| Author | Post |
|---|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 02:44 am |
|
Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal
By: William O’Keefe
Special to The Examiner
May 19, 2009
One of James Bond’s first movies captured attention with the title “License to Kill.” Today, Washington, D.C., is setting the stage to compete with Hollywood in the sensational headlines market. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are in the process of scripting climate change legislation worthy of being titled “License to Cheat and Steal.”
This cap-and-trade bill — actually called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or the Waxman-Markey bill — would mandate severe reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Since emissions are mostly generated by energy use (heating your home, cooling your groceries, driving to work, etc.), these targets would effectively mandate energy rationing. Since these targets are not based on economic or technological realities, there can only be one outcome: much higher energy prices.
Severe limitations on emissions could easily turn well-intentioned policy into an opportunity for shady moneymaking schemes at the expense of the environment and American households.
Research indicates that implementation of a U.S. emissions market could drive up energy costs for Americans anywhere from $324 to a whopping $3,100 per year. And because low-income families spend a greater percentage of their earnings on energy, this burden would fall heaviest on those least able to afford it.
In contrast, the financial benefits would be enjoyed by Wall Street opportunists and special-interest groups. The government-regulated trade of carbon dioxide opens the door to the creation of risky financial tools like the derivatives, hedges and credit default swaps that led to our recent economic crisis and the scandals associated with it.
Anyone who doubts this risk need only look at the experience of Europe’s cap-and-trade system. Not only has it been plagued with fraud and abuse, it failed to meet its emissions-reduction targets.
The complex and cumbersome nature of the trading system makes effective oversight by both voters and regulators a daunting challenge, opening the way to influence by special interests. Media reports show that bureaucrats have allowed a major utility to write a provision for the Waxman-Markey bill, which favored a handful of companies and disadvantaged their competitors. This opportunity for manipulation skews incentives. Instead of encouraging R&D in cleaner electricity, cap and trade gives utilities a strong incentive to invest a lot of money in lobbying efforts.
As the European trading system demonstrates, this policy creates a legal gray area, equipping future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs with a license to cheat and steal.
The draft Waxman-Markey bill touted on Capitol Hill includes a provision that allows covered companies to buy emissions offsets or emissions allowances rather than reduce their actual emissions. (This is the modern-day equivalent of purchasing indulgences from the Church that allow you to buy off your sins.)
But the legitimacy of these offsets has proven difficult to verify. Europe has already witnessed companies paying themselves for offsets and firms building plants for the sole purpose of receiving tax dollars to shut them down.
The closed-door deals already being made in Washington, D.C., indicate that a U.S. system would likely suffer from the same manipulation. And once the trading begins, there will be a need for a futures market, mechanisms to hedge risks and financial instruments like credit default swaps.
With permits worth in excess of $100 billion, traders will gain handsomely and have an incentive to create mechanisms for additional financial gain, setting the stage for a repeat of the financial abuses America witnessed in the subprime crisis.
The burden all of this potential financial manipulation would be borne by Main Street, the very consumers, workers and families still reeling from the housing market fallout.
Rather than continuing to push cap and trade — a policy that one of the nation’s leading economists, Yale University’s William Nordhaus, predicts would lead to “pandemic cheating” — Congress should adopt a simple, transparent and effective approach to addressing climate change.
By implementing a straightforward policy, lawmakers could best serve the interests of citizens, businesses and the environment, while the James Bond fictional excesses stay where they belong — back in Hollywood.
William O’Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, is president of Solutions Consulting Inc.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
Al Gore doesn't give a rat's hinie about your chart and the truth on man-made global warming. He's made his pile on the scam and the 'believers' are now in line to help the next batch of scammers suck up your money with Cap and Trade. The empty assets Goldman Sachs was selling as bundled mortages will be a trifle compared to the gaming Wall Street will do with these new made up 'credits'.
It was just reported that Gore is heading for billionaire status through his connections with Silver Springs Network who is a maker of smart meters that will control the electricity in individual homes. They just got a bug chunk of the billions in 'stimulus' money Chairman Obama handed out for the smart grid which incudes those meters.
Well, Gore will need his wealth to keep that 10,000 sq ft house in Tennessee in gas and electricity. It runs 20 times the average house bill in this country, but he doesn't need no steenking windmills or solar panels because he's got some of the dumbest people in the world giving him prizes and fawning over him like a rock star. And then there is Comgress , including our three whizzers who are marching down the same road. Oy vey!
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:40 pm by Hartlyboy
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 735 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
more proof that global warming is a hoax. too bad for some on this forum that said the ice was decreasing.
Graph of the Day for November 3, 2009
Randall Hoven
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]"Greenland and West Antarctica are such massive amounts of ice each one of would lead to a six to seven metre increase in sea level if it were to melt... Each one metre of sea level rise is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world."
