AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[billvon 2,413]

>so you will not provide it

I just did.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>so you will not provide it

I just did.

Would it be fair to assume, based on the AGWing hype, that world temp increases and the resulting catastrophes should be seen worldwide?
If not, how could just regional changes be connected to disastrous effects the alarmists keep saying are happening or are going to happen?

That said
Consider the following

Oh, I will provide a link up front
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Seems that this sight sees other reasons for the changes and notes near normal ice in many other areas

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

From the link I just provided

Quote

For example, a new study shows that when winter sea ice concentrations are above average in the East Greenland, Barents and Kara seas, ice concentrations tend to be below average in the Bering Sea. This spatial pattern of anomalies linking the North Atlantic and North Pacific is related to the sea level pressure pattern that drives surface winds and their associated movement of atmospheric heat. These conditions are in turn linked to cooler or warmer than average sea surface temperatures that provide memory, influencing regional sea ice concentrations the following autumn. Thus, while the atmosphere is critical in setting the spatial patterns of sea ice variability, the ocean provides the memory for reemergence.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,413]

>Would it be fair to assume, based on the AGWing hype, that world temp increases and
>the resulting catastrophes should be seen worldwide?

No, that's not at all a fair assumption. Someone in Denver is not going to see "catastrophes."

>If not, how could just regional changes be connected to disastrous effects the
>alarmists keep saying are happening or are going to happen?

It's not a disastrous effect. It is simply rapid melting of an ice sheet, and this will in turn lead to increased rate of sea level rise. This effect was predicted by the IPCC.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Would it be fair to assume, based on the AGWing hype, that world temp increases and
>the resulting catastrophes should be seen worldwide?

No, that's not at all a fair assumption. Someone in Denver is not going to see "catastrophes."

>If not, how could just regional changes be connected to disastrous effects the
>alarmists keep saying are happening or are going to happen?

It's not a disastrous effect. It is simply rapid melting of an ice sheet, and this will in turn lead to increased rate of sea level rise. This effect was predicted by the IPCC.

Every thing we see has been predicted by the IPCC or others. Too dry, too wet, too hot, too cool, more storms, less storms, more sever storms, less sever storms, more clouds, less clouds

The AGWers blame all of this on the man and CO2 changes



Sheesh...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,413]

>Every thing we see has been predicted by the IPCC or others.

OK. So who do you tend to think will be correct in the future? An organization that is 100% accurate in their predictions, or organizations that are always wrong?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Every thing we see has been predicted by the IPCC or others.

OK. So who do you tend to think will be correct in the future? An organization that is 100% accurate in their predictions, or organizations that are always wrong?

LOL

this is one way of defending that!

I gotta figure out a way to set myself up so there is no way I can ever be wrong
Just like what you point out

LOL

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

The Climate Deception Dossiers:

s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/global-warming/Climate-Deception-Dossiers_All.pdf


Apparently Exxon knew about the CO2-climate link in 1981, but then spent 30 years and $millions funding deniers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

The Climate Deception Dossiers:

s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/global-warming/Climate-Deception-Dossiers_All.pdf


Apparently Exxon knew about the CO2-climate link in 1981, but then spent 30 years and $millions funding deniers.

So they stopped four years ago? Who is writing the checks now?

[billvon 2,413]

> Who is writing the checks now?

Same people. They just launder their money now. From Scientific American:
=======================
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder

By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
December 23, 2013

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
. . . .

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

. . . .

In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."

Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."
==================================

[rushmc 18]

Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

rushmc

Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

So says the guy who thinks mercury isn't really a toxin, that's all made up as part of a "liberal agenda" to shut down power plants. Do you still believe the Japanese were poisoning their kids in the 1950s as part of a sinister plot to create a false premise for liberals to use (50 years later) against coal burning power plants?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

GeorgiaDon

***Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

So says the guy who thinks mercury isn't really a toxin, really? I wil be looking forward to you proving that bsthat's all made up as part of a "liberal agenda" to shut down power plants. Do you still believe the Japanese were poisoning their kids in the 1950s as part of a sinister plot to create a false premise for liberals to use (50 years later) against coal burning power plants?

