Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

[macdoc]

What fucking stupid world view - you just swallow denier cool-aid by the bucketful.
No one gives and flying fuck whether you are convinced or not - at this point your ilk are in the flat earth catoegory.

The planet is never in risk of a Venus and you will not find a single climate scientist indicating anything like this. More polemic crap from the right wing preacher.

of creating a one-world global government.

People with schizophrenia have an altered perception of reality, often a significant loss of contact with reality. They may see or hear things that don’t exist, speak in strange or confusing ways, believe that others are trying to harm them,

#
belief in the paranormal or government conspiracy theories, for instance.

had a mental health check lately?

My sister was convinced Rhodesian authorities were out to get her......she's doing okay now.

[Tyrannical]

Hmmm

I do not fully agree with that, Seth.

The thing is that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. So, while more water may produce more clouds, it also increases the greenhouse effect.

The question is whether or not the increase in greenhouse effect is offset by the increase in albedo. I've not seen any compelling evidence that convinces me that the system will not balance itself out again long before the planet superheats like Venus, which, by the way, was the prediction made by the global warming alarmists back in the 1970s. We were all supposed to be dead by now if we didn't change our wicked ways immediately, or so they told us.

Well, they were lying about it then, and I'm entirely unconvinced that they are not lying about it now. In fact, the evidence from the secret emails gives me very strong reason to believe that "climate scientists" are in fact lying about it, deliberately, with malice and for their own self-aggrandizement and financial gain, and that governments are supporting the lies in order to gain more power and control as a part of creating a one-world global government.

Quite shocking considering how all these "green" climatologist lack the math and physics background to even have a scientific opinion on the subject. It's high time the government should bring together and form a team of mathematicians, fluid dynamic physicists, and plasma physicists together to answer the question. None of these charlatan climatologists have anywhere near the educational background needed to study the subject. They are just as self-proclaimed experts as astrologers are.

Who helped start all this nonsense? A green PhD with only a master's in math named Michael Mann. he wasn't qualified to even assist in any of this research To really understand the climate and the various affects on it would require a multidisciplinary approach of math, physics, and chemistry geniuses. But the real geniuses don't bother with climatology nonsense, they are too busy investigating real physics.

[macdoc]

There is indeed a climate change conspiracy......Exxon on Koch and others funding the likes of Heartland and Watts et al

Conspiracy
Watched any conservative programs lately? Chances are, you've seen an oil-funded pundit.

—By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Feb. 4, 2011 4:00 AM PST

Last June, Glenn Beck paused in the middle of a rant about the economy and climate on his television show for an important, if rather unexpected, aside. "I want to thank Charles Koch for this information," he said. Beck's statement was totally without context, thrown in amid jabs at Al Gore and endorsements of the free market. Months later, it came to light that he recently had been a guest of honor at a semiannual confab sponsored by fossil-fuel billionaire Charles Koch and his brother, David, an event the pair hosts to connect conservative think tanks, politicos, and media types like Beck.

Koch Industries, a Kansas-based company founded in 1940 by father Fred Koch, is the second largest privately held company in America. Charles and David Koch are tied as the fifth wealthiest people in the nation, worth a combined $43 billion. Their money comes through a variety of business interests—ranching, mining, oil refining, and production of paper products, fertilizer, and chemicals. It would be an understatement to say that they have much at stake when it comes to efforts to cut climate-changing emissions.

Indeed, the brothers have spent $31.3 million since 2005 on organizations that deny or downplay climate change, according to a forthcoming report from Greenpeace that updates its report on Koch's climate denial work released last year. But it's the web of media influence the Kochs have created that perhaps accounts best for their power—particularly when it comes to sowing doubt about climate change.

Koch Industries describes its semiannual shindigs, which began in 2003, as an "opportunity for attendees and presenters to discuss ways of preserving and advancing economic freedom in the United States and to share ideas about the free-market principles that have made our country great." The guest list for last weekend's meeting is still under wraps, but the June 2010 event in Aspen drew a who's who of conservative media stars; Besides Beck, there were Philip Anschutz, owner of the Examiner newspapers and the Weekly Standard; Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and Weekly Standard contributor; Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal editorial board member; and Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for The National Review.

Andrew Breitbart, the mastermind behind the conservative news sites Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv, made his presence at the meeting known by rollerblading out to heckle some of the 1,500 protestors who'd gathered outside of the gate.

The Kochs' influence over the conservative media may be obvious at such powwows. But to the general public, it's not always apparent that the pundits they read about in blogs and see on TV have a direct relationship to the company. So says Derek Cressman, regional director of state operations with Common Cause, the group that organized the protests outside the Koch Bros gates. "They don't see that connection between the pundit and the fact that it's funded by an oil company," says Cressman. "The global warming deniers aren't being candid that their funding is coming from people with an enormous financial stake in how we deal with climate change."

