Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More.

Originally posted by Essan
Providing evidence that things other than human activity can affect climate does not prove that human activity does not affect climate.

Any more than proving that people die of cancer proves a person wasn't murdered.
.......................

First of all the whole claim that mankind is affecting Climate Change is on the "assumption" that anthropogenic CO2 is to blame. Of course mankind affects the environment in many ways. I never said we don't, but you need to understand the difference.

Proving that GCMs are unreliable, which is the only real proof the AGW proponents have for their theory, shows that there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2, nor even anthropogenic CO2 is to blame for Climate Change.

Showing that there are many natural factors, which the GCMs do not take into account, and have been occurring at the same time that Earth and other planets in this Solar System have been undergoing Climate Changes shows that the natural factors are the ones to blame for Climate Change, not mankind.

Mankind is guilty of many other environmental concerns, but not Climate Change.

Originally posted by Essan

You can post all the research you like showing that solar activity causes warming/cooling. But it does not prove that research showing land use change also causes warming/cooling is wrong.
.......

And you can show all the research you want about deforestation, and cities being built causing "the urban heat island effect' but none of these shows that anthropogenic CO2 is to blame for Climate Change. BTW you do know that the urban heat island effect is only local, and does not affect the global temperature whatsoever right?

You want to stop deforestation by taxing people green taxes which will only put more money into rich hands meanwhile "illegal deforestation keeps occurring?...

Again, just like many other AGW proponents, you don't seem to understand the difference and you apparently believe it is all tied up to CO2, when it is not.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin
.........................

It does mean they are suffering from anti-science syndrome.
...............

Wow...anti-science syndrome? is that why you keep responding with nothing more than insults, and trying to derail the thread?...

Yeah, your responses show how much science you know about this subject alright..

Oh, and BTW melatoni, the only not worth even a second around here is you.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Long Lance

 

negative proof is always tricky but i can see why you'd like to see something which at least makes it look plausible that thousands of prestigious people are wrong. the following threads/posts may help.

A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

Emissions irrelevant to future climate change?

No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Thanks Long Lance, I'll read all of them.

You do that - educate yourself on the position that AGW is a lie - why not educate yourself on the fact that it is NOT A LIE.

The above links are all completely refuted - totally discredited as are the posters- but off you go to indulge yourself in the confirmation that you are right rather than actually reading the evidence and seeking out the truth.

The fact remains - I have asked on every single thread regarding global warming for a

- A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH REFUTES AGW FROM A REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED SOURCE.

I think this is a fair enough request - one that has NEVER< EVER BEEN MET - NOT ONCE.

Let have it - this challenge has never ever been met.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


S&F ElectricUniverse Great Job!

After reading every post within this thread, it looks like everyone forgot to mention The Founder of the Weather Channel...John Coleman... Calls Global Warming The Biggest Scam EVER! ... and then John Coleman posts even more damning information about the Global Warming Hoax/Scam... I mean this is rather important seeing how it was one of the AGW nut jobs on the Weather Channel who started the lie that the Global Warming Debate is over. I thought that was the funniest thing ever stated, yet these Global Warming Nut Jobs continue to post that blatant lie. I mean seeing how 30,000 Scientist Say Global Warming is a LIE and AL Gore is a LIAR and seeing how a British Court Found 11 Lies in AL Gores Laughable Movie. The debate is over, how hilarious!

