# Snow in june...in Hawaii...



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

I have to say thank goodness for global warming, otherwise the entire Hawaiian Island chain might be buried in snow...

http://news.yahoo.com/video/honolulu-kitv-18211460/mauna-kea-sees-snow-in-the-summer-25477501


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say thank goodness for global warming, otherwise the entire Hawaiian Island chain might be buried in snow...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/video/honolulu-kitv-18211460/mauna-kea-sees-snow-in-the-summer-25477501


Spoken like someone that doesn't understand global warming.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say thank goodness for global warming, otherwise the entire Hawaiian Island chain might be buried in snow...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/video/honolulu-kitv-18211460/mauna-kea-sees-snow-in-the-summer-25477501


 
1) As I've said elsewhere, and repeatedly, that's weather-not _climate_, and, in fact, attributable to global climate change.

2) It's also an altitude effect-snows pretty regularly up there in Hawaii, ....:lfao: there's even skiing....:lfao: :lfao:

_Thank goodness for 
global warming
buried in snow
Hawaiian Island Chain
otherwise_


----------



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

No, I get it.  If it is really hot, it is man made global warming.  If it is really cold, it is man made global warming.  If there is a lot of snow, it is man made global warming.  If there is little or no snow, it is man made global warming.  I  think that about covers it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

I would like to believe every storm or tremor is a sign of some government plot gone wrong but I just can't. Are you really going to try to make a political discussion over a few snow flakes? Its going to be a long winter next year round.
Sean


----------



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

I have heard that the winter is going to be longer and colder as well.  We are apparently entering a cooling period, like the one experienced during the American Revolution and during World War 2 up to the end of the 70's.  These cooling and warming periods happen about every 30 years.  Unfortunately for Al Gore, he missed his timing.  The whole climate gate scandal didn't stir your interest?


----------



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

A while back, on a local radio show a guy was interviewed who talked about the way temperature was measured here in the states.  He pointed out that many of the weather devices for measuring temperature were placed in open country when they were first put in.  However, as the country developed and towns grew, no one moved the sensors, and you find situations like this...

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

all over the country.  I don't remember who he was but some of the placements he pointed out were really pretty funny.

Here are some more pictures of really badly placed temperature sensors, imbedded in  the above article:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/...ing in greater heat retention and reflection.


----------



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

From the site, How not to measure temperature:

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-1.html

this article discusses the problems with temperature measuring satelites.

From the article:

Satellites reflect solar energy and emit radio transmissions. Also there will be other effects that science does not yet understand because science understands little. All of this could have the effect of biasing sensitive satellite instruments such as the MSUs. It stands to reason that the number of satellites have increased since the 1970s and so this potential warming effect has increased. Again there is no mention of this on any of the satellite temperature sites or in the mainstream media.


These pictures are endlessly funny...

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_to_measure_temperature_11.html


----------



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

Thanks for the inspiration guys.  I had heard that guy a while ago but it wasn't until tonight, as late as it is getting, that I tried to find what he was talking about.  You are my Muses.  Thanks.


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2011)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/19/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-74/

This one is a picture of a sensor next to a gas burn off device.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 8, 2011)

I don't see the big deal.  Hawaii is very much like Jamaica in climate and how mountainous it is and we used to have hail at my grandfather's house, and he lived in the mountains.  I've seen snow once there, but hail was pretty common.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 8, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I would like to believe every storm or tremor is a sign of some government plot gone wrong but I just can't. Are you really going to try to make a political discussion over a few snow flakes? Its going to be a long winter next year round.
> Sean


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HAARP

Done


----------



## granfire (Jun 8, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HAARP
> 
> Done



LOL!!!

If they can do all of that from there, I should wonder why they have not let it rain pver the South-Western US yet!
:lfao:


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> If they can do all of that from there, I should wonder why they have not let it rain pver the South-Western US yet!
> :lfao:


 

As the Theory goes...its supposed to strech our atmosphere up..kind of making a bubble, and thats supposed to effect weather conditions...some say the Tsnami in the Pacific (the first one a few years ago) was cause by the HAARP, so it would slow down the Asian economy...and Katrina was payback for the Tsnami, for the Chinese to slow down our Oil imports.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> No, I get it. If it is really hot, it is man made global warming. If it is really cold, it is man made global warming. If there is a lot of snow, it is man made global warming. If there is little or no snow, it is man made global warming. I think that about covers it.


No, you don't get it. Snow in Hawaii, record-breaking heat and precipitation in the northern latitudes, etc. It takes a little more than a cow farting to make this happen.


----------



## granfire (Jun 8, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> As the Theory goes...its supposed to strech our atmosphere up..kind of making a bubble, and thats supposed to effect weather conditions...some say the Tsnami in the Pacific (the first one a few years ago) was cause by the HAARP, so it would slow down the Asian economy...and Katrina was payback for the Tsnami, for the Chinese to slow down our Oil imports.




maked perfect sense, now somebody send a small tropical depression toward Texas and Florida...or anyhwhere else, except Louisiana!


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 8, 2011)

I believe the earth warms and cools on its own. We know that, that's not new.  But we also know that people can have an HUGE influence on the environment, and that includes the weather and climate. People have an effect on global warming. Come on, Billi, you must know that.

Here's an example of people influencing the environment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2011)

Blade 96, you should listen to American conservative talk radio more.  The peppered moth story is not real.  I heard a scientist talk about this moth years ago and how that classic tale about the pollution allowing the darker moth's to live and the lighter one to die, or however it went, isn't true.  Here is one account you can find if you search for peppered moth hoax.

http://exchangedlife.com/Creation/pepper.shtml

From this article:

British scientist Cyril Clarke investigated the peppered moth for
25 years, and saw only two in their natural habitat by day - no other
researchers have seen any. Kettlewell and others attracted the
moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing
female pheromones - in each case, they only flew in at night. So
where do they spend the day? Clarke writes, 'The latest story is that
they rest on the leaves in the top of trees, but it's not really known
... either way, they're very good at hiding.' 

The moths filmed by the birds were laboratory - bred ones placed
onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once
had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood) 

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper
described how it was done - dead moths were glued to the tree.
University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue
moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and
films have featured 'a lot of fraudulent photographs'. 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth/

From this article:

Since the mid-1960s most Biology textbooks have included the story of the peppered moth, accompanied by Kettlewell's two photos (or ones very similar to them). The ubiquity of the images made it that much more shocking when the public learned the photos were staged.

You see Blade 96, stories like this, and then the big story of the "climate-gate scandal" at East Anglia weather research unit demonstrate that manmade global warming is far from proven.  I know too much about how people behave when money, power and fame are on the table.  I also know too much about how the government works and how much worse than normal people politicians are.  There is a lot of money, power and fame to be found in the man made global warming research.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Blade 96, you should listen to American conservative talk radio more.


I'm sure she'd prefer to retain her IQ rating rather than have it plummet to Forrest Gump levels.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 9, 2011)

For years the right wing and conservative talk show hosts said there is no global warming.  It doesn't exsist.  See all this snow?!  Now the claims have changed to that it isn't man made and companies shouldn't be responsible for thier emmisions since it isn't man made.  Use your eyes and your brain.  It is easy to see weather patterns are changing drastically.  Now why wouldn't we be doing everything in our power to keep that from getting worse?  Now maybe the changes aren't caused my man, but it is not much of a stretch to think that we've been at least a contributing factor.  The results of not doing anything seem a bit too serious to be lazy about it.  Also, if I have a choice between believing what a talk show hosts tells me about science or what a scientist tells me about the same science, I'm going with the scientist.  This is also more common sense.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

A primer on handling climate issues for republicans from Powerlineblog.com...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029197.php


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

Actually, I think that they have said that the warming is not caused by human activity.The science hasn't proven the connection yet since the method of measuring global temperatures has been manipulated by the supporters of man mad global warming.  Once again see Climat-gate and then look at some of my earlier posts on the temperature sensors and where they are currently placed.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, I think that they have said that the warming is not caused by human activity.The science hasn't proven the connection yet since the method of measuring global temperatures has been manipulated by the supporters of man mad global warming. Once again see Climat-gate and then look at some of my earlier posts on the temperature sensors and where they are currently placed.


.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 9, 2011)

Scott T said:


> I'm sure she'd prefer to retain her IQ rating rather than have it plummet to Forrest Gump levels.



lol true 

actually i do read what conservatives have to say about things though. I do want to get both sides before i decide what to believe in. Some stances are easier than others to decide what 'you are' though.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

The internet is great...and about melting polar ice...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2871-are-the-ice-caps-melting

Arctic Conditions
All this ice loss must mean the Arctic is heating up, right? On the contrary, DMI admits little difference in Arctic temperatures between 1958 and 2009, and data from NASA&#8217;s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) indicates a cooling trend in the Arctic since the 1940s. Indeed, some climate scientists &#8212; even those who support the idea of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) &#8212; are predicting Earth will experience a period of cooling for the next two or three dec-ades.

A top climate modeler with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Mojib Latif, said as much at last summer&#8217;s UN World Climate Conference in Geneva. A confirmed adherent to AGW, Latif explained that cyclical changes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans cause Earth&#8217;s temperatures to fluctuate between warm and cold modes every 20 to 30 years. He said we are at the beginning of a cooling period. The head of climate prediction at the U.K.&#8217;s National Weather Service (the Met Office), James Murphy, agreed and added that ocean cycles are contributing factors in the loss of Arctic sea ice. &#8220;The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,&#8221; Murphy said.

