 |
In one of his most out-spoken interventions in the climate change debate, he said a £15 billion annual programme was required to halt deforestation or the world would have to live with the dire consequences.
“We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall,” he said. “We are asking for something pretty dreadful unless we really understand the issues now and [the] urgency of them.” The Prince said the rainforests, which provide the “air conditioning system for the entire planet”, releasing water vapour and absorbing carbon, were being lost to poor farmers desperate to make a living.
“What we have got to do is try to ensure that these forests are more valuable alive than dead. At the moment, there is more value in them being dead,” he said. He estimated that the cost would be about £15 billion a year but said that this should be viewed as an insurance policy for the whole world. “That is roughly just under one per cent of all the insurance premiums paid in the world in any one year. It is an insurance premium to ensure the world has some rainfall and reasonable weather patterns. It is a good deal.” He also said consumers had to play their part by choosing products that were environmentally sustainable and called for improvements in labelling.
I wonder if Prince Charles and the Royals will take the lead, and set an example or is that just for the commoner?
#15, your examples don’t reach the conclusions you think they do. Do you put on your seatbelt after you’ve crashed? If your car is skidding off a bridge, you hit the brakes, but if you are already off the bridge and heading towards the water, the brakes don’t help; you brace for impact.
Now as to the actual subject, all the scientific models show that immediate action is not required. An extra decade or so of emissions makes little difference. This is a good thing since emissions are going to go up regardless. Europe has signed on to Kyoto, and their emissions have not dropped. The US has seen its emissions drop somewhat due to higher gas prices.
Scottie, I don’t want to get into a tussle with you over this, but “peer review” doesn’t necessarily mean “valid”. There’s a good write-up on the criticisms of the peer review process on Wikipedia.
Wiki Peer Review link
An excerpt…
“While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[9] He remarks, “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”[10]”
I am thinking that the idea Australia should became a republic is not a bad one. Then we wouldn’t have this idiot as head of state
#32 – MikeN,
#15, your examples don’t reach the conclusions you think they do. Do you put on your seatbelt after you’ve crashed? If your car is skidding off a bridge, you hit the brakes, but if you are already off the bridge and heading towards the water, the brakes don’t help; you brace for impact.
Analogies are always imperfect. Do you put your seatbelt on when the driver of your vehicle dies and you know impact is imminent? We don’t know yet whether we have A) Already crashed and just haven’t noticed B) Have not yet crashed but are extremely likely to do so very soon or C) Have not yet crashed and have some hope of not doing so.
Actually, the heart attack example is more similar to the real situation. Do you really wait until your doctor tells you exactly when you will have your heart attack and how bad it will be before reducing your cholesterol and getting some exercise?
BTW, part of the reason to act now is that CO2 takes about 10 years to get out of the atmosphere. So, the warming we already feel today is from the CO2 from the 1990s. Today’s CO2 will be felt in a decade. And, our CO2 is not only not yet going down, our emissions are still dramatically increasing. Time is short.
Here is a peer reviewed articles, with full PDF, showing that we are not yet sure if we have already passed the tipping point. Since we are not sure about this it seems obvious, at least to me, that we must act quickly on the hope that we are not yet past the point of no return.
http://tinyurl.com/4egyh4
#33 – JimR,
Nothing is perfect, that’s true. But, would you trust some schmuck’s blog over peer review? How about if the schmuck and his blog are paid for by ExxonMobil?
Peer review may not be perfect. It is certainly not infallible. But, you’re not going to get better information outside of it. Information outside peer review is likely to be pure conjecture.
I try not to ask people to take my word for stuff. Here’s a link to some real peer reviewed information.
CO2: Even our lowest targets are too high.
The link is to my blog, but saves space here because it has links to the full peer reviewed article and its complete supporting data as well as to a general public article that cites the peer reviewed one and paraphrases it for mere mortals like most of us.
Sorry for the bad link. I must’ve screwed up the link tags. Let me try again for the second link.
CO2: Even our lowest targets are too high.
Let’s see if that one’s better.
With any luck, we’re all gonna die before we’re forced to live “green”.
>>With any luck, we’re all gonna die before
>>we’re forced to live “green”.
Try it. You’ll like it. There’s more to life than a 9mpg Humper.
