A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement early today on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change for the coming decades.
The 194-party conference in Durban agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.
The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year to poor countries to help them adapt to changing climate conditions and to move toward low-carbon economic growth.
Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted today.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Here's the real story:
http://www.infowars.com/un-calls-for-...
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
Or, alternatively:
http://cop17insouthafrica.wordpress.com/
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Or: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Here's a very insightful article-- it spells out what hardcore capitalists/denialists already know-- global warming/climate change represents the colossal failure of capitalism/corporatism to deal with the destruction it has wrought upon the natural world, and the ability of the planet to support the human race if we continue with business as usual.
Capitalism vs. the Climate
Naomi Klein
http://www.thenation.com/article/1644...
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Hard to see how any article that embraces junk science could be considered to be "insightful," other than to provide insight into how Glowarmers tick.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
Ah, yes, the purveyors of the the "up is new down" mentality never tire of lying to themselves, and anyone else who will listen.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
"Ah, yes, the purveyors of the the "up is new down" mentality never tire of lying to themselves, and anyone else who will listen."
Yep, that describes Glowarmers very well.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Sorry Cato, your "scientists" hold no more sway on the earth science community, any more than the creationists have on the biological science community.
Check out the latest American Geophysical Union conference that has been going on this past week and see how your accusation of "junk science" is holding up there.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
No, I'll stick with the Union of Concerned Scientists, whose credibility is zero.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Your choice. Of course, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the World Meteorological Society, the Royal Society and pretty much any other credible professional scientific society agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists on this (more accurately: vice versa) as well as the boards of the vast preponderance of scientific peer reviewed journals, including Nature, Science, etc.
I suppose their credibility is zero too?
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
"The Royal Society?" So you've never heard of Climategate? Every Glowarmer who tries to defend the preposterous notion that "global warming" is man-made, from Al Gore to the fraudsters in England, has an agenda. I suggest that you read what Lord Monckton has written and said in exposing their fraud.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Climategate? You mean the East Anglia email leak that supposedly showed nefarious manipulation of the data, but has since been completely exonerated at least 5 times by independent investigations? I can provide you with a list of those exonerations if you want.
So yes, sure, I've heard of that tempest in a teapot, which does nothing to the overwhelming evidence of human-caused global climate change, as evidenced by the sea level, sea acidification, arctic ice melting, global temps, increased extreme weather data, along with attribution determination in every credible model out there. The data gets stronger and stronger with time and with the various data streams out there, regardless of what name calling you care to come up with for those who look at the evidence and come up with a conclusion different from your own.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
If staying blind and deluded makes you happy (perhaps you are one of those who wants to cripple industry in this country by imposing needless cap and tax laws on America), then so be it.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Calling the entire scientific community blind and deluded is pretty laughable, Cate--perhaps you were looking in a mirror? It seems that you're not brave enough to actually seek out the truth instead of looking past your preconceived notions, which is the ultimate form of blindness.
And if you had bothered to ask if I thought the cap and trade legislation was any good, you would have found out that I think it was ruined by special interests and would have been disastrous.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Do you support what the UN is calling for at the Durban summit? Are you aware that the treaty calls for the west to achieve 50 percent CO2 emissions reduction within the next eight years, which if carried out would completely bankrupt the global economy and spark a new great depression? Do you support the “International Climate Court of Justice" provided for in the treaty? Do you support a new UN "Green Climate Fund?"
Only honest answers please.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Honestly, where do you get your information? Everything I read (try Nature scientific journal for starters) says that
1) The US has to negotiate emissions goals by 2015--nothing at all has been set. Furthermore, anything negotiated will not begin to kick in until 2020.
2) the entire reason for negotiating greenhouse gases is precisely because of the impact it will have on the world's economy if nothing is done. Compare the cost of major sea rise, population displacement, droughts and floods, loss of water supplies in heavily populated areas of the world, to say nothing of the political unrest that would come with all of these things happening, and you can see that the investment to mitigate and head off the worst effects is money well spent.
