Global Warming Debate

[kd3pc]

Yes, Yes, Way to go CAM!!

Finally a response to point to the FACTS, not the politics or the media/copr hype to scare the public in to some agenda.

I read the EPA report and was foundered as to how they reached the conclusions they did, given the data in the report...now I know

Thanks

dave

[camaraderie]

This post is only for those with some time on their hands!
In this country there is no debate in government circles where pro and cons of global warming and CO2 are discussed by scientists. There is plenty of arguing in the blogs..but no actual debates back and forth to inform the politicians/beaurocrats who are NOT scientists of the issues.
Not so in Australia! Recently Senator Fielding there met with Minister of Climate Change to ask her 3 Questions about Global Warming. She brought her scientists to the meeting...he brought four skeptical scientists. This resulted in 3 VERY interesting documents that illustrate how governement works...but more importantly give a great crash course on some of the key scientific issues and data around "warming" in language that is understandable by non-scientists.
These are long... but each is worthwhile.

1. First is a letter from one of the skeptic scientists providing a personal overview of the meeting itself. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/...lobal-warming/

2. Second is the written Government Scientists response to the 3 questions asked by Senator Fielding. This was developed in response to the questions and the discussion at the meeting. http://www.environment.gov.au/minist...20090624c.html

3. Third is the response of the 4 skeptical scientists to the answers provided in #2 above. It is currently a Word document as it is preliminary...but is easily downloaded.
http://www.sciencemedia.com.au/downl...009-6-24-1.doc

There will be a more finished answer published instead of #3 but it will take a bit of time to put it together I'm sure. Nevertheless...even in its' raw state #3 is masterful.

My favorite quote comes from Dr. Evans review of the first meeting...

"It seems to me that politicians and bureaucrats might be able to effect an elegant dismount from the IPCC’s climate theory as it becomes more and more obvious that it is false. Maybe that positioning will become evident in the next year or two. But some scientists will shrilly defend the CO2 theory of unstoppable global warming, and their jobs, to the bitter end—because they are unlikely to ever find better jobs (hey, check out this 20 page list of recipients of Australian Research Council research grants, including $1.9m for David Karoly)."

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

In this country there is no debate in government circles where pro and cons of global warming and CO2 are discussed by scientists.

(from a sporadic contributor)
It seems to be one can have a debate about global warming or about CO2.
The people panicking about global warming have done themselves no favor when the real problems of CO2 lie elsewhere. Rising water levels, is it really a world catastrophe?
On the other hand, we as sailors should know what rising CO2 does to oceans. They absorb and neutralize the bulk of CO" from the atmosphere, but many reports say they have reached saturation point. What happens then is that corals die, fish die, and algae spread. What that does to our environment and not least the food supply, has me worried.

Whatever the case, it seems ostrich-like to waste time denying the effects of carbon fuel emissions, when the costs of changing in relative terms are modest and there are so many benefits from keeping our environment clean?

[craigimass]

Ah, but you forget one thing....

Selfishness......

Those who only care about getting more gas and oil at a buck per gallon or cutting off the stop of mountains in "other peoples" states - they sure aren't going to come into the public arena and say:

"You know what? I am a very selfish person and I could care less about the earth, my children, the future, etc'

You are also not likely to hear them saying:
" I make money in some (or many) ways from cheap oil - or I get paid by the industry, etc. etc - so that is why I argue against GW"....

Instead what they say is in this thread. They sow seeds of doubt, find points of view to latch onto, etc.

If my theory is true, they couldn't care less if GW is happening. They couldn't care less that it can be mitigated by actions which also have OTHER benefits, such as less pollution, more energy security, etc.

Therefore, it becomes sort of a moot point to debate them. Damn it, their mind is already made up. And, after all, it might cost them 50 cents a day!

[camaraderie]

Osmund...the ocean waters have been rising since the end of the last ice age. The key question is whether they have been rising at an accellerated rate. The answer is NO and has been documented earlier on this thread.

The acidity of the ocean you refer to from added carbon is once again PROJECTED...the actual measurement of ocean PH claimed since 1850 is .1 on the PH scale... and the oceans and coral have thrived in far less alkaliane conditions. There is also considerable variation in the PH of sections of the ocean worldwide and the ".1" measurement is questioned vigorously because of this and relatively unclear historical measurements to compare against.

Your last statement is most telling. The costs of mitigation are Not at all modest...they are debillitating.
The Waxman bill passed yesterday by the Congress will do the following:
All in all, the bill is expected to reduce our gross domestic production (GDP) by $9.6 trillion. And for what?
Even if - if - the legislation works exactly as it is intended (a rare feat in Washington), in about 100 years the Earth's temperature will be one tenth of one degree Celsius lower than the United Nations predicts it will otherwise be.
-Gingrich



That is no SMALL adjustment. It is the largest tax increase in our history for NOTHING.


