Yeah. Because releasing the raw data has done such a good job of shutting up the deniers before.
For some reason I would prefer that the scammers ^B^B^B^B^B^B AGW proponents focus on proving their theories rather than "shutting up" the opposition. There's been enough of that already.
And Maurice Strong is a raving despot with designs on global domination with his partner Edmond De Rothschild running the new world bank. I'd rather deal with the likes of Inhofe that those tyrants any day.
Strong's plans are long-term and he stands to be one of the most powerful men on earth (if he isn't already), yet he couldn't resist helping himself to a few million dollars of the "oil for food" money when he had the chance. Now he's teaching China how to pollute and make a profit from it, and here you are attacking people for questioning this massive fraudulent scheme.
If there were real scientists promoting this they would be looking for actual predictions from the theories, rather than threatening and destroying anyone that questions it.
I think you need to read up on the case a bit. Childs was actually protecting the network and keeping it running. The people he was asked to provide the passwords to had already demonstrated their incompetence by causing outages. Far from "holding the city hostage", as you claim, he was actually keeping the network running. The only disruptions were caused by the non-technical manager types that were asking him for control, without providing any assurances that they could maintain the network or even understand the configurations they wanted to be able to muck with.
You're going to quote the definition of pollution? What is that supposed to mean? You may think that means CO2 must be a pollutant, but I content that it supports my own position that it does not. First, CO2 is not man-made. It's part of the carbon cycle of life on earth. You can say that human activities increase the amount of CO2 released, but you can't call it man-made. It's also not waste, but rather a by-product of respiration, of forest fires (which have occurred naturally for millions of years), and of other natural processes, as well as burning of fossil fuels. All of these thing contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I suggest you take a trip to the Chesapeake bay and check out the kepone contamination, if you want to see what man-made waste does to the ecosystem. The dead zones from toxic chemicals being drained into the bay create a situation far worse than degrading the olfactory senses of clown fish - it suffocates everything that enters that zone to death.
This is from the one-off study you linked:
... the researchers used free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) to simulate the atmosphere of 2050 under actual field conditions. The method continuously exposes crop plants within 66-foot-diameter plots to 550 parts/million (ppm)—the CO2 concentration predicted for 2050. The current level is 380 ppm. Ort, who leads the ARS Photosynthesis Research Unit in Urbana, monitored the growth and yield of corn and soybeans there with his ARS and UIUC colleagues. In Maricopa, Ariz., an ARS collaborator monitored wheat and sorghum; in Switzerland, Nösberger examined forage grasses.
After collecting FACE data for the crops, the scientists compared it to earlier growth-chamber-based simulations. The difference was dramatic: CO2 fertilization-effect yield increases measured in the FACE experiments were 50 percent lower than the chamber simulations.
Which just says that the increased yields may be less than they were in greenhouse conditions. But the study was done in a *less* controlled environment.
All this just means we don't know what all the effects of the proposed solution are going to be, or even most of them. Some of the only effects we are sure of is that it will give more money and power to global despots that don't care what happens to the environment as long as it gets them more money and power.
If the Copenhagen delegate were really concerned about the future of humanity, they wouldn't be flying in on private jets and leasing out 1,200 limousines to get around. And they wouldn't be proposing some global bureaucracy of unelected autocrats to redistribute money - they would be working on a space elevator.
But it's not scientific and has no place in a science classroom.
The difference between a scientific theory and a non-scientific one is that in principle, a scientific theory can be tested without leaving this universe.
Are you talking about Einstein's theories here? Because that's what the GP was talking about.
I think his theories are pretty well proven these days. Among other things, your GPS won't work with just Newtonian physics.
Al Gore may not be an authoritative source himself but he is one of the biggest figureheads in the fields of environmentalism and global warming research. Guess where he gets his information.
If this is all an attempt to cut global pollution, fine that is a good thing.
Which it's obviously not, because what it does is re-classify CO2 as a pollutant, which it is not. Has anybody studied how reducing CO2 concentrations back to 1940's levels will affect crop yields, which have increased significantly since then? Yes, there have been plenty of advances in technology and know-how that have improved farming in the last 70 years, but surely the concentrations of such a critical component of photosynthesis as CO2 must have some effect on yields as well. So will our attempts to "solve" the Global Warming "crisis" have other unintended consequences like... starvation? The hysteria that led to the outright ban on DDT caused millions of more deaths from malaria, so there is history of things like that happening. And this time the offensive chemical is a basic component of all life.
