|
Cityview magazine Knoxville Tennessee — This piece is poorly structured, but contains a lot of excellent info regarding the Global Warming debate. It attacks the “everyone is in total agreement” argument made by Gore. |
On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1. “[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate…
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” How many of you heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media?
On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens with “[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.” They close the letter by asking that the IPCC “and all those whose names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.”
Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999 and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific community. The petition reads, in its entirety: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists. More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee, more than 53% hold a PhD or MD. While critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.), no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.
#227
So, the fact that there have been periods where CO2 rose and temperatures dropped and visa versa is not evidence that the predictions made are inaccurate? In order to establish that CO2 leads to increased surface temperatures there must be a positive correlation and there are periods of history that do not fit that correlation.
> Your use of a “lab” test to
> justify your stance after you
> have denounced closed system
> testing is hypocrisy.
You *still* don’t get it. That we use a lab to determine how a single species is affected by CO2 is a completely different matter than using a lab to make conclusions about how the greater biosphere will react to a single input. The former is using deduction to determine how an animal reacts to specific inputs whereas the later is using induction to make claims about how an input will effect the greater biosphere using the results of a closed experiment. There is a *huge* difference.
#229 – Thomas,
The initial trigger of climate change, when not human caused, is difficult to ascertain. However, it is clear that there is indeed a tight correlation between carbon dioxide and methane levels and temperature.
Here’s a detailed analysis of the situation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
# 228 bobbo
Are you really that obtuse or are you just trying to see if you can zing me? Lets start with glacier melting and warmer average global temperatures. Then there is disruption of wildlife, moving ecological zones, and ocean acidification. TO NAME A FEW!!!!
# 229 Thomas
“So, the fact that there have been periods where CO2 rose and temperatures dropped and visa versa is not evidence that the predictions made are inaccurate? ”
Not until you post a link that shows those periods and how and what data was collected and analyzed. You see there is a difference between global and local records. If you are comparing Apples to Apples I would like to see your evidence. If you are comparing Apples to Oranges then you don’t really understand the debate.
“In order to establish that CO2 leads to increased surface temperatures there must be a positive correlation and there are periods of history that do not fit that correlation. ”
Again depends on if you are talking about global and local temperatures. I think if you go back and look at the data you will see you are mistaken about your claim.
“You *still* don’t get it.”
No I get it. Your being a hypocrite. You didn’t use that evidence to show the effect on one species. You used it to show that it was a factor that could change the larger outcome. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
“The former is using deduction to determine how an animal reacts to specific inputs whereas the later is using induction to make claims about how an input will effect the greater biosphere using the results of a closed experiment. There is a *huge* difference.”
Do you understand science at all???????? They are not just making claims they are observing what is happening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So the fact that you even think it is just a closed experiment is ridiculous in the first place. We know what CO2 does to salt water. We have observed that certain species where the pH is lower are dying!!!!! It isn’t a closed experiment!!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOU THICK FUCKING SKULL!!!!!!!
You however parleyed the effect of CO2 on one specific species to make the claim that we can’t possibly predict anything because in ONE closed experiment, AN EXPERIMENT WHERE THE DETAILS AND METHODS ARE STILL UNKNOWN, that species population exploded. Even if that were to happen did you ever think of the effects of an overpopulation of one species instead of the balance nature has provided to us.
You keep saying that it is very complex and no one has disagreed with you. Yet you keep saying it. What you can’t seem to grasp is that it is also very delicate as well. Why don’t you research things like the, pikas or the intuit fishing problem or the Great Barrier Reef. All of those thing are predicted effects of this “unpredictable” biosphere you seem to think we live in. Didn’t take much of a change for those things to happen did it?
Back to a little point of quantum mechanics. It was one of my areas of study in college. I am a little behind on what the latest work is so I gave a shout over to a few friends of mine a Fermi lab and the University of Chicago. Let me tell you what they said. “If we knew as much about quantum mechanics as we do about climate science we would more than likely have a unified theory that works.” “We work in a profession of unknowns.” Yet you think it is ok to rely on that very limited knowledge to solve problems. HYPOCRISY AT ITS BEST!!!!!!!!
# 232 pedro
Oh pedro STFU!!
OR
Please explain in your own words what Thomas is saying and why he is right. I would put money on the fact that you can’t. Use your own words. Remember I will catch you if you plagiarize. I have a subscription to Lexis Nexis.
“He’s just playing the knowledge game.”
