|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2007 21:48:03 GMT -5
I call it the "daycare syndrome". Children in daycare settings are more likely to have higher attendence rates in school than children who do not go to daycare. They get their sicknesses in daycare and build up a resistence to being sick, whereas the non-daycare kids are relatively healthy at home and then get exposed to the viruses and germs in school that the daycare kids are now immune to. That is why I believe that crack houses and bordellos should be located within a hundred yards of schools. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 4, 2007 6:14:20 GMT -5
You forgot about having the children go back into the factories as slave free underpaid labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2007 9:15:57 GMT -5
You forgot about having the children go back into the factories as slave free underpaid labour. No we don't. And you call that progress?  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 7, 2007 10:45:25 GMT -5
I heard on the radio the other day that the average sea surface temperature dropped by 0.5C this year as compared to last year (which had a rise in temp of 1.7C as compared to normal). Did anybody else hear this? I only caught the last little part of the news story and I can't find an internet news story on it ....
Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 13, 2007 8:58:27 GMT -5
The "human caused" hoax is starting to unravel. But like any good religion, it's resistant to facts and common sense. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece~~~~~~~~~~~~ An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm. Thr first "evidence" of "human caused" global warming was the Mann "hockey stick" chart showing how humans have increased temperature through industrialization in this century. Even Al The Saviour used it in his movie. When the facts of the Medieval warming period starting to come out, completely debunking the chart, then the eco-fanatics jumped on the "carbon" wagon. Now that is also getting debunked as after effect of ocean warming rather then cause. What's next? Maybe the human depleting cod stocks caused a change in the ocean currents? Or me using underarm deodorant? What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier. The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. More and more scientist are starting to rock the boat on this matter. If you are FOR climate change and thus the direction politicians want to drive this debate, then you get all the funding you could possibly want, if you are against "human caused" you are dismissed and funding is almost impossible to get. If this is not proof positive of a social-political agenda then nothing is. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year. Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”. Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out. The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 20, 2007 14:31:29 GMT -5
Toronto blogger embarrasses NASA climate expertsAn amateur meteorologist from Toronto has embarrassed NASA scientists by catching an error in recent climate-change data. The resulting flap has led to accusations and finger-pointing over whether NASA's error was genuine.
Thanks to blogger Stephen McIntyre's calculations, climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) in New York now concede that 1934 was the hottest year in U.S. history, and not 1998 as it previously reported.
McIntyre first emailed NASA on Aug. 4 saying he'd discovered an error in its climate change data from 1999-onwards. He noticed inexplicable jumps in temperature around that time and, as it turns out, NASA's temperature readings have all been too high since then, to a maximum of 0.15 C.
NASA has since adjusted its numbers. They now show that 1998 is the U.S.'s second-hottest year and that five of the 10 warmest years on record in the U.S. date from before 1939. www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/08/17/tech-nasatemp070817.html?ref=rss
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 21, 2007 17:41:56 GMT -5
Gee,, what a suprise...NOT. Another myth busted. How many times have I said that SOME scientist have vested interest in producing "appropriate results". It's all about project funding from the hands of vote sucking politicians. How many times have I said that when one starts to really look at the hysteria with even a sliver of common sense, it starts to smell like baby brown stuff. Sooner or later someone will "discover" that the earth has climate cycles and we can't do a damn thing about it, never mind that we are the "cause" of it. But will that stop the new religion? If people can believe in something as ethereal as dieties...   |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 21, 2007 23:29:52 GMT -5
Are there no human caused global warming sacred cows left anymore? LOL! ~~~~~~~~~~~ www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9645336~~~~~~~~~~~ Gambling on tomorrow Aug 16th 2007 From The Economist print edition Modelling the Earth's climate mathematically is hard already. Now a new difficulty is emerging“SCIENCE” is a recently coined word. When the Royal Society, the world's oldest academy of the discipline, was founded in London in 1660, the subject was referred to as natural philosophy. In the 19th century, though, nature and philosophy went their separate ways as the natural philosophers grew in number, power and influence. Nevertheless, the link between the fields lingers on in the name of one of the Royal Society's journals, Philosophical Transactions. And appropriately, the latest edition of that publication, which is devoted to the science of climate modelling, is in part a discussion of the understanding and misunderstanding of the ideas of one particular 18th-century English philosopher, Thomas Bayes. Bayes was one of two main influences on the early development of probability theory and statistics. The other was Blaise Pascal, a Frenchman. But, whereas Pascal's ideas are simple and widely understood, Bayes's have always been harder to grasp. Pascal's way of looking at the world was that of the gambler: each throw of the dice is independent of the previous one. Bayes's allows for the accumulation of experience, and its incorporation into a statistical