Arguments about climate change

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. I came out of UCG with a Civil Enge degree. I am no Einstein by any means but have a few brain cells.

So you know something about technical subjects - to what extent is the truth about technical matters determined by popular vote?

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. If you have a little spare time I would ask you to do a bit of research on Armand Hammer. He was an American Communist Industrialist that helped Lenin and continued to help them until he died in 1990. He owned Occidental Petroleum. He took Gore's old man who was a nobody and made him a Senator in Tennessee. All it takes in this country is cash in enough back pockets. He then made Gore a rich man in the employ of Occidental. Gore poisoned half Tennessee with his mining pollution. The likes of Gore is just a frontman.
Why do you think the Chairman of British Petroleum is so anxious to get Ireland to vote Yes on the Lisbon Treaty.
All these things are tied together for anyone who wants to check it out.

Who gives a shit? Al Gore picked up the global warming platform about a decade after I first heard of it. He's irrelevant, as are his "connections" and "interests", because he's not a fecking scientist.

Climate change science is a 40-year old discipline with an enormous amount of research. It's not an industry, it doesn't have a product other than answering the question of whether the climate is changing and why. There isn't a scientist in it who couldn't be doing something else, because there are still many many more things to be researched than just this.

I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut how many hoo-yah's and lackwits want to believe something different, because they've got absolutely sod-all science in their case. If they did, they would be worth listening to, but there's no more science in climate change denial than there is in "Creation Science". It's the same old "it wasn't us...who are we to...it's a trick to...it's not proven..." bullshit - and the worst thing about it is that the smug cretins who echo these fatuous slogans are condemining our children along with their own. I've nothing against people being idiots as long as they're harmless, but they're not - they slow down the process of actually doing something, because there's always going to be a vote base of muppets who won't face the bloody facts. Fortunately, you're a dying breed. And good riddance.

Armand Hammer did a wonderful thing in collecting, safeguarding and showing to the public the art of the Russian revolutionary and post revolutionary period. A very interesting man.

Ibis. Who can take you seriously. It dosn't bother me to be called a muppet and a cretin. You were caught badly when it was pointed out to you that Teller had signed the petition you disagree with. I am going to go with Teller on this one. I have an open mind so now that hurricane season is nearly here I will be counting them. I am worried about your blood pressure on this issue so why not read this for relaxation http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html
I will also say a few prayers for you tonight

Well thank God my prayers appear to have worked because not only has Ibis seen the light like Saul on the road to Damasus but it is snowing just up the the way. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/NEWS02/805210311/-1/NEWS05
It is truely a miracle and I am going to redouble my efforts. It might be a good plan to start a prayer club here. I am dusting off the skis.

youngdan wrote:

Well thank God my prayers appear to have worked because not only has Ibis seen the light like Saul on the road to Damasus but it is snowing just up the the way. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/NEWS02/805210311/-1/NEWS05
It is truely a miracle and I am going to redouble my efforts. It might be a good plan to start a prayer club here. I am dusting off the skis.

What does snow on Vermont's mountains have to do with global climate change?

When 3 and a half inchs falls as we approach the first on June I take note. Vermont is not the Himalayas. It is good that you are concerned because the others were not happy that Teller was one on the 31000 scientists who think it is bogus.

youngdan wrote:

When 3 and a half inchs falls as we approach the first on June I take note. Vermont is not the Himalayas. It is good that you are concerned because the others were not happy that Teller was one on the 31000 scientists who think it is bogus.

It would be more accurate to say that some of us are entirely unimpressed by a emeritus theoretical physicist signing something on climate change.

Ibis. You should have said that in the first place as then his expertise on this subject would be a matter of opinion. After all Newton lost his money on a financial swindle that only a fool would fall for. Calling the signers Dr. Mikey Mouse was pointless.
The biggest problem facing the believers of global warming is the lifestyles of those who profess it's importance and the financial aspect. When I have asked elsewhere where the money goes I was told it did not matter. On this site I have read that a windfarm in Mayo that is to supply 200000 homes costs 200 million. Elsewhere I have seen that Ireland may be fined 250 million for exceeding it's carbon footprint. Nowhere can I find who actually gets the 250 million but I have not seen an suggestion that it would be used to build a windfarm.
So we will have to disagree on this until either I see some signs of global warming or you see some evidence that global warming is a ploy for global laws.

youngdan wrote:

Nowhere can I find who actually gets the 250 million but I have not seen an suggestion that it would be used to build a windfarm.

Or produce more forestry - that would be the quickest low-tech solution to it, we could have a forestry industry and a carbon dioxide sink here in ten years. To be fair I think we are planting more but it's not very visible locally and I sometimes wonder if some of the land flooding we see from time to time could be due to lack of forestation around.

Auditor #9 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Nowhere can I find who actually gets the 250 million but I have not seen an suggestion that it would be used to build a windfarm.

Or produce more forestry - that would be the quickest low-tech solution to it, we could have a forestry industry and a carbon dioxide sink here in ten years. To be fair I think we are planting more but it's not very visible locally and I sometimes wonder if some of the land flooding we see from time to time could be due to lack of forestation around.

Just to clarify. Having read your posts on P.ie, I know you're sceptical about climate change and are in many ways a 'denier'!

But do you still agree with youngdan on his views on climate change?*



*

Auditor #9 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Meanwhile 31000 scientists here
say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is
laughing at the likes of Gore
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Loads of websites and blogs have this story now

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

Menorah

NewsMax

(even a site called
F*ck France ! )

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. You should have said that in the first place as then his expertise on this subject would be a matter of opinion. After all Newton lost his money on a financial swindle that only a fool would fall for. Calling the signers Dr. Mikey Mouse was pointless.

No - there I'm pointing out that it's entirely possible to fill such a list with bogus names as well.

youngdan wrote:

The biggest problem facing the believers of global warming is the lifestyles of those who profess it's importance and the financial aspect. When I have asked elsewhere where the money goes I was told it did not matter. On this site I have read that a windfarm in Mayo that is to supply 200000 homes costs 200 million. Elsewhere I have seen that Ireland may be fined 250 million for exceeding it's carbon footprint. Nowhere can I find who actually gets the 250 million but I have not seen an suggestion that it would be used to build a windfarm.
So we will have to disagree on this until either I see some signs of global warming or you see some evidence that global warming is a ploy for global laws.

Actually, the biggest problem in respect of climate change is people who don't have a clue about the science, but are prepared to swallow a load of manufactured industry spin about how it's not "common sense". Much the same as the problem for ozone, acid rain, suphur pollution, tobacco, asbestos....but rather more serious this time.

An important tangent to this issue of global warming is the example given of a sink overflowing that I have seen to explain why the Earth can process the huge amounts of CO2 that was always produced but the small increase will now cause an overflow. This is frequently cited over yonder where aside from the odd flippant remark I do not bother with this topic. The popular tactic back there on many topics is to attack the intellect of a poster or to attack the sourse of his material. The posters are not trying to win an argument against another rather they are trying to convince the reader that they are correct and the reader should think accordingly. So sniping is the way to go. The attacks on Noel O Gara are the extreme.
Maybe I missed it but I would question this sink analogy. There actually is an ecological disastor happening right now but it is not possible for the globalists to derive taxes from it or introduce global laws on it's back. This is the massive reduction in the rainforests. I take the kids to Franklin Zoo here very often and I see that every year an area the size of France is lost or some other huge area. I also see that something like 80% of all the species live in the rainforests. This is something that everyone agrees to be happening. It stands to reason that the amount of CO2 being absorbed is falling by a similiar percentage. Yet we do not see Al Gore calling for the UN and their scavenger big companies from looting left right and center.
Therefore the sink is getting smaller. Why not expell the loggers and the exploiters and replant the forests so that the sink is increased to absorb whatever tiny extra CO2 there is.
The name of the game is to loot these countries for everything they have and to hell with the consequences. John Perkins has spilled the beans on the IMF and World bank and his book The Economic Hitman was #1 over here. Have a look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6499794293687763489&q=john+perkins&ei=qrk4SJGeAai8-AH9tv3qAw&hl=en
Ten years or so ago there was another ecological crisis when a hole in the ozone layer expanded due in large part to the type of refrigerant in use here. They banned it and replaced it with a different gas
The question is why is the money from carbon taxes not used for wind, solar tidal geothermal or even nuclear and why are not the forests reversed

youngdan wrote:

