SupremeLeader
-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by SupremeLeader
-
-
Wow...nice PM to me SL.
Hit some swear words...insulted other board members.
Please keep your comments professional...no personally attacks...friendly...but feel free to debate passionately.
I am not scared of what you have to say to me however rude you seem to like to be.
...but like threatening to insult my family...that is just really low...
Please let's try and end this attitude...start a fresh and keep future posts and PM's on the up and up.
Feel free to comment...but watch your tone. I assume it is not intentional but still...a change may be in order.
Merry Christmas
Sun
I didn't start the personal attack(s)....that was Lynn, and you insinuating I would bring up another past topic. I commented on Canadesis' opinion on the Scientific community (which he made on this topic).....and I get ganged up on, c'mon. You guys are weak.
And Lynn, I'm a 'chicken *hit',....that's hilarious! You jump in conveniently when you think you have the upper-hand (which you must.....If I made a crack like the one you made it would never be posted). But at least the Mods let me give you one back.
This topic was about the cold weather and pine beetles; Canadensis attempted to turn it into something else, I responded, and I'm the bad guy? Please.
I play back (dirty, as it was necessary) and you still all miss the point.
"Feel free to comment but watch your tone"......
Settle down Sun, who do you think you are? And I don't need a lesson on tone and sentence structure.
What a bunch.
-
Wow, wife comments now.....
Am I not allowed to comment on someone who is attacking the scientific community?
hmmm, my calculations indicate Lynn is shorter and larger than my wife.
-
So glad to see we can now make an argument out of weather. It appears nothing is off limits to SL when his wife pisses in his cornflakes.
Carry on.
Wow, wife comments now.....
Am I not allowed to comment on someone who is attacking the scientific community?
-
And your refusal to accept a common sense approach to problem solving is evident and self-serving.
Explain?
-
If it was, then what would all of the Scientists and Biologists do that are currently studying how to stop them?
Your disdain for the scientific community is both naive and ignorant.
-
I would speculate that considering the number of protesters and potential security issues coupled with the logistical coordination, mass transit is not an option for foreign delegates, diplomats, etc.
Teleconferencing on this scale would also logistically be difficult.
Another point is that these types of events allow people to mingle and discuss options at the several smaller venues that occur over the length of the conference.
-
Before closing the thread may I offer up a very interesting read.
Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan. I am not condoning being
"Jonesed" ... the outrage speaks for itself but if you want a glimpse
of how the real big boys play read the book. Some references
to "reputable" go to disciples (suggested on this site) for the denier
crowd are in for a little insight. Yes it is a view from the other side
of the Grand Canyon and yes it deals with the "hockey stick"
and it exposes how we are manipulated given what is at stake.
If after reading the book and you are still comfortable with your stand
fine. The book is less than a flat of beer and it
is the cheapest tuition fee on climate politics around. Suggest you
read the book first then come back and do the poll thing considering
what may or may not be at stake.
It would have been an interesting question on the poll "How many have read
the book ?"
Cheers
Tim
agreed.
-
Hi. nice to meet you!
This is what I have been saying. The travesty of this debate is that is a massive distraction from some incredibly more pressing problems.
Smitty
Thing is, the problem is very 'pressing' for some communities (particularily in the Arctic). And there is the vast amounts of locked methane that may possibly be released into the atmosphere if the climate continues to warm at this unprecedented rate (please...don't bring up the 10 year nonsense 'trend'). I say possibly because this is not a known outcome at this point, however, it is hardly something that should be played with considering Methane is 10 times more potent a greenhous gas than C02.
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....l-below-the-ice
-
Great commentary from someone who lives in a big developed hole in the forest- well the size of Banff in a federally protected "Park", smack dab in the center of one of North Americas most important wildlife corridors, and a world heritage site....
Nothing like elbowing out a Grizzly bear and a cougar because of where you choose to reside, eh?
What?
Another excellent comparison from Candensis.
You just compared a National park to the Oil Sands.
You do know Banff has a cap on development? Is there one on the Oil Sands?
-
I guess the most reasonable thing to do is to remove all the nasty oil sands from the area as quickly as possible so that their is no more natural drainage into the river.
Indeed, and make sure you also leave a hole in the Boreal forest the size of Great Britain in the process of being such concerned stewards of the environment.
On another topic you mentioned pumping nutrients into the upper bow to increase nutrients.
Sun, your suggestions are akin to one who thinks of themself as some kind of fifth element. All of your suggestions are slanted to suit a better life for.....yourself.
On one hand you say we have no part in climate change and converting 65 millions barrels of oil per day into a gas has no effect, and on the other we should remove oil from the Athabasca region to make the river less toxic because 'it is the most reasonble thing to do'.
Reason, that's a good word..you should look it up.
-
So why can they not explain the last 11 year cooling trend? Understanding our CO2 output is growing almost exponentially?
If you look at all the "proof" they are all assumption studies. Their only real attempt at proof is looking at the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only has math not been their best subject...but their main contentions have been proven wrong from the hockey stick graph, to warmest year for both the IPCC and NASA.
Stop using the 10-11 year 'trend'; this has been explained to you already. A 'trend' is something that doesn't have enough quantifiable results to be considered noteworthy. The 'trend' by the way is ~.1 degree. And to reiterate; if you start your graph out in 1997 or 1999 the results go out the window......and you talk about selective science.
And to a couple of other 'facts' posted in this discussion; NASA stated that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the "United States", not the planet. In fact, the hottest year on record according to NASA is 2006 (on the planet)....not 1998.
Keep bringing up the argument 'guys like SL' use about 'not caring about the future of your children', and keep posting Sun, you're oozing guilt at this point. It's so bad now you're posting Fox news sources, and you've reached 12 pages.
But who knows, maybe the guilt is a good thing. Often times science denying 'Zealots' (which seems a far more appropriate term to describe your fanaticism) come full circle. Perhaps you're like Darth Vader......eventually you'll turn to the good side.
Regards,
Paul
-
And the cheap shot artist strikes once more! Tell me SL, do you have a framed jersey of Todd Bertuzzi or Chris Simon? (Or both?) Really, if you played in the NHL, surely you would have served a couple of games by now (That's if you could stand yourself by making those huge sums of money...)
Must be nice to have a smaller ecological footprint than the rest of us. Fact is, your house must be smaller, because who needs a toilet when your own poop doesn't stink?
Sorry, SL, couldn't resist...
Double Sheesh.
Smitty
So 2 add my 0.4 cents, I agree that its somewhat sad. Somehow, I also had the naivety that, for some silly reason, golf players existed on a higher plane than players from the MLB, NBA, NFL or NHL. I'm not saying Tiger's going to burn in hell, I'm just surprised, just as surprised as if I'd found out Gretzky had behaved the same.
Also, from a guy's perspective, who the hell would want to cheat on Elin? Kinda like Hugh Grant cheating on Elizabeth Hurley! Are you stupid or something?!?!
I hate hockey (except the olympics).
I think Sun is feeling cold; you'd better jump back in bed with him.
But...would that be cheating?
-
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
That must be Sun-shine.
-
Not sure how we can ignore the problems we are seeing in the science. They have massive consequences to the world's economy. Some "green" friends of mind just see this whole thing as a way of taking over popular opinion and controling the media and directing politicians to think only as they think. Kind of a take over of the public purse. They see Greenies having control as good. I think Greenies have a voice is good...power really, really bad. Some people say better do something than nothing. Sometimes even in science...doing nothing is the right thing. Just like a doctor may hear you say you have a head ache...they don't automatically operate thinking you have a brain tumor. That would be over reacting and making a poor decision based upon facts and researching the problem.
We don't subsidize oil companies. Not sure what you are referring to there. Let's start a different oil company bashing thread though...this is already complicated. Also I would have to argue as an oil company guy that the CO2 sequestration is great for oil companies...bad for me personally. I would also like to ask you...how do you think the oil companies benefit from debunking the CO2 global warming theories?
As for reduce, reuse, recycle...I am totally on that band wagon.
As for better fuel economy cars...I am all for that although I have not put my money where my mouth is on that...except that I predominately ride transit every day. Have you bought a Prius?
We must use common sense in every day business and personal but we also can't put blinders on to the fact that we need oil and gas. Without it we would have serious trouble living and breathing. Alternatives are not out there currently unless you want a proliferation of nuclear plants. Wind, solar, tidal, water are not sufficient. Many also have bad footprints and environmental problems. Nothing is perfect and yet green thinking types think anything is better than petroleum. That is neither true nor feasible. I would love if fission power was a reality.
There has been an opinion that we are reaching the end of new oil (new discoveries) and that after that we are all doomed like we will hit a brick wall.