model in the form of prior assumptions that can vary with circumstances. A good prior assumption about tomorrow's weather, for example, is that it will be similar to today's. Assumptions about the weather the day after tomorrow, though, will be modified by what actually happens tomorrow. Psychologically, people tend to be Bayesian—to the extent of often making false connections. And that risk of false connection is why scientists like Pascal's version of the world. It appears to be objective. But when models are built, it is almost impossible to avoid including Bayesian-style prior assumptions in them. By failing to acknowledge that, model builders risk making serious mistakes. Assume nothing.... In one sense it is obvious that assumptions will affect outcomes (Really? Who knew!?! )—another reason Bayes is not properly acknowledged. That obviousness, though, buries deeper subtleties. In one of the papers in Philosophical Transactions David Stainforth of Oxford University points out a pertinent example. Climate models have lots of parameters that are represented by numbers—for example, how quickly snow crystals fall from clouds, or for how long they reside within those clouds. Actually, these are two different ways of measuring the same thing, so whether a model uses one or the other should make no difference to its predictions. And, on a single run, it does not. But models are not given single runs. Since the future is uncertain, they are run thousands of times, with different values for the parameters, to produce a range of possible outcomes. The outcomes are assumed to cluster around the most probable version of the future. (If you assume that the earth will warm by so much then you will get those results. Some computers models assumed that the earth will cool and guess what? They got those kinds of results. Isn't it amazing how you can always get what you want if you manipulate the data? Who knew? )The particular range of values chosen for a parameter is an example of a Bayesian prior assumption, since it is derived from actual experience of how the climate behaves—and may thus be modified in the light of experience. But the way you pick the individual values to plug into the model can cause trouble. They might, for example, be assumed to be evenly spaced, say 1,2,3,4. But in the example of snow retention, evenly spacing both rate-of-fall and rate-of-residence-in-the-clouds values will give different distributions of result. That is because the second parameter is actually the reciprocal of the first. To make the two match, value for value, you would need, in the second case, to count 1, ½, ⅓, ¼—which is not evenly spaced. If you use evenly spaced values instead, the two models' outcomes will cluster differently. Climate models have hundreds of parameters that might somehow be related in this sort of way. To be sure you are seeing valid results rather than artefacts of the models, you need to take account of all the ways that can happen. That logistical nightmare is only now being addressed, and its practical consequences have yet to be worked out. But because of their philosophical training in the rigours of Pascal's method, the Bayesian bolt-on does not come easily to scientists. As the old saw has it, garbage in, garbage out. The difficulty comes when you do not know what garbage looks like. (But you can always sell it to the media, vote sucking politicians and the gullible ones as FACTS! LOL)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 21, 2007 23:46:42 GMT -5
This caught my eye because of the last lines.~~~~~~~~~ www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9645109~~~~~~~~~ Modelling the climate Tomorrow and tomorrow Aug 16th 2007 From The Economist print edition A group of climatologists discover reality WHILE some argue about the finer philosophical points of how to improve models of the climate (see article), others just get on with it. Doug Smith and his colleagues at the Hadley Centre, in Exeter, England, are in the second camp and they seem to have stumbled on to what seems, in retrospect, a surprisingly obvious way of doing so. This is to start the model from observed reality. Until now, when climate modellers began to run one of their models on a computer, they would “seed” it by feeding in a plausible, but invented, set of values for its parameters. Which sets of invented parameter-values to use is a matter of debate. But Dr Smith thought it might not be a bad idea to start, for a change, with sets that had really happened. He therefore gave his models a series of decade-long tests beginning with the real climatic conditions (level of solar radiation, ocean temperature and so on) on 80 different start dates from 1982 to 2001. As he reported recently in Science, the use of such real starting data made a huge improvement to the accuracy of the results. It reproduced what had happened over the courses of the decades in question as much as 50% more accurately than the results of runs based on arbitrary starting conditions. Hindcasting, as this technique is known, is a recognised way of testing models. The proof of the pudding, though, is in the forecasting, so Dr Smith plugged in the data from two ten-day periods in 2005 (one in March and one in June), pressed the start button and crossed his fingers. The results suggested that the world would cool from February this year until 2009. After that, it will start warming up again, with at least half of the years between 2010 and 2014 being warmer than 1998, the hottest on record so far. Given the rainy British summer this year, the view from north-west Europe is that the new way of doing things is spot on. Shame it took so long to think of it. It's cooling, it's warming, it's cooling, it's warming. Could it be that the earth climate has ALWAYS changed? Or does that require some kind of leap of faith? Notice also the "commitment" to the models. They "suggest" possible outcomes. A long, long way from anything that the eco religion ants to describe as actionable facts. But you know the old story, repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. And finally, as BC pointed out, "1998" is NOT the hotest on record. But AGAIN, repeat a lie often enough and it's quoted as fact, There is a lot of those "facts" going around with global warming. Wonder why......
