How does this fit with the BS "they" feed us on global warming? [Archive]

Skyryder

4th December 2010, 08:53

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/2010-will-be-top-three-hottest-years-on-record.php

There's heaps of links on this.

And closer to home.

"In the Waikato, we're seeing low soil moisture levels that we don't normally expect to see until the end of January and after the winter we've had that's not good at all," says Stew Wadey, Federated Farmers Waikato provincial president.

We're also experiencing higher temperatures than normal, on Sunday Hamilton recorded the highest temperature for November in 100 years. This certainly doesn't help and due to evapotranspiration, we're losing in excess of 5 millilitres a day of soil moisture due to the heat.

FROM http://www.fedfarm.org.nz/n2539.html

This link below is pretty lengthy. It debunks Lord Monkton who is one of the better known climate change deniers.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Skyryder

onearmedbandit

4th December 2010, 09:02

It's no longer referred to as 'Global Warming', rather 'Climate Change'. I guess no one can argue with them now. Fuckers.

MSTRS

4th December 2010, 09:03

...due to evapotranspiration, we're losing in excess of 5 millilitres a day of soil moisture due to the heat....

Scary! That's like, a teaspoon of water EVERY day. From an area the size of Waikato, no less.
:shit:

DEATH_INC.

4th December 2010, 12:02

We're also experiencing higher temperatures than normal, on Sunday Hamilton recorded the highest temperature for November in 100 years.

Jesus....it's farkin cold in the northern hemisphere, so of course it's gonna be farkin hot down here. Duh!

Jantar

4th December 2010, 13:16

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/2010-will-be-top-three-hottest-years-on-record.php

....

From your link:
And all of this has occurred in a year where there was a declining El Niño effect and a very strong La Niña cooling things down--which according the UK's Met Office will hold global temperatures down enough so that 2011 will likely not set a new record, even if being in the top 10 warmest years recorded.

This paragraph sums up most of it really. "..there was a declining El Niño effect.." and as any climatologist will tell you, the effects on temperature lag El-Nino and La-Nina by 6 to 9 months. The recent La-Nina started to show up in May, and its only in November that global temperatures are really starting to fall. The Tropics have already dropped below the 1979-1998 average, and the Global anomaly has fallen from 0.603 in september to 0.381 in November.

Yes, New Zealand is currently seeing a warm spell of weather, (not climate) and the reason can be seen right here: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

Note the very warm patch of water in the Tasman sea. It has been growing warmer there ever since the blocking high established itsel around 15 days ago. This is typical of a southern La-Nina pattern, and I'm picking warm dry conditions on average right through until at least May. The cold water south of Australia may cool down coastal areas of westrn New Zealand in mid summer, but probably won't have any major effect on the rest of the country.

JimO

4th December 2010, 13:24

its got fuck all to do with climate and everything to do with money

Swoop

4th December 2010, 14:01

Probably caused by the "hole in the ozone layer".
That has become substantially smaller...

Fucking scaremongers.

James Deuce

4th December 2010, 14:16

I remember the Global Cooling scare of the 70s. Combine that with the ever present threat of Nuclear War and you had really paranoid kids worrying about stuff that they shouldn't be thinking about.

This is just another load of bollocks designed to create an industry that harvests money on a global scale. Oops.

Climate changes. Get over it. It doesn't matter what causes the change, once we notice its effects it's too late to "fix" it. Spend money learning to adapt, not trying ineffective retrograde steps that impoverish the majority of the world's population. Oops.

There is a theory on modern human development that postulates that we're descended from a family of 40 people escaping a major drought that overwhelmed the African continent 1 million years ago. Their major strength was imagination. They created water and food caches as they tried to escape dwindling resources.

40 people.

Usarka

4th December 2010, 15:00

40 people.

Hows it going cuz!

ellipsis

4th December 2010, 15:35

its got fuck all to do with climate and everything to do with money

....not unlike the Romans congealing a lot of the older beliefs, religions etc into their all powerful scare machine, the RC Church....kept the worlds nuts in its grasp for nigh on two thousand years....all for power and money extorted through fear....

....a lot of humanity...western...can see through that now....but it doesnt mean they havent got over their need to fear something.....perfect time for a bunch of money hungry bastards to feed them as much as they like....

.....probably is due in some part, to mans urge to keep getting bigger and better and more careless with the planet....

....if their is a god, Im in the shit.....if we have fucked the planet , we are in the shit.....I know only a couple or three, green minded people that dont drive or have a toaster....but I seem to be surrounded by greenies.....it has taken on a cultish type status.....the new religion....based on twisted truths and destined to make someone a lot of money...

James Deuce

4th December 2010, 15:43

Hows it going cuz!

That's the spirit!

