Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[RainMaker]

I actually don't think the e-mails are that bad. It's not like these guys are coming out and saying they are pulling a huge hoax and laughing behind everyone's back. I mean suppressing data is a big no-no, but to call global warming a complete hoax because of it is just wrong. These guys sincerely believe it is happening and are just spinning things to make their case look better. It's unfortunately an aspect of science that has been around forever and isn't going away. The War of Currents is a good example of a battle at the beginning of the last century.

I also don't think money is a huge factor in this. There are a lot of respected scientists with no financial stake in the matter who believe it's real. I think acclaim and recognition is more important to the average scientist than some grants. And I also don't see grants falling away as climatology is an important science that will never go away (it is vital in so many ways).

Personally I believe that we are just in the infancy of this science. I believe there are a lot of interesting ideas out there but just not enough evidence to really substantiate anything. That will change in the coming decades and I think we'll get closer and closer to real answers. I think it's ignorant to eliminate any of these theories at this time until more evidence evolves.

I do find it odd how this has become a political issue. Science should not be political yet it seems to have gone that direction with global warming and evolution. I have to hand it to the PR firms of some of these energy companies though, they've gotten the average citizen with no vested interest in their companies to be fervent supporters of their beliefs. Who'd have thought we'd have a group of people chanting "Drill Baby Drill" at rallies. What's next? Do we start chanting Nike's slogan at the next convention?

Ultimately my belief is that I don't care about the global warming debate. I just think we should be cutting down on our emissions. I can't fathom that pumping this kind of stuff into the air is good for our health or our environment. This goes beyond CO2 emissions and to toxic waste and so forth. I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to our environment so any efforts to reduce pollution is a good thing in my mind. If global warming makes people more friendly than so be it, but I think it'd be a good thing if we just got on the same page and realized that trashing our planet is probably not a good idea.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

The global warming/green movement is a massive industry and many people will try and protect it to make sure it stays that way. I think educating people on water use schedules, recycling and power reduction activities is a good thing. But, I think where the movement loses me is when it transitions into big business with things like carbon credits, huge focuses on CAFE standards and scare tactics about human beings causing the destruction of the world through fairly minimal (if even measurable) activities.

That green industry pales in comparision to the energy industry.

And tying "green" into global warming is part of the problem. You don't have to believe in global warming to be good to the environment and other people.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That green industry pales in comparision to the energy industry.

Maybe if the green industry stops kicking the energy industry in the shin, it might get better cooperation from the big dogs.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

From an overall view this might be correct, but the devil is in the details. Depending on the rapidity of change, such change could spark a tremendous amount of conflict among nations over changing resources.

This is the cliche response, but it's hilariously disingenuous and/or poorly thought out. We're supposed to worry about climate change because it could lead to people in Africa or the Middle East fighting over water or insufficient crops? Newsflash - they already are. If people actually cared that the proper response isn't shackling western industry to potentially ward off/delay a result decades in the future - it's using a fraction of the money that would be lost by carbon caps improving their standard of living. Similarly you can try to prevent rising ocean levels and possibly (but probably not) AGW related hurricanes/cyclones from destroying the shacks and taking the lives of millions of people or you could actually spend money to build them better dwellings and improve the education so their government and infrastructure can respond and react to natural disasters.

People who say we should worry about changing climate because it could lead to deaths and privation from insufficient crops, water, and outbreaks of disease need to explain why the hypothetical ones down the line deserve our attention more than the ones happening as we speak.

If (and I recognize it's a big "if") climate change is significantly impacted by human activity, the concern isn't as much that some change may occur as it is that whatever change is happening may happen more rapidly than we can easily adapt to and that the change may continue without settling into a new status quo.

People are terrified of change because.... ? As I said above, the current status quo is unacceptable, and since any industrialization of the 2nd/3rd world is going to be much more inefficient and polluting than current western industries we should be focusing on helping increase efficiency and reducing pollution per capita rather than going after the best-run companies.

Again, it really depends on how much of the change that is happening is truly due to human activity. If it's primarily natural causes, we'd be better off spending money learning how to adapt rather than trying to prevent the change. But if it's primarily human-caused, I think it's our duty to change our behavior.

The best example I can think of is deforestation, and the logging industry in particular. First there is a false data set, with tales that North America was an untouched wilderness when Europeans got here, when now all evidence points to the contrary and says we have more trees than 500/1000 years ago. Then environmentalists spend money and time attacking US logging companies, and passing legislation to ensure all fires in national parks are put out. The first part is useless because the area that should be getting attention is the Amazon and Indonesian rainforests, not to mention that the US companies are actually doing it sustainably and ending up with more trees. The second actually leads to catastrophic results as the build up of detritus acts as a tinderbox and leads to raging, uncontrollable wildfires that destroy property and wilderness. So you end up with the environmentalists using faulty data, attacking the wrong people, and actually implementing counterproductive measures.

I'm not some luddite who disbelieves science, and I actually enjoy pristine wilderness (often against my better judgment as Werner Herzog would say) and am strongly in favor of reducing pollution. I mean, I despise smelling cigarette smoke - I don't think I would enjoy living in an industrial city like Pittsburgh, let alone the smog-choked Chinese ones. But at the same time, the science is unsettled, and even if it were true the measures people are trying to push through are misguided and poorly thought out.

