Author Topic: Global Warming / Climate Change scam  (Read 227559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) What is it?
« Reply #200 on: July 31, 2008, 03:51:25 pm »
Thanks for posting that Brocke.  :) If people thought analytically and asked themselves questions like this instead of simply absorbing what they are told, I'm sure we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline doublethink

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Re: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) What is it?
« Reply #201 on: July 31, 2008, 04:27:09 pm »
Not to mention, even IF CO2 was bad, the ocean, cows, volcanoes, wildfires, and plants all INDIVIDUALLY emit more CO2 than humans.

Environazi Solution, kill all cows and plants. Cover ocean, and volcanoes with some yet unknown bio-degradable, super-strong substance that will absorb the CO2 and emit happy love gas.
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

Thomas Jefferson - 1787

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: Exaggerators: IPCC accused by its own
« Reply #202 on: July 31, 2008, 07:13:29 pm »
Another IPCC reviewer has serious concerns about the claims made by the IPCC. According to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate.  He states: “A series of scientific arguments which appear to support the theory have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations.”

Refer: IPCC Wins the Nobel Prize of Peace, (20/10/07), by Dr V. Gray, at: http://www.nzcpr.com/guest72.htm.
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Christopher Monckton warns Climate Change Minister Penny Wong
« Reply #203 on: July 31, 2008, 09:24:23 pm »
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/monckton_warns_wong_youre_steering_labor_to_doom/

Andrew Bolt
Friday, August 01, 2008 at 09:16am


Christopher Monckton warns Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that the Rudd Government's mad plans to cut "carbon pollution" is a disaster built on a fallacy:

    If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary - and it will, and sooner than you think - you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever.

This is Labor's New Age Khemlani moment, in fact. The full email from Lord Monckton to Wong:

    Dear Senator Wong,

    Greetings from Scotland! One of your constituents, Mr. John Cribbes, has asked me to drop you a short email about emissions trading and "global warming".

    I have recently conducted some detailed research into the mathematics behind the conclusions of the UN climate panel on the single question that matters in the climate debate - by how much will the world warm in response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

    My research, published in Physics and Society, a technical newsletter of the American Physical Society this month, demonstratres that the IPCC's values for the three key parameters whose product is climate sensitivity are based on only four papers - not the 2,500 that are often mentioned.

    Those four papers are unrepresentative of the literature, in which a low and harmless climate sensitivity is now the consensus. Therefore I should recommend extreme caution before any emissions-trading scheme is put in place. Such schemes will damage Australia's competitiveness, perhaps fatally; they are prone to corruption in that they incentivize over-claiming by both parties to each trade and by the regulator; they are addressing a non-problem; and, even if the problem were real (as a few largely-politicized scientists persist in maintaining), adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper than emissions trading or any other attempt at mitigating the quantities of carbon dioxide that we are (harmlessly) adding to the atmosphere.

    Therefore I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this or any emissions-trading scheme. I have read the Australian Government's paper on the proposed scheme, and the science in it is, alas, largely nonsense.

    Politically, of course, the fatal damage that emissions trading will do to the Australian economy will greatly favour the enemies of the free West, which is why I, as an ally, have locus standi to approach you.

    Climatically, your emissions-trading scheme will not make any significant difference. There are many other environmental problems that are real: I recommend that the Australian Government should tackle those.

    As for the climate, it is a non-problem, and the correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Similar warnings are being sent to other legislators worldwide by those of us - now probably in the majority among the scientific community, not that one should do science by head-count - who have studied climate sensitivity and have found the UN's analysis lamentably wanting.

    The UN's predictions are already being falsified by events: global temperatures have been falling for seven years, and not one of the climate models relied upon so heavily and so unwisely by the IPCC predicted that turn of events. If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary - and it will, and sooner than you think - you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever. It is, therefore, in the long-term vested interest of your party to think again.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
New global warming science
« Reply #204 on: July 31, 2008, 09:30:41 pm »
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2315636.htm

Dr .David Evans


On global warming, public policy is where the science was in 1998. Due to new evidence, science has since moved off in a different direction.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN science body on this matter, is a political body composed mainly of bureaucrats. So far it has resisted acknowledging the new evidence. But as Lord Keynes famously asked, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Four things have changed since 1998.

First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.

This 800 year lag became known and past dispute by 2003, which is very significant. The old low-resolution ice core data, which showed carbon and temperature moving in lockstep for the last half million years, was the only supporting evidence we ever had that carbon caused temperature.

Watch Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth carefully. The only reason he presents for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming is the old ice core data.

But now in 2003 we found that temperature causes carbon (a warming ocean releases its dissolved carbon dioxide into the air), not the other way around as previously assumed. By the way, Gore's movie was made in 2005 so he would have known about the new ice core data - it was naughty of him not to mention it.

Second, there is now no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that support the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.

Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. Comparisons of model outputs to observed results are not evidence because they cannot prove that the model is always right, only that it was right in some instances.

Third, the satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).

Land based temperature readings are corrupted by the 'urban heat island' effect—urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979.

The satellites go around 24/7, measuring the temperature across broad swathes of the world, everywhere except the poles. NASA, who report only land data and a little ocean data, report a modest warming trend since 2001 and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

The hotspot is central to our understanding - if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don't understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever.

So we now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again instead of a skeptic.

These four changes have rendered our current debate over carbon emissions obsolete. Because the changes occurred slowly as the science on each item became more settled, there was no sudden news flash to make us sit up and take notice.

But now that we are finally coming to terms with how expensive it will be to cut back our carbon emissions, the causes of global warming have suddenly become a topic of major economic importance.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the mind of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad naseum by now?

Policy makers must grapple with the possibility that global temperatures don't rise over the next decade. Deliberately wrecking the economy for the reasons that later turn out to be bogus hardly seems like a recipe for electoral success.

The onus is on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. So now is the time for the government to present any evidence they have that carbon emissions cause global warming. I think you'll find they have none, nowadays.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #205 on: August 02, 2008, 02:21:28 am »

A great animated gif showing the changing rainfall patterns from 1900 - 1995

It doesn't show the last 13 years but up to 1995 I can't see any significant change in rainfall.



That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
« Reply #206 on: August 04, 2008, 06:18:17 am »
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24122117-7583,00.html

Arthur Herman | August 04, 2008


IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.

Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.

The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.

But what kind of religion? More than 200 years ago, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume put his finger on the process. His essay, Of Superstition and Enthusiasm, describes how even in civilised societies the mind of man is subject to certain unaccountable terrors and apprehensions when real worries are missing.

As these enemies are entirely invisible and unknown, like today's greenhouse gases, people try to propitiate them by ceremonies, observations, mortifications, sacrifices such as Earth Day and banning plastic bags and petrol-driven lawnmowers.

Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition. They lead a blind and terrified public to embrace any practice, however absurd or frivolous, which either folly or knavery recommends.

The knaves today, of course, are the would-be high priests of the global warming orthodoxy, with former US vice-president Gore as their supreme pontiff.

As Hume points out, the stronger mixture there is of superstition, with its ambience of ignorance and fear, the higher is the authority of the priesthood.

As with the Church in the Dark Ages or the Inquisition during the Reformation, they denounce all doubters, such as Evans or Britain's Gilbert Monckton as dangerous heretics, outliers in Gore's phrase: or as willing tools of the evil enemy of a healthy planet, Big Oil.

This is not the first time, of course, that superstition has paraded itself as science, or created a priesthood masquerading as the exponents of reason. At the beginning of the previous century we had the fascination with eugenics, when the Gores of the age such as E.A. Ross and Ernst Haeckel warned that modern industrial society was headed for race suicide.

The list of otherwise sensible people who endorsed this hokum, from Winston Churchill to Oliver Wendell Holmes, is embarrassing to read today.

Then as now, money was poured into foundations, institutes, and university chairs for the study of eugenics and racial hygiene. Then as now, it was claimed that there was a scientific consensus that modern man was degenerating himself into extinction.

Doubters such as German anthropologist Rudolf Virchow were dismissed as reactionaries or even as tools of the principal contaminators of racial purity, the Jews.

And then as now, proponents of eugenics turned to the all-powerful state to avert catastrophe.

A credulous and submissive public allowed politicians to pass laws permitting forced sterilisation of the feeble-minded, racial screening for immigration quotas, minimum wage laws (which Sidney and Beatrice Webb saw as a way to force the mentally unfit out of the labor market) and other legislation which, in retrospect, set the stage for the humanitarian catastrophe to come.

In fact, when the Nazis took power in 1933, they found that the Weimar Republic had passed all the euthanasia legislation they needed to eliminate Germany's useless mouths.

The next target on their racial hygiene list would be the Jews.

Real science rests on a solid bedrock of scepticism, a scepticism not only about certain religious or cultural assumptions, for example about race, but also about itself.

It constantly re-examines what it regards as evidence, and the connections it draws between cause and effect. It never rushes to judgment, as race science did in Germany in the 1930s and as the high priests of climate change are doing today.

Politicians everywhere should be forced to take an oath similar to the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors: above all else, do no harm. The debate in Australia on this issue is rapidly building to a climax.

Before they make decisions that could trim Australia's gross domestic product by several percentage points a year and impose heavy penalties on Australians' lifestyle, Labour and Liberal alike need to re-examine the superstition of global warming.

