Do You Believe Human Activity Causes Harmful Climate Change?

[RickBradford]

...in the absence of any supporting evidence...

And that's where your analysis collapses.

There are mountains of such evidence -- proper experimental data, not computer models.

[Gerontion]

Why make pointless posts like that? If you had compelling reasons to think that climate change isn't happening or is happening for reasons other than our increasing CO2 emissions then you would post it. You haven't so it's reasonable to assume that you don't and that your beliefs are therefore irrational. That's fine - perhaps - but you can''t expect others to share your belief that the tooth fairy lives under your pillow. You've had plenty of opportunities to post something of substance and you haven't. In fact, you've given no justification at all for your position so I can see no point in carrying on with this.

[Ulysses G.]

After all, what do I care? Either way, the world's almost certainly fuc_ked and if you want to entertain your idiotic ideas, well, who gives a toss?

For someone who is perfectly willing to blatantly lie and ignore factual evidence when it is right there front of you in black and white, you sure are sensitive.

[bonobo]

OK, let's say you are right and that nothing man has done has even the slightest effect on global warming. So what now? Ignore it? Go on with the status quo?

No.

And this is one of the tragedies of the debate - "man-made global warming" has taken centre stage to such an extent that man's other dangers to the planet have been sidelined.

If we can see beyond this CO² nonsense, there are real problems out there that need fixing.

Humans need to have a lighter footprint on the planet, and, yes, we need to find an alternative to fossil fuels, because they are going to run out some day.

Overfishing. Deforestation. Habitat destruction and loss. Overgrazing and irrigation ruining land by erosion and salination. River pollution by long-lived toxins. Marine pollution. Monoculture. Waste and trash. Invasive species.

Air pollution is serious for human health worldwide; there are suggestions that soot (which being black absorbs heat) is partly responsible for Himalayan glacier melting.

I hesitate to mention over-population, simply because the remedies are so draconian. But something will have to be done.

But the more we allow this narrow and misguided focus on CO² to dominate the agenda, the less we are able to deal with these real problems that have proved themselves to be serious.

Actually, despite our prime differing over whether carbon emissions have anything to do with global warming, that is a rather rational post.  And I agree with all, even to the point about a narrow focus on CO².  I believe the world's problems to be multi-faceted, and there is not any one single solution.

However, I can live with the Copenhagens and such which focus on CO² because most actions taken to lower carbon emissions also will lower other air pollutants as well as our use of fossil fuels.  Just as concern over the spotted owl spurred action to protect an entire environment, far more reaching that just that one species, so concerted efforts to curb carbon emissions will have a far more reaching effect on overall environmental health.

And if the world acts in concert to lower carbon emissions, then it should be more in a green mindset and be able to hammer out agreements on the other significant problems you mentioned.

[teatree]

Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

[Sabre]

Human's are responsible for approximately 3.4% of Carbon Dioxide emissions annually. The other 96.6% come from mother nature herself.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a gas without which, life on earth could not be sustained.

Plants love it, and when there is a higher concentration in the air, they grow bigger and at a faster rate.

AGW is the worst corruption of science in recorded history. Forget about consensus. Consensus does not make something right. The greatest scientists in history were fighting against the consensus view - that's what made them great.

[Jingthing]

The previous post perhaps belongs in the comedy section or the religion section (as it apparently comes from Vatican City).

The issue with the human created fossil fuel burning carbon and human created deforestation is complex --

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle

This equilibrium has been disrupted by the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. These two flows add carbon to the atmosphere, which causes the concentration of carbon to increase in the atmosphere relative to the ocean. The increased atmospheric concentration of carbon causes carbon to flow spontaneously from the atmosphere to the ocean. The size of this flow is limited by a negative feedback loop, termed the Revelle Factor, which slows the flow of carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean relative to the flow of carbon to the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, it reduces the ocean’s pH (makes it more acidic). The lower pH slows the rate at which carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean. Currently, the flow of carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean is about 2 petagrams (2 billion metric tons) greater than the flow of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere.

[RickBradford]

Could our US posters comment on this?

