"Cap and Trade"

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

01 Jul 2009, 3:56 pm

Henriksson wrote:

I don't get it. It just seems to be a bunch of random scientists. It's very like the ID controversy in that regard, they have a few 'scientists with nothing to gain' on their side too.

This is a different debate from ID. Nobody can prove God, so that argument is moot. The cause of global warming, however, can be proven/disproven.

Did you know that multiple other places in our solar system are also warming?
Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... ed_jr.html
Pluto: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
Triton: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Why would multiple places in the solar system be warming at the same time if earth's 'warming' is caused by humans? This shows that the sun is likely the biggest contributor to global warming/cooling, since that's the only thing we have in common with jupiter/pluto/triton.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

01 Jul 2009, 4:17 pm

Cyanide wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

I don't get it. It just seems to be a bunch of random scientists. It's very like the ID controversy in that regard, they have a few 'scientists with nothing to gain' on their side too.

Cyanide, you just invoked Monty's Law ("You should thoroughly read an article before linking to it to prove a point, but you won't.")

Quote:

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

Ooopsies!

Oggleleus
Deinonychus

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 349

02 Jul 2009, 1:24 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

And can we please stop with the "global warming is false" conspirarcy nonesense? It's about time that such climate change denialism be placed in a dust heap with creationism, flat earthism, geocentrism, anti-vaccine propropoganda, and other such harmful anti-science.

I know you'd like to put it on the same level as flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. but isn't the number of skeptics, particularly in the sciences, actually growing?

Thus the push to ignore science in order to bully this bloated piece of #!$% through the process. Many house seats are gonna change come election time after that vote!

MP's desperation to include "global warming deniers" into the same group as listed makes me smile and think the fascists environmentalism movement has reached its peak with the "Inconvenient Truth". Who was the Truth really inconvenient for? The public or the producers?

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

02 Jul 2009, 2:17 pm

Well, if one is looking for a representation of mainstream science, one might also look to the National Academy of Sciences in the US, and their respective counterparts in other countries.

Quote:

June, 2009--In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to "seize all opportunities" to address global climate change that "is happening even faster than previously estimated."

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

Quote:

une, 2009--The InterAcademy Panel, a network of the world's science academies, issued a statement warning that ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide emissions will have a profound impact on marine ecosystems. The statement calls on negotiators at upcoming U.N. climate change talks to recognize the threat of ocean acidification and to mitigate it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by at least 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050, with further reductions thereafter.

http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/8900.aspx

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jul 2009, 2:57 pm

Henriksson wrote:

They already are, actually. But the per capita is way more higher for America than China...

Per capitas are not producing CO2, coal powered generating plants are. It would not make one bit of difference whether China had 100 million poeple or and a half billion people. They are using the dirtiest possible technology.

ruveyn

Oggleleus
Deinonychus

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 349

02 Jul 2009, 3:02 pm

monty wrote:

Well, if one is looking for a representation of mainstream science, one might also look to the National Academy of Sciences in the US, and their respective counterparts in other countries.

Quote:

700 Scientists...and growing

Not So realclimate.com

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jul 2009, 3:25 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

But the sooner the better. Even if the programs only have measurable effect by his mid term its better than no effects at all. The Republicans are close to a rump caucus right now, their party is utterly disorganized, yet they're still hounding Obama. This is his best chance to get any legislation with teeth in it through, he should be doing these things right away, steamrolling the Republicans.

Well, ok, but that is a different agenda than anything about economic stimulus. That's all my point is.

Okay, I'll concede that a carbon tax coupled with a cap and trade system isn't neccessarily related to economic stimulus. Nevertheless, Obama (and left-progressive activists) have the opportunity to push through a massive Green Works Administration program which would simultaneously deal with anthropogenic climate change and depression.

