July 2012 Open Thread

Phew, looks the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age.

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    July 19, 2012

    “While the size is not as spectacular as it was in 2010, the fact that it follows so closely to the 2010 event brings the glacier’s terminus to a location where it has not been for at least 150 years,” Muenchow says.”

    http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/jul/glacier-071612.html

    So……..now the Peterman Glacier is as short as it was 150 years ago.

    Damned earthquakes :)

  2. #2 Wow
    July 19, 2012

    So it was shorter before then, karen.

    Proof of global warming.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    July 19, 2012

    Mackmuffin

    To put it more simply is it “melting” or breaking off. Hypothetical or real?

    You clearly have no idea of the dynamics of glaciers and what happens when glacial tongues meet water.

    As that water, lacking sea ice cover, warms faster then where it meets the seaward end of a glacial tongue the underside melts and the over-ice tends to accelerate seaward causing a stress fracture somewhere upstream. There is a little more to this process but I will leave that for you as a homework exercise.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    July 19, 2012

    KrakenKnutt

    Now let us see a bit more from that article, I have emphasised to aid your comprehension (if such a thing is possible), I’ll include the bit you quoted:

    “While the size is not as spectacular as it was in 2010, the fact that it follows so closely to the 2010 event brings the glacier’s terminus to a location where it has not been for at least 150 years,” Muenchow says.

    “The Greenland ice sheet as a whole is shrinking, melting and reducing in size as the result of globally changing air and ocean temperatures and associated changes in circulation patterns in both the ocean and atmosphere,” he notes.

    Muenchow points out that the air around northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island has warmed by about 0.11 +/- 0.025 degrees Celsius per year since 1987.

    “Northwest Greenland and northeast Canada are warming more than five times faster than the rest of the world,” Muenchow says, “but the observed warming is not proof that the diminishing ice shelf is caused by this, because air temperatures have little effect on this glacier; ocean temperatures do, and our ocean temperature time series are only five to eight years long — too short to establish a robust warming signal.”

    You really are stupid ain’t you to think we would leave it at your cherry picked quote.

  5. #5 Karen
    July 19, 2012

    Oh Lionel that wasn’t a cherry picked quote!!

    It was a highlighted quote, what he is saying is that it is as “short as it was 150 years ago,”

    But what he didn’t tell you is that it was probably shorter 200 years ago and 1000 years ago the Vikings grazed their cattle where the glacier now resides.
    That means that the glacier grew during the little ice age and we have warming up a bit since then.
    So whats the drama man ?

    did you know this ?

    Glacial earthquakes are earthquakes as large as magnitude 5.1 that occur in glaciated areas where the glacier moves faster than one kilometer per year.

    The number of glacial earthquakes in Greenland shows a peak every year in July, August and September, and the number is increasing over time. In a study using data from January 1993 through October 2005, more events were detected every year since 2002, and twice as many events were recorded in 2005 as there were in any other year. This increase in the numbers of glacial earthquakes in Greenland may be a response to global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_earthquake

    Note: I left the “global warming” prerequisite that must be added unconditionally to anything written about the weather.

    I did that just to please you Lionel, :)

  6. #6 Lionel A
    July 19, 2012

    Yes KrakenKnutt.

    I have heard of isostatic rebound.

    Now if you don’t get ‘the drama’ from these events, and those associated all over the globe, you really are as ‘thick as two short planks’, or mendacious – take your pick.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    July 19, 2012

    Oh what a tangled web we weave…

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    July 19, 2012

    My last was in response to:

    No, sorry Wow I’m separate from Karen. Inconveniently.

  9. #9 Karen
    July 19, 2012

    lol, mendacious is much closer aligned with Lyen nel.

    Now tell me Lyen nel do you think that glacial earthquakes are a new feature of the global warming phenomenon ?

    Lyen nel I think you should educate yourself on glaciers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier#Motion

    and……………..

    The implications of the current climate change on ice sheets are difficult to constrain. It is clear that increasing temperatures are resulting in reduced ice volumes globally.[11] (Due to increased precipitation, the mass of parts of the Antarctic ice sheet may currently be increasing, but the total mass balance is unclear.[11])
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet_dynamics

    No mention of CO2 there Lyen nel :)

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    July 19, 2012

    No mention of CO2 there Lyen nel.

    And articles discussing automobile performance metrics generally don’t mention fluid dynamics or basic combustion chemistry either.

    Perhaps you thought you actually had a point?

  11. #11 FrankD
    July 19, 2012

    @ Karen: What he is saying is that it is as “short as it was 150 years ago,”

    Seriously Karen, you need help. Where does he say that? Do you not know the difference between “greater than” and “equals”? No wonder you need you special “Svalbard maths” to claim that Arctic Sea Ice is healthy. You know, the maths where -1 + -1 = 0…

    Here’s a picture that might help you with your innumeracy: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    Half a million square kilometers below the old record, and accelerating away…

  12. #12 Karen
    July 19, 2012

    I’ll raise you the antarctic frank

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    Alarmist’s will be remembered for their environment vandalism.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon

    Absolute lunacy.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    July 19, 2012

    I’ll raise you the antarctic frank

    That’s not a raise. It’s a transparent bluff.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    July 19, 2012

    That’s not a raise. It’s a transparent bluff.

    It’s also a complete non-understanding of physics.

    USKMSPMM is one of those old raincoat-wearing nutjobs who hides behind bushes and jumps out to expose his inadequacies to the world, thinking that he actually has something worth showing off, and that rational people want to know about.