President Obama’s apparent view is that the Environmental Protection Agency, one of his executive branch agencies, can claim the regulatory power to impose, on its own authority, a system of taxation akin to what the Congress has so far refused to adopt. And since the executive branch can now implement what the legislative branch has failed to enact, then there is no need to get the Senate’s approval for a Copenhagen agreement.

This has prompted a letter from a Senator, thus:

Dear Mr. President: – I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.

Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings. Sincerely, – Jim Webb, United States Senator

Can Obama just sail into Copenhagen tomorrow and unilaterally commit the US to an internationally binding treaty?

[Jingthing]

The USA is by far the biggest culprit in polluting the world. If our president can find a legal way around the political stalemates, he would be doing the right thing. However, I wouldn't put much money now on Obama being a two term president.

[bonobo]

Jim Webb is a pretty astute guy for a junior senator, and he tends towards the green side of environmental issues.  But I think he is taking that stand that only the Senate can ratify treaties, while the executive branch has been making noises that since the EPA has recently classified carbon as a pollutant, it has the power to use the EPA to regulate carbon emissions.

I don't think Obama can ratify any agreement comping out of Copenhagen, but he may be able to use the EPA to meet the requirements coming out of Copenhagen even if they are not ratified into US law.

[Ulysses G.]

The USA is by far the biggest culprit in polluting the world.

Wouldn't that be China?

[Jingthing]

The USA is by far the biggest culprit in polluting the world.

Wouldn't that be China?

Not yet.

[canuckamuck]

I am amazed at how Americans apear to be unconcerned about the potential of unelected international bueracracies being given the abitlity to dictate to America, industrial limitations and how much tax they will have to pay for having a strong economy. This will be taxation without representation, I always felt America had some strong feelings about that.

[mojaco]

I am amazed at how Americans apear to be unconcerned about the potential of unelected international bueracracies being given the abitlity to dictate to America, industrial limitations and how much tax they will have to pay for having a strong economy. This will be taxation without representation, I always felt America had some strong feelings about that.

Yes, those of us around age 50-70 do have strong feelings. But the "children" are now in controlling positions and have controlling voting power. They don't care what type of national and/or "one world" government they are under as long as "papa" feeds them and lets them play. As one lady on the dole said to me "Why should I work? I don't have to work!" And only 40% even have enough maturity to take on the commitment of marriage. If not married the unwed mother can live on the dole while living with the child's father.

So my point is, this is now a generation with far too many immature, self-seekIng "Adult-Children", so of course they don't care who "governs" as long as they continue to be pampered and can be allowed to play their games (video, sex, etc.)

My heart goes out to those young men and women who ARE courageous to put their life on the line for the USA. I hope they don't lose heart as they are the "guts" needed to keep the USA the "Land of the free". They are the ones needed to become leaders for the USA in governmental positions. How sick and embarrassing when a president can redefine "sex" for his own perverse benefit and get away with it. It is therefore not so surprising that similarly twisted minds in our government think giving our souverenty away is "good". As has been written somewhere, there will come a day when there will be those "calling evil good, and good evil." Here they are!

[Jingthing]

I am amazed at how Americans apear to be unconcerned about the potential of unelected international bueracracies being given the abitlity to dictate to America, industrial limitations and how much tax they will have to pay for having a strong economy. This will be taxation without representation, I always felt America had some strong feelings about that.

How sick and embarrassing when a president can redefine "sex" for his own perverse benefit and get away with it. It is therefore not so surprising that similarly twisted minds in our government think giving our souverenty away is "good".

Folks, this may well be the first time in history a connection has been made between President Clinton's white house BJs and global warming. I feel a teabag coming on ...

Back to the question, yes it will be difficult to sell Americans on the idea of their tax dollars helping to prevent climate change in other countries. It will need to be disguised as something else. Its called politics. Duh.

This is a new kind of issue for us humans. Massive international cooperation is needed or it cannot be solved. Period. I would bet that our species is not up to the challenge based on our human nature (greed, nationalism, tunnel vision, responding only to immediate crises, poverty) and violent history.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Jingthing

[teatree]

Back to the question, yes it will be difficult to sell Americans on the idea of their tax dollars helping to prevent climate change in other countries. It will need to be disguised as something else. Its called politics. Duh.

This is a new kind of issue for us humans. Massive international cooperation is needed or it cannot be solved. Period. I would bet that our species is not up to the challenge based on our human nature (greed, nationalism, tunnel vision, responding only to immediate crises, poverty) and violent history.

