2014 hottest year on record

[ClimbnSink]

For the sake of science how about a little experiment. Take a public anti MMGW stance at your university and let us know how it goes.

The arguments against MMGW are very, very similar in form to those made against Evolution. Pseudoscience, obscure reports, even more obscure reporters. It is only on the latter that the deniers get any traction from me, there are some fairly heavy hitters who deny MMGW. Then again, there is a Nobel laureate who denies HIV causes AIDS. So what? Doesn't make it so.

 

[steingar]

For the sake of science how about a little experiment. Take a public anti MMGW stance at your university and let us know how it goes.

I will be asked to support my arguments. If I have data, or have reworked climate algorithms based on updated assumptions, or have anything new to add, my work will be reviewed impartially. Reviewers might not like it, but unless they can point to specific deficiencies they have to accept what I've done. Please don't try and gainsay me with your worldly scientific knowledge. If you were involved in any aspect of research science you'd know exactly how true this all is.

Indeed, the utter lies and malefactions put forward by the climate denier community are demonstrated concretely by this. According to them, if you don't go with the majority your funding will be cut and you won't be able to publish. Yet the prominent climate deniers within the climatological community are well funded and well-published.

Now if I take a an anti-MMGW stance because of something I saw on the internet, like many of you, I will be treated politely and with respect. They'll wait until I'm out of earshot to laugh at me behind my back.

 

[Norman]

Steingar,

That attitude has been prevalent in scientific circles forever. The first to say the world is round was laughed at. And so it goes.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Is it a religion or a cult? Hang the scientists before, after, or with the lawyers?

 

[N801BH]

Is it a religion or a cult? Hang the scientists before, after, or with the lawyers?

C.... all of the above...

 

[vintage cessna]

I will be asked to support my arguments. If I have data, or have reworked climate algorithms based on updated assumptions, or have anything new to add, my work will be reviewed impartially. Reviewers might not like it, but unless they can point to specific deficiencies they have to accept what I've done. Please don't try and gainsay me with your worldly scientific knowledge. If you were involved in any aspect of research science you'd know exactly how true this all is.

Indeed, the utter lies and malefactions put forward by the climate denier community are demonstrated concretely by this. According to them, if you don't go with the majority your funding will be cut and you won't be able to publish. Yet the prominent climate deniers within the climatological community are well funded and well-published.

Now if I take a an anti-MMGW stance because of something I saw on the internet, like many of you, I will be treated politely and with respect. They'll wait until I'm out of earshot to laugh at me behind my back.

The attitude of some scientists is outrageous. You have a theory. If the theory has any validity you should be able to show predictable results. You haven't. There should be observations that confirm the theory. There are none.

Biut the world is supposed to take drastic actions, based on what? Dogma from the Church of Climatology? Really, what do you have other than Dogma and hysterical predications that have no basis in science?

 

[steingar]

Steingar,

That attitude has been prevalent in scientific circles forever. The first to say the world is round was laughed at. And so it goes.

I myself have overturned dogmatic results that had stood for a decade. I had the data.

The attitude of some scientists is outrageous. You have a theory. If the theory has any validity you should be able to show predictable results. You haven't. There should be observations that confirm the theory. There are none.

Observational science is a different beast. Hard to do experiments on climate.

But the world is supposed to take drastic actions, based on what? Dogma from the Church of Climatology? Really, what do you have other than Dogma and hysterical predications that have no basis in science?

The fact that the drastic actions make a boatload of sense without MMGW. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and they're getting harder and harder to obtain. Moreover, they're doing number on geopolitics. Do we fight to keep the status quo, or find alternatives? Do we beholden ourselves to foreign powers, or develop resources that we control? Seems like a really simple thing to me.

 

[ClimbnSink]

We have plenty of oil here in America, it is people playing money games that keeps the arabs in gold and anger. Oil is unlimited we can use all we want the earth will make more. But we will use less as other things get better, drive an electric car and you won't want a gas one(price and range considerations excepted.)

 

[vintage cessna]

I myself have overturned dogmatic results that had stood for a decade. I had the data.



Observational science is a different beast. Hard to do experiments on climate.



