Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

Whether you are a nay or yay, has any evidence been presented that change the previous acknowledgement the solutions, currently on the table, won't work?

Actually it seems at the moment that virtually nothing is being done to address the situation on a global scale, so which solutions do you mean?
Reducing the use of fossil fuels will certainly reduce the problem and the easiest way to do this is by increasing efficiency. These measures will obviously pay for themselves over time as fossil fuels are getting more expensive.
After that a move to renewable energy would be required to remove the problem completely and that would certainly work.
It would also be a huge benefit to the world by reducing many forms of pollution and producing huge supplies of virtually free energy.
Solar energy is approaching the point where it is in price parity with fossil fuel produced electricity in some markets and probably in most of them within ten years. Putting solar panels on the roofs of the user also has an advantage in reducing the huge transmission losses of conventional suppliers by putting generation on top of the consumer instead of many miles away.
Apparently changing the majority of the worlds electrical generation away from fossil fuels would cost about 1-2% of global GDP up to the year 2050 which isn't actually that expensive.
Rising fossil fuel demands in countries like China and India will likely drive oil prices up to levels that will slow global GDP by more than that anyway.
Actually, if you costed in the harm that fossil fuels do to the environment and passed that on to the consumer, alternative energy would be already be far cheaper.

[hhfarang]

Steve,

The U.S. government has passed laws to increase efficiency nearly yearly since I was a teenager it seems. They keep making the fuel economy standards more and more strict every year for decades. That's what destroyed the auto market in the U.S. and has contributed to the high percentage of joblessness. Where does it end. Do we have to make one million dollar cars that run on water?

[STEVE G]

Do we have to make one million dollar cars that run on water?

You don't need to change that much:

U.S. Clean Diesel Automobile Sales Are Up 37 Percent Over 2010
http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/917 ... _2010.aspx

[MrPlum]

1. The solutions, AFAIK, are carbon trading schemes and carbon taxes. Do you have a link to how and by how much global temperatures will be reduced through these measures?

2. Is there any evidence China and India will reduce their fossil fuel usage, bearing in mind oil exploration and drilling show no signs of abating? If they won't, then... considering the threat to the world's civilians... shouldn't we be calling for an 'humanitarian' intervention in these countries?

Can you say whether stopping the current wars of conquest is more or less important than the threat from global warming? Or would it be 'too expensive'?

Have you seen this argument "Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by 'Coolant' Carbon Dioxide'
http://www.suite101.com/content/greenho ... de-a365870 and would you comment on some of the claims, such as:

'AGW proponents were inventing variables and constants'

'the gas can only absorb a limited amount of the energy received from other sources and then emit a limited amount of the energy absorbed.” In simple terms this means carbon dioxide cannot ‘store’ more energy than it emits.'

'he now calls the greenhouse gas theory, ”antiscience" and "pseudoscience.”'

[hhfarang]

^ So what's the problem... the U.S. seems to be doing their part... address China or India as polutionists... (I think I just created a new word)

[sandman67]

1 word answer

VENUS

in any scientific debate there are always dissentng voices. The good doctor and his buddies fall into the 6 to 8% of scientists working on climate science who dissent wth the 92 to 94% who agree.

There is a simlary tiny percentage of MDs who think vaccines are a bad thing based on the totally discredted work of one corrupt struck of ex UK MD.

There is a similar tiny percentage of geologists who support the Biblical Flood myth

There is a similar tiny percentage of biologists who support the religious theory of so called Intelligent Design. The University Biology Department where the "Father of ID" Michael Behe works actually placed a disclaimer statement against his name on the site distancing themselves...its a polite way of saying "Hes an IDiot and we have nothing to do with his quackery".

Rarely are the dissenters in the Eureka category. Scientists like Gallileo, Curie, Fleming, Watson & Crick, Einstein, Darwin and Hawking are very rare.

Simple fact is that the dissenters are usually wrong.

It is only because the modern media such as the lying echo chamber of the internet and propoganda outlets like Fox, whose owner just happens to own significant oil interests and an ol shale company, have muddied the scientifc process and made non scientists think publc opinion is part of that process & that the climate debate is seen as "controversial". It isnt.