Otherwise, the only thing it will melt away is everyone's civil liberty.

Arthur Herman is a historian and author, his most recent book is Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. He and Ayaan Hirsi Ali will speak at the Centre for Independent Studies Big Ideas Forum tonight at Sydney Opera House on the Ideas of the Enlightenment.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Celebrome

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 702
Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
« Reply #207 on: August 04, 2008, 07:13:14 am »
Here in montreal they just said that the weather were having is totaly normal and that its the proof of global warming. 95% of the regions in canada had there all time record of rain fall beaten. In montreal the record was 93millimeter and we had 113mm.  Plus we havent had any period of 35.C and +  of 3days in a row wich in french is called Canicule ( i dont know the translation in english sorry ). We had an 3 day that we had 30-32.C this summer  and we usualy get 3 week were whe have temperature between 30-40.c and we didnt have thoses 2-3 week this years. We had weather around 20-27 all summer long wich is below the season normal. This week first week of august where usualy we have nice weather of around 28-35.c   there telling us that were gona have around 20-24.C. WHERE THE f**k IS GLOBAL WARMING HEN??????????????????????????? All i see is weather colder then usual.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
« Reply #208 on: August 04, 2008, 07:29:26 am »
Here in montreal they just said that the weather were having is totaly normal and that its the proof of global warming. 95% of the regions in canada had there all time record of rain fall beaten. In montreal the record was 93millimeter and we had 113mm.  Plus we havent had any period of 35.C and +  of 3days in a row wich in french is called Canicule ( i dont know the translation in english sorry ). We had an 3 day that we had 30-32.C this summer  and we usualy get 3 week were whe have temperature between 30-40.c and we didnt have thoses 2-3 week this years. We had weather around 20-27 all summer long wich is below the season normal. This week first week of august where usualy we have nice weather of around 28-35.c   there telling us that were gona have around 20-24.C. WHERE THE f**k IS GLOBAL WARMING HEN??????????????????????????? All i see is weather colder then usual.
Welcome.

Check out Global Warming or Global Governance: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241

Or torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3807470/Global_Warming_or_Global_Governance__-_DVDrip
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Celebrome

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 702
Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
« Reply #209 on: August 04, 2008, 07:48:41 am »
dont worry ive seen all thoses documentary on global warming and conspiration like this and i know that global warming is a hoax. I just think that its completely ridiculous to see  how the media keep telling us were in global warming now its happening right NOW!  when all you see outside is cold and rain and more snow. All the proof are there there global warming isnt real, most poeple i talk whit says that global warming isnt real but maybe 5-10% says im crazy and blind but when you confront them whit the truth they try to make fun of you or like one sayd to me  if you dont believe in global warming its like saying that you dont believe that the holocaust happened. LOL  That guy was a complete moron, he is pro obama and refused to see thoses document i had   about thoses 32000 scientist who signed a petition to say that global warming is a hoax. He didnt even want to see the statistic and all those info on how the weather is getting colder and colder. All he cared about was, we need to save Gaia and Al Gore is right. Funny thing is that Al gore won a nobel prize for peace and not science lolololol. How stupid is that?
( have you heard about the movie that is coming out soon ? Disaster movie  wich is going to make fun of global warming and Al gore, Just look at the title  below it they say Al gore was right. Its the same type of movie has Scary movie.)

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
« Reply #210 on: August 04, 2008, 06:55:56 pm »
The author of that article spends quite a few words on the issue of eugenics.  He seems switched on to the NWO agenda.  It is surprising to see that in the mainstream media.
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: New global warming science
« Reply #211 on: August 04, 2008, 07:12:05 pm »
Quote
Watch Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth carefully. The only reason he presents for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming is the old ice core data.

And the ice core data does not support Gore's contentions.
When they showed The Great Global Warming Swindle in New Zealand a few months ago, they missed out the part that addresses this matter.  The part that shows that even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence.  Contradicting Gore’s claim that, “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.

I wonder why? Could it be that they are trying to hide something from the public who pays their wages?
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Climate change sceptics get science answers
« Reply #212 on: August 05, 2008, 09:31:36 pm »
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news28681.html
Tuesday, 5 August 2008

A new series of free public seminars at the University of Adelaide aims to give climate changes sceptics - and other members of the community - exactly what they want: scientific answers on climate change.

The new Climate Change Q & A seminar series starts this Friday 8 August, with the Bureau of Meteorology joining forces with the University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability (RIsCCS) to answer the question: "Is the Earth really warming?"

"Each of the six seminars will raise a different commonly asked question about climate change, and it's our job as scientists to provide the answers," says the Director of RIsCCS at the University of Adelaide, Professor Barry Brook.

"This first session will look at the most basic of questions, which seems to be a major sticking point for some: how can the Earth really be warming?

"Remarks such as this get in the way of climate action, as they call into question whether there's a problem to address. For example, we might hear that surface temperature is an unreliable method of tracking temperatures, or that temperatures are actually dropping in places. We may even hear that we're heading into an ice age, or that the hottest year on record was 1934 or 1998.

"The fact that some people are asking these questions means that we, as scientists, have a responsibility to explain the science behind climate change," Professor Brook says. "Members of the public will also get to ask questions at the end of each seminar."

Further seminars in the series will ask:

Can we distinguish between natural and human-induced climate change?
Are the impacts of climate change being overstated?
Will it cost the earth to avoid climate change?

For complete details about the lecture series or to register your interest in attending, please visit: www.adelaide.edu.au/climatechange/

WHAT: Climate Change Q & A - Seminar One: Is the Earth really warming?
by Professor Barry Brook (Director, Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Adelaide)
and Andrew Watson (Regional Director for South Australia, Bureau of Meteorology)

WHEN: 5:30pm to 7:00pm Friday 8 August

WHERE: Lecture Theatre 102, Napier Building, North Terrace Campus, University of Adelaide

COST: Free - all are welcome
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: Climate change sceptics get science answers
« Reply #213 on: August 10, 2008, 07:46:46 pm »
Anyone attending these kind of functions might get some ideas from this:
WeAreCHANGE Ohio confronts Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ake4C8YhUb4
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
60 Minutes - Crunch Time (Climate Change questioning)
« Reply #214 on: August 20, 2008, 04:51:23 am »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq3fcPB2904 - Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP2ygTPIDiQ - Part II


Reporter: Tara Brown
Producer: Stephen Taylor


It's the story of our lives, the most crucial issue, the most controversial. The very future of planet earth. For almost 20 years, we've heard the warnings about climate change, yet so many of us know so little about it. We're told we should prepare for the worst, more floods, more storms, more droughts. And of course, it's all our fault. If we don't act now, if we don't change our way of life, the world as we know it is finished.

But is it really that bad, are we really doomed? The skeptics say no, not necessarily.

But with so much at stake can we risk it? Can we afford to sit back, do nothing and hope for the best?



Chat: Dr David Evans
Monday, August 18, 2008

60 Minutes presents a live interview with mathematician and scientist, Dr David Evans. David is here to talk to us tonight about global warming.


Interviewer: Dr Evans, thank you for joining us tonight.

Dr David Evans: Thanks for listening to me, the sceptical case has been ignored by the press till now and I think you'll find it very strong. People are finally coming to terms with it now.

BruceV asks: David, we are about to have a terrible new tax imposed on us, surely if this government is interested in the truth they will listen to you? Thank you for speaking out and for having the courage to speak the truth.

Dr David Evans: Thank you, the reason I spoke out now is because it seemed the situation got beyond stupid and our decision makers need to be reminded than the science has changed since the last 10 years. Unfortunately, the public are also unaware of the science in the last few years and I think if they were aware there would be a public outcry that these taxes do not go ahead.

finallysomesense asks: Is the IPCC still a relevant body, or have the political considerations become such that the science is lost in the fallout for these 'scientists'?

Dr David Evans: The IPCC is a UN bureaucracy. Less than half of the 2500 involved are scientists, most are bureaucrats. The IPCC is reluctant to consider causes of global warming other than human ones. The fact that temperatures haven't risen since 2001 means that their politics are becoming untenable.

Aussie asks: Shouldn't the government be paying incentives to companies who produce a cleaner environment rather than charging them and allowing them to keep polluting it, anyway you put it we the taxpayer still pay.

Dr David Evans: There are many forms of pollution, CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is beneficial to plants and doesn't seem to have a significant effect on the earth's temperature. I agree that the government should be regulating the earth's pollution but it's a different question that global warming.

Christopher asks: Dr Evens would you say that the amount of CO 2 released into our atmosphere every day has no effect on the world climate?

Dr David Evans: Almost no effect. There is no evidence that it has a significant effect. The case that most scientists consider is what happens if CO levels double from a pre industrial level of 280mmp to 580mmp, which we will get to in 2100AD. Theoretical estimates range from 1/4 degree to 6 degrees. The most creditable theoretical calculation was preformed by a Hungarian mathematician at NASA named Miskolczi. He took everything he could into account and updated the NASA calculation and his answer was 1/4 degree. NASA didn't like the answer and made him feel uncomfortable and he resigned shortly after. In any case, the best theory and the actual evidence suggest the influence of CO2 to the earth is small to negligible.

Buzzard asks: Based on your calculations, how much further will sea levels have risen, especially around Melbourne within the next 10 years?

Dr David Evans: I don't know, sorry, I'm not involved with sea level calculations.

