Author
|
Topic: Global Warming Scare May Have Peaked
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 16 August 2008 06:38 PM
At least according to one American politician. I don't know who is dumber, Doherty, or the American Thinker. I guess they both are. What rubbish, but unfortunately publicizing this kinds of nonsense will only serve to help delay addressing the warming up of our planet quote: The global warming scare may have peakedThomas Lifson New Jersey State Assemblyman Michael Doherty has earned a place in the history books. So far as I know, he is the first politician to call openly for repeal of economically harmful legislation deriving from the global warming scare. His PR release reads in part: Responding to various new scientific reports questioning the concept of global warming, Assemblyman Michael Doherty today called on Governor Corzine to hold off on proposing any new regulations associated with the state's Global Warming Response Act and urged the Legislature to repeal that act when it returns to legislative business after Labor Day.
"There are many credible members of the scientific community who have questioned the theory of global warming, and now we have some scientists actually suggesting the earth's temperatures may be entering a period of dramatic cooling," said Doherty, R-Warren and Hunterdon. "With this growing level of scientific uncertainty, it makes no sense to enact a new set of economically damaging regulations prompted by the global warming hysteria of recent years."
It will be fascinating to watch the political and popular response to his call. The strategy of Al Gore to dismiss the issue as settled science has failed. The public, which once went along with environmental scares, such as fears about offshore drilling, is increasingly cynical about what it reads in the media, and about scares pushed by those with a political agenda. Few people yet realize that Al Gore and his Silicon Valley venture capitalist backers, hope to score huge profits from the trading of carbon indulgences.
Given the awkward fact that predictions of warming have failed to materialize, plus a back-to-basics mood when it comes to handling the economy, Assemblyman Doherty's move could catch on elsewhere if he appears to win public support.
This could be the beginning of the end for the warmist panic.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/the_global_warming_scare_may_h.html
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
damngrumpy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15425
|
posted 16 August 2008 10:25 PM
There is a lot of concern in the agricultural community as we see, not so much higher temperatures it the uv rays that count and they are high this summer, sunburn on fruit is more serious and water issues are more of a concern too. Even with that I think there is a lot of hype that has overblown the issue, from a public perspective point of view. The other issue is that people are not willing to make the changes required to do anything substancial. Mark my words withing two years, people will return to bigger vehicals, large trucks and suv's, I have been through this more than once over the last few decades and it just keeps repeating itself. I too get a little suspicious when church groups, governments and businesses take up the issue of climate change and the environment. I smell big profits here, and the collection plates are going to get a lot bigger. Every government wants to appear green. BC for example, imposes its carbon tax will on people saying we are getting serious about the environment. These same politicians, are continuing to ensure sales are strong for the export of coal for the Asian industrial market that continues to polute at will, go figure. Yes the climate will fade in importance, just like, trying to save the whales and God knows what else, a lot of people are ready to move on because this will cost them money. The problems will still be here, but our focus won't be
From: Kelowna BC | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 17 August 2008 11:43 AM
The problems will still be here but the focus won't be. (end quote)You don't believe the problems are going to grow, in dimension and number? With optimism like that, I can't see you as "damn" grumpy. Maybe a bit? [ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139
|
posted 18 August 2008 08:59 PM
quote: Unfortunately the environmental movement, the Greens, etc. have failed to convince people that we need to seriously address global warming. We will continue down our merry hear no evil, see no evil lifestyle until one of two things happen. Either we are hit with a major, but it will have to be quite a large catastrophe that impacts on us here, and not far away in some place like Antartica that 99.9% of the people on this planet have never been to
Global warming concerns may have dipped, like oil prices, as economic concerns have deepened, but I think this is too pessimistic a view. The polls show that people are convinced climate change is a serious problem, but are divided on what to do about it. The largest catastrophe possible in the near term in Antarctica would be a significant increase in ice mass loss causing a significant increase in the current rate of sea level increase. And that would affect a majority of the global population because of the fact they live on the coasts, and storm surges would be that much more devastating.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355
|
posted 24 September 2008 11:05 AM
Well Gore doesn't seem to think it has peaked. Gore calles for civil disobedience quote: Gore: Stock traders that inform investors that global warming doesn’t present a threat are guilty of a form of stock fraud. This is a crisis that is happening NOW. Scientists around the world are practically screaming from the rooftops to stop it. “If you’re a young person, I believe we’ve reached a point of civil disobedience” …to do things like take down coal plants.
Video of talk: Global Initiative
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 24 September 2008 11:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by Policywonk:
The polls show that people are convinced climate change is a serious problem, but are divided on what to do about it.
That is the core of the problem, division on what to do. Climate change is merely a symptom of a bigger problem which is gross over-consumption which drives the economic activity that pushes up global warming along with the depletion of sustainable resources, to mention just two negatives. Two thirds of the world needs to reduce its per capita consumption from 20-80% or more, and the ones that need to reduce it the most are the ones with the most power and biggest economic stakes. We are going nowhere until politicians can get elected on platforms of reversing growth and shrinking the economy, instead of the standard promises of more.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 24 September 2008 01:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Toby Fourre: It should, but it won't. Since the majority of people have never seen glaciers, this won't mean a thing. In a world where science takes a back seat to religion, I think we will all have to grow gills.
Well, there has been no glacier shrinkage here in the Rockies for at least the last 2 years, and people here, not me, laugh their asses off about alleged glacier shrinkage from global warming. Indeed, they tell all and sundry tourists, from around the world which visit here, numbering about 5k a day or more, that there is no glacier shrinkage occuring, and they also say that the glaciers have expanded over the last few years. And they are correct. But yet their misinforming still occurs. Trying to explain to the locals here, that what they are seeing is climate change, is very arduous. They get that it has been colder here than normal and way rainier than ever before recorded, in the summer, but they see it as just another trend in the weather patterns. They get it, somewhat, with respect to why the pine beetles are not dying, because the winters are too warm, but somehow they can overlook that and still say; "no global warming here, hell, the snow did not even leave all the mountains this year." IMV, there will have to be a hellva lot worse things happen climatically, before the majority of the world's people will seriously believe anything about and actually get involved to change the way they live, or consume. [ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 24 September 2008 01:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jerry West: Climate change is merely a symptom of a bigger problem which is gross over-consumption which drives the economic activity that pushes up global warming along with the depletion of sustainable resources, to mention just two negatives.
