Biggest science scandal ever? (1 Viewer)

[tangfoot]

http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/temperature-data-is-not-the-biggest-scientific-scandal-ever/

 

[zeamax]

I tried to read most of the links provided. So you are aware I have reservations about global warming.

If NOAA is making these adjustments for calibration errors why do the adjustments all lead to more global warming. I would think that with all the stations there are and through time this would balance out, some adjusted higher and others lower.

I like to saying "follow the money". One can point to scientific funded or corporate profits, but carbon tax and carbon trading(a huge new source of derivative trading and regulation) are a potential windfall for governments wall street, probably well into the trillions a year.

 

[tangfoot]

If NOAA is making these adjustments for calibration errors why do the adjustments all lead to more global warming. I would think that with all the stations there are and through time this would balance out, some adjusted higher and others lower.

From the Ars Technica article:

Does it work? The team behind the Berkeley Earth project performed a different analysis in which they didn't process to create a single record and instead treated the discontinuities as breaks that defined separate temperature records. Their results were indistinguishable from the normal analysis.

Is it possible to produce a biased record? Absolutely—about a third of the stations in Berkeley Earth's dataset show a cooling trend over the past 70 years

 

[TPW]

I've really been pushing for global warming these last few years.

The idea that we can completely eliminate winter and then see some of the West coast buried under water gives me hope for the future of humanity.

The second part would be a particularly advantageous outcome.

 

[joffer]

I've really been pushing for global warming these last few years.

The idea that we can completely eliminate winter and then see some of the West coast buried under water gives me hope for the future of humanity.

The second part would be a particularly advantageous outcome.

wonderful thoughts guys. Thanks

 

[Slapdash]

I've really been pushing for global warming these last few years.

The idea that we can completely eliminate winter and then see some of the West coast buried under water gives me hope for the future of humanity.

The second part would be a particularly advantageous outcome.

You are both awful humans.

 

[randall146]

I tried to read most of the links provided. So you are aware I have reservations about global warming.

If NOAA is making these adjustments for calibration errors why do the adjustments all lead to more global warming. I would think that with all the stations there are and through time this would balance out, some adjusted higher and others lower.

I like to saying "follow the money". One can point to scientific funded or corporate profits, but carbon tax and carbon trading(a huge new source of derivative trading and regulation) are a potential windfall for governments wall street, probably well into the trillions a year.

1) The adjustments DON'T all lead to more global warming. Some are up, some are down. In the end they all balance out so that the net change including adjustments is the same a the net change without adjustments. Either way, the change is towards warming. 2) Where do you get your guesstimate of carbon tax and trading "probably" netting the government a "windfall" of "trillions a year?" That's insane.

And how would the future windfall of trillions be affecting past decades of climate research and consensus?

 

[the moops]

The asphalt point is a good one. We have paved our planet. And the cities are huge heat beacons. Yes carbon emissions are out of control but so is our city building, reflective buildings, concreted, manmade mountain ranges. I can personally feel the difference between being in the country or ex-burbs vs coming into the city, it is hot, hot, hot downtown. Now multiply that for every developed and developing country in the world and compare vs deforestation. Even if we cut CO2 emissions, even eliminate them (like by inventing some magical alternative fuel or engine), I don't think we will see any resulting halt in warming in our lifetimes or even 2 generations post that happening.

I think its a huge factor that is routinely overlooked.

You don't think scientists take things like this into account?

 

[msommer]

The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.

Just curious, of the 7 items above, which points do you have to reject to be a 'denier'. Seems like there are many who throw that label around if any one of this seven are rejected. I accept most of the list as proven, and only take issue with a couple. Terms are thrown around without meaning and casting a huge net around a lot of people who disagree on a lot of the points.

Am I a denier? Here are my thoughts:

1) Yup

2) Yup

3) Yup

4) Mostly? I think that's a bridge too far. Its clear that there are cycles of heating and cooling. Plus, there are other manmade impacts, like asphalt everywhere, that contribute significantly to rising temperatures. I have a issue with pinning this "mostly" on CO2, and I don't think there is conclusive evidence for that. I don't doubt its a factor, but I won't go so far as to give it 51%+ status.

5) No. See above. Honestly this is a crazy position to hold IMO.

6) Impact... I'll say yes. Rising temperatures could have a net positive impact though... crops yields, etc. We often hear doom and gloom, but from where I sit, 15 degrees warmer is vastly superior to 15 degrees colder... ice age temperatures would kill off over 1/2 our species. Heat not necessarily.

7) No way to know. I suspect it won't be as bad as we're constantly told it will.

Bonus: I firmly believe we'll have the technology to terraform enough to impact our planets temperature PRIOR to any massive shift in temperature due to manmade warming.

Just out of curiosity: Do you have a opinion on the impact of a warmer world around equator, say in Africa?

Probably not great there, or at sea level. But its easier to live in a desert than on a glacier.

We have global shipping and plenty of future farm land up north (Canada/Russia).

Do you think the people living there will stay or progressively move into your pleasant neighborhood?

 

[jon_mx]

The asphalt point is a good one. We have paved our planet. And the cities are huge heat beacons. Yes carbon emissions are out of control but so is our city building, reflective buildings, concreted, manmade mountain ranges. I can personally feel the difference between being in the country or ex-burbs vs coming into the city, it is hot, hot, hot downtown. Now multiply that for every developed and developing country in the world and compare vs deforestation. Even if we cut CO2 emissions, even eliminate them (like by inventing some magical alternative fuel or engine), I don't think we will see any resulting halt in warming in our lifetimes or even 2 generations post that happening.

I think its a huge factor that is routinely overlooked.

You don't think scientists take things like this into account?

They did not for a long time. It was only after years of skeptics calling them out that they started taking into account the urban island heat effects.

 

[Gr00vus]

The asphalt point is a good one. We have paved our planet. And the cities are huge heat beacons. Yes carbon emissions are out of control but so is our city building, reflective buildings, concreted, manmade mountain ranges. I can personally feel the difference between being in the country or ex-burbs vs coming into the city, it is hot, hot, hot downtown. Now multiply that for every developed and developing country in the world and compare vs deforestation. Even if we cut CO2 emissions, even eliminate them (like by inventing some magical alternative fuel or engine), I don't think we will see any resulting halt in warming in our lifetimes or even 2 generations post that happening.

I think its a huge factor that is routinely overlooked.

You don't think scientists take things like this into account?

They did not for a long time. It was only after years of skeptics calling them out that they started taking into account the urban island heat effects.

Just like they didn't take into account massive deforestation, and the continual erosion of the oceans as carbon sinks due to chemical changes resulting from pollution.

Oh, wait, they did do that too. Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

 

[msommer]

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

Effing Excellent Posting Gr00vus!

 

[(HULK)]

The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.

Just curious, of the 7 items above, which points do you have to reject to be a 'denier'. Seems like there are many who throw that label around if any one of this seven are rejected. I accept most of the list as proven, and only take issue with a couple. Terms are thrown around without meaning and casting a huge net around a lot of people who disagree on a lot of the points.

Am I a denier? Here are my thoughts:

1) Yup

2) Yup

3) Yup

4) Mostly? I think that's a bridge too far. Its clear that there are cycles of heating and cooling. Plus, there are other manmade impacts, like asphalt everywhere, that contribute significantly to rising temperatures. I have a issue with pinning this "mostly" on CO2, and I don't think there is conclusive evidence for that. I don't doubt its a factor, but I won't go so far as to give it 51%+ status.

5) No. See above. Honestly this is a crazy position to hold IMO.

6) Impact... I'll say yes. Rising temperatures could have a net positive impact though... crops yields, etc. We often hear doom and gloom, but from where I sit, 15 degrees warmer is vastly superior to 15 degrees colder... ice age temperatures would kill off over 1/2 our species. Heat not necessarily.

7) No way to know. I suspect it won't be as bad as we're constantly told it will.

Bonus: I firmly believe we'll have the technology to terraform enough to impact our planets temperature PRIOR to any massive shift in temperature due to manmade warming.

Just out of curiosity: Do you have a opinion on the impact of a warmer world around equator, say in Africa?

Probably not great there, or at sea level. But its easier to live in a desert than on a glacier.

We have global shipping and plenty of future farm land up north (Canada/Russia).

Do you think the people living there will stay or progressively move into your pleasant neighborhood?

I assume people would move. Places like Canada would probably have immigration issues.

Your tone is noted... and off the mark. Just because I tend to tread the middle here and don't encapsulate either end of spectrum view, I can understand some disquiet... but I'm a doubter at heart, and if people didn't question things, I don't think you'd like how that world looked much.

 

[(HULK)]

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

Effing Excellent Posting Gr00vus!

I agree. The whole CO2 is the devil thing is probably overstated imo.

I like talking in terms of mankind's impact rather than CO2's impact.

There are approximately 200 billion square meters of asphalt road in the world. That's just roads... not tarred rooftops (although those are less common since the days of Shawshank Penitentiary), parking lots, outdoor basketball courts, etc. Its naïve to think that plays only a small role in any warming.

What about methane? Our taste for beef has probably led to a huge uptick in methane from cows. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't having an impact.

And any number of other things. Our weather system is incredibly complex and at it's heart, WE BARELY UNDERSTAND IT. We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I am a big proponent of knowing more before applying policy. Look at the history of Yellowstone/Elk Population if you want an example of completely screwing up because you think A is the answer when really you're just dumping gasoline on a fire. Complex systems are not easily manipulated with precision.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why would Booker latch on to this without first talking to someone with actual expertise in temperature records? A quick look at his Wikipedia entry shows that he has a lot of issues with science in general, claiming that things like asbestos and second-hand smoke are harmless, and arguing against evolution.

 

[the moops]

We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I check the weather to see what the temp and likelihood of snow/rain is for the next few days. Meteorologists are incredibly accurate in their predictions.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

Effing Excellent Posting Gr00vus!

I agree. The whole CO2 is the devil thing is probably overstated imo.

I like talking in terms of mankind's impact rather than CO2's impact.

There are approximately 200 billion square meters of asphalt road in the world. That's just roads... not tarred rooftops (although those are less common since the days of Shawshank Penitentiary), parking lots, outdoor basketball courts, etc. Its naïve to think that plays only a small role in any warming.

What about methane? Our taste for beef has probably led to a huge uptick in methane from cows. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't having an impact.

And any number of other things. Our weather system is incredibly complex and at it's heart, WE BARELY UNDERSTAND IT. We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I am a big proponent of knowing more before applying policy. Look at the history of Yellowstone/Elk Population if you want an example of completely screwing up because you think A is the answer when really you're just dumping gasoline on a fire. Complex systems are not easily manipulated with precision.

If this is true ... and I have no idea how it would be calculated and couldn't find a number on google ... it would still represent only 0.04% of the earth's surface area.

I'm generally fine with the idea of knowing more before applying policy ... but in this case the cost/benefit would suggest the opposite is the best course of action. If we wait until we confirm with absolute certainty that man-made CO2 emissions are causing X amount of damage, it may be far too late. On the other hand, the downside of some preventative measures doesn't seem all that problematic to me- our coal miners have my sympathy, but that's a tiny sliver of the economy and the jobs will just be redirected into other forms of energy production. Ultimately if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that the preventative measures were unnecessary we can scale them back. But if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that preventative measures would have been wise we can't go back in time and implement them.

 

[(HULK)]

We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I check the weather to see what the temp and likelihood of snow/rain is for the next few days. Meteorologists are incredibly accurate in their predictions.

One of my best friends is a meteorologist, so I like to pile on to the stereotype a bit too much sometimes.

And they can't predict 7 days out for squat.

And, they often oversensationalize... hence terms like Snowmageddon.

 

[(HULK)]

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

Effing Excellent Posting Gr00vus!

I agree. The whole CO2 is the devil thing is probably overstated imo.

I like talking in terms of mankind's impact rather than CO2's impact.

There are approximately 200 billion square meters of asphalt road in the world. That's just roads... not tarred rooftops (although those are less common since the days of Shawshank Penitentiary), parking lots, outdoor basketball courts, etc. Its naïve to think that plays only a small role in any warming.

What about methane? Our taste for beef has probably led to a huge uptick in methane from cows. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't having an impact.

And any number of other things. Our weather system is incredibly complex and at it's heart, WE BARELY UNDERSTAND IT. We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I am a big proponent of knowing more before applying policy. Look at the history of Yellowstone/Elk Population if you want an example of completely screwing up because you think A is the answer when really you're just dumping gasoline on a fire. Complex systems are not easily manipulated with precision.

If this is true ... and I have no idea how it would be calculated and couldn't find a number on google ... it would still represent only 0.04% of the earth's surface area.

I'm generally fine with the idea of knowing more before applying policy ... but in this case the cost/benefit would suggest the opposite is the best course of action. If we wait until we confirm with absolute certainty that man-made CO2 emissions are causing X amount of damage, it may be far too late. On the other hand, the downside of some preventative measures doesn't seem all that problematic to me- our coal miners have my sympathy, but that's a tiny sliver of the economy and the jobs will just be redirected into other forms of energy production. Ultimately if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that the preventative measures were unnecessary we can scale them back. But if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that preventative measures would have been wise we can't go back in time and implement them.

Found an estimate of total meters of roads then guesstimated 6 meters average width and bammm! made up approximation.

 

[(HULK)]

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

Effing Excellent Posting Gr00vus!

I agree. The whole CO2 is the devil thing is probably overstated imo.

I like talking in terms of mankind's impact rather than CO2's impact.

There are approximately 200 billion square meters of asphalt road in the world. That's just roads... not tarred rooftops (although those are less common since the days of Shawshank Penitentiary), parking lots, outdoor basketball courts, etc. Its naïve to think that plays only a small role in any warming.

What about methane? Our taste for beef has probably led to a huge uptick in methane from cows. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't having an impact.

And any number of other things. Our weather system is incredibly complex and at it's heart, WE BARELY UNDERSTAND IT. We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I am a big proponent of knowing more before applying policy. Look at the history of Yellowstone/Elk Population if you want an example of completely screwing up because you think A is the answer when really you're just dumping gasoline on a fire. Complex systems are not easily manipulated with precision.

If this is true ... and I have no idea how it would be calculated and couldn't find a number on google ... it would still represent only 0.04% of the earth's surface area.

I'm generally fine with the idea of knowing more before applying policy ... but in this case the cost/benefit would suggest the opposite is the best course of action. If we wait until we confirm with absolute certainty that man-made CO2 emissions are causing X amount of damage, it may be far too late. On the other hand, the downside of some preventative measures doesn't seem all that problematic to me- our coal miners have my sympathy, but that's a tiny sliver of the economy and the jobs will just be redirected into other forms of energy production. Ultimately if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that the preventative measures were unnecessary we can scale them back. But if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that preventative measures would have been wise we can't go back in time and implement them.

I guess I'm just in the camp that we'll be full solar for daytime power within 10 years. Price per kw is already tipping towards solar, which keeps improving exponentially. When renewables are cheaper than digging up things and burning them, we'll stop digging up things and burning them. And that day is any day now.

So, I don't worry about it too much. We can't control any country other than our own beyond some small influence politically. Rather than going crazy about what to do about it, I'd rather go crazy with R&D for solar and other alternatives so they arrive faster.

 

[renesauz]

The asphalt point is a good one. We have paved our planet. And the cities are huge heat beacons. Yes carbon emissions are out of control but so is our city building, reflective buildings, concreted, manmade mountain ranges. I can personally feel the difference between being in the country or ex-burbs vs coming into the city, it is hot, hot, hot downtown. Now multiply that for every developed and developing country in the world and compare vs deforestation. Even if we cut CO2 emissions, even eliminate them (like by inventing some magical alternative fuel or engine), I don't think we will see any resulting halt in warming in our lifetimes or even 2 generations post that happening.

I think its a huge factor that is routinely overlooked.

I don't think it's a global factor at all. Paved roads and buildings make up probably less than 0POINT02% of our worlds surface area. I think that not only are the effects generally localized and quickly dissipated, but that much of the solar energy captured would have simply been captured higher in the atmosphere after reflection.

There's no disputing that the localized effects (ground level temps in a big city) can at time be pretty significant

 

[Jayrod]

I've really been pushing for global warming these last few years.

The idea that we can completely eliminate winter and then see some of the West coast buried under water gives me hope for the future of humanity.

The second part would be a particularly advantageous outcome.

You are both awful humans.

I'm 100% joking/teasing. Don't know about TPW though.

 

[spreagle]

The asphalt point is a good one. We have paved our planet. And the cities are huge heat beacons. Yes carbon emissions are out of control but so is our city building, reflective buildings, concreted, manmade mountain ranges. I can personally feel the difference between being in the country or ex-burbs vs coming into the city, it is hot, hot, hot downtown. Now multiply that for every developed and developing country in the world and compare vs deforestation. Even if we cut CO2 emissions, even eliminate them (like by inventing some magical alternative fuel or engine), I don't think we will see any resulting halt in warming in our lifetimes or even 2 generations post that happening.

I think its a huge factor that is routinely overlooked.

I don't think it's a global factor at all. Paved roads and buildings make up probably less than 0POINT02% of our worlds surface area. I think that not only are the effects generally localized and quickly dissipated, but that much of the solar energy captured would have simply been captured higher in the atmosphere after reflection.There's no disputing that the localized effects (ground level temps in a big city) can at time be pretty significant

Paved roads make up about one percent of the United States land area. Its probably a significant factor in the winter because it quicly melts all the snow, and snow on the ground is known to depress local ground temperatures by several degrees.

 

[beerbarron]

We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I check the weather to see what the temp and likelihood of snow/rain is for the next few days. Meteorologists are incredibly accurate in their predictions.

One of my best friends is a meteorologist, so I like to pile on to the stereotype a bit too much sometimes.

And they can't predict 7 days out for squat.

And, they often oversensationalize... hence terms like Snowmageddon.

Over the last few year The weather channel has basically turned into a reality TV show... They over sensationalize the weather this helps them sell commercial air time... Rarely watch it.. A few weeks ago I tuned in and was surprised how much it has changed. All the host's talking louder, faster and attempting to be more hip... trying to Hollywood the weather and upcoming storm.. ... yawn

 

[Slapdash]

We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I check the weather to see what the temp and likelihood of snow/rain is for the next few days. Meteorologists are incredibly accurate in their predictions.

One of my best friends is a meteorologist, so I like to pile on to the stereotype a bit too much sometimes.And they can't predict 7 days out for squat.

And, they often oversensationalize... hence terms like Snowmageddon.

Forecasting is like difficult

 

[jon_mx]

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't just mean over utilization of carbon based fuels.

Effing Excellent Posting Gr00vus!

I agree. The whole CO2 is the devil thing is probably overstated imo.

I like talking in terms of mankind's impact rather than CO2's impact.

There are approximately 200 billion square meters of asphalt road in the world. That's just roads... not tarred rooftops (although those are less common since the days of Shawshank Penitentiary), parking lots, outdoor basketball courts, etc. Its naïve to think that plays only a small role in any warming.

What about methane? Our taste for beef has probably led to a huge uptick in methane from cows. I'm guessing here, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't having an impact.

And any number of other things. Our weather system is incredibly complex and at it's heart, WE BARELY UNDERSTAND IT. We scratch the surface and run statistical models to predict local weather with outcomes that barely beat out a coin flip or a farmer's almanac (sorry meteorologists, but you suck).

I am a big proponent of knowing more before applying policy. Look at the history of Yellowstone/Elk Population if you want an example of completely screwing up because you think A is the answer when really you're just dumping gasoline on a fire. Complex systems are not easily manipulated with precision.

If this is true ... and I have no idea how it would be calculated and couldn't find a number on google ... it would still represent only 0.04% of the earth's surface area.

I'm generally fine with the idea of knowing more before applying policy ... but in this case the cost/benefit would suggest the opposite is the best course of action. If we wait until we confirm with absolute certainty that man-made CO2 emissions are causing X amount of damage, it may be far too late. On the other hand, the downside of some preventative measures doesn't seem all that problematic to me- our coal miners have my sympathy, but that's a tiny sliver of the economy and the jobs will just be redirected into other forms of energy production. Ultimately if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that the preventative measures were unnecessary we can scale them back. But if we learn more about CO2 emissions and find that preventative measures would have been wise we can't go back in time and implement them.

The developed world is taking actions and are actively reducing their carbon footprint. But our efforts are meaningless when all of our gains are being wiped out by China's continued expansion of their greenhouse gas emissions and perhaps even worst their growing production of real pollutions into the atmosphere. Obama's brilliant agreement with China, cemented into China's mindset that it is perfectly OK to continue to unrestrictedly pollute the atmosphere for the next thirty years before they even begin to think about putting any restraints on. China has already far surpassed the US as the #1 producer of greenhouse gases, and in thirty years, under the terms of Obama's agreement, China will be pumping more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere than the rest of the world combined. So while the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia are shipping jobs overseas, paying higher taxes, reducing reliance on carbon-based energy, and seeing our energy costs raising the price of all of our goods, China will not be doing any of that. So yes,China is a big investor in green energy, but they are also the #1 expander of carbon footprint and it is at a pace where what the rest of the world can reasonably do will mean nothing.

 

[the moops]

So, the other guy is doing it so we should too?

 

[jon_mx]

So, the other guy is doing it so we should too?

Assuming the boat is sinking and we are working diligently to plug up the holes, it become futile if someone else is busy drilling bigger holes in the boat at a rate faster than we could ever hope to plug them up. The number 1 thing the world can do to reduce greenhouse gases is to get China to make an effort. Agreeing with them to wait another 30 years before they even start is probably the worst thing that could have been done.

 

[snitwitch]

1.01 Piltdown Man

 

[cstu]

The developed world is taking actions and are actively reducing their carbon footprint. But our efforts are meaningless when all of our gains are being wiped out by China's continued expansion of their greenhouse gas emissions and perhaps even worst their growing production of real pollutions into the atmosphere. Obama's brilliant agreement with China, cemented into China's mindset that it is perfectly OK to continue to unrestrictedly pollute the atmosphere for the next thirty years before they even begin to think about putting any restraints on. China has already far surpassed the US as the #1 producer of greenhouse gases, and in thirty years, under the terms of Obama's agreement, China will be pumping more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere than the rest of the world combined. So while the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia are shipping jobs overseas, paying higher taxes, reducing reliance on carbon-based energy, and seeing our energy costs raising the price of all of our goods, China will not be doing any of that. So yes,China is a big investor in green energy, but they are also the #1 expander of carbon footprint and it is at a pace where what the rest of the world can reasonably do will mean nothing.

We are doing virtually nothing either:

...a major new declaration calling for a global price on carbon -- signed by 74 countries and more than 1,000 businesses and investors -- is missing a key signatory: the United States. The declaration, released by the World Bank the day before Mr. Obama's speech at the United Nations Climate Summit, has been signed by China, Shell, Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola. It calls on all nations to enact laws forcing industries to pay for the carbon emissions that scientists say are the leading cause of global warming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/its-time-to-abandon-the-d_b_5899448.html

The reason Obama made that deal is because the U.S. isn't going to cap our CO2 emissions either.

 

[cstu]

So, the other guy is doing it so we should too?

Assuming the boat is sinking and we are working diligently to plug up the holes, it become futile if someone else is busy drilling bigger holes in the boat at a rate faster than we could ever hope to plug them up. The number 1 thing the world can do to reduce greenhouse gases is to get China to make an effort. Agreeing with them to wait another 30 years before they even start is probably the worst thing that could have been done.

So are you now saying CO2 is a major problem? I'm confused.

 

[jon_mx]

The developed world is taking actions and are actively reducing their carbon footprint. But our efforts are meaningless when all of our gains are being wiped out by China's continued expansion of their greenhouse gas emissions and perhaps even worst their growing production of real pollutions into the atmosphere. Obama's brilliant agreement with China, cemented into China's mindset that it is perfectly OK to continue to unrestrictedly pollute the atmosphere for the next thirty years before they even begin to think about putting any restraints on. China has already far surpassed the US as the #1 producer of greenhouse gases, and in thirty years, under the terms of Obama's agreement, China will be pumping more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere than the rest of the world combined. So while the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia are shipping jobs overseas, paying higher taxes, reducing reliance on carbon-based energy, and seeing our energy costs raising the price of all of our goods, China will not be doing any of that. So yes,China is a big investor in green energy, but they are also the #1 expander of carbon footprint and it is at a pace where what the rest of the world can reasonably do will mean nothing.

We are doing virtually nothing either:

...a major new declaration calling for a global price on carbon -- signed by 74 countries and more than 1,000 businesses and investors -- is missing a key signatory: the United States. The declaration, released by the World Bank the day before Mr. Obama's speech at the United Nations Climate Summit, has been signed by China, Shell, Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola. It calls on all nations to enact laws forcing industries to pay for the carbon emissions that scientists say are the leading cause of global warming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/its-time-to-abandon-the-d_b_5899448.html

The reason Obama made that deal is because the U.S. isn't going to cap our CO2 emissions either.

The US has been reducing it's carbon emissions. A carbon pricing scheme (really just a carbon tax) is not a requirement to reduce emissions, it is a way for government to collect revenues. Image that, a communist country wanting a way to tax more. It might help encourage companies to switch over to greener energies, but in the short haul it is simply a big fat tax.

 

[jon_mx]

So, the other guy is doing it so we should too?

Assuming the boat is sinking and we are working diligently to plug up the holes, it become futile if someone else is busy drilling bigger holes in the boat at a rate faster than we could ever hope to plug them up. The number 1 thing the world can do to reduce greenhouse gases is to get China to make an effort. Agreeing with them to wait another 30 years before they even start is probably the worst thing that could have been done.

So are you now saying CO2 is a major problem? I'm confused.

I have never said CO2 was not a problem, which is why I started with the word 'assuming'.

 

[cstu]

The developed world is taking actions and are actively reducing their carbon footprint. But our efforts are meaningless when all of our gains are being wiped out by China's continued expansion of their greenhouse gas emissions and perhaps even worst their growing production of real pollutions into the atmosphere. Obama's brilliant agreement with China, cemented into China's mindset that it is perfectly OK to continue to unrestrictedly pollute the atmosphere for the next thirty years before they even begin to think about putting any restraints on. China has already far surpassed the US as the #1 producer of greenhouse gases, and in thirty years, under the terms of Obama's agreement, China will be pumping more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere than the rest of the world combined. So while the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia are shipping jobs overseas, paying higher taxes, reducing reliance on carbon-based energy, and seeing our energy costs raising the price of all of our goods, China will not be doing any of that. So yes,China is a big investor in green energy, but they are also the #1 expander of carbon footprint and it is at a pace where what the rest of the world can reasonably do will mean nothing.

We are doing virtually nothing either:

...a major new declaration calling for a global price on carbon -- signed by 74 countries and more than 1,000 businesses and investors -- is missing a key signatory: the United States. The declaration, released by the World Bank the day before Mr. Obama's speech at the United Nations Climate Summit, has been signed by China, Shell, Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola. It calls on all nations to enact laws forcing industries to pay for the carbon emissions that scientists say are the leading cause of global warming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/its-time-to-abandon-the-d_b_5899448.html

The reason Obama made that deal is because the U.S. isn't going to cap our CO2 emissions either.

The US has been reducing it's carbon emissions. A carbon pricing scheme (really just a carbon tax) is not a requirement to reduce emissions, it is a way for government to collect revenues. Image that, a communist country wanting a way to tax more. It might help encourage companies to switch over to greener energies, but in the short haul it is simply a big fat tax.

China is a communist country and they don't want a carbon tax and we, as a capitalist country, are the ones holding up an agreement with 74 countries. We are also nowhere close to having a carbon tax if the so-called most liberal President since FDR isn't signing it.

We are reducing carbon emissions but doing so by encouraging alternative energy that makes us less dependent on the market price of energy commodities. Hard to see how that's not a good thing for the country.

 

[jon_mx]

The developed world is taking actions and are actively reducing their carbon footprint. But our efforts are meaningless when all of our gains are being wiped out by China's continued expansion of their greenhouse gas emissions and perhaps even worst their growing production of real pollutions into the atmosphere. Obama's brilliant agreement with China, cemented into China's mindset that it is perfectly OK to continue to unrestrictedly pollute the atmosphere for the next thirty years before they even begin to think about putting any restraints on. China has already far surpassed the US as the #1 producer of greenhouse gases, and in thirty years, under the terms of Obama's agreement, China will be pumping more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere than the rest of the world combined. So while the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia are shipping jobs overseas, paying higher taxes, reducing reliance on carbon-based energy, and seeing our energy costs raising the price of all of our goods, China will not be doing any of that. So yes,China is a big investor in green energy, but they are also the #1 expander of carbon footprint and it is at a pace where what the rest of the world can reasonably do will mean nothing.

We are doing virtually nothing either:

...a major new declaration calling for a global price on carbon -- signed by 74 countries and more than 1,000 businesses and investors -- is missing a key signatory: the United States. The declaration, released by the World Bank the day before Mr. Obama's speech at the United Nations Climate Summit, has been signed by China, Shell, Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola. It calls on all nations to enact laws forcing industries to pay for the carbon emissions that scientists say are the leading cause of global warming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/its-time-to-abandon-the-d_b_5899448.html

The reason Obama made that deal is because the U.S. isn't going to cap our CO2 emissions either.

The US has been reducing it's carbon emissions. A carbon pricing scheme (really just a carbon tax) is not a requirement to reduce emissions, it is a way for government to collect revenues. Image that, a communist country wanting a way to tax more. It might help encourage companies to switch over to greener energies, but in the short haul it is simply a big fat tax.

China is a communist country and they don't want a carbon tax and we, as a capitalist country, are the ones holding up an agreement with 74 countries. We are also nowhere close to having a carbon tax if the so-called most liberal President since FDR isn't signing it.

We are reducing carbon emissions but doing so by encouraging alternative energy that makes us less dependent on the market price of energy commodities. Hard to see how that's not a good thing for the country.

I did not say it was bad for the country. My point was the US is reducing emissions, China is not nor are they willing to any limits. They put out some vague non-binding targets. China wanting to tax carbon is not something that will necessarily reduce carbon emissions any. The US actually reducing emissions is much more praiseworthy than this global carbon price.

 

[the moops]

So, the other guy is doing it so we should too?

Assuming the boat is sinking and we are working diligently to plug up the holes, it become futile if someone else is busy drilling bigger holes in the boat at a rate faster than we could ever hope to plug them up. The number 1 thing the world can do to reduce greenhouse gases is to get China to make an effort. Agreeing with them to wait another 30 years before they even start is probably the worst thing that could have been done.

So are you now saying CO2 is a major problem? I'm confused.

I have never said CO2 was not a problem, which is why I started with the word 'assuming'.

I'm sure if we looked even just a little bit, we could find a quote of yours saying that CO2 is not a problem.

 

[(HULK)]

FYI, this week a solar panel w/ I think 43% conversion rate was invented. And Tesla announced their new home power storage initiative coming out in about 2 months.

This will so be a non-issue in 10 years. Once solar is cheaper than oil, only idiots will use oil.

 

[jon_mx]

So, the other guy is doing it so we should too?

Assuming the boat is sinking and we are working diligently to plug up the holes, it become futile if someone else is busy drilling bigger holes in the boat at a rate faster than we could ever hope to plug them up. The number 1 thing the world can do to reduce greenhouse gases is to get China to make an effort. Agreeing with them to wait another 30 years before they even start is probably the worst thing that could have been done.

So are you now saying CO2 is a major problem? I'm confused.

I have never said CO2 was not a problem, which is why I started with the word 'assuming'.

I'm sure if we looked even just a little bit, we could find a quote of yours saying that CO2 is not a problem.

Maybe, but they should have been qualified statements. My biggest issue is with what we know and what we don't know. The biggest pushers of global warming agenda like to group together wildass speculation about catastrophic effects as under the umbrella of proven science. There is much about global warming which is known and there are still lots of unknowns. Let's stop debating this as if everything is in the known category.

 

[msommer]

While you are channeling Rumsfeld jon - what about the unknown unknowns?

 

[cstu]

FYI, this week a solar panel w/ I think 43% conversion rate was invented. And Tesla announced their new home power storage initiative coming out in about 2 months.

This will so be a non-issue in 10 years. Once solar is cheaper than oil, only idiots will use oil.

Up to 46% now.

I still believe in hydrogen fuel - Elon Musk conveniently ignores the refilling speed and distance advantages of hydrogen when he calls it 'stupid'. The Japanese must be stupid because they are aggressively promoting hydrogen fuel cell cars.

 

[(HULK)]

FYI, this week a solar panel w/ I think 43% conversion rate was invented. And Tesla announced their new home power storage initiative coming out in about 2 months.

This will so be a non-issue in 10 years. Once solar is cheaper than oil, only idiots will use oil.

Up to 46% now.

I still believe in hydrogen fuel - Elon Musk conveniently ignores the refilling speed and distance advantages of hydrogen when he calls it 'stupid'. The Japanese must be stupid because they are aggressively promoting hydrogen fuel cell cars.

If its not one thing, it'll be another thing.

Pumping oil up out of a few spots on the planet and shipping it everywhere isn't cheap.