An important tangent to this issue of global warming is the example given of a sink overflowing that I have seen to explain why the Earth can process the huge amounts of CO2 that was always produced but the small increase will now cause an overflow. This is frequently cited over yonder where aside from the odd flippant remark I do not bother with this topic. The popular tactic back there on many topics is to attack the intellect of a poster or to attack the sourse of his material. The posters are not trying to win an argument against another rather they are trying to convince the reader that they are correct and the reader should think accordingly. So sniping is the way to go. The attacks on Noel O Gara are the extreme.
Maybe I missed it but I would question this sink analogy. There actually is an ecological disastor happening right now but it is not possible for the globalists to derive taxes from it or introduce global laws on it's back. This is the massive reduction in the rainforests. I take the kids to Franklin Zoo here very often and I see that every year an area the size of France is lost or some other huge area. I also see that something like 80% of all the species live in the rainforests. This is something that everyone agrees to be happening. It stands to reason that the amount of CO2 being absorbed is falling by a similiar percentage. Yet we do not see Al Gore calling for the UN and their scavenger big companies from looting left right and center.
Therefore the sink is getting smaller. Why not expell the loggers and the exploiters and replant the forests so that the sink is increased to absorb whatever tiny extra CO2 there is.
The name of the game is to loot these countries for everything they have and to hell with the consequences. John Perkins has spilled the beans on the IMF and World bank and his book The Economic Hitman was #1 over here. Have a look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6499794293687763489&q=john+perkins&ei=qrk4SJGeAai8-AH9tv3qAw&hl=en
Ten years or so ago there was another ecological crisis when a hole in the ozone layer expanded due in large part to the type of refrigerant in use here. They banned it and replaced it with a different gas
The question is why is the money from carbon taxes not used for wind, solar tidal geothermal or even nuclear and why are not the forests reversed

Hmm. Since we're in Kyoto, Ireland doesn't get 'fined' for excess carbon emissions. What happens is that it has to buy carbon credits through the EU carbon-trading scheme. The point of the scheme (I'm tempting a Pax-attack here) is that the money that's used to purchase carbon credits (pollution licences) has been earned by the companies who have reduced their carbon, and therefore have excess carbon credits to sell. A very similar system was used successfully in the US to reduce sulphur pollution.

You're right that a lot of obvious sensible things are not done, but your reasoning then ducks off-world, because you think the governments are using global warming as a swindle. In fact, the world's governments are reluctant to do anything meaningful about climate change, and deeply opposed to doing anything painful. Most of them would like to simply deny the reality of climate change (as per the Bush administration), but are uncomfortably aware that it's scientifically extremely certain, and therefore they, having responsibilities, have to do something. They have become more willing to do something as it has become apparent that change is already happening, and that the comfortable expected century-plus scale of change is turning into a decade-scale reality - and so the shit will probably be hitting the fan within their political lifetimes.

Pax wrote:

Just to clarify. Having read your posts on P.ie, I know you're sceptical about climate change and are in many ways a 'denier'!

But do you still agree with youngdan on his views on climate change?*

*

Auditor #9 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Meanwhile 31000 scientists here
say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is
laughing at the likes of Gore
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Loads of websites and blogs have this story now

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

Menorah

NewsMax

(even a site called
F*ck France ! )

Now, if you see above I have neither agreed nor disagreed with youngdan there As ibis says this is an argument from authority whereas the IPCC list of scientists was a conclusion drawn from, I presume, experiments, modelling, analysis and data etc. in the usual scientific manner. I'd instinctively question conclusions drawn on all those things, however, as good science constructs theories from data often through experiment whereas in this case it isn't possible to experiment on the climate directly so there is a glaring methodological gap which ibis feels is more insignificant than I.

That's where I'm coming from and I'm keeping my mind open on it but I'd err on the side of caution if I had any say. I'm a skeptic and no way a denier - I think it'd be better if we followed some of the prescriptions just in case and one question I'm asking at the moment echoes youngdan's post above regarding forestry - why aren't we trying to solve this in two ways: replacing/expanding forests and reducing carbon emissions? I think the first one is vastly more important and again echo youngdan in my suspicion of the sincerity of a group of scientists etc. who are utterly convinced we are on the verge of disaster yet who don't go for the most obvious solution: stop smoking.

The world's forests are the world's lungs and we seem to be on the brink of contracting lung cancer from inhalation yet the first and obvious answer doesn't seem to get any heed at all. Instead our solutions seem to be - oh, cut down on the strength of the fags; change the tobacco type; smoke a hybrid tobacco; tax fags up to the back of beyond but give up?

