Do You Believe Human Activity Causes Harmful Climate Change?

[bonobo]

 His opinion is the sun is the primary driver of climate...

He also infers that the motivation behind the global warming fraud is to create another level of false economy... 

Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate.  That is from where most of the energy in the earth originates.  SO that is a pretty silly statement.

The argument that the GW side makes is that man's actions have changed the normal natural ebb and flow of climate changes to be greater than they would be.  And quite frankly, I don't see how any rational being could deny that.  Just look at any weather report from New York or Berlin.  In the winter, the city temperatures are always higher than the temperatures just outside the city. So on a micro-scale, at a minimum, man can effect the climate. The only rational question, in my mind, is just how much man has affected climate change.  Is it 1% or 50% or 75% or whatever?  And for that, we all need to keep an open mind.

However, as I posted before, no matter what effect we have, most of the proposed solutions to help mitigate climate change are good ideas, even if they have absolutely zero effect on the climate. 

And a "false economy?"  What the heck is that?  That is like saying "false weather," "false population," or "false agriculture."  The economy is what it is.  There is no "false" about it. Stable or unstable, growing or shrinking, fine, but not "false."

[canuckamuck]

His opinion is the sun is the primary driver of climate...

He also infers that the motivation behind the global warming fraud is to create another level of false economy...

Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate. That is from where most of the energy in the earth originates. SO that is a pretty silly statement.

The argument that the GW side makes is that man's actions have changed the normal natural ebb and flow of climate changes to be greater than they would be. And quite frankly, I don't see how any rational being could deny that. Just look at any weather report from New York or Berlin. In the winter, the city temperatures are always higher than the temperatures just outside the city. So on a micro-scale, at a minimum, man can effect the climate. The only rational question, in my mind, is just how much man has affected climate change. Is it 1% or 50% or 75% or whatever? And for that, we all need to keep an open mind.

However, as I posted before, no matter what effect we have, most of the proposed solutions to help mitigate climate change are good ideas, even if they have absolutely zero effect on the climate.

And a "false economy?" What the heck is that? That is like saying "false weather," "false population," or "false agriculture." The economy is what it is. There is no "false" about it. Stable or unstable, growing or shrinking, fine, but not "false."

Well of course it would have been better if you watched the interview with the actual person speaking for himself instead just picking apart my few sentences of summary.

In regards to false economy I believe that is in reference to the already false systems in place like fiat currencies which are not based on gold reserves. The carbon system would be the same thing, another method for the ultra rich to get richer, but based on taxing air.

It is not too hard to imagine that being on the ground floor of a carbon currency scam is a massively tempting motivation. Likely to make some (like Al Gore) much richer than Billy Gates.

I don't know how the world's politicians and the financial giants managed to convince the world that they somehow developed a conscience. Surely the history of mankind soundly proves the opposite.

[bonobo]

 

Well of course it would have been better if you watched the interview with the actual person speaking for himself instead just picking apart my few sentences of summary.

In regards to false economy I believe that is in reference to the already false systems in place like fiat currencies which are not based on gold reserves. The carbon system would be the same thing, another method for the ultra rich to get richer, but based on taxing air.

It is not too hard to imagine that being on the ground floor of a carbon currency scam is a massively tempting motivation. Likely to make some (like Al Gore) much richer than Billy Gates.

I don't know how the world's politicians and the financial giants managed to convince the world that they somehow developed a conscience. Surely the history of mankind soundly proves the opposite.

And once again, how do monetary systems not based on gold reserves make them "false?"  As the saying goes, "it is what it is."  To label any economic system currently in place as "false" is simple propaganda.  The fact is that any economic system in place is by the very definition "true," if I can even write that.  

And one thing that no one has ever been able to explain to me is just how Al Gore is supposed to become the next world's richest man over this. Sure he has made money speaking, but does he somehow control all the carbon credits so that he can divy them out to the highest bidder?  I just find the whole argument about him preposterous. The whole Al Gore bashing reminds me of the "Death to America" folks who use a boogeyman to buttress ideology when reason fails to do so.

I am not really enamored with the whole carbon credits thing.  It might be effective, but I don't think it is the best answer.  But that hardly means I don't think there is a problem, nor do I think think it is all part of some giant world takeover by a cabal of the ultra-rich.  Occams Razor, folks.  

