Isn't carbon dioxide used by trees and other plant life to produce much
needed oxygen. Just wondering why we fear it so much since it is actually part
of the chain that sustains us all.
@procuradorfiscal – “radical liberal greenies… They're
perfectly willing to destroy economies.”That’s a fair
point (giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not just another
Limbaugh inspired red herring).So here’s an idea –
let’s not let the “radical liberal greenies” make policy on
this issue. Why not turn to the same conservative think tanks that gave us cap
& trade (which worked brilliantly for acid rain) or other market based
approaches that would be at worst economically neutral?Would you be
on board then? Most scientists think that in 100 years (assuming we
make it that far) the Sun will be our primary source of energy and will be
perhaps the greatest economic boon the world has ever seen. Why not
do a bunch of things today that we should be doing anyway – things like
researching the technology that could shrink that 100 year time-line down a few
decades, promoting energy efficiency, becoming more energy independent (with the
huge added benefit of reducing the influence of petro-oligarchs and countries
that don’t like us), reducing pollution in general, etc…
Science and politics are too mixed up in this whole debate. Both sides have
been "bunked" and "de-bunked". Rush and Glenns scientists might
be just as correct as Al Gores. What I want are scientists who agree that 2+2
equals 4 regardless of politics. Until then, you can drive your green electric,
and I'll live a 12 MPG life.
Re: ". . . are you willing to take the risks with the only home we have
understanding that the risks could be anywhere from benign to
catastrophic?"There's the nub of the problem -- radical
liberal greenies are completely unwilling to consider the risks on the other
side. They're perfectly willing to destroy economies [which would be
devastating to nearly all environmental programs], waste resources, and limit
freedoms, with not the first thought for even first-order effects, let alone
second and third-order catastrophes.
@jsf – “All the efforts to control, and the only hype is the
temperature is going up, we have to stop it, implies theorists must have a
temperature they are trying to lock into.”This is a false
argument…What scientists are really arguing against is
non-natural changes in climate (i.e., AGW) that occur relatively fast in terms
of geologic time. And especially damaging is when these changes are driven by
sustained and ever growing actions, which is quite different that the one-off
anomalies (e.g., volcanos, meteors, etc…) that have sometimes driven
climate fluctuations in the past. For me, it comes down to two
things – Do you trust God/Nature to regulate the climate by
natural means or do you trust that man can do anything to upset this balance
without consequence (and 97% of climate scientists assert we are upsetting the
balancing at a growing rate)? If you think the later, are you
willing to take the risks with the only home we have understanding that the
risks could be anywhere from benign to catastrophic?
Just a temperature please? And why the temperature is the right one? Species
extinctions, rising sea levels are not arguments to support a temperature.
Extinctions have been going on for millions of years, sea levels have risen and
subsided for millions of years, temperatures have risen and fallen for millions
of years. With the increase of CO2, arid regions in the world have had a 11%
increase in greening, implying increases in temperature and CO2 is beneficial.
So if you want to presume to be God and control the earth, what temperature?
All the efforts to control, and the only hype is the temperature is going up, we
have to stop it, implies theorists must have a temperature they are trying to
lock into. The IPPC chairman said, the only reason for the Carbon Tax is wealth
redistribution. That means politicians and their cronies get really rich and
the poor get really poor. This is the third time posting with the question,
"what is the correct temperature and why?" Surely, with 99% on board
they know the correct temperature to lock into. What is it?
Re: "Deniers say why should we be first to pay a realistic cost for using
fossil fuels . . . ."Thanks for making my point! Untold billions
flushed down that giant "green" toilet. To what effect?Are
atmospheric carbon levels retreating? No.And, even if they did, has
anyone ever demonstrated to any meaningful level of certainty that it would have
any effect on global climate? No.But, there have been effects.
Progress on feeding hungry children has slowed significantly since 2008.The best indicator of global child-nutrition levels is the state of the
global economy. And, since, one of the most potent economy killers is
high-priced energy, how many of the 2.6 million children that died of
nutrition-related causes last year could have been saved if deranged
energy-related taxation were not such a huge anchor, preventing economic growth?
