Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No. I don't rely on gossip. Why don't you post up what he actually said in that German radio interview and explain how it differs in context from the quote I posted?

Heck, you're on the road, I'll post the relevant part it for you.

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

[Reefmagnet]

And just to show where there's smoke there's fire....

The deal will also encourage trillions of dollars of capital to be spent adapting to the effects of climate change—including infrastructure like sea walls and programs to deal with poor soil—and developing renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. The text of the agreement includes a provision requiring developed countries to send $100 billion annually to their developing counterparts beginning in 2020. That figure will be a “floor” that is expected to increase with time.

The above is from COP 21's "Paris Agreement".

[newhaul]

Reef that is really good and straight to the point about the IPCC . Like I have said all along its about money not about actually helping the environment.

[Celestialsailor]

Finally...I remember what this thread reminded me of...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

[bcguy]

“Even oil companies, we can now say admit climate change is real – and admit it is something they are causing”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb1_story.html


Ooooops.... For some posters here on CF that is gonna mean “the check is not in the mail”.


And... as of a few days ago:
“Some of the world's largest oil firms face a high-powered U.S. legal effort to investigate them for long knowing, and hiding, the link between burning fossil fuels and destructive climate change. If the oil giants lose, their total liabilities could run into the billions or even trillions of dollars” US States Team Up to Nail Big Oil for Climate 'Fraud' | The Tyee

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcguy

“Even oil companies, we can now say admit climate change is real – and admit it is something they are causing”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb1_story.html


Ooooops.... For some posters here on CF that is gonna mean “the check is not in the mail”.


And... as of a few days ago:
“Some of the world's largest oil firms face a high-powered U.S. legal effort to investigate them for long knowing, and hiding, the link between burning fossil fuels and destructive climate change. If the oil giants lose, their total liabilities could run into the billions or even trillions of dollars” US States Team Up to Nail Big Oil for Climate 'Fraud' | The Tyee

BC you do realise that Katrina is an extreme right wing columnist that wrights in an opinions column which means she doesn't have to check facts.
I'm still reading the other paste link you posted.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcguy

“Even oil companies, we can now say admit climate change is real – and admit it is something they are causing”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb1_story.html


Ooooops.... For some posters here on CF that is gonna mean “the check is not in the mail”.


And... as of a few days ago:
“Some of the world's largest oil firms face a high-powered U.S. legal effort to investigate them for long knowing, and hiding, the link between burning fossil fuels and destructive climate change. If the oil giants lose, their total liabilities could run into the billions or even trillions of dollars” US States Team Up to Nail Big Oil for Climate 'Fraud' | The Tyee

BC on the other link while I do agree that big oil does share some culpability in the big picture. Let's break the article down a bit first All Gore and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman both are staunch democrats and politicians. Al Gore gets big money for speaking at events against big oil . Second what is a quick way to gain support of your constituants . By attacking an entity that try see as " stealing " money from them like big oil does. Now the big part Eric Schneiderman is up for reelection this fall. I'm sory but the article and investigation by them is little more than an attempt to gain a bid for reelection. It really smells of politics and money. I would be willing to lay money and odds that this ag investigation will die after the elections are finished. Time will tell


( this is the way things really work here when politicians are involved. )

[Reefmagnet]

I don't understand this "big oil" thing. It's not the oil companies that burn their products - ultimately it's you and me. Yeah, yeah, I know they should pay to clean up their mess. If that's the case can we start with Heinz next? I dread to think how much GHG is produced as a result of their baked bean products.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Since we're back to being science-y, can you help me find what part of the Spencer & Christie dataset accounts for heat retained in the oceans?

The data sets don't account for ocean heat because they are temperature data sets, not energy (heat) data sets.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Those of you who still think there's some nefarious secret purpose behind the IPCC... it would help make your case if you could articulate what you think that nefarious secret purpose is... in a bit more detail than "hurf-durf gummint!". And please remember, don't suffer in silence, help is just a phone call away. Reach out to a friend or loved one.

No one is suggesting a nefarious secret purpose.

What the UN is attempting has been clear for a very long time.

And the organization will continue to try to expand its influence as far as it can reach. You ain't seen nothing yet. Here's the next big thing for us sailors.

Exclusive: The UN starts toward new control over the world's oceans | Fox News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't understand this "big oil" thing. It's not the oil companies that burn their products - ultimately it's you and me. Yeah, yeah, I know they should pay to clean up their mess. If that's the case can we start with Heinz next? I dread to think how much GHG is produced as a result of their baked bean products.

Reef the " big oil " thing is more of a rally cry that gets people fired up .

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Reef the " big oil " thing is more of a rally cry that gets people fired up .

Speaking of getting fired up, for the first time in 27 years I've been using my 1980 Ferrari as a daily driver. No catalytic converters... It brings tears to my eyes.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Speaking of getting fired up, for the first time in 27 years I've been using my 1980 Ferrari as a daily driver. No catalytic converters... It brings tears to my eyes.

Good deal you are reducing your co2 emissions .
However without pictures it didnt happen.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by bcguy

“Even oil companies, we can now say admit climate change is real – and admit it is something they are causing”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb1_story.html

Curious how there's not one reference to the actual science, only politics. That ought to be a clue. And you actually believe the oil cos. are advocating a carbon tax because they have suddenly decided to become do-gooders?


Ooooops.... For some posters here on CF that is gonna mean “the check is not in the mail”.

Know something I don't? Should I stop checking my box every day then?


And... as of a few days ago:
“Some of the world's largest oil firms face a high-powered U.S. legal effort to investigate them for long knowing, and hiding, the link between burning fossil fuels and destructive climate change. If the oil giants lose, their total liabilities could run into the billions or even trillions of dollars” US States Team Up to Nail Big Oil for Climate 'Fraud' | The Tyee

The state AG's have replaced some names, changed some wording around, and signed onto a template that previously served as the legal complaint in the tobacco litigation. Oh, and then issued a press release. The only problem is that the link btwn. smoking & various diseases was known by science as far back as the 1930's, just like science had established the link btwn repeated head injuries & diseases of the brain at least as far back as the early 50's. Definitive conclusions were reached early on based on research and statistics from a known set of defined variables. But that didn't stop the tobacco cos. (yes, with help from Heartland, Jack) and the NFL (ditto Jack, thanks) from trying to deliberately deceive the public . . . and getting appropriately sued over it.

Here, all science can definitively tell us is that burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 is, among other things, a greenhouse gas, and may thus be contributing to warming. But kinda tough to establish a definitive, actionable link btwn the two when science unanimously agrees that natural forces are also in play, can't explain why there are significant periods with no correlation btwn increases in CO2 and warming, and can't even agree on the threshold issue of how to properly take the Earth's temperature. In other words, the AG's lawsuit would have to prove that there are a bunch of expert climatologists employed by the oil cos. who figured out a long time ago what all the govt-funded mainstream research around the world has failed to establish thus far, and have been hiding it. Are they kidding? You realize this is an election year in the US and state Attorney General's are political offices, right?

To be clear, I don't take issue with anyone's sincerely held opinions on such a complex and multi-faceted issue, and science may prove you correct one day -- or not. But how about just a little bit of questioning & critique when it comes to an area of poorly understood science that is utterly infused with politics & money?? Checking your sources and deciphering motives isn't asking too much, is it? The level of group-think and complacency is actually a tad frightening.

It's not like we can all just suddenly give up consuming fossil fuels like many can give up smoking to reduce the chances of disease, or we can choose not to drive to work or school as opposed to not letting our kids play football and avoid injury. The "People's Climate March?" Really??!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Speaking of getting fired up, for the first time in 27 years I've been using my 1980 Ferrari as a daily driver. No catalytic converters... It brings tears to my eyes.

The sound, the smoke, or the speeding fines?