    He’s wrong on both counts.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    July 19, 2012

    KrakenKnutt

    Now tell me Lyen nel do you think that glacial earthquakes are a new feature of the global warming phenomenon ?

    Lyen nel I think you should educate yourself on glaciers.

    Well over to you for education sunshine

    Note this well:

    The break-off point has been visible for at least 8 years in MODIS imagery propagating at speeds of 1 km/year towards Nares Strait. The fracture also extended further across the floating ice sheet from the northern towards its southern side.

    Now what was I saying about glacier dynamics?

    PS. I bet you have not yet twigged the meaning under that Knutt tag.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    July 19, 2012

    PZ Myers’ minions (including a bunch of Aussies) piss off Andrew Bolt by stymieing his own online poll-influencing attempt.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    July 19, 2012

    And didn’t Bolt spit the dummy?

    The shame is, that no matter how anything goes, he’ll twist it to his advantage, and sway the zombies his way.

    Too many Australians really are that Stupid.

  18. #18 Karen
    July 20, 2012

    I find it most amusing that some in here are happy that Gillard wasn’t asked,

    “By how much, measured in degrees Celsius, will the earths temperature be
    reduced through the carbon tax ?”

    That is very telling and most defiantly demonstrates that you don’t believe the CO2 fairytale yourselves, if you did then you all would have voted for her to be asked that question.

    This should be remembered as CLIMATE QUESTIONGATE

  19. #19 Karen
    July 20, 2012

    Lionel A
    July 19, 3:47 pm

    Did you notice that the two MODIS-Aqua image’s at your link clearly demonstrate that the Petermann Glacier now has much more ice now than it did in 2010.

    Figure that Lionel, another glacier gaining more mass, thanks :)

  20. #20 wow
    July 20, 2012

    Did you now that warming doesn’t just mean “above the freezing point of water”?

  21. #21 lord_sidcup
    July 20, 2012

    Did you notice that the two MODIS-Aqua image’s at your link clearly demonstrate that the Petermann Glacier now has much more ice now than it did in 2010.

    Short-sighted literally as well as figuratively, or maybe so dumb as to confuse sea ice and an ice island for a glacier.

  22. #22 lord_sidcup
    July 20, 2012

    I was perusing the Norfolk Constabulary webpage announcing the closure of the investigation of the theft of CRU emails. It includes a list of all the FOI requests received:

    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx

    The most nutty ones were the requests:

    The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), held by the constabulary.
    2. The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), that have been charged to the Constabulary’s cost code that is allocated for investigating the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia.

    and

    (1) The number of copies of the book The Climate Files, by Fred Pearce (2010), held by the Constabulary.
    (2) The number of copies of the book The Climate Files, by Fred Pearce (2010), that have been charged to the Constabulary’s cost code that is allocated for investigating the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia.
    (3) The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), held by the Constabulary.
    (4) The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), that have been charged to the Constabulary’s cost code that is allocated for investigating the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia.

  23. #23 Karen
    July 20, 2012

    Lordy your research is……..shallow !

    Dear ‘Member of the public’

    Freedom of Information Request Reference No
    : FOI 192/10/11

    I write in connection with your request for information received by the Norfolk Constabulary on the
    18th
    of July 2010, in which you sought access to the following information:

    1. The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), held
    by the Constabulary.
    2. The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), that
    have been charged to the Constabulary’s cost code that is allocated for investigating the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia.

    Extent of Searches to Locate Information:

    To locate the information relevant to your request, searches were conducted within the Protective
    Services Department of the Norfolk Constabulary. A brief description of the work undertaken by
    the Protective Services Department is published on our website via the following web-link:
    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/aboutus/ourorganisation.aspx

    This response will be published on the Norfolk Constabulary’s web-site.

    Result of the Searches to Locate Information Relevant to your Request.

    In responding to your request; and in accordance with Section 1(1)(a) and Section 1(1)(b) of the
    Freedom of Information Act; I can advise that the Norfolk Constabulary does not hold any copies of
    the publication referenced in your request. I can also confirm that no recorded expenditure relating
    to the purchase of this publication is held in association with the Constabulary’s financial costs
    codes concerning the investigation of the publication of emails belonging to members of the
    University of East Anglia.

  24. #24 Karen
    July 20, 2012

    Thanks for bring all those files to my attention Lordy :)

    Check this out………

    Freedom of Information Request Reference No
    : FOI 69/12/13

    I write in connection with your request for information received by the Norfolk Constabulary on the
    14th
    May 2012 in which you sought access to the following information:

    Please provide a breakdown per month, the number of:
    A threats to life
    B threats of bodily harm

    which were reported to Norfolk Constabulary by members of the University of East Anglia
    Climatic Research Unit in the period 1st November 2009 to 30th April 2012, inclusive.

    Response to your Request

    Norfolk Constabulary were made aware of emails that had been received by a member of the staff
    at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. No specific complaint or report was made
    to the Constabulary and no crimes were recorded detailing threats to life or threats of bodily harm.

    This response will be published on the Norfolk Constabulary’s web-site http://www.norfolk.police.uk
    under the Freedom of Information pages at Publication Scheme – Disclosure Logs.

    Should you have any further queries concerning this request, please contact me quoting the
    reference number shown above.

  25. #25 lord_sidcup
    July 20, 2012

    Are you trying to distract from your latest Petermann Glacier blunder Karen?

    no crimes were recorded detailing threats to life or threats of bodily harm

    And this consoles you?

