United States Heading towards a Depression?

No, no it's not. Everyone should be prepared to cite every statement they make in a credible debate.

[citation needed]

You might not care, but you don't represent every proponent of climate change. It's very important that it's man-made. If it's not then there's nothing we can do to stop it. It renders reducing our carbon emissions completely useless. You do know that man releases 3.207% of all carbon emissions and constitute 0.117% of the greenhouse effect, right? [source]

Sounds like bullshit to me. Prove me wrong.

You think a reduction by a fraction of ~3% will make enough of an effect? You can't stop the ocean from releasing CO2 and you can't stop volcanic activity from releasing a huge amount of CO2, nor can you stop vegetation or animals from releasing CO2.

Over 600+ million year period, see the graphs I posted in one of my earlier posts.

You know what the ice core samples show? That temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. Read sources other than the politically motivated IPCC and this is apparent. Only the quackery that is the IPCC distorts these facts. Look up "CO2 lag". [source]

Ok I'll accept that there may have not been any glaciers during the period, but the point, that many AGW supporters claim, that CO2 will destroy the planet is bullshit. This is one of the points I was addressing.

Ok if we assume you're correct, that the planet will continue to warm until it reaches this point and doesn't cool in a cyclical manner, what can we do? Carbon taxes will only make our lives more miserable until we reach this end.

Yes, try looking at millions of years. You cannot make an accurate or credible statement about the planet's warming/cooling behaviour without analysing millions of years. The planet is billions of years old for christ's sake.

Because the observation is simply not long enough. What kind of person bases a huge scientific judgement based on personal experiences of weather? Even the climate scientists avoid this kind of voodoo.

When you actually post a single reference or citation I'll take you seriously. Until then I'll take everything you say as wild speculation. The lack of the basic debating etiquette in this thread is shocking.

To drop a bomb shell on everyone worrying about CO2, it seems water vapour is actually the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect:

Here's an article by New Scientist exposing how CO2 is not the most important greenhouse contributor [article]



Looks like there should be no more talk of CO2.

@Gworld, I'm moving house Thursdays morning so you'll just have to wait, everything is in boxes. Don't worry though I'll get around to it in the next couple of days. My macro/micro economics module notes are just for citation names, as a respectable debate should have. Patience is a virtue

 

I'm not going to do tons of follow up, simply for time constraints but I thought I would respond to some of the comments with citations, along with a little history and perspective:

@gworld. I chose 1998 as a starting date simply because it was a low point for the price of crude oil on both a nominal basis and a basis relative to inflaction: In fact if you look at this chart the low price as an average for 1998 was astoundingly low relative to years before and after. Pretty fascinating, IMHO.

As to price and demand and supply. I am admittedly a huge believer in demand and supply. Regardless this chart shows an extraordinary level of variance that suggests that over the very long haul oil price have been affected by very different factors --> source: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELmJg3BEU...and+Price+of+Oil+1965-2008_27808_image001.png

Over the very long haul prices have moved dramatically while demand and supply have stayed relatively close. Clearly history suggests that many other factors affect the price of oil. I accept that. (btw: this graph also acknowledges the low price in 1998).

@Corwin: I'm citing one text on the chemistry of "global warming issues" here which includes rave reviews by academics. There are other texts that cover the chemistry issues.

On a policy basis the arguments are not about chemistry...and Corwin, if you wish to debate the chemistry go into a chemistry forum where knowledgeable chemists can discuss it. (Its been decades since I took a chemistry course and never applied it).

In the US for instance, the debate has moved to other issues. I'm frankly stunned that there is debate of any significance, but these issues are debated as Right Wing interest groups push to argue what has become increasingly self evident to any normal person across the globe struck by the impacts of changing weather. I could research and reference issues from across the globe. I'm going to pass. I have too much to do in the real world.

The issues on a larger scale are concerned with measuring temperatures and debating causes...not the chemistry.

This recent article describes the very recent response of one of the significant scientific sources for arguing against global warming, Professor Richard Muller, whose research was in part subsidized by the Koch brothers and who has been an oft cited "global warming denier" based, in his own words, on the science. Now he has reversed this perspective...again based on the science:

source.

Interesting that Muller presented to Congress based on the science of measurement of temperatures and relationship of these changes to human causes....not the chemistry, Corwin.

Also interesting that the Koch group has distanced itself from his findings per the article. Muller himself feels the Koch brothers will respond to the science: source. But we will see.

Other than blindly following the lead of the oil industry I don't see why Right Wingers support climate change denial. The evidence as to rising temperatures and costly affects are available in everyday life in every part of the globe.

Moreover there is no long term win in supporting endless development of oil to the point that there are simultaneous attacks on any other kind of energy development. Fuel, and oil are the critical elements of the world economy. Unfortunately too much oil sits under miserable nations in the mideast with crappy despotic regimes and radical hate filled religions. Our own nation gets embroiled in too many problems, spends too much money, has sacrificed too many Americans in the mideast because of these crappy nations that sit on this oil and are critical to the world economy.

Within the US, something that has seen little articulation or discussion in forums dominated by right wing voices is that US PRODUCTION OF OIL IS UP!!!! Its occurred recently. Politically the increases mirror the Obama years. Isn't that interesting? This article shows that domestic production of oil is up and imports as a percentage of usage are down. The author is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that is not only heavily Right Wing oriented, but supplied a lot of members of the Bush administration.

But even with astounding levels of growth in oil production over the last few years, it would be a momentous task to imagine this type of growth moving the US to independence of middle east or other sources of oil. There are no hard facts at this point that can promise that.

I find it fascinating that Right Wing pols and voices scream about oil and want "independence". The fact remains that we are so distantly removed from that with no clear mechanism to achieve that through domestic or North American oil production that it would be incredibly smart to develop all sorts of sources that assist in freeing the US from mideast and other oil dependence...clearly a goal that would be appropriate...if not one that would end the accumulation of wealth in the sick mideast.

I'm not going to bother to post more on this subject as the research is too time consuming and I've got real live businesses that I work on to create a few bucks here and there for me and my partners.

 

Before the commentators crawl all over it, making absurd statements about how this woman never worked a day in her life, I thought I'd share this with you

[video=youtube;I7Lm_FMcFmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Lm_FMcFmw[/video]

It has all the polished and natural delivery of a Bill Clinton speech, with the lack of woodenness I normally see in Mitt Romney's speeches, and the lack of bitter cynicism and pandering we are so used to in an Obama speech. I thought she covered it pretty well.

 

do you think she is hot? who do you think is hotter, Ann Romney or Palin or governor christie?

 

For 65, she isn't just hot. She is smokin hot. I'd have to see Christie in mini skirt, tube top, wig and lipstick to make a fair comparison.

Let that image sink into your brain for a little bit....... there it is..... permanently etched.

 

Ha ha. the notion, the very concept, the writing style...me thinks the etching process is permanently done somewhere on the West Coast where you come up with these ideas and etch those images into your fertile ... Castro loving brain.

I'm from Jersey. Christie reminds me of the guy that sits at the pizza restaurant and eats a bite or 6 of everyone else's pizza on top of his own.

 

Come on now, it wasn't I who put him in a match up against two women.

I can see it. His kids are fat too. I like the guy a lot, but I'm glad he didn't wind up on the ticket, as I don't think he'll be with us much longer at that weight. I was also not overly impressed with his speech, which is funny because the guy is obviously an effective legislator. Two different skill sets I suppose.

Ann Romney's speech was mind blowing. You are going to see snipets of it repeated quite a bit over the next three months, and I would be VERY surprised if it turns out to be anything but highly effective at moving the female vote. We can do better. It is a positive message. If the Dems can't wheel out anything but fear and division (how ironic from the candidate of hope and change), I suspect the post convention poll bounce is going to net out nicely for the Republicans. Wisconsin and Michigan now in play.

Favorite line from Christie's speech: "Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders move polls"

Favorite line from Ann's speech: We're too smart to know there aren't easy answers, but we're not dumb enough to accept that there aren't better answers

 

The ice ages we've been going through the past million years (that's how long it's been) are due to a totally different mechanism.

All this happened due to oceanic flow, not due to atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Whether we caused the current warming trend and whether we should do something to stop it are separate issues. It might be nice to know what caused it. It's probably critical to our continued existence as we are to stop it.

Forever? Yes, we'll probably see glaciation again - IF we don't hit the tipping point and go into a runaway greenhouse. If we do, there's no time left.

Cost of not doing anything? Something like Venus. Cost of keeping the planet livable? Living is always preferable to the alternative, regardless of the cost.

See, the problem is that we can't know whether the current trend will reach the tipping point (that's the point at which the warming causes more warming which causes more warming, etc., to the point that we can't reverse it) until it does - at which point there's nothing we can do but put up some monuments that we hope will last a really long time so that if some alien species finds the planet, they'll know why the planet is lifeless.

 

Rukbat you keep going on about us needing to do something when you concede that fact that we may full well not be causing it. If this is the case, what the hell can we do? Carbon taxes and the like will just make our lives more miserable til the bitter end, if your apocalyptic vision is truthful.

Did you skip over my last post? The end sources show that water vapour is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, dwarfing CO2.

 

Do you actually know what "cite" means? Hint: it doesn't mean "back up".

I didn't say that I don't care, I said that it's irrelevant. They're not the same thing.

Total global warming is controlled by total CO2, not just by man-made CO2, so it's not important how much of it is man-made, what's important is how much of it (and methane) we can get out of the atmosphere.

By cutting our emissions, we cut the total amount. By sequestration and other methods we remove CO2 that we didn't cause. So there is something we can do about it.

Why don't you learn something about the subject before you spout these Republican talking points again? That's all you're doing, you know. This has all been dismissed by the scientific community already. Just repeating falsehoods it doesn't make you look knowledgeable.

 

I guess the point is if you have a lot of money you can fix or prolong the problem. With no money you can't. No matter who or what is causing the problem someone has to find out exactly what it is causing it and then take steps to fix it. There's not one corporation doing that at the moment because there's no money in it. It needs a 'rich aunty' who can solve it.

You just said it's water vapours...who knows you might be right...the point is now we know what it is we can solve it...might mean shipping it off to space or something even crazier...we don't know until we try...so many slush funds for all sorts but nothing set up for sustainability.

 

Restrict every family to two kids...that'll fix it! Just too many people in the world breeding like rabbits.

 

I think she did a great job.

 

The surplus from former Pres Bill Clinton gone in the Bush Administration then blames Pres Obama.

[video=youtube;9xsZ45Weng0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xsZ45Weng0[/video]

 

Better yet, get space worked out and colonized so we don't have to stop whilst ensuring this planet remains the garden. Use this planet to fertilise the rest of space, unlimited potential out there whilst this one is here.

FTR: I know plants don't grow in space but they will inside oxygenated domes in space, wherever they are.

 

That's it then...we've solved the world's problems. Shall we go down the pub?

 

Great, it's your shout! Oh wait, how do we get those Americans out of their depression?

 

Invite us to your bar and let's sing in your karaoke ! (For those who don't know Bushranger)

 

Damn! I appear to have left my wallet at home!

Oh...let them elect Mitt Romney...they'll have plenty to laugh at then.

 

A few years back I was doing some consulting for a company based in Cambridge England. During a meeting right after lunch I was upset at a product plan and said "I'm Pissed (angry)!" The British response was "Where did you get pissed (drunk)?". It went like an Abbot and Costello routine for a few minutes before it was explained to me. After work we all got pissed.