[Warhammer]

I've been following this item fairly close. The problem, and check some of my previous posts on the topic where I claimed some of this was going on, is that all studies are supposed to be peer reviewed. The fact that they are changing how graphs are presented is important. This was not changing the scale of the graph to give it a new appearance, it was changing the trend or overly smoothing data points, which means they are tampering with the data to show what they want. Sure, you might down play some outliers, or discount why some data should or shouldn't be included but this is not what they were doing. They were changing data points. Then, when questioned about why their experiments and calculations could not be recreated, they refused to give people their data.

Coincidentally, this leak occurred the day after a freedom of information request was denied. Many people were shocked by the decision, but the following day (may have been later that day), this data went on the web.

Let's not forget that many of the predictions of the AGW lobby have proven to be false over the last 15 years. Additionally, their information is based upon their models. If their data has been skewed, what is to say that their models have not been tampered with? There have been those who have taken their data and found that their formulas for accounting for temperatures show that regardless of what you put in, you will get a positive increase in temperature, again regardless of what you put in.

The other things is that many of their favorite talking points, glacial retreat and the ice packs can be attributed to other things. For example, the arctic ice pack is subject to the prevailing winds. If you have strong prevailing winds pushing the pack towards the Atlantic Ocean, you get more melt than if the wind blows the other way. Also, the last few years have shown some significant rebound in the extent of the ice pack. Regarding glacial retreat, it has not been due to increased temperatures, but more from lowered humidity levels near the retreating glaciers. Much of this reduction in humidity is due to changes in land use around these glaciers. Case in point is Kiliminjaro. Last century it was surround by forest, now much of the surroundings are farmlands. Reduced humidity means more evaporation, which means more melt.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, poor Exxon and Chevron. Feel their pain.

You missed the point.

Would you have a problem if tommorrow Exxon and Chevron said, "We recognize that the future in money-making is in alternative energies and we are prepared to spend 100 times that of the "green energy" folks and employ 100 times more people?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Regarding glacial retreat, it has not been due to increased temperatures, but more from lowered humidity levels near the retreating glaciers. Much of this reduction in humidity is due to changes in land use around these glaciers. Case in point is Kiliminjaro. Last century it was surround by forest, now much of the surroundings are farmlands. Reduced humidity means more evaporation, which means more melt.

Sure sounds like something that's been caused by humans to me...

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Sure sounds like something that's been caused by humans to me...

But its not due to CO2 which is the only thing that the AGW lobby has been pushing.

Also, land use is not about increasing temperture per se, it is changing the albeido. Depending on the underlying soil, it can increase or decrease the local energy absorbtion.

However, this does lead to other questions. In cities, changes in land use, and increases in albeido (due to roads, parking lots, dark roofs, etc.) can lead to locally increased temperatures (due to radient heat). This can affect temperature readings. The heat island affect can cause a temperature anamoly of 10 deg. compared to surrounding areas. Therefore, citing of your temperature gauges is iimportant.

[Marc Vaughan]

My personal take on it is that mankind needs to be more responsible with the planet.

That being said to my eyes that the time period for which there is accurate data for environmental analysis is far too small to be able to say with 100% certainty that anything 'un-natural' is occuring because of human actions at present.

That leaves going 'green' in the bloody obvious camp to me - ie. I've never stuck my hand in a fire, but know its not something which I should do. Similarly we've only one planet to live on, lets look after it at least a little

[Warhammer]

Agreed Marc. There are some things that we should do because it is good sense.

On a lighter note, check out this site:

Minnesotans for Global Warming - Minnesotans For Global Warming: Because its stupid to politicize the weather.

Pretty darn funny stuff.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

This is the cliche response, but it's hilariously disingenuous and/or poorly thought out. We're supposed to worry about climate change because it could lead to people in Africa or the Middle East fighting over water or insufficient crops? Newsflash - they already are. If people actually cared that the proper response isn't shackling western industry to potentially ward off/delay a result decades in the future - it's using a fraction of the money that would be lost by carbon caps improving their standard of living. Similarly you can try to prevent rising ocean levels and possibly (but probably not) AGW related hurricanes/cyclones from destroying the shacks and taking the lives of millions of people or you could actually spend money to build them better dwellings and improve the education so their government and infrastructure can respond and react to natural disasters.

First off, what makes you think climate change will only affect the Middle East or Africa?

Second, how does improving standards of living in 3rd world countries help when they lose access to fresh water?

Third, my primary point is that while such changes in access to resources occur naturally too, if human activity is accelerating such changes, our ability to adapt reasonably to those changes is made more difficult.

People are terrified of change because.... ?

I think you missed my point. From what we know of climate history, there's been a range of climates that the Earth has stayed within. If human activity is affecting climate, there's a risk that this tips the scales in a way that leads to more severe climates than have occurred before, and perhaps leading to changes that might never be reversed.

The best example I can think of is deforestation, and the logging industry in particular. First there is a false data set, with tales that North America was an untouched wilderness when Europeans got here, when now all evidence points to the contrary and says we have more trees than 500/1000 years ago. Then environmentalists spend money and time attacking US logging companies, and passing legislation to ensure all fires in national parks are put out. The first part is useless because the area that should be getting attention is the Amazon and Indonesian rainforests, not to mention that the US companies are actually doing it sustainably and ending up with more trees. The second actually leads to catastrophic results as the build up of detritus acts as a tinderbox and leads to raging, uncontrollable wildfires that destroy property and wilderness. So you end up with the environmentalists using faulty data, attacking the wrong people, and actually implementing counterproductive measures.