Jantar

4th December 2010, 15:48

...This link below is pretty lengthy. It debunks Lord Monkton who is one of the better known climate change deniers.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Two points.

First of all, why would you call Lord Monkton a climate change denier? From my reading of him, and watching a few live prestentations (eg Chicago conference), I have never heard him deny climate change. Rather he shows climate change all the back to the RWP.

Now to that presentation by Abraham. He certainly doesn't debunk Monkton anywhere. he raises strawman aguments, claiming that Monkton said xyz, when actually Monton had said something totally different.

Here is Monkton's response: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf

LBD

4th December 2010, 15:52

Global warming or climate change, lies or not, ....we cannot expect to take billions of tons of hydracarbons laying relitively inert in natural resoviors below the earths surface, and convert it to gasses and pollutants in the atmosphere, and not expect changes as a consequence....

carbonhed

4th December 2010, 16:02

"In the Waikato, we're seeing low soil moisture levels that we don't normally expect to see until the end of January and after the winter we've had that's not good at all," says Stew Wadey, Federated Farmers Waikato provincial president.

We're also experiencing higher temperatures than normal, on Sunday Hamilton recorded the highest temperature for November in 100 years. This certainly doesn't help and due to evapotranspiration, we're losing in excess of 5 millilitres a day of soil moisture due to the heat.[/I]

Skyryder

Holy cow! They've got weather in the Waikato! Colour me convinced.

Actually I'm kind of suprised that your lefty spidey sense hasn't given you the inkling yet that it's time to slither on to the next great religious cause. People are starting to snigger and point. Soon they'll be wanting the billions you've pissed away returned.

How's Cancun working for you? :facepalm:

Jantar

4th December 2010, 16:25

How's Cancun working for you? :facepalm:

I see Japan are refusing to extend the Kyoto agreement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/01/cancun-climate-change-summit-japan-kyoto

The brief statement, made by Jun Arima, an official in the government’s economics trade and industry department, in an open session, was the strongest yet made against the protocol by one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

He said: “Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances.”

Skyryder

4th December 2010, 16:31

Holy cow! They've got weather in the Waikato! Colour me convinced.

Actually I'm kind of suprised that your lefty spidey sense hasn't given you the inkling yet that it's time to slither on to the next great religious cause. People are starting to snigger and point. Soon they'll be wanting the billions you've pissed away returned.

How's Cancun working for you? :facepalm:

Just the sort of post that shows why I do not post on here as often as I used to. Try and add something to the debate instead the flippant and sarco response.

Skyryder

carbonhed

4th December 2010, 16:38

I see Japan are refusing to extend the Kyoto agreement.

The wheels have fallen off this particular bandwagon but it's still got enough momentum to cost us the other arm and leg.

Skyryder

4th December 2010, 17:15

From your link:

This paragraph sums up most of it really. "..there was a declining El Niño effect.." and as any climatologist will tell you, the effects on temperature lag El-Nino and La-Nina by 6 to 9 months. The recent La-Nina started to show up in May, and its only in November that global temperatures are really starting to fall. The Tropics have already dropped below the 1979-1998 average, and the Global anomaly has fallen from 0.603 in september to 0.381 in November.

Yes, New Zealand is currently seeing a warm spell of weather, (not climate) and the reason can be seen right here: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

Note the very warm patch of water in the Tasman sea. It has been growing warmer there ever since the blocking high established itsel around 15 days ago. This is typical of a southern La-Nina pattern, and I'm picking warm dry conditions on average right through until at least May. The cold water south of Australia may cool down coastal areas of westrn New Zealand in mid summer, but probably won't have any major effect on the rest of the country.

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the planet is getting warmer. Most, not all believe the cause to be CO2 emissions.
Monkton refutes arguements that show an increase in climate change.

i read his response and was not that impressed. i don't have the necessary training to refute Monkton's response but since he has no qualifications and is allied to the 'climate deniers' I tend to question his arguments and go with those that have a proven track record in what they are talking about. i.e. those that have been peer reviewed and published.

Most not all of the scientific community hold the view that the the earth is getting warmer due to CO2 emissions. Some dispute this but they are in the 'minority.'

Whatever the cause we now have methane being released in small amounts.

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm

Vast amounts of methane are bubbling up from the East Siberian sea, raising fears of a massive hike in global warming.

Permafrost in the seabed has been previously assumed to act as an effective cap for the enormous amount of methane in the area.

But researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Alaska and Stockholm University have found that eight million tonnes of methane are currently leaking into the atmosphere every year.

"The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans," said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF's International Arctic Research Center. "Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap."

It's not known how long the methane release has been going on. But models suggest that if just one percent of the methane contained in the region were released, it would cause rapid warming.

