It Gets Tougher And Tougher To Sell The Idea Of Global Warming…

The 97% was a review by bloggers (volunteers of Skeptical Science that has proven to be an advocacy site, not a science site) of scientific papers, they threw out most of them and the ones they kept, they decided the papers were for global warming. The 97% is not a poll of scientists which would be a better method. If you take all the papers they started with and use the number of papers they decided were for global warming that number is only about 21%. Some scientists complained that they did not understand what the their papers were about.

The fact that scientists are not coming out with new hypothesis and papers for the hiatus, such as ocean sequestration or aerosols, pretty much proves the hiatus exists. Having to explain it means that there is something to explain.

 

Did you really expect that your own words could act as support for an assertion you made?!

Provide a link.

 

You could actually find out where the 97% came from. I did. Do some research instead of just parroting what you have heard.

 

QUOTE=Logician0311;1063691649]What is it that you don't believe?[/QUOTE]


Taxcutter says:
I don't believe that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has any effect of atmospheric temperatures. When fed raw data, the IPCC GCMs do not predict temperatures anywhere near what is observed. The IPCC GCMs wildly over-estimate temperature in known situations. there fore they are not credible in future applications. There is no other case for AGW.

Taxcutter says:
No. From EPA air quality monitoring data, I can say the US emits considerably less pollution than in the past.

Taxcutter says:
No. I have no reason to believe this nebulous idea.

Taxcutter says:
No. Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are chickenfeed compared to natural emissions and uptake.


I do believe that the sun is the main driving force in atmospheric temperature. Solar radiation variations are entirely the cause of the wild temperature swings noted in prehistoric times, and such continues to be the case.


I do believe that you are asking too much of the American people to demand enormous sacrifices to combat something that does not appear to be a problem.

I also believe that selling economic suicide to the American people when everyone else - including the world's No. 1 CO2 emitter (China) - gets a free ride, is asking too much. The American people made (and continue to make) huge sacrifices for the cause of the Ozone Hole and have exactly nothing to show for it. Nobody else was asked to make remote that scope of sacrifice. Such is exactly the case with AGW.


America, by dint of its size, highly variable climate, and general productivity requires a lot of energy to prosper. Without air conditioning, much of the nation (for instance Hot-lanta, Florida, and Arizona) are untenable. Likewise many cold-weather cities would be equally unbearable. Kansas city sees maybe the wildest temperature excursions of all. It is routinely a hundred degrees F there in the summer and twenty below in the winter is common. You do not see that kind of excursion in Europe. Frederick Taylor - the father of industrial engineering - observed that the Industrial Revolution was a matter of substituting thermal energy for human and animal energy. America has a lot of energy-intensive industries. With the exception of nuclear power, thermal energy entails combustion, and since there is no such thing as a hydrogen mine, that means combustion of something having carbon in it.

America, while not as big as Russia with Siberia, is a large country - roughly three thousand miles by one thousand miles. Unlike Siberia and most of China, and most of the rest of the world outside Europe, America has a well-developed and productive interior. That entails a need for a lot of transportation services. Displacing mass through a distance requires energy. Once again, that more or less requires combustion of fuels to attain the requisite energy density. Curtailing energy requires America to abandon its productive interior.

I believe America is over-taxed and over regulated already and has been so for at least two decades. Additional taxation and regulation is intolerable.

I believe government in general is too big and too intrusive. All the proposed "remedies" for AGW involve a bigger and more intrusive government. that is likewise intolerable.

I believe that if the earth's atmosphere were indeed naturally warming it is a conceit to think that by reducing human emission of a "bit-player" gas in the atmosphere we would change it.

I believe that if the earth's atmosphere were indeed naturally warming the proper response is not a regime of taxation and regulation visited upon a small portion of the population of the world (US taxpayers and consumers). If there were a real risk of ocean levels rising the proper response is not to dismantle our energy-intensive industry and transportation but to move at-risk populations from coastal cities to higher elevations inland. the poster child for this is New Orleans. The only thing that absolutely has to stay in New Orleans is the port. Jazz can be played in Memphis, and Cajun cooking can be done anywhere.

If the concern about AGW were genuine (and not just an excuse to make government bigger) Fukushima hysteria would be kicked to the curb (mistakes noted and addressed) and nuclear power (which generates zero CO2) would be massively embraced. The US could reduce its carbon dioxide by a third simply by replacing fossil fuel electric power generation with nuclear power. Yet, Fukushima hysteria persists and nuclear power remains at a standstill, so I deduce that AGW isn't really any problem - just an excuse for more taxation and regulation.

 

And yet you cannot provide a source? Seems like a violation of rule 10 to me.

 

The source is Skeptical Science which had volunteers review papers, not an actual poll of scientists.

 

We don't have two hundred years to spare. WE are fast approaching the point of no return ,If we're not already there!

 

Ah, the "tipping" point. What is the tipping point?

 

Now that is simply silly.

A cheap and hyperbolic justification to take other people's money and command other people's lives!

If the signal to noise ratio were higher, in other words, if the rate of climate temperature change per decade were larger, compared to the noise of the daily and seasonal variance, there would:

1] Possibly be a real threat of achieving dangerous temperatures in 200 years

2] Not be a requirement for two hundred years of data collection to have the signal measurement converge into a true, scientific Measurement.


The fact is, the rate of change is so small, it will take two hundred years for the total change to reach a measurable level!

It would take far longer for the change to become large enough to cause serious harm.

The proof of this is right in the difficulty to MAKE the measurement. If a change of a few simple degrees were enough to destroy the Earth's ecology, if it were any where near that temperature sensitive, then the daily temperature swings would have destroyed it on day one!

If the daily swings were not enough, surely the seasonal and gulf stream La Ninya and El Ninyo variations combined would have been enough...

But here we are, after Millions of years of such variations...

and

EARTH ABIDES!​

-

 

One of us can actually provide credible sources to illustrate that the other is wrong. (hint: you're the one presenting only unsourced opinions) http://climate.columbia.edu/resources/#human_induced

I'd be interested in seeing a source, specifically as this link (from the EPA) seems to contradict your position:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#three

To be fair, here's another source illustrating that you are (once again) burying your head in the sand:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/countries?display=graph

That clearly illustrates that - on a global level - our per capita emission generation is increasing. Combined with the population growth, this clearly presents significant increase in emissions over time.

You have no reason to believe that we exponentially reduce the planet's ability to offset our pollution?!

Are you aware that the natural resource that offsets CO2 production is plant life?
Are you completely unaware that, as our population grows, we pave over more green areas to build our homes, strip malls, superhighways, etc?
Are you also unaware that forested regions shrink every year?
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com.au/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

Provide a source.

And you believe that the changes in our atmosphere related to an increase of greenhouse gasses does not magnify the effect of solar radiation?!

It only "does not appear to be a problem" when your head is buried so deep in the sand (or up your own backside) that you're completely blinded.

What "economic suicide" are you talking about? Encouraging the automotive industry to manufacture vehicles that produce fewer emissions? Encouraging power companies to produce cleaner energy? What are your paranoid rantings based on?

What the hell does that have to do with how we produce the required energy?

What the hell does that have to do with the ability to manufacture means of transportation that produce fewer emissions?

Over-taxed and over-regulated in comparison to what?

Please tell me what impact it had on the average citizen when the government mandated seat belts, or air bags...
Now, explain how it would be significantly different for the government to impliment manufacturing standards related to emissions.

Even if this was true (which it's not), should we contribute to a problem that has the capacity to limit our survivability on a global level?

Who said that it is?

Right, we should ignore the problem and simply displace the vast majority of the world's populations that live in coastal regions, because any change to our emissions rates would necessarily require "dismantling" our entire industry....
That position couldn't be any more stupid.

You can mention Fukushima and claim that nuclear power generation is clean all in the same post?!
Are you completely unaware of the contamination created? http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukush...c-ocean-diluted-but-far-from-harmless/5360752

 

Stop cutting down the trees. An area the size of England, Scotland and Wales is clear cut every year.

 

Oh? And how many years has this been going on?

 

They could move it to southern Canada or the northern U.S. and have clear sailing from the state of Washington to northern Maine in the U.S. or from British Columbia to Nova Scotia in Canada. That ain't the first time that ever happened to the Iditarod.

 

Always run the NUMBERS, ALWAYS!​

Scottland - 78,387 km2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland
England - 130,395 km2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England
Wales - 20,779 km2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales
------------------------
229561 km2


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land
The Earth's total land mass is 148,939,063.133 km2


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest

Tree forests cover approximately 9.4 percent of the Earth's surface
(or 30 percent of total land area), though they once covered much more
(about 50 percent of total land area).



148,939,063.133 km2 * 0.3 = 44681718.9 km2

44681718.9 km2 / 229561 km2 = 194 years left!

This would also mean that we clear cut 10% of the remaining forest every 20 years.

This would also means that the other 90% is not growing at all.


Now, surprisingly to me, your claims are actually possible, though I still have my doubts.

I suspect the real number is quite a bit smaller, since Greens tend to greatly exaggerate everything!



Also, in a free market, Utility + Rarety = Valuable!

So as the source began to disappear, the costs would go up dramatically, and the use would drop off considerably, with use of alternative methods and materials.

How many people under the age of 50 have a collection of PAPER based family photos?



But lets look an alternative "Wise Use" model.

Assume that we could keep our current levels of use of wood (cellulose) products constant, with wide spread
increases in harvesting efficiency, reductions in waste in usage and storage, and alternative materials.

Additionally, we put some real efforts into wood and paper recycling.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulpwood
http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/FFSnl/ffsnl34e.htm

Time to grow a stand of paper pulp trees: 20-25 years.

So, if all of the remaining forest were pulp wood trees, the rate would actually be at or very close
to self-replacement sustainable.


Now if you supliment just a little bit of the current wood harvesting with seaweed, algae, and Hemp:
http://hemphoax.org/hemp-myths/hemp-produces-four-times-more-paper-per-acre-per-year-than-trees/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130407132938.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed_farming


And slowed down the rate of old growth clear cutting by a 30% margine, we would actually begin to see
a gain in old growth forest in a couple of centuries.





So Wise Use and a bit of bio-Engineering and EVIL Corporate Profit motivation, could easily solve the problem.



-

 

As many years as the CO2 keeps rising.

 

If the warmies are serious about warming why a carbon tax instead of a deforrestation tax?

 

Again, over simplified, non-analytical, knee-jerk Hyperbole.

THINK IT THROUGH!

If, and I heavily emphasize IF, C02 levels are rising, and if they are rising from HUMAN activity, which is NOT Proven!

If any CO2 level changes are not due primarily to release of sea floor methane, and Volcanism... After all, the Erruption of Mt. St. Helen released more tonnes of CO2 than all of the Gasoline ever made,.... In ONE volcanic Eruption!



If! Mankind has made a significant contribution to CO2 levels, it would be from COAL, seconded by Oil, third-ed by Natural Gas, forth-ed by Corn/Wheat/Potatoes, fifth-ed by Paper pulpwood, .... and Hardwood forests would be a distant 6th level contributor.

Additionally, we don't usually BURN most hardwood. We make things from it. Its too valuable to burn.

-

 

Still not providing a link, eh?

 

You can't find Skeptical Science? Ever hear of Google?

 

There's nothing stopping anyone from contributing to one of the many buy/adopt/preserve acres of rainforest groups. It sure couldn't hurt and would likely have more benefit than the various schemes being touted by governments.

This is something anyone can do instead of waiting for governments to impose economy-stifling regulations that won't accomplish their stated intent.

 

When did it become my responsibility to track down supporting evidence for your assertions?

Duh.

 

The smartest survival decision ever made by any bird was made by the chicken! Tasty to humans is very smart!


Those smart enough to buy up any forest land for a myriad of purposes, not the least of which is just tourism, will become very wealthy.

Think of the cost of a Caribbean Ilse, compared to the same land area of a Norwegian Fjord or an African mudflat.

-

 

When did it become my responsibility to do your research for you?

If you were interested in the truth instead of just advocacy, you would do your own research.

This is much of the problem with propaganda and believers, they are not interested to find of if they have been fed propaganda. I suppose it is because of a number of reasons, one, they have invested their efforts to date in their belief, two, they could just be lazy, three, they don't want to know if they are being fed propaganda because then they would have to admit they were wrong, or four, they have an agenda.

 

Taxcutter asks:
Which is worse? Fukushima radiation or carbon dioxide?

 

The fact that we are still using the crude and dangerous Rickover Pile design of reactors is criminal, since we've known how to build low included Currie plasma reactors for 20 years now.

Instead of 40,000kg of Ur in a "Pile" at Fukushima, it could have been 19 grams of Ur Plasma for the same level of energy output.

-