First, I'd be very interested to see the evidence that says North America is more forested now than when we first settled here.

Second, since when are the destruction of the Amazon and Indonesian rainforests not getting attention?

There are many examples of civilizations ruining themselves through deforestation; it's good that the U.S. and Canada have practiced managed forestry (with the caveats that there is still work to be done to find the right balance between conservation, harvest and natural fires), but even countries with good forestation contribute to the overall planetary problem by exporting their deforestation - Japan for example tightly controls their forests, and as a result imports the vast majority of their timber, much of it from countries that are irresponsible foresters.

All that said, I'm not entirely sure the connection you're trying to make with climate change - how man reacts to environmental issues I guess?

I'm not some luddite who disbelieves science, and I actually enjoy pristine wilderness (often against my better judgment as Werner Herzog would say) and am strongly in favor of reducing pollution. I mean, I despise smelling cigarette smoke - I don't think I would enjoy living in an industrial city like Pittsburgh, let alone the smog-choked Chinese ones. But at the same time, the science is unsettled, and even if it were true the measures people are trying to push through are misguided and poorly thought out.

I would agree that we need to be careful about what measures we take to address these issues. First off, there's still so much we don't know about how climate works. Secondly, we can see in various areas of "environmentalism" how people can't see the forest for the trees, focusing on specific issues and not acknowledging how reactions to those specific issues are harmful to the environment in other ways.

But there are a number of "green" things we can do that make a lot of sense regardless of climate change. Using alternative energy to power our vehicles so we ensure we have petroleum available for products that we can't create otherwise; recycling material to reduce how much land we waste and pollute via garbage; reducing the amount we pollute our environment so as to keep us all healthier; being more responsible about energy use and reducing waste; etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Maybe if the green industry stops kicking the energy industry in the shin, it might get better cooperation from the big dogs.

They are opposites though. It's akin to saying that PETA should stop kicking the shin of slaughterhouses. There will never be cooperation as money is the only thing a corporation cares about.

I just don't get why people are so adamant about performing fellacio on these energy companies when they would slit your throat for an extra nickel on their stock price.

[Super Ugly]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Nothing good comes out of UEA. Stupid Pie-rats.

??

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But to answer Dutch's question, if every single energy company said, starting today, we're going to start spending billions upon billions into developing solar, geothermal, wind, and other renewables, I would stand up and applaud them. But, they aren't going to do that. They're going to spend a token amount on alternative energy research and continue to fund global warming denialist groups to do their dirty work.

Solar, geothermal, and wind are not the answers to our energy problems. Solar and wind energy take up entirely too much space to be useful, and geothermal is too limited in what can be done with it If you want to solve our energy woes, we need to move to nuclear power.

Heck the ol companies would not complain, oil is too valuable a resource to be burned as fuel.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Solar and wind energy take up entirely too much space to be useful

Actually, there might be a space breakthrough on wind energy generation.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2009/1124/1

[Glengoyne]

A couple of folks are talking about the big energy companies being opposed to the "green" environmentalist machine hyping global warming. I compartmentalize those two debates. Yes environmentalists are against big energy. No doubt there. They are natural enemies. I just don't see those two as the two sides of the global warming debate.

I see the global warming debate as a fight for populist support for an agenda. I don't believe global warming is a hoax, but call me a skeptic when it comes to anthropogenic origins. In '96(?) the UN report on climate change stated pretty unequivocally that there were simply too many variables in play to determine if there were anthropogenic causes. That's what the scientists said. The political body involved disputed that, and summarized the report including an assessment of anthropogenic causes. Six or eight years later, the body again reported on climate change, yet this time they flatly stated that man was causing the phenomenon. No smoking gun, no perfectly fitting glass slipper. Just a declaration. The global warming folks shortly thereafter simply declared victory on the subject. They declared the debate "over", and rendered anyone who doesn't sign on as a "flat earther".

I'm figuring that in thirty years, I'll just be one of the vast majority of the population looking back and saying..."Do you remember those global warming whackos, and all of the crazy shit they predicted?" That just isn't the reality, as I'm not in the vast majority.

Anyway, I'm a skeptic, but that doesn't mean that I'm supporting "big Energy". I don't really see Big Energy as the opposition to the global warming debate. I see the global warming debate as a war to win hearts and minds.

All in all, I'm for conservation. I think we should stop or shut down every coal burning power plant in the country, in the world if possible. Not because I think that global warming is going to destroy the world as we know it, but because burning coal is obviously bad for the environment. That is obvious. So we should use nuclear power. Not because of global warming, but because of the obvious advantages.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They are opposites though. It's akin to saying that PETA should stop kicking the shin of slaughterhouses. There will never be cooperation as money is the only thing a corporation cares about.

I just don't get why people are so adamant about performing fellacio on these energy companies when they would slit your throat for an extra nickel on their stock price.

Funny you should mention PETA. I'm strongly in the animal rights camp, but PETA does make me want to go out and kill bunnies.

Anyway,

The problem is that "Green Energy" needs to have the money and the firepower of "Big Energy" in order to be relevant. Their will never be enough money on the planet to support "Big Energy" styled infrastructure/power/money X 2. Never.

