Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

[gunter]

Oh sorry, Ray. I'd forgotten that cigarettes were the cause of climate change. My badd.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Oh sorry, Ray. I'd forgotten that cigarettes were the cause of climate change. My badd.

Wow, Toon... quite the sloppy strawman, huh?

Look, it is quite simple. I am asking you to justify your hypocritical position. And you keep wishing to change the subject and throw out strawmen. That is a bit childish, don't you think? But then again, I should have come to expect this from you by now.

Yes, I am making you an example of the problem with the duplicitous left. But you will never rise to the level of hypocrisy of some of the stalwarts of the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd. You are simply not famous enough...no one cares about you...except me. Because I see you shooting off your mouth as if you are the ascetic priest, clothed in sackcloth and sitting in ashes (from your incessant smoking), I want you to show us how you walk your own talk. This is your Jimmy Swaggert moment, Toon. Don't f*ck it up.

I have enumerated two very big ways that I express my concern for our environment. Now I am asking you to explain yourself in this regard. You were the one to use the words "pissing in it's own well, of shitting in its own garden." So how do you justify your own act of "pissing in our mutual well, and shitting in our mutual garden?" I really want to know, because as indicated above, this is really at the crux of the "liberal disease", especially from those who are famous thanks to the greed of Hollywood, and so they think because they are rich and people watch their movies, they also get to tell other people how to live their lives... but none of it applies to them.

What other hypocritical activities do you engage in with respect to soiling the environment? And you also love to rail against "corporate greed." Clearly, in the last half century, the Big Tobacco companies have been the poster child for corporate greed. And not only are you polluting the atmosphere with your nasty habit, but you are also putting money right into the hands of those you decry.

Please answer the simple question of how you can rail on others for polluting the environment, but it is OK for you to do so because of personal choice.

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

With regard to the point I am making about Hollywood's greed-driven (and blind) hypocritical stance, let's see what Brooke Shields (that intellectual stalwart) has to say this morning...as she pimps her new movie:

Brooke Shields Upset With Reports That Global Warming Doesn't Exist

First, the author of the article commits the typical juxtaposition of facts. The large majority of the people in the so-called "Denier Movement" do not claim that global warming does not exist. Rather, what they DO claim is that there is no veridical scientific evidence to support that it is primarily due to mankind. But telling the truth does not sell advertising for your masters... on to Brooke:

“It all upsets me because I feel like we keep losing sight of simpler, smaller things,” Shields told Pop Tarts.

Interesting. Someone from Hollywood, where red carpets and limos are de riguer, talking about the "simple and smaller things." Let's see her idea of "simple and smaller things". Here is a link to her home in Pacific Palisades (a very exclusive community between Malibu and Santa Monica overlooking the ocean in Los Angeles):

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/bro ... lds-house/

One should also read the liner notes on the photos of this megamansion:

The actress and supermodel lives here. She also owns a couple of homes in New York City, one recently purchased, according to the link below.

Simpler and smaller, eh Brooke? Maybe you should invite Toon over for a smoke? But wait, she is not done yet.

“I don’t know what is true or not, I only know what I can do on a daily basis because I believe in it. Whether I am turning the water off in between brushing my teeth, which my little daughter is the police of, or I am recycling, or switching my products or using an energy saving washing machine…. I just have to do the best that I can do and keep doing more.”

Indicative of Hollywood Cluelessness. She knows it probably sounds good as a sound bite, but absolutely no clue how any of this relates to "Global Warming" if at all. What does turning the water off in between brushing your teeth have to do with global warming? I am sure she thinks (believes) there is some tenuous connection between the SoCal water shortage and global warming. However, we have these shortages pretty much ever 5-6 years, and it is due to El Nino going away and La Nina taking its place. This was an El Nino year, so lots of snowpack will mean reservoirs will be higher again. And yes the energy saving washing machine...as if Brooke Shields does her own laundry! But she wants to "keep doing more", except the "doing more" parts that will REALLY have an impact would cause her to have to become aware of how much energy she uses in everything she does, which includes jetting around for movie promos!