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 23, 2007 6:24:55 GMT -5
The Russian scientist who predicted a cooling cycle in the next 50 years is not so crazy anymore is he?
I've always said that anyone who believes in worldwide global warming should come to Newfoundland. Our spring was bitter cold, we had about 2 weeks of hot weather, it has been raining and chilly for the past week or more now ... and yesterday I was on the golf course and it was hailing!!! Global warming, Global scharming.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Aug 23, 2007 8:30:32 GMT -5
On one of my many trips to Toronto, I heard John Oakley, morning host on AM640, interviewing Dr. David Suzuki on this very topic. I believe it was a couple of months ago.
Oakley raised some questions concerning the validity of the global warming message; bringing up points much like the one above....asking whether or not the earth has always moved in cooling and warming cycles, the effect of the sun, etc.
Suzuki immediately became frustrated and combative. "How can you possibly ask me that? The evidence is overwhelming....." etc. etc.
He left the interview steaming mad....talk about your "warming".
I've worked with Oakley in the past, and I'm supposed to be meeting with him sometime soon. I can't wait to ask him about that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 23, 2007 8:55:07 GMT -5
The Russian scientist who predicted a cooling cycle in the next 50 years is not so crazy anymore is he? I've always said that anyone who believes in worldwide global warming should come to Newfoundland. Our spring was bitter cold, we had about 2 weeks of hot weather, it has been raining and chilly for the past week or more now ... and yesterday I was on the golf course and it was hailing!!! Global warming, Global scharming. You're behind the times, Skilly: it's no longer "global warming", but "climate change" which is "escalated" by our "consumption of resources" so that mankind (especially western mankind) must "modify and transform" our indulgent lifestyles. North America's responsibility to cut back while Asia finds it place in the manufacturing world. Not a bumper sticker type of guy, but one of my favourites: Chicago supports global warming [I'd add Winnipeg to that list, knowing winters there] |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 23, 2007 17:32:28 GMT -5
On one of my many trips to Toronto, I heard John Oakley, morning host on AM640, interviewing Dr. David Suzuki on this very topic. I believe it was a couple of months ago. Oakley raised some questions concerning the validity of the global warming message; bringing up points much like the one above....asking whether or not the earth has always moved in cooling and warming cycles, the effect of the sun, etc. Suzuki immediately became frustrated and combative. "How can you possibly ask me that? The evidence is overwhelming....." etc. etc. He left the interview steaming mad....tak about your "warming". I've worked with Oakley in the past, and I'm supposed to be meeting with him sometime soon. I can't wait to ask him about that one. How DARE Oakley question the wisdom of the high priest of global warming? Doesn't he know that the debate is over and the social engineering just begun? He should just put on his little wool cap and fall in line! Amazing isn't it. When the hard questions come, the typical three responses are.... indignation, "are YOU working for the oil companies?" and "all the scientist agree". The first one proves the arrogant self importance some of these followers have and the other two are as useful "defense of the cause" as fishnet condoms. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 23, 2007 18:01:59 GMT -5
The Russian scientist who predicted a cooling cycle in the next 50 years is not so crazy anymore is he? I've always said that anyone who believes in worldwide global warming should come to Newfoundland. Our spring was bitter cold, we had about 2 weeks of hot weather, it has been raining and chilly for the past week or more now ... and yesterday I was on the golf course and it was hailing!!! Global warming, Global scharming. You're behind the times, Skilly: it's no longer "global warming", but "climate change" which is "escalated" by our "consumption of resources" so that mankind (especially western mankind) must "modify and transform" our indulgent lifestyles. North America's responsibility to cut back while Asia finds it place in the manufacturing world. Not a bumper sticker type of guy, but one of my favourites: Chicago supports global warming [I'd add Winnipeg to that list, knowing winters there] Don't forget that we are also suppose to be so racked with remorse over our indulgent lifestyle that we should give everything including our left nut to Africa. Which begs the question, if we are so evil in our ways, why do they want what we have built? LOL! Which rwminds me of something funny..... Back in my CEGEP days, every second "professor" was a wannabe commie. Ever time they would go into "capitalism evil, communism good" I would break into my standard ....."why the f*** are you still here?". A few times, right in the middle of class, in front of other students, I offered to buy a one way ticket to Russia to my favorite commie "professors". I still remember our lively "debates" as to how I was "a child of blood sucking capitalism" and I addressed then as "Comrade Hypocrites". And we know how THAT "communism" debate ended! LOL! Ahhh...those where the good times.....skipped classes.... 24/7 sex......broke AND happy. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 18, 2007 20:28:27 GMT -5
To warm HA's cockles heart: BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide: - is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
- may cause severe burns.
- contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and· decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
- as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use. In March 2004 the California municipality of Aliso Viejo (a suburb in Orange County) came within a cat's whisker of falling for this hoax after a paralegal there convinced city officials of the danger posed by this chemical. The leg-pull got so far as a vote's having been scheduled for the City Council on a proposed law that would have banned the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because (among other things) they were made with DHMO, a substance that could "threaten human health and safety." That said, this example does aptly demonstrate the kind of fallacious reasoning that's thrust at us every day under the guise of "important information": how with a little effort, even the most innocuous of substances can be made to sound like a dangerous threat to human life and, as is going around, how conditioned we have become to the alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 18, 2007 21:12:38 GMT -5
Have you heard of Global Dimming? Have you heard of Global Reduction is Sperm Production? Have you heard about the Global Shortage of Water? Have you heard of the Global reduction of oxygen? Have you heard of the Global Dimwitting by listening to all the Global Twits?  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 18, 2007 21:20:02 GMT -5
Oh, why not? The (not so big) melt Lorne GunterThey started appearing last month: alarmist articles that claim the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean this summer would be the "smallest ever recorded."
Would be. By mid-September, when Arctic temperatures begin to cool.
I had one question, though, that went unanswered in story after story: For how long have reliable records of Arctic ice cover been kept? What is the significance of claims that this summer's ice pack is the smallest "ever recorded"?
I am always dubious of claims made by global-warming alarmists before the end of a year or a season that such-and-such is going to be the coldest/warmest/wettest/driest whatever on record.
The British national climate centre is notorious for this -- issuing press releases in November that the current year will be the warmest on record, before December's temperatures are even in. That's why since 2000 or 2001 there has been no significant increase in global temperatures, yet annually we have been assured (prematurely) that each year has been the hottest ever (or nearly so).
You can be assured of being the fastest sprinter in history if you're permitted to stop timing your dash 10 metres short of the finish, just as you can claim any year is warmer than the ones before it if you make that prediction based on just 11 months data, particularly if the missing 12th month is one of those wintry ones, like December.
So over what time span are we talking about with Arctic sea ice? Just how long is this "ever"?
The scientists behind the prediction made statements such as "the sea ice seems to be in a death spiral." Instead of the Arctic being ice-free in summer by 2070 or 2100 -- as the UN's vaunted climate computer models project -- this new prediction indicated the total melt of Arctic ice in summer "could occur as early as 2030."
Shock. Horror. Call Al Gore and offer to make him king of the world, if only he will promise to stop this carnage!
In order to say such things so definitively, though, we must know with some certainty what the ice cover up there has been for hundreds of years.
From the 14th century to the 19th, the Earth was gripped by the Little Ice Age. For nearly 500 years, temperatures were unusually cold. Arctic ice was, presumably, unusually thick. So, of course before we go off claiming that the polar ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate, we can claim with certainty what its coverage was in, say, 1325 or 980, right?
We're not even sure what it was in 1965.
We have reliable satellite images of Arctic ice coverage only going back as far as 1979, and reasonably reliable surface and air observations going back to 1972. (Thanks to blogger Noel Sheppard at newsbusters.org for ferreting out those essential facts that seemed to have been overlooked in nearly every news story on this "crisis.")
There are reasonably good records going back to the mid-1950s, when American nuclear submarines began their Cold War patrols under the ice pack. Yet even these are spotty, covering some regions one year and then not again for another decade or more.
As Mr. Sheppard points out, the great Norwegian polar explorer Roald Amundsen navigated the Northwest Passage in 1905 in a wooden sailboat with a crew of just seven. The passage was sufficiently ice-free that year for the little craft to make it through with little ice-breaking capacity.
And in 1944, the tiny RCMP patrol vessel the St. Roch (which can still be seen at the Vancouver Maritime Museum) sailed from Halifax to Vancouver through the passage in a single season --a first --because it met little ice.
In a report to the Admiralty in 1817, the British Royal Society noted that "the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated." The "Arctic Seas," it noted, were "more accessible than they have been for centuries past," making exploration and trade possible during the summer melt.
This has happened before.
Instead of warning that this summer's melt was the greatest "ever," perhaps the headlines should have read "Arctic melt this year biggest since last big melt."link |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 24, 2007 11:59:58 GMT -5
Can't do streaming at work so I don't know if the link works. But try this one out anyway. George Bush on Global WarmingQuite ... err ... articulate ... umm ... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 27, 2007 9:49:26 GMT -5
I see it this way: Even if Global Warming isn't caused by humans, could it really be a bad thing that we develop alternative fuels and resources before something does happen that's caused by us?
