Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

EAU Data Suggests Warming Ended In 1997

Recommended Posts

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/403835_314540041914443_160258774009238_815355_901345848_n.jpg

Sorry, but I don't know how to post a picture!

This link shows the cover of Time in 1977 and 2006, relating to my claim about warnings about the coming Ice Age.

You're bringing that up again ?

I hoped that I had finally got through to you that popular media isn't to be listened to too closely for such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hoped that I had finally got through to you that popular media isn't to be listened to too closely for such things.

Does that apply to viral and broadcast media? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that apply to viral and broadcast media? ;)

Most definitely.

It's like having your grandpa on one side of you and your nephew on the other. Between them they're describing some kind of reality, but neither one has the whole picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given your total focus/acceptance of applied measures has been on traditional 'toxic' emissions, I'm somewhat confused you wouldn't recognize a related success... and appreciate a parallel in the making!

So Americans can breathe easier? I thought this was a global problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to look at the original system to see that this statement is wrong.

Prove me wrong. AGW is a money scam pure and simple. Hell, even equate it to something like Scientology. Religion is big business for those who can't simply think for themselves. Chuck out a few talking points, get a scare into someone else so they can give you money, so they can save you, which solves nothing and saving you was never their goal.

It's big money this.

Are you aware you can trade weather futures as a commodity? Yes you can bet on the weather! And since we can modify the weather, in a few different ways, we can even kind of rig the game. But whatever. Did you know the carbon trading market had a revenue of billions for the last 3 or so years? Where did this money go? Did it do any good? Who has it now?

I am just simply surprised that people still don't quite understand this. While at the same time these councils on climate change end up spewing a crap load of the so called carbon emissions by holding meetings in exotic locations. Places many of us can't afford to get to unless we save up for a few years. But hey, these guys to it yearly, more often, who knows. Not to mention the carbon footprint these summits would have because they don't stay at the local motel. No sir. 5 Star lavish acommodations, first class, perhaps private jet, AC'd limo on standby at all times. If these guys were at least trying to put up a good facade, they'd at least do it on the cheap and be somewhat modest about it. Like putting your money where your mouth is. So, in the end to me, a nice little scam to 'work' on and jet set around the globe. All the time they are telling me I need to pollute less. Eat my pickle. I bought two of those 'green' bulbs, suposed 5000 hrs life. Both already burnt out, after maye 30 hours of use. These things are not cheap either. And now they are considered hazerdous waste. Yeesh. Some of them take 90 seconds to warm up. So you waste time and energy waiting for the full brightness to come about so you can see things. Sure sure. .... Just one annoying example of them trying to convince you the seas are going to drown us all if we don't buy into their scam.

Whenever huge dollars are trading hands in the guise of doing something good, be very very cautious of it, to the point of suspicion. The fact I can even buy carbon credits and trade/sell them for a profit really shows me the value ... in dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it still allows polluters to pollute as long as they can pay for it. Money trading hands does not resolve the issue.

given your total focus/acceptance of applied measures has been on traditional 'toxic' emissions, I'm somewhat confused you wouldn't recognize a related success... and appreciate a parallel in the making!

So Americans can breathe easier? I thought this was a global problem?

in regards the physical scientific basis that supports atmospheric study/analysis, you have repeatedly offered a narrow focused, most selective acceptance of that science... an acceptance that only includes traditional "toxic emission" based pollution. Of course, you have never, ever, qualified your selective, narrow acceptance of the science to exclude CO2 emissions from your focus on emissions pollution. Such a contradiction! In any case, my post was simply in deference to your narrow, selective acceptance of the science... since you were repeatedly beaking off about CO2 focused market mechanisms, I thought it opportune to open a window on reality for you... showing you an example of a market based solution that resulted in lower emissions of your narrow focused acceptance relative to more traditional "toxic pollution".

your reply, "So Americans can breathe easier? I thought this was a global problem?", is dumbfounding! Whether that particular U.S. focused market mechanism example had/has any influence on other countries applying like market solutions, if you choose to reply in such a naive simplistic manner, let me ask you a simple question: is the U.S. atmosphere constrained to it's physical land mass? Duh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove me wrong. AGW is a money scam pure and simple. Hell, even equate it to something like Scientology. Religion is big business for those who can't simply think for themselves. Chuck out a few talking points, get a scare into someone else so they can give you money, so they can save you, which solves nothing and saving you was never their goal.

First of all, your assertions about AGW are opinion - but we're not even talking about AGW. I was talking about the original case study, which was for acid rain.

The rest of your post is also about AGW. I've already stated that I agree there are problems with the current trading system, from what I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've already stated that I agree there are problems with the current trading system, from what I've read.