[Jingthing]

A slight detour --

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...true&cat=15

What do people think about the idea of pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere from both poles through 24 km garden hoses floating in the air via balloons? This simulates major volcanic eruptions which provide about a year of cooling. Lets face it, we are not going to stop carbon emissions anytime soon, and even if we stopped cold turkey right now (impossible) much of the existing global warming causing carbon will last for hundreds of years.

This garden hose suspended on balloons pumping sulfur dioxide idea carries risks. If we try it, we won't really know the effects until then, even with thorough modeling and testing. However, as man made global warming is real, if such options prove promising, and global cooperation over carbon remains way too slow, what real choice (other than fiddling while Rome burns) would we have other than to take this kind of risk? It is only a stopgap emergency tactic until we figure out a way to really become carbon neutral (which clearly can't happen for many decades).

This sulfur dioxide pumping idea is big. We will likely be hearing a lot more about this.

To the global warming skeptics, you are really irrelevant and I don't know why people waste time arguing with your conspiracy theory silliness. The proof is there that man has caused this situation. The only major question is how many years we have before massive disaster, such as the Gulf Stream just stopping.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[teatree]

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Qu...a-Pachauri.html

[bonobo]

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Qu...a-Pachauri.html

And that has to do with Al Gore becoming the next "Bill Gates" uh, how?

If companies want to pay Dr. Pachauri to sit on their boards or act as an advisor, that is no different than putting ex-politicians on their boards.  They are doing it for access and in the hopes that they can either foresee what is coming or to get favorable action.  It is up to the UN to determine if this accusation is valid and then to determine if there is a conflict of interest. If it is, he should be canned, in my opinion.  But once again, this is somewhat of a red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of GW or what we should do about it.

[RickBradford]

The proof is there that man has caused this situation.

No, it isn't.

If you read the science instead of just parrotiing the fairy tales put out by all the AGW wackos, you'll see that there is a whole range of opinions as to whether and how much humans are responsible for the current warming in termperatures (actually, it's cooling, and has been for 10 years, but let's not let facts intrude into a nice yarn).

Not only do you not have proof, you have no evidence.

I asked you for the source of your statement that "mainstream global warming consensus holds that a 4C rise in temperature will lead to the extinction of the human race". I'm still waiting for your response, though not holding my breath.

The only major question is how many years we have before massive disaster, such as the Gulf Stream just stopping

Well, even the religiously deluded loony tunes at the IPCC don't believe that will happen, so you can relax.

It is too early to say with confidence whether irreversible shut-down of the THC [Gulf Stream] is likely or not, or at what threshold it might occur.

Translated: We have no idea if this is ever going to happen, but we'll stick it in anyway to frighten people.

[bonobo]

If you read the science instead of just parrotiing the fairy tales put out by all the AGW wackos ...

So am I to infer by your posts such as what you wrote above that the majority of scientists of the world, all of those who believe GW is a real phenomenon and one at least partially caused by man, are "wackos" telling lies and the minority of scientist who are skeptical of GW are the only real, sane scientists, the only ones with ownership of the truth?

If that is your belief so be it, but that type of wordage sounds an awful lot like fanatic religious fundamentalism of the ilk who stick there fingers in their ears so they don't have to hear anything which might intrude on their private, cozy, and safe world view.

[RickBradford]

So am I to infer by your posts such as what you wrote above that the majority of scientists of the world, all of those who believe GW is a real phenomenon and one at least partially caused by man, are "wackos" telling lies and the minority of scientist who are skeptical of GW are the only real, sane scientists, the only ones with ownership of the truth?

No. Which is why I specifically said "there is a whole range of opinions as to whether and how much humans are responsible." Nor did I make a connection between the AGW wackos and the main body of scientists.

There are some sensible people who believe that global warming is at least partly man-made (Bjorn Lomborg is a prime example).

But there are plenty of AGW wackos who seem to have a deep emotional need to believe in impending catastrophe and that it is bad, bad humanity who has caused it, specifically the capitalist west.

These are the people who believe in extinction, imminent reversal of the Gulf Stream, 70-metre rises in sea-level, billions of starving humans and the rest of it.

There is no science behind any of this (even the IPCC doesn't believe it), so anyone repeating this stuff can only be parroting the silly words of AGW wackos...

