SI
SI
discoversearch

 Non-Tech | Climate Change, Global Warming, Weather Derivatives, Investi


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: GST who wrote (360)3/2/2010 3:12:28 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 405
 
Perhaps it is not yet clear to you, but you are a devout believer in the fraudulent 'religion' of Al Gore. Your first post pretty much said it all -- this second one seals the deal.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: joseffy who wrote (361)3/2/2010 3:22:17 PM
From: GST
1 Recommendation   of 405
 
<the fraudulent 'religion' of Al Gore> Are you trying for a world's record? The Times infantile moron of the year award? The Nobel imbecile prize? Or is this the thread for morons who want to poop in their pants and say 'Al Gore made me do it'?

Lets be honest -- you don't have a single clue as to what the scientific case is for OR against anything having to do with climate science. You just come here to fill your diapers, thinking that other people will find that fascinating, when all you do is smell like a baby badly in need of potty training.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: GST who wrote (362)3/2/2010 3:32:46 PM
From: longnshort
2 Recommendations   of 405
 

Al's latest global-warming whopper
Last Updated: 9:03 AM, March 2, 2010
Posted: 1:19 AM, March 2, 2010
Alan Reynolds

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Gore says, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."



It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.

So what was it, exactly, that Gore's nameless scientists "have long pointed out"? A 2008 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change and Water," says climate models "project precipitation increases in high latitudes and part of the tropics." In other areas, the IPCC reports only "substantial uncertainty in precipitation forecasts."

In other words, the IPCC said that its models predicted some increases in rain or snow -- not observed them. And only in high latitudes or the tropics, which hardly describes New York or Washington, DC.

In fact, recent research actually contra dicts Gore's claims about "significantly more water moisture in the atmosphere."

In late January, Scientific American reported: "A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change," and noted that "an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming."

The new study came from a group of scientists, mainly from the NOAA lab in Boulder. The scientists found: "Stratospheric water-vapor concentrations decreased by about 10 percent after the year 2000 . . . This acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25 percent."

Specifically, the study found that water vapor rising from the tropics has been re duced, because it has gotten cooler there (another inconvenient truth). A Wall Street Journal headline summed it up: "Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor."

Moisture in the lower stratosphere (about 8 miles above the earth's surface) has been going down, not up.

Aside from clouds, water vapor accounts for as much as two-thirds of the earth's greenhouse-gas effect. Water vapor traps heat from escaping the atmosphere -- but clouds have the opposite effect (called "albedo") by reflecting the sun's energy back into space. And snow on the ground from the IPCC's predicted precipitation in high latitudes would have the same cooling effect as clouds.

What the new research suggests is that changes in water vapor may well trump the ef fect of carbon dioxide (only a fraction of which is man-made) and methane (which has mysteriously slowed since about 1990).

This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority to regulation carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn't the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog?

Alan Reynolds, a Cato Institute senior fellow, is author of "Income and Wealth."

nypost.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: GST who wrote (362)3/2/2010 3:34:39 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 405
 
GST smells strongly like a devout believer in The Religion of Al Gore.

Definitely the IQ level required for that walking army of blindly devout 'believers.'

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: joseffy who wrote (364)3/2/2010 3:57:50 PM
From: GST
   of 405
 
<This is not intended as a thread to debate the scientific merits of the hypotheses that anthropogenic causes are significant contributors to the phenomenon of global warming or that buildup of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere leads to warming of the earth with potentially catastrophic consequences. Such debates, while valuable, are best left to other forums, not primarily geared to investors.>

It seems that you think this is a thread for brainless political hacks with nothing to say to cry like little babies -- waaaaaah waaaaaaaah, Al Gore, waaaaaaah, waaaaaaah, Al Gore, waaah, Al Gore waaaaaaah, waaaaaaaah, waaaaaaaaaaaah..........

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: GST who wrote (365)3/2/2010 4:25:35 PM
From: longnshort
   of 405
 
Al Gore's Personality Disorder

Henry I. Miller, 03.01.10, 04:21 PM EST
Is the former vice president not-so-secretly a narcissistic, shameless phony?