Its ok, you can come out and say global governance (government), its not really a secret anymore.

[Jingthing]

Back to the question, yes it will be difficult to sell Americans on the idea of their tax dollars helping to prevent climate change in other countries. It will need to be disguised as something else. Its called politics. Duh.

This is a new kind of issue for us humans. Massive international cooperation is needed or it cannot be solved. Period. I would bet that our species is not up to the challenge based on our human nature (greed, nationalism, tunnel vision, responding only to immediate crises, poverty) and violent history.

Its ok, you can come out and say global governance (government), its not really a secret anymore.

Sounds like you are more interested in inflating red herrings than solving this problem.

[canuckamuck]

Back to the question, yes it will be difficult to sell Americans on the idea of their tax dollars helping to prevent climate change in other countries. It will need to be disguised as something else. Its called politics. Duh.

This is a new kind of issue for us humans. Massive international cooperation is needed or it cannot be solved. Period. I would bet that our species is not up to the challenge based on our human nature (greed, nationalism, tunnel vision, responding only to immediate crises, poverty) and violent history.

Its ok, you can come out and say global governance (government), its not really a secret anymore.

Sounds like you are more interested in inflating red herrings than solving this problem.

Your the one who just said that the only way to get Americans on board with this is to trick them. But you never said that is a bad thing. Seems like I was correct in assuming that Americans are quickly losing everything that made them significant.

Stand for nothing, fall for everything

[Jingthing]

Back to the question, yes it will be difficult to sell Americans on the idea of their tax dollars helping to prevent climate change in other countries. It will need to be disguised as something else. Its called politics. Duh.

This is a new kind of issue for us humans. Massive international cooperation is needed or it cannot be solved. Period. I would bet that our species is not up to the challenge based on our human nature (greed, nationalism, tunnel vision, responding only to immediate crises, poverty) and violent history.

Its ok, you can come out and say global governance (government), its not really a secret anymore.

Sounds like you are more interested in inflating red herrings than solving this problem.

Your the one who just said that the only way to get Americans on board with this is to trick them. But you never said that is a bad thing. Seems like I was correct in assuming that Americans are quickly losing everything that made them significant.

Stand for nothing, fall for everything

Yeah, sorry you are disappointed in us. Look up to another country, why don't you?

[teatree]

Back to the question, yes it will be difficult to sell Americans on the idea of their tax dollars helping to prevent climate change in other countries. It will need to be disguised as something else. Its called politics. Duh.

This is a new kind of issue for us humans. Massive international cooperation is needed or it cannot be solved. Period. I would bet that our species is not up to the challenge based on our human nature (greed, nationalism, tunnel vision, responding only to immediate crises, poverty) and violent history.

Its ok, you can come out and say global governance (government), its not really a secret anymore.

Sounds like you are more interested in inflating red herrings than solving this problem.

The head of the UN Ban Ki-moon said in a recent interview:

'We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this (climate change policy).'

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-wor...0,1781040.story

Sounds like your are too busy rationalising everything to be able see the further moves towards undemocratic centralisation of power.

[RickBradford]

Well, that's the ball game.

A conference of world leaders, held at the height of global warming hysteria, has fallen flat on its a*se and this opportunity will never come again.

A UN official redefines the words "meaningful" and "historic".

"No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress," the official said. "It's not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but it's an important first step."

Actually, I think he's right -- it is meaningful and historic that political leaders, flaunting their massive egos, all talk about saving the poor little children and how we must grasp this final opportunity to avert cataclysm, and then end up doing nothing.

Even the UK's Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation can't find anything positive to report.

It doesn't matter what side of the debate you're on, this is a stunning display of political humbug from all involved.

A glorious future awaits. Climategate will grow and grow, Rajendra Pachauri will be toast and the whole momentum of the debate will have changed by the time these political narcissists have another go at imposing world government in the name of saving us from ourselves.

Edited December 19, 2009 by RickBradford

[Orac]

I am totally disgusted at what these 'world leaders' have managed to achieve at Copenhagen and how they can pass it off as anything other than a disaster is beyond me.