LOL I almost spit up my milk!!
Do make an effort to say incredibly dumb things or is it a natural gift?
Yeah one would hope knowledge would be an important thing in this game of debate.
# 234 pedro
“I don’t have to use my own words.”
Yeah I thought so.
“If you “feel” Thomas is wrong, it is yopu who have to bring proof of your claim, not him.”
Boy have you got that backwards. He is the one that made the claim. With your logic if I say YOU are a child molester and you don’t think you are YOU have the burden to prove me wrong. Only figures that someone from a an ass backwards country would think that way.
I have great confidence he is wrong but offer him the opportunity to prove his claim. Your backwards view is unimportant.
“Nothing worse than a spoiled brat unwilling to learn”
Your self reflection is a positive sign.
#231
10 second Google produced…
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
This is a balanced rebuke to the observation that CO2 lagged behind temperature increases. While the response attempts to allay the claim that CO2 does not cause temperature increases but instead amplifies them, it sheds light on the doubt of exactly how much amplification is involved and shows a concession that CO2 does in fact lag behind temperature increase.
Contributed how much exactly?
Even Real Climate admits that CO2 does not trigger temperature increases but is instead (they think) creates a feedback that amplifies temperatures. Again, what is not know exactly is how much of an increase directly attributable to CO2 and how they are able to discount all other possible variables that would have also contributed to historic temperature increases including gases that did not get trapped in ice cores.
> You used it to show that it
> was a factor that could change
> the larger outcome
No. I showed that is was *one* *potential* factor of perhaps thousands that in combination *might* affect the larger outcome. In short, I was stating that I am not convinced that we are as yet able to account for all the possible compensating factors to a rise in CO2 or even whether it is something that should be of the kind of doomsday concern as given to us by the Global Warming proponents. Before we spend billions if not trillions of dollars we better be damn sure we are absolutely 100% positive about the solution. The evidence better be incontrovertible.
RE: Great Barrier Reef
The vast majority of the damage to the reef is due to temperature increases along with tourism, fishing and water pollution. Could CO2 be a factor? Sure. Exactly much of a factor in comparison to the others is unknown.
#235
> Boy have you got that backwards. He
> is the one that made the claim.
Actually, no I’m not making the claim, I have simply cast doubt on the claim being made. I do not concede that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim by the global warming crowd that a rise in CO2 directly leads to a catastrophic rise in surface temperatures or even that the potential amplification effects are dire. The overwhelming evidence of that claim may yet come to light however at present I believe it to be absent. We do know that CO2 has risen and we do know that overall surface temperatures have risen. However, that CO2 led directly to those temperature or even exactly how much they led to those increases is still up for debate.
#236 – Thomas,
Even Real Climate admits that CO2 does not trigger temperature increases but is instead (they think) creates a feedback that amplifies temperatures.
No. You’ve got it wrong. Even Real Climate admits that CO2 has not been the trigger in the past non-human caused global warming. It is already triggering global warming right now. That is abundantly clear from the evidence. The amount of warming from the increased solar cycle simply cannot account for all the warming that we see. And increase in CO2 predicts it.
It’s silly to say that CO2 doesn’t cause warming when our sister planet Venus that receives less sunlight, because of its higher albedo, than we do and dramatically less than Mercury does is the hottest world in our solar system precisely because of an atmosphere with abundant CO2.
How can the same gas that causes one planet to be the hottest in the solar system and that causes us to have a temperature of 15oC rather than -18oC?
Venus is not a world, Earth is a world. You don’t even got that right dooooood. If Venus is inhabited you may call it a world. And the Earth has a cooling system which ain’t broke. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
# 236 Thomas
Lets start with the fact that you said. I quote.
“So, the fact that there have been periods where CO2 rose and temperatures dropped and visa versa is not evidence that the predictions made are inaccurate?”
A lag is not the same thing. Not to mention this is only ANTARCTIC ice cores. This is highlighted in the charts key where it says “TEMPERATURE OVER ANTARTICA” This is not a representation of the global temperature. It is evidence of one particular area. and that evidence doesn’t really support you case very well. The minute reversals you notice have and are are predicted by the fact that it is local temperature and CO2 measurement. Your link does nothing but back me up.
“No. I showed that is was *one* *potential* factor of perhaps thousands that in combination *might* affect the larger outcome.”
IT WAS ONE CLOSED EXPERIMENT!!!!!!! with unknown methods and you said a closed experiment is not valid when used to make predictions on the biosphere. So using it in anyway to claim it could, would, or possibly have an effect at all is hypocrisy.
