Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCleared! Jury Decides That Threat of Global Warming Justifies Breaking The Law
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
![[Huw Williams, Kevin Drake, Ben Stewart, Tim Hewke, Emily Hall and Will Rose (L-R) outside Maidstone Crown Court. (Photograph: Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/Greenpeace6.jpg "Greenpeace6.jpg")
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage - such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.
Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.
The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.
But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.
During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.
Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.
He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.
The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the "lawful excuse" defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed - the point at issue was the motive.
The defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.
The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.
The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON £35,000, the court heard.
During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a "proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.
Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and embraced the clean energy future for Britain."
He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."
Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"
95 Comments so far
Show AllHew ~WOLFMAN~ Hope you return and read this so you may learn something else besides the wisdom of the ~Farmer's Almanac~. Climate change and global warming are two closely related issues, but they are different issues. Global warming is causing climate change. ___For example: This has been the coolest summer by far we have ever witnessed here in the hot deserty southwest, the wettest also. That don't mean global warming is abating by any means. The Arctic is thawing and there is no sensible argument or any debate as to that fact of life. When it thaws suffeciently, what the author of the link I posts wrote, most serious problems wil be a reality. It' scary and we must attempt to prevent the methane from burping out into our atmosphere. ___How? ___I don't know<, I'm not a scientist.
Ok, so let me get this right.
Mans CO2 causes warming because of CO2 that he emits (3% of all CO2 emissions, but only his CO2 gets left behind in the atmosphere, the other 97% is in equilibrium, and half of ours disappears somewhere unknown-there is a missing sink)
CO2 is a GHG that traps heat near the surface (water is the most important GHG by far)
Mans Co2 causes global warming.
Thats what the consensus has told us.
But we have seen no warming in 10 years, in fact, globally speaking, the atmosphere and sea temperatures have been decreasing the last few years.
Yet, somehow, mans CO2 that is still increasing in the atmosphere, is now causing global cooling.
Climate change has always occurred throughout history. The issue is if man is causing it.
Frankly, I am at a loss as to how mans CO2 can cause cooling, at least based on the IPCC hypothesis. Help me out.
BTW, most of the ice that disappeared during the summer that last couple of years was not due to the ice was melting, it was due to weather patterns that pushed the ice into the Atlantic. Thats weather, not climate.
The sun is very inactive the last couple of years, so much for those who say it is not an importnat forcing, which by the IPCC's own admission, their level of understanding is low.
BTW2, beware of those pretending to be skeptics who just want to discredit skepticism. But at least the Farmers Almanacs predictions have been more accurate than the Climate Models. If they can get up to 50% accuracy the FA has I might have more faith in them.
Hi COCOC, guess it was a mistake, I see my crying post stayed up so will give it another shot.
HI REB, we'll always be friends. ___ And MIMI, you have finally done it. I hate you. You are making fun of an old geezer with only one eye and it's only 20%. I have to read this screen with a magnifying glass and still don't always see every letter. My speling is Okay for me, this ain't a spelling BEE.
One guy here do't' like it that I post a certain link frequently. this one.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Well, some peolple don't see every Common Dreams thread and so I post it in case some newcomers who may have never read it have the opportunity because it's the most important article for all of humanity ever written. Any smart guys here wish to argue with the auathor of that link's article I just posted?
If you can see your spelling is ok for you I assume your vision is at least corrected. Thanks for disclosing your disability, I will go easier on your spelling issues which has regressed significantly since I made fun of you mispelling Hansens name. My main point is mispelled words can trigger the filters designed to keep out spammers.
Thanks for the 3647 link, one of your colleagues does the same on 9/11 issues, same links over and over. Guess thats in the training manuals. LOL.
Why'd they have to waste money painting over it anyway?
This is unexpected and amazing. It is on the level of the verdicts in the trials of Dr. Ossian Sweet and his brother Henry.
A great unspoken assumption has been shattered by a jury of people who can imagine true justice. The jury has found that people have a right to self-defense even when those who threaten are powerful and have always assumed they can get away with anything.
Joe
&YYY&
Gordon Brown, your government is for coal companies a carbon dioxide vent.
Your name is on all their stacks , advertising your embarrassment.
Gordon Brown, you have failed with the world number one priority.
Government climate policy sucks under your authority.
For those of you poo-pooing the Old Farmers Almanac techniques as unscientific...
Well...they have an 85% accuracy rating over several centuries...I don't care if they are reading Chicken entrails...they are getting it right...."consensus" is not infallible...consesnsus said the earth was the center of the Universe...and it was flat...
and I agree abpout the coal...Unless we can make it clean its not an oil replacement
They CLAIM to have an 85% accuracy rating. That isn't true though. If you follow the links I posted, two separate studies have been done on its accuracy, proving that it has an accuracy of 50%, the same accuracy attributed to pure chance. In some cases, it's accuracy was in the 20-30% range.
Of course they say it's accurate, they're trying to sell a book. Psychics and palm readers say they are accurate as well.
The other instances of consensus you speak of involve the consensus of religious idiots who intimidated scientists like Galileo and Copernicus.
In the scientific community, a consensus can easily be shattered when someone comes out with a better theory. That's the nature of science, it's driven by fact and experimentation. And, trust me, there's big money and notoriety available to those who successfully blow a hole in a generally accepted theory.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
There is a coal-fired X-cell power plant about 20 miles from my home in Central Minnesota. From what I have been told, by an environmental expert, that the emissions from that power plant are cleaner than most of the car driving by. The technology is there. USE IT!!
Emissions from plants are only part of the controversy about coal-fired plants. If you haven't educated yourself about the devastation that coal companies are wreaking on the environment to extract this product, I know many souls in West Virginia who would be happy to enlighten you.
perception:
You post quite often-must you include the Epicurus quote on every single post?
You're taking redundancy to a whole new level.
Hey Kem, many are in the same boat as you.
Where you going to go?
Please post.
Just trolling.
¿£35,000 to remove paint? I would have done it for $35,000!
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."-Thomas Jefferson,
I will not post another comment her at Common Dreams again forever.
I wrote another rreply to ~SNOWOLF~ and it was erased and a message came on saying that I was not allowed access to this site. There were NO foul, mean or nasty words and far less thn a 1,000. ___________ The troll s can have it.
Bye ~COCO~ and all. It's been fun.
~KEM PATRICK~
Please reconsider. I cannot imagine that anyone would target you - whose main goal seems to be to warn of the consequences global warming.
I have no explanation except that sometimes when I finish posting and hit the back button I get a big bold "Access Denied" message. I think it is a programming bug. Then if I continue to hit the back button, I get back into the stream. Next time it happens to me I will pay more attention to how I get into it and out of it.
I think many of us would miss your message and your persistence.
Joe
It may even be due to teething troubles with the new NSA monitoring tech.
I too can see no reason why Kem would be barred. It'd be a great pity to lose him
Well I promise I didn't make a complaint against you...is this site Moderated?
Kem, I hope that your frustration is only temporary and that you continue to post comments. I've learned some things from you over the last few months and I would miss your presence here.
I'm trying to adapt to the new changes here at CD but I find it somewhat difficult to follow discussions. I have to scroll up and down several times to see what's been posted recently. I think I liked the original chronological format better, maybe I'm just a slow learner. Also so many of the names have changed, it's difficult to know who was who, but maybe that doesn't matter.
In case you do actually leave this forum, I'd like to thank you for your kind comments to me so many months ago, it meant a lot to me as a newcomer here. Your heart is in the right place. Keep up the good fight.
REB
These AGW supporters are not too bright. Try adjusting the settings, Flat List, save setting, and you can see the old format, although you may not understand who is replying to whom.
Thanks MiMiCcS, I'll try that. BTW what's an AGW supporter? Either I'm one, as you seem to imply, or I'm not; either way I guess I ain't too bright.
Anthropogenic Global warming, or Man Made Global Warming. If you read any of the climate sights you would know this. The fact your hero can't spell and probably got himself blocked as a spammer as a result is telling. Just joking.
I think its obvious that the message was wrong.
maybe it was just a mistake.........or did someone report you?? anyway, just ignore them................
Wow!
Precedent setting!
War on coal!
Activists Please come to Subic Bay Philippines! We need you here!
They are trying to kill children with coal emmissions surrounded by a ring of mountains. Scheduled to go on line in a year.
Please help.
Hey ~SNOWOLF~. Your skeptical about global warmig. Are you skeptical about the followingfacts?
(1)___ There have been numerous articles posted here during the past few months about the Arctic thawing. There is no sensible denying that it is thawing and has not done so such as is now occurring for at least the past 600,000 years.
(2). ___ A professor from the Univ of Alaska studies the Arctic's perma-frost, tht's all she does. She is a world renounded perma-frost expert, the last word on Arctic perma-froat. She says, and I will quote her exact words, "The methane gas in the Arctic's perma frost, isa a TICKING TIME BOMB". Unquote.
do you understnad those words Snowolf?
Where do the endowments from universities and grants to do research or study come from. Follow the money. The Environmental movement is funded by the same people who rule us and who seek to reduce living standards and steal from the bottom 95% and who wish to impose carbon caps and credits that will give them more power, control and profits. They are the same people who pay the hired hacks that abound the internet to defend their deception on issues on AGW and 9/11 (not making any accusations as to who they might be, but they exist). And yes, Big Oil does the same, but on this issue, unlike the peak oil myth that was responsible for oil up to 100-145 dollars/barrel, they are right.
BTW, Global Warming is a fact, that CO2 from mans use of fossil fuels is responsible is not. Someones theory about what might happen is not proof that it will. Skepticism and Science are compatable. Consensus is compatable with Religion and Politics, not Science.
You don't know anything about science, MiMiCcS. Consensus certainly is applicable to science in the stage of developing theories. You have it backwards. Consensus in science is far more useful to the advancement of knowledge than the same quality in religion and politics which can only be provisional ways of living for the sake of convenience.
Nevertheless, consensus is a weak term in the case of the evidence of human impact on the climate. 100 plus years of accumulating research has clinched the case, and there is no serious scientific dispute. The dispute is in your head and those who refuse to believe it can really be the case.
It's not just "models" that are important. The knowledge comes from the full spectrum of science which distills down to an inescapable conclusion.
What you are really saying is that science is not trustworthy because if it is a conspiracy, it involves most scientists everywhere whose disciplines touch on the subject of climate change.
Your theory, I'm sorry to say, is rather pathetic beside real science and hundreds if not thousands of dedicated scientists.
Personally, I would listen more closely to you if I didn't have a bit of experience analyzing some of the "arguments" against human-induced global warming which almost invariably hinge on some vague and ominous (and unlikely) conspiracy or on dishonest manipulation of the facts; for example, using a starting point narrowing a graph that indicates global cooling in place of the one that would allow much more evidence to be shown; or focusing on satellite temperature measurements that are irrelevant or only a fraction of the picture... These obvious attempts to manipulate evidence are evidence themselves of desperation rather than of science.
