Deny Reality while surrounded by it

[callmeslick]

to the original news item, it not seems that the rescue ship is stuck in the ice.

[woodchip]

Sorry vision but China is the largest polluter. Funny how after all this debate, scientists are now predicting a 20 year cooling cycle. I suggest you look at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) to see how the oceans affect warming and cooling of the planet. I would then suggest you look at sunspot activity. 2013 was supposed to be at a maximum for activity yet it was the weakest in a hundred years. So what do we see for 2013?:

1) A reading of 135.8 degrees below zero was measured in Antarctica, using remote sensing from satellites. Based on remote satellite measurements, scientists recently recorded that temperature at a desolate ice plateau in East Antarctica. It was the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth

2) Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: 2013 North Pole Seeing “Coldest Summer Ever Recorded By DMI” .This is the coldest summer ever recorded by the Danish Meteorological Institute; they started looking back at this in the 1950s. At the North Pole there’s only one or two days that actually reached normal

So record low temps at the poles when the earth is warming up. I know, the cold is an effect from global warming yet the pretty boys used to point to the warming of the poles as a indicator of warming. It just gets so confusing.

[callmeslick]

'global warming' is a serious over-simplification of man-induced climate change. I'll leave it at that.

(mainly because I'm typing whilst warming up from the process of removing 6 inches of global warming from my driveway, so I can go settle on my old house in PA. Nice timing!)

[Will Robinson]

Vision, you seem to have left some stuff out.

Yes one option is to produce carbon sinks to offset emissions.

But at the time the treaty was authored (and probably still) the carbon sink provision was full of holes. Commercial forestry, for example wasn't considered for a credit when they plant but the harvesting was going to be counted against us as an increase in 'source' of carbon emission!

Concluding Remarks
The Kyoto Protocol has provided a vehicle for considering the effects of carbon sinks and sources, as well as addressing issues related to fossil fuels emissions. However, the approach of the Kyoto Protocol clearly is not comprehensive in its treatment of sinks, being inherently restrictive in its focus. The Protocol deals only with a small subset of the total carbon fluxes that are generated by selected sinks and sources, limiting its attention to human-induced carbon fluxes dealing with afforesta- tion, reforestation and deforestation undertaken after 1990. Additionally, the approach is further limited by its focus on changes in carbon stocks only in the commitment period of 2008-2012. Thus, the Protocol ignores carbon changes during some periods and from some sources, many human-induced. For example, management and many human-induced actions will generate far more carbon sequestration than credit received. The Protocol also leaves unaddressed issue of measurement and monitoring. However, the Protocol does have provisions (Article 3.4), for making desired changes through time.
When the on-the-ground logistics of carbon sequestration projects are considered, several issues are still in need of clarification. Project details such as establishing baselines and controlling for leakage, and the institutions that will support project verification are currently being debated. However, carbon sequestration through forest activity has considerable potential to generate low-cost sequestration alterna- tives, especially in certain developing countries. Nonetheless, care must be taken to recognize the true opportunity costs of alternative land uses and to identify that, in many cases, social values other than carbon sequestration are also involved, and trade-offs are necessary.

from here...not am radio...

There is one section that you left out, interestingly enough, and it wasn't unclear at all. It is wide open and it seems it is the door we were being herded toward...

clean development mechanism – promotes environmentally-friendly foreign investments from industrialized countries into developing countries. The developing countries are thus aided at achieving sustainable development."

Let's repeat that last part. " The developing countries are thus aided at achieving sustainable development."
No mention of reducing emissions etc. just plain straight up honesty. Economic transfer for the sake of economic equality.

This is where we were going to 'offset' our emissions because you can just buy your forgiveness per tonne of emission! No doubt by design of the authors.
It's like suing a big company...they find it cheaper to just settle than fight the suit. Payoff the settlement and include it in the expense of doing business.

India and a China not bound by any goals in the treaty?!?
The US bound to goals that could only be met if we reduce productivity because there is no available 'filter mechanism' that could be put in place on our productivity to meet the goals.
The only viable option was to pay developing countries...countries that aren't even restricted by the protocols.

Meanwhile John Kerry is bragging:

"The United States of America today is below Kyoto levels in emissions. People don’t know that."

Well he is of course full of his usual crap. We are, however, below the emission levels of CO2 from 1997 when Kyoto was brought forth.

So are we making solid corrections to our emission output in spite of not signing? Or is it because the economy tanked anyway and our productivity dropped accordingly?

Either way at least we avoided paying the extortion money.
And we are reducing emissions with a powerful EPA that, at least, doesn't have as its goal a constant flow of wealth/productivity to other nations who are exempt from the Kyoto protocols!

We still can make a few a Widgets here, keep a few Widget making jobs here, instead of letting them all go to other countries who are allowed to make Widgets for us without having to follow EPA type regulations and on top of that, as if the jobs aren't enough, have to also pay them to develop their economy! A development they do with no restraints on emissions!

If we want to subsidize a country let us do that directly on our own terms not at the whim of the UN who can't see the forest for the commercially harvested trees.....

[vision]

Sorry vision but China is the largest polluter.

Not at the time Kyoto was written. Also, you are making a lot of claims without sources, as usual. Not that you know what you are talking about anyway.

Commercial forestry, for example wasn't considered for a credit when they plant but the harvesting was going to be counted against us as an increase in 'source' of carbon emission!

Why in the world would commercial forestry be considered a credit? Think about it. There is no net gain is forest cover. You create forest just to cut it down with emission emitting machines. You don't see that?

clean development mechanism – promotes environmentally-friendly foreign investments from industrialized countries into developing countries. The developing countries are thus aided at achieving sustainable development."

Will, we are already investing in foreign countries. We want them to grow and be sustainable because it benefits us. Kyoto promotes doing so in an environmentally friendly way. This is so obvious I can't believe I'm explaining it to a grown man.

The only viable option was to pay developing countries...countries that aren't even restricted by the protocols.

I can see you still have it in your head we are just going to give money willy-nilly to other countries. Any changes would be on the carbon market and related to climate change. Imagine if the money we already send to China and India helped them become greener? What a radical idea!

Again, you are spoiled by these naive notions that Kyoto is some sort of welfare program created by the big, bad UN (which is totally under our thumb, btw). Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll have to look for the source, but I seem to remember an estimate that the total extra cash needed to support global carbon trading for the duration of the treaty would amount to around $40 billion. Jesus, we give away more than that every year to countries that want to kill us. We could have supported the entire balance for Kyoto and had a cleaner Earth instead.

[Spidey]

'global warming' is a serious over-simplification of man-induced climate change. I'll leave it at that.

Yes, and “climate change” is a deliberately vague term.

[woodchip]

And man made warming has caused 16 people so far to die from the extreme cold. Warming is causing more recorded coldest temps across the USA and Canada. Tell me some more fairy tales.

[vision]

ITT: woodchip proves he never bothered to learn science.

[Top Gun]

If I took a shot every time someone explained "average global temperatures" to woody and it didn't take, I'd have died from alcohol poisoning years ago.

[woodchip]

So parts of the world warms up around the equator and we have a Ice Age....sounds comforting for us in the US.

[woodchip]

ITT: woodchip proves he never bothered to learn science.

My degree is in Zoology with a minor in Geology. Yours is? But lets keep this simple. First off the percent of CO2 in atmosphere is .039%. While man made carbon emissions have increased what you knuckleheads seem to over look is the study by the Bristol University that:

"New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now."

"The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero."

"Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two."

http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

So go ahead and tell me more about how scientific you are when you can't even look up research on the topic.

[vision]

So go ahead and tell me more about how scientific you are when you can't even look up research on the topic.

Here is a tip little man, when you want to talk about scientific research don't link to articles talking about the study, link to the actual study. Had you read the paper instead of reading about it you might notice there are a lot of uncertainties in it. One thing that is questionable is why they chose to start at 1850 when the only available data is from the late 1950's until 2005. They extrapolated 100 years of data using statistical tools. Why not extrapolate 1000 years for comparison? Why not 10,000? (Presumably they chose 1850 as the start of the industrial revolution.)

Ok great, we have one paper out of thousands that says the CO2 AF is the same, but then we have papers that say the opposite. Studies like this don't make headlines because this is pretty much what they all say. The large number of papers that say CO2 is increasing is not the ad populum fallacy because in science, as you surely know, the more times you get the same result the more confidence you have in your model.

Of course, even if CO2 didn't increase warming there is still a good reason to stop it. Excess carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases reduce air quality. We all need air woodchip, clean air. Have you seen China lately? No? Well neither have the Chinese because of all the smog. Poor air quality will probably kill us sooner than drought, flood, or famine.

But you know, it got cold this week so decades of research are meaningless.

[woodchip]

And there are loads of uncertainty's with the climate models also.

[woodchip]

East Angelica U...isn't that the place where they actively suppressed counter climate warming research? Way to go.

[vision]

All of that "climatgate" stuff has been debunked long ago. The numbers that prove global warming literally span thousands of papers by thousands of scientists across dozens of countries.

Try again chippy. You seem really interested in doing everything you can to "deny reality while surrounded by it."

[Will Robinson]

[... Have you seen China lately? No? Well neither have the Chinese because of all the smog. Poor air quality will probably kill us sooner than drought, flood, or famine.

....

Yea China, one of the countries exempt from Kyoto. Go figure....

[vision]

Yea China, one of the countries exempt from Kyoto. Go figure....

China isn't exempt at all. They ratified the treaty and are even entering phase two. But I know you take exception to the fact they have non-binding targets.

Just to reiterate, when the protocol was written The United States was far and above the largest emitter of green house gases. But it is not just raw emissions that determine a countries responsibility to cutting them. There are distinctions between emissions by necessity (food production, shelter, etc.) and emissions for luxury (cars and such). [1] China was and is still a developing country with as many as 130 million people in deep poverty (some estimate 300 million in poverty). [2] Remember, China is the same size as the US with over four times the population. And as I said earlier, China works for us. They pollute for us. If their emissions targets were binding then it would not only collapse their economy, but ours too. Still, more needs to be done about their emissions and we need everyone's cooperation to tackle the problem.

[woodchip]

All of that "climatgate" stuff has been debunked long ago. The numbers that prove global warming literally span thousands of papers by thousands of scientists across dozens of countries.

Try again chippy. You seem really interested in doing everything you can to "deny reality while surrounded by it."

Debunked? Seems you're pretty good at doing what you accuse me of....not linking anything to prove your point. And just where do you think the grant money is easiest to get? If you are researching anti-human caused warming or the opposite?

[callmeslick]

If I took a shot every time someone explained "average global temperatures" to woody and it didn't take, I'd have died from alcohol poisoning years ago.

but, it would be a fun game while it lasted....

[CobGobbler]

You're full of it woodchip. No chance in hell you have a degree in anything science related with the complete lack of mental capacity that you exhibit about the very same subject.

[woodchip]

You're full of it woodchip. No chance in hell you have a degree in anything science related with the complete lack of mental capacity that you exhibit about the very same subject.

I'm waiting to see you give a response beyond the spoon fed rhetoric Algore shoved into your pie hole. Can't competently argue science so you do the old Alinsky fall back.

[woodchip]

If I took a shot every time someone explained "average global temperatures" to woody and it didn't take, I'd have died from alcohol poisoning years ago.

Too bad you don't understand the difference between man made warming and naturally occurring warming. Perhaps if you took the time to stop pickling your brain you could comprehend.

[vision]

Debunked? Seems you're pretty good at doing what you accuse me of....not linking anything to prove your point.

sigh...

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests."

Of course now you are going to say 8 separate committees are all in on the plot...

And just where do you think the grant money is easiest to get? If you are researching anti-human caused warming or the opposite?

There is plenty of money for both sides of the argument. It is a big deal. In fact, there is probably more money available to those who want to prove global warming is false because it is significantly cheaper to do nothing than to work toward a solution (and doesn't put any pressure on oil companies and their multi-billion dollar profits). Then again you already know this because, as a degree holder in Zoology, you have the keen critical-thinking skills of a top-notch scientist.

[Top Gun]

If I took a shot every time someone explained "average global temperatures" to woody and it didn't take, I'd have died from alcohol poisoning years ago.

Too bad you don't understand the difference between man made warming and naturally occurring warming. Perhaps if you took the time to stop pickling your brain you could comprehend.

I completely understand the difference, and the fact that you've chosen to ignore such basic evidence is pathetic.

[CobGobbler]

I have contributed nothing to this post other than to say that you're full of ★■◆● about the college science degree. In the decade I've seen you on here you've never come close to posting anything even remotely competent in the science fields. Just saying bro. It's not limited to this thread.

Wait, did you get a degree from Bob Jones Uni or something? Now THAT would make sense. Those crazies are right up the street from me and I could see you having that and thinking what you do.

[callmeslick]

it's the Internet......he's making it up, Cob. Standard practice.

[woodchip]

I have contributed nothing to this post other than to say that you're full of ★■◆● about the college science degree. In the decade I've seen you on here you've never come close to posting anything even remotely competent in the science fields. Just saying bro. It's not limited to this thread.

Wait, did you get a degree from Bob Jones Uni or something? Now THAT would make sense. Those crazies are right up the street from me and I could see you having that and thinking what you do.

Aww Cob, you're jealous because you work in a cubicle and couldn't hack going to college.

[woodchip]

it's the Internet......he's making it up, Cob. Standard practice.

Just like you make up stories about all the rich people you know and the politicians offices you can walk into when ever you want because you're a big time donor. No one really believes that other than your familiars like Ferno.

[callmeslick]

it's the Internet......he's making it up, Cob. Standard practice.

Just like you make up stories about all the rich people you know and the politicians offices you can walk into when ever you want because you're a big time donor. No one really believes that other than your familiars like Ferno.

actually, I don't give a rat's ass what you believe. My comment was a joke, meant to illustrate that we are ALL going on trust. Please,as suggested elsewhere, get help or get different meds.

[woodchip]

it's the Internet......he's making it up, Cob. Standard practice.

Just like you make up stories about all the rich people you know and the politicians offices you can walk into when ever you want because you're a big time donor. No one really believes that other than your familiars like Ferno.

actually, I don't give a rat's ass what you believe. My comment was a joke, meant to illustrate that we are ALL going on trust. Please,as suggested elsewhere, get help or get different meds.

Funny, I didn't see a smiley or a winky. Guess I have to start reading your mind next.

[callmeslick]

start with reading English for comprehension and work up to context, subtlety and inferences later.

[woodchip]

start with reading English for comprehension and work up to context, subtlety and inferences later.

At least now you are using a emoticon. Perhaps you should of learned how to inject humor in a sentence in college. If you had literary classes or even read books you would know how to express your self. If you want help just let me know.

[callmeslick]

Well, I tested out of College English classes based on test scores out of prep school Nice try. Where I went to school, no one needed nor suggested the use of 'emoticons' to confer and infer humor, sarcasm, irony or the like.

[woodchip]

Yet you failed here. Try re-writing your suspect post and see if you can enter humor into it that we will understand it as such.

[Jeff250]

You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.