There is no scientific debate aboput whether it is happening. There is only debate around the role of the agreed mechanisms and speed/effects they are and will have...ones that get increasingly bleak as the years trot by.

Look again at that article. One of the co-authors of the paper has previously published a skeptic book..... thats called vested interest.....just like the Telegraph journo who makes his living pushng climate skepticsm after being proved a liar over so called "Climategate", that lie beng repeated even now nightly care of Murdoch Lies Inc.

One more point

Ive seen here the arguments that its pointless the west doing anything because China and India are going to carry on polluting.

Ok...extending that argument, should your house catch fire dont bother calling the Fire Service out unless you have all but put the fire out yourself first. Feel free to chuck plastic bags and litter all over town, especially on the beaches......as we all know there are a few locals who do it willy nilly. Let your pitbull savage kids, as well .... thats what the soi dogs do.....

see how dumb that argument is?

[STEVE G]

Have you seen this argument "Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by 'Coolant' Carbon Dioxide'
http://www.suite101.com/content/greenho ... de-a365870 and would you comment on some of the claims...

That paper repeats an experiment carried out in 1909 and ignores what happens when the parts of the atmosphere consist of different layers of gasses at different concentrations. It deals with the overlapping absorbtion bands of H20 and C02 and not with the areas of the spectrum at which there is no overlap and consequently where the greenhouse gas effect occurs. Guy Stewart Callendar first came to an understanding of this in the late 1930s although it wasn't really accepted until further work was carried out in the 1950s by physicists such as Kaplan and Plass.
It's hardly new in other words!

[hhfarang]

On Wednesday evening Al Gore reminded Americans that nobody can annoy and alienate people through name-calling, condescension, misrepresentation of facts, and paranoid conspiracy theories quite like Al.

In “24 Hours of Climate Reality,” first airing Wednesday at 8:00 pm Eastern Time, Gore presented an hour-long sequel to his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” followed by 23 hours of semi-reruns of essentially the same presentation. Gore and his new presentation served up the usual taken-out-of-context anecdotal climate anomalies and appeals to polarizing, discredited sources of alleged authority to argue humans are causing a global warming crisis.

So what happens when scientists report global soil moisture has improved throughout the twentieth century and droughts have become less frequent and less severe? No worry, Al Gore can find someplace where there still is a drought and then claim global warming is to blame. Sweep those facts about improving soil moisture and fewer global droughts under the rug.

How do we account for the fact that global hurricane frequency is in long-term decline? No worry, Al Gore can highlight some of the fewer hurricanes that still do occur and claim they were parented by global warming. Heck, Gore can even claim global warming is making them stronger, even though there is no long-term trend in accumulated cyclone energy. If Gore can make the presentation “Hollywood” enough, perhaps people will forget to check the facts.

Except there’s a problem here, Al; people do check the facts. It’s no coincidence that public belief in a human-caused global warming crisis peaked in 2008, shortly after Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth.” But public opinion also plunged dramatically in the years thereafter. If you claim global warming is causing more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more droughts, a shut-down of the oceanic conveyor belt, etc., but none of those claims is supported by real-world facts, people begin to realize you are selling snake oil.

SOURCE: Forbes.com

[MrPlum]

Simple fact is that the dissenters are usually wrong.

I'll take my chances with the swine flu dissenters. The simple fact is that most scientists, like most doctors and climatologists, have to pay their mortgages and prostitute themselves for those research dollars. Your %'s are meaningless.

One more point

Ive seen here the arguments that its pointless the west doing anything because China and India are going to carry on polluting.

see how dumb that argument is?

Why? If the steps you take are not going to work, then they are not going to work. It's dumb to toss trillions of dollars down the toilet on the off chance we can persuade Chindia to comply. Setting up a carbon trading scheme so hedge funds can enrich their already rich clients, is also dumb. No? That money can be better spent on clean technologies and cleaning up the environment. Not wasted on phoney schemes designed to funnel billions into the hands of the crooks.

