You take issue with princeton university?

You upset the lie started in my state? I am.

Hi ID :) How are you?

I have no issues with Princeton university. I was merely pointing out that some do :)

As to your second question: Don't let it upset you overly ID :) According to wiki, Illinois is often considered to be a microcosm of the whole of the USA :)

The lie is that 97% of so called scientist believe that global warming/climate change is real. That claim is false. It is a damn lie, bottom line. Yet the press passes that lie off on the rest of us just like 1984.

Once gain you have taken a science question and answered it with a political line of B.S. Not really like you, leads me to believe your not you but a avatar.

That was the first lie, the lie of 97%

Your second mistake was thinking I'm stupid. Don't worry yourself about that, you're not the only one.

That microcosm is from I80 on up north..

:(

Firstly, I would like to address your secondly :) and apologise sincerely for giving the impression I think you're stupid ID. I most certainly do not. You have very firm beliefs - which don't agree with mine - but that is what makes your posts so interesting :) and why I like to have a rummage around in them to find out a bit more, as I do try to keep an open mind as much as possible. Unfortunately my rummaging around this time instantly uncovered some aspects about the authors that made me doubt their impartiality, and/or expertise, that is all.

I certainly did not intend to deliver it as a political line of um... dung (er... bull or indeed... otherwise sourced) but it probably is a fine line we all tread when posting on the politics board, don't you think? :) As to your doubts as to whether I'm real :)))))))))))))) I'm sorry to disappoint you ID, but I very much am, and everyone's stuck with it :) What you see here is what everyone around me gets day in day out - poor things :)

I noticed you reposted the links #1 and #97% etc. Reading them again is unlikely to change my mind - but that is okay, clearly my responses to them haven't undermined your faith in them at all either.

@Heeheehee :) Hi! Unfortunately my sound card is still playing up so I have been unable to enjoy The Sweetness :( I see ID really liked both your links though :)

I did spend a little time looking for a transcript of both, but no luck so far :(

OK, so you've found a "paper", actually a report in an on-line news paper that attempts to summarise a number of papers into a catchy headline, then quotes several sources (most of which are actually repeats of a very limited number of prime sources) that sets out to whitewash the paper that makes the "97% of scientists" claim (which is actually a miss-quote of "97% of papers on climate change in the period 1991-2011).
source paper

The of course there is another paper that I consider to be over-stating things, but does make some interesting, if hyperbolic reading.
over statement?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Of course the facts must fit the narrative...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Of course the facts must fit the narrative...

What "narrative" do these facts listed below give?...


Corporate Watch has released its new cutting-edge report:

'To the Ends of the Earth: a Guide to Unconventional Fossil Fuels'

Order a copy or download for free here


The endless pursuit of economic growth, coupled with the decline in
conventional energy sources, is driving ever more extreme forms of
energy extraction around the world, with ecologically and socially
disastrous consequences.

From the dangers of fracking to the devastating effects of tar sands
extraction, this guide brings together everything you need to know
about unconventional fossil fuels in one place for the first time. It
gives an in-depth yet accessible analysis of their social and
environmental effects, and includes information on where they are
found, the companies trying to profit from them and the growing
resistance movements against them. The report also contains a unique
'carbon budget' climate change assessment of unconventional fossil
fuel production, and stand-alone factsheets on each of the types of
unconventional fossil fuel.


Are you happy for the unscrupulous rich and business destroy our planet at the cost of everyone else?

Are you going to let the unscrupulous few spoil the world for everyone?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Corporate Watch has released its new cutting-edge report:

'To the Ends of the Earth: a Guide to Unconventional Fossil Fuels'

Order a copy ...

Thank you I ordered mine.

---

ML1 said:

Are you happy for the unscrupulous rich and business destroy our planet at the cost of everyone else?

Are you going to let the unscrupulous few spoil the world for everyone?

More Extreme Statements by An Extremist.

And Yes: Happy. And Yes: Going to let Many Many Many Millions of People in The Fossil Fuels Industry, continue to Make Life Easier and Better for Everyone.

Misery.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

And Yes: Happy. And Yes: Going to let Many Many Many Millions of People in The Fossil Fuels Industry, continue to Make Life Easier and Better for Everyone.

Misery guts... Hello :)

Would you mind if I nominated your post for the biggest contradiction in terms yet used in this thread award?

Also... given some of your posts in other threads...

Could you elaborate on where precisely you apply your views on good stewardship...