I'm a bit disappointed with SnowWolf. Although we disagree on many things, I'm sure, I have enjoyed some of his postings. (Hell, my long-time fishing buddy and I go through a lot of this stuff every year!) But why does somebody on the right necessarily take the "skeptical" position in the face of the facts? It would be very refreshing to hear a conservative (for lack of a better word) say, "Yep, by golly, there are the facts. Let's pull together on this one."
You obviously do not know how Science works.
A hypotheses is presented by a scientis to a group of scientists via peer reviewed journals. The hypothesis attempts to explain observations of the past based on facts that have been collected (accurate data) or via experiment. If the hypotheses proves useful in predicting future events it is upgraded to a theory.
Hawkings said " "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements (parameters), and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations"
A hypothesis or theory can not be proven. It can only be disproven. Thats why science is all about skepticism, and why it encourages it. Every hypothesis is treated with skepticism. Even many of Einsteins theories have been challenged leading to improvement. Sometimes theories held for many years get disproven. A classic example is geocentricism, the theory that the Sun and its planets revolve around Earth, which was slowly -- and against much resistance -- replaced by Suncentered theories postulated by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. Galileo has labelled a heretic and went to jail.
Now with Climate Science, the problem here is Climate is defined as periods of at least 30 years. We have data going back perhaps 200 years, but good data for only 30-50 years. The older data is based on measurements made at the time in question. But the instruments and measurement methods differ from today, are sporadic, not global, and their is some uncertainty. For example CO2 measurements were done by by chemical analysis, and showed CO2 levels in the 300-400 range so it is thrown out, even though the measurements accuracy is within 3%.
Sea temperatures were measured by using a bucket to scoop water out of the ocean and then measure it, so this data while still used, is "adjusted". Always fear adjusted data, or at least treat it with a great deal of skepticism.
Then of course we have ice core data, data from ocean sediments, tree ring data, all coming from different fields of science and having extremely high uncertainties in regard to accuracy. They are at best estimates and impossible to prove how accurate or inaccurate they are.
And then we have important data and observations that does not exist from the past. Of course, it is water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere. Water after all is the most important GHG and clouds have a big impact on climate, as does the sun.
So this is the basis of the Climate Science, which in it's infancy would not amount to much if not for models.
As the famous mathematical physicist von Neumann said "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly." Remember what Hawkings said about parameters.
And how good are the predictions that have been made?
From a paper published by Hydrological Sciences in Aug 2008 by D. Koutsoyjainnes et all.
"At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality. GCMs do not reproduce natural over-year fluctuations and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series. Even worse, when the GCM time series imply a Hurst coefficient greater than 0.5, this results from a monotonic trend, whereas in historical data the high values of the Hurst coefficient are a result of large-scale over-year fluctua-tions (i.e. successions of upward and downward “trends”). The huge negative values of coef-ficients of efficiency show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not credible. "
So basically, you have the ocean and geological scientists shaking their heads on mans CO2 being the main driver of GW, and the atmospheric scientists and the climate modellers saying it is, and making out like bandits with grant money galore.
Now about manipulated data and evidence being a tool of the skeptics. There is some evidence of this, but even on 9/11 you have people trying to discredit 9/11 skeptics by proposing direct energy beams from space.
How about the consensus and manipulated data? Remember Mann and his hockeystick? Read the 2 links below for how this science works.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-hockey-stick-debate-as-a-matter-of-science-policy-451...
There are many other examples and data is routineley adjusted. Requests for the raw data have been met with claims the raw data was not retained, or is not not available due to it is intellectual property, and in one case Mann asked why he should provide it since you were just going to try and disprove it. LOL.
As for conspiracy being unlikely. Conspiracies occur daily. The dumb ones are caught and prosecuted. But if the members are from rich and powerful families whom have accumulated great wealth and power and control over government, media, finance, publishing, education, etc. via their Tax Free Foundations, and have been operating for generations to accumulate this power and control, what could they not get away with. Remember, these are people with IQ's 4-6 SD above normal. They suckered us into giving control over our money to the Federal Reserve, a privately owned corporation, and they will sucker us into giving them control over a new curency called a carbon credit. Credit creates debt, and tax is required to ensure payment of the debt, just like our money. Thats what AGW is all about, not to mention getting more control over how people live.
MiMiCcS -- A short reply. I wrote a detailed one which has apparently been lost forever when I was "Denied Access".
Most of your points are irrelevant and diversionary.
Diversion 1 - Writing a few lines from a Science 101 textbook is not useful. I know all about the scientific method and hypotheses. They don't relate to "consensus".
Diversion 2 - Bringing in Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus. They weren't persecuted by scientists. (Their persecutors were more akin to the status quo'ers who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of global warming.) In addition, the quality of evidence and sophistication of technique is a bit greater today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries. A scientific consensus means more. Isn't that obvious?
Point - There may be an accuracy range of a certain number of percentage points, but a variety of measurements combined indicating a certain result reduces the range. You are also incorrect about sophistication of measurements in general. It has been one of the key scientific developments of the last 50 years. Even in terms of "estimates", why wouldn't they be used as estimates which are fully applicable to scientific studies unless you feared a certain result?
"So basically, you have the ocean and geological scientists shaking their heads on mans CO2 being the main driver of GW, and the atmospheric scientists and the climate modellers saying it is..."
This is simply not true. Oceanographers are aware that CO2 is the primary culprit in the warming which is playing havoc with the oceans. You say so, I say so. But I'm right.
""At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality. GCMs do not reproduce natural over-year fluctuations and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series. Even worse, when the GCM time series imply a Hurst coefficient greater than 0.5, this results from a monotonic trend, whereas in historical data the high values of the Hurst coefficient are a result of large-scale over-year fluctua-tions (i.e. successions of upward and downward “trends”). The huge negative values of coef-ficients of efficiency show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not credible. "
Ha ha. That clinches it! Where's your skepticism? From what I read, Koutsoyiannis et al only confirmed what was already well-known from the IPCC study about certain measurements used in models. You're too eager to find a flaw in the consensus. Best to let it cool for awhile.