Don

Sorry
You make no point of any kind

But to my point

You and and alarmist crowd say any money spent that shows different than you belive is evil dark money

That is all said when it is nearly 10 to 1 spending on your side and you still cant show facts to back up your bs

Thanks for a good monday morning laugh

And your mercury statement???

You are taking lesson from kallend when it comes to truth now I see

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Where the real money is
And you try and distract and re-direct the conversation to avoid the truth

This one is from 2009.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

Quote

Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

And the following link talks about the data and who it is provided by.
And people wonder why there are skeptics

Quote

Like with pot research, the government is again the only source for data to study the surface record.

And people wonder why I spend so much time and effort to examine weather stations and adjustments.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/22/how-global-warming-research-is-like-pot-research/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,413]

>Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

At least you admit that fossil fuel is funding the denial.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

At least you admit that fossil fuel is funding the denial.

That is a strange read of my post. Expected however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

rushmc

******Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

So says the guy who thinks mercury isn't really a toxin, really? I wil be looking forward to you proving that bsthat's all made up as part of a "liberal agenda" to shut down power plants. Do you still believe the Japanese were poisoning their kids in the 1950s as part of a sinister plot to create a false premise for liberals to use (50 years later) against coal burning power plants?

Don

And your mercury statement???

You are taking lesson from kallend when it comes to truth now I see


In the thread on the EPA and mercury regulation (link) I asked you "Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

You replied (post 21 of the linked thread):
"Regulation and political agendas are two different things
Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Another abuse of power

It is agenda
Not science that drives them"

Your statement was clear: mercury poisoning is not based on science, it is a political agenda.

I gave you the opportunity to clarify your meaning when I asked you (post 31 of that thread):
"Are you saying that all the information on the health effects of mercury are bogus, made up by "liberal doctors and scientists" over decades just to one day be able to harass poor innocent power plant companies? All the way back in the 1950s those liberal Japanese fabricated Minamata Diseaseso one day the EPA could use it to advance some political agenda? "

At that point you simply stopped responding and started another thread about Hillary Clinton not knowing how to work a fax machine. So we are left with your statement:

"It is agenda
Not science..."

According to your own words and responses you do not believe that mercury is an environmental problem, and you believe that mercury poisoning is a trumped-up cause to further the liberal anti-power-company agenda. Since concern about environmental mercury contamination dates back to the recognition of mercury as the cause of Minamata Disease in the 1950s, you must believe the Japanese as far back as the 1950s were participants in a fraudulent effort to paint mercury as a dangerous environmental contaminant to support a liberal agenda.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

GeorgiaDon

*********Sucks when someone might pay for the right thing

So says the guy who thinks mercury isn't really a toxin, really? I wil be looking forward to you proving that bsthat's all made up as part of a "liberal agenda" to shut down power plants. Do you still believe the Japanese were poisoning their kids in the 1950s as part of a sinister plot to create a false premise for liberals to use (50 years later) against coal burning power plants?

Don

And your mercury statement???

You are taking lesson from kallend when it comes to truth now I see


In the thread on the EPA and mercury regulation (link) I asked you "Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

You replied (post 21 of the linked thread):
"Regulation and political agendas are two different things
Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Another abuse of power

It is agenda
Not science that drives them"

Your statement was clear: mercury poisoning is not based on science, it is a political agenda.

I gave you the opportunity to clarify your meaning when I asked you (post 31 of that thread):
"Are you saying that all the information on the health effects of mercury are bogus, made up by "liberal doctors and scientists" over decades just to one day be able to harass poor innocent power plant companies? All the way back in the 1950s those liberal Japanese fabricated Minamata Diseaseso one day the EPA could use it to advance some political agenda? "

At that point you simply stopped responding and started another thread about Hillary Clinton not knowing how to work a fax machine. So we are left with your statement:

"It is agenda
Not science..."

According to your own words and responses you do not believe that mercury is an environmental problem, and you believe that mercury poisoning is a trumped-up cause to further the liberal anti-power-company agenda. Since concern about environmental mercury contamination dates back to the recognition of mercury as the cause of Minamata Disease in the 1950s, you must believe the Japanese as far back as the 1950s were participants in a fraudulent effort to paint mercury as a dangerous environmental contaminant to support a liberal agenda.