Shields stars alongside Brendan Fraser in the new family comedy “Furry Vengeance” which is centered around a real estate developer who has to go up against a clique of angry animals when his new housing subdivision encroaches on their habitat. Led by a raccoon, the woodland critters seek revenge to stop the construction and teach the developer about the environmental consequences of humankind invading nature.

“There’s an eco message but it is not something that we’re preaching,” Shields explained. “We hope it spurs conversation with our kids about Mother Nature, the environment and the animals and how they can respect that.”

Ahhhhh there we go! Now we get to the REAL point of the interview: Pimp da new movie! And of course she took the part in the movie because of her concern for the environment! I'll bet she didn't even take a cut of the movie profits or take a salary for her work too, huh?

The campaign will focus on further advocating the message of wildlife and habitat preservation in over 16,000 schools across the country and educate pupils on the effects everyday decisions have on their terrain.

MMmmm. Yes. The effect everyday decisions have on your terrain. Excepting, of course, if you are Brooke Shields or any other member of the Hollywood "do as I say but not as I do" club. Then you can just pretend to "save the planet" by telling the commoners what they have to do!

Ray

[ryguy]

It would be interesting to see how much energy the movie production process consumes. Given the staff, equipment and resources required, I would bet that it's substantial.

-Ryan

[You Can Call Me Ray]

It would be interesting to see how much energy the movie production process consumes. Given the staff, equipment and resources required, I would bet that it's substantial.

An excellent thought, Ryan. One which folks at UCLA have already thought about and studied. The results are most interesting:

Hollywood gets a new role as Los Angeles' great polluter

The city of Los Angeles is principally famous for two things: glittering movies and suffocating smog. Now researchers have found that the two are not unconnected. A study by the University of California Los Angeles shows the film and television industry to be the second largest polluter in the Los Angeles area. Only the region's oil refineries pump more pollutants into the air, it says.

Telling, no? Methinks Hollywood should remove the log from thine own eye before preaching to others! But preaching is cheap and easy, especially when you can do it while promoting your new film!

The two-year study estimates that the industry emits 140,000 tonnes a year of ozone and diesel particulate emissions.

So obviously we need "more green talk" to offset this Inconvenient Truth.

But the main culprit for Hollywood's pollution problem lies with the use of multiple sub-contractors and short-term production companies to provide everything from special effects to catering. The report noted that "the industry's structure and culture hamper the pace of improvements".

While many studios have individual programmes to establish recycling quotas, prevent air pollution and conserve natural resources, there is little regulation.

And that last part is most interesting given we are now in a "Big Government" era. I wonder how many of the people in Hollywood would come out in support of more government oversight and regulations for the purpose of "saving the planet." What would be even more telling would be to see how many superstars would take a cut in their giant (greed-driven) paydays for any movie in order to make sure the movie production was environmentally friendly.

Methinks it would be a bit like asking Toon to stop smoking! Instead of an answer, we would get a feel-good smokescreen!
Ray

[gunter]

Straw dogs? It was not I who saw fit to conflate a cigarette with a smokestack. But regardless- all we can do at this point is try to be good to the planet. Conserve, recycle and hope that the global warming scientists are wrong. I commend you for installing environmentally friendly electrical stuff on your roof. If I could afford that I'd do it too. For me, at this point in my life, I find my best choice is in using no more energy than I need. So good luck in your endeavors- and adios. I'm out of this discussion.

[Chorlton]

Smog ? you people dont know what Smog is. When I was a child everyone had coal fires and when winter came and the weather was just right the fog would mix with the smoke and you would get humdinger Smogs.
I can remember coming home from school with the bus conductor walking in front of the bus as the visibility was down to less than 10 yards. The smog also killed many handreds of people, It killed my Uncle. Then the government brought in smokeless zones where only coke could be used in a home fire and the smogs slowly dissapeared. The City of London has recently been made into a Low Emissions zone for vehicles. Next year, if I want to take my VW T4 into London it will cost me £50 !!!. My cobra is OK its registered now as a Disabled vehicle !! I kid you not.
Thats one of the reasons I shut my office in London and brought it into my own home.

Now just a point. I'm not a proponent of AGW. What I am a proponet of is the fact that since the Industrial Revolution we have been pumping increasing amounts of shite into the air (as well as rivers and the sea). I dont think absorbtion of these chemicals and gasses is infinite. There has to be a point where the ecosystem will just give up.