And what about all the real pollution, that we have much better control over? Are we ignoring doing something about the obvious issues with our critical waterways because of some prediction from computer simulators? And how many of the assumptions that went into those climate models are accurate, and how many are way off from reality? Shouldn't we ask for some accurate predictions out of those models before we assume that all the theory behind them are correct?
Please take your sanctimonious crap elsewhere. We don't want any ACTA, World Bankers, or any other globalist exploiters. We also don't need jerks like you trying to justify despotism because of the despotism that already exists.
Yeah and the dirt farmers that burn thousands of acres of forest are completely blameless. People are to blame here.
Interestingly enough, there is a solution to the people problem...
The solution, of course, is to set up a global despotic government, just as proposed in the Copenhagen protocol. History has shown that tyrannical leaders can kill 10-15% of their populations, and often suffer no repercussions at all. With the NWO proposed by the Copenhagen treaty the new tyrants could do away with a billion or more people, and solve this problem.
Except for the fact that this university is the co-ordinating site for many other centers and many of them got their facts and calculations from CRU. So CRU is about to drag a bunch of other universities down with it.
And the IPCC, too, since they kind of acted as the "gatekeeper" for studies that ended up in the IPCC reports.
I think they're exaggerating the lost of one particular set of data, from one set of researchers, in
one university, compared with thousands of different climate research around the world. So this
case of data mismanagement at one university, isn't going to make much difference to the case
for global warming being caused by humanities energy usage.
How many "lostes" will it take, then?
The real issue that the "climategate" leaks expose is that many of the "scientists" involved are more concerned with promoting their ideology than with finding the facts. It doesn't matter which side of the policy debate you happen to be on - justifying the means because of your support of the ends should never be okay.
"Thinning the herd" is much more effective and efficient when governments do it to their own people than when they go to war with other countries. Yes, hundreds of thousands died in WWII, but the Ottoman Turks killed a million Armenians during the prior decade. 30 million Chinese were killed by Mao Zedong, and 50 million more died of starvation as he took over the means of production and reorganized the farmlands. 25 million in the Soviet Union were killed by Stalin's government. The Germans lost 5 million soldiers during the war, but slaughtered 12 million within their own country, 6 million just for being Jewish. 2 million were killed in Cambodia when Pol Pot's government took over.
So the best method of reducing population would be to set up a global despotic government. I see that's what they're planning in Copenhagen, so I guess our beneficent leaders have the situation in hand.
No, no, man. Space elevator. Now. Before it's too late. It will solve all of our energy and economic issues.
You could even build it on the African continent somewhere, since it's gotta be on the equator. That would be a nice little economic boom for that region.
Normally I wouldn't respond to an anonymous troll making ad hominem attacks, but...
The articles on ilovecarbondioxide.com are very well researched and sources are always included. They've dug up some of the huge funding sources that the AGW alarmists use to further their agenda.
One of the major funding sources for the AGW proponent papers is Zurich Financial Services Group, a large global corporate insurance giant hoping to cash in on the new carbon tax / voucher market, and with even more to gain from the alarmist agenda than all the oil companies have to lose.
Swiss Re, another giant insurance consortium is also making significant investments in promoting the carbon trading market.
Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments.
This means almost total government control, as they are the main source of climate research, a pattern repeated in most countries. The graph shows the increase in US government funding and illustrates the problem as the total now exceeds $70 billion a year.
BTW - you could have at least taken a look at the guy writing the article and made personal attacks against him, instead of the website that posted his article:
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
You may not like having to talk down to the ignorant masses, but you're not likely to get very far with your agenda with that kind of attitude. When you are trying to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle, pay massive new taxes and fees for everything, and essentially live like paupers, you have to do better than "You won't understand the issues - just trust us experts that this is what you have to do."
Kind of hypocritical to claim that one side is driven by non-science, when it's clear that an ideological agenda is a major factor in the AGW policy advocates. Even worse is dismissing any collusion of manipulation on one side, but finding an orchestrated conspiracy on the other.
No credibility to this source. Have you seen the "solution" they propose?
This treaty puts a one world governmental organization above the US Constitution and every other nation's laws. We will be at the mercy of a one world government made up of unelected bureaucrats. This is a copy of the treaty.