Supply and demand principles in our capitalist economy will not allow that to happen. As commodity quantities shrink, price increases. As prices increases consumption decreases through less use and greater efficiencies. Our oil and gas will last a long, long time to come. Conservation is great...but our individual consumption has to decrease and that is where guys like you and me come into play. What can we do? Buy a small fuel efficient car, use transit, not use applicance requiring residual power, unplug such appliances...etc. etc.
I am all for your concerns about living in a clean, safe and healthy environment. Unfortunately you may think CO2 is poison. It is not. It is also not part of smog in Mexico City. One the best things I have seen come out of all this is hopefully the reduction of non CO2 emmisions. That would be awesome. Unfortunately rather than Alberta spending $5 billion on renewable energies and more efficient use of power...we are paying to use energy/power to pump CO2 into the ground. That is a waste of money IMHO.
While I am looking for facts that say either way man causes global warming...the science so far is inconclusive. With the fraud claims coming out...I sadly think the science is going to now also become less one sided and the facts will show...nobody knows crap about the weather conditions in Calgary 5 days from now let alone 20 years from now.
As such...I can agree...if we have the money...let's spend it wisely... Reduce real pollution, think of better energy sources and more efficiences etc.
Cheers
Sun
Check out this Sun,
The report to support this news is linked to the article.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/02/tiger.woods/index.html
How sad.
worth $1 billion dollars
sleeping with every tramp he can find.
I hope his wife takes him for more than half and goes on to live a happy life.
What a sleeze he turned out to be. If she hit him with a 9 iron...I doubt it would of knocked any sense of realization of how he has ruined his marriage and harmed his kids etc.
Nike and Gatorade etc. are all saying they will stick by Tiger... Strange...they must be making lots of money off of him.
Sun
How naive indeed to think you know the ins and outs of someone personal life who
a. you've never met.
and
b.only know through the media.
Nike and Gatorade must be making money off him, just like you make money from the Oil sands.
Sheesh.
-
SUNDANCES TOP 10 LIST OF When global warming zeolots start feeling like they are losing an argument they either:
1) try and change the subject
2) Scream you are killing your kids if YOU DON'T BELIEVE!!!!!!
3) talk about that hot spell a while back...really hot...sweated a lot...cause it proves global warming
4) start to mention hurricanes but realize that "study" never proved correct
5) talk about the hockey stick...then scream it is real even though the IPCC dropped it after it was proven wrong...but...Mann is such a good guy...even though he refused to share his raw data...then deleted it...and people tried to hide the declines...
6) blame the oil companies and yet NEVER MAKE A COMMON SENSE ARGUMENT AS TO HOW THE OIL COMPANIES ARE GOING TO BE HARMED LOL
7) Consider the photos of the poor polar on the ice flow...taken totally out of context...but still gives a nice impression for the cause
8) Blame the latest earthquake on global warming
9) Blame the deniers for everything wrong in the world and their lame questioning as to why trillions of dollars can't be spend putting carbon in the ground or increasing cost of living and starving poor people to death.
10) jump in a plane, fly to a city, jump in some SUV and drive somewhere to party and protest
SL's top ten reasons people deny Global Warming
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money
4) Money
5) Money
6) Money
7) Money
8) Money
9) Money
10) Money
-
Keep goin' Sun. It's as if you have a guilty conscious?
For me the shrinking polar ice caps, acidification of the ocean, overwhelming percentage of rapidly shrinking glaciers, spreading desertification, mass destruction of Boreal forest, pollution and waste of our water, reliance on non-renewable energy, and creation of toxic by-products speak for themselves. Not to mention the overwhelming amount of data that supports rising temperatures (not the 10 year cycle that you use which has been debunked).
Not get back to drilling, cutting, pasting and surfing.
-
Some more oil companies planning on doing their best!
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/alberta/20...003066-sun.html
-
Flushing out the high priests of climate changeCharles Clover
Some future historian will enjoy the irony. The week before last the United States and China both stated that, yes, they finally buy the theory of man-made global warming. And a foot of rain fell on Cockermouth, a record downpour entirely consistent with predicted rainfall patterns. Cue — with immaculate timing — an explosion of sceptical triumphalism in the blogosphere, as emails containing exchanges between leading climatologists, stolen from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, apparently “proved” that scientists had colluded to hide the fact that man-made global warming is a con.
At the hour when the heavens opened over Cumbria, the high priests and sages of the research unit were struggling to shield themselves from a hail of blows for allegedly using questionable methods to stand up their theories.
At first it was difficult to know who had come off the worst: the scientists whose emails were published, or the bloggers who vilified the outed academics, describing “climategate” as “the greatest scandal in modern science” and branding the research unit “disgraced”.
The science of climate change has become a lot more polarised over the past five years and last week it got decidedly worse, with the former chancellor Lord Lawson’s new think tank of sceptics and its outlying cavalry of angry bloggers and man-made global warming deniers furiously spurring on the debate.
One of the most absurd moments came when George Monbiot of The Guardian, a columnist normally strident in his view that climate change is the most important problem facing mankind, appointed himself judge, jury and executioner and called for Professor Phil Jones, head of the research unit, to resign.
Well, he doesn’t need to resign — yet. We need to know whether the unit has done anything wrong, which an independent review set up by the university will examine.
And while we are waiting for the result? The scientific establishment, in the form of the Royal Society, the research councils and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, needs to do a lot more thinking — not about Jones’s methods, but about its own.
The theft of emails is just another chapter in a sustained debate that has focused on Jones for some time — but we need to look beyond him. Freedom of information demands and requests for shared data often pursue the work of the most controversial scientists. The scientific establishment has no consensus on how to deal with such requests.
Is it right to withhold public interest data, with the excuse of commercial confidentiality of the meteorological institutes involved, which often own the information and want to profit from it? And were the scientists at the research unit right to refuse to give up, as alleged, data and the codes and algorithms needed to analyse them to bona-fide researchers who wanted to examine their statistical methods? That is perhaps the most damaging allegation that has emerged, because it suggests a deliberate attempt to hold up scientific progress.
This is not necessarily incriminating, but it is stupid. The testing of hypotheses in an adversarial manner often looks, close up, like cats fighting in a sack. You can hardly blame busy scientists who have spent their lives amassing a pile of data, which they have interpreted in their own way, for not wanting to release it to people who want to rubbish it. Still, release it they should, and it is up to the scientific establishment to set out better ground rules and insist on more openness. The problem is that establishment science has no means of engaging with outsiders in the blogging age. It needs to wake up.
As well as asking whether anything untoward has been going on in massaging the figures to make warming look more alarming, we should also resolve how best to defend from vexatious attacks evidence that has been accumulated over years. At the moment it’s just frustration and stonewalling all round. If you ask anyone associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where the science is going, they tell you to wait for their next five-yearly assessment report.
No wonder the public is confused. No wonder journalists have a choice between waiting for the occasional tablet of stone from the keepers of the global warming flame, or joining the newer, hipper fraternity of bloggers who snigger about ManBearPig, the bogus global warming monster in South Park’s skit on Al Gore. This polarisation means that a considered view on global warming is much harder to achieve, so in the end people simply go for the belief that feels right for them.
Working scientists may be grumpy about the unfairness, but far higher standards are expected of them than of the rude blogger-sceptics who are crowing about the embarrassment.
Tough. They should get over it. If the high priests of global warming want to convince us that we could face a man-made rise of 4C in the global temperature this century, then they have to engage with their critics instead of hiding away in their ivory towers.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle6936404.ece
Since you're posting opinions pieces...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...en-climate-deal
-
Sun, I have to admire your tenacity on this subject and I do respect your opinion, however the scientific community seems firmly against you.
When asked if temperatures have risen compared to 1800s, 90% of scientists said yes.
When asked if human activity is having a significant impact, 82% said yes
When Climatologists only were asked the percentage rose to 97% saying yes
I think I'm going to to go with the majority on this as I don't have any expertise in this field.
Regards Mike
I'm at an end point myself regarding this topic.
I am not a climatologist; but I know dozens of people personally who work in not-for-profit scientific research. In my experience they don't lie.
Sun, you work in the oil industry. Your entire career is a carbon footprint. Even if the science was 110% irrefutable you wouldn't accept it; it's a threat to you and yours.
That's the real issue. A few generations will deplete the world of a major source of it's resources. What about future generations......right, they'll have renewable energy technologies, and the climate will be warmer and better (if you live in a thin band in the temperate zone).