For those of you who are actually looking for information to decide what is Truth or Fiction about global warming click on that link. For those who are wondering how many times science has Changed From Global Warming to An Ice Age Is Coming and We're All Gonna Die, Please Read This Article. Of course there are many, many more articles you can read that proves these people continue to LIE about AGW. Because the sad truth is these people know that if they continue to lie and attack eventually those who know the truth will just give up like they always do. Those mean hateful people have been using that tactic for several years now. As we all know they get even more active just before elections, however, they try and keep their lying/attacking skills up during the slow months, or when a court battle is raging somewhere. Plus you will notice they also have two other tactics. First, like cowards they will wait until the person has logged off before they will sneak into his thread and post hateful things about the OP, or two... They will call in reinforcements so as to inundate the thread with their hateful ad hominem attacks. Well the best way to address those tactics is to attack their words. Don't attack any person directly, simply attack their lies and their hateful AGW movement in general terms. That will drive them crazy. Oh they will deny it here, but try that tactic in the future and watch how quickly they run away, or how quickly they will call in reinforcements, especially when they think you have logged off and won't be around for awhile to challenge their absolute nonsense. When you know their tactics and how to defeat them at their lie all the time game, it truly is hilarious how easy it is to quiet them down! Not to mention if you continue to attack their message only, in general terms, and their movement in general terms, those who quietly agree with you will start to find the courage to stand up to their hateful lying all the time agenda.

ElectricUniverse you have done a great service by creating this thread. People are finally seeing the truth, and that truth is that these AGW people must always lie and attack others so as to try and get their hateful agenda passed. Well with threads like yours being posted all over the Internet, with Magazines Posting New Scientific Facts that Disputes the AGW Agenda, and because the facts are finally reaching the people here in the USA, only 38 percent of Americans believe in their lies. That is down from just one year ago. Because Americans are learning the truth... the debate IS just about Finished, More Americans are learning everyday that the AGW religion is One Big LIE!

I really did enjoy your thread, please keep up the good work and stay in the trenches. Once they start losing because of your courage they will start bringing in more people to try and help build up their lies, so you might want to create a get the truth out movement of your own. I mean, we each saw that very tactic used by those people during the Presidential debates in '08 and they will be back for 2010. Keep up the good fight and I hope the links I provided will help direct people towards finding even more truth about the AGWers ridiculous... humans cause global warming lies, as more and more people begin to search for and continue to find more truthful facts about this planet and our Solar System and that Little Ol' Thing Called The SUN!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 1-5-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by audas
You do that - educate yourself on the position that AGW is a lie - why not educate yourself on the fact that it is NOT A LIE.

The above links are all completely refuted - totally discredited as are the posters- but off you go to indulge yourself in the confirmation that you are right rather than actually reading the evidence and seeking out the truth.
...............
- A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH REFUTES AGW FROM A REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED SOURCE.

I think this is a fair enough request - one that has NEVER< EVER BEEN MET - NOT ONCE.

Let have it - this challenge has never ever been met.

Already been done, dozens of times Audas, you are just not wanting to accept it. Every link i gave are "PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC WORK"...and not the books of a Mammalogist which you yourself posted as evidence of AGW, which it does not prove anything at all.

Stop being so delluded.

In fact, people like myself have asked of you and melatonin to post "evidence" not claims from GCMs which as several links i posted say they are flawed, and not reliable in the least...

BTW, thank you to all the members who voted for this thread, starred, and flagged it.

It is time to star accepting facts, and not flawed GCMs.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by audas


I said I would check the links out, not that I would blindly accept them as facts. You're jumping to the conclusion that I believe in one thing over the other, but I don't. I'm genuinely on the fence, and plan to be until I can come to a conclusion that satisfies me. And I could care less if it makes condescending folks like you think less of me, that's what having an independent mind is all about, I'm not going to let any ideology rule me, I'm always open to having my mind changed if evidence is presented that proves my beliefs wrong.

Originally posted by melatonin

Why does it have to have massive immediate downsides?

Again, I think you're misrepresenting the issue. It will not be cost-free. But massive downsides? Immediate?
...
It's just more FUD.

try reducing your energy use by a fifth until the end of the year. i don't know how high you heat your home or how much you travel, 20% slash is what Kyoto calls for. try that with heating, for example. how low are you willing to go? i'd consider that massive (below 10C at least) and quite immediate, the next winter season is just half a year away, isn't it?

I do prefer to have fMRIs and computers, but I suppose it was quaint. Thing is, you're not really pushing for gas, but for coal until we fit it with bells and whistles.

i am not, several countries are. natgas has to be imported into both the EU countries and China, so they are going to stay away from it as much as possible.

Indeed, if we could grow the trees sufficiently and then burn them, at one level it wouldn't be so bad cf. burning carbon locked out of the climate system for millions of years. Pretty obvious why.
...

No, that doesn't have to be the case. As Krugman points out, the free marketeers are fine with limiting flow of oil, water etc, but CO2? Oh noes, the world's economy will collapse, lol. Oil can vary massively in cost, no problem, just suck it up the market does the work, lol.

Except for CO2 emissions.

again: what's worse? adding more CO2 or ruining the landscape and vegetation by organic fuel production? something has got to give.

the free market idea is mis and abused too often, i just don't see how paying an air tax is going to change a lot, because they sure ain't going to affect established players so everyone else will have to foot the bill.

besides, creating a limitation out of thin air is the antithesis to a 'free market', i hope you can see that. not that the argument weighs too heavily with me, mind you..

Originally posted by audas



You do that - educate yourself on the position that AGW is a lie - why not educate yourself on the fact that it is NOT A LIE.

The above links are all completely refuted - totally discredited as are the posters-

refuse to take even a casual look and you're outing yourself as a fanatic.


i had reasons to arrive at my skepticism wrt GW, some of which are scattered around this thread in the form of links, but let me give you one prominent example:

icecap.us...

from

www.abovetopsecret.com...

if true, that basically settles a lot, doesn't it?

no-one can really prove a negative and ic an't comment on the climate science because i don't know nearly enough and their models are opaque anyway, so all i can do is accumulate inconsistencies over time, both in terms of data and agenda. Greenpeace's reaction to carbon sequestration says more than thousand words and it's extremely clear to boot and confirmation on increased pack ice around the South pole is another nice-to-have confirmation for various articles i linked regarding that subject, because i've had too many of them discredited as too old or simply wrong over time, without being able to do much more than trying to retrieve yet another one.

the Net Result? Melting pack ice becoming an established fact on these forums with me drifitng off into C-land - how many times have i been implicitly called a creationist in the last few weeks alone? it's an uphill battle, but my choice is clear, either leave and let this place be overrun by approx 3 Antarctic melting threads a week and a roughly a dozen general GW ones, where everything from coral bleaching to drought (a regular occurance in several countries) is attributed to AGW uncontested, or do something about it, no matter how unpopular i become. heck it's a forum, logging off cures a lot of ailments.

just on a side note:

Sunblocker & Coral

but i guess it has to be warming, there are no other mechanisms, at least not if never bother to look, that is.

Damaged Barrier Reef coral makes 'spectacular' recovery

that's not to say that all is well, but i truely wish to see all sides, not just one particularly profitable (to some). thank you.



if you wish to ignore signs you dislike, that's your choice, if you wish to criticise people who look at entire threads (takes a lot of patience i admit) of what you consider wacko talk, that's your business, too, as is putting people who write the 'wrong things' on your ignore list.


just don't expect everyone will do as you.

[edit on 2009.5.2 by Long Lance]

reply to post by Seekerof


Spot on dude. Not.

Harry Trory, counsel for Grainger, argued that Nicholson’s “views on climate change and the environment were based on fact and science, and did not constitute a philosophical belief.” The judge agreed with Nicholson, finding that “his belief goes beyond a mere opinion.”

It was more than just opinion. Fact and Science. Thanks for the link to the OPINION piece.

@muaddib, yes, you are anti-science. Indeed, you have all the components of anti-science syndrome. But you're nothing to worry about, as you are too incoherent and irrational.

2+2=5 tends not to be a convincing argument.

Originally posted by Long Lance
try reducing your energy use by a fifth until the end of the year. i don't know how high you heat your home or how much you travel, 20% slash is what Kyoto calls for. try that with heating, for example. how low are you willing to go? i'd consider that massive (below 10C at least) and quite immediate, the next winter season is just half a year away, isn't it?

Kyoto wanted people to cut energy use by 20% in one year?

You're joking? In 1997, it asked for reduction of CO2 emission of less than 10% cf. 1990 levels and what would have been 20% at the projected 2010 level.

CO2 emissions is not energy use. Otherwise the idea of a zero-carbon emission sustainable future actually means no energy, lol. You aim to replace carbon heavy methods with other methods.

I guess Krugman is right. The obfuscation in this area is getting as bad as it had been for the science.

again: what's worse? adding more CO2 or ruining the landscape and vegetation by organic fuel production? something has got to give.

I wasn't proposing ruining the landscape, I was saying that at one level burning trees that use atmospheric CO2 to grow and then release it is better than digging up crusty old bits of carbon that have been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.

I proposed nuclear and renewables.

the free market idea is mis and abused too often, i just don't see how paying an air tax is going to change a lot, because they sure ain't going to affect established players so everyone else will have to foot the bill.

besides, creating a limitation out of thin air is the antithesis to a 'free market', i hope you can see that. not that the argument weighs too heavily with me, mind you..

It's not out of thin air. CO2 actually exists and its emission has real consequences. It is a substance much like water and oil. It becomes a limited commodity. You release from fossil fuels et al, you pay. It has worked to reduce SO2 emissions.

In fact, a couple of recent polls show that a majority are happy to pay to help reduce GHG emissions. The debate in the science arena was over ages back. Most understand the consequences.

People like Muaddib are comparable to a Japanese soldier in the jungle years after the pacific war fighting a lost battle.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

After reading every post within this thread, it looks like everyone forgot to mention The Founder of the Weather Channel...John Coleman... Calls Global Warming The Biggest Scam EVER! ... and then

Why would we forget to mention a Think Tank Blog run by these people......ICECAP SOURCE WATCH

Contributors to ICECAP include:
Joseph D'Aleo, Executive Director, Certified Consultant Meteorologist;

Joseph (Joe) D'Aleo, is a retired meteorologist who is a well known climate change skeptic. He contributes to publications such as Tech Central Station, where he is described as "the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel. Wow, Iamgine Joe Colemans old exec. , another weather forcaster, woud start a site like this. Yes, its also funny how retired people keep popping up on these think tanks, all of which start organisations to attack AGW.

Robert C. Balling Jr, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University;
Sallie L. Baliunas, Astrophysicist;

Between December 1998[1] and September 2001[2] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[3] Right. "Scientific Advisor" to Coal burning Utilities.
Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. Whoops, who dropped 400k, Big Oil did. Thats a good sceptic, pick it up.
His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change scholars, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Oh. no. Freddie Singer LOL. Anyone seen an oregon petition lie-ing around. Science and Environmental Policy Project is another think tank blog like all the other ones Freddie Singer set up. Namely these.

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[13]
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [14] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[15]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr. Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [16]

OPPS Freddie Picked the wrong side there. Imagine backing the tabacoo industry, I mean please. And now he attack AGW.
Sallie L. Ballunas.....where have I heard that name before. Oh he pops up an ICE CAP, imagine that.
I could go through the entire list at ICECAP. It would all read the same. Retired, Emeritus, paid by big oil, and cross participation or "advisory status" on other think tanks and blogs.

John Coleman posts even more damning information about the Global Warming Hoax/Scam... I mean this is rather important seeing how it was one of the AGW nut jobs on the Weather Channel who started the lie that the Global Warming Debate is over.

Yes. It is a lie that Global Warming Debate is over. Thanks. I think the nutjobs are the ones who go around quoting minning for arguements against AGW and all they ever get is BLOGS, THINK TANKS, RETIRED WEATHER MAN, S. FRED SINGER, TIM BALL ET AL. Or pretty much your entire post.

30,000 Scientist Say Global Warming is a LIE and AL Gore is a LIAR

OMG a youtube video of Coleman on FOX talking about the Orgon Institutes Petition(see an farm in the country started by a retired professor for S. Fred Singer). No wonder you need to rehash the petition attcking the IPCC with Coleman as the new frontman. Pathetic.

and seeing how a British Court Found 11 Lies in AL Gores Laughable Movie. The debate is over, how hilarious!

Wow, there were some mistakes in a movie.
The debates is over? Oh, you mean you were debating in your post! Wow, that saves me from a major Faux pa, I'll put the tic tacs and the toilet paper away, maybe that stuff normally dribbles from your mouth.

For those of you who are actually looking for information to decide what is Truth or Fiction about global warming click on that link.

This is one of your funnier links. As the site is fiction. The Center for Research on Globilisation

About Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research organization and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists.

Yes. I always get all my AGW science from writers, scholars, journalists and activists.
Here is some more on CRG.

The Centre also acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues.

The Global Research webpage at www.globalresearch.ca publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focussing on social, economic, strategic and environmental processes.

Think Tank. Commentary, Analysis.
No science. Non. Nada. Nothing. Just like your post.

ElectricUniverse you have done a great service by creating this thread.

Maybe you should have linked a Youtube Video, a blog, or a Think Tank article to support this last statement.
Hook line and sinker. Man that FOX NEWS youtube link with Joe Coleman is the funniest. Joe looks like he spent a week on a sunbed. Even George Hamilton would cringe.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


Don't forget, the right-wing Heartland Institute also holds a yearly climate denialpalooza, see there's is a debate.

It's like a US civil war reconstruction society, but with 15% extra wingnut.

reply to post by melatonin

LOL. Heartland.

Or the National Cente for Public Policy Analysis. Fraser Institute. George C. Marshall. I see people constantly sourcing "facts to support the denial" from these sources.

Organization Receiving ExxonMobil Funding 2002-2003 2004 2005
Competitive Enterprise Institute $870,000 $270,000 $270,000
American Enterprise Institute $485,000 $230,000 $240,000
American Council for Capital Formation $444,523 $255,000 $360,000
Frontiers of Freedom $282,000 $250,000 $140,000
George C. Marshall Institute $185,000 $170,000 $115,000
National Center for Policy Analysis $105,000 $75,000 $75,000
Tech Central Station Science Foundation $95,000*
Heartland Institute $92,500* $100,000 $119,000
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow $72,000* $125,000 $90,000
Fraser Institute $60,000* $60,000
International Policy Network $50,000* $115,000 $130,000
Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change $40,000* $25,000
American Council on Science and Health $35,000 $15,000 $25,000
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy $27,500* $75,000 $30,000
Cato Institute $25,000* $15,000
Consumer Alert $25,000 $25,000
Independent Institute $20,000 $30,000
Advancement of Sound Science $20,000 $10,000
*These numbers are for the year 2003 alone.

www.edf.org...

Yup, they are knee deep in maintaining industry interests in the risky face of a real and pressing disaster for communities across the world.

Here's another about one of the major political denier puppets, Sen Inhofe. The dude who thinks it's fine to bring wingnut authors to discuss science:

Partisan politics aside, Inhofe has good reason to fight the climate change message. In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry sectors - almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources Sector and their respective PACS. The next closest sector is the financial/insurance/retail sector at $464,680 (13%).

desmogblog.com...

That's a lot of money. Almost $1 million in the service of fossil fuel interests to produce BS like the Inhofe list of deniers and pay his foot-soldier moron, Marc Morano - now in the pay of the Scaife foundation. In comparison, I'd say Muaddib's worth about a nickel, lol.

But I'd like to go back to something Lance said earlier about glaciers, you know, those useless cold deserts whose loss is not a big issue.

Scientists estimate that there are some 15,000 glaciers nested within the Himalayan mountain chain forming the main repository for fresh water in that part of the world. The total area of glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau is expected to shrink by 80 percent by the year 2030.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

How many people are highly dependent on that water?

About 1/6 of the world's population? Then lets add in those that depend on them in south america, parts of europe, anywhere else?

This is why even politicians are now getting the issue. It is a major problem, we need fresh water, lots of it - for drinking, farming, etc etc. It's actually a bit more important to maintain life than oil, gas, and coal. The consequences will be real, without real action they will be substantial.

These deniers are like some sort of Lemming pied piper. They just don't get the problem at all. If we had started down the path towards renewable in a big way a decade ago, we'd be in a great position. But we've had the wingnut Delay and Dolittler's twisting and dancing to the siren-like piper of selfish myopia.

Idiots.

We really should hope we do enter a new long-term maunder minimum-like solar period. It will offset warming and give us more time.

Throw a coin in the wishing well, dudes.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

First of all the whole claim that mankind is affecting Climate Change is on the "assumption" that anthropogenic CO2 is to blame.

That might be what the tabloid media and washed-out ex-politicians tell you, it's not what the scientists say though. Per the links in my earlier post

There are many ways in which human activity affects climate. The CO2 bandwagon is but one of them.

Proving that GCMs are unreliable, which is the only real proof the AGW proponents have for their theory, shows that there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2, nor even anthropogenic CO2 is to blame for Climate Change.

The greenhouse effect theory is not derived from GCMs It's been around nearly 200 years!

Showing that there are many natural factors, which the GCMs do not take into account, and have been occurring at the same time that Earth and other planets in this Solar System have been undergoing Climate Changes shows that the natural factors are the ones to blame for Climate Change, not mankind.

That explains what GCMs may not yet be accurately predicting future climate trends.

But just because a GCM does not properly account for the PDO does not mean that contrails do not cause warming!

You really do have a thing for non sequiturs don't you!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

And you can show all the research you want about deforestation, and cities being built causing "the urban heat island effect' but none of these shows that anthropogenic CO2 is to blame for Climate Change.

a) I have never said that CO2 is to blame for Climate Change. And as far as I can gather only you and Al Gore thing that

b) My point was to demonstrate exactly the opposite: that human activity causes climate change - including global warming - in a variety of different ways. CO2 may or may not be a part of it.

Obviously other non anthropogenic factors also affect climate. The problem we face is working out exactly what has what effect and in particular how some may enhance or mask other factors. IMO GCMs cannot adequately do that although the high range of uncertainty in predictions does partly reflect that.

Originally posted by melatonin

Kyoto wanted people to cut energy use by 20% in one year?

You're joking? In 1997, it asked for reduction of CO2 emission of less than 10% cf. 1990 levels and what would have been 20% at the projected 2010 level.

we have 2009, we are way above the Kyoto targets and since there is no decrease in sight, actually achieving these goals would result in something like i've described. a more pragmatic approach won't yield much, because nukes aren't being built on the required scale and renewables' energy density is generally low with the exception of hydro, maybe.

CO2 emissions is not energy use. Otherwise the idea of a zero-carbon emission sustainable future actually means no energy, lol.

correct in principle, but you've nailed quite reightly that my concern is along these lines. no energy. welcome to 1850AD. for those who survive, that is.

www.fromthewilderness.com...

are there ways to get net CO2 to zero? sure, nukes, which you honestly support, while the political landscape usually does not. are enough nukes being built? is it going to cost an arm and a leg? is it even realistic, i mean such industry isn't growing on trees either is it? not to mention they would be built on the surface, posing a hazard, but i'll overlook that, because that can be solved by burying and really isn't a technological limitation.

It's not out of thin air. CO2 actually exists and its emission has real consequences. It is a substance much like water and oil. It becomes a limited commodity. You release from fossil fuels et al, you pay. It has worked to reduce SO2 emissions.
.

