PDA

View Full Version : Climate change: Is it for real?



pjohns
10-07-2015, 01:07 AM
Is it possible that all the hoopla about global warming (more recently referred to as "climate change") is simply erroneous?

Here a part of an article that suggests exactly that:

Quote:


A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.




Here is the link to the entire article: Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer?s discovery will change climate change debate (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thn-1227555674611)

iustitia
10-07-2015, 01:13 AM
I'm no climatologist but my understanding is that most of the man-made warming comes from the farming industry and livestock and not cars and fossil fuels.

Whatever the case may be, and regardless of how the matter's been politicized by special interests, I think it's undeniable that the Earth is changing and that humans have a very real affect on the planet.

Crepitus
10-07-2015, 06:32 AM
Is it possible that all the hoopla about global warming (more recently referred to as "climate change") is simply erroneous?

Here a part of an article that suggests exactly that:

Quote:


A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.



Here is the link to the entire article: Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer?s discovery will change climate change debate (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thn-1227555674611)
Deniers grasping at straws.

Common Sense
10-07-2015, 07:24 AM
I really don't see how we couldn't have an effect...

zelmo1234
10-07-2015, 07:29 AM
Well I hope it continues to warm and expose some of the ruins of ancient civilizations

But for that last 20 years it has been going the other way. Good thing too, I bet that Ice Age was a Bitch. Can you imagine the heating bills.

Maybe someday we will return to the days when they called it weather!

Private Pickle
10-07-2015, 08:10 AM
I really don't see how we couldn't have an effect...

The article said we have an effect...

Dangermouse
10-07-2015, 08:15 AM
The article agrees we're warming, but quibbles over how much.

Common Sense
10-07-2015, 08:16 AM
The article said we have an effect...

I was just addressing the title of the OP.

Chris
10-07-2015, 08:27 AM
We exist. Work involves mixing our labor with resources to transform them. We consume, we dispose. We populate, we pollute. So on so forth. It is undeniable we have an affect on climate. How much, and what needs to be done are open questions.

The problem comes with politicization of climate change, whether it's alarmists exaggerating or deniers ignoring.

zelmo1234
10-07-2015, 08:35 AM
We are stewards of the planet and have an obligation to keep it as clean as possible.'

But in the USA we have put this shit above the welfare and employment of the people. that is the problem.

Chris
10-07-2015, 08:42 AM
We are stewards of the planet and have an obligation to keep it as clean as possible.'

But in the USA we have put this shit above the welfare and employment of the people. that is the problem.

To me the problem there is the focus on stopping or undoing man's affect on climate change when the focus should be on technological innovation and entrepreneurship in adjusting to it in ways that would generate wealth.

Green Arrow
10-07-2015, 08:57 AM
We are stewards of the planet and have an obligation to keep it as clean as possible.'

But in the USA we have put this shit above the welfare and employment of the people. that is the problem.

If we destroy the planet, welfare and employment of the people won't matter.

Green Arrow
10-07-2015, 08:57 AM
To me the problem there is the focus on stopping or undoing man's affect on climate change when the focus should be on technological innovation and entrepreneurship in adjusting to it in ways that would generate wealth.

How will generating wealth fix the planet?

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 09:10 AM
How will generating wealth fix the planet?


Well, we could always return to the Middle Ages where there was no industry and no one was generating wealth and the environment was wholesome and pure and people were dying by the thousands because of disease and malnutrition. Would that work for you?

Chris
10-07-2015, 09:36 AM
How will generating wealth fix the planet?

I doubt we can undo whatever damage has been done since say the Industrial Revolution, so effort made to adjust to it, say a degree or two temp rise, is money better spent.

Chris
10-07-2015, 09:37 AM
How will generating wealth fix the planet?

Any effort to fix or stop man's affect on climate will cost a fortune.

Green Arrow
10-07-2015, 09:52 AM
Well, we could always return to the Middle Ages where there was no industry and no one was generating wealth and the environment was wholesome and pure and people were dying by the thousands because of disease and malnutrition. Would that work for you?

Your strawmen never work for me. Get some new material.

Chloe
10-07-2015, 11:14 AM
Any effort to fix or stop man's affect on climate will cost a fortune.

Behavioral changes by people to consider the environment and make changes to protect it is often times free and a question of motivation

Chris
10-07-2015, 11:18 AM
Behavioral changes by people to consider the environment and make changes to protect it is often times free and a question of motivation

Sure. If one was aware that using plastic bags at stores actually increases the cost of purchases, as opposed to one time purchase of cloth bags, by changing, one could even save money. --That's the libertarian solution. Expose people to value choices.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 01:51 PM
Of course climate is changing. It constantly changes. Is it our fault? Only to a human hating left wing kook.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:03 PM
Is it possible that all the hoopla about global warming (more recently referred to as "climate change") is simply erroneous?

Here a part of an article that suggests exactly that:


Quote:


A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.



Here is the link to the entire article: Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer?s discovery will change climate change debate (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thn-1227555674611)

I have harped on the climate models many times. Even in recent days.

I have also pointed out how little Carbon Dioxide has to do with climate. Ask Chloe
Is it possible that all the hoopla about global warming (more recently referred to as "climate change") is simply erroneous?

Here a part of an article that suggests exactly that:

Quote:


A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.




Here is the link to the entire article: Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer?s discovery will change climate change debate (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thn-1227555674611)

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:14 PM
Your strawmen never work for me. Get some new material.
Strawmen? Its quite obvious you know shit from shinola about economics and the part it plays in human development. If there were no wealth creation there would be no innovation as no one would have the money to invest in anything other than subsistence purchases. If there were no innovation then the Malthusian Doctrine would in fact be valid and we would run out of food well before we ran out of people. If you create an economic system in which innovation is impossible then how will you come close to feeding an ever increasing population. We may not return to the Middle Ages, we may by pass that completely and go right back to Neolithic times.

Like it or not, we are able to feed the billions on this planet because there are those who have created wealth. Those areas in which people are starving are primarily a result of government controlling who can enter the field and who can make money and who can't.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:17 PM
Sure. If one was aware that using plastic bags at stores actually increases the cost of purchases, as opposed to one time purchase of cloth bags, by changing, one could even save money. --That's the libertarian solution. Expose people to value choices.

I have the cloth bag to use when shopping. I also paid for a lot of the heavy plastic bags that can be returned to the store for recycling. I know the food bank needs them so I take some there. I don't buy bags at all now.

I may buy a second cloth bag and turn in all the plastic bags.

California mandates stores charge 5 cents per plastic bag used. Except for the flimsy bags used for vegetables. If Chloe will pm me with her address, I can box the flimsy plastic bags for her to dispose of.

Kidding you Chloe.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:17 PM
Of course climate is changing. It constantly changes. Is it our fault? Only to a human hating left wing kook.

You know about the only people saying it's our fault, in the sense we're entirely to blame, is denialists saying alarmists say that. I don't know, maybe Al Gore said it, but he's not a scientist, just another politician. The real argument is man has some effect on climate change.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:17 PM
Behavioral changes by people to consider the environment and make changes to protect it is often times free and a question of motivation

Yes people can change their behavior if its in their own rational self interest. Its not in my interest to have all the streams fished out since I enjoy catching fish. Therefore there are many of us who have an interest in seeing that streams are not polluted and fisheries are not depleted. No one wants to live on a nuclear waste dump site so there are those who would in their own interest insure that did not happen. Its when government becomes involved in micromanaging all of industry that we say "enough" and think its you nut jobs that should be controlled.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:18 PM
I'm no climatologist but my understanding is that most of the man-made warming comes from the farming industry and livestock and not cars and fossil fuels.

Whatever the case may be, and regardless of how the matter's been politicized by special interests, I think it's undeniable that the Earth is changing and that humans have a very real affect on the planet.

The left will thank you for being politically correct. Scientists probably not so much.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:20 PM
Question.

What is the optimum temperature for the earth?
What is the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the earth.

If you can't answer that your arguments about "climate change" are meaningless.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:24 PM
We exist. Work involves mixing our labor with resources to transform them. We consume, we dispose. We populate, we pollute. So on so forth. It is undeniable we have an affect on climate. How much, and what needs to be done are open questions.

The problem comes with politicization of climate change, whether it's alarmists exaggerating or deniers ignoring.

