Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
Well it sure got you puzzled.... LOL
You know CK nature has it's own temp gauge and it doesn't listen to the the denial crowd. It will hit you upside of the head even if you think you are smarter then those climate scientist.....
[FDRnH48LvhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDRnH48LvhQ
Published on Jan 21, 2015
Decades ago, the majority of the Arctic's winter ice pack was made up of thick, perennial ice. Today, very old ice is extremely rare. This animation tracks the relative amount of ice of different ages from 1987 through early November 2014. Video produced by the Climate.gov team, based on data provided by Mark Tschudi.
So what does it look like in graph form with averages from the last few decades?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Up to date information.
Death Spiral Update
Posted on February 16, 2015
Thirty-five years of unprecedented Mann-made melting, has left Arctic sea ice right at the 1981-2010 mean from Alaska to Greenland. Reggie’s blowtorch appears to have gone out.
Mark Serreze says that the ice is in a death spiral.
Death Spiral Update
Posted on February 16, 2015
Thirty-five years of unprecedented Mann-made melting, has left Arctic sea ice right at the 1981-2010 mean from Alaska to Greenland. Reggie’s blowtorch appears to have gone out.
Mark Serreze says that the ice is in a death spiral.
Attachments
GLG
Well-Known Member
Does it really look that way to you?
2015 is the line in red as of today... now come on, try using that hat rack.
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
nice record set... no data past 1999 and no data about river temps.
Why don't you look on Environment Canada website.
Search there for Climate Change Hoax.
Do let us know what you find.....
Sometimes it feels like I'm playing chess with a checker player.
You can't win OBD because the science and reality is not on your side.
It's just too easy to poke holes in your theory.
All I have to do is point to the Arctic and poof there goes that one.
Must be tiresome for you to be wrong all the time....
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/po...g-anti-oilsands-groups-revealed-fois?page=0,0
Harper government's extensive spying on anti-oilsands groups revealed in FOIs
The National Energy Board, supposedly an independent federal agency, has directly coordinated efforts between CSIS, the RCMP and private oil companies against environmentalist groups and indigenous-rights activists.
Matthew Millar
|Nov 19th, 2013
The federal government has been vigorously spying on anti-oil sands activists and organizations in BC and across Canada since last December, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.
Not only is the federal government subsidizing the energy industry in underwriting their costs, but deploying public-safety resources as a de facto "insurance policy" to ensure that federal strategies on proposed pipeline projects are achieved, these documents indicate.
Before the National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline, the NEB coordinated the gathering of intelligence on opponents to the oil sands. The groups of interest are independent advocacy organizations that oppose the Harper government's policies and work for environmental protections and democratic rights, including Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, EcoSociety, LeadNow, Dogwood Initiative, Council of Canadians and the People's Summit.
Click on image to enlarge
Mandated as an ‘independent federal agency’, the NEB directed the police protection of their board members and officials from Enbridge and TransCanada Corporation, 140 pages of emails from December 2012 through April 2013 show.
In the emails, Richard "Rick" Garber, the NEB's "Group Leader of Security", marshals security and intelligence operations between government agencies and private interests, and says in a January 31, 2013 email that the NEB "Security Team has consulted today with Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) at national and regional levels; RCMP at national, regional and local levels."
"The Security Team, together with our police and intelligence partners, will continue to monitor all sources of information and intelligence," he says.
The documents show the NEB working with CSIS and the RCMP to make "security plans" for the Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and Prince Rupert hearings and actively coordinating with officials from Enbridge and TransCanada Corporation and a private security contractor hired by the NEB.
They also show Garber asking Sgt. Steinhammer of the Prince Rupert RCMP to provide a visible uniformed presence during the hearings there to deter "illegal activities."
Sustained opposition to pipelines noted, especially in BC
On April 20, 2013, an email entitled "Security Concerns - National Energy Board" was sent to integrated security officials, and stressed the continued protection of NEB and private interests. The memo was from Tim O'Neil, Senior Criminal Intelligence Research Specialist with the RCMP, and then circulated to the NEB and associated stakeholders by Garber.
"There continues to be sustained opposition to the Canadian petroleum and pipeline industry," O'Neil said. "Opposition is most notable in British Columbia, with protests focused on the: Enbridge Northern Gateway; Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion; the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing, and proposed LNG facilities. Opponents have used a variety of protest actions (directed at the NEB and its members) to draw attention to the oil sands' negative environmental impact, with the ultimate goal of forcing the shutdown of the Canadian petroleum industry."
O'Neil then ordered the escalation of RCMP and CSIS intelligence measures following the opening of an SPROS/SIR database file. According to the Government of Canada, SPROS is the new National Security Program’s primary database for the electronic storage, retrieval and management of national security criminal investigations and information, and on a required basis, classified criminal intelligence and other sensitive cases.
"It is highly likely that the NEB may expect to receive threats to its hearings and its board members," O'Neil, said. However, in the same memo he states that there is "no intelligence indicating a criminal threat to the NEB or its members" and "I could not detect a direct or specific criminal threat."
In closing, O'Neill advises recipients to discuss their concerns with the security officials at the National Resources May 23rd classified briefing.