Someone needs to tell Prince Charles and Ted Turner to STOP TAKING OUR SIDE!!! You guys sound like idiots, and it’s not helping!
18 months? Why not 17, 19 or 23?
Scottie, I read the paper at your link. I’m not sure I should be impressed or not by the 88 references of that paper to other IPCC endorsed papers. A depends on B for accuracy and B depends on C and so on. I also wonder if the “peer reviews” are done outside the IPCC circle by unbiased scientists… some of those 13,000 skeptics mentioned on this thread for instance.
The alarm set up by the human induced global warming theory is already damaging that which it has set out to protect… the rain forests, now being cleared for biofuels. The rain forests have been in jeopardy for as long as I can remember and yet over many decades of effort, it’s destruction continued. Now with biofuel on the menu, they are as good as dead unless the world is willing to put every amazon farmer on permanent welfare far exceeding the profits from biofuel. You know as well as I that once they are offered cash, someone will up the ante on biofuel prices.
From the paper…
“Improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2. Deforestation contributed a net emission of 60±30 ppm over the past few hundred years, of which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today (2, 81, figs S12, S14). Reforestation could absorb a significant fraction of the 60±30 ppm net deforestation emission.”
…
“The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”
The first statement reflects “pie in the sky mentality”. Realistically it ain’t gonna happen unless it happens naturally…ie half the population of earth suddenly dies.
The second statement is meaningless because absolutely no one can stop selfishness. Those fat piggish children at McDonalds are symbolic of human nature. China wants to be a fat piggy too. The world population of fat pigs is about to (triple?). Can you stop them? Will anyone stop them. Do we have a right to stop them? Certainly not ethically.
I don’t have any better answers Scottie so I’m just doing what I always have been doing. I live in the city, but half my of lot is vegetable and fruit garden. I just dug another 20 x 40 ft with a pick and shovel… no rototiller for this old man… I compost and recycle everything, buy in bulk minimal packaging and freeze or dry food for the winter. If I had more money i would install a windmill (windy as hell here) and solar panels. Unfortunately, it’s illegal to drill your own well in the city. My family of 5 travels (car) a TOTAL average of only 5000 miles each year. We dispose of less than 1 bag of garbage to landfill each week.
There are too many self-serving fuckheads on this planet who are already taking the dire warning of said paper and turning it into a destructive influence for money.
I’m surprised the great-catch-all phrase used by the fearful masses has not been employed, “Better safe than sorry.”
There, I said it.
I’m still baffled by the hurricane prognostications. First there were going to be more than ever. Then less than ever but worse. Last year there were virtually none. No bad ones for sure. So what gives? What I see are tornadoes, not hurricanes.
From post #22…
“…Irregardless, we have to do something.”
Since that’s a double negative, I guess you are proposing that we do nothing!
If you use a non-word like “irregardless” a lot, you should probably do your best to purge it from your mind. The two words are:
Regardless and Regardful… There is no “irregardless”
Your english lesson for the day.
…Oh, and the opposite of win is “lose”, not “loose”… That one shows up even MORE often in web posts and also in newspapers!
# 42 John C Dvorak
“Last year there were virtually none. No bad ones for sure. So what gives?”
There were 6 Atlantic hurricanes two of which were Cat 5
30 Cyclones which are the same thing as a hurricane.
I expect more from you. That post was typical of others on this board but not you. Is it that you don’t notice unless it is near America or is it unless they make landfall?
I just went and added up all the Typhoons, Cyclones, and Hurricanes for 2006 and 2007 seasons. I did not include tropical depressions or lesser storms.
2006 32
2007 55
In 2007 there were 23 more than the previous year. Now if I lived on a coast that would give me pause. To say “Last year there were virtually none” is woefully ignorant of the facts.
#42 – John C Dvorak,
Minor point. I’d add that no one year is a statistical universe, a La Niña year, even less so.
The important bit, however, is not getting the exact predictions of local weather phenomena correct. The important bit is recognizing what we’re doing on a global scale.
#41 – JimR,
1) Calling me Scottie just makes you as condescending as Mr. Mustard and does not exactly endear me to your case.
2) What do you use instead of peer review? Blogs? That’s what Fox Snooze does. Can we try to at least be more intelligent that the Snoozers?