Of if those untold billions had been properly directed to those most in need?The original article's author would do well to look to his
Hippocratic Oath -- "first, do no harm."
"Scientists such as James Hansen should be ignored, because they practice
climate alarmism, not science."Well that's a smear on James
Hansen's character. Do you have anything at all to back it up? I mean other
then because Glenn Beck or Limbaugh told you?
@Ernest T. BassFacts:1- During previous ice ages,
CO2 levels were between 4000 and 8000 ppm; far above Al Gore’s histrionic
400 ppm levels. Despite bullying to the contrary, there is no clear cut
correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. 2- Humans are
emitting huge amounts of gunk into the air that should be cleaned up, but carbon
dioxide is NOT a poison any more than water is: particulates and carbon monoxide
are more immediately dangerous. 3- Science is all about questioning: those
who claim that anyone who questions unyielding politically correct dogma can
only do so because they listen to “hate radio”, immediately lose
credibility.One possible conclusion: Global warming fundamentalists
are not very scientific @Tyler D I agree
that we should all do our best to keep the environment clean. However; to use
your own terminology: I am tired of the usual players spouting the same old
talking points, half-truths, and even bold face lies promoting over-the-top
hysteria; since evidence that contradicts fundamentalist scare tactics and
bullying is out there for anyone with an inquiring mind to easily see. NOT
questioning is inherently anti-scientific.
@Allisdair - not everyone is in it simply to assert a political position.
Comparing Dr. James Hansen's adjustment of data with Dr. John
Christy's careful handling of satellite data, it's not difficult to
prefer the latter. Dr. Gavin Schmidt's refusal to debate - or even share
the stage with - Dr. Roy Spencer, inclines one to believe the latter is acting
as a scientist might be expected to act, while the former is not. Comparing Dr.
Richard Lindzen's credentials with those of Dr. Michael Mann, it is another
easy choice. And look at the spokesmodels for the two sides - it's much
easier to side with Christopher Monckton, who can do the math, carry on an
intelligent conversation, and welcomes debate, as opposed to Al Gore, who
won't allow the press into his speeches, can't do the math, lives a
high-carbon lifestyle, and is the only one in the entire landscape who actually
has significant ties to and has received Big Money from Big Oil.And
since nobody has successfully correlated temperature to CO2 in the empirical
data, it's pretty obvious that CO2 isn't a problem.
No, it’s not an urgent issue. It’s foolish to divert large amounts
of finite resources to attack a bogeyman (man-made global warming/climate
change) that is a dubious theory at best. Scientists such as James Hansen
should be ignored, because they practice climate alarmism, not science.
What is funny is every few days out comes another editorial, then deniers and
supporters man the trenches for the normal exchange of fire. No territory
gained as the deniers trot out the normal half truths.David Folland
recommended a Carbon Tax to charge users for the hidden costs of burning Fossil
Fuels just like a “Toll Way”. Deniers say why should we be first
to pay a realistic cost for using fossil fuels forgetting: - CHINA
seven key cities and provinces introduce a Carbon Tax from 2013, covering
250,000,000 people, nation-wide after 2015CANADA, Quebec and British
Columbia have existing carbon taxesINDIA, tax on coal since July
2010SOUTH KOREA, emissions trading scheme from January 2015JAPAN October 2012 introduced a carbon taxEUROPE - emissions
trading scheme began in 2005 covering 27 countries. Denmark, Finland, Ireland,
the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK have carbon
taxesIRELAND A tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010COSTA RICA, enacted a tax on carbon pollution 1997SOUTH AFRICA is
planning to introduce a carbon tax from 2013AUSTRALIA introduced a
Carbon Tax in 2012NEW ZEALAND set up an emissions trading scheme in
I am glad the good doctor has retired from practice, otherwise he might think
that charging more would lead to less sick people coming in to see him and he
could then claim to have cured them.Raising taxes to turn down the
heat, I disagree. Is it getting warmer? Possibly. If weather
comes in cycles, as evidenced by ice ages and mammoths (large herbivores) found
in today's icy regions, maybe we are a blip on a large cycle.It
is foolish to tax people who want to stay warm, cook their food and have a job
directly or indirectly tied to energy consumption.Oh, did a rough
calculation a few days ago. I divided the estimated population of Earth into
area of Texas and if I am correct the density is roughly the same as New York
City.There is enough room, and food growing space if we would learn
to share and play nice with each other. Taxing the cold and hungry will get you
kicked out of the sandbox.
@FitzIf you go through the records and look at how many record highs were
set in the 2000s vs the number of record lows, you'd find that highs are
much more frequent.@Punk JonesCRU's dataset shows the
same warming trend since the satellite era began (late 70s) as NOAA, NASA, RSS,
and UAH (the latter is run in part by an anthropogenic climate change skeptic
and the latter two are satellite based datasets). "Studies show
that fluctuations of earth's temperature coincide directly with sun
activity"They've moved in opposite directions since the
early 80s.@procuradorfiscalThe change to using climate change
is not because of any halt to warming (the 2000s were .2F warmer than the 1990s)
but because the effects are more than just an increase in temperatures. There
are impacts on floods, droughts, sea level, ocean acidification, ice extent...
the term global warming didn't represent the comprehensive nature of the
PunkJones: Which studies? Can you give me a resource? What sun
activity, again do you know how the sun fluctuates? The sun has
been fairly stable for a long time. And our climate is much more complex than
just 'sun activity'?It's really easy to make these
right wing cut-and-paste simplistic arguments without having a clue to what they
mean. BTW there have been mass extinctions associated with climate change. See
the Permian extinction. There was a large increase in CO2 and then methane.
Temps rose by 10 degrees and nearly everything on earth died. It didn't
have anything to do with the sun
In the 25 years since James Hansen testified before Congress about global
warming, there were 9 years of warming followed by 16 years with no warming -
not exactly as compelling a case as Dr. Hansen might have liked. Quite simply,
there is no correlation between the industrial-age increase in atmospheric CO2
and global temperature.When former Australian PM Kevin Rudd objected
to Patrick Michaels' assessment that the former's global warming
stance had resulted in his electoral loss, he complained: "Well, what should
I have done? My scientists, I say, my scientists, told me this is an important
problem." To which Patrick Michaels replied, "Your scientists said
exactly what you paid them to tell you."Global warming alarmism
is the not-so-surprising result of Big Government funding Big Science. Unless
and until that conflict of interest is removed, we cannot expect to get much
untainted science from our government-funded scientists. We are fortunate that
there are quite a few scientists with sufficient integrity and intelligence that
they are still capable of doing accurate scientific research. (Of course, they
struggle due to lack of funding.) We may not be so lucky in the future.
Hansen's prognostications have proven to be alarmist and dangerously
obstructive to the poor in developing countries and their access to affordable
energy. Hansen and his friends at U. of East Anglia have led the global warming
argument for more than two decades (with Al Gore). The email scandal a couple
of years ago should serve as a reminder that they will not only bend science to
make a profit, but will also make stuff up and conspire with one another to hide
it. And in case you missed it, Hansen's hockey stick graphic in the movie
was also proven false. So excuse me for not worshiping at the altar of Mr.
Hansen.Studies show that fluctuations of earth's temperature
coincide directly with sun activity--not CO2 levels. Rises and falls in
temperature have occurred throughout our planets history long before the fossil
fuels industry. So, using logic, what affected temperatures. Is it a miniscule
rise in CO2 levels (which is less than 2 percent of all greenhouse gasses), or
could it be the big ball of fire in the sky that generates heat for our entire
solar system? You be the judge.
Re: "What a revealing statement."Aren't you kind!I mean comments to be revealing. Unlike liberals, who love to hide their
real ideas behind misleading sloganeering -- like calling it
"pro-choice" to remove all choice, forever, from an unborn baby. Or
"safe sex" to engage in dangerous, soul-destroying behaviors.Or to do a quick switcheroo to "climate change," when foundational AGW
models and predictions prove to be monumentally, laughably wrong.Any
scientist, of any stripe, who maintains that a deranged new America-only tax
scam, one that'll increase the cost to Americans of EVERY product and
commodity, will somehow "solve" the AGW "problem" is not just
mistaken, he's selling something.It simply cannot be
demonstrated, to any meaningful confidence level, that ANY American action would
produce ANY retreat in atmospheric carbon levels, or that ANY such retreat would
produce ANY effect on global climate.That won't stop
doctrinaire political hacks and "greenies" posing as scientists from
bleating about hope and change.But, it ought to give us pause.
RE: TruthseekerDid I claim temperatures were not rising? You also
forgot the part in the article saying scientist have no clue why temperatures
are leveled off against a drastic rise in CO2. In all the reading
what is the temperature suppose to be at? In all the AGW studies, you have read
what is the earths balanced temperature suppose to be? And why?
Isn't it interesting that he points to heat waves like we have now. The
temperature yesterday tied a record high for June 10 at 100 degrees. The date
that it tied with as in 1918, nearly a century ago. These "heat waves"
aren't new, the claim that the sky is falling and the earth will no longer
sustain us, is also not new. But, like all the previous claims, the changes in
the climate will not be the end of civilization as we know it.
I am all for quoting the AGU. Here are a few:Human responsibility
for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the
last half century is well established.ANDThe
Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
components of the climate system . . . are now changing at rates and in patterns
that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric
abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during
the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by
about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.ANDThe geological record indicates that the current rates of sea-level rise
in many regions are unprecedented relative to rates of the last several thousand
years.Sea-level rise will exacerbate the impacts of extreme events,
such as hurricanes and storms, over the long-term.
Re:JsfThe NY Times part you left out:"As you might
imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this
warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15
years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves
the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.Rarely do
they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have
occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the
starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a
particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make
the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds
into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully
enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up
for a decade or longer."
Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener31 May 2013AGU
Release No. 13-24WASHINGTON, DC…a study of arid regions around
the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has,
indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.…given the 14
percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The
satellite data shows an 11 percent increase in foliage. New York
Times reports, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been
markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And
that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in
the atmosphere at a record pace." 1- Carbon dioxide emissions
(should) cause the atmosphere to warm up.2- Humans are emitting huge
amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (at a record pace) But
apparently CO2 is not the driving force and is not bad in and of itself. The
AGU reports include the south western US, like Utah and Arizona, we are on
average 11% greener than 15 years ago. How bad is that. And again why is a
warmer temperature bad?
Facts:1- Carbon dioxide emissions cause the atmosphere to warm up.2-
Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.3-
Global warming is a myth because hate radio tells me it is.Only
possible conclusion: Global warming is a myth.
"A promising bill to reduce greenhouse gasses was halted in the
Senate...."If you're waiting for Congress to solve your
problem... I wouldn't hold your breath. They take forever to do ANYTHING,
and usually find a way to make it WORSE.Congress can't help you
unless there's bipartisan agreement that what you want to do will benefit
everybody (which means "Votes" to them)... Till then they won't do
anything.Truth is... Congress can't solve Global Warming.
Name the bill that IF passed would solve Global Warming.If you want
to solve the problem you need to convince the PEOPLE that what you want is
needed (Not Congress). The people need to support you. Bottom_up works.
Top_down doesn't. When you go straight to Congress and insiste they give
you a law that will FORCE people to live your way... and skip convincing the
people first... it fails. Congress can't force people to
change lifestyle. Congress reports to the people and does what they want (most
of the time). Because if they don't... we'll vote them out.I think you should convince the public first and let THEM pressure Congress.
Nuclear power must be part of the solution. Only form of base power that
isn't dependent upon mother nature.
@procuradorfiscal"ALL honest experts agree."What a
revealing statement. You won't even accept the idea that people could
disagree and just merely be wrong. Nah it's straight to the conspiracy
theories for you. Besides, we did cap and trade with acid rain
producing/enhancing compounds and that went quite well so it's not like
there isn't evidence this kind of thing can work.
New York TimesBy JUSTIN GILLISPublished: June 10, 2013 The
rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last
15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred
even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.
But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the
practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going
on. They (the practitioners of climate science) admit that they do not, even
though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The
situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some
of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space
and from deep in the ocean. In the mean time will an AGW adherent
please tell us what is the correct earth temperature we are going to hold at?
I hope people don't think we can whistle past the grave yard on this.
There is no doubt we are putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere.
Wherever the laws of Physics is taking us, thither we will go.
Is this editorial the position of the Deseret News? At any rate,
there is a reason why "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate
Change". There was no global warming that could be considered a problem.
Obama's stated goal to tackle climate change is nothing more
than a redistribution of wealth. I imagine it wouldn't hurt him much
either, he and his cronies, who stand to makemoney in the buying and
selling of carbon credits! Affordable clean energy is a myth still.
You need look no further than the California company who just recently found
their solar panels failing after 2 years when they expected them to last 25.
If this is the position of the Deseret News, it won't be long
before my family doesn't subscribe to their paper any more.
I think it's funny when a conservative calls anyone else
If you’re tired (or bored to tears in my case) of the usual players
spouting the same old talking points, half-truths, and even bold face lies, you
might instead enjoy playing “find the denier.”David
Brin’s article “Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers” is a good
resource to help hone your skills.Have fun...
Re: "A promising bill to reduce greenhouse gasses was halted in the
Senate."The bill was promising in only one respect -- it
promised to flush more and more resources down that giant AGW toilet, making
EVERYTHING in the world more expensive and unaffordable to its people, to no
salubrious effect.Would it have reduced global greenhouse gases? Not
at all. ALL honest experts agree.AGW alarmists demanding
ever-increasing percentages of people's wherewithal have yet to
meaningfully answer the question, "Why?"There's no
evidence, either that the deranged "green" spending they demand will
reduce greenhouse gases, or that that any reduction that may occur will have the
slightest effect on global climate.In the absence of such evidence,
new tax scams are not only unnecessary, but provide conclusive evidence that AGW
alarmists are dangerously unhinged and out of touch with real people.
I was thinking about Jerusalem, the climate changed a large city that had farms
into a desert. Who is to say that it won't change again to be farming crops
again. Every one on earth can all have space to live in the state of Texas. Zoom
out and think of the size of Texas and earth. Is there any thing that a pin head
can make a difference. or is it our ego that is larger than life. Who'll
stop the rain.
End political paralysis? It is too profitable to keep things as they are (at
least for some).The problem is we understand so little about
science.We see models change and improved and think "the old one
was totally wrong and this one could be too" when the lesson is the old one
was less precise than the new.We see a handful of scientists who
disagree and think "they are the mavericks who will be one day proven
right". Maybe. But overall science moves in a distributed fashion with
thousands of scientists making minor improvements each day. There are
relatively few instances of qualitative leaps by one great mind. Also,
predicting who is the great mind is awfully tough.We see that the
science is still developing and think "better to act when it is proven
fact". But science is ALWAYS developing and tinkering with the model (that
is its nature). So there is never a point of now we are done. Also,
"proven" in this sense will mean the negative effects are so strong that
countermanding them will be very tough. Finally, we just need to
divest ourselves of conspiracy theories. Wide ranging, multinational
conspiracies simply cannot work.
David Folland knows perfectly well that James Hansen's 1988 predictions
have proved to be laughably wrong. Hansen's team presented
three model scenarios, the "best case" of which claimed that if CO2
stopped increasing after 2000, we would only experience modest warming by now.
The actual measured temperature increase has been even less than this benign
prediction.There is no climate crisis. Real temperatures are
increasing at about the rate we would expect after the last ice age. We have
much more to fear from the next ice age than the modestly warming and greening
(from increased CO2) planet we are experiencing now.