  26. #26 Karen
    July 20, 2012

    It’s very simple Lordy,

    Here is August 2010

    http://icyseas.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/petermann2010.png

    and here is July 2012

    http://icyseas.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/petermann20121.png

    The reason that I pointed out large accumulation of ice build up on the Petermann Glacier is that you lot are blaming CO2 for the bit that broke off ?

    Now here we have pictorial evidence that the glacier calved naturally, and it did this because it is not melting but growing.

    Contrary to Alarmist cultural belief, hot weather does not make ice.

  27. #27 Wow
    July 20, 2012

    From Icyseas:

    From selected imagery, I created a short movie (0.7 MB) which shows (a) the 2010 calving, (b) the advance of the new front in 2011 and early 2012, and (c) the 2012 calving. The glacier has moved at a rate of about 1 km per year (Higgins, 1991) or about 6 miles per decade. After the removal of the 2010 4-Manhattans it increased its speed by about 10-20%, noticeable, but not dramatic. Then, yesterday, a second ice island formed along a large lateral crack that Mauri Pelto described in 2008 and updated in 2011. He correctly predicted the loss of a 150 km^2 sized ice island as a result of that crack. This is exactly what we got yesterday: an ice island forming at precisely this crack which has moved seaward at a rate of 1.0-1.3 km per year for at least the last 6 years.

  28. #28 lord_sidcup
    July 20, 2012

    Using the land masses in the 2 images as a reference point, or maybe the point marked as 81 degrees, any normal human being can see the glacier has retreated.

    Maybe side-by-side images from a right-wing media source will help Karen overcome his difficulty with reality:

    http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/greenland-glacier-iceberg1.jpg

  29. #29 Lionel A
    July 20, 2012

    Wow, it is clearly a waste of time arguing with a numbskull, or mendacious git, who always sees black as white and up as down and thinks 2+2 = 5.

    Except for the fact that invisible visitors here can see where the duplicity is. So keep up the good work of undermining your credibility (if that is possible with a zero balance to begin with) KrakenKnutt. Hint; Windham and a king – got it yet?

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    July 20, 2012

    That is very telling and most defiantly demonstrates that you don’t believe the CO2 fairytale yourselves, if you did then you all would have voted for her to be asked that question.

    Er, no on multiple counts.

    And I’m quite sure you won’t be able to work out where your “logic” is wrong. Feel free to try – the entirely novel experience will be good for you.

  31. #31 FrankD
    July 20, 2012

    Lionel, recently Karen has made a number of gaffes and at least had the decency to try to quickly change the subject, which is a close to an admission as a denier can get.

    But this thread has me laughing and gaping at the same time. It’s like watching
    homer simpson play blackjack

    Karen can’t even compare two pictures accurately, let alone parse a simple paragraph written in the plainest english. I mean when you correct someone on 2+2 = 5, and their response is “see, I told you it equalled 3!”, there really is nowhere to go…I kind of admire that chutzpah, though at the same time I fear for her sanity…

    Mauri Pelto predicted Petermann would spit out this ice island this year, but even he was surprised that it went as early as mid-July. He was not expecting it to calve before mid-August. Not ridiculous handwaving about earthquakes, just extraordinary sea temperatures (select the “anomalies” parameter for the full effect…)

    (fingers crossed on the link formats working…)

  32. #32 Wow
    July 20, 2012

    It’s nothing to do with their sanity, it’s to do with their blind faith in a dogma Frank.

    ANYTHING done to stop those REALLY BAD PEOPLE the libertarians, the left, and enviornmentalists is not only acceptable but mandatory.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    July 20, 2012

    BTW, a far better question for Gillard on the carbon tax impact would have been something like:

    If we want to have a good chance of avoiding dangerous levels of climate change, especially in the light of recent research showing dangerous changes start happening at 1 C rise rather than 2 C, what is the incremental cost of each year of delaying strong action to dramatically reduce our emissions?

    A followup could have asked if the Gillard government accepts the IAEA figures (something like $500 billion/year of delay across the globe), and if so, what part of that sum is attributable to Australian inaction?

    And that could have led into some really good questions on whether the carbon tax leading to a trading scheme is doing enough, soon enough to meet the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.

    But questions like that would probably demonstrate acceptance of the scientific research in such a strong fashion that Karen’s head would explode ;-)

  34. #34 lord_sidcup
    July 20, 2012

    One to watch out for, David Rose of Rosegate fame is apparently doing another hatchet job for the Fail on Sunday this weekend. Expect smears, inneuendo, and some very bad science (h/t Bob Ward).

  35. #35 lord_sidcup
    July 20, 2012

    That should read “innuendo” of course.

  36. #36 John
    July 21, 2012

    Watts went back on his latest “final nail in the coffin” awfully fast. If you look he’s removed the references to Muller and BEST.

    How embarrassing for him. But its ok Watts, you may forget but I’ll be here to remind you.

  37. #37 Karen
    July 21, 2012

    Good one Frank, hahaha

    Your trying to convince yourself that a chunk of ice broke off because the sea surface temperature is ZERO Deg CELCIUS,

    Get real Frank, hehehe, also put the time scale back to 30 days you fool, your looking at a change in weather

    Double ROFL with a triple somersault hahaha

    I see up there Lotty is trying to sell nuclear energy !!!!

    I might add that Frank was implying that you all would be tooooo dumb to work out that he was just trying to hype the fear by getting you all to view an anomaly chart !

    Why didn’t he add, “the ocean temperature is at or below 0 deg C and Greenland is currently in the middle of summer???

