Climate Change Consensus?

[Mitch Cronin]

I could not agree more that carbon credit trading is a scam, just wish I had thought of it.

Amen to that!

I'll plant a tree for every hundred dollars you give me too!

[Guest rattler]

I agree with everything you said up until here.

What frustrates me somewhat about the Co2 debate is the politicizing of it and the atitude that "NO DAVID SUZOOOKEEE IS GONNA TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!"

There should be an honest debate about this however I think it gets couched within viewpoints that ultimately are more reflective of a person's personal politics rather than an honest question about the science.

I am not saying this is always the case but it seems prevelent to me.

I could not agree more that carbon credit trading is a scam, just wish I had thought of it.

Of course comparing people who were burned at the stake for defying the church to those who question Co2 as a contributor to global climate change may be a bit of a stretch

Who ever said anything about "burning at the stake"? The most common punishment was penance and of course being cast out from the church. Weren't most of the early settlers to North America doing so because of their disagreement with the most commonly accepted Dogma in Europe?

[Moon The Loon]

Amen to that!

I'll plant a tree for every hundred dollars you give me too! 

Weren't we s'posed to shoot you if you posted in this thread again???

BTW, simple end to most of CO2 emissions. Eradicate the nearly 7 billion humans who expire it up to 10 times a minute.

[chockalicious]

Who ever said anything about "burning at the stake"? The most common punishment was penance and of course being cast out from the church. Weren't most of the early settlers to North America doing so because of their disagreement with the most commonly accepted Dogma in Europe?

I am going from memory here as it has been a few years since my History of Western Civ class at university and I don't want to satrt a googlefest of copying and pasting but...

People were burned at the stake during the middle ages fopr denying the church and being cast out of the church had the same effect as being banned from a community.

At a time when the church had an omnipotent role in society, you simply did not cross them for fear of reprisal.

I apologize for poking fun at what I thought was a silly comparison as maybe you do feel persecuted.

[Steam Driven]

"What frustrates me somewhat about the Co2 debate is the politicizing of it and the atitude that "NO DAVID SUZOOOKEEE IS GONNA TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!"

There should be an honest debate about this however I think it gets couched within viewpoints that ultimately are more reflective of a person's personal politics rather than an honest question about the science."

From an equally long thread from a while ago...

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from a can of diet coke or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in Burns Bog.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapour, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

CO2 is a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapour is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapour is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

There is not too much we can do about the dominant contributor of the green house effect - Water Vapour - the science that I've read and logic, tell me that reducing the .1 of 1% of CO2 that Man contributes will not change the way Nature intends to warm or cool this Planet.

We would be much better off spending the money, effort and resources on things we can change, such as pollution and emissions that affect air quality in a tangible manner.

[Mitch Cronin]

Weren't we s'posed to shoot you if you posted in this thread again???

DOH! ....no, "swat me in the noggin" was how I put it... Thanks, I'll do it myself.

...meanwhile... Steam... much of the stuff you and woxof post seems to come from, and quote the same sources... such as Lindzen... whose comments have been shot down by larger bodies of learned folks than we can assemble here.

* Lindzen calls himself an "independent scientist" and consults for the fossil fuel industry at a rate of US $2500 a day (Sharon Beder, Corporate Hijacking of the Greenhouse Debate, The Ecologist, March/April 1999, pp. 119-122.)

(again, from this link: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs...-myths.html#cc2 )

...and who is this "one source" that say's Lindzen is “the most renowned climatologist in all the world"?

Here's something I just now found in response to his piece in Newsweek ... (from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...en-in-newsweek/ )

As part of a much larger discussion on Learning to live with Global Warming in Newsweek recently, the editors gave some space for Richard Lindzen to give his standard ‘it’s no big deal’ opinion. While we disagree, we have no beef with serious discussions of the costs and benefits of various courses of action and on the need for adaption to the climate change that is already locked in.

However, Lindzen’s piece is not a serious discussion.

Instead, it is a series of strawman arguments, red-herrings and out and out errors.

Lindzen claims that because we don’t know what the ideal temperature of the planet should be, we shouldn’t be concerned about global warming. But concern about human-driven climate change is not because this is the most perfect of possible worlds – it is because, whatever it’s imperfections, it is the world that society is imperfectly adapted to. Lindzen is well aware that predictions of weather are different from climate predictions (the statistics of weather), yet cheerfully uses popular conflation of the two issues to confuse his readers.

[...]