Earlier periods of rapid climate change have been associated with sudden releases of methane from the seabed.

During the ISSS expedition measurements of methane were made in the seabed, at different depths in the water and in the overlying air at over one hundred locations.

Combined with measurements from previous expeditions, it was found that methane concentrations in seawater are elevated in 80 percent of sea bottom samples and in more than half of the surface water samples and air samples.

Some areas had concentrations up to 100 times above the natural background levels, and the ISSS expedition discovered methane chimneys on the ocean floor and fields of methane bubbles that rose to the surface of the sea so fast that the methane did not have time to dissolve in the seawater.

"Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already," she said. "If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger."

The full study appears in Science.

James Deuce

4th December 2010, 17:26

The claimed temperature increase is mostly ascribed to atmospheric methane, which has increased 120% since the advent of industrialisation.

Jantar

4th December 2010, 18:42

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the planet is getting warmer.

Not true at all. If there is concensus, then it is not science. There is no way that the scientific community would ever say there is a concensus. There is a general agreement that the earth has been warming for the past 150 - 200 years; ever since the Little Ice Age. Now maybe you have an explanation as to how how the planet can recover from a LIA and not warm up? Logically the planet has been warming, but that doesn't mean it is still warming. A least mean square regression of the data from 2000 to 2010 shows that there has been a slight overall cooling, despite the El-Nino driven high for 2010. Even Phil Jones from UEA has acknowledged that.

Most, not all believe the cause to be CO2 emissions.
Monkton refutes arguements that show an increase in climate change.

Do you have a source for this claim? If you said that "Most, not all believe a cause to be CO2 emissions" then I would agree entirely. The effect is calculable and beyond dispute. there is disagreement about the amount of the CO2 increase that is anthropogenic, and the amount that is natural.

i read his response and was not that impressed. i don't have the necessary training to refute Monkton's response but since he has no qualifications and is allied to the 'climate deniers' I tend to question his arguments and go with those that have a proven track record in what they are talking about. i.e. those that have been peer reviewed and published.

Maybe you should review Monkton again. The majority of his data is from peer reviewed and published sources. A further large part is from the IPCC itself, and the very small remainder is referenced so the reader can repeat the research.

Most not all of the scientific community hold the view that the the earth is getting warmer due to CO2 emissions. Some dispute this but they are in the 'minority.'
Again, do you have a source for this claim? As before, most agree that CO2 is a contributer, but all efforts to place numbers in one camp or the other have failed (from both sides of the argument). The reason why attempts to lable scientists in one camp or the other is because science doesn't work that way. Scientists look at what they know, and ask about the things they don't know. eg, there is dispute about the value of feed backs on the forcing. IPCC put forward the figure of +2.7. Sure enough if a feedback of +2.7 is applied to the forcing from change in CO2 concentration then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998. It doesn't explain the failure to increase since then, nor is there any allowance for any other forcing. If that same +2.7 is applied to the 0.3% increase in TSI then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998, and it explains the failure to increase since then, but there isn't any allowance for any other forcing.

So I'm of the camp the feedback value is much lower, and probably less than unity. Some even go so far as to claim a negative feedback. But if that is the case the data doen't yet add up.

Unfortuantely, some in the climate science communtity have presented computer model outputs as if it is actual data. Media then pick up on this and make claims such as the "The earth may have warmed 0.7 C since 1979." If they actually read the research they would find error bars and other statements that plea for caution.

Whatever the cause we now have methane being released in small amounts.

.... snip ...

The full study appears in Science.

And this is one of the natural drivers that further complicate the issue. But this methane release isn't new. I learnt about it in primary school in the early 1960s where we saw a movie of scientists burning the gasses given off through the tundra in Siberia.

James Deuce

4th December 2010, 18:56

And this is one of the natural drivers that further complicate the issue. But this methane release isn't new. I learnt about it in primary school in the early 1960s where we saw a movie of scientists burning the gasses given off through the tundra in Siberia.

Natural methane emissions haven't substantially increased compared to the methane given off in the extraction of carbon based fuels.

New report out just today, heard on BBC World.

carbonhed

4th December 2010, 19:02

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the planet is getting warmer. Most, not all believe the cause to be CO2 emissions.
[/I]

The planet's been warming since the end of the Little Ice age. CO2 has risen, at least in part, due to human emissions. Raised CO2 levels should lead to some limited warming. None of these points are actually in much dispute at all.

The crux of the dispute lies around the feedbacks that amplify the CO2 derived warming into something much more serious. There is no empirical evidence for these feedbacks. They are all derived from the deeply inadequate computer models of the atmosphere. They don't adequately model the ocean circultion. Hell they don't even know how cloud cover works.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand why people suppress opposimg views, exagerate the threats, and flat out fabricate results.