I would prefer my off-spring with a stable safe climate and environment, access to a reasonable amount of resources’ so they can build things, and respect for other groups of people around the world and the effect their lives have on others. To me the latter is a better option than to leave them with an inheritance of a big bank account because I raped and pillaged the planet, a climate damaged because I and others chose to deny science, and disrespect for other groups of people world-wide because of my stubborn self-centered attitude.
How about this Sun....you make a list of all the Glaciers that are growing (not advancing..growing). I'll make a list of all of the Glaciers that are shrinking. Whoever has the most points wins.
Forget it...
I'll just post the link. And you can tell me how this is a lie, a conspiracy, and there are hacked Emails to prove it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-...ers-growing.htm
See ya later guys, I'm off to the misty mountains for a few days.
-
Some of IPCC own studies showed that some glaciers are getting thicker but still receding. In fact their mass is growing even though only one indicating shows shrinking the assumptions may be wrong. More studies are needed.
Also the shrinking Antarctic glacier was shown to be doing so not due to warming. Surface recorders showed a slight cooling over the study period. That glacier is suspected on shrinkage due to warming of the Earth...from within. Volcanic sort of thing.
Some glaciers are growing. The IPCC refuses or scientists are scared or unable to release studies that try and explain why some grow, some shrink and some stay the same.
I can't understand why this is.
-
Some more info:
From: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/091124/busi...ioxide_pipeline
Alberta pays $495M for carbon capture pipeline
Alberta is spending $495 million over 15 years for a 240-kilometre pipeline that companies can hook into for collecting and storing carbon dioxide, it was announced Tuesday.
The province has signed a letter of intent with Enhance Energy Inc., which is partnering with North West Upgrading to build the pipeline, connecting the so-called industrial heartland northeast of Edmonton to oilfields near Clive, in central Alberta.
"This new pipeline will significantly advance Alberta's capacity for future carbon capture and storage projects," Premier Ed Stelmach said in a release.
"The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line will be the backbone of CO2 transportation for Alberta. It will be built with long-term capacity in mind so as more companies capture CO2, they will be able connect to the line."
Construction on the pipeline is scheduled to start in 2011, with operation commencing in 2012. The pipeline will be able to carry about 40,000 tonnes of CO2 a day, or 14 million tonnes a year.
"The ACTL will enable the sustainable development of Albertas vast oil reserves while increasing production from existing reservoirs and helping to store 14 million tonnes of CO2 annually," said Susan Cole, president of Enhance Energy.
Alberta's portion of the funding is coming from its $2-billion carbon capture technology fund. The federal government is putting $63 million towards the project.
This is the third project funded by Alberta's carbon capture technology fund. In early October, the province and Ottawa announced funding for the Shell Quest project ($745Million dollars) , east of Edmonton, and Project Pioneer ($436 million) at TransAlta's Keephills plant in Wabumun, Alta.
In both projects, CO2 emitted from the plants will be captured and injected more than 2,000 metres underground.
See also :
http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newcom/.../200998-eng.php
and
http://www.transalta.com/newsroom/news-rel...alta-build-one-
and
Indeed, they're spending 495 million from a fund...they're not spending 2 billion.
And even if it is 2 billion; the Alberta gov't collect 12.75 billion alone last year from oil companies...how much did the Big Oil take home? (serious question by the way).
C'mon team petrol.....you're talking about money, private Emails, skewed science, wikipedia.......My primary sources have been NASA, NOAA etc.
-
All they ever talked about was global warming this...global warming that. Now they never say it...they just say climate change...hoping people assume warming.
That's an intelligent response.
As the Earth is cooling...and you have said it yourself...what makes you think any perceived temperature changes is caused by increasing higher levels of CO2?Where did I say that? I pointed out that the data you presented is erroneous.
How is the Maldives affected by CO2 is the average temperature on Earth is decreasing?The Maldives are being effected by rising global temperatures and sea level ie. climate change.
It's all over the news.
Again, scroll up, you still haven't answered my questions.
-
And global cooling was the greatest risk to the dinosaurs, causing extinction.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also point out that C02 comes out you mouth when you exhale, but not out of your exhaust pipe?
Last I heard Dinosaurs where around at the same time as people, the earth was created in seven days, and apparently the surfing was great for Noah and his crew.....at least that's what Stockwell tells me.
Record Cold Temperatures
in General Chat - Not Fishing Related (NFR)
Posted
Another wife comment...Nice.
I won't bring your hubby into it; that is rude....as were my PM'd comments, but you asked for it.