Climategate

[DuncanONeil]

Again, your logic is fail.
You rail at the presentation by anyone that cycles exist as if it does not matter. Yet you admit cycles exist. Even claim there is no way of knowing where in said cycle this point in time is.
All of this being said it seems that those being true you also can not claim that the current belief in a runaway warming must be considered true. Based on your own statements concerning planetary cycles. You have no way of knowing if this cycle is about to turn, as some evidence suggests, or if the actions you are in favor of will result in a catastrophic result.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually you are arguing there is no cycle, while at the same time admitting they exist.

As for credible evidence you also have provided none.
The fact of the matter is that there is evidence presented that supports both sides. Yet one side of the argument likes to discount historical events that do not fit the parameters of the hypothesis.

Ian, I've got to ask the most obvious question here; so what?

No one's arguing that there isn't some cycle, but no one seems to be able to bring any credible evidence at all that the current warming is a result of that cycle.

As I said before, a cyclical climate is a fact in search of context.

[DuncanONeil]

Question! What is the use of CO2 in the life of the planet?

The best thing to do is to ignore what the government and newspapers say the scientific evidence is and go straight to relevant journals. If you're interested in the subject then Environmental Chemistry would be a good place to start but to my knowledge the vast majority of scientists who specifically study the climate do think that human activity is having a significant effect on the levels of things like carbon dioxide.

Personally I don't think there's any argument that we're producing far too much carbon dioxide, virtually everything we do produces it including breathe. Whether or not that translates into global warming I don't know, I certainly don't think it's doing any good.

[DuncanONeil]

Copenhagen is an Obama style stimulus for the world. Likely with as stellar results!

As I said before follow the money exert from 2009 coppenhagen conference

Climate politics is a numbers game: its about temperatures, emissions, and allowances. But the most important numbers are possibly the ones preceded by dollar or Euro signs.



“Money is even more important now the parties are coming up with only a political statement not a legally binding agreement,” says David McCauley, Principal Climate Change Specialist, Asian Development Bank.



Political statements won’t reduce emissions; cash will. So said South Africa the day before the Copenhagen talks began. It offered to cut carbon emissions to 34 percent below expected levels by 2020, but only if the rich world provided money to help.



The president of the African Development Bank, Donald Kaberuka, said he wanted 40 billion dollars a year from rich countries “to enable low-income countries to adapt.”



These statements crystallize the money matters at the heart of climate politics.



-Will the rich pay the poor to go green?

-Will the rich compensate the poor for wrecking their environment?

[DuncanONeil]

That is not even on the table! Beside what in all the doom and gloom makes you think that is even a possibility?
Mankind has survived far worse with less abilities.

When the worst case scenario is "We all die" don't you think it's worth considering?

[DuncanONeil]

But such a diversion is always at the mercy of someone finding a little fish that might get hurt!

Whoever claimed "we all die" was the worst case scenario. That's really over the top.

In fact, those most at risk early on have the most to gain. Instead of concentrating on somehow reversing the trends (which I'll say again are not unusual historically, even within the history of mankind since we began writing it down,) why not build floating cities to replace the island and coastal regions at risk. And, as I implied, we might find the great deserts becoming lush again, and if not, we have the technology to bring the water to the deserts. (Even in this country, with the Columbia spilling millions of gallons of fresh water into the pacific every minute, we could certainly divert a million an hour to southern California.) Costly, but less so than a futile battle (imo) against a natural cycle, even if we are making it happen faster.

[DuncanONeil]

The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production. Also adversely affect the amount of O2 produced. Sufficient reduction in plant life can progress to a reduction in animal life.
The need to reduce CO2 emmisions is very likely to seriously affect the ability of large percentages of people to actually even get to their jobs. Thereby forcing an major shift in the population demographics, likely resulting in crowded conditions. Said crowding can have its own problems.
Other requirements to support the planned levels of CO2 could necessitate rationing of many things we take for granted now.

All of this taken together paints a picture of a society that can not be supported at its current levels. How could the world population be effectively culled under this scenario?

What does CO2 reductions have to do with being unable to live, work and feed ourselves?

Some places have done this successfully. Myth or not (climate change), but being able to live in a more environmentally friendly does not require us to stop eating, or living.