Just when we thought that--finally--we wouldn't have Al Gore to kick around any more, he resurfaces with a characteristically apocalyptic, know-it-all New York Times op-ed about global warming, "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

How awful a calamity? "The displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases." Sounds almost as bad as a Gore presidency.

Leaving aside the school-marmish, patronizing attitude that makes him such a magnet for parody (recall the Saturday Night Live send-ups before the 2000 general election), how believable is Gore?

He's a phony--and a shameless one at that. In his op-ed, he refers to "tobacco companies block[ing] constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart." Well, that is true, and it is consistent with his impassioned address in 1996 to the Democratic Party convention, in which he vowed to fight the tobacco industry to his last breath because 12 years earlier his sister had died from lung cancer. But in 1988, while campaigning for the nomination for president, Gore had been telling tobacco farmers (in a Southern accent much thicker than it ever had been in Washington) that he was practically one of them, that he had tenderly held the young plants in his own two hands, that he had their interests at heart and so on. And his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which offers an exaggerated, one-sided and often inaccurate view of global warming, is more propaganda than documentary.

There may be a medical explanation for what makes Al Gore tick. On the basis of his actions and writings over many years my guess is Gore suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The criteria for this diagnosis, as described in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include a " pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," as indicated by these manifestations:

[ John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama - it seems we have an epidemic of such characters. ]

--"A grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)." Gore regularly demonstrates his grandiosity. Who can forget his notorious claim that he had been instrumental in creating the Internet? But far more serious and complex are Gore's delusions about issues of technology and environmentalism, such as his repeated endorsement of anti-technology tracts and criticism of technological advances while a congressman, senator and vice president. His writings generally place science and technology at odds with "the natural world" and, by inference, with the well-being and progress of mankind.

--"Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love; believes that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)." These sorts of fantasies run riot in Gore's book Earth in the Balance, in which he assumes that he and a small number of other elites have divined the solutions to the world's problems and the bold and dramatic measures that await the education and enlightenment of the public. When he was vice president, Gore and his staff of true believers attempted to purge the federal government of any dissension or challenge to his view of policy, in a way reminiscent of the worst paranoid excesses of the Nixon administration. Vexed by people who weren't sufficiently "special" or ideologically pure, Gore simply got rid of them.

--"Requires excessive admiration." With the exception of the period since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, Gore has for nearly his whole adult life been a politician who surrounded himself with sycophants--need one say more?

--"Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others ... shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes." While a senator, Gore was notorious for his rudeness and insolence. A favorite trick during hearings was to pose a question and, as the witness began to answer, commence a whispered conversation with another committee member or staffer. If the witness paused to make sure the senator did not miss the response, Gore would instruct him to continue, then resume his private conversation, leaving no ambiguity: Not only is your testimony unimportant, but I won't even pay you the courtesy of pretending to listen to it. Gore once accused his political enemies of possessing "an extra chromosome," a remark that infuriated families of persons with Down Syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome.

Gore's patronizing and overwrought Earth in the Balance provides numerous illustrations of many of these diagnostic criteria, offering disturbing insights into its disturbed author. In it, Gore trashes the empirical nature of science for disconnecting man from nature: "But for the separation of science and religion," he laments, "we might not be pumping so much gaseous chemical waste into the atmosphere and threatening the destruction of the earth's climate balance." But for the separation of science and religion, we would still be burdened with the notion that the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth.

It gets worse. Throughout the book Gore employs the metaphor that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister and polluters are as evil as the perpetrators of the Holocaust. He accuses Americans of being dysfunctional because we've developed "an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life," such as "Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights ... Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven," and so on.

