BernardR wrote:Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy( even though China and India continue their CO2 emissions full blast BECAUSE they are "developing" countries, are people whose ideas will never be accepted by the US Congress even if that body were to change materially in the next election.
What is to be done?
Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Parados, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.
Bernie, I'm not parados, and I guess I missed reading what you did between his lines, but as an
American, concerned about the environment, I will gladly give you my opinion of what should be done in part.
SAVE THE RAINFORESTS, GODDAMMIT![/b]
Do you know how to read, Mr. Parados.
The numbers given by you were clear--
.22C per decade up to .26C per decade of warming in the troposphere. Those are YOUR numbers.
Now, if you multiply .22C times 5( for 5 decades into the future), you get 1.10C TOTAL WARMING BY 2056
If you multiply .22C times 5 ( for 5 decades into the future), you get 1.30C TOTAL WARMING BY 2056.
As I indicated and I am sure a environmentalist like you can check, the scenarios given by the IPCC range from 2.5C to 4.5C by 2100. This means, of course, that the average gain per decade would be from 2.5C at the low end to 4.5 C at the high end.
Given the .22 per decade OR .26 per decade that YOUR SOURCE claims is truthful, the total by 2100 would be only 2.20C-2.6C by 2100 (CERTAINLY NOT 4.5c TOTAL BY 2100.
Again, and you refuse to engage this comment because it blows all of your left wing extremist, shut down the entire economy now, right out of the water, READ MY PREVIOUS POST WITH COMMENTS BY DR. LOMBERG AND RESPOND TO HIS COMMENTS.
If you are incapable of doing so or too frightened of what it would do to your thesis, I understand.
Dear Princess Pupule- I dont know what you have been reading but I would respecfully refer you to "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomberg.
Dr. Lomborg presents evidence( perhaps you can rebut it with scientific evidence)
P. 117
quote
Tropical forests are being deforested, though on levels much below the feared 1.5-4.6 percent per year--the data from the FAO(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) shows an annual deforestation rate of 0.46 percent or 4.6% a decade.
A third of the land mass of the world is covered by forest and since World War II, this has not changed much.
A solution to the slight deforestation of 0.46 a year can be found if we carefully allocate resources to developing countires to preserve their rain forests. This can be done if we shift the focus away from wasteful and entirely inefficient so called solutions like the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Parados-I don't think you know how to read. Or is it that you cannot answer People like JP in Milwaukee when he writes:
I have already agreed that global warming is indeed happening. I just don't believe that it is as bad as Al Gore and others believe it is. To state that we only have a decade left is ludicrous when the debate over global warming has barely begun.
Again, I believe global warming is happening. I believe man is contributing to it. I think we should all take steps to conserve energy and lower emissions.
I do not think we should do it in a knee-jerk reaction. Rushing into treaties that confine some countries to high standards but not others is not the way to go. Fear mongering is not the way to go. I think there should be open honest debate as to exactly what is causing global warming, what the effects of continued warming will be and what can be done about global warming.
*********************************************************
Are you incapable of responding or are you afraid to do so?
BernardR wrote:I would respecfully refer you to "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomberg.
Dr. Lomborg presents evidence( perhaps you can rebut it with scientific evidence)
May I point out that Lomborg is regarded as some sort of crank among scientists? He was accused of scientific dishonesty and now teaches poli sci at a business school, according to his own website... I wouldn't take anything that statistician wrote to be of any value, except, of course,
to his own bank account. 
BernardR wrote:
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy
Do you have a citation where the left has asked that the US immediately shut down our economy?
Quote:
Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Parados, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.
Care to show me where I said this? That is not my premise. I have never said it was my premise.
Why should I defend the strawman you built? I only need point out it is a strawman. If you can't stick with my actual argument maybe you shouldn't be here.
parados, You're wasting your time with right-wingnuts that project some ideas never spoken or suggested. They all attended moron Bush projection school; they learned well, because they all use it.
A good example from Bernie "...Mr. Parados, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy."
It's just basically a moronic twist of their twisted minds. Ask them to show where you said such a thing, and they'll never answer.
LIke I said, it's a waste of your time. [/b]
BernardR wrote:Do you know how to read, Mr. Parados.
The numbers given by you were clear--
.22C per decade up to .26C per decade of warming in the troposphere. Those are YOUR numbers.
Now, if you multiply .22C times 5( for 5 decades into the future), you get 1.10C TOTAL WARMING BY 2056 For the troposphere only.
If you multiply .22C times 5 ( for 5 decades into the future), you get 1.30C TOTAL WARMING BY 2056. For the troposphere only.
As I indicated and I am sure a environmentalist like you can check, the scenarios given by the IPCC range from 2.5C to 4.5C by 2100. This means, of course, that the average gain per decade would be from 2.5C at the low end to 4.5 C at the high end.
The average gain would be 2.0/110 to 4.5/110 or 1.8 to 4.1 for the century or .18 to .41 per decade. A decade is 10 years, a century is 100. The IPCC uses 110 years. This measurement is for the earth not the troposphere which is what the first numbers are for. Global warming is for ocean, atmosphere, and surface temperatures not just for the troposphere. You are using numbers for troposphere warming and attempting to compare that to numbers for ocean, atmosphere, and surface warming. It isn't a good comparison since the troposphere is a subset of the global readings. You haven't included any ocean warming or surface warming. For instance if the ocean is warming at 1 degree per decade while the troposphere is only .22 it would throw the comparison way off. Sets and subsets are taught in the 5th or 6th grade.
Given the .22 per decade OR .26 per decade that YOUR SOURCE claims is truthful, the total by 2100 would be only 2.20C-2.6C by 2100 (CERTAINLY NOT 4.5c TOTAL BY 2100.
Is your only argument to misrepresent what others said? the IPCC doesn't say it will be 2.5 to 4.5 by 2100 from 2006. It says it wil be 2.0 to 4.5 from 1990 to 2100... that is 110 year. NOT the 94 you are misrepresenting. I quoted the IPCC report with a link in a previous post. At this point I think you are intentionally misrepresenting because you can't deal with what the IPCC actually said.
Quote:Again, and you refuse to engage this comment because it blows all of your left wing extremist, shut down the entire economy now, right out of the water, READ MY PREVIOUS POST WITH COMMENTS BY DR. LOMBERG AND RESPOND TO HIS COMMENTS.
More strawman. Cite where I said we need to shut down the entire economy right now.
Quote:If you are incapable of doing so or too frightened of what it would do to your thesis, I understand.
Ooh.. I am so frightened by your strawman. It continues to be a strawman. You can argue the same strawman for the next 50 years. It won't change the underlying facts. You misrepresent what I have said. You misrepresent what the IPCC said.
For clarity, I have highlighted all your errors in
red and my comments on your errors are in
blue
Princess Pupule- I am very sorry to inform you that Mr.Thomas( who is never wrong about matters of credentials) has informed all on these threads that your idea that Dr. Lomberg is a crank is completely false.
I will, of course, listen to evidence from you but in the absence of any real documentation I must say you are egregiously mistaken.
I would ask you to start with the figure given by the UNITED NATIONS in my post that says that only 0.46 of tropical forests have been lost per year. If you can show that the figure is bogus or that the UN is not a good source, please do so.
In the meantime, may I respectfully remind you that your unadorned opinion on scientific matters( unless you are a PHD Climatologist, of course), is not worth very much.
Let us see some evidence that you are not just bloviating>
Mr. Parados. I am afraid that you are unable to read. Therefore, I will allow you to review AGAIN the material given by Dr.Lomborg, which, I am quite certain, you are completely unable to rebut. Would you like me to post it paragraph by paragraph so that your appearently weak reading skills can handle it?
I can't vouch for the reliability of this link, but here's some info on deforestation.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/primary_alpha.html
Mr. Parados. Why are you so afraid of responding directly to what is posted below? Is it because if you do, it will blow your "Sky is falling" scenario right out of the water?
Or is it that you cannot answer People like JP in Milwaukee when he writes:
I have already agreed that global warming is indeed happening. I just don't believe that it is as bad as Al Gore and others believe it is. To state that we only have a decade left is ludicrous when the debate over global warming has barely begun.
Again, I believe global warming is happening. I believe man is contributing to it. I think we should all take steps to conserve energy and lower emissions.
I do not think we should do it in a knee-jerk reaction. Rushing into treaties that confine some countries to high standards but not others is not the way to go. Fear mongering is not the way to go. I think there should be open honest debate as to exactly what is causing global warming, what the effects of continued warming will be and what can be done about global warming.
*********************************************************
Are you incapable of responding or are you afraid to do so?
BernardR wrote:Mr. Parados. I am afraid that you are unable to read. Therefore, I will allow you to review AGAIN the material given by Dr.Lomborg, which, I am quite certain, you are completely unable to rebut. Would you like me to post it paragraph by paragraph so that your appearently weak reading skills can handle it?
Failing to address your use of the strawman again Bernard?