Seriously, what other source of real data is there? Without peer review, any asshole with a degree in anything can claim to be an expert. Hell, we’ve got plenty of meteorologists doing so … and meteorology is literally not even a related field to climatology.
Peer review may not be perfect. It’s just the best thing we have for keeping people honest.
It worked to develop the science for all of the technology in your life, including the computer on which you are reading this. Why give it zero credibility now? Why suddenly pick something else to take its place? Why only on this one issue? Why on the issue on which so much depends?
MScott,”1) Calling me Scottie just makes you as condescending as Mr. Mustard and does not exactly endear me to your case.”
I think you need to relax a little . I in no way intended to insult you. What possible negative connotation does Scottie have for christ sakes!
I use Scottie as a short form to your long alias… and frankly I meant it in a friendly way!
GEEZ!
>>Calling me Scottie just makes you as
>>condescending as Mr. Mustard
>>I use Scottie as a short form to your
>>long alias… and frankly I meant it
>>in a friendly way!
So did I. Jeez, MISANTHROPIC SCOTT, take a chill pill.
And “Scottie” is certainly more dignified than “Musty”, or calling me by my surname (“Mustard”, without the honorific).
Condescending, my ass!
Yah! Condescending your ass!
#35, you keep trying with these analogies, but the problem is that you are starting from the premise that the various environmental cutbacks you poropose are a good thing by themself, and then concluding that you should adopt these cutbacks because of global warming and where we are relative to a tipping point. But if you take away the assumption, then it matters whether a tipping point has already occurred. There are fundamentally different actions that should be taken depending on this, and this is where your analogies break down.
Also, keep in mind that the actions being proposed change very little, and even severe actions that would change things do not have to be undertaken right away. The whole tipping point theory is nonsense.
Bythe way , the US is down to 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. So much for that talking point of 5% of the population, 40% of the resources.
MScott, “Why give it zero credibility now? Why suddenly pick something else to take its place? Why only on this one issue? Why on the issue on which so much depends?”
Why do you ask so many unjustifiable accusing questions? I’m skeptical, not dismissive, this isn’t my only skeptical issue, and I didn’t suddenly change tact as you boldly imply. Why are you so married to this issue that you are irrational about it’s deficiencies?
Who reviews the papers on human engineered global warming… IPCC members or outside unbiased peers? Are you so certain of the accuracy of IPCC conclusions, that we are doomed if we don’t act now, that you are prepared to go to war with Russia and/or China if necessary to save the earth? They certainly aren’t taking the threats of global doom seriously. China is producing coal fired plants at a rate of 2 per week. Every week they eliminate the CO2 emission savings from 300 million CFL’s. What are your demands for Russia which is increaseing their coal generated power from 28% to 37% over the next 7 years? India is coming up ther rear (so to speak) in third place.
The proper way for scientific papers to be reviewed is by unbiased peers. Even admiring a colleagues previous work can eliminate a reviewer from a panel. Who is reviewing the papers on global warming then? Do you know? Why does it upset you that I ask that question? Are these scientists beyond unbiased scrutiny? Why is it that no one of influence has taken action? What has Al gore done except talk. How many coal fired plants has he shut down in the US?
Here’s an inconvenient truth for you…
“If all the coal-burning power plants that are scheduled to be built over the next 25 years are built (in the USA), the lifetime carbon dioxide emissions from those power plants will equal all the emissions from coal burning in all of human history to date,” says John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. (Discover Magazine 12.18.06)
So far all the IPCC alarm has managed to do is hurt the poor with increased fuel and food prices and increase the rate of deforestation. CO2 emissions continue to go up worldwide, and the fat pigs are getting richer. You’d think that such a prestigious self-reviewing peer papered group like the IPCC would predict the havoc caused by their alarmist approach to getting the world on the right path, if indeed it was even necessary.
# 52 MikeN
Care to quote a source?
# 53 JimR
“Who reviews the papers on human engineered global warming… IPCC members or outside unbiased peers?”
Anyone who wants to. You just need to ask.
“Are you so certain of the accuracy of IPCC conclusions, that we are doomed if we don’t act now, that you are prepared to go to war with Russia and/or China if necessary to save the earth?”
