Global Warming is over.

[Fusion]

The Frech (especially their Socialists) really liked the idea. I saw a great ecopropaganda film about it. Basically, anyone can become a "CC agent". This of course is funded from various sides. The agent in the movie travelled to places like Uganda (iirc) where he tought people ways to get rid of their excrements and those of their farm animals (usually a pair of goats) to cut down on methane. For this he recieved CCs. He then travelled to India (iirc) where a local tribe traditionally burns their dead in what we call a bon fire. He taught them not to do it because of the emissions. For this he recieved CCs.
With these virtually acquired CCs he then was then able to deal. He sold them to some carbon emitter for a huge amount of money.

They also talked about a big-oil Texan who bought a large part of the Amazon, which is counter-CO2 in this sense, and sold carbon credits to emitters.
How someone can buy a part of nature and monetize its sheer existance is beyond me.

[herbivor]

Besides the bullshit, propaganda, data clusterfuck, corrupt legislation, corrupt subsidizing, money spent for questionable studies, ponzi schemes, etc., WHAT is being done to effectively solve anything?

That is the fundamental problem. If the science community who interpret the data cannot convince the politicians who make the laws, no laws get passed. So it becomes up to the free market or individual initiative to change. Unfortunately an unregulated free market is designed for consumption, which is the opposite for the solution that scientists are proposing. The idea of reducing consumption of any kind is so offensive to the free market and industry is it really any surprise a propaganda campaign has been created to discredit the science? What's surprising to me is the number of people that have blindly fallen for it despite everything that is happening around us. Even if you were never told about climate change, you have to be blind or disconnected with nature to not see that things have been changing pretty significantly around us.

[Fusion]

There is no status-quo in nature. Things change, develop, die, mutate.

[gwb72tii]

Q5

the reason i point out mann is that his research has been shown, proven, to be inaccurate, biased, intentionally fraudulent.
you like data. i do too. mann only likes it when it agrees with his hypotheses. and he ignores it when it doesn't.
i'm not going to get into it further other to say anyone with an open mind (herb?) can find numerous studies about mann's hockey stick that show it's bogus.
mann is a proxy for the entire AGW religion. he's the tip of the spear.

[nando]

The Frech (especially their Socialists) really liked the idea. I saw a great ecopropaganda film about it. Basically, anyone can become a "CC agent". This of course is funded from various sides. The agent in the movie travelled to places like Uganda (iirc) where he tought people ways to get rid of their excrements and those of their farm animals (usually a pair of goats) to cut down on methane. For this he recieved CCs. He then travelled to India (iirc) where a local tribe traditionally burns their dead in what we call a bon fire. He taught them not to do it because of the emissions. For this he recieved CCs.
With these virtually acquired CCs he then was then able to deal. He sold them to some carbon emitter for a huge amount of money.

They also talked about a big-oil Texan who bought a large part of the Amazon, which is counter-CO2 in this sense, and sold carbon credits to emitters.
How someone can buy a part of nature and monetize its sheer existance is beyond me.

yeah, I don't think that was part of the original idea. basically we know how much carbon is emitted. so that's how you would decide how many credits to "print". if you wanted to keep the same amount of carbon emissions, you'd print an equal amount of credits to "demand". if you wanted to reduce emissions, you would print less credits than "demand".

Over time you could reduce emissions without causing too much short term pain (like simply outlawing them at a specific date would) and let market efficiencies go to work (by providing market incentive and rewarding efficiency). It should be very effective, but having people create their own credits is like letting people print their own money. without scarcity there's no point, the price becomes very cheap like it is now and it doesn't work.

[herbivor]

Q5

the reason i point out mann is that his research has been shown, proven, to be inaccurate, biased, intentionally fraudulent.
you like data. i do too. mann only likes it when it agrees with his hypotheses. and he ignores it when it doesn't.
i'm not going to get into it further other to say anyone with an open mind (herb?) can find numerous studies about mann's hockey stick that show it's bogus.
mann is a proxy for the entire AGW religion. he's the tip of the spear.

You won't go into it further because you can't. You got no credible source that will go into details of Mann's analysis. I would love to see the "proof" you speak of. All you have and cling to is conspiracy theories. Even IF Mann's analysis was proven to be completely fraudulent (which it hasn't been), that would still not explain the hundreds of other independent studies that confirms essentially the same thing. You also never answered my other questions, like the study that confirmed Mann's results. Still waiting, or do you just plan to ignore me because the science is over your head?

[Fusion]

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

especially

A common failing of scientists, particularly those engaged in research which may have impacts upon the public, is to reject any input from the public in the conduct of their work. The peer review process provides an effective barrier to public scrutiny of a science, as is the tendency to regard the public as people to `be educated' instead of being learned from. The resulting intellectual arrogance has the effect of making scientists into a sort of medieval priesthood, keepers of secret and exclusive knowledge, and to be kept away from prying public eyes. Such an attitude, common with many scientists, is unpardonable given that most research is paid for by public money. This however, does not prevent such scientists from adopting a proprietorial view of their research results.

[z31maniac]

^There really is absolutely no hope for some you.

[gwb72tii]

herb, was there or was there not a medieval warm period?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

[herbivor]

herb, was there or was there not a medieval warm period?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf

I can answer your question in detail. But first answer mine. Still waiting.

[gwb72tii]

well herb i believe the above links (hint-click on one and then read the text that magically appears) answer your question

[herbivor]

well herb i believe the above links (hint-click on one and then read the text that magically appears) answer your question

I read the first 3 and noticed the same regurgitation of false information. The fourth is a bit longer and will take me some time, but I will read it. None of the the first 3 links really address my specific questions listed below. I'll read the 4th tonight but I doubt it does either. If you can actually answer any of the questions below, feel free to quote the specific part of the article instead of making me read 5 pages of propaganda to find it.

Would you care to comment on the other scientists and their data that has produced similar results as Mann's 1998 analysis? What is your opinion of the Wahl-Ammann 2007 study as compared to the 2004 McIntyre critique? What is your opinion of the different statistical techniques used in each study? What are your opinion of the climate analysis when you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites? Have you analyzed those results with the same conclusion you have of Mann's analysis. What are your opinions of the NOAA's Paleoclimatological evidence in recent years, and the fact that they produce similar results without the bristlecone pine data included in Mann's study? Please do tell us specifically how those studies are statistical anomalies as well. And don't worry, you can be as detailed as possible with your calculations to show me the flaws in the statistical techniques used, I'm intelligent enough to understand them.

[gwb72tii]

so let me understand herb, you do independent research, data mining, extrapolate your own unique mathematical models, algorithms etc. correct?

oh, was there a medieval warm period?

[cale]

herb, was there or was there not a medieval warm period?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

^
Do any of your continual hockey sticks take into account the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?

I fucking lol'd at this. Just a few posts up is a link which deals specifically with those two events, explaining the flaws in arguing with them as ammo. It's like skeptics all share the same brain and are incapable of original thought, simply repeat the arguments you hear/read through your conservative media outlets. Then again you're all basing your arguments off of a few sole climatologists so that shouldn't be too surprising.

More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick

It's like skeptics all share the same brain and are incapable of original thought, simply repeat the arguments you hear/read through your conservative media outlets.

It's like skeptics all share the same brain and are incapable of original thought

It's like skeptics all share the same brain

SAME BRAIN

[gwb72tii]

did you even look at the world graph of medievel temps before posting cale?
local as in worldwide? and you cite mann as the sorce of the rebuttal?
yup, just a group of loonies, 752 from 41 countries all fucking conspiring to get a piece of that $23 million from exxon

your side has lost all credibility, and it's not because of exxon. its self inflicted.