On a side note ...

I have been thinking about what the science of Global Warming actually says, and I have seen ecconomic analysis of what the impact of Global Warming would be, but I have yet to see an ecconomic analysis of whether Global Warming is possible.

If you look at the science it requires exponential growth in CO2 output in order to have a linear increase in global temperature; being that the main cause of CO2 output is burning of fossil fuels this means you need an exponential increase in fossil fuel production to produce a linear increase in global temperature. Can we actually increase fossil fuel production to 2 or 4 times its current level without having far cleaner methods of energy production being far less expensive than fossil fuels?

I don't think so ...

Essentially we're trying to solve a problem that in the next couple of years will correct itself.

"the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years." (ibid)

Uncovering the real goals of anti-CO2 crusaders

‘Medieval Environmentalists’ attack CO2 in their efforts to derail civilization
By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris

Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel, which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut, which represents the human contribution.

At 385 parts per million (ppm) by volume, CO2 levels are now, in a geologic sense, at their lowest in 600 million years. ...-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489

I have predicted that 2008 will be the year that the global warming fools meet their demise.

This is the opening negotiation on the back paddling (face saving) of the purveyors of doom.

They gave it a go, but reality is what it is. Global Warming, whatever that may amount to in the bigger picture is a natural passing in the planet's never-ending climate change. It is nature. It cannot be controlled as much as the leftist control freaks may deny that fact.

The enormous money-grab will take longer to curtail and only after billions have been wasted and economies have been harmed.

But AGW is not about truth; it's not about science; it's not about the environment. AGW rejects all three.

It's a UN Scam. It's a multi-billion dollar UN scam to get the West to build factories and factories and factories in the 'developing countries'. These factories are totally exempt from any emissions and pollution standards. That's right; totally exempt.

The costs of this industrial development will be born entirely by the West. Not as loans, not as franchises. Just taxpayer money handed over, whole hog, to fund industrial devt in China, in India and elsewhere. So, these cheap goods produced by their polluting and emitting factories will then undercut the higher-cost goods produced by our own factories.

Why are ours higher-cost? Because we have production standards; do China and India have such standards for quality raw materials, for quality of safe production? No.
We have high wages, ten to twenty times the wages of China and India. Why? Well, we have high taxes to ensure high standard control. Oh, and we have high taxes because we also have to pay to build the factories in China and India.

So, how does the UN get money from the West? The scam works by setting up an apocalyptic myth; that's the End of The Earth via Warming. The second part of the myth is to assign blame for this to Mankind. But only Some of Manking. The industrialists. The ones who invented all the cars and electricity and planes and medical technologies and scientific technologies and etc that the developing world has never thought of, and yet wants so desperately.

So, you make the West, with its research, its science, its inventions - feel Guilty for thinking and inventing. Then, you link the Global Warming to this Guilt For Being Smart. Oh, and it's important to reject dissent. So, AGW can't be scientific; it rapidly becomes dogma; you aren't allowed to dissent; if a scientist shows proof that the UN is wrong, he's quickly silenced.

And, of course, you transform AGW into a huge emotional experience. You have all the singers singing, all the dancers dancing. You have days of 'Lights Out' everyone in various cities around the globe. All the hippies and yuppies and yerpies and nerbies...they have a great new Life Experience to..experience.

So, to get the money, you have to manipulate the mass, the everready pop culture opinions and talk about Sin and The End of the World, and How To Save the Planet. This UN scam will 'fine' the West for its evil, capitalist industrial development. And, it will also offer an 'out' to the Evil West. They can continue to be evil, as long as they pay 'carbon taxes'. Heh. Who gives a damn about the environment? Not the UN>

Then, the UN will transfer this money, known as both fines and 'carbon trading', via middlemen. Those are UN Thugs, Friends of the UN Mafia. These UN thugs are getting rich, very very rich, taking a lot of the money off the 'carbon trading' guilt money paid by the West so that they can continue their industrialism.

Result? The West pays for the industrialization of China and India and..whereever. The West's taxes go up to pay for this. The West's costs go up to pay for this. China and India undercut the costs of industrial goods and services of the West. Oh - and emissions and pollution skyrocket because the factories in China and India have NO controls whatsoever. And the UN thugs get very, very rich.

