Love the hype that gets everyone stirred up. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”
There's a reason why you continuously refuse to link to your sources. You've misrepresented AGW consensus with your Zwally quote and you've misrepresented IPCC claims with previous graphs (which I also pointed out). - - - Updated - - - Love the quote mining that avoids the actual discussion.
Sure, I have . . . in the very first post that I addressed toward you on this thread. Post #51. You avoided the original source when asked then just as you have with Zwally's quote.
Deforestation is your starting point, yet emissions control seems to be the major focus NOT deforestation. The way they're going about it is plugging the pin hole in the bottom of the boat while ignoring the fist size hole gushing water. What steps has the IPCC and the UN taken to curtail the deforestation? Common sense dictates we stop the deforestation FIRST then see how financially intrusive they must get to stop any man made warming. They are doing it backwards, that what tells me it's a scam for profit. - - - Updated - - - The same way you propose we enforce emissions control.
I was with you until the "scam for profit" conspiracy theory. And the IPCC does, indeed, highlight the importance of reforestation. As does the UN with it's REDD program. The UN and IPCC are not for-profit organizations.
Absolutely NOT! Any effect of man made emissions have been minuscule at best. Deforestation is the major cause of the minuscule effect. Tax? You would have to TAX the countries doing the deforestation. You stand as good a chance of collecting as you do enforcing emissions standards on those same countries. So you're just chasing your tail. Now you understand correctly.
Give me another reason they would start with the pin hole instead of the big one? Are they worried that if deforestation was stopped or slowed down, the problem would be fixed WITHOUT excessive cost or taxes and kill their new "revenue stream". The U.N. Oil for Food scandal I have a list of them, but I have to go to work now, I'll post all their for profit scandals when I get home.
Give me a reason why the two efforts are mutually exclusive and that we can only approach one at a time. Yes, UN scandals exist. It does not change the fact that it is not a for-profit organization, and it certainly does not change the fact that the IPCC is not a for-profit organization. If you want to waste your time doing that, sure.
I'm IEEE. IEEE doesn't speak for me. Its just a society. And I know full well about said published papers. They all have one thing is common. They absolutely refuse to do an actual correct survey. I know full well what they would like to say it but you wont find a large sale of papers in climatology that aren't about or tangential too global warming. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you believe unequivocally that skepticism is come massive oil industry funded conspiracy. Why did the governments of the world accept that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? You aren't really thinking clearly here. There is plenty of examples of group think in government.
Where did i propose that? I was just asking if you agree it is true that man can, and has changed the environment on a global scale A question you have a hard time to answer yes or no
I already explained that. Deforestation must be tackled first in order to judge just how far we have to go with emissions without killing the world economy worse than it is right now. It's not rocket science. UNLESS......They don't give a whit about warming, they simply care about duping the public and creating a permanent revenue stream from the taxpayers pockets straight into the Governments coffers. It appears the former chairman of the UNÂ’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Dr Rajendra Pachauri set him self up to make some real money through his company TERI, by "expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology". Looks for profit to me my friend.
So, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is also part of the worldwide conspiracy. Shucks, why not, though I'd think they'd have less to do with climate papers than the IPCC or other bodies who deal directly with climate change and the consequences thereof. Fascinating opinion. It's not just oil, but the entire fossil fuel industry who are busily promoting the false notion that the planet is not warming or some such nonsense; that there is nothing to worry about; and it's all backed up by discredited "scientific studies" by people with seemingly appropriate degrees. What they (the deniers) have done is to take the playbook from big tobacco and changed it from that weed to oil/coal and even gas. If you, the self-proclaimed skeptic, will open your scientific eyes and look around, you'll find their greasy fingerprints all over the place. OK, got it - it's not really a worldwide conspiracy, it's just that all the governments of the world, nearly all of the scientists directly or indirectly involved in this project, and even interested observers (like me) have all been hoodwinked by .... whom? See, that's the part I don't get. The other part is why only a small band or true believers, like yourself and a few others, are able to see through the fog of this misinformation and KNOW what is really happening. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
In sociology and psychology, mass hysteria (also known as collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior) is a phenomenon that transmits collective delusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear.
No, you haven't explained it. You've just asserted that deforestation must be tackled first without explaining how tackling them at the same time would be any less efficient. And, once again, the organizations that you accuse of ignoring deforestation aren't ignoring deforestation. Looks like you think that one person setting up a separate for-profit company somehow transforms the entire non-profit that chairs into a for-profit enterprise. Nearly every non-profit I've been involved in has chairpersons who do for-profit work in their daily life.
So then we have a point of agreement the activities of mankind can and do affect the climate And that impacting the carbon cycle is one way that happens You say that deforestation is the most significant source of this impact Now have i understood
How do you know how far we must go with emissions control and disrupt the world's economy if you don't tackle deforestation first? If you do them at the same time you will an put undue economic hardship on the poor with excessive utility and transportation costs unnecessarily. The Global Warming "movement" has been rife with scandal. The chair of a government funded non profit "advisory" panel sets up a for profit business that profits from the advise of the government funded non profit he chairs and you don't see the conflict of interest? How about the "scientists" making million to study global warming that have the vested interest to see the grants continue, you don't see the conflict of interest? The HADCrut email scandal, the debunked hockey stick chart and the fact there hasn't been any appreciable warming in the last 20 years should send up a red flag that it's a scam. Add to that the real problem is deforestation which is being virtually ignored because there's NO MONEY in it and you can see why I have a problem with doing them both at the same time. Here's a theory for you: There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html The Herbivore Dinosaurs multiplied in great numbers, they ate the carbon sinks (trees and foliage) at a prodigious rate and the Earth warmed to that point. Now fast forward to now. Man is deforesting at an ever increasing rate, that is destroying the carbon sinks (trees) far faster than any carbon emissions reduction plan could ever cope with. What going to happen? What needs to be done?
I maintain my stance as a skeptic that man is doing anything in regards to climate as I have not seen a climate model that can justify that position. Again, until we have a model that can show ALL factors that effect climate it is arrogance and ignorance to assume humans are influencing it...
Which is exactly what climate scientists and *only* climate scientists are trying to do. It's the people who argue against global warming that you generally see avoiding the data on all forcings put together. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
That's still incomplete, while it is an attempt and should be lauded, it is not the end all be all. That doesn't explain the need from so-called climate scientists to manipulate and otherwise devalue their data...
Forgive my skepticism on that point. Ideological climate change deniers have proven that there is nothing they won't call "data tampering." If you have two temperature measurements, one during sunrise, and one at sunset, apparently taking into account the time of day is "tampering", according to the deniers. I'm open hearing new (sourced) claims about the supposed climate science conspiracy, but at this point, I think such claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.