Y2Kyoto: The End Of Civilization As We Know It

OK, who'll be the first leftie mathematician to add "Environment" and "Global Warming" together, and say that at 71%, it actually ranks fourth...?

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller, Ferris Bueller....?

You could also add up economy and jobs too right?

But, where is "Worship Obama" in that list?

To quote the late Jackie Gleason- Hardy har har har!!

Trade policy is an important one for us north of the border. If Obama is really as protectionist as his stump speeches made him appear, that could considerably lengthen and deepen recession in Canada.

Thank goodness our PM is working on free trade deals with other nations and continents.

You could also add up moral decline and lobbyists.

"OK, who'll be the first leftie mathematician to add "Environment" and "Global Warming" together, and say that at 71%, it actually ranks fourth...?

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller, Ferris Bueller....?

Posted by: jcl at January 23, 2009 10:07 AM "

Naw.They'll just say that everything above will be affected by global warming,so it's still the numero uno priority.As if longer growing seasons,more food,more rain,and a couple of degrees increase could really hurt.

If 53% voted for Deficit reduction, how did Obama win the Presidential race?/

Don't these people know that Zero was part of the team of lawyers who took Citigroup to court for not issuing enough subprime mortgages? Zero was a Chicago community organizer who organized the class action lawsuit.

Chicago was the imitial area in the U.S. in 2007 where the seismic collapse of the housing market first became apparent.

Talk about a massive failure of one of the biggest propaganda campaigns of all time.

Why don't they give up?

Answer: They're Leftists, and by the definition of insanity, they'll keep trying, expecting a different result if they just keep on keeping on...

Demonstrates unequivocally that people of common sense have not been fooled by the politician & media driven sky-is-falling fiction, pursued for the purpose of handicapping carbon producers & grasping political power by the Left.

And, it comes from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a leading proponent of the fiction.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=112

Oh, forgot to specify that I was referring to the "Climate Change" scam...

The Horizon Project gives everyone until 2012 before the end of civilization as we know it. Why do we want to spend money on building up only to have it taken down. Party, party party. Which of the scientists and economists do you believe. Economy, global change, polar shift, plagues, terrorists, the horsemen of the apocalypse and etc..

Look... "moral decline" ranks higher than "global warming"...

Of course. After all, there's more regular folks who worry about Hard-Left social reengineering and out-of-control, anything-goes, devil-may-care liberalism than there are Leftists who sincerely actually give a shrew's hemmorhoid about global warming (they'll say they care, but their behavior doesn't match their words).

Not surprising that health scores so high.

Fruit Fly, Hanson and the Gore'd are having coronaries right now.

Here's the full report

Top Priorities

Notice that the top priorities (the text doesn't say how many the respondents were asked to list but it was obviously more than one) - have moved to the economy in its various factors, while the environment, health care and illegal immigration have reduced in importance.

Defending the country against terrorism remains one of the top three. Interesting that the focus on the economy has resulted in a 'mild' protectionism, with 'global trade' falling 6 points from previous years.

And 'global warming' despite the MSM hysteria was never very high and is falling, while 'protecting the environment' was strong (in the 40's) but has lost 15 points with this recession.

MSM/AssPress are in collusion with Goreacle/AGWarmites.

"With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."

What's this?
Go here*. Find the name of the notorious Mann, he of the phony "hockey stick" graph.

"In that capacity he has spent much time in Antarctica. He obviously can’t speak for his agency but can have an opinion which he shared with several people. It is printed below in entirety, exactly as he sent it to Eric Steig today, the lead author of the University of Washington paper highlighted in a press release yesterday that claims there is a warming in Antarctica. There were some of the pronouncements made in the media, particularly to the Associated Press by Dr. Michael Mann, that marry that paper with “global warming”, even though no such claim was made in the press release about the scientific paper itself.

I agree with Ross Hays. In my opinion, this press release and subsequent media interviews were done for media attention. The timing is suspicious, with the upcoming Al Gore’s address to congress, he can now say: “We’ve now learned Antarctica is warming”. A Google News search shows about 530 articles on the UW press release in various media."

"letter dated 1/22/09

Eric,

Let me first say that this is my own opinion and does not represent the agency I work for. I feel your study is absolutely wrong.

There are very few stations in Antarctica to begin with and only a hand full with 50 years of data. Satellite data is just approaching thirty years of available information. In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder. In the late 1980s helicopters were used to take our personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station due to the annual receding of the Ross Ice Shelf, but in the past few years the thaw has been limited and vehicles can continue to make the transition and drive on the ice. One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station. In a synoptic perspective the cooler sea surface temperatures have kept the maritime storms farther offshore in the summer season and the colder more dense air has rolled from the South Pole to the ice shelf.

There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.

With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.

Sincerely,

Ross Hays"
...-

*"Antarctic Warming? Part 2 - A letter from a meteorologist on the ground in Antarctica
22 01 2009

This letter below, reprinted with permission, is from Ross Hays. Ross was a CNN meteorologist for many years. He works for NASA at the Columbia Balloon Facility."
*http://tinyurl.com/c5l9ub (wattsup)

Speaking of moral decline.

"Obama to remove restrictions on abortion funding

Updated Fri. Jan. 23 2009 10:08 AM ET

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Officials say U.S. President Barack Obama will sign an executive order today ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortion."

It's gonna take a lot more immigration to make up the difference. Perfect!

On the other hand, it is Obama's own African Americans who will be the biggest users of this new free service. Unless ... they have enough math education to figure out the a working single mama might get less money from the suckers er tax-payers if they have and keep the mini gangsta rappers er .. I mean babies of color.

It's all so interesting yet depressing.

However the Gore issue being flushed further down the toilet is heart warming and does cheer me up.

Al-Reuters/MSM spreads the collusion.

>>> "Scientists then deduced temperatures back 50 years."
...-

"Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
ROTHERA BASE, Antarctica (Reuters)"
http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090121/sc_nm/us_antarctica_warming.html

Looks like this global warming stupidity has come down to a Pee Wee Herman level argument of ...

"is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not"

How stupid will it get before it's over?

Obviously people could vote for more than one. Many of the GW crowd (global warming, not George W.) probably voted for the environment, too. Total of those responses showing: 1058%.

Et: in the questionnaire above I think the pollsters read each of these issues to those being polled and then they rated them top priority or not.

Under such circumstances one would expect a lot of false positives - people don't like to say something isn't an important issue. Therefore I would argue that the poll overstates the importance of the items on the bottom half of the list relative to those in the upper half.

A more telling poll for me was one that found 61% of americans did not believe in AGW.

Gord Tulk: I believe that number was referenced in the results just released that say that 97% of the climatologists who publish think that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".

Regards,
John

"human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"

Which you could interpret as meaning that they support the fact that UHI effects are in fact biasing temperatures upwards :^))

John Cross

could you be any more mealy-mouthed?

"of the climatologists who publish" is a group which only includes those who are still beholden to the peer review process (aka the fascist conformity police) which they rely on for their tenure, their research money and their invites to conferences and gatherings.

The truly unbiased, unbeholden, free to speak their minds people are retired. Gee, I wonder why you exclude them... Can't imagine.

I don't see 'asteroid' listed. Did they forget to put in a question about that?

That is what I hate about journalists. Their stock and trade is words, but ... oh they irony ... they don't know the difference between "deduce" and "infer."

"human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"

It is a long ways from the above statement to "Greenland is going to melt this century and see level is going to rise 20 or 30 meters.

Oy! betrayed by spell check!

Gord, having some experience with polling, that's exactly what happens; pollsters ask people to rate a number of issues on a scale. In interpreting the results, only the top concerns matter. Good pollsters typically will try to outline the choices to the interviewee so that they don't overlap, i.e. environment the way it's described in the conversation is NOT the same as climate change.

John, an amusing statistic. Of course you'd have trouble finding any such claimed unanimity among all the other scientific or technical disciplines relevant to global warming theory. The fact that climatologists, one of the world's smallest disciplines by number, finds AGW persuasive is hardly surprising. It's the only gravy train they have.

Nothing like the mother of all recessions here to screw heads back on and reset priorities.

The sad thing is that global warming would be a good thing for the world. More airable land for food, less use of energy for heat and longer warmer summers to enjoy,

What is the down side? Don't tell me the oceans will rise, that's not going to happen. Even if all the ice at the poles melted, once distributed over the entire globe, it would not be that much.

Do these people know how big the globe is? And that not all the the ice will melt anyway. Has there ever been a time in history where there was no ice at the poles ... that we know of?

Has there ever been a time in history where there was no ice at the poles ... that we know of?

John, John, John

yes, just think about what you just posted!!!!

So according to John Cross of the two disgraced climatologists who publish anything on climate change 97% of them attribute global warming to human activity. Of course the thousands of climatologists who according to John Cross don't publish 100% agree that human activity is not a primary driver of climate change since history seems to indicate that cyclical climate change is normal and nothing we have seen in the last few years exceeds the norms of past variations.

