Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[seadna]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/guy-stewart-callendar/
This whole article is close to my thinking of science.
No ******** that the sky is falling like many of the people here like to believe in.
Global warming and cooling always was and always will be. Mans effect via carbon dioxide of altering the earth to the extent expressed by some i do not buy.
Check out the list of predictions i have put up.
It is interesting to note the opinions of people who are closed minded about this and if you show anything to disprove they instantly go to bulling or name calling.
It is also interesting to see as time goes on more scientists are questioning things.
This subject of man made global warming is not resolved yet. It is not a fact and deserves to have both sides available for viewing or discussion.

As i noted before all the other posters just google up their information and they think that is fine for them.
However they seem to think it is not ok for others.

Actually as time goes on, more and more climate scientists are coming to the consensus opinions represented in the AAAS and IPCC reports. What we are seeing now are the last desperate gasps of an industry driven response to science that will force change. The volume always goes up before an argument is finally lost. Also to be clear, while google is a useful tool, referring people to the consensus opinions of the experts in the field is quite a bit different than just posting random crap. Nothing you have shown "disproves" anything. The argument you are making is similar to those who deny evolution - e.g. "both sides" deserve to be heard when one "side" is based on scientific consensus and the other is based on weak attempts to explain it all away.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Well you have not sold me yet. It appears there are a lot of other people who also do not see it your way.

Actually as time goes on, more and more climate scientists are coming to the consensus opinions represented in the AAAS and IPCC reports. What we are seeing now are the last desperate gasps of an industry driven response to science that will force chance. The volume always goes up before an argument is finally lost. Also to be clear, while google is a useful tool, referring people to the consensus opinions of the experts in the field is quite a bit different than just posting random crap. Nothing you have shown "disproves" anything. The argument you are making is similar to those who deny evolution - e.g. "both sides" deserve to be heard when one "side" is based on scientific consensus and the other is based on weak attempts to explain it all away.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Just to be clear this was taken from their site.
Just wanted to clarify for you that they use non peer reviewed sources.
So all of you can get off your high horses about it must be peer reviewed.



The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7

 

[GLG]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/guy-stewart-callendar/
This whole article is close to my thinking of science.
No ******** that the sky is falling like many of the people here like to believe in.
Global warming and cooling always was and always will be. Mans effect via carbon dioxide of altering the earth to the extent expressed by some i do not buy.

Fair enough... Judging by this post and your reference to the op-ed and the original 1938 science paper is it fair to say your theory is ..........man made global warming is correct but clouds will act like a thermostat and not allow it to become dangerous? After all that was the conclusion of the science paper and if I'm not mistaken the author of the op-ed has the same view.

 

[GLG]

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7

Perhaps you should read this document..... page 4 and 5 explains things.
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=27675

 

[OldBlackDog]

You need to read what i wrote.

Fair enough... Judging by this post and your reference to the op-ed and the original 1938 science paper is it fair to say your theory is ..........man made global warming is correct but clouds will act like a thermostat and not allow it to become dangerous? After all that was the conclusion of the science paper and if I'm not mistaken the author of the op-ed has the same view.

 

[seadna]

Just to be clear this was taken from their site.
Just wanted to clarify for you that they use non peer reviewed sources.
So all of you can get off your high horses about it must be peer reviewed.



The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7

Here's a link to a fact sheet on how the IPCC works - http://www.ipccfacts.org/how.html. The 2014 IPCC report cited over 12,000 peer reviewed references and a much smaller number of non-peer reviewed sources (which were reviewed by the authors of the IPCC report in the process of preparing the report). There's is good reason to place higher emphasis on peer reviewed sources of information as the quality of a publication is generally better when it has to pass through a filter provided by other experts in the field. When you start posting information with the same ratio of (peer reviewed publications) to (non-peer reviewed publications) as the IPCC reports, I'll pay more attention to the details of what you post. But when you attempt to create a false equivalency between your mostly non-peer reviewed stuff and the IPCC reports due to occasional use of non-peer reviewed materials by the IPCC, you continue to lose credibility with me.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Most of what the ipcc puts out is political as their system is run by politicians.
Yes they review peer reviewed reports , however their masters are politicians.
It has been written that these politicians who have the last word use their agendas to modify and change things to get to their agendas.

 

[OldBlackDog]

This might be very interesting.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/

 

[seadna]

This might be very interesting.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/

Let's wait to see what the actual court has to say. There's a reason such things are tried in courts and not on websites such as wattsupwiththat.

 

[seadna]

Most of what the ipcc puts out is political as their system is run by politicians.
Yes they review peer reviewed reports , however their masters are politicians.
It has been written that these politicians who have the last word use their agendas to modify and change things to get to their agendas.

Actually, the report writing is run through a very open and well documented process - see http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml. Most of the relevant writing is done by teams of experts most of whom (especially on the science related parts) are scientists themselves. "It has been written" is just the kind of spurious, unattributed nonsense that is commonly used in attempts to debunk actual facts.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Let's wait to see what the actual court has to say. There's a reason such things are tried in courts and not on websites such as wattsupwiththat.

Agree with you.

 

[agentaqua]

Agree with you.

I felt the earth shake....