“RE: Great Barrier Reef”
“The vast majority of the damage to the reef is due to temperature”
No shit! Exactly a prediction of what global warming would do. Thank you for backing me up.
“tourism, fishing and water pollution.”
Tourism I am sure it has and effect but the bleaching measurements do not match the visitor number increase especially if you do it in a localized fashion. i.e. where the bleaching is occurring and the increase of visitors in that area. They don’t match.
Fishing. LOL it is a marine sanctuary. I really don’t think fishing is the problem.
Yes pollution is a problem especially the excessive CO2 pollution.
“Exactly much of a factor in comparison to the others is unknown.”
There you go with the “great unknown”. It is a good thing that scientists don’t listen to people like you otherwise we would still be living in straw huts and have bones through our noses.
“Actually, no I’m not making the claim, I”
Yes you did make the claim. You said “the fact that there have been periods where CO2 rose and temperatures dropped and visa versa ”
You have yet to show me the evidence that supports that other than in local zones which is a very different thing.
“The overwhelming evidence of that claim may yet come to light however at present I believe it to be absent. ”
LOL the overwhelming evidence is there. You just don’t understand science well enough to comprehend it.
“However, that CO2 led directly to those temperature or even exactly how much they led to those increases is still up for debate.”
Only with people who are woefully ignorant of science and the evidence that supports it. The rest of us realize there is still more to learn but have gathered enough evidence to accurately predict certain patterns and outcomes.
#231–J==its been repeated several times in this thread, and specifically in my post you are responding to that the issue is the proof that HUMANS thru co2 pollution are causing or adding to the global warming trend such that significant changes to our modern way of life should be undertaken to stop the warming.
Now–take another swing but you only get one directed mulligan per thread.
#237–Scott==I think what you are saying is fairly objectively “wrong.” As with most of this issue, you indeed “might be” right, but the evidence does not rise to the level of proof, and thats a problem when you rely on science and ask people to make a sacrifice.
Using Venus for anything is a horrible premise. Venus has an atmosphere of co2 and is very hot so any increase of co2 in the earth’s atmosphere will lead to global warming? What about water vapor? Clouds? Algae growth? Limestone formations? In other words, Venus has one similarity and 100’s of dissimilarities.
The basic defect in human caused global warming is it can’t be proved. There is no control earth to test anything on. Its too complex. There are too many variables not well understood.
Finally (for this entry) even the IPCC only says “it is most likely increased co2 is causing global warming.” How many scientific proofs start with “most likely?” Most likely means you need to study it more.
GO GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (for many other valuable, rational, legitimate, and economically reasonable and beneficial reasons).
# 240 bobbo
I will try to simplify it for your little brain.
We have predicted those effects with an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Humans without question have added greatly to the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Any argument otherwise is from a place of complete ignorance.
Those things have come or are starting to come to fruition. Hum???? Seems like the evidence show that humans do have an effect.
That’s the simple version and does not reflect the way science analyzes the info but the same conclusions are drawn.
As far as the significant changes. If asking that people not drive their SUV with one person in it to the local market to get milk really that big a deal. Where I live that is still a reality. You want to make this a “I have a right to live how I want issue” and I agree people should live how they want. BUT they don’t have a right to fuck it up for the rest of us. YOUR rights end where mine begin.
#242–J==you forgot to mention venus.
#239
RE: Rising CO2 and falling Temperatures.
CO2 and Temperature Records
There is a short period from about 485K and 500K years ago where CO2 continues to increase while temperatures are fall. In addition, if you look at the period between 275K and 300K. CO2 rises dramatically while temperatures fall.
> unknown methods and you
> said a closed experiment
> is not valid when used to
> make predictions on the biosphere.
I never made any predictions about the greater biosphere. That was you. I simply showed that there might be numerous compensating factors to a rise in CO2. I never said that one experiment showed that one species would compensate for all the CO2 increase. I repeat, I never made any predications about the greater effect on the biosphere. Rather, I merely stated that this was *one* *potential* compensator of which we knew nothing until recently and that there may be more.
