Peak Concern for global warming has Passed

[redzonerocker]

And as I said in that post government's will go ahead with issues against public opinion as we know, there's never gonna be protests against reducing GHG emissions, because at the end of the day whether people believe in manmade warming or not, they certainly believe reducing emissions and converting to clean energy is right.

SJ

Very true

I suspect an introduction of any form of carbon tax will have a different reaction altogether though.

[Homer]

This party platform mentions climate change FIFTEEN times, but they didn't really mean it!?!?

Try reading again what I said. That platform states the party supports primarly doing three things to control carbon emissions, all of which are unacceptable to the democrats.

What that platform states and what any Republican said before 2010 matters in only one way. Politicians who have changed position on controlling carbon emissions have some explaining to do. Smoke, mirrors and tap dancing may be required.

That leaves open a world of possibilities, including addressing the issue with a proper and responsible answer that says it's junk science and we don't have to do anything.

Bit of a stretch to draw 'we don't have to do anything about it' from "I think most members think that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, the question is how do you address it". One of the Yea votes for the 2005 Energy Act that commited billions of dollars to reduce GHG emssions in the name of climate changes... John Boehner.

No stretch at all. A major transformation of American politics got underway in '09. The results of the '10 midterm elections stunned most people, even those who knew it was going to be huge victory for the right. The old guard in the party have chosen to listen to the new guard, more out of fear than anything else. Fear they won't get reelected if they don't. The new guard sees climate alarmism as a smokescreen for implementing the policies the far left has wanted for decades to reduce America's power in the world.

Boehner probably will be reelected, but he won't be the Speaker of the House in the next Congress.

[Super Joe]

Try reading again what I said. That platform states the party supports primarly doing three things to control carbon emissions, all of which are unacceptable to the democrats.

I wasn't making reference to the reasons, ie: the Democrats solution, but this part about writing it knowing it would be rejected... 'The 2008 platform was a non-starter. It was written knowing it would be rejected.'

The new guard sees climate alarmism as a smokescreen for implementing the policies the far left has wanted for decades to reduce America's power in the world.

Yeah, sure they won't be going anywhere near these leftist policies, and I don't blame them if they are going to do serious damage to jobs & the economy as that won't help the end goal, but imo they'll hardly be reversing any of these current policies in place to introduce clean energy sources, reduce, capture, renew emissions in the name of climate change. In other words they won't be coming out as Perry & Bachmann seem to be and saying the science is manufactured or a scam and renouncing the science behind climate change being manmade.
We shall see

SJ

[Homer]

Try reading again what I said. That platform states the party supports primarly doing three things to control carbon emissions, all of which are unacceptable to the democrats.

I wasn't making reference to the reasons, ie: the Democrats solution, but this part about writing it knowing it would be rejected... 'The 2008 platform was a non-starter. It was written knowing it would be rejected.'

Ok, I now understand what you said:

This party platform mentions climate change FIFTEEN times, but they didn't really mean it!?!?

Party Platforms are a campaign tool, usually written with enough generalization and weasel words that the elected officials can choose to not implement it without having charges of lying or flip-flopping stick. The main purpose of a party platform is for undecided voters in the middle who: 1) Research a candidate's stand on various issues, and 2) Believes in the content of party platforms. In short, it's a sales tool. Batteries not included, your mileage may vary, offer not valid in Alaska or Hawaii, prices slightly higher west of the Rockies, limited time only, as long as current stock lasts, etc.

[MrPlum]

If I'm following this, you're saying the failure to pass an encompassing carbon regulations means their is no 'collective political will'. Agreed. But there was no need for a conspiracy.

Can you explain what you mean by that? The word 'conspiracy' is bandied about too much by those trying to discredit every argument.

There were plenty of people on the far left capable of independently recognizing that the means to control global warming met their existing political needs. Using global warming as a front gave them a fear-based emotional hook needed to gain enough support for their agenda.

I haven't read all your posts but if I've understood you correctly, the agenda is to bring down the U.S. economy. Do you have a view on the global implications?

Every proposed method of carbon control I'm familiar with takes away personal economic freedoms.

After the Patriot Act and all the other repressive legislation 9-11 spawned, their can't be many freedoms left. Seems to me that totalitarianism, be it fascism, communism or a fusion of the two has been brought to America. Obscenely wealthy Oligarchs ruling the debt-slaves via their fascist corporations, protected by an expanded Police State, fighting endless 'wars', used by 'war powers' Dictators, Bush and Obama, to bypass democracy. e.g. Libya. Everyone who protests government policy goes on a 'domestic terrorist' watch list, flagged by insidious groups like the SPLC, aided and abetted by Wal-Mart turning shoppers into citizen spies, who, just as they did when Hitler tried it, will grass on their neighbours, business partners and anyone they don't like. Once you are on that list, you don't come off it.

I hope you aren't voting Ron Paul.

[Homer]

If I'm following this, you're saying the failure to pass an encompassing carbon regulations means their is no 'collective political will'. Agreed. But there was no need for a conspiracy.

Can you explain what you mean by that? The word 'conspiracy' is bandied about too much by those trying to discredit every argument.

I was responding to another poster's use of the word. I don't know what he meant by it, which didn't matter because I dismissed it as irrelevant.

There were plenty of people on the far left capable of independently recognizing that the means to control global warming met their existing political needs. Using global warming as a front gave them a fear-based emotional hook needed to gain enough support for their agenda.

I haven't read all your posts but if I've understood you correctly, the agenda is to bring down the U.S. economy. Do you have a view on the global implications?

'Bring down' is often used to describe the destruction of something. The left doesn't want to destroy the US's economic and political power, they want to reduce it. My view on that goal is the same as that of any randomly chosen US conservative.

I hope you aren't voting Ron Paul.

No! Unless it looked like he could win. Like him I'm also a conservative, Constitutionalist and libertarian, though to a lesser degree on all three.

[Homer]

The climate alarmists are desperate. Plan A didn't work so now they're using Plan B. Plan B is the same as Plan A but with more stridency and gross stupidity.

According to HarperCollins, the publisher of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, the latest edition of the atlas is "turning Greenland 'green' because the new edition has had to erase 15% of Greenland's once permanent ice cover".

Scientists at two of the leading scientific teams tracking polar change, the Scott Polar Research Institute in Britain and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the United States, immediately cried foul because a 15% reduction would have raised sea levels 1 meter. Any idiot, except environmental wackos on a mission, can see that hasn't happened.

HarperCollins issued an apology http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/News_and ... ition.aspx

[STEVE G]

So can we accept that the Scott Polar Research Institute and the other above mentioned body aren't corrupted by global warming funds then?

[MrPlum]

'The one thing that is very apparent is that there is no clarity in the scientific and cartographic community on this issue but we have been consulting widely over the last week with experts in the field and have received a good response and support with new sources and data.

This most up-to-date information from all the latest sources would be a positive outcome. If the controversy about the Times Atlas encourages scientists to come together and clarify some of the confusion about our climate and how it is changing, the outcome will help the general public, and indeed all of us, better understand this complex issue.'

Where did they get their original info? They don't reveal who the old sources were and what data they used. They should expose and take action against the fraudsters.

A carbonazi source today, commenting on the exposure of the lie, sobbed... "But the Science is SETTLED! The Science is SETTLED! You... you... you..... denier!"

[Super Joe]

Where did they get their original info? They don't reveal who the old sources were and what data they used. They should expose and take action against the fraudsters.
A carbonazi source today, commenting on the exposure of the lie, sobbed... "But the Science is SETTLED! The Science is SETTLED! You... you... you..... denier!"

LOL, you told us several days ago in your MSM link who and where they got their data from... and it wasn't the scientists was it. I assume you are choosing to ignore that minor detail now it doesn't fit the theory This isn't about the science behind manmade warming, or even whether Greenland's ice is melting at all, it's just about the speed and extent of the melting. And the cock-up was because the atlas staff misinterpreted the map images, again your own link confirmed there was no scientific community support for the atlas companies claims. Here's another article on the issue:
Professor Elizabeth Morris of the Scott Polar Institute, described it as "a really bad mapping error"
http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/3712
"As soon as scientists saw this, there was absolute outrage," she said. "We are not saying in any way that climate change and the loss of the ice sheet is not going on. The danger is if people quote these absurd figures the next thing that happens is climate change sceptics say scientists are making daft claims." HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch​'s News Corporation, initially refuted the criticisms, saying the 15% reduction in the ice sheet was based on information from the "much respected and widely-cited National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)". However, the NSIDC has suggested that the slip-up arose because one of their maps was misinterpreted by the writers of the Times Atlas.

"owned by Rupert Murdoch​'s News Corporation"... People have been duped into doing Murdoch's and big oil's bidding for them. Hope you were well compensated... then washed your hands thoroughly


The Bangkok Post today stated there was 5mm of rainfall in Prachuap yesterday, but Yahoo Weather says it was 15mm... I thought the science behind precipitation was settled. So it doesn't rain then on our flat earth


SJ

[MrPlum]

SJ. I can't be bothered to respond to yet more contrived 'crimes' and your utter fixation on me. You are sick. Get some help.

LOL LOL titter titter fnar fnar bwahahahahaha...

[Homer]

Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) alarmists took it in the shorts again, twice. Concern for AGW continues to fade as the truth is revealed.

First, the AGW partisan media either hid this story or didn't report it but there was another release of hacked emails from Britain's University of East Anglia (UEA). Doesn't matter if they can be explained away by an 'independent' panel because the media reporting the truth about GW has spread the word, putting peak concern for AGW farther in the rear view mirror. A couple of tidbits from the release:

In one email Prof Phil Jones writes: "I've been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC's fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process".

UEA's Dr Douglas Maraun complains: "How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think that 'our' reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest."

The second event can be deducted from the tortured language the AGW partisan press is having to use to explain why the BRICS (Russia, India, China and South Africa) want to continue the protocol as is despite their economic booms and resulting CO2 emissions, which they're not required to reduce. But one doesn't have to deduce the reason because there are news media that handle the story objectively. The BRICS don't want to have restrictions placed on their emissions because it would cripple their economies. This confirms the public's knowledge that the proposed solutions to AGW are coincident with the left's long term aim of knocking the economic powers down to size by conning them into crippling their own economies.

Don't ask for links, you know you wouldn't follow them.

[Homer]

An editorial in today's new york times acknowledges that peak concern for AGW has passed:

But for many reasons, efforts to put out prompt reports on the causes of extreme weather are essentially languishing. Chief among the difficulties that scientists face: the political environment for new climate-science initiatives has turned hostile, and with the federal budget crisis, money is tight.

And so, as the weather becomes more erratic by the year, the public is left to wonder what is going on.


Why is it when the US federal government takes action in favor of leftist popular sentiment The Times says its a case of the government hearing and following the people, but when Washington acts in ways favorable to the right's popular sentiment the paper says the government is acting independently of the people, so 'the public is left to wonder what is going on'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/scien ... l?_r=1&hpw

For those who don't read subject lines, this thread is about the change in the public's concern for AGW. The fantasy / reality of AGW is best discussed in the other thread.

[hhfarang]

Why is it when the US federal government takes action in favor of leftist popular sentiment The Times says its a case of the government hearing and following the people, but when Washington acts in ways favorable to the right's popular sentiment the paper says the government is acting independently of the people, so 'the public is left to wonder what is going on'?

Because the Times is (and has been as long as I can remember) a leftest propaganda rag. The "Grey Lady's" days are numbered imo.

[Super Joe]

For those who don't read subject lines, this thread is about the...

...very interesting and sincere world of party politics. Very similar in nature to that which is served up daily by the various media platforms, of which you started to see through around the age of 14 or 15. Please enjoy and remember, and I mean this with all sincerity, that other lot really are useless, whereas we really are quite good. The proof of this is clear and can be seen from the way the other lot have mucked up the various climate change/greenhouse gas emmission policies & initiatives that we introduced and signed into law.

As the very issue at hand is the weather, we have every right to change like it and flip-flop over the issue. Our position has been entirely consistent in this regard, we have always followed the course that provides maximum political capital. If tomorrow the 30% registered voting section of the general public came out and announced they supported cutting emmissions, then ofcourse we would respect their wishes and give this our full support. And we would do this with all the sincerity and integrity we possess. Thank you.