The head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, Anastasios Tsonis, supports Latif&#8217;s findings with further evidence showing that global temperatures depend largely on oceanic &#8220;multi-decadal oscillations,&#8221; or MDOs. Tsonis does not deny human activities can contribute to rising temperatures, but he disagrees they can affect climate in any significant way. In an interview with the U.K.&#8217;s Daily Mail, Tsonis explained that the latest MDO warm mode has brought on the global-warming hysteria of the past few years. Recalling ice-age predictions made in the 1970s, he said, &#8220;Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.&#8221;

AND THE MONEY QUOTE:  

Worst-case Scenario
Regardless of whether, where, or how much ice is melting, total global sea ice extent in the past 30 years shows practically no trend, with 2008 and 2009 peak sea ice seasons equivalent to the 1979-2000 mean.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

and another article on ice...http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

from the article:

In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:

"There's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change."

During the summer of 2000 there was "a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole". Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: "The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning."

Another article on ice...

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...ce-caps-really-melting-due-to-global-warming/

from the articel:

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent&#8217;s western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth&#8217;s ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week&#8217;s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown &#8220;significant cooling in recent decades&#8221;.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

I am posting small bits of articles over several posts because Sukerkin says he doesn't like long posts.  So some out there may have to just cope with this a little bit.

Another article on ice...

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/polar_history_icecap_melting_natural.htm

AND THE MONEY QUOTE:

HE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.

After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.

The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.
..................................................

Soooo....still not impressed by the alleged science that attributes warming to man made causes...


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

I dedicate this polar ice cap article to Blade 96...

http://educate-yourself.org/glw/meltingicecaps03jul08.shtml

from the article:

But in 2008 we are not seeing that. The winds and temperatures in the Arctic are quite different, and as of today there is more ice than normal around Siberia. The Arctic melt season ends in about seven weeks because the sun will get too low. As of June 26, there is no indication that the North Pole is in danger of melting.

The BBC's Richard Black wrote an article last week claiming that Arctic Ice is melting "even faster than last year." Looking at the Cryosphere Today map, it is abundantly clear that ice is melting more slowly than last year. By the end of June, 2007 the Hudson Bay was essentially ice-free. This year it is close to normal, with cold temperatures predicted for most of the rest of the short melt season. Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2011)

How will you explain these away then?


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

From one of the articles above:

After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.

2004
- 1928
--------
  0076  years, the cycle mentioned in one of the articles above.

from one of the articles:

Northwest Passage?

Last summer, the headlines read "First ever traversal of the Northwest Passage". This sounds very dramatic, except that it is entirely incorrect. As the BBC reported: "In 1905, Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first person to successfully navigate the Northwest Passage, in a wooden sailboat." The Northwest Passage has been navigated at least one hundred times over the last century.

According to official US Weather Bureau records (pdf) from 1922, there was open sailing very close to the North Pole that year. Anthony Watts unearthed this quote from the Weather Bureau:

"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice-free water.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

Snows and kilamanjaro...

http://www.masslive.com/news/index....imanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html

THE MONEY QUOTE:

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas, said the Kilimanjaro prediction &#8220;is just one in a number of global warming scare stories that scientists have had to recant or at least modify in the face of substantial counter evidence.&#8221;
&#8220;Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn&#8217;t.&#8221;
- Douglas Hardy, UMass geoscientist
&#8220;The Kilimanjaro predictions were suspect at the time they were made. Critics noted that there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century,&#8221; he said.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2011)

How do you explain the loss of these glaciers...

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/glacier_maps.html

Hmmm...if you look at the pictures of  my home 18,000 years ago in the post, it was covered by a glacier.  Today, not so much.  What happened to the glacier?

Hmm...was there a lot of man made industry 18,000 years ago?  8,000 years ago?  And yet, the glaciers melted...hmmmm.

Was this an act of weather, or global climate change...hmmm?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> How do you explain the loss of these glaciers...
> 
> http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/glacier_maps.html
> 
> ...



Surely even you can tell the difference between 18,000 years and a few decades.


----------



## Ramirez (Jun 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Surely even you can tell the difference between 18,000 years and a few decades.


 

Time is such a socialist concept.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 10, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Time is such a socialist concept.



hehe


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2011)

It's cold up there all of the time.  In August, it still is in the 30s.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas, said the Kilimanjaro prediction is just one in a number of global warming scare stories that scientists have had to recant or at least modify in the face of substantial counter evidence.
> Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadnt.


 
Education:
PhD, Applied Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, 2001
MA, Applied Philosphy, Bowling Green State University, 1992
BA, Cultural Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, 1986


A true expert on climate.




> - Douglas Hardy, UMass geoscientist
> The Kilimanjaro predictions were suspect at the time they were made. Critics noted that there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century, he said.


 

Melting and sublimation both contribute to the ice loss, says study author Doug Hardy, a glaciologist from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The glaciers have been in retreat for more than a century, Hardy says, with a drying climate in East Africa one main culprit.
"The top [of the mountain] is very, very dry. It's a desert up there," Hardy says. The lack of new snowfall means the dark, dirty tops of glaciers absorb more solar radiation than they otherwise would. In addition, the nearby Indian Ocean has warmed, says Hardy, altering circulation patterns that used to bring more moisture to the mountain. But Hardy says there is too little data to blame the ice loss on increasing atmospheric temperatures. *"It's entirely reasonable that, yes, the glaciers are going away on Kilimanjaro in response to global warming,"* but the link is via Indian Ocean-driven circulation patterns rather than via a warmer atmosphere, says Hardy. The study is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA1.


----------



## billc (Jun 10, 2011)

a quick look at the climate-gate scandal and further finds...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/

From the article:

But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D&#8217;Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org. 
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
D&#8217;Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.

Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D&#8217;Aleo and Watts note: &#8220;About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.&#8221;

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...limate-change-noaa-james-hansen#ixzz1OuJkZ6Hv


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...limate-change-noaa-james-hansen#ixzz1OuJDUWS1

.....................................

Tampering with the data I guess would take someone with extensive backgroung in climate research.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 13, 2011)

I saw the title of the thread and was all like "How could he possibly politicize this?"  I know, I know, shoulda known better than to even ask.....


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 13, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I saw the title of the thread and was all like "How could he possibly politicize this?" I know, I know, shoulda known better than to even ask.....


 

Its called the Carbon Tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax



> A *carbon tax* is an environmental tax that is levied on the carbon content of fuels.[1] It is a form of carbon pricing. Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sourceswind, sunlight, hydropower, and nucleardo not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. A carbon tax can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuelscoal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gasin proportion to their carbon content.


 
In other words...another way for Big Brother to make a buck off of us who struggle to fill there gas tanks just to get to work and perpetuate the cycle.

What they are planning to do is tax the big corperations...and we all know where that fee goes..they hand it on down to the consumer.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 13, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Its called the Carbon Tax.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
> 
> In other words...another way for Big Brother to make a buck off of us who struggle to fill there gas tanks just to get to work and perpetuate the cycle.
> ...



Thts how come Liberal leader Stephane Dion got screwed in Canada....he wanted to bring in this carbon tax.


----------



## billc (Jun 13, 2011)

Better that he was screwed, blade 96, than having him screw the canadian citizens with a carbon tax.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Thts how come Liberal leader Stephane Dion* got screwed* in Canada....he wanted to bring in this carbon tax.


 
Lucky chap! That phrase means something wholly different here!


Naturalists here who have been keeping records for decades have logged that our climate is indeed getting warmer. Spring is coming earlier every year with some knock on effects for migrating birds etc. There is actually very little doubt that there is global warming happening BUT the cause is the reason people should be debating. Are we causing it, is it a natural movement, are we contributing to it, those are the questions that should be asked. Ignoring the fact that global warming is happening is sticking your head in the sand.
Cleaning up our pollution should be something we do as a matter of course whether or not it's causing or contributing to any global warming

Billcihak, putting up post after post one after the other swamping the thread won't make what you say any truer or your assertions from the media any less ridulous. I'm sure actually doing that is against the rules here or at least is discouraged.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Lucky chap! That phrase means something wholly different here!



Tee hee


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 14, 2011)

BTW if anyone was wondering who was the one of biggest players are and it is *MR AL GORE* and here is why.



