2014 hottest year on record

Gary F said:
I'm selling carbon credits. Normally $100,000 per unit but on sale to POA members for only $10,000.
Click to expand...

Buy mine.....

For POA members only.....9,999.00

Call now. Operators are standing by.....:D

1-800 CHOKE-FOR-AIR.
 
write-stuff said:
The video of Dr. Patrick Moore is very interesting and a good watch for everyone, regardless of your side of the argument. A couple of comments about it.
Click to expand...
I agree that it was interesting, although he criticizes what he sees as the other side of the argument as opinion, while what he presents is opinion too.

write-stuff said:
(1) Moore appears to be a highly educated and knowledgeable figure in ecology. I haven't looked him up, but assume that he is as he is represented here.

(2) He is repeatedly tied to Greenpeace, but left the organization many years ago. He no longer speaks for Greenpeace. No suggestion here that Greenpeace's message is right or wrong, only that Dr. Moore's big tag as one of the founder's of Greenpeace has nothing to do with his (or their) current message.
Click to expand...
He mentions in the video that Greenpeace's mission changed at some point, going from more of a humanitarian focus to the opinion the humans are an enemy of the earth.

write-stuff said:
(3) His message that wood is one of the most important of the earth's resources is one that both sides would agree with, probably even for the same reasons.

(4) His message to use more wood and less steel is probably another one that both sides would agree on. I haven't looked into this argument in much detail, but on the surface it seems like a very good one. Proper forestry management supports renewability. Mining for iron does not.
Click to expand...
While that might be true, I'm not sure that we will willingly go back to using wood instead of steel because steel is much more durable.

write-stuff said:
(5) His argument about the years 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 is too nuanced to swallow without a good bit of research. He may be right or he may be wrong. It depends on specific verbiage in some IPCC message that I haven't looked up. Way too broad to boil down into a succinct argument and not one to be tackled in a few paragraphs.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that humans were burning fossil fuels back in the 1910-1940 time frame too so I didn't necessarily agree with his argument. He didn't back it up with any statistics.

Another thing I noticed is that he didn't completely discount the greenhouse effect as others here have been doing. He ascribed it more to clouds than CO2 which makes sense to me. But that is just from an observational standpoint, not a scientific one.
 
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hockey+stick+graph


This took about 6 seconds. Of course, if someone challenges your religion, it's certainly acceptable to stick your fingers in your ears and start shouting 'la-la-la-la-la-I-cant-heeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr-youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu'.
 
write-stuff said:
Yes, he certainly might. I never claimed this was a simple problem. And is he in bed with the oil industry? I have no idea. No reason to believe one way or the other. Plenty of high-profile CC deniers are aligned with prejudiced parties, but I've seen no evidence that Moore is.
Click to expand...
I tried to look him up and he is definitely a lightning rod. This was the most balanced profile I could find. Seems like he has always been more than a bit of a self-promoter, both during the Greenpeace days and now.

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html

It's possible that fat fees or wounded feelings give Moore's vehemence an edge. And it's not inconceivable that he's an out-and-out mercenary. But although his critique of latter-day environmentalism strains in a few places, it does have a larger coherence. The unifying principle is simple: "There's no getting around the fact that 6 billion people wake up every morning with a real need for food, energy, and material." It is this fact, he charges, that environmentalists fail to grasp. "Their idea is that all human activity is negative, while trees are by nature good," he says. "That's a religious interpretation, not a scientific or logical interpretation."

Moore's accusation may read like a caricature, but its outlines are readily apparent in environmentalist thinking. Bill McKibben, one of the movement's preeminent intellectuals, warned in his 1989 book The End of Nature that human beings, not through any particular action but simply by becoming the dominant force on the planet, were destroying nature, a "separate and wild province, the world apart from man to which he adapted." In effect, McKibben's argument blurs the line between man changing the planet and destroying it.

Perhaps the best evidence of Moore's integrity is his enthusiasm for genetically modified foods. He's not on the payroll of any biotech companies, yet he has become an outspoken GM advocate.
Click to expand...
 
N801BH said:
Azure......
What says you ????:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...
I don't have a lot of time now, but just to put in my $.02 before the conversation takes off in a new direction...

I agree with him on many points.

I don't think he is saying to simply cut more trees, in fact he explicitly talks about forestry and the need for management. His bullet point was "grow more trees, use more wood" or something to that effect. Nothing to argue with there.

His points about hydro and nuclear energy are well taken and tie in with Aplin's presentation. The popular renewable sources, wind and solar, will cost more to develop and the return on that investment will be less. Without devoting huge tracts of land to windmills and PV panels, the yield from those sources won't be anywhere near enough to replace fossil fuels.

I agree with him about fast reactors being the one hope we have now of a viable long-term source of energy with enough yield to eventually replace oil and coal. One problem is that in the wake of Chernobyl and Fukushima, the backlash against nuclear is I think too strong to overcome anytime soon. The other is that the kinds of reactors he is talking about are *breeder* reactors, they generate their own fuel, and there is a strong stigma against breeder reactors out of misplaced concerns about proliferation, even though the modern designs I've seen make diversion by third parties virtually impossible. But all research on fast reactors in this country stopped over 20 years ago and as far as I know, there is no funding available for further development. So unless the private sector can go it alone AND overcome the regulatory hurdles in their way, the rest of the world may see this technology before we do. I hope I'm wrong about that.

His argument about warming during 1910-1940 vs. 1960-present is pretty specious IMO. The IPCC doesn't say what they think caused the early 20th century warming. In section 1 of the AR5 Synthesis Report I can't find one paragraph that tries to attribute it to any particular cause. Their focus seems to be on the more recent warming because the data is solid enough (in their estimation) to reach strong conclusions. I think they overstate the confidence, but I think the conclusions themselves are quite plausible.

More later... maybe.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
I don't think he is saying to simply cut more trees, in fact he explicitly talks about forestry and the need for management. His bullet point was "grow more trees, use more wood" or something to that effect. Nothing to argue with there.
Click to expand...

I would only add that "grow more trees, use more wood" is a dangerously simplistic directive when the world's populations are actively reducing the amount of forestland year by year. The message should be save what we have, then grow some more.
 
Henning said:
See, there is not one entrepreneur among you. You all want to argue about this crap rather than figure out how to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Because NON progressives are offended by such outright fraud, and larceny.
 
write-stuff said:
I would only add that "grow more trees, use more wood" is a dangerously simplistic directive when the world's populations are actively reducing the amount of forestland year by year. The message should be save what we have, then grow some more.
Click to expand...
most corporate forestry types maintain a harvest/plant/grow cycle on the forests they own or have rights to.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
most corporate forestry types maintain a harvest/plant/grow cycle on the forests they own or have rights to.
Click to expand...

Yep and that's great. And although we're getting better at protecting it here in North America, we've still been loosing forest on a global level. It's pretty hard to convince some some starving national in a third world country that he shouldn't cut down trees to make pastureland for his goats.
 
write-stuff said:
I would only add that "grow more trees, use more wood" is a dangerously simplistic directive when the world's populations are actively reducing the amount of forestland year by year. The message should be save what we have, then grow some more.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I thought that message was fairly clear from the context. The guy is strongly pro conscientious forestry. The slogan was IMO just a summary talking point.

That said, it would have been nice to see him devote some time to the consequences of widespread deforestation.
 
azure said:
Agreed, but I thought that message was fairly clear from the context. The guy is strongly pro conscientious forestry. The slogan was IMO just a summary talking point.

That said, it would have been nice to see him devote some time to the consequences of widespread deforestation.
Click to expand...

I thought he glossed over the "grow baby, grow" aspect but maybe I missed that. At any rate, global deforestation rates are a huge part of ANY ecological problems we may be facing.
 
Henning said:
Not the stock, actual Carbon Credits, they can be produced as a byproduct of electrical production from natural gas as a byproduct.
Click to expand...

Carbon credits are a huge part of their business plan and profits, in fact, they pretty much state that were the subsidies and credits stop, they would drop the wind and solar like a hot potato, they are not profitable otherwise.

Edit: pretty sure there aren't carbon credits for natural gas.....
 
Last edited:
Now you understand why NASA GISS’s Gavin Schmidt held that press conference and why he said what he did. Like so many of those “experts” abusing the prestige of their distinguished institutions in order to push the great global warming scam way past its sell-by date, he has long since parted company with empiricism, rigour or ethical restraint. He and his ilk have largely abandoned science, in favour of propaganda.

:yeahthat:
 
I admire steingar for sticking by his "friends" in the mmgw scam industry, but I abhor the lack of integrity and conviction he emits when pretending nothing out fo order is occurring through the fabrication of data, misuse of data, careful use of only some of the data, and outright fraud going on, then CLAIMING it's not true because some of the scammers peers said so.
 
Florida Cracker said:
I admire steingar for sticking by his "friends" in the mmgw scam industry, but I abhor the lack of integrity and conviction he emits when pretending nothing out fo order is occurring through the fabrication of data, misuse of data, careful use of only some of the data, and outright fraud going on, then CLAIMING it's not true because some of the scammers peers said so.
Click to expand...


You forget to include the possibility in your analysis that in his biz, nothing is out of order when those things are occurring. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top