Climate Change

Posts: 11391
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA

Climate Change

Post by John »

The story goes that when the Muslims were approaching the center of
Constantinople in 1453 for the final conquest of the Byzantine Empire,
the people of the Senate were having a lengthy political debate about
whether angels were male or female. They were still arguing when the
Ottomans reached them and killed them.

Today we're seeing the same thing. To argue about climate change at
a time when we're close to a worldwide financial crash and a world
war is just one of the many insanities in today's world.

Next month there's going to be a climate change conference in
Copenhage that will continue the farce.

** Politicians are gloomy about reaching climate deal in Copenhagen. Awwwwwwwwww!
** ... 12#e091112

** After a week of foreign policy disasters, President Obama's entire program is adrift
** ... 28#e090928

** Food crisis suddenly becomes a top media issue
** ... 30#e080430

** The global warming fad is becoming the enemy of food production.
** ... d#e070716d

** UN Climate Change conference reaches a compromise agreement
** ... 16#e071216

** UN Climate Change conference appears to be ending in farce
** ... b#e071214b

** Ban Ki Moon blames Darfur genocide on global warming
** ... 19#e070619

** Kyoto protocol dead as European countries fail to comply
** ... 04#e060104


Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

John, regarding the worlds insanities and the climate change farce.

Climate change, food production and politics, interconnected, yes, but are there other important issues?

A personal observation.

Two issues which I think are either minimized or swept under the rug, and these complicate the food production problem.

1) Population density. A few years ago while flying at low altitude in a small plane over Kenya to Lake Victoria I was told of a problem, plainly visible below. Tribal laws in that region dictate that a farm is to be equally divided amongst a father's sons upon his death. The problem is, today, the farms are now almost too small to support a family.-- And the next generation?

2) Soil depletion. While traveling by bus to the Terracotta Warriors Museum in China it became apparent that the soil looked tired or depleted. The Chinese I met were about, 'on average", around 5 feet tall. At the museum, we were told with "considerable pride" by the Chinese guides, that the "terracotta warriors" were "full size" representations of real warriors and therefore the sculptures were also all different, ( facial features etc.) quite a feat of ceramic work. The Terracotta Warriors were at least 6 feet tall and considerably larger then contemporary Chinese. If the warriors are "full size", this indicates a deterioration in the Chinese diet from that earlier period, most likely due to soil depletion, --based upon the observation of the land while going to the museum.

How these types of issues are to be resolved, appears to be something people do not want to talk about. If this is true elsewhere, we have bigger problems then we want to admit.

Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by OLD1953 »

Then why is the US Navy bothering to patrol the Arctic Ocean? The melt has caused a lot of political friction between Russia and the US over who owns the subsea resources. ... -nato.html ... id=1639659 ... x?id=53647 ... icle=64471

The physical reason the oil companies did not push for drilling in the arctic refuge was actually pretty simple, they didn't really want that. The permafrost in that region now thaws so early and refreezes so late they only have a three month window to work (allowing a safety period for getting equipment in and out). You can't work in ten feet of muck.

What they wanted, and are getting, is permission to drill offshore.

These offshore drilling plans will go through more and more rapidly as the current conventional oil fields drop further into peak and decline. It's worth noting that virtually all current oil studies rely heavily on unconventional oil (tar, shale, biological) as major supplements to show production increases over the next twenty years, most have it at about half of oil production in 20 year or less. Some of those studies claim a need for a third of a trillion per year to maintain conventional production, mostly concentrated as investments in the Middle East and Canada, with the US MidWest also getting some attention (oil shales). I seriously doubt the world is willing to throw that kind of money into the MidEast AND pay for wars AND pay through the nose for the oil besides.

The UK is planning ten new nuclear reactors, they just announced the list of potential sites. I strongly believe the world will push away from oil, not because of total depletion but because the total costs (factoring in wars, heavy investment and so forth) will be lower than moving to other fuels wherever possible. Aviation requires either high density chemical fuels or nuclear power, but apart from aviation transportation has alternatives that are coming on line now. And that's going to drop CO2 emissions, without anyone signing anything. Not that Kyoto meant anything, few to none of the signatories have followed any part of it. New Zealand pretty much ignored it totally. ... -greenwash

Personally, I don't spend much time worrying about global warming. That problem is just too easy to solve, with very little effort, and that effort would allow a level of climate control to be established for the entire planet.

Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:56 am
Location: Europe

Re: Climate Change

Post by burt »

Ok, I strictly disagree with John.
- ICE melts all over the world, this means that we have a strong VISIBLE warming of the earth.
- One graph, as done ont the last blog from John, doesn't prove anything.
- Man is responsible for a big part, how much is very difficult to evaluate, BUT if we do nothing we will have a problem.. NEGATE the problem, as John do, is NOT a solution
- Now, as usual, when the medias (or politicians) speak too much about a problem, that is TOO EARLY or TOO LATE. We will have the same problem with the peak oil. This means that the Climate Change is NOT the main actual problem (in that paragraph I agree with John, but this does apply to financial problem too)
- It is perfectly normal that people concerned by the warming of the planet use the plane to make the different people aware of the problem

- Now another question is :"Is man able to manage the climate", the answer is probably NO (but no one knows), not because he CAN'T but because man species is a much too stupid monkey to think correctly the future, and that managing the climate will not be by words or ideologies but by people able to coordinate their thinking, and that, UNTIL NOW (I cannot say more), man was unable to coordinate anything on the earth.

Posts: 11391
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA

Re: Climate Change

Post by John »

I'll leave it to other forum members to debate climate change, and
perhaps I'll come back to it at a later date.


Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by scared_sh+tless »

From : ... FLASH.html

"Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH

Apparently a "Global Climate Center" was hacked and the contents have been posted to the Internet. A ZIP file exceeding 60MB and containing a huge number of emails and other documents has been posted worldwide.

Original speculation as to whether the files posted were legitimate or some sort of spoof appears to now be confirmed as legitimate:

“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

I have not had time to read all of the material yet (there are over a thousand files involved!) but what I have skimmed looks VERY damning. Contained within the documents are what appear to be admissions of intentional tampering with data as well as intentional falsification of results to "show" man-made global warming.

One of the emails says:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

That is, to hide a decline in global temperatures.

It gets better. Another message, this one allegedly from 2000:

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

Oh, so it's not about the planet getting warmer, but rather is a convenient means of advancing an agenda that has already been pre-determined?

Then there's this:

In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

(Pardon the formatting, it's text-mode email 'yanno.)

Guess who that was addressed to? Michael Mann. You know, the (infamous and now discredited) "Mann Hockey Stick"?

Guess where that email originated? NASA.

Yes, I have the file. So do a few million other people.

There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.

Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.

Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear:
Fraud: 79
Falsify: 6
Inflate: 14
Conceal: 5
Hide: 19

Just for starters.

If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":
General Comments

The idea that climate without human intervention can only undergo “natural variability”, and that “climate change” can only result from human activity is false and fallacious. It is in conflict with all that we know of evolution and geology. It is simply wrong to assume that “ climate change” automatically implies human influence on the climate.

This fallacy is embraced by the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the IPCC (Footnote to “Summary for Policymakers. Page 1) claim that they are prepared to accept “natural variability” as “climate change”. They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention.


47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

Looks like we got a whole rack full of smoking guns here.....

Note, you can get a copy of the leaked data from the market ticker forum. Hopefully the data is not a hoax or fraud sent out to further discredit those who are against the man made global warming movement.

Posts: 11391
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA

Re: Climate Change

Post by John »

Dear Burt,
burt wrote: > - ICE melts all over the world, this means that we have a strong
> VISIBLE warming of the earth.
I was wondering about this myself, and just saw a Der Spiegel
article on the subject. The last paragraph below provides an
Der Spiegel wrote: > Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

> Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as
> to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last
> 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others
> explain it through ocean currents. ...

> Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the
> moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since
> the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global
> warming could come to a standstill this year. ...

> The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as
> global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius
> (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At
> present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms
> meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
> in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's
> best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached
> a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to
> face that fact."

> Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the
> long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive
> value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months,
> climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their
> Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the
> temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging
> their own credibility.

> "It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the
> scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max
> Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why
> this stagnation is taking place at this point."

> Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
> and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations
> of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the
> world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by
> the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British
> experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring
> climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature
> trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a
> standstill.

> The differences among individual regions of the world are
> considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost
> three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At
> the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America,
> the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including
> Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.
> ... 92,00.html

Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

For those interested in information on the increasing size of glaciers and sea ice this link.
contains a list of glaciers increasing in size in various parts of the world. Including information that Arctic sea ice is twice as thick as expected.
And Antarctica "which holds about 90% of the worlds ice", the land ice has been growing thicker and the sea ice has grown 43% since 1980 from
3.5 million sq km to 5 million sq km. It is projected that if present trends continue "in Antarctica" sea levels could DROP by 370 feet.
Yes, there is absolutely NO question we have global warming. yea right.

Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by OLD1953 »

To modify the climate would not be hard, simply orbiting a few thousand Echo type balloon satellites would be enough to divert sunlight, though it would be a lot more efficient to unfold them flat and include a small ion drive to help maintain orbit against light pressure. Cool the MidEast so it rains more often, and it would be the breadbasket it was in Roman times, before the last climate shift. Add heat to north Canada, and you open the northwest passage, and increase the winter wheat growing area hugely. Chill Antartica and prevent the glaciers from sending so many icebergs north to damage shipping.

A slowdown or stoppage of the Gulf Stream would be a very very serious matter, and this could happen due to increased melting in Greenland. This is a cycle indeed, and if you understand this cycle and it's implications for life in Europe and the northern US, you know that we really don't want to be caught on the back side of a glacier regrowth cycle. The net result of that would be death for tens of millions - and that's the very lucky, expensive and proactive scenario.

Attempting to draw conclusions from selected emails from a database containing the corrospondence of over ten years from a large group of people is a bit much. Why didn't the hackers post ALL the mail? I'm forced to consider they posted only what they felt would support their thesis. I'm sure a selective culling of Strauss's or Howe's emails for 20 years, or John's for that matter, could be used to induce doubt about generational dynamics. I'm sure such a culling at any biological institute could be used to cast doubt on evolution. I don't believe valid conclusions can be drawn from any selective quotes from any volume of data or writing.

The recent slowdown in warming is interesting if true, however, the trend line for centuries has been up. Reversion to that mean says we should be in for rapidly increasing temps in a decade or two. As I said above, I don't spend much time worrying about this, it's just not that expensive to take control of the problem.

A final point though, is there any reason to believe the atmosphere is an infinite sink for anything we want to dump into the air? If so, why do you think this? And if not, should this experiment of dumping any damned thing we please, just because the wind blows it away, continue? In mercury poisoning of streams alone, costs are already in billions, and if you want to dispute that, check the DNR sites for the southern US first, because that's where the information is.

Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by scared_sh+tless »

While I am suspious of the hacked emails being authentic, no one has come out and said they are an outright fraud. The defense most commonly heard is 'taken out of context' or 'that is the lingo of the scientists', or 'its just curve fitting'.

Here is some more common sense analysis:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... n-day.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests