I can only say it has been unusually cold here. We have so far had 13 days straight with temps never going above freezing, which is even uncommon for here.
February has far been 6-7c colder than usual and forecast for whole next week is said to be between -5c and -17c.
This will of course not prove anything, but it seems like it is colder than "normal" in most of the world this winter. The fact is that it has been getting colder for the last 10 years, even though it is still warmer than 1970-2000 normal. Oceans seems to be losing heat according to satellite observations as well, which will most likely further cool our climate.

I think that sun activity and milankovich cycles plays a great role.
Things like lower sun activity/energy input takes time to affect climate because oceans and atmosphere stores heat like a battery. Years of low activity or orbital changes might slowly drain those "battery" reserves.
If sun activity stays as low as now then i am pretty convinced that we will experience some drastic cooling in the future.

co2 does indeed have some warming effect, but i dont think it will mask the natural variations of orbit, sun cycles and so on. The co2 levels in the past have been many times higher than now and yet ice ages were triggered. I dont see how it will be different now....

Last edited by Tomas on 07-Feb-2009 at 01:20 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Fine that you do not refute and agree the absence of the CO² fingerprint revealed by the observations. Or is it a strategy to evade the problem?

No it's all a question of the graph. If one does a graph of say 600M years and uses 1 data point every 10,000 years you very well could miss a 5,000 year warming cycle. The resultant is a graph that looks like there was no cooling. The sample set or average to fit it all in the graph can very easily accidentally erase a warm spike. This goes back to one of my original complaints. You seem to like to throw up pretty graphs and say see this proves it. Yet it doesn't. One must look at the representation of data and understand what is going on.


Quote:

What physics?

Observations that the Troposhere is warming. And observations and reproduceable experiments that H2O is less active than CO2 and that is less active than CH4 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Quote:

Are you so able to prove that the real world accuracy of the pH meter(s) used in the studies, given the methodologies used, or the ones you link to, given the same methodologies, are better that 0.1 unit? Feel free to report your result.

I linked to a meter that has better accuracy than your .1pH claim. Here is another link for you and a note included on how many meters have the 0.01 accuracy and how to calibrate them. Again at this point nothing I've done validates the experiment. It does invalidate your extenous reason for throwing out an experiment w/o bothering to look at the experiment itself.

Quote:

So perhaps you will understand that I care of others by a different way of you, that is to say by the mean of describing the fallacious and pseudo-scientific speech of a part of a system which perpetrate its ideological agenda hidden behind the cause of ecology.

I'm sure you mean here how ex-tobacco advertisers were hired to do by the oil companies to promote anti-gw claims.

Quote:

Think for yourself 1 minute: what if predictions will not occur? What if you discover that you have been lied?

Using this idea to launch in a sort of Pascal's wager. We guess GW and GW is right --- then we hopefully can institute some mitigating factors. We guess GW and GW is wrong. At worst no harm no foul. At best we produced stablized energy costs as we diversify the markets and reduce the need for foreign oil. We worry less about Iran and Iraq control of markets and can do away with our 1/2 century of manipulating politics in those countries. .... We guess no GW and no GW is right -- then no harm no foul. We guess no GW and GW is right. The best is we might be able to quickly react. The worst is massive changes of water, forest, and food resources. Historically a major reduction of resources produces death to humans with faminine and war. So out of the mix you tell us what is best to guess.

Quote:

A live case example of cognitive dissonance at work, thanks.

Sorry the consensus view is clearly man induced CO2 is the leading factor causing GW in the last 50 years. You can deny all you want it don't make it untrue. Hating on the RealClimate is fine. One plus is frequently their evidence is cited and linked so one can follow the chain. I wish there was an anti-gw site w/ as much footnotes and links to the science. You sounded like you wanted to do something major for anti-gw. There's your idea! Put together something in as much detail and linking to scientific papers of the anti-gw pursuasion.

@tomazkid

Quote:

some interesting "facts", Arctic Sea Ice grows this year, "colder weather" to blame.

Interesting indeed. Though it seems they are ice by area not mass or volume. So is there really more ice (more area and thicker) or is there less ice (more area but much thinner) than other years. I think a good question.

@BrianK

Regarding this:

Quote:

Observations that the Troposhere is warming. And observations and reproduceable experiments that H2O is less active than CO2 and that is less active than CH4 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

The H2O steam from oceans increases when it gets warmer = more clouds.

So, does more clouds reflect more solar rays coming from the sun (=colder), or do they prevent warmth from escaping the Earth (=warmer)?

Seems to me IPCC does not have an exact answer to that. (=they don't know).

Here is an article on the subject.

And on that page there is more on the subject of clouds.

Last edited by tomazkid on 07-Feb-2009 at 05:28 AM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@BrianK

Quote:

Interesting indeed. Though it seems they are ice by area not mass or volume. So is there really more ice (more area and thicker) or is there less ice (more area but much thinner) than other years. I think a good question.

Yes. I myself am uncertain on what to believe in, finding myself feeling more against the "greenhouse idea" these days, most due to the "one sided propaganda" in media and from certain influential person and organizations.

All reports contradicting the generally accepted idea the greenhouse effect/enviromental problems seems to be silenced down, even if those are scientific studies.

A few examples:
the forest areal is increasing on the Northern Hemisphere. (Finnish-Chinese study from 2007).

reports from the Vostok Ice drill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station

showing that the CO2 levels have gone up and down along the ice ages.
(if I understood it correctly, first warmer, then increase of CO2)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@BrianK

Quote:

You seem to like to throw up pretty graphs and say see this proves it.

Yes, I show data, plots, graphs and scientific papers supporting my claims. Where are yours? Where are the arguments? I just see nothing except hot air.

Quote:

One must look at the representation of data and understand what is going on.

The graph is the representation of data and the explanation is quite simple. Being unable to read a plot or understand a methodology is a no no in Science.

Quote:

Observations that the Troposhere is warming.

No problem here. All the IPCC models states that the rate of increase in warming in troposphere in response to the increase in GHG have to be more than twice and up to three times the rate of increase in warming at the Earth’s surface: that is the CO² fingerprint.
Yet the 2007 IPCC AR4 reports that: Quote:

The range (due to different data sets) of the global mean tropospheric temperature trend since 1979 is 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade based on satellite-based estimates (IPCC Chapter 3) compared to a range of 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade for the global surface warming.

So, no difference in trend, no CO² fingerprint. Case closed.

Quote:

I linked to a meter that has better accuracy than your .1pH claim. Here is another link for you and a note included on how many meters have the 0.01 accuracy and how to calibrate them. Again at this point nothing I've done validates the experiment. It does invalidate your extenous reason for throwing out an experiment w/o bothering to look at the experiment itself.

No actual calibration and accuracy measurements of the pH meters from you, just thin air as usual and no arguments either.

Quote:

I'm sure you mean here how ex-tobacco advertisers were hired to do by the oil companies to promote anti-gw claims.

So after: infinite regression, dogma, and circular reasoning, we now have argumentative escape.

Quote:

Sorry the consensus view is clearly man induced CO2 is the leading factor causing GW in the last 50 years. You can deny all you want it don't make it untrue.

No one can progress with religious zealots.

Quote:

Hating on the RealClimate is fine.

You are wrong. I like RC and its entertaining, distinctly disruptive threads and funny animators, making me laughing to a point I can not do any proper work. So yes I like the RC clowns. See the latest Gavin talk where he states that in his favorite climate model all the ozone is neglected (a top-five greenhouse gas) and most of the dynamics of the oceans. That is entertaining!

Quote:

I wish there was an anti-gw site w/ as much footnotes and links to the science.

