Interesting. Heard this today on NPR radio...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130776747&ft=1&f=1014

From George's link:

"The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

That's a scientific fact."

There is no proven link. Correlation is not proof of causation. Not that the rise of atospheric co2 correlates with the rise in temperature very well anyway. Added to which, recent discoveries regarding the Sun, the oceans and their cycles point to most if not all of the late C20th rise in global temperature as being a natural phenomenon.

"Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

That too, is a fact."

Utter rubbish. The carbon cycle involves enormous natural fluxes:

Ocean-atmosphere 92 gigatonnes/year
Trees-atmosphere 60 gigatonnes/year
Soils-atmosphere 60 gigatonnes/year

Fossil Fuels and cement production-atmosphere 6 gigatonnes/year

These 'science reporters' couldn't lie straight in bed.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/24/2010 02:50:21 MDT.

Rog,

Thought you'd enjoy that article : )

People still believe anything on NPR? That last bastion of journalistic integrity and open-mindedness?

George,

I'd just fine the publishing media outlet $10,000 for each DEMONSTRABLY INCORRECT "SCIENTIFIC FACT" they published.

That'd stop this crap pretty quickly.

Journalism is only as good as the journalist in each report. I don't agree with the climate change article. Just found its presentation to be interesting. Most polls show it is a subject with waning public interest. Overall NPR is not that bad when you look at the news versus opinion ratio. Everyone should be wary of any news or presentations. The best strategy is to focus on: qui pro quo. Finding that reveals the truth.


And if you slip, $2 million 3 year contract...

Let's not shed too many tears for Juan...
As the newest victim of the left-wing media conspiracy, I'm sure he'll move on to make plenty of $$$ yelling at people on Fox or the likes.

If anyone would like to defend his comments, be my guest.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/24/2010 11:46:46 MDT.

"If anyone would like to defend his comments, be my guest."

Respect to Craig, but if anyone does want to discuss it, please start a new thread. This one is about climate.

This one is about climate.

That gave me a good laugh, first thing in the morning.

How fear of bias dominates the climate change debate

Edited by gmatthews on 10/24/2010 16:49:17 MDT.

"If anyone would like to defend his comments, be my guest."

That would be like defending the legal opinions of Clarence Thomas.

I view a lot of these highly paid "journalists" as entertainers, not intellectuals. What they say is often influenced by market share and personal income.

It is not what Juan says that bothers me, but that my taxes help support NPR's existence.

De Beers
------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated earlier,

"No coercive monopoly has ever been created or could be created in a free market economy. Every pure monopoly ever created, was created by............................

GOVERNMENT intervention into the economy. They provide special privileges to a few, and then close competition to all others by law or regulation."


De Beer's operations are in free market economies? The mining mostly does not take place in any free market economy, unless you consider South Africa and Canada as free market economies. They are ensured a monopoly in Botswana and Namibia, where the governments are their 50% partners.

Research Cecil Rhodes, the founder of De Beers. He was not a businessman, but a looter. His economic system was colonialism and imperialism. BTW, his legacy is the Rhodes Scholarship, which is funded by his estate.

And how does this relate to the Carbon Flame War? It is about objective reality. Facts are facts. A free market allows the exchange of goods, services, and ideas; and it is driven by reason... allowing men to make decisions based on knowledge. But when political agendas replace science, we are doomed. Thus the Carbon Flame War.

Hey Miguel, can you identify the piggybackin' critters on page 58?

George, the Grauniad is the main AGW cheerleading newspaper in the UK, and this article is an attempt to decieve. More fines.

"revelation of an embarrassing error" in IPCC AR4

A lot more than one error actually. There's the:
"North africa to lose 50% of food growing capacity by 2020" error.
Then there's the:
"Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035" error
And of course the:
"No statistically significant increase in Antarctic ice" error...
Oh, and not forgetting the
"Amazon forest will burn down soon" error.
There are many more.

"official investigations concluded that there is no conspiracy by researchers"

Colour me unsurprised. I covered this one a few pages ago.

"a weaker sun may actually warm the Earth's surface"

We had a look at this paper a few weeks ago at whatsupwiththat.com I'm not sure how the Grauniad thinks it advances their whitewashing of the IPCC's certainty...
It's certainly the case that the interaction between the Sun and Earth is far more complex than the simple power relationship the IPCC uses in its (incorrect) assessment of the sun's effect on earth's climate, but there are problems with this paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/06/study-sheds-new-light-on-how-the-sun-affects-the-earths-climate/

Edited by tallbloke on 10/25/2010 00:55:18 MDT.

