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

Apart from being rather self serving and selective, your quoting contains no comment. Do you think your opinion is worthless ? I would like to remind you of a concept in criminal law called Provocation. Or does your limited knowledge of the world not extend to anything other then Climate Change and bullying ?

I will accept your apology for you being the first to insult me when you are man enough to give it. Given your current maturity, that should be when the next Glacial Advance occurs.

So, you think the odds of picking the correct numbers in the lottery are 50/50 and you want to explain statistics to others?

So.. it's good enough for weather? But isn't climate nothing more than weather over time?

I am curious how weather in 2009 is different from weather in 1850. Unless you can show that the highs and lows are somehow different today from what they were 150 years ago, I see no rational argument from you. Would you argue that graphing the high temperature for a given day is always inaccurate? Would you argue graphing the low temperature is always inaccurate?

Your source for this?

I like it when you repeat what I say. It is called rote learning and I believe it to be your only chance to learn anything. It also gives my view more space.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with the internal logic of the article below.

Cap-and-trade mirage

By Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel
Saturday, October 31, 2009

Supporters of the climate bill passed by the House and the similar bill under consideration in the Senate -- including President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders -- say that the cap-and-trade approach would guarantee greenhouse-gas reductions. But this claim ignores the flaws inherent in both bills that would undermine even their weak emissions-reduction targets and would lock in climate degradation.

We are speaking out as parents, citizens and attorneys, but our analysis is informed by more than 20 years each at the Environmental Protection Agency's San Francisco Regional Office, including Allan's extensive experience overseeing California's cap-and-trade and offsets programs for the EPA.

Cap-and-trade means a declining "cap" on total emissions, while allowing trading of pollution permits. Confidence in the certainty of declining caps is based on the mistaken assumption that cap-and trade was proven in the EPA's acid rain program. In fact, addressing acid rain required relatively minor modifications to coal-fired power plants. Reductions were accomplished primarily by a fuel switch to readily available, affordable, low-sulfur coal, along with some additional scrubbing. In contrast, the issues presented by climate change cannot be solved by tweaks to facilities; it requires an energy revolution through investments in building clean-energy facilities.

The biggest obstacle to this revolution is that uncontrolled fossil fuel energy remains much cheaper than clean energy. Cap-and-trade alone will not create confidence that clean energy will become profitable within a known time frame and so will not ignite the huge shift in investment needed to begin the clean-energy revolution. In recent interviews, even the economists who thought up cap-and-trade have said they don't believe it's an appropriate tool for climate change.

What guarantees failure of the proposed climate bills, however, are their provisions for carbon offsets, a concept not used in the acid rain program. Both bills allow all required greenhouse-gas reductions for almost 20 years to be met with carbon offsets rather than actual reductions in use of the capped sources. Offsets -- considered indispensable to keeping cap-and-trade affordable -- are supposed to be "additional" reductions beyond what is legally required. But experience with offsets in Europe and California has shown that ensuring real "additionality" is not an achievable goal.

Suppose, for example, that a landowner is paid not to cut his forest so that it can continue capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Purchasing this offset allows owners of a coal-fired power plant to burn extra coal, above the cap.

But if the landowner wasn't planning to cut his forest, he just received a bonus for doing what he would have done anyway. Even if he was planning to cut his forest and doesn't, demand for wood isn't reduced. A different forest will be cut. Either way, there is no net reduction in production of greenhouse gases. The result of this carbon "offset" is not a decrease but an increase -- coal burning above the cap at the power plant.

Or consider the refrigerant HCFC-22, the manufacture of which creates an extremely powerful greenhouse gas as a byproduct. This byproduct is relatively easy and cheap to destroy, and governments could require refrigerant manufacturers to do just that. But offset investors have persuaded regulators to approve destruction of the byproduct as a carbon offset, making it twice as profitable to sell byproduct destruction as it was to sell the refrigerant.

Some have even fought to keep release of this byproduct legal because, otherwise, destruction of the byproduct would no longer produce offsets as it would no longer be "additional." The situation also creates incentive for some to make unneeded refrigerant to profit from byproduct offsets.

Carbon offsets create the illusion of "additional" greenhouse-gas reductions, but we are just getting business as usual. Untrackable shifting of economic activity and perverse incentives such as these are inherent problems for carbon offsets and cannot be solved by certification or verification processes. Since the most flawed offsets will be the cheapest, they will also be the most popular.

The House and Senate climate bills are not a first step in the right direction. They would give away valuable rights in cap-and-trade permits and create a trillion-dollar carbon-offsets market that will not lead to needed reductions. Together, the illusion of greenhouse-gas reductions and the creation of powerful lobbies seeking to protect newly created profits in permits and offsets would lock in climate degradation for a decade or more. The near-term opportunity to create an effective international framework would also be lost.

Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel are lawyers with the Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed here are their own and not those of the EPA. Their discussion paper and video on climate change solutions are online at www.carbonfees.org.

It would be best if you read what I write before you reply. If only so I dont feel like I am picking on someone with a mental handicap.


It is called the weather...it changes.

The highs and lows are what give you the middle point. This is what has been used to support Global Warming. By saying there is no change you have argued against Global Warming. Congratulations. You have just changed sides, but as the first to welcome you, might I say you are not welcome. Go back to the other side.

I thought we agreed the highs and lows were accurately measured ? Did you understand so little or are you joking ? Are you doing art at school ?

You cant be serious.
This is your worst effort to date. This has become very one-sided. You will have to do better.

I will accept your apology for insulting me when are you man enough to give it.

In your opinion, what should be done ?

Here is what you wrote....
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-733#post-3797390

You clearly stated the odds of winning the lottery are 50/50 since I had stated, "If we use your logic Ionus, the odds of winning the lottery would be 50/50 because you can only win/lose." You can deny it all you want but it's right there for all to read. What are the "odds of winning"? You stated they were 50/50.

You then repeated it here
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-734#post-3798615


Perhaps YOU should read what you write Ionus. There is no question that you claimed the odds of winning the lottery is 50/50. Since the ONLY way to win the lottery is to pick the correct numbers, the odds of winning are NOT 50/50.

Until you can explain how the odds of winning the lottery are 50/50 and provide mathematical evidence, I see no reason for anyone to trust you when it comes to statistics.

If the highs are accurate and the lows are accurate, then that would mean graphing the highs would be accurate and graphing the lows would be accurate, would it not?

Correct.

It was in your reference to what I said:
I find I have to repeat myself a lot with you. Again, why is that so hard to understand ????? Think of it like a light switch. It is either off or on. Never both. These have a 50/50 probablity. Other factors influence whether it is found off or on. These give you the chance of it being off or on at a particluar time. Is this some game to you were you stall, obfuscate and deny ?

In Lotto there are two possibilities. Win or lose (actually there is a third state, a draw even, but you are having enough trouble) are the two possibilities. The chances of one of those for any given individual are not known as there are too many variables. So it is estimated by mathematics what they are statistically.

Perhaps YOU should read what I write parados.

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-734#post-3798615<br />

So.. if I ask you to choose a number from 1 to 3, you think the odds of you picking the correct one is 1 out of 2?

So.. if the highs show a trend and the lows show a trend then we can find the trend of BOTH by simply averaging the two. (simple algebra)

Can we have a cessation of this?

What the hell, why not discuss more stuff that doesn't deal with the actual causes of climate change?

ASSUME:
(1) There are 1,000 electronic thermometers distributed uniformly over the entire surface of the earth, including its lands, oceans, and surface waters;
(2) The temperatures in each thermometer is recorded electronically in a common computerized data base each second of every year;

How would you compute the average annual global temperature for each year within a 100 year period, and for the entire 100 year period?

You could compute it any way you want. If you don't like the way science does it then tell us why they are doing it wrong and be specific about it. This vague crap you guys post is nothing but crap.

You don't like their specifics but you can't put up your own. The problem ican, is the stuff you post doesn't support your idiotic conclusions. Science is such that most reasonable people using the same facts would come to similar conclusions or if not would show why they come to a different one. You guys just spout stuff and then prove you are wrong by posting stuff over and over that disputes what you said.

Incorrect.

I think you misunderstand. To the best of my recollection you have not insulted me. I was genuinely interested in your opinion. The basis of any forum I think is communication. Apart from parados, who I think has mental health issues, I am happy to discuss with anyone. I understand both sides of the debate are unhappy with cap and trade. I was simply curious as to what alternate ideas another person might have on the matter. I will only retaliate if vilified. I cant say your opinion is wrong. This can only be done with hindsight and by then it is too late and rather counter productive anyway. But there is no science that supports Global Warming. It is a guess because there are too many assumptions. This does not mean that anyone who is of the opinion that Global Warming will occur is wrong, it simply means they can not say it is fact. But I respect their opinion that it may happen unless they attempt to vilify me. Please, I would like to discuss possible alternatives to cap and trade.

Wouldnt it be better if I said what I think ? You are having enough trouble thinking for yourself.

I thought ican was getting to the heart of the matter. A psychologist will tell you we only attack when we feel threatened. You attack an awful lot of people, dont you parados ?