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2012

    I see up there Lotty is trying to sell nuclear energy…

    If you’re rambling is meant to refer to my latest comment, then – as per usual – you are wrong, and using your wrongness to avoid the point.

    But I don’t have to point that out to anyone who’s paid attention to your modus operandi.

  39. #39 FrankD
    July 21, 2012

    Karen is obviously unaware that anomalies are not “hype” but are used to determine departures from normal conditions. The fact that it is 4 degrees above normal in Baffin Bay at the moment is the whole point – “warming” is relative to normal. And that extra heat is enought to double the amount of ice that gets melted. I’d say its a lot more relevant than your ludicrous reaching about earthquakes far away in time and space.

    All that warm water that is flowing north into Baffin Bay elevating the temperature 4 degrees above normal, where’s that heat going then? Do we think in this area that water temperatures be higher on the surface or 100 m down (ie, around the base of the Peterman Glacier)? Karen seems to labour under the delusion that if its zero at the ice margin it must be zero all the way down…

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    July 21, 2012

    As Tristan says, it’s a sad indictment of Australian politics:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1518#82560

  41. #41 Lionel A
    July 21, 2012

    KrakenKnutt (got the Wynd-up yet?)

    …hahaha…Your trying to convince yourself that a chunk of ice broke off because the sea surface temperature is ZERO Deg CELCIUS,

    Get real Frank, hehehe, also put the time scale back to 30 days you fool, your looking at a change in weather

    So you didn’t comprehend the importance of this bit of information in my earlier post then:

    The break-off point has been visible for at least 8 years in MODIS imagery …

    Hahaha
    Hehehe
    Kraken nests in a rhubarb tree.

    Adapted from a childhood ditty which is about your level.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    July 21, 2012

    For ‘The Kraken’ a couple of timely articles on the effect of GHG induced warming and its effect from ice melt

    Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise

    Sea Level Rise: It Could Be Worse Than We Think

    not that the he/she will understand.

    We wish you were right Kraken but that would be like wishing Santa was real.

  43. #43 Betula
    July 21, 2012

    It seldom fails….

    Lionel’s link…”Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise” was a presentation of “The Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media.”

    The Editor of “The Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media” happens to be Bud Ward, who in 2007/2008 was “an adviser for the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report, Climate Change and Human Development”
    http://www.davidgibbons.org/id312.html

    The “The Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media” is an initiative of the “Yale Project on Climate Change Communication” directed by Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz
    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/aboutus/

    It just so happens, Anthony Leiserowitz is also a consultant to the United Nations Development Program.
    http://environment.yale.edu/profile/leiserowitz/

    Yes, both are advisors to The United Nations Development Programme. Coincidence? Hmm…

    And what are UNDP’s main goals?
    http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home.html

    And how do they plan on financing the MDG’s? Only 2 1/2 years to go….

  44. #44 chek
    July 21, 2012

    Hey, it’s just an idea, but how about diverting the merest fraction of the massive fossil fuel funded revenue streams currently spent on devising conspiracy theories for f*ckwits of every description?

    Betty of course knows where the funding is proposed to come from, but he’d lose his cred with the other moronos if they knew that they – just like he – could use the internets to ‘look it up’.

  45. #45 bill
    July 22, 2012

    Batty performs the Reactionary Paranoid Hysteric’s take on 6 Degrees of Separation…

    They really can read your mind, you know. It’s not like there’s much there to challenge them…

  46. #46 MikeH
    July 22, 2012

    Tim.
    Is there any particular reason why the “Recent Comments” list alternates between current comments and the 27th June comment
    “ianam on Tim Curtin’s incompetence with basic statistics”

    Is this a NG feature or a bug?

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    July 22, 2012

    Batty performs the Reactionary Paranoid Hysteric’s take on 6 Degrees of Separation…

    Methinks it is even more ludicrous than that. As Betula helpfully points out:

    Only 2 1/2 years to go….

    And Betula appears to be expressing paranoia that climate change is going to be used to “finance the MDG’s [sic]“.

    Anyone who (a) has contemplated for more than half a second what it would take to achieve those goals and how long it would take, and (b) has contemplated for more than half a second the maximum velocity of (i) the U.N. and (ii) individual governments passing legislation to implement U.N. resolutions, especially those that divert funds to other countries, and (c) has contemplated for more than half a second the maximum velocity of globally coordinated responses to climate change itself…

    …would know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of any significant new funding being turned on in the next “2 1/2 years”.

    But it is handy that Betula keeps demonstrating Betula’s funding fears are unrealistic, and further demonstrating that Betula hasn’t got any actual case against mainstream climate science.

  48. #48 John
    July 22, 2012

    Betula shrills:

    And what are UNDP’s main goals?

    The are scandalous! From his link:

    fighting poverty
    Building democratic societies
    Preventing crisis, enabling recovery
    Protecting the environment
    Halting & reversing HIV/AIDS
    Empowering women
    Growing national capacity

    It begs to be asked – why does Betula hate democracy and self determination?

  49. #49 zoot
    July 22, 2012

    It begs to be asked – why does Betula hate democracy and self determination?

    I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.
    ;-)

  50. #50 Wow
    July 22, 2012

    MikeH I believe it is a feature. Only if you never clear out the cookies to you get a consistent list from this site.

    You need to post to see the site correctly so it sets a cookie.

  51. #51 MikeH
    July 22, 2012

    Thanks Wow. That makes sense (the explanation not the feature). I regularly clear out cookies so it explains why my view suddenly reverts to 26th June.

