Obama and John Kerry don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society because global warming and extreme weather due to greenhouse gas emissions is a settled scientific fact. And Harry Reid is busily shutting down coal-fired power plants so his green energy campaign contributors can build expensive solar and wind farms on public land in the desert.
But, as Nicholas Loris at the Heritage Foundation points out, the facts have a way of clouding the narrative.
“The available climate data simply do not indicate that the earth is heading toward catastrophic warming or more frequent and severe natural disasters,” Loris writes. “Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last December, Dr. Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, emphasized that ‘there exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.’”
Though the climate models predicted a warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius over the past 17 years, there has been none, even though the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere rose 8 percent during that time — which represents 34 percent of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. So why should we rely on the models to predict catastrophic warming in the future?
What are the benefits of eliminating carbon output, besides to Harry Reid’s contributors? The Heritage Foundation calculated that eliminating coal from America’s energy portfolio would within a decade kill nearly 600,000 jobs and cut the income of a household of four by more than $1,200 year.
“We could grind all economic activity to a halt, hold our breaths forever, and cut carbon emissions to zero in the U.S. — and still wind up lowering average temperatures by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century,” Loris reports. “And that’s using a climate calculator developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.”
But we must have faith and believe, climb into the front pew of the Church of Global Warming and shout, “Amen.” That’s what most in the media are doing.
4TH ST8 
Anyone interested in a clearly-written, balanced, thorough discussion of the issues related to climate change should consult the joint report issued last month by the National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society, “Climate Change – Evidence & Causes.”
Click to access climate-change-full.pdf
The Royal Society just hasn’t been the same since Newton keeled over.
“Recently I was asked to serve on another committee (this time for the AMS), and will again provide my input. That I am asked indicates there are others in our profession who share our perspective, but for one reason or another, do not want to be visible.” Dr. Pielke.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/#comment-438570
There is no question that climate changes, is changing and has always changed. Moreover, humans are a part of the environment, not an outside force driving it.
This is more about politics, political power and the argument over how much effect humans actually are having on the environment. There is really no argument over the fact that climate changes. These are among the reasons peer reviewed science articles are less than important in these kinds of discussions.
“Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.” Judith Curry.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/
People like “thinkprogress.org” and skepticalscience to name just a couple, are the main name callers in this.
Judith Curry has a good take on that report, nyp. You should read it.
“However, the stated goal was to make clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty. In this, they failed . The ‘more certain the ever’ is belied by the IPCC AR5 itself, as summarized in my recent Senate testimony. And their strategy of making overconfident answers to nearly all of the questions, then discussing the ‘uncertainty issue’ in a superficial way at the end of the report is flat out misleading, and will reinforce the public distrust of ‘establishment’ assessments of climate science.
This report is an unfortunate step backwards relative to the IPCC AR5 itself, and the previous RS report Climate change: a summary of the science which I thought was pretty good.” Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/27/nasrs-report-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/
We cannot, repeat cannot, survive this idiocy. Fortunately, more and more Americans are discounting this claptrap, with its blatant hypocrisy and con artistry.
I wonder if President Pinocchio still has stock in the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange)??
The sixteen warmest years on record have all been in the last 17 years. Coincidence, of course.
And according to Wikipedia, “As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
They also presented 80 or so National and International scientific organizations which uphold the clear consensus view and 4 organizations which chose to be noncommital. Obviously a conspiracy.
And,of course, 97% of climatologists agree that manmade global warming is significant http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Can’t trust NASA. They’re government.
Well I guess that’s it then. We’ve shot down much of the evidence for climate change in one go. See how easy it is?
That’s what prominent skeptic Fred Singer claims. Fred of course, also famously claimed that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer and that CFC’s don’t harm the ozone layer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Poor Fred’s trying so hard to be a maverick that’s right about SOMETHING that he continues to grasp at straws. He just doesn’t like being in the mainstream, right or wrong.
Please promise that you’ll stop listening to the loonies.
Rincn, you are the only one who mentioned Fred Singer….whats the point? To whom are are you referring to when you are calling out “loonies”?
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned him. The fact that Singer is able to obtain prominence as a global warming skeptic with his track record makes me wonder about quality control in the skeptic community. The facts are, of course, far more important.
Rinny, maybe you can answer this for me. How do the Climate Change/Global Warming folks justify all the sacrifices they want us to make, when 1 volcanic eruption overloads the entire “good work”?
Or do they have some plan on fining, or punishing these offending volcanoes?
It doesn’t
Easy answer, Athos. Volcanoes don’t contribute to global warming, at least short term. Their release of CO2 is generally modest compared to human emissions. Their particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions actually lead to a global cooling effect, often for several years. http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm
Nevertheless, I don’t advocate major sacrifices to minimize warming. Being energy efficient and getting off foreign oil for example, have their own independent benefits. Minimizing warming is a beneficial byproduct.
The problem with theory is it is incumbent on the theorists to prove it, it is in no way incumbent that those who disagree disprove the world is flat but that is exactly what is happening all over again. AGW is the theory. Climate change is constant and happens no matter what humans do.
Just because a huge majority of “climate” scientists feel the theory is good and believe it does not mean they do not have to follow the scientific method and prove it. The quote marks are due to the fact any who begin to question are summarily forced out or vilified by those who have the power and control. And this has far more to do with power and control than it does with science.
Look at Judith Curry, well respected in the AGW community until she was willing to go public with her questions. Questions that very community refuses to answer and all it has done is to vilify and name call on her.
How is that science, Rincon?
When a tornado or hurricane warning is given, the scientists that give it are unable to “prove” that a tornado will strike; indeed, one usually doesn’t form or strikes elsewhere. Nonetheless, we disregard such warnings at our peril. Humans are constantly required to utilize imperfect evidence to make decisions. In most of life’s decisions, waiting for “proof” before acting leads to incompetent paralysis.
As for Curry, in her own words, “If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/
These are hardly the words of a global warming skeptic; merely those of a climatologist who feels that even views held by a small minority should not be shouted down or discarded. I agree with her. She also said, referring to skeptics, “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there…”. I wish all believers and skeptics were willing to be as objective and fair as she appears to be.
“These are hardly the words of a global warming skeptic; merely those of a climatologist who feels that even views held by a small minority should not be shouted down or discarded.”
Then perhaps you could explain:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/29/judith-curry-and-the-hockey-st/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/08/steyn-on-the-anti-science-labeling-of-dr-judith-curry-by-dr-michael-mann/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/
I ask again, how is this science?
