What Will Co2 Reducation Actually Achieve?

[calkid75]

There goes my thread ... I thought we were making progress in discussing. I love reading your responses Sun but I think this will draw a whole new direction to this thread.

[bigbowtrout]

I love reading your responses Sun but I think this will draw a whole new direction to this thread.

 

Someone actually reads his posts?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Someone actually reads his posts?

how droll...how very droll

 

 

[Taco]

Someone actually reads his posts?

 

He does kinda remind me of someone who's found Jesus

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

He does kinda remind me of someone who's found Jesus

 

 

 

[mvdaog]

This sounds like a familiar argument... 'a fairy tale... that (global warming) scientists continue to build their supposedly scientific case on a foundation that rules our everything that follows after it' .... and these guys also have a pretty convincing case (just like pointing out the hockey stick graph is wrong, that the antarctic has more ice on it, etc)

 

 

 

[robert]

wow, what a response sundance - someone piss in your cornflakes? If you want to make this personal, I have no choice but to have a car due to being self employed but I chose to buy a kia rio. I keep my car well tuned with addon's to average 38 miles to the gallon in the city - on the hiway i'm above 40 mpg. I don't load my life down with crap I don't need and don't have an apartment full of useless crap that I don't need. I'll take the 10 minutes to walk to the store instead of driving. Yes i've looked at my own footprint on this world and made adjustments but again, it's my personal choice.

 

I'm not dumping my ideals on anyone else - but I have the right to question what others do.

 

We are ruled, regulated and governed to death in this country... Why do we have rules and regulations brought in all the time?

 

I think we all know why, and it goes with everything. There are those that want it all with no accountability for their actions - hence, rules are brought in place to moderate those individuals - moderate everyone. On a smaller level - there are those that want to carry handguns in canada, those that want to kill 10 moose a year and shoot anything that moves. There are those that would clean out all the lakes in canada if they were allowed. There are those that drive whatever they want, pollute all they want - because they can, because at this point they are allowed and it goes for businesses and individuals. It's because of those reasons that we are ruled and regulated to death in this country and we all suffer because of it.

 

Now if more rules are brought into play to moderate pollution and CO2 output? who's flucking fault is it going to be? Who are we going to point the fingers at? And who's going to pay for it? Blame the oil companies when we all drive cars? Blame all the cows for farting when there's nearly 7 billion mouths in this world to feed? Blame south america for cutting down the rainforest when people demand their cushy soft ass wipe, paper and homes built and whatever else that wood is used for???

 

My point is, if people would moderate themselves and take accountability for what they do, we'd all be better off and we'll all suffer alot less in the decades to come. For a small example, we all get pissed off with people that litter - and I hope we've all picked up someone else's trash when we go fishing - but why should I have to deal with someone else's mess - when they are too GD lazy to do it themselves. And that's what i'm talking about - personal accountability on every level. Why buy a hummer when one can get away with a small car - or are you of the mind that the 12 million vehicles in this country don't dump CO2 into the atmosphere? Why should a person be allowed to drive a hummer at current gas prices when there are others buying economic vehicles? You're damn right that there should be a levy for driving gas guzzling vehicles for personal use. Give a break to those that are trying to make a difference.

 

I get your point and it's my point too, economics and the world economy is the reason things aren't going to change. I couldn't imagine what life would be like if the production of oil stopped tomorrow - could you? Is it going to stop? No, there's too much money involved, things need to be transported, people need to get around. Things aren't going to change any time too soon and we all know it.

[rehsifylf]

economics and the world economy is the reason things aren't going to change.

 

I disagree. Economics are what will make things change. Has to be real economics though, not fabricated artificial taxes and rules that can't be enforced. When Gasoline hits $5/litre (and it will, just not as fast as Al and Dave want it to) - you'll use less.

 

 

 

 

 

[calkid75]

We keep hearing about how we should do that or how this or that will happen. I just see no information on what it will take to change it. I am not talking about this magical view <start humming> where all of us worry about others, and all of sudden decide to get buy with the bare minimum and make every change we can to stop living our consumer driven lives.

 

I just want to know the cost to fix the problem. What will it cost us, dollars, and lifestyle change? Then maybe I can make a decision as to whether I believe others will do their part and if I am willing to make the change.

 

I will not participate just cause a bunch of politicians think this is best. I already believe the government is to involved in our daily lives. I also do not support subsidizing countries that can not even control their own affairs to date and that can be applied to almost every developing nation.

 

With all of the current data that I have found or been presented I do not see how the proposed actions will make a hint of a difference. In my view this is about world over population and I will wait for all the predicted disasters to occur and rectify that problem. It may seem harsh but I think nature finds a way to find the correct balance. Sometimes we can help and sometimes it will just occur when things get bad enough. Just as people will use less when the cost of what remains increases due to declining supply and the prices increase.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

wow, what a response sundance - someone piss in your cornflakes? If you want to make this personal, I have no choice but to have a car due to being self employed but I chose to buy a kia rio. I keep my car well tuned with addon's to average 38 miles to the gallon in the city - on the hiway i'm above 40 mpg. I don't load my life down with crap I don't need and don't have an apartment full of useless crap that I don't need. I'll take the 10 minutes to walk to the store instead of driving. Yes i've looked at my own footprint on this world and made adjustments but again, it's my personal choice.

 

I'm not dumping my ideals on anyone else - but I have the right to question what others do.

 

We are ruled, regulated and governed to death in this country... Why do we have rules and regulations brought in all the time?

 

I think we all know why, and it goes with everything. There are those that want it all with no accountability for their actions - hence, rules are brought in place to moderate those individuals - moderate everyone. On a smaller level - there are those that want to carry handguns in canada, those that want to kill 10 moose a year and shoot anything that moves. There are those that would clean out all the lakes in canada if they were allowed. There are those that drive whatever they want, pollute all they want - because they can, because at this point they are allowed and it goes for businesses and individuals. It's because of those reasons that we are ruled and regulated to death in this country and we all suffer because of it.

 

Now if more rules are brought into play to moderate pollution and CO2 output? who's flucking fault is it going to be? Who are we going to point the fingers at? And who's going to pay for it? Blame the oil companies when we all drive cars? Blame all the cows for farting when there's nearly 7 billion mouths in this world to feed? Blame south america for cutting down the rainforest when people demand their cushy soft ass wipe, paper and homes built and whatever else that wood is used for???

 

My point is, if people would moderate themselves and take accountability for what they do, we'd all be better off and we'll all suffer alot less in the decades to come. For a small example, we all get pissed off with people that litter - and I hope we've all picked up someone else's trash when we go fishing - but why should I have to deal with someone else's mess - when they are too GD lazy to do it themselves. And that's what i'm talking about - personal accountability on every level. Why buy a hummer when one can get away with a small car - or are you of the mind that the 12 million vehicles in this country don't dump CO2 into the atmosphere? Why should a person be allowed to drive a hummer at current gas prices when there are others buying economic vehicles? You're damn right that there should be a levy for driving gas guzzling vehicles for personal use. Give a break to those that are trying to make a difference.

 

I get your point and it's my point too, economics and the world economy is the reason things aren't going to change. I couldn't imagine what life would be like if the production of oil stopped tomorrow - could you? Is it going to stop? No, there's too much money involved, things need to be transported, people need to get around. Things aren't going to change any time too soon and we all know it.

 

Sorry I was just poking a little fun at some people that think working hard and buying things is bad and that giving it all away to poor countries is somehow going to fix things. I was not making a bowl of salty cornflakes towards you :-)

 

We are in full agreement except lumping in CO2 as pollution. I can not see where we differ materially in what you wrote however.

 

My earlier point was just kind of lumping what we are hearing from the far left...David Suzuki clones if you will. I too take what I can to reduce waste etc.

 

Unfortunately what you or I seem reasonable is not necessarily what we have in store for us if we don't demand answers. Have Suzuki put forth a plan...lay some numbers down...explain how we much change specifically to meet their expectations. How far apart are we from where a moderate thinker is to where Suzuki clones are?

 

Interesting question to have them do more than arm waving and a blame game. Put our actual Carbon use down as points on a chart... Then see where we can feasibly drop given our population is way larger than in 1990.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Read this:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

 

If opinions remain unchanged and skeptics remain skeptical (which is what I expect) we are in just as much trouble as it appears.

 

But really, what does it matter, because the article is just another piece of the grand "climate scheme", right?

 

Here is a critique from someone watching this closely. It is not my quote but I respect his opinion. That article annoyed him LOL. He managed to articulate some points better than I could.

 

What do you think of his points based upon the article?

 

************************************************

 

Here's a response that annoying Scientific American thing...

 

 

 

Yes, I've read that *very* misleading article. Now you've got me on a rant. It's the kind of advocacy-not-science crap one comes to expect from AGW-theory supporters. In many cases it's not so much what it says, but what it chooses to exclude, where the rub lies...

 

 

 

Here is a quick take on each of the claims:

 

 

 

Claim 1. Misrepresents the argument entirely. No one credible that I'm aware of says "Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources." The whole water vapour thing is also a sleight of hand attempt at misdirection.

 

 

 

The "explanation" then goes on to first answer the objection that no one is making, and then gets into the climate forcing of C02 on water vapour, saying that, "the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

 

 

 

The word "may" kind of give you a clue here, because here is the actual truth: no one actually knows, and no one has ever done any experiment anywhere that confirms that. See, climate sensitivity to C02 forcing is kind of a big deal... it's what all the predictions of doom and gloom are based on (i.e., the more C02 the more there are these positive feedback loops which in turn create more positive effects, etc., etc., leading to flooding all over the world and billions dead!!!). Utter crap. If you actually review the peer-reviewed literature, here is what you find: in over 100 years there have been many papers written on climate sensitivity to C02 forcing, assuming a human-caused doubling in C02 residency from, I think it's 1950 levels. The conclusions range from around .75 degrees to over 9 degrees, making the highest estimate around 12 *times* the lowest. Even looking at the papers published over the past several years, you see a high end that is over 5 *times* the lowest. The 25 most commonly referenced General Circulation Models (GCM's), 14 of which are used by the IPCC in the Assessment reports, which are the computer climate models used to predict future disaster, employ a similar range of sensitivity estimates to that 2nd range. Think about that for a second. We're told the "science is settled" and yet the models and the published literature don't even come close to reaching consensus on one of the most important factors! In reality, you can probably attribute about .5-1 degree of warming to C02 forcing. The rest they don't know. They just assume C02 because they can't think of anything else. Seriously. That is, in fact, what the argument boils down to: they can't think of anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

Claim 2: The alleged "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a "medieval warm period" around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.

 

 

 

I love their refutation of this, which cites the NAS review of the Mann paper, cherry picking the NAS's comments. If you actually read that review (which I have), what they said was that Mann's reconstructions were probably good for the 20th century, and less and less confidence could be placed the further back you go. Once you get to 1,000 AD, little confidence could be placed in Mann's assertions. The article also attacks the Wegman analysis. It should be noted that Wegman is pretty much the foremost statistician in the United States, if not the world, and he has NO vastest interest either way in the AGW debate. He reviewed Mann's paper and basically said that Mann's methodology was deeply flawed and that it, in effect, mined the data to achieve a hockey stick shape. Warmists don't like that, so they attack it, but it's all for nothing. Mann's hockey stick papers (98 and 2008) are quite definitely dead. The warmists also argue about all the other papers that support the hockey stick... well, it doesn't take much looking to discover most of them are built on the same, flawed, cherry picked data using the same flawed methodology as Mann did. It doesn't matter how many times you add up 2+2 to equal 5. It's still wrong.

 

 

 

I also love the final paragraph, which says, even if the hockey stick was busted, so what? First, if it wasn't busted, why are they leaving themselves an out? Second, it's critically important because the IPCC bases its political call for action on the foundation that today's temperatures are unprecedented and therefore something must be done. If they aren't unprecedented (and contrary to the article there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that show temperatures were as warm or warmer than they are today in the MWP), then the case for political action today is substantively reduced.

 

 

 

 

 

Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then.

 

 

 

Again, no one credible makes this claim, so they're refuting an argument that doesn't exist outside of the real wingnuts. *However*, what IS true is that there has been no statistically significant warming for about 15 years now. None of the GCM's predicted this, and by their own admission the big boys in climate science don't know why the earth has not been warming as AGW theory would predict. Kind of an eye-opener, that! I mean, if they don't know why the earth has stopped warming, rather makes you start to doubt they really knew why it was warming in the first place, doesn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming. After all, Mars is warming up, too.

 

 

 

Some make this claim. There have been a number of papers recently that certainly point to a far greater influence of the sun on climate change than the IPCC would have us believe. The two big players here are Scafetta, who says that the sun accounts for about 60% of the warming, and Svendsmark, whose research focuses on cosmic rays and their role in cloud formation. I mean, the RealClimate folks are basically operating under the assumption here that they know everything there is to know (or at least enough of it) about the sun and how it affects climate that they can be confident in their C02 forcing conclusion. This is crap. Heck, there was a just a paper published about a month ago that identified a previously unknown solar wind mechanism. Truth is, there is a lot less known than known.

 

 

 

Also, clouds remain a real thorn in the side of AGW theory. Fact is, all the GCM's assume they are positive feedbacks. There is almost no evidence for this, and some evidence that they are in fact negative feedbacks. Additionally, very little is actually known about clouds, and there is *no* data on them prior to the satellite age. So, when the IPCC and the GCM's make predictions and base them in part on cloud feedback, they're pretty much just making it up - choosing figures to fit their preconceived notions. They don't actually have any science to base it on.

 

 

 

The article also claims that, "Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation." This is just pure advocacy BS. Truth is they don't really know, they just base that conclusion on what the GCM's say.

 

 

 

This is actually one of the really common themes of the IPCC and AGW theory in general... they take a little bit of something and blow it up into a WAY BIG PROBLEM. And then, you look into it, and what do you find... they don't really know, they're just guessing.

 

 

 

 

 

Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's pretty much all true, actually. They try to refute this by saying, "no, no, 98% of the data is there", but this is hugely misleading.

 

 

 

See, that 2% that is not there... that's the stuff that the whole crux of the matter is built on. Sure, they'll give you the *list* of the temperature stations used to build temperature reconstructions... and you can get the raw data... but try getting the adjusted data they *actually* use and sorry, out of luck! And, as we've all seen from the hacked emails, a small group at the top of climate science have been doing their best to gear the process to ensure that funding goes to scientists they agree with to publish papers they agree with... so who knows what the real truth is? All we've really heard is one side of the story.