  52. #52 John
    July 22, 2012

    The deniers have gained a valuable ally in their noble quest – a group of valiant patriots named “Australians Against Chemtrails” have finally broken their silence about the SCAM.

  53. #53 Betula
    July 22, 2012

    Loth…

    ” there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of any significant new funding being turned on in the next “2 1/2 years”

    So Loth, you’re saying there’s a good chance…..

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588

    And even though you’re dull, you still have a point….

    Even though “progress, including on poverty eradication, is being made despite setbacks, including setbacks caused by the financial and economic crisis”…there is still a “deep concern that it falls far short of what is needed.”

    But not to fear Lothy! …..”We are convinced that the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved,
    including in the poorest countries, with renewed commitment, effective implementation and intensified collective action by all Member States and other
    relevant stakeholders at both the domestic and international levels, using national development strategies and appropriate policies and approaches that have proved to be effective” and looking at “innovative financing mechanisms”

    Of course, “Addressing climate change will be of key importance in safeguarding and advancing progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.”

    http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/Draft%20outcome%20document.pdf

    But Loth, what kind of conspiratorial redistribution of wealth “innovative financing mechanisms” could they be talking about?…..

    “The United Nations on Thursday proposed an international tax, combined with other innovative financing mechanisms, to raise more than 400 billion U. S. dollars annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate change”

    “The report found the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, a set of eight anti-poverty targets to be reached by its deadline 205, and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough.”

    “We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions”

    “other options could be explored but would require further technical elaboration, such as a billionaire’s tax, which would consist of a small tax of, say, one percent on individual wealth holdings of 1 billion U.S. dollars or more with the revenues destined to finance internationally agreed global development purposes ”

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-07/06/c_123377152.htm

    Lothy, it looks like the entire U.N. is wearing tinfoil caps…what gives?

    .

  54. #54 Wow
    July 22, 2012

    Mmhmmm. Betty, do you know that “proposed” is not the same as “implemented”?

  55. #55 Turboblocke
    July 22, 2012

    $400 billion per year is about $1/week from everybody on the planet. Say 15 US cents a day.

    Try to keep a sense of proportion old chap.

  56. #56 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 22, 2012

    I’ll never doubt you again!

    You have been promising me global warming for years now and all that I know for a definite fact is that I haven’t had my BBQ out of the garage for the last three years. But, today, hoorah! The sun shone, the temperature went up, not much but enough, and my rusted-up BBQ was hauled out for operations.

    So, ‘I believe, I believe’, er, despite the unfortunate fact that others seem to be falling by the wayside given the huge drop in the numbers of people Goggling the term ‘global warming':

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/google-trends-in-us-some-warm-weather.html

    Splitters, all of them!

  57. #57 John
    July 22, 2012

    But Duff, the heatwave in the US is proof it is warming!

  58. #58 Betula
    July 22, 2012

    Llionel A…..

    I was just checking out your link….
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/yes-virginia-there-is-sea-level-rise.html

    I have a few questions….

    Since sea level rise appear to effect the east coast of the United States (particularly the Norfolk region) the hardest, when do you think they will be recieving aid from the UNDP?

    There was one interesting character in this video…Eli Lehrer from the ” R Street Institute” who, when referring to the shorelines of the east coast, said ” There is absolutely no reason the government should subsidize people to live in dangerous places”

    Lionel, does this include Bangladesh?

  59. #59 Betula
    July 22, 2012

    Wow…

    Do you know that “probable” isn’t the same as “actual”?

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    July 22, 2012

    So Loth, you’re saying there’s a good chance…..

    Er, no. I clearly was not.

    And your quotes don’t support your claims either.

    Are you really that poor at comprehension? (That would explain a lot.) Or are you stupid? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting other people’s words because you can’t “make” your case without doing so?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  61. #61 Turboblocke
    July 22, 2012

    So, ‘I believe, I believe’, er, despite the unfortunate fact that others seem to be falling by the wayside given the huge drop in the numbers of people Goggling the term ‘global warming’:

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/google-trends-in-us-some-warm-weather.html

    Are you sure that it’s the absolute number? According to Google the figures shown on Insights is relative to the total number of searches. Perhaps you could find out the source used by your link? Or don’t you want to know?

  62. #62 Chris O'Neill
    July 22, 2012

    ” the huge drop in the numbers of people Goggling the term ‘global warming’”

    Myself, for instance, who can’t recall ever goggling ‘global warming’, or even googling it for that matter.

    What a splitter I am.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    July 23, 2012

    Batty Bet drops another turd:

    Lionel, does this include Bangladesh?

    Clearly within the context of what Eli Lehrer said then No!

    Lehrer was pointing out that rich celeb’s and members of the one percent should not expect help from the public purse if their expensive properties built on coasts subject to a combination resulting in large sea rise are threatened. I particularly liked his throw away line about these people receiving the bill for cost of rescue.

    People in Bangladesh didn’t have much of a choice. But then if you had bothered to use GeoMapApp as suggested elsewhere you would understand why.

    But then knowledge of the world, i.e. context, is never your strong suit is it.

  64. #64 Betula
    July 23, 2012

    Those damn scientists are trying to prevent us from saving the Polar Bears…

    http://www.examiner.com/article/scientific-study-proves-energy-efficient-bulbs-can-harm-human-skin-cells

  65. #65 bill
    July 23, 2012

    Well, Batty is certainly Goggled….

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2012

    Those damn scientists are trying to prevent us from saving the Polar Bears…

    Another blatant false paraphrase from Betula. Whodathunkit?