Go ahead Craig...find me some science that says the Waxman bill will reduce the global warming you believe in by more than .1 degrees in 100 years. Nah..you'd rather just believe cause it feels so good to be a child of nature and one with the earth godess.

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Osmund

Cam, that wasn't exactly what I said. I don't buy into the "rising water" debate because I, like you, believe there is room for healthy skepticism. It may happen, but I'm not prepared to claim so.

From what I've seen, the carbon in ocean observation is not projected, but observed already in some of the most fragile locations. At some point one may also lean on common sense and the past history of pollution, including factors we fortunately put behind us (at an immediate cost each time): lead in petrol and the many illnesses caused; smog and associated allergies (alleviated in some places, not others); and so forth. To believe we can continue to dump carbons into the sea is, to put it cautiously, somewhat brave?

To paraphrase you: the argument about cost is debilitating and spurious. For a start, the thing that matters is relative cost in a world trading context, and the proposed US legislation is way behind that already in place elsewhere, China etc. excepted. If more countries fall into line, competitiveness is not skewed. On the other hand, what the absence of such legislation has lost for USA is, to name some: the decimation of the auto industry living under a self-delusional umbrella and eventually falling behind; growth potential in the energy saving industries - I had double-glazed windows since the 1960s and today triple-glazing is mandatory; traditional light bulbs will be prohibited in two years' time, and so forth; this in a climate much milder than the entire northern third of USA. As a result, homes are more comfortable, demand for mechanical heating/air condition has dropped markedly, energy production can be diverted for more productive manufacturing purposes. I should think nobody needs a lecture about this.

Every time changes in production appear, howls go out over the cost, and how many times has it not proven wrong? In national accounts what goes around tends to come around, so sporting figures like $9,6 trillion are artefacts.

I suppose this could be said simpler: Yes, let's keep on producing like we have in the old-fashioned way while others who already feel the pinch learn to modernize - we won't have to see the total bankruptcy of that strategy in our time - let the next generation worry.

[sailaway21]

Osmund dissembles...

We're not dumping carbon into the oceans. The oceans are doing their job of absorption and off-gassing as they've always done. Localized rises in temperature cause localized rises in CO2, not the inverse. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that much of what we have seen over the past decade is nothing more than the normal cyclical variations between El Nino and La Nina effects. Change you can believe in is what the earth does normally.

All the evidenc shows that the earth is a vastly resilient eco-system. It has to be given nature's propensity to incite uncontrollable wildfires, typhoons, and tsunami. There is probably no better example of this than the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa, in the Sunda Strait, in 1883. Heard over a thousand miles away it deposited volcanic ash as far away as the United States. It reportedly blew five cubic miles of volcanic ash into the atmosphere and caused a rise in global temperatures of over one degree Celsius. (I'm omitting reference to the other effects it had.) Yet within five years atmospheric temperatures had returned to normal. And nature does these things all the time; she funny like that.

The point being that nature is very resilient, not the least at absorbing her own manufactured catastrophes. And there is little, if any evidence, that man can compete with her in the altering of our world. Our thinking that we are having that large an impact globally is just hubris. We're not that important.

Your understanding of the American auto industry appears limited at best. The entire world automotive industry strives to produce just the types of vehicles that the American auto industry produces. They have this odd idea that they'd like sell vehicles at a profit within North America. Since no one either drives as much, or needs to, than Americans this makes some sense. And a cursory examination of the mix of vehicles sold will reveal that the profit made by the imports, and the transplants, is in just those vehicles our European betters decry. M-B bought Chrysler for an entre into the truck and SUV market. Toyota has yet to earn a dime on the Prius and wouldn't have been able to develop it if they hadn't been making pick up trucks and SUV's at high profit margins. Of course you can fund a socialist state with high gas taxes, if your citizenry does not have to drive very much. What makes sense for Europe does not necessarily make sense for the US. What has hurt the US auto industry is not gas-guzzling product as much as it is a poor business model. In Europe the State takes care of the retirees, in the US the auto industry is burdened with huge legacy costs due to past labor agreements regarding pensions that no longer fit the world we live in. "Self-delusional umbrella"? Show me the Euro car that can compete with the Chevy Corvette that does not cost twice what the Chevy does. Show me a minivan made in Europe that can compete with the Chrysler Town & Country. Oops, that's not fair, you guys don't need minivans; you don't have kids.

