a maximum human population of about, maybe, 2 billion. We lost that chance a long time ago and the population continues to go up.

The way I see it, there are two primary drivers: overpopulation and energy. Each is like a catalyst in a chemical reaction.........alter one and you alter a lot of things.

Not surprisingly, the same people who are trying to prevent us from moving past Stone Age Energy technology are the same people that are trying to prevent positive action on population. They are totally blinded by emotion and religion..........reason and science are not really part of their mindset.

We can certainly do more to reduce population levels. And we should encourage politicians to take the problem very seriously.

But we must take massive and immediate action to move our energy platform away from its current big, expensive, centralized, immobile form.....to a small, inexpensive, decentralized/localized, mobile form.

The former centralized system leads to slavery.........the latter decentralized system leads to freedom (and also solves the environmental problems facing us and will allow impoverished people to make better reproductive decisions).

It is interesting that for the past 800,000 years CO2 levels did not go over 300 ppm. That only happened recently, thus breaking a long, natural cycle.

Our prehuman ancestors, some 800,000 years ago, were blinded by emotion/religion/mysticism etc. Science and reason were not part of their mindset.

Fortunately some of us have evolved beyond the mindset of the past and embraced reason and science.

The general public, unlike most scientists, are sort of caught in a place where science, religion, emotion and reason play. Fortunately, most people know when to go to a witchdoctor and when to go to the hospital.

It is the same with global warming and climate change..........most people understand how to separate BIG OIL propaganda from scientific facts.

Something similar has already happened. The tobacco industry used the same tactics (in fact, BIG OIL is using the same tactics that the tobacco industry used years before).........they failed. People saw through what they were doing and knew why they were doing it.

Here come the lawsuits.............can you see them coming BOLs?

[JR Texas]

Just read this in the paper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...o-new-poll.html

It would seem that considerable numbers of people can see through the smoke and mirrors approach of the AGW lobby.

A pertinent point in the article is this:

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Professor Phil Jones, who headed the CRU and who has stood aside after the leak of the emails, has received more than £13 million in funding for his research.

Good work if you can get it, what? No wonder they wanted to keep the AGW ball rolling.

So what? What you have left out are answers to these questions:

1) Who received the funding? individual person? research institution?

2) Was the money for one year? five years? ten years?

3) Was any of the money targeted for him alone? I am assuming he gets a salary independent of the grant.

By omitting the information above, you make it sound like he has done something illegal, like taking all of the money, depositing it in a bank, doing no research with it, and running off to the Bahamas to sip Margaritas under the sun.

But that is what all of the BOLs do........post a constant stream of misinformation, carefully omitting facts that might make your position weak or silly or just plain wrong.

Additional note: If he wanted to make big money he would go work for BIG OIL. Most researchers do not make a lot of money........heads of major research institutions do make good money, but nothing compared to what BIG OIL would pay them to switch sides.