    And this one ties in to the strange US climate denialist fetish for incandescent bulbs. Note that this report only contrasts UV from incandescent bulbs and CFLs. It does not compare other lighting technologies, nor actual daylight levels – anyone want to bet that daylight levels are not much much higher?

    This report on the study does at least mention a European study that found that being a mere 20cm away from the bulb meets safety standards for prolonged exposure – and that a simple layer of glass, as found in many light fittings, will nullify the UV risk.

  67. #67 Chris O'Neill
    July 23, 2012

    “Those damn scientists are trying to prevent us from saving the Polar Bears”

    And how, pray tell, does sitting further from CFLs than 20 cm harm polar bears? Enquiring minds want to know.

  68. #68 lord_sidcup
    July 23, 2012

    the huge drop in the numbers of people Goggling the term ‘global warming’

    Presumably, that drop would include ‘sceptics’ googling to find out what the most recent ‘final nail in the AGW coffin’ might be. No surprise they lose interest when every final nail turns into another denier dud.

  69. #69 Betula
    July 23, 2012

    Turby..
    “400 billion per year is about $1/week from everybody on the planet. Say 15 US cents a day. Try to keep a sense of proportion old chap.”

    So the U.N.plans on taking $1 a week from everyone on the planet…regardless of age, income and nationality? Wow, that really does give it in a different perspective. How do they plan on implementing this Turbo?

  70. #70 Betula
    July 23, 2012

    “And how, pray tell, does sitting further from CFLs than 20 cm harm polar bears? Enquiring minds want to know.”

    Jeez Chris, are you really that uniformed? If scientists find CFL’s to be harmful, more people will stick with incandescent bulbs that use more energy and fossil fuels. This will cause the ice caps to melt, resulting in the demise of the Polar Bear habitat and eventually the Polar Bears themselves…
    It appears the scientists are purposely out to get the Polar Bears…they’re Polar Bear deniers…this is their war on Polar Bears…..c’mon Chris, I can’t be helping you all the time, get with the program!

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2012

    So the U.N.plans on taking $1 a week from everyone on the planet…

    Nope.

    Try reading it again.

    It appears the scientists are purposely out to get the Polar Bears…

    Nope.

    (It appears you’re determined to prove you’re a twit – or maybe just consistently wrong.)

  72. #72 Betula
    July 23, 2012

    Lothy…

    “Try reading it again”

    Oh, right, sorry…

    So the U.N.plans on taking 15 U.S. cents a day from everyone on the planet…regardless of age, income and nationality? Wow, that really does give it in a different perspective. How do they plan on implementing this Turbo?

  73. #73 luminous beauty
    July 23, 2012

    For Betty re: redistribution of wealth

    ” All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” –Benjamin Franklin

    Was Franklin a commie?

  74. #74 chek
    July 23, 2012

    Never mind Franklin – to the modern, pundit-fed rightista-about-town, Nixon was a raving commie Socialist.

  75. #75 luminous beauty
    July 23, 2012

    More for Betty. De facto re-distribution of wealth in the US under small government/anti-tax regime:

    As reported by the IRS:
    ——————–1986——-1999
    Top 1%———-11.30——19.51
    Top 5%———-24.11——34.04
    Top 10%——–35.12——44.89
    Top 25%——–59.04——66.46
    Top 50%——–83.34——86.75
    Bottom 99%—88.70——80.49
    Bottom 95%—75.89——65.96
    Bottom 90%—64.88——55.11
    Bottom 75%—40.96——33.54
    Bottom 50%—16.66——13.25

  76. #76 ianam
    July 23, 2012

    Do you know that “probable” isn’t the same as “actual”?

    Tu quoque fallacy (basically an admission to Wow’s criticism), strawman fallacy, and general stupidity … one refrains from jumping off a cliff because of the probability of injury, not the “actuality”.

    So the U.N.plans on taking 15 U.S. cents a day from everyone on the planet…regardless of age, income and nationality? Wow, that really does give it in a different perspective. How do they plan on implementing this Turbo?

    This, like everything from Betula, is chock full of stupid. Of course no one said that the U.N. has any such plan, and it is Betula who is raving about the MDG being “implemented” in 2.5 years. And even if the U.N. were well along in its nefarious scheme to transfer the massive accumulated property of arborists to the world’s undeserving starving children, this would have no bearing on the facts about sea level rise. Betula appears to have no inkling of how clearly his fallacy-filled “It seldom fails….” post demonstrates what an intellectually dishonest imbecile he is, but it is clear to everyone else.

  77. #77 ianam
    July 23, 2012

    @luminous beauty

    Mark Rosenfelder FTW.

  78. #78 Betula
    July 23, 2012

    Lumy….

    I take it your Benjamin Frankiln quote is meant to justify the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations. So you agree that using climate change as a tool to redistribute that wealth is justified ….correct?

    And why we are on the subject of Ben Franklin:

    “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

    How about Thomas Jefferson…

    “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

    And Abraham Lincoln…

    “That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”
    Abraham Lincoln

    And then there’s this….

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/ben_franklin_skewers_obamas_jobs_proposal.html

    “In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty”.

  79. #79 Betula
    July 23, 2012

    Nelson…

    “Of course no one said that the U.N. has any such plan, and it is Betula who is raving about the MDG being “implemented” in 2.5 years”

    The “plan” as stated by the U.N., is to extract 400 billion from “wealthy” nations. It was Turbo who compared it to the equivalent. of 15 U.S. Cents a day from everyone on earth….

    The comparison was meant to show the insignificance of that kind of money. Insignificant if shared equally by everyone on earth, which of course it won’t be, making Turbo’s comparison insignificant.

    Thanks Nelson, for pointing out. the insignificance of Turbos comment.

    Of course, we all know, based on the U.N’s own words, where,how and why they wish to redistibute the money. It’s no secret to anyone with a computer half a brain. Well, actually it’s still a secret to most on this site.

  80. #80 bill
    July 23, 2012

    Notice the technique here? Swoop in, regurgitate a nugget of chum – in this case highlighting the almost insurmountable problem of managing to stay 20cm away from a CFL lightglobe; oh, the humanity! – squawk loudly, swoop out.

    And when the little logical worms wiggling about in the astringent mess are pointed out, simply hoik up another gobbet of half-digested pap.

    I’m sure we all noticed that ‘journalist’s’ self-stated motivation – her other piece is ‘Fear of Fracking not based in scientific evidence’. I’m also sure that even an intellect as seagull-like as Batty’s might be able to tell us what the tell-tale sign of UV damaging your skin is, and whether anyone’s claiming to have experienced it from exposure to compact fluoros.

    And Polar Bears? WTF? Next you’ll be claiming the damaging UV in sunlight is an argument against Solar Power…

    You don’t even rise to the level of idiot, Batty.

  81. #81 luminous beauty
    July 24, 2012

    “In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.”

    —James Madison

    Betty can’t fathom any middle ground. It’s either unregulated capitalism or everyone on the dole.

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    So the U.N.plans on…

    Er…are you still confused by the difference between “proposes” and “plans on”?

    Heck, no wonder your claims don’t match the evidence.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    De facto re-distribution of wealth in the US under small government/anti-tax regime

    Note that the second column is 1999. The distribution was a lot more skewed 10+ years later. (Hmmmm, what sorts of policies might have been in place from 2000 onwards…?)

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    Of course, we all know, based on the U.N’s own words, where,how and why they wish to redistibute the money.

    Except that you alone pretend that the impact of climate change is not part of the why and therefore “conclude” that it is an illegitimate “why” being covertly used as a means to a different nefarious end.

    And you, out of all the posters here, confuse proposals with plans, and proposals that have no political chance of implementation in the next decade with an actuality that will be achieved in the next year or two.

    And you, out of all the posters here, continue to do so despite repeatedly having the fallacies you rely on pointed out to you.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    And to illustrate my previous comment:

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

    If you’re misguided enough to think climate change, due primarily to actions of the richest countries in the world, doesn’t and won’t have a strong negative impact on the poorest peoples of the world, including driving them further into poverty, then you might be misguided enough to think that quote relevant.

    (But you’d have to also deny the historical and ongoing naked exploitation of the poorest countries by the richest countries/corporations too, which … oh, wait.)

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    I’m sure we all noticed that ‘journalist’s’ self-stated motivation…

    Also, IIRC, examiner.com is a site where practically anything can be self-published and authors receive revenue based on page view counts. It may look a bit like a reputable journalism site to the uninitiated, but as far as I know there are no fact-checkers or site-wide editorial standards (although admittedly a lot of actual mainstream media have become fairly lax in those departments too).

    Then there’s American Thinker which has published some fragrant bullshit about climate change, presumably because bullshit is necessary to get to conclusions consistent with their political positions. (Hmm, where have I seen that technique lately?)

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

    Of course, that presumes that those that have acquiredonly “through their own industry”.

    So…they haven’t benefited from anything constructed or maintained or enforced on the taxpayer’s dime. Like the national highway system. Or a healthy, educated workforce. Or the rule of law. Or enforcable contracts. Or clean air, clean water, uncontaminated land. (Or military power…which rather helps keep the natives in line if they get uppity about you nakedly exploiting their natural resources.)

    Know anyone who actually made their money purely on their own?

    No?

    Well then, there’s more to the situation than a cherry-picked quote would suggest.

    And while we’re on that quote, it presumes that such acquisition was made fairly.

    Would Jefferson have thought that that includes (for example) taking over companies, reducing expenses to temporarily make the books look better – including cutting or offshoring jobs – and using the spruced up books to acquire massive debts, paying oneself large fees and commissions for “services rendered”, and walking away to leave the company to its own devices, to either sink or swim under the debt load?

    What about wealth made by privatising the profits and socialising the losses (including the global negative impacts of climate change, or dumping pollution into public land/air, or taking on additional financial risk by relying on being an institution deemed “too big to fail” by the government, or …)?

    What about highly profitable oil companies receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars?

    What about lobbyist-written laws that benefit large companies (including some monopolies or cosy polyopolies) at the expense of current and future competitors, and at the expense of millions of consumers, and at the expense of their own workers?

    Yeah, sure, Jefferson was all for that.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    Erk, close tag fail :-(

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    I reckon the choice of this quote in this context is also revealing:

    “That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”

    As luminous beauty said, “Betty can’t fathom any middle ground.” It’s either no levies and taxes (and certainly no compensation for impacts imposed), or it is complete redistribution of wealth so that everyone has exactly the same amount.

    Which leads me to what bill said.

  90. #90 Chris O'Neill
    July 24, 2012

    Jeez Betula, are you really that dumb? The message is not “use incandescent light bulbs even though they cost more in electricity”, the message is “don’t stupidly sit within 20 cm of CFLs”. Of course, that message won’t work on the stupid like you.

  91. #92 Wow
    July 24, 2012

    Betty is just your straight-out tebagger libertarian idiot.