Consumption - "over-" or otherwise - does not drive economic activity. It is not the greedy consumer that is the engine of economic growth and the waste of resources.It is rather the necessity to strive for constant growth, in order to counter the inherent falling rate of profit, that drives capitalism to overproduce and to consume as many natural resources as it can get its paws on for free. The workers who produce the goods and services cannot afford to consume them all, because they are paid less than the market value of what they produce. Production therefore always outstrips the capacity of the producers to consume its products. It's not their greed, but the greed of the owners of capital, and the inexorable logic of growth driving the system of production, that causes waste and overproduction. It's not a matter of consumers exercising some kind of self-control to reduce their consumption. It's a matter of reducing production, through collective ownership and control of the means of production and planning for need, not greed, in a sustainable manner.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 24 September 2008 02:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Consumption - "over-" or otherwise - does not drive economic activity.
So, are you saying then, that if everybody stopped consuming the economic activity would continue as usual? That producers would produce even without being able to sell their product or make any income from it? quote: It's a matter of reducing production, through collective ownership and control of the means of production and planning for need, not greed, in a sustainable manner.
Oh, so we don't need to reduce consumption by 80%, rather just reduce production by 80%? I agree that production should be based on need, not greed, and that legitimate need must be defined, but production and consumption go hand in hand, no consumers, not much production. Then there is also the point where even with only very basic consumption we could be over-consuming our ability to sustain ourselves at any given level merely because of the total number of consumers.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 24 September 2008 05:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jerry West: So, are you saying then, that if everybody stopped consuming the economic activity would continue as usual?
Are you saying that it's more practical to reduce consumption than to reduce production, through socialized ownership and planning?Everybody isn't going to "stop consuming" or they will die. Nor are capitalists going to stop producing goods and exploiting resources and labour because they will starve as well. Obviously capitalists try to adjust the level of productive activity in their enterprise according to the anticipated demand for the product as well as competitive pressures (if any) from other capitalists. In fact, these levels fluctuate contantly and much effort is spent by governments collecting statistics about them. But just because the level of productive output goes down, it doesn't mean the enterprise, or indeed the economy as a whole, is more "sustainable" ecologically - and it certainly is not sustainable economically for the capitalist, for without a long-term increase in production the enterprise will fail. Growth and expansion are in capitalism's DNA. quote: That producers would produce even without being able to sell their product or make any income from it?
The great financial crisis of 1929 was a crisis of over-production, when capitalists produced more goods than the workers who produced them could buy. So yes, capitalists do tend to produce more than what is necessary to meet demand. Capitalism requires continual long-term growth; negative growth is possible only in the short term, and it is a disaster for the capitalist if it continues for too long. Eventually, production must return to a growth scenario or the enterprise dies. This growth drive is not consumer-driven or demand-driven - it exists because of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 24 September 2008 05:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Are you saying that it's more practical to reduce consumption than to reduce production, through socialized ownership and planning?
No, but that is beside the point, and social and economic structures, though important in how they achieve things, are also beside the more fundamental point that we can not sustain ourselves in any given level of consumption if we consume more than the ecosystem can sustainably produce. Consumption in this sense not meaning merely that which comes out of the factory door or from the farm, but every thing that we utilize from the air that we breathe and water that we drink, so on and so on. quote: Capitalism requires continual long-term growth; negative growth is possible only in the short term,....
True, but it brings up the points: 1) It really isn't about capitalism because even a fully socialized system that met everyone's needs, and no more, at whatever level we defined needs, would run into the same problem when the number of needs to be met exceeded the ability of the eco-system to provide for them sustainably; and 2) Just because capitalism requires this, and because it is so deeply entrenched in our system, nothing of major consequence is going to happen without a significant sea change in social and economic thinking, a change that would greatly reduce (by their current view) the living standard of much of the population in the developed world, and pretty much destroy the capitalist class. The most likely scenario might be that when things do get bad enough the wealthy will build enclaves for their survival, leave the rest of us to perish, and toast any resistance that may arise.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 24 September 2008 07:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jerry West: Consumption in this sense not meaning merely that which comes out of the factory door or from the farm, but every thing that we utilize from the air that we breathe and water that we drink, so on and so on.
Are you saying that we have to learn to breathe less air and drink less water in order to become a sustainable society? quote: It really isn't about capitalism because even a fully socialized system that met everyone's needs, and no more, at whatever level we defined needs, would run into the same problem when the number of needs to be met exceeded the ability of the eco-system to provide for them sustainably...
It is about capitalism, because capitalism is only able to meet people's needs so long as it is profitable for someone else, whereas a socialist system would put human needs first and would if necessary ration the available resources in an equitable way, and have more resources to meet people's needs because of having no need to divert resources into the private wealth accumulation of the owners of capital. quote: Just because capitalism requires this, and because it is so deeply entrenched in our system, nothing of major consequence is going to happen without a significant sea change in social and economic thinking, a change that would greatly reduce (by their current view) the living standard of much of the population in the developed world, and pretty much destroy the capitalist class.
A sea change in economic thinking can occur very quickly, given sufficient catastrophic change in the environment and mass starvation. Hunger tends to focus the mind quite sharply.Besides, major social change doesn't come from a change in "thinking" - that's historical idealism. Societies didn't evolve from feudalism to capitalism, for example, because everybody thought it would be a "good idea". The change came as a result of changes in material conditions, at different rates and times in different countries, and the new ways coexisted with the old ways for a long time. Very few individuals were actually conscious of the long-term picture and the nature of the changes while they were occurring. Certainly there was no need to persuade the masses of serfs and peasants living under feudalism that capitalism was a "better idea" before a transformation to a capitalist system could take place.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 25 September 2008 08:00 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector:
Are you saying that we have to learn to breathe less air and drink less water in order to become a sustainable society?
Collectively, yes, although using air as an example is a bit extreme. We can not take more from a system perpetually than it can supply perpetually without destroying the system, no matter what kind of social or economic framework you organize it with. Are you contesting this? Unless you believe that the ecosystem is a cornucopia without limit, we really have no difference on this. quote: It is about capitalism, because capitalism is only able to meet people's needs so long as it is profitable for someone else,....
You miss the point entirely. I don't disagree with you on the way capitalism works, but that is beside the point that you can not take more from a system than it can provide. Even a socialist system could over consume the ability of the planet to support it. quote: A sea change in economic thinking can occur very quickly, given....
