Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[2020hindsight]

... another thing that is related, I hate critters suffering/going extinct to feed said Anxiety. That's just ****ing criminal.

I agree also
trouble is , B could give a shinbone (or could he - who knows)

 

[--B--]

hey B
that's not proof we'll be paying lol
that's at best only 90% sure
(just using your logic here)

youre right. as CERs increase in value (which the inevitably will) the fines will probably amount for quite a bit more.

thanks for pointing that out 2020.

 

[--B--]

I agree also
trouble is , B could give a shinbone (or could he - who knows)

wow.

so i question the extent of AGW and this translates into me not caring when species become extinct??

nice way to jump to conclusions.

the thing is, whenever i, or anyone else raises VALID questions as to the extent of AGW, the global warming cheer squad automatically assume we are evil, insensitive and blood thirsty.

its amazing that any rational and well thought out debate is so frowned upon and is a clear example firstly, of the hysteria generated around this issue and secondly, of the attitudes of those championing the cause.

 

[2020hindsight]

wow.

so i question the extent of AGW and this translates into me not caring when species become extinct??

nice way to jump to conclusions.

the thing is, whenever i, or anyone else raises VALID questions as to the extent of AGW, the global warming cheer squad automatically assume we are evil, insensitive and blood thirsty.

its amazing that any rational and well thought out debate is so frowned upon and is a clear example firstly, of the hysteria generated around this issue and secondly, of the attitudes of those championing the cause.

careful B
you'll end up with almost the same viewpoint as one of those greenies you find so objectionable .

 

[Buddy]

Now people (--B-- & 2020) I have a serious question here. Earlier in this thread B talked about fines being imposed if a country does not meet target. I checked the protocol and can find mention of imposing higher limits if a reduction does not take place, but where does it mention "fines"? Also, what I want to know is........
Who is doing the "fining"?
Where does the money go?
What is that money used for?
I have tried to find info on this subject but have not found anything yet.

 

[--B--]

Now people (--B-- & 2020) I have a serious question here. Earlier in this thread B talked about fines being imposed if a country does not meet target. I checked the protocol and can find mention of imposing higher limits if a reduction does not take place, but where does it mention "fines"? Also, what I want to know is........
Who is doing the "fining"?
Where does the money go?
What is that money used for?
I have tried to find info on this subject but have not found anything yet.

well 'fines' is one way of putting it.

essentially the countries are forced to buy carbon credits (CERs) for the amount they have exceeded their targets. They also then face 'penalties' on top of these amounts.

Under Kyoto, governments create a limited number of permits they grant freely to industrial polluters. If the CO2 created is more than the amount the nation pledged not to exceed, the country must buy permits to make up the difference -- essentially a penalty for discharging too much.

Under the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Climate Change treaty, endorsed by 175 nations and organizations, countries that exceed their emission caps must buy credits in the market. The sellers are typically investors or industrial polluters that have accumulated a surplus of credits, also called permits.

a good article is here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=akEM_x0ximjk&refer=japan

basically there is no stipulation to use any of the proceeds from the buying and selling of CERs to finance renewable energy R&D or anything remotely positive to 'fix' the climate.

 

[Buddy]

Thanks B, I've never really bothered to go into the detail of how the protocol works. I'm a lot clearer on that bit now. And the Bloomberg article explains it very well.

This is only slightly off topic but still relevant..........
Hmmmmm! This is going to get very interesting though.
Seems to me that some serious money is going to be made here on the CER trading market. It's not going to take much to "go wrong" before the CERs go through the roof. If I had the balls I would probably buy every CER I could lay my hands on, and in 10 years time just call me Rockefeller. Even better than buying FMG at 20 cents!

So if OZ doesnt meet the targets I guess the taxpayer is going to foot the bill. That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.

 

[--B--]

Thanks B, I've never really bothered to go into the detail of how the protocol works. I'm a lot clearer on that bit now. And the Bloomberg article explains it very well.

no worries.

its interesting how many people (and often vocal supporters of kyoto) really dont know all that much about it.

This is only slightly off topic but still relevant..........
Hmmmmm! This is going to get very interesting though.
Seems to me that some serious money is going to be made here on the CER trading market. It's not going to take much to "go wrong" before the CERs go through the roof. If I had the balls I would probably buy every CER I could lay my hands on, and in 10 years time just call me Rockefeller. Even better than buying FMG at 20 cents!

indeed.

So if OZ doesnt meet the targets I guess the taxpayer is going to foot the bill. That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.

it certainly looks likely, if we follow the lead of other countries, that any CERs we are forced to buy will be paid for by the taxpayer.

Little betty down the road who recycles everything and turns off all her lights will get a rude surprise in her next electricity bill...

 

[Rafa]

i think the 1.6billion is a side issue... the previous govt promised 10bill in 6 minutes or something like that...

and all that money went straight into the pocket of people to spend even more... which not only added to inflation, but also to CO2 emissions with all that extra consumption


The ultimate contradiction: If everyone is rich enough to afford to pay for CO2... then how is that going to reduce CO2 use


Therein lies the real problems of global warming... its is directly related to the amount of credit (un-earned cash) flowing thru the economies of this world.

A good recession will solve a lot of the worlds problems, included Global Warming! What this addiction to growth and cheap credit has meant is that we have managed to expound into the atmosphere CO2 by 2007 which (assuming normal growth) would not have been emitted till probably 2050... (giving the earth plenty of time to absorb it naturally).

Thats why this whole thing is a sham... Global warming is merely the by product of our dogmatic belief in constant growth and an addiction to cheap credit.

Take away cheap credit, you take away Global Warming...


Alas, it looks like the US Feds are going to reduce interest rates yet again!!!

 

[2020hindsight]

So if OZ doesnt meet the targets I guess the taxpayer is going to foot the bill. That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.

Why not think positive - try following Arnie Schwarzenneger rather than the Howard/Bushes of the world ( of which there are two, both thankfully heading for political extinction)

You blokes have to sort out your own warring halves - to try to help save the planet, species, future generations etc ...

or not.

 

[Buddy]

What on earth are you talking about 2020? Warring halves, whatever that is???
I firstly asked a question and B was polite enough to give me an informed good answer.
I made no comment about saving the planet, blah, blah........ (your words mate not mine).
In fact you dont even know what I think or believe in. I have never told you anything about that! All I did was make a comment about how popular Brown is going to be if taxes go up to pay for CERs. If you deny that then you're an idiot and have no capacity for analysis.
I dont follow anyone mate, I am my own man and I make my own decisions based on my own objective analysis.
Also, I have no intention of answering your dumb ass questionaire. And I'm starting to think you are full of it 2020. And I've noticed that you cant even take onboard a joke .... too serious mate.
Obviously you know more about everything than the rest of us mere mortals on the planet.

 

[2020hindsight]

What on earth are you talking about 2020? Warring halves, whatever that is???
I firstly asked a question and B was polite enough to give me an informed good answer.
I made no comment about saving the planet, blah, blah........ (your words mate not mine).

....... All I did was make a comment about how popular Brown is going to be if taxes go up to pay for CERs. If you deny that then you're an idiot and have no capacity for analysis.

...
Also, I have no intention of answering your dumb ass questionaire. .....

buddy
overreact if you wish...
vote on the questionaire or not - up to you
side with whichever side you like - it's a free world.

PS If the greenies make a difference and make positive changes (and I side with them) - then you and -B- will still be welcome in that better world - won;t even say " I told you so "

I concede I included you in the plural of "you blokes" should sort out your warring halves - meant more for -B- than you agreed. He's the one who doesn't want to spend anything yet he's also keen to somehow save the planet/species.

Penny Wong announced yesterday she's trying to quantify the 1% etc - but -B- reckons he knows already - my comment there is "wait till we have to pay anything before you jump onto yet more scare campaigns. I think I'm all "scare-camaigned out"

That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.

All I did was make a comment about how popular Brown is going to be

nice try mate.

 

[gilbo]

It's amazing really how polarised these arguments can get when the evidence for or against is really quite flimsy.

--B-- made a good point earlier about computer modelling v statistical analysis. When a majority of computer models show that temperatures are on the rise you have to be very careful about the conclusions that you draw from this. I think people become romanticised by the fact that it is, apparently, a computer that reaches these conclusions. It is not. All a computer does is calculate very fast. The models used are devised by humans - the very humans who don't really understand how it all hangs together in the first place.

Perhaps I can take weather prediction as an example. There's not very many of us (making a statement on behalf of a load of people I've never met is probably a bit of a stretch but I may be on safe ground!) that will take much heed of a weather forecast that is predicting a week in advance. Yet, we hang on the every word of someone who reckons they can predict the climate 20 years hence.

And, before everyone jumps down my throat about weather & climate being 2 different things (they are) they are very similar in 1 important respect - they are determined by a vast array of variables that we have only just begun to understand (that's why the weather forecast is off so often).

So, if you're still awake (!) my conclusion is that a lot of potential warming scenarios are just based on guesswork and we should be very sure what it is the scientists are actually concluding and the probability of it happening.

Someone mentioned a 90% probability earlier in this thread. I doubt we can be anywhere near that certain on anything to do with the climate. Perhaps if scientists were a little more realistic with their conclusions I may be a little more likely to take notice.

 

[Smurf1976]

That debate ended because I pointed out that China produces a greater percentage of its electricity through renewable means than does just about every western country.

And I'm real sure the conservationists would support Western countries building massive hydro schemes just like China.

Sustainability brilliance it may be, but the focus generally isn't on sustainability but rather on conservation which is entirely different.

Meanwhile, China uses one third of the world's coal and builds another 1000 MW coal-fired plant every week. Each year China adds more coal-fired generation than we have in total.

I'm not saying don't cut emissions. That is exactly what we ought to be doing as a priority IMO. But it requires an incredible amount of wishful thinking to believe that global emissions are headed any way but up with or without Kyoto. We're fiddling around the edges at best.

 

[numbercruncher]

China wont revalue her Yuan so others can compete, lets Kyoto tax the goods to even up the ball game

 

[chops_a_must]

And I'm real sure the conservationists would support Western countries building massive hydro schemes just like China.

Sustainability brilliance it may be, but the focus generally isn't on sustainability but rather on conservation which is entirely different.

Meanwhile, China uses one third of the world's coal and builds another 1000 MW coal-fired plant every week. Each year China adds more coal-fired generation than we have in total.

I'm not saying don't cut emissions. That is exactly what we ought to be doing as a priority IMO. But it requires an incredible amount of wishful thinking to believe that global emissions are headed any way but up with or without Kyoto. We're fiddling around the edges at best.

Yeah, that's another debate entirely. I was going to reply earlier to a post of yours on the same matter.

The problem amongst green movements is the debate between what I deem to be "practical environmentalists" and "conservationist environmentalists". It's what makes the greens party here so inconsistent, because they are largely a conservationist party. Whereas in Europe for instance, greens parties are dominated by what I would call the practical environmentalists.

I've had many arguments with fellow greenies about the china hydro schemes. From my point of view, they really don't have a choice. And I think I'm correct in that point of view. When 3/4 of the marathon runners die next year, it should become obvious. Of course it's a totally different view point of you are totally conservation biased. I certainly am in many cases i.e. Barrow Island or Gorgon, Ludlow Forrest, green belting Perth. But it is a matter of priorities. If reducing CO2 emissions is the priority, conservation is always secondary. Obviously, I would be classing myself as a practical environmentalist.

From my perspective, I would love to see Tasmania become the power generation hub of Australia. It has everything renewable power generation needs. Lots of water, wind and NW Tassie looks good for hot rocks even. This is an idea the conservationists have, and will, hold things up.

In short, in Australia, I would support more hydro - all things being equal. But it appears there may only be a handful of rivers still suitable. Certainly there aren't any left here in WA. So on a cost by cost basis, I think in Australia at least, the money would be better spent elsewhere. And apart from exceptional circumstances, I don't generally have a problem with hydro worldwide.

 

[2020hindsight]

.. I don't generally have a problem with hydro worldwide.

I don't have a problem with nuclear m8 - as they say, "negligible" co2 - mountains of power - plenty of countries using it already (france 75% etc ) - but everyone wants to scaremonger that one for all it's worth

 

[chops_a_must]

so do you agree that the past 30 years of warming can be seen as an outlier or anomaly when compared to the past 100, 500 or 500,000 years?

Or it could just have been a continuation of a trend that was hidden by rising sulfur levels.

Like I have said, I'm not convinced of the human impact on global warming. The Earth has been at these levels (or approaching them) many times... and obviously much higher prior to complex life formation, but, from my understanding, this is the only time we have seen such a large rise without significant volcanic activity.

Without context, it is not an anomaly; with context, I would say it is.

 

[2020hindsight]

Part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Durkins ( "Great Global Warming Swindle").

Worth a watch if you missed it on ABC.

Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 3/9

This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Tony Jones :- "You claim that the period between the 9th and 13 th Centuries was hotter than today - let's look at that ....

"Durkins :- "Before the little ice age we find a balmy golden period when temperatures are higher than they are today, a time known to climatologists as the Medieval Warm Period "

Jones :- "Now do you still stand by that claim ?"
Durkins "ah yes"

Jones :- "Here's what our climatologist(s) said about that .."

"When I saw this picture showing the medieval warm period warmer than "now" - and the right hand side says "now" - this picture is 20 years old
all the data since then has come off the top"

"There is little doubt that the last 5 or 7 years has been warmer than any time in the medieval warm period and that's what we are absolutely certain about

so to show a graph that is 20 years out of date, not to show what happened at the end , not to report the reports - that's just a lie!."

Jones :- "So the question is why didn't you use the latest or even the recent IPCC graphs ?

Durkins:- "Because the graphs aren't reliable. etc "

PS note that it is currently HOTTER than the medieval warm period. (and rapidly heading "north")

 

[wayneL]

Part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Durkins

The other part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Al Bore.