Al Gore[size=3 itxtvisited="1"], Oct. 27, 2009.
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]Source: Global Warming Art, prepared by Robert A. Rohde[size=3 itxtvisited="1"] from published data. Similar graphs appear in NASA[size=3 itxtvisited="1"] and Canadian government[size=3 itxtvisited="1"] sources.
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]Hoven's Index for November 3, 2009
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]Approximate sea level rise since the last ice age (20,000 years): 400 feet (120 meters). (See above chart.)
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]Estimated sea level rise from 1880 to 2000 (120 years): less than 8 inches (0.2 meters).
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]Predicted sea level rise from 1990 to 2090 (100 years): 7 inches to 1.9 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters).
[size=3 itxtvisited="1"]Source: The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Table SPM.1[size=3 itxtvisited="1"].
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 04:33 pm |
|
Bix. I know we went thru this stuff several times a ways back but I can't seem to find it in the archives. Could you possibly repost this material for the benefit of the newcomers in these forums? Thanks.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 11:27 pm |
|
T R wrote: Runnerman wrote: Bixby wrote: While the science of how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause warming is fairly well understood, this core process only results in limited, nuisance levels of global warming.
New theory. The greenhouse affect is not as previously thought. Data is still coming in, but it appears that the computer models were programmed incorrectly. Humans have very little affect on the climate. Worst case shows about 0.01 degrees over thirty years and that is for a drop in temperature. If there is a question, why not get Al Gore and a real scientist to debate this on national television?
For the longest time, Lord Monkton (UK) has had an open offer to do just that, even to the point of taking out ads and announcements in newspapers around the world and he has just done so on TV as well. Of course, no reply from Gore.
|
T R
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 182 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
Runnerman wrote: Bixby wrote: While the science of how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause warming is fairly well understood, this core process only results in limited, nuisance levels of global warming.
New theory. The greenhouse affect is not as previously thought. Data is still coming in, but it appears that the computer models were programmed incorrectly. Humans have very little affect on the climate. Worst case shows about 0.01 degrees over thirty years and that is for a drop in temperature. If there is a question, why not get Al Gore and a real scientist to debate this on national television?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 10:46 pm |
|
Followup on Antarctic Melt Rates
October 13, 2009, 11:48 am
I got an email today in response to this post that allows me to cover some ground I wanted to cover. A number of commenters are citing this paragraph from Tedesco and Monaghan as evidence that I and others are somehow mischaracterizing the results of the study:
“Negative melting anomalies observed in recent years do not contradict recently published results on surface temperature trends over Antarctica [e.g., Steig et al., 2009]. The time period used for those studies extends back to the 1950’s, well beyond 1980, and the largest temperature increases are found during winter and spring rather than summer, and are generally limited to West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. Summer SAM trends have increased since the 1970s [Marshall, 2003], suppressing warming over much of Antarctica during the satellite melt record [Turner et al., 2005]. Moreover, melting and surface temperature are not necessarily linearly related because the entire surface energy balance must be considered [Liston and Winther, 2005; Torinesi et al., 2003].”
First, the point of the original post was not about somehow falsifying global warming, but about the asymmetry in press coverage to emerging data. It is in fact staggeringly unlikely that I would use claims of increasing ice buildup in Antarctica as “proof” that anthropogenic global warming theory as outlined, say, by the fourth IPCC report, is falsified. This is because the models in the fourth IPCC report actually predict increasing snowmass in Antarctica under global warming.
Of course, the study was not exactly increasing ice mass, but decreasing ice melting rates, which should be more correlated with temperatures. Which brings us to the quote above.
I see a lot of studies in climate that seem to have results that falsify some portion of AGW theory but which throw in acknowledgments of the truth and beauty of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory in the final paragraphs that almost contradict their study results, much like natural philosophers in past centuries would put in boiler plate in their writing to protect them from the ire of the Catholic Church. One way to interpret this statement is “I know you are not going to like these findings but I am still loyal to the Cause so please don’t revoke by AGW decoder ring.”
This particular statement by the authors is hilarious in one way. Their stated defense is that Steig’s period was longer and thus not comparable. The don’t outright say it, but they kind of beat around the bush at it, that the real issue is not the study length, but that most of the warming in Steig’s 50-year period was actually in the first 20 years. This is in fact something we skeptics have been saying since Steig was released, but was not forthrightly acknowledged in Steig. Here is some work that has been done to deconstruct the numbers in Steig. Don’t worry about the cases with different numbers of “PCs”, these are just sensitivities with different geographic regionalizations. Basically, under any set of replication approaches to Steig, all the warming is in the first 2 decades.