It's nice to take a break from the massive response (requiring much searching and reading for referencing) of techstepgenr8tion's "Obama = leftist" thesis.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jul 2009, 3:33 pm

Cyanide wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

I don't get it. It just seems to be a bunch of random scientists. It's very like the ID controversy in that regard, they have a few 'scientists with nothing to gain' on their side too.

This is a different debate from ID. Nobody can prove God, so that argument is moot. The cause of global warming, however, can be proven/disproven.

The analogy is not a false one.

The primary tenant of ID Creationism is not positive, it's crucial tenant is negative (natural selection and evolutionary theory fails to explain complex life on earth). The positive component is mostly a difficult to falsify non-sequitor (Thus, an intelligent God or Space Alien must've designed life!).

It's negative component (denialism of evolutionary theory in the face of overwheling scientific consensus and evidence) is analogus to (anthropogenic) climate change denialism.

Quote:

Did you know that multiple other places in our solar system are also warming?
Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... ed_jr.html
Pluto: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
Triton: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Why would multiple places in the solar system be warming at the same time if earth's 'warming' is caused by humans? This shows that the sun is likely the biggest contributor to global warming/cooling, since that's the only thing we have in common with jupiter/pluto/triton.

Monty aptly dealt with your point.

But, I should say, different planets undergo different changes for quite possibly different reasons.

Because all rock erosion on Mars is caused by non-anthropogenic forces does not disprove the possibility that anthropogenic forces can erode rocks on Earth.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jul 2009, 3:48 pm

Cyanide wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Show me the numerous peer-reviewed journal articles these "plenty of scientists" are comming up with. Show me the serious scientific dissent fracturing what seems to be an overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat.

Anacedotally showing me one scientist who claims anthropogenic climate change is a hoax is like saying because one dentist, who is a real quak, tells kids to eat mouthfuls of candy is somehow demonstrative that the candy is detrimental to healthy teeth is somehow "seriously challenged".

I can tell you that most dramatic natural climate changes do result in large scale extinction. Our anthropogenic climate change is rather excellerated and, because we have the technology to adapt, we may not go extinct. But it will cause tremendous economic discomfort, a lot more than a carbon tax will.

How about at least 400 scientists? http://crnation.com/2007/12/20/consensu ... consensus/

And yes, if temperature increased that much, people would die. That's just common sense. If it wasn't caused by us though, there wouldn't be anything we could do about it.

I'd like to see the primary source of the report (prefereably a link to the text).

There's an overwhelming consensus when one reads the peer-review literature, statements of professional societies and the work of the Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change that anthropogenic climate change is an actual phenomena. A report from a small percentage of rejectionist scientists does not change the fact anymore than a minority of flat earthers with PhDs or the unrepresentative engineer who believes in 9/11 conspiraracy theories against constant rebuttals from Popular Mechanics/professional scientists and scientists' associations.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jul 2009, 3:53 pm

Oggleleus wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

I know you'd like to put it on the same level as flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. but isn't the number of skeptics, particularly in the sciences, actually growing?

Indeed, I am very desperate to include a minority of denialists against overwhelming consensus expressed in the statements of professional societies and peer-reviewed literature in the same league as a minority of flat earthers, creationists, anti-vaccinationists, and 9/11 conspirarcy theorists against a likewise strong consensus.

Indeed, advocating a carbon tax is just like advocating that Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and Communists be killed as enemies of the state. I am so fascistic (if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic).

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

02 Jul 2009, 4:10 pm

Oggleleus wrote:

700 Scientists...and growing
[/url]

Ooh - there's a quality source - Senator Jim Inhofe ... not only does he deny global warming, he also denies evolution. And his list gets pretty flaky at times:

...one name on the list, Chris Allen, is a Southern Baptist "creation scientist" who works as a TV weatherman and has no college degree. On on Feb. 7, 2007, Allen wrote: "My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture... Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context," wrote Allen."

The list also includes a retired professor with no training in climate science who says that the earth "couldn't be more than 10,000 years old." And these names were listed as "prominent scientists" in an actual Senate report.

Yeah, that list was compiled fairly, and it proves that there is a real 'controversy' around global warming.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009 ... t_scie.php

Quote:

Qualifications of some of the "experts" on the Inhofe 400 list

Today's "prominent scientist": Thomas Ring

Mr. Ring's credentials include a degree from Case Western Reserve University in chemical engineering, although it is not specified what level degree it is.

The sum and total of his writings on climate change appear to be one letter he wrote to the Marin Independent Journal (full of the usual skeptic drivel, debunked here, here, and here). That's it.

I did a quick search on ISI's Web of Science and found no peer-reviewed publications by any T. Ring on anything that related to climate change. In addition, as someone who goes to meetings on climate change all the time, I've never seen this gentleman, so he very likely does not attend scientific meetings on this topic.

So the extent of his qualifications are: an engineering degree and the time and energy to write a letter to a newspaper.

http://www.grist.org/article/the-inhofe ... s-busters/

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jul 2009, 4:15 pm

Glancing over (and not going into full depth) the Minority Senate Report seems like a real partisan hack job, compiling (unsystematically) a bunce of discrete sources and uttering a conspirarcy about inquistorial Professional Socieities.

One of the "relevant" authorities they site is Nobel Prize Winner Ivar Giaever. I'm too indolent, right now, to see if the report took his quote out of context, but I can say one thing: he's not meterologist, his professional work was in superconductors and solid state physics.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

02 Jul 2009, 4:23 pm

And how many people were put on the list, even when they believe that humans do contribute to global warming? I've heard of several.

Quote:

The Swedish researchers Svante Björk, Dan Hammarlund and Karl Ljung who’s names and research is used in the report don’t want anything to do with the list and think that their findings are being misused. Further they state that they have no complaints about the main conclusions in the IPCC reports.

http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/ ... e-650.html

The list of '700' also contains several duplications - sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!

Ivar does seem to be rather skeptical, but his objections seem more psychological or sociological than scientific - if it was real, why didn't people do anything after Kyoto, GW is like a religion, etc. No research published, it is out of his field.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jul 2009, 4:30 pm

monty wrote:

And how many people were put on the list, even when they believe that humans do contribute to global warming? I've heard of several.

Quote:

The list of '700' also contains several duplications - sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!

I must admit to having not read through the entire report, but I got the intuitive sense glancing through it that it was a hack job. If I have the time, I might review all of its claims. I think, though, it probably contains as much misrepresentation, out of context quotes, and misinformation as Coulter's "Godless" (just my inital impression).

God, I have to end my forum addiction for today!

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

02 Jul 2009, 5:16 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

They already are, actually. But the per capita is way more higher for America than China...

Indeed; there are plenty of countries with low emissions per capita, but it just so happens that a lot of these countries are rather poor. It would be better perhaps to look at the amount accomplished with those CO2 emissions; in this case, the United States produces over 4 times as much as China does per ton of CO2 emissions. Now, it just so happens that the US if A is still emitting a lot for its GDP, but it is around the same quantity as say Australia, and considerably better than Canada.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

02 Jul 2009, 6:09 pm

twoshots wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

They already are, actually. But the per capita is way more higher for America than China...

Poorer countries typically have less efficient technologies, and they produce lower value products. So the fact that they produce less in dollar amounts per unit of carbon doesn't tell us much. Also, they are highly export oriented, so much of the emissions are actually for products being called into existence by people in the west.

Canada is a country about the size of the US, but with 1/10th of the population. Their economy is based on resource extraction, which takes a lot more energy than software or movies and music. And who buys all the lumber, oil, and other minerals that Canada produces? Not just Canadians. Again, national boundaries mean little with an international trade system.

Another relevant index is based on the consumption by the average individual. In that sense, the average Chinese person has a lower standard of living, is consuming far fewer resources, and emitting fewer emissions.

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

"Cap and Trade" Post Reply New Topic

"Cap and Trade"