ding dong, the stick is dead

[joeblast]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

OK so what are you trying to say?

Edited September 30, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[joeblast]

lol...with such a preponderance of alarmist climate reports having referenced it, and finally over ten years later the data from the original report is recovered (since of course the author wouldnt share his data or method) - it kinda puts a wet blanket over everything that's relied upon it. no wonder gore wouldnt debate anyone face to face

[Smile]

Al Gore can't debate any real scientist because all his data can't be proven to cause climate change. It's like saying subway trains are running in NYC because I'm taking them to work every morning. It's all about making $ selling carbon credits etc. Al Gore and his buddies are well invested in this scam.

[joeblast]

hehe, or, justifying legislation that is going to punish the hell out of anyone that uses electricity or emits CO2 in the country...all to help pay for a huge laundry list

 

Amazing the birdsnest of crap that had to be dug up, turned over, detangled for this farce to be put squarely in the realm of biased fiction, presented and well overused as fact. Mann & Brifa purposefully did not archive data so that the results could not be questioned; props to the Royal Society for sticking to their data archive standard in making this data available. And props to McIntyre for going to such great lengths in searching out the dead rat smell

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...-implosion.html

[Smile]

Nice info.

The problem here is if they repeat it enough times in the media, it will become the truth. They don't dare to ban regular light bulbs in America yet but it may come soon enough after they kill enough people with their "swine" flu vaccines.

 

Here are some amusing recent articles on the subject:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gore_fi...omo_code=8A95-1

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=15356

http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos76.htm

[joeblast]

on the bright side, it seems like LED technology is making some good advances, with any luck they'll supplant those compact fluorescent mercury jobs they've been pushing

 

I found it funny that Obama went to the UN discussing another homemade hockey stick graph, which was total and complete BS make from wiki data

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Oh Yeah? Well, I beg to differ....

 

 

 

 

Eat hockey stick, suckas!!!!!

 

 

 

 

O5YjPteCPLo

[Smile]

[joeblast]

Yeah, UK's met office needs to be dissolved immediately, fire the lot of them...

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I just read this article:

Warming's Impacts Worsened Since Kyoto

 

Now, without getting super-technical and showing sophisticated graphs and computer climate models, please answer, JoeBlast and Smile, whether the things talked about are actually happening, like:

 

Are or are not the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melting, losing "trillions of tons" of ice? Should be easy to say yea or nay.

 

Mountain glaciers shrinking faster than ever before in every continent of the world?

 

Have the world's oceans actually risen an inch and a half, or is it a hoax? Should be easy to check this...

 

Temps over the past 12 years .4 degrees warmer than the previous 12?

 

Is permafrost rapidly thawing or not?

 

 

Or is that wiley snake, Al Gore now rolling in the millions of dollars with his cronies from carbon credits, hehehhe.

Or not?

 

How are we to make sense of this information, given that you guys are convinced the whole thing is a phony conspiracy? Am I to believe that none of this is happening??

 

Enlighten me, please

Edited November 22, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[90_1494798740]

That might be interesting: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[joeblast]

most of the hubbub about antarctica is actually regarding the peninsula, which by climactic considerations should be considered an entirely separate climate zone - its a very easy way to skew data on antarctica as a whole. I'm not sure if I posted here about a lot of the ice breaking off - its been due to waves and wind shear, like that immense block that's floating around just south of new zealand right now. big difference between that and ice melting! (checked these articles and they're saying Antarctica has increased its ice overall, its the arctic they are talking about, which typically loses most of its ice each year anyway...I can dig up a YT of ice the last 15, 20 years stop motion if you're interested.)

 

 

part of the issue here is the fallacious weight given to CO2 in targeted area for "change." its not the demon its made out to be. this article you posted up is more hysteria drummed up to try and give more weight to whatever meaninglessness may come out of Copenhagen.

 

of some significance is the AGW "scientist" that had his shit hacked and exposed to the public - a ton of blatant dishonesties in there and I'm glad they got caught red handed raping science as they have been. part of what they're trying to do is control information and consequently climate record, kinda like they did in trying to depress the medieval warm period right out of their calculations so that current warming would give the impression of a higher absolute value. of more significance is that the planet tends to have warm periods in between cooler glacial periods. with respect to glaciers, some recede and some advance - but glaciation is a rather laggy indicator - for instance when I was in alaska last year, one of the datapoints they tossed out at the Mendenhall was that it take roughly 250 years for precipitation to have fallen on the ice field above, get compacted down into glacier ice, and subsequently flow down the mountain and reach the terminal moraine.

 

I've heard nothing about the oceans rising that much - but considering that the oceans rise and fall several feet a couple times every single day, it does leave a door open for interpretation.

 

temps over the previous twelve? why such an arbitrary number, especially in light of our solar cycle peaking 5 years ago? that's part of the issue here - people that want to present data in a certain way can arbitrarily decide the scope of their data (its their research after all) and can adjust accordingly to make it say this or that, hence the lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

regarding Gore...still funny that he absolutely refuses to debate anyone on the matter, laughing all the way to the bank....but note that in 2007 the average trading price of a carbon credit was ...was it $20, or was it $7? but now...less than 25 cents... perhaps the market knows something?

Edited November 23, 2009 by joeblast

[joeblast]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

tragic but mildly amusing, the field day people are having with 'climategate'...