There are many real scientific and instructive weblogs/websites that exist since years. Let me give you some links:

Watts Up With That? -

Climate Audit -

The reference frame -

There are other as well which dissect scientific papers, but level is probably too high.
And I am sure you will never leave the RC church, as these pseudo-scientists paid by taxpayers like you are so fun fooling themselves.

Quote:

Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look at what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'

Richard Feynman

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Feb-2009 at 04:51 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Interesting indeed. Though it seems they are ice by area not mass or volume. So is there really more ice (more area and thicker) or is there less ice (more area but much thinner) than other years. I think a good question.

Do you really think that sea ice is forming only at sea level (where temperature is higher)?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Do you really think that sea ice is forming only at sea level (where temperature is higher)?

Well, not quite so simple.
Water at 4 degrees Celsius is heavier than water at 0 degrees Celsius, so at wintertime the water at the bottom of the lakes(and seas) won't freeze, while the surface is covered with ice, so yes, ice forms on the surface first.

This feature with water basically makes life possible on Earth.

Last edited by tomazkid on 08-Feb-2009 at 01:21 AM.
Last edited by tomazkid on 08-Feb-2009 at 01:19 AM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@tomazkid

That is OK.
The important word in my post was "only".

As you wrote and because ice floats, new ice formation begins at the sea level. Then if sea is calm, yearly ice continues to grow by the bottom of the sheet to an height of about 1-2 m. If sea is not calm, ice forms pancakes which aggregate themselves giving a non uniform surface (see photos below). In older (not yearly) ice, thickness can reach 10-20 m.

Below the 2 mechanisms of ice sea formation:


Ice formation via pancakes:
Small pancakes:


Medium pancakes:


Large pancakes:


Packed ice:


The bottom of the ice is important for the marine life to develop (phytoplankton, zooplankton, etc).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@tomazkid

Quote:

he H2O steam from oceans increases when it gets warmer = more clouds. So, does more clouds reflect more solar rays coming from the sun (=colder), or do they prevent warmth from escaping the Earth (=warmer)?

Clouds is a great question.

What effect do?
- position in atmosphere
- cloud type
- cloud thickness
- cloud density
- cloud color
all have?

In addition, clouds return water to earth as rain. As the troposphere warms does the rain warm and warm the earth?

Quote:

Yes. I myself am uncertain on what to believe in, finding myself feeling more against the "greenhouse idea" these days, most due to the "one sided propaganda" in media and from certain influential person and organizations

Here in the USA I think I hear of anti-gw stuff more frequently or are at least more vocal. Though I'd think this depends on the variable of types of media available and types used.

Quote:

the forest areal is increasing on the Northern Hemisphere. (Finnish-Chinese study from 2007).

There has been studies of forest growth in the USA and Canada too. I'd have to dig it out but I thought man's planting was a larger growth factor than natural extension of existing forest. Also, that man tends to plant with less diversification.

As for Volstock CO2 came after higher temps.. My understanding is this is why man's fingerprint is claimed to be seen. Because unlike in the past when CO2 came second it's now coming first. Along with this the other fingerprint is change of ratio of Carbon 12 and Carbon 13 isotopes.

Another question is how does antarctica differ from the rest of the world. There seems to be delayed temp and CO2 effects over the continent.

@tomazkid

Quote:

the forest areal is increasing on the Northern Hemisphere. (Finnish-Chinese study from 2007).

There is an interesting article on secondary forests in the NewYork Times recently:Quote:

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

Source here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-Feb-2009 at 10:11 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The graph is the representation of data and the explanation is quite simple. Being unable to read a plot or understand a methodology is a no no in Science.

Therein lies the problem. The graph represents some sort of data but due to the loss of the data in exchange for a pretty picture we're unable to address methodology. So, these plots you supply with a lack of details bring us to a reduced or inability to read and lack of understanding results in a no no.

Quote:

All the IPCC models states that the rate of increase in warming in troposphere in response to the increase in GHG have to be more than twice and up to three times the rate of increase in warming at the Earth’s surface

I disagree. My recall is these should heat up at around the same rate. The only way to break this would be to have you, or me, provide the exact IPCC statemens on relations of the troposphere to the surface.

Quote:

So, no difference in trend, no CO² fingerprint. Case closed.

Wrong conclusion my friend. Instead the conclusion is that since observation does not match your claim the fault lies with the lack of CO2 (as you claim) OR with our understanding of the effects of CO2 (eg the IPCC model is wrong arguement you've had for pages.)

Quote:

No actual calibration and accuracy measurements of the pH meters from you,

I provided you a page of what the accuracy should be of pH and how one adjusts meters. pH meters like all scientific instruments must go through a certification process. Perhaps the question is better asked that if you fail to believe in the certification process is there truly anything I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm going forward with the supposition there is not.

Quote:

we now have argumentative escape.

You were the one questioning the motivies of GW scientists. I agree with questioning motives of both sides. It appears you are only willing to blame GW. Perhaps you should look at your side. Do oil companies who pay anti-gw people have a good profit motive to keep the status quo? Should we trust companies who told us smoking doesn't cause causer when they say CO2 doesn't cause GW? Is there a political motive when anti-gw Roy Spencer is cited as Rush Limbaugh's offical climatologist? We also see a number of anti-GW scienists who are anti-evolutionary too. Are they wrong on just evolution?

Quote:

No one can progress with religious zealots.

If we give you that they are zealots doesn't change the the fact that GW is the scientific consensus. I'd argue even with these so called zealots one can progress. Clearly the field of Climatology is an expanding and changing scientific endeavor.

Quote:

What's up with that

I find the humor there as you may with RC. I believe it was here that the first attempt of trying to disprove acidification by claiming people said that oceans are acidic. Clearly definitional differences aren't strong with this site.

@BrianK

Quote:

Therein lies the problem. The graph represents some sort of data but due to the loss of the data in exchange for a pretty picture we're unable to address methodology. So, these plots you supply with a lack of details bring us to a reduced or inability to read and lack of understanding results in a no no.

Your inability to read a plot built from data is you own deficiency: do not reject the fault on others.

Quote:

I disagree. My recall is these should heat up at around the same rate. The only way to break this would be to have you, or me, provide the exact IPCC statemens on relations of the troposphere to the surface.

Silly me, given with its preconceived AGW view, a statement like that would never appear in an IPCC report. I mix the quote that comes in fact from the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP2006), a pillar which the IPCC2007 is based on.

Nevertheless and interestingly, one can find surprising images demonstrating the absence of CO² (or any GHG) fingerprint in the troposphere in the IPCC2007 AR4 and CCSP2006:

Picture below (IPCC2007 AR4, fig. 9.1, chap. 9, p. 675) shows the predicted fingerprints from different forcing mechanisms. GHG forcing (plot (c) and the total forcing plot (f)) is quite distinctive and shows a characteristic signature of increasing warming rate with altitude, reaching a maximum at about 10 km in the tropics, about 200-300% that of the surface rate:


Now check the image below (IPCC2007 AR4, fig. 1, FAQ 3.1, p. 104) which shows the real world observed tropospheric temperature trends in the right panel as determined by satellite measurements:


The image shows that the tropospheric warming trend is lower in a band centered at the equator. This is opposite to the model results shown in the first picture. In addition, the warming trend near the equator for the surface doesn't look much lower than the warming trend for the troposphere. That is, the model doesn't seem to agree with observations in two separate ways.

One can also find this discrepancies in the CCSP2006 report (SAP1.1FINAL fig. 5.7E, p. 116) where HadAT2 radiosonde observations:

Once again no CO² fingerprint in real world data.

2 different methodologies (satellite and radiosondes) of real world data demonstrate the absence of CO² signature in troposphere.

Quote:

Wrong conclusion my friend.

I did not conclude anything else that there is no CO² fingerprint in the real word. This conclusion still stands (see above). And it is not sure we are friends.