If I have time, I'll read your "hockeystick" links, but you must realize that I am not some yokel who saw a graph and said, "Well, there you go." Climate science is a mountain of many elements. You can't undermine it with a spoon. At some point, you'll have to look up and see that it is still there.
Diversion 3 - Conspiracies. Did I say conspiracies don't happen? I don't remember saying that. I believe 9/11 has all the elements of a conspiracy of some kind. A conspiracy of hundreds of scientists is much more unlikely, IMO. What's the name of that simple logical fallacy? ("You believe A is not a conspiracy; therefore you don't believe conspiracies happen?")
Your last paragraph? Where's your skepticism? Be consistent. Personally, I think you have part of it figured out but not all of it. A little education... I have no doubt that certain elements of the power elite want to exploit global warming.
Consensus about evolution allows biological science to progress. Consensus about the theory of stellar evolution creates a framework for further study of the stars. Consensus doesn't mean to stop everything and write it on a tablet. It provides a frame of operation in which to gather knowledge. If science has meaning, the consensus conforms to reality as perceived at a point in time.
Can't talk a lot about global warming. I visit CD a few times a day, but have learned from experience that one global warming diversion leads to another until I'm wading around in molasses heading toward a black hole (to mix metaphors.)
Sorry I lost the previous posting. It was much better and listed five diversions!
Actually, the hockey stick has been verified, stronger than ever
http://www.desmogblog.com/hockey-stick-rises-again
You say you fear adjusted data. Adjustment is based on sound statistical principles. For example it is quite possible to take a series of "noisy" measurements and construct a statistically valid measurement from those. The Kalman filter used for time series data is one such example.
Even if you know something about science, you appear to know nothing about politics. The real issue here isn't science but political. Follow the money trail. Nearly all the scientific skeptics have backing from Oil/Coal or some right wing nuthouse. This is why one skeptic argument after another gets demolished. The example you give above of the article is just another in a never ending series. For after all, when it comes to something as complicated as ther earths mechanism there's no end of procedural objections that someone can keep throwing. The only problem is that these lunatics can keep holding up action indefintely, by giving idiot governments like the current one excuse not to act. You talk about skepticism being core to science. Indeed it is, and some 99.9% of scientists, ie those who profession it is to be skeptical, have come to the conclusion that climate change is real and man made and a threat. Chew on that my friend.
cheers
You mean the hockey stick has been recreated after being demolished and bailed out.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3501
Smoothing data is one thing, cherry picking data that is advantageous and elimination of data that does not fit your desired outcome is the main tool of the proponents. Altering data and actually creating data has occurred, supposedly with good reasons, but the adjustments all tend to favour the proponents, so it makes you wonder.
The main concern with adjusted data though is if it is presented without access to the raw data, and thats the case more often than not. One must trust or have faith in the adjustments without being able to verify them. Requests for data meet with resistance. As for the analysis of the data, some scientists refuse to hand over their algorithms saying it is IP protected. Many of the articles said to be proof and convince the world of AGW are paid per view or subscription only. Hardly conducive to a healthy debate on policy issues that some say could cost 45 trillion dollars globally if recommendations made by the consensus are fully implemented.
BTW, not all of those on IPCC are scientists, many economists and political hacks involved there. A number of scientists who were on IPCC have expressed outrage over the process and editing of one of the final reports, and some resigned in protest.
For examples of adjusted data that has sinister motivations, look at CPI. In order to keep COLA's and SS payment lower, the numbers are adjusted and manipulated to be lower than real inflation.
There is politics on the left, politics on the right, and politics of the ruling elite on top. To say scientific skeptics on the right are wrong, and scientific proponents on the left who give us a political consensus are right, is fine if thats what you want to do. Just saying it does not make it true. Logically it makes no sense.
All scientists need to eat, and politics are behind the funding of scientific research and education, so politics on both the left, right and the top dictate to scientists. If you want to try and disprove man made global warming today, you will be short of funds, since even Big Oil is now defunding the skeptics. The top has decided it's time to end debate and lets get on with carbon credits and taxes.
It is now career suicide for government or university scientists to oppose AGW, but many retired scietists are among the most vocal skeptics, they have little to lose.
You say 99.9% of scientists support the consensus that global warming is due to mans CO2, and that is wrong. I have posted links showing the many scientists who do not believe this. Yet you know precisely 99.9% of scientists support this, and offer no links. Right.
And in every profession, and religion, science being no exception, there are those who are corruptable, those doctors that infected black men with Syphilis and track how the disease progressed if not treated are a good example.
So give me something to chew on and I will, but there is little substance in your comment.
Time to form deep permafrost
It has been calculated that the time required to form the deep permafrost underlying Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is 500,740 years. This time extends over several glacial and interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene and suggests that the present climate of Prudhoe Bay is probably considerably warmer than it has been on average over that period. [Here's the kicker] Such warming over the past 15,000 years is widely accepted.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."-Thomas Jefferson
Great to see that some citizens of some nations have the balls to stand up for what is right!
On a related matter, how much fear is there in your life? Join in the survey on:
www.dangerouscreation.com.
BTW, this case has been staged for this purpose. They create environmental terrorists and promote the cause so they can justify their terrorism laws which will be used to stamp out all forms of dissent. They just got the prosecution to rig the case for the desired outcome, easily done by selecting jurors who would be inclined to such a verdict and presenting a weak case. The Anglo-British elite are among the biggest supporters for using environment as an economic weapon (carbon cap and trade will lead to a global carbon currency and global carbon tax), and creating terrorists to promote their goals.