Even little old NZ has it's own bullshit artist in Dr Salinger who'se manipulated our own climate history. Tragically we can't check his workings because the dog ate his homework... as per fucking usual with these bastards.

Sarcasm and flippancy may seem harsh but stick around... ridicule, loathing and contempt will surely follow.

Jantar

4th December 2010, 19:06

Natural methane emissions haven't substantially increased compared to the methane given off in the extraction of carbon based fuels.

New report out just today, heard on BBC World.

Do youhave a link? I have tried searching the BBC World website but can't easily find any new references.

sinned

4th December 2010, 19:13

The wheels have fallen off this particular bandwagon but it's still got enough momentum to cost us the other arm and leg.

Check this out (http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/scientific-american-readers-survey-rejects-warmism/) - "I cannot recall ever before seeing such a huge mismatch between the views of the establishment — the politicians, the media, the chattering classes — and real people, on any issue."

I am not giving up riding the bike any time soon.

Skyryder

4th December 2010, 20:07

Not true at all. If there is concensus, then it is not science. There is no way that the scientific community would ever say there is a concensus. There is a general agreement that the earth has been warming for the past 150 - 200 years; ever since the Little Ice Age. Now maybe you have an explanation as to how how the planet can recover from a LIA and not warm up? Logically the planet has been warming, but that doesn't mean it is still warming. A least mean square regression of the data from 2000 to 2010 shows that there has been a slight overall cooling, despite the El-Nino driven high for 2010. Even Phil Jones from UEA has acknowledged that.

Do you have a source for this claim? If you said that "Most, not all believe a cause to be CO2 emissions" then I would agree entirely. The effect is calculable and beyond dispute. there is disagreement about the amount of the CO2 increase that is anthropogenic, and the amount that is natural.

Maybe you should review Monkton again. The majority of his data is from peer reviewed and published sources. A further large part is from the IPCC itself, and the very small remainder is referenced so the reader can repeat the research.

Again, do you have a source for this claim? As before, most agree that CO2 is a contributer, but all efforts to place numbers in one camp or the other have failed (from both sides of the argument). The reason why attempts to lable scientists in one camp or the other is because science doesn't work that way. Scientists look at what they know, and ask about the things they don't know. eg, there is dispute about the value of feed backs on the forcing. IPCC put forward the figure of +2.7. Sure enough if a feedback of +2.7 is applied to the forcing from change in CO2 concentration then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998. It doesn't explain the failure to increase since then, nor is there any allowance for any other forcing. If that same +2.7 is applied to the 0.3% increase in TSI then that neatly explains the temperature rise from 1979 to 1998, and it explains the failure to increase since then, but there isn't any allowance for any other forcing.

So I'm of the camp the feedback value is much lower, and probably less than unity. Some even go so far as to claim a negative feedback. But if that is the case the data doen't yet add up.

Unfortuantely, some in the climate science communtity have presented computer model outputs as if it is actual data. Media then pick up on this and make claims such as the "The earth may have warmed 0.7 C since 1979." If they actually read the research they would find error bars and other statements that plea for caution.

And this is one of the natural drivers that further complicate the issue. But this methane release isn't new. I learnt about it in primary school in the early 1960s where we saw a movie of scientists burning the gasses given off through the tundra in Siberia.

The consensus is my interpretation of what I read on the subject and that is the scientific community accepts that the earth is getting warmer. Most agree that this caused by CO2 emissions.

i tend to think that that most opposition from the community is based on their opposition to Carbon trading schemes and as such they support data that is in accordance with opposition to climate change due to CO2 emissions. That's just my personal opinion.
As for links we can both find links to support our position.

I don't know if methane levels are increasing or not. But the scientific community is worried on this issue.

Skyryder

Jantar

4th December 2010, 20:44

The consensus is my interpretation of what I read on the subject and that is the scientific community accepts that the earth is getting warmer. Most agree that this caused by CO2 emissions.
Now this is new. So what you are say is that the concensus is your belief. I can understand that because if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough then it can be taken a a truth. That is what has happened with the idea of concensus.

However actual data is what seperates religion from science and why most skeptics consider the warmist view to be a religion rather than science.

i tend to think that that most opposition from the community is based on their opposition to Carbon trading schemes and as such they support data that is in accordance with opposition to climate change due to CO2 emissions. That's just my personal opinion.
As for links we can both find links to support our position.

I don't know if methane levels are increasing or not. But the scientific community is worried on this issue.

Skyryder
Yes, the methane levels are increasing, and they have been increaing along with CO2 levels since measurements began. I don't believe that the scientific are worried by this at all, it is just something else to observe, comment on and, if possible, explain.

carbonhed

4th December 2010, 20:58

JimO

4th December 2010, 21:48

Just the sort of post that shows why I do not post on here as often as I used to. Try and add something to the debate instead the flippant and sarco response.