Take, for example, Planet Gore, the denialist blog at National Review Online. Planet Gore, along with NRO's main blog, The Corner, regularly features guest posts by representatives of think-tanks and foundations that have benefited from the Koch's largesse. Prime examples include Chris Horner and Ian Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who have each posted hundreds of items on the site. NRO's blogs regularly promote the institute's work to undermine climate science, such as the lawsuit the group filed against NASA last fall for temperature records. CEI has received more than $700,000 in Koch funds over the years.

Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, is another regular guest blogger. Cato has received $13 million from Koch family foundations since 1998. (Michaels' refusal to disclose how much money he's taken from fossil fuel interests has drawn scrutiny—most recently when a senior House Democrat raised questions about whether he lied on his resume about his funding from energy interests.)

Other guests representing Koch-funded organizations featured on National Review Online include Jim Manzi of the Manhattan Institute (which has received $1.5 million in Koch family money), Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity ($5.5 million), and Jonathan Adler of the Federalist Society ($2 million).*

The Koch brothers also spent $1 million on a ballot measure last fall to derail California's landmark climate law, and funded groups, including the California branch of Americans for Prosperity, that were key in promoting the measure. The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI), which has received $1.2 million in Koch money, also rallied against the climate law with a report that made extreme claims about potential job losses it would cause. The day after the report appeared, author and PRI senior fellow Benjamin Zycher appeared on the Planet Gore blog to tout it. (The ballot measure failed despite all these efforts.)

The Kochs' influence isn't limited to fringe media. Krauthammer has used his Washington Post column to blast the "Church of the Environment" that believes the global warming is real, and he has appeared on Fox News to discuss why any legislation addressing climate change is "dead on arrival."

The Wall Street Journal has regularly offered up its opinion pages to Cato's Michaels to bash climate scientists. The Weekly Standard, too, has provided a platform for Koch-backed organizations like the American Enterprise Institute to accuse scientists of being a "corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists."

For the Kochs, the millions of dollars they have invested in think tanks and electoral politics is small change. But the value of having access to media outlets that can promote the work of other projects they fund is hard to put a dollar figure on. "In addition to building their own think tanks, they built their own media," said Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace. "They have their own echo chamber built up, so then when they need it, when they need to amplify a message, they simply push a button and it's there."

but of course the rightwingnuts lap it up.......and the planet gets hotter....

[macdoc]

manufactured controversy.....follow the money indeed.....all those old familiar names...

Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry. There are numerous other names on the list with links to oil-industry funded climate sceptic think-tanks, including more from the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Marshall Institute.

Compiling these lists is dramatically different to the process of producing IPCC reports, which reference thousands of scientific papers. The reports are thoroughly reviewed to make sure that the scientific work included is relevant and diverse.

Sceptic organisations have been successful in dumping large lists into the public domain to suggest that there is significant scientific divergence from the consensus. This is partly due to the fact it is time consuming analysing such lists.

Luckily, there are now free tools online which help you interrogate this kind of data. The screen-scraping website NeedleBase can turn the long list of papers into a single database, while the free data-processing tool Google Refine allows for a rapid analysis.

This is the process used here. Because the screen-scraping process is a little rough around the edges the citation numbers may vary slightly. But they give a clear picture of the structure of the list, which in this instance has been very revealing. Should you wish to examine it, you can download the raw data here.

Using this method we could quickly see the ten most referenced authors. We found that nine of the ten have direct links to ExxonMobil. Eight are affiliated to Exxon-funded organisations, while every paper written by Dr Bruce Kimball was co-authored with Sherwood Idso.

The top ten include Willie Soon, a senior scientist at the Exxon funded George C Marshall institute, and John R Christy, also a Marshall Institute expert.

Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Exxon funded Fraser institute and on the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - funders unknown.

Dr Indur M Goklany is affiliated with the Exxon Funded thinktank the International Policy Network (US). Sallie L Baliunas is listed by the Union of Concerned Scientists as being affiliated with nine different organisations who have all received funding from ExxonMobil, including the George C Marshall Institute.

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist and prominent sceptic who notably has a degree of credibility in the scientific community, is a member of the 'Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy', which has also received Exxon funding.

The final name in the top 10 contributors - David H Douglass - has written several papers with Singer, Christie and Michaels - six of the fifteen papers he authored on the list were written with Michaels, Singer or Christie.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04 ... xxon-links

stay a while, stay a while.....something to see here ........with apologies to Obi Wan

.....a real live disinformation conspiracy.....one planetary atmosphere to bet...

•••

Just about forgot -

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science
Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... te-climate

hope you deniers in residence are getting paid for it.....

