Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sundubuman]

What fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Meanwhile, don't throw away your sweaters just yet-

The politician/artist axis does not totally control the debate......

Solar Scientist:
"The next ice age is overdue"
.
7 Jul 07 - Solar scientist David Archibald's paper to Lavoisier Group seminar showing evidence that the world will cool between now and 2030.

Excerpts: "The next ice age is overdue.

"Ken Schatten is the solar physicist with the best track record in predicting solar cycles. His work suggests a return to the advancing glaciers and delayed spring snow melt of the Little Ice Age, for an indeterminate period.

"In the near term, the Earth will experience a significant cooling due to a quieter Sun.

"In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century.

"Our generation has bathed in the warm glow of a benign, giving Sun, but the next will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.

"If it doesn�t feel hotter than it was in 1980, it is because it isn�t hotter than it was in 1980.

"Most rural temperature records in the United States were set in the 1930s and 1940s. Greenland had its highest recorded temperatures in the 1930s and has been cooler since.

"The hottest year to date in the United States was 1936.

"What I have shown in this presentation is that carbon dioxide is largely irrelevant to the Earth�s climate. The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the next few hundred years will offset a couple of millennia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling before we plunge into the next ice age.

"There is no correlation in the geologic record between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. The Earth went into an ice age 450 million years ago despite a level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is ten times what it is today.

"There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

"Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial. Anthropogenic Global Warming is so minuscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation.

"Coral reefs first formed back in the Devonian period when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were ten times what they are today."

See entire paper (all 24 pages) at:
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/archibald2007.pdf
Thanks to both Alan Caruba and Bill Stephens for this link

[sundubuman]

wake up kids....

[giggles84]

has anyone though how much energy this is costing forget about the flights of the artists or the transport and lights at the concert but those thousands of tvs around world switched on to watch a load of great but equaly shit artists prancing about. if u really want to change the world and help reduce pollution vote for an obscure party or spoil u ballot, voting in the end will do a lot more than prancing artists and comedians...
but hey it fun just like polluting this earth!

[sundubuman]

now for some REAL conspiracies.......



Junk Science: Live Earth�s Gross Groupies

Saturday, July 07, 2007

By Steven Milloy

Why is NBC airing Al Gore�s Live Earth concert this weekend? Why are Democrats, who claim to support the Fairness Doctrine, not objecting to this outright gift of unequal broadcast time to just one side (theirs) of a controversial political issue? Those are the terrific questions asked by FOX News� John Gibson this week.

Here are some answers, John.

First, the parent company of NBC is the General Electric Company, a corporation that is aggressively lobbying for global warming regulation. GE belongs to a lobbying group called U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) � a group of regulation- and congressional pork-loving companies that have joined with radical environmentalists to push for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and a so-called cap-and-trade system under which companies could buy and sell rights to emit greenhouse gases.

The corporate members of USCAP have different reasons for wanting global warming regulation. Oil company BP-America, for example, is owned by its British parent, BP.

European governments and companies expect that global warming regulation will give them a competitive advantage over U.S. businesses.

Global warming regulation, for example, would force the U.S. to use less coal and more natural gas in the production of electricity. This would increase natural gas prices, which would not only hamper U.S. growth but also profit the UK-based BP, which derives most of its revenues from gas sales.

(Story continues below)

Advertise Here
Advertisements
Related

*
Column Archive
o Junk Science: Live Earth�s Gross Groupies
o Junk Science: Conservative Global Warming Sell-out?
o Junk Science: Climate Activists� Credibility Gap


Companies like Alcoa and Dupont expect that, in return for their support of global warming regulation, Congress will reward them by giving them free, but valuable emissions permits which the companies could then sell in the open market for huge profits. As USCAP says on its web site, its members want �rewards for early action.� But these rewards amount to nothing more than taxpayer-funded pork-barrel spending and global warming �earmarks.�

Electric utilities that belong to USCAP, like Duke Energy and PG&E Corp., expect to benefit from higher energy prices, which tend to be associated with higher profit margins. Additionally, these higher energy prices and profits � because they will be based in government-sanctioned environmental policies � will likely be politically protected (unlike the ratepayers who will foot the higher bills).

What�s GE�s particular interest? GE�s ostensible rationale is that it hopes to profit by selling high-priced global warming-related and alternative energy products, ranging from solar panels and wind turbines to compact fluorescent lightbulbs and nuclear power plant technologies.

But the problem with the profit-motive for GE, of course, is that the company is a highly-diversified conglomerate � its other business interests include medical technology, financial services, advanced materials, aircraft engines and security technology. GE is so diversified, in fact, that its overall business performance tends to track that of the general economy.

So if global warming regulation harms economic growth � as is near-universally expected � it likely will also harm GE�s business prospects, especially since the Ecomagination product line represents a very small part (about 7 percent) of GE�s total revenues.

So there must be more to GE�s lobbying for global warming regulation than profit. That additional motivation may be the self-promotion of GE�s CEO, Jeff Immelt.

Immelt inherited the CEO job from the legendary Jack Welsh. But while Welsh famously grew GE into a financial colossus, GE has been treading water under Immelt�s leadership. GE�s stock has mostly traded in a relatively narrow range since Immelt took over and has significantly underperformed the broader market.

