Anthropogenic Climate Change ( title changed ) - Assertion & Denial

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Climate change courses

Perhaps the CBC subsidy would be better spent buying government advertising on SunTV and Fox News. :D

SunTV is pay and I don't get it. I get enough comedy without some of the folks on that channel.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Climate change courses

They're the ones who allot the money and without money the movement will likely dry up like a prune.

The politicians provide some of the money through their power to tax the people and force through regulations but there is a lot of money being spent by people who stand to make a lot of money if they can persuade politicians to set up carbon markets and carbon taxes.

In order to cut off funding in Canada you need to do much of what the government is already doing and perhaps to cut off funding to the CBC which is the largest Canadian cheerleader for this thoroughly discredited anthropogenic global warming theory and movement. Without NHL hockey it is hard to see why we need a CBC. If Bettman and Fehr don't get their acts together they may find that they helped kill their golden goose. Perhaps the CBC subsidy would be better spent buying government advertising on SunTV and Fox News. :D

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Climate change courses

Politicians are hardly the most informed and intelligent people, contrary to what Gary might think.

They're the ones who allot the money and without money the movement will likely dry up like a prune.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Climate change courses

Here is much more information on what is happening to our world. Mr Ruben's comments are so yesterday. Perhaps he should get out more. Politicians are hardly the most informed and intelligent people, contrary to what Gary might think.

http://www.ecoshock.info/2012/12/cli...-blows-up.html

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Climate change courses

Posted by Beckwith and blessed by Gillanders. :) The sky must be falling.

In case you people didn't notice, Canada, Russia and Japan, amongst others, won't be continuing with the Kyoto agreement.

Climate change is so yesterday. Even some politicians are figuring out it's not a vote getter anymore.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Climate change courses

Last week I had an interview on EcoShock radio, it will go live to 60 radio stations or more starting Tuesday onward...on Arctic albedo collapse and our "new" climate...

Here it is for you folks...

http://www.ecoshock.net/affiliates/2...shockPart2.mp3

Great interview Paul. I was particularly interested in the geo engineering plans to cool the Arctic. I guess, what used to be science fiction, is becoming closer to becoming science fact.

Anyway, I found the website for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group you talked about in the interview. Here it is for those interested.

http://www.ameg.me

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Climate change courses

Last week I had an interview on EcoShock radio, it will go live to 60 radio stations or more starting Tuesday onward...on Arctic albedo collapse and our "new" climate...

Here it is for you folks...

http://www.ecoshock.net/affiliates/2...shockPart2.mp3

[Vlad Drkulec]

A perpetual state of fear, the aim of the warmist movement

The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.
- General Douglas MacArthur

"Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
- Winston Churchill

[Zeljko Kitich]

Climate change courses

Another free online course on Climate Change that I have signed up for and recommend. From our own UBC. Starts in May. https://www.coursera.org/course/climateliteracy

There is also a related course on energy (Energy 101) which starts in January. Since so much of the discussion seems to focus on that issue as well. https://www.coursera.org/courses

Hopefully Beckwith has no reason to question the credibility of either UBC or the University of Melbourne based on his comments above. In any case the professors giving the courses are much more qualified than Beckwith is. And probably much more rational and pleasant people. There are also normally discussion boards with the Coursera courses so this would be another chance to discuss climate change outside our rather small circle or should I say 64 squares of never ending fun.

and this is a course that starts in January, looks like a fun take on the scientific method, might inform some of our debates https://www.coursera.org/course/scientificthinking

and a general course on earth process including glaciers https://www.coursera.org/course/earth

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Here is a young child who knows more than a binder full of deniers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eij91...layer_embedded

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Indeed if we reach that limit, we will stop expanding because there won't be any other choice. But for today we should worry about more imminent problems than that. Energy conservation is good for other reasons, but not because it's close to exhaustion.

In my opinion, we need to stop expanding long before reaching the limits of sustainable operation.

That's why I mentioned Easter island earlier in this thread. It's a small scale example of exponential growth clashing with limited resources. And it did not end happily.

But I do agree that other problems will show up before that.

Mathieu

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

And I do not agree that we are far from taping out.

The calculation is simple. ...
Add in a few other assumptions to be more realistic and you rapidly get under 200 years.

Not saying it will happen, just saying that it's an issue we should address now. Not in 200 years.

I accept your figures and assume they are correct. I see this and think, 200 years before exponential demand exceeds the amount of renewable energy available. This clearly is not a problem we need to focus on now. Indeed if we reach that limit, we will stop expanding because there won't be any other choice. But for today we should worry about more imminent problems than that. Energy conservation is good for other reasons, but not because it's close to exhaustion.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Climate Change

Excellent news, fantastic. Education in climate change scares the life out of the deniers. There is almost no chance that they would take the course, assuming that it is legitimate.

Which news is that? Or are just excited in general.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Climate change deniers are part of the 0.17% as far as peer reviewed science goes...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

First of all this blog is not peer reviewed. Secondly I highly doubt this person was able to read 13950 articles even if he only read abstracts. If he did only read abstracts that is not reading an article. Thirdly he himself admits he took an extreme requirement to determine if an article had concerns about climate change: Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. One wonders what his qualifications are to decide if flaws are 'minor'. One also wonders how he was able to label flaws as minor from only reading the title of the article.

So in other words he dismissed all articles raising problems with climate change unless in his quick scan of it it also stated categorically that climate change was not occuring. Who was it that said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics? To properly do what he is attempting to do you would need a team of several scientists to go through the literature. It would not be this slipshod one person attempt. But then much like yourself he is not interested in doing it properly.

I'm surprised that you would fall for such a flawed methodology. Even if the message is music to your ears. So simply do the math. 13950 articles at say 5 mins each (the minimum amount of time needed to even do any kind of scan let alone decide if a doubt or flaw is minor - you know these are science articles not People magazine right?) would mean 1163 hours. Given a 40 hour work week this guy would have spent 29 unpaid weeks to do this. Get real, he's conning you. Posting this kind of bunk does not speak well to your credibility. The rest of us can read and analyze it ourselves believe it or not.

You are supposed to have scientific training and an interest in science. Can you think of other examples in science where the majority believed one thing and it turns out the minority was right? I bet you can think of plenty if you are truly educated in science. I can think of several myself and I am not a scientist or guy with an engineering degree.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Climate Change

Excellent news, fantastic. Education in climate change scares the life out of the deniers. There is almost no chance that they would take the course, assuming that it is legitimate.