Don

You said dumping and unregulated!
That is a political statement because even befor the current regs that is not even close to true
Your question (no statement) was pure bs from the get go!
You put it in a political stance and I called you on it!
So there was nothing to clarify as you based the issues on a false premis!
Now your squirming begins
Enjoy yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,413]

Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is good?

(I very much doubt you can answer this without massive amounts of spin, waffling, redirection and blaming Obama but I figured I'd give you a chance)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is good? I think "dumping" (as you put it) is bad. The issue is what levels are acceptable now isn’t it! There is a point of diminishing returns.
A topic alarmists fail to recognize. (Purposely I think) But then the alarmists are the ones with the agenda


(I very much doubt you can answer this without massive amounts of spin, waffling, redirection and blaming Obama but I figured I'd give you a chance)

You were wrong and now you can admit it.

Regulation per se, is not bad unless it is abused

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is good?

(I very much doubt you can answer this without massive amounts of spin, waffling, redirection and blaming Obama but I figured I'd give you a chance)

Here is another way of phrasing it:

Do you think dumping mercury in the air is good? Seriously. What's the difference between whether it is regulated or unregulated?

"Hey, coal burners. You're putting 80 tons of mercury into the air every year. That's bad because it's not even regulated." Does it change to, "80 tons per year of mercury emitted? Okay. That's fine. We've got a few bureaucrats that know about it now."

And as an aside, not all Mercury is equal. Mercury in the air usually isnt a big deal. Not until it is methylated does it start to become problematic because that puts it into a form that can be metabolized. Of course that mercury I. The air ends up going into the ocean where algae do just that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,413]

>Do you think dumping mercury in the air is good? Seriously. What's the difference
>between whether it is regulated or unregulated?

Regulation of dumping results in less mercury in the air. That's a good outcome. Even less would be better of course.

>"Hey, coal burners. You're putting 80 tons of mercury into the air every year. That's
>bad because it's not even regulated." Does it change to, "80 tons per year of mercury
>emitted? Okay. That's fine. We've got a few bureaucrats that know about it now."

No, it changes to "there is now regulation. You are only allowed to dump 40 tons a year into the air, and that will decrease as times goes on." That's better.

>And as an aside, not all Mercury is equal. Mercury in the air usually isnt a big deal.

It ends up being a big deal for two reasons:

1) It is toxic. As you mention, there are mercury containing compounds that are worse than others. But no form of mercury (including metallic mercury) is safe.

2) Mercury does not dissolve in air; it must be carried by particulates, which present their own health problems (primarily lung cancer and COPD.)

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

***Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is good? I think "dumping" (as you put it) is bad. The issue is what levels are acceptable now isn’t it! There is a point of diminishing returns.
A topic alarmists fail to recognize. (Purposely I think) But then the alarmists are the ones with the agenda


(I very much doubt you can answer this without massive amounts of spin, waffling, redirection and blaming Obama but I figured I'd give you a chance)

You were wrong and now you can admit it.

Regulation per se, is not bad unless it is abused

I am pretty sure the company newsletter says any regulation is not ok.... and that comes from the very top down.... you appear to be off the reservation there......

[billvon 2,413]

rushmc

***Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is good?

I think "dumping" (as you put it) is bad.
An actual answer! Awesome. (Note that we could have avoided about ten meaningless posts with such a simple answer.) But there's an odd phrase there - "as you put it." What could that suggest about what is coming next?

Quote

The issue is what levels are acceptable now isn’t it! There is a point of diminishing returns. A topic alarmists fail to recognize.

Aaaaand - here come that obligatory RushMC spin, along with the usual denigration.

Quote

(Purposely I think) But then the alarmists are the ones with the agenda

More spin and a good attempt at redirection!

My compliments on your answering the question, even if you couldn't help yourself with the spin.

[turtlespeed 212]

What difference, at this point, does it really make anyway?
The sun is going to kill us all now!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun