Signs of something sensible beginning.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/senators_releas.html#more

The proposal from the two senators includes the following:
...
“Congress finds that—

“(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts;

“(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and

“(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

“It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that—

“(1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and

“(2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.”
....

It is still early and I'm not sure how far this will go, but at least it's a start. Better than nothing so...:clap:

No applause from me. If you're going to make a case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then do so because you feel it will improve air quality. Most of the greenhouse gas research that supposedly links human greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is woefully inadequate--especially as a basis for demanding a massive change in human and economic behaviour.

Declaring that it will not harm the economy is like declaring that an increase in taxes will not affect your income--it's just a declaration, not a promise or prediction.

Most of the greenhouse gas research that supposedly links human greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is woefully inadequate--especially as a basis for demanding a massive change in human and economic behaviour.

Supposedly !!!!!!?? Woefully inadequate!!!???........

You must be joking......even the US is not in denial any more. :eek:

•••

Will someone please explain THIS wording....... mandatory, market-based limits and incentives

Seems to me that's a mighty oxymoron - mandatory, market-based cheek by jowl.

Orwell would be impressed.
They do say the first step in 12 steps is admitting you have a problem.
Represents some small hope I suppose.

••
My concern is a feeling from the science community is that coping and maybe some small slowing down of the process is ALL we can do. Now THAT grim resignation is worrisome.

Meh. Principle number one is protect the economy. That's not even remotely taking the issue seriously enough. I suppose it is a start, though.

Well it IS consistent with the "priorities".....:rolleyes:

President Bush proposed a $2.77 trillion budget on Monday calling for increased spending on the military and domestic security and substantial cuts in domestic programs as disparate as education, farm subsidies and the national parks.

The budget bears all the hallmarks of the Bush presidency: his overriding priorities are national security and making permanent the tax cuts passed by Congress in recent years.

One wonders what "security" resides in a planet with accelerating climate change...how many more Katrina's need come knocking....

Katrina was the worst hurricane in recorded US history, Wilma recorded the lowest barometric pressure in history, the National Hurricane Center ran out of names, Indiana had a killer tornado in November, and more..
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/technology/a/climatestudy.htm

You gotta wonder just WHAT it takes to get some attention paid to the REAL risks :eek:

Meh. Principle number one is protect the economy. That's not even remotely taking the issue seriously enough. I suppose it is a start, though.

Whether it's explicit or not, pretty much every country has that as principle number one, so I don't really fault them for being upfront about it.

It was disappointing to see them almost immediately go into some sort of cap-and-trade system instead of just a GHG tax, but cap-and-trade is also commonly discussed (we're doing it too, sort of). All in all, this seems to be a little bit of catch up, but we'll see if it gets any traction.

Will someone please explain THIS wording....... mandatory, market-based limits and incentives


I suspect it's a signal to the voluntary techno set in the administration. To date, U.S. policy has been to essentially research more (the AP6) and see what happens, a method that while not impossible, relies on 'magic bullet' discoveries to actually succeed by itself. 'Mandatory market-based' is a signal, I believe, that it's time to get real.

[Edit: Thought I'd add examples of mandatory market-based approaches: greenhouse gas tax, cap and trade.]

Well that's all very amusing, sort of what one would expect from the US. Typical that upon examining the problem they have determined it is just a matter of tweaking a few things and all will be fine. And all without damaging their economy. How wonderful. :lmao:

These morons actually believe this is a problem where short-term solutions apply. By the time any global climate change is affected by any measures taken the US will be a large pile of rubble and weeds.

'Congress finds....' LMFAO....That somehow it's now an 'official' problem because they say it is just shows the true level of arrogance and rank stupidity that blankets the US government. That they have now validated all the research that has taken place over the last 20 years. :rolleyes:

One more reason why the cockroaches are lickin their lips. :D (if they have lips that is)

'Congress finds....' LMFAO....That somehow it's now an 'official' problem because they say it is just shows the true level of arrogance and rank stupidity that blankets the US government. That they have now validated all the research that has taken place over the last 20 years. :rolleyes:


'Congress finds...' has political implications if this ever passes and is quite important. The government's position, although it may sound silly compared to scientists, is of the utmost importance in starting real action on this. Note the attention Blair's recent comments got. It is not that they validate the research, it is that they signal a call to action. This is government, not just the U.S.

As for tweaking etc...that's the Canadian approach that our government brags about (and has resulted in a worse record than the U.S.). If this initiative goes forward (and that is a big if) it would be more forceful than what Canada is doing now. Of course, after it goes through the sausage-maker that is congress, it may end up even worse than Canada's current approach.

Well you won't get an argument from me about our efforts in this area--we suck!

And that's not just my opinion, it's well recognized around the world. :rolleyes:

Still, I find the whole 'congress' thing amusing. ;)

I think we always see great hope when the government seems to side with something we believe in. If the "scientific evidence" on climate change is acceptable to you, by all means applaud. Just like the people who applaud every time "scientific evidence" suggests vaccination causes autism--or people who applaud when "scientific evidence" denounces the link.

The big problem here is that everybody's idea of acceptable change seems to involve forcing others to accept their "scientific evidence."

I think we always see great hope when the government seems to side with something we believe in. If the "scientific evidence" on climate change is acceptable to you, by all means applaud. Just like the people who applaud every time "scientific evidence" suggests vaccination causes autism--or people who applaud when "scientific evidence" denounces the link.


Or evolution. ;)

Some things have more than enough proof and importance to act upon. 100% certainty is impossible, but we must live in this improbable world nonetheless.

"scientific evidence" suggests vaccination causes autism

Spare me you are comparing an epidemiological study attempting to find a faint statistical link between vaccination and autism..... a condition whose cause is not understood.

That's a far cry from the geophysics of global climate change which are clearly measurable.
What is less understood are the feedback mechanisms in the climate that can slow or accelerate change and to what degree it will affect various areas as the impact is not evenly spread.

A 30% change in the volume of the Gulf Stream /North Atlantic Current is not an arguable statistical anomaly. The US government has hardly been the lead in this - they've tried to cover the evidence up or discredit it with barely more sophistication than you show in the matter.

The "celebration" is more ironic and blackly humorous than anything else. :(

•••

Market forces hardly mix well with mandatory. I suspect it's code for let's plant a few trees to make everyone feel better and make few if any changes.
Instead of being leaders they are being truculent foot draggers.
Our gov is no better other than admitting the existence of climate change earlier.
Guess the trees make them feel better :rolleyes:

Market forces hardly mix well with mandatory.

They actually mix very well. For example, sales taxes. Relatively simple to collect (there is an admin burden, but much of this already exists and can be used e.g. fuel taxes), have minimal avoidance relative to total revenue and they directly hit consumer demand. The full document itself goes into more detail about the issues faced (overly complex due to underlying cap and trade style). It is not code speak.

Unless the government wants to centrally plan the whole thing (with huge associated costs and taxpayer financed flubs), they're going to need to use mandatory market-based mechanisms. This is well known. GHG taxes are the cleanest, but many advocate cap and trade. Government in Canada keeps chickening out and proposes overly complex and lax systems plus billions in poorly directed spending. The vague 'we'll help research something, build an ethanol plant, and subsidize some retrofits' world of command-and-control does not work.

mandatory, market-based limits and incentives

Market implies choice, mandatory is imposed.....it's an oxymoron the way it's set out.

Newspeak for - we're going to impose limits but you'll have choice in how to meet those limits and we'll sweeten the pot for you with tax incentives.

The way it was originally phrased leaves the impression.........well damn gonna have to sumpthin' but we really think we shouldn't have to....ala fuel mileage for vehicles.......California had the courage. :clap:

Sure MacDoc, what you said.

Well folks, like I said--believe what you want, just don't try to take me along for the ride. The difference between believing (or not believing) in evolution and "mandatory market-based initiatives"? In the first case I don't honestly care if you believe your ancestor was an ape, a lemur or an angel--it makes very little difference to me. In the case of your great fear of cataclysmic climate change--well your "solutions" are simply unpalatable to me. Thank goodness not enough people are listening to these ideas. Grand ideas require grand proofs--and they have not been forthcoming.

Although I did read a fascinating study that suggested a halt in greenhouse gas production would cycle us right into the Ice Age we've been staving off for the past century or so. The author of the study, by the way, still felt that we should curb the production of CO2--he was OK with the Ice Age.

Macfury,

You may enjoy reading <a href=http://www.takenbystorm.info/>Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming</a> and <a href=http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html>The Hockey Stick Debate</a>.

James

James-Squared: Thanks for that link. These credible studies are generally of no interest to the people invested in the global warming theory. I'm getting so tired of the challenge: "Do you deny this was a warm January?" Or; "If you can't explain the weather then admit that global warming is caused by human activity." Or simply: "Can't explain the weather? Then give up your air conditioner."

The authors are correct that the widespread belief in global warming is, indeed, an acceptance of superstition/pop-culture logic at the expense of scientific reasoning. It's not even a case of disputing theories or data--it's considered politically incorrect to diss these half-assed musings.

On some level I think supporters of the global warming idea are giving themselves a backhanded compliment--"We humans are so darned powerful, we're changing the weather."

A few things.

The 'hockey stick' debate is far more than what the critics post. There is much more information connected with the authors and others who have weighed in. Don't just stop at reading critics' sites if you really want to understand. All too often people just hunt for what agrees with their 'gut', building an archival shrine to their feelings. See the political forum for examples.

I've also seen McKitrick present to committee at parliament hill and he had a rhetoric-loaded and unsubstansiated presentation, an embarrasment to my field of study. He was even upbraided for it. He's an economist with little climate science credibility. He had some good points exposing methodological weaknesses in the stick early on, but he is driven by ideology, not the pursuit of knowledge, in my opinion. Another guy presenting at the same time (unconnected) seemed to be carefully minding his manners because it wasn't his role to criticise another presenter.

Finally, the 'hockey stick', while an important part of communicating the science to the public in a clear and visual manner, is a tiny part of the science.

After watching a repeat of a PBS special NOVA on the earth's dying magnetic field, global warming may not be our ancestors only concern:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/

Taken by Storm ...why isn't that strange......reader responses and nary a dissenting comment.
http://www.takenbystorm.info/id6.html

Why am I NOT surprised to find it on the Friends of Science reading list :rolleyes:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=7

Ah love these fellow travellers. Fraser Institute, National post

Ross McKitrick
Smog Deaths: 0 (National Post February 5, 2004)
Prime Time Fiction (National Post April 16, 2003)
Why Canada Should not Ratify Kyoto (Kitchener-Waterloo Record December 5, 2002)
Kyoto Cost Confusion (National Post October 18, 2002)
Kyoto Won't Stop the Drought (Calgary Herald April 22, 2002)
Political 'Science' (National Post, April 4 2002) (graph)
Kyoto's Real Cost (National Post, February 26 2002)
Bush Sinks Kyoto (National Post, February 16 2002) (graph)
Thin-air Syndrome (National Post, Nov 13 2001)

Now this guy is a Economics prof - nada to do with physical sciences or climatology and several howlers have been exposed in his "analyses"

http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/

After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record. … The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.

There seems to be some problems with their work. To understand them you need to understand the two different ways of measuring angles.

