[Vern]

I would suggest that the use of "Prison Planet" developed by broadcaster Alex Jones (an accepted conspiracy theorist) is possibly not the best place to gain credible and impartial information about anything.

Nevertheless; Global Warming was overstated by using September climate results for October, thus producing a false indication of warming when the globe is actually cooling and has been since the year 2000.

[Vern]

Anyone who does not think that Global Warming is a scam just throw a test scenario out there by advocating that we abandon Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is about MONEY. Scam artists want it and they are very resourceful.

[dentstudent]

Am I right in thinking then that businesses with a vested interest in, well, money, effectively "bought" scientists and got them to fudge or falsely put forwards figures that would indicate that GW is actually occuring, thus promoting an influx of funds and business opportunities which would not otherwise be there?

[Vern]

Am I right in thinking then that businesses with a vested interest in, well, money, effectively "bought" scientists and got them to fudge or falsely put forwards figures that would indicate that GW is actually occuring, thus promoting an influx of funds and business opportunities which would not otherwise be there?

The scientists who know about weather say we are in a normal weather cycle.

[dentstudent]

Yes, well I can see how an astronomer who studies the evolution and space-time relations of the universe would have a better understanding than all those climatologists out there.

[dentstudent]

BTW, though I know you know this, scientists who study "weather" are meteorologists.

[Vern]

Don't get me wrong. I am all for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. What I am against is the scam. The Cap and Trade deal in the Kyoto agreement; in fact the whole of the Kyoto agreement is that scam. The agreement would not reduce greenhouse gases. It would just move the producers of it from one place to another.

[Vern]

BTW, though I know you know this, scientists who study "weather" are meteorologists.

Oops; typing too quick; thanks; excuse me while I EDIT.

[Vern]

Yes, well I can see how an astronomer who studies the evolution and space-time relations of the universe would have a better understanding than all those climatologists out there.

I think you will find that most climatologists say we are in a normal cycle.

[dentstudent]

Yes, well I can see how an astronomer who studies the evolution and space-time relations of the universe would have a better understanding than all those climatologists out there.

I think you will find that most climatologists say we are in a normal cycle.

None of the climatologists that I know do.....

[Vern]

Heres the link

Now I'll get the quote; just a second.

For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place. Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.

[dentstudent]

Don't get me wrong. I am all for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. What I am against is the scam. The Cap and Trade deal in the Kyoto agreement; in fact the whole of the Kyoto agreement is that scam. The agreement would not reduce greenhouse gases. It would just move the producers of it from one place to another.

I think that "scam" is not the right word. I agree that the Kyoto agreement was perhaps not the best, but at the time, it was necessary. But of course, the lifespan of the KA is almost over, and we await the new agreement very soon.

There are many links within this forum that deal with attributes of CC (of course it's CC - GW was a media term), so I'm not going to reproduce it here. Please take the time out to have a look through them. Whether you agree that it is anthropogenic or not, there is a clear increase in various GHG's which will be detrimental to ecologies and hence societies worldwide (some will heat up, others will cool, some will get wetter, some will get drier, some may even remain constant!). There is more to it that merely the cap and trade discussion.

[dentstudent]

Heres the link

Now I'll get the quote; just a second.

For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place. Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.

Look - I'm not going to even begin reading a paper about CC that is 10 years old.

[Vern]

Look - I'm not going to even begin reading a paper about CC that is 10 years old.

That's how long it has been since there was any warming. Up to then there was warming. Since then we have had global cooling. The paper just pointed out that the amount of warming was about an order of magnitude less than that predicted.

[yor_on]

Vern, I agree fully on the Kyoto treatise to be a 'scam'.
Buying 'rights' from undeveloped countries without their own coal powered plants etc, to add to the greenhouse gases is amongst the worst scams I know.
It's just an excuse for keeping on 'shitting' on our Earth without having to take any responsibility.
It's like India said when asked to stop 'developing' their industry.

-Why should we pay for the negligence shown by those that already have gone through the same 'industrial cycle' that we want.
Everyone want to have a 'good life'.
Not only the developed world.
They also said that they would start to take it seriously when the developed countries drew back on their own pollution.

And I understand them.

[yor_on]

I forgot to mention Greenland

Greenland is melting as well as the the Antarctic Peninsula, but not the Antarctic mountain ice sheets. On the other tentacle we can't be sure what's happening under those ice sheets. The ice tunnels with freeflowing water that lubricates and allows the ice sheets to start moving as a whole to finally break up at deep water, is very difficult to foresee and follow.

There have recently been a try on Greenland to follow one of those tunnels with a camera, but it got stuck unfortunately. And it may also be so that not all tunnels goes down to the bottom. But on Greenland it is whole ice sheets that moves as one with a velocity (as of fastest) of about 40 meter/24 hours. It is the fastest movement anyone has measured as yet. And when they meet deep water they finally break up and starts to melt. If all of Greenland melts scientists expect water levels to rise about seven meters.

As a 'by side' it can be mentioned that glaciers is not ice all through.
It seems that they are 'honeycombed' with small 'chambers' filled with water.
That may go some way to explain how the Glaciers can 'move around' obstacles in their path without breaking apart.

There has recently came a Paper from the climate scientist Jim Hansen with colleagues in which he suggests that the Earth System sensitivity is greater than the Charney sensitivity. The standard (Charney) sensitivity is defined as " the global mean surface temperature anomaly response to a doubling of CO2 --- with other boundary conditions staying the same. ---" and there it will be your choice of static boundary conditions that decide the outcomes. In the Hansen's scenario all of those conditions are allowed to vary and interact with the temperature and so allows for a much more fluid response by the weather/temperature to those feedbacks.

here is a link to the Preprint
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf

[justaskin]

Hi yor_on
I don't think quoting Jim Hansen does your argument any favours.You may as well have thrown Al Gore in for good measure.
I will join you when They
Stop playing sport at night.
Stop flying actors,sportsmen,global warming alarmists and tourists all around the world.
Yor_on make no mistake about it CC is not about saving the planet.It is about the two most important things to humans.
MONEY and POWER and not necessarily in that order.
Oh I forgot when we stop doubling the world population every 10 years

Cheers
justaskin

[lyner]

would he have the balls to reject carbon trading as the sham it really is?

[yor_on]

SC?
Hansen and the 'carbon scam' (Kyoto).
Is that what you wondering about:)

I think he would agree with both Vern and me, but I don't know?

I've seen that in the States it seems as much what politics you trust as scientific evidence.
Maybe it's like that everywhere, in different disguises:)

But to me 'Global Warming' is happening, and even though we don't want it, I can't really see Earth care for our 'opinion'?

So whether Hansen agree to it being a scam is not the uppermost 'fact' to my mind.
I don't want to 'preach' SC.
But I do have my own view:)

The links speaks for them self I think.

[lyner]

I was referring to 'the president', actually.