Strawman argument! Who says we have to go to war? Always with the crazy statements you global warming deniers.
“The proper way for scientific papers to be reviewed is by unbiased peers. ”
False. Unbiased is not part of the equation. Everyone has bias. All that is required is that they be tested and or refuted using science and not speculation. Also that you post your conclusions to be reviewed as well
“Who is reviewing the papers on global warming then? ”
Again anyone that wants to.
“Do you know? ”
I know some of them personally yes.
“Even admiring a colleagues previous work can eliminate a reviewer from a panel. ”
What ass did you pull that out of? That maybe true for certain panels but is not an overall operation procedure of the scientific community.
“So far all the IPCC alarm has managed to do is hurt the poor with increased fuel and food prices and increase the rate of deforestation. ”
Really? I say it is the greedy energy companies that do that. Nice way to switch the blame though.
Re: Scottie. Ack.
I tend to think it sounds rather childish and is longer than Scott, so don’t see the big advantage over just calling me Scott. But, no worries, I’ll chill about that.
Sorry Mr. Mustard. I do tend to start calling you anything else only after you call me Scottie or really piss me off, in which case, I sometimes switch to Mouseturd. I’ll stop that now. (Unless, of course, you really piss me off again.)
#53 – JimR,
OK, be skeptical, but where do you search for answers to your skepticism? Do you distrust all peer reviewed literature? If so, what’s more believable? Even if not, what is as believable?
In short, skeptical why? What sources lead you to your skepticism if not peer reviewed pubs?
Who reviews the papers on human engineered global warming… IPCC members or outside unbiased peers?
Actually, I usually search Google Scholar, which lists a great many peer reviewed publications, none of which are reviewed by IPCC. When I do use IPCC, yes, I also consider that reviewed. In fact, reviewed by hundreds of scientists, many of whom have an interest in showing that global warming is false, and all agreeing that the data is true. That’s what the IPCC is. They work by consensus and are appointed by governments, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia, China, and Australia, the largest oil importer, oil exporter, coal burner, and coal exporter respectively. These four nations, and many others, have tremendous economic interest in appointing IPCC scientists that will dispute anthropogenic climate change. And, they all agree that it’s real, with at least 90% confidence.
…that you are prepared to go to war with Russia and/or China if necessary to save the earth?
HUH??!!? Where’d you get that bullshit? (Sorry, but I don’t know what else to call it.) Warfare is anti-environment, by definition.
China is producing coal fired plants at a rate of 2 per week. Every week they eliminate the CO2 emission savings from 300 million CFL’s.
Yup. But did you happen to notice what they do with the power? Oh yeah. They make shit for our consumerist economy. That’s our CO2.
Here’s an inconvenient truth for you…
“If all the coal-burning power plants that are scheduled to be built over the next 25 years are built (in the USA), the lifetime carbon dioxide emissions from those power plants will equal all the emissions from coal burning in all of human history to date,” says John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. (Discover Magazine 12.18.06)
So, what you’re saying, if rephrased without changing your facts at all, is that if we build all of these plants, we will double the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that humanity has created thus far? That sounds catastrophic to me, not minor. Whose point are you making? And, coal plants last 50 years. Will you also replace those that are decommissioned with new ones? This sounds like a recipe for disaster without changing or disputing the content of your post.
So far all the IPCC alarm has managed to do is hurt the poor with increased fuel and food prices and increase the rate of deforestation.
No. This is not based on the recommendation of environmentalist. All of the environmental organizations whose information I’ve read have long stated that crops for oil is a terrible idea because of the risk of deforestation for fuel and putting fuel in competition with poor people’s food. Hint: Rich people’s fuel will always win over poor people’s food. Bad idea!!
Some environmental orgs recommend cellulosic ethanol. However, even there, the technology is not ready and there are real issues.
No. This idea was created by the agriculture industry, at least in this country, for the purpose of moving tax dollars into their pockets. Some countries, notably Brazil, started with this before the issues were well known.
You’d think that such a prestigious self-reviewing peer papered group like the IPCC would predict the havoc caused by their alarmist approach to getting the world on the right path, if indeed it was even necessary.
You’d think so you mean. I would not. I would think that there might be a learning curve in the process, like the one that said that the carbon credits could not be given out in such numbers to the existing polluters. I would also think that action must begin else it never will.
