all in the name of climate change

[gwb72tii]

for anyone that doubts there are political motives driving the AGW hysteria, here you go;

"And of course, as the UN’s own lead economist on these issues, Ottmar Edenhofer has acknowledged, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”; no, instead, “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/10/03/big-deadly-government-mass-murder-committed-to-game-kyoto-credits-scheme/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29

and;

"Today’s climate campaign embarrassment comes to us courtesy of Nature magazine once again, which has a story in the current issue about how the UN’s “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM), which was essentially a fig leaf for wealth transfers from industrialized nations to poor developing nations, isn’t working according to plan."

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/3990-wikileaks-major-un-climate-programme-basically-a-farce.html

[mrsleeve]

and this is news to us how ??????




Oh this is for the kiddies I get it now

[Dozyproductions]

How does any of that take away from the fact of the actual issue of GW? The ice is melting but because people are using that as a front some how lets us ignore that?

[mrsleeve]

the point is........................

Lets stop using a natural phenomenon that WE HAVE NO FUCKING CONTROL OVER, to use as an excuse to further certain goals and ambitions that have no bearing on said phenomenon.

Never waste a good crisis right????


When these idiots are now admitting that they are using this as an excuse to facilitate their ultimate wet dreams of world utopian order that in and of itself brings into question all the "science" that has been involved with it. That also is enough to bring pause to even the most uninvolved to question the entire premise........................................... ...


Oh and really no the ice is not melting, there was more artic sea ice in 2008 (iirc) than in 1979, source NASA satellite put into place to monitor just such things in 1979. Recent study released that the guys estimating the Greenland Ice sheet should have WAY MORE ice than current maps show..................opps Captain GW himself spent like 5 or was it 15 million on a sea side retreat in CA, that when the ice melts in 2025 like he says will be under 30 feet of water, yeah if you knew that was going to happen would you buy that nice beach house????? Oh wait federal flood insurance right

[BraveUlysses]

Oh and really no the ice is not melting, there was more artic sea ice in 2008 (iirc) than in 1979, source NASA satellite put into place to monitor just such things in 1979. Recent study released that the guys estimating the Greenland Ice sheet should have WAY MORE ice than current maps show..................opps Captain GW himself spent like 5 or was it 15 million on a sea side retreat in CA, that when the ice melts in 2025 like he says will be under 30 feet of water, yeah if you knew that was going to happen would you buy that nice beach house????? Oh wait federal flood insurance right

Christ you can ramble like no other.

Terrible example in bold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/20/times-atlas-incorrect-greenland

That was an atlas, published by a HarperCollins (owned by rupert murdoch no less (no conspiracy theories here)), which exaggerated the extent of Greenland ice melting.

And it was corrected by climate scientists, who objected immediately that it was exaggerated. This is exactly how good science works.

[mrsleeve]

Ok tell me where I am wrong on that point the please. Maps say there was less Ice than there really is........................ That is what I said, right????

[joshh]

Christ you can ramble like no other.

Terrible example in bold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/20/times-atlas-incorrect-greenland

That was an atlas, published by a HarperCollins (owned by rupert murdoch no less (no conspiracy theories here)), which exaggerated the extent of Greenland ice melting.

And it was corrected by climate scientists, who objected immediately that it was exaggerated. This is exactly how good science works.

Good science....

They're already in fail mode as soon as they started convincing people it was a fact. THEORY! <that is good science.

[BraveUlysses]

Ok tell me where I am wrong on that point the please. Maps say there was less Ice than there really is........................ That is what I said, right????

None of the bolded statement above is correct. There was no "study."

[mrsleeve]

That was an atlas, published by a HarperCollins (owned by rupert murdoch no less (no conspiracy theories here)), which exaggerated the extent of Greenland ice melting.

your statement

exaggerate: to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth; overstate - Merriam/Webster

extent: 3c the amount of space or surface that something occupies or the distance over which it extends - Merriam/Webster

I said that thanks to the "study" there should be WAY MORE ice than the published maps showed. Your more wordy version says the same dam thing. You said the published maps "exaggerated the extent" of the melting AKA over stated the amount of melting.

STUDY: 2d (1) : a careful examination or analysis of a phenomenon, development, or question (2) : the published report of such a study - Merriam/Webster


Now dont you think to arrive at the conclusion that the published maps "exaggerated" the "extent" of melting they had to STUDY something ????? My apologies for my improper application of the English language to your statement. Or did you mean that since someone realized they fucked up so there was no offical "study" involved and there by makes the rest of my statement false even though you your self reiterated it ????




And again this is from your very own link

Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute, said he and fellow researchers had examined the atlas and found that "a sizeable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered". He added that there was "to our knowledge no support for [the 15% ice reduction] claim in the published scientific literature.

[herbivor]

Oh and really no the ice is not melting, there was more artic sea ice in 2008 (iirc) than in 1979, source NASA satellite put into place to monitor just such things in 1979. Recent study released that the guys estimating the Greenland Ice sheet should have WAY MORE ice than current maps show

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between antarctic and arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

Figure 1: Coverage of sea ice in both the Arctic (Top) and Antarctica (Bottom) for both summer minimums and winter maximums
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

and

ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain, glacial run-off and snowfall. This changes the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea ice (Zhang 2007).

All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Therefore, how is Antarctic Land-ice doing?

Figure 2: Estimates of Total Antarctic Land Ice Changes and approximate sea level contributions using many different measurement techniques. Adapted from The Copenhagen Diagnosis. (CH= Chen et al. 2006, WH= Wingham et al. 2006, R= Rignot et al. 2008b, CZ= Cazenave et al. 2009 and V=Velicogna 2009)

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

[mrsleeve]

^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

[gwb72tii]

but we digress

and the OP was for the benefit of herb mostly anyways as a question arose from previous debates about the purity of intent by the pro AGW camp. appears to be anything but pure, eh?

[herbivor]

^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...disproved.html

I like this comment from the article you sited:

"It is lovely that so many of you have opinions about global warming/climate change, but do you not find it rather worrying that you are framing your opinions on the writings of the likes of this old hack who repeatedly cites a retired weatherman as an expert on climate change?"

[herbivor]

An article from Time.

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:15:00 EST
Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?
BY BRYAN WALSH
Not too long ago, belief in climate science wasn't a political issue. Honestly! As recently as the 2008 U.S. presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates professed belief in the threat of global warming, and each advanced policies designed to curb U.S. carbon emissions. Senator John McCain had even co-sponsored one of the first congressional bills to create a carbon cap-and-trade system. And it wasn't just McCain; Mitt Romney, runner-up for the GOP nomination last time around, supported a regional cap-and-trade program while he was governor of Massachusetts. There was still a wide gap between Democrats and Republicans on the severity of the climate-change threat and on how ambitious carbon-cutting policy should be, but at least there was a general agreement that global warming was a real thing.
Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more.
That's deeply troubling. It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does. One of America's major political parties has, in effect, adopted denial as policy. How did we get here?
As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That's the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. "Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades," Dunlap and McCright write. "The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine."
For those who've followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there's not much new in Dunlap and McCright's chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable TV.
All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don't straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are "unsettled" and that "more research" is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change. That's made all the easier because whether you're quitting smoking or oil, the job is painful — and voters don't like pain.
"It's reasonable to conclude that climate-change-denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking," write Dunlap and McCright.
It's certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama's election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans "look like a joke," Clinton said from the stage of his foundation's annual meeting last month. "If you're an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial." That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore's recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.
Of course, the fact that the message is coming from two political figures who are — to say the least — highly associated with the Democratic Party is part of the problem. Over time, belief in climate science has become less about the science than about establishing a cultural identity — you're a denier or a believer depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, just like you're a Yankees or a Red Sox fan depending on whether you're from New York City or Boston. Of course, polarization is harmless in sports — and indeed, it can be essential to the fun. It's insanity as a basis for complex public policy.
So would it make a difference if the conservative denial machine were to collapse tomorrow? Sadly, I'm not sure. Even in places like Western Europe, where belief in climate science tends to be much stronger, it's hard to build support for the actual steps to reduce carbon emissions. Human beings have a hard time dealing not just with pain, but also with long-term problems, especially ones that don't necessarily show immediate effects. Whether it's planning for retirement or losing weight, we find it too easy to disregard very clear science — and disregard our long-term health — in order to satiate our immediate desires. There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.

[Farbin Kaiber]

TL;DR, could you break it down into "uneducated" terms, and ad breaks for those of us that cant read blobs of text.