Global Warming a fake?

[BrianG]

This remark is an overgeneralization as well as being inflammatory, of the trollish kind.

 

What makes you think this? Can you show support for this idea, that warmists do not like the poor? I'm not asking for more rhetoric, but actual data that supports this idea.

 

These requests from C1ay and myself, to support your claims, are not idle requests. If you do not support your claims, per site rules, you will receive infractions which can limit your ability to make posts here.

 

I get called denailist here and threatened and am asked to support even the basic economic principle of supply and demand, because I have a different point of view. Here are examples of threads where warmists blame various problems on overpopulation:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/sociology/16413-no-one-blames-over-population-our-diminishing-natural-resources-why-not.html?highlight=overpopulation

 

http://hypography.com/forums/sociology/19770-overpopulation-possible-answers.html?highlight=overpopulation

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/17804-homosexuality-unnatural.html?highlight=overpopulation

 

http://hypography.com/forums/watercooler/15487-keeping-pets-reprehensible.html?highlight=overpopulation

 

http://hypography.com/forums/political-sciences/2827-overpopulation-homosexuality.html?highlight=overpopulation

 

http://hypography.com/forums/sociology/18372-duggers-18-children-counting.html?highlight=overpopulation

[BrianG]

Do you believe the world is in a warming or cooling phase?--no matter what the cause-

What is your likely projections for the next 10-20-30 years?

 

There seems to be a warming trend, about [math]1\degree F[/math] per century, since the last ice age, seas have been rising since then, too. As for short term forecasts, it will warm, cool or stay about the same. If the climate stays about the same, it will do so extraordinarily fast. I'm not sure these forecasts can be made for a system as complex and chaotic as climate.

[BrianG]

...

Do you have a link or reference supporting your claim, Brian :P

 

Though I doubt it’s of much importance on human time scales, I’d be interested in seeing a comprehensive, high level description of “the fossil fuel carbon cycle”, showing where, when, and how much atmospheric carbon goes on geological time scales.

 

Calcite, which gets its name from "chalix" the Greek word for lime, is a most amazing and yet, most common mineral. It is one of the most common minerals on the face of the Earth, comprising about 4% by weight of the Earth's crust and is formed in many different geological environments

 

From: CALCITE (Calcium Carbonate)

[REASON]

But I forgot, most warmists really don't like the poor since they believe our problems come from overpopulation.

 

First of all, where in any of those threads can you gather that "warmists really don't like the poor?"

 

Secondly, how can you conflate concern for an overpopulated planet with a dislike of the poor? What I draw from your statement is that you think the poor are what constitutes any overpopulation of humanity since you are the one that has made that assertion in your accusation of so called "warmists."

 

Would you like to clarify?

[modest]

There seems to be a warming trend, about [math]1\degree F[/math] per century, since the last ice age, seas have been rising since then, too.

 

Can you support, or, I guess clarify, that temperature has risen 1º F per century since the last ice age? If the end of the last ice age at the beginning of the Holocene were 10,000 years ago this would be,

[math]\Delta T = 10,000 \ years \times \frac{1 \degree \ F}{100 \ years} = 100 \degree \ F[/math]

I don't suppose you mean that global temperature has risen 100º F since the last ice age, perhaps you mean per millennia? Temp reconstruction in Antarctica show about 6 C since the beginning of our interglacial warming making an average of 0.06 C per century.

 

File:Ice Age Temperature.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[C1ay]

Restricting fuel production and use will mean less energy production and use, less heat in winter, more expensive transportation for goods and services. Isn't it self evident? If you believe it will benefit the climate, go ahead and prove it.

 

Let me make something perfectly clear, you make a claim here you are required to support it, period. It is not anyone else's job to disprove your claim. Support your claim or withdraw it.

[BrianG]

Let me make something perfectly clear, you make a claim here you are required to support it, period. It is not anyone else's job to disprove your claim. Support your claim or withdraw it.

 

Restricting production and use (without reducing demand) of a substance increases its price:

 

This is simple supply and demand, reduce supply, increase price.

n The Wealth of Nations, Smith generally assumed that the supply price was fixed but that its "merit" (value) would decrease as its "scarcity" increased, in effect what was later called the law of demand. Ricardo, in Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, more rigorously laid down the idea of the assumptions that were used to build his ideas of supply and demand.Antoine Augustin Cournot first developed a mathematical model of supply and demand in his 1838 Researches on the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth.

Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Sheesh, haven’t you folks ever heard of economics? Who do you study? Marx?

 

 

Examples:

 

Drugs, Cocaine, Marijuana and Tobacco:

 

Law enforcement reporting in many of these markets indicates that the decrease in availability was accompanied by a corresponding increase in cocaine prices and a decrease in cocaine purity.

Cocaine - National Drug Threat Assessment 2008 (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Enhanced eradication, interdiction, and street-level law enforcement initiatives caused a significant increase in marijuana prices in the early 1990s, and prices have remained high.

Marijuana - Guam Drug Threat Assessment

 

To restrict use, increase price:

Price increases are the most effective and cost-effective deterrent – especially for young people and others with low incomes, who must, of necessity, be highly price responsive. A price rise of 10% decreases consumption by about 8% in low- and middle-income countries. Higher taxes will generate additional government revenue.

Public Health at a Glance - Tobacco Control

High prices hurt children and the poor.

 

Supply and demand, it’s really very simple.

 

A key reason for high oil prices is the artificial scarcity imposed on the market by the OPEC cartel, which controls 70 percent of the world’s known oil reserves and restricts how much oil reaches consumers.

http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/11-17-05opec.pdf

[BrianG]

So the dirty little secret of CO2 reductions for climate change mitigation, it helps OPEC maintain high oil prices. It creates artificial scarcity, it tries to limit demand by increasing prices.

 

Thirty years of energy conservation and oil imports rise year after year. If you really want energy independence the answer is simple, end the ban on expanded off shore oil exploration and production, drill here, drill now, explore everywhere.

 

We need an energy policy that encourages the production and use of energy, if you want low prices.

[maikeru]

So the dirty little secret of CO2 reductions for climate change mitigation, it helps OPEC maintain high oil prices. It creates artificial scarcity, it tries to limit demand by increasing prices.

 

Thirty years of energy conservation and oil imports rise year after year. If you really want energy independence the answer is simple, end the ban on expanded off shore oil exploration and production, drill here, drill now, explore everywhere.

 

We need an energy policy that encourages the production and use of energy, if you want low prices.

 

You have any links or solid evidence to back up your claims?

 

Our single biggest oil supplier is Canada and the next biggest is Mexico.

 

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

 

You want cheaper oil, bring it up with our neighbors north and south of the border.

[Michaelangelica]

Interesting

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_denial_lets_fight_back/?cl=392416301&v=4780

 

This whole debate has stopped being scientific and has turned into something else. Perhaps something as unique as the threat.

 

It seems to have become political with the extreme right denying, and the extreme left mumbling about a capitalist plot. I am not sure i understand why; but lack of understanding and appreciation for scientific methodology seems to be part of the problem. There seems to be many suspicious of, and antagonistic to, science. A bit like the religious 'Creationist/Darwin debate in the USA.

The left just seems bitter and twisted. They are the ones I least understand

[C1ay]

The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.

 

Sheesh, haven’t you folks ever heard of economics? Who do you study? Marx?

 

Sheesh, all that blather and you still haven't supported the claim that reduced fossil fuel production will not help the climate get better. Perhaps you could share any statistical data you might have on this to support your point. You do have some statistical climate data with and without fossil fuel contributions don't you?

[Boerseun]

My goodness #$%^&* gracious #$%^%$# me.

 

I honestly cannot belief this argument.

 

"Global warming is not important. The economy is. Reducing carbon emissions will harm the economy. Therefor, we will carry on as we were, so that we don't harm the economy."

 

For the love of all things holy, sacred, deep-fried and tasty:

 

IN ORDER FOR AN ECONOMY OF ANY KIND TO EXIST, YOU NEED A PLANET CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THAT ECONOMY.

 

So, you have to items: The Economy, and The Planet. Please prioritize those two again, so that we're on the same page here.

[BrianG]

This is wrong, you ask me to prove a negative. That's not how science works. AGW theory states reducing CO2 emissions will mitigate climate change, it's up to the supporters of the theory to prove that, not up to the skeptics to disprove it.

[Boerseun]

This is wrong, you ask me to prove a negative. That's not how science works. AGW theory states reducing CO2 emissions will mitigate climate change, it's up to the supporters of the theory to prove that, not up to the skeptics to disprove it.

...and, of course, it is proven. It's just the numbnuts denialists who believe its not proven.

What, exactly, was your point in that post?

[C1ay]

This is wrong, you ask me to prove a negative. That's not how science works. AGW theory states reducing CO2 emissions will mitigate climate change, it's up to the supporters of the theory to prove that, not up to the skeptics to disprove it.

 

:naughty: You and you alone made the statement:

 

The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.

 

Not Al Gore or anyone else. You made the claim. Now back it up!

[BrianG]

Let's use the IPCC's own questionable figures:: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf

 

I've demonstrated that restricting fossil fuel use produces higher prices, that's economic hardship for consumers, not producers. So, if you are OPEC or own plenty of fossil fuel, this doesn't apply to you, there is no hardship and I recall this part of the claim even though the IPCC seems to predict reduced GDP for fossil fuel exporting nations. See page 12, SPM.4 for anticipated reductions in GDP with various [ce]CO2[/ce] stabilization goals. The IPCC predicts GDP loss from 2.5% to a gain of 0.6% by 2030.

 

See page 17 for the theoretical temperature equilibrium. This [ce]CO2[/ce] limitation scheme has never been tried or tested in the real world. If you want to take the IPCC model on faith, then you might expect to see a maximum reduction of [math]4\celsius[/math] by 2100, with even the most severe [ce]CO2[/ce] regime.

 

None of these temperature guesses or "stabilized" [ce]CO2[/ce] predictions have been tested in the real world. This is all theory, no field experimental evidence. If anyone believes this is based on real world empirical tests, I withdraw my claim and instead offer a bridge that I really need to sell because my grandmother needs an operation.

[chrisrich]

Anyone know where to find the source of these figures?

 

Found in this discussion Who is SSRC? And what is Relational Cycle Theory? - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum