Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[bj229r]

It's also about money

My favorite overseas blog site, EU Referendum, is at it again. This time they are untangling the webs hiding the payments to key members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climatee Change (IPCC) team.

Today;'s involves New Zealand's Reisnger who authored the fabled "synthesis" of the climate reports in the IPCC's hands and it shows some folks went to a lot of trouble to hide payments to him:

    A British government department, DEFRA, has paid taxpayers' money to a British University which in turn paid it to the British subsidiary of an Indian research organisation, which in turn seems to have paid it to a New Zealand university scientist so that he could work for an international organisation based in Geneva - the IPCC.

    Welcome to the bizarre world of climate change politics, where nothing is what it seems and governments indulge in behaviour which, in other circumstances, would look very much like money laundering. But, bizarre though it might appear, this is only half the story. The reality is even more convoluted - the word "bizarre" doesn't even begin to describe it.
    The tale emerges from our trail of the millions salted away by climate change "hero" Rajendra Pachauri, and the role of TERI Europe, his outpost of Empire in London.


The site has a great deal more on the financial interests of the head of the IPCC,Rajendra Pachauri.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/when_it_comes_to_the_ipcc_foll.html

And why are trying to interject pollution into a global warming thread, other than to change the direction of a losing argument?

[CAP1]

Ah, I see where you are going with this guys:

This is just going to be about the scientists!  I'm out of here then, but all good points on global warming.  There's only one thing to do then, figure out what we're going to do with all of the air pollution in cities, and get all of the CFC's banned worldwide.

As to the personal jibe on me, I cannot say anyone has seen me personally.  If you can't accept that you have been arguing with a child so be it.  One cannot wrestle a pig and not get dirty, if you wish to hijack this thread, Skuzzy will take care of you.

And I thought that we were all at least somewhat mature here, you've shown me how childish an adult can be.

-Penguin

it's not about the scientists. it's about the fallacy of global warming, AND the scientists that felt the need to lie to maintain their jobs.

[Fishu]

I'm sure that most of us already agree that it's good to reduce pollution, but the global warming by man and CO2 hoopla is still BS. If you want to talk about polluting, then talk about polluting on a new thread, but keep it separate from this global warming BS.

[Penguin]

it's not about the scientists. it's about the fallacy of global warming, AND the scientists that felt the need to lie to maintain their jobs.

Not to hikack, the proposal of AGW might not be true, but are you sure about it being a fallacy?

Here's an example:

Circle talk-> Bob is angry
                 Why?
                 He looked mad

Strawman -> Let's loosen the beer laws!
                  No, giving a population unlimited access to intoxicants will ruin their work ethic; keeping them     interested only in self gratification.


Irrelevant Conclusion -> "Mommy said that looking at the Wednsday babe burns your eyes out, well since Mommy    said it it must by true"

Just wondering... (I'm more worried about the pollution from oil and coal, some of that stuff is really nasty.  Some byproducts of the combustion are carcinogenic)

One other thing, whoever said that LA had smog before they had cars, well wind patterns or not, it came from somewhere.  Also, houses with fuel-powered heaters generate smog.  Also, it can't be true that the air was as brown and nasty as it is today.  There weren't as many people and houses back then!

-Penguin

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Not to hikack, the proposal of AGW might not be true, but are you sure about it being a fallacy?

Here's an example:

Circle talk-> Bob is angry
                 Why?
                 He looked mad

Strawman -> Let's loosen the beer laws!
                  No, giving a population unlimited access to intoxicants will ruin their work ethic; keeping them     interested only in self gratification.


Irrelevant Conclusion -> "Mommy said that looking at the Wednsday babe burns your eyes out, well since Mommy    said it it must by true"

Just wondering... (I'm more worried about the pollution from oil and coal, some of that stuff is really nasty.  Some byproducts of the combustion are carcinogenic)

One other thing, whoever said that LA had smog before they had cars, well wind patterns or not, it came from somewhere.  Also, houses with fuel-powered heaters generate smog.  Also, it can't be true that the air was as brown and nasty as it is today.  There weren't as many people and houses back then!

-Penguin

-Penguin

you were saying?

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

Los Angeles, or photochemical, smog first became apparent in the late 1940s in warm sunny cities that did not have significant coal-burning industries. It is a daytime phenomenon characterized by a white haze and contains oxidants, such as ozone, that cause eyes to water, breathing to become labored, and plants to be damaged. It results from the action of sunlight on the combination of  hydrocarbons  and nitrogen oxides (NO   x   ), known as precursor gases. These are emitted from combustion sources to produce a range of oxidized products and oxidants. These compounds have been shown to produce respiratory and cardiac problems in individuals sensitive to pollution, and the damage inflicted on crops can cause significant decreases in yield. In most cities, the automobile is the primary contributor of smog's precursor gases. As the name would suggest, the most notable example of this type of smog occurs in Los Angeles, California, but it has also been experienced in a large number of cities where the weather is dry, sunlight is plentiful, and there are many automobiles or petroleum industries (e.g., Houston, Athens, and Mexico City.)

Read more: Smog - water, environmental, history, types, impact, EPA, industrial, world, human, sources, health http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Smog.html#ixzz0cXH5WEGf


from here
http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Smog.html

now....you might have me on one thing. i mis-stated myself in the post you quoted. i meant to say manmade global warming is a farce.

 also, read the above in bold, then search back through my posts....you'll see that i said pretty much what that article confirms.

 we had global warming for awhile. we had global cooling before that. we have global cooling now. we'll have global warming again.

 it is cyclic. our climate is powered by the sun, the earths rotation, and the earths orbit.

 our climate is not controlled by us.

 seriously? how DARE any of us think that we are powerful enough to overcome mother earth?

 now......your original arguments weren't about pollution. they were about man made global warming. once it became obvious that that was disproven, you changed your footing, and moved over to pollution. with the emissions controls we have on pretty much everything that burns oil product, the pollution factor is pretty close to nill also.


YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!  A POLAR BEAR JUST LANDED ON THE GAS PUMPER OUTSIDE!!!

[saggs]

One other thing, whoever said that LA had smog before they had cars, well wind patterns or not, it came from somewhere.  Also, houses with fuel-powered heaters generate smog.  Also, it can't be true that the air was as brown and nasty as it is today.  There weren't as many people and houses back then!

-Penguin

-Penguin

Actually large cities where much more polluted before the advent of automobiles.  The Horse was the main form of transportation, and city streets piled up with manure and urine, which released methane and ammonia into the air.  Much of that manure was also washed by rainstorms into storm drains, eventually ending up contaminating drinking water.  Prior to autos, trash and sewer services were also very poor, or non-existent, a lot of refuse including human waste ended up rotting in the streets.  Prior to the industrial revolution the sewer system of Paris was basically the Seine River.

Pollution in the USA is actually much improved from the 1970s as well.  Beginning about the time that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962 the US government slowly began to succumb to pressure, and enact environmental legislation, and regulation.  And it has worked, our air, coastlines and rivers are cleaner today then they were 30 yrs ago, and in general continue to improve.  In addition to the effectiveness of legislation like the Clean Air, and Clean Water acts, lots of action has been taken on a state and local level as well, and people are more conscious of their decisions, and how the impact the ecosystem then ever before.  More land is protected today via the 1964 Wilderness Act then ever before, and people are much better educated on how to be good stewards of that, and all land.

Pollution reduction in the North America is a great environmental success story, don't be such a pessimist, look at the facts, it is getting better, be happy.



*****But again I say, all that has NOTHING to do with the so-called "CLIMATE CRISIS".  It is a sad tactic some employ to say; if you are skeptical of global warming, you must HATE the earth******

EDIT, CAP makes a great point too.  Air pollution in many areas, (especially where I live) has as much to do with the geography and weather patterns of an area not allowing the pollutants to dissipate, then human actions.

For example where I live we get horrific air pollution in the winter.  It is not because people here pollute more then elsewhere, but because we have a wintertime weather phenomenon known as temperature inversions.  Basically I live in a long narrow valley, and sometimes in the winter we get an inversion, where the a layer of warm air traps a layer cold air in the bottom of the valley.  Not only does this make it very cold, but it also makes it so that virtually no emissions, or particulate matter can rise and dissipate.   You won't see the sun for a week at a time, unless you drive up to the ski resorts, where it will be warm and sunny, and you can look down at the blanket of smog over the valley.  It sucks sometimes, but that's just the way it is here.

[Penguin]

seriously? how DARE any of us think that we are powerful enough to overcome mother earth?

Eventually yes, it will return to normal; just without us around to be doing anything.

Me debating about one thing doesn't mean that I can't care about another thing more.  The point is a hasty generalization.  Explain your fallacy.

We can, in theory.  Here's how:

1. Find lake with fish
2. Add fertillizer
3. Wait for algae to suck out oxygen
4. Watch fish suffocate and die

This is already happening at the Mississippi Delta, because of fertillizer run-off. 

Another way:

1. Grab a whole lot of anthrax and other chemical agents (preferrably dioxins)
2. Load planes with it
3. Lancstuka the rainforests
4. Enjoy barren wasteland for the next 100 or so years

A more extreme version of the event that devastated Love Canal, Buffalo.  This is just scaled up for more effects. 

We could also just nuke all of the life off, that could do it too.  But again, without us, who cares.

Anyway; where did those gases come from?  I mean that sincerely, the article said nothing about that.  The smog I'm talking about is brown, not white like what it described.  You're smart enough to know that the air shouldn't be brown!

Again, regardless of our predictions (we could all be wrong, destroying ourselves before knowing!) only time will tell if we, as a species will survive.

-Penguin

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Eventually yes, it will return to normal; just without us around to be doing anything.

Me debating about one thing doesn't mean that I can't care about another thing more.  The point is a hasty generalization.  Explain your fallacy.

We can, in theory.  Here's how:

1. Find lake with fish
2. Add fertillizer
3. Wait for algae to suck out oxygen
4. Watch fish suffocate and die

This is already happening at the Mississippi Delta, because of fertillizer run-off. 

Another way:

1. Grab a whole lot of anthrax and other chemical agents (preferrably dioxins)
2. Load planes with it
3. Lancstuka the rainforests
4. Enjoy barren wasteland for the next 100 or so years

A more extreme version of the event that devastated Love Canal, Buffalo.  This is just scaled up for more effects. 

We could also just nuke all of the life off, that could do it too.  But again, without us, who cares.

Anyway; where did those gases come from?  I mean that sincerely, the article said nothing about that.  The smog I'm talking about is brown, not white like what it described.  You're smart enough to know that the air shouldn't be brown!

Again, regardless of our predictions (we could all be wrong, destroying ourselves before knowing!) only time will tell if we, as a species will survive.

-Penguin

-Penguin

how can we return to that which we've never left?

[bj229r]

Lol ya ever see the Beverly Hillbillies episode where Phil Silvers tried to con Jed into financing a project to bore a hole thru the hills east of LA to blow the smog through?

[E25280]

Another way:

1. Grab a whole lot of anthrax and other chemical agents (preferrably dioxins)
2. Load planes with it
3. Lancstuka the rainforests
4. Enjoy barren wasteland for the next 100 or so years

A more extreme version of the event that devastated Love Canal, Buffalo.  This is just scaled up for more effects. 

Since when do dioxins or anthrax produce barren wastelands?

[MORAY37]

Sun is at an all time high in activity for cycle 24.  Reached 95.4 today.  It has finally woken up from the long slumber it was in.




(The pink is the number to look at, the direct observations of solar flux. (Leif) The other graphs are also important, showing differing aspects of a sun "waking back up")

Like I've said before, things are going to get interesting in the next few years.

The past decade was the warmest decade in the Arctic for the past 2,000 years, according to a study called "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling" published today in the journal Science. Furthermore, four of the five warmest decades in the past 2,000 years occurred between 1950 - 2000, despite the fact that summertime solar radiation in the Arctic has been steadily declining for the past 2,000 years. Previous efforts to reconstruct past climate in the Arctic extended back only 400 years, so the new study--which used lake sediments, glacier ice cores, and tree rings to look at past climate back to the time of Christ, decade by decade-- is a major new milestone in our understanding of the Arctic climate. The researchers found that Arctic temperatures steadily declined between 1 A.D. and 1900 A.D., as would be expected due to a 26,000-year cycle in Earth's orbit that brought less summer sunshine to the North Pole. Earth is now about 620,000 miles (1 million km) farther from the Sun in the Arctic summer than it was 2000 years ago. However, temperatures in the Arctic began to rise around the year 1900, and are now 1.4°C (2.5°F) warmer than they should be, based on the amount of sunlight that is currently falling in the Arctic in summer

Yup it's cold in the U.S. and Britain this winter.... But it's actually warmer in the arctic, which is still showing up in the red, along with most of the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.barentsobserver.com/arctic-temperatures-far-above-average.4668927.html

Air temperatures in the Arctic were in November and December between 5 and 9 degrees above the average, the Norwegian Meteorological Institute confirms.

Probably due to the heat stored in the ocean.

It was actually the hottest night in a century in Australia the other night.  But, then again, that's just weather.

[CAP1]

Sun is at an all time high in activity for cycle 24.  Reached 95.4 today.  It has finally woken up from the long slumber it was in.

(Image removed from quote.)

Like I've said before, things are going to get interesting in the next few years.

that could explain the somewhat warmer temps we're feeling, eh/?

[MORAY37]

that could explain the somewhat warmer temps we're feeling, eh/?

No, but it does explain air masses moving around like they are currently. The sun was well over a year beyond "normal" in its' minimum between solar cycles.  Once it gets back into historical norms, things might start getting a little too real again.

But, that's just what the science says. This board can go on with the conspiracy theory BBS contrivances..... they make for extremely good entertainment.  

[CAP1]

No, but it does explain air masses moving around like they are currently. The sun was well over a year beyond "normal" in its' minimum between solar cycles.  Once it gets back into historical norms, things might start getting a little too real again.

But, that's just what the science says. This board can go on with the conspiracy theory BBS contrivances..... they make for extremely good entertainment.  

the sun doesn't move air masses. the earths rotation does that.

[MORAY37]

the sun doesn't move air masses. the earths rotation does that.

When air masses warm they rise and expand, cool they sink and contract.