“When a tornado or hurricane warning is given”
We are not expected to wait around a hundred years for the outcome.
I THOUGHT this was discussion about the politics, control and effects of CLIMATE, you just broke a cardinal rule calling a weather even out as an example of proof of AGW theory….note I am specific about AGW , not climate.
It never fails to amaze me how the progressives embrace Doomsday in 100 years (global warming) and ignore economic Armageddon with our out of control spending.
I guess corruption doesn’t lend itself to fiscal responsibility, eh?
Not much to explain, Steve. Your one site, Skeptical Science, negates your other site, Watt’s up with that. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm
“you just broke a cardinal rule calling a weather even out as an example of proof of AGW theory”
Huh?
The problem clearly isn’t a hundred years from now. Watch a few Nat Geo shows. Besides, saying a problem (if real) isn’t a problem if it’s a hundred years away is myopic at best. And of course, I’ve hardly ignored economic Armageddon. One can minimize global warming while saving money.
Of course, those sites are opposing sites. I try to show you how the politics of power and control are the issue and how its pushing the science way off to the side and taking a large portion of the consensus along with it.
Ask Tom, absolutely every time anyone uses any kind of example of weather as evidence that AGW is wrong or in any way not proven its jumped on as “CLIMATE is not WEATHER!! (idiots)” but you do it and its ok?
Again I ask How is this science?
Weather merely happened to be the example, Steve. The point has nothing at all to do with weather. The idea is that if scientists legitimately point out a risk, ignoring the warning is folly, whether about global warming or Mount Vesuvius.
You’re right that politics is the problem. If the scientists were studying aardvarks, no one would attack their findings. Unfortunately, the findings have implications regarding power and money. As the cigarette companies did with lung cancer, the fossil fuel companies spend hundreds of millions on disinformation. Reactionary Conservatives get all bent out of shape because of the Bogeyman of government interference. The controversy in the scientific community lies in the details, not the thrust of the issue (except for the 2-3% fringe).
The essentials aren’t only clear, they aren’t even controversial, except to a few fringe extremists:
1) CO2 is a gas which warms the atmosphere.
2) CO2 stands at about 395 PPM today; in the past 600,000 years, it never went above 315 or so. The excess is manmade.
3) The Earth is a degree and a half or so warmer than 100 years ago, and is in the top 1% of estimated historical temperatures for the past 1000 years. Coincidence? Certainly unlikely, but possible.
How anyone can agree with these three facts and then confidently assert that manmade global warming is an impossibility is beyond me.
The sun warms the earth.
I breath out CO2 when I exhale.
How is warmer weather a bad thing?
This is a scam designed to take down the United States. Scientist or not, that is easy to see for all without a political agenda (taking down the US)
Your’e getting close Rincon, politics and power games INSIDE the scientific community are the point.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
OK Rincon. You don’t like the 100 year number.
Fine.
It just got much better…how does 2000 years sound to you?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304215612.htm
gimme a break… smh
Beginning with Athos’ reply: As with rain, CO2 is beneficial. When floods occur, it’s too much of a good thing. Same with CO2
Only dictators get 97% of the vote in politics. Who’s the strongman in the scientific community and how does he hold everyone else’s feet to the fire?
The pause in global warming is closer to 10 than 20 years, although it could easily last 20. It will be 10 years before Forbes can truthfully make its claim. Global warming has been for at least 100 years. It took a break for 37 years from 1942-1979, when cooling actually occurred. In today’s pause, zero cooling has occurred. Skeptics have conveniently short memories.
The Science Daily story is worthless and extreme. It’s talking about apocalyptic things such as the inundation of Naples in 2000 years, based on back of an envelope calculations. I agree, Steve. Gimme a break.
Then you will really be happy with the Guardians report on the 200 year number, Rincon. They are taking it serious.
Could it be they are having difficulty in the ranks and need to come up with an even more fantastic theory they can push?
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/cold-shoulder-abc-cbs-exclude-scientists-critical-global-warming-more-1300-days
No room on broadcast news for those weirdo, tin-foil-hat AGW deniers:
“I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.” A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” – Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Mikls Zgoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” – Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC. The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium, which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ?climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
Your statements are by individuals, Winston. I can find many individual statements supporting the existence of the Sasquach, etc. On the other hand, here is the list from Wikipedia of all major scientific organizations that have commented. Note that there are NO scientific organizations that have denied global warming and only four that are noncommittal vs about 80 that concur:
This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it.
Concurring
Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming
American Chemical Society[49]
American Institute of Physics[50]
American Physical Society[51]
Australian Institute of Physics[52]
European Physical Society[53]
American Geophysical Union[edit]
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America[edit]
European Federation of Geologists[edit]
European Geosciences Union[edit]
Geological Society of America[edit]
Geological Society of London[edit]
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics[edit]
National Association of Geoscience Teachers[edit]
Meteorology and oceanography[edit]
American Meteorological Society[edit]
The American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society[edit]
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences[edit]
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society[edit]
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)[edit]
World Meteorological Organization[edit]
Paleoclimatology[edit]
American Quaternary Association[edit]
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA)
International Union for Quaternary Research[edit
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[74]
American Institute of Biological Sciences.American Society for Microbiology[78]
Australian Coral Reef Society[79]
Institute of Biology (UK)[80]
Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[81] and the UNFCCC.[82]
The Wildlife Society (international)[83]
American Academy of Pediatrics[84]
American College of Preventive Medicine[85]
American Medical Association[86]
American Public Health Association[87]
Australian Medical Association in 2004[88] and in 2008[89]
World Federation of Public Health Associations[90]
World Health Organization[91]:
American Astronomical Society[92]
American Statistical Association[93]
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia[94]
International Association for Great Lakes Research[95]
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[96]
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)
Non-committal
American Association of Petroleum Geologists[edit]
American Geological Institute[edit]
American Institute of Professional Geologists[edit]
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences[edit]
Dissenting
As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change
Just for kicks, here’s a sample statement. This one is from the American Meteorological Society:
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.
Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]”
Cool stuff science and tech. I wish it would keep the politics and power trips out of it and focus on the realities of the whole thing.
For instance CLIMATE Change as opposed to AGW….at this point it really does not matter what is changing the climate….specially as they are now trying to say its a 2000 year process. The much better question is asked by yet ANOTHER IPCC outcast…Bjorn Lomborg…you guys hate him and vilify him every chance you get but there are more and more from the inside starting to get fed up with the politics and power hungry control freaks in change of the inter GOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change..the word is capitalized to make a point.
Guess what that point might be.
Just grab your wallets, boys! It’s time to heal the planet!
Of course, you fellas in China don’t need to participate. No poor country needs to worry. It’s those damn rich American middle class! They’re the guilty ones!
Pay up or our extinction is on your conscious!
Have I got that right, Rinny?
I save money every day by conserving energy (among other things) – and I’m richer because of it. Funny that nobody else believes it’s possible.
When Harry Reid says, “Climate change is the worst problem facing the world today,” you know it is a lie.
This is getting to be like preachers who keep moving the date of the Apocalypse when it fails to happen.
Evidence is all against the models.
My point by listing those scientists is that the jury is still out on AGW, but the major TV networks act like it’s a done deal. I will admit that I’m not a climate expert, just a Old Country Programmer who has been watching governments lie, cheat and steal for nearly three decades, and AGW has all of the earmarks of more of the same.
When scum-bag politicians like algore have a huge vested interest in creating the carbon credit trading market, you gotta be suspicious. When data from thousands of sources is aggregated and conclusions made, you gotta be suspicious. When “hide the decline” type bullshit happens, you gotta be suspicious. When we are told that these amazing computer models predict such-and-such, you gotta be suspicious. When various control freaks insist that we have to massively change our lives, or the lives or our neighbors, on unproven theories, you gotta be suspicious.
If the free market naturally moves towards “sustainability” and the reduction of using “fossil fuels”, then so be it, but if our federal government is (unconstitutionally) driving these changes through various mechanisms, picking the winners and losers along the way, then you gotta be suspicious.
And that’s the bottom line, as far as I’m concerned.
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength
“I save money every day by conserving energy (among other things)”
I have made that very same response in discussions with AGW true believers. Their response almost every time is to call me a sociopath for not “caring” about the “externalities” enough to do more….WAYYY more.
The inner conservative in Rincon is showing,,,keep coming back to get your batteries charged Rincon, and keep questioning authority. (that USED to be a main paradigm of liberalism,,,wonder what happened to it?)
NV Energy recently filed for a rate increase, partially due the fact its customers are conserving energy. Use less, it will cost more. What a concept!
That is the OTHER argument I have with those believers,,,just why is it NV Energy applies such a strict limit on grid tie solar systems? Because those would put the utility out of business or the rates for grid power would have to be raised so high that we would end up paying them just as much as we do now on top of all the money we laid out for the panels.
I say again, the ONLY way to make alternative energy viable for residential users on a large scale is to be completely off grid.
“Off the grid”??
What will happen to my bonus? (says the NV Energy boss)
Grid tie hippies don’t like it when I say things like that.
Thomas: Yep, Harry’s lying all right. The accurate way to say it: Climate change MIGHT be the worst problem facing the world today. Fact is, no one knows how serious it will become.
Winston: It’s a little like evolution. The evidence for evolution of the various species is greater than the evidence for the Bible (although they are not mutually exclusive), yet Christians often dispute evolution because it doesn’t match what they WANT to believe. Same with global warming. Deniers are wrong, but anyone who claims that manmade warming will undeniably be disastrous is also inaccurate. The evidence that manmade global warming is a substantial risk is huge, but we don’t really know how big the risk is.
Thomas and Steve: If decentralized solar and wind ever become economically viable enough, the first step would be to utilize it in rural areas, where the cost of maintaining the grid is already high.
You’re right about my Conservative core beliefs (I know, I know. I’ve been corrupted by the Liberals 🙂 ). I don’t think we should go crazy with global warming, but I won’t ignore the evidence just because I’m afraid of the government bogeyman. Government paralysis is even worse than their usual ineptitude.
Question authority, Rincon. 97% is most certainly a claim on which authority needs to be questioned. I believe it is a claim for the masses and the media while ignoring the science in favor of more power and control.
AGW may well be coming, but what is the cost-benefit ratio?
The operative question Thomas. I like cheap solutions. In 1974, I felt it would be less expensive to get off foreign oil than to continue “guarding our interests” in the middle east. That was without any consideration for global warming. Today, I think I was correct. Loosening the proper zoning restrictions would save energy and money while increasing personal freedom (see smartgrowth.org). Capturing methane from landfills as they do in Europe is a three for one deal. It’s cheaper, reduces methane emissions, and conserves fossil fuels in the ground. There are a variety of ways to decrease greenhouse gases while saving money or spending little.
The shame is that we could have been cutting emissions since the Arab Oil Crises, but we have let so much time go by without taking action that we have lost the cheapest benefits already.
Oh, no worries about LFG. The USA is on it big time. The trouble is the libby push to end all landfill use! Landfills bad! don’t create any more! Recycle absolutely everything and make the people PAY to recycle the stuff, STOP paying people for the recycled items they no longer have use of. (electronics recycling event a few months ago did this very thing, people actually had to pay to bring their stuff to the event and leave it with the recyclers.
From the big bad EPA comes a legit bunch of actual good news on the LFG front.
Now if only there were some way to get landfill haters to realize those places are really not all that bad a thing.
Forgot the link…slap me silly.
Click to access overview.pdf
In 1994, when my city began recycling, I was sure that our garbage bills would go way up. It never happened, so I don’t think today’s cost is too great
Done properly, I’m convinced that municipal recycling can become cheaper than present day disposal. The key is to have the user separate out all garbage of a contaminating nature, and then having workers separate all of the “dry trash” into toxics, recyclables, and nonrecyclables. This insures that 100% of the potential recyclables are indeed recycled. The nontoxic recyclables are then placed into a “dump” with no environmental regulation needed, except for certification and spot checks. This dramatically cuts the cost of landfilling the nontoxic nonrecyclables. Unfortunately, this would require a change in the laws. With today’s gridlock, there’s no chance of that.
There is a company generating power from landfill gas at Apex. What they charge NV Energy is a secret.
Entertaining and chock full of fact.
According to this
http://www.smartenergyuniverse.com/green-clean-energy/16252-landfill-methane-report-from-eesi
Revenue is 2.5 to 7 cents per KWH for these systems.
Interesting video, Thomas. While partially true, Penn & Teller have thrown a little bullshit of their own. Before criticizing them, I would point out that recycling, as it’s done today, isn’t very valuable – or costly. Ideally, we would keep toxic things like lead out of our landfills, but we primarily recycle paper, plastic and aluminum. None of these is toxic nor are their feedstocks endangered. Recycling electronics and appliances on the other hand, saves nonrenewable resources and toxics as well, but we have a ways to go before I could call myself a big proponent.