China and India aren't interested because they want to keep their people employed and advance their economies or they want solutions that work, or because they know the whole anthropogenic junk science is a crock. I'm quite happy to accept the earth is warming due to the effects of the sun, and we are getting more storms because of El Nina. But the rest is still mostly speculation, based on dodgy hockey-stick graphs driven by criminal political syndicates, out to make a buck.

If you wish to tackle environmental pollution, then tackle the problem at source. The manufacturers who are producing all that packaging, plastic, chemicals, pollutants, agro-business, pharmaceuticals and nuclear waste. The warmongers, killing hundreds of thousands and laying waste to the planet with nuclear and chemical weapons. And all those companies designing their products to break within a couple of months, forcing you to buy new ones.

Leave the people alone. They've been taxed to the max already.

I never wanted the umpteen layers of packaging used to hide the fact they've only given you 4 biscuits, in the first place. Nor do they need to tax me to incentivize me to stop chucking my litter all over town. There would be no litter if they gave us organic food, plant-based medicines, clean water and stopped brainwashing us into buying things we don't need.

[STEVE G]

.....or because they know the whole anthropogenic junk science is a crock.

Do they know that or do they just think it? Very few people seem to have the slightest notion of the physics behind the whole issue.
There seems to be little effort going in to actually challenging the basic physical laws that underpin the whole of greenhouse gas theory. If we can accept that the world is at the temperature it is because of the effects of these gasses in the atmosphere, it is hardly illogical that an increase in them would raise the temperature. If you don't accept that, then you have to explain why the world isn't at the icy temperature that it would be without the greenhouse effect and all the other planets with an atmosphere as well.
Politics is one thing but a raising the level of C02 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the planet using known physics. If you can change these I'll admit I'm wrong and you can get a Nobel prize!

[redzonerocker]

^
Physics or science has little impact if the theory is based on false & manipulated data

[STEVE G]

^
Physics or science has little impact if the theory is based on false & manipulated data

Are you saying that the likes of Stefan-Boltzmann law are false? Please feel free to point out the flaws if you can as the physics of greenhouse gas theory have been understood for over 100 years.
If the basic theory is wrong, you first have to explain why the world isn't at the temperature of about -18C that it would be at without it.
Once you accept that, the fact that increasing greenhouse gasses increases the temperature is surely only logical and I really can't see why people have such a problem understanding that. (Maybe they have never tried.)
As I've said many times before, I'm quite prepared to admit I'm wrong if somebody can come up with a new explanation of the earths temperature.

[Super Joe]

It is only because the modern media such as the lying echo chamber of the internet and propoganda outlets like Fox, whose owner just happens to own significant oil interests, have muddied the scientifc process and made non scientists think publc opinion is part of that process & that the climate debate is seen as "controversial".
.....just like the Telegraph journo who makes his living pushng climate skepticsm after being proved a liar over so called "Climategate", that lie beng repeated even now nightly care of Murdoch Lies Inc.

Absolutely, which exposes this fundamental flaw in the conspiracy theory which is based upon MSM shaping opinion in favour of climate change while supressing info that detracts. The exact opposite has occured and the msm has played a significant role. The world's largest msm outlet, printed media in the US and the largest news network in the US... all promote skepticism of climate change. Maybe they didn't get the memo

Simple fact is that the dissenters are usually wrong.

I'll take my chances with the swine flu dissenters. The simple fact is that most scientists, like most doctors and climatologists, have to pay their mortgages and prostitute themselves for those research dollars. Your %'s are meaningless.

A completely illogical argument... the tiny minority of dissenting scientists & doctors also have mortgages to pay. And according to CT's they would be more desperate than others as they would not be receiving their big pharma or big oil payments

It's dumb to toss trillions of dollars down the toilet on the off chance we can persuade Chindia to comply. China and India aren't interested because they want to keep their people employed and advance their economies or they want solutions that work, or because they know the whole anthropogenic junk science is a crock.