I bet you could find 97%of the worlds pop in favour of hamas v. israel, and 97% who favour margarine over butter.
2% of the atmospheres CO2 is from human activity, and how does that affect temp? Not counting the sun and the course thru the solarsystem(friendsofscience.com)

I think terrorism (76%) and military (44%) could be added together as well.

That comes to 120%. Therefore, support for the military in the war against terror is at 120%. The extra 20% over unanimous must be the martyrs who want to be killed.

Joe: Joe, which 3% of the two scientists don't agree? ;-) But I am only quoting the study. If you don't like, take it up with the people who did the report.

Reg: Do you have a reference for your assertion that only 2% of the the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in nature?

Regards,
John

can't find the ole linky right now, john, but type in "atmospheric co2" into your search engine and hunt away.
They can show thru bonding structures that 2% is from humans burning fossils, whereas the oceans, swamps,etc. have a different oxygen-angle attachment to carbon,

John Cross, John Cross, John Cross, a study is only that. It simply shows what you want it to show in the first place. They are called push studies to advance a cause not facts. Oh BTW there is a large and growing consensus amongst climatologists that says that human activity has no impact on global temperatures. Your band of merry thieves are being exposed daily and you still defend them. Doesn't look good on you John Cross. Doesn't look good at all.

Joe: Care to link to some of the climatologists who say that human activity has no impact on global temperatures (along with their work of course).

My view of global warming is that the starting point can be found in 3 fundamental facts.

1) We are responsible for the recent CO2 increase.

2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit IR radiation.

3) If you shine more IR radiation on an object it will warm (or cool less quickly).

Do you disagree with any of those three?

Regards,
John

Yes John Cross I disagree with your first two points. The minuscule amount of CO2 we are capable of emitting is readily consumed by plant growth and the ocean. In fact the rise of CO2 levels has happened before and will fall again as natural events like the sun and space becoming warmer and cooler determines the amount of CO2 emitted/absorbed by the oceans.

Yes CO2 absorbs radiation as does nitrogen oxygen etc. However there is the saturation level. When 100% the radiation is being absorbed increasing the level of absorbing material is of no consequence.

I agree with the last point in so far as if the sun becomes warmer the earth becomes warmer. Unfortunately for you the solar activity has nothing to do with man's activity.

However how do you explain the 32,000 scientists many who are recognized experts in climatology who signed a petition stating that AGW was a red herring? Unlike Mann and Henson who only play climatologists on TV.

Joe: The first can be shown by just looking at the math involved. You can take fossil fuel consumption numbers and calculate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year. In addition there are well known and accepted CO2 concentration levels. The interesting thing is that only about 1/2 the CO2 produced by anthropogenic means ends up in the atmosphere. So the only logical explanation is that we are responsible for the observed increase.

Consider this analogy. There is a bank account with a number of people able to put in or take out money (the people represent the different sources and sinks). The bank account starts off with $100 in it. Over the year you put in $7. At the end of the year the account has $103 in it. What would it be if you did not put in your $7. In your answer please make sure the analogy can translate back to the climate system.

In regards to point #2, nitrogen and oxygen are di-atomic and thus will not absorb in the IR range of the spectrum well. It turns out that not all bands of the CO2 spectrum are saturated, but even if they were, adding CO2 will still cause warming (I can explain this if you wish).

I assume that your point about the 32,000 scientists refers to the OISM petition project. I do not think that just because a lot of people think something it means it is correct. To understand what is right and wrong you must look at the science. Would you care to look at the science behind the OISM project?

Regards,
JOhn

Well John I guess you and I are just going to have to wait for the results aren't we. Right now it would seem my theory is more correct than your theory with the noted drop in the global average temperature. Hey you know as well as I that we should never let reality get in the way of a good theory. Especially scary earth ending theories like Y2K, Ozone hole, Acid rain oh and would you believe that the world will end in 1844? No? OK then how about 1914? No? OK then how about 1927? Still no? How about 1971? My my John Cross you are a tough negotiator! How about the known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I know this because various greenhouse operators have shown me their CO2 generators they use to spur on plant growth. Why not CO2 is excellent plant food.

Say don't tell me you are a real life version of Homer Simpson, making a living off the nuclear power industry! Now you want to talk about a problem. How are we ever going to dispose of all that waste you keep producing? You can't feed it to plants, you put us all at risk if you bury it and you start seeing blinky the fish in the nets if you drop it in the ocean. I'll take my chances with good old plant food. Thank you. At least I can eat the plants.

