Ooops! Everyone re-do your costs for Global "Warming"

[Xspurt]

Quote from SNBthetrue:

Hello Xpurt,

I really like your way of thinking and the way you put al the data in to perspectives...

However we need to teach this fact :

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." ( A. Einstein )

And I don't have the response to your question, however I am sure the answer can be founded as always... by following the money

I am a conspiracy theorist who wants to be proved wrong. My believe is that those who profit most have greatest temptation for least integrity. Following the money brings me to...

A greenhouse gases trading system funded with the support of then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, which is likely to play a major role in his $650 million cap-and-trade initiative, lists five present or former top-ranking U.N. officials on its advisory board who’ve had enormous influence over climate change matters – including one who received $1 million from a convicted South Korean lobbyist.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/g...nge-being-swayed-by-top-un-officials-6567.htm

Mr Gore, who won a Nobel Prize in 2007, has also just published his latest book on global warming “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis” which advocates new energy saving technologies and policies.

Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million.

He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

* First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
* Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
* Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
* Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
* Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
* Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

America -- what a country!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

This is like a one sided betting scam Cap & Trade is coming our way, but when it blossoms into a huge red tape machine it will finally dawn on the public the extent of the lunacy in Al Gore's books while he laughs all the way to the bank.

 

[SNBthetrue]

May I ask you if between the step 3 and 4 some one did think it was right to profit from this trend ?


What I want to say, is that other interest could have taken, or used Al. Idea ( like the internet )

 

[RangeBar]

Quote from Xspurt:

I am a conspiracy theorist who wants to be proved wrong. My believe is that those who profit most have greatest temptation for least integrity. Following the money brings me to...

And are you following the money of the coal companies who profit from their dirty product? The auto companies who refuse to raise mileage standards due to 'costs'? The oil companies who, instead of adopting California's standards choose to maintain a hodgepodge of blends to justify higher prices? How about the utility companies who prevert the law by calling new construction 'improvements' to avoid installing scrubbers which would reduce profits? Make sure you count the money made by the timber industry who clear cut the earth's forest increasing CO2 and several other problems but refuse to replace what they cut due to costs and reduced profits? Be sure to count all of the rabid anti-taxers who would rather keep their money than to invest in a better world for their own children.

Follow the money on this issue and just about every other issue and you will find CORPORATE GREED and INDIVIDUAL SELF-INTREST at the heart of the problem.

 

[Xspurt]

Quote from RangeBar:

And are you following the money of the coal companies who profit from their dirty product? The auto companies who refuse to raise mileage standards due to 'costs'? The oil companies who, instead of adopting California's standards choose to maintain a hodgepodge of blends to justify higher prices? How about the utility companies who prevert the law by calling new construction 'improvements' to avoid installing scrubbers which would reduce profits? Make sure you count the money made by the timber industry who clear cut the earth's forest increasing CO2 and several other problems but refuse to replace what they cut due to costs and reduced profits? Be sure to count all of the rabid anti-taxers who would rather keep their money than to invest in a better world for their own children.

Follow the money on this issue and just about every other issue and you will find CORPORATE GREED and INDIVIDUAL SELF-INTREST at the heart of the problem.

Agreed. The Saudi's are just finished having their say and guess what - they are against an agreement. That fact that they are quoting Climategate can smack of self interest.

Buy my guess is the corrupt see-saw is loaded much more to climate control legislation because global governance is the real goal, not climate.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Xspurt:

Following the money brings me to...

A greenhouse gases trading system funded with the support of then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, which is likely to play a major role in his $650 million cap-and-trade initiative, lists five present or former top-ranking U.N. officials on its advisory board who’ve had enormous influence over climate change matters – including one who received $1 million from a convicted South Korean lobbyist.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/g...nge-being-swayed-by-top-un-officials-6567.htm


Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million.

He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

* First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
* Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
* Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
* Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
* Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
* Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

America -- what a country!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

This is like a one sided betting scam Cap & Trade....

==============
Great points & cap & Trade is also honestly named cap & Tax.LOL Probably don't have the votes to pass that trash.

FOX news flash;
''Poor -Al Gore''
His scam is partially exposed by the internet he claims to have invented.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from dcraig:

There is no evidence to show cooling. There are short term variations in the longer term trend.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

=============
I see your/NASA points, DR.
However,small samples timelines dont show much really even if its a red [not cool blue]trendline.LOL.
Federal gov also got caught [wrongly] creating 2009AD jobs in non existant districts also.

Not only would the long term temp trend [much longer than NASA small sample timelines]be more accurately be described as sideways or cooling downtrend. But also the founder [efficient private sector] of the weather channel said Al Gore should be sued for fraud.

Dr Pat Robertson called many in media ignoring all the cooling trends ''horrible fraud''

 

[RangeBar]

Quote from murray t turtle:

=============
I see your/NASA points, DR.
However,small samples timelines dont show much really even if its a red [not cool blue]trendline.LOL.
Federal gov also got caught [wrongly] creating 2009AD jobs in non existant districts also.

