Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

You mean this?


1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING
In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming – as the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates.
Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.
Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ‘meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented, ‘scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections’. It said the planet was already ‘a sixth of the way towards the next ice age’.
While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with ‘droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes.

You don't see the photoshop, OBD - or don't want to...

 

[OldBlackDog]

You mean this graph taken from the site?

Of course you can not see how David Rose changed the Time Mag cover from 2007 on global warming to 1977 global cooling.
You are not programmed to see that. It makes no sense when you lose your critical thinking skills.

 

[OldBlackDog]

The page you quoted.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

 

[GLG]

The page you quoted.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

Nice of them to change that after it was printed on paper and they were outted.....
The funny thing is ... because your team lives in an "echo chamber" it lives across the internet in its original form.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2013/03/17/the-hard-proof-that-global-warming-is-a-scam/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2997644/posts
https://emergingtruth.wordpress.com...t-air-scientists-ballooned-climate-forecasts/
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/03/18/the-great-green-con-no-1-the-hard-proof-that-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-that-are-costing-you-
billions-were-wrong-all-along/
http://rickstephensdepartments.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-great-green-con-no-1-hard-proof.html
http://www.omsj.org/issues/global-warming/gw-merit

I could go on and on but I think you get the point....

 

[agentaqua]

You know GLG - I'll give you my take on the denier mentality:

As individuals they are seemingly "proud" of being perceived (only in their camp) as "brave" individuals "going against the flow". What they appear not to grasp is:

1/ Science - how it works, what it says. They don't seem to be able to analyse graphs, they have quite a bit of fear when they see a lab coat, they attempt to smear credible scientists and do that w/o even looking at the science,
2/ By blindly accepting anonymous bloggers cherry-picked graphs and cartoons - they are in fact demonstrating they are the "sheeples", rather than the brave, individuals they hope to be,
3/ that they ignore any logical arguments such as reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels is a good thing in the long run whether or not climate change exists (which it does) under any number of reasons,
4/ somehow they hope and believe that 95% of scientists in the world are perpetrating some giant hoax on them, and
5/ somehow they don't get this deep lack of logic all the way around but instead are more comfortable feeding their fears hoisted on them by PR firms and right-wing think tanks funded by big oil and coal.

I think OBD has pretty much ran through and out of any credible arguments - and it just gets sillier and sillier - and he somehow doesn't see this. I guess religious zealots are like that. All praise the Koch brothers and Imhofe!

 

[GLG]

The page you quoted.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

If you want proof of them changing the website you just have to check the archive.
The internet never forgets.....
https://archive.today/D57nn

Now what do you say about your team and the truth?

 

[GLG]

You know GLG - I'll give you my take on the denier mentality:

As individuals they are seemingly "proud" of being perceived (only in their camp) as "brave" individuals "going against the flow". What they appear not to grasp is:

1/ Science - how it works, what it says. They don't seem to be able to analyse graphs, they have quite a bit of fear when they see a lab coat, they attempt to smear credible scientists and do that w/o even looking at the science,
2/ By blindly accepting anonymous bloggers cherry-picked graphs and cartoons - they are in fact demonstrating they are the "sheeples", rather than the brave, individuals they hope to be,
3/ that they ignore any logical arguments such as reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels is a good thing in the long run whether or not climate change exists (which it does) under any number of reasons,
4/ somehow they hope and believe that 95% of scientists in the world are perpetrating some giant hoax on them, and
5/ somehow they don't get this deep lack of logic all the way around but instead are more comfortable feeding their fears hoisted on them by PR firms and right-wing think tanks funded by big oil and coal.

I think OBD has pretty much ran through and out of any credible arguments - and it just gets sillier and sillier - and he somehow doesn't see this. I guess religious zealots are like that. All praise the Koch brothers and Imhofe!

It's deeper then that.... here is the "truth"

[w-0TEJMJOhk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk

 

[GLG]

Not for the under 18 crowd......
This sums it up for me... LOL
[OYwSGiowEzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYwSGiowEzs

 

[OldBlackDog]

Because you are.