"What is particularly chilling about the Harper administration's approach is the conversion of government agencies to private spy agencies for private sector corporations," Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May said, upon learning about the emails. "What is unacceptable is the marginalization, demonizing, and threat of criminalization of healthy debate in a democracy."
On May 23, 2013, Natural Resources Canada hosted a 'Classified Briefing for Energy & Utilities Sector Stakeholders' in collaboration with CSIS and the RCMP at CSIS's headquarters in Ottawa.
The briefing has occurred twice annually since 2005: its stated purpose is to discuss national security and criminal risks to critical energy infrastructure. Attendees include government officials, federal ministries, law enforcement agencies and energy stakeholders with high-level security clearances. These meetings have been described as an opportunity for government officials and companies to exchange information "off the record" and form "ongoing trusting relationships" in the protection of national energy infrastructure.
An agenda obtained by Tim Groves and Martin Lukacs at The Guardian last month revealed that breakfast, lunch and coffee was sponsored by Enbridge and a networking reception held at the Chateau Laurier was co-hosted by Bruce Power and Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners. Meetings during this conference included "challenges to energy projects by environmental groups."
Given proof of CSIS and RCMP intelligence resources being afforded to the NEB, and evidence of disclosure across the private sector, it is undetermined how much information is being provided to corporations such as Enbridge and TransCanada Corporation, and to what extent international entities such as CNOOC are also benefiting.
Since coming to power, Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has used his government apparatus to serve a natural resources development agenda, the Guardian recently wrote, "while creating sweeping domestic surveillance programs that have kept close tabs on indigenous and environmental opposition and shared intelligence with companies.
"Harper has transformed Canada's foreign policy to offer full diplomatic backing to foreign mining and oil projects, tying aid pledges to their advancement and jointly funding ventures with companies throughout Africa, South America and Asia."
The National Energy Board has no spying mandate, according to its website, but serves to function as a regulatory agency over the gas and oil industry, answering to Parliament and the Canadian people.
Harper government's extensive spying on anti-oilsands groups revealed in FOIs
The National Energy Board, supposedly an independent federal agency, has directly coordinated efforts between CSIS, the RCMP and private oil companies against environmentalist groups and indigenous-rights activists.
Matthew Millar
|Nov 19th, 2013
The federal government has been vigorously spying on anti-oil sands activists and organizations in BC and across Canada since last December, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.
Not only is the federal government subsidizing the energy industry in underwriting their costs, but deploying public-safety resources as a de facto "insurance policy" to ensure that federal strategies on proposed pipeline projects are achieved, these documents indicate.
Before the National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline, the NEB coordinated the gathering of intelligence on opponents to the oil sands. The groups of interest are independent advocacy organizations that oppose the Harper government's policies and work for environmental protections and democratic rights, including Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, EcoSociety, LeadNow, Dogwood Initiative, Council of Canadians and the People's Summit.
Click on image to enlarge
Mandated as an ‘independent federal agency’, the NEB directed the police protection of their board members and officials from Enbridge and TransCanada Corporation, 140 pages of emails from December 2012 through April 2013 show.
In the emails, Richard "Rick" Garber, the NEB's "Group Leader of Security", marshals security and intelligence operations between government agencies and private interests, and says in a January 31, 2013 email that the NEB "Security Team has consulted today with Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) at national and regional levels; RCMP at national, regional and local levels."
"The Security Team, together with our police and intelligence partners, will continue to monitor all sources of information and intelligence," he says.
The documents show the NEB working with CSIS and the RCMP to make "security plans" for the Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and Prince Rupert hearings and actively coordinating with officials from Enbridge and TransCanada Corporation and a private security contractor hired by the NEB.
They also show Garber asking Sgt. Steinhammer of the Prince Rupert RCMP to provide a visible uniformed presence during the hearings there to deter "illegal activities."
Sustained opposition to pipelines noted, especially in BC
On April 20, 2013, an email entitled "Security Concerns - National Energy Board" was sent to integrated security officials, and stressed the continued protection of NEB and private interests. The memo was from Tim O'Neil, Senior Criminal Intelligence Research Specialist with the RCMP, and then circulated to the NEB and associated stakeholders by Garber.
"There continues to be sustained opposition to the Canadian petroleum and pipeline industry," O'Neil said. "Opposition is most notable in British Columbia, with protests focused on the: Enbridge Northern Gateway; Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion; the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing, and proposed LNG facilities. Opponents have used a variety of protest actions (directed at the NEB and its members) to draw attention to the oil sands' negative environmental impact, with the ultimate goal of forcing the shutdown of the Canadian petroleum industry."
O'Neil then ordered the escalation of RCMP and CSIS intelligence measures following the opening of an SPROS/SIR database file. According to the Government of Canada, SPROS is the new National Security Program’s primary database for the electronic storage, retrieval and management of national security criminal investigations and information, and on a required basis, classified criminal intelligence and other sensitive cases.
"It is highly likely that the NEB may expect to receive threats to its hearings and its board members," O'Neil, said. However, in the same memo he states that there is "no intelligence indicating a criminal threat to the NEB or its members" and "I could not detect a direct or specific criminal threat."
