Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:26 pm**

No global warming threads lately. Now, I'm not a global warming denier. I just think a few things. For example, if global warming is so bad that the earth is going to end soon, maybe we should do something now. Alternatively, if global warming does not drastically affect the environment, perhaps we should slowly implement changes. As another example, the people that study global warming and promote environmental friendliness are also self-interested and self-promoting (and hypocrits). Thought I'd start another thread. This gem from Gregg Easterbrook:

Wicked Witch of the West Will Melt, United Nations Predicts: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations agency that generates doomsday claims about global warming, in 2007 predicted a "very high" likelihood that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Last month it retracted the prediction via this intended-to-be-incomprehensible statement. Though the IPCC boasts of thousands of scientists peer-reviewing its work, turns out the Himalayan glaciers prediction was based on an offhand comment in a decade-old magazine interview. The comment hadn't even been fact-checked, let alone peer-reviewed.

Many glaciers are in fact melting -- but they've been doing so for thousands of years.Anybody can make a mistake: Most science points toward climate change caused by artificial greenhouse emissions, and greenhouse gas regulations are needed. But the IPCC, which styles itself as pure science, is a political organization engaged in systematically exaggerating the global warming threat, since exaggeration can be used to justify more government power and cushy jobs for climate bureaucrats. The guy who runs the IPCC has won millions in dollars and Euros for his foundation based on scare claims. This money might not flow his way if the IPCC didn't exaggerate. Meanwhile, Al Gore owns stock in several companies being promoted as offering products essential to stop global warming. Maybe the products are fabulous. But the stock gives Gore a financial self-interest in doomsday exaggeration.

Linksters - IPCC gets dollars and euros for foundation - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ciers.html

Linksters - Al Gore owns stock in several companies - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/busin ... .html?_r=1

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:59 pm**

There is a lot more to this. Basically, 2 digits were transposed on the date of the projections, but the rest is accurate.
Yes, it should not have happened, but when you are dealing with such HUGE volumes of data.

Also, this in no way disputes the overall data...

I will post a link that gives a lot more info.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:05 pm**

Carbon fraud causes 5 billion euro tax loss
AMSTERDAM
Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:59am EST

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Fraudulent trading in European Union carbon emissions credits in the past 18 months has led to more than 5 billion euros in tax revenue losses for several EU nations, European police agency Europol said in a statement.

Authorities estimate that in some countries, up to 90 percent of the whole carbon market volume was caused by fraudulent activities and warned that the fraud scheme could soon migrate to the gas and electricity sectors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B919C20091210

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:53 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:There is a lot more to this. Basically, 2 digits were transposed on the date of the projections, but the rest is accurate.
Yes, it should not have happened, but when you are dealing with such HUGE volumes of data.

Also, this in no way disputes the overall data...

I will post a link that gives a lot more info.

There's over 300 years difference between 2035 and 2350. When there are supposedly thousands of scientists checking the data produced by the IPCC, a mistake like this shouldn't happen.

And btw, I could hardly care less if it's predicted that the Himalayas will be covered by 2350. The weatherman can't even get the forecast right a week in advance, and I'm supposed to believe a 300 year forecast??? By that time we'll need all that water to send to our colonies on Mars!

I've seen too much "junk science" in about global warming, and ascribing any weather phenomenon to global cooling/global warming/climate change. I'm in favor of cutting down on pollution, which we know beyond a doubt has an adverse affect on the environment around us right now.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:39 pm**

Here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =123973664

Ray Rider wrote:[ ]
There's over 300 years difference between 2035 and 2350. When there are supposedly thousands of scientists checking the data produced by the IPCC, a mistake like this shouldn't happen.

It should not have happened, but it also was not enough to even come close to really throwing the conclusions into doubt... but of course those who don't want to believe global climate change will try to slant it that way.

As for the rest .. the biggest problem is that scientists might be fantastic at studying things and making new discoveries, but they are often terrible at communicating with people outside their field. THAT is the biggest problem.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:46 pm**

Or, to put it another way: (Also from All things considered, NPR, Feb 21rst)
Now, Professor George Lakoff is a cognitive linguist at UC Berkeley. He's not a climate scientist, but he's written widely about the problem, as he sees it, in the way the whole climate issue is framed, and it starts, he says, with the term global warming.

Professor�GEORGE LAKOFF (Cognitive Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley): I think it has been very problematic. Global warming applies to climate, not weather, and most people don't think of the difference, and so you shouldn't be talking just about global warming. You should be talking about the climate crisis. That, I think, is very important and then you explain what a crisis is. But the people who are in the environmental movement are very bad at communication, and they haven't done that.

RAZ: But, I mean, it seems as if those facts are available, they're out there, they're being discussed all over the place. The facts are clear: Scientists most scientists do not see what they do as a political calling but a form of research that's rooted in facts.

Yet polls show, George Lakoff, that about 57 percent of the American public believes that global warming is taking place now. That is down 14 points from October of 2008.

Prof.�LAKOFF: There are two reasons for this: the cognitive problems and then the communications problems. The cognitive problems with snow are these: People have, on the whole, a false folk theory about how snow works. They assume that since snow is cold, it can't come from anything warm. But that's scientifically false, and they haven't heard that over and over and over. So they still believe snow can't come from anything warm.

The second thing they believe, when they hear global warming, is that it applies to every place uniformly on the Earth. That is false too. They are thinking about weather, not about climate.

RAZ: Surely, some of the problem lies with the scientists themselves. I mean, we heard last year about some climate scientists who were trying to muzzle dissent. I mean, that certainly fueled suspicion that climate change or global warming is a hoax.

Prof.�LAKOFF: Look, that was at a minor place, and you get some people who make mistakes. That doesn't mean that

RAZ: I mean, we interviewed one of the scientists. I understand that, but the message behind that had an enormous impact.

Prof.�LAKOFF: That's right, and the reason that's right, and it's very important for the scientists to know that they don't know anything about communication. They're very bad at it.

See, the scientists who study weather don't study cognition. They're not cognitive scientists; they're climate scientists. That's understandable, but they don't know that they can't communicate, and they don't know they need to get some people who know something about it.

RAZ: In a strange way, George Lakoff, we are actually framing the debate because we're talking about climate change. We're not talking about global warming, right? I mean, could we be accused of doing this?

Prof.�LAKOFF: Accused is interesting. The idea of climate change, actually, was introduced by conservatives, by Frank Luntz in the 2004 campaign. He found that global warming alarmed people whereas climate change sounded fine. It was just change, as if it just happened, and people weren't responsible. And climate is a nice word. It sort of gives an image of palm trees and nice climate, as opposed to hurricanes and, you know, and huge snowstorms and floods.

RAZ: So climate change, in your view, as somebody who I have to presume does not agree with Frank Luntz, is not the best way to talk about this.

Prof.�LAKOFF: Yeah, I think the climate crisis is a much better way to talk about. You want to say this is crisis. This is a crisis for civilization. It's a crisis for life on Earth.

RAZ: That's George Lakoff. He's a cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:20 am**

Oh, player...shhhhh....just let it go.....it's gonna be ok...

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:58 am**

If you folks would like to help stop global warming the best thing to do is

STOP HAVING KIDS

cant feed dont breed them :evil:

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:08 am**

Ray you'retotaly right

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:31 am**

The point is well made by Ray, but I'll echo it.

I'm all for improving how we treat the environment. However, I suspect that these doomsday scenarios are the creations of people with a self-interest in doomsday scenarios (similar to the guys who sell survival gear for the 2012 apocalypse). When Vice President Gore has financial self interests involved, it makes me skeptical of the idea in the first place.

Let me provide yet another example. Perhaps two years ago my firm made a big to-do about using styrofoam cups instead of paper cups. The firm indicated that this was because styrofoam cups used less electricity to create and thus were more environmentally friendly. Recently, our firm switched back to paper cups. The firm indicated that this was because paper cups were more environmentally friendly. However, if one just thinks about this for a few minutes, one realizes the reason we have switched back and forth has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with saving money. Now, saving money is an honorable goal, I agree, but the borderline hypocrisy of saying we've switched twice in five years because of environmental concerns makes me rather angry.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:21 am**

karel wrote:If you folks would like to help stop global warming the best thing to do is

STOP HAVING KIDS

one better: STOP BUYING SHIT FROM CHINA.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:04 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:The point is well made by Ray, but I'll echo it.

I'm all for improving how we treat the environment. However, I suspect that these doomsday scenarios are the creations of people with a self-interest in doomsday scenarios (similar to the guys who sell survival gear for the 2012 apocalypse). When Vice President Gore has financial self interests involved, it makes me skeptical of the idea in the first place.

Let me provide yet another example. Perhaps two years ago my firm made a big to-do about using styrofoam cups instead of paper cups. The firm indicated that this was because styrofoam cups used less electricity to create and thus were more environmentally friendly. Recently, our firm switched back to paper cups. The firm indicated that this was because paper cups were more environmentally friendly. However, if one just thinks about this for a few minutes, one realizes the reason we have switched back and forth has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with saving money. Now, saving money is an honorable goal, I agree, but the borderline hypocrisy of saying we've switched twice in five years because of environmental concerns makes me rather angry.

Oh, I absolutely agree that ALL (more than just two!) sides of this seek advantage. That is a given.

But none of that is reason to set aside the real and true and very compelling scientific EVIDENCE.

