Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Anthropogenic or not? Not! It's Anthropocentric. It is political power and money grabbing on a blatantly grand scale. As they say follow the money. Big, Really BIG $$ here to be made by the traders of your tax $$. These AGW alarmists are swallowing the propaganda, eyes, noses and minds closed.

Don't forget it was ENRON that invented Carbon Credits. Three Brits were just indicted for a huge Carbon Credit scam. What's your carbon footprint?

As i wrote in another thread (until I was asked to go the the Pancake House for my political rant) mankind is arrogantly ignorant to think they can control the climate or weather. What was the temp of the earth when the dinosaurs were the dominate species? At one time, before homo sapiens appeared, the Sahara was tropical. The Earth has always been in constant change. Man is fearful of change. That's about it!

Solar cycles, earth's orbit, deep ocean currents, volcanic activity and cloud formations are among the phenomena that regulate the weather and climate. Not cow flatulence.

Wheather or not the Earth is warming or cooling, thankfully political man has very little control over Mother Nature. The Earth is a living cell that is breathing warm and cool at this period in it's 4.5 billion year history. This present phenomena is what gave birth to and allows man to exist for his relatively short stay here.

At what temperature will you set the Earth's thermostat with your carbon credits?

What do you AWG Prius owners think of Thorium Power Plants? No carbon credits needed.

Oh! by the way Great photos of the weather stations. Scientists are just people, sentient beings. They are factually fallible and emotionally fragile just like every human. Too long again? Where are my mudflaps?

 

The Enron myth again? That has been debunked over and over. The concept of emissions trading was first analyzed in the 60s.

The idea that we cannot affect nature is silly. We already know that man's actions are on a scale that can have adverse effects. cf acid rain, ozone layer, rivers catching fire, hermaphrodite fish. It shouldn't even be a question that dumping billions of tons of material into the atmosphere might have adverse consequences.

I personally support additional nuclear development, as it's a relatively clean technology that is ready today, though the waste issue is the elephant in the room. Others on this site do as well. Prius owners are not some monolithic bloc that conforms to the stereotype in your head.

 

Nothing new there. Clouds have always dominated climate, and additionally have a large amount of uncertainty attached to them since they can both reflect and trap heat.

Definitely more research needs to be done to see how our actions will affect cloud cover, and how that cloud cover will affect climate.

 

Misleading and biased statement here (with all due respect)! Typical of the pro AGW propaganda that assumes facts not in evidence. Sort of like, "How are you going to change your actions to stop the polar bear babies from drowning?" Where's the proof that they're drowning?

Couldn't it be phrased something like, "We need to better understand the physics of cloud cover and its relationship to climate"?

 

I believe his statement is absolutely clear to any who can read :
"Definitely more research needs to be done to see how our actions will affect cloud cover"

Couldn't be clearer. It is just that you wish to believe that humans can't possibly have an effect on much of anything that has to do with the environment.

 

You certainly weren't attributing dominance to clouds a few months ago!

My, how the stories are changing now that the CO2 fraudsters have been exposed.

 

Thank You Politburo for responding.
ENRON-"Too Big To Fail"
"Enron myth debunked"? By whom and when? What is the Enron myth you're referring to Politburo? "Emissions trading first analyzed in the 60's" Who was emissions trading in the 60's? What was analyzed?

Fact: Enron (largest bankruptcy in history) owed part of it's early success to emissions trading. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market and became the major trader in the EPA's $20 billion per yr. sulphur dioxide cap & trade (tax) program to combat another myth- Acid Rain is BS-Bad Science. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise. About 20 yrs. ago Enron was a billion $ a day commodity trader in natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth and whatever else; future carbon trading? It was next.

"The Climate Change Industry" (sic) created by al gore and Enron "has now emerged as the worlds largest industry, when you include all the paid-for-scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and most importantly the multinationals.... Every person in the developed world feels the bite of this industry" with the increased costs of goods & services. Quotes from Lawrence Solomon:Enron's Other Secret

The AGW sheeple like to say they are opposed to big corporate interests. The energy companies are trying to continue to provide energy to customers. The financial parasites (cap & tax) big corporate commodity traders are attempting to create $$ opportunity for themselves and provide nothing to anyone in return. Between 1994 and 1996 Enron donated $2.5 million to environmental groups seeking international controls on CO2. Kyoto Protocol- Wikipedia

Kyoto Conspiracy Conference-1997 Enron was there to advise the Clinton administration what to do. ibid

Also google Cato Institute "Why Enron Wants Global Warming"

So Politburo do you accept AGW as a hoax?

Political control of the environment is dangerous. Politicians are very poor stewards. What is your favorite federal program? What Federal program has ever been successful? Sucess as measured by very little wasteful spending and good stewardship.

As for the elephant that is nuclear wasting in the room; Thorium Nuclear Reactors promise a huge reduction in waste when compared to uranium. The fuel cycle is much more proliferation resistant and at a lower cost. And Thorium is much more plentiful than Uranium. Uranium was chosen over Thorium for the first reactors precisely to provide weapon grade material. Google "Energy from Thorium" for more info.

I too am a Prius owner mainly because I'm a monolithic cheapskate. BTW What is the stereotype in your head that you are putting in my head re: Prius owners?

I will close before I lose your attention. It's past my bedtime too. Tomorrow I will try to answer your statements re: sexy fish, burning water, O3, and SO3 acid rain. Oh Wait! A lot said about clouds on this thread since I mentioned clouds in my last post; or is it just a coincidence. Go to You Tube "Cloud Mystery" Interesting.

 

The media has seemed to forgotten that while it has been colder in the lower latitudes recently, there has also been record warm temperatures in Greenland and the Arctic Ocean thanks to the unprecedented negativity of the Arctic Oscillation. It is very likely that those temperatures have basically cancelled each other out as global temperatures do not change rapidly. If one area gets unusually cold, another area will be unusually warm. Weather != climate - not sure how many times I have to repeat that around here, but I'll continue to do so as needed.

Wow, you still misread my statement. Even after referring to it multiple times in a vain attempt to discredit me. Stop fighting the straw man!

I think my statement was clear - human actions affect the Earth. We should do more to better identify those effects. Are you still saying that there is no way we humans can affect the Earth's climate?

 

By me, here, several times. The predecessor to the EPA looked at emissions trading in 1967. It's a basic fact that the idea was not conceived by Enron. Google "Burton, Ellison, and William Sanjour".

 

Now that you have convinced me that Earth is warming (LOL) I was wondering why all the glaciers in the warming world are retreating and huge pieces of the ice cap are breaking off?

 

Hot air from the mouths of deniests!

It is interesting, that after 100 post, 10 pages, these deniests have come up with virtually nothing except the same repeated drivel. Most folks have now recognized how our local denial community made up of three prominent members have spend a couple of weeks and 100 post yelling at themselves.

The bulk of those of us on the right side of history have figured out it is not worth our time and energy to even bother to counter the daily rash of misinformation put forth by these folks. Some of us have better things to do, and indeed are working within our daily lives to help with concrete solutions for some of the problems facing the planet, unlike the denial camp who never seem to do much of anything unless it serves their own narrow self interest. (Usually because they don't like (in no particular order) taxes, government, big government, socialism, environmental regulation, social justice, land use regulation, Obama, health care, any government, democrats, commies, Europeans, perceived "loss of freedoms" etc, etc).

So I propose, we give the deniests the thread. They can prattle all they wish. We won't bother them on their tirade, as long as they don't both us when we contribute to threads with genuine concern for the environment. That way they don't have to name call, and we don't feel compelled to counter all their misinformation because it will be a given. Sounds like a good compromise to me.