That's as much as they want to reveal to you on these conspiracy websites yes, however back in 2007...
China's Climate Change Program June 2007 - China's Position on Climate Change Issues:
Climate change, the impacts of which have been felt all over the world, was mainly caused by the massive emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases originated from developed countries since industrial revolution. China's National Assessment Report on Climate Change has been completed, those studies provide scientific basis for developing national policies to address climate change. Global climate change is a serious common challenge to the international community. China will seriously fulfill its commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

So no, the world hasn't just rolled over and give up because a tiny percentage of scientists with conflicts of interest disagree. As we all know, whichever side of the debate you belong, this is just the usual jockeying for position and looking out for national interest at play. China have already been implementing more programs than most and reducing GHG emissions, but as they're developing rapidly their overall emissions have increased. To mitigate this they're developing measures such as a total energy cap, carbon capture & storage and cap-and-trade...

China's Climate Minister Speaks in Support of Carbon Capture & Storage, Two New Potential Projects Announced - Jul, 2011
http://www.chinafaqs.org/blog-posts/chi ... nd-storage

China Beat U.S. to Cap and Trade - Jul, 2010:
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/23/chi ... -and-trade
The day the U.S. Senate gave up on cap and trade legislation, news comes that China are implementing their own cap and trade system. China's enormous stimulus spending on green energy has already resulted in more ech investment than in the US and Europe combined.

China Moving Forward on 5 Year Plan Climate & Energy Implementation; Emissions Trading in Development - Aug, 2011
http://www.chinafaqs.org/blog-posts/chi ... -year-plan
The many climate and energy pieces of China's 12th five Year Plan appear to be moving into place. In March, China announced an initial set of initiatives to control the growth in carbon emissions, part of the larger goal or reducing emissions by 40-45% by 2020.

SJ

[MrPlum]

Absolutely, which exposes this fundamental flaw in the conspiracy theory which is based upon MSM shaping opinion in favour of climate change while supressing info that detracts. The exact opposite has occured and the msm has played a significant role. The world's largest msm outlet, printed media in the US and the largest news network in the US... all promote skepticism of climate change. Maybe they didn't get the memo

Rubbish. The GW proponents had a clear run for a decade before others woke up and Al Gore is STILL spewing propaganda. He's become a national joke. If what you say is true, those endless Hollywood 'Apocalypse' movies would be balanced by 'Nirvana' movies showing the earth actually benefitting from warming and everyone can relax and go back to sleep. If any such movie exists, show me.

The simple fact is that most scientists, like most doctors and climatologists, have to pay their mortgages and prostitute themselves for those research dollars.

A completely illogical argument... the tiny minority of dissenting scientists & doctors also have mortgages to pay. And according to CT's they would be more desperate than others as they would not be receiving their big pharma or big oil payments

Dearie me. You'll be telling me campaign contributions (otherwise known as bribes) don't influence politicians next.

China will seriously fulfill its commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

Smashing. You seem to have skipped Copenhagen. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Neither China nor India are going to sign up to MANDATORY controls and without enforcement, they can warble whatever comforting words the 'warmistas' want to hear. China has a massive pollution problem. Of course it is going to reduce it's emissions before all the water is poisoned, all the fish are dead and all the inhabitants die of lung disease. What it isn't going to do is allow it's economy to be gutted. Green technology is profitable, so of course China will embrace it.

Do they know that or do they just think it? Very few people seem to have the slightest notion of the physics behind the whole issue.

Unfortunately the 'science' has been hijacked by the politicians and social controllers. The 'science' isn't helped by the fact that 'Nobel' Prize-winner Al Gore lied like a cheap hooker, Michael Mann was exposed for his 'hockey stick graph, the IPCC (International Panel of Climate Crooks) is a political body and not a scientific one and 'Climategate' showed the 'scientists' driving the fraud were manipulating data to "hide the decline". When there are billions of dollars being dangled in front of scientists to find evidence of warming, you can bet your bottom dollar, they are going to find 'evidence' of warming. The whole propaganda apparatus has been brought in to get the job done. Hollywood Apocalypse movies, media fearmongering, drowning Polar Bears, Nobel Prizes, billions of dollars available to climatologists. What scientist is going to be brave enough to go against this all-out assault? When they change the mantra from 'global warming' to 'climate change', so they can milk the public on the way up, then milk the public on the way down again, you know Hitler's 'Big Lie' is at work.

I'm glad Oil and other money has gone into countering the 'warmistas' propaganda. At least we now have a debate.

There seems to be little effort going in to actually challenging the basic physical laws that underpin the whole of greenhouse gas theory.

Just as there is little effort by you to give due weight to the the political, financial and social aspects, which are leading people to mistrust the science.

If we can accept that the world is at the temperature it is because of the effects of these gasses in the atmosphere, it is hardly illogical that an increase in them would raise the temperature. If you don't accept that, then you have to explain why the world isn't at the icy temperature that it would be without the greenhouse effect and all the other planets with an atmosphere as well.

When a number of countries have just had one of the coldest winters on record, I'm struggling to understand your point. It's still pretty icy in Antarctica.

I've said I'm quite prepared to accept the earth is warming. I can even concede the greenhouse gas theory. I can even acknowledge man's contribution to it. By how much and whether we can really 'Canute-like' do anything about it, is still an open question. Unless new information is available. What I take issue with, is the solutions on the table. They seem principally designed to enrich the political and financial thieves in Washington and Wall St. and will not solve the problem.

There should be no need to resort to fearmongering, to fabricate scientific mumbo-jumbo or resort to emotional manipulations of naive children, by government diktat, so that in another decade, when they are old enough to vote robotically, you will finally get the 'consensus' you seek. The propaganda isn't even subtle.

People know a used car salesman when they see one. The whole anthropogenic GW putsch, just like the 'swine flu' and 'Ozone layer' profit-driven schemes, is not science. It's a form of 'Cash for Clunkers'.

Politics is one thing but a raising the level of C02 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the planet using known physics. If you can change these I'll admit I'm wrong and you can get a Nobel prize!

It's easy to get a Nobel Prize. Invade a few countries, then shower them with 'humanitarian' bombs or point to an unknown face in a staged concentration camp photo, as Elie Wiesel (look him up) did and say you're a 'holocash' survivor. Or stage a comedy circus called the 'Peace process'.

In the Matrix, Sainthood + the $1 million that goes with it, is assured. Nobel is a joke. Actually, I'm glad you mentioned it. Here's what the weasel Wiesel said about those who challenge his Holocash ripoff..

“Deniers suffer from a moral disease. I would never enter into a discussion or a debate with them.” Elie Wiesel, 2007

Notice a familiar theme? It's the same 'denier' smear the GW cheerleaders are using.

I know who is suffering from a 'moral disease'.

[Super Joe]

Absolutely, which exposes this fundamental flaw in the conspiracy theory which is based upon MSM shaping opinion in favour of climate change while supressing info that detracts. The exact opposite has occured and the msm has played a significant role.

Rubbish.

Your words...

That's why I have little respect for politicians and the mainstream media. They create myths then turn them into 'facts'. Let's take 'Global Warming'. You are required to believe it is warming up. How can this be achieved?
Step 1. Get a scientist. Any scientist will do, to come up with a theory.
Step 2. Heavily promote the theory. The pro-GW author is given a huge cheque, his book appears, within weeks, and he gets TV interviews. Newspapers will print selected extracts. Contrast this with the ante-GW author. His book is declined. He's now flipping burgers at McDonald's.
Step 3. Create a consensus. Those who promote the theory get headlines, funding, promotions and accolades. Those who denounce it are ignored, ridiculed, their reputations shredded, their funding is cut.

Dearie me. You'll be telling me campaign contributions (otherwise known as bribes) don't influence politicians next.

No I won't. But nice attempt to change the subject from my pointing out the logic of your argument is flawed, as the small % of scientists are also just as corruptable as the larger % of scientists.

China will seriously fulfill its commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

Smashing. You seem to have skipped Copenhagen. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Again you've tried to change the subject and selected one part out of context. I was responding to your claim ... "or because they know the whole anthropogenic junk science is a crock", quoting the Chinese government themselves accepting the anthropogenic science, look I had even underlined it for you in my post LOL. This is just more of your attempts to pull the wool over posters eyes when you can't win an argument

Why the need for constant deception. I wonder

SJ