So what you are telling me, is that first we must tear down the "Big Energy" infrastructure, defeat their power players, take their money...then...rebuild the infrastructure, put new rich guys in charge, give them all the money and let them control the new power industry...

This sounds a whole lot like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Except,

1.) The battle won't be over by next Thursday and according to the Armaggedonists, it has to be done fast.
2.) We will have to spend more money exponentially to cover the "Energy Revolution" than we would if we could fund "Energy Reform".

Why not just work with the hundreds of thousands of people that already have an idea about the energy business than starting from scratch with a bunch of wacko liberals that are really more interested in destroying the idea of a capitalist cooperation than they are in finding the fastest way from point A to point B? Unless of course the more important goal is to attack capitalism rather than promote environmentalism...then I understand the shin kicking completely. "Big Energy" R&D money will always trump "Green Energy" R&D...if you join together to face the common concern, you'll be better off...in my opinion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Funny you should mention PETA. I'm strongly in the animal rights camp, but PETA does make me want to go out and kill bunnies.

Anyway,

The problem is that "Green Energy" needs to have the money and the firepower of "Big Energy" in order to be relevant. Their will never be enough money on the planet to support "Big Energy" styled infrastructure/power/money X 2. Never.

So what you are telling me, is that first we must tear down the "Big Energy" infrastructure, defeat their power players, take their money...then...rebuild the infrastructure, put new rich guys in charge, give them all the money and let them control the new power industry...

This sounds a whole lot like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Except,

1.) The battle won't be over by next Thursday and according to the Armaggedonists, it has to be done fast.
2.) We will have to spend more money exponentially to cover the "Energy Revolution" than we would if we could fund "Energy Reform".

Why not just work with the hundreds of thousands of people that already have an idea about the energy business than starting from scratch with a bunch of wacko liberals that are really more interested in destroying the idea of a capitalist cooperation than they are in finding the fastest way from point A to point B? Unless of course the more important goal is to attack capitalism rather than promote environmentalism...then I understand the shin kicking completely. "Big Energy" R&D money will always trump "Green Energy" R&D...if you join together to face the common concern, you'll be better off...in my opinion.

There is no "joining together" though. Big Energy cares about their shareholders and themselves. They could give two shits about the environment (nor should they in some people's minds). Any act of cooperation is done because it serves some benefit to Big Energy. You aren't going to knock on their door and ask "pretty please" to start offering up some alternative sources of energy.

And no one is saying you have to elminate everyone in the energy industry. But we should be telling them that they need to adapt to new regulations over a set period of time. Offering them the ability to adapt and compete with others for energy supremacy. If some "wacko liberals" win the R&D race toward newer, cheaper options, then so be it. If the current Big Energy wins, then so be it.

Energy in this country goes beyond a normal industry. It is a health concern as well as a national security one. The government has regulations on procedures that companies must adhere to when it comes to the handling and distribution of meat we eat. They set guidelines for what needs to be tested. Telling a meat packing plant that they can't ship beef with e-coli isn't "attacking capitalism". Just as telling an energy company they can't pump a ton of crap into the air and kill all the local wildlife isn't "attacking capitalism". It's a regulation put in place for the betterment of the country.

Now I never said you had to tear down anything. Those are your words that you're trying to put in my mouth. It's a tired scare tactic played by that side to make it seem like anyone who believes it's in the best interest of our country to invest in other energy options wants to destroy big companies.

And while I don't agree with the people who want to rush this, I do understand their frustrations. We've advanced massively in technology in so many areas over the last few decades. Yet energy seems to be an area that has artificially gone stagnant. There are people/companies that don't want us to advance technologically in the energy industry. This inability to advance has cost the country countless dollars and a lot of American lives.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no "joining together" though. Big Energy cares about their shareholders and themselves.

And "Green Energy" is the exact same way, just right now they are the "have not".

Any act of cooperation is done because it serves some benefit to Big Energy. You aren't going to knock on their door and ask "pretty please" to start offering up some alternative sources of energy.

Right, what I am saying is that the scientists need to provide solid data (not cave drawings and manipulated charts) and they need a consensus and they need to get all scientists on board. All scientists are on board with the fact that Mars exists. Lets' get them all on board that man is causing accelerated global warming.

Then, Big Energy will figure out how to make money and provide alternative energy. We still aren't even cautiously optimistic that oil will even last beyond the next century. If the oil dries up, will Big Energy simply go away without a fight or will they want to provide alternative energy to continue to make money? We can accelerate that if we work together.

Now I never said you had to tear down anything. Those are your words that you're trying to put in my mouth.

I never said you said that, but that is what this battle will be, and those are my words, my concerns, that I am presenting to you.

It's a tired scare tactic played by that side to make it seem like anyone who believes it's in the best interest of our country to invest in other energy options wants to destroy big companies.

What is a tired scare tactic? That Big Energy will destroy the Earth or that destroying Big Energy will affect millions of workers and their families?

And while I don't agree with the people who want to rush this, I do understand their frustrations. We've advanced massively in technology in so many areas over the last few decades. Yet energy seems to be an area that has artificially gone stagnant. There are people/companies that don't want us to advance technologically in the energy industry. This inability to advance has cost the country countless dollars and a lot of American lives.

Then work with them and not against them. If the only strategy the "Green Energy" folks have is to shut out "Big Energy"...they will probably lose the fight or prolong it for a very long time...so again, it seems like they are more interested in the fight than the resolution.

You are right though, Big Energy has no motivation to change and unless Green Energy works with/from within Big Energy.

All I am suggesting, is that Big Energy has all the tools, resources, money, and manpower to really propel the Green Energy movement. If their is something in it for them...money...there is reason we should explore that realm/possibility instead of constantly attacking them. I think Exxon and Mobil and whomever could be a major asset for environmentalism.

[Warhammer]

The reason why energy has stagnated is that there are not many ways to change the process. At its core, every energy plant does the same thing, they have a turbine that turns a core around an electromagnet that produces electricity in the core (probably have the core backwards, it might be the magnet that turns). The big question is how to turn the turbine.

The most common method is to produce steam to turn the turbine. This is achieved by burning fossil fuels to heat the steam. It is accomplished in nuclear plants by the energy of splitting uranium or whatever fuel they are using.

There are some mechanical methods, wind and hydro plants use wind and water to turn the turbines. Unfortunately, there are ecological impacts with both sources of power. Hydro plants can completely wreck a river's ecology, but often times in doing so, it produces a new niche for different species. However, environmentalists don't like that. Wind power, as it currently stands, requires large amounts of land area. The windmills are dangerous for birds and other creatures. Additionally, in some areas in which they have them there are some environmental concerns (don't know how founded they are).

The problem with fossil plants is that the efficiencies are only about 40%. Nuclear and wind are much lower, but since the source of the energy is much greater, you can live with the lower efficiency. Hydro, I have no clue what the efficiency is, but I believe it is fairly high.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Should we waited until every single foreign policy expert was on board before we started the War in Iraq?

Big difference. Iraq instability on the oil industry was set to tumble American Energy industry and our economy, not Gambia's.

Hell, The Kyoto Protocol calls for the US and Europe to foot all the costs for "global warming" but ignores China and India. In 2050, Asia will account for 6 billion of the world's 8 billion population.

So yeah, we can play that game all day long too.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Right, what I am saying is that the scientists need to provide solid data (not cave drawings and manipulated charts) and they need a consensus and they need to get all scientists on board. All scientists are on board with the fact that Mars exists. Lets' get them all on board that man is causing accelerated global warming.

You'll never get every scientist on board. Not ever scientist believes in evolution. Are you advocating that we stop teaching it and immediately stop all funding toward research on medicines based on that scientific principle?

But there is a strong consensus amongst scientists in that field. Virtually every poll conducted amongst scientists who have experience in Earth sciences and climatology shows strong support for the belief of global warming and that it's caused by humans. There is little debate amongst scientists, it's non-scientists (politicians, companies, sheep) who are putting up most of the resistance. So tell me what a consensus is to you.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then, Big Energy will figure out how to make money and provide alternative energy. We still aren't even cautiously optimistic that oil will even last beyond the next century. If the oil dries up, will Big Energy simply go away without a fight or will they want to provide alternative energy to continue to make money? We can accelerate that if we work together.

I doubt they are thinking 100 years in the future. We've seen through the latest financial collapse how far in the future these executives are planning through. They have a virtual monopoly on the energy industry with government supporting many of their wishes to secure new land for them to acquire more resources. Why on Earth would they have an interest in creating a competing technology? They are the most profitable companies in the world, have huge growth in demand, and find it cheaper to just buy up the patents of newer technologies instead of spending the amount of money it would cost to create something that would make their largest source of income obsolete.

Originally Posted by Dutch

What is a tired scare tactic? That Big Energy will destroy the Earth or that destroying Big Energy will affect millions of workers and their families?

I don't see how new technology and innovation would destroy anything. Energy doesn't go away. It shifts from technology to technology. When cell phones advanced to where they became our primary form of communications, the downfall of the old landline system is not going to affect millions of workers and families. It just shifted it to new companies, or kept it with the companies that were able to adapt toward the wireless revolution.

And as it stands, we do have millions of people affected by Big Energy. Everytime some conflict arises in the Middle East and oil prices shoot up. Or when a power company turns off facilities to artificially decrease supply. Or when we spend trillions militarily on top of thousands of lives to secure land so that we can give these companies record profits.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then work with them and not against them. If the only strategy the "Green Energy" folks have is to shut out "Big Energy"...they will probably lose the fight or prolong it for a very long time...so again, it seems like they are more interested in the fight than the resolution.

You are right though, Big Energy has no motivation to change and unless Green Energy works with/from within Big Energy.

I think you're very optimistic to believe they have any desire to work with any "Green Energy". Why on Earth would they want to help make their core business obsolete? It's like knocking on Microsoft's door and asking them to make a new technology that would kill their operating system business. They'd laugh you right out the door.

Originally Posted by Dutch

All I am suggesting, is that Big Energy has all the tools, resources, money, and manpower to really propel the Green Energy movement. If their is something in it for them...money...there is reason we should explore that realm/possibility instead of constantly attacking them. I think Exxon and Mobil and whomever could be a major asset for environmentalism.

They may have them on paper, but they have never shown an ability to advance technology. They are not innovative and do not have any prior results to show they are capable of advancing technologically.

Lets look at the oil/automotive industry. My first car (1986 Mercury Topaz) had better gas mileage than most new cars on the market. That's over 20 years with little to no innovation or advancement in fuel efficiency. In that time we've seen gigantic 50 pound boxes we called computers that cost $10,000 turn into handheld devices that are infinitely more powerful and can connect me to anywhere on the planet in milliseconds. You are saying you want to put our future energy plans in the hands of companies that have not been able to innovate at all over the past 20 years.

We have a major health and national security issue at hand when it comes to energy. You are saying that you'd like to put it in the hands of those who don't innovate and have no incentive to do so either.

[Dutch]

heh, pretty much disagree with/or have comments on all of that but it's getting to unmanageable to respond...so you win because it's too much to type. In ay event, good luck defeating Big Energy. (Suggest you upgrade from sticks to rocks though...they do more damage)

[RainMaker]

I'm not trying to defeat Big Energy. I'd like to see some innovation and advances in the energy field but know that's impossible since it's not in the best interest of these companies to see that happen. They own the politicians and have somehow convinced some citizens to actively root for their corporate interests above their own.

The technology will come someday, but it won't be made here. We aren't a very innovative country anymore.

[Neon_Chaos]

Cold Fusion!

[mrsimperless]

A good read analyzing the leaked emails over at BoingBoing:

hxxp://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/25/more-insight-on-thos.html

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

First off, what makes you think climate change will only affect the Middle East or Africa?

That completely misses the point. Climate change will affect everywhere but it's not a life or death issue for western/OECD countries because we have the resources to mitigate the detrimental effects and take advantage of the opportunities it opens up.

Most of the areas outside the tropics will actually benefit from an increase in global temperature. Ignoring the effects on other parts of the world, shrinking ice coverage is phenomenal for Canada, Siberia and Alaska - which is a full 1/6th of the US land mass. Overall, the average US temperature is ~53 degrees, and as anyone with a thermostat knows the ideal is higher than that.

Second, how does improving standards of living in 3rd world countries help when they lose access to fresh water?

Because when you're rich enough you can import fresh water or filter it. Israel and Egypt are in as inhospitable climates as global warming could create, but as retarded in a big-picture sense as planting crops in the desert is (and before you talk about fresh water disappearing there is a huge amount of redistribution that could and should be done, probably Aswan first), each country has an abundance of fresh water due to economic and military (aka indirectly economic) factors.

Third, my primary point is that while such changes in access to resources occur naturally too, if human activity is accelerating such changes, our ability to adapt reasonably to those changes is made more difficult.

Sure, but shackling our most efficient energy producers - and yes, that is the US/OECD countres when you look at GDP per pollution/CO2 production - is going to make it much more difficult, even if it were guaranteed to reverse the trend. Which it is not.

If you want to go past ideology and look at the technical problems with carbon caps, it's that according to the models pushed by the IPCC the cuts necessary to actually reverse AGW are so drastic they'll never be implemented, and even if they were they wouldn't stabilize the excess CO2 for 50-100 years. So even if the problem is anthropogenic the genie is out of the bottle and it's time to spend the money figuring out how to adapt and fix it rather than lowering everyone's standard of living.

I think you missed my point. From what we know of climate history, there's been a range of climates that the Earth has stayed within. If human activity is affecting climate, there's a risk that this tips the scales in a way that leads to more severe climates than have occurred before, and perhaps leading to changes that might never be reversed.

This is a line of thinking that comes from an over-reliance on short-term history - and I would define the whole of human existence as short-term, let alone recorded history. I would say this is the usual line, from the first pro-AGW group google came up with

Originally Posted by http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html

6. What evidence demonstrates that the recent increase in global temperature is unprecedented?

The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) has maintained global average monthly and annual records of combined land and ocean surface temperatures since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide. Based on NCDC data, nine of the top 10 warmest years globally have occurred since 1995. Adding to the evidence of direct temperature measurements, multiple studies by independent teams of researchers indicate that, across the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s were likely the warmest decade of the past millennium-and possibly the past 2,000 years.

The Earth has undoubtedly been warming over the last 150 years, but we were coming out of a mini ice-age - in an* historically freezing era. The Earth was 10-15 degrees warmer - celsius - for most of the past 100 million years. ( temperature ) There were no permanent polar ice caps. The numbers being talked about in comparison to that are minimal, we're much closer to slipping into another ice age than reaching anywhere near that, and the dangers of extinction for flora from slipping into an ice age are infinitely more pronounced than any increase of less than 20 degrees celsius. During the Younger Dryas (all of 12000 years ago!) temperatures dropped 7 C in Europe in a 20-year period. (And yes, some scientists argue this came about due to melting ice sheets interrupting thermohaline circulation (aka Day After Tomorrow) but I remain unconvinced.)

*(I know it should be a historically, but I can't bring muself to write that. Sorry grammar police.)

Originally Posted by dawgfan again

First, I'd be very interested to see the evidence that says North America is more forested now than when we first settled here.

Weirdly the only article I can find is pushing back against the theory (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT65-3.pdf pages 31-34) but the basic line is that the native american tribes used burning techniques (similar to Aborginial Australians) to convert much of the country to savanna and grassland. The initial contact with Europeans (and resulting disease transmission) obliterated the native populations so overwhelmingly (~90%) that the newly sparsely populated landscape was quickly overrun with new-growth forests (at least here in the Eastern seaboard). Thus by the time large numbers of settlers arrived they saw huge forests and assumed the native populations "lived in harmony with nature" and other such crap.

Second, since when are the destruction of the Amazon and Indonesian rainforests not getting attention?

There are many examples of civilizations ruining themselves through deforestation; it's good that the U.S. and Canada have practiced managed forestry (with the caveats that there is still work to be done to find the right balance between conservation, harvest and natural fires), but even countries with good forestation contribute to the overall planetary problem by exporting their deforestation - Japan for example tightly controls their forests, and as a result imports the vast majority of their timber, much of it from countries that are irresponsible foresters.

These two are directly tied together. Lip service is paid to the Amazonian and Indonesian rainforests, but as you say, environmental activists in these industrialized countries end up implementing and enforcing tight regulations at home while the dirty work is outsourced. Sure it may be the only solution from a technical and international legal perspective, but if you want to solve these problems globally standardizing regulations is the only way to resolve the issues - and if anything these groups have less interest in relaxing regulations at home than they do in tightening them abroad. (To use another imperfect analogy - this one to minimum wage - if you actually care equally about people regardless of nationality then it makes no sense to complain about US workers who make $5 an hour when people in other parts of the world make $5 per day/week. A truly global situation would require the US going down for equilibrium to be reached.)

All that said, I'm not entirely sure the connection you're trying to make with climate change - how man reacts to environmental issues I guess?

Yah, it wasn't a perfect fit.

But there are a number of "green" things we can do that make a lot of sense regardless of climate change. Using alternative energy to power our vehicles so we ensure we have petroleum available for products that we can't create otherwise; recycling material to reduce how much land we waste and pollute via garbage; reducing the amount we pollute our environment so as to keep us all healthier; being more responsible about energy use and reducing waste; etc.

Sure, but I don't think you'll find anyone reasonable arguing against these measures (the first one on short-term technical grounds yes, but long-term no). It's when they begin getting lumped in with carbon caps or the attempt to paint 1-2 degree celsius changes as unprecedented recipes for disaster that I react so strongly. The amount of CO2 is unprecedented, and the temperature is rising. But the evidence to support a greenhouse effect is spotty at best and the temperature rise is certainly not unprecedented. Ceteris paribus, based on the historical perspective a global increase in temperatures is actually in our best interests, and I would love to find a combination where we reduce pollution from fossil fuels and still continue to see an increase in temperature.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Should we waited until every single foreign policy expert was on board before we started the War in Iraq?

This is one of those ridiculous gotcha questions that make no sense when you break it down. Are you claiming that the evidence for global warming is as ironclad as the evidence for WMD's in Iraq, that action on climate change would bog us down in an unwinnable quagmire, or that invading Iraq has achieved its desired goals? Given the propensity for overlap between AGW and anti-Iraq war proponents it feels nice to poke the other side in the eye, but if anything the analogy actually either forces your side to admit the other side is/was right on the other issue or that your side has no case.

[cartman]

Here is Scientific American's take on the situation.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here is Scientific American's take on the situation.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

great link cartman

[path12]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here is Scientific American's take on the situation.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

EDIT: scratch that. Not worth it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige.
If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely. Surely, the Freemasons could do better than that.

[path12]

God, the comments to that article are depressing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by path12

God, the comments to that article are depressing.

well 40% of this country is ignorant, so i'd expect a higher-than-average percentage of the comments to be cringeworthy.

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

that was a pretty ugly first few page of comments though.

wish i could move to a country with a higher level of intellectual discourse.

[Warhammer]

That article cartman posted misses most of the point, as far as I am concerned.

In argument to their first claim/myth, most people that argue against climate change is that the system is very complicated and that we do not fully understand all the interactions that make up the climate system. The champions of ACC say that we have to press on and change everything because we are approaching the tipping point. How many tipping points have we had since 2000? The deniers say that we need more data to look at other probable causes than CO2. Case in point, land use as I pointed out above, can have a huge impact on a microclimate. Yet, that is not CO2 based climate change. In fact, some of the impact of land use would be painless and very inexpensive to implement.

Claim/Myth 2: This one misses the point. If you read McIntyre's work in analyzing Mann's hypothesis, his big issue is that what ever you put in, you get the same result. The model/formula would show an increase in temperature whether you started with 100 deg. and ended with 0 deg., or vice versa. Also, there have been newly raised questions regarding Mann's use of the tree ring data, as well as the validity of tree ring data to prove anything, because so many factors can account for the width of the rings. The big issue with disproving Mann's work is that much of the subsequent work is based in part on his findings. It is similar to a house, if the foundation is faulty how long will the house stand. If the house has no foundation, it will fall.

Claim/Myth 3: You can use their own argument against them, we the 120 years for which we have reliable data is not statistically significant on a global time scale. That is what, 1.5% of the time frame in which man has been civilized? They claim the warming is from 1980 until today. The first 20 years are significant, but the decade since is not statistically significant? That is 33% of the time frame they are talking about.

Fundamentally, contrarians who have resisted the abundant evidence that supports warming should not be too quick to leap on evidence that only hints at the opposite.

And the same should hold true for the other side. I'm willing to talk about it, how about the other side?

Claim/Myth 4: My question is how do we know that these only increased by .12 W/m^2. How are we arriving at the 1.6 W/m^2 due to man? Is this taking into account the ocean's area? Their further claim that we have to prove solar radience varience, is not correct. CO2 has not been proven. Nothing can be proven, and they cannot account for variance either. Models do not prove anything. Data can prove, not models. Their arguments for Mars again can be used to disprove what they are talking about for Earth. Where we measure temperature is very small compared to the land mass of the earth. Also, saying that there is no long term trend in Svenmark's research is poppycock. I invite everyone to read his research.

Claim/Myth 5: OK, I understand their point that temperature data is public domain. However, to prove/disprove a theory we need to know what data was used in the study. We need to see what thought processes were used in selecting data. Why some data was more heavily weighted than others, etc. Again, they talk about creating models, I can create any sort of line fit that will account for past data and then do what ever I want it to in the future.

Additionally, (the article even points out some non-peer reviewed articles) peer-review is to convince those who disagree with the data. You have to overcome objections and these guys have not been forthcoming with the background of their research and data to the naysayers to let them for review.

The last two items, I need to read again, couldn't figure out the point they were trying to convey and I need to run.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

One of the scientists involved in the scandal has stepped down from his position pending the results of the investigation.

Climate scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down

[cartman]

More insight from Ars Technica:

Five things you should know about climate change

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

dola

that was a pretty ugly first few page of comments though.

wish i could move to a country with a higher level of intellectual discourse.

You could just pop over to MIT and talk to this guy:

Richard S. Lindzen: Climate Science and Global Warming - WSJ.com

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige.
If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely. Surely, the Freemasons could do better than that.

There are two points here. First off climatologists whose research does not show global warming are being shut down / shut out of funding from areas other than the energy industries. Second, US federal funding is pretty narrow. It doesn't include foreign spending, it doesn't include private university research, it doesn't include think-tank and other privately raised funds, etc.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You could just pop over to MIT and talk to this guy:

Richard S. Lindzen: Climate Science and Global Warming - WSJ.com

While you're over there, you could book a hotel room for a week and talk to all of these as well.

The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change | All Personnel

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There are two points here. First off climatologists whose research does not show global warming are being shut down / shut out of funding from areas other than the energy industries. Second, US federal funding is pretty narrow. It doesn't include foreign spending, it doesn't include private university research, it doesn't include think-tank and other privately raised funds, etc.

ummm it's a representative snapshot of funding, clearly not all of it

[DaddyTorgo]

hahaha that's rich

[DaddyTorgo]

is there ANYONE who is anti-global-warming who is not in the pocket of one of the big energy companies or industrial companies or something similar?

i have yet to see one

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

is there ANYONE who is anti-global-warming who is not in the pocket of one of the big energy companies or industrial companies or something similar?

i have yet to see one

To play devil's advocate, if funding isn't there by other means for climate scientists that disagree with global warming/global warming caused by man, where else are they going to find funding than the oil companies?

It is at least plausible that these scientists are funded by the oil companies because they are skeptics, rather than they are skeptics because they are funded by oil companies.

Keep in mind I suspect the vast majority are the latter, but still...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

To play devil's advocate, if funding isn't there by other means for climate scientists that disagree with global warming/global warming caused by man, where else are they going to find funding than the oil companies?

It is at least plausible that these scientists are funded by the oil companies because they are skeptics, rather than they are skeptics because they are funded by oil companies.

Keep in mind I suspect the vast majority are the latter, but still...

nope. i don't think it's very plausible at all. there would be academic funding for the other side for sure...no reason there wouldn't be

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

nope. i don't think it's very plausible at all. there would be academic funding for the other side for sure...no reason there wouldn't be

You're sure about this? Because people have come out and said that in fact the funding isn't there if you're a skeptic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're sure about this? Because people have come out and said that in fact the funding isn't there if you're a skeptic.

who has come out and said that? any skeptics who have not been on the payroll of big energy companies?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

who has come out and said that? any skeptics who have not been on the payroll of big energy companies?

You're arguing in circles. Links and articles have been posted numerous times in here backing this up. Right now big energy is the only one willing to push much in the way of skeptic research, most academia is shutting down skeptic research because global warming is "solved" and you must be wrong if you disagree, no matter how good your evidence and no matter how poor their evidence, or how much they have to stack peer review journals, etc.

This phenomena isn't limited to global warming. Research these days is becoming more and more about finding grants and getting money than it is about doing actual legitimate research.

[DaddyTorgo]

i'm not arguing in circles. i just think that your claim that "big energy is the only one willing to push much in the way of skeptic research" is an issue.

if a cigarette company comes out with a study by a scientist saying that cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer don't we all just point and laugh and say "oh gee...big surprise. no way they would fund a study that undercut their business model?"

it's the exact same thing here. no way some big energy company is going to fund a study saying that global warming is a manmade problem when the solutions to that are going to hurt their bottom line!!

i really like that example actually.

if there isn't skeptic-research by somebody who isn't funded/associated with/whatever "big energy" then in my eyes their research is too biased to be entered into the conversation. it's common sense, and really it's far from an impossible hurdle to surpass.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I have difficulty buying the proposition that all scientists are selling out to whoever is giving them the next grant. I have seen no links here or elsewhere that have convinced me this is anything more than a talking point.

edit: And that goes for both sides. I don't believe that most skeptical scientists are corrupt. Much more likely, is they are focusing on small things found in THEIR work that complicates the picture painted by the bulk of the research. ALL scientists should be skeptical, regardless of the discipline. It's the whole point of science.