[fizzissist]

I vote for another tangent.

Anyone seen this??

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

.....english subtitles...al gore gets his butt kicked.....


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2007/2288.html

[NinerSevenTango]

After your access to oil, gas, and electricity is either shut off or taxed beyond your ability to afford it, you will be denied even the most basic means of keeping yourself warm.

It's all about making you beg for permission in order to keep from freezing to death.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...ml?source=mypi

And you will need some way to keep warm other than having a job and using the proceeds to buy energy, when they get done with this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/...climate_change

Excerpt: "That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy."

The political and media onslaught continues. It's not a consensus of scientists that matters (the truth doesn't care), it's a consensus of 'droids that really matters.

--97T--

[Geof]

I vote for another tangent.

Anyone seen this??

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

.....english subtitles...al gore gets his butt kicked.....


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2007/2288.html

Did you read it? Every word? Be honest.

I did a quick skim and it is very well argued.

[fizzissist]

I did more than a quick skim, but no, didn't read it in its entirety. The scope is a legal issue of distribution, with content as secondary, so what I was getting at was essentially lines 24-33 of the Citation where the claims made in Gore's film are rebutted.

The case was in my opinion very well argued, and I don't have any problem at all with children seeing the film...as long as the other side of the discussion receives equal time...

...and that's what Dimmock was asking for.

Your earlier question re:CH4....1774ppb, and anthropogenic contribution is 14.3% of the total, according to the IPCC...was that it?

[Geof]

I did more than a quick skim, but no, didn't read it in its entirety. The scope is a legal issue of distribution, with content as secondary, so what I was getting at was essentially lines 24-33 of the Citation where the claims made in Gore's film are rebutted.

The case was in my opinion very well argued, and I don't have any problem at all with children seeing the film...as long as the other side of the discussion receives equal time...

...and that's what Dimmock was asking for.

Your earlier question re:CH4....1774ppb, and anthropogenic contribution is 14.3% of the total, according to the IPCC...was that it?

Yes very well argued. And I agree with the comment about the other side receiving equal time; I would even go further and say that in a school setting the exagerration and misattribtuion in Gore's stuff be pointed out and discussed.

Regarding methan I think you had answered my query earlier; I was asking about any recent stabilization or diminution in methane levels because that is to be expected as a result of reduced sunspot activity.

[CNC_Programmer]

$45 Trillion?

[fizzissist]

Oh yeah...forgot the question...like my kid's T-shirt..."I know the answer, I just forgot the question"

In looking for the methane info, I stumbled onto a Great (and I still think they're just Pretty Good) Lakes study that's relevant to AGW.

We've just seen in the mainstream media how the Great Lakes are drying up..and at an alarming rate, all because of human caused warming.

The study I just found ..McBean, E. and Motiee, H. 2008. Assessment of impact of climate change on water resources: a long term analysis of the Great Lakes of North America. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 12: 239-255. says that warming in the basin is about .63degC, so evaporation should be higher, but they found that inflow is higher also.

They state "if the trends they found for the 1930-2000 time period continue, streamflow at the outlets of Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario in the year 2050 will be 7%, 17%, 25% and 25% greater, respectively, than they were in the year 2000."

The IPCC's models predict that AGW warming will also result in increased precip in the higher latitudes, so the values could even be higher yet, and I'd suspect more than offset evaporation.

Maybe, just maybe, that water's going somewhere else...

[fizzissist]

From Brian Sussman:

".......In some instances thermometers within the Network have been encroached upon by urban sprawl and their readings notably have trended upward. However, for the locations that have remained relatively stable, the temperature record hardly reeks of global warming.

A perfect illustration is found when comparing the USHCN temperature records from Central Park in New York City to those taken a mere 55 miles away at West Point.

Readings in Central Park have been regularly measured since 1835 when the city’s population had just surpassed 200,000. Today, surrounded by a metropolis of eight million people filled with some of the world’s tallest buildings, a massive underground subway system, an extensive sewer system, power generation facilities, and millions of cars, buses, and taxis, the Central Park temperatures have been greatly altered by urbanization. And, as one might expect, the Central Park historical temperature plot illustrates an incredible warming increase of nearly 4°F.

The West Point readings have also been meticulously maintained since 1835, but the environment surrounding the thermometer shelter has experienced significantly less manmade interference then the one in Central Park. The West Point readings illustrate a significantly lower warming increase of only about .6°F over the same 170-year period. This is remarkable given that the year 1835 is considered to be the last gasp of the Little Ice Age — a significant period of global cooling that stretched back several hundred years.

Cries of out of control global warming become more dubious when one looks at the hottest decade in modern history, the 1930s...."
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

....and while I'm on this subject again, check out the Marysville vs Orland, CA temp plots....two locations essentially side-by-side, for the same time period.....
http://www.surfacestations.org/

(posting those for the newbies to this thread..)

[Geof]

..... streamflow at the outlets of Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario in the year 2050 will be 7%, 17%, 25% and 25% greater, respectively, than they were in the year 2000."[/I]....

....Maybe, just maybe, that water's going somewhere else...

You mean water from the lake is going somewhere else?

This reminds of an article that was either in New Scientist or Discover in the past couple of years. It was some river system that was running low on water, and I am darned if I can remember whether it was North America or Australia, too much was being drawn out for irrigation.

So the solution was to limit the take out for all the agricultural lands along the river to improve the downstream flow, and what happened was the levels dropped faster.

The reason was that all the agricultural users had simply put in wells and started pumping out ground water thereby dropping the water table. The river levels were in an equilibrium with the ground water so when the water table dropped so did the river level.

I wonder if anyone is looking around the great lakes to see if something of this nature could be occurring there; lake water going down into depleted aquifers that are fed by the lakes.

[dufas]

piningforfjords........

Your posts are the same [identical] arguments that were given in the 60s for what was then, the major problem of the day, global drought. Ditto for the 70s when the crisis was global cooling. The only difference was that Al Gore's name was replaced by Carl Sagan and replace global drought or global cooling for GW in your post.

During the 60s, there was a scheme to go to the north and south poles, blow up the ice flows and tow them back to the continents for supplying fresh .water. During the 70s, there were all sorts of plans to tax the world population and devise ways to warm the planet. One plan was to coat the worlds ice packs with carbon so that it would absorb heat until it was pointed out that the ice would melt with disastrous consequences. Another plan was to place giant solar reflectors into orbit to reflect the sun's rays back to earth.

Two of Carl Sagan's pronouncements made just before he died was that Mt St Helen's eruption was going to throw the earth into a global winter and the area around the volcano is going to remain a wasteland for centuries. The next edict of his was that the oil wells in Kuwait that Saddam set on fire would burn for 100 years and again throw the planet into a "Nuclear Winter" type scenario. Those oil fires can never be put out. He was joined by most of the current crop of GW scientists in a consensus of opinion.

Then, just as now, if anyone disputed the scientist's 'facts' [opinions], the deniers were put down and scoffed. Sagan and his group were followed by unquestioning sheep during those two decades just as Al Gore is today.

Just as during those times, some basic needs civilization such as the Amazon Indians was held up as the correct way to live and just as during those times, it was America that was the problem and America was going to have to become a third world country in order to save the planet.

If you noticed, Al Gore, the Hollywood elite, scientists, and scores of others who unquestionably believe in MMGW are not about to give up their life style. It is up to the great unwashed to give up any comfort they may have. This was the same in the 60s and 70s.

If you really want to go as nature intended, you are going to have to close down hospitals, the medical profession, the government. prisons, etc, etc...just close everything and live like animals. If you get sick or injured, so be it, do the best you can, just like the animals. As in the animal world, survival of the fittest rules and there will be predators, most of which will be human.

The other alternative is the most likely scenario. The human race will have to live under a one world, communist/socialist government that will require you to get permission for just about anything you may want to do. There are some factions that would agree to this in a heart beat.

No matter which way things go, you can kiss freedom goodbye.... What do you think the point of all this is for, your safety, I doubt it.

[Mariss Freimanis]

45 trillion dollars. Let's see; that's 4.5 x 10^13 and there are 300 million people in the US. Make that 3 x 10^8. That makes the per capita cost 1.5 x 10^5 dollars or 6 x 10^5 dollars for a family of 4.

Does your family have $600,000 cash lying around to 'invest' in this scheme to clean-up a non-existent problem? I knew money was the end goal of this GW panic but this amount is truly breathtaking.

Mariss

[fizzissist]

Doncha just love the way this thread bops around from topic/post-to-topic/post!?!

I'd mentioned no warming in the troposphere....and to show that I'm not totally biased, here's a rebuttal;

Response to Comment on "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" ...in which they (B.D. Santer et al) write ,,,,"....In summary, Pielke and Chase have focused on NCEP data, in which the troposphere cools over the satellite era. It is likely that some or all of this cooling is spurious and arises from biases in the temperature retrievals assimilated by NCEP (10). They ignore data sets showing recent tropospheric warming that conflicts with their claims. Examples include the ERA-15 reanalysis (14) and a new satellite-based temperature data set relying on the same raw MSU radiances processed by UAH (15). Tropospheric warming in ERA-15 contributed to our positive identification of a model "fingerprint" of anthropogenic and natural effects in ERA-15 tropopause height data (2, 16).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...65/1771c#REF14

Not so much a rebuttal as a CYA statement....IMHO.

[dufas]

Doncha just love the way this thread bops around from topic/post-to-topic/post!?!

I'd mentioned no warming in the troposphere....and to show that I'm not totally biased, here's a rebuttal;

Response to Comment on "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" ...in which they (B.D. Santer et al) write ,,,,"....In summary, Pielke and Chase have focused on NCEP data, in which the troposphere cools over the satellite era. It is likely that some or all of this cooling is spurious and arises from biases in the temperature retrievals assimilated by NCEP (10). They ignore data sets showing recent tropospheric warming that conflicts with their claims. Examples include the ERA-15 reanalysis (14) and a new satellite-based temperature data set relying on the same raw MSU radiances processed by UAH (15). Tropospheric warming in ERA-15 contributed to our positive identification of a model "fingerprint" of anthropogenic and natural effects in ERA-15 tropopause height data (2, 16).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...65/1771c#REF14

Not so much a rebuttal as a CYA statement....IMHO.

In other words...... Don't cut off our funding, I like how I am living now......

[handlewanker]

So, if you humanoids were to go back to Nature and live like Amazonian indians do, then there would be tens of millions of past tense humanoids?

What an interesting hypothesis.

It's possible, just possible that you have at last unilaterally come to recognise the fact that there are just TOOOOOOOO many of you for comfort.

Why don't you put your money where your mouths are and start PREVENTING the mass population growth rate?

Within ONE generation you can reduce your people pool by a huge amount, maybe even become extinct in the process, then the world order can exert itself, and the whole chain reaction from whence you originated will reassert itself, and a new species will become dominant, that (by the grace of God?) will just live by the code of sustainable living and go on to benefit from not being too clever for their own good.

Face facts, humanoids, this is as good as it is going to get, your resources are becoming less per head of feeder, this will not get better.

To say that you think you are in command of your ship, wending it's way among the planets and stars, would be to think that tomorrow is the dawn of a new age where all your problems are going to be solved by the mighty brain power of the humanoid think tank, but for whom and in what form?

You certainly won't be a part of it, compared to the dinosaurs, with their tiny brains and no scientists to guide them, who ruled the world for about 250 million years or so.

Make the most of your present situation, lament the past mistakes, express sorrow for the bad decisions you made and take the course of nature as it decrees, the world is still a beautifull place, but not apparently for you.

You are a failed species, that could not intergrate or adapt successfully with your environment, so as nature has planned, you must be relegated to the great dumpmaster that cures all failed enterprises and be recycled to provide the raw material for greater things to come.

"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars,
Yo' has a right to be here, and no matter if it's clear to you, the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with your gods, the world is still a beautifull place".
Ian.

[elmerfud]

cheer up you miserable sods!

[fizzissist]

Why don't you put your money where your mouths are and start PREVENTING the mass population growth rate?

Ian.

And YOU have done exactly what?

Your continued use of "you humanoids" is getting to be irritating, as though you are of some special, gifted, royal or godlike species. The contridiction is, you write like a cockroach.

The cockroach will survive, but has little to contribute.

[Geof]

......The cockroach will survive, but has little to contribute.

Not true, they are efficient little garbage disposal units.

[fizzissist]

The Australian Cockroach....The insect can travel quickly, often darting out of sight when someone enters a room,.......Like most cockroaches, it is a scavenger....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_cockroach

Gosh...I'm learning so much about all facets of science here!!

[handlewanker]

Fizzwizz, you (everyone who isn't aware of the need to coexist with their envirnment) are not even thinking about the situation that EVERYONE has at the back of their minds and pretends that it will just go away when they come out of their dream state and open their eyes.

I've stated this before in a number of ways, to get the point across, you have an OVERABUNDENCE of humanoids, which is like saying I have a 2 metre square back garden block, and would like to plant a fruit tree, so I scatter a handfull of fruit tree seeds and when they all started to germinate I realised that someday soon there would be a hundred fruit trees crowded on the block that will only support one, because they are now draining the water and nutriments at an ever increasing rate as they get bigger.

What do I do now?

A normal response would be to uproot and dump all those that are smaller and weaker and just keep the one that has the best growth potential and will fruit better than the others.

Supposing I haven't the heart to uproot all those pretty young plant growths that are all healthy and would make so much nice fruit given the right circumstances?

Do I look the other way and allow all to crowd the block untill the water and nutrients run out and all just wither away and vanish?

Your answer is eagerly awaited, as it depicts the attitude of your species, given that you, (your species) are in crisis mode and are totally unaware of it.

PS. I suppose the excess tree production could be sold off to another species (humanoid) in another garden block.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

Klock loaches, yes make velly good klock loach soup, 1 billion Chinese and other Asians can't be all wrong.

You have a velly closed mind, just like I have stated, you are so far up.......... need I go on, yawnnnnn.

If the Humanoids suddenly started to dwindle as a species, (IE, their gene pool decreased to the extent they were all related in one generation), and the cockroaches became the dominant species, IE, they just eat you out of house and home and you were left to forage in the garbage, scuttling back and forth to avoid becoming "Cockroach Cordon Bleau" or meal of the day down at the dump, how would you rate them then, as an insignificent sub species that just somehow managed to strike it lucky?
Ian.