Maybe we can't see the wood for the trees

Well, yes, Auditor - because the world's economy is addicted to growth. The world's governments are addicted to selling the idea of tomorrow being better than today - more stuff, more wealth, more jobs, all better and brighter. We're addicted to being better off than our parents were.

They don't want to tell us we'll have to give up, because they're afraid we'll shoot the messenger. As long as there's enough climate change denial going on, every politician is afraid to say "you have to pack in the fags" because they know their political opponents can say "ah, no, sure have twenty on me" - and like the filthy addicts we are, we will gratefully seize the opportunity to go on killing ourselves.

The carbon tax issue would be used as an argument by the antiglobal side to say that it is a global wealth transfer from rich to poor. They would say- So Irish industry has to subsidize industry that is competing against it. If that does not deindustrial Ireland nothing will. After much argument they would ask- Does Ireland pay out 100 million a year, yes or no, case closed.
Calling it a fine or calling it a fee or calling it a tax or buying a credit is meaningless to the man writing the check
However this issue if it is ever to get traction here has an unlikely advocate. McCain believes it and will try to take action as would Obama. How people here will react to a gas tax will provide a very enjoyable spectator sport for you lads back there. Talk radio here can be very intertaining at any time but when another dollar is added to the gallon it will be worth tuning in your computor to WRKO 680 Boston.

The world's economy is not addicated to the growth of trees though. Why isn't the climate change group not aggressively advocating rebuilding of forests as the first priority in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? They don't give a hoot about growth or economics, those lads - their daily reward is some piece of data in some experiment that verifies or falsifies a theory - scientists have no monetary agenda and better they are hardly subject to mindless consumerism and keeping up with the joneses (well, fermilab & LHC..?)

The first priority should be to advocate aggressive planting of forests - by the union of concerned scientists would be killing loads of birds with stones in they got their way...

But oil running out and becoming way overpriced before it does will advance the cause of the global warming theorists more than anything or anyone except Al Gore who was very impressive though he uses up the equivalent of a high school's worth of electricity in his house. Google are also popularising global warming through the google earth program. Have you seen the google global warming earth?

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1659/75/


youngdan's radio station in boston
http://www.surfmusik.de/radio/wrko-680-am,6084.html

Thanks for that link. This is not an obscure or extreme station. It is the main station covering Eastern Mass and into the surrounding states. At 8 pm Irish time Howie Carr is on and is worth a listen especialy if a big story like Kennedy being ill hits. Global warming is rarely discussed but when McCain gets into it the craic will be on.
Auditor. How about instead of paying 100 million to God only knows who for a carbon credit they could cover Mayo in forest and windmills. I believe the object is to take the 100 million out of Ireland and bring in a fuedal society. The middle class are hurting here and as energy and food prices rise Ireland is in for a shock when they could have plenty of both. Time will bear me out on this.

youngdan wrote:

Thanks for that link. This is not an obscure or extreme station. It is the main station covering Eastern Mass and into the surrounding states. At 8 pm Irish time Howie Carr is on and is worth a listen especialy if a big story like Kennedy being ill hits. Global warming is rarely discussed but when McCain gets into it the craic will be on.
Auditor. How about instead of paying 100 million to God only knows who for a carbon credit they could cover Mayo in forest and windmills. I believe the object is to take the 100 million out of Ireland and bring in a fuedal society. The middle class are hurting here and as energy and food prices rise Ireland is in for a shock when they could have plenty of both. Time will bear me out on this.

http://wrko.com/Homepage/259336

Reminds me of GTA: Vice City Radio

Auditor #9 wrote:

The world's economy is not addicated to the growth of trees though. Why isn't the climate change group not aggressively advocating rebuilding of forests as the first priority in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Largely because the data is uncertain. Forests certainly take up carbon as they grow, but a mature forest is roughly in balance, as far as anyone can tell. Bogs and swamps are more useful, since they continue to lay carbon down year after year.

The Guardian

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Quote :

Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

This is something about abuse of UN funding by Alternative Energy companies ... a part of the conspiracy theory, ineptitude or policy, failure of watchdog bodies or actually a good idea - stimulate private companies in a roundabout way to produce low-carbon energy stations... and compete with the over-addicted American companies using oil in their products...

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

The world's economy is not addicated to the growth of trees though. Why isn't the climate change group not aggressively advocating rebuilding of forests as the first priority in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Largely because the data is uncertain. Forests certainly take up carbon as they grow, but a mature forest is roughly in balance, as far as anyone can tell. Bogs and swamps are more useful, since they continue to lay carbon down year after year.

There must be some way we can assess the effects of trees the only hassle it really takes is time ....

Auditor #9 wrote:

The Guardian

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Quote :

Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

This is something about abuse of UN funding by Alternative Energy companies ... a part of the conspiracy theory, ineptitude or policy, failure of watchdog bodies or actually a good idea - stimulate private companies in a roundabout way to produce low-carbon energy stations... and compete with the over-addicted American companies using oil in their products...

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

The world's economy is not addicated to the growth of trees though. Why isn't the climate change group not aggressively advocating rebuilding of forests as the first priority in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Largely because the data is uncertain. Forests certainly take up carbon as they grow, but a mature forest is roughly in balance, as far as anyone can tell. Bogs and swamps are more useful, since they continue to lay carbon down year after year.

There must be some way we can assess the effects of trees the only hassle it really takes is time ....

Ha ha! We wish. To work out the net effects of natural forest in terms of greenhouse gases, you have to take an area of natural forest, enclose it, measure the greenhouse input and the greenhouse output - plants take up CO2, but also release it, and methane. You need to measure the carbon content of the vegetation and the soil, and you need to do it over several years in varying conditions. Then you have to extrapolate your results to other forests with entirely different vegetation under entirely different climates - and to expected conditions under different climate scenarios...

...some of which has been done, of course. And the net result is that mature forests aren't carbon sinks as such - only new forests are. There is a chap who reckons we can get around the problem by logging the forests and burying the logs. Wetland restoration is probably a better bet.

youngdan wrote:

However this issue if it is ever to get traction here has an unlikely advocate. McCain believes it and will try to take action as would Obama.

Maybe you've already said, but can I ask where young Paul stands on the whole global warming issue in general?

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

The Guardian

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Quote :

Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.



Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

This is something about abuse of UN funding by Alternative Energy companies ... a part of the conspiracy theory, ineptitude or policy, failure of watchdog bodies or actually a good idea - stimulate private companies in a roundabout way to produce low-carbon energy stations... and compete with the over-addicted American companies using oil in their products...

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

The world's economy is not addicated to the growth of trees though. Why isn't the climate change group not aggressively advocating rebuilding of forests as the first priority in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Largely because the data is uncertain. Forests certainly take up carbon as they grow, but a mature forest is roughly in balance, as far as anyone can tell. Bogs and swamps are more useful, since they continue to lay carbon down year after year.

There must be some way we can assess the effects of trees the only hassle it really takes is time ....

Ha ha! We wish. To work out the net effects of natural forest in terms of greenhouse gases, you have to take an area of natural forest, enclose it, measure the greenhouse input and the greenhouse output - plants take up CO2, but also release it, and methane. You need to measure the carbon content of the vegetation and the soil, and you need to do it over several years in varying conditions. Then you have to extrapolate your results to other forests with entirely different vegetation under entirely different climates - and to expected conditions under different climate scenarios...

...some of which has been done, of course. And the net result is that mature forests aren't carbon sinks as such - only new forests are. There is a chap who reckons we can get around the problem by logging the forests and burying the logs. Wetland restoration is probably a better bet.

Exactly - so wood chip burning is only carbon neutral if and when the trees chopped down are replaced with new trees. We definitely need to plant a lot more if people are going to shift to wood burning stoves.

Ron Paul will always guarantee 2 things. A straight answer even though it is not what the audience wants to hear. He will have at the minimum a reasonal knowledge of the issue at hand. He was asked in Iowa about alternative fuels. A regular politician would have told these people that the biofuels and the subsidies would continue on which this states profits greatly http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-137110353664392393&q=ron+paul+climate+change&ei=-_w6SJmXHYym4QKQodXTAw&hl=en
He went on the Bill Maher Show and answered a few difficult questions. Maher and his audience would not be republican friendly to say the least http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5284709340314756576&q=ron+paul+global+warming&ei=cgI7SP2jJoSE4gLoldTpAw&hl=en
At the moment here global warming has little credibility with most people. Just a few days ago I was reading about global warming on Jupitor http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/breaking-news-suvs-discovered-on.html.