Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
lukin

The Green Agenda

Recommended Posts

Guest TrueMetis

Please provide eveidence of this. I challenge you to.

There have not been "hundreds upon hundreds" of studies showing man caused CO2. In fact, there have been exactly zero which have produced a cuase and effect realtionship. There have been a handful that have shown some kind of correlation between CO2 levels and climate, however Al Gore had it completely wrong: CO2 levels have gone up AFTER climate has warmed, suggesting not that carbon drives climate, but quite the opposite: climate drives carbon.

Wait your going to argue that human's haven't drove up CO2. wow :blink: How the hell exactly do you make this claim? Not even the most hardcore skeptics are this stupid. As for a cause and effect relationship. We've known the cause and effect relationship for a hundred years. CO2 absorbs more radiation from light than most of the other gases in the air, this means that more energy is trapped in the earth. When molecules receive more energy they move faster that causes heat. Come on man this is high school science.

Yes Gore was wrong, he never explained that CO2 was a lagging indicator, but anyone who uses Gore for help on Climate science is an idiot.

Yes CO2 used to be a lagging indicator. world temp would go up then CO2 levels would go, up which then cause the temperature to rise, increasing CO2 level. See how this works? It's a feedback loop, one causing the other. Now it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell me what would then happen if the CO2 went up first? I'll give you a minute.

That's right temperature would then go up. So what could be causing the increased CO2, well the obvious causes are, burning fossil fuels for electricity, cars burning fossil fuels for power, and industries. Take a look at temp vs CO2 graphs now (the good ones also take solar variation into account) and you will see the CO2 went up first.

In addition, the IPCC UN report suggesting that "2500 of the world's leading scientists support the theory of AGW" is disengenuous. The vast majority of these scientists never once did research into the human effects on climate. At most, a couple of dozen scientists reached these conclusions based upon cursory and very vague scietific correlations - not on direct causation. Look it up. Read the IPCC reports.

Cite your source, they may be scientists but how many but how many of them are climate scientists?

Not to mention the fact that many of these scientists conclusions were based on faulty tree ring data. Leading IPCC contributors, Michael Mann and Phil Jones at the CRU and university of pennsilvania, are on record publically as being extremely selective in deeleting the data from tree rings which did not support their pre-conceived conclusions about carbon and climate.

No they took out data that had been contaminated by pollution which screwed up the temp data. If you did more that just read the couple of selected email's.

As well, scientists have also been caught in climategate emails as colluding to eliminate data that "hides the decline| in global temperatures, not to mention diliberately ignoring the "heat island" effect which can falsely indicate a "global" rise in temperature simply by measuring temperatures in locations where urban areeas are growing around the thermometer.

That's why the inquiries have all said he did nothing wrong. Not to mention that "heat island" effect has been debunked.

You may also be interested to learn that, despite dirre prredictions in 2000, the earth has had no significant warming since 1998, making past predictions of major warming incorrect.

1998 is a cherry picked date because it was a very hot year because of a el nino event, which causes heating. You might be interested to know that 2005 was the warmest year on record followed by, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009 all tied for second place. This is despite us being in a la nina event. My link

But don't ask me: Ask Phil Jones, at the Climatctic Research Institute, who is one record as admitting that therre has been no significant warming since 1995, "unfortunately" he adds - which is an odd comment coming from someone who is supposed to be an objective scientist, with no dog in this fight. Of course, if there isn't any warming, then the millions in research grants' tap gets turned offf, doesn't it?

Try going to the original source and reading the whole thing?

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

My link

Convenient when someone used freedom of information and asked for the data he used to create the famously fraudulent "hockey stick graph" showing a dramatic increase in global temperatures, he deleted the data.

Oh yes this claim again, except the hockey stick graph isn't fraudulent.

Here try this guy. Potholer54 he sources ever claim and has debunked every crap statement you've made. Save me from having to find every study which you probably won't read anyway.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait your going to argue that human's haven't drove up CO2. wow :blink: How the hell exactly do you make this claim? Not even the most hardcore skeptics are this stupid. As for a cause and effect relationship. We've known the cause and effect relationship for a hundred years. CO2 absorbs more radiation from light than most of the other gases in the air, this means that more energy is trapped in the earth. When molecules receive more energy they move faster that causes heat. Come on man this is high school science.

Weird. Based upon your theory, there should have been an increase in temperatures from 1940-1970. But there wasn't. Global temperatures declined during this period, seemingly impervious to the invention and mass production of the automobile, the industrialization of the world.

By the way that was a typo: humans do emit plant food...er, I mean, CO2 into the air. Yes. CO2 is food for trees. Speaking of grade seven science.