I am far more concerned with the exaggerations than the so called deniers. At least the deniers don't consider it their mission of life to run your life for you.

Were it not for the exaggerators, it is doubtful VW would be in trouble today.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:25 PM
Question.

What is the optimum temperature for the earth?
What is the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the earth.

If you can't answer that your arguments about "climate change" are meaningless.

That is correct. Well stated.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:27 PM
Question.

What is the optimum temperature for the earth?
What is the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the earth.

If you can't answer that your arguments about "climate change" are meaningless.


Why would that be?

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:29 PM
Yes people can change their behavior if its in their own rational self interest. Its not in my interest to have all the streams fished out since I enjoy catching fish. Therefore there are many of us who have an interest in seeing that streams are not polluted and fisheries are not depleted. No one wants to live on a nuclear waste dump site so there are those who would in their own interest insure that did not happen. Its when government becomes involved in micromanaging all of industry that we say "enough" and think its you nut jobs that should be controlled.

Some act as if they wish the human race did not exist on Earth.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:31 PM
I have the cloth bag to use when shopping. I also paid for a lot of the heavy plastic bags that can be returned to the store for recycling. I know the food bank needs them so I take some there. I don't buy bags at all now.

I may buy a second cloth bag and turn in all the plastic bags.

California mandates stores charge 5 cents per plastic bag used. Except for the flimsy bags used for vegetables. If Chloe will pm me with her address, I can box the flimsy plastic bags for her to dispose of.

Kidding you Chloe.


You left out what the store charges customers in higher cost for goods.

People would likely choose cloth bags over plastic once they realize the cost to them is less. People choose what they value.

My point was go for the solution that offers people the freedom to choose.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:32 PM
You know about the only people saying it's our fault, in the sense we're entirely to blame, is denialists saying alarmists say that. I don't know, maybe Al Gore said it, but he's not a scientist, just another politician. The real argument is man has some effect on climate change.

If I walk down the sidewalk and step on a spider, I had an effect on the environment.

But why even discuss it since it matters not. What man can do to the climate is not worth discussing.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:32 PM
Some act as if they wish the human race did not exist on Earth.

Who acts like that? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:33 PM
If I walk down the sidewalk and step on a spider, I had an effect on the environment.

But why even discuss it since it matters not. What man can do to the climate is not worth discussing.

Why do you trivialize? Yes, why do you bring trivial nonsense into discussion?

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:35 PM
You left out what the store charges customers in higher cost for goods.

People would likely choose cloth bags over plastic once they realize the cost to them is less. People choose what they value.

My point was go for the solution that offers people the freedom to choose.

Why would the store charge more for the goods given they charge us for the plastic bags? By the way, the store charges the fee because the state demands they charge us.

I believe you are correct that the plastic bags I have paid for cost multiples of what the cloth bag cost me. Fact is, the Food bank gave me the cloth bag. So in that context, it was had for the cost of fuel to drive there.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:36 PM
Why do you trivialize? Yes, why do you bring trivial nonsense into discussion?

Were you half as critical of your own posts as you are of many many others.

Sigh

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:37 PM
Why would that be?


Very simple. If you don't know what it should be then how do you know any change is by its very nature bad? It may very well be the earth is merely trying to achieve its optimum levels and you are out there fighting it.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:37 PM
Who acts like that? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

I won't name members names but try being critical of your posts. You know very well many complain over them.

This is one proposal though to remove humans.

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Texas.html

Bottom Line: For everyone presently on this planet to enjoy the lifestyle of an average American, we would need about ten planet Earths. We have only one. For everyone to live like an American, Earth can only support about one-tenth as many people. To increase the average quality of life, the number of people on Earth must be reduced.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:39 PM
I won't name members names but try being critical of your posts. You know very well many complain over them.

IOW, no one argues that nonsense. Thanks.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:41 PM
Some act as if they wish the human race did not exist on Earth.

I used to purchase Mother Earth News and try out some of their suggestions. Then the editorial in one issue stated there were too many people on the earth and we must do everything in our power to reduce the number. They stated that could mean allowing the old and those who could not add to the general welfare to die off. That was the last issue I ever bought. They have made no effort at hiding the fact they are in favor of many of Hitler's ideas of a "master race".

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:42 PM
Who acts like that? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

See my post viz Mother Earth News. They certainly think many of us shouldn't be here.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:42 PM
Very simple. If you don't know what it should be then how do you know any change is by its very nature bad? It may very well be the earth is merely trying to achieve its optimum levels and you are out there fighting it.

You don't know either, do you. Logically, it's fallacious to argue from unknowns.

Also, your questions ought to be:

What is the optimum temperature for humans on the earth?
What is the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for humans on the earth?

Or better:

What would be the effects of a rise in temps of say 1 degree? 0.5? 2?
Same for CO2.

There are answers for those questions. Google gives many.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:44 PM
See my post viz Mother Earth News. They certainly think many of us shouldn't be here.

Not a member here. Not familiar with it.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:45 PM
Very simple. If you don't know what it should be then how do you know any change is by its very nature bad? It may very well be the earth is merely trying to achieve its optimum levels and you are out there fighting it.

Scientifically true. This is not philosophy folks, humans lives matter.

Peter1469
10-07-2015, 02:46 PM
Deniers grasping at straws.

Avoiding the discussion with an ad hom. Smart.... :wink:

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:47 PM
Scientifically true. This is not philosophy folks, humans lives matter.

What's scientifically true?

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:47 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html

Well then, try this.

There are people who believe the earth itself is more important than the people on it and its ok if we went.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:47 PM
I used to purchase Mother Earth News and try out some of their suggestions. Then the editorial in one issue stated there were too many people on the earth and we must do everything in our power to reduce the number. They stated that could mean allowing the old and those who could not add to the general welfare to die off. That was the last issue I ever bought. They have made no effort at hiding the fact they are in favor of many of Hitler's ideas of a "master race".

Why else would the left be all in favor of the death of the unborn? They want to cull the herd.

Peter1469
10-07-2015, 02:48 PM
Well, we could always return to the Middle Ages where there was no industry and no one was generating wealth and the environment was wholesome and pure and people were dying by the thousands because of disease and malnutrition. Would that work for you?

Wood burning for heat creates more pollution that fossil fuels, no?

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:49 PM
What's scientifically true?

That science should be able to name an optimum planet temperature. Too many act as if it is too hot today.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 02:49 PM
You don't know either, do you. Logically, it's fallacious to argue from unknowns.

Also, your questions ought to be:

What is the optimum temperature for humans on the earth?
What is the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for humans on the earth?

Or better:

What would be the effects of a rise in temps of say 1 degree? 0.5? 2?
Same for CO2.

There are answers for those questions. Google gives many.

Is that the argument? Or is it that "mother earth" must be protected?

We are silly little creatures thinking that we can control the earth's climate.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:50 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html

Well then, try this.

There are people who believe the earth itself is more important than the people on it and its ok if we went.

Not exactly what Attenborough says.

Besides I was asking Bob who here says anything like that.

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:51 PM
Is that the argument? Or is it that "mother earth" must be protected?

We are silly little creatures thinking that we can control the earth's climate.

Weren't those your gotcha questions?

I'm just saying that not answering them means no more than asking them.

And simple rephrasing makes them not only meaningful but answerable.

Bob
10-07-2015, 02:51 PM
Wood burning for heat creates more pollution that fossil fuels, no?

Good question. This may answer your question.

http://midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-wood-instead-of-fossil-fuels-increase-ghg-emissions/

Chris
10-07-2015, 02:53 PM
Very simple. If you don't know what it should be then how do you know any change is by its very nature bad? It may very well be the earth is merely trying to achieve its optimum levels and you are out there fighting it.


Scientifically true. This is not philosophy folks, humans lives matter.


What's scientifically true?


That science should be able to name an optimum planet temperature. Too many act as if it is too hot today.

Your answer makes no sense in context.

Peter1469
10-07-2015, 03:01 PM
This topic was discussed a while back (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticism-denial-lukewarmers). I am not sure if this was the OP article linked to or not. Luke-warmers: man affects the climate, but how much, and can we realistically change it based on the cost and the future trends of moving away from fossil fuels (my paraphrase).


Unless you’re knee deep in the mud of the climate debate, as I am, you might not know that so-called “climate denial” is actually not that common in the UK. Not that I call people deniers anyway: it antagonises, partly because it is thrown around indiscriminately. There are still people who are unconvinced that carbon dioxide has any greenhouse warming effect, particularly in the US and Australia. But by far the most common kind of non-mainstream, contrarian view I see in the UK – particularly in politicians, journalists and bloggers – is the self-described “lukewarmer”.


Lukewarmers have much more mainstream views than the easy stereotype of the denier. They agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that the world is warming, and that a significant fraction of this is down to humans. In terms of policy, they typically support adaptation to climate change. But they differ from mainstream views because they’re not convinced there’s a substantial risk that future warming could be large or its impacts severe, or that strong mitigation policies are desirable.


With such a broad definition, lukewarmers range from public commentators such as Matt Ridley (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/)to scientists such as Nic Lewis (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwpf.org%2Fcontent%2Fuploa ds%2F2014%2F02%2FA-Sensitive-Matter-Foreword-inc.pdf&ei=LFw_VdX-LIbmaM_QgKAB&usg=AFQjCNHWcMc50T54n8lG_ci6SdRpj2viIw&sig2=Uh6LnvR66_S_nPiD-Lxasg&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s), an independent researcher who engages in climate work. But, perhaps surprisingly in this charged debate where to question scientific evidence on global warming sees you branded idiotic, nefarious, or both, the scientific community is listening to lukewarmers.



I think that Robert Zubrin has man-made climate change correct. Man's contribution via fossil fuels is slight. 1 degree C per 100 years since the Industrial Revolution. In Energy Victory he discusses the science, the math, and the future trends in energy production. We will be off fossil fuels by the end of this century. And it will be from scientific advancement, not some retrograde to pre-industrial times; something most people in the first world would hate and many would not survive.

Bob
10-07-2015, 03:01 PM
Your answer makes no sense in context.

Try removing the covers off the lenses of your binoculars. You may not get that either.

Peter1469
10-07-2015, 03:03 PM
I can't find the article now, but it was about 280ppm that CO2 was at pre-industrial age. It was said to be dangerously low. And that what we have now is much better overall for the environment.

Bob
10-07-2015, 03:06 PM
I think that Robert Zubrin has man-made climate change correct. Man's contribution via fossil fuels is slight. 1 degree C per 100 years since the Industrial Revolution. In Energy Victory he discusses the science, the math, and the future trends in energy production. We will be off fossil fuels by the end of this century. And it will be from scientific advancement, not some retrograde to pre-industrial times; something most people in the first world would hate and many would not survive.

Stated by Peter in post 57. ^^^^^

Refugee informed me a day or two ago that in England, they tax the crap out of you for carbon use /or production as the case may be.

So, they have the swap program where if you add to the carbon dioxide, you purchase from those who do not add, for money, permits to just go ahead and add more of it.

Somebody makes money but I doubt it changes carbon dioxide output.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 03:07 PM
Wood burning for heat creates more pollution that fossil fuels, no?

I don't know to be honest.

Bob
10-07-2015, 03:09 PM
I can't find the article now, but it was about 280ppm that CO2 was at pre-industrial age. It was said to be dangerously low. And that what we have now is much better overall for the environment.

Plants thrive when they have plenty of carbon dioxide.

I judge things like this by what is being done by the politicians. So far, they target one gas. Do you hear them bleeding over methane? Do you read them bleeding over cloud cover?

Why not, those impact global temperatures???????

Bob
10-07-2015, 03:11 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Peter1469 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1284495#post1284495)
Wood burning for heat creates more pollution that fossil fuels, no?


I don't know to be honest.

I produced an article detailing that indeed, burning wood produces more than does the burning of Coal or other fossil fuels.

Chris
10-07-2015, 03:11 PM
Try removing the covers off the lenses of your binoculars. You may not get that either.

No my problem you make no sense. Context is everything in communication.

Chris
10-07-2015, 03:15 PM
This topic was discussed a while back (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticism-denial-lukewarmers). I am not sure if this was the OP article linked to or not. Luke-warmers: man affects the climate, but how much, and can we realistically change it based on the cost and the future trends of moving away from fossil fuels (my paraphrase).



I think that Robert Zubrin has man-made climate change correct. Man's contribution via fossil fuels is slight. 1 degree C per 100 years since the Industrial Revolution. In Energy Victory he discusses the science, the math, and the future trends in energy production. We will be off fossil fuels by the end of this century. And it will be from scientific advancement, not some retrograde to pre-industrial times; something most people in the first world would hate and many would not survive.

Most scientific models predict about that much more rise in the future, so even if the model predictions are correct, they aren't that great. But even 1-2 degrees has an effect on the environment and our lives. Those scientific advancement are what we need to focus on, but to end what little effect man has and to help us adjust even if it's 1 more degree.

Edit, some. Looked and predictions have ranged from a fraction up to 4 degrees. Seat of the pants average, 1.5 degrees, which isn't all that much. But will have an effect.

Peter1469
10-07-2015, 03:16 PM
I produced an article detailing that indeed, burning wood produces more than does the burning of Coal or other fossil fuels.

I doubt that there is enough wood to replace fossil fuels for energy. Plus, as Bob's article shows it would pollute more because it is much less efficient.

nathanbforrest45
10-07-2015, 03:17 PM
What ever happened to the "OMG, the world is ending because of the hole in the ozone" narrative?

Chris
10-07-2015, 03:18 PM
What ever happened to the "OMG, the world is ending because of the hole in the ozone" narrative?

That was politics.

Crepitus
10-07-2015, 03:45 PM
Avoiding the discussion with an ad hom. Smart.... :wink:
Not. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community disagrees with him. If it weren't for the american conservative denial movement it would be considered settled science.

Common Sense
10-07-2015, 05:42 PM
What ever happened to the "OMG, the world is ending because of the hole in the ozone" narrative?


That was politics.

No. It was actually quite real.

In fact is was legislation and awareness that helped turn that trend around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/11/ozone-layer-is-healing-expected-to-recover-by-around-2050-major-report-finds/

Chris
10-07-2015, 06:08 PM
No. It was actually quite real.

In fact is was legislation and awareness that helped turn that trend around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/11/ozone-layer-is-healing-expected-to-recover-by-around-2050-major-report-finds/


OK, well, nathan can respond. My point is just too much of these discussions address politicization of science and rarely touch on the science. Granted, we're not scientists, but still, there's more fiction than fact in these discussions, too many alarmists and deniers, not enough skeptics.

Common Sense
10-07-2015, 06:09 PM
OK, well, nathan can respond. My point is just too much of these discussions address politicization of science and rarely touch on the science. Granted, we're not scientists, but still, there's more fiction than fact in these discussions, too many alarmists and deniers, not enough skeptics.

Ummm, there are quite a few skeptics. But I get your point.

Chris
10-07-2015, 06:18 PM
Ummm, there are quite a few skeptics. But I get your point.

Most scientists are.

Common Sense
10-07-2015, 06:57 PM
Most scientists are.

That's true. Most scientists are skeptics by their very nature. Yet the vast majority of them have come to the conclusion that man made global climate change is very real.

Chris
10-07-2015, 07:00 PM
That's true. Most scientists are skeptics by their very nature. Yet the vast majority of them have come to the conclusion that man made global climate change is very real.

Science doesn't work by consensus opinion though so that's political.

Common Sense
10-07-2015, 07:01 PM
Scince doesn't work by consensus opinion though so that's political.

No it's not. Individuals reaching the same conclusion isn't political. It's just a reality.

iustitia
10-07-2015, 07:05 PM
I'm of the opinion that science should be settled by scientists.

Chris
10-07-2015, 07:18 PM
I'm of the opinion that science should be settled by scientists.

Exactly. In a perfect world it would, but scientists need to earn a living and fund projects. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, writes about how science, being political in that way, tends to resist new discovery. It can also incentivize coming to a popular consensus.

pjohns
10-08-2015, 12:35 AM
Deniers grasping at straws.

I hardly think that a serious mathematical study amounts to "grasping at straws."

But I suppose you feel more comfortable just hurling insults, rather than discussing the matter rationally...

pjohns
10-08-2015, 12:58 AM
If it weren't for the american conservative denial movement it would be considered settled science.

This is a twofer for the left: Take a slap at conservatives, while simultaneously proclaiming the left's beliefs to be "settled science" (and, by implication, anything to the contrary is a form of heresy).

Crepitus
10-08-2015, 01:01 AM
This is a twofer for the left: Take a slap at conservatives, while simultaneously proclaiming the left's beliefs to be "settled science" (and, by implication, anything to the contrary is a form of heresy).
Plus it's true!

pjohns
10-08-2015, 01:02 AM
[T]he vast majority of [scientists] have come to the conclusion that man made global climate change is very real.

We should not judge scientific correctness by that measure, but rather, by the quality of the arguments made by those scientists.

pjohns
10-08-2015, 01:04 AM
Plus it's true!

If it is indeed "true" that any opposing views are seen as "a form of heresy," then what you are describing is more of a religion than it is true science...

Crepitus
10-08-2015, 01:09 AM
If it is indeed "true" that any opposing views are seen as "a form of heresy," then what you are describing is more of a religion than it is true science...
Not what I said.

Comprehension issues?

nathanbforrest45
10-08-2015, 07:49 AM
No. It was actually quite real.

In fact is was legislation and awareness that helped turn that trend around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/11/ozone-layer-is-healing-expected-to-recover-by-around-2050-major-report-finds/


What trend? Talking about it? Because the hole is still there over the Antarctic. No one is talking about it now because its a naturally occurring phenomenon and can't be blamed on evil capitalist.

Common Sense
10-08-2015, 08:14 AM
What trend? Talking about it? Because the hole is still there over the Antarctic. No one is talking about it now because its a naturally occurring phenomenon and can't be blamed on evil capitalist.

So you didn't read the article. That's cool.

Chris
10-08-2015, 08:27 AM
Why would the store charge more for the goods given they charge us for the plastic bags? By the way, the store charges the fee because the state demands they charge us.

I believe you are correct that the plastic bags I have paid for cost multiples of what the cloth bag cost me. Fact is, the Food bank gave me the cloth bag. So in that context, it was had for the cost of fuel to drive there.


Why would the store charge more for the goods given they charge us for the plastic bags?


I argued stores would likely charge less if customer went cloth over plastic.

Chris
10-08-2015, 08:29 AM
Were you half as critical of your own posts as you are of many many others.

Sigh


http://i.snag.gy/w2Xky.jpg

pjohns
10-08-2015, 09:08 PM
Not what I said.


You did, indeed, declare that it is "true" (in post #81 in this thread).

What, exactly, is the antecedent of "it," if not what I suggested?

pjohns
11-02-2015, 04:10 PM
I do not especially care if a person has fundamentalist climate-change views--just as I do not especially care if a person has fundamentalist religious views.

The real rub comes when--and if--he (or she) wishes to get the government involved in the matter.

For instance, I would strongly oppose a fundamentalist religionist (whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever else) who wished to establish a theocracy in the US.

Likewise, I strongly oppose any fundamentalist climate-change alarmist who wishes to enlist the US federal government on his (or her) behalf.

I think the multi-billionaire, Bill Gates, spoke for many of the latter here:

"There’s no fortune to be made [with climate change technology]. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems. Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

"Since World War II, US-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area. The private sector is in general inept.

“The climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the US and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else."

Peter1469
11-02-2015, 04:13 PM
French weatherman fired for climate change book (http://www.france24.com/en/20151101-france-top-weatherman-sacked-over-climate-change-book-verdier-cop21)

This guy got fired over offending the warmists.


Philippe Verdier, a household name in France for his daily weather reports on the France 2 channel, announced in an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3btmnt_philippe-verdier-ouvre-sa-lettre-de-licenciement-philippe-verdier-opens-his-letter-of-dismissal_news).

“My book ‘Climate Investigation’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves,” said the weatherman, who was put “on leave” from the TV station on October 12.


“I received this letter this morning and decided to open it in front of you because it concerns everybody- in the name of freedom of expression and freedom of information.”


His announcement comes four days after France Télévisions chief Delphine Ernotte told French MPs that Verdier had been summoned to a formal interview that could lead to his dismissal.