ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Chain of Food for Thought

From nazism, Left, statism, regulation in general, and climate regulation to eco extremism against Hummers and more nefarious projections.

I understand your logic: This is a chess forum but since the earth is very at risk then it is ok to talk about climate.

It is ok but talking about the climategate and what are the cause of the climategate and the extremists that conducted it is out-chess-topic.

When we read the emails of the eco-extremists they did the same for scientist magasines. They reject every scientist that contredict their false studies and false data so that they can not publish anywhere. Then they show a study showing that the authors of the 5 tops climate magasines all talks about global warming so "it means there is a consensus in the scientific community".

If you succeed to take me out, then you will have a near consensus on global warming on Chesstalk.

This shows that the eco-extremists all have the same behaviors and methods. Climategate is just a beginning. Science was the enemy of many religions and climate is the new modern religion. More violence and population controls is coming.... religions always led to that in the past even if their books always seems to be "pacific". Add to it a nation to hate (here the americans) and you now have the racism required to have the most violent religion. And give climate disinformation to the kids from the grade 1 and you will have armys in the future for your religion. This army will control on the streets my wife dress like they do in Iran but for different reasons and violence will be the easiest way to get her on the right way.

Carl

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Communism

Well, that allows you to use words to mean what you want them to mean. Which means nobody else can understand what you mean, so one wonders why you bother posting? It's a discussion board and it's rather pointless to have a discussion with someone who redefines words whenever he likes. Which is probably why no one listens to you.

A bit of projection going on there. If you are going to steal Lewis Caroll's ideas then you should attribute them.

Vlad Drkulec

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

I thought it was getting to climate Nazis or some such things.

Now Obama can get some kind of Nobel prize for saving the climate and the planet.

To me it looks like paying some money and business as usual. The coal mines will close when there is no more coal to mine.

I think the conditions attached mean that it will be much less money than what was promised. Everything was about shuffling money around and any carbon reduction comes much later. If we were actually faced with the apocalyptic scenarios that the main street media is reporting wouldn't the first order of business be to cut carbon emissions everywhere?

If you want to know what is really going on, follow the money and pay attention to what Al Gore, Barrack Obama and the AGW crowd are actually doing. Limos had to be imported from other countries so the delegates could travel in the style that they are accustomed to. Obama travelled by Airforce One to Stockholm to pick up his Nobel prize and flew back to the U.S. and then a day or two later once again flew back to Copenhagen. I wonder what the carbon footprint was to fly all those U.S. politicians back and forth on separate private jets. Couldn't they have jet-pooled to reduce their carbon footprint?

Vlad Drkulec

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Ever hear of Steve Madoff?

No. Who is that? Any relationship to Bernie?

Vlad Drkulec

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Chain of Food for Thought

I understand your logic: This is a chess forum but since the earth is very at risk then it is ok to talk about climate.

It is ok but talking about the climategate and what are the cause of the climategate and the extremists that conducted it is out-chess-topic.

When we read the emails of the eco-extremists they did the same for scientist magasines. They reject every scientist that contredict their false studies and false data so that they can not publish anywhere. Then they show a study showing that the authors of the 5 tops climate magasines all talks about global warming so "it means there is a consensus in the scientific community".

If you succeed to take me out, then you will have a near consensus on global warming on Chesstalk.

I don't think that there is anywhere near a consensus on global warming on Chesstalk nor in the scientific community. Without the presence of untainted evidence, the only reasonable position is one of skepticism. Chain of evidence is very relevant to this discussion.

You are drawing fire not only because of your views but also because of your apparent material success. I don't hear too many of the AGW supporters here complain about Al Gore who has a much bigger carbon footprint than yours whether you look at it as one to one or on a per capita basis as you are suggesting.

You are probably also drawing fire because you don't always express yourself in perfect English. I wish I could express myself as well in French as you can in English.

We do need voices of dissent. Psychological studies have shown that a single voice raised in opposition to obviously bad ideas can often derail bad decisions and prevent groupthink.

There is the old saw, "When you argue with an idiot there are two idiots arguing." Life is about balance and I think that we need to have more chess talk on Chesstalk.

This shows that the eco-extremists all have the same behaviors and methods. Climategate is just a beginning. More violence and population controls is coming. Science was the enemy of many religions and climate is the new modern religion.

Carl

Gaia is the false goddess of this new religion. AGW is one of its tenets. It fits in with the Hollywood idea that we are sinners against nature and must suffer natural disasters as a consequence. Its just interesting that they have focused on CO2, which is something that we exhale, as a pollutant.

Vlad Drkulec

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Regulation = Iran

climategate [...] extremists [...] the emails of the eco-extremists [...] false studies and false data [...] If you succeed to take me out [...] eco-extremists [...] Climategate [...] climate is the new modern religion [...] violence [...] population controls [...] hate [...] racism [...] disinformation [...] religion [...] army [...] Iran [...] violence [...]

This is getting ludicrous.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

I think the conditions attached mean that it will be much less money than what was promised. Everything was about shuffling money around and any carbon reduction comes much later. If we were actually faced with the apocalyptic scenarios that the main street media is reporting wouldn't the first order of business be to cut carbon emissions everywhere?

If you want to know what is really going on, follow the money and pay attention to what Al Gore, Barrack Obama and the AGW crowd are actually doing. Limos had to be imported from other countries so the delegates could travel in the style that they are accustomed to. Obama travelled by Airforce One to Stockholm to pick up his Nobel prize and flew back to the U.S. and then a day or two later once again flew back to Copenhagen. I wonder what the carbon footprint was to fly all those U.S. politicians back and forth on separate private jets. Couldn't they have jet-pooled to reduce their carbon footprint?

