Latest news on Global Warming......More bad news

[audtatious]

Yes, implementing new tech is expensive. But if it does not become more widely adopted, the technology grows slowly. Now would be the time to try and mature the technology so that as it grows, the price drops. We also get to see real results and impacts and can try and make adjustments to better optimize and engineer the products. Imagine the cost of waiting and then trying to implement the solutions all at once (when it became imminent that it was needed). Not only would it be difficult to deal with the demand, but the solutions would be very expensive and perhaps inefficient (or not as efficient).

I would mostly agree if our economy was not in the dumper

Proof? The "proof" as stated in this thread is not conclusive. Nor does it attempt to allow Briffa to offer a full response. He claims he will have more evidence soon and so do those who provided the tree ring data to Briffa. Accepting the articles you initially cited reaffirms what I've been saying. People latch onto information that tends to coincide with what they want to believe.

Sorry, I simply can't jump to agree with people who are constantly proven wrong. Science is not science if assumptions and bad data are given as fact.

Gore is an idiot. Try talking to experts in the field.

Yet his information is primarily from these same scientists

While I have no clue if MMGW is real or not, the majority of scientists treat MMGW as a proven model. While there is always the possibility that it could be wrong, when they claim that it holds water for every test they throw at it, they go with that. I'm open to hearing all arguments as it broadens my own knowledge (through research of the arguments) but I have yet to find any major arguments from deniers that hold water.

The majority of which scientists?

You mean Patrick Moore?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/...atric

And as far as I can tell, he is more of a businessman now than any kind of an environmentalist. Not to mention there is some controversy as to whether or not he was actually a co-founder or not. There is of course, no question that he was an influential member. Try not using "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as your source of info. Or perhaps, do some research and check its validity. You might be surprised at what you find. I was.

I don't refer to anything concerning the Swindle video, it's from youtube vids of his speeches I've seen. :shrug

As for population, industrialized countries tend to have less population growth with some actually having a decline. But the world population is still growing and expected to reach a peak sometime this century. The availability of fossil fuels is a global issue.

So, we, the US, needs to follow the UN in supporting all other undeveloped countries? That's what Obama is for. We need to be penalized for being so rich while they are so poor...lol

Those had a natural demand because most people don't see what is right in front of them. Out of sight, out of mind so to speak. Environmental impacts tend to occur over a relatively long period of time and away from people's attention. So what demand is there from consumers if they can't percieve any impact? Its highly unlikely that people will act on such things until it actually affects them directly. In which case, it would probably be a long and expensive road towards a solution and perhaps there may not be a viable solution. Its like having termites in your house and waiting until your house falls on your head before you act.

So let's destroy the world economy promoting technology that does not solve the problem that scientists with misinformation or agenda is saying the problem is.....

I need another beer cuz nothing makes sense to me tonight and my bender is just starting

[audtatious]

Interesting article about our "reserves" in contrast to what Dems are saying while leading us to C&T:http://thehill.com/special-rep...urces

"This week as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee kicks off hearings on the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, one argument Democrats will spout over and over is that America is a nation poor in natural resources. As seen from the quotes below, we are shamed into the belief that America possesses too little and consumes too much:

“With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy security,” then-presidential nominee Barack Obama wrote on his campaign website in 2008. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated, “All told, the U.S. has only 1.6 percent of world’s known oil supply.” And in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added, “The math is simple: America has just 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil.”

While America’s proven oil reserves are just 21 billion barrels, which do constitute a small percentage of the world’s proven oil reserves, it represents a narrowly construed, inaccurate depiction of America’s true resource endowment. Their “math” calculates just a fraction of the real numbers.

To estimate proven oil reserves, a country must first allow drilling to prove those potential reserves — but for America that’s impossible to do when 83 percent of federal onshore land is inaccessible or restricted due to our own government policies. Moreover, for decades Democrats have aggressively pushed these same policies to wall-off the Outer Continental Shelf for both the East and West coasts and large portions of the Gulf. Consequently, 21 billion is an opportunistic assessment for those who oppose drilling — if drilling is not allowed, reserves can’t be proved. However, unlike our own Democrats, the Saudis, Canadians, Chinese and Russians pursue policies to prove and produce resources, not hide them. In this larger context, proven reserves represent a small, poor reflection of America’s actual oil endowment.

Fortunately, a new government report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) sheds light on the true picture of America’s energy resources. The comprehensive assessment looks beyond the Energy Information Administration’s estimates of proven reserves to include government estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Minerals Management Service to include America’s recoverable oil resources from areas both accessible and inaccessible to drilling. The results show the U.S. endowment of recoverable oil to be 167 billion barrels of oil, not 21 billion — nearly eight times higher than the number pedaled by Democrats. Remarkably, 167 billion is the equivalent of replacing America’s current imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years.

But still, oil resources offer only a glimpse of the full picture. CRS also reveals that America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. In fact, America’s recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And, that’s without including America’s absolutely immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits.

Why do Democrats so often downplay and deny America’s abundance of energy supplies? Our overwhelming wealth of coal, natural gas and oil resources represent tens of trillions of dollars in economic growth and security, and millions of American jobs. By targeting carbon dioxide, the long-term goal of the Kerry-Boxer bill is to take these assets off the table — to tax these resources out of use. Cap-and-trade is merely the latest attempt to further isolate America’s access to our own coal, oil and natural gas supplies.

Inhofe is ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works."

[C-Kwik]

I would mostly agree if our economy was not in the dumper

What difference does that make? Not like the problem (if it exists) is going to go away because the economy is in the toilet.

Sorry, I simply can't jump to agree with people who are constantly proven wrong. Science is not science if assumptions and bad data are given as fact.

So you choose to agree with those who hold no advanced degree in any scientific field, have a financial interest in proving MMGW false, and has failed to come up with anything conclusive?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...ntyre

Yet his information is primarily from these same scientists

Yes and no. The basis of his arguments are. But many in the scientific community (with respect to global warming) aren't 100% happy with Gore. About the only real good he's done is increase awareness.

The majority of which scientists?

The ones that study climate change...

I don't refer to anything concerning the Swindle video, it's from youtube vids of his speeches I've seen. :shrug

Where you saw his statements still doesn't change my arguments. He's no climate change scientist. While is status as co-founder of Greenpeace is debatable, Greenpeace is not an organization that does any scientific research. They are ultimately a political organization that has its roots in the environment. I wouldn't cite them as a source in regards to any environmental issue. Let alone a former member who had a falling out with them...

So, we, the US, needs to follow the UN in supporting all other undeveloped countries? That's what Obama is for. We need to be penalized for being so rich while they are so poor...lol

Who said anything about penalizing anyone? The reality is even if US population (thus demand for energy) declines, the world's demand is increasing. Whether we use it all or someone else does, it will still run out. My use of the graph is simply to point out that US population isn't much of a factor when you consider how other countries are growing.

So let's destroy the world economy promoting technology that does not solve the problem that scientists with misinformation or agenda is saying the problem is.....

I could simply flip that statement in the context of "experts" that say MMGW and limits on fossil fuel aren't a problem are full of misinformation and agenda. After all, if the problems are real, wouldn't running out of oil without a contingency plan ultimately destroy our economy? Closing our eyes does not make a problem go away...

[audtatious]

What difference does that make? Not like the problem (if it exists) is going to go away because the economy is in the toilet.

"if it exists"....

What will cause the greatest impact to US citizens over the next 50 years; trashed US economy further with little employment or _maybe_ lowering CO2 by a small degree? CO2 that is only assumed/presented to be causing global warming?

So you choose to agree with those who hold no advanced degree in any scientific field, have a financial interest in proving MMGW false, and has failed to come up with anything conclusive?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...ntyre

Right, cuz he's the only one who thinks it's bunk.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...b52d9

"The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

But, those must not count because they are not "climate scientists"....

Yes and no. The basis of his arguments are. But many in the scientific community (with respect to global warming) aren't 100% happy with Gore. About the only real good he's done is increase awareness.

They must not be 100% happy with the IPCC report either since the climate has refused to follow their expectations

The ones that study climate change...

Right, because as stated, the ones on the UN panel are the only experts and they have a proven track record of being right.

Where you saw his statements still doesn't change my arguments. He's no climate change scientist. While is status as co-founder of Greenpeace is debatable, Greenpeace is not an organization that does any scientific research. They are ultimately a political organization that has its roots in the environment. I wouldn't cite them as a source in regards to any environmental issue. Let alone a former member who had a falling out with them...

Valid point. BTW, is "climate scientist" a true designation? Seems the ones who are pressing MMGW study bits and pieces.

Who said anything about penalizing anyone? The reality is even if US population (thus demand for energy) declines, the world's demand is increasing. Whether we use it all or someone else does, it will still run out. My use of the graph is simply to point out that US population isn't much of a factor when you consider how other countries are growing.

Who's going to pay the price of underdeveloped countries not meeting UN requirements?

I could simply flip that statement in the context of "experts" that say MMGW and limits on fossil fuel aren't a problem are full of misinformation and agenda. After all, if the problems are real, wouldn't running out of oil without a contingency plan ultimately destroy our economy? Closing our eyes does not make a problem go away...

Contingency planning is fine. Pressing forth more technological research for solutions is fine. Implementing C&T based upon research that has already shown to be incorrect is crap. Who is making the money off C&T and where will it really go, besides the major players bank accounts?

[AZhitman]

Read an interesting piece in a little trade journal I get (as a side benefit of the work I did with the Desert Fuel project):

The vast majority of the researchers, developers, investors and inventors in the alternative-fuel movement describe themselves as "political conservatives."

Ponder that for a moment.

(Not surprising, since it's an inherently capitalistic trait...)

There are those who bleat helplessly in the darkness, and there are those who lead them out of the wilderness.

It's YOUR choice which one you want to be.

[C-Kwik]

"if it exists"....

What will cause the greatest impact to US citizens over the next 50 years; trashed US economy further with little employment or _maybe_ lowering CO2 by a small degree? CO2 that is only assumed/presented to be causing global warming?

My use of "if it exists" was intended to indicate that I do not know if it exists or not. Its what I've been saying all along in this thread and other GW threads. The majority of the scientific community feels that MMGW is a real problem. I'll expand on this further in this post as you are disputing this as well.

Right, cuz he's the only one who thinks it's bunk.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...b52d9

"The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

But, those must not count because they are not "climate scientists"....

First off, the UN scientists who authored the IPCC reports summarized the works of over 2000 scientists who have contributed research into MMGW. Further:

"• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all. • Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list. "

Source: http://www.centerforinquiry.ne...says_/

They must not be 100% happy with the IPCC report either since the climate has refused to follow their expectations

Please offer a citation for that.

Right, because as stated, the ones on the UN panel are the only experts and they have a proven track record of being right.

Refer back to the 2000 scientists statement I made above. That's actually noted in the link to the source I provided as well.

Valid point. BTW, is "climate scientist" a true designation? Seems the ones who are pressing MMGW study bits and pieces.

Its a general term that encompasses various fields of science that study the climate. And certainly they are studying bits and pieces. Much of our macro research has to be conducted this way. But the data is compiled to make the assessments.

Who's going to pay the price of underdeveloped countries not meeting UN requirements?

What does this have ANYTHING to do with my point? I merely stated that oil is running out. And will likely do so at a faster rate as population grows. It was a retort to your statement that the US population was in decline.

Contingency planning is fine. Pressing forth more technological research for solutions is fine. Implementing C&T based upon research that has already shown to be incorrect is crap. Who is making the money off C&T and where will it really go, besides the major players bank accounts?

Criticism of C&T might hold more water if you could prove that MMGW doesn't exist. As I've said, the view within the majority of the scientific community is that it does. Since I don't understand the science fully, I remain unconvinced, but if I were to have to make a decision, I'm gonna go with what the prevailing science concludes...

[audtatious]

How about we agree to disagree