[Blind groper]

To Seth

I am not convinced that global warming is going to plunge us into disaster within 100 years, either. But there is no doubt that it is real, and generated by human activity. My only doubt is just how much warming will happen and how quickly.

There is also no doubt that the consensus of those who actually know what they are talking about is for serious warming, due to human generated greenhouse gases. About 98% of climatologists are in agreement on this point. (Recent survey).

[macdoc]

My only doubt is just how much warming will happen and how quickly.

Those same scientists give the same answers as it's based on the rather simple physics of C02 heat retention in the atmosphere.

There is no reason at all to consider we will stop emitting C02 any time soon and the current levels of emissions lead to 4+ degrees warming by century end.

The prognosis given in the 80s turned out to be about 10% on the conservative side as have the IPCC reports with the exception of the Arctic which has accelerated far beyond projections.

Doubts for someone who claims a science based / evidence based view should be based on realistic uncertainties with a sound base of evidence for them.

Just what are your doubts based on ??? Wishful thinking??

Are you better equipped than teams like MIT to draw conclusions from the evidence and the record to date.?

Climate change has thankfully a hysteresis - ocean and ice buffered the transients from becoming too extreme. On the flip side it makes forward looking changes inevitable as the earth's energy balance WILL come to a new equilibrium based on the carbon load and that will be warmer even if we stopped adding more fossil carbon now.

So stopping cold - even if we could, we have .8 C already realized, another .8 inevitable from the current C02 load.

We're not going to stop......if anything we are likely to increase it. So on what basis do you doubt the increase and the timing?

[Schneibster]

If it came down to it, the technologically advanced First World could effortlessly genocide third and second World populations to make more room for ourselves. So maybe the alarmists should be a little more careful about their chicken little syndrome

ah the Roman mindset.....perhaps you should read about a little military exercise concerning the middle-east where the Pentagon felt the same way.
http://www.rense.com/general29/soubts.htm

Rense? A) I wouldn't click on the link if you paid me, no telling what virus they're installing today, and B) they make the stuff up just like Alex Jones or the National Enquirer does.

If Rense says so it's almost certainly not true. Bat-boy, anal probing aliens, phone worms that crawl from the handset into your ears, 9/11 was an inside job by the International Jewish Conspiracy TM batshit crazy.

Sorry.

[Schneibster]

My only doubt is just how much warming will happen and how quickly.

Those same scientists give the same answers as it's based on the rather simple physics of C02 heat retention in the atmosphere.

There is no reason at all to consider we will stop emitting C02 any time soon and the current levels of emissions lead to 4+ degrees warming by century end.

The current consensus is about 3C/CO2 doubling per volume. The next doubling will have us at 700ppmv and that's predicted for about century's end- but by then a climb to the next concentration doubling is just about inevitable if we haven't changed our ways. At that point global temperatures will have increased by about 3C and the climate effects will be prominent; just about no one will be unaffected. At the end of the second doubling, 1400ppmv about halfway through the next century, climate effects will be severe; most people will be affected in their daily lives every day by a climate induced problem. If we still haven't figured it out by then, another doubling by the end of that century will put us at between a third and half the level that caused the Great Dying at the end of the Permian, the biggest mass extinction in the history of the planet. I don't think it really matters what kind of scary word we put in front of how bad the weather's gonna be after that- we'll be extinct in short order because we won't have anything to eat. And when their people start starving, the nuclear powers are gonna figure why not?

Me, I figure if you guys are that stupid, well then apres moi, le deluge. I do my bit to contain my carbon emissions, but I don't worry about it that much any more. I used to be all super liberal and give a shit. Now, well, fuck you if you're not smart enough to figure it out, I got mine. No skin off my ass. Burn bright brain. I'll vote for Obama and the Democrats who will do all anybody's gonna to fix it. If y'all vote for the Republican Teabagger Party, well, you're gonna die, but it's not my problem. I did what I could, you wanted to die, go for it. I'll be long gone before it actually comes to be, and I tried so my conscience is at peace.

[Tyrannical]

Kind of ironic that Liberal multiculturalists created the problem in the first place.
Over population in third World nations is directly attributable to kind Western nations giving them stuff, be it knowledge like cures for diseases or simply additional food.

[Schneibster]

Actually it's the cars and the power generation in the First World that's caused the problem. There aren't many cars or generating stations in Third World nations.

Maybe you forgot.

ETA: And here I thought the reason you were "against global warming" (snicker) is they were gonna take your car away and shut down the power half of every day.

Anyway that's what you told us.

[Blind groper]

Just what are your doubts based on ??? Wishful thinking??

macdoc

This is the one thing the experts do not agree on. The predictions, or 'scenarios' vary enormously. We get the IPCC predicting a half metre rise in sea level by 2100, and James Hansen predicting a 5 metre rise in sea level. That is a whole order of magnitude different! Of course, all the disaster lovers plump for Hansen.