> Gore's involvement in environmental issues has been criticized. For example, he has been labeled a "carbon billionaire" and accused of profiting from his advocacy;[201] a charge which he has denied,[202] by saying, among other things, that he has not been "working on this issue for 30 years... because of greed".[201] A conservative Washington D.C. think tank, and a Republican member of Congress, among others, have claimed that Gore has a conflict-of-interest for advocating for taxpayer subsidies of green-energy technologies in which he has a personal investment.[202][203] Additionally, he has been criticized for his above-average energy consumption in using private jets, and in owning multiple, very large homes,[204] one of which was reported in 2007 as using high amounts of electricity.[205][206] Gore's spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy and that the Tennessee house in question has been retrofitted to make it more energy efficient.[207][208] Philosopher A. C. Grayling defended Al Gore, arguing that Gore's personal lifestyle does nothing to impugn his message and that Gore's critics have committed the ad hominem fallacy.[209]
> Data in _An Inconvenient Truth_ have been questioned. In a 2007 court case, a British judge said that while he had "no doubt ...the film was broadly accurate" and its "four main scientific hypotheses ...are supported by a vast quantity of research,"[210] he upheld nine of a "long schedule" of alleged errors presented to the court. He ruled that the film could be shown to schoolchildren in the UK if guidance notes given to teachers were amended to balance out the film's one-sided political views. Gore's spokeswoman responded in 2007 that the court had upheld the film's fundamental thesis and its use as an educational tool.[211] In 2009, an interviewer asked Gore about the British court challenge and the nine "errors", and Gore responded, "the ruling was in my favour."[212]
> Organizations including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) criticized Gore for not advocating vegetarianism as a way for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint.[213] Gore agreed that meat production contributes to increased carbon emissions, but did not want to "go quite as far as ... saying everybody should become a vegetarian".[214] He said that although he is not a vegetarian, he has "cut back sharply" on his consumption of meat.[214]
> When asked by Bjørn Lomborg to debate whether spending on health and education should take priority over limiting carbon emissions, Gore responded that he would not debate because the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a on the one hand, on the other hand issue . . . . Its not a matter of theory or conjecture."[215]


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore


The Carbon Tax will continue to make the Rich, Richer!


----------



## granfire (Jun 14, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> BTW if anyone was wondering who was the one of biggest players are and it is *MR AL GORE* and here is why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL, many issues and that is all you got from that?

(hey, PETA criticized him, he can't be all bad!)


----------



## billc (Jun 14, 2011)

Hmmm...this article talks about an unexpected reduction in sun spot activity that may lead to a Maunder minimum...hmmmm. Could this effect global temperature...wikipedia mentions this...

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

from the article:

"Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we'll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all," Altrock said. "If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23's magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions. &#8230; No one knows what the sun will do in that case."
If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

....................................................

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Little Ice Age
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle - and coldest part - of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters has not been proven; however, lower earth temperatures have been observed during low sunspot activity.[3] The winter of 1708-09 was extremely cold.[4]

............................................

Don't those space scientists know that people are warming up the planet and all this sun spot stuff could confuse people...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2011)

Sigh, the Earth is warming up, the seas are rising and the polar ice caps are melting, there's very little doubt about that. The doubts are what's causing this, there is a good chance it's natural, after all the Earth has been warming and cooling for eons. However too many people are making political capital out of this inside of trying to help places that face being flooded out of existence, the Earth has never had an unchanging climate so why people think it doesn't change beats me.

Insistance on believing the Earth is not warming is ostrich like behaviour, the Earth may be warming naturally or it could be because we are polluting it. Surely though pollution is never going to be a good thing, whether or not it's causing the warming it would be best to cut down pollution as much as we can, for our and our childrens sake if nothing else.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jun 14, 2011)

Aloha, snow! I think that's because of the La Nina, which causes the Pacific ocean to cool.  thus the wet storms that bring snow to Hawaii especially in the elevated areas.


----------



## billc (Jun 14, 2011)

So, you agree with me Tez. Outside of the manmade part we agree on the rest of what you said.  Of course there are those who believe we are now entering a cooling period after a 30 or so year warming period.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 15, 2011)

The climate is changing. That is nor debatable. Neither is the fact that we have a level of influence on the rate at which it's changing. We're not the sole reason, but are a contributor. And there is nothing wrong with doing as much as we can to minimize or impact.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 15, 2011)

LOL I am not debating if the Earth is on a Warming or even a Cooling Trend right now...

I am arguing that the Global Elite are trying to make a buck off of it...even if its a natural stage of the Earth's "Life"


----------



## crushing (Jun 15, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> LOL I am not debating if the Earth is on a Warming or even a Cooling Trend right now...
> 
> I am arguing that the Global Elite are trying to make a buck off of it...even if its a natural stage of the Earth's "Life"


 
The banksters and lawyers are loving the profit potential of a carbon/emissions exchange. An emissions cap would mean an initial investment for the polluters to pay, with costs passed on (of course). But, trading emissions is an evergreen subscription to trickle up economics.

Also,  http://www.google.com/search?q=NASA+sun+entering+cooling+period


----------



## billc (Jun 16, 2011)

The political scope of global warming: A paper by Vaclav Klaus

http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830

From the paper:

*If someone wants to reduce CO2 emissions, he must either expect a revolution in economic efficiency (which determines emissions intensity) or must start organizing a world-wide economic decline.* Revolutions in economic efficiency &#8211; at least in relevant and meaningful time horizons &#8211; were never realized in the past and will not happen in the future either. It was the recent financial and economic crisis, not a technological miracle (nor preachings by Mr Pachauri) what brought about a slight reduction of CO2 emissions.

3. As someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole society from above, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which are very similar to those we had to live with decades ago. The arrogance with which the GWD alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media want to suppress the market, control the society, dictate the prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes) is something I know well from the past[10]. All *the old, already almost forgotten economic arguments against communism* should be repeated now. It is our duty to do so.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The political scope of global warming: A paper by Vaclav Klaus
> 
> http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830
> 
> ...


 

And again, I'll point out that imposing a cap and trade system on SO2 emissions, and forcing the utilities to implement reduction measures, has led to coal-fired power plants being capable of removing 99%  of SO2 from their emissions-_usually with little or no cost passed on to the consumer_ where utilities are regulated-as in *no SO2 "tax"*. Of course, in the case of carbon emmissions, the technology would have to be developed, so whatever the utilities have to pay in the meantime, would be paid, _and ample incentive for them to develop the technology for carbon-emission removal, sequestration and/or recycling_ just as it has proven to be in the case of SO2 and mercury. 

Of course, no one says anything about the release of water from coal being the principle heat reaction, or that same water vapor being a greenhouse gas itself, but that's also neither here nor there, really-just a detail for me to throw out there. The facts, and past history, speak for themselves, and that history says that if we impose cap and trade on the utilities they'll come up with a way to reduce their emissions, and implement it-with little or no cost passed on to consumers.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2011)

Another look at the manmade global warming scam...

http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/20...ms-to-spread-climate-change-hoax/#more-202060

from the article:


How about those horrible tornadoes this past spring? This claim is just as fraudulent, *Fox News *reported:​Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAAs Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said warming trends do create more of the fuel that tornadoes require, such as moisture, but that they also deprive tornadoes of another essential ingredient: wind shear.
We know we have a warming going on, Carbin told Fox News in an interview Thursday, but added: There really is no scientific consensus or connection [between global warming and tornadic activity].Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.
Asked if *climate* change should be acquitted in a jury trial where it stood charged with responsibility for tornadoes, Carbin replied: I would say that is the right verdict, yes. Because there is no direct connection as yet established between the two? Thats correct, Carbin replied.

According to Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University:
If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but its agreed upon by the tornado community that its not a real increase,he said .
Its having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So were seeing them more often, Dixon said.
But he said it would be a terrible mistake to relate the up-tick to climate change.


.....................................................................

Of course, these guys are probably just shills for big...whatever... ​


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 20, 2011)

FEAR

This is how the "green" movement is winning.

Of course I want a healthy enviroment, and I don't want to breath polluted air or drink polluted water...but I also don't want to pay more taxes to prevent those things from happening...they should just happen on there own.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Another look at the manmade global warming scam...
> 
> http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/20...ms-to-spread-climate-change-hoax/#more-202060
> 
> ...


 
You are saying there is a global warming scam going on but your own 'proof' states that there is global warming so it's hardly a scam is it? Yes there *is* global warming, I think just about everyone, apart from you and a few other Luddites, believe this. The cause of  and the contributing factors to, this warming are what is in dispute. There is no global warming scam as such, it is real.

Sensei Payne, how is pollution going to clear itself up? If you are happy to live with the fact that some of your taxes are being spent causing this pollution surely some of your taxes can be spent clearing it up?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Of course I want a healthy enviroment, and I don't want to breath polluted air or drink polluted water...but I also don't want to pay more taxes to prevent those things from happening...they should just happen on there own.



I want a Bentley, a yacht, and a mansion without having to pay for it either.  TANSTAAFL.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 20, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I want a Bentley, a yacht, and a mansion without having to pay for it either. TANSTAAFL.


 

Clean Air and clean water are God given...they should be free...just like the freedoms of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 20, 2011)

If we go back to a pre-industrial economy, with half the population, the planet wil clean itself up for free.


----------



## granfire (Jun 20, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> If we go back to a pre-industrial economy, with half the population, the planet wil clean itself up for free.



But who's gonna volunteer to be the other half?


----------



## billc (Jun 20, 2011)

It always gets back to...removing...a certain number of undesirables to make the system work.  If you look at the environmental movement there is a distinct anti-people aspect to it that tends to be in all lefty leaning movements.  

The problem Tez, is if it is a natural occurring cycle, there is nothing that we can do either way.  However, if you can convince people that the natural occurring cycle is manmade, that gives you power.  You can take peoples money, you can order them around, and all in the name of "saving the planet."  the politicians will be taking freedom away from people based on a hoax.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The problem Tez, is if it is a natural occurring cycle, there is nothing that we can do either way. However, if you can convince people that the natural occurring cycle is manmade, that gives you power. You can take peoples money, you can order them around, and all in the name of "saving the planet." the politicians will be taking freedom away from people based on a hoax.


