Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[wayneL]

As another general principle, one of the worst things for any sort of marketing (and lets face it GW is being marketed) is overkill.

Pound that message too hard and folks just turn off. I think there is a real danger of that already occurring (in true American fashion). Most people I speak to who accept GW as fact, accept it as fait accompli.

They've been told we're doomed so effectively, that it's "OK, we're screwed, so lets just enjoy life as best we can. we'll be dead anyway."

 

[noirua]

World expansion is a big problem and many a green activist fights against a coal mine being given the go-ahead without facing the poor growth and problems of the alternative fuels.

World growth in 2008 should be around 4.75%, IMF forecasts (2006-5.4%, 2007-5.2%), less in the West, but more in Asia and the Far east making the balance.
So, alternative green fuels need to grow in quantity, in 2008, by nearly 100% just to keep up with 2007.

2020 mentions UCC or anthracite, but progress on these is painfully slow, even though 20 cents on every tonne of coal produced in Australia goes in advancing production and technology. Vietnam seems to be a leading light in wanting anthracite supplies in the future.

Also don't think that all forms of so called green products are as green as many may like you to believe.

 

[numbercruncher]

View attachment frosty-lblue.bmp


My Daughter got me this T for Chrissy ..... Im going to become a walking GW / CC billboard wonder if I could get Carbon Credits in the new economy for being a Climate Change billboard ?

 

[2020hindsight]

We also need fewer individuals. Meanwhile we continue to have "one for him, one for her, and one for the country" - ---- while China tries to restrain people to just having one (end of story). Lets talk about talk vs action .

Let's take a new spin on this one as well...
suppose we as Aussies insist that we need more Aussies for national defense or whatever - like, noway !! are we gonna limit our family size....

then, considering China has voluntarily deduced its population by regulation ( unpopular of course !! - amongst the Chinese populace) by more than 220 million or about the population of USA

then wouldn't you think, if we insisted on that situation being "fair"

then it would be fair for us to do our bit for Kyoto etc (and any and all other measures including personal reduction in energy usage).


PS Here I'll throw in one of those PS's - trust you understand no malice here prof...
Maybe the bedrooms of the second and third kids in an Aussie house should not have lights fitted?

I mean it wouldn't affect the third world either way, they have several familes sharing one bulb


PS I met a Chinese engineer who was working in Fiji - a young bloke posted there for 3 years. Whilst there his wife had their child ( a little girl), and he didn't see the child till he got home three years later. He missed her first giggles, her first words, her first steps, so many magic moments -

and he/they aren't allowed to have another

These people are putting in seriously hard yards, while we argue about our footy etc .

 

[wayneL]

Wayne
Suppose a man with a big house on the hill tells you that

a) people in coastal shacks (all over the world) are in peril, and
b) other critters, forests, oceans etc are in peril, and
c) that for every tonne of CO2 he generates in telling people this, he achieves two tonne of reduction

do you ignore him on a) and b) because you doubt c).

PS I'm not saying he's perfect, just that he echieves a nett benefit.

You see Al Bore is a egomaniacal t0sser with a hidden agenda, I wouldn't listen to him about anything.

I would listen to the likes of David Suzuki however, who rides pushbikes and takes his own cup to the baseball game rather than using a styrofoam cup for his coffee. (and has done for at least 10 years I know about)

 

[numbercruncher]

They've been told we're doomed so effectively, that it's "OK, we're screwed, so lets just enjoy life as best we can. we'll be dead anyway."

Yes precisely, and im surprised at the sheer number of " Oh well I wont be here " crowd as well ....

Marketing the cause probably needs to be two tiered in that it needs to also address peoples selfishness with regards to next generations.

We probaly need to be pushing that we CAN and WILL win , with "your" help .... two of humans strongest natural mechanisms are Fight and Flight - we need to energise the Fight ! Like you said if the peoples are convinced by bubblevision that we are doomed they will choose Flight on GW and just carry on their merry little old habits way ...

 

[2020hindsight]

I would listen to the likes of David Suzuki however, who rides pushbikes and takes his own cup to the baseball game rather than using a styrofoam cup for his coffee. (and has done for at least 10 years I know about)

wayne, hey, lol - think you're the only fan of Suzuki?

so where Suzuki and Gore overlap, you would accept the verdict?

(PS only difference possibly - pure conjecture ok - Suzuki gets paid, Gore doesn't)

PS I'm off to the beach - what a day !!! how can they say there's no Mother Nature! lol

 

[Smurf1976]

If we go ahead with Kyoto then individual actions become irrelevant.