In closing, O'Neill advises recipients to discuss their concerns with the security officials at the National Resources May 23rd classified briefing.
"What is particularly chilling about the Harper administration's approach is the conversion of government agencies to private spy agencies for private sector corporations," Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May said, upon learning about the emails. "What is unacceptable is the marginalization, demonizing, and threat of criminalization of healthy debate in a democracy."
On May 23, 2013, Natural Resources Canada hosted a 'Classified Briefing for Energy & Utilities Sector Stakeholders' in collaboration with CSIS and the RCMP at CSIS's headquarters in Ottawa.
The briefing has occurred twice annually since 2005: its stated purpose is to discuss national security and criminal risks to critical energy infrastructure. Attendees include government officials, federal ministries, law enforcement agencies and energy stakeholders with high-level security clearances. These meetings have been described as an opportunity for government officials and companies to exchange information "off the record" and form "ongoing trusting relationships" in the protection of national energy infrastructure.
An agenda obtained by Tim Groves and Martin Lukacs at The Guardian last month revealed that breakfast, lunch and coffee was sponsored by Enbridge and a networking reception held at the Chateau Laurier was co-hosted by Bruce Power and Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners. Meetings during this conference included "challenges to energy projects by environmental groups."
Given proof of CSIS and RCMP intelligence resources being afforded to the NEB, and evidence of disclosure across the private sector, it is undetermined how much information is being provided to corporations such as Enbridge and TransCanada Corporation, and to what extent international entities such as CNOOC are also benefiting.
Since coming to power, Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has used his government apparatus to serve a natural resources development agenda, the Guardian recently wrote, "while creating sweeping domestic surveillance programs that have kept close tabs on indigenous and environmental opposition and shared intelligence with companies.
"Harper has transformed Canada's foreign policy to offer full diplomatic backing to foreign mining and oil projects, tying aid pledges to their advancement and jointly funding ventures with companies throughout Africa, South America and Asia."
The National Energy Board has no spying mandate, according to its website, but serves to function as a regulatory agency over the gas and oil industry, answering to Parliament and the Canadian people.
Attachments
-
1-Enbridge-Leadnow-snip_0.jpg -
INM-no-threat-to-NEB.jpg -
Uniformed%20presence-NEB_0-500x78.jpg -
Uniformed%20presence.jpg -
Garber%20-%20CSIS%20RCMP%20consult-INM-no-threat.jpg -
Enbridge%20Northern%20Gateway%20Project%20Security%20Plan%20-%20Organizations%20Targeted-Leadnow.jpg -
Oneil-threat-NEB-500x90.jpg -
Tim-Oneil-snip-NRCan-500x207.jpg -
enbridgespycoffee_0-500x351.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/0...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=160215
Sun News Death a Victory for Intellect
The network took us for dummies from the start. In the end, it cost them millions.
By Antonia Zerbisias, Today, TheTyee.ca
SunNewsEricksonGillis_600px.jpg
Sun News host Krista Erickson's interrogation of dancer Margie Gillis over arts funding elicited a remarkable 6,676 complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The gloating over the death of the Sun News Network continues on Twitter, tempered somewhat, at least for media types, by the loss of 150 or so jobs in television production.
Not journalism jobs, because there was little journalistic about Sun News.
This was a channel that demonstrated, with the exception of David Akin's reporting, almost no journalistic rigour.
Examples?
In the wake of the devastating train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, host Ezra Levant welcomed Greg Renouf, a blogger who harangues protestors, to wildly speculate on how the still-smoldering town was incinerated by "eco-radicals" who objected to the transport of oil by rail.
Host Brian Lilley, without corroboration, fingered young Guelph Conservative communications worker Michael Sona as the sole mastermind behind the robocalls election fraud in his riding. As Michael Harris notes in his bestselling Party of One, the whole affair had the distinct air of a set-up directed by the PMO.
Michael Coren, the resident anti-choice anchor, provided a platform for every story that made it seem like babies were being murdered daily in Canada. That included the distortion of a StatsCan finding, which had Coren and his studio guests claiming that 491 newborns had been "terminated" after in-utero abortion attempts had failed.
Sun News' hectoring heads liked to boast that they were rule breakers, that they defied the staid conventions of Canadian TV, and that they, as one promotional video put it, brought a "new concept" to our screens and were "as strong and proud" as the country.
Too bad they didn't throw in "smart" as well.
If there's one thing Sun News demonstrated, it's that H.L. Mencken, that observant U.S. essayist and critic, was wrong about this: You can indeed lose money by underestimating the intelligence of the masses.
In fact, you can lose millions.
Mocking credibility
Sun News took us for dummies right from the start.
That first happened most publicly with the suspected involvement of Quebecor vice-president and former PMO spokesperson Kory Teneycke in the mysterious attaching of fraudulent signatures to an Avaaz petition titled "Stop Fox News North." His connection was never proven but, as soon as attention turned toward an Ottawa IP address, Teneycke announced his resignation -- although it turned out to be temporary -- from the network's top job.