The fact that the drastic actions make a boatload of sense without MMGW. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and they're getting harder and harder to obtain. Moreover, they're doing number on geopolitics. Do we fight to keep the status quo, or find alternatives? Do we beholden ourselves to foreign powers, or develop resources that we control? Seems like a really simple thing to me.

Your last statement is the one that makes me angry. Isn't science about determining the truth? So what is it, do we reduce consumption for the reasons stated and use phony science to justify it? Let's have an honest debate about fossil fuels. This is why people increasingly mistrust their Government because they get fed one lie after another.

 

[LDJones]

The fact that the drastic actions make a boatload of sense without MMGW. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and they're getting harder and harder to obtain. Moreover, they're doing number on geopolitics. Do we fight to keep the status quo, or find alternatives? Do we beholden ourselves to foreign powers, or develop resources that we control? Seems like a really simple thing to me.

And now we've uncovered the REAL agenda....it's purely an anti-fossil fuels agenda. That's cool. Make that argument honestly, rather than fear-mongering on something unprovable.

 

[LDJones]

Your last statement is the one that makes me angry. Isn't science about determining the truth? So what is it, do we reduce consumption for the reasons stated and use phony science to justify it? Let's have an honest debate about fossil fuels. This is why people increasingly mistrust their Government because they get fed one lie after another.

I see you beat me to it!!

 

[docmirror]

Oh, yeah. Alternatives like Ethanol maybe? What a effing boondoggle that is. If the policy for Ethanol is to make two massive companies even richer off the federal trough, then job well done I say. Yes, ADM and Cargill have raked in hundreds of billions of my tax dollars to subsidize a product which 1) Has lower energy density than the fuel it replaced. 2) Shows no sign of any aggregate CO2 reduction(including production and cracking). 3) Costs about as much in crude oil to produce fuel as it generates usable fuel. 4) Has ruined millions of vehicle/vessel parts costing consumers billions of dollars in parts and labor. 5) Raised the price of a consumer grain beyond any measure, thus depriving some people of food off their table. 6) Messed up the utility of a whole fleet of GA planes.

Nice going. This is the kind of crap one gets when policy precedes the science. AGM and Cargill thank you, thank you very much there MMGW/CO2 fanatics in legislature. How much has that set electric, or diesel, or fuel cell, or other alternatives back? Not only have they messed up fuels for cars, but anything that challenges Ethanol is beat like a poor stepchild.

 

[steingar]

Your last statement is the one that makes me angry. Isn't science about determining the truth? So what is it, do we reduce consumption for the reasons stated and use phony science to justify it? Let's have an honest debate about fossil fuels. This is why people increasingly mistrust their Government because they get fed one lie after another.

The science is solid as all hell, sorry. The only deniers are folks with either an anti-science or pro fossil fuels agenda. That can be amply demonstrated by folks getting angry when I say the the response to MMGW is what we ought to be doing anyway.

All you guys do is vilify people because they say something you don't like.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Everything you claim rests on scientists being special, they ain't. Just like cops scientists have behaved poorly and lost the people's faith.

 

[Gary F]

The science is solid as all hell, sorry. The only deniers are folks with either an anti-science or pro fossil fuels agenda. That can be amply demonstrated by folks getting angry when I say the the response to MMGW is what we ought to be doing anyway.

All you guys do is vilify people because they say something you don't like.

Really? What is your evidence that I fit into either of those categories? I believe that the term "denier" is only used by those who are anti-science as this implies that the subject is under consideration is completely understood and that is clearly not the case with climate science.

 

[Anthony]

The science is solid as all hell, sorry. The only deniers are folks with either an anti-science or pro fossil fuels agenda. That can be amply demonstrated by folks getting angry when I say the the response to MMGW is what we ought to be doing anyway.

All you guys do is vilify people because they say something you don't like.

You have it backwards as usual. MMGW is strictly due to a cult like, religious following striving for meaning above, and beyond the actual realities of their existance. They have an anti fossil fule, and anti industrialization agenda due to the guilt of the modernization, and industrialization of society. They can chose to ride bikes, walk or live in a hit without electricity, but by an large still often drive gasoline powered cars, and SUV's and use as much, or more electrial power and fossil fuels as anyone else. In other words they are hypocrites like you.