You know GLG - I'll give you my take on the denier mentality:

As individuals they are seemingly "proud" of being perceived (only in their camp) as "brave" individuals "going against the flow". What they appear not to grasp is:

1/ Science - how it works, what it says. They don't seem to be able to analyse graphs, they have quite a bit of fear when they see a lab coat, they attempt to smear credible scientists and do that w/o even looking at the science,
2/ By blindly accepting anonymous bloggers cherry-picked graphs and cartoons - they are in fact demonstrating they are the "sheeples", rather than the brave, individuals they hope to be,
3/ that they ignore any logical arguments such as reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels is a good thing in the long run whether or not climate change exists (which it does) under any number of reasons,
4/ somehow they hope and believe that 95% of scientists in the world are perpetrating some giant hoax on them, and
5/ somehow they don't get this deep lack of logic all the way around but instead are more comfortable feeding their fears hoisted on them by PR firms and right-wing think tanks funded by big oil and coal.

I think OBD has pretty much ran through and out of any credible arguments - and it just gets sillier and sillier - and he somehow doesn't see this. I guess religious zealots are like that. All praise the Koch brothers and Imhofe!

 

[OldBlackDog]

As are you.

Not for the under 18 crowd......
This sums it up for me... LOL
[OYwSGiowEzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYwSGiowEzs

 

[OldBlackDog]

No it is all about your group misleading the people.
Let's see, changing the temperatures to meet their goals?
Your group is really sad. But then you have a great leader

If you want proof of them changing the website you just have to check the archive.
The internet never forgets.....
https://archive.today/D57nn

Now what do you say about your team and the truth?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Love it, your site shows this.
Guess you missed the point that science ( so called, by your side ) said that we were going into a cold spell that did not happen. Sounds just like the stuff you are trying to sell now.

The quote under the picture of the front page is:Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the 'next ice age', now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot.

Beauty.



QUOTE=GLG;389770]If you want proof of them changing the website you just have to check the archive.
The internet never forgets.....
https://archive.today/D57nn

Now what do you say about your team and the truth?

[/QUOTE]

 

[OldBlackDog]

Miss this did you. An example of science?

They would not lie, would they?

Manufacturing Snow Alarmism At British Columbia's Ski Resorts

The last year has seen the climate alarmists highlight the potential threat of warming temperatures to ski resorts throughout the United States and Canada, with the hysteria being ratcheted up following the NY Times' infamous piece of warmism entitled "The End of Snow?"

The Globe and Mail newspaper -- Canada's equivalent to the NYT -- just published an article on "How B.C.'s [British Columbia's] ski resorts are coping with global warming's threat to their existence." Key to the piece is the following figure:

193988

Here is what the figure purports to show: "trends in average winter temperature and snowfall" between 1901 and 2009 for three major ski resorts in British Columbia. Big White is a ski resort located just east of the city of Kelowna in southern British Columbia. Cypress is located just north of the major metropolitan region of Vancouver, BC, and Whistler is about 120 km (70 miles) north of Vancouver. Cypress Mountain was the freestyle skiing and snowboarding venue for the 2010 Winter Olympics, while Whistler was the alpine skiing venue for these Olympics.

So, we have data on average winter temperatures and snowfall for these three resorts over a 110 year period that purports to show a perfectly linear temperature increase between 1901 and 2009, and a perfectly "wavy" trend in snowfall over this time frame. Since when does climate data follow such beautifully smooth curves and straight lines? Regular readers will know that all climate data has substantial year-to-year variability and cycles. Why didn't the Globe and Mail publish actual (a.k.a., real) climate data?

Moving along, the figure claims that "all data was collected at mid-elevation at the ski resorts." All data? From 1901 through to 2009? Collected at mid-elevation? How is this possible?

According to the website for Big White:

"In 1963 the Serwa's and Mervyn's families started a huge undertaking, creating Big White Ski Hill from scratch. In their first year they had to build a road, a day-lodge and a lift. Imagine trying to build a day-lodge and a lift without the road being completed! The original base area was located approximately where The Aspens is now. In that first year they did successfully complete the road, the day-lodge and the T-Bar. That feat put Big White on the path to becoming what it is today."