Anyone supporting terrorism for any reason is insane and dangerous.
This is called "Jury Nullification", and is more common than one thinks, both here and in the UK. In Washington, DC, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get a conviction on anyone for drug possession anymore, whatever evidence my exist.
Good.
However, what will the "progressive" reaction be the next time a jury in Alabama or somewhere acquits on charges of bombing an abortion clinic, because the "pressing need" of the fetuses justified it?
Mmmm, duh. Won't EVER happen. Juries are nearly infallible as a means of imposing justice. We're talking apples and oranges here. You're saying murder, what they did was vandalism by paint. Are you loony or what?
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Heres another for you...and by the way...they have an 85% accuracy rating
(what is your local forecasters accuracy?)
I am very skeptical of Global Warming
Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."
It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.
"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.
For the near future, the Almanac predicts most of the country will be colder than normal in the coming winter, with heavy snow from the Ozarks into southern New England. Snow also is forecast for northern Texas, with a warmer than usual winter in the northern Plains.
Almanac believers will prepare for a hot summer in much of the nation's midsection, continuing drought conditions there and wild fire conditions in parts of California, with a cooler-than-normal season elsewhere. They'll also keep the car packed for the 2009 hurricane season, as the Alamanac predicts an active one, especially in Florida.
But Editor Janice Stillman said it's the winter foreasts that attract the most attention, especially this year, with much higher heating prices.
So, in line with the weather and economy forecasts, the Almanac includes information on using wood for heat: the best wood, how to build a fire in a fireplace, whether to use a wood stove and how to stay warm — all winter — with a single log.
Here's the secret, popularized in 1777: Throw a log out an upstairs window, dash down the stairs and outside, retrieve the log, dash upstairs, throw the log out the window and so on.
"Do that until you work up a sweat and you'll be warm all winter," said Stillman.
Last year, the Almanac correctly predicted "above-normal" snowfall in the Northeast — an understatement — and below-normal snowfall in the mid-Atlantic states.
New Hampshire, home of the Almanac, saw the most snow in 134 years and missed an all-time record by 2.6 inches.
Established in 1792, the Old Farmer's Almanac is North America's oldest continuously published periodical. The little yellow magazine still comes with the hole in the corner so it can hang in outhouses.
Boasting 18.5 million readers, this year's edition contains traditional tips on gardening and astronomical information and tide charts so accurate the government considered banning them during World War II, fearing they would help German spies.
The Old Farmer's Almanac is not to be confused with the Maine-based Farmer's Almanac, published "only" since 1818.
The 217th edition also predicts social trends such as sofas that measure body temperature, shopping carts that sound an alarm when filled with too much junk food and closet shelves and hangers that talk to give advice on matching shirts and ties.
"I would really hate that," Hale said. "What do you mean these don't match? Of course they match! You kidding me? Pink goes perfectly well with yellow," he joked.
Upholding its tradition of being "new, useful and entertaining," the Almanac offers tips on how to keep gardens alive, even in snow, and how to keep people alive, even for 100 years. (Some examples: Take it easy, use your brain, laugh and flirt!)
As printed publications fold around the country because of falling readership, Stillman says the Almanac is keeping pace with the 21st Century with a website that offers the printed version and supplements that can be personalized based on a reader's ZIP code.
Hale said the magazine with the familiar features remains popular in a digital age because, well, it's an almanac, and readers have said they like it being predictable.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I've seen programs on Science Channel (or NatGeo, or . . .) that make a case for an ice age to emerge from the imbalance created by human activity. I do not recall the exact mechanism, but the gist of the theory was that the complexity of the weather systems, ocean currents (e.g. the Atlantic "conveyor" -- the circulation of frigid artctic sea water downward that creates the current that drives normal weather patterns), and other factors could create a contradictory, but equally disastrous change in global weather. We simply can't foresee the totality of the impacts of human activities. Whatever the case, it is the failure of mankind.
SnowWolf - Like you, I'm not convinced that human activity is the cause of global warming. Climate change is Earth's history. HOWEVER my skepticism is immaterial. My support for a green/renewable future is 100%. My interest in cleaning up our planet is for my health, our health, and the health of future generations.
Which is another good point of course... coal still isn't good for you regardless of global warming.
Hopefully you have more than the farmer's almanac to back you up though.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.
----------------------------
So basically, right here in the article you've posted, they say that it will cool if we were not contributing to global warming... which the scientific community unequivocally concludes we are.
----------------------------
National Center for Atmospheric Research meteorologist Robert Henson says not so fast.
"We may have warm years and cool years; we could have a few cool years and then even a few warm years after that," Henson said. "No one can say how that up and down process will go, but the long-term forecast is for warming."
"When the Old Farmer's Almanac issues a weather forecast, it's based on a secret formula which they have had since the late 1700s and it's been updated over time," Henson said. "When I hear 'secret formula,' I think of Kentucky Fried Chicken. So you might call this the Kentucky Fried Chicken school of forecasting."
----------------------
That sounds scientific!
For even more on how wonderfully scientific the Farmer's Alamanac is, check this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/february96/weather_2-2.html
"In the October 1981 issue of Weatherwise, pages 212-215, John E. Walsh and David Allen performed a check on the accuracy of 60 monthly forecasts of temperature and precipitation from the Old Farmer's Almanac at 32 stations in the U.S. They found that 50.7 percent of the monthly temperature forecasts and 51.9 percent of the precipitation forecasts verified with the correct sign. These may be compared with the 50 percent success rate expected by chance."