If you really believe this crap stop flying a plane, and driving your cars, and motorcycles. Turn off the juice, and heat to your house also, but STOP PREACHING TO ME TO LIVE LIKE AN ETHIOPIAN WHEN YOU DON'T.

 

[N801BH]

You have it backwards as usual. MMGW is strictly due to a cult like, religious following striving for meaning above, and beyond the actual realities of their existance. They have an anti fossil fule, and anti industrialization agenda due to the guilt of the modernization, and industrialization of society. They can chose to ride bikes, walk or live in a hit without electricity, but by an large still often drive gasoline powered cars, and SUV's and use as much, or more electrial power and fossil fuels as anyone else. In other words they are hypocrites like you.

If you really believe this crap stop flying a plane, and driving your cars, and motorcycles. Turn off the juice, and heat to your house also, but STOP PREACHING TO ME TO LIVE LIKE AN ETHIOPIAN WHEN YOU DON'T.

This is gonna get good......

 

[Ghery]

Oh, yeah. Alternatives like Ethanol maybe? What a effing boondoggle that is. If the policy for Ethanol is to make two massive companies even richer off the federal trough, then job well done I say. Yes, ADM and Cargill have raked in hundreds of billions of my tax dollars to subsidize a product which 1) Has lower energy density than the fuel it replaced. 2) Shows no sign of any aggregate CO2 reduction(including production and cracking). 3) Costs about as much in crude oil to produce fuel as it generates usable fuel. 4) Has ruined millions of vehicle/vessel parts costing consumers billions of dollars in parts and labor. 5) Raised the price of a consumer grain beyond any measure, thus depriving some people of food off their table. 6) Messed up the utility of a whole fleet of GA planes.

Nice going. This is the kind of crap one gets when policy precedes the science. AGM and Cargill thank you, thank you very much there MMGW/CO2 fanatics in legislature. How much has that set electric, or diesel, or fuel cell, or other alternatives back? Not only have they messed up fuels for cars, but anything that challenges Ethanol is beat like a poor stepchild.

The last words the salesman said before we drove off with our (then) new 1986 Dodge van were "Don't put Ethanol fuel in this vehicle!". Of course, within a year or so California mandated "oxygenated" gasoline. That was newspeak for ethanol. It ate the seals right out of the carburetor. I had raw gas running down over the engine block. Thank goodness there wasn't a fire. And, did California pay for the repairs? Of course not. Thanks, idiots!

 

[write-stuff]

If you really believe this crap stop flying a plane, and driving your cars, and motorcycles. Turn off the juice, and heat to your house also, but STOP PREACHING TO ME TO LIVE LIKE AN ETHIOPIAN WHEN YOU DON'T.

No one is suggesting that you or I or Steingar make huge individual changes. It's a false dichotomy. What we are suggesting is that we start making determined but incremental changes rather than sit on the status quo and do nothing. We can fly our airplanes and heat our houses while seeking new solutions to some potentially dangerous problems. You may argue that these aren't problems. That is where we'll just have to disagree.

 

[Anthony]

"Doing something" means taking productive funds out of an already dismal economy and throwing it at a HOAX purely for emotional, and political reasons. No, I wil not go along with this, and more, and more neither will the world populace who is waking up to this income, and wealth redistribution scheme.

The destruction of jobs, livelihoods, standard of living, and ultimately our very quality of life, and security hangs in the balance. All based on lies from politicians supported by some scientists who are GETTING PAID BY THEM.

 

[azure]

Just two or three points and then I have a final exam to make up.

First, Greg:

We have plenty of oil here in America, it is people playing money games that keeps the arabs in gold and anger. Oil is unlimited we can use all we want the earth will make more.

We have a fair amount, but it's not unlimited. A couple of months ago I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on accepted estimates of the amount of oil locked up in offshore sites and posted them here. I think I concluded that if we opened up all of the untapped reservoirs, we would have maybe 15-20 years worth of oil at present rates of consumption if we relied exclusively on that domestic supply. We have the capacity to be a major player in the world oil market for another generation or so. What then? Wait millions of years for nature to replenish what we've used up? The Earth will make more, but not in our lifetimes and probably not in the lifetime of our species.

