Epic Anti-Global Warming Monologue
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
That depends on how many tons of C02 we have to reduce by, and what method we use.
Why do you think we're talking about policy here?
I only know of cap and trade and carbon tax schemes as a method of reducing C02 emissions.
What other policy options or legislation is there that would enforce a reduction?
We aren't. You're trying to steer the conversation away from anything that makes Der Leader look bad and dictate that the conversation be specifically about reducing emissions. Without looking at the big picture...
Instead of bending over backwards to avoid making Der Leader look bad, you could just have an honest conversation you know.
Let me know when you think you're capable of that.
This thread is about global warming.
Human-induced global warming is due to rising C02 levels.
The solution to this problem is reducing C02 emissions coming from polluters. A carbon tax is one solution. Cap and trade is another.
I have yet to see any other policy recommendations from you that will reduce C02 emissions.
I am open to all suggestions.
Human-induced global warming is due to rising C02 levels.
The solution to this problem is reducing C02 emissions coming from polluters. A carbon tax is one solution. Cap and trade is another.
I have yet to see any other policy recommendations from you that will reduce C02 emissions.
I am open to all suggestions.
I am.
I've always been interested in this issue.
In fact, you and I agree that the issue exists, so I'm not sure why you would be offended.
We can't expect the problem to go away without a solution - and if you think that the taxes or caps are bad solutions, then what do you actually have to offer as a solution for reducing C02 levels?
Maybe you should stick to what I actually post, instead of being repeatedly dishonest.
It's a sure sign you really aren't interested in an honest discussion.
Indeed! It was about five million years as the Himalays rose and brought us out of the Alligator friendly Arctic some 55 million years ago.
Sure is and the eco-stenographers either willingly or through ignorance, proote this crap. It's all about the money and votes in most cases. Here's a nice sample of comments on The Blaze about this Ezra make 'em mad piece:
Remember acid rain? How about in the 70′s it was CO2 was causing the next ice age? The hole in the ozone? Killer bees? Aids? The overpopulation problem? Have these people ever been right?
A site for rational people I Love CO2. Warmists do not enter site, too much logic and reasoning will explode your high powered brains,on second though,knock yourself out.
I have digging into this stuff for a while… The frontman for this entire AGW scam was “socialist” Maurice Strong who worked within the UN “Global Governance” scheme. His goal was to create layers and layers of bureaucracy until a supranational government was established. Of course, he would be filthy rich as he works closely to direct the massive bureaucracy toward his personal financial interests. Carbon trading schemes.
But,, here is the fascinating part, his cousin was an American Marxist who went to visit Stalin and later moved to china and was close to Mao, in fact she “Anna Strong” is buried near to Mao in China. Further, Maurice Strong now lives in China and works as a consultant for the chinese government. He is also closely aligned with Gorbachev. So, he is paid to push carbon controls, which are really an attack on the Wests economic growth , thereby subverting the West form within using its own resources while aiding and abetting the Global Socialist/Marxist elites.
Science and the West has been subverted by its enemy and nobody realizes it. The real war is from within.
Relying on experts for any “knowledge” is a fallacy, They can be wrong, biased, co-opted group-thinkers, ideologically or financially captured.
If you read the science there is no real basis for AGW, the argument is based on isolating a variable C02 in an extremely complex system, applying a correlation based on very sloppy and unreliable temp data and then claiming causation. This is not science.
The claim that the majority is pro AGW therefore it must be is false. Climate science is a NEW specified science and most of the people who claim this field are pro AGW. Just like all Gov economists are Keynesians, Virtually all climate scientists are pro AGW, if you are not, you will not get funding an have no job. Survivorship bias is pro, AGWers get funding, promotions and jobs.
The Greenhouse gas claim is distorted and overstated. The experiment is done in a closed container and a C02 heating value is derived. Problem is the Earth is not a sealed container, it turns out that much more heat escapes than was thought and the feedbacks are not well understood. Nobody really fully understands from a scientific perspective what effect Co2 has in the real world.
Basically, the Climate and its interactions is far too complex to isolate one small variable and claim it is the cause. Combine that with the solution, BIG GLOBAL GOVERNMENT and REGULATIONS, Climate Science is a political tool.
1: I have my qualifications as an astronomer to say a few things about climate science. I look through the atmosphere to get data, and I have to correct for certain chemicals in the atmosphere. The amount present changes the width and depth of spectral lines. The CO2 argument can be tossed out because of the change in CO2 over the last 50 years is negligible and can only account for a change of change of less than one thousandth of an Angstrom in width and less than one hundredth of a percent in depth.
2: CO2 is NATURAL and was present on earth before O2 was present. O2 is the first pollutant on this planet.
3: Enough SO2 and ash is emitted by the worlds volcanoes to raise and lower the earths temperature by a greater margin than any anthropogenic source. The two largest SO2 polluters on earth by source is Kilauea and Erta Ale in Ethopia. On average they spew a combined 1400 tons of SO2 gas per day.
4: In order of strength of greenhouse affect: SO2, H20, NOx (there’s three of them), CO, CO2, then Hydrocarbons. Wikipedia articles actually neglects SO2 as a GHG, but it’s weight as an absorber is stronger than water by a factor of 10.
”global warming” aka The four Seasons aka The WEATHER… is the most Absolute biggest money-making fraud scam and con job ever perped on Humanity by the communist Left there ever was. “The sky is falling!” cried Chicken Little… that simple little children’s book gave some commie one helluva idea how to MAKE MONEY. And their front man: Al Gore.
;-)
Vahrenholt is not Germanyès top environmental scientist. He is an electric utility executive and a denier of long standing. His co-author of a book of denial is a geologist.
They still maintain it is all the Sun in spite of all the evidence.
Your source, Cdn Bear, is the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A body set up by Nigel Lawson for the sole purpose of publishing misinformation about the science of Clmate change.
They still maintain it is all the Sun in spite of all the evidence.
Your source, Cdn Bear, is the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A body set up by Nigel Lawson for the sole purpose of publishing misinformation about the science of Clmate change.
I'm well aware of what GWPF is.
Unlike you, I like a broad spectrum of input, I read from many sources, ranging from complete nuttery to scientific journals.
And unlike you, for good or bad, I supply some form of evidence to support my skepticism.
Here's the difference between you and Bear on this:
CdnBear has made it abundantly clear relative to his position on AGW (or climate change or whatever it's been marketed as these days). I will not speak on his behalf, but in the grand scheme, his inputs are objective and cover both ends of the spectrum as warranted. Go back through the various threads and you'll quickly understand Bear's position - he's articulated it quite clearly
In terms of your inputs/rebuttals on this issue, all I've seen (from a rebuttal perspective) is a directed effort at discrediting the source on a personal level as opposed to any form of logical challenge of the actual argument. In the internet age, anyone of us can shop for 'science' , statistics (IPCC is the King in that regard - my own opinion) and 'studies'.
In terms of the GWPF, I can't say if they are entirely accurate on this (although I have a lot more support for their position than the AGW argument), but anyone that eliminates solar inputs as a possible contributor to the Earths climatic systems and discounts it as being inconsequential is a fool and or ideologue.
You wanna refute someone's position on this issue, employ some logic as opposed to this prepubescent practice of questioning the credentials of the messengers.
.... or criticism & debate of skepticism based upon ignorance?
Too many people ignore evidence on either side to be objective about the whole issue.
I have no idea what Bear's position is on this. He seems to swing between acceptance of the science and a personal desire that the science be ignored because it will affect him monetarily. However, that is not the issue.
What I give you IS logic and science. You return irrationality.
It is totally irrational to state that you have More support`for the position of the GWPF when they have thoroughly discredited. Thay have no scientists on staff: no research. They do nothing but publish statements for the media intended to discredit science and scientists. I do not need to discredit the source . It has no credit.
You may say that you and Bear read both ends of the spectrum; but you do not. Mostly because there is no spectrum. THere is only an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in its existence and that Man is responsible for this. As I have said previously, there is not now a single peer reviewed paper that contradicts the fact of AGW. Not one. There have been perhaps half a dozen in total in the past four or five years - all published in vanity magazines and completely refuted.
Do you seriously think that anyone wants this to be so? The world that the children or grandchildren of the participants in this forum will grow into will be a nightmare and it is the responsibility of us, all of us, to change that. Already, for just one example (and I could give you pages of others) there are fifty million climate refugees in this world. Within four or five decades, that figure will be in the hundreds of millions.
The easy answer is: by reducing CO2. The increase in water vapour is a function of the CO2 driven temperature increase. Climate sensitivity dictates a 1C increase for a doubling of CO2. The effect of the water feedback is to amplify that to around 3C as a best estimate. The range of projections is between 2.5 and 4.5.
First, CO2 heats the atmosphere; then the increased evaporation leads to greater concentrations of water vapour. That water vapour can not stay in the atmosphere unless the temperature remains higher. On its own, its atmospheric existence is only about ten days.
Tonington has already explained this in its scientific terms.
Much is being made of the cost of this to the average person. However, the overriding feature in cost is the inexorable increase in cost with delay. The Stern Report estimated a cost of 1% of world GDP to address this now; growing to 5% by the centuryès end.
Whic is it to beÉ Discomfort now or something that will make the 1930s look like paradise in less than a century. And that 5% will buy only adaptation to a climate that is not something that you would wish on your worst enemy.
The question has been aske of what level of CO2 we must get down to. To have a climate anywhere close to what it is now and has been for twenty million years, we have to limit atmospheric CO2 to around 350 ppm ( it is now 392). To prevent an increase of 2C over current levels it is estimated by many - but with fingers and toes crossed - that we must not go above 450. At the present rate of increase, that will be in about thirty years.
Thirty years before catastrophic levels are reached and we, in Canada, are still arguing about it.
Mentalfloss is right to pursue the question of what to do. It is the greatest question our species has ever been faced with.