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

The former UK's PM Tony Blair will lead a new international team to tackle the intractable problem of securing a global deal on climate change.

I wonder who pays him. Follow the money trail and it will tell you the true story.

Blair was carrying out the unpaid seven-day tour in his role as a consultant to The Climate Group, a nonprofit organization which is funded by corporations and governments from around the world.

Yes, that is my understanding too, but you can't have it both ways. Either plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere or the plant cycle is a zero sum gaime.

Quote:

Blair was carrying out the unpaid seven-day tour in his role as a consultant to The Climate Group, a nonprofit organization which is funded by corporations and governments from around the world.

Source

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, that is my understanding too, but you can't have it both ways. Either plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere or the plant cycle is a zero sum gaime.

Left to itself the natural cycle is a zero sum game. You can refuse to believe it all you want but the ice cores say otherwise.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, that is my understanding too, but you can't have it both ways. Either plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere or the plant cycle is a zero sum gaime.

Left to itself the natural cycle is a zero sum game. You can refuse to believe it all you want but the ice cores say otherwise.

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, that is my understanding too, but you can't have it both ways. Either plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere or the plant cycle is a zero sum gaime.

Left to itself the natural cycle is a zero sum game. You can refuse to believe it all you want but the ice cores say otherwise.

So it does no good to plant trees then, because when you plant a tree, you plant a life cycle.

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, that is my understanding too, but you can't have it both ways. Either plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere or the plant cycle is a zero sum gaime.

Left to itself the natural cycle is a zero sum game. You can refuse to believe it all you want but the ice cores say otherwise.

If we assume that you are correct, then the IPPC is using very bad science to recommend that countries with large amounts of vegetation receive carbon credits based on the presence of that vegetation.

Burning down vegetation increases CO2 output. So paying people with large amounts of vegetation to keep that vegetation intact sounds like a very GOOD plan to me.

Agreed on all of the above. Good point about circular argments going nowhere.

When you boil it down, one of my biggest problems with environmentalism is the idea that the earth is fragile and that we need to somehow "save it." I don't think it is fragile at all, and I think the systems, including the carbon cycle, are built with checks and balances. The whole idea of a 'tipping point" sort of runs counter to the idea that the earth is really quite tough, and when something starts going out of balance, there are always factors that bring things back to balance. I just don't think nature is built like a delicate balance that is set to be disastrous with a puff of wind that comes along.

Agreed on all of the above. Good point about circular argments going nowhere.

When you boil it down, one of my biggest problems with environmentalism is the idea that the earth is fragile and that we need to somehow "save it." I don't think it is fragile at all, and I think the systems, including the carbon cycle, are built with checks and balances. The whole idea of a 'tipping point" sort of runs counter to the idea that the earth is really quite tough, and when something starts going out of balance, there are always factors that bring things back to balance. I just don't think nature is built like a delicate balance that is set to be disastrous with a puff of wind that comes along.

Agreed on all of the above. Good point about circular argments going nowhere.

When you boil it down, one of my biggest problems with environmentalism is the idea that the earth is fragile and that we need to somehow "save it." I don't think it is fragile at all, and I think the systems, including the carbon cycle, are built with checks and balances. The whole idea of a 'tipping point" sort of runs counter to the idea that the earth is really quite tough, and when something starts going out of balance, there are always factors that bring things back to balance. I just don't think nature is built like a delicate balance that is set to be disastrous with a puff of wind that comes along.

Agreed on all of the above. Good point about circular argments going nowhere.

When you boil it down, one of my biggest problems with environmentalism is the idea that the earth is fragile and that we need to somehow "save it." I don't think it is fragile at all, and I think the systems, including the carbon cycle, are built with checks and balances. The whole idea of a 'tipping point" sort of runs counter to the idea that the earth is really quite tough, and when something starts going out of balance, there are always factors that bring things back to balance. I just don't think nature is built like a delicate balance that is set to be disastrous with a puff of wind that comes along.

Climate Group is "is an independent, nonprofit organisation dedicated to advancing business and government leadership on climate change. "

Independent... and sponsored by Dow Chemical which wants to sell its carbon quotas for having reduced the emission it would reduce anyway, HSBC & JP Morgan which have set up a huge carbon compensation business, Virgin which sells space tour tickets...

He is backed by the Climate Group, a not-for-profit organisation supported by business. He is drawing together a team of international experts, including Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the groundbreaking report on the costs of climate change, and specialists from China, Japan, the US and Europe.

parados wrote:

Burning down vegetation increases CO2 output. So paying people with large amounts of vegetation to keep that vegetation intact sounds like a very GOOD plan to me.

You ignore nature, Parados, which indicates that burning is an integral part of and healthy, at least to a certain extent. The reason Yellowstone Park, just one example of many in the west, the reason it became so overgrown and too thickly populated with spindly trees was because of a policy of fire suppression. Forest managers are now recognizing that fire is good and very beneficial to the health of forests, not only for plants but the soil and other wildlife, also to suppress disease and insects that attack forests. Selective logging and thinning of forests can also be a healthy thing for forests. According to my reading, even ancient indians recognized this and sometimes torched areas to benefit the forests and hunting areas. Actually in regard to lightning, it is a part of nature for a reason, and forest managers are finally waking up to it.

So to keep vegetation intact and largely prevented from burning is not a good policy long term.

Parados seems to be debating both sides of the issue - living plants are an effective tool in removing CO2 but plants are a zero sum game in the overall accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. I agree with him on the first part which would support the IPPC recommendation; but if he is correct on the second part, then the IPPC granting of carbon credits to countries with lots of vegetation would be a badly flawed policy. I mean those countries have been recycling that vegetation for a lot of centuries now--a lot longer than any trees normally live--so those countries, according to Parados, are emitting at least as much CO2 as they are removing.

Quote:

Why don't you just ignore ALL of my posts Foxfyre instead of the just the parts that you don't want to believe?

Quote:

And when you start looking at circular arguments like that, it really does start looking sillier and sillier.

It only looks circular because you are spinning so much Fox. Stop spinning and you might not be so dizzy.

Quote:

Actually when you start looking at ALL the science instead of just the limited studies the IPPC allows for its conclusions, the whole concept starts looking pretty silly. Certainly we have been in a warming trend for some time now, but we also know that the Earth warms and cools with predictable regularlity over any given amount of time. To assume that humans can change that situation seems silly. To assume that we should even try to do so seems silly.

All the science? You mean like the crap that ican keeps posting where he can't even get his math correct let alone his logic?

Quote:

And even if humans have in fact contributed to fluctuations in mean temperatures across the Earth, to think that we are going to rewind human generated CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to a pre-industrial age is REALLY silly. Far better to focus on policies that help us adapt better to whatever environmental changes are going to occur including a dramatically increasing population on Earth.

Why is it silly? We know the ocean removes more CO2 than humans put out. If humans stop putting out CO2 the ocean will continue to absorb from what has accumulated. It's a little thing called "science" which if you bothered to look at all the science you would know what I was talking about. (Henry's law)

Quote:

(I wonder why that hasn't been factored into those IPCC recommendations? Let's just stop producing people and the problem should stablilize right away. One generation with a moratorium on having babies and the problem is solved.)

Sure. There is your science right there. Babies are the cause of the increase in CO2. Making idiotic statement sure makes your argument for you Fox. Why don't you post a cartoon to go with your cartoon statement?