Skyryder

i thought you had committed suicide after labour lost the election

candor

4th December 2010, 23:07

Hmm I disavow all subject knowledge... but a mate who's a geologist says they must learn about climates in different time periods since the earths birth and from what he and his geo colleagues discern from intimate knowledge of this planets composition (fossils date mineral deposits amd show climate) is that these climate cycles have been extant since year dot. Man and our doings are so insignificant in this as to be (from memory) under half a percent of an influence.
These fluctuations are massive and naturally driven, our impact is as the impact of a louse on an elephant. Human vanity to claim any more influence.
Logical conclusion - our concern over trying to tweak our influence is ludicrous.
Many point out the economic interests in hyping the issue - what I see is a scheme to distract good activist stock from real issues by "fueling" a sideshow that plays on doomsday fears.

bikemike

4th December 2010, 23:23

Check this out (http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/scientific-american-readers-survey-rejects-warmism/) - "I cannot recall ever before seeing such a huge mismatch between the views of the establishment — the politicians, the media, the chattering classes — and real people, on any issue."

I am not giving up riding the bike any time soon.

I think this is entirely to be expected, and a worry. While the general scientific agreement holds that the recent rate at which we are changing the environment is so far outside the normal range over the period of our evolution as to be of huge concern, the lay person's innate need for meaning, purpose and a future cannot countenance such an overcast outlook - the common response is fear, transformed by the mob into denial and dismissal.

I wager that the problem of how to convey the very real concern and organise ultimately affordable limiting actions without setting this denial-ism in stone troubles most of this informed 'establishment'. Repeatedly we see revisions where previous worst-case-modelling is superseded by more up to date and accurate data, and modelling. 'They' have tried to show restraint, and caution, believing this is the best way to get us engaged, but in fact, the repeated remodelling and re-sampling is eroding faith in the numbers and models.

This idea that warm-ism is a religion is also to be expected, as for millennia, religions have held the populace in its sway, with fear, hell and damnation. Now a potentially real and near fear is on the cards we can only assume the messengers are religious nutters, as ever - but this is very lazy. For one, it is then to be considered a very unsuccessful religion that counts among its ranks mostly the priesthood and little of the intended flock.

The common complaint against the 'establishment' is that they always say things are better than they are, better chances of winning this war, home by Christmas, sound economy, god on our side, plenty of growth in the market still, great time to buy a house; optimism is what keeps us in the system, fear is what keeps us wanting to believe in the optimism. The Patriotic, Free Market optimism is the new religion, replacing the fear of old. Who wants to go back to the bad old days after all.
I don't see anything to suggest that this is being 'organised' as some kind of Shock Doctrine response either, sure, that approach works and is being used all over, very well, but in traumatic, catastrophic, extreme acute scenarios, not in slow burn, hard-to-pin-down, esoteric, out of reach climate science.

No, this is not a religion, though as an atheist I wish that it were, so that it might be more widely adopted.

Skyryder

5th December 2010, 10:24

Now this is new. So what you are say is that the concensus is your belief. I can understand that because if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough then it can be taken a a truth. That is what has happened with the idea of concensus.

However actual data is what seperates religion from science and why most skeptics consider the warmist view to be a religion rather than science.

Yes, the methane levels are increasing, and they have been increaing along with CO2 levels since measurements began. I don't believe that the scientific are worried by this at all, it is just something else to observe, comment on and, if possible, explain.

The belief that the planet is getting warmer is not a religion.

I agree that if you tell a lie often enough it can at times be accepted as the truth. this of course holds sway to the climate change deniers as to those that hold an opposite view.

Most of us form opinions on issues that we do not have any kind of expertise, based on consensus. There was a time when the 'consensus' held the view that the world was flat. There are no guarantees that the majority are right but given that the scientific community, that has some expertise in climate change, believes, based scientific data, that the earth is getting warmer, i am not going to disagree. To do so would suggest that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community.

There has of course been dramatic changes in the earths weather over the millenniums but the difference between that and now is the speed of the change that is now occuring.

Bottom line on this Janatar is the queastion

Is the earth getting warmer?

Is the earth getting colder?

is the earth's climate stable?

Skyryder

Skyryder

5th December 2010, 11:04

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 250,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. Our achievements over the decades show that thoughtful action based on the best available science can help safeguard our future and the future of our planet.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=global_warming_tmln&global_warming_tmln_general_topic_areas=global_war ming_tmln_industry

ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets.

Not hard to see where the opposition comes from with climate change. It's just pity so many believe this when the purpose of the opposition to climate change is to reduce the effects of climate change science to corperate shareholders dividends and corperate profits.