At launch time, its female anchors were strutting their fluff as Sunshine Girls.
There was that opportunistic attempt to boost ratings by producing the ill-starred Ford brothers' show, about as dumb and dumber as a schedule can get.
And, of course, let's not forget the constant jabbing at the CBC, as if smearing "the state broadcaster" was not in the slightest bit ironic given Sun News' unequivocal support of the Harper government and its steady fill-ups at the Economic Action Plan advertising tank.
The first rule of journalism is maintaining credibility. Sun News mocked the very idea of it, appealing to those who would believe anything wrapped in lowest common denominator paper and tied up with an outrage bow.
Inside? Prejudice, bias and ignorance. That combo could have made a great Sun News primetime show.
Sun doomed to set
What is lost in most Canadian memories is how Sun News was born to die, rising as it did from the ashes of bad CRTC decisions and increased media concentration.
I was there, as a TV and media columnist for the Toronto Star, at the regulatory hearings in Hamilton in 2001 where Torstar, which had amazingly identified a vacant frequency on the local dial, applied for a TV licence. That triggered a flurry of applications from other players in the broadcasting biz who, according to the various acts and regulations governing television in Canada, were so protected that they had a better crack at winning the prize than did Torstar. On top of that, the CRTC was obligated to give regional players a chance in other parts of Canada. And so, in a much-protested decision, it awarded the licence for CKXT to the Alberta-based Craig brothers who would prove to be out of their depth in the fiercely competitive Toronto market.
Less than a year after going on-air, Craig Media threw up its hands and tossed out most of its employees, selling the station to Chum. But the CRTC didn't like Chum owning two local stations, and so "Toronto 1," as it had been dubbed, was flipped to Quebecor, giving the media giant a foothold in the English-language TV market. But that too was a disaster, and after much financial and regulatory wrangling, Quebecor decided to go all-news, thinking it could keep the channel low on the dial where it would get compulsory carriage.
A bad bet. When the CRTC awards licences, it does so with conditions based on the type of programming the broadcast enterprise will present. CKXT was originally licensed as a station aimed to reflect multicultural Canada -- and not rail against certain ethnic groups.
What's more, in 2011, the CRTC would reclassify cable channels in such a way that Sun News would never get the kind of carriage upon which it had likely built its business plan.
Still, that didn't stop Conservative MP Peter Kent from blaming the CRTC last week in a laughably-misinformed tweet claiming Sun News did not have "mandatory cable carriage status equal to that of CBC News and CTV News nets."
Numbers from Numeris, which calculates viewership for TV and radio outlets in Canada, show that Sun News had about 5,000 to 6,000 viewers per minute and a reach of about one million per month. That meant viewers might have checked in, found nothing that appealed and then switched away. Advertisers, even sympathetic government advertisers, must have been unimpressed.
And that's the really good news in all of this.
At least three recent large scale studies, conducted in both the U.K. and the U.S., indicate that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.
So yes, Sun News proved Canada strong and proud alright.
It also proved Canadians to be much smarter than it predicted. [Tyee]
Antonia Zerbisias is an award-winning critic and journalist formerly with CBC-TV and the Toronto Star.
This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
Sun News Death a Victory for Intellect
The network took us for dummies from the start. In the end, it cost them millions.
By Antonia Zerbisias, Today, TheTyee.ca
SunNewsEricksonGillis_600px.jpg
Sun News host Krista Erickson's interrogation of dancer Margie Gillis over arts funding elicited a remarkable 6,676 complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The gloating over the death of the Sun News Network continues on Twitter, tempered somewhat, at least for media types, by the loss of 150 or so jobs in television production.
Not journalism jobs, because there was little journalistic about Sun News.
This was a channel that demonstrated, with the exception of David Akin's reporting, almost no journalistic rigour.
Examples?
In the wake of the devastating train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, host Ezra Levant welcomed Greg Renouf, a blogger who harangues protestors, to wildly speculate on how the still-smoldering town was incinerated by "eco-radicals" who objected to the transport of oil by rail.
Host Brian Lilley, without corroboration, fingered young Guelph Conservative communications worker Michael Sona as the sole mastermind behind the robocalls election fraud in his riding. As Michael Harris notes in his bestselling Party of One, the whole affair had the distinct air of a set-up directed by the PMO.
Michael Coren, the resident anti-choice anchor, provided a platform for every story that made it seem like babies were being murdered daily in Canada. That included the distortion of a StatsCan finding, which had Coren and his studio guests claiming that 491 newborns had been "terminated" after in-utero abortion attempts had failed.
Sun News' hectoring heads liked to boast that they were rule breakers, that they defied the staid conventions of Canadian TV, and that they, as one promotional video put it, brought a "new concept" to our screens and were "as strong and proud" as the country.
Too bad they didn't throw in "smart" as well.
If there's one thing Sun News demonstrated, it's that H.L. Mencken, that observant U.S. essayist and critic, was wrong about this: You can indeed lose money by underestimating the intelligence of the masses.
In fact, you can lose millions.
Mocking credibility
Sun News took us for dummies right from the start.