If I choose to buy 1000 tonnes of coal and set fire to it then it will make NO difference whatsoever in a scenario where total emissions are capped under an international agreement. All it will do is slightly raise the price of carbon and result in someone else using 1000 tonnes less coal than they otherwise would have. That's how Kyoto in a market economy works.

All this stuff about banning light bulbs etc is outright nonsense now that we have ratified Kyoto. It is, at best, a cheap means of compliance.

But since when was it the role of government to decide what represents value in a competitive market? Banning bulbs is really no different to a government decree that we all rush out and buy shares in XYZ, buy a certain brand of washing detergent and wear a specified brand of shoes because, in the government's opinion, they represent good value. Banning bulbs won't save CO2 in a Kyoto world - it's a financial issue not an environmental one.

Same with solar hot water etc. If I don't get the solar or heat pump hot water service and use electric instead then, with total emissions capped, someone else finds the slightly increased price of carbon a sufficient incentive and cuts emissions instead of me doing it. And vice versa.

All government needs to do is decide the amount of CO2 etc to be emitted and then stand aside. The market will do the rest far better than any politician who doesn't comprehend the practical aspects of different technologies.

We need to "do our part" with oil that's for sure. But the CO2 issue has been taken out of the public's hands by Kyoto. Trouble is, the message being sent out is the opposite - do your part with CO2 but don't worry about oil.

Only two weeks ago I was accused of lying over the simple point that a hot water cylinder stores hot water and doesn't go cold the moment the power is turned off. I was trying to explain why off-peak power made more sense than continuous rate but it was a lost cause - at least until they get a power bill or two. Just one example of how the general public really hasn't got a clue about even the simplest energy technology - and this was a reasonably well educated person.

 

[professor_frink]

lol
when I said you were exaggerating , I used the word "exagerating" which is a lesser form thereof

I was referring to your two headed kangaroos of course.

And we already have those radioactive spills out there. So whether or not we go on to use the U ourselves, we are going to have to be aware of radioactivity , conceded.

I'm planning to do some more research on the resources of U in the world, plus coal, plus etc - see just how long we've got (probably wait for Smurf's assistance lol)

Mind you, damns make a lot of methane -
when it comes to hydro, maybe it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't (??)

I'll think about your post some more prof. But you are agreeing I think that we are already "up to our necks in nuclear industry" are you not?

Sorry 2020,

I somehow missed this one in the onslaught of posts this morning

I'm agreeing about us already being "up to our necks in the nuclear industry" to a point. It's already here, not much can be done about that, but until we can come up with a way to dispose of the waste it generates, IMO we shouldn't be carrying on like it's the holy grail of electricity generation, because it ain't

Dams do make methane, but how much exactly?(I don't have an exact figure). Either way, using a lot more hydro to me is more beneficial compared with nuclear- dams can be knocked down if required(or if something better comes along) in the future, and the area will recover a hell of a lot quicker than it will take for an area to recover from radioactive waste spilling out into the environment when we try and store it.

ok - lol I seem to have attracted the ire of multiple mods here, so may be pushing my luck to comment
but buga it, my god (mother nature) wants me to have a go, so here goes....

1. well Newcastle will presumably win from investment in clean coal technology ( there I remain to be convinced of its effectiveness, but I hope I'm wrong) - I also do work with the coalfields in the Hunter, albeit peripheral.

2. and no co2 either way , wind or nuclear

3. If you're saying Wayne's comment was a hypothetical, then so was mine I guess:-
Wayne :- If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style
Julia :- I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents .. much of the population.
Wayne:- It was only partly facetious.
2020:- perhaps Wayne is right. why bother trying
i.e. I'm agreeing with his hypothetical

Of course I believe in action on an individual level. I agree entirely with Wayne and you here

Where I seem to disagree is that I think such efforts should include (but obviously not limited to) writing about it on public forums.

- and showing public support for any and all positives including Kyoto, however small a step they may be.

"spruking / squawking" whatever seems to cause some around here concern.
(I assume squaw-king is an american indian term ?)

And Bali is a small step I concede - As I mentioned on the poetry thread, Bali is just "the first Penny in the wishing well". but better than nothing, and a quantum leap from JHoward's attitude.