Sounds a bit apocalpytic to me. But it's the West that is in the fire. Not the planet.

"Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 11/12/2006" - is the date at the top of the Telegraph story a typo?

The piece is from 2006 ... I picked it because it goes to show how the "picture" has continually changed via the IPCC. It's predictions are all over the map from one year to the next ... we are now being told that "new" measurements show more even worse consequences ... but not as quite as bad as pre-2006.

I'll make note of it in the post to be sure that's understood.

compare to this:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22763986-952,00.html

... from 2007

hmm a foot and a bit a century is about what the sea level rise has been for the last 1,000 years,

not too far off the general trend line.

ET, thanks for putting that into print. To most of us here at SDA it's pretty well self evident, however you just may have done us all a big service by education the trolls that occassionally visit here. Perhaps one or two of them will start putting two and two together and comine up with four instead of five or three.

Dr. Gore, please call your office!

Today i read a flattering profile of a person who had become an "activist" about climate change because she'd seen that ridiculous gore film. Apparently our hero found it hard to watch the movie, because she had to keep shutting it off so she could pace back and forth in a fit of concern and angst.
There was a contact number, I felt like phoning to calm her; relax, it's all crap! You can stop worrying! She probably wouldn't have appreciated my gesture, though.

London, Paris & Asian markets fall, TSX loses 500+ points today, when New York opens tomorrow it will be mayhem.

How much do you want to bet the new "crisis" will remove the old AGW crisis form the headlines ??

For sure.

The whole Greenie support thing is miles wide and inches deep. The Global warming thing is great as long as somebody else pays.

It was a nice ride for the Greenie-Weenies, but they have been trumped by personal finances.

I'm going to miss the whole scam, I was just on the point of making some money scamming CO2 credits to some gullibles.

Here's another post on "predict the future" via the IPCC:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001317verification_of_1990.html

I guess the moral scientists realize that their fellow scientists will be the first to lose their jobs.

Most of the Industries directly affected by GW have business models dating from the 60's & 70's . That is bad news for ppl over 45 and not in a revenue stream.

After reading ET's comments, I can add nothing to his excellent description of what this scam is about. He said it all.

Alain: She

They CAN'T change their forecast!

It's already SETTLED!

They can and they do ... the IPCC changes predictions with every report ... now that's science.

The amount of carbon produced by human activity is minascule compaired that the amount produced by nature one volcano put out more CO2 in one belch then all the facotries ever do

With respect to ET's comment, remember that this is not just a plot and it's not that recent. The Rio conference in 1992 was very explicit through the document Agenda 21 that one of the key goals in dealing with climate change was to "facilitate North-South transfers". Going further back, recall that the Brundtland commission that formulated the concept of sustainable development in 1987 wanted exactly the same thing, capital flow from industrial to third world nations. None of this is new, it's just that until recently, no one was really paying attention.

This whole bio-fuel issue just confounds me. Less CO2 emmissions? How is ethanol produced? By fermentation and distillation. Last time I looked that produces CO2 and uses a lot of energy. Then burning the fuel produces more CO2. Makes me shake my head. Better to feed someone with that grain!

Oh well. The media loses credibility it never had. Scientists show themselves to be as self-serving as most humans. Liberals spent a lot of taxpayers dollars.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

call me when they get to 100% caused by nature.

Yes, ET. All possible with "help" from; The Media, the UN, Universities, NGOs, Hollywood and the public school system.

How can they be held accountable for all the angst and wasted $$s ??

ET... well done! It would be a torpedo into the engine room, IF western politicians were actually paying attention. But money, power and votes trump science.

This .com (link below) has begun advertising on Fox News, using kids to get your attention. Just a quick perusal of the tag lines under the links suggest how much of all of this is about money.

http://stopglobalwarming.com/

Also, anyone notice (or is it just me) how the frequency of AGW supporter's posts have exhibited a noticeable decline on SDA. Have they gone somewhere else, or have they had an epiphany?

But, cgh, what is different now is the propaganda, which diverts attention from the real agenda, which is to have the West fund the industrialization of China, India, etc. And to have the West's taxpayers fund this, not as a loan, not as franchises, not as partners, but without returns!

The way to achieve such a one-way handover of taxpayer dollars, is the propaganda tactic. The UN has achieved this by setting up a fraudulent apocalyptic scenario, linked to the notion of Sin and Guilt of mankind, specifically and only, western mankind.