RE: Great Barrier Reef
Would you like to try again for double the prizes? I never disputed that surface temperatures were increasing. Rather, I am disputing that CO2 is the priamry cause of the temperature increase. You on the other hand are going further in claiming that specifically CO2 is killing the Reef. By the way, it was only as of 2004 that Australia banned fishing in the area around the Reef. So, yes fishing has damaged the Reef.(http://tinyurl.com/6hn2m6). It was only recently that any evidence that CO2 was affecting the reef was found. Thus, it is still not known exactly what damage, compared with all of the other factors in combination that I have mentioned, has had. If you piss on the Reef, you are probably damaging it. However, in comparison to the combination of temperature, tourism, fishing and industrial pollution, the damage is negliable.
#242
There is thousands of times more CO2 in the ocean than in the atmosphere. If temperature increases causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, then humans are not the root cause of that increase.
By the way, if CO2 causes a feedback of temperature increase, how is it that temperatures ever fell once CO2 rose in the past?
# 243 pedro
“about small brains”
That self reflection is really working out for you isn’t it?
# 244 bobbo
What about Venus?
# 245 Thomas
Epica domeC an Vostok are still localized measurements Both in the same region!!!!!. Are you really that thick? Global measurements take into account samples from ALL OVER THE GLOBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not just Antarctica
You still have provided no proof and you proof you think you have provided doesn’t really back up your case anyway. You brought up the lag when it was convention and the summarily dismiss it to try and prove your case. Best part is you don’t even use the right data!! LOL you really don’t have a clue do you?
“I simply showed that there might be numerous compensating factors to a rise in CO2”
You showed nothing of the kind. Your evidence was a closed system lab test which YOU say are invalid. You can’t have it both ways.
Might be? You see you have nothing more than speculation to anything you think. you have NO evidence that supports your conclusions. If it “might be” show the fucking evidence that it might be!!!!! Again closed lab test are off limits because you said so.
Deny it all you want but you know damn well what you were attempting to do. You were presenting evidence from a closed lab experiment and saying it was evidence that should there are factors which we can’t predict that will have an offset effect on the biosphere and the increase of the CO2. While at the same time saying any lab experiments to the contrary are invalid tools to use for predicting the environmental impact.
If your little lab experiment is so accurate and profound why have we not found the same result in nature? We have however found that our CO2 lab experiments result in an comparative reaction in nature.
“You on the other hand are going further in claiming that specifically CO2 is killing the Reef. ”
I didn’t really say that. But Yes atmospheric CO2 is responsible for the increase in ocean temperature and has resulted in the bleaching of parts of the Great Barrier reef. Ocean temperature rising is a predicted effect, which is what I really said, of that rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.
“By the way, it was only as of 2004 that Australia banned fishing in the area around the Reef. So, yes fishing has damaged the Reef”
4 years ago!!!!!!!! and the bleaching problem is still getting worse while the ocean temperature continue to rise in that area. Hum? no connection there!!!!!!! As of 4 years ago it is a protect area and there is NO fishing. Fish have no effect on bleaching of coral. Temperature however absolutely does.
Besides the ban on fishing has nothing to do with the bleaching. It had to do with asshats dragging their nets and destroying the coral. Nice way to try and twist the truth though!!!!
” It was only recently that any evidence that CO2 was affecting the reef was found.”
THE MID to late 90’s?????????? That was 10 or 12 fucking years ago!!! Recently? You act as if they just noticed it yesterday!
” If temperature increases causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, then humans are not the root cause of that increase.”
# 246 Thomas
“By the way, if CO2 causes a feedback of temperature increase, how is it that temperatures ever fell once CO2 rose in the past?”
Nice loaded question.
There is a certain amount of correction the biosphere can make. Once it goes past that point the natural correction ceases to be effective and it feedsback.
The fact that you even asked that question show your complete lack of understand about the biosphere you profess to understand ot “not understand “so well. LOL
#247
Now I get it. You are Incredulous Ed from Dilbert. You take everything that everyone says and blow it way out of proportion to mean something different. So, since I’m dealing with someone that is irrational, I’ll keep this short.
Scientists are going to have provide incontrovertible evidence that CO2 is the primary and direct cause of temperature increase or at least more exact evidence about exactly how much the additional increase is directly and exclusively attributable to CO2. We know that CO2 has increased and we know that mankind has contributed to that increase. What is no where near incontrovertible is that the temperature increases were caused or even significantly amplified by the CO2 increase.
As I said, CO2 has risen in the past and is strongly correlated to methane increase. If CO2 increases amplify temperature increases, then wouldn’t we expect temperature increases to be asymptotic instead of linear and what would cause temperatures to drop if CO2 (and methane since their increases are correlated) is ever amplifying the rise temperature? As someone once said, correlation does not imply causation.
