Can't take much more of this global warming

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

What I don't support is income redistribution for dishonest reasons and that's where I disconnect from the AGW believers.

Bob - I have an issue with dishonest reporting around the wealth re-distribution meme.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

Ultimately that's what both the AGW and the GMO debates are about - you either support industry and industrial development or you oppose it, based on your political outlook.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

Only thing I would comment on - in both cases, it doesn't have to be a either/or.

I'm reasonably convinced that GMO are going to be beneficial. I think we still have to preserve genetic diversity, and genetics being controlled and restricted by patent is still a thorny area. Also, you have big-ag pushing stuff that's not necessary beneficial, such as excessive production of GMO corn and the whole ethanol circus.

Likewise, with the AGW issue... it's not progress vs subsistence. Most of the changes in the AGW "prescription" are good things in themselves - conservation, efficiency, forward-looking policy. There's also a recognition that the wealthy countries who rose to prominence without any restrictions on their growth, have an obligation to lead the development of more efficient technologies, in the hope that the less developed nations can achieve their own growth without making as big as mess as we have.

Also, fracking will be good for, what... 50 years, 100 years? Successful renewable energy will be the industry of the future. The whole future, when all the dead dinosaurs have been burnt. It's in it's infancy. If the west doesn't lead in this area, Asia will, and eat our lunch.

I believe the AGW debate has been successfully manipulated to stand in for the whole issue of energy conservation vs status quo, and as demonstrated by some comments, there's the assumption that the "defeat" of the AGW predictions will instantly save $1B/day... which isn't the case.

[frank_f]

Wow, this has been quite insiteful.

I'm of no opinion one way or the other about climate change because there is very little I can do about it.

I have a car because the job I have takes me all over southern Ontario and I don't feel I need to apologize for having a job. If I had a job in town on a bus route but still insisted on driving my car, then yeah, you might have a point.

Anyhow, my poor ignorant parents used to call this a 'cold snap'. They might not have known the "proper" term for it but what does it matter? Is it somehow better or worse if you succeed in attaching a scientific label to it?

I'm just wondering because I knew how to adjust sails long before I understood the Bernoulli (D, not J) principle.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

Only thing I would comment on - in both cases, it doesn't have to be a either/or.

Excellent post

Just to join in;

I have few qualms about GMO's - Almost all of the food we eat is genetically modified, from the wheat that grows in our climate to the new Yukon Gold potatoes and Macintosh apples. Cattle were genetically modified to produce beef or milk - usually not both. While not part of my diet, our Yorkie mix is a genetically modified wolf.

I do see problems developing around the proprietary nature of some GMO's. The Green revolution of the past did have an unfortunate side-effect of commercializing some traditional farm economies to the determent of some small farmers in Third World countries. The old style family mixed farming is pretty much a thing of the past in North America. We also need to take care that the chemicals we use in agriculture does not contaminate other parts of the environment.

As an Albertan I have lived with fracking most of my life. It is common practice here. I would suggest that some geological formations are more appropriate for fracking than others.

I am not opposed to nuclear power and could see a future in fast reactor technology if they could get it kick started.

But the fact that the West developed using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for CO2 presents problems. Any industry, other than the fossil fuel industry, has to pay sewage and land-fill fees to dispose of waste. Why the fossil fuel industry get a free ride to dump CO2? The carbon taxes being advocated by folks like Hansen and implemented in place like British Columbia are revenue neutral as the money goes back to consumers and taxpayers. By establishing a cost to waste disposal, a carbon will provide an incentive to the fossil fuel industry to reduce CO2. I am opposed to cap and trade schemes, even though they had a positive effect on CFCs.

[bobofthenorth]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am not opposed to nuclear power and could see a future in fast reactor technology if they could get it kick started.

Ain't that the truth!! The clearest proof that most of the AGW alarmists are driven by politics rather than science is their simultaneous opposition to nuclear technology.

By establishing a cost to waste disposal, a carbon (tax) will provide an incentive to the fossil fuel industry to reduce CO2. I am opposed to cap and trade schemes, even though they had a positive effect on CFCs.

That argument would be a lot more persuasive if it was applied equally around the globe.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

The science is clear. The only way to oppose GMO crops is through an anti-business, quasi-religious fervour which parallels the religious argument in favour of AGW.