Reconstruction
1957 to 2006 trend
1957 to 1979 trend (pre-AWS)
1980 to 2006 trend (AWS era)
Steig 3 PC
+0.14 deg C./decade
+0.17 deg C./decade
-0.06 deg C./decade
New 7 PC
+0.11 deg C./decade
+0.25 deg C./decade
-0.20 deg C./decade
New 7 PC weighted
+0.09 deg C./decade
+0.22 deg C./decade
-0.20 deg C./decade
New 7 PC wgtd imputed cells
+0.08 deg C./decade
+0.22 deg C./decade
-0.21 deg C./decade
Now, knowing this, here is Steig’s synopsis:
Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.
Wow - don’t see much acknowledgment that all the warming trend was before 1980. They find the space to recognize seasonal differences but not the fact that all the warming they found was in the first 40% of their study period? (And all of the above is not even to get into the huge flaws in the Steig methodology, which purports to deemphasize the Antarctic Peninsula but still does not)
This is where the semantic games of trying to keep the science consistent with a political position get to be a problem. If Steig et al had just said “Antarctica warmed from 1957 to 1979 and then has cooled since,” which is what their data showed, then the authors of this new study would not have been in a quandary. In that alternate universe, of course decreased ice melt since 1980 makes sense, because Steig said it was cooler. But because the illusion must be maintained that Steig showed a warming trend that continues to this date, these guys must deal with the fact that their study agrees with the data in Steig, but not the public conclusions drawn from Steig. And thus they have to jump through some semantic hoops.
|
Sidekick
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:32 am |
|
| seen Barbara Boxer on c-spam tonight talking about climate change.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:36 pm |
|
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:34 pm |
|
THIS IS NIAGRA FALLS 1911 Hmmm do you suppose this could happen again????
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 05:10 am |
|
| It all might be hookum, but the ECU and others are right now trying to figure how many billions they should commit and how much the US should kick in fix this non-existent problem when the happy warriors all get together in Copenhagen in December. Watch how Chairman Obnama generously shares your tax dollars with these grubbers and sings Kumbya with the greenies from abroad. It will be interesting to see how the Russians and Chinese view this hogwash and how much they throw in the pot to address this 'awful problem'.
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 619 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 12:30 am |
|
Bixby wrote: The Single Best Reason Not To Fear a Climate Catastrophe
October 15, 2009, 9:10 am
Apparently this is Blog Action Day for Climate. The site encourages posts today on climate that will be aggregated, uh, somehow. Its pretty clear they want alarmist posts and that the site is leftish in orientation (you just have to look at the issues you can check off that interest you — lots of things like “societal entrepreneurship” but nothing on individual liberty or checks on government power). However, they did not explicitly say “no skeptics” — they just want climate posts. So I will take the opportunity today to post a number of blasts from the past, including some old-old ones on Coyote Blog.
While the science of how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause warming is fairly well understood, this core process only results in limited, nuisance levels of global warming. Catastrophic warming forecasts depend on added elements, particularly the assumption that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks, where the science is MUCH weaker. This video explores these issues and explains why most catastrophic warming forecasts are probably greatly exaggerated.
You can also access the YouTube video here, or you can access a higher quality version on Google video here.
If you have the bandwidth, you can download a much higher quality version by right-clicking either of the links below:
I am not sure why the quicktime version is so porky. In addition, the sound is not great in the quicktime version, so use the windows media wmv files if you can. I will try to reprocess it tonight. All of these files for download are much more readable than the YouTube version I highlighted the pertinent portion in Red so those believers in AGW can take a rational scientific look at what is being hyped. Good work, Bixby.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:44 pm |
|
The Single Best Reason Not To Fear a Climate Catastrophe
October 15, 2009, 9:10 am
Apparently this is Blog Action Day for Climate. The site encourages posts today on climate that will be aggregated, uh, somehow. Its pretty clear they want alarmist posts and that the site is leftish in orientation (you just have to look at the issues you can check off that interest you — lots of things like “societal entrepreneurship” but nothing on individual liberty or checks on government power). However, they did not explicitly say “no skeptics” — they just want climate posts. So I will take the opportunity today to post a number of blasts from the past, including some old-old ones on Coyote Blog.
While the science of how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause warming is fairly well understood, this core process only results in limited, nuisance levels of global warming. Catastrophic warming forecasts depend on added elements, particularly the assumption that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks, where the science is MUCH weaker. This video explores these issues and explains why most catastrophic warming forecasts are probably greatly exaggerated.
You can also access the YouTube video here, or you can access a higher quality version on Google video here.
If you have the bandwidth, you can download a much higher quality version by right-clicking either of the links below:
I am not sure why the quicktime version is so porky. In addition, the sound is not great in the quicktime version, so use the windows media wmv files if you can. I will try to reprocess it tonight. All of these files for download are much more readable than the YouTube version
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:22 am |
|
| Climate pollution is probably a more productive venture. At least where wildlife is commented upon.
|
T R
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 182 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:17 am |
|
| Nobody considers the poor starving trees. They need the CO2 and the more the better. Should we start a movement to help them in this time of need?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:14 am |
|
Climate change threatens wildlife??! I'm hoping whatever world this lady is in is kind to her. Wildlife has been through climate change for eons and have done quite well , thank you.
The threatened species with all this climate change blather are the current human occupants of this country -and it isn't a threat of heat or cold. It's the much greater threat from politicians who sense tax money and power by pandering to the hysteria of writers like our author.
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:16 am by Hartlyboy
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:03 am |
|
Carol smokes that medical marijuana
Habanero wrote:
Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to wildlife — changing, shrinking and destroying habitat, forcing wildlife to migrate or adapt, or even threatening their very existence.
UM, no. What you describe is not caused by climate change, which is actually natural, but by unfettered development which is man made.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:41 pm |
|
Carol I hope you can read this. Garbage in= Garbage out.
Pain With No Gain
Posted 10/19/2009 07:57 PM ET
Global Warming: A co-sponsor of cap-and-trade legislation has tried to convince the public that the regime would cost families only "about a postage stamp a day." The real cost might be closer to next-day delivery rates.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, testifying before Congress last week, said the House global warming bill will slow economic growth in the next few decades and cause "significant" job losses in the fossil fuel industry.
During last Wednesday's session of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Elmendorf said the carbon cap-and-trade provisions of the comically named American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 would cut GDP below what it would otherwise have been by 0.25% to 0.75% by 2020. The impact in 2050 would be 1% to 3.5%.
Elmendorf's office issued the same warning in a report last month.
The cap-and-trade legislation, sponsored by Democratic Reps. Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Henry Waxman of California and passed in the House in June, is intended to cut domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050. This would drive U.S. per capita CO2 emission levels "below those of George Washington's first term as president," economist Garrett Vaughn wrote in IBD in August.
Such low emission levels can't be reached without economic pain, and the cost will surely be more than Markey's "postage stamp a day." Any sharp reduction will require the country to move almost entirely away from fossil fuels — not a cheap transition.
Neither would it be meaningful. The churning shift simply would not make a real difference in global CO2 levels. The Environmental Protection Agency itself said drastic CO2 emission cutbacks made in the U.S. are virtually worthless if developing nations China and India don't cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Both have made it clear that they have no intention of joining developed nations in committing economic suicide by placing limits on their carbon emissions.
Elmendorf, who seems to have bought into the global warming scare, said during testimony that projected cost estimates "do not include any benefits from averting climate change."
While the statement is a ready-made Democratic talking point, the reality is that no benefits will be coming. There is nothing to avert. The global warming predicted by the computer models just hasn't materialized. Nor will it.
No one should wonder about that, given the tainted data that were fed into the models and those same models' poor record. It's a classic case of garbage in, garbage out.
Two years ago, the International Journal of Climatology published a study finding that 22 models used by researchers were so flawed that they predicted warming when cooling was the case. Nearly three years earlier, the famous Mann hockey stick temperature chart that alarmists cite as evidence that man is causing the Earth to warm was discredited by an article in Geophysical Research Letters.
Meanwhile, scientists at the University of East Anglia seem to have lost or destroyed the raw data they have used to make the case for man-made global warming. This loss — or cover-up of data the scientists want to conceal — makes it impossible for other researchers to confirm or refute their claim.
Despite his proximity to the university, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, like all true believers and political operators who have a stake in perpetuating the global warming fraud, is unaffected by this case of scientific malpractice. Brown, who is facing a difficult election, claimed Monday that the world has 50 days to save itself from climate "catastrophe."
Should the Senate follow the House and heed Brown's hysteria by passing a cap-and-trade bill that the president signs, the country will be forced into an uncomfortable place. As is often the case in Washington, doing nothing would be the far better choice.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:43 pm by dover-diva
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to wildlife — changing, shrinking and destroying habitat, forcing wildlife to migrate or adapt, or even threatening their very existence.
UM, no. What you describe is not caused by climate change, which is actually natural, but by unfettered development which is man made.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:07 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
Global warming and wildlife
Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to wildlife — changing, shrinking and destroying habitat, forcing wildlife to migrate or adapt, or even threatening their very existence.
The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change warns that if we don’t take strong action to address global warming soon, 20-30% of the world’s plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction by 2050.
Fortunately, there is something that can be done. This summer, the House of Representatives passed legislation to both reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that are triggering climate change and take steps to safeguard natural resources and wildlife threatened by the changes in climate already set in motion. Now the Senate is moving on similar legislation recently introduced by Senators Boxer and Kerry.
However, reducing carbon emissions is not enough. Any comprehensive climate and energy legislation must dedicate 5% of the funding generated to safeguarding fish and wildlife and the natural resources on which we all rely. Our senators should know that their constituents expect nothing less.
