Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

DISCLAIMER: Apologies for the lobby reform post. It was supposed to go on the A2K straw poll thread. Must have hit the wrong link.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Steve writes

Quote:
Well I'm obviously pleased for you family's better health. But the sceptical/orthodox views of GHG do not have equal weighting. Neither you (nor I) have enough expertise to make a considered judgement. Just as with the doctor, we have to have some trust in his professional skill, and if we go with the better sounding option you have to admit there is a greater element of luck involved. When it comes to policy decisions affecting billions of people the assumption of good luck should not be relied upon.

Nor should policy be based on bad science. The very fact that policy decisions will affect billions of people is a very good argument to make sure we have it right before we implement the policy.
Allelujah. But then you have already decided GHG emissions and AGW must be BAD science, because you dont like the implications for YOUR LIFESTYLE.

This is utter garbage. You are so busy in dictating what I do and do not like and what I do and do not want and what I do and do not do re the environment, it almost obscures your apparent reading deficiency when I have quite plainly explained these to you.

I have accepted that you want to believe one set of scientific data and have completely blown off any conflicting scientific data. You are in good company with all the other would-be dictators out there who are quite willing to use any motive whether valid or invented to structure the lives of other people and make them pay the cost to do it.

Your motives appear to be an intense desire to dictate to me how I and all others, except the other pro-AGWers themselves of course, are to live our lives regardless of the cost and/or detriment to the poor and/or detriment to emerging nations.

When you tell me that you have cut off your lights and unplugged your computer and have moved into a tent city where you subsist on the barest necessities to sustain life, you will at least have the moral authority to suggest that others do likewise.

Until then, those of us who would rather actually do good for humankind rather than just go through the motions so that we can feel righteous will continue to look for the best conclusions and the most beneficial way to accomplish them.

If that's all right with you.

I'm not asking you to do anything but look at the facts. You say I say the world is doomed. I dont. You say I say the cost is astronomical, I dont. Your increasingly hysterical posts (imo) suggests to any objective observer that I have won the argument.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Steve writes

Quote:
Well I'm obviously pleased for you family's better health. But the sceptical/orthodox views of GHG do not have equal weighting. Neither you (nor I) have enough expertise to make a considered judgement. Just as with the doctor, we have to have some trust in his professional skill, and if we go with the better sounding option you have to admit there is a greater element of luck involved. When it comes to policy decisions affecting billions of people the assumption of good luck should not be relied upon.

Nor should policy be based on bad science. The very fact that policy decisions will affect billions of people is a very good argument to make sure we have it right before we implement the policy.
Allelujah. But then you have already decided GHG emissions and AGW must be BAD science, because you dont like the implications for YOUR LIFESTYLE.

This is utter garbage. You are so busy in dictating what I do and do not like and what I do and do not want and what I do and do not do re the environment, it almost obscures your apparent reading deficiency when I have quite plainly explained these to you.

I have accepted that you want to believe one set of scientific data and have completely blown off any conflicting scientific data. You are in good company with all the other would-be dictators out there who are quite willing to use any motive whether valid or invented to structure the lives of other people and make them pay the cost to do it.

Your motives appear to be an intense desire to dictate to me how I and all others, except the other pro-AGWers themselves of course, are to live our lives regardless of the cost and/or detriment to the poor and/or detriment to emerging nations.

When you tell me that you have cut off your lights and unplugged your computer and have moved into a tent city where you subsist on the barest necessities to sustain life, you will at least have the moral authority to suggest that others do likewise.

Until then, those of us who would rather actually do good for humankind rather than just go through the motions so that we can feel righteous will continue to look for the best conclusions and the most beneficial way to accomplish them.

If that's all right with you.
I'm not asking you to do anything but look at the facts. You say I say the world is doomed. I dont. You say I say the cost is astronomical, I dont. Your increasingly hysterical posts (imo) suggests to any objective observer that I have won the argument.

Well I don't recall saying that you said the world is doomed. I have probably said that you defend the side/people who are saying that. I certainly have not said that you said the cost is astonomical. If anything, I have criticized your lack of understanding of how costly the changes proposed by the doomsdayers could be.

Given the gross misstatements in your short post here, if either of us is posting hysterical posts, it is you. And that my friend is not my definition of winning an argument.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Steve writes

Quote:
Well I'm obviously pleased for you family's better health. But the sceptical/orthodox views of GHG do not have equal weighting. Neither you (nor I) have enough expertise to make a considered judgement. Just as with the doctor, we have to have some trust in his professional skill, and if we go with the better sounding option you have to admit there is a greater element of luck involved. When it comes to policy decisions affecting billions of people the assumption of good luck should not be relied upon.

Nor should policy be based on bad science. The very fact that policy decisions will affect billions of people is a very good argument to make sure we have it right before we implement the policy.
Allelujah. But then you have already decided GHG emissions and AGW must be BAD science, because you dont like the implications for YOUR LIFESTYLE.

This is utter garbage. You are so busy in dictating what I do and do not like and what I do and do not want and what I do and do not do re the environment, it almost obscures your apparent reading deficiency when I have quite plainly explained these to you.

I have accepted that you want to believe one set of scientific data and have completely blown off any conflicting scientific data. You are in good company with all the other would-be dictators out there who are quite willing to use any motive whether valid or invented to structure the lives of other people and make them pay the cost to do it.

Your motives appear to be an intense desire to dictate to me how I and all others, except the other pro-AGWers themselves of course, are to live our lives regardless of the cost and/or detriment to the poor and/or detriment to emerging nations.

When you tell me that you have cut off your lights and unplugged your computer and have moved into a tent city where you subsist on the barest necessities to sustain life, you will at least have the moral authority to suggest that others do likewise.

Until then, those of us who would rather actually do good for humankind rather than just go through the motions so that we can feel righteous will continue to look for the best conclusions and the most beneficial way to accomplish them.

If that's all right with you.
I'm not asking you to do anything but look at the facts. You say I say the world is doomed. I dont. You say I say the cost is astronomical, I dont. Your increasingly hysterical posts (imo) suggests to any objective observer that I have won the argument.

Well I don't recall saying that you said the world is doomed. I have probably said that you defend the side/people who are saying that. I certainly have not said that you said the cost is astonomical. If anything, I have criticized your lack of understanding of how costly the changes proposed by the doomsdayers could be.

Given the gross misstatements in your short post here, if either of us is posting hysterical posts, it is you. And that my friend is not my definition of your winning an argument.

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

When you tell me that you have cut off your lights and unplugged your computer and have moved into a tent city where you subsist on the barest necessities to sustain life, you will at least have the moral authority to suggest that others do likewise.

will be unplugging computer and sending smoke signals in future .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :

Quote:
When you tell me that you have cut off your lights and unplugged your computer and have moved into a tent city where you subsist on the barest necessities to sustain life, you will at least have the moral authority to suggest that others do likewise.

will be unplugging computer and sending smoke signals in future .
hbg

Well be sure to stock up on a lot of firewood and hotdogs. I like mine well done. Smile

0 Replies

Not to be a wet blanket, but wouldn't smoke signals... y'know... be worse? In the whole "you are actually setting a fire" way.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

Not to be a wet blanket, but wouldn't smoke signals... y'know... be worse? In the whole "you are actually setting a fire" way.

I know one talk show host (Michael Savage) would support a Consitutional amendment banning wood burning fireplaces because the smoke from these irritates his severe allergies. And for sure wood smoke contributes to smog in large cities. Albuquerque has 'burn' and 'no burn' days/nights from mid fall to early spring during the time of year that temperature inversions coupled with calm winds are more likely. This has sharply reduced and/or eliminated the 'brown cloud' that used to be commonplace over Albuquerque during much of the year.

I don't know that I've seen a scientific opinion re whether wood smoke has any long range effect on the environment, however,

But not to worry. If the USA, Canada, and Europe roll back GHG emissions to the point 'acceptable' for carbon footprints while allowing everybody else to do as they please, I think we won't have much we want to communicate about anyway and that will take care of any smoke signal issues too.

0 Replies

Then we'll have to deal with 'peak firewood' fruitcakes.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Given the gross misstatements in your short post here, if either of us is posting hysterical posts, it is you.

well I'm a man you're not QED.

before you explode, all I want you to do is look objectively at the facts. And if the raw facts are a little difficult to absorb, listen to the people who do understand them.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Given the gross misstatements in your short post here, if either of us is posting hysterical posts, it is you.
well I'm a man you're not QED.

before you explode, all I want you to do is look objectively at the facts. And if the raw facts are a little difficult to absorb, listen to the people who do understand them.

The facts that I've seen re global warming are:

1) Group A includes some qualified scientists who have done some research re global warming and AGW and have concluded that global warming is imminently deadly to humankind and that humankind can stop global warming by changing its behavior. Group A has produced a large numbers of charts and graphs with numbers and color coding to illustrate their conclusions. I call this group the pro-AGW scientists.

2) Group B includes a number of other scientists who have looked at the methodology supplied by Group A and concur that it appears sound and have signed onto the conclusion stated in #1. A good many of these, as well as those in Group A, appear to be in line for considerable personal monetary and/or prestige benefits if their side prevails. This group has produced more charts and graphs with numbers and color codings to justify their support of Group A. I will call this group the AGW groupies.

3) Group C includes a fairly large number of non scientists composed of mostly more liberal (aka pro-big-government) types who thrive in the spotlight and also those labs and corporations and businesses who stand to make huge profits through government mandates. These make up the congregation of a new environmental religion inspired by Group A and B and they present themselves as especially righteous at the altar of environmental salvation. This group even has its own gurus and preachers. Al Gore is one of those. I will call this group the AGW congregation. And yes, this group has also produced charts and graphs with numbers and color codings. They also teach and preach (for lots of money of course) their 'heartfelt' doctrine and write and sell books though, out of the goodness of their hearts, they are sometimes willing to furnish books free for the purpose of indoctrinating school children.

(I read somewhere that one hotel in California is replacing the Gideon Bible with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in all the guest rooms.)

4) Group D is composed of qualified scientists who have done the research and/or evaluated other scientist's research and have come up with many conclusions that are quite contrary to Group A's conclusion and Group B's positions and Group C's doctrine. Would you believe that this group also has color coded charts and graphs that show different information than what Group A has published? I call this group the loyal opposition. A few of these are providing research information to oil companies, etc. but most seem to have no investment in the outcome of the debate other than their personal reputations which they risk with their point of view.

5) Group E is composed of other scientists who have looked at all the other groups' charts and graphs and conclude that Group D is closer to telling it like it is than are any of the others. I call this group the panel of impartial judges..

6) Group F is composed of people who are as convinced that global warming is bogus as passionately as Group C is broadcasting their 'end of the world as we know it' message. I call these the hardcore deniers or sometimes ostrichs unwilling to look at any evidence by anybody.

7) And finally Group G is made of of all the rest of us who have looked at what all groups have offered. What we see:

a) Group A presents a strong case for AGW but seems insufficiently concerned about global warming in general to make any personal lifestyle changes.
b) Group B seems to be made up of more profiteers or social or academic sheep than serious climate clients. They also don't seem to be personally worried about global warming.
c) Group C no doubt has some sincere disciples in its midst but mostly appears as envirnomental wackos to the casual outside observor. They preach doctrine to the rest of us while many are each making a bigger carbon footprint than dozens or hundreds of normal people combined. So its quite difficult to take them seriously at all.

d) Groups D and E seem to have litttle or no ax to grind and little to gain from the positions they take, but they are being systematically excluded, ignored, and/or excoriated by Groups A, B, and C. Those of us savvy in a world of political expediency and social engineering think it unwise to exclude, ignore, or excoriate them from the debate. They seem to have less motive to skew or distort the facts than do the others.

e) Group F can be safely ignored however as they won't have anything useful to contribute to the debate.

So I belong to Group G who is still waiting for somebody to give me a valid and convincing reason to significantly change my lifestyle but who is willing to do that at such time as such evidence can be presented. Did I leave out any facts? I like my group because we get to look at all the facts and pick and choose those that seem to have the most credibility while leaving open the door for new or better information to come in.

What Group do you belong to and what facts, if any, do you have to leave out in order to be a part of it? And have you significantly changed your lifestyle for the good of the world or is that just something you expect everybody else to do at whatever cost there may be? (That is a rhetorical question and not intended to be an accusation.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
I haven't studied it recently, cyclops, but common sense says recycling is not always cost or energy efficient. A quick look at it says perhaps plastic may consume more effort, energy, etc. to gather, transport, and reprocess than using the derivatives from petroleum that are otherwise available. I won't say that could not change or is changing now, due to oil price, but it has been true. I am sure there are many other examples.

Many recycling operations have failed or gone out of business in the past, because simply it was not economic, which is a huge tipoff as to the efficiency of doing it. Gathering, cleaning, transportation, etc. are not free and also have environmental impacts, and they need to be compared to the production from raw materials, and often the comparison of impact can be seen in the cost of doing it.

Well, if you could find some links or evidence, I'd be happy to read them.

I think that even though you are correct that the steps involved with recycling need to be taken into account, it generally is not considered to be more wasteful than simply throwing stuff away.

Cycloptichorn

Well, here is one example.
http://www.polystyrene.org/environment/econ.html

To dispel a possible argument you may try, cyclops, cost of a product does in fact reflect in large part, things like energy use to collect, transport, clean, and process into a recycled product. So the cost of a product does incorporate the factor of whether something is environmentally superior.

The following article simply points out the controversy concerning the cost of recycling vs waste disposal, etc.

http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm

So obviously, there are several factors swirling around this issue, including population density, availability and ease of waste disposal, efficiency of recycling programs, and transportation and labor required to gather and transport the materials to a plant that can process the materials.

All of these factors then have to be compared to the ease of manufacturing new products, such as paper, plastic, glass, etc. from raw materials. Some of the factors involved here include the scarcity of raw material and cost of processing the material.

The obvious conclusion here is that recycling does make sense for some materials, perhaps at least in some localities, while recycling is not efficient and ends up being costlier and more environmentally wasteful and polluting for certain other products, at least in some localities. Recycling sounds good on an emotional level, to "save the earth," but as is true with so many issues, you need to examine the issues beyond the emotional feel goodism. So you have the tree huggers and young, sort of naive, teachers in the classrooms all over the country feeding the little kiddees every day with their "save the earth" mantra, which of course includes recycling, without ever dreaming of presenting the subject with some economic and environmental realities.

Do not misinterpret my argument here. I am in favor of recycling for some things in some situations, if I can see that it makes sense for various reasons, but I am not going to swallow the line, hook, line, and sinker, just because it sounds good.

0 Replies

OH GOOD GRIEF OKIE!

What a bunch of hogwash!

0 Replies

Not hogwash. The whole concept we are talking about here applies to many, many things, obviously. For example, it is commonly more efficient to simply destroy a building and dispose of most of the materials, instead of paying people for days and weeks to drive to work to sit around and pry the building apart, pull nails, sort the lumber and other materials, and all of that. It ends up being more wasteful, including environmentally wasteful, than simply disposing of the old stuff quickly and building with new.

0 Replies

You are talking to the wrong person...I think that destroying old buildings that are salvageable is wasteful.

My husband and I bought an 1881 Victorian in desperate straits but with many features that were reclaimable. We dealt with preservationists and restored it and put in on the National Historic Register. It could have gone the other way...with 11 acres it could have been an old house surrounded by many new houses...we are keeping it the way it should be kept...all the outbuildings for the future.

As an Native American friend of mine would say..." For our 7th generation of children."

We have to think about what we do each time we do something...think of the future. Something the Bushies have not done or do not advocate.

0 Replies

I agree that we destroy many buildings that should be saved, preserved, and upgraded, however, there are some that are simply a lost cause and should be destroyed. Some are simply hazardous, not up to code, may be a fire hazard, and are extremely wasteful in terms of energy use, and it is easier, faster, more economical, and more environmentally sound to tear them down quickly and replace them.

I personally know of old, very large houses that are extremely wasteful in terms of energy, such as several hundred dollars per month to maintain with heat, etc. and they are not easily improved, energy-wise. There is such a thing as throwing good money after bad. I like preservation of things, but not at any cost.

0 Replies

Quote:

To dispel a possible argument you may try, cyclops, cost of a product does in fact reflect in large part, things like energy use to collect, transport, clean, and process into a recycled product. So the cost of a product does incorporate the factor of whether something is environmentally superior.

Oh, I agree with you. But this is a negative pressure upon the product, not a positive one, in the free market. The less environmental imapct an object of any reasonable complication has, the more expensive it is.

It's nearly always more expensive to recycle then to build new from raw goods, but even more than recycling is the production of products without adding undue waste to the environment. You stated that:

Quote:

As I've said before, the free market is often a good indicator of what is most efficient, both economically and environmentally.

What is most efficient 'environmentally' isn't really considered by the free market, other than the fact that keeping the environment clean adds cost to all products, and therefore is generally a negative factor in that product's success in the market.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

....
The less environmental imapct an object of any reasonable complication has, the more expensive it is.

Quote:

What is most efficient 'environmentally' isn't really considered by the free market, other than the fact that keeping the environment clean adds cost to all products, and therefore is generally a negative factor in that product's success in the market.

Cycloptichorn

I maintain that the more inexpensive a product is, the more efficient it is. Not always more environmentally efficient, but the chances are decent that it is. Certainly, your statement that the most environmentally efficient things are always more expensive, is utter nonsense. Expense to produce a product includes many components, and one important one is energy. Higher energy use to make more expensive products is not more environmentally efficient. Let us look at other components, such as labor. More labor requires more employees and more time to produce, which also produces more waste in terms of transportation costs and energy use for example, that are not more environmentally efficient. If more equipment is required, or special equipment is required, then that equipment may require components that contain rare minerals or chemicals that may require different kinds of mining operations to extract and special manufacturing techniques to make, all of which are not more environmentally efficient. If higher transportation costs help make products more expensive, which they obviously often do, then the product is not more environmentally efficient.

Of course, you have to measure all of this with how long-lasting the products are, and how they perform as compared to their competition, but the free market also accounts for those considerations as well.

Take ethanol as an example. The free market says it is less efficient and less environmentally efficient as well, as compared to conventional oil production and refining into gasoline. The main reason the ethanol industry is growing is artificial government tax breaks.

0 Replies

Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming
Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 May 2007
Independent UK

In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.

The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.

Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

"Tropical forests are the elephant in the living room of climate change," said Andrew Mitchell, the head of the GCP.

Scientists say one days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere.

No new technology is needed, says the GCP, just the political will and a system of enforcement and incentives that makes the trees worth more to governments and individuals standing than felled. "The focus on technological fixes for the emissions of rich nations while giving no incentive to poorer nations to stop burning the standing forest means we are putting the cart before the horse," said Mr Mitchell.

Most people think of forests only in terms of the CO2 they absorb. The rainforests of the Amazon, the Congo basin and Indonesia are thought of as the lungs of the planet. But the destruction of those forests will in the next four years alone, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025.

Indonesia became the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world last week. Following close behind is Brazil. Neither nation has heavy industry on a comparable scale with the EU, India or Russia and yet they comfortably outstrip all other countries, except the United States and China.

What both countries do have in common is tropical forest that is being cut and burned with staggering swiftness. Smoke stacks visible from space climb into the sky above both countries, while satellite images capture similar destruction from the Congo basin, across the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo.

According to the latest audited figures from 2003, two billion tons of CO2 enters the atmosphere every year from deforestation. That destruction amounts to 50 million acres - or an area the size of England, Wales and Scotland felled annually.

The remaining standing forest is calculated to contain 1,000 billion tons of carbon, or double what is already in the atmosphere.

As the GCP's report concludes: "If we lose forests, we lose the fight against climate change."

Standing forest was not included in the original Kyoto protocols and stands outside the carbon markets that the report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed to this month as the best hope for halting catastrophic warming.

The landmark Stern Report last year, and the influential McKinsey Report in January agreed that forests offer the "single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions".

International demand has driven intensive agriculture, logging and ranching that has proved an inexorable force for deforestation; conservation has been no match for commerce. The leading rainforest scientists are now calling for the immediate inclusion of standing forests in internationally regulated carbon markets that could provide cash incentives to halt this disastrous process.

Forestry experts and policy makers have been meeting in Bonn, Germany, this week to try to put deforestation on top of the agenda for the UN climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, this year. Papua New Guinea, among the world's poorest nations, last year declared it would have no choice but to continue deforestation unless it was given financial incentives to do otherwise.

Richer nations already recognise the value of uncultivated land. The EU offers 200 (£135) per hectare subsidies for "environmental services" to its farmers to leave their land unused.

And yet there is no agreement on placing a value on the vastly more valuable land in developing countries. More than 50 per cent of the life on Earth is in tropical forests, which cover less than 7 per cent of the planet's surface.

They generate the bulk of rainfall worldwide and act as a thermostat for the Earth. Forests are also home to 1.6 billion of the world's poorest people who rely on them for subsistence. However, forest experts say governments continue to pursue science fiction solutions to the coming climate catastrophe, preferring bio-fuel subsidies, carbon capture schemes and next-generation power stations.

Putting a price on the carbon these vital forests contain is the only way to slow their destruction. Hylton Philipson, a trustee of Rainforest Concern, explained: "In a world where we are witnessing a mounting clash between food security, energy security and environmental security - while there's money to be made from food and energy and no income to be derived from the standing forest, it's obvious that the forest will take the hit."

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I maintain that the more inexpensive a product is, the more efficient it is. Not always more environmentally efficient, but the chances are decent that it is. Certainly, your statement that the most environmentally efficient things are always more expensive, is utter nonsense. Expense to produce a product includes many components, and one important one is energy. Higher energy use to make more expensive products is not more environmentally efficient. Let us look at other components, such as labor. More labor requires more employees and more time to produce, which also produces more waste in terms of transportation costs and energy use for example, that are not more environmentally efficient. If more equipment is required, or special equipment is required, then that equipment may require components that contain rare minerals or chemicals that may require different kinds of mining operations to extract and special manufacturing techniques to make, all of which are not more environmentally efficient. If higher transportation costs help make products more expensive, which they obviously often do, then the product is not more environmentally efficient.

Of course, you have to measure all of this with how long-lasting the products are, and how they perform as compared to their competition, but the free market also accounts for those considerations as well.

Take ethanol as an example. The free market says it is less efficient and less environmentally efficient as well, as compared to conventional oil production and refining into gasoline. The main reason the ethanol industry is growing is artificial government tax breaks.

Its like a stream of consciousness. Sorry that should read stream of semi-consciousness.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know