BTW not all AGW people are back-to-nature types. Hansen, for example, advocates taking a closer look at nuclear alternatives. There is a small community of scientists who argue (persuasively IMO) that the currently popular "green" alternatives haven't the capacity to replace fossil fuels at our current rate of energy usage, and that nuclear is the only source that will fill the bill.

Also,

Everything you claim rests on scientists being special, they ain't. Just like cops scientists have behaved poorly and lost the people's faith.

Actually it doesn't, it rests on the integrity of the scientific process. You're right, scientists can be the worst SOBs sometimes, and the climategate emails show some of their uglier moments, but one thing the emails haven't established is that the process was really corrupted to any significant degree -- certainly not enough to cast the results into serious doubt.

Gary:

I believe that the term "denier" is only used by those who are anti-science as this implies that the subject is under consideration is completely understood and that is clearly not the case with climate science.

There's a lot of territory between the subject being understood completely and there being enough wiggle room to say that AGW is not happening.

 

[Gary F]

No one is suggesting that you or I or Steingar make huge individual changes. It's a false dichotomy. What we are suggesting is that we start making determined but incremental changes rather than sit on the status quo and do nothing. We can fly our airplanes and heat our houses while seeking new solutions to some potentially dangerous problems. You may argue that these aren't problems. That is where we'll just have to disagree.

Why? What will be the effect of all the expense and inconvenience of implementing "green" change? Is this to be a symbolic ritual or will it result in objective improvement? If they can't predict the weather a month in advance with current activities how can we predict what will happen if we all make the mandated sacrifices? If altered activity is necessary how can you quantify the absolute minimum for what you consider to be acceptable change?

 

[Gary F]

Gary:

There's a lot of territory between the subject being understood completely and there being enough wiggle room to say that AGW is not happening.

Even if we accept this (really a faith based assumption) do we understand the system enough to predict the effects of altered activity? (see post above)

 

[write-stuff]

Why? What will be the effect of all the expense and inconvenience of implementing "green" change? Is this to be a symbolic ritual or will it result in objective improvement? If they can't predict the weather a month in advance with current activities how can we predict what will happen if we all make the mandated sacrifices? If altered activity is necessary how can you quantify the absolute minimum for what you consider to be acceptable change?

Gary, it's perfectly ok for you to argue the "do nothing" case. We have people in here saying that we can double the earth's population and still have plenty of food and resources. And we have people that say we have an infinite amount of oil, and if we do run out, the earth will make more for us. Statements like this are beyond being arguable.

Predicting the weather is due to local and volatile factors. Predicting climate based on climate chemistry is a completely different animal. And btw, local weather predictions are certainly better than throwing dice and we benefit from this knowledge.

 

[Gary]

Oh, yeah. Alternatives like Ethanol maybe? What a effing boondoggle that is. If the policy for Ethanol is to make two massive companies even richer off the federal trough, then job well done I say. Yes, ADM and Cargill have raked in hundreds of billions of my tax dollars to subsidize a product which 1) Has lower energy density than the fuel it replaced. 2) Shows no sign of any aggregate CO2 reduction(including production and cracking). 3) Costs about as much in crude oil to produce fuel as it generates usable fuel. 4) Has ruined millions of vehicle/vessel parts costing consumers billions of dollars in parts and labor. 5) Raised the price of a consumer grain beyond any measure, thus depriving some people of food off their table. 6) Messed up the utility of a whole fleet of GA planes.

Nice going. This is the kind of crap one gets when policy precedes the science. AGM and Cargill thank you, thank you very much there MMGW/CO2 fanatics in legislature. How much has that set electric, or diesel, or fuel cell, or other alternatives back? Not only have they messed up fuels for cars, but anything that challenges Ethanol is beat like a poor stepchild.

No doubt the ethanol in fuel issue is a major boondoggle – but that one isn’t the MMGW crowd.
It’s not hard to trace the ethanol in fuel history. Chalk that one up to the lobby’s of the ag industry and the corn belt states. Breezed through Congress with lots of bipartisan support.
Gary

 

[ClimbnSink]

Gary, it's perfectly ok for you to argue the "do nothing" case. We have people in here saying that we can double the earth's population and still have plenty of food and resources. And we have people that say we have an infinite amount of oil, and if we do run out, the earth will make more for us. Statements like this are beyond being arguable.