No, we don't need a lecture about triple pane windows, nor mercury-laden light bulbs. Of course, you're aware that actaul energy consumption increases when those household improvements are made, are you not? Yeah, all the studies show that when people buy a car that get's better gas mileage, they drive more. When they install more efficient light bulbs, they worry less about turning them out. It's human nature.

Human nature. You knew we'd get around to the market and the animal impulses of human nature, didn't you? I drive a fuel efficient car, while my pick up sits in the driveway awaiting use that only it can provide. I've got some of those toxic bulbs in places where I don't need to see real well, and I sure try not to break them. (Of course, when the EPA decides that the mercury from them is a threat to our landfills and we've got to spend a trillion dollars or so removing the mercury from landfills; I'll deny ever owning one!) And I've got a ton of insulation in my attic too! I did all that base upon market incentives. I've got this quaint notion that if I spend less on energy I can afford a boat.

The part that seems to appeal to you is the State imposition of standards and practices, all of which the market can do better. Little wonder that you'd be willing to go charging off half-cocked on a solution to a problem that most of the world is now coming to realize doesn't exist. Because, in the end, while nothing may be achieved in improving the environment, the power of the State will be enhanced immeasurably. And that's good, right?

Speaking of spurious. Your entire argument regarding relative world costs is itself spurious. One of the signal accomplishments of the market is to continuously compare relative costs. There will always be a difference; the socialist dream of making everything uniformly equal is a pipe dream never to be realized. All the ships used to be built in the US and Europe, then Japan, then Korea, and now it's shifting again to India; all over the last forty years.

For everyone in this world there is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for every action, with the exception of the State. That's fine when you're putting together something like the US Navy. It's not such a bright idea when you're considering severely retarding the US economy, perhaps devastating it, in pursuit of a chimera.

Just for the record, how's that Kyoto thing working out for ya? I see that Norway's emissions have increased by 12%, the US emissions by 16%, and Canada's by 22%; the former and the latter being signatories. I won't even get into the scam that is EU participation; including a heavily polluting eastern Europe in the baseline 1990 standard made the EU look far better than it actually is just by modernization of factories in eastern Europe. Oh, and transport associated emissions grew by 32% from 1990 to 2004 in the EU...seems those fuel efficient cars must be getting drive more, eh? Odd thing that.

[ssneade]

Back in February, the White House passed its stimulus plan with the promise of tax breaks for people who purchase electric cars. However, the latest study from the Government Accountability Office says that electric cars will not by itself decrease any greenhouse gas emissions.

The reason is obvious ... it takes power to plug-in and charge an electric vehicle, and where does much of our country get its power? Coal. The study shows that "if plug-in hybrids reached 56 percent of the cars on the road by 2030, they would require an increased electricity production, much of which would likely come from additional coal plants."

Actually ... they have it wrong. Any ObamaBot can tell you that the power to charge up the batteries in electric cars will come from those windmills the government is going to put on the roof of your houses. If you have houses.....

[ssneade]

California is in big budget trouble budget wise. It may run out of money by July 28th. So when in doubt, propose new taxes. This time, California regulators want to impose a statewide carbon fee. The fee would be paid on utilities, oil refineries and other industries that produce pollution. Naturally, this would raise millions of dollars for the state, but it says the money would go toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming.

It's a scam, folks. It's not about the environment .. it's about money and power. Hey .. how about you folks stop all that spending on illegal aliens in California? That would be a start.

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Osmund dissembles...Speaking of spurious. Your entire argument regarding relative world costs is itself spurious.

Sailaway, so much sarcasm... I'll hopefully get to your other points, but first:

Now, let me see… Running cars that consume more fuel is good for the economy?
It means building more fuel depots, freighting more fuel across the country, more gas stations, more work time lost refueling, greater volumes arriving by ship, more dependence on foreign sources, less investment in alternatives: cycle paths (not my own hobby horse, but I mention it), and public transport. At the same time, encouraged car use leads to more land used for car parks, roads, traffic systems and in the final analysis, traffic police. There is more, when you begin to add it up. I shouldn’t be so bold as to hint that excessive car use facilitates obesity, but… isn’t that a giant boost to productivity?

This enormous infrastructure, then, is more efficient economics? It reminds me of a famous quote from economics: GNP is measured as the sum total of “invoices” in an economy. There is no evaluation of “benefit” or what was produced – charge a dollar extra for a haircut and GNP goes up by that amount. Thus, in a year when India suffered its worst hunger crisis and grain was shipped in from overseas, and then trucked to the starving across the country, Indian GNP rose. All those trucks, fuel and truckies’ wages grew the money figure and pointed to great strides. Is that how we want USA to count its progress?