Global warming, anyone?

[68Charger]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

who thought just a few renegade money grubbing scientists could cause this much panic?

[Irving]

http://www.climatescienceinternation...an-declaration

http://www.climatescienceinternation...ask=view&id=63

[funkfool]

Global warming alarmist unleashes a bot on skeptics

Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.

Technology Review gushed that Leck's bot “answers Twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance.” Leck claims that his little bit of trollware is commonly mistaken as a genuine Twitter user leading the unsuspecting to sometimes debate it for days. Eventually it wears people down.

Leck's bot is an innovative, yet appalling new tactic in the ongoing campaign by global warming proponents to stifle debate and end discussion of climate science and policy. Spamming Twitter users is a tactic that is likely to backfire, as have so many of the ploys alarmists have tried in the past. There is nothing internet users find more annoying than trolls using spam to shut down online discussions.

Over the last year we have witnessed the large-scale collapse of public trust in global warming science and policy. The warmist's Climategate emails, relentless propagandizing, refusals to debate, carbon profiteering and lecturing by celebrities who lead lavish lifestyles while preaching austerity for the rest of us, have offended people's intelligence and sense of fair play. Using a spambot to harass climate realists will do nothing to ingratiate the warming argument with anyone with an open mind.
Should climate realists put up a bot of their own? Should we let the two bots debate each other and leave it to the machines? CFACT knows better. When you interact with our @CFACT account on Twitter, you are talking with a live human being. Science demands an open, honest give and take. So does public policy making in a free republic. Harassment and spam is not the answer.

[ERNO]

New York Times Tues.,Nov. 9,2010
By John M. Broder

Wash.-With energy legislation shelved in the U.S. and little hope for a global climate change agreement this year, some policy experts are proposing a novel approach to curb global warming: including greenhouse gases under an existing and highly sucessful international treaty ratified more than 20 years ago.
The treaty, the Montreal Protocol, was adopted in 1987 for a completely different purpose, to elimniate aerosols and other chemicals that were blowing a hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer.
But as the signers of the protocol convened the 22nd annual metting in Bangkok on Monday, negotiators are considering a proposed expansion in the ozone treaty to phase out the production and use of the industrial chemicals known as hydroflurocarbons or HFC's. The chemicals have thousands of times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
HFC's replaced even more dangerous ozone-depleting chemicals known as HCFC's, themselves a substitute for the chloroflurocarbons that were the first big target of the Montreal process.
The U.S. has thrown its support behind the proposal and negotiators said there was a strong current of support for the move on Monday. All the signatories to the Montreal Protocol would have to agree to the expansion, but no further approval from Congress would be needed. So far, there hes been no Congressional or industry opposition to the idea.
But the plan is not expected to be adopted this year. Large developing countries , including China, India and Brazil, object that the timetable is too rapid and that payments for eliminating the refrigerant are not high enough.

[Chase723]

International treaties to "combat" climate change are ridiculous and place America at a considerable economic disadvantage to compete with our competitors, and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to institute and would have IMHO no impact whatsoever. I'm not a believer in Anthropogenic global warming, but regardless of whether one is or is not the smartest thing to do would be to consider the implications of continued use of fossil fuels outside of that argument. We need to seriously acknowledge that 1) fossil fuels are a finite resource 2) While extraction processes are better than they once were, there is still considerable environmental impact that takes place (meaning holes in the earth, spills, etc 3) Our dependence upon fossil fuels makes us and our allies vulnerable to the whims of questionable nations (think Russia), rogue states (Iran), and religious fanatics (think radical Islamists and their influence in the middle east). The best thing to do, independent of cooperation with anyone, would be to embrace nuclear power and develop the technologies to utilize it as we see fit (trains, planes, cars, ships, etc). It's the cleanest, least impactful, most efficient source of energy known to man and we have an estimated 1 trillion years of nuclear fuel (i.e. uranium) in domestic reserves.

On a side note, I'm also not a really a huge fan of humans trying to actively "combat" climate by conducting massive scale temperature lowering experiments in the atmosphere. I'd rather let nature run her course...we have a very long history of screwing stuff up very badly, when initially we thought it was a great idea.

[Chase723]

On another note, I'm always a fan of not pumping extraneous crap into the atmosphere/environment. Pullution is a way bigger problem than CO2...we exhale CO2 and plants turn it into food.

[Graves]

Global warming alarmist unleashes a bot on skeptics

Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.

Damn, Stuart can give that damn bot a run for it's money. Possible career path Stuie?

[roberth]

See that big bright thingy in the sky during the daylight hours?

That big bright thingy is call The Sun and it heats the entire Earth as well as everything else within it's range. There's your global warming.

The best thing about people like lebru is that the rest of us are supposed to stop what we're doing. lebru and people like him are part of the elite thinkers delivering the message so they get to continue to use fossil fuels.

[funkfool]

Ok - follow me for just a moment here...
The earth warms...
the earth cools...
A cycle...
We agree so far... ?
It is as if the earth is 'breathing' so to speak...
You buy this analogy?
Yes?
So -
Trying to control the cycle..
to STOP global warming....
Now..
if we stop global warming...
we stop the cycle....
we prevent the earth from doing something...
it is naturally SUPPOSED TO DO!
If it stops cycling...
What will happen?

Now,
Humans have had an effect on the planet...
The real question is:
How much...
It is my assertation that in the 4+ billion years of earth history...
Mankind is but a blip of a speck in time AND effect.
Mankinds actions affect the atmosphere, geology and chemistry of the earth... but that only effects our furious attemt to exist upon it.

Mankind will NOT be able to stop the cyclic action of the earths' warming and cooling... (and why would we want to?)

No matter WHO gets rich off our backs.

We just don't have that much influence.

The Scientific Method