Predicting the weather is due to local and volatile factors. Predicting climate based on climate chemistry is a completely different animal. And btw, local weather predictions are certainly better than throwing dice and we benefit from this knowledge.

The earth is on the job. Funny that MMGW folks are peakers. Planet is full of oil and diamonds. Market monkeys set the price and that requires selling pretty lies. Plentiful as dirt.

 

[vintage cessna]

All you need to do is show some evidence and I and many others would be persuaded to change our minds of MMGW . But MMGW is like a religion now, it requires a leap of faith ,adherence to Dogma and the belief in computer models that are always spectacularly wrong.

Just show one (legitimate) correlation of increased CO2 levels that led to a rise in temperature. Just one! Well you did have one for a while anyway, but they had to " hide the decline", make the Medieval warm period disappear etc...etc. Pity it was exposed.

 

[N801BH]

Gary, it's perfectly ok for you to argue the "do nothing" case. We have people in here saying that we can double the earth's population and still have plenty of food and resources. And we have people that say we have an infinite amount of oil, and if we do run out, the earth will make more for us. Statements like this are beyond being arguable.

Predicting the weather is due to local and volatile factors. Predicting climate based on climate chemistry is a completely different animal. And btw, local weather predictions are certainly better than throwing dice and we benefit from this knowledge.

I have read some pretty bizarre statements before, But... NEVER, and I mean NEVER..... have I read, saw or heard anyone ever say the earth will make more oil......

Care to retract that comment sir??

 

[Gary F]

I have read some pretty bizarre statements before, But... NEVER, and I mean NEVER..... have I read, saw or heard anyone ever say the earth will make more oil......

Care to retract that comment sir??

It is possible that hydrocarbons can be created by a geologic process. The carbon was there from the beginning. How it became "fossil" fuel is debatable. I think there was way too much oil to be created exclusively from dead dinosaurs.


Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now scientists say they have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle; the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. http://www.science20.com/news_articles/peak_oil_not_if_deep_earth_hydrocarbon_theory_true

 

[N801BH]

It is possible that hydrocarbons can be created by a geologic process. The carbon was there from the beginning. How it became "fossil" fuel is debatable. I thank there was way too much oil to be created exclusively from dead dinosaurs.


Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now scientists say they have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle; the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. http://www.science20.com/news_articles/peak_oil_not_if_deep_earth_hydrocarbon_theory_true

Yeah but.......
We don't have 5 million years to wait...

 

[Gary F]

Gary, it's perfectly ok for you to argue the "do nothing" case. We have people in here saying that we can double the earth's population and still have plenty of food and resources. And we have people that say we have an infinite amount of oil, and if we do run out, the earth will make more for us. Statements like this are beyond being arguable.

The predictions of the green doomsayer prophets have turned out wrong time after time. Why should I believe them now? Very few things are beyond arguable, besides this is just a variant of the straw man.

Predicting the weather is due to local and volatile factors. Predicting climate based on climate chemistry is a completely different animal. And btw, local weather predictions are certainly better than throwing dice and we benefit from this knowledge.

For all practical purposes, climate is just weather over the longer term for any given area. If they can't accurately predict the weather a month in advance I don't believe they can predict the climate 10 years from now. We were told that we were about to be punished with increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes and the opposite happened.

 

[steingar]

All you need to do is show some evidence and I and many others would be persuaded to change our minds of MMGW.

There is quite literally tons of evidence in the scientific literature.

But MMGW is like a religion now, it requires a leap of faith ,adherence to Dogma and the belief in computer models that are always spectacularly wrong.

In a way you are correct. I have made a leap of faith that my colleagues (and more than a few friends) have done their work diligently and reported accurately, and that their observations were made truthfully. That is a lot easier than believing in a 2 thousand year old book about an invisible man in the sky.

Just show one (legitimate) correlation of increased CO2 levels that led to a rise in temperature. Just one! Well you did have one for a while anyway, but they had to " hide the decline", make the Medieval warm period disappear etc...etc. Pity it was exposed.

Try the planet Venus.

 

[steingar]

The predictions of the green doomsayer prophets have turned out wrong time after time.