Finally, we find it curious that Lindzen chose to include this very lawyerly disclaimer at the end of the piece:

[Lindzen's] research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Richard, one thinks thou dost protest too much! A casual reader would be led to infer that Lindzen has received no industry money for his services. But that would be wrong. He has in fact received a pretty penny from industry. But this isn’t for research. Rather it is for his faithful advocacy of a fossil fuel industry-friendly point of view. So Lindzen’s claim is true, on a technicality. But while the reader is led to believe that there is no conflict of interest at work behind Lindzen’s writings, just the opposite is the case.

...and from this link (and any of you still with open minds might appreciate a read through of this page, as within the "comments" below, there are quite a number of learned remarks - and more links!)

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/rich...artland-denier/

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has just doubled its previous (2003) projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C. Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm. Human civilization as we know it could not survive such warming, such concentrations (see likely impacts here).

But there is one MIT professor who has remained blind to the remarkable strengthening of our understanding of climate science in the past 2 years — Richard Lindzen.

All in all, it seems to me that among the overwhelming majority of believable sources of information (which include all pertinent source data references) I can find, there is indeed agreement that human caused global warming is as real as rain.

[Steam Driven]

You seem to have a "hate" on for Mr. Lindzen...

Is it because he disagrees with your point of view? Never mind the man, what about his ideas? Why attack the messenger? How about the logic? .1 of 1% of C02 emissions?

Perhaps because he is outspoken, because he does not buy into the mainstream idea's on Global Warming, he may be a threat, some have set out to discredit the Man because they can not attack his logic or ideas?

The internet is a minefield of information... I can find as many "learned" sources that hold climate skeptics, including Dr. Lindzen, in high regard...

He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.[2] Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."

Source Watch

[Guest rattler]

Seems that $$$$ continue to be the final word on fxing things.

Murky target for B.C.'s 'great goal' of carbon neutrality

Plans to move toward energy efficiency are being placed on the back burner in many places

Victoria — From Friday's Globe and Mail

Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009 08:50PM EDT

.Educators and parents have been in a lather this week over funding cuts in B.C. schools for libraries, computers, hot lunches and sports teams. But spare a moment for the rotten old single-glazed windows at Ecole Marigold Elementary in Victoria.

Plans to upgrade to energy-efficient thermal windows were shelved after the province axed school maintenance grants, one of the little-lamented casualties of the back-to-basics budget tabled last week.

Never mind little kids shivering away in drafty classrooms – hey, these are tough times, they can put on a sweater.

But what about the “great goal” of a carbon-neutral government?

Education boards and health authorities are learning to do without as a result of last week's lean budget, and many of the nice-to-haves that are going out the window like so many tonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions are the projects designed to reduce the carbon footprint of B.C.'s schools and hospitals.

The projects were proudly laid out in a government report from LiveSmartBC in June called Getting to Carbon Neutral.

“By 2010, everyone in B.C. who attends school, visits a government office or goes to the hospital will know they are in a carbon neutral facility,” the report proclaimed.

The commitment applies to all provincial public-sector operations, including government ministries and agencies, schools, colleges, universities, health authorities and Crown corporations.

Each agency – more than 150 of them – was required to submit detailed plans for meeting their targets. Most intended to rely on funds that are now gone. “The board is actively upgrading heating plants and heating controls through its annual facilities grant,” one school board's submission states.

While the ink was drying on the report, Treasury Board staff would have been approving budget cuts to LiveSmartBC as just one of the frills that the province can't afford any more.

Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid said this week it's a question of priorities, and unless that aging boiler that's hissing and dripping in the school basement is posing an imminent safety threat, it will have to rumble along for another year or two.

[Guest woxof]

The face of the climate change scam of the century reveals itself......The U.N. says 500-600 billion dollars annually is needed to go to developing countries(China says 1 trillion dollars is needed annually) from taxpayers like you and me in the developed world.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1977543

That is according to this article....3-4,000 dollars a year annually in taxes for each family in the industrialized world. Meanwhile China will spend nothing to help. After all...they have aircraft carriers to build. What a joke. Think about it when you vote.

[Guest woxof]

UN climate fantasies

Industrialized nations already send about $21-billion in environmental aid to developing nations each year, most of it destined for clean air and water projects. But that is a trifle of what is needed, according to a United Nations body. Last week, the World Economic and Social Survey (UNWESS) concluded that between US$500-billion and US$600-billion -- more than 20 times current aid levels -- will be required annually if developed nations are to cut their greenhouse emissions without slowing their economies.

That figure is absurd and more proof that world climate talks aimed at reaching a successor agreement to the Kyoto accords are as much or more about wealth redistribution from the world's richest nations to everyone else than they are about the environment.

The United Nations hopes to conclude a new world climate treaty in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. But in negotiations for this new accord, the environment and climate change have moved to the back seat. Representatives from emerging economies

have insisted for the past six months or more that their economies must be protected from any downturns caused by reducing their emissions of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases. And China, India and other developing nations such as Brazil and Indonesia insist that since most of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by industrialized nations while they were making themselves rich, it should be industrialized nations that foot the half-a-trillion dollar annual bill.

China's government estimated that even more would be needed, perhaps as much as a trillion dollars a year. Last week, central government economists in Beijing concluded it would cost US$438-billion per year by 2030 for China to even come close to meeting projected UN emission targets. That would be about 7.5% of China's GDP in 20 years, an astronomical sum. And China's government made it clear it had no intentions of footing that bill itself, either through higher taxes or in jobs cut.

While its economy has been growing by 10% or more a year for the past decade, China's emissions have been growing by at least 12% annually, very likely more. The country is opening an average of one coal-fired electrical plant each week. Even with over $400-billion in ecoaid within two decades, China is likely to be able to cut its emissions growth to only 3.4% annually, not the 0.8% to 1.0% wanted by the UN.

All this money could be sent to China by Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, France, Germany and other industrialized countries, at great economic cost to each of them, and still China would not live up to the UN's standards.

Nonetheless, the UNWESS called on developed-world governments to get behind a climate "Marshall Plan," a reference to the massive aid and economic programs created by the Americans following the Second World War to help rebuild Europe's shattered economies. But even the Marshall Plan would pale in comparison to the UN's climate fantasies.

The world's wealthiest nations do not have that much money to throw around. The report's authors insist the number is achievable because it is "only" 1% of worldwide GDP. But to demand it from just a couple of dozen "rich" countries would mean an additional $3,000 to $4,000 dollars a year in taxes from each family in the industrialized world, a sum that would kill jobs and growth and lower the standard of living in those nations. (Funny, the UN is always concerned about keeping developing nations whole in all these discussions, but never bats an eye at plans that would devastate developed nations, likely because the world body believes the developed world's comfort is unfair.)

The unrealistic financial demands of emerging nations is the principal reason G20 finance ministers could not reach an environmental funding agreement last weekend in London and why both G20 leaders summiting in Pittsburgh later this month and UN climate representatives meeting in New York are unlikely to come to any agreements on costs.

There are almost no scientific discussions of note going on over the new Copenhagen accord. Money has become the dominant topic for the upcoming conference, which isn't surprising. The UN has never been as concerned about preventing global warming as it is about using the issue for social, political and economic ends.

[mrlupin]

Here's an interesting youtube video that touches on global warming,oil production and various different topics. It's moslty math but still worth watching.

[Hadji Ramjet]

What's so bad about wealth distribution? All of the federal parties support the concept to at least some extent on a national basis, why not expand that to an international basis?

Shot, over.

[Moon The Loon]

What's so bad about wealth distribution? All of the federal parties support the concept to at least some extent on a national basis, why not expand that to an international basis?

Shot, over.

Not one of your brightest contributions! Canadian equalization payments are a constitutional requirement. I don't know if any other country does this internally as do we.

People are finally realizing Kyoto was nothing but a commercial accord to limit the growth of the third world. As rich nations buy their credits, the poorer nations get the cash but would no longer be able to expand their industrial base using traditional means of power generation. The third world has caught on and seems to be fighting back using the UN as a tool now that the world media has "prepped" us all to the inevitability of climate change as created by humankind.

[RGT]

I don't think anyone has posted this yet.

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_...e_ice_loss.html

[Guest woxof]

So are we ready to pay 3-4000 per year per family to the likes of China and India in our attempt to stop this? The numbers may not be exact(maybe only half this amount) but we are now getting down to the nitty gritty of what it is going to cost us to pay the likes of China(which can't afford to cut their own CO2 but can afford a massive military increase). More like a subsidy to promote the rise of a new global superpower in my opinion.

IFG, Mitch, Don, Chock? How much per year is reasonable per family?

Let the silence(or dancing around the issue) begin.

Woxof....getting to the end result.

[Canus Chinookus]

More like a subsidy to promote the rise of a new global superpower in my opinion.

If you were China, wouldn't you try the same gambit? Smart on their part.

[Moon The Loon]

Smart on their part.

And you start by buying up as much North American business and real estate as possible to give you the political voice to make environmental policy.

I wonder if Al Gore speaks Mandarin yet

[Mitch Cronin]

Let the silence(or dancing around the issue) begin.

Woxof, I suspect the silence you hear may have more to do with the notion that some people see little point in engaging in dialogue with closed minds.

[Moon The Loon]

Woxof, I suspect the silence you hear may have more to do with the notion that some people see little point in engaging in dialogue with closed minds.

Zzzzzziiiinnnnnnggggggggggg!

[chockalicious]

So are we ready to pay 3-4000 per year per family to the likes of China and India in our attempt to stop this? The numbers may not be exact(maybe only half this amount) but we are now getting down to the nitty gritty of what it is going to cost us to pay the likes of China(which can't afford to cut their own CO2 but can afford a massive military increase). More like a subsidy to promote the rise of a new global superpower in my opinion.

IFG, Mitch, Don, Chock? How much per year is reasonable per family?

Let the silence(or dancing around the issue) begin.

Woxof....getting to the end result.

Well since you asked...

Your inability to see anything except in black and white terms once again shows thru.

There is a difference between thinking that something should be done to help the environment and sending money to China. Do you approach everything as an all or nothing proposition, hell, on this thread I said I thought Carbon credits were a scam yet nuance and seeing both sides of an issue seems to escape you.

I thought Kyoto was a bad proposition from the beginning.

Chockalicious...amused at the myopia.

[Guest woxof]

Woxof, I suspect the silence you hear may have more to do with the notion that some people see little point in engaging in dialogue with closed minds.

Hmmm, lets see......

Once again from Mitch, a personal insult against me with no intelligent response included. This is a recurring theme as seen on this thread here several months ago on a different subject, I mentioned about the animosity that runs high in Poland and Finland against the Russians and I was accused of promoting hatred by this same person. When I pasted the results of a poll on that thread confirming my factual statements, there was, as expected, no further response.

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtopic=387267&st=0

I suspect there will be a lack of similar response here(as previously predicted and so far confirmed) unless being accused of Myopia is a quality response to a hugely important question. But I will ask again a perfectly reasonable question now that the U.N. has made its statement about the trillions that we, the industrialized world are expected to send to the industrializing world. There is a large conference with our world leaders in Copenhagen starting this month on this exact subject.

That is......Approximately how much do you feel per year should that the average Canadian household should be sending to industrializing nations to reduce their greenhouse gas output? Or just answer in total dollars per year from Canada if you prefer. The math can be done later.

Woxof....Fortunately, I am above returning the childish insults.

[chockalicious]

Woxof

I offer this in sincerity.

Dredging up an 9 month old thread as proof of some slight, perceived or otherwise, does not really serve you terribly well.

Mitch does not need me to defend him but I don't think I would be wrong if I said that he is generally perceived to be a good guy around these parts. While most of us post behind anonymous handles, he, like a few others, post under their own names and have a generally open way of talking to people on here, even those they disagree with. On a side note it seems that most who post under their own name share the same traits.

Your positioning of the need to know what a person is willing to send to China is a non sequiter. One can support the need to look after the climate change without having to give a thought to what an agency in the UN has said what we should do.

I don't really know what you are trying to prove but it seems like you are off on a mission without a goal.

[Mitch Cronin]

Woxof, like I said elsewhere, I believe in calling a spade a spade. On this subject you've clearly (in my view) demonstrated a closed mind. If you choose to call that an insult, that's your perogative.

...and thanks Chock.

[Guest woxof]

Woxof

I offer this in sincerity.

Dredging up an 9 month old thread as proof of some slight, perceived or otherwise, does not really serve you terribly well.

Mitch does not need me to defend him but I don't think I would be wrong if I said that he is generally perceived to be a good guy around these parts. While most of us post behind anonymous handles, he, like a few others, post under their own names and have a generally open way of talking to people on here, even those they disagree with. On a side note it seems that most who post under their own name share the same traits.

Your positioning of the need to know what a person is willing to send to China is a non sequiter. One can support the need to look after the climate change without having to give a thought to what an agency in the UN has said what we should do.

I don't really know what you are trying to prove but it seems like you are off on a mission without a goal.

A) My point has been clearly made that when he seems to be unable to make reasonable arguments, childish insults result. I have had my disagreements with Don Hudson on this board as well. I suggest that his role model in terms of behaviour is much more palatable.

In terms of the main thrust of my argument, once again, The U.N. now wants us(industrialized world) to pay trillions to the developing world in an attempt to slow global warming. This will have a big influence at the Copenhagen meeting in my opinion. Do you at least support this or am I correct in my earlier prediction of nobody in the man-made global warming camp will answer the bottom line questions.

I strongly suggest to all AEF'ers and voters to watch the replies to my questions closely on this thread. The bottom line is that questions about large amounts of your money are being responded to by statements like "you are off on a mission without a goal", "closed-minded" and "myopia". And of course....not even close to a direct answer.

How much should Canadians pay to the industrializing world to slow man-made global warming?

[Mitch Cronin]

Now you're acting like an ass. ...and yes, you can quote me on that as often as you like. Whether or not we believe that man has indeed influenced global warming has absolutely nothing to do with politics, or whether or not we believe sending money to China (and how much) is right or wrong.