4. I hope you are right - that a combination of "demand management" and renewables can do it alone without nuclear. Just that I suspect that one day (probably not in my lifetime) nuclear will be a no-choice option.

5. agreed - we need individuals to use less. We also need fewer individuals. Meanwhile we continue to have "one for him, one for her, and one for the country" - ---- while China tries to restrain people to just having one (end of story). Lets talk about talk vs action .

6. I don't disagree with people wanting to take action on an individual level. I disagree with them finding fault with people talking about the criticality, the urgency, and )finding fault with) the people who are bringing this to our attention, including Al Gore with all his minor "inconsistencies" .

7. emotive statements. ok - that we are gonna lose the barrier reef. m8 , I was being generous when I said it might be in our children's time. It will probably happen in ours.

IF it doesn't (and I doubt that we can save it), then Al Gore and other squawkers will have achieved a miracle. Agreed? - I mean would anything have happened if not for his movie?

Prof Oppenheimer seems to think that the IPCC could not have done it without Al Gore's active assistance ?

Don't worry- I'm not participating in this discussion as a mod. If Al Gore decided to list himself on the ASX, you would be banned pretty quickly for your shameless ramping

1. I don't really buy the idea of clean coal(though don't know too much about it at this stage)

2. A standard argument from the nuclear lobby. And a pretty weak one too. If it were that simple, then we would have made the switch to nuclear a long time ago.

3. I'm not saying Wayne's comments were hypothetical at all. I do think you should go back and read his posts in this thread again.

4. I hope I am too. We aren't going to solve anything without reducing consumption, regardless of where the electricity comes from. To be honest, I can't see that happening anytime soon though. I would love to be wrong though.

5. Good.

6&7. Interesting comments. If things are that critical, then you would hope that Al would be doing a bit more than just talk about it. I in no way agree that Al Gore will have achieved a miracle if the GBR doesn't become destroyed when you say it might. Not sure how old you are, but GW is hardly a new topic that we are all aware of because of an inconvenient truth. This is something that has been talked about for years- The IPCC has been around for what, nearly 2 decades now? It's something that has been mentioned throughout my short life, so how is Al Gore making a movie 2 decades after the IPCC being formed responsible for that much?

Whilst it goes without saying that he has put a lot of work into promoting awareness of the issue, I think most people would have been well aware of what was going on well before he made that movie. Does that mean he shouldn't have made it? No, I don't think he has hurt the cause by doing what he's done. I do however, think he could be setting a better example, by practicing more of what he preaches. But that is probably worthy of an entire topic on it's own.

If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can, because we won't be able to do enough to save it now when we are talking about reducing emissions over the next 40 years, not 5

 

[billhill]

You see Al Bore is a egomaniacal t0sser with a hidden agenda, I wouldn't listen to him about anything.

Care to enlighten us to this hidden agenda please?

I would listen to the likes of David Suzuki however, who rides pushbikes and takes his own cup to the baseball game rather than using a styrofoam cup for his coffee. (and has done for at least 10 years I know about)

Full respect to him he is a noble and great man. However would you agree he's been unable to cut through to the mainstream anywhere near as effectively as Al Gore.

A movie does nothing.

Bit of a throw away statement wayne. For one example after his movie was released in WA households on renewable energy surged. Do you consider that as nothing. I've been concerned about the prospect of GW since i first heard about it in the mid 90s and have been following its development ever since. I can honestly say that the release of an inconvenient truth single handedly put the issue into the mainstream. This problem will not be fixed until it becomes a concern of the masses, something i believe al gore has had more contribution in then anyone else.

 

[2020hindsight]

A. Dams do make methane, but how much exactly?(I don't have an exact figure).

B. Either way, using a lot more hydro to me is more beneficial compared with nuclear- dams can be knocked down if required(or if something better comes along) in the future, and the area will recover a hell of a lot quicker than it will take for an area to recover from radioactive waste spilling out into the environment when we try and store it.

C. you would be banned pretty quickly for your shameless ramping

1. I don't really buy the idea of clean coal(though don't know too much about it at this stage)

2. A standard argument from the nuclear lobby. And a pretty weak one too. If it were that simple, then we would have made the switch to nuclear a long time ago.

3. I'm not saying Wayne's comments were hypothetical at all. I do think you should go back and read his posts in this thread again.

4. I hope I am too. We aren't going to solve anything without reducing consumption, regardless of where the electricity comes from. To be honest, I can't see that happening anytime soon though. I would love to be wrong though.

5. Good.

6&7. Interesting comments. If things are that critical, then you would hope that Al would be doing a bit more than just talk about it. I in no way agree that Al Gore will have achieved a miracle if the GBR doesn't become destroyed when you say it might. Not sure how old you are, but GW is hardly a new topic that we are all aware of because of an inconvenient truth. This is something that has been talked about for years- The IPCC has been around for what, nearly 2 decades now? It's something that has been mentioned throughout my short life, so how is Al Gore making a movie 2 decades after the IPCC being formed responsible for that much?

Whilst it goes without saying that he has put a lot of work into promoting awareness of the issue, I think most people would have been well aware of what was going on well before he made that movie. Does that mean he shouldn't have made it? No, I don't think he has hurt the cause by doing what he's done. I do however, think he could be setting a better example, by practicing more of what he preaches. But that is probably worthy of an entire topic on it's own.

If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can, because we won't be able to do enough to save it now when we are talking about reducing emissions over the next 40 years, not 5

ok ok, lol - first thing I want to say is that I think we are all having an Irish argument here - I'll post a poem (after I've converted it from a draft I just whipped up at the beach)

A. Dams make methane from rotting vegetation - I'm also not sure how much - obviously it depends how well they clean out the existing growth. Similarly I know of a local rubbish dump, and the methane that came out of that - sheesh - they had a couple of flares rising 10 foot in the air each - and that went on for about 10 years. I think even Smurf (if I can take his name in vane/vein/vain) has had to admit that his precious dams have just a hint of down side

B. well, lol - I'd say that's paranoia, lopsided bias - probably on both our parts - but we may have to agree to disagree.

C. "you would be banned pretty quickly for your shameless ramping". Hell I'm only sorry so much of the discussion has been about attacking the man (one man at that) and not concentrating on the message. Gore's house, car etc is absolutely IRRELEVANT as far as I am concerned. (apart from the fact that I suspect Wayne also ramps on this one - i.e. when he implies that Gore says " waste less", and then happily goes home and "wastes to his heart's content" )

I wish we'd been calling it the David Suzuki principle all along - except that , as billhill says, it would still be a lame duck on the bookshelves. It would never have taken off.

Here's a really wild theory, but I even suspect that part of Gore's popularity here (and we are talking USA, right?) is a feeling amongst the people that he was screwed in 2000, and maybe give him a chance...

1. clean coal - collect all that carbon in the stacks, and stuff it into underground seams. - yeah right.

here's another light-hearted comment - fair warning!! - the Hunter would be responsible for most of NSW's pollution, agreed . (we get our coal there after all - and of course we all share the power so generated). I recall a comedy show, for red wines - "this little number is a provative blend of delicate reds, with a hint of berry, and an aftertaste to die for"...

"meanwhile this glass from the Hunter "... sips, looks in the mirror .... "leaves a black smudge on your top lip ".

2. "A standard argument from the nuclear lobby. And a pretty weak one too."
well I used to back the nuclear argument back in the 70's. In fact we learnt about it at uni - in the early days of using the "nuclear ploughshare" rather than the "atomic sword".

Another "aside" - back then (in the 60's) we were told (at uni) of proposals on the books to make instant underground vitreous-lined flasks in central aus. - just drill a hole and let off a nuclear bomb - but make sure it didn't break the surface - the resultant flask would be waterproof, and would hold water for years rather than days (evaporation etc etc ) - radiation was usually ok after 5 or 10 years whatever - trivial in the timeframe we need to plan for.

Another proposal was to make harbours in the Pilbara (when Port Hedland was getting started etc) - one bomb - done!! - never happened of course - bit left-field that one lol.

"If it were that simple, then we would have made the switch to nuclear a long time ago."

- mmm no comment other than Johnny Howard was the first to even hint that nuclear would be seriously looked at. - and the greens and Labor attacked him mercilessly on that (when in my books they are being hypocritical) - too much emotion about disposing of waste - not enough about rising sea levels and other climate change, imo.

3. Wayne has clarified this.
4. good
5. good.

6&7. In that IPCC video ( have you watched it?) - Oppenheimer himself says that most in IPCC give Al gore massive credit for getting the message out. Apart from that I really don't want to spent more time discussing the man - let's get back to the message.

.........

"If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can,"

ok - I'm gonna accuse you of being either
a) childless, or
b) selfish, or
c) unconcerned whether "life" goes on on this planet after say 2100 lol. (and please don;t argue that the cockroackes or the dung beetles might survive etc). "Life handed down" should mean "life as handed to us" should it not !

"because we won't be able to do enough to save it now when we are talking about reducing emissions over the next 40 years, not 5

spot on - as I posted elsewhere, (ex IPCC source) most probably, if we stopped making ALL co2 NOW - the best prediction is that world would still be warming in the year 2100. Question is does it to get to 5 degree or 10 or 15 etc degrees hotter etc.

 

[2020hindsight]

I used to back the nuclear argument back in the 70's. ... "nuclear ploughshare" vs "atomic sword".

Just to amplify / clarify ... (this is a copy from "Global Cooling" thread)

Personally I've been through 3 phases on this nuclear question -
a) in favour in the old days when global warming was a new topic,
b) against after Chernobyl when it became obvious that humans are possibly too stupid to "go there", and now
c) in favour again, because the prospects for the world, and the coasts, and the forests are exponentially going downhill.

PS "nuclear ploughshare" vs "atomic sword". - are quotes from recent TIME magazine on this.

PS Just want to say thanks to Wayne for starting so many threads on this topic lol - great that it has brought in so much discussion etc. "Global Cooling" . "We are Toast" , "Great Global Warming Swindle" etc .
One should write a book based on the responses lol.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I reckon this green trend will blow over and everyone will return to their usual consumerist ways.Anyway while it`s in the spotlight Garp. found this site with some helpful ideas to reduce waste but the site still appeals to cosumerism (ism`s are back in style)


http://www.evo.com/

 

[2020hindsight]

o well - seems that David Suzuki is another liar .
rats. (FWIW this bloke is a FWIT)

GLOBAL WARMING AND DAVID SUZUKI'S LIES
by David MacRae

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, one of the highlights of my TV-viewing week was David Suzuki's excellent The Nature of Things. Each week I looked forward to yet another lucid insight into the workings of technology and the natural world. As a consequence of that long-running series, Suzuki is by far the best-known scientist in Canada. In fact, he has a considerable reputation worldwide.


Half-truths man
It's sad to see how a man I once admired has recently stooped to obfuscation, half-truths and outright lies in support of the Luddite cause of stopping technological progress. He imagines that we should return to some mythical past in which Mankind lived in harmony with nature.

Of course, Man has never lived in harmony with nature. Instead he has fought it from the beginning, and rightly so. Until the capitalist revolution of the last 250 years gave us some control over Nature's depredations, the vast majority of people lived lives that were brutish, backbreaking and short. The « rich » were those who had a full belly with an occasional helping of meat.

In their mad dash back to this imaginary garden, Suzuki and the other eco-nuts have always set their sights first and foremost on the energy industry. This is because energy is the foundation of a modern of economy. Destroy that and mankind will truly return to the past. In their lemming rush, they ignore one small detail: if they ever achieved their goals, billions of people would die. In their death throes, they would unleash an ecological catastrophe that would dwarf the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Twenty-five years ago, the eco-nuts were fussing about how another ice age was coming. Remember that? Today it's the opposite problem; the ice caps are about to melt and we're all going to be drowned. Conveniently, the cause of this coming disaster is the energy industry.

To support this idea Suzuki and the rest of the eco-nut fringe present us with the following « reasoning »:
1) The earth is warming up;
2) Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are the cause;
3) This global warming will have a disastrous effect on the future of Mankind and the planet on the whole;
4) The Kyoto Protocol, forcing developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions, will save us from this disaster.

gee sounds like Gore at this stage.... and gets the same response ....

All four of these claims are false. Let's take them in turn:
Claim: The earth is warming.
Fact: The global temperature reached its modern peak about 1940 and declined somewhat in the following decade. It has not changed significantly in the last fifty years although there has been considerable variation from year to year, largely due to the El Niño phenomenon.

Claim: The cause of warming is man-made increases in atmospheric CO2.
Fact: The cause of global temperature change is – wait for this – changes in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun. Should this surprise anyone? It is intuitively obvious and was first verified scientifically more than a hundred years ago.

Claim: This warming will cause global disaster.
Fact: A somewhat higher global temperature would be beneficial. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the global temperature has usually been higher than it is today. A long high plateau occurred between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. This period is called the Neolithic Climatic Optimum, not the Neolithic Climatic Disaster. Another shorter rise around 1000 AD has a similar name: the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Global temperatures were at a minimum between 1300 AD and 1650 AD. This period is called the Little Ice Age. To put it simply: Heat good. Cold bad. Can any Canadian really doubt this?

Claim: Kyoto will save us all.
Fact: Even if fully implemented, Kyoto will have a minimal effect on atmospheric accumulations of carbon dioxide. According to the exact same climate models which supposedly prove that the earth is heating up due to CO2 emissions are the cause, Kyoto would not change things by more than 0.1ºC over the next century, an insignificant amount.

I am not going to justify these statements. If you want to look further into it, Junkscience.com has some good links. I especially recommend John Daly's Still Waiting for the Greenhouse and Arthur B. Robinson's Oregon Petition Project. .

Then he (also ) gets personal..

Instead I want to concentrate on Suzuki part in this scam.

Since his thesis contradicts known facts in every way, he necessarily resorts to lies, blustering and misdirection in order to support his position. This is typical of any fanatic.

The Canoe Session

Let's watch his mendacity and obfuscation in action. On September 21st, canoe.ca sponsored him in an Internet Chat Session on this subject. From the transcript, I've extracted all the exchanges he made with his debunkers, people who disagree with his precepts. The rest were supporters or people who were simply looking for information.

We'll start with a simple request for information before we go on to people who actually confront his lies.

Richard Weatherill: Is it fairly conclusive that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, or can it be attributed equally as well to some cyclic phenomena, of which we are only dimly aware, if at all? Thank you.

David Suzuki: It's possible of course that there are things we don't even know about but the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that we are a major cause of a warming that is not a natural cycle.

This claim is simply a lie. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that, if warming exists at all, its causes are natural. In all polls of climatologists conducted so far, those who expressed an opinion were far more likely to disagree with the Greenhouse theory than to accept it. For example, a 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 83 per cent of North American climatologists disagree with it.

Alan Caruba: Is it not true that the earth's overall temperature has not increased in at least the past fifty years? That no satellite or radiosonde balloon data has found a rise in temperature since around 1950 or so?
David Suzuki: The data that have been gathered, including recalibrated satellite info, support a 1º rise in the last century.

Notice that he did not answer the question. Everyone agrees that temperatures have risen over the last century. In fact, they have risen steadily over a three hundred year period starting about 1650. As I noted, the modern peak in 1940 and temperatures have been stable since 1950. Yes, temperatures rose in the first half of the twentieth century. The question was about the second half.


« As the years go by, there is a stronger and stronger consensus among climatologists that global warming does not exist. There is virtual unanimity that if warming is taking place, the causes are natural. »

more follows ( later)

etc etc this is dated october 2000.
Sorry bud, but you and your comments are past their "use-by" date.

 

[2020hindsight]

GLOBAL WARMING AND DAVID SUZUKI'S LIES ..........by David MacRae
continues ... (sorry i forgot to post link)
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

Dick Kahle: Half of the warming of this century, about 0.4 C, occurred prior to 1940 before most of the big increase in CO2. The 0.4 C warming left, which might be caused partially by man, is much less than the 0.8 C that the latest models predict, which include aerosols. Why the difference?

David Suzuki: Historically greenhouse gas emissions have been on the increase since the Industrial Revolution. I believe that the 0.8 includes the earlier 0.4. More importantly future warming is likely to be based on the emissions which are taking place now and those from the past two decades, when emissions soared.

The eco-nuts do, in fact, claim a warming of 0.8 º C over the last century (notice that Suzuki earlier rounded it up conveniently to 1 ºC). But he ignores the writer's point – that half of this claimed warming took place in the first half of the century when CO2 emissions were a fraction of what they are today. In fact, Man has been adding to CO2 levels in the air since the invention of fire. Almost all of this increase has taken place in the last fifty years, yet the global temperature today is somewhat below the average of the last 10,000 years.

Aside from this, where exactly does he get his idea that « future warming is likely to be based on the emissions which are taking place now »? Nobody has ever made such a claim, including the junk scientists themselves. Their models all assume that current warming is caused by current emissions.

There's a good reason for this. If I build a greenhouse today, the area underneath its roof won't experience a temperature rise 50 years from now. It happens when I construct the roof. His explanation here doesn't even qualify as junk science. It's ad-hoc argumentation pure and simple. It's designed to shut up his opponent, not advance science or the human condition. It's shameful.

After this exchange, the transcript ends but Suzuki's hypocrisy on this issue certainly doesn't

Seriously - lol - (what about the post-1940's increase in temp !)

All I can think of is Kipling's IF,

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken,
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."

 

[2020hindsight]

btw, concerning those last mentioned graphs -
you might be able to see an 11 year cycle in the solar activity -
and guess who discovered them
this bloke (Galileo in the early 1600s):-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/lrk_lesson.html

Next look at the graph below...
you'll see that we are currently near the bottom of a trough of solar activity.- oops low was this year - we are about to head upwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

A minimum in the eleven-year sunspot cycle took place in 2007 [1] and the start of Cycle 24 is expected in 2008.

next read about predictions for the next couple of years
http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html

Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms.

Now based on that , only a fool would bet against it getting cooler in the near future (consistent trend-sustained etc )

 

[2020hindsight]

We've all got our heroes
I guess Canada has Suzuki
Australia has Ian Kiernan , as in OAM (Order of Aust Medal), as in "Clean Up Australia" , as in "Clean up the world' etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kiernan

Early next year (2March2008) the next clean up aus day - will be out there, picking up all the plastic and paper and stuff.

I'm sure you've all heard that joke - that we should have given him a ticker-tape parade through the streets when he arrived back in aus after getting his UNEP Environment prize etc

Ian Kiernan AO (born 1940) is an environmentalist who organised the Clean Up Australia campaign, and in 1993 a similar Clean Up the World operation which attracted participation from 30 million volunteers in 80 countries. He received the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in 1994 and the UNEP SASAKAWA Environment Prize in 1998.

 

[2020hindsight]

Just a quick comment about polystyrene - it doesn't affect ozone layer, but sure as hell (i.e. I agree) it still is a bludy nuisance in the misc garbage department.

The other comment in there is that CFC's were "addressed" without hesitation a few years back (17? 20?) , and now they are on top of the ozone layer depletion problem (just goes to show you what we can do when we believe the scientists).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co...Advice_from_the_Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists
Publication date 1999
a handbook printed by the nonprofit environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists.

In accordance with UCS's pledge to provide scientifically sound and nonbiased solutions to environmental problems, this book's main goal is to debunk myths associated with the environmental movement and reinforce realistic ways in which the average citizen can do his or her part in conservation.

The back cover of the book reads:

"Paper or plastic? Bus or car? Old house or new? Cloth diapers or disposables? Some choices have a huge impact on the environment; others are of negligible importance. To those of us who care about our quality of life and what is happening to the earth, this is a vastly important issue. In these pages, the Union of Concerned Scientists help inform consumers about everyday decisions that significantly affect the environment.

For example, a few major decisions such as the choice of a house or vehicle have such a disproportionately large affect on the environment that minor environmental infractions shrink by comparison.

This book identifies the 4 Most Significant Consumer Related Environmental Problems, 7 Most Damaging Categories, 11 Priority Actions, and 7 Rules for Responsible Consumption."


[edit] Excerpts
"Moreover, it can be hard to educate millions of consumers about the specific impacts of their consumption choices, and it is easy for them to be confused. Most often Americans do not fully understand the dangers associated with particular products, but sometimes they also remain unaware of developments enhancing product safety. Seventeen years after CFCs were eliminated from spray deodorants and hairsprays, many people still think those products destroy the ozone layer. Similarly, a significant share of the environmentally concerned public is unaware that foam cups are no longer responsible for ozone destruction."

From page 85:

*PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS:

Transportation:
Choose a place to live that reduces the need to drive.
Think twice before purchasing another car.
Choose a fuel efficient, low polluting car.
Set concrete goals for reducing your travel.
Whenever practical, walk, bicycle, or take public transportation.
Food:
Eat less meat.
Buy certified organic produce.
Household Operations:
Choose your home carefully.
Reduce the environmental costs of heating and hot water.
Install efficient lighting and appliances.
Choose an electricity supplier offering renewable energy.

 

[2020hindsight]

Now based on that , only a fool would bet against it getting cooler in the near future

lol what I meant was "only a fool would bet against it getting hotter in the near future (as in 2011 ish).

sheesh
I keep doing these slips when I'm trading as well -
"buy" comes out "sell"
"1000" comes out "1000000" etc

 

[Wysiwyg]

lol what I meant was "only a fool would bet against it getting hotter in the near future (as in 2011 ish).

sheesh
I keep doing these slips when I'm trading as well -
"buy" comes out "sell"
"1000" comes out "1000000" etc

I`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.