On Page 122, paragraph 17, it talks about "environmental justice" for Africa, and how Africa "should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures." This is basically codeword for massive redistribution of wealth at the global scale, hence a one world communist government.
On Page 173, paragraph 50(which talks about sources of funds), section C, it says, "Specific sources including, parts of regular fiscal budget for research and development, fiscal revenue from taxation on carbon transaction and/or auction of emission permits in carbon market, as well as fiscal revenue from energy or environmental taxation in developed countries". This is just simply a global carbon tax, and we pay our tax to the world government organization.
How is this a good idea to possibly void the US Constitution to a one world government, with industrialized nations paying large carbon taxes to so they could set up a massive redistribution of wealth scheme for continents like Africa? All that will happen is dictators will get the funds and use them to fund their own lavish lifestyles, while building up the government and leaving the people of Africa nothing as usual.
There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk
So obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists.
Not sure what the AGW agenda has to do with lead-free gas, mercury, or CFCs. CO2 seems to be the new "pollutant" and the only one the proponents care about anymore.
And I think that asthma sufferer might have a problem with your agenda, as you have taken away the only effective treatment they had for asthma attacks by banning the insignificant amount of CFCs used by their inhalers.
Pretending that AGW isn't a political issue, and ignoring the political motivations of both sides, is an idiotic way to approach the situation. Stating that many of the deniers are "conservative puppets and oil company shills" isn't a political opinion, it's an empirically observed FACT.
And here's what I've never understood from the denier side: what's the motivation for making up the story? It's pretty clear why, for example, Big Oil wouldn't want carbon regulation. But WTF is the motivation for the "vast conspiracy" that the deniers believe is opposing them - are they just a bunch of hippies?
If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders. It's clear that many have seized upon AGW as an excuse to implement a world government funded by taxes imposed on citizens of the industrialized countries. The treaties like Kyoto and the proposals like the US cap'n'trade and the Copenhagen treaty actually do very little to address the warming issues, yet are cheered on by the alarmists. It's not hard to see that the alarmists are driven by an ideological agenda in addition to whatever they think will have an impact on reducing or mitigating AGW.
Slashdot Mirror
Mods, please mod above denier a troll. Can't have deniers posting stuff all over the place like they have a point.
Also note that the solution to all this is for the US to borrow more money from China so they can give money to China and India.
Yeah. Because releasing the raw data has done such a good job of shutting up the deniers before.
For some reason I would prefer that the scammers ^B^B^B^B^B^B AGW proponents focus on proving their theories rather than "shutting up" the opposition. There's been enough of that already.
And Maurice Strong is a raving despot with designs on global domination with his partner Edmond De Rothschild running the new world bank. I'd rather deal with the likes of Inhofe that those tyrants any day.
Strong's plans are long-term and he stands to be one of the most powerful men on earth (if he isn't already), yet he couldn't resist helping himself to a few million dollars of the "oil for food" money when he had the chance. Now he's teaching China how to pollute and make a profit from it, and here you are attacking people for questioning this massive fraudulent scheme.
If there were real scientists promoting this they would be looking for actual predictions from the theories, rather than threatening and destroying anyone that questions it.
I think you need to read up on the case a bit. Childs was actually protecting the network and keeping it running. The people he was asked to provide the passwords to had already demonstrated their incompetence by causing outages. Far from "holding the city hostage", as you claim, he was actually keeping the network running. The only disruptions were caused by the non-technical manager types that were asking him for control, without providing any assurances that they could maintain the network or even understand the configurations they wanted to be able to muck with.
You're going to quote the definition of pollution? What is that supposed to mean? You may think that means CO2 must be a pollutant, but I content that it supports my own position that it does not. First, CO2 is not man-made. It's part of the carbon cycle of life on earth. You can say that human activities increase the amount of CO2 released, but you can't call it man-made. It's also not waste, but rather a by-product of respiration, of forest fires (which have occurred naturally for millions of years), and of other natural processes, as well as burning of fossil fuels. All of these thing contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I suggest you take a trip to the Chesapeake bay and check out the kepone contamination, if you want to see what man-made waste does to the ecosystem. The dead zones from toxic chemicals being drained into the bay create a situation far worse than degrading the olfactory senses of clown fish - it suffocates everything that enters that zone to death.
This is from the one-off study you linked:
Which just says that the increased yields may be less than they were in greenhouse conditions. But the study was done in a *less* controlled environment.
All this just means we don't know what all the effects of the proposed solution are going to be, or even most of them. Some of the only effects we are sure of is that it will give more money and power to global despots that don't care what happens to the environment as long as it gets them more money and power.
If the Copenhagen delegate were really concerned about the future of humanity, they wouldn't be flying in on private jets and leasing out 1,200 limousines to get around. And they wouldn't be proposing some global bureaucracy of unelected autocrats to redistribute money - they would be working on a space elevator.
Well, this is not quite correct. Gravity and relative speed both affect the clocks. The gravitational affects are actually more significant.
I found a pretty good primer on all the issues.
But it's not scientific and has no place in a science classroom.
The difference between a scientific theory and a non-scientific one is that in principle, a scientific theory can be tested without leaving this universe.
Are you talking about Einstein's theories here? Because that's what the GP was talking about.
I think his theories are pretty well proven these days. Among other things, your GPS won't work with just Newtonian physics.
Al Gore may not be an authoritative source himself but he is one of the biggest figureheads in the fields of environmentalism and global warming research. Guess where he gets his information.
The Intarwebs?
I don't know where he gets it but I found a more reliable source.
Then again, maybe he's just retelling it wrong.
If this is all an attempt to cut global pollution, fine that is a good thing.
Which it's obviously not, because what it does is re-classify CO2 as a pollutant, which it is not. Has anybody studied how reducing CO2 concentrations back to 1940's levels will affect crop yields, which have increased significantly since then? Yes, there have been plenty of advances in technology and know-how that have improved farming in the last 70 years, but surely the concentrations of such a critical component of photosynthesis as CO2 must have some effect on yields as well. So will our attempts to "solve" the Global Warming "crisis" have other unintended consequences like ... starvation? The hysteria that led to the outright ban on DDT caused millions of more deaths from malaria, so there is history of things like that happening. And this time the offensive chemical is a basic component of all life.
And what about all the real pollution, that we have much better control over? Are we ignoring doing something about the obvious issues with our critical waterways because of some prediction from computer simulators? And how many of the assumptions that went into those climate models are accurate, and how many are way off from reality? Shouldn't we ask for some accurate predictions out of those models before we assume that all the theory behind them are correct?
Not according to his contemporaries. He was a patent clerk that failed the qualification exam to study mathematics in Zurich.
I think you have mistaken me for someone else.
Please take your sanctimonious crap elsewhere. We don't want any ACTA, World Bankers, or any other globalist exploiters. We also don't need jerks like you trying to justify despotism because of the despotism that already exists.
Every industrialized nation is to blame here.
Yeah and the dirt farmers that burn thousands of acres of forest are completely blameless. People are to blame here. Interestingly enough, there is a solution to the people problem...
The solution, of course, is to set up a global despotic government, just as proposed in the Copenhagen protocol. History has shown that tyrannical leaders can kill 10-15% of their populations, and often suffer no repercussions at all. With the NWO proposed by the Copenhagen treaty the new tyrants could do away with a billion or more people, and solve this problem.
Mods on crack are really active tonight. Parent is modded "offtopic"! WTF?
I don't get it. What's "Flamebait" about this post? It was quite informative for me.
Except for the fact that this university is the co-ordinating site for many other centers and many of them got their facts and calculations from CRU. So CRU is about to drag a bunch of other universities down with it.
And the IPCC, too, since they kind of acted as the "gatekeeper" for studies that ended up in the IPCC reports.
I think they're exaggerating the lost of one particular set of data, from one set of researchers, in one university, compared with thousands of different climate research around the world. So this case of data mismanagement at one university, isn't going to make much difference to the case for global warming being caused by humanities energy usage.
How many "lostes" will it take, then?
The real issue that the "climategate" leaks expose is that many of the "scientists" involved are more concerned with promoting their ideology than with finding the facts. It doesn't matter which side of the policy debate you happen to be on - justifying the means because of your support of the ends should never be okay.
