|
|
Post by pidgey on Nov 10, 2008 21:45:36 GMT
Well, he's an intelligent lawyer, not an engineer or scientist. Lawyers are trained in getting money by the power of argument as opposed to actually producing a tangible product.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Nov 11, 2008 4:28:59 GMT
Hi Pidgey
How right you are - It never truly occurred to me although it could be that an intelligent lawyer is an oxymoron. Now you mention it, they are all lawyers which doesn't say much for the profession.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Nov 11, 2008 4:59:09 GMT
Hi Pidgey How right you are - It never truly occurred to me although it could be that an intelligent lawyer is an oxymoron. Now you mention it, they are all lawyers which doesn't say much for the profession. In Australia, in descending order, it's real estate agents, used car salesmen, lawyers & then politicians at the bottom of the 'would you trust this?' list. Lawyers are higher than pollies because they have to at least pretend to follow rules - pollies just make them up as they go. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 12, 2008 9:02:10 GMT
There is hope in New Zealand: We have a number of climate & other scientists speaking out against AGW - and probably because of the size of NZ, there is no place for AGW Scientists to hide, and they definitely can't pretend they have a consensus! New Zealand: Change of Government: people feel free to speak out, as they now have a new Government. Sunspots spell end of climate mythwww.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4757411a1865.htmlThe Act party (well to the right of center) campaigned strongly against Global warming: Policy: Dump the Emissions Tax Scamwww.act.org.nz/and is now a minor coalition party in government. The now National Government had this to say (when in oppostion back in August 08) but they'll be dragged away by their ACT partners. www.secureserver91.com/ccbc/bill-english.html(*warning to Australians - mentions Aussies losing at sport - watch at your own risk *) from: 4th Australia & New Zealand Climate Change & Business Conference www.climateandbusiness.com/program.html#videosI saw this google link, but the article has been removed (censoredin Australia? Probably) The former New Zealand government's strong policy on climate change was a driving factor behind the Labour party's lossBut this is just as good: www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/political/rudd-vows-continuity-after-nz-labour-out/1355937.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 17, 2008 20:02:22 GMT
//Rant
We are now at war: The War on climate change.
I think we need to take their language seriously.
The first causality of War is truth. We need some "inner circle" folk to come out & reveal all, but I suspect that (a) suicidal on their careers, (b) and maybe suicidal. (Govt induced "accident")
The Men in Black are obviously speaking to our scientists. (If not in every country, in most) We can no longer trust other than what we observe amongst us, the uncorrupted.
They only have to keep the masses "converted". The 10-20% of heretics can be at first ignored, and when necessary, eliminated.
Worse, the more the data goes against them, the harder they will fight for control of the media.
As it gets colder & colder, the number of "warming" reports coming out on the media is increasing. Every weather report now reports how warm the year is, while going on to tell us how cold it (temporarily is)
Most workers never see the weather! Locked up in cubicles, in front of screens, then at home in front of screens!
The second thing you do in war is put the economy on a war footing-mass inflation (to "pay" for the war effort), then controls on wages and goods (rationing) as needed by the effort.
The GFC is looking more & more like an effect of political action on AGW than anything else - and represents the mass redistribution of resources away from a productive economy.
//End Rant
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Dec 17, 2008 20:32:28 GMT
Yeah good news about NZ
Turnbull here I think is open on the climate issue - at least a lot more than KRudd
They may be able to fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. My bet is the current crop of AGW propagandists in the media, politics, government and science are basically setting themselves up to lose. They are so indoctrinated by the myth they cannot see reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 28, 2009 6:56:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 28, 2009 14:30:49 GMT
Yeah good news about NZ Turnbull here I think is open on the climate issue - at least a lot more than KRudd They may be able to fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. My bet is the current crop of AGW propagandists in the media, politics, government and science are basically setting themselves up to lose. They are so indoctrinated by the myth they cannot see reality. Yep, in a recent debate on another forum I made the "claim" that warming was probably just natural variation...like the other, as yet unexplained, temperature swings in the past of equal or greater warming/cooling. He told me that _I_ needed to support my (technically...completely neutral stance) and show that this warming HAD to be natural. The scientific method and general logic is indeed lost on these people. I need support nothing with such a neutral stance (that nothing is going on...but normal climate) ...alarmists are the ones claiming radical climate change from a gas that shows no signs either in ice cores or in recent history of any significant correlation. I'm open to the idea but only in the last year have the major (known) climate variables actually switched to a state that wouldn't, by themselves, account for all the warming. NOW is the time to watch to see if it's even true but they're acting like it's been 100% verified science for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Feb 28, 2009 21:21:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 27, 2009 22:42:07 GMT
Welcome to your Brave New World I !Russell, George. “U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy - United Nations.” FOXNews.com -, March 27, 2009. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html "A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body. "Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations " information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an 'effective framework' for dealing with global warming." .jpg) | UN Committee. “Information Note (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).” Government. Framework Convention on Climate Change, March 16, 2009. www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf
On page 6 of this document, the table on the left appears within the Information Note (the U.N.'s plan for your future):
In this table, you will find reassuring claims like the following:
"Positive for foreign exporters of environmentally sound technology" ...