BruceV asks: Is it true that if there were high levels of Co2 in there atmosphere the sky would be a red colour?

Dr David Evans: No, I don't think so. CO2 is colourless. In commercial greenhouses the CO2 level are pumped up quite high and it's still colourless.

Zeus asks: Has the decrease in temperature over the last 7 years or so corresponded with a decrease in sun spot activity?

Dr David Evans: The last 7 years has seen a period of flat temperatures with a small downward bias. It's too early to say temperatures are dropping even in the last year they have dropped a little. We're looking here for temperature trends which typically exhibit themselves over 5 years or so, so I think it's safer to say that temperatures have levelled out since 2001. The correlation with solar activities are very interesting, bare in mind that they are only correlation and nothing has been proven. However the late appearance solar cycle 24, suggest the next 24 years or so might be a little cooler.

Hochie asks: Dr Evans, do you know of any alternative theory for the changing global average temperatures over the past millennium, or over past ages? E.g. I heard something about solar output fluctuating over time and I wondered if there is any data on that.

Dr David Evans: The sun affects the earth's temperature in two ways. Firstly, there can be changes in solar eradiation, meaning the amount of heat pumped out by the sun. People have observed slight variation over the decades. Secondly and probably more significantly, the sun effects cloud formation on earth through solar magnetic effects. High energy cosmic rays strike the earth and help create clouds. And those clouds had a cooling effect on the earth. But the sun's magnetic shields us from some of those high energy cosmic rays. So when the sun is active, the earth gets less high energy cosmic rays so there are fewer clouds and it gets warmer. The sun has been pretty active in the last few decades. This theory still hasn't been proven and is just at the stage of correlations. There are probably half a dozen likely influences on the global temperature and at this stage I don't know of any good evidence to know, which are the important ones except to say that because the signature is missing, we can pretty much rule out carbon emissions.

listener asks: Here is a question that concerns me in relation to the doom and gloom prediction. Given there is evidence that our earth has gone through this cycle over trillions of years, is it possible the observation is just that, observation, and there are no solutions?

Dr David Evans: Yes, it's quite possible that we humans have no effect on temperature. And all we're seeing is natural variation. Bear in mind that it was warmer in the medieval times 800 years ago and it was a couple of degrees cooler in the 17 hundreds when they had a mini ice age. Humanity generally flourish when it is hotter, so personally I regard a little bit of heating as a good thing.

Susie asks: Dr Evans, could you please explain what you believe to be the cause of global warming if it is not carbon emissions.

Dr David Evans: I don't know. Possible causes are solar magnetic effects (which influence cloud level and therefore the earth's temperature), ozone depletion, industrial pollution such as aerosols, changes in greenhouse gases and anything that influence the ozone layer including electromagnetic radiation. And there are quite a few others. At this stage we don't have enough evidence to know what is really causing it. However correlation with solar activities is pretty strong, so the answer probably involved the sun and the clouds.

Cid asks: Dr Evans would not enhancing electricity production be a more innovative path to thus take?

Dr David Evans: As an electrical engineer I think that electricity production is an exciting topics and I wish we had more diversity in the means of production. I encourage people to do research on solar and other renewables.

mainst asks: David....... Thank you for speaking out. The voices of reason have been swamped by Hansen, Gore & the IPCC et al recently. What are your thoughts on the current solar minimum & have you heard of any research being done on intergravitational waves and their potential effects on the forces that drive the core of our planet?

Dr David Evans: No I haven't heard anything about intergravitational waves, thank you for your kind comments. It's encouraging to see that journalists are finally paying attention to this fine issue.

observer asks: Dr Evens what are your thoughts on sun spots being the primary cause of global warming?

Dr David Evans: It's a good possibility, not proven but correlations right up till today are good. It's important to see that solar activity does not correlate with NASA GISS temperatures, because they come from land based thermometers and are corrupted by the urban land heat effects. However solar activities correlate very well with satellite temperatures right up to 2008.

true asks: I to have been wondering the truths or smoke and mirrors that governments often use to create taxes, but being a layperson and taught that our planet has had ice ages and warmed up many times what makes so different this time?

Dr David Evans: We don't know that it is any different this time. The alarmist want us to believe that our emission of CO are warming the planet and while that seems a reasonable proposition two decades ago, the evidence has changed in the last decade to indicate that is certainly not the case. We don't know what caused the recent global warming, but chances are the causes are natural.

KevinM asks: DR Evans, Thank you for being up front with this CO2 thing, We grow plants in elevated co2 atmospheres and when co2 increases the plants grow quicker which balance the co2 back to 280 ppm, this is what should happen in nature?

Dr David Evans: CO2 is good for plants. We humans have been digging CO2 out from under the desert in Saudi Arabia and efficiently distributing it across the planet. Plants need carbon to grow, in fact they need it more than water. Satellite data shows that over the last 2 decades the amount of plant biomass on the planet has increased by 6 percent. So increasing the CO2 levels is helping feed the planet. Not only is CO2 not pollution, but it is beneficial to all plants and most animals on the planet.

Bo asks: Dr Evens I believe that the planet has been and is always evolving with massive changes to the environment over many thousands of years. Why do we think as humans living for only a short time on this planet, that we can change things?

Dr David Evans: That's a philosophical and political question and I'd rather just stick to the Science questions, sorry.

seeking asks: if all things are considered is it true that any measures that we take now will not be strong enough to combat global warming.

Dr David Evans: Probably very little. We couldn't find the greenhouse signature in the last 2 decades and that tells us that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases is having very little effect on the global temperature. Even a big sustained release of methane probably won't affect the global temperature very much.

nwo asks: Dr Evens. Can you please give your opinion on studies that may suggest that the sun is actually getting hotter and attributing not only to global warming on earth but on other planets as well ?

Dr David Evans: I haven't seen any good evidence on this, but otherwise I don't know much about it.

ord asks: if all things are considered is it true that any measures that we take now will not be strong enough to combat global warming.

Dr David Evans: We don't know what causes global warming, except that we now are pretty sure that carbon emissions do not cause it. Therefore taking measures to decrease our carbon emissions won't have any significant effect.

pete asks: Dr Evans, our Prime Minister, who states that he, is no scientist, stated in the report that humans were to blame for increases in global temperature, which is wrong; as if we follow his point of view; we are only adding to a natural cycle, therefore we are not solely to blame (way to go Kevin). Do you get disheartened with peoples natural tendencies to follow what is being stated in popular press? Rather than looking at data which shows that the Earth’s temperature has differentiated over its’ biographic life, at periods being above modern temperatures.

Dr David Evans: Many of the crucial issues in global warming are pretty simple. Well within the grasp of any educated citizen such as the Prime Minister. You only need a high school education to be able to read a temperature graph, and to see that the temperatures have been flat since 2001. You only have to be vaguely aware of the debate to notice that the alarmist are offering no actually evidence, only results from computer models. These are things that any political or journalist should feel confident in doing. I urge our Prime Minister to spend a little more time investigating the issue himself instead of just relying on the advice of people's whose jobs depend on the belief that carbon emission cause global warming.

DJ asks: Dr Evans, do you believe that animals such as Polar Bears etc will really become extinct as a result of the climatic changes being experienced? What do you believe will really happen with regard to future Australian weather patterns - are we in for more severe droughts/cyclones, etc?

Dr David Evans: Australian weather patterns are dominated by the pacific decadal osolation (PDO), there are periods of about 40-50 years when El-Nino dominate and there are period of about 40 years or so when lanigo dominate. The result is that Australian's weather systems goes for about 40 years or so of drought, and then 40 years of so of floods. As far as I am aware, this pattern hasn't changed and will probably continue into the future. Satellite data since 1979 indicate that the Southern hemisphere has no existed any global warming, as it happens, global warming is a pheromone that only effects the Northern hemisphere. Global warming and weather are influence by clouds, rain and water vapour all these issues are very closely tired together. I don't think any one fully understands them yet.

mattJ asks: You mentioned that "it was warmer in medieval times", but do you accept the possibility that the medieval Warm Period may have been partly a regional phenomenon, with the extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a big overall rise in the average global temperature?

Dr David Evans: Temperature records for that period are of course very sketchy. However what evidence we do have via proxy and historical records, suggest it wasn't just Greenland that was warm, that it was spread around the planet. Exactly how much warmer is certainly open to dispute. So in summary, it is possible though unlikely.

Hunter asks: I am concerned about the environment like most people, but I believe that we should react to accurate information. I am just as concerned that how the world is reacting about global warming scares now is similar to how we all were told that the millennium bug would stop society.

Dr David Evans: Yes, it's important to get our response right. If the alarmist are correct, then we should cut down our carbon emissions of the planet with overheat. If the alarmist are wrong, it's important not to cut back our carbon emissions or we'll create wide spread poverty unnecessary. There is no real substitute, except the get the real science right.

x asks: Weather models are notoriously unreliable due to the chaotic effects present in weather systems. What degree of confidence do the computer models on CO2 hotspots provide?

Dr David Evans: The hotspot due to enhance greenhouse is a central feature of all models. If the hotspot is not there, then either carbon emissions don't cause global warming or we completely misunderstand the climate system. The hot spot is something we except for theoretical reasons, but it's very central to our understanding.

8.technical asks: OK let's say that CO2 is not a problem. But is there added greenhouse effect due to airborne pollutants or would you say that has been overstated as well? It's hard to get the 'straight dope' on these issues.

