I'm a greeny and think that the ETS is a crock of faeces

[shrub]

An interesting news item in today's Herald: "The eastern US cooked for another day as unrelenting heat again sent thermometers past 100 degrees (38 Celsius) in urban "heat islands," buckled roads, slowed trains and pushed utilities toward the limit of the electrical grid's capacity.

Philadelphia hit 100 degrees for second straight day, breaking a record of 98 degrees (36.7 Celsius) set in 1999. Baltimore hit 100 for the third straight day and Newark, New Jersey, hit triple digits for the fourth straight day."

I realise we're talking weather here, but it seems that extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common, our televisions have recently been filled with film of severe flooding in Gisborne and June was the wettest June in Canterbury since records began. I also realised that these are not directly caused by climate change, but the conditions that lead to extreme weather events are more likely to occur as the planet warms up.

So what are we going to do about it? Ping the consumers an extra few dollars a week and wash our hands saying "we've done our bit"? Or should we recognise that the rules are changing and unless we're ready we'll be taken by surprise. The overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced of the reality of man made climate change and the few who aren't (like Roy Spencer) simply don't have a strong enough argument to convince anyone other than amateurs like us; so i am willing to listen to the experts who tell me that we have made a mess and it's about to bite us in the arse.

But what do we do about it? We bicker and argue about Al Gore's power bill, mistakes in the IPCC 4AR and whether Roy Spencer is influenced by Exxon Mobil. None of those are going to make one iota of difference in 5, 10 or 20 years time when we're struggling to adapt to a world that's changing faster than we can. In 10 years time we'll have bigger problems than paying an extra $5.00 a month in power and NZ will quite possibly be a third world country - unless we act now.

We're like the motorcycle shop owner who tried to do the TT2000 with only a tinted visor and ended up having to swallow his pride and pull over when night riding became too hard. We're not planning or preparing for the changes that are going to come. My guess is we'll all blame the government for not showing leadership, or the greens for not being persuasive enough or Al Gore for eating too many pies. We won't blame ourselves because that's not how we roll.

[mashman]

The Eastern US has been cooking, the UK has been cooking, what could the 2 have in common. A tenuous link would be the Gulf Stream...

[shrub]

It did indeed come from Drs own website. If you have evidence from an independent source then that would be interesting. He is still employed by NASA and I believe they have a policy of not allowing their employees to have secondary employment in similar or related fields. I suspect that the reference to Exxon-mobil comes from the implied relationship on Sourcewatch, which is also not an independent source.

I shall continue reading the papers you referenced in the morning when I'm not drinking a nice wine.

I admit that I was lazy and got that info from sourcewatch, which is a left leaning site (much as Dr. SPencer is right leaning), but the information on it is factual. I did a little more delving and found the following:

Dr. Spencer is a member of:

The Greening Earth Society, a project of the Western Fuels Association founded to promote the idea that global warming is beneficial to the planet.

The Heartland institute, which describes itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement" and well known for being funded by Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris.

The George C Marshall Institute, which was initially primarily focused on defence issues including advocating funding for Reagan’s Star Wars programme but has since branched out and become one of the leading conservative think tanks attempting to debunk climate change. Again funded by Exxon, but also Lockheed Martin, Haliburton and others

The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (now the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation) which is committed to bringing Biblical principles to environmental and resource stewardship and is partly funded by (you guess it) Exxon.

He is also a proponent of intelligent design, which seeks to redefine science to accept supernatural explanations and believes that the earth was created by God for man’s domination.

As I said before, I don't doubt his intellect and qualifications, but given his religious position and membership of bodies that are dependent on organisations like Exxon and Phillip Morris I believe his objectivity and creibility are sufficiently in doubt to mean we can't take his opinion at face value. I also find it hard to take anyone who believes that God created the earth for human beings all that seriousl either.

I'm a cynic and need to be convinced of most things and having a pile of letters after your name is not a guarantee of expertise or proof of correctness. Hell, in a few months I will have more letters after my name than in my name and I'm full of shit.

[Jantar]

Ah, I see you also rely on Exxonsecrets for much of your information. Greenpeace funded propaganda perhaps?

Lets not focus so much on who provides the information and instead look at whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. I believe Dr Roy Spencer to be a credible scientist, and so I link to him for information that isn't publicly available elsewhere. So what if he's a bible toting right winger. Religion and politics have nothing to do with science.

[Jantar]

Strange, in the conclusion to his article he says "The general lesson drawn from these records is that, as predicted by simple radiation balance models, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leads to warming of the planet. Human additions to greenhouse gases are very large compared to natural variations, therefore anthropogenically induced global climate change is a simple expectation as opposed to a surprise, and thus not a matter of serious debate."

Now tell me how that supports your position?

He draws that conclusion, but there is nothing that shows a link between measured temperatures and the increase in CO2 due to anthropogenic causes. I would believe it more if he could show that the increase in CO2 between say june 2003 and june 2008 (378 - 388 ppm) was matched by a similar increase in temperature (0.122 C). But in fact the temperature fell by 0.17 C. I know you have downloaded the data, and yes I have cherry picked the years. But the actual result shows that the conclusion is invalid.

[shrub]

So what if he's a bible toting right winger. Rel;igion and politics have nothing to do with science.

Call me a little conservative, but I find it hard to take anyone who believes in a man upstairs who is driving things seriously, after all that is a very short distance from fairies at the bottom of the garden. He probably believes in Satan and that the green movement is innately satanic (a very common belief in right wing Christians). And climate change has everything to do with politics - the right have made sure of that.

it's also important to remember that a fundamental part of Christian doctrine is that the earth was given to man by God for his use and dominion. Christians also believe that there will come a day when Christ returns to take up Christians to be with the Father, and that in essence the earth will be disposed of because it has fulfilled its purpose; and that day will be sooner than later. In isolation that would seem to be a harmless and slightly odd belief, but if the earth is soon to be disposed of, what is the point in preserving it for the future at the cost of current gains? Have you ever wondered why so many of the anti-climate change groups are Christian and why so many key opinion leaders are Christians?

And yes, I used Exxonsecrets as one of my reference points, but everything I quoted about the sainted doctor can be independently verified, usually through the organisations own websites (something I did). It's like using Wikipaedia - not generaly acceptable as a source, but a good place to start from and find credible sources.

[Jantar]

Philadelphia hit 100 degrees for second straight day, breaking a record of 98 degrees (36.7 Celsius) set in 1999. Baltimore hit 100 for the third straight day and Newark, New Jersey, hit triple digits for the fourth straight day."

I'm not suprised. Look at where Baltimore's temperature is measured.
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qhw...43&lvl=2&sty=b

Note that the Stevenson Screen where the temperature recordings are made are directly above asphalt. Right next to an electronics building with an air conditioner, and that the outlet from the airconditioner is pointed right at the Stevenson Screen. Note also the proximity to the runway. Now that is man made warming.

[shrub]

But the actual result shows that the conclusion is invalid.

No, it doesn't. Read the paper.

[Jantar]

....And yes, I used Exxonsecrets as one of my reference points, but everything I quoted about the sainted doctor can be independently verified, usually through the organisations own websites (something I did). It's like using Wikipaedia - not generaly acceptable as a source, but a good place to start from and find credible sources.

OK, so lets take one that I am familar with; The Heartland Institute.

Here's what exxonsecrets says about Heartland

19 South LaSalle St., Suite 903 Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-377-4000
Founded in the early 1990s, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement." http://www.capitalresearch.org/searc...asp?Org=HEA100

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.

The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. The Institute puts out several publications, including "Environment & Climate News" which frequently features anti-environmentalist and climate skeptic writing. They also published "Earth Day '96," a compilation of articles on environmental topics. The publication, distributed on college campuses, featured "Adventures in the Ozone Layer" by S. Fred Singer, and "the Cold Facts on Global Warming" by Sallie Baliunas. The articles denied the serious nature of ozone depletion and global warming.

Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...0295fbb2-9.pdf

The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.

And Here's Heartland's reply:

Q: Can you reply to specific accusations made by ExxonSecrets?

A: Yes. ExxonSecrets is a project of Greenpeace, the radical environmental group that seeks to ban all or nearly all logging, mining, and cars and trucks in the U.S. Fueling alarmism about global warming by wildly exaggerating the human role and the likely consequences of warming is one way they seek to achieve these goals. Naturally, Greenpeace doesn’t like us.

The “Factsheet” on Heartland at ExxonSecrets (last viewed in September 2009) is loaded with errors, from the very first sentence (we were founded in 1984, not “the 1990s”) to the outdated lists of directors, to the false assertion that Walt Buchholtz, a former board member, “serves as Heartland’s Government Relations Advisor,” a deliberate misreading of a tax form filed several years ago. (Buchholtz was never a member of Heartland’s staff.)

The site presents a list of gifts from ExxonMobil to Heartland, apparently based on annual reports from ExxonMobil, but fails to mention that the gifts never exceeded 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budgets, makes no mention of Heartland’s policies that separate donors from our researchers and writers, and presents no evidence at all of an improper relationship. It should matter that Heartland gets 95 percent of its income from energy consumers and only 5 percent from energy producers, but this fact doesn’t appear on ExxonSecrets.

While the first gift to Heartland reported on the ExxonSecrets site appears to have been made in 1998, the site fails to report that Heartland was questioning the science behind the global warming scare since 1994. And although ExxonMobil hasn’t contributed to Heartland since 2006, Heartland greatly increased its concentration and publication output on global warming since then.

So maybe Exxonsecrets information isn't so good after all.

[shrub]

So maybe Exxonsecrets information isn't so good after all.

Or maybe the Heartland institute are a little sensitive. I liked this comment: "the radical environmental group that seeks to ban all or nearly all logging, mining, and cars and trucks in the U.S". Next thing they'll be accusing Greenpeace of fostering fornication and drug use while refusing to stand for the national anthem and general un-American behaviour. Now, where did I put the keys to the pickup truck...

(SFX banjoes playing)

[Jantar]

....Next thing they'll be accusing Greenpeace of fostering fornication and drug use while refusing to stand for the national anthem and general un-American behaviour. Now, where did I put the keys to the pickup truck...

(SFX banjoes playing)

Jeez, I'd better renew my membership.

[davereid]

No, it doesn't. Read the paper.

Its only a flesh wound.. come back and I'll bit ya knee caps...

[mashman]

I hope someone is counting the ETS credits that this little beauty is running up

[Swoop]

The following presentations are by Burt Rutan, aeronautical designer and a "smart cookie" who takes the raw data then places it in the context needed (compared with the lies bandied around by those who can make $$$'s from this con).
A fair bit to watch, but well worth it.
6 parts in all.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

We are all doomed I say... DOOMED... DOOMED...

especially if you all keep believing the lies and deciet being spread by those in power, and they are trying every trick to keep that power...

And I am not talking about governments... governments haven't been controlling countries for years...