Sadly, I have to agree with you here Gary. Everyone thought hurricane activity was going to increase. Heck, its pretty basic. But it didn't.

Does that mean the Earth isn't warming up? Hardly. All it means is that none of us really knows what a warmer Earth will really look like. Well, I know one thing, the seas will have much less life in them.

But as far as the weather, I don't know. I would guess more extreme weather, but that doesn't explain the global dearth of hurricanes. Whatever a warmer Earth looks like, I bet money it won't be as good for human beings as the one we have right now.

 

[German guy]

While everybody seems to be quick with pointing fingers at the 'evil' oil industry, it appears as whether some people are not aware of the strong lobbyism and the enormous political interest behind the push for renewable energy sources and the reduction of fossil fuel consumption.

The 'International Renewable Energy Agency' estimates that in 2013 6.5 million(!!!) people were directly employed in renewable energy jobs. Jobs linked to, for example, research or the development of electric vehicles are not even included in this number.
http://www.irena.org/publications/rejobs-annual-review-2014.pdf

In 2013, the total worldwide investment in renewable energy was $214 billion (after a record setting $279 billion in 2011).
http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/gtr-2014

I believe that these numbers show that the renewable energy industry is already commercially very attractive, but that it also provides enormous opportunities for future growth - if only more people would be convinced that climate change is a.) bad, b.) manmade and that c.) something could be done against it by spending just a little bit more money here and there...

Another beautiful aspect is, that all activities related to the fight against climate change make the US and the countries of the European Union less dependent on oil or gas supplies from Russia or the Middle East.

According to the UN, '783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation. 6 to 8 million people die annually from the consequences of disasters and water-related diseases'. http://www.unwater.org/water-cooperation-2013/water-cooperation/facts-and-figures/en/
I wonder why, if everybody is so much concerned with the greater good and the rescue of mankind, do we not start with working on the today's problems but instead focus on obscure future problems, predicted by models of which most have proofed to produce significantly wrong results?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
Right – such activities contain no commercial benefit but instead only cost money.

I am afraid this means that, as so often, this old saying holds true: Follow the money!

Just for the record – I am for the protection of the environment and a careful use of our natural resources. I however think that this almost hysterical activism does more bad than good and that at least a portion of the funds which are put into it could be brought to a better use. Can you imagine that in Germany, where I am from, the government funded the installation of solar cells on houses, no matter where they were located and if the solar system will ever produce even the amount of energy which was consumed during its manufacturing, transport and installation?

 

[write-stuff]

The predictions of the green doomsayer prophets have turned out wrong time after time. Why should I believe them now? Very few things are beyond arguable, besides this is just a variant of the straw man.

Sure, but they've right a few times, too. In the 1960s manufacturing facilities dumped dangerous effluent into our drinking water. People thought that water was infinite and a little toxic waste wouldn't hurt anything. Since then, countless cases of contaminated water, unfit for drinking, swimming, or fishing have been identified. Big moves since then have shown a marked improvement in water quality overall. Same thing with air quality.

And the ozone hole. Many, perhaps most, people figured, "Ozone? Can't see it, can't smell it, not going to worry about it." Since then, a global reduction of CFC emissions have resulted in a significant rebound of the ozone layer.

Plenty of people in the forum don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Perhaps those same people don't believe that O3 shields us from dangerous UV radiation.

 

[docmirror]

Alright, so let's say due in some part that the earth is warming by the hand of man, and that let's further postulate that industrialization is responsible for much of it. I mean, I'll go that far based on a supposition, and what is a logical assumption of heat generated on the surface.

So - what is the answer? Up until the last climate conference, it seems like something called 'carbon credits' has become popular. What are carbon credits? Well, it's a fancy way of saying that rich, western govt will pay poor third world govt tons of money for being successful. We have developed everything from the transistor, all the way back to unheard of advances in ag, and medicine, as well as consumer products that the third world clamors for. Should we be financially punished for our success? Should we have to pay for the advancements we've made, as if it were a penalty for being clever? Or is this some kind of guilt mechanism aimed at the west for making lives longer and better in the third world?