 

Well said!


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It always gets back to...removing...a certain number of undesirables to make the system work. If you look at the environmental movement there is a distinct anti-people aspect to it that tends to be in all lefty leaning movements.
> 
> The problem Tez, is if it is a natural occurring cycle, there is nothing that we can do either way. However, if you can convince people that the natural occurring cycle is manmade, that gives you power. You can take peoples money, you can order them around, and all in the name of "saving the planet." the politicians will be taking freedom away from people based on a hoax.


 
The fallacy in your logic is that it's either natural or manmade.

It is both. Climate change is a natturally occuring cycle. However, to pretend that our industrial economy and population load has not influenced the current cycle is absurd.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 20, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> The fallacy in your logic is that it's either natural or manmade.
> 
> It is both. Climate change is a natturally occuring cycle. However, to pretend that our industrial economy and population load has not influenced the current cycle is absurd.


 

There is a fallacy in your logic sir...none of that has been proven.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It always gets back to...removing...a certain number of undesirables to make the system work. If you look at the environmental movement there is a distinct anti-people aspect to it that tends to be in all lefty leaning movements.
> 
> The problem Tez, is if it is a natural occurring cycle, there is nothing that we can do either way. However, if you can convince people that the natural occurring cycle is manmade, that gives you power. You can take peoples money, you can order them around, and all in the name of "saving the planet." the politicians will be taking freedom away from people based on a hoax.


 

Bollocks! You have such a poor opionion of people who don't think as you do you insult their intelligence. Whether the problem is natural or man made there is no doubt we need to control the pollution on this planet becuase if we don't this planet will be hell to live on, in some places it already is.
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM340NKPZD_index_0.html

http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/facts/rivers.htm

That's just a very small sample, there's the dumping of radio active waste, emmisions from factories etc etc. 

Your obsession with the left blinds you to common sense, if we mess this planet up we should clean it up. 

However you will find that the right wing groups are now embracing the evironmentalist movement though predictably some American right wing groups blame the Jews and blacks for the problems! it doesn't actually make pleasant reading and confirms what many think about the 'right wingers'.

_http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6393/is_2_15/ai_n28770692/_

"Right-wing Ecology in the US
_In the US, right-wing ecological ideas have found expression in the writings of various parties, groups, and thinkers of the Radical Right. This is perhaps not surprising, since the US has had its own tradition of nature-and-nationalism'_
_For some pioneering American environmentalists of the late-19th century, environmentalist Madison Grant's call for the protection of the white race or the European legacy was synonymous with environmental protection. The preservation of raw nature in this discourse came to symbolize escape from the pollution of fast-growing polycultural urban areas._
_Like their German and French counterparts, Radical Right activists in the US today, have modernized this discourse. Tom Metzger's neo-Nazi White Aryan Resistance (WAR) has blamed Jews, Blacks and nonwhite immigrants for the continued destruction of the American environment. In WAR's publications, Metzger has argued that the science of ecology teaches that human beings are not a separate entity from nature._
_Meztger's group has argued that the defense of native species from foreign intruders within an eco-system also applies to human beings and their ecological niches within an eco-system. Metzger has pleaded for a US-style apartheid as the only solution to the pollution of both the natural and the social environment._
_Meanwhile, the Radical Right, anti-immigration American Renaissance has reviewed favorably books by authors Peter Brimelow (Alien Nation: Immigration and the American Identity and Importing Revolution) and Garret Hardin (Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos) that argue against nonculturally European immigration into the US. According to American Renaissance, protecting the US environment requires the defense of the European heritage against non-white "hordes" coming from Central America and Africa. The September-October issue of American Renaissance magazine argues that environmental protection requires the separation of distinct cultures: "True diversity requires separation rather than amalgamation?'_
_Rightwing ecological ideas also have found expression in the writings and public statements of former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana gubernatorial candidate David Duke. Along with the expected diatribes against political elites, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, Duke has written that his goal is to "preserve the unique character and beauty of my people the same way that, as an ecology-minded individual, I desire the preservation of the Blue Whale or the great African Elephant." Duke's political program calls specifically for limiting immigration in the name of environmental protection."_

The world is not made up of 'bad' left wingers' and 'good' right wingers, to believe it does is to close your eyes to the real world and to the very real problems we face. 
One should be very careful about assuming who is left wing here and who isn't, I've never voted socialist in my life and am not in the least left wing though you obviosuly think I am which in itself shows what little knowledge some have of the nature of people's political beliefs.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Your obsession with the left blinds you to common sense, *if we mess this planet up we should clean it up*..


 
*qft* :asian:


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 20, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> There is a fallacy in your logic sir...none of that has been proven.


 
what has not been proven, that the planet goes through cycles of climate changes or that 6.7 billion people consuming resources and dumping chemicals in the air, water and ground has no effet on those cycles?


----------



## billc (Jun 20, 2011)

Well Tez, it does not surprise me that lefty national socialists in this country wether with swastikas or white sheets have embraced the environmental movement.  It is an way to access power.   And yes, they are lefties not righties, as american rightyness goes, because they want to violate the founding documents of this country and use the power of the state to discriminate against other groups.  The "right" in america does not believe in putting people into groups, believes in individual rights and freedom, a small central government incapable of showing favor or hostility to specific groups and that low taxes is one way to reduce the power to discriminate against others.

The right also believes that LEGAL immigration is one of the greatest strengths of this country.  We love the best and brightest the world has to offer to come here and make this country bigger and stronger.  

What is always interesting is when some people attack conservatives by saying they want pollution and dirty air and water and smog.  Where exactly is the logic in that?  You know we live in the same areas, drink the same water, eat the same food, and raise our children in the same places as the left.

Conservatives simply realize that places that are wealthy and prosperous are cleaner, safer and are nicer places to live in.  Look around the world.  Nations that have followed the most extreme left wing policies are the dirtiest and most unsafe.

The world is made up of bad "lefties," look at Germany, Italy, Russia, China, cambodia, cuba...and misguided lefties, which includes Obama and the democrats in this country.


----------



## billc (Jun 20, 2011)

Well, the sun, the oceans, and volcanos, are the three principle motivators in pollution and climate change on a global scale, just where man fits in, if at all, ...yet...remains to be seen.  But when you have the man made global warming scientists and activists just saying... "the debate is over, do as we say you stupid morons..." and then to show how confident they are they destroy data and try to smear anyone who raises a hand and asks the question..."But...is your data really accurate, is it possible there might be some errors in your research..."  That is where we are now.  We do not know if man is having any effect.  To say we are is really silly, because so far it cannot be proven.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well Tez, it does not surprise me that lefty national socialists in this country wether with swastikas or white sheets have embraced the environmental movement. It is an way to access power. And yes, they are lefties not righties, as american rightyness goes, because they want to violate the founding documents of this country and use the power of the state to discriminate against other groups. The "right" in america does not believe in putting people into groups, believes in individual rights and freedom, a small central government incapable of showing favor or hostility to specific groups and that low taxes is one way to reduce the power to discriminate against others.
> 
> The right also believes that LEGAL immigration is one of the greatest strengths of this country. We love the best and brightest the world has to offer to come here and make this country bigger and stronger.
> 
> ...


 

I bet you are really good at playing Twister as you seem to be able to twist everything around to suit your views even when all historical evidence goes against you.

I'd be interested how you reconcile your theory about socilist countries being dirty and unsafe places to live with Switzerland, the socilaist party is the second biggest in their Coalition government and many of the government policies are socialist. It's the cleanest place in Europe possibly the world, it's safe, rich and the countryside is preserved, they don't even have electric pylons or telegraph poles, it's all underground, the country is immaculate.


Norway

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/14/norways-success-in-socialism-has-me-turning-red-with-envy/

Try Finland too, I could go on but you won't see it you will state they are 'rightist'. You can state that the Nazis are 'left' all you want, you can think the Dalai Lama is a Marxist, that there is no global warming and we could agree with you BUT then we'd all be wrong!

Stating something is so doesn't make it so, however much you wish things were as you said, historical evidence, economical evidence, the evidence of our own eyes tells us you are wrong. 

Your ability too to twist arguments around does you credit, no one has said right wingers want to pollute the planet, the accusation against them is that they are ignoring the pollution problem.

The real sadness however is that you have chosen to not see the dangers posed to your country by the extreme right wing wish for totalitarism. It will creep up on you and you won't see it until it is too late. Your ilk will be so busy 'guarding' against communists and reds under the beds that the right wing extremeists will come and take your country from under your feet, you will be busy applauding all those anti leftist measures that you won't see your own freedoms eroded and taken away. Your eyes will be so focused on the faux leftists that the right wing who will tell you it's for the countries good that they ban free speech ( well they don't want leftists corrupting youth now do they?), that they ban travel ( to stop the left spreading) etc etc. Learn from history, don't twist it to suit your thoughts, it will come and bite your head off if you don't open your mind and eyes to what's really going on in the world.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 21, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> what has not been proven, that the planet goes through cycles of climate changes or that 6.7 billion people consuming resources and dumping chemicals in the air, water and ground has no effet on those cycles?


 

There has been NO EVIDENCE to link the two.

if you put a graph side by side with the amount of emissions and the warming trend...you will see that it is steadily getting warmer...

If you can, check out the "Pen and Teller: BS" Episode..a whole lot of good info on there.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 21, 2011)

You seriously believe that the damage we're doing to the environment has absolutely no effect on the conditions of the planet?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> There has been NO EVIDENCE to link the two..


 
There is no evidence that you and others like you can_ understand_.

As I've repeated in this post, and elsewhere, there is ample evidence:



el Brujo de la Cueva said:


> Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about _420,000_ years.
> 
> The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods.
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Tiny countries that spend very little  for their own defense?  Must be nice.  Then add large multicultural populations and 300 million people from countries around the world.  Hmmm...let's see how they handle that.  

That info. you posted Elder, was that before or after the revelations of the climate gate scandal?


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Tez, apparently the Dali Lama calls himself a marxist, not me.  I just think someone should sit him down and explain the nightmare that marxism unleashes when people say they want to implement it.

Three distinguished PH.D's in economics say that nazis are socialists and lefties, one of them a nobel prizewinning economist, not just me.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

And about climate-gate over here and Dr. Hansen...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110621.DC23925&show_article=1

From the article:

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Tradition Institute's Environmental Law Center today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen - specifically records that pertain to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.

ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen's outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years. This money comes in addition to - and, more troubling from an ethics and legal perspective, is all related to - his taxpayer-funded employment. Dr. Hansen's outside employment commenced when he increased his "global warming" activism from his perch at NASA.

On January 19, ATI filed a Freedom of Information Act request (http://www.americantraditioninstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/ATI_NASA_Hansen_Ethics_FOIA.pdf) with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which sought records detailing NASA's and Hansen's compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Thus far the agency has denied ATI's request for Hansen's Form 17-60s ("Application for permission for outside employment and other activity"), and ATI's request for records of internal discussions about it.
..................................

Why would a scientist fudge data....?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, apparently the Dali Lama calls himself a marxist, not me. I just think someone should sit him down and explain the nightmare that marxism unleashes when people say they want to implement it.
> 
> Three distinguished PH.D's in economics say that nazis are socialists and lefties, one of them a nobel prizewinning economist, not just me.


 


Here's one of the leading experts on German history, Prof. Richard J Evans, Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge and what he says about Hitler.
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/hitler-and-the-origins-of-the-war-1919-1939

_"But Adolf Hitler  was different.* He came from the extreme right-wing fringe of German and* *Austrian politics.* Reacting to Germany's defeat in the First World War, and generalizing from his experience in the multi-ethnic Habsburg Monarchy before then, he saw world history and international relations essentially as a Darwinian struggle between races - Aryans, Latins, Slavs, Anglo-Saxons and so on - for the survival of the fittest."_


I'm sure your experts are very good economists but they aren't historians, they aren't political scientists or even anthropologists so anything they have to say outside their subject is just an opinion not expert testimony. I have a subject I'm actually considered an expert on but knowing that subject doesn't automatically make me an expert on all other subjects.
Look at Professor Evans CV (it's impressive) and tell me this man doesn't know his subject better than a couple of economists!
http://www.richardjevans.com/productservice.php?productserviceid=559


On the subject of the Dalai Lama, there's nothing wrong with Marxist as such except it has been used as a 'cover' for dictators. The system itself cannot be evil or non evil, it's just a system. Humans however can be evil or good under any system.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html

On hitlers economic policies that made him a socialist...

*Socialism* is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system
...........................................

Perhaps economists would know something about an economic system?

From the article:

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." 
(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)

*Summary*: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union. It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State....

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through. [/FONT]
​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]*Source*: San José State University - Department of Economics ​[/FONT]

also:  from Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science.

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

ussolini&#8217;s _fascism_ was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler&#8217;s _National Socialism_ was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> That info. you posted Elder, was that before or after the revelations of the climate gate scandal?


 
It was before. Doesn't change the *fact* that CO2 levels in our atmosphere are higher than they've been in *420,000* years-or that the earth was much warmer when they were last that high.

Oh, and "climategate?" Pretty much a non-event:

Here, you'll see that the scientists were cleared.

as well as here

And Wikipedia shows the results of all the independent inquiries into climategate, all of which absolve the scientists involved of any wrongdoing.


 None of which, of course, has anything to do with Hitler not being a left-winger....though he clearly wasn't.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Von Hayek:


*Nazism is Socialism**


Friedrich August von Hayek
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 19 October 2009 _Published in the spring of 1933_ 

From the article:


The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National "Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to "socialism of the chair" and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscienc..
..........................................................

How many Ph.D's in how many different fields does it take to convince people that Hitler was a lefty and a socialist?


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

From PH.D rudhy Rummel's article:

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him  see What? Hitler Was Not Elected?) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2011)

Well not everyone has the gall to call the Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge a liar so I have to admire Billcihak for his obviously superior abilities to delude himself into thinking he knows better than the many, many, many people who say Hitler was right wing. Anyone who thinks Nazism was merely an economic system has nothing to learn from the best authorities in the world. 


It's funny though how much a Nobel prize means when the person you want to use to confirm your rabbitings has it but how little it's worth when a President you detest wins one.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Tez, do you really want to defend Obama's nobel prize...really?

And for the record, I didn't call him a liar, merely a victim of the left's successful whitewash of history.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

This article is a review of the climate-gate scandal for those who may not be up to speed on the destruction of data and the attempt to keep scientists looking into the global warming data from getting published in scientific journals...

From the article, an overview of what was found...

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.
More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.
Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused...

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, do you really want to defend Obama's nobel prize...really?
> 
> And for the record, I didn't call him a liar, merely a victim of the left's successful whitewash of history.


 
None of which has anything at all to do with global warming, climate change, snow in Hawaii or the price of tea in China.....:lfao:

I mean, seriously, unless you can tie the vast global warming left wing conspiracy directly to the Nazi base on the moon, Hitler has nothing to do with the topic at hand, 'm'kay?



billcihak said:


> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
> 
> This article is a review of the climate-gate scandal for those who may not be up to speed on the destruction of data and the attempt to keep scientists looking into the global warming data from getting published in scientific journals...
> 
> From the article, an overview of what was found...


 
You do realize that that particular article was from 2009, and all the links I posted are from *2010*-so, to recap: climategate=nonevent. THere was no scientist coverup, no destruction of vital info. Those emails? Simple conversation and "what ifs?" a game that scientists *have* to play, and that the rest of you* can't* understand.The parties involved were clearerd of wrongdoing by no less than four independent reviews. Those who crow about climategate may as well be crowing about the truth behind 9/11 or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for all the sense that they're making-savvy?


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

there is a Nazi base on the moon? See, and people doubted me...

.........................

I think Tez started it...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> *Tez, do you really want to defend Obama's nobel prize...really?*
> 
> And for the record, I didn't call him a liar, merely a victim of the left's successful whitewash of history.


 
What on earth are you talking about?

So one of the best academics in the world has been brain washed by the left? and you don't even know him, it's no wonder you don't think any scientist who is not right leaning has anything worth listening to about global warming. Dear me, I never thought I'd say this but I feel really really sorry for you now.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Yeah...check post #79, Tez uses the "H" word and I felt obligated to respond.  Note:  I am not the one who started with the "H" word.  I am innocent.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

You give me one history guy, I can give you at least 3 economists, one political science guy and several others, and you feel sorry for me?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Yeah...check post #79, Tez uses the "H" word and I felt obligated to respond. Note: I am not the one who started with the "H" word. I am innocent.


 
Oh great, a 'she started' whine.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

And on the climate-gate investigation whitewash...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-investigation-a-monumental-whitewash.html

From the article:

Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails has *consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient* and falls flat on its face.
On his blog, *Climate Audit*, McIntyre rebuts the Parliamentary Committees conclusion, noting:
Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy,
This is absurd. McIntyre added, The trick was not a neat way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies  a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation.
McIntyre points out that at no time did even the CRU itself contend that any of its data was erroneous, so to conclude that it had to dispose of such data is ludicrous:
In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than discarding data known to be erroneous is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was erroneous  the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up  but that doesnt make it erroneous. It only means that the data is a bad proxy  something that was concealed from IPCC readers.​McIntyre submitted notes to the Science and Technology Committee on this very detail of the matter, however, it seems his detailed description has been completely disregarded.
The idea that the trick was not to conceal data that was out of step with the scientists warming thesis also falls down when you consider that *the code within the CRUs climate models prove that temperature numbers were artificially adjusted* to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960s.
*This information was leaked* along with the inflammatory emails referring to it and provides the real smoking gun. However, predictably, there is no mention of the coding in the STC report...

So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We *will keep them out somehow  even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! *that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation.
The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as *disinformation*,*misinformation* or *crap* that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that.
It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a scientific consensus in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesnt matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

I was not whining...my voice never changed pitch...


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

So sukerkin doesn't have to scroll too much...

Also on the whitewash...

The STC investigation into climategate is farcical on its face. The Committee itself admits that its report is insufficient and does not cover all the issues. Phil Willis, the committees chairman, noted that it had to produce something quickly before the British general election, and a possible change of government, in May.
Clearly we would have liked to spend more time on this, Willis said, adding We had to get something out before we were sent packing.
Though the Committee condemned the CRU for withholding information requested by outsiders under Britains freedom of information laws, it failed to determine whether Professor Jones had actively deleted information to prevent requests to publish it, as indicated by requests made by Jones in emails to his colleagues.
The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible, Willis* told a news conference*.
..........................................................................
SOUNDS LIKE A DEEP LOOK AT THE FACTS,  HMMMM.....


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

And on the panel investigating climate-gate:

http://climategate.tv/2010/02/16/cl...tewash-third-panel-member-exposed-as-warmist/

from the article:

The so called independent investigation into the climategate emails scandal has descended into farce before it is barely off the ground as a _third_ member of the six man panel has been revealed to hold strong views on human induced climate change.
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Professor Boulton, who was officially appointed to the investigative team by civil servant Sir Muir Russell, has also written numerous articles indicating a strong belief in anthropogenic warming.
In a 2005 paper Boulton penned for Edinburgh University, he wrote that the argument regarding climate change was over.
It has also been revealed that Boulton was one of a group of scientists and meteorologists who *signed a statement* in December, in the wake of the climate research scandal, pledging their continued support for the IPCC and their unwavering conviction that global warming is being caused by humans.
The statement read:
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
.........................................................

He sounds impartial to me....​


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2011)

I feel sorry for you for having such a one track closed mind unable to see beyond the end of your nose when it comes to politics. Life isn't left v right, you can't not believe in global warming because your right wing media heroes don't despite all the evidence. You can't decide that the whole history of a country is wrong just because a few right wing pundits say it is, they've all got agendas and theirs is to make themselves look good by tarring everything bad as leftist.
As I've said before you are going to get sucker punched by your own side creeping up and taking away your freedoms and rights under the guise of fighting the left, McCarthyism all over again. The world is going to suffer because you don't believe in global warming because it's all a left wing plot so why bother cutting those factory emissions, or stopping companies pouring their rubbish in the seas and rivers and why try to save energy in the home and businesses when it's all a left wing plot. Why try to drive greener cars or recycle, those rubbish tips that are getting bigger and bigger aren't real they are the leftists lying again. Let's dump all our e-waste in Africa and poison the land and lets dump our nuclear waste too while we are at it. Lets have more and more packaging as who cares where it ends up, those plastic ties that you get on drinks cans packs who cares if they kill birds and animals and who cares if all that plastic waste is killing albatross chicks because hey it's all a left wing plot, it's not real.

Global warming who cares eh, it's only going to affect the socialists because when your head is stuck up your backside what's there to feel?


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Just to be accurate, the globe has cooled and warmed long before man had industrialized it.
Capitalism is one of the best ways to get the envirnment cleaned up, and if you don't believe me go ask the russians and the chinese and see how their environments worked out during socialism.
I believe in a small and tightly constrained government hedged in by checks and balances and a separation of powers with the rights of the individual paramount.  So tell me how this will let me be less free.  

The other side believes in a large government in control of what toilet I flush, which light bulbs I can use, what food I can eat  at a restaraunt, who controls my medical care, my retirement, my childrens education, what I see on television, and takes up to and over half of the money I make while I am alive and another 50 percent if not more when I die, who divides the country into rich and poor and then targets the rich and exploits the poor, and yet...my side is supposed to be the dangerous side?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Capitalism is one of the best ways to get the envirnment cleaned up...



Only if the incentives favor it.  In a _laissez faire _setup, the incentives generally do not favor it, which is why it is wise for the government to put such incentives in place to harness the genius of capitalism and self-interest to clean the environment.  If it isn't in a company's interest, it won't do it - remember your basic capitalism?



billcihak said:


> and if you don't believe me go ask the russians and the chinese and see how their environments worked out during socialism.



Chernobyl was due to a lack of regulation and oversight, not an overabundance of it.  As for China, their environment is far worse now than in the past.  Not because the government used to be so interested in cleaning the environment, but rather because the country was mostly de-industrialized.  The government still doesn't care about the environment, nor does anyone else with any power, hence the horror show of pollution today.

Here's Beijing:


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

When the now increasing number of prosperous people in china get tired of the pollution, they will get it cleaned up.  Just like the united states did when we first industrialized and then decided that pollution wasn't something we wanted to live with.  Wealthy people like nice things and clean places to live.


Capitalism and pollution clean-ups happen because, as above, wealthy people like clean and safe places to live, so the politicians get things cleaned up to get the cash and the votes.  The miracle of capitalism at work.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Capitalism and pollution clean-ups happen because, as above, wealthy people like clean and safe places to live, so the politicians get things cleaned up to get the cash and the votes. The miracle of capitalism at work.


 
Well, bill, once again, *no.*

Our country is a perfect example. Pollution clean-ups happened because shortly after you were born, that could-have-been great Republican signed the Clearn Air Act, the Clean Rivers and Waters Act, and created the EPA*. Regulations* are what led to pollution clean ups, clean ups that are ongoing in some places. Regulations that need to be enforced or modified in others. The Hudson River, which I pretty much grew up on, was nearly a chemical laden, sewage filled cesspool at the time, and by the time I reached young adulthood, it was cleaner than it had been in 100 years, because *regulations* made the corporations that dirtied it _*clean it up.*_

*What planet is it that you're from, again? :lfao:*

_WHen people get tired of pollution_
_they will get it cleaned up_
_just like the united states did_
_when we first industrialized *(!!????)*_
_and decided pollution_
_wasn''t something we wanted to _
_live with_
_pollution cleanups_
_and capitalism_
_when people get tired of pollution_
_they will get it cleaned up_


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Well...the politicians made those regulations because their wealthy donors said, "we really want you to clean up that pollution, if you promise to do that, we will give you money and vote for you."  You see, when we were cleaning up our mess because of democracy and capitalism, the socialists in Russia, and china were still polluting their countries because people are simply replacable cogs in the machine.  The cleanest countries are not by accident the wealthiest countries, the same goes for towns and cities.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well...the politicians made those regulations because their wealthy donors said, "we really want you to clean up that pollution, if you promise to do that, we will give you money and vote for you." You see, when we were cleaning up our mess because of democracy and capitalism, the socialists in Russia, and china were still polluting their countries because people are simply replacable cogs in the machine. The cleanest countries are not by accident the wealthiest countries, the same goes for towns and cities.


 

That's a load of codswallop, if the wealthy countries are cleaner it's because they are dumping their waste on the poorer countries! If you aren't trolling here you are the most severely misguided person I've ever come across. You are making things up as you go along and I've never been convinced that you aren't doing it to wind people up tbh. Seriously, I'm not attacking you but I find it really hard to believe that you don't do this out of mischief because no one can believe so many ridiculous things in the face of evidence. Two economists don't outdo the world's leading authority on German history when the subject _is_ German history. It's not just pick what you want to believe especially when it comes to global warming when what you do will affect the rest of us. I hope you have the decency at least to recycle or is that too left wing for you?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well...the politicians made those regulations because their wealthy donors said, "we really want you to clean up that pollution, if you promise to do that, we will give you money and vote for you." You see, when we were cleaning up our mess because of democracy and capitalism, the socialists in Russia, and china were still polluting their countries because people are simply replacable cogs in the machine. The cleanest countries are not by accident the wealthiest countries, the same goes for towns and cities.


 
Sooo....erm......*no.*


Once again, bill, you're doing like the rest of us, and talking about things you know nothing about. We humans seem to like doing that-I'm no different than any of you, except that, in this instance, I *do* know what I'm talking about.

See, back when you were about 2, and likely not reading much of anything, and I was 9, and-really, for long stretches of time, about *all I could do* was read, and I was getting into what would be a lifelong habit of  reading _everything_-well, anyway, back in 1969 I read about these really odd events in the papers, and saw some of them on TV. Of course, something had to be a really big deal to make the national TV news back then-not like today, when any old cop dressed as a clown shooting someone makes the news-and these events _were _big deals


See, on June 22, 1969, six days before my birthday, and a roughly a month before we landed a man on the moon, the Cuyahoga River....._caught *fire*.

Of course, this wasn't unprecdented-long used as an industrial sewer, the Cuyahoga had caught fire on nine separate earlier occasions, the first as early as 1868. This fire only lasted 30 minutes or so. Later that summer, the Detroit river caught fire. Both of these rivers empty into Lake Erie, which was described at the time as, well, here:




			Each day, Detroit, Cleveland and 120 other municipalities fill Erie with 1.5 billion gallons of "inaequately treated wastes, including nitrates and phosphates ... These chemicals act as fertilizer for growths of algae that suck oxygen from the lower depths and rise to the surface as odoriferous green scum ... Commercial and game fishblue pike, whitefish, sturgeon, northern pikehave nearly vanished, yielding the waters to trash fish that need less oxygen. Weeds proliferate, turning water frontage into swamp. In short, Lake Erie is in danger of dying by suffocation.  Time Magazine, August 1969
		
Click to expand...

 
Needless to say, by the end of the summer, people-and not just "wealthy donors" went applesauce. Cities like Cleveland, so rightly proud of their industry, were forced to look at an environmental legacy of shame. It was these events that led to Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, proposing  the firsr Earth Day, the  passing of the Clean Water Act. and our signing an international treaty with Canada for water quality.

You can read a little about the Cuyahoga river firesjhere. I could almost add that the river became flammable due to unchecked, unregulated, laissez faire capitalism, but what would be the point? 

