[Tuart]

Which we shouldn't. EVER. As next month might well be the coldest. You undermine your own far better argument, as some people will go "well, this month you were right, next month they are right... that means both arguments are equally worthy, not"?

"Weather here" isn't "Global climate". All you need to say. All anyone should say.

But you are right that it is odd that sometimes a certain type of argument gets uttered when it suits a purpose, "as if it matters and is part of the reason why I believe X", but when the exact opposite takes place, which ought to put the validity of X into question, it somehow doesn't acquire any significance to revisit the very though process that got someone to arrive at X in the first place.

Human beings are fascinating.

Indeed we are. Even when its our kids at risk we still don't care because hey, we're not going to be around. Use, use, use and money + mod cons for me now. Me, me, me, me, me. Humanity will reach an epoch, if we haven't already.

[Ram]

Before getting all serious, I have to add that the theories are backed by scientific proof on most occasions. The only problem I have with this is the people and the govts, the Pachauris and Al Gores, and countries which have the highest carbon emissions per capita. People who are doom mongers and preach austerity have to have some standards themselves and not go jet-setting around the world in their private planes.

[Arb]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/a-shameful-attack-on-free-speech-by-a-group-claiming-to-speak-for-coal-dependent-workers/

[bicing]

We can officially stop fretting over AGW.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/story/2012-02-01/deadly-us-volcanoes/52923094/1

You've made this conclusion based on two scientific papers? Which conducted studies only in the United States?

Let's see here...

A friend of mine and I like to mix honey with our coffee. We are both in the same country. Therefore, everyone in the entire world likes to mix honey with their coffee.

Or: Polish is a fan of Armstrong, Flicker is a fan of Armstrong. They are both in the same country. Therefore, everyone in the entire world is a fan of Armstrong.

[Scott SoCal]

You've made this conclusion based on two scientific papers? Which conducted studies only in the United States?

Let's see here...

A friend of mine and I like to mix honey with our coffee. We are both in the same country. Therefore, everyone in the entire world likes to mix honey with their coffee.

Or: Polish is a fan of Armstrong, Flicker is a fan of Armstrong. They are both in the same country. Therefore, everyone in the entire world is a fan of Armstrong.

Yeah, the post was a bit of a slam at geoengineering.

I should know better than to attempt even a modicum of humor with such a serious topic.

It will not happen again.

[bicing]

Yeah, the post was a bit of a slam at geoengineering.

I should know better than to attempt even a modicum of humor with such a serious topic.

It will not happen again.

Sorry, I'didn't detect the humour because I'm really super sensitive about this issue... My bad too.

[Cobblestones]

I think he's borrowing that theory from Eatsterbrook, no?  If that's what you are referring to here is Don Easterbrooks contact info.  It's his theory.  He can likely explain it better than I can.  Give him a call;

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/contact.htm

Lansner's partner at HideTheDecline is Nicolai Skjoldby   ns@hidethedecline.eu.  I can't find contact info for Lansner but I guessing Nick can put you in touch with him.

I assumed since you linked the article, you could explain it a bit as well. You claim to be convinced by the scientific evidence against global climate change. But it seems you are more than comfortable to leave the whole matter to scientists of your choice. Which brings me to the question why you would trust precisely those guys and not the others. Is it really the science (in which case you can surely answer a couple of simple questions) or is it because these scientists confirm your preconceived notion of how things should be?

[Anthony Moan]

dudies how the hell someone could be super sensitive about all saga thing about global climate change, I mean I watch those whale wars rich eco jerks, but comme on, industrie did not cut your jungle corner ( if yes sorry ) or your island country has disappeared cos ocean rising or something :-*
I love whale wars too

[Scott SoCal]

I assumed since you linked the article, you could explain it a bit as well. You claim to be convinced by the scientific evidence against global climate change. But it seems you are more than comfortable to leave the whole matter to scientists of your choice. Which brings me to the question why you would trust precisely those guys and not the others. Is it really the science (in which case you can surely answer a couple of simple questions) or is it because these scientists confirm your preconceived notion of how things should be?

Well, you may have noticed already, I'm not a scientist.  I think my position is that I'm not convinced the warm trend is solely "caused" by man.

I'm not sure Easterbrook has an exact answer for every detail of the PDO (cause or effect) either, so I'm not quite sure what you'd like me to add.

As a layman, I find it odd that "solutions" to AGW center around the transfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped ones.  Further, I find it odd how the "accepted" science really has no explanation for why temps have not, since 1997, continued to march upward.  I also find it odd how the AGW crowd has behaved towards the skeptics.

Cynically, the taxation of CO2 and methane use and production is where this science has lead, not to any solutions.  Even if what you believe is 100% true then the effects realistically can't be stopped or even slowed.  I'm not much of an Armegeddonist so I will continue to consider other opinions if that's ok with you.

