Global warming/antiglobal warming=warring religions?

[Eclipse Now]

And... relevance?

[belovelife]

Personal carbon trading

 

what do you all think of this idea

[Theo]

The whole global warming thing has gotten out of hand here at hypo (in my opinion) to the point it seems like more of a battle of, if not religions then egos at least.

 

So I am going to play both ends against the middle and ask a few questions. The whole idea of global warming in indeed a theory, as is the anti global warmers, both sides are spouting evidence but neither side can really say they are absolutely right or wrong, just more right or more wrong.

 

i know that in science a theory is better than just an idea someone has but I have to ask this. All theories have problems, from relativity to quantum mechanics none of them are perfect. I want to ask both sides to switch for a few and think of how you would argue the other way.

 

To the global warming people I ask, what is your theory's worst problems?

 

to the anti global warmers i ask the same, what part of global warming make you doubt your idea is correct?

 

Lets look at it inside out and see if they look different. Can anyone let go of their pet argument and take a hard look at their pet ideas and see anything that makes them wonder if only for a few seconds? Can we get past the desire to be correct and try to see why the other side sees you as wrong? Can you admit you don't have 100% of the info? Is the data being manipulated by both side to some extent?

 

Don't bite my head off, take a hard look at what is going on, lets play nice...

 

I'm all for playing nice. :rolleyes: As for global warming - As a long-range forecaster, my contention has always been that the Sun is the cause of global warming, and all planetary climate change.

 

It is sad to see how poorly most of the world understands their planet's own climate and weather, but the myth of AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics and when basic astrophysical & geophysical laws are being "broken" I always look to see where the ideologues are who are playing the "wizard of Oz " - pulling the strings behind a drawn curtain.

 

However, it has always been my contention that man-made global warming never existed. It was a lie right from the start.

 

Toto pulled that curtain back in November, and, via Climategate will see something I've known since 1989 - that the IPCC and their companion climatologists and scientists (the careerist ideologues) have hijacked science in general and climate science in particular.

 

Now, this is thankfully being seen by the whole world.

 

We will hear more over the coming weeks and months on Climategate that will shock many who believed in the AGW hook, line and sinker.

[Eclipse Now]

My recent statement on these matters:

 

As this thread emerged from the global warming thread originally, I'm wondering how many people have thought through the implications of peak oil, gas, and eventually coal (anywhere from 2010 to 2048) on climate change?

 

This is why it seems to me that a carbon-trading system is just way too much paperwork. If we just banned the building of any new coal power stations and let the market and nations build any Co2-friendly electricity technology but coal, surely peak oil & gas and gradually retiring old coal power plants would start to decrease Co2 emissions while our exponentially increasing fast-rail intercity systems and trolley-bus New Urbanism city living replaced oil based transport systems and cities?

 

So rather than a vastly complex carbon trading system, maybe the best way ahead is a new-coal ban and an Oil Depletion Protocol rationing system to stabilise the oil markets?

 

(The ODP website explains that it would rely on the creation of a bipartisan international oil institute that required OPEC nations to open up for a long overdue audit! Once a global depletion rate was estimated this would be applied to citizens rationing cards each year. Anyway, because of the effects on weaning a nation off oil this would still help any individual nation that decides to kick into a serious oil weaning process).

 

1. The reasons I'm thinking an oil trading system is better than an emissions trading system is that:-
   
2. It is easier to measure the fuel actually purchased at the pump than try and calculate carbon emissions from everything under the sun.
   
3. Oil and eventually natural gas consumption is one industry to focus on. We sell it in quantifiable, measurable systems and a rationing card can easily be allocated to each person and help in fuel trading that way. But measuring carbon is a mugs game! How are we going to do it? Everything from the energy I use to the garden I have through to cows burping, and the % of the cow burp I contributed to by buying steak, etc.
   
4. Banning any new coal fired power plant worldwide would see coal emissions gradually decrease as the oldest stations were retired.
   
5. It helps solve an otherwise crazily fluctuating oil price and keeps the price high, but stable, as oil production peaks and then starts to decrease worldwide.
   
6. I don't have to feel guilty for other Co2 producing stuff that goes on as long as the vast bulk of our Co2 emissions are under control through clean electricity consumption, transport systems, and food & wood & paper systems.
   
7. A consistently high oil price would encourage Biochar fuel producers, who also sequester charcoal carbon into our SOIL where it not only enhances soil productivity, but can store up to 1 gigaton per year of Co2 by 2054 IF we followed the International Biochar Initiative's recommendations. (Short PDF).
   

[Eclipse Now]

We will hear more over the coming weeks and months on Climategate that will shock many who believed in the AGW hook, line and sinker.

 

Blaaaargh! Vomit! :rolleyes:

 

You say you're all for playing nice and then post the old 'gullible fools!" accusation with the line above, and just make unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation. As Yoda said, "So certain are you!?"

 

Challenge: Please post the WORST climategate file on the climategate thread, and see if it comes even remotely close to the documented anti-science conspiracy of the Bush administration under the influence of huge corporate interests and lobby groups. This thread is not the place for that, do it in climategate thank you. Brian dropped out of that challenge with his tail between his legs, I wonder how you'll go?

[freeztar]

Personal carbon trading

 

what do you all think of this idea

 

I'm not sure this is the thread for this sort of discussion. Perhaps you'd like to use an existing relevant thread, or make a new thread?

[Theo]

Blaaaargh! Vomit! :rolleyes:

 

You say you're all for playing nice and then post the old 'gullible fools!" accusation with the line above, and just make unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation. As Yoda said, "So certain are you!?"

 

Challenge: Please post the WORST climategate file on the climategate thread, and see if it comes even remotely close to the documented anti-science conspiracy of the Bush administration under the influence of huge corporate interests and lobby groups. This thread is not the place for that, do it in climategate thank you. Brian dropped out of that challenge with his tail between his legs, I wonder how you'll go?

 

Yoda also said, "You must unlearn what you have learned." I apply that saying to the AGW proponents. But, you know what? That's okay... see for yourself. Climategate is growing, and you will see in the coming weeks and months just how deep the rabbit hole goes in this farce of a AGW wonderland. The facts speak for themselves. Why do you think we're not hearing from Mann, Jones, Hansen, and Co. right now?

 

They know they are in big trouble. And, you know what? They are.

[Eclipse Now]

(I've deleted my own post due to tone issues... sorry all, AGW burnout dealing with Denialism... might give it a break for a few days).

[Theo]

And you know what? They're not in trouble. So there! :D

 

Mature enough for ya? Want to try some evidence, in the actual thread that is relevant to this discussion? That would be great. Right now you're sounding like a sulky 12 year old.:naughty:

 

Edit: Actually, can moderators please check the phrase "AGW wonderland" as this sounds just like BrianG, but logged in under a sock puppet. Is there a way of checking if the IP address is the same?

 

I don't know Brian. I am another person. Is that okay with you? Why do you find a need to write such a thing? For you to lower the level of this discussion? Is there a need for you to get personal with others simply because you disagree? If anything, that is immature. Can you retain dignity in an intelligent discussion without resorting to name-calling, and ideological put downs? Is that possible for you?

 

From the content of your words, you also do not seem to believe in free speech. I do, and I am an American who loves his country, and cherishes the right of all free speech, even when I may disagree with others. You ought to try it sometime. But that is not a reason for you to then tell the moderators to check an IP address of another person because what, you do not agree with the views of another person and want them to be shut up because you do not like it?

 

So, in your world, when you do not respect the right of others to express their views, you what, attack that person, say that that person is another person (whom you seem to be in a tiff with at this time) and then wonder about the phase "AGW wonderland" because it sounds like a person who you are in a tiff with?

 

I am not BrianG. I am another human being. Is that okay with you? Can I go on now? Of course, your highness, with your permission to express myself under the Inquisition you seem to be trying to build up here in discussing the climate that affects little old me who happens to live on this planet too.

 

Is it okay with you to add my two cents without you planning to attack my right to express myself?

 

FYI - I am in my 40s - and far from a being "a sulky 12 year old." Please.

[Eclipse Now]

Apologies... I've got AGW Denialist burnout... over-reacted to certain triggers and I'll give you a fresh chance to prove yourself in the climategate thread, if you can do so with evidence and not just rely on assertion.

 

Thanks.

[Theo]

Apologies... I've got AGW Denialist burnout... over-reacted to certain triggers and I'll give you a fresh chance to prove yourself in the climategate thread, if you can do so with evidence and not just rely on assertion.

 

Thanks.

 

You live on Earth I assume? Well then, you want "evidence?" Look up at that star in the skies above you. It is called the SUN. That's your cause of climate change, global warming, global cooling and everything else in between.

[Eclipse Now]

That's called an assertion, so now please link to some evidence to back up your assertion.

 

Here are the top 28 denialist myths that you are starting to repeat.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

You just repeated myth number 15, "It's all down to the sun".

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player.

 

How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun's heat.

 

Ooops.

 

But rather than start that melarky up in this thread, how about searching through these forums for the main AGW denialist thread, or even one specifically on "Doesn't the sun cause climate change?" Sticking to a specific subject thread would be a refreshing change in these discussions.

[pamela]

You live on Earth I assume? Well then, you want "evidence?" Look up at that star in the skies above you. It is called the SUN. That's your cause of climate change, global warming, global cooling and everything else in between.

Theo please take the time before posting to read our forum rules, especially backing up your claims. A blanket statement in reference to the sun, is not acceptable.

[freeztar]

You live on Earth I assume? Well then, you want "evidence?" Look up at that star in the skies above you. It is called the SUN. That's your cause of climate change, global warming, global cooling and everything else in between.

This is not true. While the sun is a major part of climate on Earth, there are other factors at play such as atmospheric content. Your statement ignores greenhouse gases entirely.

[Buffy]

There's also the issue that we're at a solar minimum, and those are associated with less energy output.

 

No argument on the Sun being a major factor, but if it is and it's output is now at a low, what's it going to be when we hit the solar maximum?

 

It may seem odd considering how cold it's been in the US recently, and it won't shut down the denial industry for a second, but annual climate data is now in and word is NASA GISS will place 2009 as tied for the second hottest year since modern temperature records have existed. For the southern hemisphere, 2009 was the hottest year ever:

The United States may be experiencing one of the coldest winters in decades, but things continue to heat up in the Southern Hemisphere. Science has obtained exclusive data from NASA that indicates that 2009 was the hottest year on record south of the Equator. The find adds to multiple lines of evidence showing that the 2000s were the warmest decade in the modern instrumental record.

The data is particularly worrisome because it happens at a time when the sun is in a deep solar minimum, or coolest point, in its eleven-year cycle (Solar output only changes by an average of less than one-tenth of one percent over the period, but that small change can still add up when it's distributed over the entire earth's surface for a year or more). The inference being as the sun inevitably swings back toward the maximum, all time record hot years in the near future are sure to follow. A few climate scientists are even predicting that 2010 will be such a year.

 

Great graph accompanies the article...

 

My advice to you is not to inquire why or whither but just enjoy your ice cream while it's on your plate--that's my philosophy, :naughty:

Buffy

[Theo]

This is not true. While the sun is a major part of climate on Earth, there are other factors at play such as atmospheric content. Your statement ignores greenhouse gases entirely.

 

No, it does not. For one, the major greenhouse gas on the Earth is water vapor - the dominant gas on this planet. See - Visible Earth: MODIS Water Vapor

 

The Sun, in my work as a forecaster, is the dominate body that regulates the Earth's climate, and the climate of all the other planets as well. It drives all atmosphere. If the Sun were not radiant then the Earth would be a ball of ice. It is that important to all atmospheric conditions on our planet. It drives temperatures, and CO2 must follow temperature. Not the other way around.

 

For AGW to work - and it does not - it must break thermodynamic principles, which it cannot. See - http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

[Koogle]

I know Brian, he's cool. The Himalayans may not be melting. BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'