"Thinning the herd" is much more effective and efficient when governments do it to their own people than when they go to war with other countries. Yes, hundreds of thousands died in WWII, but the Ottoman Turks killed a million Armenians during the prior decade. 30 million Chinese were killed by Mao Zedong, and 50 million more died of starvation as he took over the means of production and reorganized the farmlands. 25 million in the Soviet Union were killed by Stalin's government. The Germans lost 5 million soldiers during the war, but slaughtered 12 million within their own country, 6 million just for being Jewish. 2 million were killed in Cambodia when Pol Pot's government took over.
So the best method of reducing population would be to set up a global despotic government. I see that's what they're planning in Copenhagen, so I guess our beneficent leaders have the situation in hand.
No, no, man. Space elevator. Now. Before it's too late. It will solve all of our energy and economic issues.
You could even build it on the African continent somewhere, since it's gotta be on the equator. That would be a nice little economic boom for that region.
Lies posted on a denialist blog. Pathetic much?
Normally I wouldn't respond to an anonymous troll making ad hominem attacks, but...
The articles on ilovecarbondioxide.com are very well researched and sources are always included. They've dug up some of the huge funding sources that the AGW alarmists use to further their agenda.
One of the major funding sources for the AGW proponent papers is Zurich Financial Services Group, a large global corporate insurance giant hoping to cash in on the new carbon tax / voucher market, and with even more to gain from the alarmist agenda than all the oil companies have to lose.
Swiss Re, another giant insurance consortium is also making significant investments in promoting the carbon trading market.
BTW - you could have at least taken a look at the guy writing the article and made personal attacks against him, instead of the website that posted his article:
You may not like having to talk down to the ignorant masses, but you're not likely to get very far with your agenda with that kind of attitude. When you are trying to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle, pay massive new taxes and fees for everything, and essentially live like paupers, you have to do better than "You won't understand the issues - just trust us experts that this is what you have to do."
Kind of hypocritical to claim that one side is driven by non-science, when it's clear that an ideological agenda is a major factor in the AGW policy advocates. Even worse is dismissing any collusion of manipulation on one side, but finding an orchestrated conspiracy on the other.
No credibility to this source. Have you seen the "solution" they propose?
This treaty puts a one world governmental organization above the US Constitution and every other nation's laws. We will be at the mercy of a one world government made up of unelected bureaucrats. This is a copy of the treaty.
On Page 122, paragraph 17, it talks about "environmental justice" for Africa, and how Africa "should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures." This is basically codeword for massive redistribution of wealth at the global scale, hence a one world communist government.
On Page 173, paragraph 50(which talks about sources of funds), section C, it says, "Specific sources including, parts of regular fiscal budget for research and development, fiscal revenue from taxation on carbon transaction and/or auction of emission permits in carbon market, as well as fiscal revenue from energy or environmental taxation in developed countries". This is just simply a global carbon tax, and we pay our tax to the world government organization.
How is this a good idea to possibly void the US Constitution to a one world government, with industrialized nations paying large carbon taxes to so they could set up a massive redistribution of wealth scheme for continents like Africa? All that will happen is dictators will get the funds and use them to fund their own lavish lifestyles, while building up the government and leaving the people of Africa nothing as usual.
So obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists.
Except that actually the opposite is true.
Not sure what the AGW agenda has to do with lead-free gas, mercury, or CFCs. CO2 seems to be the new "pollutant" and the only one the proponents care about anymore.
And I think that asthma sufferer might have a problem with your agenda, as you have taken away the only effective treatment they had for asthma attacks by banning the insignificant amount of CFCs used by their inhalers.
Pretending that AGW isn't a political issue, and ignoring the political motivations of both sides, is an idiotic way to approach the situation. Stating that many of the deniers are "conservative puppets and oil company shills" isn't a political opinion, it's an empirically observed FACT.
And here's what I've never understood from the denier side: what's the motivation for making up the story? It's pretty clear why, for example, Big Oil wouldn't want carbon regulation. But WTF is the motivation for the "vast conspiracy" that the deniers believe is opposing them - are they just a bunch of hippies?
If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders. It's clear that many have seized upon AGW as an excuse to implement a world government funded by taxes imposed on citizens of the industrialized countries. The treaties like Kyoto and the proposals like the US cap'n'trade and the Copenhagen treaty actually do very little to address the warming issues, yet are cheered on by the alarmists. It's not hard to see that the alarmists are driven by an ideological agenda in addition to whatever they think will have an impact on reducing or mitigating AGW.