[bicing]

Well, you may have noticed already, I'm not a scientist.  I think my position is that I'm not convinced the warm trend is solely "caused" by man.

All scientists agree with this. They have advanced to looking deeper and seeing what is the predominant cause.

As a layman, I find it odd that "solutions" to AGW center around the transfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped ones. 

This is the case because of the developing countries. Since 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit they have argued that they cannot conserve the environment and let their economic/social development and welfare stay bad. As a solution, the world agreed on "common but differentiated responsibility". Developed countries contributed the most pollution so they agreed they should fund it the most. They also agreed that it's not nice to stunt the growth of the developing countries. This principle has been applied to other environmental issues, not just climate change. So Scott you have an issue with this principle and the outcome of these negotiations. I also have a problem with them because nowadays, developing countries are polluting just as badly if not more, because they do not have the infrastructure or technology to recycle, get clean energy, etc. and some countries DO have the money for this (B.R.I.C.)

Further, I find it odd how the "accepted" science really has no explanation for why temps have not, since 1997, continued to march upward. 

I don't understand where you received this information, every year is a "hottest year on record".

I also find it odd how the AGW crowd has behaved towards the skeptics.

To be fair, the hostile relations are coming from both sides. There is an army of blog/forum/video/twitter commenters who spread blatant misinformation and make incorrect comparisons and shady correlations. But they also bully, intimidate, insult and offend. I apologised for being rude to you earlier in the thread, in my experience the skeptics have never done this.

Cynically, the taxation of CO2 and methane use and production is where this science has lead, not to any solutions. 

Taxation is a solution, an economic solution.
Carbon sequastration is a scientific solution.
Energy efficient programmes is a lifestyle solution.
Renewable energy is a scientific, commercial and lifestyle solution.
Re- or af- forestation is a conservation solution.
Carbon offsetting programmes is a lifestyle and economic solution.
Geoengineering, which you mentioned, is a controversial scientific solution.

Even if what you believe is 100% true then the effects realistically can't be stopped or even slowed.  I'm not much of an Armegeddonist so I will continue to consider other opinions if that's ok with you.

The world will not end. IT will just become harder and harder for the current population to live on the Earth and to enjoy the lifestyle it is used to wherever that may be. The effects cannot be stopped, so adaptation is important. The effects cannot be slowed but they can accelerate because the climate science has proven a number of dangerous positive feedback loops. This means that if something gets worse it will encourage and stimulate it to happen again, in a slightly more sever way, and again and aagin. So we need to reduce the GHGs that we produce to slow down the positive feedback loops.

dudies how the hell someone could be super sensitive about all saga thing about global climate change, I mean I watch those whale wars rich eco jerks, but comme on, industrie did not cut your jungle corner ( if yes sorry ) or your island country has disappeared cos ocean rising or something :-*
I love whale wars too

I'm super sensitive because I care about the welfare of future generations. My child or grandchild will live in a more difficult world than I did and I would like them to enjoy their life like I have. I also care for more than just myself, I care for people in jungles and islands. I used to live on one myself so I can relate.

[Ram]

This is standing vindicated.

[Anthony Moan]

vicing I am aware of yours concerns but somehow sceptic about your statement: "developing countries are polluting just as badly if not more" who the hell are they?
China who are most green country in the world by investments in green industrie, and in the same time 100% coal country, Brasil cos jungles or favelas :, Chile, or Ethiopia cos... let is just forget about that nonsense IMHO.

What my contribution would be is: buy super fancy Prius for 25000 euros and starve for the rest of my life, I mean come on US sent people to the moon before 50 years but somehow can not produce cheap toy batteries cars :, nooooo, I would built super eco green house for 2 000 000 euros 8)

My point is: green stuff are as much exploit people as black stuff, wtf green is?
Peace

[Arb]

Cynically, the taxation of CO2 and methane use and production is where this science has lead, not to any solutions.  Even if what you believe is 100% true then the effects realistically can't be stopped or even slowed.  I'm not much of an Armegeddonist so I will continue to consider other opinions if that's ok with you.

You do realise that taxation is necessarily even if there is a technological basis? That is of course if you want a "free market" solution.

[bicing]

vicing I am aware of yours concerns but somehow sceptic about your statement: "developing countries are polluting just as badly if not more" who the hell are they?
China who are most green country in the world by investments in green industrie, and in the same time 100% coal country, Brasil cos jungles or favelas :, Chile, or Ethiopia cos... let is just forget about that nonsense IMHO.

What my contribution would be is: buy super fancy Prius for 25000 euros and starve for the rest of my life, I mean come on US sent people to the moon before 50 years but somehow can not produce cheap toy batteries cars :, nooooo, I would built super eco green house for 2 000 000 euros 8)

My point is: green stuff are as much exploit people as black stuff, wtf green is?
Peace

China are also the heaviest users of coal.
Brazil has been destroying the amazon forest for soy.
Chile Ethoipa, I'll get back to you

Generally the environmental regulations, systems and processes of developing countries are much poorer. In China for example, it's very easy to build a factory but in Sweden, Canada, Netherlands, you have to go through a strict impact assessment process. In Poland you have basic systems of recycling whereas in Switzterand it is sophisticated and detailed. In Western Europe there are carbon taxes already in place, in Eastern Europe they're not even spoken about. In a beach in Romania you see garbage and sh1t everywhere, in France it's clean. In India they're making the city bins look really inviting for people to put trash in whereas in the USA people just know, and in Australia if you are caught littering you get arrested.

While you have a point that I should not declar "just as badly if not more", they are definitely polluting and damaging in ways that developed countries have advanced from.

Now when you talk about your contribution and Prius and the moon and the green/black... you've lost me...

[Ram]

Mate, it is so easy to blame Brazil and China. What would you as a person do if you had to earn a livelihood? Protect the Amazon or do agriculture? China is also the largest country in the world, of course it is logical to assume they'll use the highest amount of coal.

The word per capita has to be stressed on here. Should the developing govts like Brazil reduce carbon emissions? I wouldn't try telling that to the rural population who live in deplorable conditions without electricity and basic amenities. Environmental protection has been a luxury for world govts, lets face it, the pollution has been done for decades and official awareness became a priority only in much more recent times. Should Brazil, China and India like countries, with extreme poverty and much less emissions per capita, have the onus of reducing the emissions?
You do realise that much of the rubbish does go into a landfill, despite of where the littering occurs. The poorer people from the developing nations also have the ability to recycle things much better than you or me.

I'd say that automobile taxes are one of the few enforceable things to curb emissions.

[Anthony Moan]

China are also the heaviest users of coal.
Brazil has been destroying the amazon forest for soy.
Chile Ethoipa, I'll get back to you

Generally the environmental regulations, systems and processes of developing countries are much poorer. In China for example, it's very easy to build a factory but in Sweden, Canada, Netherlands, you have to go through a strict impact assessment process. In Poland you have basic systems of recycling whereas in Switzterand it is sophisticated and detailed. In Western Europe there are carbon taxes already in place, in Eastern Europe they're not even spoken about. In a beach in Romania you see garbage and sh1t everywhere, in France it's clean. In India they're making the city bins look really inviting for people to put trash in whereas in the USA people just know, and in Australia if you are caught littering you get arrested.

While you have a point that I should not declar "just as badly if not more", they are definitely polluting and damaging in ways that developed countries have advanced from.

Now when you talk about your contribution and Prius and the moon and the green/black... you've lost me...

dude vicing China, Brasil and India (where stoned ganja lives) for 10 years on gonna buy mine, yours, US, UK, EU, California and rest of the world, waste included

[bicing]

Mate, it is so easy to blame Brazil and China. What would you as a person do if you had to earn a livelihood? Protect the Amazon or do agriculture? China is also the largest country in the world, of course it is logical to assume they'll use the highest amount of coal.

The word per capita has to be stressed on here. Should the developing govts like Brazil reduce carbon emissions? I wouldn't try telling that to the rural population who live in deplorable conditions without electricity and basic amenities. Environmental protection has been a luxury for world govts, lets face it, the pollution has been done for decades and official awareness became a priority only in much more recent times. Should Brazil, China and India like countries, with extreme poverty and much less emissions per capita, have the onus of reducing the emissions?
You do realise that much of the rubbish does go into a landfill, despite of where the littering occurs. The poorer people from the developing nations also have the ability to recycle things much better than you or me.

I'd say that automobile taxes are one of the few enforceable things to curb emissions.

Scott So Cal - more on your question about money/technolgy transfer from developed to developing countries... This is the standard developing country argument from ramhas...trike

Ramhas... you're right in some senses....

I'm not blaming Brazil China, I am blaming everyone but developing countries should not be without responsibility or blame. Everyone's creating the problem. They should not have the onus but they should take responsibility.

The Brazilian Amazon deforestation is not done by people who need to earn a livelihood, it's by people who run big industry. This in not the work of the rural subsistence economy here.

Per capita is important, you are correct.

"the rural population who live in deplorable conditions without electricity and basic amenities" do not contribute much greenhouse gases. We just hope that when they electrify their community they do so with solar or wind rather than coal or gas or oil. Poor enviromnmental management leads to problems for rural communities in the future: if this rural community lives near a river and have already deforested their area, when heavy rains hit they'll be flooded. That's what happens. Rural communities should still care about environmental conservation. Or what about when they just throw their batteries away where they usually do, then it floods and the batteries leak, enter their once-fresh-water stream and poison their crops/food.