Joe: I am a little disappointed that instead of trying to discuss the science you have instead opted for rhetoric. Do you have any specific criticisms about the points I made?

Regards,
John

John Cross: Science 101; when the evidence negates the theory, the theory is trash.

Theory: Increasing levels of CO2 will cause the temperatures to rise in unprecedented fashion.

Fact: The CO2 levels have increased yet the variations in temperatures fall well within norms experienced since temperatures began to be measured. Well below temperatures indicated by oral histories such as the Viking Sagas or inferred from other evidence such as farms on Greenland, grapes growing in England.

Theory is suspect.

Theory: Increased CO2 will cause a temperature spiral that will increase temperature at an accelerating rate.

Fact: Despite the increased CO2 from man made sources and natural sources the temperature has dropped bringing the global mean below normal.

The theory is now trash.

More and more climatologists are now speaking out against the theory as they overcome their initial cautiousness and fear of being punished financially.

So what do exactly do you want to discuss?

Global warming and science are two items that don't belong in the same thought.

Remember "consensus", the "science was done" spouted by fools like Suzuki? What a crock!

Science is not based on consensus, and the so called "science" is junk. Global warming is nothing more than a scam to rob taxpayers of their money.

The scammers should be jailed.

Joe: Science 102 - make sure you get your facts correct ;-) .

If you look at temperatures, you will see that in fact the long term trend is up. Keep in mind that climate is generally taken to be the average over 30 years. However we don't even need this long to see the trend in the data. Here is a look at the long term trend. As you can see the 5 year trend is up.

So, as I showed above (and you now apparently accept) there is a causal link between CO2 and warming (i.e. if we add CO2 we should see warming). And we do observe the warming in the long term trend.

QED ;-)

Regards,
John

LEDA: Please see my comment to Joe at 12:57 I have laid out a very clear argument as to why adding CO2 will cause warming. Is there anything you disagree with?

Regards,
John.

John Cross you belong in the conspiracy camp since you seem to be seeing trends no one else sees. The trend is down not up. The global mean in this very short cycle of temperature measurements peaked in 1998!!! It has been trending down since then.

Science 103 learn to read the data correctly.

Science 104 make sure you have an adequate data set. Starting in 1968 and then ending in 1998 is not an adequate data set to determine any long term temperature trends.

BTW if the mankind survived global warming of such a degree that there was cattle ranching in Greenland a thousand years ago don't you think that maybe the little up ticks and down ticks we keep witnessing aren't really that important? Besides which most 'studies' seem to indicate that the CO2 levels increase and decrease naturally lagging behind the temperature. In other words the CO2 levels increase after the temperature goes up and decrease after the temperatures go down. Now how is it ever possible for the temperature to go down when the CO2 levels just went up? After all the guys who play climatologists on TV keep telling us that once CO2 goes up the temperature must increase in lock step. That being the case the earth should be baked to a crisp about a billion years ago. I mean if the biomass theory of the development of the coal, oil and natural gas is true then the carbon must have come from somewhere and most likely it was from CO2. But since there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't it, recording to the GW theory, have been too hot to support life?

Nice try John but I think your tin foil hat is on a little too tight. Maybe you should have made it with a velcro strap in the back so you can adjust it.

Joe: You had better go back to 101! I presented a link that clearly showed that there is an upward trend looking at 5 year averages (as well as a number of other different ways to look at the data). Now, you can review the analysis and present an argument why it is wrong, or you can explain why 5 year averages are not relevant but ignoring it is not an option.

After that we can begin to look at the timing of CO2 increases and why CO2 is not the only driver as you seem to imply.

Regards,
John

PS - they are once again farming cattle in Greenland ;-)

John too bad you can't read a graph must be that lack of velcro but regardless it is rapidly becoming clear to even the hardiest believer in AGW that the proponents of AGW are now manufacturing their own sets of data that have no relevance to any normal reality. Witness the fuss created by the dufuss who used a computer model to establish the temperature of Antarctica. Seems there isn't sufficient monitors so he just makes up data to suit his agenda. Let's see Mann's hockey stick, Eric Steig's computer modeling of Antarctica temperature in lieu of actual measurement... How much longer are you going to hang on there John. You are reminding me of the JW who despite all the evidence that the Watchtower Society has zero credibility predicting the future still goes to Kingdom Hall week after week. Your playing with a busted flush but don't worry no one is taking you seriously anyway.

Joe: I laid out a very clear scientific argument which you could have attempted to refute. Instead you ignore the science and you reply with more empty rhetoric.

If you wish to make a scientific argument then do so and address the points I outlined above.

regards,
John