I completely agree. I don't understand the mentality that seems to feel this historical anomaly of a mere 150 years or so - industrialization - has such a little consequence on the only world bio-system we have, such that we can blithely proceed apace and say, in essence, screw the future. I have compared this to the erstwhile views on, say, cigarette smoking - with the industry once advocating smoking as beneficial to health, and it wasn't until decades after the fact the causes of smoking were fully known, or, in my opinion, the world of GMO's, where I suspect we may find there are consequences to sustainability, ecology (impact on other species, reductions in biodiversity) and human health with the proliferation of GMO's. Bottom line for me, I'm not interested in a world of future regret from irreversible, cataclysmic changes over preventable causes now.
Who regulates it? Who decides? Who profits from the tax revenue? That's seen and unseen. You see the regulations, fines and taxes to hinder people from polluting, you don't where the money goes. You're not observing the motivation for falsifying propaganda to generate revenue. As usual, the technocrats create a problem => reaction => solution paradigm. I support having a map and a destination before we go anywhere. I also support free market solutions, not commons. I might be misusing the term, but I think the imagery is correct. stOx doesn't want to talk about the corruption and deceit of the IPCC, after he has probably used their findings numerous times in his arguments. He'd rather distract with an argument that no one here, and no one I know is probably able to answer in a qualified manner. For a guy who is so vehemently against religion, he sure has a lot of faith in science that is beyond his realm of knowledge or expertise. Or in other words, he takes a lot on faith. Notice when I asked him which of Monckton's assertions he believed were false, he quickly retreated. Climate Change fanatics don't like to deal with facts, or anything that is measurable or provable. It's all generalizations. And they get violently angry if you try to argue based on facts, what is known and unknown. I've already responded to this. About the issue we don't know? We should act on that immediately, and seek to know. We shouldn't however act on something we don't know. Wouldn't you agree that could cause a lot of harm? Sorta like Iraq?
the ones to whom we (the people) give power to you could pay your external debt with some of it for example I'm pretty sure the pollution/climate change problem was not created by technocrats destination: reduce pollution map: we already know a lot about how to get to that destination. a common is something that belongs to everyone. Or you could say it belongs to nobody. You cannot apply free market principles to commons. This is some sort of "reverse strawman" . The primary topic of the thread is climate change isn't it? not the ipcc I think his argument isn't simply a distraction...it's the very foundation of any climate change debate and it's a pretty simple and straight forward argument: We put a lot of co2 in the atmosphere and co2 is a greenhouse gas. And if your read Monckton's paper you notice that even he agrees that co2 is a greenhouse gas. Therefore I think the only question is how much do we actually effect the climate. And considering that even the most accurate weather prediction tools are usually innacurate over long periods of time I'm pretty confident when I say nobody has any ideea how much we're actually affecting the climate. This being said, when is the time you think we should start reducing our emissions? oh, and considering the fact you're not able to answer to this argument in a qualified manner how did you establish which papers to believe? What made you think Monckton's paper is the correct one and not the other ones claiming we're having a much more drastic effect on the climate? I find it pretty ironic that you accuse "climate change fanatics" of generalizating while you do the same thing about them. About the issue we don't know? We should act on that immediately, and seek to know. We shouldn't however act on something we don't know. Wouldn't you agree that could cause a lot of harm? Sorta like Iraq?[/QUOTE]
Such silliness. Can we decide not to give them power and keep it for ourselves? Or you could put it in a Swiss bank account. Or use it to reward no bid contracts to companies who will provide you employment for the rest of your life once you leave public service. And I have a suspicion it was. No, we don't. We don't know precisely what level we need to hit, because we can't even agree how sensitive global climate is to our impact. You're right, you can't apply the free market principles to commons. Which is why commons are fallacious. One way or another, someone controls them. The difference is, under a "commons" people pretend they all have an equal or shared stake in it, when they clearly do not. Some people make the laws, get to use it first and st the thresholds, and all of the minority owners are expected to go along with it. Actually, I started this thread based on Monckton's article. It was about the IPCC. Which you still have not commented on. I never said I was perfect, just unbelievably good looking. Nice chatting with you, as always.
We better stop. We're melting Mars, too! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/20/eagermany120.xml
CRAP!!! Wrong link on the clipboard! Sorry. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977 Mars and Pluto are encountering global warming also. The joke, of course, would be to suggest that greenhouse gases from earth would be melting Mars or Pluto.
Yep, could be - or, industrialization, absent on Mars, present on earth for a small scratch of time, may be an additive or intervening variable to the crap we're exerting on our system. Again, a very commonsense question, that has never been answered on the forum: industrialization has never been seen on this planet over the eons of its history, except for the last century and a half. No effect, then, in terms of climate change? If, "yes, of course": If the changes seen are caused by us, and can be controlled by us, and the downside is potentially huge - do nothing? Again, Pascal's wager, applied to the only thing we have to sustain life - the planet - should apply.
Actually, I was kidding, but I sure like the last part. You posted that link just to push my buttons, didn't you!
What i find amazing guerrilla is that you freely confess to being ill-educated to a level where you don't feel qualified to have an opinion on whether Co2 is a greenhouse gas - Something which most people have explained to them at around age 12 - Yet for some reason feel qualified enough to assert to the validity and accuracy of Mr moncktons findings. Tell me, How could you have become such an "expert" on everything monckton said and still not know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it selective ignorance you have or is it a case of intellectual dishonesty? I have said it before and i will say it again, You are guilty of the same dishonesty that monckton is guilty of. You formed a conclusion and then went looking for the evidence to support it. Then when presented with a question which i could have happily answered before i got into long trousers you play the ignorance card with i don't know bout none of dat der sciencey stuff If you don't know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas it beggars belief how on earth you feel entitled to have an opinion on climate change and why you think anyone should take anything you say on the subject seriously. Go read up on Co2, Then answer these two questions. 1. Is Co2 a greenhouse gas 2. Do we contribute to atmospheric Co2 levels by burning fossil fuels.
stOx, we're back to personal attacks. You will have to do better if we're to continue this debate. I would hope your position has enough merit, it doesn't need the benefit of slander or name calling to make it's case. I'm a little older than you, my education was focused on nuclear devastation from a cold war nuclear strike, not the global warming sciences. You see, we had our own hysteria before this one. As a species, our masters send us scurrying from disaster to disaster, constantly frightened, and thus easy to control. That said, neither of us is an expert on the science. Unless you are secretly a scientist and I didn't know about that. Now as to Monckton, you continue to attack him, but you can't refute any of his findings. You reference material that is previous to what I posted, previous even to what he debunked, from the same breed of global warming fanatics that attack through Ad Hom, not on the merit of the case. Now maybe because this is similar to your style of argumentation, you can't see what is wrong with it, but I can quite clearly. Regardless if Monckton is a monkey, a liar, a devil or a turd, his arguments aren't being refuted, in fact, more scientists are coming out to support his MATHEMATICAL FINDINGS that the UN's IPCC has been LYING TO EVERYONE. Yes, the IPCC, whose findings you have probably promoted in your zeal to believe authority, are lies. They knowingly and intentionally falsified the data, like Cheney trying to land Haliburton a construction contract in Iraq. Out and out total lies, and horrible science. Now, does this mean the study is over? We should continue polluting? Absolutely not. But it means that the crisis scenarios are coming from people who, as Floy Lilley put it, conduct science by press release. They press release non-stop global warming information, regardless of whether it is true or not, and the brainless press picks it up on the AP wire and reprints it around the world, until everyone is repeating the lies. I'm not going to read up on CO2. But I will take your word for it that it is indeed a greenhouse gas, and contributes to a "green house effect". That said, your 2 questions only prove correlation, not causation. You need a 3rd question, which is, how sensitive are global climate patterns to the green house effect and man made CO2? That is exactly what Monckton was seeking to ascertain, when he discovered the IPCC had falsified their data. The good news is, he has presented new data where it can be peer reviewed and subject to scrutiny by the global warming-ists and the non-global warming-ists alike. You see, through this method of checking the conclusions of others, we discover the truth. It's a beautiful thing baby. So if you genuinely care about the planet, you will stop behaving like a religious fanatic, and start investing yourself into trying to find truth and having an open mind. If you've already made your mind up, and refuse to listen to strong arguments to the contrary, then you are no better than the religious zealots you are constantly protesting on this forum and your blog.
If Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and if we are producing it, then we are contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, Which logically means we are contributing to climate change. That isn't open to debate, it's a fact. Now, we could sit around until the sea boils talking about exactly how much effect we are having, But that would be about as productive as a doctor spending weeks debating how much malaria someone has before vaccinating them. We know we are at least contributing to it and we know we have to do something about it. No problems are going to arise from being too environmentally friendly, But lots of problems are going to arise if the misinformation of monckton is taken seriously by people looking for evidence to support their preconceived conclusions. So now i expect you to latch on to your old hobby house of taxation. So let's nip that red herring in the bud right now... Do i believe climate change can be solved by the government through taxation? No, i don't. I think the only thing that government can do to help is reduce the taxation on appliances, vehicles and materials that are ecologically friendly. Ultimately the solution is going to come through education. Once people realise what burning fossil fuels is doing they will be more inclined to buy green, And once that happens companies will be falling over each other to produce green modes of transport, energy efficient products and recyclable materials. If you were honest with yourself you would admit that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, That we are producing it and that as a consequence of that we are contributing to climate change. so why you would want to muddy the waters and deliberately spread misinformation is beyond me. Once you realise that 1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas and 2. we are producing it you will see that everything in moncktons "report" is nothing more than a red herring.
Cattle are a primary cause of global warming. Most of the deforestation in the Amazon is due to clear cutting for cattle ranching. It takes 7lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef. By eating more vegetables like potatoes and beans we would be able to support our population much more efficiently.
There are a couple of things that bother me about the whole idea of global warming. 1) The planet has been cooling since 2001 and no increase since 1998. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature, because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down. 2) Climate is cyclical. There is evidence to suggest that we have just completed a warm cycle and that we are entering a cooling cycle. 3) If we were to talk about reducing polution or less dependance on coal and oil, then count me in. Want to save the ozone layer? OK, count me in. Less energy dependance on the Middle East? Shounds good to me. 4) Because of the global warming hysteria the government now has a new way to tax us with Carbon Units. 5) There has never been a debate where real scientists present their evidence and a winner is declared. One man writes a paper, another man writes a paper, they accuse each other of selecting facts to support their argument instead of allowing the facts to lead them to an objective conclusion. So I will be happy to drive a greener car and promote solar, wind, and nuclear sources of energy, however I will vote against any tax increase where I have a voice.
Jazz, a very basic question. What if you're wrong? What if at the end of spoliation, it all comes incontrovertibly down: "yep, anthropogenic climate change was catastrophic."
Completely agree, Bogart. A personal example, having lived for a time in pretty close contact with another culture (Japanese); the notion of meat in the quantities we tend to eat it is a mind blower to many Japanese - they eat meat, but it is an adjunct to everything else, if they eat it at all - not the centerpiece of a plate, the 16-20 oz. ribeye idea. Not a bad way of thinking, in my opinion.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what more you would like me to consider. The only thing that I would object to would be an increase in taxes. That and the "CRISIS" hysteria. What am I missing? On another note, it's pretty damn hypocritical of Al and Tipper to fly all over the world in their private plane, belching greenhouse gases everywhere they go. Their house uses more electricity in a month than I use all year. But they tithe to the Carbon Fund and their sins are forgiven.
That it might not be "hysteria," and the costs, after the fact, might in fact be irreversibly high. The notion of painting it as "hysteria" is precisely why those of us who remain convinced by the evidence we see - to the call for "causation" over correlation, I addressed this specifically, but it remains ignored - feel the feeling that people are placing their heads in the sand, over due consideration. As I said elsewhere, I couldn't care less how Gore conducts himself, in terms of evaluating the merits of his arguments. What matters is the matter, not the man. I condemn his hypocrisy, but do not dismiss the issue he has raised because of it.