There are heaps of links on this. The opposition to global warming has come from those that have a vested interest to maintain the status quo. Sixteen mill buys a lot science. And that is just 'one' corperation.

Skyryder

Maha

5th December 2010, 11:47

Global Warming is a phenomenon dreamed up to entice the world population into buying products that have little or no effect on the worlds climate at all.
...even news reports state that 'weather patterns like this have not been seen for over 30 years'..
Really? so its nothing new then? just a weather cycle that happens once or twice in a life time?
I remember living in Taupo in 83' and the temps then were up in the 30's during summer. You dont see those temps in NZ that often 27 years on, if at all.
I just dont buy into it.

Owl

5th December 2010, 12:28

Is it too early to start preparing for Y3K?:facepalm:

carbonhed

5th December 2010, 13:04

ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets.

Not hard to see where the opposition comes from with climate change.
Skyryder

God you're a sleazy, smearing, bottom feeder aren't you?

$16 mill is a derisory sum of money compared to the billions stolen from Western taxpayers to fund your mania! It's been estimated that the US government alone has given 79 billion dollars to feed climate alarm. The UN? The UK? All the NGO's with an axe to grind?

Never mind the conversion of food into bio fuels so that smug lefty halfwits like you can fuel up their Prius' while the worlds poorest go hungry. Swine!

NighthawkNZ

5th December 2010, 13:50

So it's getting warmer? .... Well maybe not! :confused:

Because they have been disproved over and over about global warming they have changed it from global warming to climate change...

well my answer that the climate will alway change and that there is not a thing humans can do about it. It changed when we weren't on the Earth 5 or 6 times, and it will change again while we are here and it will change again when we are all gone... nothing can change that...

and if any of the super volcano's go again it will start a chain reaction and the cycle will start again... we will then have global warming and if the frozen methan in the oceans melt because of the warming, goodbye to life on earth, and then we have to start the cycle over again... happened before so will happen again... its not a matter of if... its a matter of when..

Jantar

5th December 2010, 15:44

.....
Bottom line on this Janatar is the queastion

Is the earth getting warmer?

Is the earth getting colder?

is the earth's climate stable?

Skyryder

Is the earth getting warmer? Not over the past decade. Not over the past 3 months. So probably not at the moment. In order to answer this question with a high degree of certainty we would need to have some method of measuring global temperatures right now. Oh, we do have... The UAH and RSS satelites. Both show that earth is currently cooling on a a daily, monthly or decadal measurement, but warming on an annual measurement.

Is the earth getting colder? Yes, over the past decade. Yes, over the past 3 months. So probably at the moment. In order to answer this question with a high degree of certainty we would need to have some method of measuring global temperatures right now. Oh, we do have... The UAH and RSS satelites. Both show that earth is currently cooling on a a daily, monthly or decadal measurement, but warming on an annual measurement.

Is the earth's climate stable? No, it never has been and never will be.

Laava

5th December 2010, 20:24

its got fuck all to do with climate and everything to do with money

Thats right! Politicians have decreed, let there be climate change and then make the population pay for it. Where is all the money from the ETS going to end up? Not in my pocket is my guess!

Winston001

5th December 2010, 20:29

I love a good argument - or even a bad one :innocent: - but for the record, you are debating the wrong issue. The question is not about the earth heating or cooling, or whether man-made emissions are causing it.

Its already decades too late for that.

The real challenge is pollution. 6.7 billion humans are poisoning the planet as we frantically scrabble through our lives. Incidents such as the BP oil-well in the Mexican Gulf bring reality into sharp focus.

The point of the ETS, Kyoto Protocol, IPCC reports etc is to curb the effects of pollution. But the media find it easier to report climate change so that's what they run with.

Jantar

5th December 2010, 20:46

....
The point of the ETS, Kyoto Protocol, IPCC reports etc is to curb the effects of pollution. But the media find it easier to report climate change so that's what they run with.

In that case, this debate is even more dishonest than ever. The ETS is the Emissions Trading Scheme, and it is based on carbon, that is not a pollutant.

The Kyoto Protocol is to limit CO2 emissions to halt Global Warming, nothing there about pollution either.

IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Change. Once again no mention of any pollutants. All the IPCC reports deal with climate and the effects of change. No mention on pollution and the effects of change.

There is nothing to suggest its about pollution.

Take the focus away from CO2, CH4, H2O etc and start concentrating on CFCs, heavy metals, aromatics etc and you'll have many more fighting with you than arguinag against you.

Woodman

5th December 2010, 21:19

God you're a sleazy, smearing, bottom feeder aren't you?