 

[OldBlackDog]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: threatening us with hellfire and damnation?
On November 2, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sent humanity a ransom note. In the words of the UK-based cartoonist known as Josh, its message was: “Give us trillions or you will fry!! There will be storms floods droughts winds and pestilence. We really mean it this time.”
The IPCC’s most recent document is is a 100-page summary of a multi-thousand-page opus released in three instalments over the past 14 months. While the public is told this report – the fifth of its kind – is a scientific assessment of the state of the world’s climate, the truth is more complicated.
Despite the fact that climate research was in its infancy back in 1992, world leaders decided global warming was a problem worth worrying about, and that humanity was responsible. They signed a treaty called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It calls for the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” in order to prevent dangerous human “interference with the climate system.” It also mandates ongoing, annual UN climate conferences.
In any negotiation, it’s useful to begin with what lawyers call an “agreed statement of facts.” Rajendra Pachauri, the economist who heads the IPCC, hopes this newly-minted report will be helpful to “negotiators as they work towards a new global climate agreement.” He calls the treaty the IPCC’s “main customer.” This is the real purpose of the IPCC: to produce documents that can be cited during the poker game known as international climate negotiations.
People whose careers depend on keeping the climate treaty alive, such as bureaucrats in environment ministries and UN officials, have no use for a report that says 20th-century warming was nothing special, or that the sun dominates our climate system. Rather than shining a broad floodlight on such matters, the IPCC directs its spotlight in one direction only – humanity’s alleged guilt.
Climate change is nothing new. 20,000 years ago, most of Canada was covered by ice. Thousands of years before CO2-emitting factories and SUVs were even thought of, this ice receded all on its own. Despite decades of research, we still don’t know what portion of recent climate change is our fault and what portion is merely Mother Nature doing her own thing.
The IPCC’s new report “expresses with greater certainty” the opinion that humans are now the most important factor. While unable to prove this, the IPCC insists its experts are more convinced than ever that their view is correct. Too bad entire books have been written about eminent experts who got it wrong. And do we really need to explain to an international body that the fervency with which it believes something to be true is a separate matter from whether that belief is actually valid?
The IPCC’s latest press release says there’s an increased “likelihood” of bad things occurring if humanity doesn’t drastically curtail its carbon dioxide emissions. That’s all the IPCC has: fallible human beings imagining they know what the future holds based on hypothetical scenarios.
IPCC chairman Pachauri declares, in the same press release, that “We have the means to limit climate change.” This is nonsense. If Mother Nature decides it’s time for another ice age, there’s no reason to believe humanity can do anything to stop it.
It’s worth noting that the person in charge of the IPCC during its past two assessment cycles is no aloof, disinterested scientist – the sort who sets a good example by erecting a firewall between his personal opinions and his professional responsibilities. The fact that Pachauri unabashedly accepted a “green crusader” two years ago speaks volumes about his organization’s scientific objectivity.
When the IPCC was publicizing climate assessment number four in 2007, Pachauri was quoted in the New York Times as saying “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
2012 came and went. No new emissions agreement was finalized. But like an old time preacher, the IPCC continues to threaten us with hellfire and damnation.

Donna Laframboise has been called “the IPCC’s sharpest critic” by Germany’s Der Spiegel newsmagazine. She attended last year’s UN climate conference in Warsaw, is the author of two books about the IPCC, and is a senior research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

 

[seadna]

From Wikipedia - "Donna Laframboise is a Canadian feminist, journalist, writer, and photographer. She holds a degree in women's studies, and her writing has often supported organizations such as fathers' rights groups." - A degree in women's studies certainly qualifies her as an expert in climate science. Keep posting crap....

 

[OldBlackDog]

And we know with just a little checking that anything on Wikipedia is extremely questionable in regards to people who question the IPPC.
Therefore in future please do us a favour and just deal with the subjects.
ALL are entitled to their opinion.

 

[seadna]

And we know with just a little checking that anything on Wikipedia is extremely questionable in regards to people who question the IPPC.
Therefore in future please do us a favour and just deal with the subjects.
ALL are entitled to their opinion.

OK - the entire post above is a bunch of unsubstantiated crap. The IPCC is not threatening humanity with hellfire and damnation. It's presenting the a consolidated view of the current understanding of climate science and what will happen if humanity keeps threatening itself. The term "ransom note" implies that the primary goal of the IPCC is to gain something AND that they hold the metaphorical gun. The problem is we (humanity) hold the metaphorical gun and can either continue to slowly commit our own suicide OR we can start to make changes that will put us on a better path. Those who don't want to accept that we are threatening ourselves, apparently take solace by trying to transfer blame to the messengers.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Most of what the ipcc puts out is political as their system is run by politicians.
Yes they review peer reviewed reports , however their masters are politicians.
It has been written that these politicians who have the last word use their agendas to modify and change things to get to their agendas.

OBD who are the masters of the writers that create the materials you post? Are they not politicians and industry leaders that want to deny human influenced climate change? Can you prove otherwise for the majority of your posts?

 

[OldBlackDog]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

Go to what co2 looks like. I would have posted it , but cannot.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Interesting, not all are. However i am not the one making all the projections on what will happen.
So, you really believe all the stuff that is put out by the IPCC?
if you dont then why not?
Dont tell us that you believe some and not others?
If you do not believe all then you are a sceptic.
So what is it?

OBD who are the masters of the writers that create the materials you post? Are they not politicians and industry leaders that want to deny human influenced climate change? Can you prove otherwise for the majority of your posts?