Banks getting their comeuppance...

Coal companies next???

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/busin ... l?hpw&_r=0

johnbrandt wrote:

Another quick question...has anyone ever honestly explained why it was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"...? Could it be because the world hasn't warmed in the last 14 years...? Gotta call it something trendy to keep sucking the pockets of the populace and industry dry with new taxes and keep them in fear so they will just take whatever restrictions they are asked to contribute.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN HAS ANYONE EVER HONESTLY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. I HAVE AT LEAST 3 FUCKING TIMES AS POINTED OUT 2 DAYS AGO. Stop repeating this absolute fucking bullshit.

Furthermore, the entire premise of your new sea level rise rant is complete made up nonsense.

If you feel so strongly about this. Go and get a physics degree and start publishing on the subject. Repeating lies on an internet forum gets you no where.

Lets see if JB can crack double figures ignoring challenges to his bullshit "climate change/global warming" claim by the end of the year. Well ones we can find anyway, I'm sure there are double this many hidden away somewhere:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... ?#p1380045
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1108412
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1108421
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p1558705


It's an interesting game that John plays. He makes a massive claim, ignores ALL, I repeat, ALL responses. And in the next thread makes the same claim as if it is unchallenged.

We should play a game of bingo, which unsupported assertion will JB make next?

So close to filling the first column!

It is inevitable that as it becomes ever more obvious that climate change really is happening, those remaining in the denialist camp will, on average, be ever more bonkers and extreme. And this in itself will continually erode away at those who are close to acceptance of the reality. Eventually it will just be the likes of Lord Monckton and JB, still furiously protesting.

Unfortunately it is already too late to stop major, catastrophic climate change, unless we resort to geo-engineering methods in a desperate attempt to avoid the worst case scenario.

Unfortunately it is already too late to stop major, catastrophic climate change, unless we resort to geo-engineering methods in a desperate attempt to avoid the worst case scenario.

Politically, I definitely agree with you. However, from a purely scientific point of view, and utilising a mobilisation akin to that of WWII, we could definitely avert the worst of the disaster.

Will it happen? Hell no. But the possibility is there.

I have a Prius, I buy Green energy, I shop local wherever possible. Fuck I'm an optimist

It's not going to happen. The human race is heading for a long period of painful adjustment, as out-of-control population/consumption levels runs into the physical limits to growth (the others, rather than climate change directly.) And in a situation where most people are getting poorer, the probability of the human race all pulling together to make the sacrifices required to avoid the catastrophe is precisely nil.

You can sum it up in one sentence: if we could not sort out the global problems during the "good times" on the upslope before "peak everything", then we certainly aren't going to sort them out during the hard times on the downslope.

Owning a Prius and buying green energy, shopping local and using your bike may make you feel better, may be good for your soul...but it isn't going to stop the eco-catastrophe. So the "possibility" you are talking about is an entirely academic possibility. It is logically and physically possible but biologically impossible. The human race is simply not capable of behavioural change and cultural evolution at the sort of rate that would be required to avoid a major die-off in the forseeable future. The Carnival is Over.

UndercoverElephant wrote: The Carnival is Over.

Isn't there anything we can do? Always thought you're supposed to lie down, put a paper bag over your head or something?

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote: The Carnival is Over.

Isn't there anything we can do? Always thought you're supposed to lie down, put a paper bag over your head or something?

There's plenty we could do, there's just no sign we're actually going to. We've known about climate change for 20 years now, and greenhouse emissions are still rising.

If you think Monckton is a swivel eyed loon you should meet Godfrey Bloom my member of the EU parliament.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk[/youtube]

Bloom is always writing letters to my local press about climate change as a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament. He always pulls facts out of his arse which I in my small way try and debunk. For example this is my last letter that was published.

Godfrey Bloom states, without blushing, that “as a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament, it is my job to assess the facts on the climate in the interests of my Yorkshire and Lincolnshire constituents” (Letters, July 5).

I must say that if he is a member of the environment committee in the EU the question must be asked, what scientific qualifications do you need to be a member of that committee, Godfrey?

Mr Bloom also used the names of so-called “independent academics” to reinforce his argument. For example, Professor Ian Plimer wrote a book called Heaven And Earth.

Kurt Lambert, professor of earth science and president of the Australian Academy of science, concluded: “Heaven And Earth is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist...” He went on to say: “If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material, but the critical analysis is missing.

“Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved.”

Maybe Godfrey Bloom should spend a few hours talking to the scientists at the University of York instead of posting rubbish in the York Press.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Owning a Prius and buying green energy, shopping local and using your bike may make you feel better, may be good for your soul...but it isn't going to stop the eco-catastrophe.

You are entirely correct. However, owning a SUV, importing goods, refusing to use green technology and tossing the bike in the trash will certainly make things worse.

We in the First World have the ability to make individual changes to reduce our per capita ecological footprint that poorer people do not have. We can and should make those changes ourselves.

So the "possibility" you are talking about is an entirely academic possibility. It is logically and physically possible but biologically impossible. The human race is simply not capable of behavioural change and cultural evolution at the sort of rate that would be required to avoid a major die-off in the forseeable future. The Carnival is Over.

Sadly, you're probably correct.

pensioner wrote:If you think Monckton is a swivel eyed loon you should meet Godfrey Bloom my member of the EU parliament.

(video snipped)

Bloom is always writing letters to my local press about climate change as a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament. He always pulls facts out of his arse which I in my small way try and debunk. For example this is my last letter that was published.

Godfrey Bloom states, without blushing, that “as a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament, it is my job to assess the facts on the climate in the interests of my Yorkshire and Lincolnshire constituents” (Letters, July 5).

I must say that if he is a member of the environment committee in the EU the question must be asked, what scientific qualifications do you need to be a member of that committee, Godfrey?

Mr Bloom also used the names of so-called “independent academics” to reinforce his argument. For example, Professor Ian Plimer wrote a book called Heaven And Earth.

Kurt Lambert, professor of earth science and president of the Australian Academy of science, concluded: “Heaven And Earth is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist...” He went on to say: “If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material, but the critical analysis is missing.

“Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved.”

Maybe Godfrey Bloom should spend a few hours talking to the scientists at the University of York instead of posting rubbish in the York Press.

Keep shooting him down with letters to the editor, embarrass him sufficiently, he might go away, or at least shutup.

Even when deniers try to cherry pick data they still get it wrong. There has been warming if you look at the last 15 year trend, even if not significant warming, still a fundamental error to suggest it has been cooling.

Not surprised by this really. That guy seems to have all the time in the world, why not become a climate science researcher and contribute to the field he is so obsessed with? Oh wait, getting paid to make unsubstantiated claims around the globe is much more fun.,

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Am I the only person here to look at his photo and think "shit, it's Alan B'Stard!" ???

It has the same smirk. Same genus.

I knew he looked familiar!

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Even when deniers try to cherry pick data they still get it wrong. There has been warming if you look at the last 15 year trend, even if not significant warming, still a fundamental error to suggest it has been cooling.

Not surprised by this really. That guy seems to have all the time in the world, why not become a climate science researcher and contribute to the field he is so obsessed with? Oh wait, getting paid to make unsubstantiated claims around the globe is much more fun.,

Let's face it, most deniers don't have sufficeint knowledge or brains to get a grip on climate science and what it's telling us and just keep repeating long debunked notions. The one I like is "The climate's always changed!" which is true but fails to consider the rapid and accelerating nature of warming that's been going on in recent times.

The denialosphere has failed to come up with any hypothesis that explains warming as being driven by any other driver or set of drivers than what the AGW hypothesis sets forth, rising GHG concentration in the atmsophere. They've tried a million ways to do this and all have met with failure. Now, the physical evidence is mounting and becoming rather undeniable, a process that will only continue as time passes.

The days of being able to deny that we're headed for a climate disaster are rapidly disappearing and will be soon gone altogether.

johnbrandt wrote:Another quick question...has anyone ever honestly explained why it was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"...?

Because deniers use the term "Global Warming" in an attempt to disprove climate change every time snow falls or they wake up and see frost on their cars. Where in reality anyone with even the most basic of understanding of climate science will know that temperature = energy. The warmer the average temperature of the planet the more energy that exists within the biosphere. The more energy the more extreme the weather. That means places getting both warmer and colder.

That is a logical reason to use the term. But in terms of the claim being made here,(looking back at some of the links above) A few of us found that the history of the change in terminology from "global warming" to climate change in the media was mainly due to conservatives in the US using it as a strategy to raise some uncertainty about the theory of AGW. The term "climate change" (in politics) can suggest some kind of doubt as to what exactly is changing and what is the cause, where as "global warming" or "human induced global warming" leaves little room for question as to what exactly is happening. I think it was strategists for the Bush administration that came up with the idea.

When presented with this sort of information, deniers, quite expectantly ignore it and keep repeating the lie because it still makes sense in the parallel universe they live in.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

pensioner wrote:If you think Monckton is a swivel eyed loon you should meet Godfrey Bloom my member of the EU parliament.

(video snipped)

Bloom is always writing letters to my local press about climate change as a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament. He always pulls facts out of his arse which I in my small way try and debunk. For example this is my last letter that was published.

Godfrey Bloom states, without blushing, that “as a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament, it is my job to assess the facts on the climate in the interests of my Yorkshire and Lincolnshire constituents” (Letters, July 5).

I must say that if he is a member of the environment committee in the EU the question must be asked, what scientific qualifications do you need to be a member of that committee, Godfrey?

Mr Bloom also used the names of so-called “independent academics” to reinforce his argument. For example, Professor Ian Plimer wrote a book called Heaven And Earth.

Kurt Lambert, professor of earth science and president of the Australian Academy of science, concluded: “Heaven And Earth is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist...” He went on to say: “If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material, but the critical analysis is missing.

“Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved.”

Maybe Godfrey Bloom should spend a few hours talking to the scientists at the University of York instead of posting rubbish in the York Press.

Keep shooting him down with letters to the editor, embarrass him sufficiently, he might go away, or at least shutup.

I will always try and debunk Bloom’s bullshit every chance I get.
Today this letter was published in my local press by Bloom.

“THERE seems to be much confusion by the body politic, and indeed many of the electorate, as to how an economy works. There can be no public spending without taxation of the wealth-creating sector or borrowing (leave aside counterfeiting or ‘quantitative easing’).

Taxation is simply a system for government to take money from one sector of the population and apportion it arbitrarily to others. Subsidising Siemens in Hull or holes in the ground for CO2 capture in Doncaster involves taking money from the genuine wealth creators.

There is no economic merit in taking heavy tax from the caravan, growing, steel or aircraft industries to give to other companies whose projects are unsustainable without subsidy.

If there is money to spare, which there is not, reduce the tax burden on those in the private sector. Much better for our manufacturers to go back to a five-day week, have cheaper energy and less employment tax than support failed technology like wind and solar power.

I hesitate to stir up the maniacal pseudo religious fervour of the greenies, but has anyone noticed there has been no significant measurable global warming since 1995? Perhaps the whole hypothesis is misplaced."

The last statement is ignorant horse shit. And the whole point of taxing co2 pollution is the premise that an economy dependent on the stuff is not sustainable environmentally or economically. So of course it makes no sense to do so if you reject that premise out of hand, but if you offer no valid objection you haven't got anywhere.

To debunk that piece of nonsense I'd just say (1) he is setting up a strawman as to what any tax of co2 in existence is trying to achieve and (2) he hasn't even offered a well resourced rebuttal to the strawman he set up.