Oh,did I just do that? You see how that works? :lfao:

Prior to the Clean Water Act, congress passed, and Nixon had signed, back in 1970, a Clean Air Act, that created the EPA and established standards for key pollutants and the ability of citizens to sue polluters. It was this that led to better air quality, and a reduction in any number of emissions at the time. While there was no key event, it was largely in response to what had been perceived as a problem and addressed with public health law since 1963, and perhaps a little earlier, when we became capable of measuring just how much *crap* is in our air. Most interestingly, the Clean Air Act largely leaves enforcement up to the states, with the EPA providing scientific assistance when needed.

In any case, these laws weren't made while we were becoming rich, or because we were rich-we'd been the richest country in the world for most of that period between 1870 and 1960 when we did the polluting. They were made because the entire country-politicians and plebiscite-recognized that we were like a baby that had crapped in its own crib for a hundred years, and no one had bothered to clean up after it, and that we were killing off  our own environment, and recognized a simple equation that rabid anti-environmentalists seem to like to ignore:

If our environment dies, *we* die.


Politicians made those regulations
because of democracy and capitalism
socialists in Russia and China
still polluting because
people are simply replaceable
cleanest countries the wealthiest countries
the same for cities and towns
not by accident
wealthy donors say
clean it up._


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The Hudson River, which I pretty much grew up on, was nearly a chemical laden, sewage filled cesspool at the time, and by the time I reached young adulthood, it was cleaner than it had been in 100 years, because *regulations* made the corporations that dirtied it _*clean it up.*_


 

I don't know if I buy into the full on global warming deal quite yet...I don't think that an adverage Joe and really do anything about it...even if I ran my car, every minute of the day for the rest of my life...I would do very very very little enviromental damage.

but on the other hand, pollution is still a problem, and the corporations that are doing the substantial damage to our enviroment with there chemical waste, and what not...should be the ones to pay...problem with that is..the cost gets handed down to the consumer.

A carbon tax wouldn't be the way to fix this situation...its just another way to get the rich richer.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> A carbon tax wouldn't be the way to fix this situation...its just another way to get the rich richer.


 

Again, I have to point out that popular meme of callling this a "tax," is generated by the corporations that don't want to undertake the costs of addressing the problem.

What it actually is is a free market capitalist solution to the problem, and one that has worked with other pollutants in the past.

Again, back in the 79's, another pollution problem was "acid rain."

SO2 emissions from coal burning power plants combined with water in the atmosphere to form H2SO4-sulphuric acid, which came down with the rain, lowering the pH of rivers and lakes, killing fish and algae. The problem was addressed by placing limits on SO2 emissions, and imposing fees and fines for those emissions, as well as methods of measuring them. Ultimately, what happened was that the utilities implemented measures to remove SO2 from plant emissions-to the point where most coal-burning power plants in our country remove nearly 100% of the SO2, and, at 24, you've probably never even heard of "acid rain." This was done with minimal costs passed on to consumers, because, at the time, all utilities were regulated, and had to bring rate increases to a public service commission of one sort or another for approval. While some costs were passed on to consumers, a great deal was defrayed by utilities being able to trade emission credits with other plants and utilities-they still do this with SO2 for when equipment is out of service, or to avoid excessive removal -which they don't want to have to achieve all of the time-98.2% is a high enough average to be held to.

Of course, there is not solution for CO2 emissions on the horizon, but, impose a schedule of fees and fines for emissions, and watch how quickly the utilities come up with a solution.



Sensei Payne said:


> I don't know if I buy into the full on global warming deal quite yet...I don't think that an adverage Joe and really do anything about it...*even if I ran my car, every minute of the day for the rest of my life...I would do very very very little enviromental damage*.


 
Let's examine that.

Some basic assumptions: To cover a distance of 100 km (60 miles), a car consumes 7.0 dm3 gasoline (1.8gal., U,S,). Calculate how much O2 it consumes and how much CO2 it produces assuming complete fuel combustion. Let us take the gasoline density to be 730 kg.dm3 and the elemental composition 89 % C and 11 % H (weight %). 

*C + O2 &#8594; CO2*
*4 H + O2 &#8594; 2 H2O* 
Gasoline weight m = 7.0 dm3 . 0.730 kg.dm3 = 5.11 kg (a bit more than 11 lbs,.)
Weight of C m(C) = 0.89 . 5.11 kg 
Weight of H m(H) = 0.11 . 5.11 kg 
Substance amount of C n(C) = 0.89 . 5.11 kg/0.012 kg.mol-1 = 379 mol 
Substance amount of H n (H) = 0.11 . 5.11 kg/0.001 kg.mol-1 = 562 mol 

The equations show that n (CO2) = n(C) and n (O2) = n(C) + 1/4 n (H) 

The combustion thus gives rise to 379 mol CO2 and consumes 
(379 + 562/4)mol = 519.5 mol O2 

Weight of produced CO2 m (CO2) = 379 mol . 0.044 kg.mol-1 = 16.7 kg(36.74lbs.)

Weight of consumed O2 m (O2) = 519.5 mol . 0.032 kg.mol-1 = 16.6 kg 


So, a 1 hr. trip in your car releases more than 35 lbs. of CO2 to the atmosphere. 24 hours would be nearly 900 lbs. of CO2-881 lbs . 


That;s just your car, That's not counting other pollutants, That's not factroring in the millions of cars every day.

Very little environmental damage indeed.....


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Again, I have to point out that popular meme of callling this a "tax," is generated by the corporations that don't want to undertake the costs of addressing the problem.


 
I think you misunderstand what I am calling a tax. I'm not talking about what the corporations pass on to us..I am talking about what will effect us directly...with the price of gas, Utility bills, etc..and in today's economy, the people just can't afford it.

IMO We need to find a clean burning fuel...so sort of an alternate fuel source...unfortunately, the whole world is addicted to Oil...and weening them off of it enough to save us at the pump, save our Ozone, and of course completely abolish the need for Middle East superiority.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I don't know if I buy into the full on global warming deal quite yet*...I don't think that an adverage Joe and really do anything about it*...even if I ran my car, every minute of the day for the rest of my life...I would do very very very little enviromental damage.
> 
> but on the other hand, pollution is still a problem, and the corporations that are doing the substantial damage to our enviroment with there chemical waste, and what not...should be the ones to pay...problem with that is..the cost gets handed down to the consumer.
> 
> A carbon tax wouldn't be the way to fix this situation...its just another way to get the rich richer.


 
This is where people are mistaken, each and everyone of us can help make the enviroment cleaner and healthier. Running your car efficiently would not just help promote a cleaner atmosphere it would save you money. If everyone did it instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying they can't do anything a lot would be achieved. If everyone turned lights, televisions etc off that they weren't using it would save energy as well as money, leaving electircal goods on standby still costs you money, turn them off. Recycle your rubbish, if everyone did this it would help. If you have to, be the first in your street, town even, to get out and actively help by doing what you can.

Why shouldn't the customers pay btw? They are the consumers, if they didn't buy the products the corporations make there wouldn't be the problem would there? If you boycotted the corporations until they cleaned up their act, they'd have little choice. As it is it's *your *choice to buy from them so yes you pay for the clean up that or boycott them.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why shouldn't the customers pay btw? They are the consumers, if they didn't buy the products the corporations make there wouldn't be the problem would there? If you boycotted the corporations until they cleaned up their act, they'd have little choice. As it is it's *your *choice to buy from them so yes you pay for the clean up that or boycott them.


 
I give you that..people can boycott...to bad that now that we have global economics...boycotting doesn't really do to much.  That doesn't mean that I have to give them MY support...and of course, I want to get the best milage from my car anyways, due to gas prices, so I already drive my car spairingly as it is...and get regular oil changes, change the air filter, etc etc.

The *REAL *eco villians are those large corporations that are poisioning our waters and smoging up our air, improper waste disposal is a huge cause for pollution.  Those violators should pick up the tab..not everyday people who are just trying to get to work in the morning like most of us.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I give you that..people can boycott...to bad that now that we have global economics...boycotting doesn't really do to much. That doesn't mean that I have to give them MY support...and of course, I want to get the best milage from my car anyways, due to gas prices, so I already drive my car spairingly as it is...and get regular oil changes, change the air filter, etc etc.
> 
> The *REAL *eco villians are those large corporations that are poisioning our waters and smoging up our air, improper waste disposal is a huge cause for pollution. Those violators should pick up the tab..not everyday people who are just trying to get to work in the morning like most of us.


 
But what are these corporations producing? If you buy their products or use their services why shouldn't you pay something towards the clean up?
 As long as you believe there's nothing you can do it will carry on, there is however such a thing as people power. So many people demonstrated, complained and took action against the dreaded poll tax here that the government had to change it. It's not beyond people getting together to do something about these corporations instead of wringing their hands and saying 'but what can I do'. There's people risking their lives campaigning against logging in Asia, people are taking action against the deforestation of the Amazon, there's action groups all over the place if you look. Perhaps it might not make a difference in some cases but do you really want to tell the generations that come after us that you didn't even bother trying to stop the pollution?


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

Wouldn't putting a label on products that the manufactures do pollute exceedingly to create be a good solution.

Kind of like labels for food allergies and cosmectics.  That way the consumer can make  educated choices.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Wouldn't putting a label on products that the manufactures do pollute exceedingly to create be a good solution.
> 
> Kind of like labels for food allergies and cosmectics. That way the consumer can make educated choices.