The ski resort didn't start getting carved out of the wilderness until 1963, and yet we have accurate winter temperature and snowfall data "at mid-elevation" for the site dating back to 1901?

According to Whistler's website:

"In 1960 a group of Vancouver businessmen, led by Franz Wilhelmsen, formed Garibaldi Lifts Limited with the aim of developing an alpine ski area on London Mountain (across the lake from Rainbow Lodge). Their dream: to host the 1968 Olympic Games. While it would take another 50 years and four Olympic bids before Whistler would realize its Olympic dream, Wilhelmsen and his cohorts pursued their ski area plans with great vigour.

And so it was that London Mountain was soon renamed Whistler Mountain (in honour of a local alpine marmot, who 'whistles' when it communicates) and officially opened to the public in February 1966 at the current Whistler Creekside base."

Whistler didn't open until 1966, and yet -- once again -- we have accurate winter temperature and snowfall data "at mid-elevation" for the site dating back to 1901?

The footnote on the figure indicates this is "un-reviewed data." That raises even more questions.

There are only two climate stations for Whistler in the Environment Canada online climate database. The "Whistler" site is at 658 meters elevation, putting it at the same elevation as the village, and the dataset only starts in December 1976 -- not 1901. The "Whistler Roundhouse" site is at 1,835 meters elevation, which is about mid-elevation for the ski hill, but this dataset doesn't begin until January 1973.

A few years have incomplete monthly temperature and snowfall records during the winter period (December to February) and need to be omitted, but here is the data over what appears to be the entire available time frame from when records begin in 1974 to when they end in 2007.

193989

Good luck reconciling this real data with the figure shown in the Globe and Mail article. Clearly there is not a perfect linear increase in winter temperatures since 1974, and over the last 30 years of the dataset, there is no significant trend.

The winter snowfall data shows a positive correlation towards more snowfall since 1974 and during the last three decades -- with nearly a statistically significant increasing snowfall trend since 1978. Compare this increasing winter snowfall trend using raw Environment Canada data at the site to the purported catastrophic decreasing winter snowfall trend over the same time period shown in the Globe and Mail's article.

The "Cypress Bowl Upper" climate station is at 1210 meters elevation for this ski resort, but the snowfall dataset doesn't begin until 1985 -- not 1901 -- while the temperature dataset does not start until December 1998 (and then it ends in the winter of 2001/2002). You certainly can't do much with a less than four-year long temperature dataset -- and I have no idea how you obtain high-resolution data from 1901 to 2009 from less than four years of data in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Similarly, the snow data at this site is so sparse that only 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 have complete winter snowfall records. Just four winters in total, and no data whatsoever for 1989 to 1998 and 2003 -- and the dataset ends entirely in April 2004.

The "Cypress Bowl" site is at 930 meters, or about the same elevation as the lodge. Its dataset doesn't start until December 1984, and it ends in late 2001 for temperature data and early 2004 for snowfall. There are only complete average winter temperature records for 15 years between 1985 and 2001, and there is effectively a perfect non-correlation in winter temperatures over this limited time span. Once again, in complete contrast to the claims made in the Globe and Mail article.

Even worse, there are only 14 complete winter snowfall records between 1985 and 2002. The correlation is also towards more snowfall, not less.

There are some other short-term climate stations around the mountain at Cypress, but they only appear to be able to extend the record (if suitable for homogenization with the longer term stations that start in the mid-1980s) out to 2010. Thus, at most, Cypress' climate record appears to go only from the mid-1980s up to recent years, the data record is woefully inadequate, and the data that does exist does not appear to support the claims made in the Globe and Mail article.

The same applies at Whistler. Other short-term stations exist around the mountain, but they do not appear to add to the timeframe before 1973/1974.

Finally, we arrive at Big White. One climate station ("Big White Mtn Lodge") only has some limited data from 1965 to 1968, while the other station ("Big White") has data from 1981 to 1999. Dealing with the best real data at hand, there are nearly perfect non-correlations in average winter temperatures and total winter snowfall from 1981 to 1999. That isn't consistent with what is shown by the Globe and Mail.