Michael, it doesn't really matter... for some time now, MLW member GostHacked has maintained this same tirade against a 'cap™' market emissions strategy. He really only offers a personal opinion; he rarely presents anything substantive that can actually be challenged or questioned. It doesn't even matter if you offer alternative solutions or state a preference for other strategies beyond the more traditional 'cap™'... MLW member GostHacked is fixated... if only he could channel his fixation into a legible argument.

- a recent reference to the early success of New Zealand's deployment: Kiwi ETS a success: report

- as follows a couple of earlier related posts, the first, a direct response to MLW member GostHacked:

interesting you don't seem to want to discuss 'fee & dividend', in spite of being pointed in that direction, several times. Now... in the absence of any likelihood toward governments placing a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source (i.e., 'fee & dividend'), practicalities begin to set in - you are beginning to see a gradual shift (
by some
) in the fundamental disagreement about the desirability of using market-based instruments in environmental regulation.

yes, the ETS has had significant start-up problems (obviously); however, reconciling those problems against the intended multi-phased implementation strategy is necessary. Equally, there is a requirement to balance those start-up problems against the (relative) successes of the early ETS years. The initial studies of the ETS start-up phase have been done - they are available for you to scrutinize... for you to present some countering foundation for your repeated attacks and denigration of cap & trade. Something other than your/denier standard "scam" bleat. The initial ETS studies seem to suggest, in problem balance, ETS has put in place a system
that has reduced emissions
... it has "proven" that a multinational cap & trade system
can/might
work. Ultimately, the next phases of ETS will require concerted efforts to reduce/eliminate the realized start-up problems. Just so we're clear... I favour a 'fee & dividend' strategy; in it's absence, in the high-probability it can't/won't be realized, I'm open to discussing options that begin to show - '
possibly
' - that cap & trade has value-add. Is it enough... will it be enough? Of course not.

... I've posted reference to this study (
), in prior MLW threads... one of the first comprehensive reviews of Phase 1 of the EU ETS. Certainly, most of the vitriol against cap & trade stems from those who don't recognize (or factor) what's involved in the startup phase of any market based trading system... don't recognize (or factor) the purposeful design of some of what is being criticized about Phase 1 of the EU ETS... don't recognize (or factor) the corrective measures within subsequent Phases (some as designed, others as reacting to results of Phase 1). But... most importantly and most significantly don't recognize (or factor) the actual results of Phase 1 of the EU ETS. Specifically:
The widespread view that the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS) has failed to deliver expected reductions in emissions "cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence", according to a major new study of the first phase of the scheme which hails the cap-and-trade initiative as successful and a "path-breaking" policy experiment.

The study, which has been published in a book titled Pricing Carbon, was undertaken by a group of European and US economists from University College Dublin, the Mission Climate of the Caisse des Dépôts, the International Energy Agency, the University of Paris-Dauphine, the Őko-Institut in Berlin, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

It assesses the first phase of the EU ETS, which ran from 2005 to 2007 and was widely regarded as a failure due to an overallocation of emission allowances that resulted in a slump in the price of carbon.

However, the researchers estimated that despite the price of carbon falling to almost zero, the scheme
still led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of between two and five per cent against business-as-usual scenarios, resulting in carbon savings of 120 million to 300 million tonnes during the three-year period.

now, again... FWIW, I personally favour a "fee and dividend" approach over "cap & trade". However, per the above, per the referenced comprehensive and reputable study, the EU Emissions Trading System, through all the startup problems, over allocations, 'giveaways', etc., within it's Phase 1 deployment... still... resulted in reduced emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're bringing that up again ?

I hoped that I had finally got through to you that popular media isn't to be listened to too closely for such things.

Except Fox/Sun News... Those guys are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except Fox/Sun News... Those guys are.

Funny enough, we just had a discussion yesterday about how viral media is more inclined to trot out old stories as if they were new. Are they really rolling this old Chevy out of the closet once more ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This link shows the cover of Time in 1977 and 2006, relating to my claim about warnings about the coming Ice Age.

again, and again, and again... over and over and over. You're certainly not new to these related discussions - you absolutely know that this canard has been dispatched many, many times previously in assorted MLW threads. And yet, your first and only post in this thread is to resurrect it - once again!

are you saying you subscribe to the false, lying premise of this thread... the one Shady hasn't the intellectual honesty to change the title of? Is that the reason you resurrected this BS concerning "70s cooling/ice age"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, and again, and again... over and over and over. You're certainly not new to these related discussions - you absolutely know that this canard has been dispatched many, many times previously in assorted MLW threads. And yet, your first and only post in this thread is to resurrect it - once again!

are you saying you subscribe to the false, lying premise of this thread... the one Shady hasn't the intellectual honesty to change the title of? Is that the reason you resurrected this BS concerning "70s cooling/ice age"?

They got it wrong, then, they could still have it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They got it wrong, then, they could still have it wrong.

If "they" means Time magazine and Newsweek then I don't think Waldo or I would argue against you.

They also named Hitler, and possibly Pac Man as 'man of the year'. How about we agree that pop news magazines reflect the zeitgeist, and what sells rather than a serious summary of the science of the day hm ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're bringing that up again ?

I hoped that I had finally got through to you that popular media isn't to be listened to too closely for such things.

No, you explained that in scientific circles such things don't carry much weight. That was never really my point.

My point actually is that such things carry a great deal of political weight!

When such ideas are so strong in the popular media they represent part of popular culture. People believe it and they expect their politicians to cater to it!

Or do you believe that is not true, either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, and again, and again... over and over and over. You're certainly not new to these related discussions - you absolutely know that this canard has been dispatched many, many times previously in assorted MLW threads. And yet, your first and only post in this thread is to resurrect it - once again!

are you saying you subscribe to the false, lying premise of this thread... the one Shady hasn't the intellectual honesty to change the title of? Is that the reason you resurrected this BS concerning "70s cooling/ice age"?

Not at all, Waldo! I didn't believe in a coming Ice Age back in the 70's and I don't believe we're all going to fry today!

As I replied to Michael, my point is that when BS becomes part of the popular culture politicians are obliged to cater to it and make decisions often involving huge sums of tax money based upon it.

I've no doubt you are well aware that to this day there are American ststes that have laws giving equal credence to Intelligent Design in classrooms. One of them actually had a politician introduce a motion to round off Pi to 3, to make it easier to work with!

Millions and millions of people read about a coming Ice Age and not only believed it but demanded politicians ban CFCs and take other expensive actions to prevent it. Then they went back to their newspapers to read their horoscopes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When such ideas are so strong in the popular media they represent part of popular culture.

in that time, such an idea was not strong... was not popular. A couple of newsrag covers does not impart, as you say, popularity to culture. It was fringe then and only perpetuates today because the naive, the uninformed and the purposeful disinformers keep trotting it out... no matter how many times, over and over and over again, it is refuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you explained that in scientific circles such things don't carry much weight. That was never really my point.

My point actually is that such things carry a great deal of political weight!

When such ideas are so strong in the popular media they represent part of popular culture. People believe it and they expect their politicians to cater to it!

Or do you believe that is not true, either?

No, I believe it's true. Politicians do listen to the people, after all. But there wasn't any political push at all after the so-called 1970s ice age scare. Strange, that. Maybe the politicians also temper their populist listenings with reality checks ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...my point is that when BS becomes part of the popular culture politicians are obliged to cater to it and make decisions often involving huge sums of tax money based upon it.

I think we see a lot more of that with regards to conventional economic BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for being so simple but I navigated to the Met Office "rebuttal" and expected to find a graph and supporting information that zeroed in on the last 15 years - but all I saw was the regular retort that it has been warming since 1850 (duh!). The comments that were submitted to the Met article are also interesting. The general thrust of Rose's article appears to hold true: CO2 continues to rise but global temperatures have been pretty well stayed the same. Couldn't help but notice that Waldo's been in there like a dog on a bone. ;)

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for being so simple but I navigated to the Met Office "rebuttal" and expected to find a graph and supporting information that zeroed in on the last 15 years - but all I saw was....

Huh ? There is a graph on that page.

MET site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in that time, such an idea was not strong... was not popular. A couple of newsrag covers does not impart, as you say, popularity to culture. It was fringe then and only perpetuates today because the keep trotting it out... no matter how many times, over and over and over again, it is refuted.

Well, those were my gallivanting years Waldo and my recollection is different than what you describe. To my memory, it was NOT just a fringe opinion! If you are not already familiar, you might want to google up "The Club of Rome" which was another idea from that time about population growth and ecological issues that proved totally wrong. Unfortunately, many high level political leaders bought into it, including our own Pierre Trudeau. They wasted a great deal of our tax monies but it got them many votes!

So my view is that I lived it and that's what I saw and experienced. Your view is that it is just an untruth repeatedly dragged up by the "naive, the uninformed and the purposeful disinformers".

I don't know how old you are so I thus don't know if you too lived through those times and have direct experience to contradict mine. It's entirely possible that my impressions back then were wrong, I will admit.

After all, back then I was literally looking at the world through rose coloured glasses! :lol:

Edited by Wild Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh ? There is a graph on that page.

MET site

If we're talking about the last 15 or so years, why is their graph in 50 year increments? Oh that's right, because it wouldn't show what they want it to show. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...