 

It's easy enough to do a bit of research on the companies you buy stuff from and find alternatives to those who offend, quite often you can find smaller cleaner companies reasonably locallly which means you help your country in more than one way. Buy organic foods from a source as close to you as possible, that way you get very good, clean food and help the planet.


----------



## billc (Jun 22, 2011)

Elder, nothing about the clean up of pollution in america contradicts anything that I said.  You just left out all the messy details of wealth creation that allowed people the time, and ability to actually care about pollution.  It would be like saying that people wanted to know who the best baseball team was and so the white sox and the yankees played a game, the yankees won.  A lot of details about the influence of capitalism on these teams would have been left out.

China will get tired of the pollution and they will have the wealth to be in a position to do something about it.  They were behind america for so long because of their faulty economic system.  Now that they have money, they will slowly be able to change their political system, one hopes.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Elder, nothing about the clean up of pollution in america contradicts anything that I said. You just left out all the messy details of wealth creation that allowed people the time, and ability to actually care about pollution. It would be like saying that people wanted to know who the best baseball team was and so the white sox and the yankees played a game, the yankees won. A lot of details about the influence of capitalism on these teams would have been left out.
> 
> China will get tired of the pollution and they will have the wealth to be in a position to do something about it. They were behind america for so long because of their faulty economic system. Now that they have money, they will slowly be able to change their political system, one hopes.


 

.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's easy enough to do a bit of research on the companies you buy stuff from and find alternatives to those who offend, quite often you can find smaller cleaner companies reasonably locallly which means you help your country in more than one way. Buy organic foods from a source as close to you as possible, that way you get very good, clean food and help the planet.



Not always..and there isn't a whole foods market in every city, or on every corner...its really hard to make good choices with food even with all the labeling..

if there is a label that informs the consumer at least a little bit...would be a huge step forward.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Not always..and there isn't a whole foods market in every city, or on every corner...its really hard to make good choices with food even with all the labeling..
> 
> if there is a label that informs the consumer at least a little bit...would be a huge step forward.


 
Ya know, the food from my garden, corn from my field, rabbits from my hutch, chickens, turkeys,  and eggs from my coop, goat milk and meat from my herd, deer and elk from my rifle and bow, and bison from my friends farm?

They don't need no stinkin' labels.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Not always..and there isn't a whole foods market in every city, or on every corner...its really hard to make good choices with food even with all the labeling..
> 
> if there is a label that informs the consumer at least a little bit...would be a huge step forward.


 
Good grief! You have no butchers, fishmongers,grocers, greengrocers, bakers or charcuteries, no markets? wow, I find that horrifying to be honest. How can you have cities without these? Is it just supermarkets? You don't have butchers who make their own sausages, will cut meat up for you, prepare and sell game (this is in cities, the country folk do as Elder does), bakeries bake bread, pies, cakes etc. The fishmongers will prepare fresh fish for you. Even our supermarkets have these places in them. This is the case all over Europe, I've shopped in a good many places there. We have markets where you can buy fresh fruit and veg,again the supermarkets here the same. A lot of people do grow their own.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Ya know, the food from my garden, corn from my field, rabbits from my hutch, chickens, turkeys, and eggs from my coop, goat milk and meat from my herd, deer and elk from my rifle and bow, and bison from my friends farm?
> 
> They don't need no stinkin' labels.


 


Tez3 said:


> Good grief! You have no butchers, fishmongers,grocers, greengrocers, bakers or charcuteries, no markets? wow, I find that horrifying to be honest. How can you have cities without these? Is it just supermarkets? You don't have butchers who make their own sausages, will cut meat up for you, prepare and sell game (this is in cities, the country folk do as Elder does), bakeries bake bread, pies, cakes etc. The fishmongers will prepare fresh fish for you. Even our supermarkets have these places in them. This is the case all over Europe, I've shopped in a good many places there. We have markets where you can buy fresh fruit and veg,again the supermarkets here the same. A lot of people do grow their own.


 

As I agree with both of you on those points. We as Americans live in a disposable socity, and as Americans, we are always on the go, always moving...unlike the European world, we don't get the same Health benifits, or the same amount of vacation time...Americans need convience if we are to be productive members of socity..its why McDonalds is such a big deal here...its easy to get, on the go. (not to mention the addictive nature of there products, but thats another argument).

The labels would be needed to continue our American lifestyles.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> As I agree with both of you on those points. We as Americans live in a disposable socity, and as Americans, we are always on the go, always moving...unlike the European world, we don't get the same Health benifits, or the same amount of vacation time...Americans need convience if we are to be productive members of socity..its why McDonalds is such a big deal here...its easy to get, on the go. (not to mention the addictive nature of there products, but thats another argument).
> 
> The labels would be needed to continue our American lifestyles.


 
You want to look at the comparision of Eurpeans and British McDonald with what goes into American ones, we have less fat and sugar, in the UK only British beef from certain cuts is used as well as free range eggs. Fruit is put into the childrens meals as well as water. I'm not saying it's the healthiest meal but the fat levels are lower and it's less calorific, why doesn't McDs do that for you?
http://www.helium.com/items/1882258...nalds-chicken-mcnuggets-in-the-us-and-britain


I have to say when I was looking for comparisons I found a site where the question was asked 'Is McDonalds beef slaughtered or what?' the 'or what' bit got me.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Elder, nothing about the clean up of pollution in america contradicts anything that I said. You just left out all the messy details of wealth creation that allowed people the time, and ability to actually care about pollution. It would be like saying that people wanted to know who the best baseball team was and so the white sox and the yankees played a game, the yankees won. A lot of details about the influence of capitalism on these teams would have been left out.
> 
> China will get tired of the pollution and they will have the wealth to be in a position to do something about it. They were behind america for so long because of their faulty economic system. Now that they have money, they will slowly be able to change their political system, one hopes.


 
The messy detail of wealth creation that I left out is the numerous companies and jobs created by having to clean the stuff up. *Period*. Having to clean it up is independent of wealth-in this country, we're starting to focus on reining in CO2 emissions. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution-and _man is entirely responsible for this._


And, in reference to the entire food/gardening/animal husbandry vs. McDonalds/supermarket distraction, government regulation and competition from the "big box store" are making it harder and harder for the local fishmonger/green grocer/butcher shop to exsit. Pending government regulations are going to make it harder and harder for individuals like me to raise their own food-it's not in the corporate interest for us to get our food anywhere but from conglomerates like ConAgra.


----------



## billc (Jun 23, 2011)

A look at the benefits of being a "Green" scientist...

http://biggovernment.com/chorner/20...al-warming-activist-james-hansen/#more-287664

From the article:

This week I filed a lawsuit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in federal district court in the District of Columbia on behalf of The American Tradition Institute&#8217;s Environmental Law Center. On the heels of obtaining a court order last month compelling the University of Virginia to produce the long-sought &#8216;Hockey Stick&#8217;-related records, ATI&#8217;s transparency project now seeks to force NASA to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, specifically those pertaining to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.

What we are trying to determine is whether NASA approved Hansen&#8217;s widespread, well-documented, high-profile and, it turns out, extremely lucrative &#8220;outside employment and other activities&#8221;, permission for which must be obtained in writing, in advance. Public financial disclosures and other documents reveal that he has received at least $1.2 million in the past four years, more than doubling his taxpayer-financed salary.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A look at the benefits of being a "Green" scientist...
> 
> http://biggovernment.com/chorner/20...al-warming-activist-james-hansen/#more-287664
> 
> ...


 
So?

Doesn't change the *fact* that our atmospheric carbon burden is higher than it's been in *420,000* years.

Doesn't alter the *fact*, that it's happened since the industrial revolution began, and that it's demonstrably *man-made*. 


Doesn't change the fact that, just last year, the human race added a record *30 gigatons* to the atmosphere.


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2011)

A new wrinkle  to the global warming issue...

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/19/why-did-cern-gag-its-scientists/

From the article:

The chief of the world&#8217;s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (&#8220;Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets&#8221 experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN&#8217;s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.
CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told _Welt Online_ that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.
&#8220;I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,&#8221; reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?
Because, Heuer says, &#8220;That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.&#8221;​True, as far as it goes, but it&#8217;s hard to imagine any scientist in any field getting gagged by higher-ups if their science backs up the global warming narrative. What we have seen, though, is scientists pushing the global warming thesis despite the faults in their models and the holes in their own data, and overall encouragement across many disciplines to push the AGW line whether it&#8217;s directly relevant or not.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A new wrinkle to the global warming issue...
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/19/why-did-cern-gag-its-scientists/
> 
> ...



What the article misses is that the major greenhouse gas thought to contribute to global warming *isn't* CO2-it's water vapor, the very stuff of clouds. It'd be hard for the results not to figure into the debate no matter who is doing the interpretation, and-and this is importatnt-regardless of what it shows, independent of other factors, the data could be interpreted both ways-best to stay out of it....:lfao:


----------



## Buka (Jul 19, 2011)

Interesting thread.

All I can say is this. I lived in Hawaii for ten years. When it snowed EVERYONE drove up the mountain and played like children. 

It was very cool.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 19, 2011)

You can have our snow 

as we've had snow in june


----------