Seriously, what's the harm? I don't care if global warming exists or not, but I think teaching our youth to live out socially and environmentally responsible lives is a responsibility that we are largely ignoring. Heck, we could teach children how to exercise and eat properly, too. I'm sure that would outrage some people. We'd see an article like the quoted above: "Obesity: The Greasy, Fatty Facts?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 27, 2007 12:12:27 GMT -5
I see it this way: Even if Global Warming isn't caused by humans, could it really be a bad thing that we develop alternative fuels and resources before something does happen that's caused by us? Seriously, what's the harm? I don't care if global warming exists or not, but I think teaching our youth to live out socially and environmentally responsible lives is a responsibility that we are largely ignoring. Heck, we could teach children how to exercise and eat properly, too. I'm sure that would outrage some people. We'd see an article like the quoted above: "Obesity: The Greasy, Fatty Facts?" I think you are missing the point ... Politicians draw up scare tactics to make their friends weathly, get donations, have a cause that isn't explained properly, and drum up public support so that average joes have to suffer ... It is perfectly ok for you to live a green lifestyle ... but if my lifestyle is not hurting you then don't chastise me for not wanting a green lifestyle. And so far, no one has been able to prove that what we are doing is hurting anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 27, 2007 12:19:36 GMT -5
I see it this way: Even if Global Warming isn't caused by humans, could it really be a bad thing that we develop alternative fuels and resources before something does happen that's caused by us? Seriously, what's the harm? I don't care if global warming exists or not, but I think teaching our youth to live out socially and environmentally responsible lives is a responsibility that we are largely ignoring. Heck, we could teach children how to exercise and eat properly, too. I'm sure that would outrage some people. We'd see an article like the quoted above: "Obesity: The Greasy, Fatty Facts?" I don't personally see any harm in trying to find alternative fuels and resources, but the question becomes, "at what price?" How much are you, redscull, willing to pay, in cold, hard cash, to find these alternative fuels and resources? Currently the province of Quebec has plans to implement an "environment" gas tax, and an "environment" tax on plastic bags (one has to wonder why they simply don't outlaw plastic bags, instead of going for more taxes, but I digress). Most people seem okay with that. But for how long? What do you think would happen if tomorrow, as King of Canada, I said "starting today I am implementing a $5 per litre tax on gasoline, with the proceeds from this tax going to fund alternative fuel research?" Instead of it costing about a $1 a litre to fill up your car, it's going to cost you $6 a litre, instead of about $40 full tank, it's going to cost you $240... Most people would go nuts, right? And yet, that's EXACTLY the type of tax that would be needed to stop people from using their cars, thus reducing emissions. And then, just to compound matters, you have countries like China and India, who are doing nothing to curb emissions. China is actually the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and yet they are under no obligation whatsoever to reduce their emissions. It's true, China is a bigger polluter than the US. And yet, western countries, including Canada, are supposed to FUND their manufacturing plants, so they can emit even MORE! "Developed countries should face their historical responsibility and their current high per capita emissions, (and) strictly abide by their emission reduction targets set forth in the Kyoto Protocol," Hu said according to the text of his speech.
"(They should) honour their commitment on making technology transfer and providing financial support to developing countries, and continue to take the lead in reducing emissions after 2012."news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070908/wl_afp/apecsummitclimatechina_070908055917In other words, YOU take the financial hit, YOU pay US, and we're NOT going to do anything, even though WE are the biggest polluters on the planet. So we're paying $240 a tank of gas, and it would be FOR NOTHING, as China (and India) are the biggest polluters anyways. Would you still want to pay all that money, if you knew it was going to China, and that it wouldn't make a wit of difference to global warming, because they continue to pollute, way more than everyone else? I am all for more environmentally friendly behavior... but not at any price. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 27, 2007 12:25:52 GMT -5
I see it this way: Even if Global Warming isn't caused by humans, could it really be a bad thing that we develop alternative fuels and resources before something does happen that's caused by us? Seriously, what's the harm? I don't care if global warming exists or not, but I think teaching our youth to live out socially and environmentally responsible lives is a responsibility that we are largely ignoring. Heck, we could teach children how to exercise and eat properly, too. I'm sure that would outrage some people. We'd see an article like the quoted above: "Obesity: The Greasy, Fatty Facts?" I don't personally see any harm in trying to find alternative fuels and resources, but the question becomes, "at what price?" How much are you, redscull, willing to pay, in cold, hard cash, to find these alternative fuels and resources? Currently the province of Quebec has plans to implement an "environment" gas tax, and an "environment" tax on plastic bags (one has to wonder why they simply don't outlaw plastic bags, instead of going for more taxes, but I digress). Most people seem okay with that. But for how long? What do you think would happen if tomorrow, as King of Canada, I said "starting today I am implementing a $5 per litre tax on gasoline, with the proceeds from this tax going to fund alternative fuel research?" Instead of it costing about a $1 a litre to fill up your car, it's going to cost you $6 a litre, instead of about $40 full tank, it's going to cost you $240... Most people would go nuts, right? And yet, that's EXACTLY the type of tax that would be needed to stop people from using their cars, thus reducing emissions. And then, just to compound matters, you have countries like China and India, who are doing nothing to curb emissions. China is actually the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and yet they are under no obligation whatsoever to reduce their emissions. It's true, China is a bigger polluter than the US. And yet, western countries, including Canada, are supposed to FUND their manufacturing plants, so they can emit even MORE! "Developed countries should face their historical responsibility and their current high per capita emissions, (and) strictly abide by their emission reduction targets set forth in the Kyoto Protocol," Hu said according to the text of his speech.
