Global Warming??

[barnstorm2]

Can you comment on this report?
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index...5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=2896968&CFTOKEN=76340361

I have to get back to work but this has some very interesting info in it.

Unfortunately, this is a political report trying to indicate a consensus which it fails do to. The are quoting scientists that are in fields that have nothing to do with the topic.

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.** A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."***

At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities or risk losing funding.

**https://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
***https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

Some of the statements in this report are surprising. I will finish it tonight.

.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

Both links are for the same poll. A few issues with it.

1, This poll was administered to individual people while retaining some ability to influence the choosing of the participants. This does not mean it was not valid, just that they had the ability to decide who got polled. It also had a response rate of 30%, leaving much room for the possibility of dissenting opinion.

2, In this poll, the question was asked whether they believed the mean global temperature was higher lower or about the same as before 1800.
Is this really a poll question? as in, is it not known fact?

3, The second question was if they believed human activity was a signifigant contributing factor of it. In most of your postings on the subject, you portray it as known proven fact, but if that is so, why would they even need to ask a question like that? Also, it does not say CO2, it says human activity. If it is speculation that human activity is even a contributing factor, it is speculation upon speculation that CO2 is the human factor.

4, I'm curious why they have omitted questions 3-9 of the poll and their responses.

5, They further cast doubt on the results of the poll by making statements like this

The two areas of expertise in the survey
with the smallest percentage of participants
answering yes to question 2 were
economic geology with 47% (48 of 103)
and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).
It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term
climate processes.

Which demonstrates a distinct bias to the reporting and seeks to imply anyone who disagrees simply doesn't "understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes"

I'm all for decreasing pollution, but it is absolutely Not a concern of pollution here,but a subtle power play to gain control of CO2 regulation, the gas that plants breath, like we breath oxygen, The gas that we exhale, like plants exhale oxygen.

 

[barnstorm2]

I'm all for decreasing pollution, but it is absolutely Not a concern of pollution here,but a subtle power play to gain control of CO2 regulation, the gas that plants breath, like we breath oxygen, The gas that we exhale, like plants exhale oxygen.

Perhaps you are correct. I don't see this in the information I have read. Though the minority gov doc is rich with a few things I have not read before.

Something we have not talked about is the concept of humans destroying the natural carbon processing systems on land and in the ocean.

It seems we are just starting to learn about these systems as they are being wiped out so their importance (or lack of) may never be clear.

So far as regulation goes, even if we were to set aside the issue of CO2 for the moment does it not make sense to stop subsidizing the oil companies, produce more efficient technology, move to renewable resources and decentralize energy sources and ownership?

.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

So far as regulation goes, even if we were to set aside the issue of CO2 for the moment does it not make sense to stop subsidizing the oil companies, produce more efficient technology, move to renewable resources and decentralize energy sources and ownership?

I agree with all of that, and all of that is happening now. Perhaps we could be quicker.

From the perspective of reducing pollution, killing our automotive companies with even more regulation is ridiculous. Nox pollution from cars is less than 1% of what it was before regulations, but we're on the verge of having states mandate their own regulations, all the while china builds a new coal powerplant every week to 10 days.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html

How does that make any sense? Most pollutants are barely measurable from a tailpipe now, and because of the law of diminishing returns, we get more and more cost for pollution control on our cars to reduce a more and more infitesimal amount of pollutant. Countries like china benefit greatly from this as the kyoto would have us subsidize their pollution control. We should bar them from selling in the us until they reduce emissions. use access to our for the benefit of everyone



We kill our own industry while they won't allow us to sell cars there unless they make them there, and get to own half the plant, and steal all the intellectual property.

 

[barnstorm2]

\
We kill our own industry while they (China) won't allow us to sell cars there unless they make them there, and get to own half the plant, and steal all the intellectual property.

I wish I had the answer to that.

I suppose I have a fanciful hope that we will develop efficient technologies at the same time China is forced to start honoring intellectual property laws. Then if a green movement ever starts in China we can be the exporters.

Pipe dream I know.....

.

 

[Doug Riley]

Tim, one place to start would be for the President to have the courage to refuse to certify to Congress that Red China is making progress in improving its human rights record. Neither party's presidents have had the guts to do this in many years. As a result, China gets its Most Favored Nation trading status renewed regularly by Congress. Disgraceful.

I suppose Wal-Mart has a pretty potent lobby.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

Here's why the CO2 power play is such a problem. The pelosi types that would like to see the end of all automobiles use the CO2 lie to be able to regulate "emissions". They use CO2 interchangably with pollution now and we are now the "biggest polluters" of the planet. That baloney leads to this.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,493033,00.html

The above link details the massive pollution problem in India. 80% of urban waste ends up in their rivers. Many, if not most, are dead. Yet the CO2 story gives them essentially a free pass for their terrible pollution.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ed_for_climate_change/articleshow/1858631.cms " US blamed for climate change" India Times

Not surprising they seek to avoid responsibility, it is human nature.

Exactly the same for China.

The CO2 power play will have us spend more and more money for less and less results, while Ignoring the real pollution problems the world faces.

 

[Wannabe1]

An interesting link linking the sun to our temperature changes...
https://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/global_cooling_charts

Go to his global cooling questions tab and he suggests (and seems to support) that 2008 cooled things down and we may be in for a 30 year cooling period. We would be better off it things warmed.

 

[barnstorm2]

that spiegel link is depressing.

.

 

[barnstorm2]

An interesting link linking the sun to our temperature changes...
.

Busted a while ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

.

 

[EI-GYRO]

As proof that if you put one piece of crap on top of another piece of crap,
you get, not surprisingly, a heap of crap, I offer the following:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7851276.stm

Incidentally, 32 of 34 populations of Polar Bears are doing just fine, thanks.
I presume the other two declined to fill in and return the survey.

This is what passes for science in this New Age of Stupidity.

Gimme strength !!

 

[Wannabe1]

EI-Gyro: Didn't you read that this is using a conservative approach? It must be true..

"The study is based on a wide range of climate forecasts, it takes a conservative approach, it's based on a large amount of data on penguin demography, and the model accurately forecasts the data that already exist."

 

[mceagle]

You should be skeptical of all sources of information, not just the information that does not agree with what you want to believe.

That is too true, and just as valid for both sides of the argument.

What seems arrogant to me are people that think we can waste our natural resources and pollute our ONLY planet and ecosystem without ramifications to our culture, health, future US prosperity and what we leave to future generations.

I wonder where you draw the line at ‘wasting natural resources’ - Does it include cutting down timber so that we can have a roof over our heads? – or maybe mining metal so that we can clad that roof, or build the modes of transport that we all rely on today? – how about drilling for oil which has endowed us with much of the prosperity and wealth that we and our countries enjoy today?
We could go on and on ad-nauseam but we must be wary of choosing specific examples to suit a particular argument.

If man can not influence the climate. so what? You don't think renewable energy, spurring technology and reducing pollution is a good thing? It seems we certainly could use some better science and math education in this country.

Agreed, we could use some better science education in this country, but that education must not come from someone who has ‘fame or fortune’ to be gained from publishing a study or a paper on the subject (and make no mistake about it, most studies are financially backed one way or another). We must be particularly aware of any Government commissioned reports because they too have ulterior motives towards a particular outcome, and we all know that Governments don't lie!!!!
Our modern history has been full of learned types with initials after their names predicting doom in one way or another (in five to ten year cycles). With TV and the Internet they now have an infinitesimal soap box so the situation will get worse. ‘Global warming’ has just about run its course – I wonder what will be next?

There is absolutely no harm in practicing global awareness but I believe that there are better ways to go about it than threatening people.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

that spiegel link is depressing.

Yeah, Sorry.

 

[EI-GYRO]

The model accurately forecasts data that already exists ????????
On that basis I can confidently forecast yesterdays weather. How clever of me.

I'm still trying to figure out whether your reply is tongue-in-cheek or head-up-@rse.

" Ladies and Gentlemen, This is your Captain speaking, ' I've never actually flown a real
plane before, but I'm real good on FlightSim, so you have nothing to worry about'

Now. where's the 'pause' button ?

 

[barnstorm2]

I wonder where you draw the line at ‘wasting natural resources’ - Does it include cutting down timber so that we can have a roof over our heads? – or maybe mining metal so that we can clad that roof, or build the modes of transport that we all rely on today? – how about drilling for oil which has endowed us with much of the prosperity and wealth that we and our countries enjoy today?.

Wasting natural resources would not include timber use unless that timber were old wood, or wood that is on a public land set aside for the preservation of natural habitat.

We have tree farms now so there is little need to rape the rain-forests and old wood forests and damage economy's and ecosystems for short-term gain.

I am all for mining any kind of metal or mineral or rock you care so long as you don't needlessly pollute the environment when you mine it or process it.

https://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/

I have no issue with getting oil out of the ground so long as we can do it without (again) needlessly endangering the environment.

Unfortunately, a lot of the people that own land over the oil are people that would like to see the US (and western civilisation for that matter) go up in flames.

Our geed for the stuff is so bad we hardly shrug at making them billionaires times over.

https://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/

Opps no I am wrong, according to the link above Bin Laden claims we OWE HIM Trillions!

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

This is lunacy!

But stop no wait it goes on an on! There is no end to it?

We indirectly and directly subsidise the oil industry?

Now don't get me wrong. I use as much gas as anyone and likely far more than average.

But I am all for cost effective means to reduce my energy consumption from any non-renewable sources.

If we had been supporting, subsidising and caring for renewable energy (like we have for the oil industry) for the past several decades or even better since WWII we would not be in the spot we are now.

IMHO.

.

 

[Wannabe1]

I am not a warmer, so tongue in cheek will work. Barnstorm2 has been working me over.

 

[Wannabe1]

To your point mceagle. The guy that was the lead author of the 2007 IPCC report said:

"to capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scarry scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest"

-Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 United Nations IPCC (international panel on climate change) report author. this is the most highly recognized report on global warming to date.

In case there is any question as to what this statement means, it essentially says I will only tell one side of the story and completely oversimplify and overexaggerate the truth to convince people. (the truth is not important to these people).

Stephen aslo wrote the reports that led to the global-cooling scare of the 1970's which stated we were headed into a new ice age.

That is too true, and just as valid for both sides of the argument.

and we all know that Governments don't lie!!!!


Our modern history has been full of learned types with initials after their names predicting doom in one way or another (in five to ten year cycles). With TV and the Internet they now have an infinitesimal soap box so the situation will get worse. ‘Global warming’ has just about run its course – I wonder what will be next?

 

[barnstorm2]

Tim, one place to start would be for the President to have the courage to refuse to certify to Congress that Red China is making progress in improving its human rights record. Neither party's presidents have had the guts to do this in many years. As a result, China gets its Most Favored Nation trading status renewed regularly by Congress. Disgraceful.

I suppose Wal-Mart has a pretty potent lobby.

I don't know if I should get my hopes up or not?

.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

I like Dougs suggestion too. In addition to the human rights violations like child and prisoner labor, invasion of Tibet, threats against Taiwan and Hong Kong, etc. You could add poisoning milk, baby food, pet food, and medicine, lead in toys, staggering pollution of the environment, piracy, institutional hacking of our computers, intellectual property theft, unfair trading practices, unfair currency manipulation, patent violations. Etc. Etc. Any one of those seem worthy of taking away their most favored trading status.

Notice Tim, the self admitted subtle deception necessary to achieve the desired goals of CO2 control, and thereby control of virtually all manufacturing. Notice too how un-necessary deception would be required to promote cleaning up the areas I mentioned.