[bonobo]

So am I to infer by your posts such as what you wrote above that the majority of scientists of the world, all of those who believe GW is a real phenomenon and one at least partially caused by man, are "wackos" telling lies and the minority of scientist who are skeptical of GW are the only real, sane scientists, the only ones with ownership of the truth?

No. Which is why I specifically said "there is a whole range of opinions as to whether and how much humans are responsible." Nor did I make a connection between the AGW wackos and the main body of scientists.

There are some sensible people who believe that global warming is at least partly man-made (Bjorn Lomborg is a prime example).

But there are plenty of AGW wackos who seem to have a deep emotional need to believe in impending catastrophe and that it is bad, bad humanity who has caused it, specifically the capitalist west.

These are the people who believe in extinction, imminent reversal of the Gulf Stream, 70-metre rises in sea-level, billions of starving humans and the rest of it.

There is no science behind any of this (even the IPCC doesn't believe it), so anyone repeating this stuff can only be parroting the silly words of AGW wackos...

OK, I see what you mean by your posts.  

And I have never personally read about a 70 meter rise in sea-levels.  Most of what I read is a maximum of 6 inches during this century, and that is at a worse-case basis.  But billions (if 2 billion is "billions") of malnourished people is certainly within the realm of possibility (not fact, but possibility) if you look at the problems now with shifting water resources and where population is currently growing the at the greatest rate.  Heck, unless we have a new green revolution (and in this case, "green" means the same kind of technology-based increase of agricultural productivity as we had in the last century), and considering our heavy dependence on petroleum-based agriculture today to achieve our current productivity, then even disregarding climate change, it will be difficult to feed the world's population in the coming years.

As far as the Gulf Stream, yes, this is not science fiction.  Once again, this is not saying for a fact that it will happen.  Both Heisenbergs' Uncertainty Principle and Chaos Theory certainly are valid for this kind of forecast, making it pretty much impossible to be absolutely sure about anything as complex as that.  But a melting of the polar ice cap and the subsequent lowering in salinity levels could, and I repeat could, result in a stoppage in the engine which powers the Gulf Stream. It has happened before, and it could happen again.

[RickBradford]

I think Lomborg's ideas are pretty sound.

1. He believes in AGW, though not to an apocalyptic degree.

2. He points out that political horse-trading to tax and regulate CO² has failed ever since the Rio conference 18 years ago and has just failed again.

3. Abandon carbon taxes, and use even a fraction of that money to do massive research into renewable energy to the point where it is viable for running proper industries. Apart from cleaning up the West, this will enable developing economies to grow without adding to pollution.

His key point, with which I completely agree, is that 'negative' polices (taxation, regulation, restriction) are doomed whereas 'positive' policies (encouraging new technologies) is likely to succeed.

And he is especially keen to keep the driving of this process away from politicians, whose overarching sense of their own importance is bound to gum up the works.

Edited December 21, 2009 by RickBradford

[bonobo]

I think Lomborg's ideas are pretty sound.

1. He believes in AGW, though not to an apocalyptic degree.

2. He points out that political horse-trading to tax and regulate CO² has failed ever since the Rio conference 18 years ago and has just failed again.

3. Abandon carbon taxes, and use even a fraction of that money to do massive research into renewable energy to the point where it is viable for running proper industries. Apart from cleaning up the West, this will enable developing economies to grow without adding to pollution.

His key point, with which I completely agree, is that 'negative' polices (taxation, regulation, restriction) are doomed whereas 'positive' policies (encouraging new technologies) is likely to succeed.

And he is especially keen to keep the driving of this process away from politicians, whose overarching sense of their own importance is bound to gum up the works.

 I can buy that.  I am not an expert, but it seems reasonable.

I do think, and this is just my opinion, that the problem may be a little more serious and will have severe consequences for a significant portion of the population (although many of the consequences may be related to war as people compete for resources), and I believe it is naive to think that we can exclude the politicians, but I can't really say he is wrong. And I totally agree with his "positive policies," as you term them.

[canuckamuck]

And once again, how do monetary systems not based on gold reserves make them "false?" As the saying goes, "it is what it is." To label any economic system currently in place as "false" is simple propaganda. The fact is that any economic system in place is by the very definition "true," if I can even write that.

And one thing that no one has ever been able to explain to me is just how Al Gore is supposed to become the next world's richest man over this. Sure he has made money speaking, but does he somehow control all the carbon credits so that he can divy them out to the highest bidder? I just find the whole argument about him preposterous. The whole Al Gore bashing reminds me of the "Death to America" folks who use a boogeyman to buttress ideology when reason fails to do so.