Quote:

with the lack of CO2 (as you claim)

Does not compute here: it is quite clear that CO² level is rising in the atmosphere (for every scientist). In any other case the whole discussion would be irrelevant.

Quote:

OR with our understanding of the effects of CO2 (eg the IPCC model is wrong arguement you've had for pages.)

The absence of CO² fingerprint precisely suggests that, thanks for pointing it out.

Quote:

I provided you a page of what the accuracy should be of pH and how one adjusts meters. pH meters like all scientific instruments must go through a certification process. Perhaps the question is better asked that if you fail to believe in the certification process is there truly anything I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm going forward with the supposition there is not.

As I said, one does not do scientific lab experiments by reading the accuracy number in manual, but by determining it yourself. You obviously never have done any lab work, no need to demonstrate it further.

Quote:

You were the one questioning the motivies of GW scientists.

Their motives are so crystal clear that it does not require questioning them but de-constructing them.

Quote:

I agree with questioning motives of both sides. It appears you are only willing to blame GW.

I don't blame GW, I enjoy it (warmer, more rain, less seed, more plant production, less fertilizer) over GC. Given the AGW propaganda (promoting fears through mass media stream) by the AGW non-scientist crowd, I check their data: their data comes from models that do not match reality. Then I check their motives: their motives quite transparently are malthusian (population reduction, centralism and regulation) and about money (tax, carbon trade) helped by corrupted science, all of that not very carefully hidden behind ecological concerns. One example: the French green association Agrisud (whose former director is the current Greenpeace French branch director) has partnered with NYSE EuroNEXT to create the "Low Carbon 100 Europe" index, a "green index" supposedly created to enable people and companies to invest in "green startup or green companies". These "green companies" are chosen by Agrisud, WWF and GoodPlanet (a green association directed by green photograph Yann-Arthus Bertrand). But which kind of companies do you find in the panel? Not the green one, but the usual one: Royal Dutch Shell, Nestlé, Carrefour, Bayer, PPR, British American Tobacco, Air France, Syngenta, etc.. Strange. If you dig a little, you find that the next movie of Yann-Arthus Bertrand is financed by PPR and Air France, and that Richemont, a financial holding directed by Anton Rupert (a 20 years south-africa member of the executive comity of WWF International) is an investor in British American Tobacco...
There exists identical examples in the USA.

The "green" machine is just a (hypocrite) money machine.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Clearly the field of Climatology is an expanding and changing scientific endeavor.

Thanks for its ineffective models-driven paradigm and its need of expansive multi-million computers, the climate science is the milk cow of the computer industry. I wonder what is the carbon footprint of all these aimless computers.

Quote:

I find the humor there as you may with RC. I believe it was here that the first attempt of trying to disprove acidification by claiming people said that oceans are acidic. Clearly definitional differences aren't strong with this site.

14150 internet users have chosen this site over RC (1446) as the best science blog 2008. They seems to all disagree with you.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Your inability to read a plot built from data is you own deficiency: do not reject the fault on others.

Nice try. I can read the plot just fine. However, the data is needed to make better understanding. Certainly the data are points are the graph. For example, Is there 600Million points one per year? Or is there 600K points one every 10,000 years? Certainly knowning this adds to our knowledge of the graph. Drawing a line between 2 points when they are a year apart is a much different resolution than 2 points when they are 10,000 years apart. If there's a 5,000 year warming trend (which there was) a 10,000 year resolution can easily mask such an occurance.

Quote:

As I said, one does not do scientific lab experiments by reading the accuracy number in manual, but by determining it yourself.

Having done 2 years of college chemistry I've done numbers of calibrations if that is your question. We had 1 expensive meter that could measure to 3 digit accuracy. We all got to calibrate it. It was used as a test to prove our well we could calibrate instruments for experiments. So yes, I've done this. You guessed at .1pH is the best we can do , it is not.

Quote:

I check their data: their data comes from models that do not match reality.

The models do a fairly good job of matching things. It'll be interesting to see if 2007-2015 period is one of cooling as predicted.

Quote:

The "green" machine is just a (hypocrite) money machine.

If money is your problem then anti-gw has this problem too. For example, Exxon the most profitable company in the history of the world claimed to stop funding anti-gw. Evidence appears they have not. There are of course many oil, gas, coal, and tobacco companies (Philip Morris for example) that spend money to protect their interests in anti-gw. Also these companies, at least under Bush, got to hold secret meetings with the VP and write their own legislation. (GW could only be so lucky) Each side has it's monetary interests. Anti-gw is no better off here.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

14150 internet users have chosen this site over RC (1446) as the best science blog 2008. They seems to all disagree with you.

Let me understand your implications correctly. The scientific consensus is that GW is real and happening, but you don't believe it. On the other hand a sampling of popularity of website read by the general public who often haven't done science and most likely never did research in climatology means anti-GW is categorically true?

@BrianK

Quote:

Nice try. I can read the plot just fine. However, the data is needed to make better understanding.

Nice try and point. You just see the plot not read it, as the papers on which the plot is based are mentioned at the left bottom of it.

Quote:

Having done 2 years of college chemistry I've done numbers of calibrations if that is your question. We had 1 expensive meter that could measure to 3 digit accuracy. We all got to calibrate it. It was used as a test to prove our well we could calibrate instruments for experiments. So yes, I've done this.

We are not playing who have the bigger one. We are dealing with studies that claim a four digit accuracy with past and current pH methods although past and current real world significant accuracy for pH methods is 0.2 and 0.1 unit respectively. I don't care and it is not the point that manual of pH meters claims a theoretical 0.01 accuracy.

Quote:

The models do a fairly good job of matching things. It'll be interesting to see if 2007-2015 period is one of cooling as predicted.

You mean like this one:

At least we cannot be fooled by Mother Nature.

Quote:

If money is your problem then anti-gw has this problem too. For example, Exxon the most profitable company in the history of the world claimed to stop funding anti-gw. Evidence appears they have not. There are of course many oil, gas, coal, and tobacco companies (Philip Morris for example) that spend money to protect their interests in anti-gw. Also these companies, at least under Bush, got to hold secret meetings with the VP and write their own legislation. (GW could only be so lucky) Each side has it's monetary interests. Anti-gw is no better off here.

Welcome to the world of capitalism! Making money is not my concern for theses companies, it is their intrinsic function, so that they are pro or anti AGW is irrelevant. The intrinsic function of green associations, WWF, and GreenPeace is not to make money, it is ecology.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 10-Feb-2009 at 01:23 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Let me understand your implications correctly. The scientific consensus is that GW is real and happening, but you don't believe it. On the other hand a sampling of popularity of website read by the general public who often haven't done science and most likely never did research in climatology means anti-GW is categorically true?

Your understanding is pathetically wrong, although funny.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

The following on topic quote perfectly shows the green ideological agenda.

About his 'Climate Challenge' which offers a prize of $25 millions to anyone who can remove CO² from the atmosphere:
Quote:

"It will have to be a mix of the best solutions from all these areas that will win the battle to keep CO² levels below those at which Gaia will strike back at some stage, and kill the problem - in this case us ."

Richard Branson

Edit: what is the Gaia word used by Branson? Believers in Gaia, or ‘Gaians’ as they often refer to themselves, claim that the earth is a sentient super-being, an ancient goddess spirit, deserving of worship and reverence.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 10-Feb-2009 at 03:55 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Some more 'funny' quotes from "green" people:

Quote:

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.”

Quote:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong

Quote:

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations

Quote:

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

Quote:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, and responsible for Canada's contributions to the IPCC

Quote:

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, the organization responsible for establishing the IPCC to handle Global Warming issues delegated to it by certain leadership figures in the WMO



The winning quote of the week is:

Quote:

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, and the person often described by some IPCC leaders as the inspiration for their environmental efforts with respect to Climate Change



Next batch tomorrow.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".