Vlad Drkulec

I was watching some film on TV yesterday. Can't recall if it was a news channel or science channel. They were showing an underwater volcano erupting. It was quite spectacular and made me wonder how it effected the temperature of the ocean. Particularly when they said such things were a relatively common occurance.

I was reading it was Clinton who offered the money so maybe the Americans will pay. They had as much regard for the Kyoto agreement as a cat has for marriage laws so why would we assume they are serious about paying large sums of money?

We don't know the value 100 Billion will have in 2020 dollars compared to those of today. My opinion, and it's only a personal opinion, is the Americans NEED a number of years for very high inflation and interest rates. The trick is always to borrow money in todays hard dollars and pay them back in tomorrows soft dollars. The effect will be prices will rise quickly, wages will rise and more tax dollars will come, just like in the days when Trudeau was trying to knock the wind out of inflation. A one year GIC from a bank brought you around 18% for 5 years. If you wanted one year you could get more than 20%.

Who suffers. The same ones who always suffer.

The Americans have already stated they want to be less dependent on middle east oil. So where will they get a replacment for an economy which is still growing? Maybe natural gas but the increased reserves are mainly shale gas. They fracture the rock (called fracking) to get this. The main characteristic is there is a fast dropoff of production in the first year or so. To keep up production it's necessary to keep drilling more and more wells. Here's where it gets interesting. The stuff they use for the fracking is drilling fluids, granular material and other stuff. It's put in under very high pressure. It cracks the rock to let out the gas. The problem is some environmental groups are saying the mixture infiltrates the ground water. A recent buyout of one company by another has a clause which cancels the deal if the government rules the process can not be used. In Canada our reserves have also been increased by this process. There probably won't be very much of a changeover here in Canada. It was done decades ago.

The other source of increased oil in Canada is the tar sands. Unless you beleive the Americans will decide not to use oil from that source we will be selling it to them for the next 100 years, at least.

There is some interesting stuff going on in this counrty right now. The high royalty rates in Alberta and low rate of drilling new wells. Low drill rig utilization rates. There is the tax fights going on in B.C. and the shutdown of the paper mills. Between the tax rates and the union labour rates the cost per tonne of production doesn't allow the sale to be profitable. Lack of demand makes for a lower price and other nations, such as the U.S., have found ways to subsidize the industry. In B.C. the land is worth more to turn it into residential.

I had shares in a paper company in B.C. which I sold a short while ago. I got it for very little and did well. Maybe if it gets back around a dime I'll buy more. Buying for a dime and selling at just over 30 cents is a nice game. I learned the nickle and dime game by watching the governments increase our taxes. Pretty soon those nickels and dimes add up to a lot of money.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Would everyone like some science that is easily readable on climate change that has occurred since the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report was published in 2007?

I have done some volunteer work for the Sierra Club and they have posted my presentations (ppt summary and more detailed pdf report) on their website...

http://beta.sierraclub.ca/en/publica...e-science-2007

The science clearly shows that climate change has accelerated rapidly since 2007.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Communism

Not only that, I think he is also saying that we should not allow any "big" initiatives to be undertaken by any government, because even if it has good intentions, it will lead to socialism hell and even genocide. Not "might lead" to those things, but "will lead" to those things.

Yes Paul, this is what I am saying. But don't worry, most people here in quebec would not agree with it. Castro got a big standing ovation at the church when he came to the mortal ceremony of Trudeau. You are not alone.

America for me = free world, free market, low government, no dictatures, no monarchy and as much freedom as possible. And this is what brought millions of people here.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Would everyone like some science that is easily readable on climate change that has occurred since the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report was published in 2007?

I have done some volunteer work for the Sierra Club and they have posted my presentations (ppt summary and more detailed pdf report) on their website...

http://beta.sierraclub.ca/en/publica...e-science-2007

The science clearly shows that climate change has accelerated rapidly since 2007.

But the report was a complete fraud.



Carl

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Thanks Paul. Congrats on having Sierra Club publish your reports.

Carl, the whole climategate issue is clearly overblown. The scientific community (most of it) continues to warn us of the dangers of climate change. In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming.

People want to believe there is no problem, so they embrace the whole conspiracy theory, so they can continue driving their hummers and ignore the problem.:( Doing nothing is easier.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Dr. Tim Ball

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Speaking of Fraud

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-v...suit-documents

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

But the report was a complete fraud.

In the page Paul linked to, referenced a whole pile of new research, all with urls. Which one is Carl calling "the report"?

Or is he calling Paul a fraud?

Does he think that kind of name calling carries any weight?

What degrees in Science does Carl have? Paul claims a Masters degree in Physics. Is Carl calling Paul's degree a fraud?

Let's see, assuming Paul's claim of a degree is correct, who is more likely to be right about what the science says, Paul or some random chessplayer?

Oh yeah, and any web site that starts playing audio or video at me without first asking my opinion is one I leave immediately. The apparent fact that Carl linked to this site suggests a lack of concern about his fellow beings. I was already listening to something else, something worthwhile thankyou. Or no thankyou.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

"I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them—none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing....Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast! The others were not specialists. So that's why, when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm (3.9 inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that's not very much."

http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_...otal_Fraud.htm