I am not really enamored with the whole carbon credits thing. It might be effective, but I don't think it is the best answer. But that hardly means I don't think there is a problem, nor do I think think it is all part of some giant world takeover by a cabal of the ultra-rich. Occams Razor, folks.

Ok you need a brownie point for pointing out that if something exists it is therefore real. I think if you gave it an honest try you could get a vague notion of what I was actually saying. Carbon credits is going to be a very very good thing for some, certainly good enough to lie about.

Al Gore has companies positioned to sell carbon offsets. Therefore he stands to be enriched through the carbon credits. Will he become Bill Gates rich because of it? OK I don't know, but the motivation and opportunity is there. Maybe I should of avoided using his name if you find it so distracting. Maybe he is even just a disposable puppet. it doesn't matter.

Bonobo you continually ride the fence on this. You are obviously unconvinced on the AGW alarmism, but you are all so happy to play along because you believe there is a greater good to come from it. But your argument is flawed. If the projections are wrong, if the data is corrupt, then what greater good do you imagine will be occurring. If carbon is not driving climate change, as some real scientists say, what do we have to gain from this expensive and witch hunt.

Here's what I think you expect: Eco-friendly machines and industries, and an over all improvement to how we interact with the eco-system. Well you might be surprised that I would love to see that too. The problem is: currently eco-friendly describes anything that has to do with reducing carbon, often regardless of the amount of toxins or destructive processes in manufacturing. Well if carbon turns out to be a non offender, then the ecofriendly gadgets are simply the emperors new clothes. Meanwhile all the money, legislation, effort pointed in the wrong direction (not to mention the looming tax bureaucracies) will inevitably be a setback and a loss in the fight to protect the earth. Our real issues are: deforestation, resource management, waste management, and impending wars. What fools we will seem to our kids when they discover what we ignored as we fought a paper tiger.

[mojaco]

<snip>

Meanwhile all the money, legislation, effort pointed in the wrong direction (not to mention the looming tax bureaucracies) will inevitably be a setback and a loss in the fight to protect the earth. Our real issues are: deforestation, resource management, waste management, and impending wars. What fools we will seem to our kids when they discover what we ignored as we fought a paper tiger.

Exactly. Ask our soldiers who are fighting alligators while much of the USA and our politicians are worrying about the swamp what the priorities are. The most serious issue for this generation is not what *might* happen 20, 50 100 years from now, but what is happening NOW much, much more rapidly than any supposed man-made warming. Such issues as the spread of weapons (including nuclear), increasing number of deadly regimes, and the increasing reliance on oil which gives some of those deadly regimes increasing power over the world's economy (the "oil-shock" will keep repeating itself, perhaps with even more serious effects on the economy and the lives of ALL people in the world.)

The only quick answer to the swamp is to do what the USA stopped doing 30 years ago, which is to return to nuclear energy to produce electricity. This will quickly greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the USA and not damage the economy. Wind, wave, solar energy options simply cannot replace our oil dependency, nor even keep up with the growing electrical demand. Currently the percentage of electricity from nuclear for various countries is 77%-France, 27%-Japan, 20%-USA.

If the USA is the biggest carbon "polluter", there is no other rapid answer for the USA and for the world other than nuclear for the USA (but NOT for unstable countries - let them continue to burn oil and coal as they have much less carbon emissions than the USA.) But I suppose the fright-mongers will come out of their holes at the word "nuclear" even though the USA has 104 plants operating at present. And please don't bore me with worn-out discussions about the issue of waste disposal. That one could have been solved with glassifying the waste and underground storage, but the fear-mongers wouldn't have it, so we "temporarily store" wastes in a more dangerous state above ground instead.

[Orac]

A slight detour --

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...true&cat=15

What do people think about the idea of pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere from both poles through 24 km garden hoses floating in the air via balloons? This simulates major volcanic eruptions which provide about a year of cooling. Lets face it, we are not going to stop carbon emissions anytime soon, and even if we stopped cold turkey right now (impossible) much of the existing global warming causing carbon will last for hundreds of years.

This garden hose suspended on balloons pumping sulfur dioxide idea carries risks. If we try it, we won't really know the effects until then, even with thorough modeling and testing. However, as man made global warming is real, if such options prove promising, and global cooperation over carbon remains way too slow, what real choice (other than fiddling while Rome burns) would we have other than to take this kind of risk? It is only a stopgap emergency tactic until we figure out a way to really become carbon neutral (which clearly can't happen for many decades).

This sulfur dioxide pumping idea is big. We will likely be hearing a lot more about this.

To the global warming skeptics, you are really irrelevant and I don't know why people waste time arguing with your conspiracy theory silliness. The proof is there that man has caused this situation. The only major question is how many years we have before massive disaster, such as the Gulf Stream just stopping.

It is certainly something worth exploring though there is a lot of opposition from environmentalists including Al Gore who apparently has describe the idea as 'nuts'.

I posted the attached links on JRTs climate change rant thread a week or two ago that has a few more details plus a link to the realclimate website which is against the idea.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6879251.ece

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...comment-page-7/

Since the political will does not appear to be there at the moment to deal with the issues we face with regards to the environment, of which I am not convinced that CO2 emmisions are neccessarily the most pressing/serious then it will make us far more reliant on a technological solution in the future, be it energy issues or geoengineering, and it would therefore make a lot of sense to be funding this research seriously rather than all the spending on 'hot air' at the moment.

[Jingthing]

It may be a nutty idea. Time will tell. But it is no more nutty than seriously expecting the world to radically reduce carbon emissions anytime soon.

While obviously I accept that the threat of man made climate change is real, the reality is that ideological environmentalists are often virulently anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-technology, in some ways, anti-human. Such types would be against looking at more realistic alternatives to attack the problem other than a cold turkey, global totalitarian, Calvinist suffering approach that people aren't going to choose by free will anyway. Obviously a switch to clean energy and major investments in new clean infrastructure will be needed, garden hoses, or not. Assuming like me if you accept the threat is real, the big x factor is how much time do we have. Nobody knows. Any approach including doing nothing carries great risks, but this is the situation we have created for ourselves as a species.

Probably some people oppose even looking at ideas like the garden hoses because it takes the focus off what will need to be done anyway, maybe sooner, maybe later, the radical changes necessary to stop the climate changing polluting. If not the garden hoses, maybe there is another similar stopgap measure we can take. It seems to me some of the money going into this problem needs to be in these areas as well.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[wolf5370]

I voted: Yes (I have an advanced academic degree) - MSc Computer related though, not directly relevent. Initially I was skeptical - I has heard about the cycle of high/low temperatures (Romans growing wine grapes in the Midlands of Britain 2000 years ago etc) and many band-wagon-jumpers were being obviously alarmist - this put me off.

However, I went to a lecture at the Science Museum in London - it was by accident almost as I was just visiting with m,y kids when there was an announcement - it was televised on BBC2 I think.

Anyway, one guy asks him (the speaker - some ecologist or climatologist or someting - can't remember now) that exact question and he said it was true that the earth runs in cycles. What was shoicking was that we were completely out of kilter with the cycle - the earth should still be getting cooler, but it is warming up instead - something like 2 degrees in 30 years or so.

I also voted yes because of the vagueness of the question - sheep and cows add a lot of methane to the atmosphere (farting) and there are so many of them becasue we farm them and keep them in large herds.

I also remeber some statistics I once saw that showed that we are responsible for less than 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere - ther Mariana Trench alone giving almost twice the value (if my memory serves) - but that 2% is vital (so I was informed). As a veggie, I'm doing my bit - stop herding those bloody cows and sheep!

[RickBradford]

... ideological environmentalists are often virulently anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-technology, in some ways, anti-human. Such types would be against looking at more realistic alternatives to attack the problem other than a cold turkey, global totalitarian, Calvinist suffering approach that people aren't going to choose by free will anyway.

Bless you, JT, I knew we'd find a point of agreement eventually.

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace in the 1970s, resigned in 1986 at what he saw as the increased politicization of the movement.

"I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human."

Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and millions of western Marxists found themselves without an ideological sponsor, so where could they take their anti-capitalist, anti-Western stance?

Yup, just like you said, straight into radical ideological environmentalism.

[bonobo]

And once again, how do monetary systems not based on gold reserves make them "false?" As the saying goes, "it is what it is." To label any economic system currently in place as "false" is simple propaganda. The fact is that any economic system in place is by the very definition "true," if I can even write that.

And one thing that no one has ever been able to explain to me is just how Al Gore is supposed to become the next world's richest man over this. Sure he has made money speaking, but does he somehow control all the carbon credits so that he can divy them out to the highest bidder? I just find the whole argument about him preposterous. The whole Al Gore bashing reminds me of the "Death to America" folks who use a boogeyman to buttress ideology when reason fails to do so.

I am not really enamored with the whole carbon credits thing. It might be effective, but I don't think it is the best answer. But that hardly means I don't think there is a problem, nor do I think think it is all part of some giant world takeover by a cabal of the ultra-rich. Occams Razor, folks.

Ok you need a brownie point for pointing out that if something exists it is therefore real. I think if you gave it an honest try you could get a vague notion of what I was actually saying. Carbon credits is going to be a very very good thing for some, certainly good enough to lie about.

Al Gore has companies positioned to sell carbon offsets. Therefore he stands to be enriched through the carbon credits. Will he become Bill Gates rich because of it? OK I don't know, but the motivation and opportunity is there. Maybe I should of avoided using his name if you find it so distracting. Maybe he is even just a disposable puppet. it doesn't matter.

Bonobo you continually ride the fence on this. You are obviously unconvinced on the AGW alarmism, but you are all so happy to play along because you believe there is a greater good to come from it. But your argument is flawed. If the projections are wrong, if the data is corrupt, then what greater good do you imagine will be occurring. If carbon is not driving climate change, as some real scientists say, what do we have to gain from this expensive and witch hunt.

Here's what I think you expect: Eco-friendly machines and industries, and an over all improvement to how we interact with the eco-system. Well you might be surprised that I would love to see that too. The problem is: currently eco-friendly describes anything that has to do with reducing carbon, often regardless of the amount of toxins or destructive processes in manufacturing. Well if carbon turns out to be a non offender, then the ecofriendly gadgets are simply the emperors new clothes. Meanwhile all the money, legislation, effort pointed in the wrong direction (not to mention the looming tax bureaucracies) will inevitably be a setback and a loss in the fight to protect the earth. Our real issues are: deforestation, resource management, waste management, and impending wars. What fools we will seem to our kids when they discover what we ignored as we fought a paper tiger.

Sorry, but you have me wrong.  I am not on the fence about GW.  I believe that GW is a fact, and I also believe, from the preponderance of the evidence that I have seen, that man is contributing to this phenomenon. However, unlike many people on both sides of the issue, I am not religiously wedded to my current beliefs.  I am willing to look at all data and consider it.  Just because I don't think the oceans will rise 70 meter does not mean I don't think 4 or even six inches is possible, and I worry about the effect that will have on our world.  With that and shifting weather patterns, I see war as a real possibility.  

And yes, I am not onboard with carbon credits.  I think that is mere smoke and mirrors without a real viable, positive effect.  However, it is a step in the right direction at least as far as the debate goes.  If companies can reduce their carbon emissions, and make moeny off of it, well, that is better than making money off polluting rivers.  

But once again, the specter of the boogeyman Al Gore is raised.  Just show me "his companies" he has positioned to take over the world.  I am sorry, but the continual screaming "Al Gore, Al Gore" makes no points with me in convincing me of anything.  Rather, it shows the lack of a credible argument if someone has to resort to a "Great Satan."

And sorry, my reasoning is no more flawed than that of anyone else's I have read here.  Yes, I believe that any environmental awareness and action is better than no action at all.  And yes, many actions proposed to reduce the carbon footprint of the human race will also have a significant positive effect in other areas. Please explain to me how more efficient transportation, cleaner burning coal plants, wind turbines, modern transmission lines, etc will have no effect on our overall environmental posture.

Sure I would like to see an overall improvement on how we interact with the eco-system.  But you are sadly mistaken if you really believe that the carbon question has somehow taken over the entire environmental issue.  I earned my Ph.D. in an environmental field, and believe me, there are many, many different avenues of environmental activism out there which do not even give passing consideration to the amount of carbon we put into the air.

[teatree]

Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate.  That is from where most of the energy in the earth originates.  SO that is a pretty silly statement.

It may be obvious to the point of silliness but not to the IPCC. They fail to account for the Sun in ANY of their models.

[bonobo]

Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate.  That is from where most of the energy in the earth originates.  SO that is a pretty silly statement.