"(They should) honour their commitment on making technology transfer and providing financial support to developing countries, and continue to take the lead in reducing emissions after 2012."news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070908/wl_afp/apecsummitclimatechina_070908055917In other words, YOU take the financial hit, YOU pay US, and we're NOT going to do anything, even though WE are the biggest polluters on the planet. So we're paying $240 a tank of gas, and it would be FOR NOTHING, as China (and India) are the biggest polluters anyways. Would you still want to pay all that money, if you knew it was going to China, and that it wouldn't make a wit of difference to global warming, because they continue to pollute, way more than everyone else? I am all for more environmentally friendly behavior... but not at any price. Good post BC. Good read. Thanks. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 27, 2007 12:28:40 GMT -5
I am looking forward to watching Glenn Beck's special on Global Warming tonight on CNN Headlines News, separating myht from fact...a fair and balanced approached. Gee I wonder if the school principals will tape the program and force students to watch in order to get a different perspective. Don't bet on it as we all know the educational institutions worship their earth God Al Gore. By chance did you see Beck's show on Global Warming, manton? He usually doesn't hold back any punches. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 27, 2007 13:01:33 GMT -5
I see it this way: Even if Global Warming isn't caused by humans, could it really be a bad thing that we develop alternative fuels and resources before something does happen that's caused by us? Seriously, what's the harm? I don't care if global warming exists or not, but I think teaching our youth to live out socially and environmentally responsible lives is a responsibility that we are largely ignoring. Heck, we could teach children how to exercise and eat properly, too. I'm sure that would outrage some people. We'd see an article like the quoted above: "Obesity: The Greasy, Fatty Facts?" I don't personally see any harm in trying to find alternative fuels and resources, but the question becomes, "at what price?" How much are you, redscull, willing to pay, in cold, hard cash, to find these alternative fuels and resources? Currently the province of Quebec has plans to implement an "environment" gas tax, and an "environment" tax on plastic bags (one has to wonder why they simply don't outlaw plastic bags, instead of going for more taxes, but I digress). Most people seem okay with that. But for how long? What do you think would happen if tomorrow, as King of Canada, I said "starting today I am implementing a $5 per litre tax on gasoline, with the proceeds from this tax going to fund alternative fuel research?" Instead of it costing about a $1 a litre to fill up your car, it's going to cost you $6 a litre, instead of about $40 full tank, it's going to cost you $240... Most people would go nuts, right? And yet, that's EXACTLY the type of tax that would be needed to stop people from using their cars, thus reducing emissions. And then, just to compound matters, you have countries like China and India, who are doing nothing to curb emissions. China is actually the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and yet they are under no obligation whatsoever to reduce their emissions. It's true, China is a bigger polluter than the US. And yet, western countries, including Canada, are supposed to FUND their manufacturing plants, so they can emit even MORE! "Developed countries should face their historical responsibility and their current high per capita emissions, (and) strictly abide by their emission reduction targets set forth in the Kyoto Protocol," Hu said according to the text of his speech.