Want some links to check your horoscope as well?
More:
http://ggweather.com/farmers/2005/index.htm
http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/almanac.html
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2003/10/01.php
So yup, your folklore and Exxon funded nonsense against the global scientific community sure has me convinced!
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
I'll have to tune in Loofah Guy or Hannity and Colmes tonight. I can hear it now.
"Britain Legalizes Eco-Terrorism!"
It will give Big Sean something to talk about besides Reverend Wright and poor Sarah being besmirched by the lefty press.
HANNITY should be ashamed of himself after boasting about Eminent Domain and saving a family business of 60 years on one acre of land, then hollers drill drill drill baby. What about our home and it's 350million year old mountains being decapitated and left abandoned all for the love of money ! http://www.samsva.org
Hi ~COCO~ howzit goin? Hey, ease up with the big words, you made me use my dictionary.
Hey, Is this your new handle, Kem. Knew I hadn't seen you around in awhile. Good news for, "We the people", with this environmental ruling. Now I wonder if we could possibly expect this as a precedent applicable to our (in)justice system?
hi kem, just fine thanks. glad the mad scientists didn't eradicate us last wednesday though with their particle accelerator experiments. another word for tenacious might be 'bulldog'..........how's that???
Since it was merely a test there was a zero percent chance of eradication. If I understand correctly there is a nearly zero percent chance of eradication when they actually do the experiment.
well let's hope you're right...........but they're working on it.
And if I am wrong, it will be over quicker and less painful than Operation Iraqi Lib. . .I mean. . .Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Enjoy and think.
While here in the bastion of "democracy," Feds are conducting violent "pre-emptive" raids on dissenters, non-Fox journalists, and Quakers, and nuns, and grandmothers.
From the FBI website: "Special interest extremists (eco-terrorists) continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes." Even today, the FBI considers "eco-terrorism" the NUMBER ONE terrorist threat in America. Wouldn't want to "force" segments of society to "change attitudes" about issues like transgenic mutant food (AKA, genetically modified/engineered,) or massive animal abuse, or the increasing toxicity of our water, or... or... or...
The six acquitted GP memebers would have gotten life without parole here in the USA, after a few dozen hours of "enhanced interrogations," a bit of tazering, maybe a blinding dose of pepper spray, surely. And all will now be placed on the "terrorist watch list" and will never be allowed into America again.
Feel safer?
How can people applaud violence and destruction of another's property? If you cannot make a convincing argument without resorting to violence, then maybe your argument cannot stand on its own merits. Using "climate change" as a justification to destroy property that supposedly contributes to climate change establishes a precedent for people to come destroy your car. What's the difference?
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
There's a HUGE difference between violence and the destruction of property. I want to point that out first and foremost. No one said these people could murder or injure the owner of this company.
I would also argue a difference between corporate property and personal property.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
No there is not. Violence is violence. Otherwise, KKK goons would be justified in burning down blacks' houses, as long as no one is home.
Ummmm. Violence is violence and property destruction is property destruction. The KKK burning down a home with no one in it is still a lot different from burning down a home and murdering the family inside. Not to say that they aren't each equally deplorable.
But, apples and oranges, the analogy you just made is horrible. First of all, blacks are not a threat to humanity. This should be the most obvious thing. Secondly, if you were going to make an analogy involving the KKK, it would be to have them paint the N word on someone's house not burn it down (as in this case the activists merely painted something on a smokestack).
Lastly, I still see a big difference between corporate and personal property.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Being an American I know what violence and destruction is and the Greempeace action was not violence and distruction! Violence and destruction would be would killing or crippling the plant manager and blowing up the stack and promising to return and do it again if the power plant tried to rebuild. Something Al Quida or the US Army would do!
Greenpeace... violent? ...destruction of property?
That coal power plant smoke stack can belch smoke just as well with Brown's name painted on it's side as it can pollute with anything else painted on it's side! Painting a message on the side of a smoke stack is not destruction or violent. The Greenpeace action was NOT meant to be an argument but a statement. The power plants' reply to the Greenpeace statement was to paint over the message. Painting a slogan, message or symbol on a blank wall or surface is not destroying the property. Do you really expect anyone to think there is no difference between the pollution that comes from a single car as to that of a single coal power plant?
If someoneone painted "polluter" on the side of my car (which is not a blank wall or smoke stack but for the sake of making a point) of course they would be right and my reply would be to clean it off or paint over it or ...advertise the fact that ...yes , and I would agree... my car does spews fossil fuel pollution just like the coal power plant does... BUT of course at a much much smaller level!
My goodness!... protest against environmental destuction and violence with a painted message in the early 21st cent...get use to it or ban the public sale of paint and brushes!
Someone seems to be missing the point that unlike your polluting car the polluting coal fired power plant is making electricity to be sold to citizens within the community. You might drive your car (and pollute) out of necessity, but their pollution is for profit. Just as individuals have ethical responsibilities to be good citizens, so too do companies have an ethical responsibility to citizens. Unfortunately, companies seem to neglect (or completely ignore) their ethical responsibility when it clashes with the bottom line. This is unacceptable & inappropriate, dangerous ground to tread, and often even lethal.
When citizens are being attacked, with their lives threatened, they have the right to defend themselves. Lives shortened by lung diseases, or ruined by mercury caused autism, are no different really than afflictions caused by a drive by shooting, except an irresponsibly operated smokestack is a stationary source of misery that never drives away.