$16 mill is a derisory sum of money compared to the billions stolen from Western taxpayers to fund your mania! It's been estimated that the US government alone has given 79 billion dollars to feed climate alarm. The UN? The UK? All the NGO's with an axe to grind?

Never mind the conversion of food into bio fuels so that smug lefty halfwits like you can fuel up their Prius' while the worlds poorest go hungry. Swine!

If they are spending $79 billion dollars to feed climate alarm, then maybe there is a problem with climate change. Why do you automatically think its a conspiracy?

SPman

5th December 2010, 22:27

aahhh good old Lord Monckton - who, as well as asserting manmade change is nonsense, also maintains that he has invented a cure for HIV, multiple sclerosis, influenza and other incurable diseases.

I rather like Monbiots view..
To dismiss an entire canon of science on the basis of either no evidence or evidence that has already been debunked is to evince an astonishing level of self-belief. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, you know more about this subject (even if you show no sign of ever having studied it) than the thousands of intelligent people who have spent their lives working on it. Once you have have taken that leap of self-belief, once you have arrogated to yourself the authority otherwise vested in science, any faith is then possible. Your own views (and those of the small coterie who share them) become your sole reference points, and are therefore unchallengeable and immutable. You must believe yourself capable of anything. And, in a sense, you probably are.

of course, that can apply both ways......( I thought I'd get that one in first)

Winston001

5th December 2010, 22:47

In that case, this debate is even more dishonest than ever. The ETS is the Emissions Trading Scheme, and it is based on carbon, that is not a pollutant.

I'm afraid it is. Pollution is a complex subject and difficult to describe for the general population. However one thing most pollution has in common is the release of inorganic and organic carbon. So the most simple approach to reducing pollution is to reduce carbon release.

Think of all of the motor vehicles operating in the world at the moment. Never mind ships, aeroplanes, tractors etc etc. The carbon from exhaust emissions is staggering. Industry world-wide produces much more including carbon gases such as methane which have a significant greenhouse effect.

I have alluded in previous discussions to the acidification of the ocean by absorption of carbon. Shellfish cannot form shells and coral reefs are dying. It is real and all we can do is try to limit the damage.

Jantar

6th December 2010, 07:56

....Think of all of the motor vehicles operating in the world at the moment. Never mind ships, aeroplanes, tractors etc etc. The carbon from exhaust emissions is staggering. Industry world-wide produces much more including carbon gases such as methane which have a significant greenhouse effect. ....
A different fallacy, but still a false claim. There are very few industries that release Methane (CH4), most actually burn Methane to release energy and in turn release CO2 and H2O. Our natural gas here in New Zealand is used 75% in generating electricity, 10% at methanex for conversion to menthanol, 10% for domestic heating and 5% for transport. The only emmisions are H2O and CO2. The "industries" that release methane are agriculture, and guess what? Agriculture is mere a method of harnessing nature. If animals weren't farmed they would still exist in the wild, and would still emit methane, just as we do every time we fart.

Oh well, I'll have to leave this discussion for now, as I'm off to a week long Hydrology conference with this year's theme concentrating on Climate Change.

Swoop

6th December 2010, 12:41

Is it too early to start preparing for Y3K?:facepalm:
Absolutely NOT!!

For easy weekly payments of $29.95* I can get you fully prepared for the dreaded Y3K bug!

Act now! Don't delay.

*Prices may increase without notice.

ellipsis

6th December 2010, 12:46

Absolutely NOT!!

For easy weekly payments of $29.95* I can get you fully prepared for the dreaded Y3K bug!

Act now! Don't delay.

*Prices may increase without notice.

....if I join up now, are there any discounts and will our new toaster be covered by its standard warranty...

Swoop

6th December 2010, 14:24

....if I join up now, are there any discounts and will our new toaster be covered by its standard warranty...
We offer our standard 5+5* warranty! You will have to PM Toaster about his bike cover. If it's big enough to cover a 'busa then it should be able to cope with your ride.

Remember, Y3K isn't far away. Be prepared today!

Thank you for voting labour.

*(5 miles or 5 minutes, whichever comes first).

Brian d marge

6th December 2010, 14:33

nice and warm here

16 deg nice and sunny, Sposed to be middle of winter

One thing on a serious not the seasons HAVE shifted , its Autumn here , Winter will arrive but is a few weeks away yet

What ever will I do !

Stephen

Woodman

6th December 2010, 20:13

I think what will happen is that we humans being the intelligent beasties that we are will continue polluting the planet, whilst argueing about what constitutes pollution.

puddytat

6th December 2010, 21:10

I hope the powers to be, will after farting around for to fucking long at least hand out euthanasia tablets to make the coming catastropy a little more easier to handle for those that choose a quicker death rather than a prolonged descent into chaos & calamity....:blink:
Ive lost my faith in the species.
Money is the new faith.
Now wheres ma meds....:doobey:

ellipsis

6th December 2010, 21:22

...a change is as good as a holiday...google image up Trantor...if thats where we're goin, thats where we will end up....catastophes etc being taken into account, on the way there!!!...better start breedin' tough boys and girls, kiddies...ride yer fuckin bikes..while you can...

LBD

7th December 2010, 01:58

NighthawkNZ

7th December 2010, 06:13

All the planets in the Solar System are warming at present as the sun is going through one of its cycles... Dig deep enough on NASA website its there... but many other researches have come to the same conclusion. But they can't tax you on that... but search the web and the research is there...

The climate will always slowly change, it always has, and always will and there is nothing we puny humans can do about it...

We have volcano's and volcanic activity around the planet spewing up more shit than humans ever have. When Krakatoa blew its top back in 1883 it put up more shit on one eruption than the entire human race has every don combined through out history. It's due again...
The tectonic plates slowly shifting moving and drifting can and will slowly change weather pattern, as bigger land masses are formed and smaller ones disappear, Heck NZ is slowly stretching and will eventually disappear.
The sun going through various stages...Solar blasts slowly strip atmospheres off planets and cause holes in natural the defense of the planet (magnetic and ozone)
Ozone requires sunlight... what happens during the winter over the poles...
Gases created by every living creature and decomposng organisum, on the planet, birds, elephanets and wild buffalo to decomposing compost.
The is frozen methan slowly melting in the oceans, (admittly the vast deposits appear to be stable (phew) at present) but there are pockets slowly releasing the gas.
Every creature that breaths oxgyen and breaths out CO2, they breath, fart and and make gas...
Every warm blooded animal is creating heat while only a small fraction it is still heat and has to be added into any calculation.

The list simply goes on and on

The planet evolves, breaths or lives and goes through these cycles, it always has, and always will

Winston001

7th December 2010, 11:53

Very good NH - you've been reading the Russian scientist who attributes warming to solar activity. He has been answered but I can't be bothered finding the links.

Never mind all of that - what does the suns activity have to do with polluted rivers, air, and soil? We are causing that. And the core source......? Oil. For fuel, fertilisers, plastics, etc it's a wonderful product but we are careless in how we use it.

Brown Bear

7th December 2010, 15:00

You go Nighthawk,these wallies and there so called evidence is just trumped up by the powers that be.I totally agree with you but they will still trot out the same old bullshit even though it has more holes than a sieve.You can always count on a greenie to jump on global warming because it makes them feel important.Maybe they should have got more hugs as children.

avgas

7th December 2010, 15:44

Maybe they should have got more hugs as children.
Or a boot up the arse more often more likely

NighthawkNZ

7th December 2010, 15:44

Very good NH - you've been reading the Russian scientist who attributes warming to solar activity. He has been answered but I can't be bothered finding the links.

ummm not really I was taught that at school... fifth form if I remember correctly??? But also found the info on NASA's website which reminded me that hey I knew that... and like you I can't be bothered finding the links. :innocent: :blink:

Never mind all of that - what does the suns activity have to do with polluted rivers, air, and soil? We are causing that. And the core source......? Oil. For fuel, fertilisers, plastics, etc it's a wonderful product but we are careless in how we use it.

Thats a different subject to the orginal topic

How does this fit with the BS "they" feed us on global warming?

But yes pollution we (humans in general) have casued does need to be looked at, and there are ways to reducing it... and companies that cause alot of it need to take responsability, as well as on a personal level.

Including recycling more, but the cost of recycling needs to be reduced before it becomes truly viable...

The trading schemes like Koyto and the ETS will do nothing but make those at the right end richer... it starts at home and teaching the generation that is coming home not to make the mistakes our generation have. The planet is on a very fine balance, and we as a population are a part of that, and we have to stay in balance... at present, we are out of whack... :shit: :blink:

Winston001

7th December 2010, 16:15

The trading schemes like Koyto and the ETS will do nothing but make those at the right end richer... it starts at home and teaching the generation that is coming home not to make the mistakes our generation have. The planet is on a very fine balance, and we as a population are a part of that, and we have to stay in balance... at present, we are out of whack... :shit: :blink:

Absolutely mate - and that is why the Kyoto agreement was reached, why we have the ETS, and why carbon trading is carried out in a lot of countries. Human activities which release carbon tend to also pollute the environment.

As for the money, Christchurch City Council earns $1 million/year by selling carbon credits to a British company. How? The rubbish tip at Burnside captures methane instead of releasing it to the atmosphere - and that has a value.

Even better, the methane is then burned to heat the QEII pool complex. It is a win-win situation.