...and the butterfly effect?


assuming you recognise the concept of pollution of course... and can explain how it makes life better for everyone?


Just when you get a moment... :)

anniet said:

Could you elaborate on where precisely you apply your views on good stewardship...assuming you recognise the concept of pollution of course... and can explain how it makes life better for everyone?

Drums? Do I Hear Drums Beating? Nay. The Ghosts of Long Forgotten Tribes Beating Incessantly. Out of Time.

Got Rock? Got Rolla?

Da Beat Goes On. fO Everyone. Everything.

While Spraying Water Amongst The Greenery, A Butterfly sailed down to the small puddle to drink. I Felt Good providing the Cool Relief.

My Ears Catch A Noise______________________Future Noise_________________

What_________________'is'_________________The_________________Noise____________Saying ?

I'm...........................................Thirsty.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I see you're experimenting with Title Casing... are you alright? :)

I see you're experimenting with Title Casing... are you alright? :)

Something is VERY wrong. ;)

He gets that way every now and then. He'll be alright, must need a beer...

There are liars and damned liars, here is a damned liar!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

---

Oh look! It's another Princeton boy :) (not that I have anything against Princeton - it's just they've been cropping up a bit in this thread) Given a job at the EPA by his friend... another Princeton boy... a mere 10 years before Obama was elected to office. No wonder Fox news was scandalised... with hardly a straw to clutch at how will they please their puppet masters...?

the following quote is from NASA

Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends

over the past century are due to human activities and most of the

leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements

endorsing this position. The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling

Climate change:

How do we know it is caused by humans and really happen ?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat,

with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization.

Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because it is human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture,

collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale.

Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate



This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples

contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements,

provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased

since the Industrial Revolution.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

1)

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.

2)

Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared

energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown

by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers

show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the

Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past,

large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in

tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

3)

Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends

over the past century are due to human activities and most of the

leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements

endorsing this position. The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling[/b]

the above quote is from NASA

BRILLIANT !!!

I thought so too...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

June 29th, 2014

Henry M. Paulson Jr. a Repulican and served as secretary of the Treasury from July 2006 to January 2009 under George W. Bush,

is the chairman of the Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago.

Fmr. U.S. Treasury Secy. Rubin on climate change: “The risk here is catastrophic”

CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA GPS features an interview with the former U.S. Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush,

Henry Paulson, and the former U.S. Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin. Paulson and Rubin speak with Fareed

about their new report on the future of our environment if Americans do not start taking preventative measures against climate change,

the cost of inaction, and the limitations to progress posed by Washington. Additionally, Paulson and Rubin also speak with Fareed about the U.S. fiscal outlook and economic recovery.

A transcript and videos from the discussion are available

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/fmr-u-s-treasury-secy-rubin-on-climate-change-the-risk-here-is-catastrophic/

The Coming Climate Crash

Lessons for Climate Change in the 2008 Recession

By HENRY M. PAULSON Jr.JUNE 21, 2014

Henry M. Paulson Jr. a Repulican and served as secretary of the Treasury from July 2006 to January 2009 under George W. Bush,

is the chairman of the Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago.


THERE is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.

For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses building up in the nation’s financial markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was devastating. Millions suffered. Many still do.

We’re making the same mistake today with climate change. We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.

This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.

We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. They’re right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.

The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.

It’s true that the United States can’t solve this problem alone. But we’re not going to be able to persuade other big carbon polluters to take the urgent action that’s needed if we’re not doing everything we can do to slow our carbon emissions and mitigate our risks.

I was secretary of the Treasury when the credit bubble burst, so I think it’s fair to say that I know a little bit about risk, assessing outcomes and problem-solving. Looking back at the dark days of the financial crisis in 2008, it is easy to see the similarities between the financial crisis and the climate challenge we now face.

We are building up excesses (debt in 2008, greenhouse gas emissions that are trapping heat now). Our government policies are flawed (incentivizing us to borrow too much to finance homes then, and encouraging the overuse of carbon-based fuels now). Our experts (financial experts then, climate scientists now) try to understand what they see and to model possible futures. And the outsize risks have the potential to be tremendously damaging (to a globalized economy then, and the global climate now).

Back then, we narrowly avoided an economic catastrophe at the last minute by rescuing a collapsing financial system through government action. But climate change is a more intractable problem. The carbon dioxide we’re sending into the atmosphere remains there for centuries, heating up the planet.