Environmental protection is a luxury -> Bangladesh, India, China, Mozambique, Haiti, Chile, Kenya. A quick list of countries whom this should be important for. Why? They bare the bront of the natural disasters in the world and the future ones that will come.

On your recycling point. I don't know really where you got that from. If we're talking about individuals and their ability to be resourceful and make the most of what they have then sure, I agree with you. If we are talking city infrastructure and recycling plants and programmes, then you're way off.

[Ram]

Oi stereotyper ;D

Some part of my posts will be in jest ala the protection of the Amazon or practising agriculture.

About the recycling, I was talking about individuals' capacity to recycle. Cottage industries are good enough in terms of wastage but a bit larger and large scale industries here are the worst. We are in agreement.

The post stated that environmental protection has been a luxury, it's necessary now, no doubt about that, I say this especially having seen first hand natural tiger habitats vanish. I was stating the policy of govts leading upto this point, be it EU nations or BRICS nations.

About the rural population- their development is essential, yet not happening, for a country like India and if that happens the amount of GH gases being emitted would increase vastly (60% of the population lives there). I do agree that urban areas, especially metropolitan cities, will need some sort of control for emissions.

My point is that the buck doesn't stop with one set of countries. All countries have to take responsibility for protection of the environment.

[bicing]

Oi stereotyper ;D

Some part of my posts will be in jest ala the protection of the Amazon or practising agriculture.

About the recycling, I was talking about individuals' capacity to recycle. Cottage industries are good enough in terms of wastage but a bit larger and large scale industries here are the worst. We are in agreement.

The post stated that environmental protection has been a luxury, it's necessary now, no doubt about that, I say this especially having seen first hand natural tiger habitats vanish. I was stating the policy of govts leading upto this point, be it EU nations or BRICS nations.

About the rural population- their development is essential, yet not happening, for a country like India and if that happens the amount of GH gases being emitted would increase vastly (60% of the population lives there). I do agree that urban areas, especially metropolitan cities, will need some sort of control for emissions.

My point is that the buck doesn't stop with one set of countries. All countries have to take responsibility for protection of the environment.

So we agree.

[Ryaguas]

Didnt you see the movie? world is getting colder with the global warming 

[oncearunner]

Yeah just say NO to Global Warming.  :

My office has recycling containers for aluminum cans, papers, plastics. I sent out an email to everyone in the building to save all of their aluminum cans for me. They assumed I was in need of some extra cash because of the hooptie that I drive to work (98 Honda Civic hatchback) but they were all wrong this that.  :oI take all those aluminum cans and dump them into the Bayou behind my office building.  :-X

[Anthony Moan]

Here in south east Moravia global warming is in their climax, -30C ;D
Global Warming Is As Fake As Your Girlfriends Orgasm

[Dekker_Tifosi]

i flipping saw an ice bear outside here...  >

[bicing]

Here in south east Moravia global warming is in their climax, -30C ;D
Global Warming Is As Fake As Your Girlfriends Orgasm

You are identifying weather whereas global warming is about climate. More specifically it is about global temperatures, and on average they are warming. Part of the deal of what's happening with the climate is more extreme summers and more extreme winters.
[self censored venting of frustration due to other's poor understanding].

[Anthony Moan]

You are identifying weather whereas global warming is about climate. More specifically it is about global temperatures, and on average they are warming. Part of the deal of what's happening with the climate is more extreme summers and more extreme winters.
[self censored venting of frustration due to other's poor understanding].

Global warming is more intensive when extreme winters are more extensive ;D

[mew]

THIS IS ONE WILD THREAD  :-*    :-*

[Anthony Moan]

THIS IS ONE WILD THREAD  :-*    :-*

THIS THREAD IS SO HOT, ALMOST AS GLOBAL WARMING ;D

[bicing]

seriously, chill out guys...

[Anthony Moan]

seriously, chill out guys...

You should said cool down ;D
Seriously, just read in local papers that German scientist linked polar ice melting and extreme winters in Europe cos high air pressure from warmer air of polar ice missing, which then force cold air form Barents sea to get wild. This is what I can pick up, but those are Germans so I do not believe them 8)
Anyway stay cool

[bicing]

You should said cool down ;D
Seriously, just read in local papers that German scientist linked polar ice melting and extreme winters in Europe cos high air pressure from warmer air of polar ice missing, which then force cold air form Barents sea to get wild. This is what I can pick up, but those are Germans so I do not believe them 8)
Anyway stay cool

cool! so now you understand