That first happened most publicly with the suspected involvement of Quebecor vice-president and former PMO spokesperson Kory Teneycke in the mysterious attaching of fraudulent signatures to an Avaaz petition titled "Stop Fox News North." His connection was never proven but, as soon as attention turned toward an Ottawa IP address, Teneycke announced his resignation -- although it turned out to be temporary -- from the network's top job.
At launch time, its female anchors were strutting their fluff as Sunshine Girls.
There was that opportunistic attempt to boost ratings by producing the ill-starred Ford brothers' show, about as dumb and dumber as a schedule can get.
And, of course, let's not forget the constant jabbing at the CBC, as if smearing "the state broadcaster" was not in the slightest bit ironic given Sun News' unequivocal support of the Harper government and its steady fill-ups at the Economic Action Plan advertising tank.
The first rule of journalism is maintaining credibility. Sun News mocked the very idea of it, appealing to those who would believe anything wrapped in lowest common denominator paper and tied up with an outrage bow.
Inside? Prejudice, bias and ignorance. That combo could have made a great Sun News primetime show.
Sun doomed to set
What is lost in most Canadian memories is how Sun News was born to die, rising as it did from the ashes of bad CRTC decisions and increased media concentration.
I was there, as a TV and media columnist for the Toronto Star, at the regulatory hearings in Hamilton in 2001 where Torstar, which had amazingly identified a vacant frequency on the local dial, applied for a TV licence. That triggered a flurry of applications from other players in the broadcasting biz who, according to the various acts and regulations governing television in Canada, were so protected that they had a better crack at winning the prize than did Torstar. On top of that, the CRTC was obligated to give regional players a chance in other parts of Canada. And so, in a much-protested decision, it awarded the licence for CKXT to the Alberta-based Craig brothers who would prove to be out of their depth in the fiercely competitive Toronto market.
Less than a year after going on-air, Craig Media threw up its hands and tossed out most of its employees, selling the station to Chum. But the CRTC didn't like Chum owning two local stations, and so "Toronto 1," as it had been dubbed, was flipped to Quebecor, giving the media giant a foothold in the English-language TV market. But that too was a disaster, and after much financial and regulatory wrangling, Quebecor decided to go all-news, thinking it could keep the channel low on the dial where it would get compulsory carriage.
A bad bet. When the CRTC awards licences, it does so with conditions based on the type of programming the broadcast enterprise will present. CKXT was originally licensed as a station aimed to reflect multicultural Canada -- and not rail against certain ethnic groups.
What's more, in 2011, the CRTC would reclassify cable channels in such a way that Sun News would never get the kind of carriage upon which it had likely built its business plan.
Still, that didn't stop Conservative MP Peter Kent from blaming the CRTC last week in a laughably-misinformed tweet claiming Sun News did not have "mandatory cable carriage status equal to that of CBC News and CTV News nets."
Numbers from Numeris, which calculates viewership for TV and radio outlets in Canada, show that Sun News had about 5,000 to 6,000 viewers per minute and a reach of about one million per month. That meant viewers might have checked in, found nothing that appealed and then switched away. Advertisers, even sympathetic government advertisers, must have been unimpressed.
And that's the really good news in all of this.
At least three recent large scale studies, conducted in both the U.K. and the U.S., indicate that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.
So yes, Sun News proved Canada strong and proud alright.
It also proved Canadians to be much smarter than it predicted. [Tyee]
Antonia Zerbisias is an award-winning critic and journalist formerly with CBC-TV and the Toronto Star.
This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
GLG
Well-Known Member
After some deep investigating (lol) of the climate denial crew I found this website. (humor)
I know it's from a past but it's too funny not to share.....
News Flash from Sept, 2012
[h=2]Saturday, 15 September 2012[/h][h=3]Ice Age Is Coming[/h]
Sea ice is quite topical at the moment. How is sea ice doing?
[h=3]The Antarctic[/h]
Source: Cryosphere Today. University of Illinois
Reliable Antarctic sea ice data indicates that we will have another Catastrophic Ice Age this winter. So much for the proven myth of Global Warming [1]. It's now time to raise the alarm and inform your neighbors and work colleagues that Global Cooling is coming. If we act fast enough we can possibly make sure governments around the world do absolutely nothing.
[h=3]The Arctic[/h]
In contrast nothing remarkable is happening in the Arctic. There's been some melting this summer but that's expected. Arctic Sea Ice melts all the time, it's perfectly normal. For example I remember when the Vikings surfaced a longboat at the North Pole in 1955 and fought a pitched battle with a 15th century Chinese Navy.
Lets start with what we DON'T know. Science is FULL of uncertainties. The uncertainty monster. Like most monsters, the uncertainty monster is a very reassuring thing to have around. To cut to the chase: we know absolutely nothing that could be used to increase taxes. So what DO we know?