What about real, tangible, actual improvements? In the early 1970s, CA realized that there was a problem looming with air quality. They weren't strong-armed by AZ, or NV, or Oregon, although those states did plenty of complaining. CA went to the scientists and found the actual causes of their problems, and over a decade they did something about it. At the time, I didn't like it, I was living there and the restrictions sounded like BS. But - the state govt knew better(man, it hurts to type that!), and they were right after all. The process caught on around the country, and although the states lagged behind CA, eventually the emission standards were raised, and the air got better.

But now, all that presuming, all the conjecture, all the extrapolation is built on a bed of quicksand. CA knew it had a problem, CA could and did measure it. They lived in reality, and there were no hockey stick manipulation going on. The US policy makers are running on quicksand with this cash giveaway, even if granted that there is a problem with MMGW, which hasn't even been conclusively proven yet! I gave you that as a freebie.

Am I and thousands of others willing to give up my massively polluting GA plane in the advancement of GW or greenhouse gasses? Should I be forced to make changes to my fuel and exhaust systems to improve the planet? And if we have to give up our GA, or modify our behaviors, what about the Chinese? What about the Brazilians who are burning up the Amazon 1000s of acres at a time? What about the S African mines that are stripping the interior for precious metals? Does everyone else get a pass, at my(our) expense? Am I supposed to feel guilt because I'm successful?

Some of the products my company makes are used around the world, and including third world countries to aid and improve not just communication, but learning, and knowledge, and cultural understanding and improvement in lives. I've worked there, and seen it. I love bringing the internet to far away places. It's a great feeling to get people of all walks of life to the world wide web(no matter how slow, it's always amazing). My thanks should be that our success is shamed in a global conference, and we are vilified because we make money providing this stuff and that the state should now take our gains, and give them to the very people we work to help?

Yeah, a lot of rhetorical answers. But for those pulling the MMGW/CO2 reduction wagon, realize that just like Dagny Taggart, at some point, you are going to kill the goose, and then - we all go backward. Good luck with that.

 

[vintage cessna]

There is quite literally tons of evidence in the scientific literature.



In a way you are correct. I have made a leap of faith that my colleagues (and more than a few friends) have done their work diligently and reported accurately, and that their observations were made truthfully. That is a lot easier than believing in a 2 thousand year old book about an invisible man in the sky.



Try the planet Venus.

Tons of evidence? Not necessary, just asked for one correlation of CO2 rise then temp rise. If theory is right should have been most apparent starting 1945, right?

I have no doubt your friends recorded and reported accurately. But it is what happened with that data that is the problem.

Venus? Think the atmospheric pressure there might have something to do with the temp?

 

[steingar]

Tons of evidence? Not necessary, just asked for one correlation of CO2 rise then temp rise. If theory is right should have been most apparent starting 1945, right?

Global temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. You can look it up.

I have no doubt your friends recorded and reported accurately. But it is what happened with that data that is the problem.

So you're saying they figured out this huge problem was headed our way but you think they should have just sat on their hands?

Venus? Think the atmospheric pressure there might have something to do with the temp?

Venus is about the same size as Earth, and well within the "goldilocks" zone that produces habitable planets. The reason is is inhospitable to life is greenhouse warming.

 

[Gary F]

Does that mean the Earth isn't warming up? Hardly. All it means is that none of us really knows what a warmer Earth will really look like. Well, I know one thing, the seas will have much less life in them.

We really don't. Why won't it be an improvement? Maybe better in some places and worse in others. How do we decide what is ideal, good, bad for any given location? I am suspicious of those who can't predict the actual change but insist things will be worse. That seems more like religious dogma than science.

But as far as the weather, I don't know. I would guess more extreme weather, but that doesn't explain the global dearth of hurricanes. Whatever a warmer Earth looks like, I bet money it won't be as good for human beings as the one we have right now.

At least you admit to speculation.

 

[write-stuff]

I have read some pretty bizarre statements before, But... NEVER, and I mean NEVER..... have I read, saw or heard anyone ever say the earth will make more oil......

Care to retract that comment sir??

Retract it? No. Read Greg's comment further up the same page. He says:

"Oil is unlimited we can use all we want the earth will make more."

And yes, I agree that it is a very bizarre statement. But we see plenty of them here so I'm getting a bit jaded.