As for milder winters? yep last winter was a beauty, but it was a rarity, most winters now we dont see snow. When I was a kid we always had snow. I know its not scientific but it was observable and memorable. As are the things growing earlier.
Yes I know warming and cooling is cyclic, but the problem we have is its impossible to get a straight answer from both C02 camps, no one can agree. I err on the side of caution. If we can cut down Co2 emissions then I feel we should. Long term, and I know people wont like it, but long term, I dont really give a toss, I wont be here.
I had to help to clear up the mess my Dad and Grandad created, let my Kids clear up my mess. (he says putting on tin hat and waiting for the flak)
And smoking is a disgusting habit. Smoking food isnt.

[gunter]

One of my favorite guys...


Typical disgusting British smoker.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

So good luck in your endeavors- and adios. I'm out of this discussion.

Yes, I know... when one can no longer argue their point cogently, it is best to invoke the time-honored tradition espoused by your friends, the Pythons: "RUN AWAY!"

This just in from the environment watchdog function:

U.N.'s Environmental Housekeeping in Chaos, Internal Report Shows

Amazing... they wish to tell the world what they can and cannot do, and how much $ the world has to pay the UN for being the environment watchdog... yet they are the filthiest "government" on the block it would seem!

Among other things, the group, known as the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), found:

• U.N. efforts at setting internal guidelines on environmental housekeeping and management across its sprawling network of global organizations are "uncoordinated ad hoc efforts" that "continue to be scattered."

I would bet they can claim to fix this...if we just give them some more money.

• Most of the environmental measures implemented by the central organs of its many funds and programs, not to mention the central U.N. secretariat, "are not based on any specific guidance and are not documented in a clear and transparent way."

Ah yes. The old "here is some money we got...start spending it, and we will tell you how to spend it later...when people force us to give you guidelines." Same old song and dance. But we should trust them. Ah, yeah...sure.

• Almost all U.N. organizations, when queried, could not break out financial data on any measures or specific spending on environmental measures on their own account. One consequence, according to the inspectors: "the economic and ecological advantages to be derived" from new, efficient energy or recycling technologies "were not recognized" in U.N. bookkeeping.

Awwww, c'mon! Give them a break! They are a "governing organization" not an "accounting organization." But if you give them some money to hire accountants, they can rectify the problem.

• When it comes to the U.N.'s own contributions to solving the global greenhouse gas problem, the organization's efforts are, according to the inspectors, not only unsystematic but sometimes indecipherable. The U.N. generates the equivalent of 1.741 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — defined by the U.N. itself as the world's most prevalent and pernicious greenhouse gas — every year (more than such countries as Mauritius, Guyana and Laos). But it apparently doesn't have any administrative framework to handle the purchase of carbon offsets to balance its emissions, or even a systematic way to purchase or account for them.

Geez! How many different jobs do you expect us to do? Look, we just beg for money and hand it out. Can you please get off our backs with all this "accountability" BS!

• When it came to paying the tab for its own carbon emissions, U.N. accounting is incoherent, or opaque, or both. According to the inspectors, that tab could run to about $34.2 million annually at mid-2009 prices, but when it came to seeing how those carbon offset purchases were made across the U.N. system, the inspectors "have not been able to sort them out either in attribution of budget lines used for this purpose, or in terms of sources of financing."

Well, gee... I guess that kind of makes it clear why we (the UN) need more money to pay for this mess! Perhaps we should all just admit that "global warming is caused by the UN" rather than "global warming is caused by mankind"?

To be fair, the JIU inspectors do not see ill-will on the U.N.'s failure to "walk the talk" of green citizenship. Instead, the inspectors blame bureaucratic inertia, internal anarchy, lack of careful thinking, and especially lack of clear, system-wide rules as the main reasons for the high-minded mess

Right... and the UN has never, ever, in its entire history had these sorts of problem before, right? Oh.... wait!

I really do not see how people can continue to take this political scam seriously anymore.
Ray

[gunter]

Yes, I know... when one can no longer argue their point cogently, it is best to invoke the time-honored tradition espoused by your friends, the Pythons: "RUN AWAY!"

What's the point in arguing when there's no prospect of an understanding? I'll gladly let the Pythons have the stage.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

What's the point in arguing when there's no prospect of an understanding? I'll gladly let the Pythons have the stage.

Oh there is already copious understanding...on my side. But perhaps not the understanding you were hoping for...the one-sided kind. You see, Toon, understanding requires both parties being honest, and even admitting things they might not like to admit.

Since it appears to be so painful for you to be honest, so that an understanding can be reached, let me do it for you:

Ray: So, Toon, I understand that you believe it is bad for people to release toxic chemicals. And that people need to be more considerate of the earth by ceasing such activities, especially if they are unnecessary. I also understand that you accept that humans are the primary factor in causing global warming, whether by releasing CO2 or otherwise. Is that right?
Toon: Yes.
Ray: And I also understand that you are a big smoker, is that also right, Toon?
Toon: Correct.
Ray: So now, I would like to ask you if you understand that this is a somewhat hypocritical position? Do you also understand that cigarette smoke has been shown to emit a great many toxins into the environment, two of which are carbon monoxid and carbon dioxide. Therefore, do you understand that your smoking is actually, and technically, contributing to the global warming you believe is caused by mankind?
Toon: Yes, I fully understand this. But do you, Ray, understand that this is a personal decision that I have made about my health, and that, in my opinion, the emissions from my smoking are negligible in the grand scheme of the world?
Ray: Of course I understand that. And there are a great many people in this world who believe the same thing. They all believe that they should be free to make such personal decisions, and they should also be free to believe that their emissions are not the problematic ones. Do you understand that "it is the other guy, he/she/they should stop doing their thing" is one of the largest unacknowledged problems with AGW as a social issue??
Toon: Yes, I understand I am being hypocritical, but I do not care.
Ray: Fine. I accept that. But I would suggest to you that it might be a good idea for you to refrain from acting all high and mighty with respect to other people's choices, especially when you exhibit your own hypocrisy. Do you understand that?
Toon: You are a doodyhead, Ray.

There. Was that really so hard that you could not engage in that sort of honesty, and attempt at mutual understanding?
Ray

[gunter]

Notice any difference?

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Global Cold Wave May Be Looming
By Meteorologist Art Horn

The global warming enthusiasts have been shouting that as man injects more and more carbon dioxide into the air we will warm the atmosphere beyond recognition. But now in an ironic twist of fate and timing nature is set to crush all of that talk. A blast of arctic cold may soon encase the earth with an icy grip not seen for nearly 200 years. This is not idle fantasy or alarmist 2012 babble. There are natural forces in nature that are awakening all at the same time! These forces let loose one at a time can cause the earth to cool and bring about harsh winter conditions. However if they all break free of their captivity at once the effects could be felt not just in the winter but all year long and for several years to come. Should the following words prove to be prophetic the social and economic impact of these powerful forces working together may make history. The airline industry in Europe is already feeling the effects.

On March 20th a volcano erupted on the island of Iceland. This eruption has become much more violent in the last few days. The ash cloud from this volcano has caused the cancellation of tens of thousands of airline flights in Europe. Some estimates say the industry could lose over 200 million dollars a day due to cancelled flights. A volcano erupting in Iceland is not an uncommon event. The island is one of the few spots where the mid oceanic ridge rears up out of the water revealing its violent personality. However this volcano is different. It can act as a predictor of future much more explosive and consequential activity. The volcano's name is, and this is no joke Eyjafjallajokull. This volcano has only erupted three times since the 9th century. The last eruption was in the early 1820s. What is alarming about this most recent eruption is that in the past it has been followed by a much larger eruption of the nearby Katla Volcano. Katla has blown its top many times on its own, usually every 60 to 80 years. The last time was 1918 so it's overdue to explode. Magnus Tomi Gudmundson is a geophysicist and the University of Iceland and an expert on volcanic ice eruptions and he says "There is an increased likelihood we'll see a Katla eruption in the coming months or a year or two, but there's no way that's certain". He also said "from records we know that every time Eyjafjallajokull has erupted Katla has also erupted".