[h=3][/h][h=3]Arctic Ice Satellite Fraud Gate[/h]
Arctic Ice Satellite Fraud Gate is the catchy name I am giving to the latest scandal involving multiple instances of data manipulation at Cryosphere Today. For those of you who don't know, Cryosphere Today is a source of sea ice data which Alarmists use to claim the Arctic is melting and so cannot be trusted. If I can discredit Cryosphere Today it means the Arctic can't be melting.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Manipulation #1: The Stars Are Aligned[/h]
The scientists thought they were being clever when they added the stars to the image. They thought it would make people believe the data was from a real satellite and not concocted in the lab like the rest of their faked science [1]. But like all government IPCC scientists they tried to be too clever and made a mistake. You see unlike me, climate scientists have no knowledge of astrology refuse to work with professional astrologers [1].
This has further implications for climate "science". If the IPCC don't understand the movement of stars, how can they properly represent the strong starlight forcing in their climate models? If they've got the starlight forcing wrong it means that starlight can perhaps explain all of the warming of the 20th century. That is assuming there has been any warming in the 20th century (Phil Jones says no).
[h=3][/h][h=3]Manipulation #2: Arctic Sea Ice In The Red[/h]
We all know that Arctic sea ice is naturally a reflective white. So why do the satellite images on Cryosphere Today show that it's red or pink? Is it possible that IPCC scientists have deployed some sort of dye into the Arctic environment (the same environment they claim to want to protect) which turns the ice a red/pink color? This certainly fits with what I've read [1]. It seems there are only two options, either they admit their images are manipulated and the colors have been added in afterwards, or they admit they have sprayed the arctic red for some nefarious purpose.
Red and pink coloration of the ice in almost dye-like patterns. Hmm..
Why would they want to turn the ice red? I never pretend to have all the answers, only that I can obtain them within 24 hours. To this end I have been in deep discussions about this subject with several chemtrail experts and they assure me it would be possible, if not entirely expected, for the government to spray red dyes from jet planes flying over the Arctic ("Exactly where no-one is around to see them doing it", one expert told me). As for the motive, I am sure it's an attempt to melt the arctic to fit the IPCC's failed predictions. Everyone knows the color red is associated with heat (except when it's used to highlight the spot of interest in mineral promotions), so the dye is probably hot. If the Arctic does melt: just remember the scientists probably did it with their chemtrails and it wasn't CO2 and so taxes are unnecessary.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Manipulation #3: No Clouds[/h]
Having decided to poison the Arctic with red dyes and photo-shop fake stars into an image, it's perhaps not surprising that climate "scientists" would take the next step of entirely stripping all the clouds from satellite images. Okay sure, maybe the 14th of September was just a cloudless day you might say, but I audited a whole 3 months of Cryosphere Today images and saw not a single cloud. That's IMPOSSIBLE!
Climate scientists dislike clouds because clouds contradict their PCAGW myth [1]. If there are clouds then everything is fine [2]. The most likely explanation is that they are so used to deleting clouds from Climate Models that they deleted them from satellite images too without thinking.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Conclusion[/h]
The arctic is fine.
References
[1] See Climategate.
[2] See Lindzen.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.ca/
I know it's from a past but it's too funny not to share.....
News Flash from Sept, 2012
[h=2]Saturday, 15 September 2012[/h][h=3]Ice Age Is Coming[/h]
Sea ice is quite topical at the moment. How is sea ice doing?
[h=3]The Antarctic[/h]
Source: Cryosphere Today. University of Illinois
Reliable Antarctic sea ice data indicates that we will have another Catastrophic Ice Age this winter. So much for the proven myth of Global Warming [1]. It's now time to raise the alarm and inform your neighbors and work colleagues that Global Cooling is coming. If we act fast enough we can possibly make sure governments around the world do absolutely nothing.
[h=3]The Arctic[/h]
In contrast nothing remarkable is happening in the Arctic. There's been some melting this summer but that's expected. Arctic Sea Ice melts all the time, it's perfectly normal. For example I remember when the Vikings surfaced a longboat at the North Pole in 1955 and fought a pitched battle with a 15th century Chinese Navy.
Lets start with what we DON'T know. Science is FULL of uncertainties. The uncertainty monster. Like most monsters, the uncertainty monster is a very reassuring thing to have around. To cut to the chase: we know absolutely nothing that could be used to increase taxes. So what DO we know?
- Preventable Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (PCAGW) is a myth invented by a cabal of New World Order politicians plotting to achieve a communist utopia [1].
- The world is in a steep Global Cooling trend and heading for another Ice Age this winter.
- Arctic sea ice is fine. Thick and healthy and highly resistant to the imposition of taxes.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Arctic Ice Satellite Fraud Gate[/h]
Arctic Ice Satellite Fraud Gate is the catchy name I am giving to the latest scandal involving multiple instances of data manipulation at Cryosphere Today. For those of you who don't know, Cryosphere Today is a source of sea ice data which Alarmists use to claim the Arctic is melting and so cannot be trusted. If I can discredit Cryosphere Today it means the Arctic can't be melting.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Manipulation #1: The Stars Are Aligned[/h]
The scientists thought they were being clever when they added the stars to the image. They thought it would make people believe the data was from a real satellite and not concocted in the lab like the rest of their faked science [1]. But like all government IPCC scientists they tried to be too clever and made a mistake. You see unlike me, climate scientists have no knowledge of astrology refuse to work with professional astrologers [1].