The simple fact is that we do not know what will happen exactly. We cannot predict human actions over the next 100 years, for example. Americans tend to predict 'business as usual' because the American administration has been ostrich "head in the sand". This makes Americans more pessimistic. Europeans have more progressive governments and tend to be a bit more positive.

My own view is that, in time, even the idiots running the American government will wake up. In the mean time, there are literally thousands of people world wide; scientists, researchers, inventors, engineers, hard at work developing new ways of doing things to give humanity alternatives.

We have car companies who are now making battery electric cars. We have nuclear engineers developing new methods of generating electricity without the greenhouse gases. We have others finding out how to make biofuels. We have a research group here in little ol' NZ, cultivating algae in sewage oxidation ponds to produce oils for bio-diesel. And so on, and so on.

It is easy for people in a primitive and backward country like the USA to ignore the very real developments that are occurring. But they are genuinely happening, and the snowball pushed off the mountain top can only accelerate.

[macdoc]

You seen mis- informed on the ranges of predictions - could you provide a link for Hansen. I do not think the physics allows that sort of melt in the time period.....ice has a huge latent heat to overcome to change phase.

You say we cannot predict human behaviour - we do this all the time - you are wishful thinking that the world will wean itself off fossil in any significant way before a 4 degree C average gain - already close to half of that is in the pipeline.

Yes indeed there is progress in some areas but recognize the scale of the issue.

To meet the world's electricity demand - let alone replace coal - one engineer calculated a GW nuke a day for 20 years.
We might be at one a month or so.

There are good people in the US and Canada working towards the same ends despite the idjits in power.......

I suspect long term industrial civilization will get to close to carbon neutral as Sweden has committed to by 2050 Their program is steady and sensible.

http://www.energysavingsecrets.co.uk/ca ... utral.html

Without these two issues I could agree with your thoughts.

a) the population is going to grow by 50%

b) the upwardly mobile population in developing nations will soar as well towards a first world energy footprint.

China is as committed as any country to reducing carbon but they are also realists - they are building nukes, they have built the largest solar facility, they are building wind power.....but they are also building a coal plant a week.

China makes great progress on sustainable development
On June 18, 2012, in Asia, Business, Rio+20, Sustainable development, UN, by admin

June 18, 2012 (via chinadaily.com) RIO DE JANEIRO – China has made great progress on sustainable development despite difficulties along its development path, a senior UN official said here Friday.

As a developing country, China has gone through a more difficult development course than developed countries, said Sha Zukang, UN under-secretary-general for economic and social affairs, at an event on the sidelines of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20 Earth Summit).

Looking ahead, China will face many difficulties and obstacles. At present, China has more than 100 million people living below the poverty line, and China still has to work hard in emission reduction and environmental protection, he said. Continue Reading >>

http://worldgreensummit.org/china-makes ... velopment/

Had the world not gone stupid over the Japanese nuclear accident there might have been a nuclear revival enough to make a dent.
I am hopeful the stunning finds in natural gas will help reduce the rise in carbon at least tho fracking has it's own set of issues. But to think we will avoid 4 degrees by century's end is really hoping for a last minute Hail Mary solution.

Bill Gross thinks there is billions if not trillions to be made in green power
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ssil-fuels
and yes at some point it will come.....but our planet will be very different by then ......is already.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a climate scientists that thinks we will stay in the 2 degree range.

So like the Dutch - planning needs to done now for the reality of a 4 degree rise and a circa .5 meter rise in sea level.
Coping instead of prevention.

The wild card is how much damage extreme weather will do. So far the picture is bleak on the that front.

I'm still of the opinion that the real nightmare lurking is ocean acidification and so were the scientist behind the Monaco declaration.

Global Scientists Draw Attention to Threat of Ocean Acidification

Scripps researchers among international signatories to the Monaco Declaration, an assessment of increased ocean carbon dioxide uptake and call to action

Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego
More than 150 leading marine scientists from 26 countries are calling for immediate action by policymakers to sharply reduce CO2 emissions so as to avoid widespread and severe damage to marine ecosystems from ocean acidification.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=957

[Blind groper]

could you provide a link for Hansen.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... e-possible

Global warming to date - over 150 years of it - totals little more than 1 C.
Every prediction for large scale warming demands accelerating effects, and 'tipping points'. While these may happen, there will always be some doubt until they do happen.

One of the things I remember is that the previous warming period, about 120,000 years ago, led to a world that was 1 to 3 C warmer than ours. No 'tipping point' happened. Instead, the world quite 'suddenly' plunged into a new glacial period, and temperatures dropped dramatically.