Dr David Evans: On that issue, no one I know of has the 'straight dope'. The problem of industrial emission is normally called aerosols. It's not clear at this stage if aerosols increase the temperature of maybe lower the temperature. But we do know they are having some significant effect. At the moment the IPCC think they probably increase temperature, and I'm inclined to believe them.

Interviewer: Dr Evans unfortunately we are out of time tonight, do you have any final words for those who have come to the interview?

Dr David Evans: Thanks for your attention, this issue will get sorted out because it’s an issue of science. No amount of human arguing and can affect the actual effects of global warming and it will be another 2-3 decades of research before we will probably have a definitive answer as to what causes global warming. Stay Tuned ... Dr Evan's website: www.sciencespeak.com

Interviewer: This concludes our chat with Dr David Evans, Sunday August 17, 2008.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: 60 Minutes - Crunch Time (Climate Change questioning)
« Reply #215 on: August 20, 2008, 07:35:41 pm »
Thanks for posting this Matt.  David Evans is the chap who used to believe in global warming theory, but then came to his wits and realized it was a scam, didn't he.
 I'm going to download it now.
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #216 on: August 27, 2008, 05:22:28 am »
San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?

City Backpedals on a Cycling Plan After Mr. Anderson Goes to Court


By PHRED DVORAK
August 20, 2008; Page A1

SAN FRANCISCO -- New York is wooing cyclists with chartreuse bike lanes. Chicago is spending nearly $1 million for double-decker bicycle parking.

San Francisco can't even install new bike racks.

Blame Rob Anderson. At a time when most other cities are encouraging biking as green transport, the 65-year-old local gadfly has stymied cycling-support efforts here by arguing that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment. That's put the brakes on everything from new bike lanes to bike racks while the city works on an environmental-impact report.

Cyclists say the irony is killing them -- literally. At least four bikers have died and hundreds more have been injured in San Francisco since mid-2006, when Mr. Anderson helped convince a judge to halt implementation of a massive pro-bike plan.(It's unclear whether the plan's execution could have prevented the accidents.) In the past year, bike advocates have demonstrated outside City Hall, pushed the city to challenge the plan's freeze in court and proposed putting the whole mess to local voters. Nothing worked.

"We're the ones keeping emissions from the air!" shouted Leah Shahum, executive director of the 10,000-strong San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, at a July 21 protest.
WSJ's Phred Dvorak reports from a Critical Mass event in San Francisco, a monthly bike ride that draws hundreds of cyclists. She talks with bikers as well as disgruntled drivers.

Mr. Anderson disagrees. Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution. Mr. Anderson says the city has been blinded by political correctness. It's an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog this month.

Mr. Anderson's fight underscores the tensions that can circulate as urban cycling, bolstered by environmental awareness and high gasoline prices, takes off across the U.S. New York City, where the number of commuter cyclists is estimated to have jumped 77% between 2000 and 2007, is adding new bike lanes despite some motorist backlash. Chicago recently elected to kick cars off stretches of big roads on two Sundays this year.

Famously progressive, San Francisco is known for being one of the most pro-bike cities in the U.S., offering more than 200 miles of lanes and requiring that big garages offer bike parking. It is also known for characters like Mr. Anderson.

A tall, serious man with a grizzled gray beard, Mr. Anderson spent 13 months in a California federal prison for resisting the draft during the Vietnam War. He later penned pieces for the Anderson Valley Advertiser, a muckraking Northern California weekly owned by his brother that's known for its savage prose and pranks.

Running for Office

In 1995, Mr. Anderson moved to San Francisco. Working odd jobs, he twice ran for a seat on the city's Board of Supervisors, pledging to tackle homelessness and the city's "tacit PC ideology." He got 332 of 34,955 votes in 2004, his second and best try.

That year Mr. Anderson, who mostly lives off a small government stipend he receives for caring for his 92-year-old mother, also started a blog, digging into local politics with gusto. One of his first targets: the city's most ambitious bike plan to date.

Unveiled in 2004, the 527-page document was filled with maps, traffic analyses and a list of roughly 240 locations where the city hoped to make cycling easier. The plan called for more bike lanes, better bike parking and a boost in cycling to 10% of the city's total trips by 2010.

The plan irked Mr. Anderson. Having not owned a car in 20 years, he says he has had several near misses with bikers roaring through crosswalks and red lights, and sees bicycles as dangerous and impractical for car-centric American cities. Mr. Anderson was also bugged by what he describes as the holier-than-thou attitude typified by Critical Mass, a monthly gathering of bikers who coast through the city, snarling traffic for hours. "The behavior of the bike people on city streets is always annoying," he says. "This 'Get out of my way, I'm not burning fossil fuels.' "

Going to Court

In February 2005, Mr. Anderson showed up at a planning commission meeting. If San Francisco was going to take away parking spaces and car lanes, he argued, it had better do an environmental-impact review first. When the Board of Supervisors voted to skip the review, Mr. Anderson sued in state court, enlisting his friend Mary Miles, a former postal worker, cartoonist and Anderson Valley Advertiser colleague.

San Francisco cyclists protest bike-plan delays in front of City Hall.

Ms. Miles, who was admitted to the California bar in 2004 at age 57, proved a pugnacious litigator. She sought to kill the initial brief from San Francisco's lawyers after it exceeded the accepted length by a page. She objected when the city attorney described Mr. Anderson's advocacy group, the Coalition for Adequate Review, as CAR in their documents. (It's C-FAR.) She also convinced the court to review key planning documents over the city's objections.

Slow Pedaling

In November 2006, a California Superior Court judge rejected San Francisco's contention that it didn't need an environmental review and ordered San Francisco to stop all bike-plan activity until it completed the review.

Since then, San Francisco has pedaled very slowly. City planners say they're being extra careful with their environmental study, in hopes that Mr. Anderson and Ms. Miles won't challenge it. Planners don't expect the study will be done for another year.

Meanwhile, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Miles have teamed up to oppose a plan to put high-rises and additional housing in a nearby neighborhood. He continues to blog from his apartment in an old Victorian home. "Regardless of the obvious dangers, some people will ride bikes in San Francisco for the same reason Islamic fanatics will engage in suicide bombings -- because they are politically motivated to do so," he wrote in a May 21 post.

"In case anyone doubted that you were a wingnut, this statement pretty much sums things up!" one commenter retorted.

Mr. Anderson is running for supervisor again this November -- around the time the city will unveil the first draft of its bike-plan environmental review. He's already pondering a challenge of the review.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121919354756955249.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #217 on: August 27, 2008, 06:48:54 pm »

Pollution? Bah! It's "climate-warming greenhouse gases" that are making our oceans acidic. Who knew that carbon dioxide was so evil? I'll bet that in the next Bond film the villain threatens to release millions of tons of CO2 instead of the usual Nuclear threat.



Scientists Warn of Impending Doom for Coral Reefs

Posted on: Wednesday, 27 August 2008, 12:15 CDT

A panel of marine scientists said on Wednesday that in order to keep coral reefs from being eaten away by increasingly acidic oceans, humans need to limit the amount of climate-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The scientists authored a document called the Honolulu Declaration, for release at a U.S. conference on coral reefs in Hawaii.

"The most logical and critical action to address the impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs is to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration," the report warned.

The scientists said ocean acidification is another threat to corals caused by global warming, along with rising sea levels, higher sea surface temperatures and coral bleaching.

Billy Causey of the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program said coral reefs are a "sentinel ecosystem," a sign that the environment is changing.

"Although ocean acidification is affecting the health of our oceans, the same thing—increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—is going to in fact be affecting terrestrial environments also," said Causey.

Marine scientists say coral reefs offer economic and environmental benefits to millions of people, including coastal protection from waves and storms and as sources of food, pharmaceuticals, jobs and revenue.

However, they are increasingly threatened by warming sea surface temperatures as well as ocean acidification.

The acidic levels of oceans are increasing because they have been absorbing some 525 billion tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide over the last two centuries, about one-third of all human-generated carbon dioxide for that period.

The sea water combined with carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid.

Acidification in deep ocean water far from land has been well documented in the past, but a study published this year in the journal Science found this same damaging phenomenon on the Pacific North American continental shelf from Mexico to Canada, and quite likely elsewhere around the globe.

The water became so corrosive that it started dissolving the shells and skeletons of starfish, clams and corals.

The Honolulu Declaration's top long-term recommendation is to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions. The key short-term recommendation was to nurture coral reefs that seem to have natural resilience against acidification.

Causey believes managers of protected marine areas can adopt it immediately.

The Honolulu Declaration will be presented to the United Nations and to other global, regional and national forums.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1535191/scientists_warn_of_impending_doom_for_coral_reefs/index.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #218 on: August 29, 2008, 01:42:07 am »
Weather risk hedging seen boosting global economy
Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:03pm EDT

By Gary Crosse

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Insuring against weather-related calamity in this era of global warming might seem the work of bean counters and actuaries.

But a study by WeatherBill, an Internet firm offering weather-related risk cover for individuals, as well as companies and governments, says the global economy could expand by up to $258 billion if such contracts were more widely purchased.

It calculated country rankings using three types of weighted data, including weather observations by country, national GDP by sector and weather elasticity, or sector-specific sensitivity to weather.