Have you never needed to learn anything on the job? If so, you’re very lucky or very young. I’m betting neither and that you have indeed had to learn on the job … and have made some initial mistakes as well. With a bit of intelligence and luck, I presume you learned from your mistakes.
Scott (from now on), very nice response. That’s the kind of stuff that might convince me I might be looking at this the wrong way. At least it’s civil and intelligent and I appreciate the effort. It’s late here and I’m tired, but i’ll review what you’ve said tomorrow. I think you misunderstood me on my example of the USA coal fired plants that are scheduled to be built over the next 25 years. I’ll explain that too and keep it shorter. Nite.
(Scottie always made me think of Star Trek. I liked that guy.)
#53, Scott, “OK, be skeptical, but where do you search for answers to your skepticism? Do you distrust all peer reviewed literature?”
I don’t always find answers to my skepticism, bur challenges pop up everywhere you look in the media. Of course I don’t distrust all peer reviews. I only distrust closed minded groups where if you disagree you are kicked out of the club. Peer reviewed papers need to meet certain standards to be published, they have to make sense, but they can also be speculative. A good example of what can be peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal was on DU a few days ago. “Using a mobile phone while pregnant can seriously damage your baby”(journal: Epidemiology)
“In fact, reviewed by hundreds of scientists, many of whom have an interest in showing that global warming is false, and all agreeing that the data is true.
“These four nations, and many others, have tremendous economic interest in appointing IPCC scientists that will dispute anthropogenic climate change”.
If you can provide a link to prove either of those statements as true I’ll drop my objection immediately.
“So, what you’re saying, if rephrased without changing your facts at all, is that if we build all of these plants, we will double the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that humanity has created thus far? That sounds catastrophic to me, not minor
If the IPCC is correct then you are right, it’s catastrophic. So tell me why then that those plants are ALL still planned? Why is China still pumping out 2 coal fired plants a week? How about Russia and India? Australia is still exporting coal like nothing has changed. They have been warned with 90% accuracy that what they are doing is killing the earth in short order.
Something doesn’t add up here, and surprise, surprise… i’m skeptical.
Regarding my war comment… if you are willing to predict that there will be wars fought over fresh water and food, why is it such a stretch to fight wars over the perpetrators of those famines and shortages?
What has caused the price of oil to skyrocket? The IPCC sounded the alarm first telling everyone to stop burning fossil fuels… or else we’re all gonna die. Then comes opportunity. The greedy pigs come out of the woodwork and take advantage of a sure thing. Oil goes through the roof, Ethanol becomes cost effective, food grains deplete, and rainforest clearcutting accelerates.
So who is to blame? That’s debatable. Human nature isn’t anything new. the situation was totally predictable. That kind of lack of foresight and irresponsibility makes me wonder about the IPCC even more. For such a prestigious group of intellectuals, the learning curve bar should have been set much higher. Human nature is predictable.
#57 – JimR,
Ah … now the debate is getting good, serious, well thought out, and reasonable. I like it when that happens.
Came from the book The Weather Makers. I’ll look for other sources of the same information.
Because humans are short-sighted idiots? And, as you say, “human nature is predictable”. I’ll add predictably bad.
#57 – JimR,
Here’s some information about who the IPCC are. I am still looking for the complete list of countries that have appointed scientists. I am sure of the four I listed, but would like to find a reference for you. Once I find that, I will post information showing that the four I listed are as advertised and that Saudi Arabia in particular does get 96% (unless Weather Makers was wrong) of their GDP from oil sales.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ipcc.asp
This sort of backs me up but is not as specific about the reasons. Note the line in this CBS report about which countries raised the most objections and toned down the report’s most dire statements.
http://tinyurl.com/65oby9
Note that I had not previously read this report. It is mere coincidence (sort of) that the three biggest objectors make up 3/4 of my list.
Here are the top importers, exporters, and burners of oil in the world, hint: U.S., Saudi Arabia, U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
This does not back me up about Saudi Arabia. Apparently, only 75% of their economy is tied to oil and only 90% of their exports are oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Economy
Still though, I hope you’ll agree that this is a powerful incentive to deny global warming.