That means the decisions we’re making today — to continue along a path that’s almost entirely carbon-dependent — are locking us in for long-term consequences that we will not be able to change but only adapt to, at enormous cost. To protect New York City from rising seas and storm surges is expected to cost at least $20 billion initially, and eventually far more. And that’s just one coastal city.

New York can reasonably predict those obvious risks. When I worry about risks, I worry about the biggest ones, particularly those that are difficult to predict — the ones I call small but deep holes. While odds are you will avoid them, if you do fall in one, it’s a long way down and nearly impossible to claw your way out.

Scientists have identified a number of these holes — potential thresholds that, once crossed, could cause sweeping, irreversible changes. They don’t know exactly when we would reach them. But they know we should do everything we can to avoid them.

Already, observations are catching up with years of scientific models, and the trends are not in our favor.

Fewer than 10 years ago, the best analysis projected that melting Arctic sea ice would mean nearly ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century. Now the ice is melting so rapidly that virtually ice-free Arctic summers could be here in the next decade or two. The lack of reflective ice will mean that more of the sun’s heat will be absorbed by the oceans, accelerating warming of both the oceans and the atmosphere, and ultimately raising sea levels.

Even worse, in May, two separate studies discovered that one of the biggest thresholds has already been reached. The West Antarctic ice sheet has begun to melt, a process that scientists estimate may take centuries but that could eventually raise sea levels by as much as 14 feet. Now that this process has begun, there is nothing we can do to undo the underlying dynamics, which scientists say are “baked in.” And 10 years from now, will other thresholds be crossed that scientists are only now contemplating?

It is true that there is uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of these risks and many others. But those who claim the science is unsettled or action is too costly are simply trying to ignore the problem. We must see the bigger picture.

The nature of a crisis is its unpredictability. And as we all witnessed during the financial crisis, a chain reaction of cascading failures ensued from one intertwined part of the system to the next. It’s easy to see a single part in motion. It’s not so easy to calculate the resulting domino effect. That sort of contagion nearly took down the global financial system.

With that experience indelibly affecting my perspective, viewing climate change in terms of risk assessment and risk management makes clear to me that taking a cautiously conservative stance — that is, waiting for more information before acting — is actually taking a very radical risk. We’ll never know enough to resolve all of the uncertainties. But we know enough to recognize that we must act now.

Continue reading the main story

I’m a businessman, not a climatologist. But I’ve spent a considerable amount of time with climate scientists and economists who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no debate among them that the planet is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible.

Farseeing business leaders are already involved in this issue. It’s time for more to weigh in. To add reliable financial data to the science, I’ve joined with the former mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg, and the retired hedge fund manager Tom Steyer on an economic analysis of the costs of inaction across key regions and economic sectors. Our goal for the Risky Business project — starting with a new study that will be released this week — is to influence business and investor decision making worldwide.

We need to craft national policy that uses market forces to provide incentives for the technological advances required to address climate change. As I’ve said, we can do this by placing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Many respected economists, of all ideological persuasions, support this approach. We can debate the appropriate pricing and policy design and how to use the money generated. But a price on carbon would change the behavior of both individuals and businesses. At the same time, all fossil fuel — and renewable energy — subsidies should be phased out. Renewable energy can outcompete dirty fuels once pollution costs are accounted for.


Some members of my political party worry that pricing carbon is a “big government” intervention. In fact, it will reduce the role of government, which, on our present course, increasingly will be called on to help communities and regions affected by climate-related disasters like floods, drought-related crop failures and extreme weather like tornadoes, hurricanes and other violent storms. We’ll all be paying those costs. Not once, but many times over.

This is already happening, with taxpayer dollars rebuilding homes damaged by Hurricane Sandy and the deadly Oklahoma tornadoes. This is a proper role of government. But our failure to act on the underlying problem is deeply misguided, financially and logically.

In a future with more severe storms, deeper droughts, longer fire seasons and rising seas that imperil coastal cities, public funding to pay for adaptations and disaster relief will add significantly to our fiscal deficit and threaten our long-term economic security. So it is perverse that those who want limited government and rail against bailouts would put the economy at risk by ignoring climate change.

This is short-termism. There is a tendency, particularly in government and politics, to avoid focusing on difficult problems until they balloon into crisis. We would be fools to wait for that to happen to our climate.