Carol Collins
Dover
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 05:19 pm |
|
The subtitle of this thread is "Where is Al Gore?"
It seems no matter where he shows up there is some weird "climate" activity. He must be in Tioga County, NY today because it is snowing there.........
He's going to be in Virginia tomorrow campaigning for the Dem candidate for Governor who has bought into the Glo-Bull warming hooey of Gore. The weather forecast in Virginia tomorrow is for the coolest day of the season so far. Typical temps at this time of the year is low 70s. Forecast for tomorrow: 50 and rain.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 319 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 01:01 pm |
|
Lavitakus wrote: Bixby wrote: Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.
Well then quit wasting bandwidth with all the fake me out science ranting, Bix.
If anyone wastes bandwidth here it is you. Bixby has posted some of the best information we get here. There is legitimate debate here and it is people such as you who wants to stiffle it.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 04:02 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.
Well then quit wasting bandwidth with all the fake me out science ranting, Bix.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 02:50 am |
|
T R wrote: The more things change the more they stay the same. One recent finding is that the the lower CO2 levels will "starve" the earth's plant life and we can expect to see the rain forests disappear at a more rapid rate.
After the bankers and politicians make all they can by carbon trading and taxing us for our CO2, they'll then declare the world saved from climate change but now suffering from 'tree deprivation' and , if Castle is a Senator by then, he can vote with the Democrats to impose a 'tree-use' tax to stop the deadly barren earth syndrome.
|
T R
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 182 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 12:41 am |
|
| The more things change the more they stay the same. One recent finding is that the the lower CO2 levels will "starve" the earth's plant life and we can expect to see the rain forests disappear at a more rapid rate.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
| It would do well for those who prefer the AGW proponents view to read the number of excellent articles within this topic.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19th, 2009 12:42 pm |
|
For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?
The Summary
The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?
More »
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 09:49 pm |
|
Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified1 for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)
As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project2 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output3 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign4 , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).
Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP).5, 6 Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.
Joanne Nova
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 07:14 pm |
|
Okie wrote: Playing the Game wrote: You cannot fight Mother Nature. The violence of an ice age or melting is far beyond the capacity of man to control. Kind of like Congress. I agree that Congress has the self control of an 18 year old on a date with a hot (is there any other kind?) cheerleader.
That said, I think humans have a long history of fighting nature, and winning. After all, hoover dam seems to do a good job of keeping the colorado river in one place. And Lake Ondaga is so full of pollution nothing lives in it except some algea. I wouldn't be so sure that we can't screw up atmosphere as well.
As for the 'green agenda,' Bixby, I think you're giving them too much credit on the coordination front. Besides, the right wing agenda pushed by the most conservative branch of the republican party represents a failure social enigeering at its finest.
As far as fatal flaws go, our current rate of energy consumption and our absolute refusal to conserve represents a far greater threat to America's long term stability, and will lower living standards if we don't start changing it now.
Okie: Check out Global Warming is a Scam topic. Lots of scientific data that the global warming advocates refuse and/or cannot answer. Just a sample here.
Bixby wrote: Cobra wrote: Bixby wrote: Hartlyboy wrote: You ask a valid question, NOE. Ice core samp[les do indeed reflect rising CO2 levels back through the ages as the earth warmed. The interesting thing to me is that the data indicates the CO2 rose after the earth warmed, not before it. The believers always relate global warming to human activity which releases CO2 but I'm puzzled as to why they can make that claim based on what has gone before in previous cycles and without any human presence having been involved then. It is just one example of why we need rational discourse on climate change rather than having a bunch of clods in Washington grabbing onto an indefensible position and raising our cost of living based on it. I think in about 10 years , if I'm still alive, I'll be cursing Mike Castle and the others like him as I shiver huddled around my paltry candle because I can't afford that nasty oil that was supposed to be causing the earth to warm.
Right you are, HB. Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years AFTER temperatures change. This is evident in the Vostok ice cores 150,000 -100,000 years ago. In 1985, ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going that far back as indicated above. Temperatures and CO2 seemed locked together. It was a turning point - the "greenhouse effect" captured attention. But in 1999 it became clear carbon rose and fell AFTER temperatures did. By 2003 we had better data showing the lag was 800+/- 200 years. CO2 was in the back seat. This invalidated Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. In fact, digging deeper into denial, Team AGW admitted the 800 year lag but claimed that even if CO2 didn't start the warming trend, it amplifies it. Ampliification is speculation; it's a theory with no evidence that matters in the real world, only in computer models with faulty input.
Pure hokey. If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a "runaway greenhouse effect." Well, that hasn't happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Either way, CO2 is trivial, or the models are missing the dominant driver.