The reason this is ominously significant is that these giant eruptions can change the atmosphere on a planetary scale for years. Mount Laki is another large volcano in Iceland that has a history of producing climate changing eruptions. In the early summer of 1783 Laki erupted releasing vast rivers of lava. The explosive volcano also ejected a massive amount of volcanic ash and sulfur dioxide into the air. The eruption was so violent that the ash and sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere some 8 miles up. This cloud was then swept around the world by the stratospheric winds. The result was a significant decrease in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface for several years. That reduction in sunlight brought about bitter cold weather across the northern hemisphere. The winter of 1784 was one of the coldest ever seen in New England and in Europe. New Jersey was buried under feet of snow and the Mississippi river froze all the way down to New Orleans! Historical records show that similar conditions existed during the following winter.

There are other eruptions that have produced similar short term climate consequences. Mount Tambora is in Indonesia. This volcano erupted with cataclysmic force in April 1815. It was the largest volcanic eruption in over 1,600 years. It was also during a time of very low solar activity known as the "Dalton Minimum". The following year was called "the year without a summer". During early June of 1815 a foot of snow fell on Quebec City. In July and August lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania. Frost killed crops across New England with resulting famine. During the brutal winter of 1816/17 the temperature fell to -32 at New York City.

Mount Pinatubo exploded in June of 1991 after four centuries of sleep. The resultant cloud of volcanic ash belched into the stratosphere pounded the global temperature down a full one degree Fahrenheit by 1993. Record snowfall buried southern New England during the winter of 1993/94. Those same records were shattered just two years later in the winter of 1995/96 from the effects of the reduced sunlight.

If Eyjafjallajokull induces an eruption of Katla that event alone could force global temperatures down for 3 to 5 years. But there is much more at work here. We have just exited the longest and deepest solar minimum in nearly 100 years. During this minimum the sun had the greatest number of spotless days (days where there were no sunspots on the face of the sun) since the early 1800s. The solar cycle is usually about 11 years from minimum to minimum. This past cycle 23 lasted 12.7 years. The long length of a solar cycle has been shown to have significant climate significance. Australian solar researcher Dr. David Archibald has shown that for every one year increase in the solar cycle length there is a half degree Celsius drop in the global temperature in the next cycle. Using that relationship we could expect a global temperature drop of one degree Fahrenheit by 2020. That would wipe out all of the global warming of the last 150 years!

But that is not all. There is a third player in this potential global temperature plunge. Since the Autumn of 2009 to the current time we have been under the influence of a moderately strong El Nino. El Nino is a warming of the water in the Pacific Ocean along the equator from South America to the international dateline. El Nino's warm water adds vast amounts of heat and humidity to the atmosphere. The result is a warmer earth and greatly altered weather patterns around the world. The current El Nino is predicted to fade out this summer. Frequently after an El Nino we see the development of La Nina, the colder sister of El Nino. La Nina's cooler waters along the equatorial Pacific act to cool the earth's temperature.

If a La Nina develops this summer this could be the third leg of a natural convergence of forces not seen since the early 1800s. The sun has experienced its longest and most pronounced solar minimum in nearly 100 years. Research indicates this deep, long minimum will be followed by at least 10 years of colder weather. Mount Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland has started erupting. History has shown that every time Mount Eyjafjallajokull erupts the nearby more powerful and explosive Katla follows. The vast volcanic cloud thrust into the stratosphere by this explosion partially blocks out the warming rays of the sun and causes global temperature to plummet. El Nino is frequently followed by La Nina. The current El Nino is forecast to be over this summer.

The stage could soon be set for a confluence of cold inducing forces. A La Nina with its chilling waters combined with the effects of a weaker sun combined with a possible major eruption in Iceland. If all or two of these work together the earth could plunge into a period of bitter cold not seen for two hundred years. Forecasts of natural phenomena are notoriously difficult. However a unique set of natural circumstances have a chance to unify into an icicle of cold very soon. All eyes will be on Iceland to see if Katla awakens from its long sleep. If it does a worldwide cold wave may result and any talk of global warming will fade from the headlines.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Notice any difference?

Nope. You are still in denial. Hypocrite.
Ray

[gunter]

well maybe so. but at least i'm in good company don'tcha know..


Ann and Gunter take a smoke break while Ray eats
his own liver in a petulant fit of pique