I agree. You reinforce my argument that nothing is likely to happen without some major and probably catastrophic events, or at least a widespread and serious acceptance that such events are likely to occur. quote: Besides, major social change doesn't come from a change in "thinking" - that's historical idealism.
Actually it does, if the thinking did not change, then neither would the responses to situations. quote: Very few individuals were actually conscious of the long-term picture and the nature of the changes while they were occurring.
Probably true, but so what?
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238
|
posted 25 September 2008 08:12 AM
Not to worry. Canada's oil lobby has determined that climate change is no longer an issue. Everything's ok now folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Environment will take back seat to economy, says oil patch quote: The United States will likely soften its stance on environmental issues tied to the much-criticized oil and gas industry as that country faces tough economic times, according to the new face of Canada's energy lobby organization.Dave Collyer, who took the helm of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers last week, on Monday said the all-important U.S. market will put the economy on the top of its priority list rather than the environment... While CAPP represents producers large and small, cleaning up the oil sands' dirty image is a priority.
So there you have it. The US will "soften" it's approach (I still can't stop laughing) and the only problem that remains to be cleaned up is the "dirty image" of the oil sands. Presto.[ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 25 September 2008 05:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jerry West: You miss the point entirely. I don't disagree with you on the way capitalism works, but that is beside the point that you can not take more from a system than it can provide. Even a socialist system could over consume the ability of the planet to support it
I have to agree with Jerry here and because it appears to me that he's done his homework on ecological "footprint", biocapacity and all that. The Soviet syetem relied on industrialized economy, and their industries polluted, too. However, I don't believe Soviet economies were driven by supply and demand. Our own economies are increasingly driven not by supply and demand anymore but rather speculation and "bubble" economies dictating everything from prices of global trade in commodities to stock share values to the value of even our money. By comparison, the Soviets did make technological advances, but they also tended to be military in nature and were not handed off to private enterprize for profiteering in a western-style consumer driven economy. No economy is as dependent on oil and voraceous consumption levels today like the U.S. economy. It seems that throughout the cold war era, nations friendly to the west started adapting to conumer driven economies as well as commodities based export-driven economies for those countries indebted to the IMF and World Bank. Their leaders were instructed to open up their economies to marauding capital, foregn lumber and mining companies in order to maintain credit ratings and paying on high interest emergency IMF loans. Wall Street and Bay Street keep the old debts alive by selling and re-selling old thirdworld debts. What else can they pay with but to step up deforestation, strip mining, mechanized farming and so on to a frenzied pace in-line with compound interest on mounting debt? [ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:05 AM
quote: Climate change storm brewing faster than expected 09/29/08 00:00:00In recent weeks, the crisis in the world's financial markets has eclipsed concern over climate change. When your house is on fire, it's hard to get worked up about a hurricane on the horizon. But the hurricane is coming, and a study by the Global Carbon Project, a consortium of scientists based in Australia, suggests that the storm is building faster than expected. Nations set a record for annual releases of greenhouse gases in 2007 -- surprising experts who assumed that a slowing economy might curb emissions that are heating the Earth. Link to article
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:14 AM
More on the Global Carbon Project study:Carbon Is Building Up in Atmosphere Faster Than Predicted Washington Post, Sept. 26 quote: The rise in global carbon dioxide emissions last year outpaced international researchers' most dire projections, according to figures being released today, as human-generated greenhouse gases continued to build up in the atmosphere despite international agreements and national policies aimed at curbing climate change. In 2007, carbon released from burning fossil fuels and producing cement increased 2.9 percent over that released in 2006, to a total of 8.47 gigatons, or billions of metric tons, according to the Australia-based Global Carbon Project, an international consortium of scientists that tracks emissions. This output is at the very high end of scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and could translate into a global temperature rise of more than 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, according to the panel's estimates. "In a sense, it's a reality check," said Corinne Le Quéré, a professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a researcher with the British Antarctic Survey. "This is an extremely large number. The emissions are increasing at a rate that's faster than what the IPCC has used."
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 29 September 2008 08:24 AM
Two years ago, the BBC warned about methane release being a "tipping point."Enough tipping points reached, and warming will get out of control (hello, 5-6 degrees global rise). Now, another Arctic survey has found that it's a real problem and it's now observable. quote: Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species.
But even in the face of this, you will have people saying the world is cooling, that's it's sunspots, that we're being alarmist.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 29 September 2008 05:54 PM
quote: But the hurricane is coming, and a study by the Global Carbon Project, a consortium of scientists based in Australia, suggests that the storm is building faster than expected. Nations set a record for annual releases of greenhouse gases in 2007 -- surprising experts who assumed that a slowing economy might curb emissions that are heating the Earth.
Jerry, your quote is the "easy" part for a non-scientist to understand. But have you followed what happened to several attempts around here to begin discussions on fashioning social and economic responses to this crisis? It seems to me that, as the evidence of need for a response builds - but the seeming possibilities for a response fade - we will all turn into Sarumans (the first guy dressed all in white) and give up. There should be a "law" requiring that any mention of environmental Armageddon has to be accompanied by mention of solutions to that particular concern. You know...i.e. fossil fuel energy sources producing greenhouse gases to be replaced by nuclear ?
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 30 September 2008 12:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
I just don't understand why all these parties are weaseling around trying to find solutions that are sensitive to the needs of corporations. It is very simple, if Carbon Emmissions are harmful, they should be banned and phased out.