This angle is one degree. -------- This angle is one radian.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/img/onedegree.pnghttp://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/img/oneradian.png

Can you spot the difference?

If you do calculations and get degrees and radians mixed up, you get the wrong answer. Which is what McKitrick did. His analysis included a variable cosablat, which was supposed to be the cosine of absolute latitude. Trouble is, the software he used expects angles to be measured in radians, his data has latitude in degrees, and he didn’t convert from degrees to radians. Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong. I corrected the error and reran his regressions. The sizes of the “economic” signals were greatly reduced. They no longer “explain” half of the surface warming trend. Removing the effects of the economic variables now just reduces the warming trend for his sample from 0.27 degrees/decade to 0.20 degrees/decade, which is very close to the warming trend for the whole globe.

This is what happens when incompetent right-wing hacks try to do science.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1793358

Sounds about right. He should stick to his abacus - economics is sufficiently foggy for him.

Skepticism and challenge is part and parcel of moving science and knowledge forward........stuff like THIS is just plain laughable.

>> Taken by Storm ...why isn't that strange......reader responses and
>> nary a dissenting comment.

Funny how none of the responders to Tim Lambert's blog disagreed with him either. BECAUSE YOU AREN'T REQUIRED TO REPORT DISSENT ON YOUR OWN WEB SITE!!!

Yes, McKitrick and Essex made an error in their calculations--as have global warming proponents--but the book handily exposes the outright deceit that has informed the pro-global warming deabte.

I know you guys are frightened, but try to get a grip--even if the Earth heats up as much as the Global Warming crowd tells you it will, it'll only be as warm as the temperature in the 13th century. We've had many periods of rapid warming and cooling through the last 40,000 years or so, much of it uneven--ice melting, ice forming, glaciers coming and going, water levels rising and falling--independent of human activity and often in combinations that do not support the global warming/carbon dioxide hyothesis.

Much of the carbon dioxide data used by global warming proponents assumes that water vapour--our most common greenhouse gas--does not exist. Most of it ignores varying solar output, changes in Earth's rotation and orbit, etc.

Best we know, carbon-dioxide levels were five to 10 times as high as today about 100 million years ago. Temperatures during the period are estimated at about 4 to 11 degrees Celsius higher. And yes, changing temperatures mean some animals will disappear and some will survive. This has happened to thousands and thousands of species through the years. The Earth is a living laboratory, not a museum exhibit or a zoo. We can't keep every species alive--perhaps not even us.

I don't think we do ourselves proud by criticizing the data because we fear it came from the Fraser Institute or was reported in the National Post. I could say that the scientists who are most likely to jump on the warming bandwagon are those most likely to receive further funding if they scream shrilly and loudly--but I won't. Or that a preponderance of scientists supporting global warming theories are part of left-wing think tanks--but I won't.

And yeah, the magnetic field switches every so often--nothing we can do about it.

Here's an interesting question.

If you knew with all certainty that the Earth was entering an Ice Age that would devastate the world's eco-system--would any of you consider carbon-loading the atmosphere to maintain the world's temperature at levels we now consider normal?

It isn't a trick question designed to trap anyone. I'm really interested in your opinions.

I know you guys are frightened, but try to get a grip--even if the Earth heats up as much as the Global Warming crowd tells you it will, it'll only be as warm as the temperature in the 13th century.

What makes you say that? Check out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060210.WARM10/TPStory/?query=

Which basically says that we're at that point. Care to think about what will happen if we go further?

Best we know, carbon-dioxide levels were five to 10 times as high as today about 100 million years ago. Temperatures during the period are estimated at about 4 to 11 degrees Celsius higher. And yes, changing temperatures mean some animals will disappear and some will survive. This has happened to thousands and thousands of species through the years. The Earth is a living laboratory, not a museum exhibit or a zoo. We can't keep every species alive--perhaps not even us.

While species may come and go the rate of disappearance is unprecedented in such a very short time span. Every species is interconnected somewhere; there is an analogy that has been used a lot in at least the past 30 years and that is that the Earth's ecosystem is like a jet plane, every species represents a piece of that plane, take away enough of the nuts, bolts and wing flaps and the whole thing collapses.

Don't be so smug that a particular insect has disappeared and does not seem to affect you...the next thing you know an insect such as the honeybee might disppear and you're not only going to miss honey on your toast in the morning but may see a mass collapse in the pollination of crops.

I could say that the scientists who are most likely to jump on the warming bandwagon are those most likely to receive further funding if they scream shrilly and loudly--but I won't.

But, you did. So let's address this strawman...I believe that scientists don't last long if they go around simply parroting what others say...they may get their funding grant one year but a funding organization would look very hard the next year if they see that the report that they sponsored is the same as another half dozen. Think on that. ;)

So just so I understand it correctly, Macfury, you don't believe the expert opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists, around the world, that the Earth is experiencing climate change and record warming? And you don't believe their scientific opinion that human activity is the major cause?

And you believe that species die off all the time and if man happens to become extinct then it's no big deal and we shouldn't try to do something about it?

So what do you think we should do... nothing perhaps?

I'm aware enough to know that pollution = bad and to try and do something about it. It's not surpising that alot of pollution and the destruction of ecosystems = alot of bad in the form of climate change. And even if the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, there is no need to exaserbate the change and bring it on faster.

There is a connectedness to all things. We deny it at our own peril.

IronMac: I won't dispute that someone will find information that will disagree with someone else's research. I've seen proxy records--ice core, tree-ring, pollen, sea shells, sediment--that describe a wide variety of temperatures from as little as 1,200 years ago.

One of the biggest problems with using proxy records is the subjectivity of interpretation. It's a lot of guesswork since we are usually picking one or two indicators from the proxy samples, then interpreting according to the context we best understand--the last 150 years. There's also the assumption that cause and effect are largely synchronous during these periods.

Likewise, using the diaries of people from over 1,000 years ago provides some local information--but difficult comparisons. If Njrol says he harvested grapes early in September, 1008 we have an indication that the year was special for Njorl--but it's still difficult to place it in context. Was this significantly better than the harvest of Njorl's illiterate father? Warmer than the previous year where a drought prevented an early harvest?

Osborn's research doesn't attempt to say that global warming is caused by human activity. What it attempts to say is that temperature extremes at different points on the globe were more pronounced in certain areas at certain times--also leaving the previous several billion years open to interpretation. You'll also note that Osborn's research has many detractors--and that other proxy research suggests Osborn is wrong.

I have no doubt that if enough species die, the ecosystem may collapse into something inhospitable to us. Again, that's doesn't suggest that global warming caused by human beings is the culprit. The honey bee is, of course, not native to North America and represents one of the most succesful cases of human beings reducing bio-diversity.

>>But you did....

While I could point to specific areas of research that were funded by groups likely to support the notion of global warming--I didn't. I merely suggested that I could impugn research funded by groups I didn't trust or disagreed with. Members of this board did, however, suggest that any association with the National Post and the Fraser Institute could be used to discount research which DID NOT support global warming. I would certainly hope that if these sources ever reported material that appeared to support global warming theories, global warming groupies would then discount that supportive research. In general, what appears to happen is that someone will bray: "See, even the National Post/Fraser Institute agrees with us now!"


>> I believe that scientists don't last long if they go around simply
>> parroting what others say...

I believe they will last long if they attract research funds, and sell newspapers. They will also last quite long if they say what the others say in a different manner. In some cases, they will last as long as they support certain objectives.

Some of the supporters of research that fingered CFCs as causing damage to the ozone layer were companies who manufacturedthe chemicals and had the capacity to manufacture new chemicals that could replace CFCs. Does that funding support the theory that CFC research was accurate? Take one: "Don't trust them--they only want to sell the replacement chemicals to make a profit." Take two: "See, even the CFC manufacturers agree with us!"

A friend of mine went into publishing because the research firm for which she worked continually asked her to try to duplicate the research and results found elsewhere. When the results failed to support the expected outcome, she was asked to conduct the research again and again until it fell into the range of expected outcomes. It was understood that clients and funding would disappear if the results didn't meet their expectations. Anecdotal, yes, but not uncommon.

Paul: I don't believe that an overwhelming majority of scientists support the notion of global warming as caused by human beings. I do not believe that those scientists who support the notion that human beings are responsible for a large portion of global warming are correct. I do believe that the world is warmer some years than others.

If man were to become extinct, it would be a big deal to me--but I don't accept the unproven premise that we are responsible for runaway climate change.

I have always stated that we should continue to find ways to reduce pollution. I've never supported the idea that humans should breed like rabbits (how many kids has David Suzuki sired?).

There is a connectedness to all things, but the degree of connectedness is in wide dispute.

I'm still interested in your opinion on the question I asked earlier--if you knew that you could prevent an Ice Age that would reduce bio-diversity, would you produce excess carbon-dioxide to stop it--or let the natural rhythm of the Earth destroy many species?

I'm still interested in your opinion on the question I asked earlier--if you knew that you could prevent an Ice Age that would reduce bio-diversity, would you produce excess carbon-dioxide to stop it--or let the natural rhythm of the Earth destroy many species?


your question attempts to reduce this to a yes or no answer
(with us or against us)

with so many species and the eco system being so inter-connected the question is much more complex than you try to boil it down to

the climate is a vastly complex system and we are only now starting to understand it

if you want any evidence of pollution control and benefits, just drive out of the big city in the middle of summer and see how easy the air is to breathe

In 1300 there were less than 0.4 billion humans.
There are a third of that in Bangladesh alone which is about a metre above sea level.

Just in economic terms alone dealing with substantially more energy in the climate system wreaks havoc on farming, fishing, and destroyed cities ala New Orleans.
Not a great time to be in the insurance business.

I'd be far less concerned except that we are hitting a combination of peaking population and rapid climate change. That's a wicked brew.

BTW bandying about figures....the last time the global temperature got 11 degrees C or so above current levels, 95% of ALL life died off.....and that's the outside range for the next 100 years..........the first time it took 150 million years to get there.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if population was down to about 10% of what it is now and our pollution/environment impact footprint about 5% of what it is.
Laudable goals in my mind.

I have no concerns about life/planet recuperative powers. Lots of doubts about first world civ longevity at anywhere near these population levels.

To answer the 'ice age prevention" - that's what the Calgary engineering study was about - to prevent rapid cooling for Europe by restarting the full volume of flow of the Atlantic circulation.

Pretty strong consensus the Greenland melting is now irreversible so like it or not we're gonna have to deal with at the very least a pretty rapid rise in sea level and some nasty weather changes for Europe in a short time period.

Better get to Venice soon.....before it ends up only tourable like Heracleion and parts of Alexandria http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/alex18.jpg

oh yeah ....lower Manhattan too ;) That'll take a while....or a big hurricane...more of those about lately too.
VERY interesting times indeed. Great lakes is pretty good area to hangout. :D

I brought up Osborn's study because you said that the temperature will:


ven if the Earth heats up as much as the Global Warming crowd tells you it will, it'll only be as warm as the temperature in the 13th century.

And I was curious as to where you got that.

You'll also note that Osborn's research has many detractors--and that other proxy research suggests Osborn is wrong.

Such as?


Osborn's research doesn't attempt to say that global warming is caused by human activity. What it attempts to say is that temperature extremes at different points on the globe were more pronounced in certain areas at certain times--also leaving the previous several billion years open to interpretation.

From the Globe and Mail article:

Timothy Osborn, one of the researchers, who added that the results are "probably related" to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.

I have no doubt that if enough species die, the ecosystem may collapse into something inhospitable to us. Again, that's doesn't suggest that global warming caused by human beings is the culprit. The honey bee is, of course, not native to North America and represents one of the most succesful cases of human beings reducing bio-diversity.

Reducing bio-diversity? Are you trying to say that this is a good thing or bad thing? Are you trying to say that reducing bio-diversity is actually a beneficial side-effect of human activity?

While I could point to specific areas of research that were funded by groups likely to support the notion of global warming--I didn't. I merely suggested that I could impugn research funded by groups I didn't trust or disagreed with. Members of this board did, however, suggest that any association with the National Post and the Fraser Institute could be used to discount research which DID NOT support global warming. I would certainly hope that if these sources ever reported material that appeared to support global warming theories, global warming groupies would then discount that supportive research. In general, what appears to happen is that someone will bray: "See, even the National Post/Fraser Institute agrees with us now!"

I'll give you that point because it can happen...although the tables can be turned around too. ;)

I believe they will last long if they attract research funds, and sell newspapers. They will also last quite long if they say what the others say in a different manner. In some cases, they will last as long as they support certain objectives.

No, once you lose credibility that's it.

Some of the supporters of research that fingered CFCs as causing damage to the ozone layer were companies who manufacturedthe chemicals and had the capacity to manufacture new chemicals that could replace CFCs.


Is this a suspicion or do you have proof?

Here's an interesting question.

If you knew with all certainty that the Earth was entering an Ice Age that would devastate the world's eco-system--would any of you consider carbon-loading the atmosphere to maintain the world's temperature at levels we now consider normal?

It isn't a trick question designed to trap anyone. I'm really interested in your opinions.

I'd support that.

I could not support the idea that any current climatic model can predict the entry into an ice age with any reliability. Whereas current trends associating the increasing greenhouse gases and global warming seem pretty obvious. Unnecessary, and inefficient use of fossil fuels is apparent to me. I do not witness a global economic model that even considers a reduction in profit in favour of more durable, more easily recyclable or reusable product.

I believe it is arrogance of super human proportions that we can waltz to the brink of destruction and then use our vast intellectual and scientific might to simply undo it.

We seem to have a problem, at least in western political and economic culture, of looking beyond a decade. It has been common knowledge for over 50 years that we have forecasted an end to fossil fuels and the effect of increasing green house gases in the atmosphere. We have achieved nothing in over 50 years to offset these trends, other than to debate whether it is necessary yet.

Where is the waste or harm in making the effort to ameliorate our own negative and inefficient impact on the planet?

Trying to put political hacks like the McKitrick, Fraser Institute etc on a par with SciAm, Nature, and the larger scientific establishment is laughable.
Science has peer review of a very stringent and rowdy vociferous nature and if anything are cautious in conclusions when a bit of "light the fire" is actually called for to .....as with trying to get action on the H51 threat.

The news journals and PopSci crowd do a pretty good extrapolation on that and also need to be taken with a grain of salt but when the "heavies" get a strong consensus.....we ignore at our peril. :eek:

Do you have children? Sometimes it takes children to get us to look beyond our own generation.

I was in a discussion with my son about economic models that according to me, rely on continued expansion. I have no particular expertise on the matter, I was just reciting my instruction and reading, on the subject over the years all the while dutifully proclaiming my lack of credential. He remarked a half a dozen times that "it does not make any sense", a half dozen times before I noted, that it does not make any sense to me either. Our group behaviours and beliefs with respect to the health and durability of our relationship with the planet and the other inhabitants of it, are not efficient, enduring nor ultimately necessary.

The time for debate is over.

Paul: I don't believe that an overwhelming majority of scientists support the notion of global warming as caused by human beings. I do not believe that those scientists who support the notion that human beings are responsible for a large portion of global warming are correct.

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2. People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

Surveys have shown scientists unevenly split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven, with a majority agreeing that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

An interesting sci-fi series that delves into the variety of approaches to our place in the environment is the Mars series. Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars. Good stories to begin with, but also good issues to think about.

I don't believe that an overwhelming majority of scientists support the notion of global warming as caused by human beings.

Based on what information to support that ???

perhaps a bit of up to date info from rigorous sources might dispel that "belief"

"Global warming a major health risk - scientists

Feb 9, 2006 — LONDON (Reuters) Global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, scientists said on Thursday.

And it is likely to get worse.

In a review published in The Lancet medical journal, the scientists said there was now a near-unanimous scientific consensus that rising levels of greenhouse gases would cause global warming and other climate changes.

"The advent of changes in global climate signals that we are now living beyond the Earth's capacity to absorb a major waste product," said Anthony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and his colleagues, referring to greenhouse gases."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1597893

That's the Lancet a highly respected journal and if you go through the major journals and science associations one by one you'll find the same near unanimous assessment. What is NOT clear are implications and speed and whether we are feeding into other longer term cycles that could compound or ameliorate the effects.

I do not believe that those scientists who support the notion that human beings are responsible for a large portion of global warming are correct.

Based on??? or is it just "belief" akin to astrology.
Do you accept that the carbon load has increased by 40% over the past couple of centuries?? or is that in doubt too??

If you do accept that - what other source is there for the carbon loading?
In the past warming cycles there were volcanic orgins of greenhouse gases and also macro biological changes in the atmospheric mix that tooks millions if not billions of years to change.
Neither are at play here in any significant manner.
So we are left with human contribution to the greenhouse gases.