Not only would the long term temp trend [much longer than NASA small sample timelines]be more accurately be described as sideways or cooling downtrend. But also the founder [efficient private sector] of the weather channel said Al Gore should be sued for fraud.

Dr Pat Robertson called many in media ignoring all the cooling trends ''horrible fraud''

Ah yes...that science is getting toooo twicky. Let's turn to our shaman friends for advice. Maybe if we all pray hard enough to god, she'll give us a new atmosphere.

 

[truehawk]

Quote from Xspurt:

My stance is very simple. I am not qualified to offer an opinion as to whether the earth is in danger and if so why and is there anything we can do about it.

My point as Op is that such serious issues demand open transparent debate where everyone has access to the data. Also when thousands of doctorates in this field sign a petition that man is not the problem but can't get any media attention, then I smell something fishy going on.

Really: Please provide the bona fides of the most of the people who signed the petition, cause I seriously doubt many even have the necessary expertise to even quantify the inputs for the model.

When it appear the figures are massaged it's too dangerous to railroad any agreements on what to do.

As I understand it, the investigator was trying to show the context of the data the in the same way a previous paper in Nature , the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction had, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.

Tree ring data is not a reliable measurement of temperature since 1960. There is a question in my mind how reliable tree ring data is as a measure of temperature period, as the growth of trees is also influenced by the availability of water and sunlight, and isotope ratios can be influenced by other factors. A warm wet year will result in thick rings, but thin rings can be due to cold weather, drought, or fungal or insect attack. In my mind the appearance of temperature sensitive species in lake sediments gives a better record of temperatures over the last million years, and these cores show that we have rapidly warmed since 1850 and we are warming now even when sunspots are at a minimum, when we are actually receiving less energy from the Sun.

It is like this, heat is transferred in three ways, by Radiation, by convection, and by conduction (no conduction in space so this term drops out).

Now the total energy radiated from the Sun is less when there are no Sunspots AND each sunspot is actually a region of intense magnetic feilds so the "spot" is the source of a plasma plume. So looking at a sunspot is akin to looking down the barrel of a hairdryer sending killotons of hot gas our way. When this is not happening, we are receiving less energy. For the last 10 years the Sun has been VERY quite, we have just gone through a period with almost no sunspots. We should have been cooling, and we are not. The tropical glaciers are still melting from Bolivia to Nepal. Streams that were year around in China and India are now seasonal because the mountain glaciers are melting. Ten years ago the radioactivity from the atomic tests in 1952 and 1962 could be found in these glaciers. Now they have melted so far back that they no longer contain any ice showing the radioactivity from the atomic tests in 1952. And the glacier on Kilomonjaro at the head of the Nile continued to shink even though we had a sunspot minimum, which means that something NOT THE SUN was causing the earth to warm, that is to retain a higher percentage of the energy falling on the disk. And the thing that has doubled in the last 50 years is the amount of greenhouse gases in the Atmosphere. Co2 and Methane.

The implications of unnecessary caps are not just heavy tax burdens and wealth transfer, but many scientists say we will cause more climate instability.

As a father I want what is best for my kids, but if you are not in the GW camp you are not getting government funding and that is certain to result in bias.

Actually the Koch Foundation, and Cheveron, BP etc. will support you the hilt if you are not in the GW camp. We are talking about salaries of 300K a year, vs less than 90K a year if you are a GS 13 government scientist doing work on Global warming. There is mega money to be made on the Denier side.

Personally I think it has more to do with sunspot activity producing warm and cooler cycles, but we need a few thousand years of data to be sure and what do I know?

Ergo, see the explanation above.

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from RangeBar:

And are you following the money of the coal companies who profit from their dirty product? The auto companies who refuse to raise mileage standards due to 'costs'? The oil companies who, instead of adopting California's standards choose to maintain a hodgepodge of blends to justify higher prices? How about the utility companies who prevert the law by calling new construction 'improvements' to avoid installing scrubbers which would reduce profits? Make sure you count the money made by the timber industry who clear cut the earth's forest increasing CO2 and several other problems but refuse to replace what they cut due to costs and reduced profits? Be sure to count all of the rabid anti-taxers who would rather keep their money than to invest in a better world for their own children.

Follow the money on this issue and just about every other issue and you will find CORPORATE GREED and INDIVIDUAL SELF-INTREST at the heart of the problem.

States set your "hodgepodge" blends.


You must feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[truehawk]

Further update: This comment from Halldór Björnsson of the Icelandic Met. Service goes right to the heart of the accessibility issue:

Re: CRU data accessibility.

National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have different rules on data exchange. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) organizes the exchange of “basic data”, i.e. data that are needed for weather forecasts. For details on these see WMO resolution number 40 (see http://bit.ly/8jOjX1).

This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.

Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.

Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.

The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed. It is not their fault, and I am sure that they dislike them as much as any other researcher who has tried to get access to all data from stations in region X in country Y.

These restrictions end up by wasting resources and hurting everyone. The research community (CRU included) and the public are the victims. If you don’t like it, write to you NMSs and urge them to open all their data.

I can update (further) this if there is demand. Please let me know in the comments, which, as always, should be substantive, non-insulting and on topic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/