Because the two big money parties in Ottawa are owned by big business and big banking. Dion and Harper are little more than trained parrots with about the same volume in grey matter. And unless there is another world war followed by a 1917-like event in the western world, this semi-capitalist setup is what we have to work with, crisis after crisis until it finally does drive all the way off a cliff. Predatory bourgeois capitalism is part of the political and economic evolution of man. We can try to democratize this abominable arrangement in the meantime, or we can stand by and do nothing while the environment is destroyed and social democracy is trampled by the corporatocracy and a globalizing Ponzi banking scheme and upside-down socialism for the rich. Socialism or barbarism? It seems Crazy George II and fascists have already chosen for Canadians. Harper and Dion can only trust and obey their puppeteers in Warshington. That is unless we elect the NDP in larger numbers this election. I suspect that if the NDP were elected to official opposition in Ottawa, Canada would be the focus of special attention from capitalists and "Liberal" news media 24-7. Sparks would fly.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 30 September 2008 12:54 AM
But you can't be trusted, and besides, Layton is not talking about doing anything much different. Certainly nothing like passing legislation to force poluters to cut back on Carbon emmissions. The NDP cap and trade thing is just another mamby-pamby soft on business non-solution.Worse, the whole cap and trade thing is actually an insentive to keep underdeveloped countries underdeveloped by getting them to sell their status as non-poluters to us, so that industry can continue to polute here, and they can stay under-developed, and we can maintain our privileged status. And moreso, who actually owns these carbon sinks that create "emissions credits", such as the Brazilian rain forests? The government of Brazil, or the indiginous people who live there? Are these people yet again going to have the natural resources of their homeland ripped off to pay for the environmental damage we are creating? Are they going to be paid out for the "trade"? Ugly politics indeed. Talk about "green" neo-liberal policies. [ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 30 September 2008 03:57 AM
quote: M. Spector rabble-rouser Babbler # 8273 posted 29 September 2008 10:29 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess you haven't read this article yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I Hadn't, MS, and thanks for it. But what I'm saying is that folks here don't seem to want that clarity of purpose in their discussion. Yours was the only response that did not immediately ignore the implications for all critics : JUST WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT IT ? WHY CAN'T THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PARAMETERS OF THE QUESTION BE DISCUSSED ON BABBLE WITHOUT POSTERS SOMEHOW BEING APPARENTLY SATISFIED WITH A RECOUNTING OF THE ENORMITY OF THE QUESTION? Can anyone point to the thread in which Ian Angus's points are reviewed ???????
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 30 September 2008 05:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by George Victor:
Jerry, your quote is the "easy" part for a non-scientist to understand. But have you followed what happened to several attempts around here to begin discussions on fashioning social and economic responses to this crisis?
quote: JUST WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT IT ?
I think that I have touched on that on previous occasions. One example: quote: We know that according to many climate scientists we have to reduce our output of carbon gas by 80 to 90 per cent. The most precise way to do that is to regulate carbon gas emissions directly by setting caps on how much can be emitted. To be fair this would have to include an organized form of rationing to ensure that everyone received an equitable share of the permissible emissions, and at an affordable cost.Link to article
And another:
quote: To correct our climate problem we have to reduce our use of carbon fuels considerably. Scientists are saying greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 80 to 90 per cent. That means a radical change in the way that we do things, and with the present population it means a life style featuring far less consumption for all but the planet's poorest people....Carbon use must be reduced, as must a lot of other consumption, and the surest way to achieve that is to limit supply, not raise taxes. Limiting the supply of energy and other goods will of course curtail growth, a good thing for the environment, and a good thing for future humans, but not a good thing in the eyes of those who bankroll Premier Campbell. Link to article
And another one which also appeared on rabble: quote: An effect policy dealing with carbon emissions would set strict caps on the amount of emissions that can be produced, caps that would soon take us to the level of 80% reduction that scientists are telling us that we must reach. And, to make those reductions fair, a rationing system should be implemented to ensure that everyone, not just the wealthy, get a fair share of the energy available to sustain their life.An effective policy would also recognize that revenue neutral solutions are a fantasy. Our economy for centuries has exploited the environment to subsidize economic activity. Calculated into any plan to correct our environmental crisis must include a pay-back of those subsidies, and that pay-back can only come from either increased revenue or a massive decrease in funding for other items such as healthcare, education, defense and so on. Link to article
And this one: quote: A couple of weeks ago the governors and premiers from the western states and provinces met in Olympia, Washington as the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) to tackle the greenhouse gas issue. They announced that they have established a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent below the 2005 level by 2020. That is like announcing that they are going to put out a major forest fire by peeing on it.What is interesting is that in their press release on the meeting they admitted that emissions had to be reduced by between 50 and 85 per cent by 2050. Even this statement has a built in fudge factor since scientists have claimed that reductions in the 80 to 85 per cent category are necessary. Using 50 per cent as a possible target is a scam. The question arises, of course, that if they recognize that a huge reduction in gas emissions is required to save the environment as we know it, one that is hospitable to human society, why aren't they setting meaningful goals instead of piddling around with a token 15 per cent? Another part of the farce is the systems that are being devised to deal with carbon gas reductions. The WCI announced that it would use a carbon cap and trading system. This is where overall emission limits are set and users are allowed to buy and sell portions of their allotments in the market. Anyone who believes that markets can't be manipulated and that the system will not soon be rife with corruption is a prime prospect for selling ocean front property in Alberta to. A serious approach would be to set emission standards that achieved the 80 per cent or more reduction and treat every reduction beyond that level as a much appreciated bonus. This carbon silliness extends to environmental organizations that promote the practice of carbon offsets where people who have environmentally friendly projects can finance them by taking money from polluters who buy a right to pollute because they are financing new technology that won't pollute. It is kind of like people who want to end prostitution taking money from a brothel which then gets the ability to expand their business. There is a whole financial industry growing around the buying and selling of carbon credits where instead there should just be statutory limits enforced on how much carbon gas can be produced, and public financing for projects that will provide carbon gas free or reduced energy. The approaches made to global warming are a farce, meant to entertain us without inconveniencing us very much. And they open the door for a whole new venue of financial scams and manipulations intended more to provide a source of income to enterprising market manipulators than to fix the damaged environment. The truth is that there is no easy fix to the problem and putting the planet back in a good enough shape to support many more future generations will require considerable sacrifice. Unless those with wealth and power can find a good way to profit from the sacrifice it may not happen before it is too late. Link to article
Those may not be prescriptive enough for your purpose, George, but they certainly propose doing something, capping carbon use and cutting the supply of carbon fuels in the market.
quote: Cueball: I just don't understand why all these parties are weaseling around trying to find solutions that are sensitive to the needs of corporations.
Why they are being sensitive to corporations is obvious. But more than that, they are being sensitive to the voters. Actually fixing the problem will require radical lifestyle changes and a cutting back of many things that we do and enjoy. A hard political alternative to sell unless all major parties are on the same page on the issue and there is no choice.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 01 October 2008 06:31 AM
Thanks Jerry. I am onside. It's just that maintaining a thread around here that brings together the economic solutions to the enormous challenge is impossible.Ian Angus moves in a positive direction - and I thank M.Spector for directing me to the article. Why can we not get our collective teeth into this and explain how we could direct use of the savings out there in pensions for something other than market manipulation? Do babblers really understand the possibilities of using the market in this way? Taking the mixed economy to the command economy of wartime regulation? Isn't that what we have to focus on? quote: Regardless of what happens in international negotiations, Canada must unilaterally adopt a goal of a 60 per cent overall emissions reduction by 2020, and a 90 per cent reduction by 2030. Those reductions can be achieved through government measures such as these: Set hard, rapidly declining ceilings on emissions produced by the largest companies. Expropriate any company that doesn't comply.
Put all power industries under public ownership and democratic control. Begin phasing out coal-fired plants immediately and stop building new ones. Invest heavily in non-fossil fuel sources such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal. Stop all new development in the Tar Sands and rapidly phase out existing operations, including restoring of the land as closely as possible to its previous condition. Redirect all military spending and the federal budget surplus into public energy-saving projects such as expanding mass transit and retrofitting homes and office buildings. Former tar sands workers and redeployed soldiers can play key roles in this effort. Retool auto plants to focus on building mass transit, wind turbines and other green technologies. Expand and upgrade transit systems so that all urban residents can use them easily. Make all public transit free. The climate crisis will not respond to modest goals and incremental tinkering – what's needed are emergency measures to drive current greenhouse gas emissions towards zero as rapidly as possible. Unfortunately, in this election, modest goals and incremental tinkering are the best that Canadian politicians are offering. There is no sign that any party recognizes how serious the problem actually is, let alone that emergency action is needed. This article also appeared in The Bullet.
Ian Angus is Editor of Climate and Capitalism and an Associate Editor of Socialist Voice.
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 01 October 2008 10:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by George Victor: Thanks Jerry. I am onside. It's just that maintaining a thread around here that brings together the economic solutions to the enormous challenge is impossible.
It may be impossible because there are no palatable economic solutions. The problem is ecological, not economic, and is far greater than mere carbon emissions. The economy must follow the ecological imperative, an imperative that is pretty simple, cut back radically on consumption. The dominant economic model is based on growth, and the only possible economic solution is radical downsizing or shrinking of the economy that reduces consumption, and not just of carbon fuel, a solution that is contrary to generally accepted economic thinking. The steps put forward by Angus are mostly not really economic initiatives, but ecological ones that impact the economy. What economists do is look at Angus' points and try to find economic ways to achieve them, which is ass backwards. They should be looking at ways to adopt the economy to a situation where those points are implemented regardless. People will credibly argue that such a radical approach is not possible (or unrealistic, or however they wish to term it), and they have a point, and therein lies the crux of the problem about not getting anything significant accomplished.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 01 October 2008 11:27 AM
You know, I'm always reminded of this chart I saw when I was a kid. I used to read Highlights magazine in the 1980s and for a while there I was quite the avid searcher for older issues, and managed to find one printed in 1979.Anyway, the issue I saw printed in 1979, 1980 or 1981, somewhere in there, showed a nice little chart of CO2 content in the atmosphere and it was basically a straight line trending upwards with little wiggles showing the seasonal rise and fall superimposed on the trend. Remember, this was years before anyone was that seriously worried about global warming, so please let's not claim it's a political thing to say CO2 content has been going up. Furthermore, just because it's a small component of the atmosphere does not make it hand-wavingly ignorable. Consider that the small but present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere represents the position of a fairly delicate dynamic equilibrium at any given point in time. For those who don't understand dynamic equilibrium, go pick up a high school chemistry text. That's how basic this is. In dynamic equilibrium systems, what looks static is really the result of ongoing processes that work to keep the same relative content of the components of the system over time. Now, in the case of a simple chemical system, shifts in the components of that system are limited by self-regulating processes as encompassed by Le Chatelier's Principle. But for complex combined chemical/biological systems, Le Chatelier's Principle may not operate very effectively on short time scales. Consider. We are raising the content of CO2 in the atmosphere by transferring back all the CO2 absorbed out of the Earth and the atmosphere in times past, and doing so at a rate greater than existing biological systems and chemical systems can absorb it. Example 1: The oceans can hold a portion of the CO2 as carbonic acid, and under certain conditions, this carbonic acid will precipitate out as insoluble carbonate compounds. But the solubility of CO2 is primarily temperature dependent and less so on pressure since the atmospheric pressure is essentially constant (See this article, from 1976 just in case you all think it's another sneaky politically-motivated study on solubility). Bottom line: CO2 won't dissolve that much faster just because there's more of it. Example 2: Biological systems, such as plants. They can absorb CO2 and incorporate it into carbohydrates or into their cellular structures. However this rate is fixed by metabolic processes and can only increase inasmuch as their own growth rates are concerned. So this rate, too, is not going to go up in precise concert with the rise in CO2 content just because there's more of it. I suspect that the 900-year gap between a spike in CO2 content and a major shift in the Earth's overall temperatures, etc depends on there being a maximum rate of CO2 production dependent on biological processes, rather than ability to temporarily exceed that maximum with the rapid combustion of stored carbon. Which is why the implicit assumption that we can leave it for the kids to worry about is not necessarily guaranteed to be true in our case at this time. [ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 01 October 2008 11:34 AM
The way I see it, we have low economic growth rates now as it is. Perhaps it's not low enough, or it is the wrong kind of growth. Capitalists in the west aren't building so many factories or mills here nowadays. Heavy industry is offshored to thirdworld capitalist countries where environmental and labour laws are lax. Here in the west we have monetarist monetarism since Milton Friedman and is why our growth rates are lower than in China and India where Keynesian banking and finance are being used to grow the developing economies.Here, capitalists' profit margins were in decline twice in the last century, the second time since the 1970's. And so they've attempted to re-achieve 12 to 20% profit margins by earning compound interest on financial investments of all kinds. Meanwhile the majority of human beings still live in abject poverty. The materialist view of middle class capitalism is unrealistic for several billion poor people in developing countries. It's not only a model that can not happen due to raw materials constraints of the planet and technological hurdles wrt energy, we would destroy the environment if attempted, according to scientists. I think economists should redefine sustainable middle class prosperity. We want to live decently without returning to the Dark Ages. Capitalism or a habitable planet, and I think people can be considered well off if they have their health, are well-educated, have roofs over their heads, and enough to eat. And I believe that is more Marx, Keynes, and Polanyi than Smith, Locke, or Friedman.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 01 October 2008 12:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: The way I see it, we have low economic growth rates now as it is.
The only growth rate that counts is the total global one. Same for consumption rate and emission rate. quote: Meanwhile the majority of human beings still live in abject poverty.
That would depend on your definition of abject poverty. A sustainable consumption rate is one currently enjoyed on average by the people of Jordan and Uzbekistan. About 65% of the world's countries have an average higher than that. If we use national averages and figure that a majority already live in abject poverty, we are arguing that everybody on average must live in abject poverty in order for the ecosystem to be sustainable with the current population. Using the global hectare method of calculating consumption the sustainable average rate per person in 2003 was about 1.8. Actual average global consumption per person was about 2.2. Totally eliminating the population of the richest countries, about 1 billion, would raise the global average to 2.2. For reference Canadian lifestyle is supported by an average of 7.6 and the US by 9.6.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 01 October 2008 12:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jerry West:
That would depend on your definition of abject poverty.
I was thinking of chronically hungry nations, 80-85% of which the FAO said two years ago were exporting food to world markets, and due to WTO rules were accepting food exports from the west and undermining the livelihoods of very many peasant farmers from Haiti to India. But I suppose that is not the majority of people in the world. Branco Milanovic of the World Bank says there is not enough known about comparable poverty from one country to the next with measuring only dollar a day poverty versus two or three dollars a day, it's all relatively and absolutely poor compared to here. Milanovic said that if an African family has to pay a quarter of daily income for fresh water, then they can suddenly become comparatively worse off than billions of other people living on even lower incomes. Markets in some cases exacerbate problems instead of solving them. quote: For reference Canadian lifestyle is supported by an average of 7.6 and the US by 9.6.
Jerry, are those the hectares available to support Canadians and Americans in our respective countries, or is that what we are consuming on average presently regardless of biocapacity in each country? [ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 01 October 2008 01:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
Jerry, are those the hectares available to support Canadians and Americans in our respective countries, or is that what we are consuming on average presently regardless of biocapacity in each country?
That is our average consumption figures. The US has a capacity of 4.7 so they are consuming more than twice which they can produce. Canada's biocapcity is 14.5 so we are consuming only about half of it. I don't think that this takes into account exports, but I don't have time to research the documents at the moment.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Publicfinance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14979
|
posted 01 October 2008 02:31 PM
Hey Mr Spector, I noticed you mentioned those that "deny" human caused Global Warming as Troglodytes. Interesting, perhaps you can elaborate why disagreement equates to living under bridges?There are thousands of scientists, including the founder of the weather network no less that believe the Global warming by humans theory not only false but fraudulent. I won't call it fraud because the jury is out, I don't DENY outright I question it and what is wrong with that? I assume you would have also called those in the mid 1970's who were fear-mongering about the coming ICE -AGE troglodytes or chowderheads as well? Time magazine ran a front page claiming "IS THE NEW ICE AGE FORTHCOMING" in 1975 after 30 years of progressively cooler temperatures. All I am saying is that human caused Global Warming (or cooling for that matter) is SPECULATIVE, we are not talking laws of nature. I sure as heck believe in climate change, change is inevitable, its just this lame-brained idea that we are for certain the cause of the recent warming trend via CO2 emmissions is by no means a slam dunk. Don't you think just maybe Mother Nature has a little to do with it?
From: White rock | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 01 October 2008 04:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Publicfinance:
There are thousands of scientists, including the founder of the weather network no less that believe the Global warming by humans theory not only false but fraudulent.
Name them, along with the field(s) that they hold PhDs in, and the institutions where they earned them. quote: All I am saying is that human caused Global Warming (or cooling for that matter) is SPECULATIVE, we are not talking laws of nature.
There are degrees of speculation. In the case of human influenced global warming the correlation of human activity over 8000 years to long term increase in both temperature and GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are pretty heavy evidence. Add to that the fact that some scientists believe that the natural earth cycles indicate that we should be entering another Ice Age instead of heating up.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 01 October 2008 04:42 PM
quote: It may be impossible because there are no palatable economic solutions. The problem is ecological, not economic, and is far greater than mere carbon emissions. The economy must follow the ecological imperative, an imperative that is pretty simple, cut back radically on consumption.
The solution certainly will not come as a result of its "palatable" rating, Jerry, All criditable positions equate the economic conditions required with those of wartime. Production has a single purpose. It becomes a command economy to that degree, and the old "mixed" economy of the immediate post-war period is assumed where personal capital investments are concerned...and green (war) bonds... It all worked at one point under nationalist banners and exchange rate controls. What's to disparage about that beginning point given that survival of our species is at stake?
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720
|
posted 01 October 2008 05:04 PM
The "weahter network" guy. The Time magazine cover. Another person getting their global warming facts from Penn and Teller.
quote: Originally posted by Publicfinance: There are thousands of scientists, including the founder of the weather network no less that believe the Global warming by humans theory not only false but fraudulent.
Is John Coleman a scientist now? Perhaps you should tell him that. He is a business man who used to be a weatherman, but has no degree in climatology, meteorology or any other science field. He has published no papers in scientific journals. What he says does not mean shit. Is John Coleman really the best you deniers have left? (Prominent scientists in the field who are contrarian such as Patrick Michaels, John Christy, Roy Spencer, the Pielke's ALL agree that the world is warming and is at least partially, if not predominantly, caused by humans. Your position is considered laughable to all except the most ridiculous conspiracy theorists.) quote: I won't call it fraud because the jury is out, I don't DENY outright I question it and what is wrong with that?
You can question anything you want: evolution, that the earth goes around the sun, the holocaust. However, if you expect anyone to take you seriously then you must actually read legitimate material and not just conspiracy baloney such as: quote: I assume you would have also called those in the mid 1970's who were fear-mongering about the coming ICE -AGE troglodytes or chowderheads as well? Time magazine ran a front page claiming "IS THE NEW ICE AGE FORTHCOMING" in 1975 after 30 years of progressively cooler temperatures.
I believe that their were 7 papers which appeared in prominent scientific journals in the 70s that claimed that the world was a cooling problem, even those did not claim that an ice age was looming, hence they are never referenced and instead a puff piece in a non-science magazine is the best deniers have. During the same period there was more than 40 papers talking about the dangers of global warming. The scientific community NEVER supported a theory of an impending ice age. The scientific community does support AGW - every legitimate scientific organization and journal agrees. Relying on a general news magazine for science is about as ridiculous as it gets. quote: All I am saying is that human caused Global Warming (or cooling for that matter) is SPECULATIVE, we are not talking laws of nature.
Start with the gas laws. Then do the simple experiment using a flame and a vacuum. When CO2 is added to that vacuum it absorbs the heat. It will do that every single time. It is very basic science, so simple it is embarassing, which is why the likes of Michaels, Christy, Pielke etc cringe everytime a denier makes statements like you do. quote: I sure as heck believe in climate change, change is inevitable, its just this lame-brained idea that we are for certain the cause of the recent warming trend via CO2 emmissions is by no means a slam dunk. Don't you think just maybe Mother Nature has a little to do with it?
It is well understand how ghgs work. 17 years ago we had a strong enough understanding to model and predict with tremendous accuracy the climate and temperature changes caused by Pinatubo. People don't have a much difficulty understanding that a large eruption like Pinatubo can alter the climate for a couple years. The average emissions from volcanoes each year are tiny compared to yearly human emissions, but, no way, humans can't interfere with the climate. [ 01 October 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 02 October 2008 08:47 AM
quote: Intersting comments. So if I am to understand correctly any scientist that question human caused global warming is a lackey of the oil and gas industry?
Nope, but they were predominantly oil and gas funded and almost always a direct link to Exxon in the early days... Assuming they had a degree that actually related to climatology (most of the time, they didn't) quote: What I can't understand is the stance that human caused global warming couldnt POSSIBLY be incorrect, like we were discussing the law of gravity. If you cannot hold constant all the other major derterminants of climate change, the rising co2 causing all of the global warming recently on its own is about as reliable as a political promise.
lmao, law of gravity now? For a MYTHBUSTER, your knowledge of scientific method is pretty pathetic. I hate to say it, but you believing really really really hard doesn't change reality. You are right to some degree though... The climate change denial threads focus alot on CO2 as the only warming source (which usually relates to oil and why you can track most climatologists that denounce CO2 warming directly to Exxon). Turns out that ice reflects sunlight while open water asorbs it... It would be theoretically possible that when all the ice is melted, the increased levels of sunlight being asorbed by the dark water (not reflected by the ice) could surpass the CO2 effect. The melting ice tends to release gasses trapped in permafrost, which ranges (pending who you ask) from having a small effect to actually eclipsing our own emissions. The debate needs to shift from whether or not it's happening, and more towards... "If we can influence it, what do we want it to look like?". [ 02 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720
|
posted 02 October 2008 09:32 AM
quote: MYTHBUSTER: What I can't understand is the stance that human caused global warming couldnt POSSIBLY be incorrect, like we were discussing the law of gravity.
That is far from the only thing that you can't understand. In a previous thread you repeatedly complained that global warming was a theory and not a law showing that you don't understand the basics of science. Here again you have shown that you are ignorant of the basic classifications of science, yet are trying to base arguments by using those classifications in an improper way. A scientific theory is NOT inferior to a law. Here is a basic definition of the laws and theories as they relate to one another. quote: Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. This is not true, as scientific theory and scientific law have different definitions. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 02 October 2008 11:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by MYTHBUSTER: IUntil the mass production of cheap fuel celled vehicles that burn hydrogen is a reality (it costs 200k for one now) we have to keep burning gasoline.
That is like saying until there is a cheaper food supply we have to keep killing and eating our neighbours. We don't have to burn so much gasoline if we change the way that we use internal combustion engines. We do not have to have so many cars. We do not have to use so much energy. quote: What I can't understand is the stance that human caused global warming couldn't POSSIBLY be incorrect, like we were discussing the law of gravity.
Are you sure that the law of gravity is correct? The existence of human caused global warming might not be a law, but the evidence for it is compelling, particularly if one looks at it in an 8000 year time frame. Given what we know it would be irresponsible not to assume that humans have had a considerable influence on the volume of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is nothing wrong with questioning this assumption, but the burden of proof sufficient to change policy away from the human issue lies on those who deny the human cause, and they are not even close yet. It is possible that the idea that humans influence global warming is incorrect, but it certainly isn't probable. The Precautionary Principle dictates that we conduct ourselves based on the idea that humans are a significant influence until definitively proven otherwise. No such proof yet forthcoming. And it isn't just about CO2. Among other items, there is a tracked increase in methane gas in the atmosphere, too, and some relate part of it to the developments in agriculture over the last 8000 years.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MYTHBUSTER
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15398
|
posted 02 October 2008 12:42 PM
LOL Trevor M I won't even dignify a reply to that "definition " of a scientific law and theory, I guess I’ll have to dust off my high school textbooks to get it right. I didn’t realize this was going to be a science exam My point was that Global Warming Champions act as if the atmospheric warming due to man created cO2 is without scientific opposition, almost equivalent to a law of nature like gravity or the boiling point of water. Au contraire, I have found LOADS of credible opposition not by crackpots, but Climatologists, atmospheric scientists etc. Even the most fervent supporters of man caused climate change can't honestly say that it is ONLY caused my man. Climate has swung from one extreme to the other in earth’s history with NO influence by human beings, are we to believe we have the means to create and maintain a climactic status quo by controlling carbon dioxide emissions? We can’t control Co2 very well because we only create a small fraction of the total amount in the first place, and all the REST of the variables that influence climate are left to their chaotic selves. Tell me how a computer model can predict “certain” outcomes when so many variables are left fluctuate with only ONE held constant or controlled. Trevor M I may not be a PHD in science, but this makes no sense. Climate computer modeling is NOT exact science. For example, try to figure out where a hurricane is going to go when they form. The most sophisticated computer model s can predict points of impact 1000 miles different from the other, and intensity from a summer breeze to a cat 5 when a couple of variables are slightly changed . My point is a slight variation in a single variable in a climate model can change the result COMPLETELY, and we are talking a CURRENT climactic event when discussing hurricanes. So I am supposed to believe we KNOW that the climate will warm in perpetuity , as long as CO2 levels rise ? This would require more faith that most of the world’s religions require. Because the science leaves so much uncertainty, to believe in human caused global warming requires a great amount of faith. A more interesting debate would be to discuss whether global warming would actually be a terrible thing after all. Couldn’t it be argued that displacement in some areas would be offset by benefits in others? I read the UN believes that Canada would be one of the countries that would benefit Or be impacted "the least" if the climate DID warm as much as feared. Not that the UN opinion matters much, but it does probably require discussion, I would think a warmer world sure as heck beat another ice-age, at least for a Canadian Or a Swede. Human beings are pretty adaptable and I am sure more than up to the task to DEAL WITH climate change instead of vainly trying to fight what we can't possibly control
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 02 October 2008 01:38 PM
Mythbuster (err, mythspreader?): quote: My point was that Global Warming Champions act as if the atmospheric warming due to man created cO2 is without scientific opposition, almost equivalent to a law of nature like gravity or the boiling point of water. Au contraire, I have found LOADS of credible opposition not by crackpots, but Climatologists, atmospheric scientists etc.
Can I ask again... Give us one name out of your "LOADS". I seriously don't think you can, but we may as well give you a chance. quote:
Even the most fervent supporters of man caused climate change can't honestly say that it is ONLY caused my man.
Err, find me a single credible and fervent scientist who says that climate change is human ONLY and I'll show you a creation of your imagination. quote:
We can’t control Co2 very well because we only create a small fraction of the total amount in the first place, and all the REST of the variables that influence climate are left to their chaotic selves.
Chaotic selves that follow surprisingly regular patterns no less. Push a balance too far in one direction and we'll induce change (or if you will 'climate change')
quote: Tell me how a computer model can predict “certain” outcomes when so many variables are left fluctuate with only ONE held constant or controlled.
You're having problems understanding sceintific method, so I think it'll be quite pointless to explain modelling at this time. Like, for example, the difference between a 'hurricane scale' weather event (meso) and global trends (synoptic) that you tried (miserably) to compare here. [ 02 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 02 October 2008 03:37 PM
quote: When a critical mass of the population take global warming and over consumption to be a greater threat than the Germans and the Japanese were, we may start to get some movement along those lines.
Jerry, I take it that with the above you are saying that a wartime economy is probably the only effective economic structure? Richard Parker's bio on John Kenneth Galbraith shows him established by Roosevelt BEFORE wartime as price czar, preventing runaway prices and inflation. Seems to me, we should start talking about such singular moves now, particularly given the market situation, which is a perfect foil for controls on Wall and Bay streets. Having made a few phone calls in this election, I'm not so sanguine about waiting for that "critical mass" to form. The Canadian "heartland" ain't so far ahead of the one described by Bageant, eh?
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 02 October 2008 05:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by George Victor:
Jerry, I take it that with the above you are saying that a wartime economy is probably the only effective economic structure?
Probably so. quote: Richard Parker's bio on John Kenneth Galbraith shows him established by Roosevelt BEFORE wartime as price czar, preventing runaway prices and inflation.
Different world then with different circumstances, and FDR was much more an effective politician than anyone currently on the scene. Of course a committed government could put the framework in place. quote: Seems to me, we should start talking about such singular moves now, particularly given the market situation, which is a perfect foil for controls on Wall and Bay streets.
I think that we should be talking about it and planning for it now. Keeping a government in power than can actually carry it out to the end is what will require a critical mass of support, at least if we are to remain a democracy. Would it be permissible to crush the will of the majority if that is what it takes to save society?
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 03 October 2008 05:17 AM
quote: Seems to me, we should start talking about such singular moves now, particularly given the market situation, which is a perfect foil for controls on Wall and Bay streets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that we should be talking about it and planning for it now. Keeping a government in power than can actually carry it out to the end is what will require a critical mass of support, at least if we are to remain a democracy. Would it be permissible to crush the will of the majority if that is what it takes to save society?
In this election, the will of the majority is to move toward resolution of the threat to Earth's biosphere. The only thing crushed would be the social aspirations of the greedy and ignorant.
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 03 October 2008 05:19 AM
quote: I'm ready to call troll on Mythbuster. He has yet to answer a direct question; he doesn't understand basic science. He thinks that Newton's "law" is still in force; he doesn't understand the scientific method and what 'theory' is at all.
------------------------------------------------- Just ignore the silly bastard, LTJ. -----------------------------------------------
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 03 October 2008 07:20 AM
quote: Hurricanes can be either very large meso scale or synoptic scale (which doesn't mean global). A mid-latitude winter storm is synoptic scale.
Synoptic is usually 1000km +, I'm hoping most hurricanes are under that. hehe I guess I could have been more clear with my post on that... Was pointing out the extreme differences between the modeling types mythbuster was trying to compare. Anyone wanna wager on what line we see next? If history repeats, we should see a post claiming the sun is putting out more energy and pluto is obviously warming too, must be cosmic rays. [ 03 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 04 October 2008 06:30 AM
quote: Hey, u, we were just about to conclude (I hope) that now would be a good time to describe a political/economic position on this question and NOT go off on the philosophical that you dislike, for reasons made known in innumerable dispatches. Can you add something in the direction of concrete analysis and propose a political position for today?
Or is serious discussion of this question to end, yet again, on an unanswered appeal, with endless recounting of atrocities and human failure being somehow easier to deal with, less taxing?
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960
|
posted 08 October 2008 04:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Publicfinance: All I am saying is that human caused Global Warming (or cooling for that matter) is SPECULATIVE...
No, it is not. We know, by laboratory experiment, that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared energy and make the atmosphere warmer than it would be if they were not present. This is not speculation, it is a scientific fact. It is indeed a law of nature. We know, also by laboratory experiment, that adding more CO2 and other greenhouse gases will make the atmosphere warmer still. This is not speculation, it is a scientific fact. It is indeed a law of nature. We know, by actual measurement, that the amount of CO2, methane, nitrous oxides, CFCs and a host of other minor greenhouse gases have increased and continue to increase in the atmosphere. This is not speculation, it is a scientific fact. We know, by actual measurement, that global mean temperature has increased since humans began burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale. This is not speculation, it is a scientific fact. We know, by measuring the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 in the atmosphere, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from burning fossil fuel. This is not speculation, it is a scientific fact. We know, therefore, that humans have been directly responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, and therefore, largely responsible for the measured increase in global mean temperature, especially over the last 30 years. Are there natural factors that could cause the atmosphere and surface to warm? Of course, variations in amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface chief among them. But observed and measured variations on solar output over the past 50 years can not explain the observed and measured warming. Nor can Earth's orbital variations, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, and are actually heading into a cooling phase. And in any case, neither of these would change the above facts one iota. Human generated greenhouse gases would still produce warming.
From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960
|
posted 08 October 2008 04:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by MYTHBUSTER: I didn’t realize this was going to be a science exam
That's your problem right there. Global warming/climate change [i]is[/is] science. If you don't understand it as science how can you possibly discuss it intelligently? Never mind...., it's clear that's not your intention.
From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|