Until the UN managed to set up this propaganda, the mere notion that the West should, without compensation to its taxpayers, fund the industrialism of China and India - which would result in enormous cut-rate goods from these countries to the West - until the UN managed to get this propaganda scam going, no Western country would engage in such a scam.

This has to be the Biggest Achievement of the UN in its entire history - the gigantic scam whereby it got the taxpayers of the West to fund the industrialization of China and India without compensation to those taxpayers. That's the UN.

Excellent summary ET. While agreeing on your points, I come at it from a slightly different direction. Somewhere during the struggle between environmental activism, industrialization, and the success the developed world had in reducing their pollution emissions, the mainstream said - "OK we get it, it's about reducing and eliminating need to burn fossil fuels." So far, so good, as Patrick Moore types would say.

But then, the movement of Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism into the radical environental lexicon, spouting new slogans meaning the same thing (capitalism must be defeated), coupled with the anti-modernity/anti-humanity agenda, has produced this CO2 nonsense, masking the problem of catastrophic pollution emissions coming in the developing world, particularly China and India.

Now that doesn't change the need, as good world citizens in the developed world, for us to lead the way in transioning out of carbon fuels. We have led the way before. The anti-capitalists, however, will not tolerate market solutions.

They will not be satisified unless massive governmental intervention/taxation/regulation and bureaucracy is set up to solve the "problem."

The statists' plan is vulnerable on many counts. First, the science of AGW is being exposed as deeply flawed, or at least its consequences grossly overstated, to instill fear rather than use reason. Second, while voters in the West consistently agree that they must make sacrifices to combat AGW, when they are told the actual price, they reject the prescription.

Third, any option that can be shown to increase pollution, such as Kyoto, will also be rejected by the electorate.

The only hope for statists like Dion who say we will not have to make sacrifices (indeed we will get rich in the "green economy"), to comply with Kyoto, is to scare the s**t out of us, or guilt us, or paint their antagonists as monsters. All of that is underway right now; with the LPC in Canada, it means a need, and wish, for the West to be visited by failure, rising temperatures, falling economies, and dying war-crime commiting soldiers. They will promise anything to regain control of levers of power, and thus the keys to the treasury, to renew their cronyism and vote buying machine.

Harper will move the lexicon to battling, in a realistic, sustainable and actionable way, POLLUTION - yes the real stuff, not the bolt-threads of AGW CO2 scaremongering. The anti-progress vote will coalesce with the remaining political parties, forcing the into a formal coaition or cooperation, such as we've seen with May and Dion. That would rob Canada of its ability to develop clean fuel technologies to replace the inevitable loss of oil as revenue commodity, likely within the next 50 years.

The left has miscalculated by backing Kyoto, and discounted both the effects of pollution, and the high costs and dubious at best benefits of their climate prescription. I cannot envision Harper letting them get away with it - but that is their only chance for victory, IMO.

ET, of course the propaganda level has been ramped up. It's hardly an accident. It's happening just at a time when some serious chunks have been knocked out of the science. With respect to the raw data, the temperature record of NOAA has been called into serious question, and there is now some doubt regarding the predictability of the ice core data. Want more? The predicted sea rise in IPCC was based on a single tide gauge in Hong Kong in an area subject to subsidence because of water front construction, so of course it grossly overestimates annual sea level increase. Same old story, if you have a weak case, shout. If it weakens further, shout louder.

One point of difference, the UN is not a coherent organization. Rather there are individuals and nations and organizations capable of manipulating it for their own ends. Canada has made a more than significant contribution in that regard; Maurice Strong comes to mind. My concern here is that by focusing on the UN as a label, the real actors may be escaping due recognition. Second note, the UN is really only used as a launderer for policies that originate elsewhere. Remember that much if not most of the pro-global warming research originates within US government institutions. What we're really looking at here is in part a US internal squabble. Final point, conservatives are not entirely innocent in this fraud. Remember, it was Margaret Thatcher that made global warming an international political issue.

"The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet,..."

Really now.....let's blot out the sun and see how long it takes for them to grow half a brain.

Sounds like bargaining. Like a negotiation.

We aren't buying what the IPCC offers, therefore...

It's as if they're selling a Ford...