Al Gore's movie was made in 2005. His words about the icew cores were: "It's complicated." The lag calls everything about cause and effect into question. There is no way any honest investigation could ignore something so central. They do ignore it, and therefore "concensus."
Great information, sir. It's hard to visualize w/o a graph or chart. Could you please cite the source of your information in this last post please? Sure thing, Cobra. You can access the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 07:17 pm by Duncan Idaho
|
Okie
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 06:54 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: You cannot fight Mother Nature. The violence of an ice age or melting is far beyond the capacity of man to control. Kind of like Congress. I agree that Congress has the self control of an 18 year old on a date with a hot (is there any other kind?) cheerleader.
That said, I think humans have a long history of fighting nature, and winning. After all, hoover dam seems to do a good job of keeping the colorado river in one place. And Lake Ondaga is so full of pollution nothing lives in it except some algea. I wouldn't be so sure that we can't screw up atmosphere as well.
As for the 'green agenda,' Bixby, I think you're giving them too much credit on the coordination front. Besides, the right wing agenda pushed by the most conservative branch of the republican party represents a failure social enigeering at its finest.
As far as fatal flaws go, our current rate of energy consumption and our absolute refusal to conserve represents a far greater threat to America's long term stability, and will lower living standards if we don't start changing it now.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 06:24 pm |
|
You might have noticed that Al Gore has recently been saying some very immodest things about anyone who dares to disagree with his views. Of course, when someone like Mr. Gore says things like that, it tells us more about his views than about those of his opponents. And what is the real agenda of Mr. Gore and his fellow-traveling green-shirts? If you want to find all of that scary information in one place, read “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do To Stop Them,” by Steve Milloy.
Gore’s, and also Obama and the left-wing Democrats, agenda is frighteningly ambitious; it intends to force us all into rationing of just about everything (electricity, water, food – even health and safety, and births), the forced-downsizing of our lifestyles, massive social re-engineering, and the altering of business in both its methods and its outcomes. None of this is supposition or extrapolation; Mr. Milloy has compiled the pillars of this green-dystopian nightmare from the greens’ own statements.
The green agenda is just the most recent recycling of a deeply misanthropic agenda – and the greens have adopted – from whole cloth – much of the prior agenda items of earlier misanthropes. In the world of energy, the greens profess hatred of all carbon-based forms of energy – and want to end the use of oil, coal, natural gas, etc. as soon as possible as an act of moral hygiene. However, the green energy agenda – like communism – is fatally-flawed with a large number of irreconcilable contradictions; these contradictions end up amounting to trying to prevent everything.
The greens are all for wind and solar power – until plans to actually build such facilities threaten (in the case of wind) to mar the view and kill birds, or require (as in the case of solar) that vast regions of fragile desert be carpeted with paneling. Similarly, greens loved biofuels until efforts were made at large-scale production – which diverted food to fuel, caused food shortages and sharply higher prices, and induced destabilization in the developing world. In a similar way, greens were for hydro power before they were against it; when this carbon-free method of generating electricity was “discovered” (by greens) to involve the flooding of large areas for reservoirs and such, the greens turned against hydro.
The greens’ pathological hatred of motor vehicles remains as virulent as ever. One of the latest green-coercion plans is the wish to require mileage metering in all vehicles, so that drivers can be taxed based on how many miles they drive – and if necessary regulated to “permitted mileages” and punished for exceeding mileage quotas.
Mr. Milloy describes the bizarre jihad against bottled water (a new green fetish), and the green schizophrenia about farming; in the latter case, greens can’t decide if farming is good (the farmer is a “little guy”) or bad (farms use chemicals, and produce both run-off and greenhouse gases). This is an extension of the extremely destructive and long-running campaign against DDT – even though we know from good studies that DDT can be used very well in small, targeted doses, and was never nearly as dangerous as the late Rachel Carson implied. The green insistence on allowing no DDT use whatsoever is costing thousands of lives (mostly of children) every year.
In a similar notion, the greens will soon (2012) have succeeded in forcing the elimination (in the United States) of Edison’s marvelous incandescent light bulb – to be replaced by the ugly and dangerous compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs. Not only do these bulbs give off a fatiguing and flickering light; they contain mercury (an element that was diligently sidelined in recent years), and breaking one causes your house to become unsafe and contaminated – requiring a very expensive environmental clean-up. As Mr. Milloy, notes, perhaps the most disturbing thing about the greens is their furious efforts to silence any all dissenters – not just via “social pressure,” but also via repeated calls for criminal prosecutions of those who dare to as much as disagree in word. (Skanderbeg, Red State)
(Edited from Junk Science)
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
| You cannot fight Mother Nature. The violence of an ice age or melting is far beyond the capacity of man to control. Kind of like Congress.