We end up with more questions than answers after critically reviewing the Globe and Mail's article on snow alarmism. Good science journalism shouldn't lead to this. Future science journalism articles should always give directions to the raw source data that anyone can download and look at to confirm the claims being made in the media.

At the end of the day, the available data doesn't appear to lead to the same perfectly smooth 110-year climate trends for these ski resorts as the newspaper indicates. Actually, the climate data doesn't tell the same tales at all.

Source

 

[OldBlackDog]

An example of how bully's deal with climate.
Great creadibility.

The hate campaign — it’s “science by insults” revealing the deepest fear of believers

Should David Rose’s children murder him for the sake of the planet?

Welcome to western civilization’s advanced scientific debate. There there are no shades of gray, we can’t discuss whether climate sensitivity is 1, 2,or 3 degrees, and it’s not even about numbers. It’s about whether you are good or evil.

For a religious believer, the worst thing that could happen is a polite conversation. They know (at least on a subconscious level) that they don’t have the answers, and that if skeptics were heard the voters would flee… the only possible answer is to “win” through bully-boy tactics. Unleash the righteous indignation!

David Rose does Daily Mail articles asking dangerous questions about error bars and wanting to know pedantic, unreasonable things like where the scientific data is. One commenter urged his children to kill him. Rose has been a journalist for 34 years. He has seen nothing like this vitriol. As he writes below, The Guardian and other newspapers support brutal threats in comments but filter out skeptics.

Climate of Hate: His children are urged to kill him, he’s compared to Adolf Hitler and labelled a ‘denier’ – even though he’s Jewish. Disturbing article reveals what happens if you dare to doubt the Green prophets of doom

Journalist David Rose has been labelled a ‘climate change denier’
Wrote article about scientists covering up data in ‘climategate’ scandal
He believes ‘renewable’ sources such as wind and ‘biomass’ are futile
One online commenter urged Mr Rose’s own children to murder him

The remark about my children killing me was made some months ago, after The Guardian published one of several critiques of my work by its climate activist blogger, Dana Nuccitelli. One of the online commenters posted: ‘In a few years, self-defence is going to be made a valid defence for parricide [killing one's own father], so Rose’s children will have this article to present in their defence at the trial.’

Another commenter compared me to Adolf Hitler. Frankly, I didn’t take either of them too seriously. But last week on Twitter, someone else wrote that he knew where I lived, and posted my personal phone numbers.

Meanwhile, Nuccitelli had written another vehement attack, this time against Matt Ridley, The Times columnist, Tory peer and fellow ‘lukewarmer’. This fresh assault was illustrated by the paper’s editors with a grotesque image of a severed head. One who commented, called ‘Bluecloud’, said: ‘Should that not be Ridley’s severed head in the photo… Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve [sic] such a strong response in you people. Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley? Need I answer that question?’

In fact, Bluecloud is a Guardian contributor called Gary Evans, who is also a ‘sustainability consultant’ funded by Greenpeace. Ridley complained, but the statements stayed on the website for at least four days. Comments in support of Ridley were removed by the site’s moderators, because they did not ‘abide by our community standards’. In an email to The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, Ridley pointed out that a Japanese hostage had just been beheaded by Islamic State.

Language only barely less extreme is now common. In the US, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written that anyone who denies global warming must be ‘punished in the afterlife… this kind of denial is an almost inconceivable sin’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Rating: 9.2/10 (98 votes cast)

The hate campaign -- it's "science by insults" revealing the deepest fear of believers, 9.2 out of 10 based on 98 ratings
Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/k26m2ek

 

[agentaqua]

Ya OBD - those poor misunderstood victimized climate change deniers. Only friends they have that understand them are the right-wing think tanks, the Koch brothers and Senator Imahofe. Imhafoe actually doesn't need anyone to stand up for him because he apparently has God on his side - a direct line, actually. Just ask him.

Don't worry - when they go to heaven with all the comforts of their current lifestyles ruled by greed - they will be rewarded. the hell with all those noisy community members saying we should do things differently because it makes sense. They're all "haters", anyways.

And you see nothing wrong with this so-called logic/PR script? really?

 

[OldBlackDog]

You mean all the comforts like Al Gore has.