 

 

 

 

 

Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige.

 

 

 

Yes, that's true, as anyone who understands how academia works knows. Scientists go where the grant money is, and there is no (well, very little) grant money in looking for other non-C02 related warming causes. This entire section basically amounts to just a big sarcastic brush off with nothing of any particular value to refute what is actually a pretty credible claim.

 

 

 

 

 

Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don't produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint.

 

 

 

Again, all true. Look... eventually we're going to run out of oil and other energy sources will need to be found. The market will force this without governments doing anything except maybe providing some subsidies to spur promising research.

 

 

 

The other part of the refutation is basically the "insurance policy" argument. That is, "well, why take the risk? Do something!". This is just an inane argument. Getting in your car and driving to Banff is risky too. Does that mean you stay home? No. It means you take reasonable precautions and then get on with it. Is making multi-trillion dollar policy decisions that economize a building block of life a "reasonable precaution"? Not with science as unsettled as AGW theory it isn't, and particularly when there's a self-correcting mechanism built in (oil running out) anyway.

 

 

 

Bah. That article is a massive embarrassment to Scientific American.

[calkid75]

Here are some numbers I found in a Globe and mail article.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/...article1404674/

 

"A leaked document making the rounds Thursday night at the summit said the planet is on course for a dangerously high, 3-degree average rise, based on the emissions cuts offered so far by the countries attending the summit.

 

The document, dated Dec. 15 and marked “Confidential Very Initial Draft,” was prepared by the UN secretariat overseeing the Copenhagen summit. It reveals a gap of 1.9-gigatonnes to 4.2-million gigatonnes (one gigatonne equals one billion tonnes) between the latest reduction pledges by 2020 and the output level – 44 gigatonnes – required to stay below a rise of 2 degrees over the next century. The pledge shortfall “will reduce significantly the probability to stay within a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius,” the draft document concluded. "

 

I guess this is some of what I have been looking for: From some other numbers I have been hearing it should cost Canada over 30 billion a year to not achieve anything significant. At best it will delay flooding for a couple years. Great Job ... hopefully it will all fall apart soon!!!

[Guest Sundancefisher]

This is too funny

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-your-pets.aspx

 

 

Terry O'Neill: Save the planet — kill your pets

Posted: December 18, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor

Terry O’Neill

 

As the Copenhagen melodrama reaches its weepy climax, many fretful Canadians might believe the only way to save the world from catastrophic climate change is to take matters into their own hands by severely reducing their personal carbon footprints. For guidance, some might look to the likes of this newspaper’s Diane Francis who, in a notorious column published last week, called for a “planetary law” to restrict couples to a single child.

 

Too extreme for you? Then allow me to suggest a more-immediate, less disturbing alternative to radical human de-population: radical pet de-population.

 

According to a recent Ipsos Reid study, an estimated 56% of all Canadian households have at least one dog or cat. Similarly, a federal government report found that Canadians own eight million of the critters — the vast majority of which, it must be stated, serve little practical purpose.

 

You know where this is going: Eco-conscious Canadians could lower their households’ carbon footprint by eliminating, as it were, their pets’ carbon paw-print.

 

An argument for this can be found in the provocatively entitled book, Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, published earlier this year by Robert and Brenda Vale of New Zealand. The couple (who may well be under police protection by now, as far as I know), declare that simply feeding an average-sized dog has the eco-footprint of building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. A cat’s eco-paw-print is somewhat less: about the same as a Volkswagen Golf.

 

Moreover, their calculations did not even take into account the many specialized services and goods to which pet owners can now avail themselves. Anyone for a trip to the Urban Barkery to load up on baked delicacies for precious little Fifi? Or how about the latest in waterproof body wear, booties, bejewelled collars or scents? There’s even a “satin designer bed” available for that special “pampered pooch.”

 

For the vast majority of Canadians, pet ownership is a luxury. Therefore, it seems hypocritical for activists to caterwaul about “saving the planet” from the evils of carbon-spewing capitalism and overpopulation when there are so many non-essential animals taking up space, using up resources and exhaling carbon emissions out of their little snouts.

 

Consider, for example, a Canadian group called Moms Against Climate Change, which recently produced a disturbing video showing a mob of angry children clashing with riot police. The group warns of “starving bears, droughts, floods … and even more extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tornados” should drastic action not be taken.

 

Angela Morgan of Dundas, Ont., states on the Moms website that she has a husband, two children, two cats and a dog. It sounds like a lovely household but, in light of the carbon-spewing potential of those three pets, it also stinks of hypocrisy.

 

Columnist Francis didn’t shirk from suggesting that governments control family size. But, if we’re talking population control, a far more palatable measure would be to limit or even ban the ownership of dogs and cats. If such a law were passed, one can even imagine a commando team of veterinarians invading Ms. Morgan’s home, euthanasia syringes at the ready …

 

Don’t think for a minute that I am actually calling for this. Rather, I am merely pointing out that many of the environmentalists who assail us for driving SUVs or drinking bottled water, and seek laws that forbid us from doing so, could easily cut their own households’ carbon output by tons merely by getting rid of their family pets.

 

Why don’t they? Could it be that, behind their militant rhetoric, they secretly know what the rest of us do — that there is more to life than single-mindedly pursuing environmentalist dogma?

 

The irony of it is that many green leaders — including the aforementioned Angela Morgan — positively boast about their pets, taking them as a badge of Earth-lovingness. But from a carbon-counting point of view, they might as well have a garage full of SUVs.

 

I will not comment on the question of whether or not an environmentally sensitive household should go so far as to adopt the gastronomic action suggested by the authors Vale, other than to point out that a great many cultures already embrace the idea. You can look it up.

 

National Post

 

Terry O’Neill

 

 

[hydropsyche]

(one gigatonne equals one billion tonnes)

 

Now I'm really suspicious. I know CO2 *is* heavier then air but if something weighed that much, wouldn't it just fall out of the sky? Like right now? And the AWG crowd is trying to tell us its "floating" up there creating a greenhouse gas affect?

 

I don't get it.

[robert]

Well, lets say for a moment that global warming is a myth. Some of you are saying it is - and that's your opinion, you're entitled. I'm not a bleeding heart or a tree hugger by any means - let me make that clear.

 

Look at the major cities around the world - From los angeles to toronto to beijing to New Delhi - whereever. Ever notice how many are wearing face masks? The clouds that hang over many of these cities? Doesn't that bother people?

 

Does it bother you that each and every one of us are contributing to this? When we drive our cars, buy stuff at stores, turn up the heat, keep the lights burning?

 

I personally would not eat the fish out of many lakes and rivers around alberta and every fisherman on this board has seen it - simple oil slick, crap floating down the river, whatever and we all complain about it - look at the NSR flowing through edmonton, would you eat the fish out of it? The sturgeon river is completely disgusting - but why is it? What is being dumped into these rivers and why?

 

When you turn your lights on and leave them burning, where do you think the energy comes from? It has to be produced somehow and the chances are damn good that pollution is made to fullfil your need for that power you're burning, it doesn't just come out of thin air unless it's wind powered.

 

It's not just about CO2, it's about pollution in general - we're killing ourselves by wanting our toys, by wanting to be "haves", by having the simple demands that we have.

 

Look at diseases like cancer? Rates seem to be increasing as the decades go by - anybody else noticing how many more people are dying of diseases like cancer? Can pollution be a part of that problem or do you consider that a natural effect?

 

Can anyone out there give me examples of pollution that is not created to fulfill the hunger of our human population in some way? That's a good question for us all to answer. To hell with economics for a minute - it's all supply and demand.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Well, lets say for a moment that global warming is a myth. Some of you are saying it is - and that's your opinion, you're entitled. I'm not a bleeding heart or a tree hugger by any means - let me make that clear.

 

Look at the major cities around the world - From los angeles to toronto to beijing to New Delhi - whereever. Ever notice how many are wearing face masks? The clouds that hang over many of these cities? Doesn't that bother people?

 

Does it bother you that each and every one of us are contributing to this? When we drive our cars, buy stuff at stores, turn up the heat, keep the lights burning?

 

I personally would not eat the fish out of many lakes and rivers around alberta and every fisherman on this board has seen it - simple oil slick, crap floating down the river, whatever and we all complain about it - look at the NSR flowing through edmonton, would you eat the fish out of it? The sturgeon river is completely disgusting - but why is it? What is being dumped into these rivers and why?

 

When you turn your lights on and leave them burning, where do you think the energy comes from? It has to be produced somehow and the chances are damn good that pollution is made to fullfil your need for that power you're burning, it doesn't just come out of thin air unless it's wind powered.

 

It's not just about CO2, it's about pollution in general - we're killing ourselves by wanting our toys, by wanting to be "haves", by having the simple demands that we have.

 

Look at diseases like cancer? Rates seem to be increasing as the decades go by - anybody else noticing how many more people are dying of diseases like cancer? Can pollution be a part of that problem or do you consider that a natural effect?

 

Can anyone out there give me examples of pollution that is not created to fulfill the hunger of our human population in some way? That's a good question for us all to answer. To hell with economics for a minute - it's all supply and demand.

 

The attempt to link tornados, hurricanes, snow storms, floods, drought...basically every normal weather variation seen since man first started caring enough to pay attention is all attributed to man made global warming.

 

Now for you to attribute smog, cancer, sewage pollution, oil and gas pollution, industry factory pollution, garbage in general, general pollution to CO2 is something many wing nuts are trying to do also. I just caution you to be careful. You step past reason and into ideological religion.

 

Everyone would love for there to be no smog. As smog by definition is not CO2...yes....let's fix THAT pollution. Acid rain...sulfur pollution (which is not naturally occurring in nature except in deep sea vents and volcanoes)...well documented and fixed as a result. As for CO2 being toxic...I guess all I can say is then stop breathing for half the day. Drop your personal emissions in half. You exhale CO2 constantly.

 

As for conserve, reuse, recycle. ROCK ON DUDE! I am all for that. If you could somehow train the wife to turn off lights I would be forever grateful. Drives me freaking bananas!

 

Sun

 

P.S. An example of pollution that is not created to fulfill the hunger of our human population...hmmm...how about dead people. We bury them and incinerate them... Everything that goes into that process I find is not done by me for reasons of greed. More like sadness.

[robert]

I never once attributed anything to CO2 levels sundance, i'm smarter than the average bear, go back and reread. I said it's not it's not just about CO2, it's about pollution in general...

 

Not to sound morbid but as for dead people, still have to produce a casket, still gotta get them to the graveyard or incinerator and not too many people dig graves by hand anymore. Yeah, we rot in the ground, so do many other animals that die.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I never once attributed anything to CO2 levels sundance, i'm smarter than the average bear, go back and reread. I said it's not it's not just about CO2, it's about pollution in general...

 

Not to sound morbid but as for dead people, still have to produce a casket, still gotta get them to the graveyard or incinerator and not too many people dig graves by hand anymore. Yeah, we rot in the ground, so do many other animals that die.

 

 

No problem. In the context of this thread and how your comment reads that you were seemingly implying that CO2 and other pollution were linked. You post was a hijack for the most part...but I did not read it that way. Sorry.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Outside of the context of CO2 completely...then I agree. "As for conserve, reuse, recycle. ROCK ON DUDE! I am all for that." Let's eliminate Cancer, toxic pollution, and hunger etc. We can put trillions of dollars ear marked for global warming.

 

Sun

 

P.S. I told the wife I want as cheap a casket as possible. Fry me and spread me in a creek of my choosing...or the ocean most likely...or maybe some in different spot. Man...my CO2 footprint will be huge flying my ashes around :-)

 

 

Just to clarify...I think many on my side don't disbelieve in global warming as a possibility. We disbelieve in the process and the ideological politics involved. We want to see equal money given to both sides for proper research and dialog.

[calkid75]

Just to clarify...I think many on my side don't disbelieve in global warming as a possibility. We disbelieve in the process and the ideological politics involved. We want to see equal money given to both sides for proper research and dialog.

 

 

Here, here! That's all I think most want, I believe a lot of people against Global warming/climate change don't necessarily completely dismiss it. But when clumped with all other things, do not put it near the top of any list of priorities. Sure lets clean up the planet but I think CO2 is the wrong item to bet our future on.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Excellent story... for those that think there is nothing substantial to the emails climate gate leak or that the science is settled.

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2365992

 

Trouble over tree rings

The climate question: second of two parts

 

Terence Corcoran, National Post

Published: Monday, December 21, 2009

 

 

In the thousands of emails released last month in what is now known as Climategate, the greatest battles took place over scientists' attempts to reconstruct a credible temperature record for the last couple of thousand years. Have they failed? What the Climategate emails provide is at least one incontrovertible answer: They certainly have not succeeded.

 

In a post-Copenhagen world, climate history is not merely a matter of getting the record straight, or a trivial part of the global warming science. In a Climategate email in April of this year, Steve Colman, professor of Geological Science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told scores of climate scientists "most people seem to accept that past history is the only way to assess what the climate can actually do (e. g., how fast it can change). However, I think that the fact that reconstructed history provides the only calibration or test of models (beyond verification of modern simulations) is under-appreciated."

 

If temperature history is the "only" way to test climate models, the tests we have on hand --mainly the shaky temperature history of the last 1,000 or 2,000 years -- suggest current climate models are not getting a proper scientific workout.

 

Two scientists, one British and the other American, straddle the initial Climategate battle over recent global temperature history. Later, the same two scientists appear to abandon their internal disagreements and join forces to present a united front to fight off critics and put down skeptics.

 

In the United Kingdom, Keith Briffa, at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- from where the emails appear to have been hacked or leaked -- headed one of the main scientific projects. His specialty is dendroclimatology, the study of tree rings to reconstruct past climate records. In 1998, Mr. Briffa played a lead role as East Anglia's CRU tried to fulfill its mandate from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): develop official global temperature data records.

 

In June 1998, a new player dramatically crashed the official CRU paleo world. As described on Saturday in the first part of this two-part series, U.S. scientist Michael Mann was invited to become part of the official effort to create a history of global temperatures. Then adjunct assistant professor of geosciences at the Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Mr. Mann would soon come to dominate the IPCC paleoclimate effort.

 

Like all paleoclimatologists, Mr. Briffa and Mr. Mann both used various proxies. Actual temperature records exist only from the late 1800s, forcing scientists to use uncertain indirect methods -- ice core samples, tree-ring measurements, rock formations -- to determine what temperatures might have been 500, 1,000 and 5,000 years ago. Mr. Briffafocusedmuchof his attention on Russia, where scientists scoured Siberia for tree ring data.

 

When Mr. Mann joined the UN global paleo project, he had already finished "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcings over the past six centuries," a paper written with Ray Bradley at the University of Massachusetts and Malcolm Hughes, a meso-climatologist and professor of dendrochronology in the Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. The core of that paper was a graphic that would come to be known as the "hockey stick" presentation of northern hemisphere temperatures over the past centuries. It was called the hockey stick because it appeared to show a flat temperature run and a sharp uptick in the past 50 years.

 

The main Mann-Briffa confrontation took place in the spring of 1999 after Mr. Briffa submitted a paper to Science magazine, critiquing elements of the hockey stick and presenting his own 2,000-year tree-ring-based paleo record.

 

Mr. Briffa sent Mr. Mann a copy of his Science article on April 12, advising Mr. Mann that he had "decided to mention uncertainties in tree-ring data while pushing the need for more work." Earlier emails also show Mr. Briffa struggling with Russian tree-ring results and the reports of Russian scientists on their difficulties. Their findings often contradicted the idea that the world is warmer today than hundreds or even thousands of years ago. "Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD. There is no evidence of moving polar timberline in the north during the last century," wrote Rashit Hanntemirov from Russia in October 1998 -- implying that warming has been common in the past and nothing unusual was happening today.

 

The reference to 750-1450 would appear to support the long-held scientific view on the existence of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that might have been hotter than the 20th century. A couple of weeks later, another Russian, Eugene Vaganov, wrote in a paper that "the warming in the middle of the 20th century is not extraordinary. The warming at the border of the 1st and 2nd millennia was more long in time and similar in amplitude."

 

Mr. Briffa, in his Science paper, proposed his own 2,000-year record as an alternative to Mr. Mann's hockey stick, using other data, including collections from Sweden and Yamal, in Siberia. The paper raises issues that cast doubt on Mr. Mann's version of climate history. Mr. Mann notoriously posits that the widely accepted existence of a MWP, and a subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA), are scientifically dubious phases that never happened. When Mr. Mann saw the pre-publication version of Mr. Briffa's critical paper, he blew up. In an April 13 email, he wrote to Mr. Briffa complaining that his work is "very misleading" and that it is "a bit unfair" in the way Mr. Briffa presents Mr. Mann's perspective.

 

Mr. Mann said another section in Mr. Briffa's paper was "incorrect" and that it misrepresented the level of uncertainty in Mr. Mann's work. "Our uncertainties are based both on 20th century calibration and independent confirmation from 19th century data. PLEASE MAKE SURE this is clear." Mr. Mann asks Mr. Briffa to remove parts of his 2,000-year graph. Mr. Mann criticized Mr. Briffa for using tree-ring density data as opposed to the tree-ring width data that Mr. Mann had been using because he found density measures inadequate.

 

Finally, in an important concluding remark, Mr. Mann tells Mr. Briffa to "correct" his definitions regarding "global temperature and non-temperature proxies." Mr. Mann prefers using the words "global climate proxies," thus giving the impression that proxies from tree rings and other sources and actual temperatures are one and the same for IPCC purposes. What Mr. Mann appears to be talking about here is the use of what CRU head Phil Jones would later call Mr. Mann's "trick" and how he was able to "hide the decline" in 20th century temperatures seen in Mr. Briffa's tree-ring research.

 

A series of email exchanges, some heated and involving a range of scientists, follows. It appears, moreover, that Mr. Mann had interfered with the peer-review process of Mr. Briffa's article at Science magazine. One of Mr. Mann's associates, Raymond Bradley at the University of Massachusetts, on April 19, wrote to Science editor Julia Uppenbrink, saying, "I would like to disassociate myself from Mike Mann's view" regarding the climate warming article. Mr. Bradley sends a blind copy of this email to Mr. Briffa.

 

The conflict eventually makes it up to Phil Jones, the head of CRU, who writes a stinging letter to Mr. Mann on May 6. "You seem quite pissed off with us all in CRU," writes Mr. Jones. "I am somewhat at a loss to understand why." Mr. Jones, in strong words, then rips into Mr. Mann. He accused Mr. Mann of "slanging us all off to Science." We all have disagreements, wrote Mr. Jones, but "We have never resorted to slanging one another off to a journal ... or in reviewing papers or proposals."

 

After a month of back and forth, Mr. Mann seems to offer an apology. In a mildly grovelling but self-serving and ultimately not-too-apologetic letter, he commends Mr. Briffa and others for doing such terrific work. "I appreciate having had the opportunity to respond to the original draft ... We have some honest disagreements among us ... Thanks for all the hard work and a job well done," wrote Mr. Mann on May 14. Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mann's associate in Massachusetts and co-creator of the hockey stick graph, sends a private response to Mr. Briffa: "Excuse me while I puke ... Ray."

 

More clashes occur later that year over the tree-ring record. Mr. Briffa, in September 1999, is still battling Mr. Mann. "I know Mike thinks his series is 'the best', and he might be right -- but he may also be too dismissive of other data and overconfident of his own." He adds: "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data,' but in reality the situation is not quite so clear ... I believe the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."

 

At this point in the emails, the stage has been set for a decade of high drama. Over the next 10 years, the emails become a zone of internal conflict and external battles to suppress criticism, ridicule critics and resist all interference with the official science story they had assembled: The late 20th century was the warmest in history, and the next 100 years could be a climate nightmare.

 

The Mann technique of aggressive intervention in the peer-review process over Mr. Briffa's work sets the tone for what would become a major strategy, as all the scientists within the IPCC loop waged war on any scientists and papers that contravened or questioned the official view.

 

The anti-skeptic campaign switched into overdrive with the arrival on the climate science scene of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. In mid-2003, after many efforts, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick finally published a paper titled "Corrections to the Mann et al Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series."

 

The public battles between Mr. Mann and the two Canadians are already on the record. The emails reinforce the worst of suspicions that the official scientific community did all they could to smear Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick, prevent publication of the work of skeptics, manipulate the peer-review process and isolate all skeptics as cranks. On May 31, 2004, Phil Jones, head of the IPCCdesignated Climatic Research Unit, wrote to Mr. Mann: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised ... "

 

Mr. Mann meddled in other ways. In January 2005, he called the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), the official science publication of the American Geophysical Union, to try to head off a paper by Mr. Mc-Intyre. The editor, Steve Mackwell, defends the decision to publish and tells Mr. Mann that the McIntyre paper has been thoroughly peer reviewed by four scientists. "You would not in general be asked to look it over," Mr. Mackwell told Mr. Mann. Later in 2005, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones on their troubles with the GRL journal after Mr. Mackwell's term as editor was up: "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership."

 

Mr. McIntyre, a mining exploration expert based in Toronto, and Mr. Mc-Kitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph, continued to dog Mr. Mann's view of climate history. First they wanted release of the data behind the hockey stick graph and the computer code that produced various trend lines. When Mr. Mann and CRU declined or resisted, Mr. McIntyre began filing freedom of information (FOI) requests in the United States and Britain. The emails portray embattled scientists fighting desperately to interfere with official FOI processes. One now widely circulated email, by Mr. Jones, asked Mr. Mann: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith [briffa] will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -- minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

 

In this email, Mr. Jones is asking key scientists who worked on AR4 -- the 4th Assessment Report on the science of climate change produced by the IPCC in 2007 -- to erase all emails related to that report. Caspar Ammann is a scientist at the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric Research. His area is natural climate variability and change over the past centuries and millennia and their application to climate change.

 

The emails take another turn against the IPCC scientists after Mr. McIntyre got his hands on some of the tree-ring data collected by Russian scientists in Yamal in Siberia. It appeared to Mr. McIntyre that Mr. Briffa, in producing another hockey-stick like result in 2007, cherry-picked tree rings. Mr. Briffa, once at war with Mr. Mann over climate records, now found himself aligned with Mr. Mann in defending the hockey stick. After Mr. McIntyre revealed his Yamal tree ring findings on his ClimateAudit blog, and Ross McKitrick wrote of the Briffa Yamal tree-ring issue in the Financial Post this past October, the emails again lit up with fresh rounds of defensive fire.

 

Within weeks, however, the private email battle would overtake the skirmish over the latest public McIntyre findings. On Nov. 17, with release of the Climategate emails, the 13-year battle over climate history and climate forecasting would be all over the Internet and the media.

 

The epic stories in the emails, in any honest reading, do not produce any concrete results or conclusions regarding the state of the science.

 

What exists now in the public domain is scientific conflict and uncertainty that goes to the heart of climate change science -- past, present and future.

 

As recently as Nov. 28, a posting on the Mann-related website, Real- Climate.org,continues to claim the MWP and the LIA never happened. If that is scientifically provable, then it might be true that the last 50 years have been the hottest in a thousand years, offering some support to the idea that man-made climate change is changing the climate in a significant and unprecedented way. But if the MWP and the LIA did occur, then the Earth may be just as warm today as it was 1,000 years ago. If that's the case, the hockey stick graph and the official paleoclimate record are at best uncertain or, at worst, a scientific trick. It is, in my view, not possible for a layman, or even an expert, to make any assessment of the tree ring data conflicts -- to pick one issue -- based on the emails. Masses of computer code and data are imbedded in the Climategate documents, enough to keep a full science inquiry busy for months, if not years. Exactly who did what with which data requires a full investigation by competent scientists and official bodies.