Q: were SO2 emissions traded like a commodity or simply outlawed or fined? SO2 is an actually pollutant, creating a strong acid when reacting with water and CO2 isn't really comparable, its effects in queston (GHG, not carbonic acid) are indirect and therefore subject to very different limitations.

Originally posted by melatonin

How many people are highly dependent on that water?

About 1/6 of the world's population? Then lets add in those that depend on them in south america, parts of europe, anywhere else?

just because these rivers supply water to a billion people, glaciers need not be the main source. precipitation happens even when it does not fall on ice, so maybe there's be more floods if there's less of a buffer and longer drought seasons, a change for the worse, if that's what's going to happen. if it does get warmer, vegetation should creep up to higher altitudes, though, mitigating the effect. lower areas seem to do fine without ice, though, so there's definitely hope, even IF they were completely lost, which is quite a stretch.

www.grid.unep.ch... (.pdf)

Regional studies based on remote sensing data help to provide a better overview on the recent changes in the Central Asian ice cover. Glacier retreat was dominant in the 20th century, except for a decade or two around 1970, when some glaciers gained mass and even reacted with re-advances of a few hundred metres. After 1980 ice loss and glacier retreat was dominant again. In Bhutan, Eastern Himalaya, an eight per cent glacier area loss was observed between 1963 and 1993)

if you read on (not going to quote entire pages) you'd see that the estimated maximum in modern times was roughly three centuries ago. did they melt from there on their own account or was it our fault too? just curious when the threshold of responsibility kicks in, because even if the lss of glaciers was as catastrophic as you make it out to be, the point of contention is still whether we are at fault and if so how much.

how we are at fault would be interesting as well, because singling out one trace gas out of many strains my poorly developed credulity. i agree with Essan that destroyed the land cannot be good for anything, climate included. i'd add oceans to that, for obvious reasons.

corn ethanol is a must to curb GW, but overfishing and mercury pollution accumulating in the sea is OK and a sideshow? i think not. say they have the wrong priorites would be an understatement.




PS: should salt water (for purpose of evaporation for example) be traded. it's abundant, therefore it's market value is marginal. unless CO2 poses a true hazard (the point of contention, remember) emitting it should be seen like emitting water, like in cooling purposes.

in a market, usually the guy who supplies gets the money. this isn't the case in emissions trading, because here all the recipient does is writing it down in his ledgers. the market argument simply doesn't wash.

[edit on 2009.5.2 by Long Lance]

I think Electric's main point here is simple and should be obvious to us all. There are many factors involved in climate change, and we are still in the process of figuring out how big of a role each factor plays in contributing to change.

Since we still don't know definitively how much our CO2 is directly impacting climate change, it is insane that we are facing legislation in the next couple years that will essentially be taxing people based on the opinion of some politicians.

The reason why this is such a big deal is because the burdens placed on businesses and individuals could very well become excessive to the point that companies need to close because of their carbon output. Jobs will be lost and people will pay more for energy costs, and any product, good, or service that requires carbon output (ie, anything and everything).

So the goal is to set us back to a Third world standard? Kill many people in the winters since they cant afford to heat their house? Sacrifice liberty and our monetary independence to government to redistribute? All this so that we MIGHT have an effect on GW? It just seems absurd.

I honestly don't get why people on both sides of the GW argument are not upset with this. Levying arbitrary amounts of carbon taxes and fines on businesses big and small will have a devestating effect on this country at this time. But here's the key: that is exactly what they want.

This is the hidden green agenda for our political leaders. It is not to save the world. It is to find an atrocious way to tax and burden society, so that government can redistribute wealth back to the people, who suddenly need the redistribution, with the private sector shrinking and the costs of living skyrocketing. Therefore, by undertaking this plan, they have guaranteed to votes of the people, since people will need the help of government. Ingeniously sinister, and downright wrong.

And THAT is the problem I, and most of us, have with the AGW theory: the loss of liberty to tyranny under the guise of saving the world.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Boom Slice]