Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[stickstones]

Feel free to respond to my post as I did with yours, otherwise I don't see the point in continuing. :/

Oh, and my test for falsifiability? My claim is based on very thorough and broadly-based research, and so would need similarly thorough and broadly-based disproof. The main lynchpin would need to be an answer to the question: How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?

I would need to see persistent and thorough evidence along multiple lines that the both the scientific processes of AAAS and NAS as organizations and the careers of a significant number of their most trusted and established individuals had been corrupted or brilliantly mislead by a tremendously well-organized covert campaign of manipulation. The reporting of the evidence would need to be picked up by the major news networks and hold up under scrutiny for a long period of timesay at least a year.

It would need to be an expose of significantly greater caliber, extent, and expense than any other in history, because the conspiracy would have included more individuals by an order of magnitude than any other cover-up or conspiracy, ever. Remember that AAAS has 144,000 members, and the NAS has been around since 1863. In effect, it would need to be of significant enough import to damage the credibility of the human endeavor of science itself for 100 yearsessentially a paradigm shift away from the trust we place in science by using so much modern technology.

The claim of incompetence or corruption on the part of these organizations and the majority of the individuals comprising them is extraordinary enough, that I would need extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary cover-up. Thats an extraordinary number of extraordinaries. But it isin principlepossible. Which makes my claim falsifiable, and therefore, not dismissable.

How about yours?

I get the feeling there is no point for me. I do not wish to debate the existence of global warming. I am more interested in discussing what to do about it and whether or not proposed legislation makes sense. This subject seems to always polarize the discussion to either 'it exists' or 'it doesn't'.

 

[Purple-Days]

Yes, what should we do? It's back to the cartoon.

Does it exist? These folks think so. VVV

But, even if they are wrong, why should we continue the selfish lifestyle we are leading? We are a borrow from the future, to pay for today, society. That leads to bankruptcy. You all know it, you can't deny, that we are up to our necks in environmental debt. This is crazy, it will not end well.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33092

 

[stickstones]

Just read this in a newsletter:

The federal government is planning to spend millions of dollars to teach Americans how to handle their personal finances more responsibly, according to Politico.com.

Yes, that's the same federal government whose own mega-debt is just about to surpass the national statutory limit of $12.104 trillion.

I didn't realize we had the sense to put a limit on our national debt. Too bad it wasn't a realistic limit. Looks like we mistook the limit for a goal!

 

[reece]

I didn't realize we had the sense to put a limit on our national debt. Too bad it wasn't a realistic limit. Looks like we mistook the limit for a goal!

That is a bit simplistic. Have you taken the initiative to learn about it?
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf

The debt limit, as noted above, can hinder the Treasurys ability to manage the
federal governments finances. In extreme cases, when the federal debt is very near
its statutory limit, the Treasury must take unusual and extraordinary measures to meet
federal obligations. While the debt limit has never caused the federal government to
default on its obligations, it has at times caused great inconvenience and has added
uncertainty to Treasury operations.
The debt limit also provides Congress with the strings to control the federal
purse, allowing Congress to assert its constitutional prerogatives to control spending.
The debt limit also imposes a form of fiscal accountability, which compels Congress
and the President to take visible action to allow further federal borrowing when the
federal government spends more than it collects in revenues. In the words of one
author, the debt limit expresses a national devotion to the idea of thrift and to
economical management of the fiscal affairs of the government.

The statutory limit on federal debt began with the Second Liberty Bond Act of
1917, which helped finance the United States entry into World War I.9 By allowing
the Treasury to issue long-term Liberty Bonds in addition to more commonly used
short-term debt instruments, the federal government held down its interest costs.

In 1939, Congress eliminated separate limits on bonds and on other types of
debt, which created the first aggregate limit that covered nearly all public debt.12
This measure gave the Treasury freer rein to manage the federal debt as it saw fit.
In particular, the Treasury could choose to issue debt instruments with maturities that
would reduce interest costs and minimize financial risks stemming from future
interest rate changes given the conditions in financial markets.

The debt ceiling was raised to accommodate accumulating costs for World War
II in each year from 1941 through 1945, when it was set at $300 billion.15 After
World War II ended, the debt limit was reduced to $275 billion. Because the Korean
War was mostly financed by higher taxes rather than by increased debt, the limit
remained at $275 billion until 1954. After 1954, the debt limit was reduced twice
and increased seven times, until March 1962 when it again reached $300 billion, its
level at the end of World War II. Since March 1962, Congress has enacted 69
separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt.16 Most of these changes
in the debt limit were, measured in percentage terms, small in comparison to changes
adopted in wartime or during the Great Depression. Some recent increases in the
debt limit, however, were large in dollar terms. For instance, in May 2003, the debt
limit increased by $984 billion.

Congress has raised the debt limit five times
since 2001. Deficits each year since 2001 and the persistent increases in debt held
by government accounts repeatedly raised the debt to or near the limit in place at the
time.

The 2008 economic slowdown has led to sharply higher estimates of deficit spending,
raising the prospect of another debt limit increase in the near to medium term. The
House and Senate budget resolutions (H.Con.Res. 312 and S.Con.Res. 70)
recommend spending levels that would require an increased debt limit in FY2009

 

[stickstones]

Well, that doesn't inspire much confidence in government. Why put a limit if we just keep increasing it almost every year (in the 2000's). I wish I could run my family finances like that!

 

[Happycamper]

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency

Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate. ''


Does no one else see this?
(have bolded for everyone)

So while countries are declaring states of emegency due to extreme cold weather, all you people think its great that we are trying to lower the temperature. I just can't get my head around that thought process.

Ah right sorry i almost forgot, colder can also mean global warming......(as can wetter as can drier, in fact all types of weather indicate global warming).

I guess my problem is I tend to be led by common sense.

 

[reece]

Well, that doesn't inspire much confidence in government. Why put a limit if we just keep increasing it almost every year (in the 2000's). I wish I could run my family finances like that!

The reasons are explained, going all the way back to ww2 (if not earlier), in the link I provided. Some were valid. Some not so. The last decade for example. We should have been paying for these wars upfront (as much as possible). Instead, we have borrowed and borrowed and didn't even put the wars on the budget until Obama took office.

You get the government you deserve. Not enough of us are paying attention. Not enough of us get involved by voting, writing our representatives, etc. I've notice every so often public sentiment is so strong the politicians have no choice but to listen. If we could just sustain that energy beyond...

 

[Happycamper]

Economist examines costs of extreme cold weather


December 20, 2007 Fatalities in the continental United States tend to climb for several weeks after severe cold spells, ultimately numbering 360 per chilly day and 14,380 per year, according to a new study co-authored by a University of California, Berkeley, economist.

Deaths linked to extreme cold account for 0.8 percent of the nation's annual death rate and outnumber those attributed to leukemia, murder and chronic liver disease combined, the study reports. Cold-related deaths also reduce the average life expectancy of Americans by at least a decade, it says.
The numbers are "remarkably large," said Enrico Moretti, a UC Berkeley associate professor of economics, and Oliver Deschenes, an associate professor of economics at UC Santa Barbara, in a December 2007 working paper, "Extreme Weather Events, Mortality and Migration."

The study also says that demographic shifts from colder climes to warmer ones - for reasons such as better jobs, cheaper housing and sunshine - appear to delay an estimated 4,600 deaths a year. The researchers also said that over the past 30 years, longevity gains associated with geographic mobility accounted for between 4 and 7 percent of the increases in life expectancy in the United States.

In research conducted for the National Bureau of Economic Research, the economists looked at immediate and longer-term death rates after at least 24 hours at temperatures between 10 and 20 Fahrenheit degrees below normal - and those over 80 or 90 degrees Fahrenheit - for the county and the month observed.

They offer new evidence of the role of extreme weather in understanding the underlying causes of a steadily improving average lifespan in the United States and provide insights for policy makers charged with allocating financial and other resources following often headline-grabbing heat or freezing weather.

The establishment, at often great expense, of "cooling centers" and the mobilization of emergency personnel in major cities in advance of or after heat waves doesn't seem to serve much purpose beyond alleviating mild discomfort, said Moretti.

Likewise, he said, there seem to be few immediate options for helping those most at risk deal with cold weather dangers: "A lifetime of deprivation is hard to counteract in the short run."

Noting increasing concern that higher temperatures and incidence of extreme weather events caused by global warming could create major public health problems, the economists said they relied on actual, recorded data and avoided hypothetical possibilities.

http://www.physorg.com/news117387540.html

 

[Happycamper]

So to ask again, everybody still thinks it's a great idea to lower the temperature? What I get from that study is that the warming we have had has been beneficial to us.

Which does also fit back in history to other warm periods when they had great periods of advancement.

 

[rayski]

So to ask again, everybody still thinks it's a great idea to lower the temperature? What I get from that study is that the warming we have had has been beneficial to us.

Which does also fit back in history to other warm periods when they had great periods of advancement.

How is the higher death rate after extreme weather a benefit?

 

[Happycamper]

The study also says that demographic shifts from colder climes to warmer ones - for reasons such as better jobs, cheaper housing and sunshine - appear to delay an estimated 4,600 deaths a year.

So my thought process is colder = more deaths and a warmer climate is beneficial due to less death, as indeed this study has also found.

(and please dont be about to say the extreme cold weather is caused by global warming).

 

[Happycamper]

I havent posted for a while, although I have been fully aware of the severe cold weather that you guys in the US have been experiencing. I hope things are settling down, I know there were a number of US states that declared a state of emergency (at least that was reported on the news here).

In the UK we have had unusual amounts of snow and unusually extreme cold weather as well. (It has become worse year after year for at least the last 4 years in a row). There have been a number of people frozen to death in their gardens/outside, the link I posted before was not an isolated case.I know this sounds dramatic, but I think the severity of the coldness caught them out as it was so unusually cold.

These extreme cold weather events are not just in certain areas, it is worldwide.

It's up to you guys if you want to acknowledge the fact that summers are becoming weaker and winters are becoming stronger, this is a trend that has happened for a few years now, well since the peak in 1998.

Lat year China were breaking records with almost unbelievable amounts of snow and extreme cold.

The year before areas in South America were breaking records and declaring states of emergency.


I know the extremists try to make us believe that cold weather and stronger winters are due to global warming, but they still have to keep us frightened to believe in them.

 

[Cr8z13]

I know the extremists try to make us believe that cold weather and stronger winters are due to global warming, but they still have to keep us frightened to believe in them.

Let's not pretend that your side doesn't traffic in fear as well.

 

[Happycamper]

The fear...ok is this to do with financial costs to us that have been put forward that this might cause?

Because the fear that they use is basically that we are all going to die, and our children are going to die, and their children too unless we pay them to stop it.

 

[stickstones]

I saw a show the other night about the earth's history and it said we are in the dawning of an ice age that should spread as far south as Florida in the next 10,000 to 15,000 years. It also said that any impact we may have now will not make a dent in this climate cycle.

Just thought that was interesting. I guess it is all in how long of a snapshot you want to take.

They are also doing a 'life after humans' show that is fun to watch and their theory is that a few hundred years after we are gone, no one will know we were here without excavation. The wild plains are theorized to revert back to the way they were before we were here...just takes time.

It really is a war with nature we are in and, given a long enough time frame, we don't stand a chance.

 

[Happycamper]

It really is a war with nature we are in and, given a long enough time frame, we don't stand a chance.

We are nothing more than ants, and probably even less than ants compared to what is out there in the Universe. (and the forces at work).

 

[rayski]

The fear...ok is this to do with financial costs to us that have been put forward that this might cause?

Because the fear that they use is basically that we are all going to die, and our children are going to die, and their children too unless we pay them to stop it.

Not true!

 

[Happycamper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM

Sorry, you're right. The emphasis seems to be more on our children dying rather than us. I honestly don't recall 'my side' putting anything about our children dying like this out. I might be wrong and somehow they managed to get themselves all over the media, but they seem heavily censored. Without the internet we probably wouldnt even know about them.

 

[tuttle]

These extreme cold weather events are not just in certain areas, it is worldwide.

It's up to you guys if you want to acknowledge the fact that summers are becoming weaker and winters are becoming stronger, this is a trend that has happened for a few years now, well since the peak in 1998.

This decade is on track to be the hottest decade on record, and 2009 is one of the 5 hottest years. While we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate

 

[Happycamper]

''Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S. ''

(it will actually now be 11 years since that article came out 2 years ago)

Our temperature is at least down to 2003 levels at least they admit that in the article. My sources are saying it's more likely to be nearer 2000 level.

Combined with this :''The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO).

The switch of PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation)cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode.''

Sunspot activity dropped off in 2006/7 adding to what we are experiencing imo.

is resulting in worldwide extreme cold weather events. Our children in the UK saw snow for the first time 2 years ago. (It has been a long time) They have already seen a lot more than last year, and it's set to carry on and get worse. Our coldest time is not until Jan/Feb time usually.

Last year we had our coldest year in 30 years, this year is even lower than that.

China again has been issued with extreme cold weather warnings: (from BBC news)
''On Saturday the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) issued orange warnings for the cold weather, advising residents to prepare for a sharp drop in temperature, heavy snow falls and gale force northerly winds. This extreme cold weather warning was the countrys second this winter. The first was issued early in the month when heavy snow brought widespread disruption to travel services.''

 

[Happycamper]

Taken from the UN/AP article from tuttle ''In 2007-2009, the summer melt reduced the Arctic Ocean ice cap to its smallest extent ever recorded. In the 2007-2009 International Polar Year, researchers found that Antarctica is warming more than previously believed. Almost all glaciers worldwide are retreating''.

They should speak to the International Artic Research Centre to check their facts because they have found nothing unusual or wrong there, and the ice has made big gains since 2007. In 2008 the gains were the biggest ever recorded.

 

[rayski]

They should speak to the International Artic Research Centre to check their facts because they have found nothing unusual or wrong there, and the ice has made big gains since 2007. In 2008 the gains were the biggest ever recorded.

Provide a link please. No such info on their website. There was this link:Climate change eroding coast at accelerating rate, scientists find

 

[Happycamper]

I can provide this link which should belong in the film 2012. This was the opening video shown at copenhagen, to make sure the right tone was set.

Most of the things in this video are not even predicted by the IPCC, and some people are saying that showing this to a child could be called child abuse.

Please Help the World", film from the opening ceremony of the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) in Copenhagen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Shown on December 7, 2009 at COP15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4

 

[Happycamper]

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals stored on paper and magnetic tape were dumped to ''save space''.

Well Jones did say in the emails he would delete the data rather than letting other people see it.

In one email from 2005, Jones warned Mann not to leave such data lying around on searchable websites, because you never know who is trawling them.
Critics such as McIntyre had been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone

 

[reece]

They should speak to the International Artic Research Centre to check their facts because they have found nothing unusual or wrong there, and the ice has made big gains since 2007. In 2008 the gains were the biggest ever recorded.

Provide a link please. No such info on their website. There was this link:Climate change eroding coast at accelerating rate, scientists find

I can provide this link which should belong in the film 2012. This was the opening video shown at copenhagen, to make sure the right tone was set.

Most of the things in this video are not even predicted by the IPCC, and some people are saying that showing this to a child could be called child abuse.

Please Help the World", film from the opening ceremony of the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) in Copenhagen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Shown on December 7, 2009 at COP15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4

Wait a minute. I didn't see the part that proves your claim. Can you tell me the exact time in the video? 'Cause I'm missing it.