I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz.:
I was responding to your "I am sitting here tonight shivering" post which, given that short term weather is no indication of climate change or otherwise, I took to be somewhat light hearted in nature.I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz.:
Smurf and Calliope,
those of us who know you both - never thought this was anything else but a misunderstanding.
BERKELEY, Calif., June 4, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California - Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless.
Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening.
The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth's atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098#ixzz1wrB5blik
Basilio - AGW does not appear to be proven, it seems to be no more than a hypothesis and any scientist who disagrees with it is considered loopy at best. Emotional tactics are not scientific.
Flannery's forecasts didn't pan out too well, did they? Shows the inputs to AGW computer modelling were not correct and this money grab based on an unproven hypothesis has speeded up the total rejection of such nonsense by the majority of voters.
The reason for the public disregarding it is pretty straightforward.Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.
Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:
1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?
2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.
3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.
This is the problem with the debate as it stands Alarmists continue portray a polarized debate characterized by 1/ a catastrophic worst scenario where life on earth is virtually destroyed and 2/ Outright denial. In fact the sensible debate resides somewhere in the middle, viz, 1/ how much climate change is due to anthropogenic factors and haow much is natural 2/ What anthropogenic factors they are, GHGs, land use etcInteresting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:
1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?
You will find a range of views, only a few escapees from the asylum and those with a political support the catastrophic hypothesis.2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.
3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.
3. Too many "boy who cried wolf" predictions of imminent disaster have lead to people tiring of the issue.
This is were the lunatics took over the asylum unfortunately and now you have discredited bigger lunatics weighing in from both sides being quoted continually in the general media and by politicians depending on their personal agendas.
A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change
Guest post by Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and regular contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy
No environmental issue is more polarizing than global climate change. Many on the left fear increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases threaten an environmental apocalypse while many on the right believe anthropogenic global warming is much ado about nothing and, at worst, a hoax. Both sides pretend as if the climate policy debate is, first and foremost, about science, rather than policy. This is not so. There is substantial uncertainty about the scope, scale, and consequences of anthropogenic warming, and will be for some time, but this is not sufficient justification for ignoring global warming or pretending that climate change is not a serious problem.
Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern. I have worked on this issue for twenty years, including a decade at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I edited this book. I believe human activities have contributed to increases in greenhouse concentrations, and these increases can be expected to produce a gradual increase in global mean temperatures. While substantial uncertainties remain as to the precise consequences of this increase and consequent temperature rise, there is reason to believe many of the effects will be quite negative. Even if some parts of the world were to benefit from a modest temperature increase -- due to, say, a lengthened growing season -- others will almost certainly lose.
.
A contribution to the AGW debate from a prominent conservative professor.
If you click on the link and read the article he supports James Hansons proposal for a revenue neutral carbon tax..
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/
Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat. Even if we assumed unreasonably that it caused all deaths from floods, droughts, heatwaves, and storms, this total would amount to just 0.06 per cent of all deaths in developing countries. In comparison, 13 per cent of all Third World deaths result from water and air pollution.
So, for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels (such as dried animal dung) indoors, and from breathing polluted air outdoors.
By focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realise that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations.
The meeting was never intended to reach a binding agreement, but the deal it did reach was so watered down that many activists and some ministers were openly questioning whether it was worth the massive effort of bringing 45, 381 participants and almost 100 world leaders to Brazil.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-rio-summit-20120623-20ukj.html#ixzz1yaO5LRTf
In addition to the 'massive effort' what about all the emissions they created in getting to this talkfest?
Ms Clinton complimented Ms Gillard on "everything she has been doing" and on her hair.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-rio-summit-20120623-20ukj.html#ixzz1yaWs7zFR
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?