At least those here on TV that argue the warmist case make an effort to fight their case and stand up for what they believe in rather than the pathetic display of leadership that we have just witnessed.

[Jingthing]

Yes, the conference was a huge failure in producing meaningful results. However, the science is real, global warming is real, and anyone who thinks this is the end of the push to take action is smoking the poppy.

[RickBradford]

anyone who thinks this is the end of the push to take action is smoking the poppy.

Absolutely. This has become a giant industry, employing tens of thousands and costing billions a year.

And it is self-reinforcing. The more people in the industry, the more influence they have in promoting AGW. And the more they promote AGW, the more people will be drawn into the industry.

One British scientist (I'm paraphrasing, I've lost the original source) lamented that if he asked for funding for research into the spread of the African Red-Horned Fighting Snail in England, he probably wouldn't get it; but if he asked for funding for research into the spread of the African Red-Horned Fighting Snail in England And Its Relation to Global Warming, he'd stand a much better chance.

I think it's this self-reinforcing mechanism which has come unstuck over the last month.

Nobody is ever going to believe again that politicians can credibly put a GW deal together and then honour it (they didn't honour Rio, or Kyoto).

The AGW industry will continue making noise for a long time to come, but with ever-diminishing effect. They'll keep on whistling, but the dog's out of range.

[Jingthing]

You are confusing the human politics with the scientific reality.

[RickBradford]

You are confusing the human politics with the scientific reality.

I am deliberately making a connection, because the science has become so hugely politicised.

The ClimateGate e-mails and the latest revelations from Russia spell that out very clearly.

And it is certainly true that: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."

That is relevant on both side of the debate -- it is very hard to find a "pure scientist" in this area.

My feeling is that the huge political failure of Copenhagen is going to lead to a more open examination of the science, which will be detrimental to the AGW position.

[Jingthing]

We shall see. I would rather bet that the science supporting the human caused global warming will get even stronger than it is now. Also note that the warming is happening at a greater speed than previous projections. Within 10 years, the skeptics will be denying their previous ostrich-like positions. That said, I am still not optimistic that humanity can mobilize in time to stop this.

[teatree]

Interesting interview with Dr Piers Corbyn...

Goes over the reports that 75% of the temperature data in Russia was discarded to fudge the figures to show warming and also the NZ temperature manipulations.

[canuckamuck]

Interesting interview with Dr Piers Corbyn...

Goes over the reports that 75% of the temperature data in Russia was discarded to fudge the figures to show warming and also the NZ temperature manipulations.

That was a great piece with Piers Corbin. It is such a travesty of journalistic integrity that the only way this kind of information gets out is through outlets like the Alex Jones show. But that fact only emphasizes how mainstream media is just another piggy at the AGW trough.

For those who won't bother watching, Piers is an astrophysicist/meteorologists that has a peer reviewed, proven, scientific method of weather prediction based on solar activity, magnetism, and lunar cycles. His method is the most accurate in the world in long term prediction up to a year in advance. His opinion is the sun is the primary driver of climate, and the entire data set that the warmists base all of their models and predicitions on is rubbish and unuseable as a scientific tool. The reason: The data was collected selectively with a bias towards warming and contrary data was not included.

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

Hmmm.

[RickBradford]

Piers is interesting, partly because he used to fund his entire organisation by betting on the long-range weather (until the bookies banned him for being too successful).

He can't make a PowerPoint presentation without using seven different fonts all tricked out in yellow and mauve, looks like a typical crank and speaks in an unattractive Birmingham (England) accent. Not the guy you'd choose to be your media frontman on any issue.

But his credentials as an astrophysicist, his success at understanding fluctuating weather events and (maybe not coincidentally) the ongoing harassment he has taken from the "mainstream scientific consensus" make his views worthy of consideration.

"CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or Climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so. Those who claim man's CO2 is driving weather or Climate must produce evidence. They cannot do so because there is no such evidence and they cannot even forecast anything.

"All they do is wait for extreme events and say that whatever happens is what they expected. Such drivel should not be allowed to pass yet shamefully many who style themselves as science correspondents and experts promote this nonsense. Global Warming is a deceitful political game.

"The UN IPCC must be called to account and integrity in science and politics must be brought back"

Edited December 20, 2009 by RickBradford