|
Okie
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 05:32 pm |
|
dover-diva wrote: Just another way to p**s away people's money. If these firms had to finance their fantasies themselves, we would have LESS BS and more common sense. I'm sure paying for flood control for most of the peninsula won't be p*^*ing away money when the ice caps start melting.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 11:26 pm |
|
| Just another way to p**s away people's money. If these firms had to finance their fantasies themselves, we would have LESS BS and more common sense.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 10:26 pm |
|
| There are several panels doing studies now in preparation for a climate change conference coming up in Denmark shortly. These are actual engineers and scientists figuring out what we actually need to physically do to change the temperature, whether it is caused by man or the sun. Turns out so far there is truly no meaningful action that can be taken. They've considered putting reflectors into space, building ships to roam the oceans pumping water jets high into the air, etc., Some pretty wild stuff, but to get a 1-2 degree change in our temp would have a negative cost benefit ratio of something like 4500 to 1 in the best case.
|
Okie
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
An interesting website, Bixby. The author even seems interested in debating the issue.
I do wholeheartedly agree that the cap and trade bill was a POS, and it will probably die (as it deserves to) in the senate. Its too riddled with exemptions and opportunities for manipulation to do much good.
A Washington Post editorial was posted on the website asking why the free market is not taking care of the climate change problem. I'm afraid that's the wrong question to ask. Instead, we should be asking when the energy situation will take care of global warming.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 08:51 pm |
|
[size=Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed']
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 07:45 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Sorry - your wood stove is not allowed under cap and trade. I'm serious, read it in the bill which is more than the morons in DC did.
Too bloody bad about them........I'm sick and d**ned tired of the Californification of this country and I don't live there, so they can keep their fruits and nuts and over regulation right there on the left coast where it belongs.
I dare anyone to attempt to tell me my woodstove is illegal. When they start paying the bills to heat my home, then, and only then can they tell me how I will heat it.
|
propwash2008
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 10:36 am |
|
Don't forget the jet he flys around in too!! What a hipocrit!!
Don't forget ol Al and his buddies, some at GE, stand to make a ton of money if the "Cap and Trade Bill passes. We will be screwed!! You think your electric bill in high now and gas prices?? That ain't nothin!!! Gotta give it to ol Al, he knows how to make a buck!! The bastard!!
http://www.donniegs.com for more facts.
Last edited on Wed Aug 12th, 2009 10:54 am by propwash2008
|
propwash2008
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 10:35 am |
|
Here is another discussion on this.
http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/91995.html
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 08:11 pm |
|
I know that health care/insurance reform is in center stage but this still goes on. Watch for sneak legislation tucked away in the health bill. You may not hear or read about it.
Unmuzzled! Censored EPA employee Alan Carlin appears on Fox News! - Discusses how skeptical climate report was suppressed by Obama 's EPA[size= ]
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:29 am |
|
| Sorry - your wood stove is not allowed under cap and trade. I'm serious, read it in the bill which is more than the morons in DC did.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
The estimates and speculation about the total recoverable reserves of the Bakken are about as diverse as the beliefs or disbelief in global warming and for many of the same reasons -there is a lot of guessing going on.
In 1995 the USGS was adamant that the field was home to between 100-200 million barrels of oil, today with better information and because of improved horizonal well drilling techniques, they have a 3-4 billion barrel estimate. The North Dakota geological people see it as more promising than that.
Okie is right, in my opinion, about several points. The rate of consumption we have today makes even this vast resource only one factor in our energy policy, -or it should be. The time to take the oil out would stretch over 20 years and it wouldn't effectively drive down the cost of gasoline or any of that. The best contribution it would have made if the idiots in Washington cared about such things is that we would be creating jobs and income that would stay in the US rather than going overseas to the extent we use our own resources. Given the radical spending that Obama and the Democrats have initiated, it probably no longer matters since our money will be useful only for starting our wood stoves.
Last edited on Wed Jul 1st, 2009 11:29 pm by Hartlyboy
|
Okie
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation. A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
That's nowhere near "503 Billion Barrels of oil."
BTW, at 22 million barrels a day, the US would blow through those reserves, assuming all the oil comes out of the ground, in about thirty weeks. That's weeks. Not years.
As for the 'recoverable oil' under the rockies. That's shale oil. We'd have to blow the tops and sides off the mountains to get at it. Then expend the energy to liqify it. We'd be doing good to get as much energy out of shale oil as we spend making it. In other words, we'd be running faster to stand still.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 06:08 pm |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: Bixby wrote: If only some of you global warmiing/climate change activists would only look at the US Surface Temperature Record, you would ask, "How reliable is it?" The report contains the results of the first-eve4r comprehensive review of the 1,221 climate monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, the very stations used for US temperature records.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts was given the task of visually inspecting and photographing more than 850 stations. WHat his inspection revealed was simply astounding, but not too surprising. In his words, "We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that actually absorb and radiate heat. In fact, we found that 89% of the stations, nearly 9 out of every 10, fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements."