From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones"

, Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer


Kevin,

I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
>

Edited by tallbloke on 10/25/2010 06:22:52 MDT.

Study: Space tourism could drive climate change

"Unfortunately throughout history we need society/government to protect each man's basic rights from those who want to limit these rights. And the goal of some societies/governments is to eliminate all personal freedoms."

That, Nick, is known as the human condition. It's been that way from the beginning, and is likely to persist far into the future, until the higher order areas of our brains eveolve to the point where we can finally control the base urges you rail against. In the meantime systems of law and governments to enforce them will be required. Along with enforcement of laws, governments have evolved to provide other services that most people feel are best left to some level of government, rather than left to those whose motivation in providing them is limited to self interest, usually in the form of making a profit. Among these are education, infrastructure, social services, to name a few. In the absence of government, we would quickly revert to a chaotic, brutish existence far from the ideal one you espouse. There are numerous contemporary examples of where we would end up without strong, comprehensive government.

Tom,

We will never resolve this in Chaff.

I guess the bottom line is that I believe that man, on an individual level, is a noble creature;

...and most others buy into William Golding's man.

I do not think man is evil. I think he is good. And he can be good without government/religion forcing him to be so. Man is not defective. He is not born with original sin. To survive, man must ACT in his own rational self-interest. For us backpackers, this is obvious... when in the wilderness, it is crucial we act in our own self-interest... our survival depends on it.

IMO, what is lacking for most people is a philosophical system that supports the idea that men can live freely with their own self-interest as the purpose of their life; and they can do it without infringing on the rights of others and visa versa. This was so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

I would tell people to have "faith" in man, but faith is not the proper word. Faith is blind acceptance. Mankind has survived due to his ability to think and reason. Man is not the physically strongest force on the planet. Many animals can devour him; nature can destroy him; but he has survived because he can THINK. Men of reason do not submit to some power or authority, they ACT in their own self interest. And this self-interest is not at the expense of other men. Mankind can continue to survive if he is allowed to live by his own rational thinking. Government and religions as we know them do not allow men to live by their own rational thinking, they aspire to control men.

So instead of having "faith" in man, allow him to LIVE his own life.

And this leads to the Carbon Flame War. Too many have succumbed to the Climategate Authorities/Experts. The experts have shoved their theories on us, as if their theories are indisputable fact, and it is up to us to disprove them; not up to them to prove them. Sort of like you are guilty until proven innocent: wrong premise. These conspirators know most of the public are conditioned to succumb to their declarations as the so called authorities and/or experts. They are banking on us to no longer be men of reason... and if we are no longer driven by our own self-interest, but the common good, why would we challenge them or anyone else?

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

"Let me preface my statement by saying that at this point, I am pretty much immune to criticisms from my peers regarding my behavior and public outreach on this topic (I respond to any and all criticisms of my arguments that are specifically addressed to me.) If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully. I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus. You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged. But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.

Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives."

My bold.
Her qualifications speak for themselves.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

It will be my pleasure to meet this lady in Lisbon next January.

"I guess the bottom line is that I believe that man, on an individual level, is a noble creature; ...and most others buy into William Golding's man."

I certainly think he can be, and many have been, and at a very local level I think, perhaps, even many are.

"These conspirators know most of the public are conditioned to succumb to their declarations as the so called authorities and/or experts."

And this is the crux of the problem as I see it. I don't necessarily think 'man' (the overarching) is evil, I just think man tends toward the lazy and, perhaps, even narcissistic. And because of that, a few (bad, evil, power mongering, take your pick) men (used as a pronoun for all sexes) will always attempt to compromise the many, and many of the many will easily be compromised (and some ignorantly, but gladly so).

The issue goes far beyond the carbon flame war. It's present it most of what goes on in 'life' today at a macro level. I think your view that 'we can all just get along' is a bit Pollyannaish. There will always be those who want to control others.

"Mankind can continue to survive if he is allowed to live by his own rational thinking."

I think I would change this to say "if only he would begin to think critically about the world around him, and reacted rationally, in his own best interests."

FWIW