When you run a company, you want to hand it off in better shape than you found it. In the same way, just as we shouldn’t leave our children or grandchildren with mountains of national debt and unsustainable entitlement programs, we shouldn’t leave them with the economic and environmental costs of climate change. Republicans must not shrink from this issue. Risk management is a conservative principle, as is preserving our natural environment for future generations. We are, after all, the party of Teddy Roosevelt.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

THIS problem can’t be solved without strong leadership from the developing world. The key is cooperation between the United States and China — the two biggest economies, the two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide and the two biggest consumers of energy.

When it comes to developing new technologies, no country can innovate like America. And no country can test new technologies and roll them out at scale quicker than China.

The two nations must come together on climate. The Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago, a “think-and-do tank” I founded to help strengthen the economic and environmental relationship between these two countries, is focused on bridging this gap.

We already have a head start on the technologies we need. The costs of the policies necessary to make the transition to an economy powered by clean energy are real, but modest relative to the risks.

A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure. This would strengthen national security by reducing the world’s dependence on governments like Russia and Iran.

Climate change is the challenge of our time. Each of us must recognize that the risks are personal. We’ve seen and felt the costs of underestimating the financial bubble. Let’s not ignore the climate bubble.

Henry M. Paulson Jr. is the chairman of the Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago and served as secretary of the Treasury from July 2006 to January 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html

These guys didn't get it right in Government and now they want to pose as experts on climate matters ala Al Gore.

Reminds me of a joke whose punchline was: "you don't know cr*p and now you want to talk about nuclear physics."

The polar ice caps have melted faster in last 20 years than in the last 10,000 years.

A comprehensive satellite study confirms that the melting ice caps are raising sea levels at an accelerating rate.




The problem is one of degrees. While Greenland ranks among the coldest spots on Earth, it is getting warmer. How much warmer? In July, orbiting satellites recorded unprecedented above-freezing temperatures spanning Greenland’s ice sheet, which is three times larger than Texas.

The development, which carries troubling implications for sea levels, was something that climatologist Jason Box saw coming. In fact, he described it in the journal Cryosphere in February 2012.

“It was an elementary prediction,” said Box, a professor at the Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland in Copenhagen. “The snow pack could not endure another similar summer without melting.” The problem was Box, who had been a researcher at Ohio State University’s Byrd Polar Research Center, and other climatologists thought that melting across the entire sheet would occur sometime in the next 10 years.

Now he is itching to go back to Greenland where he can test a new theory about the thaw. On his 24th expedition to Greenland, which he hopes to start by June, he wants to examine how black carbon affects melting. They are the tiny soot particles carried by global winds from distant wildfires, power plants and car engines.

read more here ...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2013/04/21/tracking-greenlands-fast-melting-ice-sheets.html



The polar regions are important drivers of the world's climate. When the "everlasting ice" melts at an increasing rate, the rest of the world is affected. Global sea levels are rising, dark melt water pools absorb warmth from the sun which white ice would reflect back into space. Fresh water flows into the sea, changing ocean currents and the living conditions for marine organisms.

For 20 years satellites have been monitoring earth's biggest ice shields on Greenland and in the Antarctic, using different technologies from radar to gravity measurements. In the past, the uncoordinated publication of individual one-off measurements led to confusion, especially with regard to the state of the Antarctic ice. A new study, supported by NASA and European Space Agency ESA combines the data from different satellite missions.

"It's the first time all the people who have estimated changes in the size of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets using satellites over the past 20 years have got together to produce a single result," Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds in the UK explained in an interview with DW.

Satellite monitoring ends confusion

"Thanks to the accuracy of our data set, we are now able to say with confidence that Antarctica has lost ice for the whole of the past 20 years. In addition to the relative proportions of ice that have been lost in the northern and southern hemispheres, we can also see there's been a definitive acceleration of ice loss in last 20 years. So together Antarctica and Greenland are now contributing three times as much ice to sea levels as they were 20 years ago," says the Professor of Earth Observation.

According to the study, melting ice from both poles has been responsible for a fifth of the global rise in sea levels since 1992, 11 millimeters in all. The rest was caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, the melting of mountain glaciers, small Arctic ice caps and groundwater mining. The share of the polar ice melt, however, is rising.

Greenland is melting fastest

read more here ...

http://www.dw.de/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199

GREENLAND to become BREADBASKET of WORLD.

Sea Level Rise can be A GOOD Thing.

Sounds Good to me.

Got Groceries?

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I just love your posts Byron! Denial is custom to us humans as many other 'flaws' but when a small group of people can keep up the good spirit, that's all we can do, not even a small group of people but beginning with yourself is very important to maintain equillibrity with Earth and the Cosmos, very important...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures