How Credible is This "Global Warming?"

[ZephyrLeanne]

Let's look at it.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

However, what I do know is that cap and trade is the biggest load of horseshit ever generated by a politician in Washington.

Response: One, the cap-and-trade thing wasn't started by the US, it was another EU invention. Yes people, the EU's been on this since the Euro was introduced. Or was it direct elections for MEPs? One thing's for sure, the EU's been on this way earlier than D.C.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Seriously, enviro-crazies, do you really, honestly think it's a good idea to nearly double the cost of energy in a worldwide recession? The economy is already a pile of shit, and you want to make it worse just so you can feel good about preventing a massive worldwide catastrophe that, like most doomsday predictions, is utter nonsense?

Response: While it's not a good idea to jack up energy costs, ANYTIME, the truth is that it' not the greenies who's behind it, it's the OIL CORPS themselves. Why? Because oil is limited, and just like gold, it's a commodity, whose prices rise with demand. And to increase profits further, they merely have to cut down supply. Or OPEC does that. Or even Russia. Either way, [COLOR="rgb(154, 205, 50)"]greenies[/COLOR] aren't the source of rising energy costs.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Look. You don't have to do anything. The market will lean toward green tech. It's already starting. Letting the government force everyone to lower their "carbon footprint" (what a stupid term) won't save the world from the apocalypse, but it will keep a bunch of seniors and low-income folk from heating their homes in the winter.

Response: Well, look at it. Green tech!? Yeah right, green tech indeed. The rate this is going, we'll have a nuclear war BEFORE an apocalypse. The number of nuke-nations are increasing slowly but surely each day, and you tell me that the market is leaning to green-tech? If that were so, Australia would be heading towards bankruptcy now since it's biggest exports are coal and nuclear elements (plutonium or uranium, I can't remember).

The only way to solve this is to spark off a green-tech race, like Russia did with space tech in the Cold War era.

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

Ok, to start off - I'm educated. I have a degree in physics.


You can't be serious?
It's the big oil companies who are pushing and promoting this, they stand to make mega money from it. The oil and energy companies aren't worried about containing anything, nor about potential taxes on emissions, because the know that the entire tab will be picked up by their customers. If there's a 2% VAT on emissions, our energy costs will go up by 20%. (In fact, they will probably double).

Response: Well, I'm not too familiar with the EU 2% tax, but I understand. Japan's in that situation now. So yeah.

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

When you ask if the illuminati are organising it all, you're not far off. It's bankers, always.

Response: As they always say, Government Sachs.

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

So I question these gullible American ignorants, who have a free country, and wish to keep it that way, by not letting their politicians sign away their liberty. While at the same time, we in Europe have already signed away our ability to vote for anything in this dictatorship.

Response: Yes, I understand there's a loss of sovereignty on joining the EU, but then again, the people VOTED for it and you VOTE for the MEPs and that's the meaning of democracy. You want dictatorship? Try China.

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

As already stated - big businesses don't pay for it - the regular citizen picks up the tab in inflated living costs and new taxes.

Response: Especially in Japan.

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

I don't want to be picking up the tab for the bureaucrats who fly private jets and ride gas guzzling limos to get to their conferences in Copenhagen. The vast majority of people are the ones who don't want to pay - and quite rightly, they shouldn't.

Response:And to add to it, they had to do it in winter where energy costs shoot up. Wow.

Originally Posted by Mentar

There is a debate going on about HOW Global Warming should be dealt with, but not that there's an urgent need to act NOW, to make sure that things aren't out of control in 50 years.

Response:I think we also need to think how to avert a nuclear war while at it. Or else the Earth won't kick us out, we'll kick each other out first.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. Isn't he a billionaire now? I love the articles that show he has a larger carbon footprint than GWB does by a country mile. Who's really green here?

Response:LOL. Follow Biden's example: He takes the Acela. I've been a High-speed rail proponent.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'm an advocate of natural gas as a transition fuel -- it has several decades at full replacement use before it will start to trail off - and in the US we have quite a lot of it. Its quite clean when compared over the entire extraction and usage cycle to other energy sources.

Response:So why does the US still need biofuel when biofuel is actually DIRTIER than natural gas? Goodness.

Originally Posted by Vexx

However, the coal industry is the one lobbying rather successfully to hamstring the expansion of natural gas usage. And sorry... cleaning up coal has come a long way but it is still a terrible choice until we have no other choices - and we have a lot of other choices. This is when the label "dem" or "gop" (left or right) is misleading or tells you little about a politician rather than who has purchased their influence.

Response: Well, that's true.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I can't remember who suggested that politicians should have to dress like NASCAR racers with all their sponsors plastered all over their outfits -- the size of the patch tells you how deeply in the pocket of Corp X they are.

LOL.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Response:So why does the US still need biofuel when biofuel is actually DIRTIER than natural gas? Goodness.

your thinking corn based... and the future is on algae

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...ofuel-promise/
http://www.ecoseed.org/en/component/...t/article/5540

And corn sucks for general use unless your into tuner car scene...

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by mg1942

your thinking corn based... and the future is on algae

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...ofuel-promise/
http://www.ecoseed.org/en/component/...t/article/5540

And corn sucks for general use unless your into tuner car scene...

Algae doesn't seem to be catching up fast enough. And like nuclear, algae must be properly controlled so that it doesn't leak out of the farm and cause a marine crisis.

Jatropha might have been better. You can grow it anywhere that you can't grow food.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by mg1942

We have a 40 year supply of natural gas to run power plants and cars... It is far cleaner than oil or coal, even less Co2 for the whack job alarmists, less expensive than oil but more than coal. We don't have 40 years like I said but 90... we have 90 years worth of the stuff they have found so far... we have a glut of it.

90 years, wow. Well, I won't live that long, so there's no problem for me. Just make sure I don't have to pay extra in the meantime, and I so don't care what happens after me. Yep, that's exactly the kind of thinking I find so lovable.

On the issue itself, we're actually agreed. An increased usage of natural gas would be better (cleaner) than coal/oil.

Problem is the current administration is lumping it in with oil and gas. They want wind turbines and stuff... "Why?" you ask. Why is the media not all over this?

What's so wrong with wind turbines? Especially in a country with fairly low population density in parts like the US, turbines might be a real option there, as an addition to the energy mix.

Well, there can be no carbon credit scams as demonstrated in Europe. No money for the warmists to make over this. The government needn't grow to put it in place. It is pretty seamless as I have said in the past.

What "carbon credit scams" are you talking about? And what was "demonstrated" here? I hear alot of buzzwords flying around, and I'm wondering if they're only regurgitated or actually understood.

The general idea of trying to control CO2 by making emissions of it a cost factor is generally sound. The question is mostly how it's properly implemented. There certainly can be debates about that. But unless some kind of binding regulation is put into legislation, we're screwing ourselves over - unless of course, the scientist consensus is totally wrong and the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Fat chance.

And no, nothing is seamless at all. Right now, everyone can pollute CO2 as he can see fit. It's like a chemical plant that would be allowed to flush any waste into a neighboring river. Naturally that is NOT allowed - there is legislation to prevent that. Why? Because the impact on people living close to the river is tangible, and if it turns into a poisonous brook (like at the early stages of the industrialization), it annoys or even harms those living there. This is what caused anti-pollution legislation to be created, not "free market without government" and all this buzzword bullshit I hear flying around here.

This is the "problem" of Climate Change: The impact on people is not tangible. There is no CO2 smog in the morning to get pissed off over. Children don't grow up deformed because of it. It kinda reminds me of the experiment of putting a frog into water (with a ladder to escape out of the water) and sloooowly cooking the water it is in. The frog will die rather than climb out. Why? Because he only reacts to tangible changes in the heat, and if it's not perceivable for him, he will eventually die. Thank god that mankind is much smarter than frogs, right?

But the goracle and the "scientists" and the government make almost nothing off it. All their carefully crafted carbon tax schemes go out the window... no growth or trillions of bucks in graft.

Oh really? Who is paying what exactly, and where is the money going? What is it used for? Reducing the whole issue to a money-making scheme for climate researchers is ridiculous. How many of them do exist, in your opinion?

The power companies are just saying "fuck it" and converting to natural gas anyhow. They are gonna use it to bypass all the regulation and fines and taxation the government and the warmists had so carefully planned and crafted for them.

In case it escaped your eye, the "warmists" are _paying_ for what they think is responsible. Not making money off it. Those nations who will adhere to the Copenhagen non-compromise anyway will take a significant financial hit, while mindless and selfish polluter drones will just carry on. And even better: While they harm everyone, they're berating those who put in effort. It's like people living in a student community who not only refuse to wash their dishes, but piss on the table at the same time, ridiculing those who eventually clean up.

Wonderful people, really.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Mentar

What's so wrong with wind turbines? Especially in a country with fairly low population density in parts like the US, turbines might be a real option there, as an addition to the energy mix.

Like nuclear, people NEED to be a distance away from the farm. Here's a classic example.

Wind farm 'kills Taiwanese goats'

A large number of goats in Taiwan may have died of exhaustion because of noise from a wind farm.
A farmer on an outlying island told the BBC he had lost more than 400 animals after eight giant wind turbines were installed close to his grazing land.

What "carbon credit scams" are you talking about? And what was "demonstrated" here? I hear alot of buzzwords flying around, and I'm wondering if they're only regurgitated or actually understood.

The general idea of trying to control CO2 by making emissions of it a cost factor is generally sound. The question is mostly how it's properly implemented. There certainly can be debates about that. But unless some kind of binding regulation is put into legislation, we're screwing ourselves over - unless of course, the scientist consensus is totally wrong and the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Fat chance.

Usually, the generally wise idea then turns into YET ANOTHER pork-barelling opportunity. Witness Japan.

Oh really? Who is paying what exactly, and where is the money going? What is it used for? Reducing the whole issue to a money-making scheme for climate researchers is ridiculous. How many of them do exist, in your opinion?

As I said, it's NOT THE SCIENTISTS. It's the POLITICIANS!

In case it escaped your eye, the "warmists" are paying for what they think is responsible. Not making money off it. Those nations who will adhere to the Copenhagen non-compromise anyway will take a significant financial hit,

The peoples of the nations maybe, but definitely NOT the leadership. As I said, it's a chance to pork-barrel.

while mindless and selfish polluter drones will just carry on. And even better: While they harm everyone, they're berating those who put in effort. It's like people living in a student community who not only refuse to wash their dishes, but piss on the table at the same time, ridiculing those who eventually clean up.

Wonderful people, really.

Like the US. Then the Japanese people have to pay to:

1. Clean up their mess
2. Give them place to roam (witness US Marines raep Okinawa girls like as though it was a never-ending Rape of Nanjing)
3. Be their lackey for 60 years
4. Pay for the UN peacekeeping that they initate but don't contribute to
5. Deprive Japan of a Security Council seat even with the above
6. Make fun of Japanese culture while IN JAPAN
7. And generally making Japan look like bakas.

Wowee.

[MeoTwister5]

This is the "problem" of Climate Change: The impact on people is not tangible. There is no CO2 smog in the morning to get pissed off over. Children don't grow up deformed because of it. It kinda reminds me of the experiment of putting a frog into water (with a ladder to escape out of the water) and sloooowly cooking the water it is in. The frog will die rather than climb out. Why? Because he only reacts to tangible changes in the heat, and if it's not perceivable for him, he will eventually die. Thank god that mankind is much smarter than frogs, right?

And this in itself is really the root of the problem: if it ain't happening to them, they don't give a damn. If it isn't going to happen now, if it's going to happen when this generation's dead, they don't give a damn. Once people do start giving a damn, it's usually limited to their immediate areas because... well, everything else isn't connected to them, right?

It's completely a reactive stance, to deal with the problem when it's already slapped you in the face. Then again, how are you going to stop someone from slapping you upside when they already did? Even if the radicals are wrong, that we haven't given mother nature the bitchslap, we certainly as hell given her the finger. Best we can do is not slap the jeebus out of her.

So my convoluted metaphorical point probably didn't make too much sense so I guess I should point it out: It's a sad part of human nature to be nearsighted.

@Shimathekat

Which is why we shouldn't have sent politicians (and I mean every nation involed, as I'm not a Westerner) to do a scientist's job.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

And this in itself is really the root of the problem: if it ain't happening to them, they don't give a damn. If it isn't going to happen now, if it's going to happen when this generation's dead, they don't give a damn. Once people do start giving a damn, it's usually limited to their immediate areas because... well, everything else isn't connected to them, right?

It's completely a reactive stance, to deal with the problem when it's already slapped you in the face. Then again, how are you going to stop someone from slapping you upside when they already did? Even if the radicals are wrong, that we haven't given mother nature the bitchslap, we certainly as hell given her the finger. Best we can do is not slap the jeebus out of her.

So my convoluted metaphorical point probably didn't make too much sense so I guess I should point it out: It's a sad part of human nature to be nearsighted.

Have a look at this.

Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver...?

About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.
So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US?

1. KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL
In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened.
The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a last-minute deal in a back room

2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM
Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.
Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support.

3. BAD TIMING
It is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions, and he is also attempting major healthcare reforms.

4. THE HOST GOVERNMENT
The government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong.
Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of "important countries" - thereby annoying every country not on the list.

5. THE WEATHER
It was snowing heavily. Need I say more?

6. EU POLITICS (Definitely.)

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Mentar

What "carbon credit scams" are you talking about? And what was "demonstrated" here? I hear alot of buzzwords flying around, and I'm wondering if they're only regurgitated or actually understood.

We may now get to see just how easy it was to defraud California of millions in a sealed cap and trade fraud case now being ordered open for examination...

...and California fraud is nothing compared to how much organized crime has robbed Europe $7.4 billion as reported by the Europol

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. Isn't he a billionaire now? I love the articles that show he has a larger carbon footprint than GWB does by a country mile. Who's really green here?

Goracle is poised to become the world's first 'carbon billionaire', profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

and btw Goldman Sachs and AIG are absolutely salivating over the opportunity to trade these dubious carbon credits on the stock market, which wont do anything to help the environment but will make some investors very rich. cap and trade is the next big stock market bubble, the next great ponzi scheme.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Have a look at this.

Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver...?

About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.
So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US?

1. KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL
In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened.
The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a last-minute deal in a back room

2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM
Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.
Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support.

3. BAD TIMING
It is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions, and he is also attempting major healthcare reforms.

4. THE HOST GOVERNMENT
The government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong.
Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of "important countries" - thereby annoying every country not on the list.

5. THE WEATHER
It was snowing heavily. Need I say more?

6. EU POLITICS (Definitely.)

Whichever side of the argument you are on, those points that led to the "failure" (Quotations because some people still contest whether it was a success of failure for some reason) are already pretty much obvious. Notice again that save for getting snowed in/out, those issues were again rooted in politics. As I said before, we really shouldn't be letting politicians do the scientists' jobs. We sent politicians because as government representatives they're supposed to be able to get their nations to do something, a rather ironic fact considering the outcome.

What's actually even more embarassing I think is the vagueness of the outcome. Another stance down the middle. Either you believe in climate change or you don't. The degree in which you believe or not believe is another issue altogether, but at least you chose a side.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by mg1942

We may now get to see just how easy it was to defraud California of millions in a sealed cap and trade fraud case now being ordered open for examination...

...and California fraud is nothing compared to how much organized crime has robbed Europe $7.4 billion as reported by the Europol

And your point is? There has been criminal activity, so the ETS system should be abolished? There's tax evasion in the US, so tax needs to be abolished?

That's why I said that the question HOW it should be implemented (and safeguarded) is certainly up to debate. Phase 1 of the ETS (in the years 2005-2007) was primarily to establish baselines and learn. And obviously measures need to be taken to make sure that emission certificates can't be traded in a way that enables criminals to avoid paying VAT for them. That's a learning. But the ETS in itself is definitely a success. It managed to cap the CO2 emission growth to below 2%, and in the next phase 2 we'll have a reduction. In other words, it works.

[mg1942]

great... I thought i've read, heard, and seen all about ENRON


until now...

Spoiler for Enron's other secret:

Some of the climate-change profiteers are relatively unknown corporations; others are household names with only their behind-the-scenes role in the climate-change industry unknown. Over the next few weeks, in an extended newspaper series, you will become familiar with some of the profiteers, and with their machinations. This series begins with Enron, a pioneer in the climate-change industry.

Almost two decades before President Barack Obama made “cap-and-trade” for carbon dioxide emissions a household term, an obscure company called Enron — a natural-gas pipeline company that had become a big-time trader in energy commodities — had figured out how to make millions in a cap-and-trade program for sulphur dioxide emissions, thanks to changes in the U.S. government’s Clean Air Act. To the delight of shareholders, Enron’s stock price rose rapidly as it became the major trader in the U.S. government’s $20-billion a year emissions commodity market.

Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, keen to engineer an encore, saw his opportunity when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were inaugurated as president and vice-president in 1993. To capitalize on Al Gore’s interest in global warming, Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide, working both the Clinton administration and Congress. Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried.


.......


The intense lobbying paid off. Lay became a member of president Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton sought Lay’s advice in White House discussions. The fruits of Enron’s efforts came soon after, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.

Kenneth "Kenny-boy" Lay and his Enron bandits were apparently involved to some extent in advising Bill Clinton and Al Gore on how to set up cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions. Probably Kenny-boy made sure there would be no lack of opportunities for high rollers and con artists like himself to make a few billion here and there while riding the newest gravy train to come into town.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Goracle is poised to become the world's first 'carbon billionaire', profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

and btw Goldman Sachs and AIG are absolutely salivating over the opportunity to trade these dubious carbon credits on the stock market, which wont do anything to help the environment but will make some investors very rich. cap and trade is the next big stock market bubble, the next great ponzi scheme.

The American banking system is a huge ponzi scheme in itself. They've already resumed trading with poisonous derivates.

But please be concrete. How should Big Money be able to _exploit_ cap and trade via "ponzi scheme"? Frankly, as long as it succeeds in locking in emissions, I couldn't care less if people are gambling with it on the stock market. Why should we care?

So please explain what you mean.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by mg1942

great... I thought i've read, heard, and seen all about ENRON


until now...

Your URL doesn't work for me, so I can't check the original source. Nationalpost.com is naturally a source of choice, but since it obviously links to the blog roster, the original article the blog entry will refer to might still be reputable. In dubio pro reo.

[Article deleted for brevity, can be read in mg1942's original post]

Kenneth "Kenny-boy" Lay and his Enron bandits were apparently involved to some extent in advising Bill Clinton and Al Gore on how to set up cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions. Probably Kenny-boy made sure there would be no lack of opportunities for high rollers and con artists like himself to make a few billion here and there while riding the newest gravy train to come into town.

Excuse me, Enron was the poster boy of Big Business. You're fingering one of your own.

However, I don't see the point you're trying to make. You can read the same article every single day as a glorified success story, just check the Wall Street Journal. Replace Enron with Exxon and sulphur dioxide emissions with oil, and you are 100% par for the course. Who do you believe are sitting in the US Energy councils, huh? Naturally all the representatives of Big Oil and other energy players. Who do you think is lobbying to allow offshore drilling, drilling in Alaska and the likes?

Please explain what exactly is in any way surprising or maybe even damning that was written in the article?

What is your point?

[Doughnuts]

Originally Posted by Mentar

I'll shorten this.



Don't play so dumb. I posed clear questions to you: List

1) International scientific bodies who dissent

2) Any nation whose secretary for environmental issues dissents

Wikipedia is excellent when it simply collects references and lists them. On the Wikipedia page we had more than FIFTY organizations all over the world voicing consent. There were 4 American and 1 Canadian organizations who were noncommital, and there are NO reputable organizations against.

To my knowledge, every single nation accepts the consensus aswell. Even those nations opposing the initial Copenhagen initiative still agree with it.

This _is_ a consensus. There will always be people who disagree, for whatever reason. There's also a consensus that the world is a globe, even though alot of flat-earthers remain. The vast majority of scientists is convinced. No matter how loudly you pretend that they're not.

*snip

If you insist.

1. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
2. Saudi Arabia's Mohammed Al-Sabban:

"It appears from the scandal details, that there is no shred of connection between human activities and climate change."

"Climate has over thousands of years changed completely independent of human factors. So, whatever the international community is doing to reduce emissions. Yes, there will be no influence on natural climate variability."

Ok, I don't doubt wikipedia as a good collection of references, but I doubt it's content and ability to cite both arguments. If you're looking at arguments for anthropogenic global warming, you won't find anything but them. I could likewise link to wiki articles like[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us]this[/url, which is the counter argument, and similarly, biased towards non-manmade global warming. There are clearly a majority in favour of global warming, but this doesn't mean anything. (Yes, I'm ignorant of the majority opinion.)

Again, science is not about consensus. I couldn't care if the entire planet accepted global warming. The consensus arises because nobody understands the whole of climate science, and the multitude of papers are written with the intention of finding a link between temperature and CO2 emissions. What's more is, some of these papers are clearly biased, and the IPCC report itself, has clearly not undergone independant scientific review, as decribed here.

If there is any "consensus" in science, then I'm sure over 30,000 people, 9000 of which with doctorates agree differently to the overexaggerated count of 2500 people involved in the IPCC AR4, whom which are all interlinked and biased anyway. There is a huge number of people moving away from the "consensus", which they once believed, some of them who wrote the very material used in the IPCC 4AR but have since wrote papers disproving their own.

So we've been taught that global warming exists, the media continues to push out the scare, because the scare sells, and we're programmed to believe that CO2 causes global warming, a conclusion that, given no influence from these sources, wouldn't be logical to conclude at all. Yet, those who see the flawed science and ignore the "hurd effect" of others, are ignorant?

Yes, big oil pays for climate research, both for and against anthropogenic global warming. They want sustainable energy alternatives because of limited fossil fuel resource, look "green", while at the same time, they want to continue pumping as much oil as they can. If you look at the alternative energies, many are created by, owned by, patented, and managed by the same big oil. Of course, they have invested large amounts of money into them, and they've required the scientific evidence to follow the programs. In the end, they're not going to lose money whether the proposed caps happen or not, they're going to monopolize on it. Even it if they were just pork-barreling, why would they keep pusing out green, alternative energies in their own advertisements, if it was such a dilemma to them?

Whether it's big oil or big business, the end customer always picks up the tab. The elite still ride private jets, which the taxpayer pays for. It's hard to take the proposals so seriously when the oligarchs are so exempt from any form of tax that may arise. They want to stop us eating beef or any food that has a carbon footprint, but will it be the elite, or the poorer who aren't able to eat it? Rather than money, what big oil has, and stands to gain is power - power over the governments which rely on it. Money is useless in a society where it's not worth much. As long as they have more than the taxpayer, they're still going to be living their luxurious lifesyles, while the poor become poorer.

So, whoever is paying for it is just a silly argument anyway. The science is the key. What is becoming more and more clear is that there are flaws in the IPCC 4AR, and that they are greatly exaggerating any effect we can have on the climate. I keep mentioning the 4AR, because this is the paper stated in the Copenhagen convention as the prerequisite for carbon tax. So, I don't know how familiar you ware with the science, but to start you off, read The Skeptics Handbook for a summary. Wiki articles on IPCC 4AR criticism, Global Warming Controversy and Climate change denial for quick summaries with references, a huge collection of articles contesting the AR4, other pages which go through the science, links from the ICSC website etc. Perhaps these are the wrong blogs I'm reading though?

The amount of content rejecting the "consensus" is incredible, but barely any of it reaches the corporate media. So before you jump on the bandwagon and follow a consensus, do what the scientist should, and contest this science with evidence, preferably transparently (which the IPCC are not). A point of interest is that this means of information distribution, the internet, is clearly becoming a nuisance to warmists, and in the UK, USA and Australia (which account for well over half of the climate research in IPCC 4AR), are pushing proposals to censor the internet as China, Russia already do. Objecting opinions aren't good for the world communist state

Thanks for openly displaying what kind of mindset is running in your brain. In your "free country" you can't even manage to come to reasonable reforms anymore because your lobbying money has been buying senators left and right. People vote for the Democrats and have them control both houses, and even scratch on the filibuster majority, but it doesn't matter. All it takes is to buy 2-3 select senators, and nothing major can change anymore

Ok, I'm not from the USA, but I understand your point. No country is really free, because corruption happens at all level. My statement is a comparison to the USA to my own country though, which is lightyears from being democratic. The Lisbon Treaty may be popular in Germany, but here it's doing nothing for us. If we had had the chance to vote on it, it would have never have had a chance of passing. They already tried to pass it in 2007 as a "convention", but France and NL rejected, so they renamed it a Treaty with 98% the same content. In ireland, they had a public referendum on the treaty, and they unanimously voted no. So what happens? They vote again, but this time with the media in the strong position for the treaty. What part of democracy says that, when the public vote no, we will keep forcing it on them until they vote yes?

The EU is dominated by the left. In England, we've voted right for 3 terms, and possibly a fourth coming soon. When 75% of our laws originate in the EU, which holds a different political ideology to the majority of our countries population, we're not benefeitting from the mega amount of money it costs us to be in this "trading zone". We have 2 political parties which have grown massively in recent years, now both in the top 5 for vote counts, who object to our position in the EU, and with the Lisbon Treaty, that will be amplified. We don't want a president we didn't elect, we don't want treaties we didn't vote on. Yes, this may be "democracy" as we see it in our states, but it's a truly flawed system, which isn't democratic, by definition.

So now you know what mindset I'm running, go and have a read of the COP15 initial draft. In it describes the establishment of a global governing structure, whose role will be to tax, distribute, monitor and enforce CO2 emissions, and not once in "the Convention" (they call it that), are the words democracy, vote, ballot etc. It's a blueprint for dictatorship, for which we would have no choices whatsoever. My mindset is someone who has studied history, has seen the accounts and crimes of communism, and do not wish for myself, or the rest of the world to become Big Brother.

Why would they? How would the evil entitlement-sucking scientists fool the media into being so complicit? Worldwide? Damn those treehugger leftists, they control the rest of the world, it seems!

The media jumped on the bandwagon too early with global warming, so now with Climategate, the Danish text, COP15 drafts, they can't admit that they were wrong. There's no story in "There's nothing wrong with the planet, everything is fine" anyway. If there's no scare, it doesn't sell, and isn't worth reporting. There's also the obvious fact that media reports on the findings of the IPCC, and the journalists aren't scientists who can debate it.

I hope you were joking when suggesting the media isn't bought worldwide. Like you say, Murdoch is international, and he has his fingers in every government he can. The British media is a complete joke if you're looking for truth.

[Doughnuts]

Originally Posted by Kakashi

That would imply water isn't such a limiting factor in photosynthesis, which is interesting. Any chance you could link me to that or did you read it in a paper?

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant...lantgrowth.php does the experiments, publishes the data. You're correct that, I have only read about it, and have no confirmed the data myself here. But I don't disbelieve it. If someone told me a reduction in CO2 increased plant growth, I'd be questioning it, and examining the data for flaws, because one of the first things I ever learnt was that plants live from CO2. If there is such thing as "Common sense", then you don't need much of it to accept their rather obvious finding, that increased CO2 = increased plant mass.

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Response: Well, I'm not too familiar with the EU 2% tax, but I understand. Japan's in that situation now. So yeah.

The 2% tax was the proposal in Copenhagen, which quite thankfully didn't reach daylight. It wasn't just Europe, but all developed countries, Japan included, which would be paying it.

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Response: Yes, I understand there's a loss of sovereignty on joining the EU, but then again, the people VOTED for it and you VOTE for the MEPs and that's the meaning of democracy. You want dictatorship? Try China.

We didn't have any vote on the Lisbon Treaty or the EU president, which sucks. Sure, we voted for the idiots who signed the treaty, but they're able to do pretty much anything they want, because our population doesn't know what's going on in the EU. There are still millions of Brits who don't know who Herman Van Rompuy is. Had the lisbon treaty been given the media attention it deserved, and people had the chance to vote on it, it would never have passed.

Originally Posted by Mentar

90 years, wow. Well, I won't live that long, so there's no problem for me. Just make sure I don't have to pay extra in the meantime, and I so don't care what happens after me. Yep, that's exactly the kind of thinking I find so lovable.

On the other hand, we can pay the taxes, increase poverty, and kill hundreds of millions in that 90 years. Who cares, the media don't report it, no involvement in my life.

That's the kind of thinking I detest.

It's not that I'm so against risk planning and environmental issues, but to force them so radically without considering the consequences it is having now is the big problem. And if it is adamant that we must force them, it should be based on solid, uncontested science, for which there is none yet.

Originally Posted by Mentar

What's so wrong with wind turbines? Especially in a country with fairly low population density in parts like the US, turbines might be a real option there, as an addition to the energy mix.

Wind energy has a huge initial cost, but extremely small short term benefits. Not arguing that it could be a long-term effective solution, but it's too expensive to put everywhere immediately. It certainly isn't the best use of our tax money in the UK at present.

Originally Posted by Mentar

In case it escaped your eye, the "warmists" are _paying_ for what they think is responsible. Not making money off it. Those nations who will adhere to the Copenhagen non-compromise anyway will take a significant financial hit, while mindless and selfish polluter drones will just carry on. And even better: While they harm everyone, they're berating those who put in effort.

The warmists aren't paying. They want their country to pay, disproportionately. Ie, by making the poor, poorer still, but the real warmings who are pushing it, and making the policies, aren't going to be changing their lifestyles. They'll still be eating steak and caviar, being chauffeured in limos.

The COP15 second draft actually described how the developed countries would be paying in the short term, but after 2050, it would be the developing countries paying the price. It's not some utopia where we rich are going to pay for the poor and cripple our own countries.

It's actually the poorer countries who are doing the polluting. The developed countries can afford to be clean already.

Originally Posted by Mentar

It's like people living in a student community who not only refuse to wash their dishes, but piss on the table at the same time, ridiculing those who eventually clean up.

Would be a fair analogy if there was no consequence to cleaning the dishes. If you were told that millions of people are going to lose their jobs in your own country, and millions will die elsewhere if you clean the dishes, you're not going to dash for the soap.

Originally Posted by Mentar

The American banking system is a huge ponzi scheme in itself. They've already resumed trading with poisonous derivates.

Atleast there's something we agree on

[ZephyrLeanne]

^ Japan already has a gasoline tax at the petrol stops and plastic tax on our plastic bags. Refuse must be placed in a certain bag for collection, which must be bought from a conveience store, which is essentially a refuse tax. And bulky refuse need a ticket to even be accepted for refuse, which costs about 1000 yen per kg.

[Tri-ring]

Carbon dioxide or CO2 is absorbed by plants and coral and trapped as solid Carbon deposit, fossil fuel and lime stone(CaCO3) are deposits of the past.
Once released into it's gaseous state(CO2), it accumulates solar heat and creates a greenhouse effect.
Paleozoic era up until the industrial era, the accumulated amount of CO2 had been trapped underground in it's solid form so the biosphere's atmospheric carbon should have gently dropped but when mankind started utilizing fossil fuel atmospheric make-up changed drastically. On top of that at the dawn of civilization mankind started to clear forests and fields for harvesting crop diminishing the CO2 sink further to an alarming rate.

It all adds up to an simple equation;
If A is Earth's natural "Bio-rhythm", mankind had added B(Releasing trapped CO2) and subtracted C(Potential Carbon sink capacity) resulting to an accelerated rate of heat absorption then it would be.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

If you insist.

1. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

Is this the best you can come up with on your side? Honest?

This is a web-based conglomerate of skeptics founded in 2007. The vast majority of their members have no scientific background of geology, climatology or related fields. I instantly recognized their Executive Director Tom Harris, a paid professional lobbyist for Big Energy. Certainly only a coincidence...

Let's check their Mission Statement: "ICSC is committed to providing a highly credible alternative to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thereby fostering a more rational, open discussion about climate issues."

Well, except for the self-praising "highly credible", that does sound good, doesn't it? Rational, Open discussions. However, contrast this with this group's Core Principles (!!). As long as the "open discussion" postulates that "1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual", or "6. Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously" (since we can do very little about that) or "8. Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial", then everything is A-OK

Now, please look straight into my eye and tell me that this is supposed to be scientific discourse.

2. Saudi Arabia's Mohammed Al-Sabban:

Hehe... I almost expected you to list him. Why don't you add Kuwait as "skeptics" too? Because it would indicate a pattern and logical correlation? That miraculously it's the World's biggest Oil exporters who fight any anti-CO2 legislation? The same Big Oil folks who you claimed in a former post would be _supportive_ of cap-and-trade? Straaaaaaange

For your information, Mohammed Al-Sabban is very decidedly no scientist. He is a senior advisor to the Saudi's ministry of petrochemicals. In other words, he's the representative and negotiation leader of the Saudi Oil ministry. And he, along with the Kuwaitis, fought tooth and nail against binding regulations in Copenhagen. Nevertheless, Saudi-Arabia's scientific position is not defined by him. They also signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty. So, no cigar, I'm afraid. But thanks for the revealing reference and underscoring my earlier point.

Ok, I don't doubt wikipedia as a good collection of references, but I doubt it's content and ability to cite both arguments. If you're looking at arguments for anthropogenic global warming, you won't find anything but them. I could likewise link to wiki articles like[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us]this[/url, which is the counter argument, and similarly, biased towards non-manmade global warming. There are clearly a majority in favour of global warming, but this doesn't mean anything. (Yes, I'm ignorant of the majority opinion.)

Fair enough, I'll give you the counter-argument point. Yes, it should be listed. However, if you do admit that "the vast majority says X", while a minority does not, we can agree on that. It's the truth, after all. It's just that I see problems with the credentials of most skeptics. But that's up to anybody to decide.

I'm sure over 30,000 people, 9000 of which with doctorates agree differently to the overexaggerated count of 2500 people involved in the IPCC AR4, whom which are all interlinked and biased anyway. There is a huge number of people moving away from the "consensus", which they once believed, some of them who wrote the very material used in the IPCC 4AR but have since wrote papers disproving their own.

Have a look at the petition itself, and you can see how credible it is. Hundred of thousands of petitions have been mailed around, and nobody controlled the results in the first place. If you honestly think that "I reject Kyoto, because global warming isn't proven, and [] I'm also a doctor of _____" is proof that there is scientific disagreement, I have a nice statue to sell you, located on Liberty Island. Let's just agree to disagree. I say the scientists of the field are in agreement. The "quality" of the dissenting side is pitiful.

Whether it's big oil or big business, the end customer always picks up the tab. The elite still ride private jets, which the taxpayer pays for. It's hard to take the proposals so seriously when the oligarchs are so exempt from any form of tax that may arise.

Please. You know that this is merely emotional straw man bashing. The elites will ALWAYS ride private jets, no matter what you do. It's absolutely irrelevant, but it has value if you want to get naive people angry (a specialty of the Murdoch conglomerate). Let's replace reason with anger, and direct it against enemies. Relevance: None at all.

[I'll have a look at the citations, but can't do it now]

The amount of content rejecting the "consensus" is incredible, but barely any of it reaches the corporate media. So before you jump on the bandwagon and follow a consensus, do what the scientist should, and contest this science with evidence, preferably transparently (which the IPCC are not).

I'm amazed that you consider yourself qualified to judge that (based on the quality of the sources you've provided so far). While I agree that it's always right to look at it, I did some checking in the past and the "nay" position has consistently come out lacking. But fine, I'll see.

A point of interest is that this means of information distribution, the internet, is clearly becoming a nuisance to warmists, and in the UK, USA and Australia (which account for well over half of the climate research in IPCC 4AR), are pushing proposals to censor the internet as China, Russia already do. Objecting opinions aren't good for the world communist state

Er, what?!? Don't make outrageous claims like that without sources and references, please. Who pushes to censor the internet? This is the first time I've heard about that, and forgive me if I find it 100% non-credible on first hearing. Link pls.

Ok, I'm not from the USA, but I understand your point. No country is really free, because corruption happens at all level. My statement is a comparison to the USA to my own country though, which is lightyears from being democratic. The Lisbon Treaty may be popular in Germany, but here it's doing nothing for us. If we had had the chance to vote on it, it would have never have had a chance of passing. They already tried to pass it in 2007 as a "convention", but France and NL rejected, so they renamed it a Treaty with 98% the same content. In ireland, they had a public referendum on the treaty, and they unanimously voted no.

*lol*

That's not true. The first time, the nays barely eked out the pro voices (so much for unanimous). Then, extra negotiations were put in and some of the Irish beef addressed. Also, the voter was presented with a choice. Not just "show these Brussel toads that WE ARE IRELAND", but rather "okay, take your pick. EU or solo". And all of a sudden, we had a clear swing to "Yes". What about this was undemocratic?

By the way, the Lisbon treaty also offers provisions for leaving the EU. If you think it's better for you, push for that. Good luck on your own (points at the British Pound as an example).

So what happens? They vote again, but this time with the media in the strong position for the treaty. What part of democracy says that, when the public vote no, we will keep forcing it on them until they vote yes?

That's democracy indeed. Again, you're free to leave the EU. Campaign for it if you want.

The EU is dominated by the left. In England, we've voted right for 3 terms, and possibly a fourth coming soon. When 75% of our laws originate in the EU, which holds a different political ideology to the majority of our countries population, we're not benefeitting from the mega amount of money it costs us to be in this "trading zone".

Oh please. Why do you believe did the UK push so hard to be added to the EU? Only for financial reasons. If the UK were excluded from the European free-trade zone, it would fall behind even faster than it already is. The EU is a boon for you.

We have 2 political parties which have grown massively in recent years, now both in the top 5 for vote counts, who object to our position in the EU, and with the Lisbon Treaty, that will be amplified. We don't want a president we didn't elect, we don't want treaties we didn't vote on. Yes, this may be "democracy" as we see it in our states, but it's a truly flawed system, which isn't democratic, by definition.

Haha

Look. If you honestly think that even if the Tories came to power (possible), they would push for isolation from the EU, dream on buddy. Why do you think did Cameron so quickly fold when Havel ratified Lisbon? Why did his earlier promise to hold a referendum disappear in no time? Why doesn't he hold a national referendum about leaving the EU instead? Because he KNOWS this is all about stupid nationalistic emotions, not about reason. The UK _cannot afford_ to leave the EU. If they do, London as financial center will cease to exist for European trade, the law and toll barriers will wipe out all remaining advantages. Whoever comes to power will suddenly stop this nonsense before he has to put the money where his mouth was. He's just playing the gullible ones for fools (and votes).

So now you know what mindset I'm running, go and have a read of the COP15 initial draft. In it describes the establishment of a global governing structure, whose role will be to tax, distribute, monitor and enforce CO2 emissions, and not once in "the Convention" (they call it that), are the words democracy, vote, ballot etc. It's a blueprint for dictatorship, for which we would have no choices whatsoever. My mindset is someone who has studied history, has seen the accounts and crimes of communism, and do not wish for myself, or the rest of the world to become Big Brother.

You need a central body regulating and controlling this. How else is it supposed to work? Even for bilateral treaties, you need a way to verify that each partner does the share he promised. And this is a treaty which affects EVERY nation on earth. Make a feasible suggestion how else it could be set up, please.

I hope you were joking when suggesting the media isn't bought worldwide. Like you say, Murdoch is international, and he has his fingers in every government he can. The British media is a complete joke if you're looking for truth.

No, I'm very serious. Have you ever been to Germany, the Benelux states, Scandinavia or France? The media is very active and quite fair there, and they are NOT controlled by a person or group. We don't have a Murdoch or Berlusconi here, thank god.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Doughnuts

On the other hand, we can pay the taxes, increase poverty, and kill hundreds of millions in that 90 years. Who cares, the media don't report it, no involvement in my life.

What is this bullshit about "hundreds of millions killed"? Please don't say ecofuels now (which I oppose too), because this kind of food wouldn't have made it to the starving people in the first place. Besides, the tax money doesn't simply evaporate - it would be used to improve the situation in the third-world countries, and it would also create jobs in the industrial nations too (countermeasures to CO2 won't be developed and implemented on their own).

But it's cute that the sceptic/big energy lobby coalition is suddenly discovering a heart for the third world. Because so far they have been selfishness epitomized, and they worshiped the god of "I, me, mine". Saulus turned into Paulus.

It's not that I'm so against risk planning and environmental issues, but to force them so radically without considering the consequences it is having now is the big problem. And if it is adamant that we must force them, it should be based on solid, uncontested science, for which there is none yet.

If not now, then when? When? When is the right time to act?

This is the behavior of the bratty kid who demands to put off the visit at the dentist till next week.

Wind energy has a huge initial cost, but extremely small short term benefits. Not arguing that it could be a long-term effective solution, but it's too expensive to put everywhere immediately. It certainly isn't the best use of our tax money in the UK at present.

I can't confirm that. Wind energy has turned out to be a feasible addition to the energy mix in Germany. The costs to generate power are well within competitive ranges. (As opposed to solar energy or biofuel, by the way)

The warmists aren't paying. They want their country to pay, disproportionately. Ie, by making the poor, poorer still, but the real warmings who are pushing it, and making the policies, aren't going to be changing their lifestyles. They'll still be eating steak and caviar, being chauffeured in limos.

The warmists ARE their countries. THEY pay the costs in the end. I don't know if the UK is much more sceptical, but e.g. in Germany a vast majority throughout all political parties agrees that something must be done. It's US, the citizens, who are prepared to pay, because we feel we have to. This emo argument about caviar and limos is stupid, as I pointed out before.

It's actually the poorer countries who are doing the polluting. The developed countries can afford to be clean already.

Then DO SO, for fuck's sake. That's what the EU is about to start. The point is that your group is UNWILLING to spend the money to stop the polluting.

Would be a fair analogy if there was no consequence to cleaning the dishes. If you were told that millions of people are going to lose their jobs in your own country, and millions will die elsewhere if you clean the dishes, you're not going to dash for the soap.

Denialism in its purest form. "No consequences". It's just that you forcibly close your eyes and pretend it's not going to happen. As I wrote, the Frog in the cooking water.