It was further discovered that those global warming/climate change activists who are spreading the hype are deliberately providing false information. They preferentially use sites affected by these "heat island effects" in their compilations. The US temperature record, which is not adequately corrected for these siting problems, is therefore less reliable than widely supposed.
The constant alarming news headlines touting small temperature fluctuations in this data are used by these advocates of government raxation and rationing of energy to promote their political agenda. The National Weather Service stations were never intended to provide data for such a purpose. The stations are not sited and maintained to adequately measure the variations in temperature with location and time needed for this analysys. No wonder so many of the early advocates are deserting the "consensus" crowd whose ranks are thinning.
Excellent, Bixby. The conclusion is inescabable: The US temperature record is unreliable.The errors cited exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7 C (about 1.2 F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the US during the past century. SInce the US record is thought to be "the best in the world<" it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
Thank you, counselor. The leap to "green tech" is frought with problems. The data on which this whole agenda is based on is unrelaiable therefore the "remedy" is unreliable. Besides, wind and solar does not give a whole lot of promise when it comes right down to it.
Calm days, clouds could stymie solar, wind future
Reuters
Maybe the future of climate friendly energy won't have as much to do with wind and solar energy as current booms in those technologies suggest. Read More..
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 902 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: If only some of you global warmiing/climate change activists would only look at the US Surface Temperature Record, you would ask, "How reliable is it?" The report contains the results of the first-eve4r comprehensive review of the 1,221 climate monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, the very stations used for US temperature records.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts was given the task of visually inspecting and photographing more than 850 stations. WHat his inspection revealed was simply astounding, but not too surprising. In his words, "We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that actually absorb and radiate heat. In fact, we found that 89% of the stations, nearly 9 out of every 10, fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements."
It was further discovered that those global warming/climate change activists who are spreading the hype are deliberately providing false information. They preferentially use sites affected by these "heat island effects" in their compilations. The US temperature record, which is not adequately corrected for these siting problems, is therefore less reliable than widely supposed.
The constant alarming news headlines touting small temperature fluctuations in this data are used by these advocates of government raxation and rationing of energy to promote their political agenda. The National Weather Service stations were never intended to provide data for such a purpose. The stations are not sited and maintained to adequately measure the variations in temperature with location and time needed for this analysys. No wonder so many of the early advocates are deserting the "consensus" crowd whose ranks are thinning.
Excellent, Bixby. The conclusion is inescabable: The US temperature record is unreliable.The errors cited exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7 C (about 1.2 F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the US during the past century. SInce the US record is thought to be "the best in the world<" it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
If only some of you global warmiing/climate change activists would only look at the US Surface Temperature Record, you would ask, "How reliable is it?" The report contains the results of the first-eve4r comprehensive review of the 1,221 climate monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, the very stations used for US temperature records.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts was given the task of visually inspecting and photographing more than 850 stations. WHat his inspection revealed was simply astounding, but not too surprising. In his words, "We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that actually absorb and radiate heat. In fact, we found that 89% of the stations, nearly 9 out of every 10, fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements."
It was further discovered that those global warming/climate change activists who are spreading the hype are deliberately providing false information. They preferentially use sites affected by these "heat island effects" in their compilations. The US temperature record, which is not adequately corrected for these siting problems, is therefore less reliable than widely supposed.
The constant alarming news headlines touting small temperature fluctuations in this data are used by these advocates of government raxation and rationing of energy to promote their political agenda. The National Weather Service stations were never intended to provide data for such a purpose. The stations are not sited and maintained to adequately measure the variations in temperature with location and time needed for this analysys. No wonder so many of the early advocates are deserting the "consensus" crowd whose ranks are thinning.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:18 am |
|
| It ain't over yet..............................
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
You do know that if you or I did this stuff they would throw us in jail for insider trading. These people set up the ponzi scheme and then write legislation, and make sure that it is pushed down everyone's throat (taxpayer). I have printed the list of the people who voted "aye" and I will do some investigating of my own.
Yup!! BO was a rich pick. Biden, the idiot, I wonder how much he has invested in this scheme. I've already asked Mr. Castle. I am eagerly awaiting his reply.
I also asked Mr.Castle what he defines "congressional ethics" as? Waiting for that one too. (You know when you write a letter you have to pick a topic). I'm 1/2 way thru. those topics. So if you read about the thugs from the FED knocking down a door in Dover. That prob will be my home. 
|
log out
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:45 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Thank you Al Gore.................
I think playing the game has been sniffing too many of the fumes from the Delaware City Oil Refinery. Take a few more good strong wiffs you'll be ok.
|
Current time is 05:23 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|