3) Yes, I have no problem with the Green Climate Fund which will help countries most vulnerable and with the least resources. It is clearly a humanitarian choice and I'm shocked that anyone would have any problem with doing their share for this fund, any more than I'm shocked when folks don't try to help someone in distress when they could.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Why do you want to "negotiate" with people who are only interested in moving money from developed countries to underdeveloped countries to fatten their own dictators' bank accounts, which already goes on way too much as it is with foreign aid? Can't you recognize a scam when you see one?
Do you realize the economic consequences of complying with the ridiculous notion that "greenhouse gases" have to be eliminated? Do you not realize that there is no credible evidence for the absurd doomsday scenarios you've spewed out?
Do you not realize the economic harm that people like you cause every day, such as conning Obama by political threats into again postponing the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which has already been studied ad infinitum and would create thousands of new jobs?
Have you no shame?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
If you want honesty from me, then I must ask the same from you. I have given my sources and stand by them. You have dropped this line from the discussion and I doubt your sincerity when you don't do the same.
I could provide you with paranoid visions of how Big Oil and Corporations are manipulating the truth, preventing needed changes from occurring so they can profit from the demise of our increasingly brittle economy if you would like, to match your paranoid visions of how scientists, dictators and Obama are out to manipulate the fears of the people to get rich. Who is right? Well, since those are both emotion-laden perspectives, I doubt such a discussion would convince any true believers, would it? I have no doubt that some dictators would manipulate any funds coming to their countries for their own personal aggrandizement, just as I have no doubt that there are those in Big Oil and Big Coal who are lining their pockets as fast and long as they possibly can, to the detriment of the planet. I can certainly entertain both possibilities as having an element of truth, can't you?
That's why I think it is important to look at the underlying issue of climate change. If it is actually a threat to the future, as I believe it is, then we must not let corruption by either the status quo or dictators or anyone else get in the way of finding solutions to the issues that climate change presents. We can safeguard against corruption and call it out when it occurs, but it is difficult to ignore the perils of a warmer planet, and much more expensive to try to deal with the consequences rather than plan to mitigate those effects.
What would it take for you to be convinced that climate change is occurring?
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Credible scientific evidence not motivated by political considerations and/or greed. That, of course, immediately eliminates anything said by ManBearPig.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Could you translate your sarcasm, please?
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
OK, got it: nothing by Gore. What about the National Academy of Sciences?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
As Naomi Klein describes in this recent article--
http://www.thenation.com/article/1644...
this really has become a battle over ideology for diehard capitalists like Cato.
Addressing the looming disaster of global warming/climate change isn't something that corporate capitalism is capable of dealing with. They are congenitally incapable of acknowledging that capitalism isn't flawless, so unflagging denial of the science is all they have, even though it mostly just consists of bald assertion and uninformed mockery.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
OK, I'll bury the hatchet with you guys and do my part by following the lead of a friend of mine who has recently purchased a lifetime supply of incandescent light bulbs before it becomes illegal to manufacture them. He's not given in to Glowarmer fascism, nor will I.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
See what I mean?
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Actually, I still stand by my question, which you have ignored: do you think the National Academy of Sciences is credible? And if not, why? And also if not, please name a source you trust where "credible scientific evidence" comes from.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
I first suggested that you review what Lord Monckton, an extremely capable skeptic, has had to say about alleged anthropocentric "global warming." You've never responded to that.
In the meantime, you might want to read the following:
http://globalwarmingcon.blogspot.com/...
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Oh, my; do you really believe those things? I hardly know where to start.
How about Lord Monckton--let's see what makes his opinion (and I mean just that: opinion!) more credible than, say the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Sciences, or any number of other professional organizations? Is it his MA in classics? Or his degree in journalism? Perhaps it is his position as the Day Skipper on the Royal Yachting Association that makes him a more credible scientific source? Please do tell.
Monckton has been discredited all over the place--you can check his bio on Wikipedia for starters, or go to the following for a more detailed critique:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/... Surely you can come up with a more credible source than him.
Then there's the link you provided above, produced anonymously with some of the most paranoid slips into la-la land that I've read in quite a while, including the following:
"We know that global warming is really about the Jew World Order, a despotic Jewish world government, we know that 9112001 was an inside job, a false flag by US-Israel, we know that Homeland Security is a new gestapo organization run by Jews, we know that TSA thugs are Jew directed black shirted apes."
I am ashamed for you, buddy, that you would not only read such tripe, but actually believe it enough to refer someone else to that site as an alternative to the conclusions and recommendations of the NSF, NAS, et al.
If that is what you are building your foundation on, well, it's not even sand, it's quicksand. Good luck with that!
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
Cato doesn't need facts. He has faith in ideology.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
1. I don't cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source on anything. No good high school teacher would either. It's about as reliable as the drivel put forth by the ideologically-driven "scientists" you like to cite.
2. One major problem with people like you and Bozo is that you believe, through your ideologically-driven faith, only in "scientists" who share your left-wing political views. Lord Monckton is a scholar who has had the guts to pose questions that Glowarmers can't answer. There are plenty of real scientists who agree with him. You and your Glowarmer pals are, in reality, the most narrow-minded bigots imaginable.
3. While I certainly don't agree with some of the personal views of the individual whose information I cited, can you refute what he says about alleged man-made "global warming"? How about attempting to do that instead of simply killing the messenger? Do you agree with all of the political views of ManBearPig Al Gore/Bore, Glowarmer Number One, on every subject? if you do, then I am ashamed for you, especially since Gore stands to make millions if cap-and-tax ever goes through.
4. When your grandchildren ask you whether you were responsible for seriously polluting our environment by advocating spaghetti light bulbs that glow green and are loaded with hazardous mercury, what are you going to tell them? Will you be proud of that?
5. There are many subjects on which physicians, for example, as a group disagree among each other. The same is true with lawyers. It's also true within the scientific community. I personally know at least a dozen real scientists who have stated point blank that the whole notion of "man-made global warming" is pure bunk that has been disseminated solely for political reasons. As soon as they change their minds, then I'll change mine.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
You know, you are so funny. You blow off the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet and in the same breath, excoriate my citing Wikipedia as beneath you! I only cited Wikipedia as a source for the many articles who have called Monckton on his biased, misinformation. Almost forgivable except that I also gave you a very detailed citation of how exactly Lord Monckton distorts data in order to come up with conclusions that are exactly the opposite from what the data really shows.
Furthermore, it is hard to take seriously anyone who poses as someone who supposedly is interested in the truth when they throw around slurs like Glowarmers, ManBearPig, etc. One of the first things that you learn in logic is the flaw of the ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the messenger instead of the message. Your anti-semitic anonymous "source" needs to clean up his act as well, and only after he shows himself capable of doing that does he deserve a reasoned response. Since that likely will never happen, if anyone drags their minds thru his mud, the arguments he presents can easily be countered point by point on the www.scepticalscience.com website.
Since you are so concerned about mercury, as am I, I can assume you are for upgrading all existing and all new coal fired plants to the new standard proposed by the EPA since they are the number one source of mercury pollution in the country, right? I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site.
Of course there is dissent in the scientific community; that is the job of science. In order to prove a theory beyond a certain degree of doubt, scientific peers must be free to attack a hypothesis from every angle in order to find any conceivable alternative explanation of the data, and to be able to reproduce the experiments and obtain the same results independently. That's why the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is so impressive: it has withstood all scrutiny and nobody else has been able to come up with an alternative that is more compelling to explain all the various streams of data.
Sorry the data doesn't support you ideological stance, but, like the smoker who keeps smoking, your emotional stance will not change the destination. In fact, as, with smoking, the data is getting more and more compelling with each passing year.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
DC: "I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site."
Yep, hazardous waste it is. And you probably believe that everyone in the U.S. is going to dispose of every one of these mercury-laden spaghetti light bulbs at a hazardous waste dump.
Do you know what happens in Lawrence in any of our public schools if even a tiny ounce of mercury is spilled on the floor anywhere in the school? Do you know how many people are dispatched to the school to take care of it?
How completely lacking in common sense can environmentalist wackos be? There's apparently no end to it.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
You know, you are so funny. You blow off the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet and in the same breath, excoriate my citing Wikipedia as beneath you! I only cited Wikipedia as a source for the many articles who have called Monckton on his biased, misinformation. Almost forgivable except that I also gave you a very detailed citation of how exactly Lord Monckton distorts data in order to come up with conclusions that are exactly the opposite from what the data really shows.
Furthermore, it is hard to take seriously anyone who poses as someone who supposedly is interested in the truth when they throw around slurs like Glowarmers, ManBearPig, etc. One of the first things that you learn in logic is the flaw of the ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the messenger instead of the message. Your anti-semitic anonymous "source" needs to clean up his act as well, and only after he shows himself capable of doing that does he deserve a reasoned response. Since that likely will never happen, if anyone drags their minds thru his mud, the arguments he presents can easily be countered point by point on the www.scepticalscience.com website.
Since you are so concerned about mercury, as am I, I can assume you are for upgrading all existing and all new coal fired plants to the new standard proposed by the EPA since they are the number one source of mercury pollution in the country, right? I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site.
Of course there is dissent in the scientific community; that is the job of science. In order to prove a theory beyond a certain degree of doubt, scientific peers must be free to attack a hypothesis from every angle in order to find any conceivable alternative explanation of the data, and to be able to reproduce the experiments and obtain the same results independently. That's why the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is so impressive: it has withstood all scrutiny and nobody else has been able to come up with an alternative that is more compelling to explain all the various streams of data.
Sorry the data doesn't support you ideological stance, but, like the smoker who keeps smoking, your emotional stance will not change the destination. In fact, as, with smoking, the data is getting more and more compelling with each passing year.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Actually, with the passage of time it's your side that has become increasingly discredited. The bald lies of Climategate weren't the start, but they did open many intelligent people's eyes.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Whatever. Go ahead and continue to delude yourself as much as you like. Your habit is worse than the 3 pack a day smoker, so I don't expect you to change.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
What you expect is of no consequence to me.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
You know, you are so funny. You blow off the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet and in the same breath, excoriate my citing Wikipedia as beneath you! I only cited Wikipedia as a source for the many articles who have called Monckton on his biased, misinformation. Almost forgivable except that I also gave you a very detailed citation of how exactly Lord Monckton distorts data in order to come up with conclusions that are exactly the opposite from what the data really shows.
Furthermore, it is hard to take seriously anyone who poses as someone who supposedly is interested in the truth when they throw around slurs like Glowarmers, ManBearPig, etc. One of the first things that you learn in logic is the flaw of the ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the messenger instead of the message. Your anti-semitic anonymous "source" needs to clean up his act as well, and only after he shows himself capable of doing that does he deserve a reasoned response. Since that likely will never happen, if anyone drags their minds thru his mud, the arguments he presents can easily be countered point by point on the www.scepticalscience.com website.
Since you are so concerned about mercury, as am I, I can assume you are for upgrading all existing and all new coal fired plants to the new standard proposed by the EPA since they are the number one source of mercury pollution in the country, right? I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site.
Of course there is dissent in the scientific community; that is the job of science. In order to prove a theory beyond a certain degree of doubt, scientific peers must be free to attack a hypothesis from every angle in order to find any conceivable alternative explanation of the data, and to be able to reproduce the experiments and obtain the same results independently. That's why the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is so impressive: it has withstood all scrutiny and nobody else has been able to come up with an alternative that is more compelling to explain all the various streams of data.
Sorry the data doesn't support you ideological stance, but, like the smoker who keeps smoking, your emotional stance will not change the destination. In fact, as, with smoking, the data is getting more and more compelling with each passing year.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
It's all about the money for the UN dudes.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
You bet.
tange (anonymous) says…
Hmm... 50º in the shade, two weeks before Christmas, in sunny Lawrence, Kansas!
sunny (anonymous) says…
The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year to poor countries to help them adapt to changing climate conditions and to move toward low-carbon economic growth.
Outrageous!
Armstrong (anonymous) says…
Not to worry, for enough money "research" can be done to indicate we are on the verge of the new ice age
Armstrong (anonymous) says…
Not to worry, for enough money "research" can be done to indicate we are on the verge of the new ice age
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) says…
Total Justice League to the rescue.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=T...
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
Delaying a plan to start emissions reductions to 2020 pretty much commits us to a path that, at best, only limits CO2 to around 450 ppm. Looking at what the earth has done in the past, somewhere between 350 and 450 will trigger tipping points that commit us to 4 to 6 C of warming. That would drive Hadley cells poleward, expanding the deserts that exist where the Hadley circulation comes down, and basically erase agriculture in belts 10 to 15 degrees of latitude wide, all around the globe, north and south of the equator. Delaying action is like throwing matches in the air to see how many it takes to light the barn on fire.
Judging by the comments here, that's pretty much what's going to happen. Few people are willing to believe that something bad will happen until it does.
Open up Google Earth and have a look around. I really don't think we'll be able to sustain the current population with that much cropland lost.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Don't give up, cg; the scientific community, the data, and most countries are on your side. It's time to call the denialists bluff and counter their pseudo-truths whenever they start spouting them. Change comes slowly to those with vested interests in the status quo, but change it must since in the long run, the changes will be enforced by the climate changes themselves, one way or another. Hopefully not too many disasters will have to unfold before the majority of folks will wake up and say "what were we thinking?"
When your grandkids ask you what you did about the issue back in the early part of the 21st century, you'll want to be able to say that you were a part of the solution, not part of the problem.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
You know, you are so funny. You blow off the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet and in the same breath, excoriate my citing Wikipedia as beneath you! I only cited Wikipedia as a source for the many articles who have called Monckton on his biased, misinformation. Almost forgivable except that I also gave you a very detailed citation of how exactly Lord Monckton distorts data in order to come up with conclusions that are exactly the opposite from what the data really shows.
Furthermore, it is hard to take seriously anyone who poses as someone who supposedly is interested in the truth when they throw around slurs like Glowarmers, ManBearPig, etc. One of the first things that you learn in logic is the flaw of the ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the messenger instead of the message. Your anti-semitic anonymous "source" needs to clean up his act as well, and only after he shows himself capable of doing that does he deserve a reasoned response. Since that likely will never happen, if anyone drags their minds thru his mud, the arguments he presents can easily be countered point by point on the www.scepticalscience.com website.
Since you are so concerned about mercury, as am I, I can assume you are for upgrading all existing and all new coal fired plants to the new standard proposed by the EPA since they are the number one source of mercury pollution in the country, right? I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site.
Of course there is dissent in the scientific community; that is the job of science. In order to prove a theory beyond a certain degree of doubt, scientific peers must be free to attack a hypothesis from every angle in order to find any conceivable alternative explanation of the data, and to be able to reproduce the experiments and obtain the same results independently. That's why the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is so impressive: it has withstood all scrutiny and nobody else has been able to come up with an alternative that is more compelling to explain all the various streams of data.
Sorry the data doesn't support you ideological stance, but, like the smoker who keeps smoking, your emotional stance will not change the destination. In fact, as, with smoking, the data is getting more and more compelling with each passing year.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
DC: "I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site."
Yep, hazardous waste it is. And you probably believe that everyone in the U.S. is going to dispose of every one of these mercury-laden spaghetti light bulbs at a hazardous waste dump.
Do you know what happens in Lawrence in any of our public schools if even a tiny ounce of mercury is spilled on the floor anywhere in the school? Do you know how many people are dispatched to the school to take care of it?
How completely lacking in common sense can environmentalist wackos be? There's apparently no end to it.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
You know, you are so funny. You blow off the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet and in the same breath, excoriate my citing Wikipedia as beneath you! I only cited Wikipedia as a source for the many articles who have called Monckton on his biased, misinformation. Almost forgivable except that I also gave you a very detailed citation of how exactly Lord Monckton distorts data in order to come up with conclusions that are exactly the opposite from what the data really shows.
Furthermore, it is hard to take seriously anyone who poses as someone who supposedly is interested in the truth when they throw around slurs like Glowarmers, ManBearPig, etc. One of the first things that you learn in logic is the flaw of the ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the messenger instead of the message. Your anti-semitic anonymous "source" needs to clean up his act as well, and only after he shows himself capable of doing that does he deserve a reasoned response. Since that likely will never happen, if anyone drags their minds thru his mud, the arguments he presents can easily be countered point by point on the www.scepticalscience.com website.
Since you are so concerned about mercury, as am I, I can assume you are for upgrading all existing and all new coal fired plants to the new standard proposed by the EPA since they are the number one source of mercury pollution in the country, right? I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site.
Of course there is dissent in the scientific community; that is the job of science. In order to prove a theory beyond a certain degree of doubt, scientific peers must be free to attack a hypothesis from every angle in order to find any conceivable alternative explanation of the data, and to be able to reproduce the experiments and obtain the same results independently. That's why the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is so impressive: it has withstood all scrutiny and nobody else has been able to come up with an alternative that is more compelling to explain all the various streams of data.
Sorry the data doesn't support you ideological stance, but, like the smoker who keeps smoking, your emotional stance will not change the destination. In fact, as, with smoking, the data is getting more and more compelling with each passing year.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
You know, you are so funny. You blow off the most prestigious scientific organizations on the planet and in the same breath, excoriate my citing Wikipedia as beneath you! I only cited Wikipedia as a source for the many articles who have called Monckton on his biased, misinformation. Almost forgivable except that I also gave you a very detailed citation of how exactly Lord Monckton distorts data in order to come up with conclusions that are exactly the opposite from what the data really shows.
Furthermore, it is hard to take seriously anyone who poses as someone who supposedly is interested in the truth when they throw around slurs like Glowarmers, ManBearPig, etc. One of the first things that you learn in logic is the flaw of the ad hominem attack, i.e. attacking the messenger instead of the message. Your anti-semitic anonymous "source" needs to clean up his act as well, and only after he shows himself capable of doing that does he deserve a reasoned response. Since that likely will never happen, if anyone drags their minds thru his mud, the arguments he presents can easily be countered point by point on the www.scepticalscience.com website.
Since you are so concerned about mercury, as am I, I can assume you are for upgrading all existing and all new coal fired plants to the new standard proposed by the EPA since they are the number one source of mercury pollution in the country, right? I know I will be able to look straight into the eyes of my grandchildren for that reason, in addition to, of course, the fact that I take all my compact fluorescent bulbs to the hazardous waste disposal site.
Of course there is dissent in the scientific community; that is the job of science. In order to prove a theory beyond a certain degree of doubt, scientific peers must be free to attack a hypothesis from every angle in order to find any conceivable alternative explanation of the data, and to be able to reproduce the experiments and obtain the same results independently. That's why the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is so impressive: it has withstood all scrutiny and nobody else has been able to come up with an alternative that is more compelling to explain all the various streams of data.
Sorry the data doesn't support you ideological stance, but, like the smoker who keeps smoking, your emotional stance will not change the destination. In fact, as, with smoking, the data is getting more and more compelling with each passing year.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Actually, with the passage of time it's your side that has become increasingly discredited. The bald lies of Climategate weren't the start, but they did open many intelligent people's eyes.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Whatever. Go ahead and continue to delude yourself as much as you like. Your habit is worse than the 3 pack a day smoker, so I don't expect you to change.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
What you expect is of no consequence to me.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
Sorry for the multiple postings--the JW site said that the page was unavailable and so to try again, which, unfortunately, I did!.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
There's no paper over here. Could somebody pass me a carbon credit?