    At least we know why teh stoopid is so immobile in this one now.

  92. #93 Wow
    July 24, 2012

    To those teabaggers who insist that you get wealthy from effort only, I have one name to give you:

    Paris Hilton.

    (and note: Bill Gates WHILE HIS PARENTS WERE ALIVE used their privilege and money to get him a position as one of the two richest men in the world. There was absolutely NO NEED for any inheritence. If your kids haven’t made anything of themselves by the time they’re 30 with your money, if you’re wealthy, they never will. And if they have, they won’t need to inherit from you.)

  93. #94 ianam
    July 24, 2012

    Thanks Nelson, for pointing out. the insignificance of Turbos comment.

    It inherits its insignificance from your blithering tinfoil stupidity.

  94. #95 ianam
    July 24, 2012

    Jeez Betula, are you really that dumb?

    At least.

  95. #96 Lionel A
    July 24, 2012

    Batty Bet quoted, but thought no further than:

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

    That is all very well but when people are made homeless through no fault of their own and with few resources to fall back on, perhaps because their wages were so frugal and being hired and fired by rapacious, capricious and fickle employers they had no recourse to improved conditions, then these people find it difficult, if not impossible to obtain meaningful employment with the prospect of advancement and skills improvement.

    Why, because those hiring for such jobs are wary of taking on the homeless. If they are homeless then they must be feckless – right. Doh!

    Unfortunately it seems that many find a path through this by being ruthless in gaining advantage at the expense of colleagues, in other words stepping on the heads of others. Often this is how scum gets to the top as we see with the outstanding representatives of the one percent such as those in the news of late e.g. Exxon, Barclays.

    Power for powers sake and making money for the sake of it, after all one cannot survive on gold alone, belongs to the dustbin of history, it is so pre-Neanderthal in outlook and will not help humans, and the biota that supports humans, survive into the next century. Maybe society will become similar to that in ‘Logan’s Run’.

    Consider that it is by luck alone that you are not amongst the impoverished and futureless. But as climate changes overtake us the odds on your luck changing are set to shorten. Look around you, yes further than your nose.

    Arguing with you and your ilk is like arguing with a dead fish – your arguments are wet, limp and stink to high heaven.

  96. #97 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    If they are homeless then they must be feckless…

    I’m pretty sure Betula hasn’t read “Nickel and Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenreich either. She, as an educated woman, tried to support herself for a relatively short period of time purely via jobs that don’t require specialised experience or tertiary education. She found it to be almost impossible. Most people she met in that situation were working more than one job just to make ends meet, and simply did not have the kinds of resources (which mostly comes down to more time and money) to do anything else that could help her get out of that situation.

    And she goes into some detail about how the system works against the poor, particularly with “hidden costs”. For one thing, you end up paying higher per-unit prices for many goods and services because you never have enough spare cash to stump up for a larger bundle and have to buy the smallest offering each time. This includes people who have to pay higher per-night residence costs to budget hotels because they can’t afford the deposit for rented accomodation which would work out to lower per-night costs. For another, the sales taxes in most US States (and Social Security and FICA federally) are generally pretty regressive, and then you simply don’t have the opportunity to structure your finances as the rich can in order to lower your average tax rate. You cannot own property and have to pay rent that ultimately enriches someone else, and you are unlikely to have been able to get the capital together to buy a car so you spend a lot of time on public transport. And you may not even have enough money for a fridge (nor any stable enough residence to install one) so you end up paying higher per-meal prices than those who do. And then there’s the issue of healthcare. Most low paid jobs in the US don’t provide health insurance, and nor do many of them have sick days – so you don’t work, you don’t get paid. This motivates a lot of people to keep working when even they are very sick (and helps spread contagious diseases more widely than need be).

    Oh, and she points out how hard most poor working people are working, in stark contrast to the bullshit stereotypes (indolent layabouts leeching off the “job creators” and middle class) promulgated by your average libertarian or Republican candidate decrying any potential increase in tax rates on those who have benefited enormously from huge tax decreases in the last decade or more. Ehrenreich argues that if anything, those who use the services of the poor are the ones doing the leeching:

    When someone works for less pay than she can live on … she has made a great sacrifice for you …. The “working poor” … are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone.

  97. #98 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    …we see with the outstanding representatives of the one percent such as those in the news of late…

    Also, Mitt Romney.

    Check out how Bain Capital made its money – often taking over firms, using short-term tricks to polish up their accounts (including redundancies and plant closures), using the newly polished accounts to persuade lenders to load them down with large amounts of debt and charging the company large fees out of that debt for the privilege (before the long term success or failure of the debt-based strategy could be ascertained).

    Then Mitt and his financial advisers stashed a whole load of cash in various non-US constituencies mostly known for their financial secrecy regulations and low low tax rates, although he does claim that it was all within US law.

  98. #99 Wow
    July 24, 2012

    “And she goes into some detail about how the system works against the poor, particularly with “hidden costs”. For one thing, you end up paying higher per-unit prices for many goods and services because you never have enough spare cash to stump up for a larger bundle and have to buy the smallest offering each time.”

    Mortgages.

    Poor people pay more to have a home than rich people who either use some other colateral or pay outright (and probably take a tax write-off for the drawdown in income).

    And where does that extra money go? To the biggest investors and they’re the ones with the most money.

    Truckle-UP economics. It’s the inevitable consequence of capitalism.

  99. #100 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2012

    Mortgages.

    Yep, and (IIRC) in the US mortgage interest charges are tax deductible…

Current ye@r *