"Positive technology spillovers if ... made publicly available".
Of course they will be publicly available. Proprietary technology will be sold, stolen or reverse engineered without payment (ala Pakistan & China).
This is "Share The Wealth" on a grand scale. |
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 27, 2009 23:00:10 GMT
Welcome to your Brave New World II !The Russell article references the following table for the United States: “Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer, 1996 through 2007 (Table 1.1).” Governmental. Energy Information Administration, January 21, 2009. www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html, or www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile1_1.pdf. A little calculation shows slim pickings for the people: The government source has been updated through June 2009. The exhibit below now includes both the year 2008 and the trailing 12 months (TTM) through June 2009. You may notice a decline in "Federally Controlled" sources. Energy production declines in recessions, particularly those induced by governments. A decline in CO2 emissions often follows suit (without Cap-And-Trade). (Data from 2007 in thousand megawatthours) | Fossil Fuels | 2,992,238 | 72.0% | | Nuclear | 806,425 | 9.4% | | Total Banned by "Greens" | 3,798,664 | 91.4% | | Left for Citizens | ..........> | 8.6% |
Note that " Nuclear" is not classified as " Renewable" (Wind, Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic, Wood and Wood Derived Fuels, Geothermal, and Other Biomass), even though the French have made more fuel out of spent Uranium than they need. Even 8.6% may be optimistic. Note that "renewables" include Wood and Wood Derived Fuels and BioMass. Burning these might generate CO 2.  The Tea Parties continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 30, 2009 6:39:27 GMT
When it comes to smoking guns and AGW, I think this is the one: Carbon Market With Trillion-Dollar Potential Sparks Early U.S. Turf Fight www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aPQlqDUndiLY&refer=homeExcerpt: Representative Edward Markey says his committee should be in charge. No, says fellow Democrat Collin Peterson, this one should fall under my panel. Markey and Peterson are jockeying for control of the biggest regulatory plum to hit Washington in years: a proposed system for trading carbon-dioxide permits that would be one of the world’s largest derivatives markets. -> Important note: The derivatives markets are what have brought the US financial system to a grinding halt. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 31, 2009 3:15:33 GMT
The politics of "peer review". www.drroyspencer.com/2009/03/set-phasers-on-stun/We’ve tentatively decided to submit to Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) rather than any of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) journals. This is because it appears that JGR editors are somewhat less concerned about a paper’s scientific conclusions supporting the policy goals of the IPCC — regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, JGR’s instructions to reviewers is to not reject a paper simply because the reviewer does not agree with the paper’s scientific conclusions. More on that later. And it is truly unfortunate that the AMS, home of Lorenz’s first published work on chaos in 1963, has decided that political correctness is more important than the advancement of science. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 31, 2009 6:49:26 GMT
-> Important note: The derivatives markets are what have brought the US financial system to a grinding halt. [*sarcasm on*] No, no, nothing like. The collapse was due to junk mortgages being used as a derivative. Using computer models, some of the Junk was regarded as AAA+ (based on past junk mortgage performance - i.e. a % always pay up.) But the models were faulty, and reality brought the thing down. Derivatives based on Carbon trading, SURELY are not based on faulty computer models.  [*sarcasm off*] |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 31, 2009 20:12:32 GMT
Obviously the mortgage models only needed some "tuning"!
|
|