[DuncanONeil]

You have some interesting ideas in there!

Do we need to?

Switch to coal, we have plenty. (I know, it doesn't solve the CO2 issue.) Switch to wind and hydro and solar. Use the electricity to split H2O and burn it as mobile fuel.

Save the oil for petrochemicals.

Grow more plants and trees and recapture the CO2, replenish the O2.
Capture and burn methane for fuel (it does more harm per given quantity than the CO2)

Lots of solutions that will help mitigate greenhouse gases, that would be good for the economy and the environment. I'm not against moving these technologies forward. I'm in favor. I just don't think it will have an impact on the overall climate.

The sun warms this planet's surface and atmosphere. Nothing else has even a percentile of the sun's effect. And the sun's is HUGE. A small change in the sun is all it takes. We're fortunate on this planet to have so much water. The oceans are a huge heat sink. Otherwise these "minor" solar flucuations would have wiped the earth of life a long long time ago.

But given that, we haven't been around long enough (and certainly not keeping records, and even more certainly, not understanding the mechanisms,) to understand, let alone predict, what's coming next.

[DuncanONeil]

I heard a presentation by an interested party to the global warming issue. He presented a series of graphs describing the amount of radiation emanating from the planet, unsure if it was long wave or short wave but it was related to the question. Also I can not remember the name of the researcher.
The upshot of the research was that the planet is releasing more radiation back into space than would be expected if the levels of CO2 were in fact trapping heat in the atmosphere.
The presnter was a gentleman by the name of Monkton

Can you elaborate please? I don't follow

[DuncanONeil]

Four of the top five sources for US imported OIL are in the Western Hemisphere!

You 'mericans do you y'all get a lot of your gas from Canada

[DuncanONeil]

Duncan it is called a debate both sides have there opinion. that's what these threads are for. to debate your opinion , not attack another personally for their opinion.

Which post?

[Lion]

The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.

Where did you get this from? (That the reduction will cause adverse affects to food production, not the photosynthesis bit)

[Wiscoman]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!...

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.
Where did you get this from? (That the reduction will cause adverse affects to food production, not the photosynthesis bit)

I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.

[Wiscoman]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;830323]

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[DuncanONeil]

Bit harsh don't you think?

It does appear that you are correct. But I wonder, with the effects of acid rain so obvious and the disagreement in the issue at hand.
Add to that the proposals for CO2 cap and trade may not be of the smae nature as what was laid out in the previous plan.
Think I might need additional research. But the threat laid out by the President about controlling CO2 makes me worry more!

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[DuncanONeil]

And you are unwilling to consider any of the evidence presented to you. That puts you in the same boat in which you wish to install me. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.
Who is Glenn Beck?

[QUOTE=Wiscoman;830390]

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[Wiscoman]

Bit harsh don't you think?

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

[Wiscoman]

And you are unwilling to consider any of the evidence presented to you.

It'd be a good trick on my part because you haven't actually offered any evidence. All you've done is make a bunch of declarations. If there's a link you've provided to prove anything in this thread, I must've missed it.

[IAN 2411]

Duncan, Wiscoman, you have lost me a little in your deep arguement, and i am just avarage man on the street when it comes to politics. These caps on CO2 emission, just who is going to police the results in ten years or twenty years time, and if they are incorrect, what is going to happen to the defaulting country? China have just been given freedom to do as they please, so what is the point of it all. Say America, The UK and Europe agree on a cap, are we supposed to compensate for the developing countries. It is no good being rough handed with them, because their reply will be, we never stopped you developing 60 years ago, so keep out of our business. We shouldn't have to pay billions of $/£ to developing countries, and then sit back for ten years and pay them more, and all the time watching them get no further forward. China's emisions must be great at the moment, and so to is the old Soviet Union states, Copenhagen was just pissing into the wind, and it was a non starter, because the rich countries have promised a shit load of money to these developing countries and are still no further forward. If the bigest poluter at the moment is unwilling to sign up, then the confrence was a failure, and dont think the Chinese will change their mind in six months or six years, because that Copenhagen confrence was water of a ducks back to them.

[Thorne]

Where does our O2 come from then? And who is to decide what the proper temperature is for this planet? And what if they pick the wrong one?

There is no "right" temperature for the planet. That's a fallacy. What we want is the optimal temperature for human civilization. That would be the temperature which allows the most fertile areas for crop growth to remain productive. For without crop growth, we don't eat!

[Thorne]

And do not forget that the models that are used to predict the future are merely programs written to tinker with the raw data input to produce a result.
We do not know what the tinker rules are, or even the raw data input.

The models are developed from historical data, then run through historical scenarios to insure they match up with actual climate conditions. If they do not, then the programs are "tinkered with" to correct any variations. The data remains the same, only the models are changed. Once they do an accurate job of "post-dicting" climate conditions, they are allowed to run into the future. There are many different models, using many different data sets. All are showing a marked average increase in global temperature. There will be some warming trends and some cooling trends, lasting several years sometimes. But the low temperatures in the cooling trends are not as low as they have been historical, and the high temps in the warming trends are slightly higher than historical. The average temperature is definitely rising.

And the raw data is there to be studied, if you want it. The problem is, the whole damned thing is so complex that, without a lot of study and experience the average person cannot easily understand that data. Even among the experts, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions gathered from the models can vary significantly. But the trend is still upwards.

As for the current supposed cooling trend, remember that the sun has just been going through a sunspot minima period, one which lasted longer than expected. Now, it seems, the sunspots are beginning to return, which will probably mean another warming trend. With a peak temperature higher than the last trend's peak.

[Thorne]

The South polar regions are creating more ice!
"# Ice cover doubles the area of Antarctica each year -- extending the continent to approximately 30 million square miles." (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...snow-ice.shtml)

Misleading! Yes, every year the sea freezes around Antarctica, increasing the apparant size. Just as every year the ice reforms in the Arctic. But each year it also melts again. And the rate of melting is increasing. Overall, the amount of ice on the continent has been decreasing. There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. This is due to variations in WEATHER. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

[denuseri]

I told ya the "Sun" has more to do with it than they wish to give it credit for! But than anyone who has taken astromony can tell you that too. But then again so does geology. But noooooooooo, it has to be humanities fault. Give me a break, yes we can and do effect the atmosphere in different areas, but the entire atmosphere? Their are still scientists that disagree with that theory.

If they have made the "interpetation" of the data hard to analylze , my guess is its been done deliberately.

As for the falsified data mentioned earlier, yes the whistle blower did hack into their stuff, but that didnt change the fact that the scientists in question have been found out to be liars and yet nothing is being done about that. Those who support the whole "lets scare the world into compliance to our agenda" crowd just shrug and keep trying to make the focus on the whistle blower's methods as if that alone somehow invalidates what was being whistled. Typical sophist trick when cuaght red handed. Kind of like the husband that thinks he can get away with the affair if only he denies it happened just one more time.

[steelish]

There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

[Wiscoman]

These caps on CO2 emission, just who is going to police the results in ten years or twenty years time, and if they are incorrect, what is going to happen to the defaulting country?

I'm not happy with Copenhagen either. But basically, what you're saying is that if you're on a sinking ship and one person refuses to bail, no one should bail and everyone should go down. Obviously, I disagree.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

No. Glaciers are actually expanding in places like Mt. St. Helens, where volcanic activity melted it. Now that the event has ended, the ice comes back. But it won't be as large as it was before the eruption and then it will begin to recede again.

Think of it in terms of profit and loss. Just because a store sells a gallon of milk, it doesn't mean the store is profitable. If the losses are greater than the sales, you're still screwed. Likewise, if the loss of ice is greater than the gains, it's a net loss.

[Lion]

I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.

The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.

This is what I'm asking. I haven't changed any words around.

[steelish]

My issue is that it is almost unheard of for the U.S. government to get involved with anything other than what they were designed to do via the constitution without causing problems and chaos.

[Wiscoman]

My issue is that it is almost unheard of for the U.S. government to get involved with anything other than what they were designed to do via the constitution without causing problems and chaos.

How is regulating industry outside the constitutional purview?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In any case, it's a matter of national defense. Just because a threat isn't military doesn't mean that the government has no right to defend against it. That'd be an insane and suicidal restriction.