Are you then disputing that the earth warms due to increased greenhouse gases???
If so, on what basis? That's pretty straight forward physical science - we're not talking a 1% change in gas mixture here - it's 40% increase and rising in CO2 ppm over a very short time period.

I do believe that the world is warmer some years than others.

Why?......dumb luck??

So is your "belief" and associated statements based on a rational assessment of the knowledge base presented and therefore open to change.??

or "hunch"?

If the former.......what do you have to say about the Lancet conclusions about consensus??....as if you were peer reviewing. They obviously disagree with your assertion so now you can defend YOUR thesis.......rigorously.

If the latter......we can certainly save our breath.

>>your question attempts to reduce this to a yes or no answer
>> (with us or against us)

It isn't a "with us or against us" question. I asked whether humans--if they can cause the Earth's temperature to rise--should do so to prevent an Ice Age. It's a philosophical question. Another question: if it could be proved beyond a shadow of a dubt that the Earth is warming naturally, would we be right to try to cool it down? If we have the power to do these things, should we?

>> if you want any evidence of pollution control and benefits, just drive
>> out of the big city in the middle of summer

I have always approved of imrovements in pollution control. I just reject the human/carbon-dioxide/global warming hypothesis.

IronMac: Osborn's research suggests temperatures were about as warm back then--with no explanation of how they got that way. His research suggests a wide variety of temperature conditions over the past 1,000 years--which are a drop in the bucket in Earth-time.

Even the Globe's own article says that "the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that it believed the 20th century wasn't the warmest, nor the one with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years." And yes, their research has been criticized--as has Osborn's. Part of peer review.

There is a big jump from "probably related" to carbon-dioxide AND proving it. Even Osborn doesn't seem to believe he has proof. And of course, no, we cannot prove anything 100%.

I am not suggesting we try to reduce bio-diversity. Only suggesting that honey-bees are a bad example because they represent humans introducing a non-native species to North America.

>> No, once you lose credibility that's it.

I'd say you have to lose credibility consistently and over a long period of time and also produce research results that are politically incorrect to lose public funding.


>> Is this a suspicion or do you have proof?

"DuPont, the world's dominant CFC producer, played a key role in the development of the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances...DuPont's pursuit of its economic interests, along with the political impact of the discovery of an ozone hole and the threat of domestic regulation, shaped the international regulatory regime for ozone-depleting substances. International regulation offered DuPont and a few other producers the possibility of new and more profitable chemical markets at a time when CFC production was losing its profitability and promising alternative chemicals had already been identified."

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/13749/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

New Bill:

>>It has been common knowledge for over 50 years that we have forecasted an end to fossil fuels

And the darn stuff just keeps on coming.

I don't need to have children to tell me that much of what passes for reasoning makes no sense.

>> The time for debate is over.

No it isn't.


MacDoc:

>> Science has peer review of a very stringent and rowdy vociferous nature

I used to believe that, but then discovered that science, like all other vocations, knows where the money is. Also, there is a large number of scientists with an almost religious conviction about their ideas. I once read a book about evloution called "Origins" in which the author describes a conference in which scientists refused to attend seminars that supported any theory beyond their own and would scream to drown out the author's questions.

>> The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

The main point that contributors to RealClimate (who use a graphic of smokestacks combined with a scorching sun as their banner) agree on are...

I'll respond to MacDoc in full later today--but if you folks all believed this stuff you would stop having kids, stop using the computer, stop travelling, stop eating bananas and oranges, wear 10 sweaters instead of heating your home, stop selling Macintoshes, stop buying Macintoshes, stop using the air conditioner--MacDoc's got his place pretty sweet 'n' cool in the summer I'll bet.

That you have not developed a consensus to do this is troubling. You're entirely convinced by the "science" behind global warming but make only tepid personal responses to the "crisis"--instead making only bold statements and focusing on what you want others to do before you'll act.

Food for thought:

MacDoc admitted on his very own web site he went for a tropical vacation this year. I stayed in the city. MacDoc appears only to be concerned about jet exhaust when other people produce it.

I have no trouble with MacDoc's vacation, but he does seem to be inconsistent on this.

That you have not developed a consensus to do this is troubling. You're entirely convinced by the "science" behind global warming but make only tepid personal responses to the "crisis"--instead making only bold statements and focusing on what you want others to do before you'll act.

Consensus on such issues is unlikely. Acid rain is a good example. Bitter infighting to the end, but some action taken.

There is wide disagreement on the scope, magnitude and speed that appropriately balances the environment and our prosperity. Your examples would be classified in the 'extreme and immediate' category, for which there are supporters.

More realistically, something gradual, to match the problem's gradual nature, will be appropriate. Stop GHG emissions growth in 15-30 years, then start the decline. This may happen without any intervention or it may require intervention. Policy is science, economics and a whole whack of other things combined into an uncomfortable step forward. It's time to take that step.

Sadly, as I've pointed out, there are ways to boost the economy and drop GHG emissions (and clean up the air too!) but that's where politics intervenes (read: people say versus people will). Reality bites, but it's all we've got to work with.

What is the probability, to you, that climate change is human-induced? If so, what action would be appropriate to match that presumably non-zero possibility?

Macfury:
I have always approved of imrovements in pollution control. I just reject the human/carbon-dioxide/global warming hypothesis.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

It has been proven that human activity is producing more green house gasses. It has also been proven that greenhouse gases trap heat (If you need a non-scientific test of this, go to a place that has smog). Your ignorance of these facts calls into question your opinion.

I'd say you have to lose credibility consistently and over a long period of time and also produce research results that are politically incorrect to lose public funding.
I used to believe that, but then discovered that science, like all other vocations, knows where the money is.

Your skepticism of privately-funded science on behalf of corporations and conglomerates has blined you to the good work being done by publicly-funded scientists. They who follow science where it leads, not for the almighty dollar for someone else but to understand the world.

If you don't believe science, what do you base your opinion regarding the subject of climate change on... belief?

What about anecdotal evidence? What about aboriginal people who know the land better than we do and who are living through the effects of rapid climate changes first hand?

>>It has been common knowledge for over 50 years that we have forecasted an end to fossil fuels

And the darn stuff just keeps on coming.

I don't need to have children to tell me that much of what passes for reasoning makes no sense.

Oil wells are not replenished by precipation as water tables are. When an oil well is drained dry is does not "refill". While it is true that we have not discovered or tapped into all of the oil reserves, and that the technology for taking oil from the earth is becoming more effective all the time... eventually it will run out. This is FACT. It is fact that most of all the "easy" oil has been found.

Your ignorance in when it comes to these basic ideas lead many of us to believe that you have no basis for your opinions. Why should we continue to listen to your opinions if they are not based on fact and that you continue to ignore the facts?

You have no credibility in this matter.

It has also been proven that greenhouse gases trap heat (If you need a non-scientific test of this, go to a place that has smog).
...
Your skepticism of privately-funded science on behalf of corporations and conglomerates has blined you to the good work being done by publicly-funded scientists.
...


Don't mix up smog with greenhouse gases. There is a difference. The solution to one can help the other, but they are different in that local pollutants are different from global climate change.
...
I think he was tapping into something prevalent around ehmac. The 'connect the dots' conspiracists who like to dismiss opposition based on funding and connections don't like the same logic turned on them. This is a serious consideration and not something to be dismissed.

Looking at the emerging/emerged consensus, however, would tell you that believers that climate change is not affected by human activities are in the minority. Side with who you want, but the risk is there. We can act with very little pain. Why don't we?

if you folks all believed this stuff you would stop having kids, stop using the computer, stop travelling, stop eating bananas and oranges, wear 10 sweaters instead of heating your home, stop selling Macintoshes, stop buying Macintoshes, stop using the air conditioner--MacDoc's got his place pretty sweet 'n' cool in the summer I'll bet.

That you have not developed a consensus to do this is troubling. You're entirely convinced by the "science" behind global warming but make only tepid personal responses to the "crisis"--instead making only bold statements and focusing on what you want others to do before you'll act.

This is an insult and you have no right to judge us as you do not know how we live our lives. Many of here are actively trying to make better environmental choices and are lobbying governments to do the same. I plan on not having children. I plan on never owning a car. I live in a home close to work and and services so I do not have to commute and I walk most everywhere I need to go. I do wear sweaters and long johns and I do not own an air conditioner. I plan on switching my home from oil heat to electric heat and impliment a small windmill on my property (In a province where many engineers go into petroleum related jobs, my friends work for an engineering firm specializing in wind and solar energy products, applications, and solutions). When I buy my products I try hard to make sure they are made as local as possible to avoid transportation. And I am not alone.

In this nation and on this board many individuals have chosen to make better environmental living and stewardship a priority in their life.

Yes we here use apple computers and technology, and we understand the ironies and hypocricies involved with that lifestyle and it's environmental impact. Many of us are actively trying to change the system and our ways.

You however... with your ignorance of the fact of human activity and global warming chose to work against that change here... for what end, I do not know. For all we know, you have stock in oil companies.

IronMac: Osborn's research suggests temperatures were about as warm back then--with no explanation of how they got that way. His research suggests a wide variety of temperature conditions over the past 1,000 years--which are a drop in the bucket in Earth-time.

And, as I said before, I only brought up Osborn because I wanted to know where you got your top range for temperature from?

The main point that contributors to RealClimate (who use a graphic of smokestacks combined with a scorching sun as their banner) agree on are...

Of course, you're welcome to point out where you base your belief that the vast majority of weather scientists do not believe that there is a link between human activity and climate change?

I'll respond to MacDoc in full later today--but if you folks all believed this stuff you would stop having kids, stop using the computer, stop travelling, stop eating bananas and oranges, wear 10 sweaters instead of heating your home, stop selling Macintoshes, stop buying Macintoshes, stop using the air conditioner--MacDoc's got his place pretty sweet 'n' cool in the summer I'll bet.



1. No children here and highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.
2. No car.
3. I have an extremely high metabolic rate so little heating in the winter but lots of a/c in the summer so my bad. :D
4. You can't handle my vacations...almost always, they're long-distance self-supported bike touring in Canada.
5. Yep, I care about where my food comes from.

Don't mix up smog with greenhouse gases. There is a difference. The solution to one can help the other, but they are different in that local pollutants are different from global climate change.

Sorry, but greenhouse, heat-trapping gases are greenhouse, heat-trapping gases. I'm not an expert, nor am I a moron. We say that local pollutants are a contributing factor of global climate change. It's not one care or one smokestack... it's all of them put together that create the overall problem.

'll respond to MacDoc in full later today--but if you folks all believed this stuff you would stop having kids, stop using the computer, stop travelling, stop eating bananas and oranges, wear 10 sweaters instead of heating your home, stop selling Macintoshes, stop buying Macintoshes, stop using the air conditioner--MacDoc's got his place pretty sweet 'n' cool in the summer I'll bet.

That you have not developed a consensus to do this is troubling. You're entirely convinced by the "science" behind global warming but make only tepid personal responses to the "crisis"--instead making only bold statements and focusing on what you want others to do before you'll act.

Why would possibly draw those conclusions? What an entirely specious jump.