"(They should) honour their commitment on making technology transfer and providing financial support to developing countries, and continue to take the lead in reducing emissions after 2012."news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070908/wl_afp/apecsummitclimatechina_070908055917In other words, YOU take the financial hit, YOU pay US, and we're NOT going to do anything, even though WE are the biggest polluters on the planet. So we're paying $240 a tank of gas, and it would be FOR NOTHING, as China (and India) are the biggest polluters anyways. Would you still want to pay all that money, if you knew it was going to China, and that it wouldn't make a wit of difference to global warming, because they continue to pollute, way more than everyone else? I am all for more environmentally friendly behavior... but not at any price. While your words have merit, noone's proposing going off the deep end and running the auto industry out of the water. For what it's worth, I live a "normal" life. The major adjustments I've made is in my transportation (I hardly drive anywhere unless it's too far to bike) and my house is significantly reduced. Guess what? That didn't change my living costs at all (in fact, I probably have more money in my pocket). Of course I'm not willing to pay you to stop using gasoline, but I am willing to fund better technology research (as we all should be). The advent of electric, hydrogen-based and even "hybrid" cars is certainly a giant leap in the direction I'd like us to head. The only kind of tax I'd be willing to pay and support is a road tax (like is used in London) that would a) help fund road repair and b) encourage consolidation of road passengers into carpools and buses. Just like you don't want to be chastised for your living style (or rather the poster above said that), I don't want to breathe in the Saperlipopette from your car/live the repercussions because you chose to live an hour's drive from your office. Response in moderation, that's all I'm looking for. The funny thing about techonlogy is that it traditionally takes 20-30 years to diffuse to other areas after its invention. It's the technology that we develop today that will shape the world in 2050. I don't claim to know what carbon emissions and deforestation will do to the world, but it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together and say "You know what? It doesn't sound good." Asthma rates in particular are of great concern to me. More pollutants + less trees = more crap in the air. China and India are the greatest polluters in the world, but if smaller countries with less population (who pollute more per capita, by the way) aren't willing to lead change, who will? Personally I don't think we should be funding the economic development of China; it's not really in our nation's best interests. That being said, developing technology that we can sell to China certainly is, so if the means to that end is funding the initial growth that leads to further industrialisation of China then I guess it makes sense. I don't know, I think my viewpoint is clear and many of us will have to agree to disagree about many issues because that's what makes individualism fun. By the way, I'm not missing anything. I understand what people here mean, but you can't refute pro-global warming evidence that is supposedly biased by additional evidence produced to refute the original claim. How these claims are seemingly less biased is unknown to me. The only person I want to listen to is someone who went into an experiment expecting a warming trend, and came out with a cooling one (or vice versa) and even then it's probably because they LOVEed it up. Until then, I'm reserving my judgments to my own thoughts regarding global environment trends. I don't give a Saperlipopette about politicians and their friends, because it's not money that I'd have seen anyway. It's one politician and their friends vs another politician and his. Better the money go to environmental research and technology development than oil or weapons contracts. Average Joe isn't suffering, they're stagnating. In many ways. Whatever. Trash on me all you like, but the combination of fat kids and Saperlipopettety air gets me riled up. I maintain; what's the harm in making the safe play instead of betting it all on one hand? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 27, 2007 13:28:45 GMT -5
And that’s all anybody on “the other side” is asking for too. Instead of being called “deniers”. HA is the biggest critic of the global warming movement, and yet if you ask him (you probably won’t even have to) he’ll go through the list of environmentally friendly changes he himself has made. I won’t give you my “environmental credentials” because it’s not the point. Nobody wants to see a polluted world – where we differ is on what it’s going to take to keep/make it clean. We aren’t so different, you and me, I agree with just about everything you said above. But many people think we should be doing more, that we should be taxed more, that we should be subsidizing other countries, damaging our financial futures with no clear certainity that what we are doing is actually going to work. (And in Quebec we already pay for things like road taxes, and transportation taxes.)
Interestingly, countries and regions with HIGHER pollution rates have LESS reported asthhma rates. But that is neither here, nor there. Again, we agree on the general principle; we should be doing more to find “cleaner” solutions.
I don’t buy the “per capita” argument. As far as I know, global warming isn’t going to take into account “per capita”. It’s the total amount that matters. We could reduce our pollution rates to zero (however you want to define that), but if China continues to pump out the pollution that it pumps out, it won’t really matter.
Well again, I don’t think we’re all that far apart. You don’t want to see lots of new taxes, you don’t want to fund China so they can keep polluting, you want to see more money for alternative sources of power. So do I. So do most people. Nobody is sh*tting on you for anything. What gauls me is people who insist, for example, that we follow Kyoto, without really having any concept of what Kyoto is. It’s a knee-jerk reaction on their part, and it’s leading to things like taxes on plastic bags. IF plastic bags are so bad for the environment, wouldn’t it make so much more sense to simply ban them?? But many people have their blinders on, and cannot, or are not willing, to see the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by wpghabsfan on Sept 27, 2007 13:43:14 GMT -5
While your words have merit, noone's proposing going off the deep end and running the auto industry out of the water. For what it's worth, I live a "normal" life. The major adjustments I've made is in my transportation (I hardly drive anywhere unless it's too far to bike) and my house is significantly reduced. Guess what? That didn't change my living costs at all (in fact, I probably have more money in my pocket). Of course I'm not willing to pay you to stop using gasoline, but I am willing to fund better technology research (as we all should be). The advent of electric, hydrogen-based and even "hybrid" cars is certainly a giant leap in the direction I'd like us to head. The only kind of tax I'd be willing to pay and support is a road tax (like is used in London) that would a) help fund road repair and b) encourage consolidation of road passengers into carpools and buses. Just like you don't want to be chastised for your living style (or rather the poster above said that), I don't want to breathe in the Saperlipopette from your car/live the repercussions because you chose to live an hour's drive from your office. Response in moderation, that's all I'm looking for. The funny thing about techonlogy is that it traditionally takes 20-30 years to diffuse to other areas after its invention. It's the technology that we develop today that will shape the world in 2050. I don't claim to know what carbon emissions and deforestation will do to the world, but it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together and say "You know what? It doesn't sound good." Asthma rates in particular are of great concern to me. More pollutants + less trees = more crap in the air. China and India are the greatest polluters in the world, but if smaller countries with less population (who pollute more per capita, by the way) aren't willing to lead change, who will? Personally I don't think we should be funding the economic development of China; it's not really in our nation's best interests. That being said, developing technology that we can sell to China certainly is, so if the means to that end is funding the initial growth that leads to further industrialisation of China then I guess it makes sense. I don't know, I think my viewpoint is clear and many of us will have to agree to disagree about many issues because that's what makes individualism fun. By the way, I'm not missing anything. I understand what people here mean, but you can't refute pro-global warming evidence that is supposedly biased by additional evidence produced to refute the original claim. How these claims are seemingly less biased is unknown to me. The only person I want to listen to is someone who went into an experiment expecting a warming trend, and came out with a cooling one (or vice versa) and even then it's probably because they LOVEed it up. Until then, I'm reserving my judgments to my own thoughts regarding global environment trends. I don't give a Saperlipopette about politicians and their friends, because it's not money that I'd have seen anyway. It's one politician and their friends vs another politician and his. Better the money go to environmental research and technology development than oil or weapons contracts. Average Joe isn't suffering, they're stagnating. In many ways. Whatever. Trash on me all you like, but the combination of fat kids and Saperlipopettety air gets me riled up. I maintain; what's the harm in making the safe play instead of betting it all on one hand? +1 Wow, I can't believe someone on this board actually shares the same view point as me. Sadly, my hope for this world still has not been restored. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 27, 2007 14:14:14 GMT -5
How much are you, redscull, willing to pay, in cold, hard cash, to find these alternative fuels and resources? the solid question. Mr. Layton, Mr. Dion, Mr. Doucette all want us to honour "our commitments": $5 billion a year for 4 or 5 years. Easy to say "just pay"; after all there is a budget surplus. The surplus is because we are overtaxed. Easy to say "just raise corporate taxes"; but when companies go belly-up (and they will) then what? The politicians need to be honest and say we need to go green and it is going to cost everyone $X thousand a year to do it . . . then people will rethink how it is to be done. I agree with redscull that we need to do womething . . . but get the government involved and nothing gets done, though money will be spent somehow! You jest, I am sure. I wish! ;D Exactly. That's what the environmental police want. Because we, for some reason, are the bad guys. Interesting that Suzuki, Gore, etc. don't reduce their impact but instead by credits. Hypocritical, if you ask me.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 27, 2007 15:10:34 GMT -5
I agree with what you said franko, except for us being overtaxed. So long as their is a national debt outside of annual fluctuations in trade, we are not overtaxed.
The reason I don't have a problem with the "global warming" movement is that I think people need an easy-to-understand concept to grasp onto in order to affect change. Frankly, if it means an end that's better for everyone (and arguably environmental efficiency at least satisfies weak Pareto criteria) I don't really care if it's a lie or myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 27, 2007 15:23:52 GMT -5
I agree with what you said franko, except for us being overtaxed. So long as their is a national debt outside of annual fluctuations in trade, we are not overtaxed. I dunno . . . PST, GST, income tax, gas, health, school, property [off the top of my head], plus the "non-tax taxes" CCP, EI, WCB, environment, road tolls, license fees . . . and if I weren't rushing out the door I'm sure I could come up with more than a few more. I don't mind shelling out for services, and I even like some sort of universality (though I think a claw-back is acceptable after a certain income level [past mine, of course ;D]). |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 27, 2007 16:19:19 GMT -5
I agree with what you said franko, except for us being overtaxed. So long as their is a national debt outside of annual fluctuations in trade, we are not overtaxed. I dunno . . . PST, GST, income tax, gas, health, school, property [off the top of my head], plus the "non-tax taxes" CCP, EI, WCB, environment, road tolls, license fees . . . and if I weren't rushing out the door I'm sure I could come up with more than a few more. I don't mind shelling out for services, and I even like some sort of universality (though I think a claw-back is acceptable after a certain income level [past mine, of course ;D]). Would you rather they just jump income tax to 65% or something? That could make your life easier..  |
|