It may be obvious to the point of silliness but not to the IPCC. They fail to account for the Sun in ANY of their models.

 

I think that statement is a little bit of a mis-direction.  I think more accurately, it would be that the IPPC does not take fluctuations in the sun's output into consideration (I am not familiar with the details of each and every model, so I don't know for a fact that they do fail in this, although from what I have read, the party line does not discuss this.) 

But in their models and discussions, they are very specific that greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat, and that melting ice caps reflect less of the sun's heat back out into space, etc., so they certainly acknowledge the sun as the source for most of the world's energy.

[RickBradford]

IPCC does acknowledge the influence of direct solar activity on what it calls 'radiative forcing' -- ie the elements which make up heating or cooling on the planet.

But it regards its effect as very minor -- IPCC gives CO² a forcing score of 1.66, other gases such as methane 1.0, with solar at 0.12.

In fact, IPCC cut its estimate of the effects of solar irradiance in half from 2001 to 2007.

And solar scientists are picked out for especial scorn by The Team, because solar influences could easily render inconsequential the influence of CO²

July 11, 1996: email 0837094033

Phil Jones to Alan Robock:

Britain seems to have found its [skeptic]. Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he's an utter prat but he's getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts the weather from solar phenomena.

[bonobo]

... because solar influences could easily render inconsequential the influence of CO²

This is true, but we really cannot effect the sun's output.  There are a few ideas out there which possibly could mitigate a significant change in the sun's output to one degree or another, but most of that would take a long time in coming.  Carbon emissions, on the other hand, is a factor upon which we can have an immediate effect given the political and popular will.  

I lived through the public pressure which resulted in the cleaning of the US' waterways.  The Cuyahoga River catching on fire in 1969 was perhaps the last straw which rallied the general populace. Within a surprisingly short time, America's waterways were made tremendously cleaner to the point that commercial fisheries were once again able to fish the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system.  If we have the will, we can clean things up.  So I feel we should, in all ways that we are able to achieve.  And if the sun does flare up anytime soon, well, then I think we are pretty much going to have to live with the consequences of that. 

[RickBradford]

^

I guess the response of the solar scientists such as Corbyn and Svensmark would be that CO² really has very little effect on how our climate is changing, so instead of wasting time and resources on a red herring, we should concentrate on adapting better to whatever the sun is going to throw at us.

Corbyn, in particular, predicts a substantial cooling over the next 100 years.

[bonobo]

^

I guess the response of the solar scientists such as Corbyn and Svensmark would be that CO² really has very little effect on how our climate is changing, so instead of wasting time and resources on a red herring, we should concentrate on adapting better to whatever the sun is going to throw at us.

Corbyn, in particular, predicts a substantial cooling over the next 100 years.

Most scientists in the world feel that carbon emissions have a deleterious effect on GW.  Some scientists feel they have no or minimal effect.  But I have never heard of anyone saying that carbon emissions are good for our environment.  Take GW out of the equation, and the auto emissions, the factory emissions, the coal-burning power plants, etc, they all spew toxins into the air which result in severe health consequences worldwide.  So even if the minority-view scientists turn out to be right, the very actions taken to combat carbon emissions will have a huge effect on cleaning our air as well as reducing our demand on foreign supplies of petrochemicals.  And if the majority of the scientists are correct, then we will also be combating GW at the same time.

For example, I don't see legislation to encourage or mandate better fuel economy in cars and trucks as a waste of time and resources.  Even without the GW issue, I would be in favor of that.

[RickBradford]

Take GW out of the equation, and the auto emissions, the factory emissions, the coal-burning power plants, etc, they all spew toxins into the air which result in severe health consequences worldwide. So even if the minority-view scientists turn out to be right, the very actions taken to combat carbon emissions will have a huge effect on cleaning our air as well as reducing our demand on foreign supplies of petrochemicals

I agree 100%. So does Bjorn Lomborg...

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Since the earth is is approximately 71% covered in water, where does all the water come from to raise the level 6 or even 4 inches? This is a serious question.

[RickBradford]

The sea-water itself expands as it heats up, which is the most significant factor -- there is also calculated to be some effect from melting glaciers and the Antarctic ice sheet.

[JimShortz]

Why don't we try another survey based on nationality - it might be so much more revealing...

[RickBradford]

Better include a category for "I'm a citizen of Planet Earth"...