Arcadia Discussion Zone

Hottest year since 1863

Brilliant!!

VAM

I'm a Denier


Poor old Santa!

HIDE THE DECLINE

Don't you just love those guys who got delegates when they went in to vote at Copenhagen to sign a petition banning Dihydrogen Monoxide because we have too high levels.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is water.

The Dihydrogen Monoxide scare was originally drummed up by a couple of friends/colleagues of mine in Santa Cruz back in 1989.

Michael Mann not the sharpest pencil in the box

We luv Michael (Hide the decline) Mann. Could catch on

Michael Farage on Carbon Tax
Windfarms

British Carbon Tax Protestors arrest Judge under Common Law

Dihydrogen monoxide vapour contributes 60% to the Greenhouse Effect (carbon dioxide contributes 20%).

If the Dihydrogen monoxide doesn't get you the Monosodium chloride dihydrogen monoxide will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/10/arctic-struggle-climate-change

America urgently needs to build up its military readiness in the Arctic where melting summer sea ice is setting up a global struggle for resources, a study prepared for the US navy has warned.

The report by the National Academy of Sciences warned that climate change could upset the delicate security balance in the Arctic – even among close allies – and that America is unprepared for the challenges ahead.

"The US military as a whole has lost most of its competence in cold-weather operations for Arctic weather," the report, National Security Implications of Climate Change for US Naval Forces, warned. "In the immediate term, the navy should begin Arctic training and the marine corps should also establish a cold weather training programme."

The report warned that America was currently unprepared to defend its interests in the Arctic. Current submarine sytems would be challenged to operate in the Arctic, the report warned. In addition, the coastguard has just three ice breakers, and these are old and obsolete.
Well it appears Russia maybe wanting more territory

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/science/earth/10coffee.html?_r=2&ref=business

But in the last few years, coffee yields have plummeted here and in many of Latin America’s other premier coffee regions as a result of rising temperatures and more intense and unpredictable rains, phenomena that many scientists link partly to global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110308150228.htm

ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2011) — The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.

Once a Dead Head - forever a Dead Head?

("if the thunder don't catch you then the lightning will")

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

The Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.

This figure agrees with the estimate arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.

"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the project, said

Yes but it was the Hadley Centre that was caught frigging the results.

The ice caps are melting on Mars. Are we causing that too?

Here's the culprit.



Something everyone and everything on planet earth recognises.

How can Carbon Dioxide effect the greenhouse effect?. Why do horticulturists deliberately pump CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage growth?

Tell 'em where to stick their Carbon Tax. It's a Ponzi Scheme

Oh I agree Roscoe that the Carbon tax is a Ponzi scheme
just that Greenland Ice and Antartic ice are melting

We need to know why
and denying that it isn't happening isn't helping

[url]Warming could exceed safe levels in this lifetime[/url]

LONDON (Reuters) - Global temperature rise could exceed "safe" levels of two degrees Celsius in some parts of the world in many of our lifetimes if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, two research papers published in the journal Nature warned.

"Certain levels of climate change are very likely within the lifetimes of many people living now ... unless emissions of greenhouse gases are substantially reduced in the coming decades," said a study on Sunday by academics at the English universities of Reading and Oxford, the UK's Met Office Hadley Center and the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.



"Large parts of Eurasia, North Africa and Canada could potentially experience individual five-year average temperatures that exceed the 2 degree Celsius threshold by 2030 -- a timescale that is not so distant," the paper said.

Imagine 24 hour sun on the North Pole when their is no ice

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/14/367597/the-koch-funded-scientist-who-came-in-from-the-cold-muller-warming/

Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism”

Dr. Richard Muller, Author of Berkeley Temperature Study, Makes First Appearance on Hill After Releasing Results; Drs. Ben Santer, William Chameides to Present Latest Research on Global Warming

WASHINGTON – Three prominent scientists will present the best case yet for the end of climate skepticism in Washington and the world over the fact that the world is warming at a congressional briefing held by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

It remains to be seen whether Muller will flip flop for the umpteenth time on whether he is pushing the “end to skepticism … over the fact that the world is warming.”

He has already returned to form as a confusionist. On the one hand, today he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe today that “we’re getting very steep warming” and that because “we are dumping enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we’re working in a dangerous realm, I realm where I think, we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.”


you can understand the confusion

Hey, do the neo-cons know there's a big piece of the action here for defense contractors?

TCP

Neo cons always go where the money is

Climate change episode of Frozen Planet won't be shown in the U.S. as viewers don't believe in global warming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061663/Frozen-Planet-Climate-change-episode-wont-shown-US.html#ixzz1do4s8ADv

Lucky Brits
as far as us Americans our TV is censored for political reasons

Yeh i heard about this too Lovuian, but i imagine it'll be available on BBC i player or YouTube soon enough. Is there a lot of censorship in the US then?

Yes
we are only given approved news...it gets worse and worse

but
on the other hand there are other sources of News than just American

World has five years to avoid severe warming: IEA
The world has just five years to avoid being trapped in a scenario of perilous climate change and extreme weather events, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned on Wednesday.

On current trends, "rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change," the IEA concluded in its annual World Energy Outlook report.

"The door to 2.0 C is closing," it said, referring to the 2.0 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) cap on global warming widely accepted by scientists and governments as the ceiling for averting unmanageable climate damage.

Without further action, by 2017 the total CO2 emissions compatible with the 2.0 C goal will be "locked in" by power plants, factories and other carbon-emitting sources either built or planned, the IEA said.

http://news.yahoo.com/world-five-years-avoid-severe-warming-iea-170519443.html

It depends what you mean by censorship Crow - in a country where the Internet is wide open and there are thousands of television stations, you'd be hard pressed to claim there was ANYTHING (other than classified material) that you can't get access to. The only "government" station is Public Broadcasting System, which I would contend is the MOST likely to show climate change documentaries! The rest are free market and can show whatever they want (other than rules about sex and language on broadcast networks), which means that those businesses and their ultimate owners choose what to run for whatever reasons they have in their individual cases. Typically that would be what sells, although I would not claim that there are NEVER political/business influences affecting some of those decisions.

I think the Daily Mail article is close to ridiculous in its claims, as it makes all sorts of suppositions and assertions without actually stating any facts about the specific situation. I hardly think Sir David's unfamiliarity is a reason, as I can't see the US audience watching a BBC produced climate documentary expecting to know the commentators necessarily (and by the way he IS quite well known here). And claiming that the presidential race has anything at all to do with the decision is just ludicrous if you can't back it up with specifics.

What may be the most relevant issue is making business decisions based on perceived consumer desire derived from questionable polling - THAT is a huge problem in the US (and I suspect everywhere else) as it creates knee jerk behavior by corporations and government. Some of the polls showing drops in climate change beliefs are mirrored in the Western European nations incidentally, so this isn't necessarily a US specific thing as much as it is a questionable polling in general thing. This article has some interesting viewpoints on the subject:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/1 ... l-warming/

Sorry to run on, but this whole thing just seemed very dodgy to me assumptionwise, particularly because I haven't seen the particular channel, Discovery, shy away from climate change programming in general.

Great point Caelum
why would a film producer base his decisions on a perceived desire from questionable polling?
It is very strange