Climate scientists aren't zero footprint fanatics either but there are many steps that I do take and others as well.
I don't drive to work - I live there
I don't occupy, heat or cool a space that's empty half the time.

I turn my vehicle off when idling.....small steps.... better a/c efficiency, some lighting changes but I make no bones about enjoying the first world lifestyle.

It also means keeping myself informed on larger REAL threats that affect me and my kids future and global climate change is one of them, mono culture agriculture, ..... I buy ancient grain cereals, H51n I have some steps I've taken as a precaution.....population..I support family planning initiatives and access to ALL family planning choices including abortion clinics.

I'm not pretending to be nor want to be a "martyr" or ascetic but I support sustainable aspects of civilization and think the earth is currently overpopulated and support programs that address that.

Lake Erie is cleaner than when I was a kid, the Thames and Lake Ontario have decent fish in them now tho perhaps not too edible yet. The air quality in Toronto sucks, the ocean ecosystem is badly damaged and the Artic is going to hell in a handbasket.

The ozone layer loss is less of threat - there are way fewer smokers in Canada, we don't burn leaves anymore, we do control burn forests.....some steps forward, some steps back hopefully towards a sustainable long term high tech low ecological impact future with MOST of the biodiversity intact and way fewer humans.

You've set the stage by saying you don't "believe" and I've questioned whether that belief is based on thesis/antithesis of science or a hunch or something akin to astrology.

If you say - rational assessment - then defend your thesis.
I'll make it easy- start with the Lancet article on consensus.

If you say otherwise ........then we know what mindset we're dealing with.

Sorry, but greenhouse, heat-trapping gases are greenhouse, heat-trapping gases. I'm not an expert, nor am I a moron. We say that local pollutants are a contributing factor of global climate change. It's not one care or one smokestack... it's all of them put together that create the overall problem.

Smog is a different thing than global climate change. It may cause local climate change, but the compounds are largely different. I'm not sure if one or two compounds are common to both, but CO2, for example, does not cause smog while particulates don't cause global climate change.

If smog causes local climate change... and if smog exists over most major cities around the world, that is to say, if it's a global problem... then I am quite content in lumping it into global climate change.

I'm pretty sure that any action taken to limit the creation of smog would help cut green house gases at the same time. Does that seem accurate?

I'm pretty sure that any action taken to limit the creation of smog would help cut green house gases at the same time. Does that seem accurate?

Reducing one usually reduces the other, but there are some conflicts.

Example: Some exhaust cleaners (catalytic converters on cars, scrubbers on coal plants) reduce efficiency, thus meaning more CO2 per unit of usable energy.

An opposite example is that burning biomass, such as wood in a home, is technically CO2 neutral (releases the CO2 the biomass took from the atmosphere in the first place), but horrible for air quality. Ethanols also have air quality implications while being (global) climate-change benign.

Overall though, most reduction initiatives reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases simultaneously.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would hope though that solutions for cleaning up coal plants actually involves closing them and using more enviromentally sustainable power generation sources.

Hopefully there would be more electric and alternative fuel cars in the future as well. That and their would be manditory fuel effeciency regulations brought in. Why som parties fight this, I'll never know.

I would hope though that solutions for cleaning up coal plants actually involves closing them and using more enviromentally sustainable power generation sources.


I wouldn't dismiss coal. The goal is dramatically lower GHG and pollutant emissions, not less use of fossil fuels. 'Environmentally sustainable' does not exclude any power sources, it describes the acceptable environmental footprint of the system from start to finish.

If our emissions goals can be achieved for less with coal than with, say, solar+power storage, then so be it. I suspect the energy system will become increasingly diverse.

'Environmentally sustainable' does not exclude any power sources, it describes the acceptable environmental footprint of the system from start to finish.

Yep for instance using nuclear power to both extract the oil from the tar sands AND sequester carbon would solve two problems at once. France's TOTAL has it under "consideration".

If that resulting fuel was then used in high efficiency fuel cells instead of combustion engines there are still more gains to be had.

The extraction process using nuclear solves the "transport of energy" that plagues nuclear and all electric sources.
Losses in transmission ( around 7% ) and inability to store electricity directly for peak load problems.

If the resulting tar sands fuel is produced with a net negative carbon loading ( nuclear power source for extraction is excellent as it's a cogeneration use for heat and electrical power unlike Pickering where waste heat is pumped in Lake Ontario :( ) then it qualifies as a atmospheric neutral fuel tho there are still smog and particulate issues to deal with if used in combustion engines - one more reason for fuel cell use.

Sequestering enough to offset the carbon from combustion gives a net zero carbon load.
Fuel cell use of the resulting fuel allows very high power extraction and little or no air pollution.

The carbon market may make it very profitable for tar sands companies to use both nuclear power for extraction and sequestering as both will garner carbon credits right at the fuel source.
The isolation of the tar sands helps the NMBY factor for nuclear.
Norway IS building a deep sea sequestering rig to take advantage of the carbon market.

There should be some VERY interesting developments at this year's Carbon Expo in May.
http://www.environmental-expert.com/resulteachpressrelease.asp?cid=8763&codi=5988

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

Lots to read here and some very encouraging initiatives including the Montreal Climate Exchange newly minted.

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/press.html

The nuclear oil sands is a strange one that I'd be surprised to see go forward full-scale, but stranger things have happened. There are some technical constraints that make it questionable, and maybe they will be worked out.

A more promising one seems to be OPTI/Nexen's upgrader combined with sequestration. The primary fuel used for recovering and upgrading the bitumen is the bitumen (gasified bottoms). Of course, Canada first needs a clear carbon framework that creates a real reason to do something about.

I think the Norway example is connected with their GHG tax, not necessarily a trading market, but am not sure.