Among the 68 countries in the study, the U.S. economy ranks nearly last overall using those three measures, but was listed with the highest weather sensitivity in dollar terms.

"The United States' economy has a total weather sensitivity of roughly $2.5 trillion, 23 percent of the national economy," WeatherBill CEO and founder David Friedberg said. "In contrast, Bolivia has a total weather sensitivity of just over $2 billion. That's 31 percent of the Bolivian economy."

Customers large or small can create a contract and determine under what weather conditions they would like to be compensated. The contracts are purchased online to protect against weather events such as heavy rains, frost or drought.

In the United States, customers range from professional golf tour organizers to travel operators to small farmers.

Friedberg, who was formerly with Google, told Reuters the company was selling contracts to corn farmers in the Midwest, who suffered heavy flooding earlier this year.

With federal crop insurance coverage set to expire at the end of this month, "these farmers have corn on the ground and are not covered for a frost event for the rest of the season and some might have corn through late October," he said.

"We're seeing a lot of corn farmers buying coverage from us for frost from Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota."

MAKING MILLIONS

As a privately held company, WeatherBill does not issue financial statements, but the CEO said it had "made millions of dollars hedging hundreds of millions of dollars in risk."

In the report, WeatherBill says countries with more extreme variations in temperatures as well as higher extractive activity, such as farming and mining, are the most sensitive.

Brazil, the world's largest coffee and sugar producer, ranked top among the 68 economies assessed for weather-related risks while Pakistan's economy ranks the least sensitive.

The study said Brazil was 30 times more vulnerable to weather risks than Pakistan, which "means that a dollar in Brazil will be thirty times more weather-sensitive than a dollar in Pakistan," WeatherBill said.

The market for weather derivatives, as such contracts are also called, was started by now collapsed energy giant Enron about 10 years ago, Friedberg said, but never broadened much outside of the energy utility sector.

As a result, he said that WeatherBill has so far not seen any direct competition online.

"We're primarily a technology company and we've built a platform that allows us to write any sort of weather contract for any sort of business to protect against their specific risks," he said. "We're really trying to bring these products to the masses."

Hedging usually involves taking a position in a futures market that offsets a similar position in the equivalent cash market so that a loss in one is offset by a gain in the other.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSN2637369820080826


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Biggs

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,440
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #219 on: August 30, 2008, 12:58:01 pm »
sounds like another way for the rich and powerful to hide and launder money out of sight of proper oversight whilst not one penny gets to the ordinary folk unless they act as direct servants to the elites. Just another merrygoround for all the hidden funds.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #220 on: September 02, 2008, 07:38:00 pm »

Aid agencies plan CO2 offsets that also help poor

02 Sep 2008 12:04:17 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Megan Rowling

LONDON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - From fuel-efficient stoves for displaced Congolese families to drought-resistant cashew trees in Brazil, some aid agencies offering carbon offset schemes want to marry emissions savings with help for people living with climate change.

A London-based coalition is launching a new funding scheme to address concerns about existing trade in carbon credits -- primarily that this excludes the world's poorest communities, which are most at risk from the impact of global warming.

"This is very much not a minor absolution for your carbon sins, but is honestly a compensation payment for the impact you know your personal carbon emissions will have," said Andrew Simms, policy director at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), coordinating the initiative with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

The consortium says its scheme differs from conventional carbon offsetting -- which has focused mostly on promoting renewable energy -- because it will also help vulnerable people cope with phenomena such as more severe droughts and floods.

In the jargon, it will fuse mitigation -- measures to curb carbon dioxide emissions -- with adaptation -- activities enabling people to deal with climate-related problems they are already experiencing.

Over the coming year, the approach will be tested in regions expected to be worst and soonest hit by climate change in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Pilot projects will prioritise adaptation: for example teaching Indian children to swim so they can survive floods, and planting the drought-resistant cashew trees whose fruit pulp families plan to sell to schools for income.

But they will also include mitigation steps such as providing solar-powered lighting for girls in Mauritania to do their homework after dark, and solar-powered freezers to store the Brazilian cashew apple pulp which makes juice.

The partners -- including the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), Greenpeace, CARE International and Trocaire -- describe the scheme as a way for charities, business and individuals to take responsibility for the damage caused by their carbon emissions in the short term.

They call people who help fund the scheme investors, rather than donors: the capital involved is human as well as financial.

"It connects me with a human being at the other end of the world who's being affected by my pollution, and I then invest in that person and relate to that person, and feel there is solidarity between us," said Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at IIED.

"It's not buying and selling -- it is much more investing in people."

WHERE THE MONEY GOES

Some existing projects backed with money from unregulated or so-called voluntary carbon emissions trading have been accused of not delivering promised environmental and social benefits. Critics also say carbon credits offer polluters a guilt-free way to carry on emitting damaging greenhouse gases.

"Offsetting is something that people have little faith in because they don't know where the money goes," said Betsy Joseph of aid agency Mercy Corps, which has launched a separate initiative aimed at strengthening the relationship between carbon offsetting and poverty reduction.

Its "Cool Carbon" Web site invites individuals and businesses to calculate the cost of their carbon usage and donate that amount to carbon-neutral projects that also create jobs.

In Bosnia, for example, it is partnering with a pastry manufacturer to convert used cooking oil into biodiesel that could power city buses in Tuzla.

"People can look at the progress of the projects online, and this should give them more faith that their money is going somewhere tangible, with more of a connection to those they are helping," said Joseph.

The United Nations has called for around $86 billion in new financing by 2015 to help the world's poor cope with climate change. But so far funds from governments and a levy on U.N.-regulated carbon trading amount to a fraction of what aid agencies say is needed. A growing number regard the sale of voluntary carbon offsets as one way to fill the gap.

The market for voluntary carbon trades is growing rapidly, more than tripling between 2006 and 2007 to reach a value of $331 million, according to a report from environmental information providers New Carbon Finance and Ecosystem Marketplace.

But charities have found it difficult to access buyers in the voluntary market, partly because offset companies, which act as brokers, prefer large projects that deliver high volumes of emissions savings.

"The transaction costs are quite high for small projects," said Andrew Scott, policy director at Practical Action, which is planning to raise around 400,000 pounds ($782,000) over five years by selling carbon credits from four energy projects in Sudan, Peru, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

"It is a very slow, time-intensive process for the initial assessment and verification, and you do begin to wonder whether it is worth the effort."

Michael Schlup, director of the Gold Standard Foundation, which administers a widely used quality label for clean energy projects that also support sustainable development, questioned whether the carbon market was the best place to raise money for climate change adaptation work.

"People see it as a miracle cure, but it could be a diversion from other policy measures," he said, adding his organisation had not yet tried to convert climate change adaptation into a service people could pay for.

For potential investors, one of the key obstacles is that while tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions now have a price, it is difficult to put a value on measures to help people survive weather disasters and adapt to long-term climate stresses.

"I think this is a very valuable exercise but the hard thing is to see how to link it to the carbon market," said Schlup. "With mitigation, you have tonnes of carbon, but with adaptation, are you saving lives or dollars?"

There are also tensions between market demands and the needs of poor communities. For instance in a Practical Action project in Bangladesh, an offset company chose a stove design that produced the lowest emissions but was not favoured by local women.

"Human development and emissions savings objectives are not always win-win," Scott said. (Editing by Catherine Evans and Sara Ledwith)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LM656506.htm


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline HEX

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #221 on: September 02, 2008, 07:51:51 pm »
I think we should make wole section for this information. Anybody second that motion?  ;D

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #222 on: September 02, 2008, 08:58:12 pm »
I think we should make wole section for this information. Anybody second that motion?  ;D

Good Idea. There are quite a few threads that address this subject.

Here is the other main one.

Globalization/NAU/Global Warming Hoax/Unfair Trade/Illegal Immigration/WMDs
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=12.0



That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #223 on: September 02, 2008, 11:33:28 pm »

Solar panels 'take 100 years to pay back installation costs'

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Wednesday, 3 September 2008

Solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combating climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned yesterday.

In a new guide on energy efficiency, Rics said that roof panels for heating water and generating power are unlikely to save enough from bills to make them financially viable in a householder's lifetime. In the case of solar panels to heat water for baths and showers, the institution estimates the payback time from money saved from electricity and gas bills will take more than 100 years – and up to 166 years in the worst case.

Photovoltaic (PV) panels for power – and domestic, mast-mounted wind turbines – will take between 50 and 100 years to pay back.

Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics' building cost information service. Instead, it suggested people wanting to cut fuel bills should insulate lofts and cavity walls, install efficient light bulbs and seal windows.

Joe Martin, author of Rics' Greener Homes Prices Guide, said there was an argument for installing solar panels but it was not an economic one. "We wanted to bring some reality to this because there are a lot of missionaries out there. The whole push for household renewable power is that you can do these things and make back money but that's not true on existing property," he said.

The solar power industry accused Rics of failing to take account of the rising cost of energy and other financial benefits of renewable power in its figures. Jeremy Leggett, of Solar Century, said: "They are grossly irresponsible."

Rics assessed the cost, annual savings, disruption and payback time of various energy-saving methods and gave each an overall rating of one to five stars.

Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star rating.

By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending £440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years, while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60 annually, paying back in five years.

The figures were compiled before energy companies put up bills by up to 30 per cent last month and ignore state subsidies.

Last year, the Department for Trade and Industry slashed grants for the installation of household renewable power by 83 per cent, infuriating the fledgling micro-generation industry which complained the move rendered solar panels unaffordable to all but the wealthy.

Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of Solar Century, complained that Rics' figures failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.

In addition, Rics had failed to take account of a number of other benefits – renewable obligations certificates worth £160 a year to householders from next year; reductions in energy consumption of up to 40 per cent for schemes with a meter; the rising payments from energy companies for spare electricity put back into the national grid; and the increased value of an energy-efficient home.

He estimated the current payback of power-generating PV panels was 13 years.

Rics countered by saying it had not taken account of maintenance costs and that it deliberately chose not to include "ifs" in its figures. "I doubt however you do the sums, they [solar panels] make sense," a spokesman said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
CLIMATE OF FEAR - Tim Blair
« Reply #224 on: September 03, 2008, 11:42:58 pm »
Vote Green in Western Australia this Saturday – or face the pants-wetting consequences:

http://www.greens-wa.net/east-metro
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/the-contest-returns-to-kalamunda-20080903-48ja.html




Via reader Tam, who notes that Perth’s two tallest buildings peak at beyond 200 metres. Remember, as Al Gore says: “You’re tired—we’re all tired—of appeals based on fear.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/living_the_dream/
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #225 on: September 05, 2008, 12:56:29 am »

Australia 'a special case' on climate

By Cathy Alexander

September 05, 2008 12:39pm
Article from: AAP

CLIMATE adviser Ross Garnaut says Australia should aim for a 10 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 because immigration rules out any greater reduction.

In a major report released today, Professor Garnaut says Australia is a special case and should reduce its emissions by less than every other developed country.

The reason is a high level of immigration, which he says means Australia cannot realistically cut emissions as much as other wealthy nations.

And Professor Garnaut thinks Australia should soften its target to a 5 per cent cut, based on 2000 levels, if an international climate pact is not forged.

The 10 per cent target will be a disappointment to the environmental lobby, which has called for a cut of up to 40 per cent.

But it will allay the concerns of business that emissions trading, which is due to start in 2010, will cost profits and jobs.

The 2020 target will be a crucial factor in determining how much households and businesses will pay under emissions trading.

The Federal Government has yet to set a 2020 target.

Professor Garnaut also recommended emissions trading start in 2010 with a fixed carbon price of $20 a tonne, indexed for inflation plus 4 per cent each year.

The latest instalment of his advice to federal and state Governments on what should be done about climate change doesn't make for happy reading.

He is pessimistic about the ability of the world to tackle climate change, and says there is "just a chance" that dangerous global warming can be avoided.

The problem of climate change is "diabolical", "intractable" and "daunting", and the world is rapidly running out of time, he says.

Other developed nations should do more than Australia to cut emissions, Professor Garnaut says.
Canada should slash its emissions by a third, Japan by 27 per cent, the European Union by 14 per cent, and the US by 12 per cent.

Australia had the "least stringent 2020 reductions targets of any of the developed countries/regions modelled".

"Australia's population, because of the country's long-standing and large immigration program, has been and will be growing much faster than populations in other countries," Professor Garnaut says.

"The allocation formula ... accommodates Australia's rapid population growth."

Professor Garnaut has recommended Australia adopt a more ambitious 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050. The Government has committed to a 60 per cent target by then.

He also thinks the world should move towards a per-capita system of emissions reductions, which would have a major impact on Australia because it has one of the world's highest rates of per-capita emissions.

But the "per-capita" system would not kick in until 2050 under the Garnaut plan.

The report also includes some modelling on the costs of climate change.

Professor Garnaut found not acting on climate change would cost Australia dearly, slashing 8 per cent from gross national product by the end of this century. Wages would drop by 12 per cent.

But taking action on climate change would have a "manageable" cost.

Growth would be cut initially by 0.8 per cent, settling to 0.1 per cent in subsequent years.

By 2060, taking action on climate change would have a net positive affect on the economy.

Professor Garnaut's final report is due at the end of this month.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24298506-29277,00.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #226 on: September 08, 2008, 04:28:21 pm »

Cloud-seeding ships could combat climate change

It should be possible to counteract the global warming associated with a doubling of carbon dioxide levels by enhancing the reflectivity of low-lying clouds above the oceans, according to researchers in the US and UK. John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, US, and colleagues say that this can be done using a worldwide fleet of autonomous ships spraying salt water i More..nto the air.

Clouds are a key component of the Earth’s climate system. They can both heat the planet by trapping the longer-wavelength radiation given off from the Earth’s surface and cool it by reflecting incoming shorter wavelength radiation back into space. The greater weight of the second mechanism means that, on balance, clouds have a cooling effect.
’Twomey effect’ boosts reflectivity

Latham’s proposal, previously put forward by himself and a number of other scientists, involves increasing the reflectivity, or “albedo”, of clouds lying about 1 km above the ocean’s surface. The idea relies on the “Twomey effect”, which says that increasing the concentration of water droplets within a cloud raises the overall surface area of the droplets and thereby enhances the cloud’s albedo. By spraying fine droplets of sea water into the air, the small particles of salt within each droplet act as new centres of condensation when they reach the clouds above, leading to a greater concentration of water droplets within each cloud.

Latham and co-workers, including wave-energy researcher Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University, claim that such spraying could increase the rate at which clouds reflect solar energy back into space by as much as 3.7 Wm-2. This is the extra power per unit area that scientists say will arrive at the Earth’s surface following a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to pre-industrial levels — 550 ppm vs 275 ppm (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A DOI:10.1098/rsta.2008.0137).
New spin on sailing

The 300-tonne unmanned ships used to seed the clouds would be powered by the wind, but would not use conventional sails. Instead they would be fitted with a number of 20 m-high, 2.5 m-diameter cylinders known as “Flettner rotors” that would be made to spin continuously. This spinning would generate a force perpendicular to the wind direction, propelling the ship forward if it is oriented at right angles to the wind (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0136).

These rotors would be easier to operate remotely than sails and would also serve as the conduits for the upward spray, with the spray consisting of droplets 0.8 µm in diameter generated by passing sea water through micro nozzles. The power for the spray and the cylinder rotation would be provided by oversized propellers operating as turbines.

The immediate effect of seeding clouds in this way would be a local cooling of the sea surface, and as such the technique could be targeted at coral reefs, diminishing polar ice sheets or other vulnerable regions. However, the great thermal heat capacity of the ocean and the currents within it mean that these initial effects would eventually spread across the globe.
Fleet of 1500

Latham and colleagues calculate that, depending on exactly what fraction of low-level maritime clouds are targeted (with some regions, notably the sea off the west coasts of Africa and North and South America, more susceptible to this technique than others), around 1500 ships would be needed altogether to counteract a carbon doubling, at a cost of some £1m to £2m each. This would involve an initial fleet expanding by some 50 ships a year if the scheme is to keep in step with the current rate of increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels.

This cloud-seeding proposal is one of a number of ideas put forward by scientists in recent years to “geoengineer” the Earth in response to climate change rather than, or as well as, deal with the causes of the change. A series of papers on several proposals, including Latham's, have been published in a recent issue of the journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A entitled Geoscale engineering to avert dangerous climate change.

Latham maintains that his group’s idea is not pie in the sky and that its feasibility is supported by two of the world’s leading computer climate models, as well as recently obtained experimental cloud data. He points out that, unlike rival techniques, the system could be used to vary the degree of cooling as required and could be switched off instantaneously if needed. However, he adds more research must be done to find out a number of unknowns — such as exactly what fraction of spray droplets will reach the clouds — and to establish that the technique would not create any harmful climatic side effects. More work must also be done on the spray technology, he says.
About the author

Edwin Cartlidge is a science journalist based in Italy

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35693


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #227 on: September 17, 2008, 05:11:04 am »
Majority of Australians support carbon trading: Poll

9/09/2008 6:37:00 AM.  | Gillian Cannon

Climate change remains a top priority for Australian's, with an overwhelming number pushing for carbon trading to be introduced.

Almost 90 percent of Australians want the Rudd government to bring in an Emissions Trading Scheme, with a majority of voters also prepared to pay more for energy.

The latest Newspoll shows voters are keen for Australia to push forward regardless of other nations, with 61 percent in favour of action.

Meantime, Kevin Rudd's approval rating has dropped to its second lowest since the election.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson is up two points to 16 percent as preferred Prime Minister - the poll taken before swings against the Liberals in two by-elections over the weekend.


Opposition Transport Spokesperson, Gladys Berijiklian says the real question is does the risk still exist.

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Clear_majority_support_carbon_trading_Poll


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Biggs

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,440
Britons face carbon spotchecks and monitoring of diet in new eco towns
« Reply #228 on: September 26, 2008, 01:30:59 pm »
found on prisonplanet


Britons face carbon spotchecks
It's the price of 'one planet living'

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 26th September 2008 04:49 GMT

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/26/carbon_spotchecks/

Britons should be subjected to random carbon spotchecks and intensive surveillance of their diets, transport and waste disposal habits, says the Government's architecture and design quango in a new report today.

The word "monitoring" occurs 19 times in the 32-page publication by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). If the proposals in the report What Makes An Eco Town?are implemented few aspects of life will go unrecorded.

CABE says the strict monitoring is needed to ensure the carbon footprint of the eco-town dwellers remains at one-third of the British average, which is the requirement for what's called "one-planet living", the quango says.

Examples of monitoring include "the ecological footprint of the diet of 100 randomly selected residents", and the number of shops selling local produce. Waste disposal and transportion habits will also be scrutinized.

The Carbon Cult also wants to choose what you food you eat, and will carefully pre-select only the most righteous retailers. Veggies will be pleased to read that the report recommends "actively seeking retailers on site who will commit to supporting residents in reducing the ecological footprint of their food consumption, in particular providing a wide variety of healthy, low meat and dairy options."

One statistic that won't be recorded is the mortality rate from suicide caused by living in such a grimly regimented and obsessively monitored environment. Or maybe that's the plan. The Government proposes 15 such towns to be built for over 100,000 citizens.


An eco-town resident fails to reach the perimeter

As we have already reported, other eco-town restrictions include a 15mph speed limit for vehicles , and toilets that don't flush. Residents would also be "fined" for leaving the eco-town.

You can download the report from here - and it's well worth a read. It has the zeal of a Maoist revolutionary order, as written by the most anally-retentive bureaucrat who ever lived. ®
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Britons face carbon spotchecks and monitoring of diet in new eco towns
« Reply #229 on: September 26, 2008, 02:05:43 pm »
Realize that this is what they want for us in the future. Put us together in high population density cities you can't leave. The Soviet Union was exactly like this. You couldn't leave your communal farm without the correct papers, and if you really had to go you had to sign papers as soon as you arrived on your destination and when you returned, they checked whether you arrived in time to make sure you didn't do anything else. We won't be able to travel because of our "carbon footprint". We'll live in tightly controlled cities with camera's everywhere, making sure we don't commit any "eco-crimes". Everything we're seeing now will just continue. Massive increases in autism, other mental illnesses, like depression, dementia, infertility, obesity, diabetes, cancer, but they'll blame it on us. People will try to escape their day to day lives in virtual reality simulations.

Offline Biggs

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,440
Re: Britons face carbon spotchecks and monitoring of diet in new eco towns
« Reply #230 on: September 26, 2008, 03:46:43 pm »
yep that sounds pretty much what the plan is
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Rudd's expert wants tougher carbon goals
« Reply #231 on: September 29, 2008, 11:18:04 pm »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24424571-2,00.html

    * Ross Garnaut delivers final climate change report
    * Has toughened his position on emissions targets
    * However he is pessimistic about a world deal


Top climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has warmed to the idea of a deep cut to greenhouse emissions - but he thinks it probably won't happen. After infuriating green groups earlier this month by recommending a 10 per cent greenhouse target by 2020, he's now more open to a 25 per cent cut in emissions.

He also aspires to a 90 per cent target by 2050, compared with the Federal Government's 60 per cent goal.

Professor Garnaut today released his long-awaited 620-page final report on what the nation should do about climate change.

"Strong mitigation, with Australia playing its proportionate part, is in Australia's interests,'' the report says.

''(Australia) should express its willingness to reduce its own entitlements to emissions from 2000 levels by 25 per cent by 2020, and by 90 per cent by 2050 in the context of an international agreement.''

This ambitious target would be in the context of a global deal to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to 450 parts per million (ppm), which Prof Garnaut says Australia should aim for. However, he thinks the world will not reach this "strong mitigation'' deal.

If his scepticism proves correct, Prof Garnaut wants the nation to push for a global atmospheric carbon concentration of 550 ppm, which means Australia cutting emissions by 10 per cent by 2020.

And if no global climate deal is forged out of the UN process, Australia should aim to cut emissions by five per cent by 2020 as an "unconditional offer'', Prof Garnaut says.

Both these targets, which Prof Garnaut previously referred to as draft targets, have been criticised by green groups as being too weak.

In his landmark report, the economist has stuck with his message that climate change is real and serious, and that Australia has a lot to lose in not tackling it. Prof Garnaut wants Australia to spend $2.7bn a year on research and commercialisation of low-emissions technologies.

In line with government policy, he wants emissions trading to start in 2010, with a fixed, rising carbon permit price until 2012.

Less than 30 per cent of the value of the permits should be given to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive companies which could lose out to competitor nations that don't have emissions trading. Prof Garnaut has stuck with his draft recommendation on how the revenue from emissions trading should be spent.

Households would get half, 30 per cent would go to businesses, and 20 per cent to research.

Householders would be able to access a "green credit'' arrangement to install energy-smart appliances.

Coal-based electricity generators would not get compensation, although coal regions could get adjustment payments.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #232 on: September 30, 2008, 10:44:55 pm »

France proposes phasing in CO2 curbs for cars
30 Sep 2008 15:21:29 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Adds reaction, background)

By Pete Harrison

BRUSSELS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - European Union President France proposed on Tuesday watering down plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars by phasing in limits up to 2015, with lower fines for narrowly missing the target.

The EU's Commission has called for CO2 cuts from cars of 18 percent to 130 grams per km by 2012, as part of an ambitious plan to lead the world in fighting climate change, with stiff fines for non-compliance.

The EU executive hopes a further 10 grams will be removed through better tyres, fuels and air-conditioning.

But France, which holds the presidency until the end of this year, proposed that just 60 percent of each manufacturer's fleet should have to meet the standard in 2012, rising to full compliance in 2015, according to a document seen by Reuters.

Greenpeace campaigner Franziska Achterberg said that rather than limiting emissions, the French plan would give auto makers room to increase average CO2 emissions across their fleet.

"Under this proposal...manufacturers could continue business as usual and keep churning out their gas-guzzlers until 2012," she added. "Such a move would be bad news for European consumers and the environment."

The French document also suggested a longer-term target of cutting car emissions to 95-110 grams per km by 2020. Up to 7 grams of the cuts could be achieved through new technologies other than engine improvements, such as solar panels on roofs.

The French proposal foresees a complex, graduated system of fines that would ease the penalty on manufacturers that narrowly miss their targets.

POLITICAL PRESSURE

Auto making nations led by Germany, which specialises in powerful, heavy luxury vehicles such as Mercedes <DAIGn.DE> and BMW <BMWG.DE>, which emit the most greenhouse gases, have pressed for a softening of the Commission's original plan.

The big carmakers have argued that a rush to legislate puts jobs and export earnings at risk, because there is no guarantee consumers will buy greener cars when they are put on the market.

They also say new designs need about five years to roll off the production line, making 2012 goals difficult to achieve.

Italy, which specialises in lighter, less polluting cars such as Fiat <FIA.MI>, has been angered by France and Germany dominating the political process and says the draft rules now favour heavy cars by linking emissions caps to weight.

"(It) is the result of political pressure aimed at protecting particular interests of a few market participants in the car sector," Fiat Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of a conference in Rome.

The environment committee of the European Parliament, which shares the duty of drafting legislation with EU member states, last week rejected a similar swathe of changes to those proposed by France, saying they were too soft on the auto industry.

Member states and parliament have to agree on the same rules for the legislation to be adopted. (Additional reporting by Alberto Sisto in Rome, editing by Paul Taylor and Anthony Barker)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LU299807.htm


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline liko

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Freedom or Nothing!
Re: Agenda 21
« Reply #233 on: October 01, 2008, 03:22:40 am »
Local Agenda 21 in the United Kingdom - a review of progress and issues in New Zealand   February 2000
http://www.pce.govt.nz/reports/allreports/local_agenda_02_00.shtml
  link dead.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Council set to back Biggest Carbon Loser TV program
« Reply #234 on: October 07, 2008, 08:30:13 am »
http://redland.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/council-set-to-back-biggest-carbon-loser/1326347.aspx

BY DANIEL HURST
5/10/2008 11:51:00 PM


REDLAND City Council is willing to spend up to $19,000 sponsoring a proposed Network Ten program called The Biggest Carbon Loser.

The eight-part series would raise community awareness of climate change by showing how families could reduce their energy use and carbon emissions, according to a mayoral briefing note presented at last week's general meeting.

Mayor Melva Hobson said the television show would be a joint iniative between Network Ten and the South East Queensland Council of Mayors and would be broadcast across the region.

Cr Hobson told councillors the $413,000 total sponsorship cost would be divided among the region's councils in line with population levels, with Redland City Council's contribution likely to fall between $9743 and $18,891.

Her mayoral briefing note said the show would be promoted through interviews with mayors and/or councillors during live weather crosses on the nightly news, and would fit in with the council's climate change goals.

But Division 9 Councillor Karen Williams said the council would be better off spending the money on thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Councillors voted to give Cr Hobson authority to approve a sponsorship deal if the Council of Mayors decides to proceed with the proposal. The group is due to meet on Friday.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Virgil_Hilts

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
Re: Council set to back Biggest Carbon Loser TV program
« Reply #235 on: October 07, 2008, 08:40:46 am »
Forget solar, tidal, wave, wind and geothermal power, oh no, just use less oil.
Virgil Hilts was the main character from The Great Escape.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Dateline - The cost of carbon
« Reply #236 on: October 09, 2008, 05:17:01 am »
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16196450dsbf55sK

This week Video Journalist Nick Lazaredes travels to Europe, to examine the highly contentious issue of carbon trading. Kevin Rudd wants a similar system here - so how are the Europeans faring in this attempt to reduce carbon emissions?