Solution? Tax the hell out of coal, to pay for environmental & health damages. Sure the price of electricity will go up, but just as rising gasoline prices have caused people to become energy conscious, so too will they consider investing in cleaner safer power sources, leading to market forces forcing the coal business failing unless they clean up their act. Shift subsidies away from fossil fuels & nuclear toward renewables, level the playing field, and archaic power sources will be phased out.
Because we have studied American History and remember that those who participated in the Boston Tea Party used to be revered as American heroes who resisted the tyrany of an oppressive state that used taxation without representation.
Kind of like now.
Your tax dollars pay for the wars, infrastructure, roads and tax subsidies to notorious multinational corporations that destroy the environment and displace workers and create death, torture and homelessness for humans and non humans alike.
This could also be defined as a form of "violence" and "destruction" of the property that every human on the planet "owns" by virtue of his or her birth as a resident of planet Earth, not some government sanctioned "ownership" called a corporation.
I don't own a car, so I don't buy oil that has been stolen from people who can't defend themselves.
Revenge Girl - I applaud you for not owning a car, so you don't buy oil..., but do you use plastics, and god only knows what other products that are made from that oil?
TO: SnowWolf
You are surprised because you have seen justice done (probably the first time)
As there is no justice in US please disband the DOJ (department of justice)
I've seen Justice dispensed...thanks
Go Greenpeace!
This is similar to the Dublin jury's acquittal of the Pitstop Ploughshares for disabling/damaging a US Navy plane in an act of nonviolent war resistance.
Of course, the tiny lizard-brained proto-intellectuals here will scoff at the idea that damaging property is "nonviolent"-- just as there are a few peculiar progressive reactionaries (pardon the oxymoron) who have defended the Twin Cities Imperial Stormtroopers' actions because of a few acts of politically-motivated vandalism.
It strikes me as preposterous when persons of ANY political persuasion become passionately outraged about destruction of property, but take in stride heinous destruction of flesh-and-blood "collateral damage".
So it's refreshing and gratifying to see "jury nullification" taking such an enlightened form; it really does reflect rare "bottom-up" leadership in reaching a new understanding of justice.
Maybe the US will catch on! It's far more high-minded and defensible in these instances than, say, in acquitting OJ (the last time around, that is).
"it's refreshing and gratifying to see "jury nullification" taking such an enlightened form"
Yes, Jury Nullification has been an American tradition as well - but you will not hear that from a U.S. Judge! Instead juries are told what to do and think unless they know they can make up their own minds. Mandatory minimum sentences are a prime example of this. How many juries even know they have sentenced someone to a 10 or 30 year prison term just because the judge has advised them that the defendent is "guilty". Meanwhile I know businesses that have been robbed twice by the same person in less than a year, because the robber was let out of jail due to prison overcrowding - by pot growers.
Ouch!
I predict in the future: Those who fight for the environment with direct action (who fight for the forests, rivers, oceans, non-human species etc. - treasures that belong to all the people, not just the corporations that rape the earth for profit; with impunity and with tax subsidies) will be viewed by history similarly to those who had the ethics and courage to oppose industrial slavery in America.
These issues should be brought to court, and to juries, more often. Direct action has been redefined as terrorism by the Fascists. I'm glad people are fighting back!
Like Capt. Watson, of Sea Shepherd says, "We'll make great ancestors!".
HIs wife was held for 60 days, by Homeland "security" for refusing to release membership lists. They stil dont have them (I dont think) I hope the US will follow suit. No one was killed . Global climate change is killing alot of people.
As for "clean coal"--ever lived im a house heated by coal?? LOL It is NOT (and never can be ) "clean". Just the way we get it out of the ground is criminal
Farewell England...we hardly knew ya
Awwww... did a court rule that the little SnowWolf's precious notions of private property could be overruled by grave threats to the commons and humanity at large... Shhh, come here, let it all out. It'll be OK. No one owns the air we breathe, and preserving our ability to survive on Earth is more important than individual property. I know. It sucks, but the world's not fair little SnowWolf. Come now, don't cry, rest your head on my shoulder little one...
But cheer up, I bought us another lock for the front door and the latest in video surveillance. Hush now, you and your possessions are safe from those dirty hippies here.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
No...a Court aquitted People on the basis of a Myth
Welcome to Fantasy Island
Where will you go when your Fantasy Island is underwater?
Will you go to the land of evolution is a myth?
SnowWolf - Will you concede that energy from coal and other man made pollutants are responsible for the posted (DO NOT EAT FISH THAT YOU CAUGHT HERE) signs in 48 states? I'm not sure of the actual wording. Will you concede that energy from coal and other man made pollutants are responsible for the spike in diseases in the last 50 years? Cancer and asthma are two that come to mind. How many do you know that have, or have died from cancer?
Well Yes I'll concede you that...
I think we SHOULD Pursue Alternative Energy...do it All...CNG...Hydrogen Fuel Cells...Wind...Solar...NUKE...get off this crazy Oil addiction...but until the Technology is up to Speed...Lets Drill our own
SnowWolf - There is another piece on CD today. (I.E.A. SAYS OIL DEMAND SLOWING) Go left on home page, then down. You might find it interesting.
The technology is up to speed, and would be even more so if the Oil industry didn't have a history of sabotaging it, and if we took all the subsidies and tax breaks we give to big oil and give it to alternatives instead.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Oh wow? You're a climate scientist now? Forgive me, I didn't know.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
I know Bullshit when I read it...they tried to pull off the perfect Scam...and it almost worked...except the Sun decided to take a Holiday and ruin their plans...
Forget Warming...This Planet is cooling...
I wonder if Al Gore will turn in His Nobel Prize now?
(I knew it had become a Joke when they gave it to Arafat)
Much more of this "Global Warming" and I'm going to get Frostbite
Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling
By Nathan Burchfiel (Bio | Archive)
February 8, 2008 - 16:33 ET
Investor's Business Daily is reporting something we haven't seen much of in the media since the 1970s: concerns about global cooling. You read that correctly: cooling.
Kenneth Tapping, a researcher at Canada's National Research Council, wants to look for evidence of increased sunspot activity, according to IBD. "The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century."
A "solar hibernation" in the 17th Century "corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715," IBD reported. "Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."
Tapping's concerns fly in the face of the current media drumbeat about global warming, which would have Americans believe the Earth is on course for catastrophic climate changes unless the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) steps in to save the day.
The media have warned of impending climate changes for at least the last century. Most recently, global warming has been the, er, hot topic. But in the 1970s it was global cooling.
Could Tapping's concerns be the turning point in the media's environmentalist crusade? It's more likely the media will simply ignore - or maybe even viciously attack him - as a global warming "denier" or equally loaded buzz word commonly used to attack or discredit scientists and others who don't buy into the global warming catastrophe hype.
Wow, maybe you don't know what you're talking about because you're busy reading business journals instead of science journals.
Because, if you did your OWN research, you'd find that the IBD is taking Tapping's words out of context. He never meant to imply greenhouse gasses aren't causing warming. And in fact has said:
"It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started."
Hmmmmmmmm..... HMMMMMMMMMMMM....
What was that about you knowing Bullshit when you see it?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
I'm going where the evidence leads...and so far...its not leading where you say its going
you can believe whatever you want...but I am skeptical at this point
I don't say where it is going. I don't believe what I want. The scientific community says where it's going. If you want to debate the scientific community, be my guest. There are avenues for it. Publish something in a peer-reviewed journal. See what becomes of it. I'm sure there's plenty of money and prestige that would come with debunking global warming in a reputable journal.
In the meantime, you are no different than the other anti-science forces in this country who cherry-pick the words of scientists, and rearrange evidence to fit within a predetermined mold. Creationists, Intelligent Designers, Flat-Earthers, Climate-change deniers, Young-earthers, and (IMO) 9-11 conspiracy nuts (bet you'll agree with that one at least) -- it's all the same thing.
I mean, I just posted a quote from the very same scientist you just tried to use to prove that the earth is cooling, saying you are wrong. And yet this doesn't concern you?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Who is this scientific "community" and where do the grants for research and revenues that pay their salaries come from, and who owns the journals that controls who gets published?
Well SnowWolf I said I didn't want to talk to you but after seeing your dissembling meltdown over one small victory by environmentalists, I must confess that I cannot wait for the next victory.
I'm not melting down...bemused is more like it
..."would have Americans believe the Earth is on course for catastrophic climate changes unless the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) steps in to save the day".
No, all the taxpayers have to do is stop paying for war, deforestation, desertification, and pollution. Then the rainforest can stop burning and the tropical oceans could be safe to swim in instead of full of jellyfish. Then perhaps the Gulf of Mexico could get some "Global Cooling" and stop sending hurricaines.
Maybe we could even fish in rivers again and drink the water!
But the taxpayers would have to stop paying for the wars and subsidies that allow the oil, energy, timber, chemical and security corporations etc. to rape the Earth!
We taxpayers could even take the chunk of our tax dollars that go to the Pentagon, Halliburton, Blackwater and Oil Company CEO's vacation homes, and put solar panels on our roof, or plant some trees. Imagine that!
when it comes to human/environmental rights, the brits can be very tenacious............
You must be new to this planet. Welcome to Planet Earth, where the Lie is the Truth.
Slave Trade, Colonialism, Drug Trade, etc. Our American rulers get knighted by the Queen for doing their dirty work. They outsourced the military and economic arm of imperialism to America. You probably think we even won the Revolutionary War, they just left their agents in charge and conned us into thinking we were free. When they worried we were getting bit too independent, they started the Civil War to divide us in 2. Russia saved our bacon. So they shot Lincoln as punishment (and the Czar), and started up the KKK to prevent the freed slaves from being assimilated into society and driving the southern blacks into the urban ghettos to the North, thus promoting a lingering racism to divide and rule us.
There is a lot more, WW I, WW II, etc but that would be too much for you. BTW the Beatles and many of the British bands were creations of the London Tavistok Institute who wrote their music which was intended to alter the minds of Americas youth in the 60's with the drugs they kindly supplied, which we allowed. The Tavistock Institute was a British psyops unit to control minds with drugs, psychology and propaganda, and is well entrenched in the US under other names.
The British being behind environmentalism and AGW is added evidence it is a scam.
You see, the elite do not consider the normal person human, we are beasts, they are humans. Get it. Human (elite) rights is their right to exploit the beasts (normal man) that they will soon mark (666) with implanted. Don't worry about discrimination, they will also mark the cattle, chicken and pigs with implanted chips so they can collect the right amount of carbon tax from the farmers.
"After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks."
Well, Hutton, Wicks and the coal companies, perhaps.
Hooray for the Brits. Their people have spoken. The Brits - the people, that is - spoke a lot more loudly against the horror that Iraq became too than the couldn't-care-less-masses across the pond. Didn't stop the slaughter, of course, but the comparison leaves the Yanks - the masses - looking a lot less "wonderful", by comparison.
Now, if only this attitude of the people and this kind of verdict could be extended beyond coal companies to the war industry companies, and extended to the USofA....
If only.
Holy crap! What an encouraging development!
"This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."
"Normal people" number in the millions. Those driving the oil, coal, nuclear energy machines for the money numbers in the thousands. Looks to me like another kind of war looming on the horizon - people fighting for their lives and big money.