But that is not the point and I see you did not get it and that is sad.

Ya OBD - those poor misunderstood victimized climate change deniers. Only friends they have that understand them are the right-wing think tanks, the Koch brothers and Senator Imahofe. Imhafoe actually doesn't need anyone to stand up for him because he apparently has God on his side - a direct line, actually. Just ask him.

Don't worry - when they go to heaven with all the comforts of their current lifestyles ruled by greed - they will be rewarded. the hell with all those noisy community members saying we should do things differently because it makes sense. They're all "haters", anyways.

And you see nothing wrong with this so-called logic/PR script? really?

 

[agentaqua]

You mean all the comforts like Al Gore has. But that is not the point and I see you did not get it and that is sad.

Interesting how the denier camp has focused their vitriol on Gore. You do realize, of course - that some 95% of scientists world-wide - including all of their research teams - some hundreds of agencies and countries - many hundreds of thousands of climate change researchers - believe climate change is real - that it is exasperated by human activities - that it would be wise to do something about this - but you focus on Gore.

OK OBD - what was the point- your point minus all the cut and pasting?

 

[GLG]

Love it, your site shows this.
Guess you missed the point that science ( so called, by your side ) said that we were going into a cold spell that did not happen. Sounds just like the stuff you are trying to sell now.

The quote under the picture of the front page is:Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the 'next ice age', now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot.

Beauty.

So your claim is that in the 70's science was telling us that we were in for global cooling. I will admit that some science was calling for global cooling. However the majority of the science was for global warming. Can I prove that... Yup.....

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

What The Science Says:
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970's predicted warming.

Climate Myth: Ice age predicted in the 70's
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970's, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Source.... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Another interesting article from 1956 warned us of global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

I could go on and on about the warning from the past like this one.....

[Fys5Z63xCvA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA

The whole point of this was the cheating that your side put's out there with the photoshop Time mag cover to try to prove your point. You team was caught in the lie and now to save face you are back on the attack. Typical isn't it... Your team has no science to back it's claims so they resort to cheating and lies.

What happened to your conservative values? Do you need reminding that the root word is from conservation?
Why do you think that Harper has lost his backing from the right and is only left with the far right for support, the ones that only care about money. Yes the will rap themselves in the conservative coat but the don't have the same values as it's just a hijack of the party. A convenient way to fill the bank account with strip and ship as fast as you can before the other guy does the same thing.

Canada has had enough of this crap and time is running out for your side......

 

[GLG]

Miss this did you. An example of science?

No I did not......Read post #2049.
I gave you the source to go read the newspaper article.
Quit be so intellectual lazy and track down the truth.
All the information is there if you put some effort to find it and understand it.
The question you should be asking is where did they get the data.
Find that out, look at it, understand it, and draw your own conclusions.
If you can do that then you are thinking for yourself not letting some halfwit telling you what to think.
That's the problem with the denial crowd you read, they don't think anymore.
They just follow along with what ever hoax theory that is posted for the day.
You may get pleasure from being part of that team but your in sad shape with your morals then.

Did it ever occur to you that we should be leaving this world in better shape then we found it?
Is the measure of a man his bank account when he meets his maker?
When it's my time to go the only thing I want is a clean world for my kid and grand children.
Lot's of salmon for them to fish and no disasters waiting for them in their future.

What are your values and hopes for you family?
Have you thought about that and the actions that you are doing right now.
Are you proud of the fact that you think there is a global hoax and your smarter then everyone else.
Could you be wrong and if so what does that mean to your family?
These are hard things to think about and if you use logic you can see where that takes you.

Wake up.....

 

[GLG]

An example of how bully's deal with climate.
Great creadibility.

The hate campaign — it’s “science by insults” revealing the deepest fear of believers

Should David Rose’s children murder him for the sake of the planet?

Welcome to western civilization’s advanced scientific debate. There there are no shades of gray, we can’t discuss whether climate sensitivity is 1, 2,or 3 degrees, and it’s not even about numbers. It’s about whether you are good or evil.

Sounds like the gloves are coming off and to hell with the queens-bury rules.
This won't end well for your team OBD.
Time to start think about jumping ship.......