 

(just about) the full compendium of news articles on it:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

 

JoeBlast, I'm glad you're so gleeful. I hope you're right. You sure haven't come close to explaining in simple terms how a closed system (the Earth) with an population thats exponentially increasing and using vast resources, is not suffering from fouling itself in its own waste. Explain to me again how it works, in simple terms, that there is no penalty for the Earth being crowded and used up? Use cartoons, diagrams, puppets, teabags, blow-up dolls or whatever else you have lying around your computer, please, to ease my mind...I'm beginning to think you're just an idealogue...say it ain't so, Joe!

Edited November 30, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[joeblast]

you're not only putting words in my mouth and emotions attached to them, you're also asking me to craft a population line exponentially into the future for the fruit family as a whole, in response to a comment about granny smiths. is this somehow not relevant information?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

you're not only putting words in my mouth and emotions attached to them, you're also asking me to craft a population line exponentially into the future for the fruit family as a whole, in response to a comment about granny smiths. is this somehow not relevant information?

 

 

What words have I put in thy mouth, Joe Blast?

"hahaha.... summed up by this clip someone posted in the comments:"

? Is there not some glee in the thread title you started, "ding dong the stick is dead" and then the cheesy hockey stick video further up this page (I quote: "hahaha...")?? Or am I misreading your intention here, Joe? Can I not respond to what you put out here? Maybe you should be more clear in your posting? What then was your intent with this thread...was it 'delight' then, that the environmentalists were "proved" wrong by your citations? Help me out here, Joey...you're melting... Edited December 1, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Owledge]

[joeblast]

The biggest issue with predicting future events is you have no idea what technological achievements will come along to either alleviate issues or outright make something entirely a non-issue.

 

As in, we didnt have a problem with horse shit once the manufacture of cars became prevalent. Before the advent of the internal combustion engine, disposing of horse shit was part and parcel of the transportation industry. We're not bacteria in a closed petri dish that will multiply exponentially until all of the food's gone and we're drowning in our own shit with zip we can do about it, ffs. Its why you need a free market, just like nature - a niche appears, it is utilized. A gap appears, it is filled. If you think humans are more than but a few steps along the path of technological achievements, you need your eyes checked. Sure we're going to mess some stuff up along the way, but there will always be progress provided the planet isnt nuked to hell. This anti human drivel is particularly annoying, as are the straw man arguments.

Edited December 3, 2009 by joeblast

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

The biggest issue with predicting future events is you have no idea what technological achievements will come along to either alleviate issues or outright make something entirely a non-issue.

 

As in, we didnt have a problem with horse shit once the manufacture of cars became prevalent. Before the advent of the internal combustion engine, disposing of horse shit was part and parcel of the transportation industry. We're not bacteria in a closed petri dish that will multiply exponentially until all of the food's gone and we're drowning in our own shit with zip we can do about it, ffs. Its why you need a free market, just like nature - a niche appears, it is utilized. A gap appears, it is filled. If you think humans are more than but a few steps along the path of technological achievements, you need your eyes checked. Sure we're going to mess some stuff up along the way, but there will always be progress provided the planet isnt nuked to hell. This anti human drivel is particularly annoying, as are the straw man arguments.

 

 

Wishful thinking, Joe. Sounds like DARWINISM to me. So, humans may not survive or will take an enormous hit, the planet will sort it all out for us. If we exceed the carrying capacity of the planet (assuming there is such a thing), then at some point as we approach carrying capacity, addition of a certain statistically significant number of the individuals tip the equilibrium beyond the carrying capacity and there is massive die-out as the "fishbowl" becomes polluted. Human population at this point follows a J-curve (exponential growth), although it may at some point it may shift to logistic (sigmoid) curve, which would mean humans curb population growth by intention, or attrition (die-off) if the carrying capacity of the earth has been attained.

 

Here's a visual demonstration/proof of this:

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[joeblast]

You either dont read well, or dont understand well. Good day.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

You never made your point clearly, Mr Blastula. Good Day, Sir!!!

[Owledge]

...If we exceed the carrying capacity of the planet (assuming there is such a thing), then at some point as we approach carrying capacity, addition of a certain statistically significant number of the individuals tip the equilibrium beyond the carrying capacity and there is massive die-out as the "fishbowl" becomes polluted. Human population at this point follows a J-curve (exponential growth), although it may at some point it may shift to logistic (sigmoid) curve, which would mean humans curb population growth by intention, or attrition (die-off) if the carrying capacity of the earth has been attained.

...

Let me rephrase: A capacity of a planet to sustain lifeforms depends on many factors, and a very crucial one is technology. The technlogy "agriculture" for example increases it. You can also split those technological factors into sustainable and non-sustainable.

About the die-off that you speak of: According to my line of reasoning this is already happening, in fact it's happening all the time, probably to various degrees. Dominant, powerful factions are constantly working on decreasing the support capacity of the planet. (That's the means by which they manage to decrease the population size itself.) Maybe some of them really just believe it's a problem of sustainability, but many of them apparently follow the same line of thought as people who own a sportscar and wish the roads were cleared of all the slow traffic.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

back on topic...its not just emails:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/clim...e-smoking-code/

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-de...ong/#more-13710

Edited December 4, 2009 by joeblast

[Owledge]

It tells a lot that it takes illegal hacking to really get things done.

But... even JFK told people what big of a problem secrecy is in a society.