So, in 2005, Immelt adopted image-building as his key to success � hence the re-branding of regular GE products into trendy �Ecomagination� products. The idea for GE�s Ecomagination marketing strategy came not from engineers who had new product ideas, but from PR consultants hired to burnish GE�s brand. Immelt then became a global warming regulation advocate, one of the first CEOs to do so.

Immelt has been feted by environmentalists and the media ever since, even being honored earlier this year by the World Resources Institute � a gloom-and-doom eco-advocacy organization that GE supports. At WRI�s 25th anniversary dinner in February, Live Earth concert organizer Al Gore personally presented Immelt with the WRI�s �Courage to Lead� award.

Also in attendance at the dinner was New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who stated, �We are in a political season and the rules governing columnists at The New York Times is that we are not allowed to endorse presidential candidates. But I'm going to break that rule tonight if you promise not to tell anybody: I'd like to nominate Al Gore and Jeff Immelt as the geo-green candidates for 2008!�

Immelt hasn�t been good for GE�s stock price but he�s been quite adept at assuming the pose of a corporate eco-hero. So there is no need to wonder why a GE subsidiary (NBC) is so heavily promoting Live Earth.

As to Gibson�s second question relating to why the Democrats aren�t eager to apply the Fairness Doctrine that they�ve recently been promoting to NBC�s broadcast of the one-sided Live Earth global warming rally, the answer is pretty straightforward.

Democrats plan on making global warming a major campaign issue in 2008. The Live Earth concert represents a great way for them to market the issue to young people. Why would they want to spoil Gore�s global warming propaganda-fest by complaining about the lack of equal time for opposing viewpoints?

That said, I�m all for the Live Earth concerts. Between Al Gore and rock stars in private jets and limos, $300 tickets, the global warmers� intolerance of dissenting views, and the concert�s wanton energy use, mass consumerism and trash generation, I can�t think of a better stage for displaying the over-the-top absurdity of Gore and his gross Green groupies.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[jkelly80]

Steven Milloy is a coroporate shill spin-doctor. He self-published a study that claimed to have found that the areas outside the US Capitol had a radiation level higher than those found at Chernobyl and Yucca Mountain. This was quickly debunked by the US Public Health service. This guy has no credibility and neither does anything he advocates.

[sundubuman]

well then,

back on topic....


Climate prediction:
One can do just as well by tossing a coin
.
30 Jun 07 - Kevin Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the IPCC.

Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming.

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.

Among other things, Trenberth asserts ". . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

According to Trenberth, "None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.

"The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

"There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond . . . the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised".

GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate".

Strange that. I could have sworn that I heard somewhere that the science was supposed to be settled.

In a third devastating blow to the credibility of climate forecasting, a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 1 science report, Jim Renwick, recently admitted "climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well".

In other words, one can do just as well by tossing a coin.

These various criticisms of climate modelling can be summed up in the following statement �� there is no predictive value in the current generation of computer GCMs and therefore the alarmist IPCC statements about human-caused global warming are unjustified. Yet Australia has an Opposition and a Government that profess to set their climate policies on the basis of IPCC advice. Both also seem determined to impose an inefficient, ineffective and costly carbon trading or taxation system on the economy, for the aspirational absurdity of "stopping climate change".

Perhaps someone should tell Prime Minister John Howard that dangerous global warming has been called off.

See entire article (originally entitled Forecasts all up in the air) by Bob Carter:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,21977114-27197,00.html
Thanks to Matt Nicholson for this link

Professor Bob Carter is a James Cook University geologist who studies ancient environments and climate. His website is at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

[khyber]

Live Earth was a stupid idea from start to finish. Selling burgers in edible starch containers, having recylcing, and using renewable energy sources to power stages does NOT an environmentally conscious festival make.


As for Archie's seminar presentation, it seems pretty clear that the dude isn't exactly a credible source for science information. A paper of his and the subsequent ass raping he receives.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html It seems pretty his science is inconsistent.

This presentation paper he made for the Lavoiser group seminar had a great deal of science that was taken from his paper "Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and the Predicted Climate Response". The above sourced blog deals with that paper in particular and shows how he was strangely selective in his use of data and weather stations (eg: " Archibald decided that only data from rural meteorological stations should be used to avoid the urban heat island effect. Fair enough, you may say. But the catch is, he chose just 5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA"!) If this is true, and there is no reaons to think that it's not, one has to wonder how Archie has the BALLS to make claims like:
"Most rural temperature records in the United States were set in the 1930s and 1940s"
and
"The hottest year to date in the United States was 1936."


Once he gets this paper peer reviewed (I mean REALLY peer reviewed) it may be worth the time.

ps. I actually do like reading these papers as it gives me a chance to catch up on what the detractors are saying and how their science is being explained or why it's being ignored.
But how about we walk away from the "this article is the smoking gun" attitude. It's tiresome and makes you look kinda stupid when a 2 minute google search gives a sufficient explanation.

[mindmetoo]

Sorry but I have to go with the consensus opinion of the scientific experts. There is global warming and the odds are humans are largely responsible.