This has further implications for climate "science". If the IPCC don't understand the movement of stars, how can they properly represent the strong starlight forcing in their climate models? If they've got the starlight forcing wrong it means that starlight can perhaps explain all of the warming of the 20th century. That is assuming there has been any warming in the 20th century (Phil Jones says no).
[h=3][/h][h=3]Manipulation #2: Arctic Sea Ice In The Red[/h]
We all know that Arctic sea ice is naturally a reflective white. So why do the satellite images on Cryosphere Today show that it's red or pink? Is it possible that IPCC scientists have deployed some sort of dye into the Arctic environment (the same environment they claim to want to protect) which turns the ice a red/pink color? This certainly fits with what I've read [1]. It seems there are only two options, either they admit their images are manipulated and the colors have been added in afterwards, or they admit they have sprayed the arctic red for some nefarious purpose.
Red and pink coloration of the ice in almost dye-like patterns. Hmm..
Why would they want to turn the ice red? I never pretend to have all the answers, only that I can obtain them within 24 hours. To this end I have been in deep discussions about this subject with several chemtrail experts and they assure me it would be possible, if not entirely expected, for the government to spray red dyes from jet planes flying over the Arctic ("Exactly where no-one is around to see them doing it", one expert told me). As for the motive, I am sure it's an attempt to melt the arctic to fit the IPCC's failed predictions. Everyone knows the color red is associated with heat (except when it's used to highlight the spot of interest in mineral promotions), so the dye is probably hot. If the Arctic does melt: just remember the scientists probably did it with their chemtrails and it wasn't CO2 and so taxes are unnecessary.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Manipulation #3: No Clouds[/h]
Having decided to poison the Arctic with red dyes and photo-shop fake stars into an image, it's perhaps not surprising that climate "scientists" would take the next step of entirely stripping all the clouds from satellite images. Okay sure, maybe the 14th of September was just a cloudless day you might say, but I audited a whole 3 months of Cryosphere Today images and saw not a single cloud. That's IMPOSSIBLE!
Climate scientists dislike clouds because clouds contradict their PCAGW myth [1]. If there are clouds then everything is fine [2]. The most likely explanation is that they are so used to deleting clouds from Climate Models that they deleted them from satellite images too without thinking.
[h=3][/h][h=3]Conclusion[/h]
The arctic is fine.
References
[1] See Climategate.
[2] See Lindzen.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.ca/
I know you probably didn't think this up by your onezies 3x5 - and it is probably just another tired cut and vomit from yet another climate denier blogger - but - gag!
The "fuel" issue should NOT be blamed on the climate geeks in the white coats.
AND I agree - making ethanol out of edible corn is STUPID! Maybe inedible corn husks or wheat chaff or something else. Sorry I have never read any climate scientists saying we should use edible corn for our ethanol - maybe I am wrong - but if that be the case - I'd like you to post the peer-reviewed literature.
The other things NOT discussed by the bloghead you cut and barfed from:
1/ What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost in lost real estate alone?
2/ Though making "jobs, jobs, jobs" was a good thing. Think of all the jobs in engineering and construction alone. Then there are the jobs in renewable energy. Call the funding an "investment" - you know - like the Koch's do.
Thought you'd like that CK. I did it just for you!
Thanks for this post OBD - well done! - (no sarcasm injected)
You are - what they call - using your critical thinking skills! ya! - (Some sarcasm injected).
ok - first off...
NEVER have I advocated *NOT* using your critical thinking skill base - INCLUDING not checking out what I say and going back to the original peer-reviewed literature. I have been very consistent in saying this.
So - no - of course I don't think you should: "... believe it, because I say so".
to answer your specific questions in order:
1/"The point is is is [SIC] supposed to be perfect if not then when is it not?".
It is normally as trustable, dependable, defensible, and robust as we can get it - most of the time.
When it is not:
a/ It gets refused to be published,
b/ It gets published with caveats about the assumptions made, and/or
c/ It gets published - and debated openly and with references based in Science - in the sciences.
2/"Do the people who check these get paid for it?".
As far as I am aware - most reviewers review it for free - or I hear many do. The editors - on the other hand - could maybe have some remuneration for running the show as their job. I am not sure - maybe CDNA could provide some depth here.
3/"Do they read ALL the paper and review ALL the math involved?".
Somebody does - but it might not be just one person who reviews it - it may be a team - each with their own expertise.
4/"Are they better equipped to know what is right or wrong than the writer?".
They should be at least as qualified and experienced in whatever field the author is or writes about - hence the term "peer" in "peer-review".
5/"After it is re reviewed is that peer reviewed??".
Constantly. That is what the review is all about. If there are many revisions - this process could take years.
6/"How much money is involved in a peer reviewed paper?".
The real expense is in the generation of the data - especially when using ships and other platforms.
As far as the review goes, the author can:
a/ submit for free - but the journal charges like $20 for someone to "purchase" the article, or
b/ pay like $2K to submit to the journal - but it is "open access" free for everyone.
7/"Can just any one write a paper and get it reviewed for free?".