Yet no one has made a cause effect relationship. There is no scientific certainty at all on the matter. Those who claim "the science is settled" are afraid of debate. More and more scientists, including reams of solar scientists, are coming out now, less afraid of scientific ostracization as your pet theory becomes more and more discredited each and every day. Happy to provide examples.

Yes Gore was wrong, he never explained that CO2 was a lagging indicator, but anyone who uses Gore for help on Climate science is an idiot.

Tell that to the millions of schoolkids who are forced to watch Al Gore's movie each year, as a part of the curriculum. Speaking of grade seven science. :lol:

Yes CO2 used to be a lagging indicator. world temp would go up then CO2 levels would go, up which then cause the temperature to rise, increasing CO2 level. See how this works? It's a feedback loop, one causing the other. Now it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell me what would then happen if the CO2 went up first? I'll give you a minute.

Odd. In the past, both CO2 levels, and temperatures, have been far higher than they are today. Since it has since cooleed down from those warmer periods, your pet theory is quite obviously flawed. In your example, the feedback loop would lead to continuously rising temperatures. This has clearly not happened. Have you ever heard of an ice age? What about the midi-evil warm period, or various other massive historical fluctuations in global temperatures, long before the invention of the SUV.

That's why the inquiries have all said he did nothing wrong. Not to mention that "heat island" effect has been debunked.

Give me a f*cking break. If you took off your green coloured glasses, stopped drinking Al Gore's kool-aid and used a critical eye, you would have realized the sham of these "objective bodies". Not a single one of the reports even bothered to investigate thee pertinent problems with climategate, and were headed up by biased people to begin with. Do you eveen know who "Lord Oxburgh" is, or what kind of questions were actually asked?

1998 is a cherry picked date because it was a very hot year because of a el nino event, which causes heating. You might be interested to know that 2005 was the warmest year on record followed by, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009 all tied for second place. This is despite us being in a la nina event.

Wow. That to me sounds like treehugger speeak for "the temperature hasn't changed in ten years".

Try going to the original source and reading the whole thing?

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009.

Oh I seee, so in your world it's OK for corrupt climate research-funding whores to cherry pick dates and data?

LOL!!! :lol:

Oh yes this claim again, except the hockey stick graph isn't fraudulent.

Not only is it fraudulent, it's laughably so, which is why the IPCC stopped using it in it's report on climate in 2004.

You sound like you'e spent too much time studying "environmental science" in an incubated, biased and unobjective world, and not enough looking at the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Weird. Based upon your theory, there should have been an increase in temperatures from 1940-1970. But there wasn't. Global temperatures declined during this period, seemingly impervious to the invention and mass production of the automobile, the industrialization of the world.

Declined very slightly due to aerosols. You see this might be difficult for you to realize but there are a lot of factor in how climate works.

Nasa Graph, notice the tiny decrease in temp in 1940-1970

By the way that was a typo: humans do emit plant food...er, I mean, CO2 into the air. Yes. CO2 is food for trees. Speaking of grade seven science.

Seriously? This is your argument? A crappy understanding of how photosynthesis works? Yes CO2 is used by plants to produce energy, but even plants can't handle high concentrations of CO2 and it's poisonous to us. And let's just ignore that plants that are exposed to more CO2 are less nutritious.

Yet no one has made a cause effect relationship. There is no scientific certainty at all on the matter. Those who claim "the science is settled" are afraid of debate. More and more scientists, including reams of solar scientists, are coming out now, less afraid of scientific ostracization as your pet theory becomes more and more discredited each and every day. Happy to provide examples.

Go for it. Plenty of scientists have in the past and our posting different hypothesis's on what's causing or what the effect of climate change.

And again the cause effect relationship of CO2 and temperature has been known for 150 years.

Odd. In the past, both CO2 levels, and temperatures, have been far higher than they are today. Since it has since cooleed down from those warmer periods, your pet theory is quite obviously flawed. In your example, the feedback loop would lead to continuously rising temperatures. This has clearly not happened. Have you ever heard of an ice age? What about the midi-evil warm period, or various other massive historical fluctuations in global temperatures, long before the invention of the SUV.

You clearly can't understand complex systems. No one has ever made the claim that the temperature will rise indefinitely. In every feedback loop there has always been an initial trigger, so going by that difficult to grasp line of thinking if there is an initial trigger than there will be an ending trigger. See how that works?

Give me a f*cking break. If you took off your green coloured glasses, stopped drinking Al Gore's kool-aid and used a critical eye, you would have realized the sham of these "objective bodies". Not a single one of the reports even bothered to investigate thee pertinent problems with climategate, and were headed up by biased people to begin with. Do you eveen know who "Lord Oxburgh" is, or what kind of questions were actually asked?

I hate Al Gore the guys a tool. As for objective bodies you'd say the same thing no matter who investigated. But I'll indulge you, show me one email, one, that shows any real deception done by the climate gate people. 10 dollars says you come up with the same ones that everyone has, the same ones that have been dealt with already.

Wow. That to me sounds like treehugger speeak for "the temperature hasn't changed in ten years".

Who cares whether it has or hasn't? Ten years isn't enough time to establish a trend.

Oh I seee, so in your world it's OK for corrupt climate research-funding whores to cherry pick dates and data?

LOL!!! :lol:

And what cherry picking would that be? The climate scientists can look at a hundred year trend, people like you are forced to cherry pick 15 years at the most.

Not only is it fraudulent, it's laughably so, which is why the IPCC stopped using it in it's report on climate in 2004.

You sound like you'e spent too much time studying "environmental science" in an incubated, biased and unobjective world, and not enough looking at the real world.

You should really watch the channel of the guy I linked, at least then you'd get some understanding of climate science. I mean there isn't a single thing that you've brought up that he hasn't already dealt with.

Try this New Scientists article on the hockey stick graph instead.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Declined very slightly due to aerosols. You see this might be difficult for you to realize but there are a lot of factor in how climate works.

Hey bub - it's the climate hysterics who seem unable to grasp this. It's those of us on the objective unbiased side who have been saying this for years.

Go for it. Plenty of scientists have in the past and our posting different hypothesis's on what's causing or what the effect of climate change.

Exactly. Nobody knows.

And again the cause effect relationship of CO2 and temperature has been known for 150 years.

False.

You clearly can't understand complex systems. No one has ever made the claim that the temperature will rise indefinitely. In every feedback loop there has always been an initial trigger, so going by that difficult to grasp line of thinking if there is an initial trigger than there will be an ending trigger. See how that works?

Good. Then there's nothing to worry about!

Who cares whether it has or hasn't? Ten years isn't enough time to establish a trend.

Exactly. Neither is 30.

And what cherry picking would that be? The climate scientists can look at a hundred year trend, people like you are forced to cherry pick 15 years at the most.

Why don`t you start looking at the earth`s history. Climate changes frequently and dramatically. Over thousands of years trends.

Face it. The earth slightly warmed from 1900-1940. The slightly cooled from 1940-1960. The slightly warmed from 1970-1998. The has beeen about constant since then.

Why don`t you take a big breath of CO2 and calm down :lol:

You should really watch the channel of the guy I linked, at least then you'd get some understanding of climate science. I mean there isn't a single thing that you've brought up that he hasn't already dealt with.

One guy`s opinion. Plenty of scientists who disagree. There you go cherry picking again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Hey bub - it's the climate hysterics who seem unable to grasp this. It's those of us on the objective unbiased side who have been saying this for years.

Unfortunately for you aerosols have decreased as they've been banned because of their effect on the ozone, while CO2 and temperature have increased.

Exactly. Nobody knows.

No one knows anything 100% but Climate change because of man-made CO2 has the best evidence. I'm confused why you don't accept this, I presume you accept gravity and yet there is more discussion on the theory of gravity and it's mechanics than there is on Climate change.

False.

No, fact. That CO2 absorbs more long wave radiation has been known for 150 years, come on this is basic physics.

Exactly. Neither is 30.

Well yes actually it is, but then we have a thousand years worth of data to check the trend.

Why don`t you start looking at the earth`s history. Climate changes frequently and dramatically. Over thousands of years trends.

Yes and when it does it causes mass extinctions. Though for the last thousand years, perhaps even the last million temperature has remained the same then suddenly when the industrial revolution starts temperature begins to rise. Think that a coincidence? Well maybe but then it was investigated and they found out it was caused by increased CO2.

Face it. The earth slightly warmed from 1900-1940. The slightly cooled from 1940-1960. The slightly warmed from 1970-1998. The has beeen about constant since then.

Constant for the first time in 100 years, forgive me if I doubt it going to stay that way, and even if it did that kind of sucks because it means the heatwave will continue. Though odds are when the El Nino event start temperature will increase rapidly. Look at the temperature over the last hundred years. The trend is obvious.

One guy`s opinion. Plenty of scientists who disagree. There you go cherry picking again.

Actually it's one guy sourcing every claim in his video's that has debunked every claim you've made.

If you not going to bother with the actual science I'm done.

ETA I just want to point out that you find to provide any examples of any of the things you claimed, nice job. You also just straight ignored many of my arguments, again nice job. ;):lol:

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately for you aerosols have decreased as they've been banned because of their effect on the ozone, while CO2 and temperature have increased.

Is that so? Perhaps you should read this peer reviewed study, not only providing evidence that the earth is cooling, but that your point on aerosols is completely backward and incorrect.