Lombard was brought up to support your strawman. Until you cite where I said the US should stop all economic activity there is no reason for me to address Lombard since it is brought up as support for a strawman.
You are incorrect, Mr. Parados! You apparently do not know that the Tropospheric Temeratures are vital in the measurement of Global Warming and if they are only .22 to .26 per decade, it means that the temperature increase in the troposphere means less water feedback and a SMALLER WARMING ESTIMATE.
IF YOU GO TO THE LAST C O M P L E T E PUBLISHED IPCC REPORT YOU WILL FIND THAT THE IPCC ITSELF STATES THAT THE PROBLEM OF DIVERGING TEMPERATURES IN MODELS AND OBSERVATIONS ARE THE FIRST IMPORTANT UNCERTAINTY FOUND.
2001a:12 excutive summary of IPCC
Now, instead of dodging and bloviating, Mr. Parados--I DARE you to post the PREDICTIONS MADE BY THE IPCC( whenever) and THE NEW MEASUREMENTS( which you already gave) of the "new" Tropospheric temperature measurements.
Perhaps you can show us all how the Tropospheric measurements of temperature change CORRESPONDS to the Surface readings. If you cannot do this, Sir, then you must retire from the debate as one who makes fraudulent claims>
I'm proud of you, parados. You are now learning not to respond to stupid questions projected from their own imagination.
It is apparent. Mr. Parados, that you cannot respond to the material below since it ruins your drumbeat of impending and close disaster. Why are you so shy? You post all other kinds of garbage but cannot respond directly to the comments below and the comments made by Mr. Jp in Milwaukee which I previously replicated?
Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy( even though China and India continue their CO2 emissions full blast BECAUSE they are "developing" countries, are people whose ideas will never be accepted by the US Congress even if that body were to change materially in the next election.
What is to be done?
Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Parados, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.
Taken from the book'The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
(And before you even try to shoot the messenger, Mr. Parados, please remember that Mr. Thomas showed us how and why any left wing attacks on this author and books FAILED UTTERLY)
quote
P.322
First,Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way, or do we want to use global warming as a STEPPING STONE TO OTHER POLITICAL PROJECTS...( like the left wing extremists do)?
Second, we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world.....
The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to basics like health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is the fact that if we could muster such a a missive investment in the present day developing countries, this would also give them a muchj better future position in terms of resources and infrastructure from which to MANAGE A FUTURE GLOBAL WARMING.
Third, we should realize that the cost of global warming will be substantial--about 5 Trillion, Since cutting back CO2 emissions QUICKLY BECOMES VERY COSTLY, AND EASILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, WE SAHOULD FOCUS MORE OF OUR EFFORTS AT FINDINGS WAYS OF EASING THE EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES OVER THE LONG RUN. PARTLY, THIS MEANS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST MUCH MORE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER,FUSION AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."
Since I am certain that you do not keep up with the news, Mr. Parados, I will give you some news that you probably do not understand.
Source_ Chicago Tribune- July 26, 2006- P. 5
quote
"The cities of Matton and Tuscola (Illinois) are potential locations for an ambitious project which seeks to transform the nation's abundant but air-fouling coal supply into a clean burning fuel that could meet the country's energy needs for the next 250 years...The carbon dioxide produced by the plant will be captured, liquified and pumped into geologic reservoirs deep below the ground"
Since you are so fixated on the Gore type of scenario, Mr. Parados, you probably do not realize that this is exactly the kind of solution offered by JP in Milwaukee and Dr. Lomborg.
The problem with the environmentalist crazies is that they think the world will end in 2010 and that New York will be flooded by 2015. This kind of thinking is ridiculous.
The slight bit of Global Warming that we may have can be easily handled in the next fifty years by technological advances.
The left wing and the US haters would like to demonize our industries for not providing environmental answers fast enough.
As the article points out, these plants will be finished by 2010. That is plenty of time and, when added to other technological advances will be more than what is needed.
I am amazed that Mr. Parados, who knows everything about Global Warming EXCEPT THE IMPORTANT FACTS, has no comment regarding the FAILURE OF MOST OF THE EU COUNTRIES TO MEET THEIR KYOTO PREVIOUSLY AGREED TARGETS>
Mr. Parados is the kind of researcher who assiduously ignores any evidence that makes his thesis look foolish>
Have you written a protest to the EU laggards about their failure to meet their assigned Kyoto quotas, Mr. Parados or, have you, like most politically driven left wing critics, who are not interested in the science, but only in partisanship, confined your critiques to the USA?
You won't answer this one either, will you, Mr. Parados!!!