Yes, anyone OBD - even you - BUT - it has to be written as "Science" - to a high standard.
8/"How long does it take to get a paper peer reviewed?".
Somewhere between 30 days and years.
9/"Are their politics involved in peer reviewed papers??".
Short answer: no - there shouldn't be.
Longer answer: There are "politics" in everything humans do.
Also - certain Journals have their own areas of "expertise" and experience with certain fields and specialities of Science - which affects what kinds of papers they accept. That might be perceived as filtering or "politics".
I think however - funding might be the most "political" of topics. It is expected and often required that every author make a statement of where the funds come from and that there are no conflicts of interest.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
That is where it came from, see bottom of chart.
So you think this is a lie, show us it is.
No high temperatures broken since 1998.
So you think this is a lie, show us it is.
No high temperatures broken since 1998.
nice record set... no data past 1999 and no data about river temps.
Why don't you look on Environment Canada website.
Search there for Climate Change Hoax.
Do let us know what you find.....
Sometimes it feels like I'm playing chess with a checker player.
You can't win OBD because the science and reality is not on your side.
It's just too easy to poke holes in your theory.
All I have to do is point to the Arctic and poof there goes that one.
Must be tiresome for you to be wrong all the time....
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Thanks for that AgentAnonymous.
It was even funnier to me when I imagined it read out in Damien Gillis's pedantic monotone.
I guess that means we both have a sense of humour - OMG!
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
I think you might like to read this. It is very interesting as is the thread.
David Small | February 15, 2015 at 1:11 pm | Reply
I started a PhD program in Environmental Engineering because I worried about climate change. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic. My first paper, a study about precipitation intensity over the U.S., was rejected by reviewers because it contradicted the climate model projections. Though they could find nothing wrong with the methodology, they decided observational data must be flawed because climate models couldn’t possibly be wrong and wrote that the paper could not be published. I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends. It was clear to me that the theory about changes in precipitation intensity were designed to explain climate model results that didn’t mesh with observations. When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models. When I started working with climate models and saw how poorly they reproduce precipitation patterns, I was forced into the realization that the “science” was being fit to the models and that the models were not very realistic. From my perspective, this runs contrary to the scientific method. After finishing my PhD in Environmental Engineering, I earned a M.S. in Atmospheric Science and started working on a PhD. As I learned more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, I started to see the contradictions in the climate change discussion. I had another paper refused by a high profile journal because it showed that cold air is required to produce the conditions that cause storm surges in the western Canadian arctic. That suggestion really seemed to upset the editor (an engineer) who wouldn’t even send it out for review. My later research has shown the importance of strong jets and cold air in building the blocking ridges that cause the extreme weather we’ve seen over the last two autumns/winters. The claims that are being made that a warming of the arctic will lead to warmer conditions in the mid-latitudes because it will cause more blocking are preposterous because strong jets are needed to support the blocking ridges. I received dozens of letters saying my published paper must be wrong because I suggest that strong jets, not weak jets, cause blocking. Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology. As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field. I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known. Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.
curryja | February 15, 2015 at 1:27 pm | Reply
David, thanks for posting, that is a stunning story
David Small | February 15, 2015 at 1:11 pm | Reply
I started a PhD program in Environmental Engineering because I worried about climate change. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic. My first paper, a study about precipitation intensity over the U.S., was rejected by reviewers because it contradicted the climate model projections. Though they could find nothing wrong with the methodology, they decided observational data must be flawed because climate models couldn’t possibly be wrong and wrote that the paper could not be published. I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends. It was clear to me that the theory about changes in precipitation intensity were designed to explain climate model results that didn’t mesh with observations. When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models. When I started working with climate models and saw how poorly they reproduce precipitation patterns, I was forced into the realization that the “science” was being fit to the models and that the models were not very realistic. From my perspective, this runs contrary to the scientific method. After finishing my PhD in Environmental Engineering, I earned a M.S. in Atmospheric Science and started working on a PhD. As I learned more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, I started to see the contradictions in the climate change discussion. I had another paper refused by a high profile journal because it showed that cold air is required to produce the conditions that cause storm surges in the western Canadian arctic. That suggestion really seemed to upset the editor (an engineer) who wouldn’t even send it out for review. My later research has shown the importance of strong jets and cold air in building the blocking ridges that cause the extreme weather we’ve seen over the last two autumns/winters. The claims that are being made that a warming of the arctic will lead to warmer conditions in the mid-latitudes because it will cause more blocking are preposterous because strong jets are needed to support the blocking ridges. I received dozens of letters saying my published paper must be wrong because I suggest that strong jets, not weak jets, cause blocking. Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology. As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field. I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known. Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.
curryja | February 15, 2015 at 1:27 pm | Reply
David, thanks for posting, that is a stunning story
GLG
Well-Known Member
Wrong again.... Typical huh.
Then what do you make of this at the bottom of the page. (see the underlined part)
The data set is 1979-2000.... You think that could be a problem?
No I'm not accusing them of a lie, just a mistake by you again....
http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/canada/climate2/Quinsam River Hatchery.html
- Status
Similar threads