Another example of Gore's bizarre thinking is his take on biotechnology. After campaigning tirelessly for years to over-regulate the most precise and predictable techniques of biotechnology applied to agriculture--ostensibly to ensure environmental safety--he changed his tack and came up with this doozy: "The most lasting impact of biotechnology on the food supply may come not from something going wrong, but from all going right. My biggest fear is not that by accident we will set loose some genetically defective Andromeda strain. Given our past record in dealing with agriculture, we're far more likely to accidentally drown ourselves in a sea of excess grain."

The reality is that grain production will need to double during the next few decades to feed an increasing world population, and during the past several years food prices have been under intense pressure because of the diversion of vast amounts of corn to the production of ethanol for fuel. Moreover, modern biotechnology is extremely environment-friendly, conserving water and reducing the use of chemical pesticides and the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Gore's Sunday op-ed column was titled, "We Can't Wish Away Climate Change." Too bad we can't wish away Al Gore.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He was formerly an official at the NIH and FDA.

forbes.com 


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: GST who wrote (365)3/2/2010 4:25:54 PM
From: longnshort
2 Recommendations   of 405
 
Al Gore Turns Purple

Published by Briggs at 10:27 am under Climatology, Politics
I am not sure how to classify certain global-warming proponents. As I have said many times, the majority of climate scientists are honest, hard working men. Some are more prone to error than others, but that’s life and no cause for alarm.

A few are willing to make sharp short cuts, and let pass disqualifying mistakes; but they do so because they feel their results are ultimately correct. Some have said this qualifies them as “hoaxers.” I do not accept this. A hoaxer is a con man, somebody who knows his theory is false, but he promulgates it anyway, for personal gain or fame.

Others, like Dr Hansen, are in the grip of True Belief. To them, the End really is near. And when they act on this deep conviction—by making atrocious public statements, or by advocating minor criminal behavior—I cannot become overly upset with them. I even admit to some amusement.

Yes, we should—and I have—point out the depth of their religious fervor. We should call on the more regular members to admit that it’s possible to go too far. But, as long as the True Believers do not cross the line and advocate or cause physical harm, they are essentially harmless.

That’s scientists, I mean. Politicians and pundits are a different matter. They can cause real and lasting harm. It is they that must take up the banner of the scientist and lead the charge. And it is they that choose the battles.

For example, if Drs Hansen and Lindzen—to name two prominent men on either side of global warming—were quarreling over, say, undecidability propositions in logic, their (academic) fight would be as bloody, but it would excite no outside interest. It is only when politicians take sides that we have to fear.

Which brings us to Al Gore. Is he a True Believer? He certainly gives the outward appearance of one. His public statements on global warming and condemnations of public behavior are not qualitatively different than fiery sermons directed towards a flock who have, of late, been negligent in their tithing.

Do I need more proof than this?
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Unimaginable calamity! Civilization as we know it! That’s hellfire. Later he says we are a “criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings.” That’s brimstone. His solution? Give ’till it hurts, friends.

His parishioners have responded to his harangues and admonishments by opening their wallets. Mr Gore, like many big-tent ministers, has become wealthy from his criticisms of the crass commercialisms he claims have led us to the precipice. (He actually, apparently unaware of the irony, enjoys the phrase “market fundamentalism.”)

But never mind. Does he believe what he’s saying, or is he just another politician invoking fear in an attempt to secure power? It does make a difference in how we treat him.

Now, nobody can get to be a US Senator and then Vice President while being an idiot. It follows that the man is not a fool and has some intelligence. He, like most activists, probably does not understand the specifics of man-made harmful global warming theory (the physics, chemistry, modeling, equations of motion, etc.). Therefore, he, and the activists, must rely on scientists to interpret that theory, and put it in a way that it is comprehensible to them.

Mistakes are inevitable in this process. That is, we scientists imperfectly summarize our findings. This is partly our fault, and partly because of the limitations of our listeners. Still, I think, the gist of global warming theory can be grasped by any reasonably intelligent person.

Please understand that I say this next (necessary) sentence in the humblest way possible. I know more than Al Gore does about the theory. For example, I am aware of its limitations and its uncertainties. I know what is likely and what is merely possible given that the theory is true; and I know the same if that theory is false. I doubt that it is true; further, I am not alone. That is, there are other qualified scientists who think as I do.

Yet Mr Gore has never contacted us, nor has he taken our council. And since he must have more than an inkling of how science works, he must be aware that we skeptical scientists exist. Although we skeptics might be wrong—just as the theory’s proponents might be wrong—any competent political or policy statement conditional on the theory must acknowledge its uncertainties.

Then, since none of Mr Gore’s statements contain any uncertainty, and given that he is intelligent enough to understand that these uncertainties exist, and given his recourse to “market fundamentalist” practices meant to enrich himself, we can conclude that he is a fraud.
wmbriggs.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Glenn Petersen3/5/2010 12:41:10 PM
   of 405
 
Ten Companies to Take in $4.4B in EU Carbon Permit Profits by 2012

Environmental Leader
March 5, 2010

Ten organizations, primarily in the steel and cement industries, could share a surplus of €3.2 billion ($4.4 billion) of pollution permits by 2012 under the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), according to a new report from Sandbag Climate Change and Carbon Market Data. The report (PDF) indicates this is more than double the EU’s investment of €1.5 billion ($2 billion) in renewable energy and clean technology.

The organizations based the estimated surplus on permits sold from 2008 to 2012 at €14 ($19) per permit. The top ten companies expected to benefit from the surplus include ArcelorMittal, Corus, Lafarge, SSAB – Svenskt Stal, Cemex, Salzgitter, U.S. Steel, HeidelbergCement, CEZ, and Slovenské elektrárne.

According to Sandbag, the study’s findings contradict claims by the steel association Eurofer that tougher climate change targets would hurt the industry’s competitiveness.

Another key finding shows that among the key industrial sectors covered by the EU ETS some are over-allocated while others, including some in the iron and steel sector, do not have enough permits to cover their emissions. The study indicates that this could have a significant impact on the implementation of Phase 3 of emissions trading, while raising questions about whether all EU companies are operating on a level playing field. Phase 2 runs from 2008 to 2012.

The study recommends four measures to prevent surplus permits from weakening the scheme’s ability to cut CO2 emissions.

– Set higher targets

– Spur more investment in solutions

– Revisit the design of Phase 3

– Improve the monitoring of the ETS

Here’s a chart of the top 10 companies projected to earn the most from surplus permits.



environmentalleader.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: joseffy3/12/2010 12:26:34 AM
1 Recommendation   of 405
 
2010: The Year Global Warming Froze Florida

Energy Tribune Mar. 08, 2010 Art Horn
energytribune.com 

Floridians have suffered through the coldest winter in almost 30 years. In some parts of South Florida, it’s been colder than anytime in the last 83 years. So many records were smashed that if they were stacked, they would rival the thickness of Al Gore’s investment portfolio. In fact, Gore’s claims that global warming will produce dramatic and cataclysmic warming appear to be melting faster than any glacier.

Gore is hardly alone in his poor forecasting record. Ten years ago, David Viner from the University of East Anglia said “Snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event.” “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

Reality check: On February 13th, 49 of 50 states had snow on the ground.

Here are more cold hard facts from Frozen Florida: Miami Beach had its coldest January-February since record-keeping began in1927. It was the second-coldest at West Palm Beach since records were started in 1888. Naples had its 3rd coldest January-February since records began in 1942. Only in the winters of 1940, 1958, 1977 and 1981 did the January-February average temperature approach the bone chilling cold of 2010.

People took desperate measures to stay warm. Families used space heaters to fight off the cold. Many were not experienced at using portable heating devices and fires broke out in some homes. Several people had to be treated for carbon monoxide poisoning from using charcoal grills inside their homes. On one of the coldest mornings, the power demand was so great that 35,000 customers lost power.

The first 13 days of 2010 were cold across all of Florida. During this period, temperatures at West Palm Beach ranged between 43 and 32 degrees with an average of 39. The average temperature is 56 degrees. On nine of those mornings the low was in the 30s. A friend of mine who lives in West Palm Beach told me his car thermometer actually read 27 degrees on the morning of the 10th. Amazingly on the 10th the high temperature at Fort Lauderdale, Miami, West Palm Beach and Naples were all at or below 50 degrees.

At West Palm Beach, the average temperature from January 2nd to the 13th was 49.9 degrees. That made it the coldest 12-day period since records began in 1888 beating out January 16th to the 27th 1977 by a full degree. On the morning of January 7th the low temperature fell to 37 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport. That broke the record of 38 set in 1903.

The agricultural losses have been enormous, with estimate crop losses of $500 million. The agricultural areas of Glades, Hendry, Collier counties had up to 7 days of below-freezing temperatures. Citrus trees were damaged as temperatures in the orange groves fell below the critical 28 degrees for more than four hours. Some 100,000 tropical fish being raised on a fish farm froze to death costing the farmer an estimated $535,000. The Miami Metro Zoo closed its doors for the first time in 30 years due to the record cold. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission said Iguanas were falling from trees and some were dying as a result of temperatures falling below 40 degrees.

The record cold weather is continuing into March. Low temperatures in the upper 30s and low 40s continued into the first weekend. The El Niño winds over Florida will continue well into March which means the state could have more record cold later this month.

Ask anyone in South Florida what they think of global warming. They’ll probably tell you “my lips are too numb to talk!”

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Glenn Petersen3/21/2010 9:25:09 AM
   of 405
 
More problems for the EU's carbon credit trading exchanges:

Setback for European Carbon Market

By JAMES KANTER
New York Times
March 18, 2010, 3:08 pm

Some trading in carbon dioxide credits came to a halt on two exchanges this week — a new crisis for the European Union’s fledgling system for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

BlueNext was one of two exchanges forced to halt some carbon trading in Europe this week. BlueNext, which is owned by NYSE Euronext, partly suspended trading on Wednesday and Thursday after it discovered that some credits had already been used.

Trading was also temporarily halted on Nord Pool, owned by Nasdaq OMX, for what appeared to be similar reasons.

The problems appeared to arise in Hungary, one of the 27 member states of the European Union that is part of the Emissions Trading System.

In a move that has angered traders and regulators, Hungary sold a stock of carbon permits that had alreadybeen given up by polluters to compensate for their emissions. Those permits were then sold on to BlueNext, and perhaps other exchanges, by an intermediary.

The sale triggered doubts about the value of permits trading in the spot market because any companies or traders that happened to buy the “recycled” permits would not be able to use them to offset their emissions in Europe.

“This apparent double-counting could damage the reputation of the E.U.-E.T.S.,” Henry Derwent, the president of the International Emissions Trading Association, said this week.

The European Commission, which oversees the system, said in an e-mailed statement on Wednesday that it “in no way endorsed the intended sales” and that it was “surprised and concerned to learn” that such credits had re-entered the market.

The commission said that Hungary was using a loophole granted under the Kyoto protocol, in which huge amounts of credits were awarded to Eastern European states and Russia since the collapse of Soviet-era industry.

The commission said on Thursday it would close the loophole by summer after reaching an agreement on changing the rules in February.

“There is an urgent need to address the market uncertainty,” the commission said.

Carbon traders said countries like Hungary were exploiting the loophole to earn more money from the carbon trading system than they could by selling the credits that they had previously earned under the Kyoto system.

The traders — who spoke anonymously because they had not been authorized to brief the media by their banks — said at least one other European Union member state had acted similarly this year.

The market upset is the latest blow for carbon trading in Europe.

Last year, swindlers robbed governments of about 5 billion euros in revenues — about $6.8 billion — by selling carbon credits and then disappearing before paying the required value added tax on the transactions.

In January, swindlers used faked e-mail messages to obtain access codes for individual accounts on national registries that make up the bloc’s Emission Trading System, and then used the stolen codes to gain access to electronic certificates that represent quantities of greenhouse gases.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.