And, I repeat AL GORE took up the cause because it served him, yes. (and I do think that, despite my cynacism, he actually believes it besides... even if just that his interests have convinced himself it is true). AL GORE IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM INVENTED Global Climate change theories.

As for the worldview, the above article and one they did yesterday each indicate that average people's opinion on this have little to do with the evidence, rather more to do with their general world view.

As a scientist, I find that both condemning of the scientific community and very, very frightening for our future. That someone like you, who I know to be thoughtful, in general, insists on continually citing Al Gore's bias as "reason" to dismiss scientific evidence that has little to do with Al Gore ( I have honestly not even studied what he says, because it is just irrelevant)... that insistance from someone like you terrifies me to the core!

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:56 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:The point is well made by Ray, but I'll echo it.

I'm all for improving how we treat the environment. However, I suspect that these doomsday scenarios are the creations of people with a self-interest in doomsday scenarios (similar to the guys who sell survival gear for the 2012 apocalypse). When Vice President Gore has financial self interests involved, it makes me skeptical of the idea in the first place.

Let me provide yet another example. Perhaps two years ago my firm made a big to-do about using styrofoam cups instead of paper cups. The firm indicated that this was because styrofoam cups used less electricity to create and thus were more environmentally friendly. Recently, our firm switched back to paper cups. The firm indicated that this was because paper cups were more environmentally friendly. However, if one just thinks about this for a few minutes, one realizes the reason we have switched back and forth has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with saving money. Now, saving money is an honorable goal, I agree, but the borderline hypocrisy of saying we've switched twice in five years because of environmental concerns makes me rather angry.

paper cups are absolutely more environmentally friendly. stryofoam and other materials like it tend to end up in the ocean, where the sun photodegrades them into a thin film of polymers floating on the ocean that can seriously mess up fish, birds, and other life.

in the pacific there's a film of polymers twice the size of texas, deposited in a central location just off of hawaii by currents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Garbage_Patch

shit like this has an effect and it can be charitably called catastrophic. we're looking at some serious extinctions over the next few decades even if global warming is a complete lie (and it isn't). it's not doomsaying if it's true. we cannot continue to do this to our planet and expect everything to be all right.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:20 pm**

Okay, fine... but why, two years ago, were styrofoam cups more environmentally friendly... because they cost less electricity to produce?

It's like electric cars - the vast majority of the electricity produced in the US is through burning fossil fuels, so how much are we saving here?

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:04 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, fine... but why, two years ago, were styrofoam cups more environmentally friendly... because they cost less electricity to produce?

Correct.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:paper cups are absolutely more environmentally friendly. stryofoam and other materials like it tend to end up in the ocean, where the sun photodegrades them into a thin film of polymers floating on the ocean that can seriously mess up fish, birds, and other life.

Only correct if you look at the waste disposal as opposed to the production.

We just did some research on this exact topic a few weeks ago in my Environmental Chemistry course. Yes, the disposal of paper cups is easier on the environment than the disposal of polyurethane cups, but paper cups have a much larger impact on the environment during production. The biggest harm to the environment is that people will only buy white or other dyed paper cups, not their natural brown color. So the chemicals it takes to bleach the paper is very toxic. Electricity is an issue too, with paper cups using more to make, but it's the bleaching process that is the largest difference. The article was a printed one, so I don't have a link to it or have it with me to give specifics.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:18 pm**

HapSmo19 wrote:
karel wrote:If you folks would like to help stop global warming the best thing to do is

STOP HAVING KIDS

one better: STOP BUYING SHIT FROM CHINA.

Amen.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:00 pm**

With respect to cups only (I know, ridiculous), ideally what we'd want is to produce biodegradable paper cups using electricity produced from something other than fossil fuels (windmills, tidal power, nuclear, whatever).

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:50 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, fine... but why, two years ago, were styrofoam cups more environmentally friendly... because they cost less electricity to produce?

Actually, they weren't. However, some people did try to claim they were. Mostly it was, as you indicated, about cost.

thegreekdog wrote:It's like electric cars - the vast majority of the electricity produced in the US is through burning fossil fuels, so how much are we saving here?

Sort of.

In the east, a lot of electricity comes from fossil fuels. That is/was less true out west. However, the inter-connectedness of the grid now almost makes location "mute". Any analysis I have seen by real environmentalists absolutely acknowledges that electric cars were not such a great deal and, depending upon how you got your electricity might actually have been a negative. What they did do was potentially cut down on smog in some areas. Also ,most people who hyped electric cars were hoping for better means of producing electricity also. (in many cases, individual production, though that never really became practical).
In Europe and other places where electricity is not from fossil fuels, electric cars can make more sense. However, there are other impacts.

Hybrids are different. They are a true savings. Hydrogen has potential, but needs a lot of development.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:57 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:With respect to cups only (I know, ridiculous), ideally what we'd want is to produce biodegradable paper cups using electricity produced from something other than fossil fuels (windmills, tidal power, nuclear, whatever).

The real answer is to bring your own mug and just wash it.

As for those other fuel sources, it is possible, but none of those fuel sources is truly impact free.

This is one HUGE problem in any of these issues. Too many want to just latch onto simple answers, immediate hype. Real environmentally sane choices mean not looking at the latest fads, but at your particular situation, what is available, what local impacts might be, etc.

A classic example is buying fruit. You might assume that bananas, coming from the tropics as they do, make a lower carbon impact on the world that buying apples from just a couple of states over. In truth, ships transport bananas and trucks tend to take apples. Ships are so much more efficient that they can be a better choice. Of course, if the bananas are simply shipped by truck from the ship, it changes. Both use heavy pesticides.

Paper is biodegradable, but a huge percentage of our landfills are filled with paper. Also, chemicals tend to leach out of paper more than plastic. The real, ultimate answer is to just use less of just about everything and to compost at home (even in apartments, its possible!)... and to buy used items whenever possible.

BUT WAIT .. that means a dreg on our economy.

So... no simple answers. Just making the best choices we can with what is available. But a good many people could at least try to find out a little more. That you even ask, is wonderful.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:36 am**

Player, this is why I'm saying we need to provide incentives to develop alternative energy resources rather than punishing those that use fossil fuels. By providing incentives, the government can assist the growth of the economy. By initiating punishments, the government will retard the growth of the economy.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:33 am**

thegreekdog wrote:Player, this is why I'm saying we need to provide incentives to develop alternative energy resources rather than punishing those that use fossil fuels. By providing incentives, the government can assist the growth of the economy. By initiating punishments, the government will retard the growth of the economy.

I agree.

And also we need to support research into alternative.

Which is one thing Cap and Trade is supposed to do, but I am not sure the currently suggested plan will really do that. In general, the idea can and does (has) worked, but "the devil is in the details", as they say.

Anyway,any of that will, sorry to say, mean "more government".. something you indicate you are soundly against.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:21 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:In Europe and other places where electricity is not from fossil fuels, electric cars can make more sense. However, there are other impacts.

For a moment, let's put global warming aside. Fossil Fuel running cars do something far worse than making CO2, they make NO; that makes ozone and that makes some people sick and some people will die. This is a big problem. Solving the NO problem in cars as they currently exist actually causes increases in methane production (a global warming gas that's far worse than CO2).

If you get to a really big port city (for example on the US west coast) where you need transportation in the form of trucks to move things from the port (even from the port to the train) electric power so greatly improves air quality over 24/7 diesel running trucks that it is literally a no-brainer.

Hybrid busses are making their way into NYC running on natural gas. NYC has had electric transportation for a long time; they are called subways.

I think you can make an excellent argument for electric cars in all urban areas, no matter what the power source of the grid in general. The modern speed and range of such cars today makes them ideal for urban areas. The only downside is the problem with cars in urban areas in general; the problems of population and lack opf parking spaces.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Hybrids are different. They are a true savings. Hydrogen has potential, but needs a lot of development.

A technical nit pic; hydrogen is really not a fuel. An fuel in the ideal sense of the word is something you find and use. (In the real sense it is something you get after processing where the energy used in processing is far less than the ewnergy you get from the fuel itserlf.) H2 is naturally not abundent enough to be used as a fuel, it has to be made. That process requires energy (a lot) so any energy you get from H2 is subtrated by the amount of energy you need to make H2. Thus H2 is more of a battery than a fuel. The question is whether it is the better storage unit of energy.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:45 am**

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0226-ipcc.html

"UN to appoint independent board to audit the IPCC"

How many people think it will really be independent and not have it's mind already made up before it even starts looking at the report?

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:03 pm**

bedub1 wrote:http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0226-ipcc.html

"UN to appoint independent board to audit the IPCC"

How many people think it will really be independent and not have it's mind already made up before it even starts looking at the report?

Most of the intelligent, thinking world.

(which, sadly, excludes a good many internet posters).

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:34 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
bedub1 wrote:http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0226-ipcc.html

"UN to appoint independent board to audit the IPCC"

How many people think it will really be independent and not have it's mind already made up before it even starts looking at the report?

Most of the intelligent, thinking world.

(which, sadly, excludes a good many internet posters).

Sure. Because putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is always a good idea.

I suppose you'd say the same if the health insurance industry conducted an independent investigation into the alleged wrongdoings of the health insurance industry.

Conquer Club

Global Warming Exaggeration

Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration

Re: Global Warming Exaggeration