You’d best check yo’self before you wreck yo’self.
You’d best check yo’self before you wreck yo’self.
# 249 Anonymous
LOL You rock!
Everyone objection Thomas and bobbo presented are handled quite well there.
Nuff said! Thomas and bobbo lose. LOL 😛
#249
The fundamental precept of the global warming argument is that the surface temperature increase is primarily and directly caused by the increase in CO2. Looking at the grist.org site they have nine links that relate to that claim. Of those, only two are relevant.
1. There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
That does not explain why we do not consider the real problem to be methane which correlates almost perfectly with the rise of CO2 and like CO2, lags temperature increases. Thus, since CO2 is correlated to temperature increase, and we are allowing correlation to imply causation, then it follows that CO2 is causing methane to rise (or visa versa, take your pick) as well as temperature, right? No, even in science, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Hansen also predicted that sea levels would rise by many feet which was patently false. This is THE most critical argument of the global warming crowd and frankly the “proof” provided here is paltry.
2. CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
Firstly, they substantiate the claim. Indeed CO2 increases follow temperature increases. Second, they do not explain why temperature dropped. If CO2 creates a positive feedback and is constantly increasing temperatures then why aren’t we Venus? Third, they do not explain how it is that methane is almost perfectly correlated to the increase in CO2 as I mentioned earlier. So, again, they are simply rehashing the same arguments.
It is clear to me at this point that you are nothing more than a rightwing partisan hack and hypocrite. You wear that suit very well. You deny or ignore all evidence contrary to your “belief” while at the same time misrepresenting the evidence that you think supports you.
You have little or no knowledge of climate science as demonstrated by you numerous posts. Yet you think your “belief” is more accurate and substantially correct than the scientists who study the climate and have mounds of data to back up their conclusions.
Keep saying that it is unknowable while making your own predictions. Keep claiming that we haven’t taken into account all the possibilities when we do. When you are paying $20 gallon for milk or you catch a fatal viral infection or your son or daughter is sent over to fight another war but this time over food. Don’t question why it happened and don’t blame lack of crop yields due to temperature shifting or overpopulation due to loss of costal flooding, or deforestation. Just know that you were right and the scientists were wrong .
#252–Thomas==I read some of the co2 stuff on the grist site and just came away thinking it is too complicated and finally unknown at this time.
I thought I read that co2 followed temp rise in a few spikes some 500K years ago but that since then they rise together?
The notion of a “feedback loop” can make sense as well–one feeds the other until some other variable steps in and stops it==otherwise indeed, we would be venus. Again–all just too many unknowns, all interacting with one another.
Thomas raises an interesting point about methane. Its more powerful than co2 and better fits the graphs of temp change so why not focus on that? Because most of it is nature made from termites and rot.
This reminds me of the cautionary tale of the guy that sees his friend looking around on the ground at night under a lamp post. He says “What are you dong?” and t he friend says “Looking for my car keyes.” The guy says how did you drop them here when your car is 50 feet over there? The friend says “Oh I tried over there but the light is better over here.”
Bias==I have to wonder how much we are looking at co2 because its the only thing we can control?
We are getting warmer, the oceans will rise, I’m pretty sure. Could be co2, sun cycles, orbits, methane, combinations thereof, who knows?
Good news is it doesn’t matter. We have needed to get off oil since 1973 to avoid Middle East entanglement. Now we need to do it for that and to create a new industry and rebuild our economic base based on GREEN technology.
I’m curious about the details of McBush’s garbled “new battery” challenge and what orifice he pulled the 30% out of. Oh well, hopefully attention will turn that way.
J–general dismissals aren’t convincing even if you are right. When its arguable, even worse.
Just noticing the errors in my post (aka post submitting proofing) and I am struck by what I “now” consider the main issue.
The models are weak in that too many variables are unknown/not understood. So, over time like the addition of water vapor, they have been tweaked to match the historical data. The are no good at prediction because that would take several 100’s of years to test.
Thats all fine. I’m even ok with using the models to say that co2 is contributing to global warming.
Anybody want to advance the notion that the models are accurate enough to tell us how much co2 must be taken out of the atmosphere to prevent the various collapses that are predicted? There are 5 main ones right now I am in mind of:
1. Ocean Rise
2. Ocean Acidification
3. Atlantic Ocean Conveyor Shut Down
4. Plant and Animal Habitat Zones Shifting
5. Dry/Wet areas of Earth Shifting.
As I understand it, all plans including shutting everything down will not stop any/some/all of the above occurring–only delay them?
Concluding that man-made co2 is driving all this is only the first step and relatively minor, other than breaking the first egg. The hard part is correcting the situation rather than delaying it by lets see–Cal Tech model says 3 months.
So, in the same way McBush would benefit from a terrorist attack, we all will benefit from unaffordable gas prices if we move to the alternatives. More supply to lower the cost is the wrong solution–we would just continue to burn it until the next cycle of “shocking prices hit.” Ignoring the long term effects of things is what we do best, and praying against it if we think there is a cause of it.
GO GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!
# 254 bobbo
“Bias==I have to wonder how much we are looking at co2 because its the only thing we can control?”
Not true we can control methane too. As a matter of fact methane over for the last decade or so has leveled off while the temperature is still rising. Hum? curious no?
“J–general dismissals aren’t convincing even if you are right. ”
I am correct and am not trying to convince anyone. I am merely stating what I see.
“Thomas raises an interesting point about methane.”
Yes he does. Without question it is something to take note of and make sure we control how much we create. It is a greenhouse gas after all.
” Its more powerful than co2 and better fits the graphs of temp change so why not focus on that?”
More powerful? Care to define that or how some testing that shows that?
Better fits the graphs? Really? Care to show us how? Or a side by side comparison that shows GLOBAL methane and CO2 and how methane follows temperature more closely? No more local charts for evidence. Those are one of the reason I realized Thomas is hypocritical and has no knowledge of climate science. He took one piece of sample evidence and claimed that it backed up his case. That shows he doesn’t understand climate science much less science in general. Fortunately most scientists don’t operate that way. They collect GLOBAL evidence to make GLOBAL claims. He denounces “closed lab” experiments then uses them to support his case. Hypocrite! Plain and simple.
I will also point out because everyone wants to bring up Venus that there is ZERO methane on Venus and 96% CO2.
Focus on that? WE DO!!!!! It is considered a greenhouse gas!!!! You and Thomas are the ones that limit the debate. No one said that it should be disregarded. It just isn’t as prevalent as CO2. If it were we would not be here to have this discussion.
“Good news is it doesn’t matter. We have needed to get off oil since 1973 to avoid Middle East entanglement. Now we need to do it for that and to create a new industry and rebuild our economic base based on GREEN technology.”
At least you realize it is the right move for more than one reason. I give you credit for that.
J==I also don’t want to argue this issue. I look to you, Thomas, Scott et al for information and lines of reasoning and provide my own in kind contribution.
The on point links are the best thing about DU. Any idiot can argue any point, I demonstrate that daily.
# 257 bobbo
Like I said I give you credit though. Despite your view on mans contribution at least you realize we need to change our behavior whether it is for GW or just not making making a mess of the place. In this particular situation “why” we do it isn’t as important as doing it because it needs to be done for GW and for having a cleaner place to live overall.
My position is simple: is there sufficient evidence that human created CO2 is going to cause *catastrophic* environmental problems? In short, is there enough evidence to be actionable? At the moment, I do not feel that there is, however I’m open to changing my opinion should new evidence come to light.
The alternatives provided by people like Hansen would be worse than the solution. Kyoto would have cost billions and it is far from clear that it would have done anything to alleviate the alleged problem. This is an economic problem in the sense that it is an issue of managing scarce resources. If we are spending billions to cut CO2 emissions, then we aren’t spending that money on getting clean water to people or on finding a cure for AIDS or a host of other purposes.
I bet that, to a person, everyone on the planet wants clean air and clean place to live. The difference is in the methods used to achieve that goal and what must be sacrificed in order to achieve it.
Billions? Show me the numbers.
Bullshit! That is your argument. “Oh we can’t cure AIDS or make our water safer oooooooo.” What a bullshit and untrue argument. Like you give a shit anyway with your wingnut attitude.
The Iraq war has cost over 1/2 trillion in 5 years. Show me how reducing our use of burning carbon is going to cost billions. Think of all the new and emerging markets for clean technology. I think it will create money. Your a fool if you don’t think the energy companies haven’t already staked out how they can get the American people hooked on another form of energy that only they can provide. Billons!!! LOL You pulled that number out of your ass or you pulled it out of the ass of another right wing hack. There is NO proof that we need to spend billions. That is nothing more than PURE speculation. Now just imagine if I used the same prerequisites you use on the evidence of GW. Once again you prove to be a hypocrite.