BTW, my sister-in-law and now my mom think that the whole "global warming" thing is pure BS.

Why is this significant? Because they normally believe what they hear in the MSM.

This suggests to me that the IPCC Chicken Littlism isn't really impressing the average Canadian.

The upper estimate of sea level rise is 17 inches over the next 100 years???

Man the lifeboats!

To put some context on this, the Telegraph article is over a year old and was based on the people at the Telegraph not understanding the data.

To begin with there was a change in the projection time (the TAR used 2100, the FAR uses 2095). But much more importantly, in previous sealevel rise predictions the IPCC combined thermal expansion, glacial melt and ice dynamic uncertainty in a single figure. Now they have separated out the ice dynamic uncertainty so there is a number for thermal expansion / glacial melt and a number for the uncertainty.

The Telegram only reported the thermal / glacial melt number so it really was a meaningless comparison. If you do an apples to apples comparison then you find the two are quite similar.

Regards,
John

After listening to one of the fruit flies stooges on talk radio ... another brain dead that wants to lay the mountain pine beetle outbreak (in BC it's the issue du jour, you know ... until another flood that doesn't happen, doesn't happen) on "global warming.

Just did a simple Google:

"Significant mortality occurs only with unseasonably cold weather early or late in the season."

www.pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/entomology/mpb/outbreak/summary_e.html

I read the whole thing ... links and all ... I figure the whole bugs thing is complex ... but I guess the science is settled here also.

I suppose that global warming means that "unseasonably cold weather" doesn't happen ... normal means global warming.

Safeway Grocery chain greens truck fleet.

National grocery store chain Safeway has announced that they have converted their entire distribution truck fleet to running on biodiesel. The company has over 1,000 trucks in their fleet, all of which are now fueled with biodiesel.

Safeway estimates that the move will cut the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from their fleet by over 75 million pounds a year. It's unknown if Safeway is using straight biodiesel or a blend (earlier Safeway announcements about biodiesel said the company would use B20) but either way, it's good to see another major fleet making the switch.
===================== AutoblogGreen.com

You may have to walk to Safeway for groceries during the next gasoline shortage, but at least the shelves will be stocked. = TG

A pattern here.

The trolls intentionally post spin late at night in the hope that by morning new topics will attract the attention and their junk will be left ending the thread, seemingly unchallenged.

If one is loosing -- yell louder.

If one has lost -- yell after everyone has left.

If there is a gasoline/diesel shortage, there will be a biodiesel shortage also. It takes more than one unit of fossil energy to make one unit of bio energy -- a net loss.

Is the term 'Renewable Energy' the new Perpetual Motion Machine craze ?

The upper estimate of sea level rise is 17 inches over the next 100 years???

Man the lifeboats!
Posted by: CJ

CJ I have emails from someone in the canadian govt saying in the last 100 yrs it went up 12 inches.

Ie we might have a 5" more than the last 100 yrs.

Now if anyone has ever seen the tides go in and out at Fundy they must shake their heads if they know the real numbers.

Global warming is a big fat lie its being used by the unscruplous UN to force us all its a world goverment all run by the sinster UN

Ron,

Your imagination is running wild again.

Always my contention has been that bio-fuels are a totally impractical fuel and only a stop-gap measure until battery and compressed air become wide spread.

Governments encourage biofuels because they..

[1] Return great tax revenues.

[2] create employment

[3] Return votes from farmers.

[4] Keep the Military, municipalities and BIG corporations like Safeway humming when a refined gas and diesel emergency occurs.

There is presently a huge stockpile of bio fuels in reserve, [ a glut], while there are only two full range bio-fuels stations open to the public in Canada.

Similar condition in the USA and huge Bio fuel capacity is still being built.

Figure it out. = TG

Dinosaur,

Right you are. The tides of the Bay of Fundy numbers revolve around a whopping 47 feet. = TG

Marvellous! And since the earth has an infinite capacity to absorb more humanity- let's bring the whole of Calcutta to Toronto as 'refugees' (so long as they are prepared to vote gliberal).
You think I am kidding- doncha! (And where do you think this unlimited group of 'refugees'- as well as the 800,000 backlog of immigrants are going to end up: next door to YOU!

sheik,

Those from India will end up in Dahwliwal country, Surrey BC. = TG