Now to Penn & Teller. The whole show is long on style and extremely short on evidence. They essentially had one guy that they relied upon for every scrap of negative information. They couldn’t find anyone else? They blithely state that recycling is much more expensive than landfilling while providing no evidence that it’s true – except the word of the old fart that they rely on. I find articles that say it both ways. The variables are so great that it can be a money winner or loser. Take plastic. According to Wikipedia, “In 2008, “…the price of PET dropped from $370/ton in the US to $20 in November”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#Economic_and_energy_potential
So if you want a positive spin on recycling economics, pick $370/ton; if you want a negative spin, pick $20/ton. It’s easy to make bullshit, as Penn & Teller would say.
They also claimed that landfill leakage is on the order of “1 in a billion”. Funny, I found a pretty technical engineering book at the college library years ago and the author claimed that landfills are like sump pumps. Remember the ad? How many sump pumps fail? The answer: all of them. Same with landfills. According to the book, landfills may be good for 100-200 years, but nobody really knows. He did say that more than 200 years or so is a big stretch. 1 in a billion? Only for the short term.
Penn & Teller also said that landfills for the next 100 years could fit in a 35X35 mile space. That’s a little like saying there’s no overpopulation since all of the people on Earth can fit into one cubic mile. Plenty of room, right? Perhaps it doesn’t sound as good to say that the 1654 landfills operating today will all eventually leak into the groundwater. That’s 33 for every state in the union – and you can add another 33 every 50 years. There were 8,000 or so in 1988. Those will all leak too.
Penn & Teller also presumably calculate landfill costs based on today’s tipping fees. Some of these landfills are more than 50 years old. Their replacements will be far more expensive. This changes the economics a great deal.
Penn & Teller dismiss logging because trees are renewable and farmed. Partly true. I took a trip to Washington state a few years ago and can report that clear cutting is alive and well. Removing nutrients in the form of the trees degrades the soil some, but erosion after clear cutting is often severe. This image is illustrative of the problem of soil degradation worldwide: https://www.google.com/search?q=soil+degradation&tbm=isch&imgil=c5n6j0kahPJF_M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQZ7waIGb2c9IGnZgt1RxiGInaB2gsKDgoPN6wBOkKOQGtOOOE5lA%253B648%253B449%253BNMQv-ACuEuEIcM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.globalchange.umich.edu%25252Fglobalchange2%25252Fcurrent%25252Flectures%25252Fland_deg%25252Fland_deg.html&source=iu&usg=__Hta9it2nLIxJEdGYcRkKrgHKk-I%3D&sa=X&ei=Xu8bU-ywD8KbygG2noGwDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAg&biw=1704&bih=879#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=c5n6j0kahPJF_M%253A%3BNMQv-ACuEuEIcM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.globalchange.umich.edu%252Fglobalchange2%252Fcurrent%252Flectures%252Fland_deg%252Fconcern.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.globalchange.umich.edu%252Fglobalchange2%252Fcurrent%252Flectures%252Fland_deg%252Fland_deg.html%3B648%3B449
Penn & Teller said that more energy is used to recycle plastic than creating it from petroleum. Several sources disagree by a wide margin. Here’s one:
“Plastics recovery, in addition to
increased diversion from disposal,
results in significant energy savings
(an estimated 50-75 MBtu/ton of
material recycled) compared with the
production of virgin materials”
.http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ghg/f02023.pdf
There are similar statements about paper and cardboard.
They used the Competitive Enterprise Institute as one of their few sources: “The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit American, libertarian think tank…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute As usual, I don’t trust politically motivated pressure groups. It’s the equivalent of taking the Sierra Club’s word on an issue.
Penn & Teller are magicians. I don’t see how they are any more able to research the economics of recycling than I am.
“except the word of the old fart”
“I don’t see how they are any more able to research the economics of recycling than I am.”
Don’t like the message? Shoot the messenger. Rule number 2, lib playbook.
You missed the parts about what people can be conned into doing in the name of “feel good” law.
, LFG energy and modern landfill technology. Then you claim the landfill issue is all about the 50 year old ones,,,you know,,,those are the ones we learned from and those lessons are what we use to build modern landfills. Bad libby rule number 3, discount all efforts of the last 30 years and claim nothing has improved.
You also mised this:
The vid was my post, Rincon.
“more energy is used to recycle plastic than creating it from petroleum. ”
Ahhh,
no.
They actually said recycling overall costs more than starting from “virgin” material. In fact they also said the only recyclable that does make sense is aluminum.
On top of all that they made clear they actually still kinda believe in the recycling myth even after their research team came up with all the evidence they presented in the show. Even you make clear its a toss up in your wishywashy post! The figures you show are all over the map!
If you call doubting a stage performer’s willingness to conduct an exacting, thorough investigation shooting the messenger, then perhaps I am. No one should trust everything they read. The prices for recyclables change constantly, so a case can be made for either side. In my experience though, garbage collection is not greatly more expensive than it was before recycling. I’m aware of no grants, so common sense suggests that the costs can’t be that much greater. Penn and Teller came along with a story that goes against both my common sense and the conventional wisdom. As with global warming, I’m always doubtful when some hero comes along and tells me how the mainstream media are failing to inform us and that only the hero has the real story. That being said, recycling isn’t really saving the planet in any major way. It may be worth having though.
“saving the planet”
Bullshit! The planet will be just fine once libby efforts to eradicate the human race are successful…
Freudian slip in that phrase is glaring.
You should say “saving humans”, Rincon.
Penn and Teller are not really loved in magic circles, Rincon. They are more tolerated than liked, even. Penn and Teller reveal their secrets in the show, this is what makes them more interesting when they do things like that Showtime series. They like to expose the underlying, hidden, activities in the belief structure many find so comforting and some find necessary to remain in control, like politicians. (The ultimate tricksters if ever there were any.)
Some more scientists who do not agree with the “consensus” on AGW
Libby peeps love to quote NASA Scientists,, right?
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
Saving the planet is a figure of speech, short for maintaining the optimum habitability for humans in the long term. We agree that mother nature is going to be just fine no matter what we do, including nuclear holocaust. The cockroaches will love it! That’s another figure of speech.
I like watching Penn & Teller. I also maintain a somewhat open mind regarding the economics of recycling. I’m just not ready to buy their conclusions hook, line, and sinker. The video was worth watching and gives me pause. I will be paying attention to this issue in the future
It is true that the climate change we have witnessed so far could be due to natural cycles. The odds of that appear small to me. You think the odds are large, but no one can really know. Since that’s the case, both sides should hedge their bets if they are wrong. Cheap mitigation is a reasonable compromise, but just as Tea Partiers have managed to paralyze our government (with the help of both parties), they and the Liberals have also paralyzed any efforts towards energy independence. Compromise is dead. Long live the king.
Climate science is real. Its AGW where power and control are rampant.
Check it out:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-retirees-letter2.html
IF the scientists are not “CLIMATE SCIENTISTS” then they are irrelevant. And stupid and should be ignored. Or (better) silenced.
The problem with that is the scientific method applies to all science equally. Any scientist, given the research data, can apply the method equally. In the case of AGW this is being fought tooth and nail.
Do you see the trend, Rincon?
I like the first comment: “NASA currently has 18,000 employees. They’ve been operating since 1958, so that’s 55 years. Best I can gather there are something upward of 10,000 people who’ve retired from NASA over the years. So, this is coming from 0.2% of the retired scientists from NASA.”
Is that the best they could do?
Oops, he did make a mistake. Not all of NASA’s retirees were scientists. The point though, is still valid.
The your answer is confirmed as… No. The trend escapes you.
Lets try again.
If the scientists is Judith Curry and she decides to ask the wrong questions, she is summarily barred from the community and vilified for blasphemy.
They use a nasty looking photo and call her names.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
Still don’t see the trend, Rincon?
How was she barred from the community? It sounds like Skeptical Science merely disagrees with her. Besides, as anyone who watches Fox News can tell you, name calling and using nasty looking photos is par for the course for pseudojournalists..
Skepical science vilifies in many ways. What you see as a minor “disagreement” is a full on attack and suggestion she change her ways. Soon.
This is the reason there are not as many public disclosures among climate scientists…they are less than comfortable coming out as doubtful of the “consensus” view. In other words they are using the very same tactics as cults have used for centuries.
Yeah I know, you will say that is impossible. I see it because its in front and obvious, you won’t because you want to believe. But you have seen it and you have addressed some of the questions, Rincon. And you have not liked the lack of logic in the answers yourself. This is the problem with such power and control, it corrupts and it corrupts in an exponential manner.
I think you’re right that going against the consensus takes a fair amount of professional courage and there is a price to pay. The question I have is what was the origin of the consensus? In the scientific community, one can suppose that researchers routinely falsify data to get more grant money, but if that was the case, skeptics would be able to discover it if it was rampant. The same applies if the scientists were all heavily invested in alternative energy. More likely, the origin of the consensus was due to the accumulation of convincing evidence. Once the consensus gathers momentum though, it would be hard to turn around.
The motives for some skeptics are more clear. There are billions at stake for the fossil fuel industry in particular and they spend a great deal on denying the existence of global warming. Note that many skeptic articles come from the WSJ and Forbes, publications sympathetic and beholden to business. Their editors are unlikely to have an extensive science background, but are bold enough to tell the scientists that they don’t know what they’re doing.
Publications sympathetic and beholding to their readers.
When in house support for any detractors, then where do people like Judith Curry have to go to get their message out?
Places sympathetic to their plight,,,in this case those very places Rincon mentions. This only adds to to the ammunition being lobbed against these people.
Look at the tactics cults use and the similarities are very apparent.
Same thing applies to evolution
Ahh,,that one goes directly into organized religion. Cults get it from the religions.
Now, ask yourself what have you just said, rincon?
AGW is a faith based religion. I call it a cult.
In any case, AGW (not Climate) AGW is, in no way, science.
The fact is that we have raised CO2 from 315 to 395 ppm in 100 years and that no one knows how great the effect will be. It is religious faith to blithely say that it’ll all be just fine – presumably because the cosmic forces will protect us. Realism is to agree that we don’t know and to act on that by hedging our bet.
That argument works from both sides, because neither can prove either way. Though it IS worth noting CO2 levels increase exponentially before ice ages commence…..hmmm.
Rinny, how do you justify AGW knowing that Algore is laughing all the way to the bank? Does that give you ANY pause?
So the default is to do nothing until absolute proof is found? Isn’t that like waiting until your house catches fire to buy insurance?
Just as Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank, so is the fossil fuels industry. Does that tell us who’s correct?
“So the default is to do nothing until absolute proof is found?”
Ahh
no.
The answer is to do things that have a chance of helping,,,curbing CO2 is very likely not one of them. Overreacting is certainly not one of them.
A cost benefit ratio should be the benchmark.
You seem to be calling for this in many of your words though you are falling for much of the AGW scams perpetuated, not by a large number in the science community, rather by those in the circus ring of political influence who are currently drunk with power.
Always question “authority”.
And never question rebels?? I agree with you that overreacting is not wise and that the cost benefit ratio is the benchmark. One problem with this is how much benefit we attach to preventing part of the risk. Are we willing to spend tons on adapting if necessary, but zero on reducing risk? You did say that we should do things that have a chance of helping. What things can we do that have a chance of helping?
Crank up the coal-fired power plants and enjoy the benefits:
“U.S. research team declares that ‘from this remarkable 30-year archive of satellite imagery, we thus see evidence of a greening trend,’ which clearly indicates that the net result of the climatic and physiological effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on Earth’s terrestrial plant life has in the mean been decidedly beneficial.”
http://nipccreport.org/articles/2014/mar/11mar2014a1.html
Greening of the planet did take a while to appear but it most definitely has begun to be noticeable in satellite data.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7458/full/nature12291.html#affil-auth
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130531105415.htm
Even the fanatics acknowledge a likely increase in plant growth rates. Unlike Conservatives, they don’t choose to believe ONLY the studies that say what they want to hear. Global warming is not without possible benefits. Opening up Siberia for cultivation could be very beneficial for Russia for example. India, on the other hand, is a likely loser .Increasing CO2 in the long run is likely to be greatly beneficial (yes, I really said that). The risk lies in changes that are too rapid. If you chose to believe the vast majority of the studies assessing the effects of warming, you would be far less sanguine. Unfortunately, Conservatives tend to cherry pick their data.
“Opening up Siberia for cultivation” is not fanatical?
“Unfortunately, Conservatives tend to cherry pick their data.”
RAWNG! Conservatives actually want to have DATA! As opposed to theory and unproven software models based on algorithms incorporating “forced” variables. In short words “garbage in garbage out”
Man, its GIGO to the max with the cultists of AGW! Its their way or get off the planet and suck vacuum for all they really care. Give us the money or die is what they are really saying. Literally.
The data are clear:
1) CO2 warms the Earth. The degree of this effect is uncertain.
2) The highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 800,000 years is about 315 ppm. Mankind has raised the CO2 in the atmosphere to 395 ppm. No one knows how great the effect will be, so this is an experiment on our planet.
3) The temperature of the Earth is about 1.5 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago. The probability of this being a coincidence is far less than 50%. Even if the warming was slight, there is a 1/3 chance of it being colder and a 1/3 chance of it being the same, so the greatest chance of this being coincidence is 33%. But the warming is substantial. When a 10,000 year old frozen body is uncovered by melting for the first time, the warming is unusual to say the least.
As for GIGO, the evidence for the temperature change for the past 100 years is extremely robust. On what basis do Conservatives claim to be near CERTAIN that the recent rise has to be natural? Where is the data?
“1) CO2 warms the Earth. The degree of this effect is uncertain.”
The GIGO I refer are the constantly “adjusted” software models…not known history.
Never said Climate wasn’t changing, Rincon…always said AGW is human effort to exert power and control over other humans. When it is known how much of that CO2 increase is directly attributable to human activity then we can take action based on real numbers. Until then, only a cost benefit basis is acceptable.
The software models are certainly fallible, although funny that no skeptics have managed to come up with a model showing neutral temperatures. What is the cost of delaying until all hell breaks loose?
“What is the cost of delaying until all hell breaks loose?”
🙄
Cheap scare tactic in light of that 2000 year “prediction” for that breaking loose of all hell.
“no skeptics have managed to come up with a model showing neutral temperatures”
Irrelevant as the science of CLIMATE is not in play here, the POLOTICS of AGW are what we were discussing. And its AGW that, very likely, is actually very little of the source for the increase in CO2. Until this is known any action to reduce the human output of this gas is likely to be wasted effort and humans will have become another in a long line of extinct species. Only THIS time it will have been because of our own hubris and greed.
Politics? OOPS.
Sorry Steve, that was poorly phrased. What would it take to convince Conservatives that action is indicated? I’m not sure anything short of absolute certainty will do and that won’t occur until Manhattan is under water – or worse. Sort like of the captain of the Titanic. He didn’t worry until he actually hit the iceberg.
The problem is that as time ticks by, achieving the same end CO2 levels becomes more and more expensive, or even impossible. Historical CO2 has been less than 315 ppm. Is 500 ppm safe? How about 600 or 800? We’re painting ourselves into a corner. We’ve delayed acting for 30 years now. Partying for another 30 years and then suddenly slamming on the brakes will put serious stress on society. If global warming does turn out to be nasty, then all of your fears of government control will look like chicken feed. Nothing like a bona fide disaster to enable even more government control of our lives. Preventing a crisis in the long run, will result in less, not more government control…unless nothing happens. Do you feel lucky?
I know you will continue to believe that 97% claims about the scientific community.
Think about this,,,95% claims in politics are always found in dictatorship elections….the question is not one of action to take its one of what action should be chosen. Since we have only theory, any action taken is at best a gamble. Until we know how much human activity is really in the mix we certainly have a high risk of making the wrong decision….thankfully we have 2000 years to study the problem.
Your evidence that there is no AGW is that 97% of scientists believe that there is?? That’s it? So if only 3% believed it, then it must be true? I feel like I’m in the twilight zone! 95% of the people probably believe that the Earth really is 93 million miles from the sun, that atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons (not counting quarks, muons, leptons, etc.), and that the Earth is round. I believed it all. I didn’t know our world was so confusing!
“Your evidence that there is no AGW is that 97% of scientists believe that there is??” We have been over this. The 97% is a political ploy. Akin to a dictators re election results.
Those inside who go against the grain are pushed….hard.
My suspicion is AGW is a political power play much more than reality, specially as they refuse to perform any experiments. Its all theory and 2000 years is plenty of time to study it!
OH well, how about you prove the contention CO2 levels are all due to human action? Go ahead you cannot do it….the IPCC cannot show it….its ALL theory!
“Think about this,,,95% claims in politics are always found in dictatorship elections” I took this to mean that your suspicions were raised by the fact that there is substantial agreement. Since you have presented no other evidence that the observed warming is natural, I assumed that this was your evidence. Can you show me some evidence?
“OH well, how about you prove the contention CO2 levels are all due to human action? Go ahead you cannot do it….the IPCC cannot show it….its ALL theory!” I suppose it depends on your definition of theory. The evidence is nearly impossible to explain any other way. There are two methods of determining that humans are responsible: First, we know how much CO2 has been generated because of fossil fuel sales records. We have generated far more than the excess in the atmosphere. The extra has been absorbed by ocean water and soil/rock. Secondly, CO2 from fossil fuels has a signature. Since fossil fuels have been buried for millions of years, they have virtually no carbon 14, whereas CO2 from present day sources contains a consistent amount. Thirdly, no skeptic has offered any other explanation.
Between 2000 and 2010 the world added a quarter of all man-produced atmospheric CO2 since 1750, but there has been no warming in 17 years.
Again,,,97% is found in places with intractable leadership….those who do come forward expressing anything outside the “party” line are pushed…hard. AGW is political power at work.
IF humans halted every last bit of CO2 output it is very likely the difference would be so little as to be negligible. In fact humans produce only about 3 to 40% of total CO2 produced in nature.
4%
Natural cycles absorb CO2 at a rate that keeps it in balance. All we add is
4%
Seems to me it would make much more sense to find ways of absorbing and converting the
4%
of CO2 we produce rather than shutting down the whole worlds economies and energy use in an attempt to stop producing
4%
of the worlds CO2.
But no! no way is this acceptable to ANY of the libby power brokers in control of the world today…if we were to do a sensible thing it would take away their power, control and money!
Politics Rincon, in no way is AGW science.
Not 40%
4%
40% was a typo.
There is no give in the madness of these progressives, Steve. None. We’re trying to cut off their income stream by doing what makes common sense.
Meanwhile, they have no concern over the exploding debt, or the outright corruption of people stealing government money (us taxpayers’ money!), in fact, they need the $ to fund their climate change hysteria.
The party is over, rinny. I’m not paying $10/gal for gas, or $1000/month for electricity, so that Polar bears can breath free (and algore can tool around in his Montecito villa!)
It’s a little like compounding interest Steve. 4% a year times 100 years would equal 400%.
This is oversimplifying, but the point is valid.
My main points remain intact
1) CO2 is a gas which warms the atmosphere.
2) CO2 stands at about 395 PPM today; in the past 600,000 years, it never went above 315 or so. The excess is manmade. This is experimenting on the planet.
3) The Earth is a degree and a half or so warmer than 100 years ago, and is in the top 1% of estimated historical temperatures for the past 1000 years. Coincidence? Certainly unlikely, but possible.
I wonder if you would be willing to address these questions:
1) What would it take to convince Conservatives that action is indicated?
2) Only dictators get 97% of the vote in politics. Who’s the strongman in the scientific community and how does he hold everyone else’s feet to the fire. What was the origin of the consensus in the scientific community?
3) Can you show me some evidence that the warming is natural?
What would it take to convince the power brokers the action to take is to absorb our CO2 output and hold the balance…maybe absorb it at 5% for a few decades…
Stopping the use of Carbon based fuels is stupid and its what the power brokers want,,,its how they are lining their pockets…just look at the family of the current Senate Majority leader and all their “deals”.
Its not really in the body science its in the top levels who have become more politician than scientist…discus that with Judith Curry and Bjorn Lomborg.
Can you show me evidence (not theory!) that warming is not natural? I want empirical evidence either way. (Hint, none exists. This is a complete crap shoot and the flat earthers in charge of the Royal Acedemy own the game again)
It’s a little like compounding interest Steve. 4% a year times 100 years would equal 400%.
This is oversimplifying, but the point is valid.
My main points remain intact
1) CO2 is a gas which warms the atmosphere.
2) CO2 stands at about 395 PPM today; in the past 600,000 years, it never went above 315 or so. The excess is manmade. This is experimenting on the planet.
3) The Earth is a degree and a half or so warmer than 100 years ago, and is in the top 1% of estimated historical temperatures for the past 1000 years. Coincidence? Certainly unlikely, but possible.
Partial mitigation can be cheap. Doing nothing risks massive costs. In addition, if global warming does become disastrous, then increased government control is a given.
I wonder if you would be willing to address these questions:
1) What would it take to convince Conservatives that action is indicated?
2) “Only dictators get 97% of the vote in politics”. Who’s the strongman in the scientific community and how does he hold everyone else’s feet to the fire. What was the origin of the consensus in the scientific community?
3) Can you show me some evidence that the warming is natural?
Pete and repeat were fishing from a row boat….
My point exactly. This represents the crux of the matter and is ignored.
Pete fell in, who was left in the boat?
You’re right Steve. I’ve made all of the points I needed to. Thanks for the discussion.
When it comes to the deniers, the 1st Amendment just doesn’t apply:
https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111
Rincon conveniently bypassed my response to curbing Human CO2 emissions by finding ways to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere rather than lining the pockets of powerful greedy politicians through overly expensive weak power generation schemes based on the fav’s of solar and their own hot air in the form of wind. (gasbags they are, but it REALLY costs lots to have them blow that hard)
Of course, removing CO2 from the atmosphere is in no way as sexy as coming up with overpriced, under powered tiny little toy cars. AND removing CO2 from the atmosphere to reach the desired 285 ppm may not have any effect and we could continue on the current road of no warming we currently find ourselves on for the last 17 or so years. AND the IPCC admits if the “plateau” continues a few more years they will have to say warming has stopped. Which means building overpriced under powered tiny little toy cars has done nothing at all to stop the disaster.
ALSO the humdrum action I have been pushing (scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere) being totally invisible to the populace becomes really boring and doesn’t line the pockets of greedy politicians so this really has no chance of happening, does it? But it is way more sensible than the approaches we are taking right now and it only has to remove a little more than 4% to bring the ppm down over time. On top of this it also becomes a real experiment, if the current global averages temperature begins to go down with measured CO2 the theory is proven…if the temperature does not go down the theory is disproved, drying up the rich source of pocket lining…this being yet ANOTHER reason the powerful greedy political establishment refuses to work on this type of endeavor.
Overpriced tiny little toy cars that line the pockets? YES!!! WE WANT MORE!
Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, no real impact on the populace? No way to line pockets? No way to force people to radically change the way they live? (See Paris the other day, even numbered plates not allowed to drive)
THIS politicians don’t want in any way shape or form…they don’t get anything from it so it becomes a non starter.
The sensible thing is the non starter, the wasteful things are FULL STEAM AHEAD! AND where is the money…get us the money. Money now so they can fly in private jets and huge bullet proof limos…we get the tin cans to roll around in we are supposed to feel good about it. (externalities make the blind greenies feel good,,,but they do nothing to pay the mortgage)
Given the issues that I say have been ignored, I’m surprised that you think I’m dodging one. I’m happy to respond.
First though, I have to ask how scrubbing CO2 would be accomplished. On the face of it, it sounds like a massive public works project, so I think I’m missing something.
Sorry Winston. I couldn’t get your link to work yesterday. In principle, intentionally misinforming voters is a form of fraud. In some cases of ignorance, misinforming the voters is, again in principle, journalistic malpractice. Misinformation cripples democracy or, if you wish, a representative republic, so misinformation does a great deal of harm. Unfortunately, we haven’t come up with any method of enforcing these ethics that would not do more harm than good, so all we can do is publicly denounce the liars and fools.
Do the google thing and search for scrubbing atmospheric CO2
You will find most of the data is old and the newest is from around 2012….most claims are that it would be too costly or to hard. To which I respond, what we are doing now is working? What is proposed in power generation is not predicted to cause rates to “sky rocket”? What is proposed as the ONLY resolution is to basically kill world economies?
All that! AND CO2 Scrubbing is to hard? 🙄
Technologies and materials science is being worked on,,both to scrub atmospheric CO2 and scrub the CO2 from conventional power sources as they are burned…It exactly like I keep saying Politics and corruption are driving the AGW world and people are eating it up like the good little “citizens” our government has taught them to be.
old time forgotten liberal rule number one.
ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY!
old time forgotten liberal rule number two.
NEVER BUY THE PARTY LINE!
Question authority, but do not reflexively dismiss it. Never buy the party line. On global warming, Conservatives espouce the Republican line perfectly.
You and I may agree that scrubbing could be cheaper than some alternative energy schemes, but the real low lying fruit is in energy conservation. Go to your hardware store and see how many hot water heater blankets they keep in stock. I see very few, meaning they don’t sell well. That has the fastest payback of any energy saver that I know of. Tell me, why they don’t sell?
I live in a different climate….its kind of a waste to put a blanket on the water heater in the desert. My water heater is natural gas fired along with the heater, stove and dryer. The largest gas bill this “winter” was 33 dollars.
That is a very old idea, and when I was living in Massachusetts we always had one. And the pipe covers to. In that climate they sold well. They also last a lifetime, we simply put the old one on the new water heater when we changed it out.
On demand hot water is cutting into water heater sales…those don’t need blankets. Though, again, in the desert we have REALLY hard water and I would be very concerned about the small passages in an on demand water heater here.
I am not saying conservation and squeezing every last bit of power out each and every drop of gasoline are bad things. Go back and re read what I wrote and realize the things you describe also do nothing to line the pockets of powerful people in control of governments and government funded organizations…like the IPCC. If they actually did some real experiments on CO2 and found proof of their theory then I would support them. Their constant refusal to do so is my reason to say what I do about them,,,and liberals also refuse to question their actions, accepting the words of their leaders blindly. This is why I say those are lost arts in the new liberal way of being. The liberals are in charge and they refuse to question their own leadership. They will get what they deserve. Karma is unavoidable.
Perhaps the plateau will be what comes out and shows CO2 increases are not what is causing warm temperatures…because the warm temperatures are not warming anymore even though CO2 is still increasing…which also means all the unbelievably expensive sexy, fancy, pocket lining, “alternative” energy sources aren’t doing any thing other than line pockets.
Water heater blankets are not very sexy and they do nothing to line the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats (which is what the leadership of the IPCC has become…bureaucrats who want to convince themselves they remain scientists.)
“If they actually did some real experiments on CO2 and found proof of their theory then I would support them”. At the risk of coming full circle, what experiments remain to be done and what results would convince you?
Hot water blankets are actually worth more in your climate than in mine. During the winter, any leaked heat helps heat the building. In the summer, leaked heat is wasted – or even fights the air conditioner. My point with the blanket is that energy conservation isn’t on the radar for the average clod. They won’t save energy even if they stand to profit from it. People think that energy conservation is to be engineered by brilliant nerds. Our behavior is the cause of a great deal of waste.
Another example: I had to convince my Australian fiancé to turn the thermostat up to 63 degrees in the winter. In Australia and most other OECD countries, they keep the thermostat low and wear a sweater. In her apartments, it’s not unusual to see the thermostat at 74 degrees, and these people need the money – but since they’re Americans, turning down the thermostat just isn’t on their radar.
Welll…if the plateua is any indication the current “experiment” is being performed…I made a statement several times about CO2 and temperature…get set up to do scrubbing and take the level down, if temperature follows then all is proven…if it doesn’t…..and as a side effect if the experiment in scrubbing CO2 verifies the theory then we have also solved the problem!
“turn the thermostat up to 63 degrees in the winter. ” ??? ” In her apartments, it’s not unusual to see the thermostat at 74 degrees, ” ??? Doesn’t add up. I am questioning your example! Your authority in this statement is in serious question!
Who pays for the scrubbing?
Put another way, keeping the indoor temperature near 63 degrees is far less common in this country than keeping it near 70. My authority is hundreds, if not thousands of personal observations over many decades. I see energy waste all around me, but you might get a little bored if I give you a hundred examples.
really. we kept the winter temperature at about 65 when I lived in Massachusetts, we had a wood burning stove and extra blankets on the beds. And we were most definitely not poor or unable to afford nice things like the pool in the backyard of the 1 acre property in a very nice area.
As for today my programmable thermostat summers are 83. We use fans and the desert is easy to stay warm in winter.
You say this is uncommon in the USA? Its how I was raised.
Maybe you are listening to the wrong people, or cavorting in circles that do not practice what they preach.
It still doesn’t explain turning the thermostat UP to 63….and it being not unusual for her normal temp to be 74…I thought you are saying she is from Australia where they are all so conscious of conserving …or something…and it really depends on what part of that country you are talking about…I too know a few Australians and they are not like the person you have described.
No worries…people are people. But your numbers still don’t fit what you originally said.
All part of the Big Game:
Your point is well taken Steve. My experience lies primarily with Chicagoan suburbanites, so may not apply universally. I do have another example which might have your support: It is not unusual for low scale workers to be unable to afford to live near work. This is at least partially due to excessive government regulation in the form of zoning laws. Enabling people to live closer to their jobs would save huge amounts of time, money, and fuel.
The end point of this though, is that subsidizing fuel does not encourage its conservation. If people start paying the true price of fuel, they will find a thousand ways to conserve.
“If people start paying the true price of fuel, they will find a thousand ways to conserve.”
This, if applied to wind and solar (the sexy green alternative energies), would end their use instantly.
Additionally those things they like to “subsidies” for “dirty” energy are really simply tax breaks all business have access to and take when the bottom line benefits form doing so. Removing those “subsidies” would cause the price of all goods to show their real dollar values and the resulting worldwide economic shock would make 1929 look like a piker in comparison.
That “slippery slope”? We have been skiing down it for a very long time.
As for commuting to work…you are describing an old concept.
There was a time the shop was owned and operated by the family that lived above it.
Tax breaks distort supply and demand to the long term detriment of the economy. Besides, fossil fuels receive a variety of subsidies exclusive to their industry, as we have previously discussed. More importantly, had we been wise enough to get off the foreign oil in the 80’s and 90’s, we probably would have avoided 9/11 and three wars, costing us trillions. We blew it! I don’t want to blow it again, but we will.
Careful, liberals will be telling you history doesn’t matter because they all have college larnin’ and nothing is better than theory!
Oh..wait..that’s already happening with AGW.
The AGW argument is so hypocritical that it screams of elitism. If burning fossil fuel is going to bring the END OF MANKIND, then why does Algore still fly, drive a car or live in a mansion?
For that matter, why do you still drive, Rinny? Don’t you believe that the burning of fossil fuel is killing the precious planet? And yet, you still contribute to this ultimate destruction?
Or is it really a case of the masses need to stop, but the elitists are good to go?
[…] I’m sure Harry Reid, John Kerry and Al Gore were in amen corner applauding the pope’s every word. Never let the facts get in the way of the other guy’s […]
[…] lowering average temperatures by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century,” the Heritage Foundation reports. “And that’s using a climate calculator developed by the Environmental Protection […]