No one knows anything 100% but Climate change because of man-made CO2 has the best evidence. I'm confused why you don't accept this, I presume you accept gravity and yet there is more discussion on the theory of gravity and it's mechanics than there is on Climate change.

Please provide said evidence. I have told you the IPCC "2500 scientists" consensus is diengenuous, relying maybe on the work of a few dozen scientists.

Your side is the one proposing trilling dollar global tax regimes, economically crippling regulation and massive global governance. Therefore the onus is upon you to provide irrefutable evidence, not just the work of a few dozen scientists, dipping their beacks in the massive trough of climate research grants.

Don't you dare compare your pet theories to gravity. Your consensus and level of knowledge of carbon/temperature correlation is hypothetical at best.

No, fact. That CO2 absorbs more long wave radiation has been known for 150 years, come on this is basic physics.

So does the colour black. Shall we ban that too? Carbon is life, my friend. Quit demonizing it.

Yes and when it does it causes mass extinctions. Though for the last thousand years, perhaps even the last million temperature has remained the same then suddenly when the industrial revolution starts temperature begins to rise. Think that a coincidence? Well maybe but then it was investigated and they found out it was caused by increased CO2.

Interesting,similarr correlations have been made between solar activity and climate. example.

But you can't tax the sun, so the lefties hooked onto the far from proven carbon theory. As Barack Obama oncesaid, never let a crisis go to waste. :lol:

Constant for the first time in 100 years, forgive me if I doubt it going to stay that way, and even if it did that kind of sucks because it means the heatwave will continue. Though odds are when the El Nino event start temperature will increase rapidly. Look at the temperature over the last hundred years. The trend is obvious.

I hope the warmth stays! Mercifully we live in a warm period! Imagine living in the ice age - yuck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Is that so? Perhaps you should read this peer reviewed study, not only providing evidence that the earth is cooling, but that your point on aerosols is completely backward and incorrect.

After reading the study, looking at the qualifications of the person who wrote it, and veiwing the journal it was published in I'm more than a little skeptic about it. It makes the very basic mistake of ignoring solar radiations role in global temperature. It also makes the fraudulent claim that scientists have said CO2 has been the cause of warming in the past. And of course if CFC's did cause warming 1940-1970 should have shown a warming trend, but if they cause cooling then the trend should be stable or slightly cooling. Which is what it shows. This paper fails.

Please provide said evidence. I have told you the IPCC "2500 scientists" consensus is diengenuous, relying maybe on the work of a few dozen scientists.

I provided said evidence, you just don't want to watch it or read the sources contained there-in. The Video's potholer has produced contain sources debunking everyone of your claims.

Your side is the one proposing trilling dollar global tax regimes, economically crippling regulation and massive global governance. Therefore the onus is upon you to provide irrefutable evidence, not just the work of a few dozen scientists, dipping their beacks in the massive trough of climate research grants.

You're really going to make this into an us vs them thing? :lol:

Don't you dare compare your pet theories to gravity. Your consensus and level of knowledge of carbon/temperature correlation is hypothetical at best.

Except it's not. It's a well established fact.

So does the colour black. Shall we ban that too? Carbon is life, my friend. Quit demonizing it.

Increase the amount of CO2 in your house to one percent, see what happens. I'm not demonizing a damn thing, I'm pointing out that certain things in high concentration are bad. Ozone keeps our planet from being bombarded with UV radiation but a tiny does will kill you, hell try breathing 100% oxygen for a while, it will screw you up.

Interesting,similarr correlations have been made between solar activity and climate. example.

But you can't tax the sun, so the lefties hooked onto the far from proven carbon theory. As Barack Obama oncesaid, never let a crisis go to waste. :lol:

To bad for you every single study takes solar activity into account, check temperature vs solar activity alone and you'll notice that solar activity remains the same while temperature continues rising. But once you add CO2 with it you get a near perfect match.

I hope the warmth stays! Mercifully we live in a warm period! Imagine living in the ice age - yuck!

We live in a warmish period, most warmer periods have had a lot more desert than we have.

You're still ignoring many of my arguments and and providing the examples you promised. Can you say dishonest?

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still ignoring many of my arguments and and providing the examples you promised. Can you say dishonest?

The first book I ever owned was a science book on astronomy and astronautics. It was a personal gift from my grade one teacher, who recognized my early passion. Science has been a large part of my life and it has shaped me greatly. I say this just to make you understand that I have some familiarity with these issues, not as much as an accredited scientist in most fields but certainly more than the average joe. My science heroes are people like G. Harry Stine, Richard Feynman and Kary Mullis, rather than David Suzuki.

I think it is because of this background that I have never been able to accept the man-made global warming arguments. Not just because they always sound a little too pat and extreme but because they always seem to pushing some solution requiring goals that are more political than scientific. When they were first calling for the ban on aerosols and CFCs I would be the one thinking "They don't mention how even ONE volcano puts out a zillion times more CFCs in one eruption than Man has ever created!" Or when Carl Sagan warned against invading Irag in the first Bush war lest Saddam torched the Kuwait oilfields, which he claimed would likely trigger a 'nuclear winter' from the particulates. I couldn't help but think "Carl, you're older than me! Haven't you ever heard of Tobruk! Why didn't so many such incidents in WWII trigger such an effect?"

It just seems that the global warming crowd is so politicized that I just can't trust much of their science! I took the trouble to download the Kyoto Accord. If you haven't yourself you really should give it a read, TM. Even a layman can quickly see that it contained almost no science at all! Almost the whole thing was about 'wealth re-distribution' and systems to funnel money into third world countries, with little or no mention of any auditing for waste or diversions into military spending.

You expect people to read your cites, TM. Well, how about reading the whole Kyoto thing? I'm sure that no matter what your beliefs about global warming you would be honest enough to grant that I am right about it.

I'm not saying that your side of the argument is wrong. I'm just saying that when it mixes with people like Al Gore and schemes like Kyoto it does itself a great disservice. I know one should keep an open mind but we all are forced to screen out much of the info that constantly is flying at us, in order to keep it down to a level we can deal with among all the other demands of daily living. I'm afraid that I've been almost forced to put the global warming movement into the 'alarmist' and 'political schemer' categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have identified part of the problem, but before you get to politicians taking kickbacks from oil companies, you have to address the fact that Big Oil has decided to double down on going after the last oil reserves. There is just too much money to be made here for them to waste their time on diversifying into other industries....that is btw how Tony Hayward got himself in charge of BP. He knocked off the previous CEO who came up with the Beyond Petroleum strategy. These companies are ruthless operators on the world stage, so trying to focus the attention on their political stooges is a distraction from the big problem.

80% of the world's oil is owned By governments not oil companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

You expect people to read your cites, TM. Well, how about reading the whole Kyoto thing? I'm sure that no matter what your beliefs about global warming you would be honest enough to grant that I am right about it.

I'm not saying that your side of the argument is wrong. I'm just saying that when it mixes with people like Al Gore and schemes like Kyoto it does itself a great disservice. I know one should keep an open mind but we all are forced to screen out much of the info that constantly is flying at us, in order to keep it down to a level we can deal with among all the other demands of daily living. I'm afraid that I've been almost forced to put the global warming movement into the 'alarmist' and 'political schemer' categories.

I have read the Kyoto accord, one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I realize that we haven't learned everything about climate and there is still a lot missing, but if a seismologist told you that an earthquake was coming wouldn't you prepare for it? I can't imagine that people would act the same way towards a potential earthquake that they are towards climate change.

The interesting thing about climate change is many of the actual solutions, not the crap ones that just serve to make people feel better, would serve much more purpose than just lowering CO2, they would have a large beneficial effect on national security, people's overall health, various infrastructure and transportation problems, etc. Yet everyone focus's on CO2.

The Reason I tried to get Jerry to look at potholer's channel is because he's not an alarmist and he doesn't get into the politics. All he's concerned with is the science, including the science that questions Man-made global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

80% of the world's oil is owned By governments not oil companies.

And how does that oil get to markets in Europe, Asia, and North America? In the future, government oil companies like China's, may be major players in the oil trade, but they will act no differently than Exxon, BP or Chevron -- it will still be about getting the most money out of stored sunshine, and attempting to prevent alternatives to the oil business until the last drop of oil is used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get your facts straight: the real money's in warm-mongering, not in fighting against the warm-mongers.
The US federal grants for climate research grew from $200 million in 1995 to $10 billion in 2005.

I would like to see the accounting of "oil funded" climate deniers that comes even close to the astronomical numbers in play on the "climate warm mongering" side of the debate.

It's quite clear to anyone without some kind of eco-axe to grind where the real money is being made.

I think it's such a joke that warm mongers have such blinders on they can't see that people on their side are profiting big time from this whole climate hysteria.

citation request

the U.S. Government Accountability Office report I've just finished reading states that, adjusted for inflation, U.S. Federal funding for climate change increased from $3.3 billion in 1993 to $5.1 billion in 2004... which includes funding for:

- "Technology" (focused on conservation and renewable energy),

- "International Assistance" (focused on providing funds to developing countries for energy efficiency programs),

- "Tax Expenditures" (focused on granting preferential tax treatment to encourage, for example, renewable energy)... and

- "Science" (focused on research and monitoring to better understand climate change)... in terms of this focused science research/monitoring aspect, over the 1993-to-2004 period, funding increased from $1.82 billion to $1.98 billion...
a measly 9% increase; point in fact, the funding allocated to this category actually decreased, as a percentage of total funding, from 56% to 39%.
Hey Jerry, do you think this reduction in %funding can be attributed to... "the science is settled"?
:lol:

what? No citation - hey Jerry?

oh... what's this? From Bloomberg New Energy Finance: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables

Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.

Governments last year gave
$43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy
through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the
$557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008
.

lukin... Jerry... buddies! About that so-called "Green Agenda".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh... what's this? From Bloomberg New Energy Finance: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables

And biofuels should be subtracted from that number for alternative energy, because it includes stupid strategies like growing corn for ethanol, which are based on oil consumption to begin with. Better to replace carbon-producing biofuels with nuclear energy than switching from regular diesel to biodiesel.

lukin... Jerry... buddies! About that so-called "Green Agenda".....

The Green Agenda pales in comparison to the money and political influence of the oil agenda. But there is yet another difference: if the Green Agenda was forcing environmental policy, the world would still benefit from reduced energy consumption and reduced CO2 emissions; what are the ecological benefits of tar sands and deep sea oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case I miss the next round of "nothing to worry about rising CO2" posts, here is the other reason why allowing carbon dioxide levels to rise will be catastrophic for life on earth:

Are we causing a mass extinction in our oceans?

Research shows that many areas of today's oceans have conditions that parallel those of 250 million years ago, when 95 percent of marine species quickly died out.

Human beings created these problems, largely in the two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, but for some researchers, they bring to mind the ancient past. The Earth has seen several mass extinctions, including five that annihilated more than half the planet's species. Experts now believe Earth is in the midst of a sixth event, the first one caused by humans.

"Today the synergistic effects of human impacts are laying the groundwork for a comparably great Anthropocene mass extinction in the oceans, with unknown ecological and evolutionary consequences," Jeremy Jackson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, wrote in a 2008 article published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Frightening parallel

When it comes to the oceans, research shows a parallel to the Permian-Triassic extinction — also known as the Great Dying — which eradicated 95 percent of marine species when the oceans lost their oxygen about 250 million years ago.

The same phenomenon is taking place in many areas of today's oceans. The entry of fertilizers into rivers and subsequently oceans is eating up the oceans' oxygen — that runoff is the primary source of the Gulf of Mexico's 3,000-square-mile (7,770-square-kilometer) dead zone. Around the world, the number of dead zones, some of which are naturally occurring, increased from 149 in 2003 to more than 200 in 2006, according to a 2008 report by the United Nations Environmental Program........................

What's more, the ocean surface is warming, driven by the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This keeps the deeper waters, which are rich in nutrients but low in oxygen, from mixing with the oxygenated surface. According to a 2007 report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) throughout the 21st century, and, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this decade is the warmest since record-keeping began in 1880........................

The parallel in ocean chemistry between the past and present isn't limited to oxygen depletion. The Permian ocean became more acidic as the climate changed, just as the modern ocean is doing.

The ocean has absorbed about 30 percent of human-produced carbon dioxide to date, and as a result, its waters have experienced a 30 percent increase in acidity, according to Richard Feely, a senior scientist with NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. If trends continue, ocean acidity will increase by up to 150 percent by the end of this century, he said.

Increased carbon dioxide and ocean acidity played a role in all of the Big Five mass extinctions, but in those cases the change in acidity was tens to hundreds of times slower than what's happening now. When changes happen quickly, "the ocean system itself doesn't have time to adapt," Feely said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case I miss the next round of "nothing to worry about rising CO2" posts, here is the other reason why allowing carbon dioxide levels to rise will be catastrophic for life on earth:

Are we causing a mass extinction in our oceans?

That's just another example of the hypothetical hysteria that spews out of the alarmists. It's not enough that most everyone believes in Climate Change. It's not enough that most everyone agrees that the earth has been warming for centuries. It's not enough that most everyone believes that humans contribute to some of the warming. No - that's not enough. Those people (like me) are still called deniers....because we don't accept that we have to keep CO2 below 400PPM or we'll cause armegeddon - an unrecoverable tipping point - runaway Global Warming. Change our ways in the next 5-10 years or we are doomed! There is no rational thought behind articles like these......and there is no sense in debating people who believe them. Shameless alarmism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no rational thought behind articles like these......and there is no sense in debating people who believe them. Shameless alarmism.

shameless Simple alarmism... hey, Simple? :lol:

People have NOT been asked whether they want to pay the REAL price of meeting the "targets" that warmers say are required
so that we do not destroy our way of life, if not our planet
.

we see a line of (Simple) thought that doesn't even factor the scientific climatic affects/impacts. It doesn't necessarily matter that Simple can't actually qualify his interpreted "REAL price" for whatever prevention/mitigation/adaptation measures are/will be necessary... Simple's long established act has been to vilify proponents of the AGW theory as "catastrophic doomsayers" - and now... we have Simple playing his own catastrophic doomsday card in speaking to "destroying our way of life, if not our planet". Oh my!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

That's just another example of the hypothetical hysteria that spews out of the alarmists. It's not enough that most everyone believes in Climate Change. It's not enough that most everyone agrees that the earth has been warming for centuries. It's not enough that most everyone believes that humans contribute to some of the warming. No - that's not enough. Those people (like me) are still called deniers....because we don't accept that we have to keep CO2 below 400PPM or we'll cause armegeddon - an unrecoverable tipping point - runaway Global Warming. Change our ways in the next 5-10 years or we are doomed! There is no rational thought behind articles like these......and there is no sense in debating people who believe them. Shameless alarmism.

You want someone to blame for that stuff, blame the media. It's not the scientists who say this shit, it's the media. It wasn't the scientists claiming an ice age in the 70's it was the media, it wasn't the scientists claiming an ice age in 2005 it was the media. Then the media had the gull to turn around and blame the scientists for the myths they made. F*ck the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the Kyoto accord, one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I realize that we haven't learned everything about climate and there is still a lot missing, but if a seismologist told you that an earthquake was coming wouldn't you prepare for it? I can't imagine that people would act the same way towards a potential earthquake that they are towards climate change.

Thank you. This is finally one of the smartest things I'vee heard you say. Why? Because your analogy is perfect to climate change.

If an earth quake is coming, we should all prepare, because wee can't stop it and we can't control it, so better to adapt than to run around trying to weld fault lines together like a bunch of ninnies.

Same goes with climate change. The earth has warmed up a bit. Perhaps sea levels go up a small amount.

Now, should we prepare? Absolutely. Why not build an extra inch or two on the seawall or a dyke. A lot cheaper than crippling the world's economy with taxes and stifling third world growth by demonizing, taxing and limiting the use of valuable and excellent energy sources such as fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same goes with climate change. The earth has warmed up a bit. Perhaps sea levels go up a small amount.

Now, should we prepare? Absolutely. Why not build an extra inch or two on the seawall or a dyke. A lot cheaper than crippling the world's economy with taxes and stifling third world growth by demonizing, taxing and limiting the use of valuable and excellent energy sources such as fossil fuels.

ah yes, the deniers preconceived lament... with a dash of spiced up, over-the-top, vitriol. "Crippling economy", "stifling growth", "demonizing"...

ya, ya, a lil' warming - a lil' sea rise... not to worry. Don't you go dissing fossil fuels... they're a valuable and excellent energy source - doncha know!

on edit to add... demonization, at work!

Tesoro recruiting other Big Oil companies, including BP, to repeal California climate and clean energy laws

Working with veteran tobacco lobbyists in Sacramento, Texan oil companies are orchestrating a campaign to roll back California’s landmark clean energy climate change law, AB 32. So far, the largest donations have came from San Antonio-based Valero, which has ponied up over $1 million for the effort, and refining giant Tesoro, also based in San Antonio, contributing $525,000. Today, the Sacramento Bee reports that state Democrats are asking Attorney General Eric Holder to open an investigation into these donations.

In public, the repeal AB 32 campaign — given the Orwellian moniker “California Jobs Initiative” — says it is about helping low income people, small businesses, and improving the California economy. But behind closed doors, it’s about boosting already sky high oil company profits. According to Valero’s 10-Q corporate disclosure forms, the company views compliance with AB 32 as a risk to their bottom line.

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Same goes with climate change. The earth has warmed up a bit. Perhaps sea levels go up a small amount.

Now, should we prepare? Absolutely. Why not build an extra inch or two on the seawall or a dyke. A lot cheaper than crippling the world's economy with taxes and stifling third world growth by demonizing, taxing and limiting the use of valuable and excellent energy sources such as fossil fuels.

Have you ever thought about the national security issues that come with climate change? Very few people have but they're all to real.

Part 1

Part 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, one could quite literally flood this thread with lengthy properly cited and sourced references that clearly outline the measures taken by such groups as Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Pacific Research Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, Scaife Foundations, Heritage Foundation, etc., etc., etc. C'mon, are you really that naive?
Cato and the conservative "think" tanks are getting the bulk of their funding from oil and coal companies. They spread money for propaganda far and wide, even funding a number of high traffic right wing bloggers to write pro-oil propaganda. But at least they have a motive! Anyone who is working on Exxon, BP, Chevron or Shell's behalf for free is a fool!

about that denier-funding machine...

The Kochtopus - Covert Operations

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, is a multimedia exploration of the theory that mankind evolved in response to climate change. At the main entrance, viewers are confronted with a giant graph charting the Earth’s temperature over the past ten million years, which notes that it is far cooler now than it was ten thousand years ago. Overhead, the text reads, “HUMANS EVOLVED IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGING WORLD.” The message, as amplified by the exhibit’s Web site, is that “key human adaptations evolved in response to environmental instability.” Only at the end of the exhibit, under the headline “OUR SURVIVAL CHALLENGE,” is it noted that levels of carbon dioxide are higher now than they have ever been, and that they are projected to increase dramatically in the next century. No cause is given for this development; no mention is made of any possible role played by fossil fuels. The exhibit makes it seem part of a natural continuum. The accompanying text says, “During the period in which humans evolved, Earth’s temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fluctuated together.” An interactive game in the exhibit suggests that humans will continue to adapt to climate change in the future. People may build “underground cities,” developing “short, compact bodies” or “curved spines,” so that “moving around in tight spaces will be no problem.”

Such ideas uncannily echo the Koch message. The company’s January newsletter to employees, for instance, argues that “fluctuations in the earth’s climate predate humanity,” and concludes, “Since we can’t control Mother Nature, let’s figure out how to get along with her changes.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how does that oil get to markets in Europe, Asia, and North America? In the future, government oil companies like China's, may be major players in the oil trade, but they will act no differently than Exxon, BP or Chevron -- it will still be about getting the most money out of stored sunshine, and attempting to prevent alternatives to the oil business until the last drop of oil is used.

The question is who the stooges are. Oil companies don't do anything without government support and approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first book I ever owned was a science book on astronomy and astronautics. It was a personal gift from my grade one teacher, who recognized my early passion. Science has been a large part of my life and it has shaped me greatly. I say this just to make you understand that I have some familiarity with these issues, not as much as an accredited scientist in most fields but certainly more than the average joe. My science heroes are people like G. Harry Stine, Richard Feynman and Kary Mullis, rather than David Suzuki.

Good post, Wild Bill. I enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever thought about the national security issues that come with climate change? Very few people have but they're all to real.

Are these guys just jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon and supplementing their pensions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is who the stooges are. Oil companies don't do anything without government support and approval.

excellent revival Pliny... this thread had dropped too fast!

Koch-Funded Organizations Launch New ‘Rally For Jobs’ Campaign To Protect Big Oil Profits

Not content to simply stop progress, however, the Koch brothers and various Koch-funded organizations have also been actively trying to roll back existing clean air and clean energy laws — both at the state and national levels. David Koch, who lives in New York City and whose company is based in Kansas, is secretly bankrolling the Proposition 23 effort to roll back California’s landmark clean energy law. Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity helped make opposition to “cap-and-trade” a Tea Party talking point and then launched its so-called “Regulation Reality” tour to attack Supreme Court-mandated Clean Air Act regulations being finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Today, a new Koch-backed national effort to protect the energy industry, dubbed “Rally for Jobs,” begins with rallies in Texas and will continue next week with events in New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio. While the American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil’s Washington lobbying arm, is the “presenting sponsor” of the Rally for Jobs tour, several Koch-backed groups are also involved:

• FreedomWorks, whose Koch-founded precursor, Citizens for a Sound Economy, received some $5.7 million from Koch foundations.

• Americans for Prosperity, which received at least $5.1 million from Koch Foundations from 2005-2008 and is an offshoot of the Koch-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, which itself received more than $6 million from Koch foundations.

• The American Highway Users Alliance, of which Koch Industries is a member.

• Americans for Tax Reform, which received $60,000 from Koch Foundations from 1997-2008.

• The Institute for Policy Innovation, which received $35,000 from Koch foundations.

• The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, of which Koch Industries is a member.

• The National Taxpayers Union, which has received $20,000 from Koch foundations.

• The Natural Gas Supply Association, of which Koch Industries appears to be a member.

• The Texas Prosperity Project, on whose board of directors sits Bill Oswald, Government & Regulatory Affairs Director at Koch Industries.

• The Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, which recently held an event sponsored by Flint Hills Resources, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries.

The Rally for Jobs tour is the latest astroturf attempt by Koch and the rest of Big Oil to use the economic anxiety gripping the nation to stave off any new attempts to crack down on the industry’s emissions and to block new accountability measures in the wake of the BP oil disaster. The front group’s website uses standard energy industry boilerplate repeating the false claim that increased energy use and economic prosperity are inexorably linked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...