For example , the EU doesn't have a problem with GMO per say ( it approves each GM as a new food or a case by case basis) , but it wants clear labelling standards, Funny, the international agri-bussines particularly US is supposing that . Why ?

The outcome of that was that I made a fairly intense study of the science behind AGW. At the end of that I came back to where I started which is to say I believe that the globe is warming very slightly over a millennial timescale but that atmospheric CO2 does not explain that warming. The fact that Mark Lynas continues to support the AGW thesis just says to me that he still hasn't completely forsaken the leftist viewpoint that youth tends to start out with.

The climate change deniers, consistently try and paint advocates as "leftists" funny that , might work in the US ( reds under the bed) elsewhere its a good label. ( as rightist is equated with fascism )

Any examination of the science,and more importantly direct discussion with people in the relevant scientific areas, will demonstrate that the scientific community virtually too a man and women, accept anthropogenic climate change is happening and that the rate of changes increasing

What is under debate is what the results will be of such change, ranging from one side which advocates fairly minimum disruption to the other side which advocates quite massive disruption. The reason for this is that when the scenarios are fed to the computer models the results vary widely over the spectrum of potential change.

However there is a massive effort to improve various models and slowly but surely a consensus will emerge, just as it did on anthropogenic climate change.

The problem is of course that little of the science is assessable or even understandable so people read "abridged" versions peddled by biased advocates ( on both sides)

Then overlay onto that your attitude of "leftish" , i.e. climate changers are " god-dammed commies" etc and you have the outline of the current attempts by the deniers.

For similar look at anti smoking and the campaign against it, Having lost the scientific argument ( which they denied for years) they then started attacking the people behind the anti side. ( and again socialism was used as a blunt instrument)

Ultimately that's what both the AGW and the GMO debates are about - you either support industry and industrial development or you oppose it, based on your political outlook.

That sadly a very silly conclusion coming from a seemingly intelligent person as yourself. I fully support industry. But I want a clean no pollution environment and I don't support the industry that ruins where I live , or the air that I breathe. Im a right wing fiscal conservative , socially liberal type, by the way , votes centre right ( EU style ) every time !!!. ( sorta like Democrats with a social conscience) !

I don't have any problem with HONEST income redistribution. I don't think we should have people starving in our cities or freezing to death or dying for lack of access to medicine. I also don't believe that any sensible animal will deliberately mess in its own nest. What I don't support is income redistribution for dishonest reasons and that's where I disconnect from the AGW believers.

AGW of correctly ACC, is not about income distribution. Its about the need to control pollution, In reality no pollution should be the goal, we have to accept some, but we need to minimise, hence issues around landfill, recycling, air pollution, Co2 emissions etc etc. In a capitalist society this can only be done by the imposition of regulation as industry will not in itself control its behaviour.

Dave

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

That [carbon tax] argument would be a lot more persuasive if it was applied equally around the globe.

Agreed. But the 1st world has to lead on this - by example, and by spearheading the development of technologies and processes to reduce carbon release.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Any examination of the science,and more importantly direct discussion with people in the relevant scientific areas, will demonstrate that the scientific community virtually too a man and women, accept anthropogenic climate change is happening and that the rate of changes increasing

Utter and obvious nonsense, which is why alarmists are increasingly ignored. There never has been a consensus, and there is less of one now, what with no warming for over 17 years and lots of new data on natural impacts on climate overshadowing the simplistic models of AGW promoters.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

However there is a massive effort to improve various models and slowly but surely a consensus will emerge, just as it did on anthropogenic climate change.

Wrong. What is underway is an attempt to jigger the existing models to allow retention of high atmospheric sensitivity to CO2. Without CO2 being a villain, the alarmists are left with nothing but the same kind of cyclic atmospheric change that has been occurring for millennia.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The problem is of course that little of the science is assessable or even understandable so people read "abridged" versions peddled by biased advocates ( on both sides)

True, like the IPCC summary for policy makers which is a purely political document.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

For similar look at anti smoking and the campaign against it, Having lost the scientific argument ( which they denied for years) they then started attacking the people behind the anti side. ( and again socialism was used as a blunt instrument)

You mean like references from JackDale that MIT Professor Emeritus Lindzen is 'discredited'?

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

AGW of correctly ACC, is not about income distribution. Its about the need to control pollution, In reality no pollution should be the goal, we have to accept some, but we need to minimise, hence issues around landfill, recycling, air pollution, Co2 emissions etc etc.

Dave

Were CO2 a pollutant, you might be onto something. However, it is a life vital gas that comprises a miniscule part of the atmosphere with clearly minimal effects on climate. Best spend your time reducing something that actually has negative effects on humanity or the planet.

[bobofthenorth]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Agreed. But the 1st world has to lead on this - by example, and by spearheading the development of technologies and processes to reduce carbon release.

Which brings us full circle to income redistribution. If the argument is saving the planet then it matters not where the emissions come from.

[Blue Crab]

Wha' s dis polar vortex, mon?




I'm tossing the mods a bone here. Sorry to interrupt!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

Ain't that the truth!! The clearest proof that most of the AGW alarmists are driven by politics rather than science is their simultaneous opposition to nuclear technology.

Guess who is not an AGW alarmist?

Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.

Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to the Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.

The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

\

A text of the letter can be found here:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ar-power/?_r=0

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

Which brings us full circle to income redistribution. If the argument is saving the planet then it matters not where the emissions come from.

Bob

Please point us to this income redistribution plan.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

Which brings us full circle to income redistribution. If the argument is saving the planet then it matters not where the emissions come from.

Income redistribution is a loaded, hot-button word. Corporate bailouts were income redistribution. Money piling up on the doorstep of the 1% while the middle class stagnates or slides back is income redistribution, too. Let's not use that term.

I'm concerned with practicalities, not labels. Wishing that India and China will instantly pull in their growth aspirations isn't practical. We need to lead. The west is wealthy enough to lead without seriously breaking a sweat. And, it's a growth opportunity.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Utter and obvious nonsense, which is why alarmists are increasingly ignored. There never has been a consensus, and there is less of one now, what with no warming for over 17 years and lots of new data on natural impacts on climate overshadowing the simplistic models of AGW promoters.

Sheesh why bother - standard denier stuff. I happen to have access to several well known scientists working in obscure non public roles, They fill me in on th peer reviewed scientific process. Its almost unamious

Wrong. What is underway is an attempt to jigger the existing models to allow retention of high atmospheric sensitivity to CO2. Without CO2 being a villain, the alarmists are left with nothing but the same kind of cyclic atmospheric change that has been occurring for millennia.

This is straight off right wing pseudo science web sites

True, like the IPCC summary for policy makers which is a purely political document

The IPCC is a credible body with enormous scientific credentials , despite what nonsense and downright lies has been spread around about it. Most of the developed world accepts its findings with the exception of the looney right in the US. ( which has a problem with anything UN anyway)

Were CO2 a pollutant, you might be onto something. However, it is a life vital gas that comprises a miniscule part of the atmosphere with clearly minimal effects on climate. Best spend your time reducing something that actually has negative effects on humanity or the planet.

The interaction of Co2 and ACC is complex and absolutely models show widely differing effects and correlations. but everyones says Co2 levels in the atmosphere are anthropogenic and thats not good. ( ps try standing in a room full of Co2!)

And yes I mentioned many othe tissues besides c02. we have landfill pollution , water table pollution, lead and heavy metals pollution , water course destruction, rainforest and habitat destruction , particulate pollution from cars, planes and ships etc.

Hence the increasing requirements to segregate domestic waste, recycle, dispose of electrical waste in an approved manner, the tight controls over water table pollution and effluent discharge. Smokeless coal in cities. etc etc. All these are attempts to influence the polluters . this is coupled with changes in tax to incentivise public transport , use of bicycles, electric cars, dissuade the purchase of plastic bags, etc etc, Some of this inconveniences my life, some if it hits my pocket.

But one thing I know, The rivers and lakes around me are recovering for the first time in 40 years, the air in cities has no smog episodes, and I can walk into a bar and not have to change all my clothes outside my bedroom later that night!.

There the little things that effect change and there is loads more where they came from. Bring it on.


heres an article form a goo source, on a forgotton success http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hole-25-years/
dave

[GordMay]

Regardless of what we believe about climate change; four percent of Americans actually agree that:
"shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate our societies"
while 88 percent disagree, and seven percent are not sure.

See more ➥ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ies_040213.pdf