Thread: Is the climate change debate realy over?

I don't see that as a problem either Mickj, providing it is done in a practical way and implimented when it is economically responsible to do so. I believe that further development of renewable rescources and clean energy technologies should be persued.

To attempt to force unsustainable or unworkable changes based on the theory of AGW alone will simply force errors and bad judgement, costing billions of dollars with no measured benefit.

Originally Posted by Mickj

I don't see how cutting CO2 emissions is impactical??

the rest i agree with btw

but its one thing for an individual, or part of an economy to cut its use and become more efficient, its another to cut year on year substantially the whole planets co2 output.

The major impediments been population growth and development for the already existing populations in the 3rd world.

look at a product like aluminium which uses massive amounts of energy to produce, such that the best place to put a plant is near the cheapest power you can find. If western countries move away from cheap power, then aluminium will need to be made elsewhere - afterall, we'll still need aluminium to make light transport, planes, and wind turbines etc. so where will the cheapest electricity come from - well either old nuclear plants that dont have to apply capital costs to their output - ie Russia, OR to coal rich developing nations who will burn coal by the bucketload to supply us with aluminium.

We lose the manufacturing industry, we produce less co2, but the net global output of co2 remains the same. very probably the co2 output will be more, as the coal will be burnt a little less effeiciently in a 3rd world nation.

the development of the worlds poor is the big issue - we have neither the power nor the right to stop it. so co2 output will stay the same or decline gradually at best - it will certainly not reverse the co2 levels in the atmostphere inside the next 200 years - so either way, we will have to deal with the outcome regardless - this is the point when many people say we have to act now and radically to stop it.

That leaves only 2 options - either make sure you can adapt to changes, in which case anthropogenic or not, makes no difference, OR we research and develop ways of modifying the climate should the warming be too great or have bad outcomes for crops etc - ie act on the basis of empirical information.

This series of posts originated from an article written in a NZ paper about climate change and supported the view that this was not a proven fact. The article referred to a paper delivered at a climate change conference and despite the odd post questioning the origin nothing has been brought forward.

At this point it should be made clear that the article was the result of the author’s attendance at the New York Climate Change Sceptics Conference, which was organised by the Phillip Morris friendly Heartland Institute and on its web site boasts a large number of sponsors, including the George C Marshall Institute. The speakers include US senator Marc Marano who has the dubious honour of receiving more political donations from U.S. oil companies than any other senator. It also includes marketers, theologians, economists but the closest it comes to a climate scientist is some bloke who studies hurricanes. The theologian pursues the idea of intelligent design over evolution and the marketer believes organically grown produce is bad for you because it doesn’t look nice; this is a pretty bright bunch. The most disturbing observation is that Exxon Mobil provides funding to not just the Heartland Institute and George C Marshall Institute but also the senator and either directly or through their employers most of the speakers and sponsors. A bit strange you might think and something Rod does not seem bothered about. It is also odd that a large number of journalists received sponsorship to attend and that those journalists in the main supported articles that suited the sceptics.

If balance is what you are after forget it, all the speakers are skeptics and paid to get up and spruke their views. Even the Czech prime minister made an appearance, well known for his outspoken views he is a bit of a John Howard type figure who although his views on climate are not held in high regard in his own country remains popular in the electorate. He has toned down his views a bit and as an economist by training is quite capable of amassing a bunch of statistics that mesmerize and confuse but his credentials on climate remain uninspiring.

The David Suzuki foundation has a rather nice article on skeptics that you can get off the net, and points out that the skeptics in general receive a lot of funding from the coal and oil industry that have learnt from the tactics of the tobacco industry to ensure any regulation on their behaviour will be a long time coming. Generally the funding will not go to any credible climate change scientist but to the half baked views of people in unrelated fields with the potential to confuse debate. In fact of the peer reviewed articles by the climate change fraternity the argument isn’t about the existence of climate change but the pace of it. The empirical evidence of CO2 build up has been proven in ice core samples in the artic and coincides with the industrialized age. Climate change is real; it is happening and has the potential to be very damaging. The problem in obtaining a set of figures that says this particular temperature increase is climate change and this piece is climatic is simply that the variables are so huge that the data is impossible to accumulate, but what is possible to say that on the balance of probability change is now of a size that climate change is a large part of the problem, and although a large part not 100% quantifiable.

Of greater interest the major funding provider of the organisations behind this event is Exxon Mobil who has given tens on millions to these right wing think tanks. Exxon was part of a group including Shell that disbanded in 2004 after most of the group excepted climate change as beyond reasonable doubt. Exxon has continued on with a policy of disinformation and confusion, helped along by paid individuals who gladly accept pieces of silver to peddle their lies.

An earlier post accused me of being shrill, don’t confuse contempt for shrillness, I do not consider a woodwork forum the place for the garbage that commenced this post, nor for the fools that post the rubbish that comes from the disinformation units aimed at slowing down the response to climate change. If you are going to post an article give some idea of the source and if you are asked who was there and who was involved don’t dodge the question, this is really an answer to that original post on who was behind the article. This is my final contribution to the thread, and for those interested the question is no longer if we have climate change but what are we going to do about it. Warmer temperatures may actually see Europe plunged into an ice age as the ocean currents to the west move southward as a result of the loss of the polar ice caps. It may also see Australia as a dry and inhospitable place, if you want to see how all this will evolve then do nothing and we might get to see it within our own life times.

John, I dont even think I will bother resonding to that post. Except to say this.

You just dont get it and never will your contempt for rational opinion is in fact your shrillness.

Good debating there Rod, attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.

Originally Posted by From The Article You Posted

Current temperature trends show a warm period between 1920 and 1940, followed by a cooling phase. There was a sudden warming surge from 1976 to 1978 and another in 1998. Since then the weather has been cooler. The year 1934 has emerged as the warmest of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Brian Angliss

DENIAL MYTH #10: There was a significant period of global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. This cooling period existed as anthropogenic CO₂ levels were rising significantly. If anthropogenic CO₂ is more important than natural drivers, then this cooling period would not exist, yet it does (Sources: produced by Rcronk in the comments to Eastern seaboard of the United States to be much hotter, but also made in the Wikipedia.org claims).
Debunking: That this cooling period existed and was global in scope is not disputable as the scope of the MWP is - scientists were directly monitoring temperatures globally by this point, and these three decades were cooler than the decades preceding them and dramatically cooler than recent decades. So what caused the cooling? First, there is a correlation between sunspots and solar irradiance (output) on the Earth. During this period, sunspots were less common and there was less solar energy reaching the Earth, allowing it to cool slightly. Second, there were several volcanic eruptions that released massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol that forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the high atmosphere and reflects solar energy back into space, so these two volcanic eruptions had some short- to medium-term effects. In addition, prior to the 1970s there were limited pollution controls, allowing pollutant aerosols to act as coolants via reflection of solar radiation. Ultimately, though, it is believed that sometime after 1970 the concentration of CO₂ rose to the point that solar forcing was no longer the dominant climate factor, anthropogenic CO₂ was. (Sources: Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, Swindled!)

Link

Originally Posted by From The Article You Posted

A key problem that scientists have discovered is that the computer model outputs produced by the IPCC are at odds with observable results: in particular a central feature of the IPCC’s case for catastrophic global warming is a forecasted build-up of warmer air above the tropics, yet temperature records show that this is not occurring.

Originally Posted by Brian Angliss

DENIAL MYTH #16: Global heating isn’t actually happening because satellite measurements of tropical temperatures have not been rising like directly-measured temperatures in the tropics (Source: distillation of multiple people’s claims at Wikipedia.org).
Debunking: The satellites used to measure tropical temperatures remotely were discovered to have been drifting in their orbit, producing temperature measurements that were not during the day as expected, but rather during the night, confusing the cooler evening and nighttime temperatures with warmer daytime temperatures. The paper this comes from is “The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature” by Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems. Unfortunately, there is not a .pdf of this document available that may be freely distributed. However, this was reported in U.S.A Today and Live Science, and if you search Google for “satellite balloon data error global warming” you’ll find a lot more.

Link

It appears you are the one who just doesn't get it. The climate change deniers come up with the same old arguments that have been thoroughly debunked.

The article you posted has no validity. It is complete and utter hogwash.

For those who are really interested in finding out about climate change, you should check out these links and the link I've posted above.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

Given that the world is going to heat up.

Given that no mater what we do, the rest of the developing word is going to increase its co2 output.

Given that when I grew up we all expected a nuclear winter due to dust and smoke in the atmosphere.

Why not use coal for all power but work out a way of pumping the ash into the upper atmosphere to act as a balance for the co2.

Thanks JohnC and Grunt. It's good to see people backing there arguments with facts and figures not just rhetoric.

The debate coninues eh! you say the information I posted is rubbish and I simply do not agree with what you are posting I have read realclimate.org at length and you say I attack the man!!!

I was attacking the lack of open mindedness in the way that you guys are so insistant that you are correct when there are ONLY models that have not been PROVEN to be correct.

This whole issue seems to bring out a lot of emotion that is why it is very important to view all the facts positive or negative to your personal views to make an opinion emotion free.

Maybe you could read this if you want some facts follow some of the links contained in the article, that will give you facts. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-ee9098538277

Maybe they come up with the same arguments because they are true. Whereas the AGW band wagon just keep trying to scare us all to death with dramatized hypothetical ramification AGW.

I ask you will you change your opinion if the global temperatures do not exceed those of 1998 in the next 10 years? Yet co2 will continue to rise over that period regardless of what action we take today. I know I will change mine if temperatures increase at a steady rate in the next 10 years in line with the models. I cant see that happening!

Why not use coal for all power but work out a way of pumping the ash into the upper atmosphere to act as a balance for the co2.

Because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you pump crap into the atmosphere it stops sun light, which will reduce the temperature. However, how many plants and animals are dependant on sunlight to do there thing?

Originally Posted by Grunt

Because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you pump crap into the atmosphere it stops sun light, which will reduce the temperature. However, how many plants and animals are dependent on sunlight to do there thing?

I said "balance" not block. Currently the amount of UV getting through is increasing so a reduction is in order.

Rod,

You over looked the poster was the very man that recieves more oil industry funding than any other US Senator see Posted By Marc Morano - 6:05 PM ET - [email protected] and this bloke was also a speaker at the conference.

Could you find something a little more independant perhaps. At the same time read your responses to those you agree with as opposed to those that disagree, you may not realise but you are totally closed to any idea that differs to your pre conceived idea of the facts. This is not a discussion but Rods view of climate change, period.

Originally Posted by DavidG

I said "balance" not block. Currently the amount of UV getting through is increasing so a reduction is in order.

David,

That's to do with Ozone levels not CO2, and I thought the hole was showing signs of finally repairing itself?

There is nothing in my post that attacked you in any way shape or form. I do not debate with using ad hominems.

I said the article that you posted was rubbish. It is full of inaccuracies. I've pointed two out.

That article you posted was written by Marc Morano. You should do a google search on that guy. Now there is a bloke with an agenda.

when there are ONLY models that have not been PROVEN to be correct.

You are absolutely right. We will NEVER know for absolute certainty of AGW. It is, however, the most likely scenario.

I am quite open minded about the subject. Post some real science and we can discuss.

May I ask for a certain amount of logic here?

Rod, if you poo in a bucket of clean water enough times, does it not get dirty?

Now you can still wash in it, make ice cubes if you wish, and pretend that it's still clean, but I have to tell you, it's not.

Questions for Rod:

Do you think any of the sceptics believe that oil or any other fossil fuel is a finite resource?

Do you think any of them believe that there is relatively little vegetation left on the planet?

Do you think any of their poo don't stink? (OK don't answer that one, but that would explain why they haven't noticed the change in contents in their own buckets)

Now whether or not the impact of all the crap we are shovelling into the sky, and into the oceans is climate change, surely their can be no debate that it is having an impact. Basic physics tells us "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

So if we don't know the reaction we are causing is going to be good for us, maybe we should stop doing it until we find out.

Let the sceptics provide proof that there is no reaction (and I'm talking more than climate change).

Cheers,

P