YOUR SAY: Will carbon trading really work?
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/the_cost_of_carbon__559309

In Belgium, politicians are debating changes to their Carbon Emissions Scheme, but environmentalists warn that Europe's solution to global warming is turning into a farce.

Carbon trading is a process where companies can trade their unused carbon credits for a tidy profit. However this process allows heavy polluters to continue to damage the environment, as they buy up carbon credits from other companies.

Climate change activists say EU's climate scheme isn't credible and are worried it could have disastrous impacts around the world if other countries choose to implement it.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Kyoto 'a waste of time' say half of Australians
« Reply #237 on: October 13, 2008, 11:46:38 pm »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24491822-5009760,00.html

By staff writers
October 14, 2008 12:01am


    * Aussies voice opinion on Kyoto Protocol signing
    * news.com.au survey reveals Kyoto scepticism
    * "Too late" to save polar bears - survey

ALMOST half of Australians believe the signing of the Kyoto Protocol - a cornerstone of Kevin Rudd’s election campaign - was a waste of time.

A whopping 73 per cent of respondents to a news.com.au survey, conducted by CoreData, also said the Rudd Government was not doing enough or could be doing more to combat climate change.

Mr Rudd’s much-lauded ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has had no beneficial effect on climate change, said 44 per cent of 1122 news.com.au readers.

Just 14 per cent of people said Kyoto had helped curb the effects of climate change.

Another 41 per cent believed more time was needed before any result was apparent.

The Government is acting on the concerns Australians have about the issue, a spokeswoman for climate change minister Penny Wong says.

 "The Rudd Government understands that Australians want to tackle climate change and we have set out a plan to do so,” the spokeswoman said.

"Our plan to tackle climate change has three pillars: reducing carbon pollution, helping to shape a global solution, and adapting to the climate change we can't avoid.”

A proposed carbon reduction scheme is one of the ways to help fight climate change, she says.

The way we live:

Men are far more likely to be climate change sceptics than women, according to the survey.

While 85 per cent of women said there was enough evidence to link human activity to climate change, only 54 per of men agreed.

Men were also twice as likely as women to believe Australia’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol was of no benefit.

About 55 per cent of Australians believed climate change would alter day-to-day life over the next decade, and about half said it was “truly possible” to resolve the issue.

Two-thirds of Australians said they took environmental factors into consideration when buying goods.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Energy rating plan to cut tech carbon emissions
« Reply #238 on: October 13, 2008, 11:49:22 pm »
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24490955-15306,00.html

Fran Foo | October 14, 2008


THE federal Government is about to crack down on technology carbon emissions after testing found some brand new computers failed to meet turn-of-the-century emissions standards.

The Government will regulate the tech sector so it abides by a planned national energy efficiency strategy in line with Kyoto Protocol commitments while delivering about $100 million in energy cost savings.

Energy Star labelling for PCs and electronic equipment has been ruled out as a mechanism for consumers to assess an item's energy consumption.

White goods carry such labels.

Federal government testing of new desktops and laptops found some could not even meet Energy Star version 3 specification, which became effective in 2000.

The Government will legislate on computer room air-conditioning power usage, which will affect server rooms, and computer peripherals in sleep mode will be capped at 1 Watt.

Most cordless telephones, for example, have standby power modes that range between 1.1W and 2W, according to the US federal energy-management program.

The local regulatory regime for technology follows an agreement to pursue national appliance energy performance standards at the October 2 Council of Australian Governments meeting in Perth.

The meeting agreed to develop a national strategy for energy efficiency to help households and businesses prepare for the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, set to kick off in 2010, although business groups and some politicians have been pushing for a delay.

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts appliance energy efficiency director Shane Holt, said the technology sector would play a crucial role in the government's national sustainability plans.

The technology sector has been growing at about 20 per cent annually, but the department used a conservative 8 per cent growth rate to calculate the industry's green impact over the next six years from desktops, laptops and monitors, Mr Holt said.

By 2014, energy consumption in a business-as-usual environment would hit 10,019 gigawatt hours a year, but with the Government's green program, it would be 6367GWh a year.

This would deliver an energy cost savings of $147 million and eventually a net benefit of $98 million after taking into account the program cost of $49 million.

"Those are very large numbers and they are very large reasons why government wants to come to play," he said.

More than 12 months ago the department began a confidential dialogue with major suppliers to establish building blocks for a regulatory framework.

The areas of interest were personal computers, laptops and monitors, which use about a third of the power consumed by technology products.

According to a rough analysis by the department, there are about 24 million technology products in use.

"There are 8 million in homes, 8 million in offices and the rest spread across everything else," Mr Holt told the Australian Information Industry Association Sustainable Futures Forum last week in Melbourne.

Details are scant but discussions with businesses have been based on international standards, and proposals will be based on US Energy Star test methods.

"The US Environment Protection Agency has for many years been talking to the computer industry'

"The Energy Star program that it has had for many years is certainly embedded in the US culture, so you can't procure a computer for government unless it meets the Energy Star levels.

"We're talking about a regulatory regime but we're also talking about a complimentary process to help suppliers sell more efficient products," he said. An outcome was likely in a month, Mr Holt said. It would be announced by federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

On the issue of labelling computers with an Energy Star rating, Mr Holt confirmed there would not be a mandatory label on laptops, PCs and monitors. The Government had decided against the labels as they could mislead and confuse people.

"Less than half of computers are sold in the traditional showroom, so when people see a label it won't be at the point of sale.

"Also people auction their computer and the internal parts of the computer can change dramatically, so labelling is a pretty blunt instrument," Mr Holt said.

Major suppliers such as Hewlett-Packard pointed out that the Energy Star 4 rating covered sleep modes and didn't truly represent the energy efficiency of a machine in operation. The answer could be a website.

Website tools would allow those who were interested to check out energy performance and manufacturers could use them to promote sustainable issues, Mr Holt said.

It is unclear if this refers to a FuelWatch or GroceryWatch-like website for green IT.

On data centres, Mr Holt said, the Government would adopt a program being finalised by the US Environment Protection Agency.

"The US EPA has been working on its data centre proposal for quite some time and it should all be coming together next year.

"We'd like to copy that program into Australia as quickly as possible."

Australia would use that as a regulatory base as soon as practical, possibly within three years, he said.

Another area that national legislation will cover from mid-2009 is computer room air-conditioning.

"About a third of all power drawn is the air-conditioning unit to cool the servers. It has been agreed by all the jurisdictions that computer room air-conditioners will be regulated.

"We're waiting for the ministers to sign off for mid next year."

The department has also started a product testing program to aid government procurement.

In a series of tests with newly purchased desktops and laptops, Mr Holt found some startling results: five desktops and four notebooks out 19 and 10, respectively, didn't meet the Energy Star version 3 specification, which became effective in 2000.

Regulating the industry would help ensure that such gaps did not exist, he said.

"When I first started talking to the industry we heard so much about Moore's Law and in 18 months everything is refreshed.

"It seems to me that's the reason why regulation is positive for industry.

"Aspirationally, the top end is charging ahead, but the bottom end is not moving, and that is why setting a benchmark makes economic sense, and makes good environmental and political sense."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #239 on: October 15, 2008, 08:39:13 pm »
From The Times
October 16, 2008

Love in a cold climate
Damian Whitworth continues his series charting how long he and his family can survive without central heating

Well, this is easy. There I was, surrounded by naysayers - the snorters, the eye-rollers and those who predicted that I wouldn't survive more than a few days before turning on the heating - and now here we are in the middle of October and the Whitworth household is standing firm in its resolve to put a dent in the profits of the gasillionaires. Central heating is for wimps.

Of course, a couple of factors have helped my little experiment to see how long I could go without artificial home heating: 1) it has been mild in the past few days. 2) Er, I haven't actually been here.

Yes, for the second week of the great central heating shutdown, I was in Iran. That's a long story for another time, but for our current purposes I can report that the weather was very pleasant, thank you very much. Temperature mostly in the 70s. Up in the 80s and really rather hot one day. I needed a hat and caught the sun a bit; a jacket required for al fresco dining under the stars some evenings. One night I felt the need for air-conditioning in my hotel room. Thought about it for a minute. Should this slot be anti air-conditioning as well? Decided not to confuse the issue and switched it on.

I told my wife all this when I returned. She explained how she had hosted her book group at our house. “I e-mailed everyone telling them that you were conducting a bizarre experiment that involved your family living in a house without heating while you went away somewhere nice and warm and then came back and wrote about the results.” They all sat there in fleeces. One woman wore two pairs of tights.

“They'll all think I've gone mad,” I said.

“They knew that long ago.” For the record, my concern that I might come back and find my family locked in a frozen embrace on the sofa had led me to tell her, before I left, that it was better to jeopardise the integrity of the experiment than the wellbeing of the children, and that she should not worry about switching on the heating if there was a cold snap.

“Yes, that was very big of you,” she said.

The venture has struck a chord in all the leading central-heating debate forums. A radio station in Vancouver wants to interview me.

Gerry, from London, wrote on Times Online that he spent the past two winters without heating. “It is quite tolerable in the English climate. Of course, wearing a hat and gloves indoors is necessary on the coldest days, but what's wrong with that?” Comments like that aren't entirely helpful. I was planning to write one or two pieces about this before I switched on the heating. Now my editor seems to think that I will be spending the whole winter without heat. I can sense the grandparents positioning themselves for a battle for custody of the kids.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4950987.ece


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche