The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[CultureCitizen]

So then you are stating a personal solar panel system is a viable alternative to conventional grid power? Really? And you want to explain how that's going to be possible with the future heading towards plug-in cars?

And you just missed the point. Diesel made by the same people your previously said you could get independence from by going diesel or a hybrid... A hybrid still uses petroleum products...

You're not advocating independence, you're advocating cutting back a bit.Not exactly the same thing is it...

And as I said before, the pipedream, idealistic fantasies aren't going to cut it and the dismissing of reality doesn't help your cause..

YOU are missing the point : a diesel car uses 3 times less fuel than a gasoline one.
If you can't do basic math... there's no point in arguing with you.

Solar cells can have batteries to provide energy overnight... and yes you need a sunny place to use them efectively.

And diesel is made from the exact same source... Again you are advocating cutting back, and NOT independence, which was your previous claim...

LOL, and batteries can't keep a hospital, a supermarket, a police department, a fire department, or any other institution you can think of running...

What part of that being a fantasy, is confusing you?

And there we see your nature.. You ask for debate, but when you get it, you accuse me of an inability to do simple math and pout.. Look dude we got enough crybabies on this forum, try something new..

And cutting back does not yield independence?
Imagine the oil consumption was cut by 1/3 in America .
Wouldn't that reduce oil imports and make America less dependent on foreign oil imports.

There's research being made to make hydrolisis cheap. The alternative to batteries is to produce hydrogen and use it as a fuel.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...logy-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html

 

[PMZ]

Another "new" guy... How expected...

How are you, gslack?

I'm fine how about you sock number ??? What are we up to now? You guys need a life..

We have a life. Preparing for a future.

Counting socks is the kind of life that's left when you leave your opinions to others rather than determine your own.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

Yeah, the physics isn't well presented. But knowing the stats and what it means when CO2 correlates to temp anom to 76% is a big deal. You know that the connection cannot be denied. And you can regress on solar cycles, methane, whatever you can come up with, to see what you get. CO2 is the big one.

There is good history of AWG on the The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources website.

Beyond that, it's the Beer-Lambert Law that is the underlying basic physics. Shine light through a gas and see how much gets absorbed. It all energy conservation after that. Light energy, IR in particular, turns into heat, molecular vibrations. The details of the physics, as presented on Wiki, are mind numbing.

Then comes the final question, so it's warming, is that so bad?

That isn't a physics issue, it's a biology issue. One question is if agriculture can handle climate change. Our food basket was developed over thousands of years. There was big progress in the early 1900's. And the more we look into it, our food basket is integrated into a tunes ecosystem. AWG is likely to be a costly issue, at the least.

The whole of the science is a bit to much for one person to understand at the scientific level we would like. At some point, you just have to decide who to trust. If you don't trust anyone, your screwed.

"Then comes the final question, so it's warming, is that so bad?"

The biggest thing to me is that it's both unknown, and therefore risky, and for sure different than the climate that we built civilization around. We have already lost many lives and much treasure to AGW's consequences. Will that rate increase? Will it become catastrophic? Will it remain as currently?

Also we know that humankind's reaction to stress can vary all over the map. From our finest hours to our worst. So as hard as the effect of climate change on weather is to predict, the behavior of all of us to food or water shortages is more so.

Our predecessors went through lives much harder than ours and flourished. Our successors have harder times to look forward to also. Will they find the character to rise above the circumstances that we left them?

I'm thinking that the next 100 years will shed real light on mankind's future possibilities.

 

[PMZ]

jared diamond- Guns, germs and steel.

Wonderful book about our checkered past. Mostly irrelevent to the future however. We have evolved.

What a tale though could be woven of the next few centuries when the chase for resources can't be resolved by exploration and colonialization but can only be resolved by cooperation.

 

[PMZ]

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. *Just saying.

That's cool. It's a) a general audience forum b) it is personally worth the repitition.

With so much involve in AWG, and not being a climatologist, finding something definative and as simple as possible has been tricky. *Are the temp and CO2 measures accurate and precise enough? *Does the correlation demonstrate causality? *Do all the other issues raised have merit? *How good is that regression fit in predicting future outcome?

Beyond that, I just see the IPCC as a black box. *Data goes in and out pops a prediction model. *It is interesting seeing how good their fit is.

The rest is just so much noise. (i.e. Hansen is.... Gore is ....)

I agree and understand. Personally, I absolutely hate the talking heads attempting to simplify but also sensationalize the global warming/climate change discussion and debate. I do not need a shock and awe campaign to conclude that global warming/climate change is something that must be mitigated. That is why Al Gore, in my opinion, has no authority analyzing models and making prognostications from them, and that is why he suffered utter pwnage when he was forced to rescind some of the predictions he made. Leave the science to the scientists, and the activism to the activists. If you are a skeptic on the science behind something, research it for yourself, but do so through rigorous study, not unintelligent say so and heuristic-like deductive reasoning.

IMO Al Gore was a prophet and pioneer. They rarely fare well but many who follow reap the benefit of their courage.

The time when AGW was completely a matter of opinion, needed people like him to fuel the science that was necessary to resolve the issue. He ended up on the right side of the issue when the science was over.

Just like George Washington and Abe Lincoln and M. L. King and Nelson Mandela he was the right person at the right time and on the winning side. Winners get to write history.

 

[PMZ]

YOU are missing the point : a diesel car uses 3 times less fuel than a gasoline one.
If you can't do basic math... there's no point in arguing with you.

Solar cells can have batteries to provide energy overnight... and yes you need a sunny place to use them efectively.

And diesel is made from the exact same source... Again you are advocating cutting back, and NOT independence, which was your previous claim...

LOL, and batteries can't keep a hospital, a supermarket, a police department, a fire department, or any other institution you can think of running...

What part of that being a fantasy, is confusing you?

And there we see your nature.. You ask for debate, but when you get it, you accuse me of an inability to do simple math and pout.. Look dude we got enough crybabies on this forum, try something new..

And cutting back does not yield independence?
Imagine the oil consumption was cut by 1/3 in America .
Wouldn't that reduce oil imports and make America less dependent on foreign oil imports.

There's research being made to make hydrolisis cheapU. The alternative to batteries is to produce hydrogen and use it as a fuel.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs
Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs - Technology & Science - CBC News

It's sort of amazing that some people believe that the path to sustainable energy will be straight when the path to carbon based energy wandered all over the place. Or that the path to sustainable energy will be pure burdon while the path to carbon based energy was all opportunity.

 

[prepster]

Yeah!!

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

That's one numeric answer. We can get another using a linear fit, but absorbtion physics says it's logarithmic. It really builds from the in atmosphere temp v CO2, adds in the absorption physics, then it is just a matter of figuring out what the remaining 23.6% is. The other issue is if the physics says CO2 should be more or less than the observed 76.4%, what is offsetting the measured value and why that is correlated to the CO2.

But isn't that what the PhD guys get paid to do, so we can worry about picking up our double moca expresso on the way to work?

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

Very few people understand completely the science behind AGW. That's equally true of so many topics in today's uber specialized world. What's strange is how most of those topics are fully accepted by the lay world as things to be left to the experts.

The difference with AGW? It's been made political by those with agendas that they believe trump the importance of dealing with what's real.

Science can't be sold to those who aren't sufficiently educated in it. Politics can be.

So AGW, for the huge majority of us, is rejected or accepted based on "faith", either in politics for the denialists or in science for the realists.

I study and work in the field of politics, so I do not rely on the politics of AGW and GW/CC in general for my information. The majority of my knowledge on GW/CC comes from the IPCC, and the UCS. I know the consequences of listening to talking heads who try to integrate the science and politics, and the end-result is usually them being wrong. As another poster said, it is best to have division of labor. Scientists need to be scientists, and activists need to be activists.

 

[PMZ]

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

Very few people understand completely the science behind AGW. That's equally true of so many topics in today's uber specialized world. What's strange is how most of those topics are fully accepted by the lay world as things to be left to the experts.

The difference with AGW? It's been made political by those with agendas that they believe trump the importance of dealing with what's real.

Science can't be sold to those who aren't sufficiently educated in it. Politics can be.

So AGW, for the huge majority of us, is rejected or accepted based on "faith", either in politics for the denialists or in science for the realists.

I study and work in the field of politics, so I do not rely on the politics of AGW and GW/CC in general for my information. The majority of my knowledge on GW/CC comes from the IPCC, and the UCS. I know the consequences of listening to talking heads who try to integrate the science and politics, and the end-result is usually them being wrong. As another poster said, it is best to have division of labor. Scientists need to be scientists, and activists need to be activists.

Politics is an extremely important ingredient in the mix necessary to minimize the total cost of the required transition from energy from life based intermediates, to energy more directly from our only real source, the sun.

But politics has no role in the definition of the problem. That can only be done by science.

Science and engineering of course both have roles in solving the problem as well as defining it.

 

[prepster]

Very few people understand completely the science behind AGW. That's equally true of so many topics in today's uber specialized world. What's strange is how most of those topics are fully accepted by the lay world as things to be left to the experts.

The difference with AGW? It's been made political by those with agendas that they believe trump the importance of dealing with what's real.

Science can't be sold to those who aren't sufficiently educated in it. Politics can be.

So AGW, for the huge majority of us, is rejected or accepted based on "faith", either in politics for the denialists or in science for the realists.

I study and work in the field of politics, so I do not rely on the politics of AGW and GW/CC in general for my information. The majority of my knowledge on GW/CC comes from the IPCC, and the UCS. I know the consequences of listening to talking heads who try to integrate the science and politics, and the end-result is usually them being wrong. As another poster said, it is best to have division of labor. Scientists need to be scientists, and activists need to be activists.

Politics is an extremely important ingredient in the mix necessary to minimize the total cost of the required transition from energy from life based intermediates, to energy more directly from our only real source, the sun.

But politics has no role in the definition of the problem. That can only be done by science.

Science and engineering of course both have roles in solving the problem as well as defining it.

Of course, and that is where us activists come in. Also, we do not simply need to be working with governments to make the transition from fossil fuels and no self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage to renewables and self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage. Some of the greatest strides in the environmental movement in recent years have been in changing corporate policies so that they are geared towards sustainable development. Civil society organizations that play an strong role in actual conservation and preservation efforts, like the Audubon Society and World Wide Fund for Nature, must play a key role as well.

Lastly, we have to think beyond addressing the environmental issues of the USA. Our country has a greater desire to combat environmental degradation than, say, India or China. The environmental movement needs to become a more global phenomenon than a domestic one, and that will start when we start heeding the warnings of scientists, and the advice of the sincere activists against environmental degradation, that being individuals in global civil society. In this regard, I use the last UN Rio+20 Conference as an example of the divide between grassroots activists, governments, and governments' pertinent institutions. In authoritative fashion, hundreds of environmental civil society organizations, including the most notable, 350.org, walked out of their plenary meetings in protest of the weak nature of the eventual conference outcome document. With that being said, activisms transcends the political sphere; it is a holistic effort.

 

[PMZ]

I study and work in the field of politics, so I do not rely on the politics of AGW and GW/CC in general for my information. The majority of my knowledge on GW/CC comes from the IPCC, and the UCS. I know the consequences of listening to talking heads who try to integrate the science and politics, and the end-result is usually them being wrong. As another poster said, it is best to have division of labor. Scientists need to be scientists, and activists need to be activists.

Politics is an extremely important ingredient in the mix necessary to minimize the total cost of the required transition from energy from life based intermediates, to energy more directly from our only real source, the sun.

But politics has no role in the definition of the problem. That can only be done by science.

Science and engineering of course both have roles in solving the problem as well as defining it.

Of course, and that is where us activists come in. Also, we do not simply need to be working with governments to make the transition from fossil fuels and no self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage to renewables and self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage. Some of the greatest strides in the environmental movement in recent years have been in changing corporate policies so that they are geared towards sustainable development. Civil society organizations that play an strong role in actual conservation and preservation efforts, like the Audubon Society and World Wide Fund for Nature, must play a key role as well.

Lastly, we have to think beyond addressing the environmental issues of the USA. Our country has a greater desire to combat environmental degradation than, say, India or China. The environmental movement needs to become a more global phenomenon than a domestic one, and that will start when we start heeding the warnings of scientists, and the advice of the sincere activists against environmental degradation, that being individuals in global civil society. In this regard, I use the last UN Rio+20 Conference as an example of the divide between grassroots activists, governments, and governments' pertinent institutions. In authoritative fashion, hundreds of environmental civil society organizations, including the most notable, 350.org, walked out of their plenary meetings in protest of the weak nature of the eventual conference outcome document. With that being said, activisms transcends the political sphere; it is a holistic effort.

The US is, by far, the biggest single contributer to the current problem. China and India will pass us someday. Many other countries have contributed virtually nothing to the problem but will suffer the consequences. That's a global political nightmare that probably has no solution.

But, we can be leaders in, and take opportunity from, the technology that will ultimately solve the problem.

Among our abundant resources are solar and hydro and wind, all fuel-less energy sources. We also have an abundance of people educated to participate in the solution, and much investment wealth.

What are the obstacles? As near as I can see only dysfunctional politics. We have a Congress that we elected that accomplishes nearly nothing and has for decades. We have a business structure that is focused on profits today rather than growth.

It is within the power of we, the people, to fix our mistakes, and enjoy the fruits of world leadership as we have in the past.

Can we earn that leadership role? We are acting like the answer is no, we can't. It's too hard.

 

[westwall]

That's cool. It's a) a general audience forum b) it is personally worth the repitition.

With so much involve in AWG, and not being a climatologist, finding something definative and as simple as possible has been tricky. *Are the temp and CO2 measures accurate and precise enough? *Does the correlation demonstrate causality? *Do all the other issues raised have merit? *How good is that regression fit in predicting future outcome?

Beyond that, I just see the IPCC as a black box. *Data goes in and out pops a prediction model. *It is interesting seeing how good their fit is.

The rest is just so much noise. (i.e. Hansen is.... Gore is ....)

I agree and understand. Personally, I absolutely hate the talking heads attempting to simplify but also sensationalize the global warming/climate change discussion and debate. I do not need a shock and awe campaign to conclude that global warming/climate change is something that must be mitigated. That is why Al Gore, in my opinion, has no authority analyzing models and making prognostications from them, and that is why he suffered utter pwnage when he was forced to rescind some of the predictions he made. Leave the science to the scientists, and the activism to the activists. If you are a skeptic on the science behind something, research it for yourself, but do so through rigorous study, not unintelligent say so and heuristic-like deductive reasoning.

IMO Al Gore was a prophet and pioneer. They rarely fare well but many who follow reap the benefit of their courage.

The time when AGW was completely a matter of opinion, needed people like him to fuel the science that was necessary to resolve the issue. He ended up on the right side of the issue when the science was over.

Just like George Washington and Abe Lincoln and M. L. King and Nelson Mandela he was the right person at the right time and on the winning side. Winners get to write history.

Of course you do. Your scientific understanding is every bit as poor as his. As they say "birds of a feather'...

 

[westwall]

I have taken statistics classes before, so there is no need to explain the names of the measured values. Just saying. As for my worries regarding global warming/climate change, I do worry about the science, because it is the science that must be correct for the efforts of people like myself, who are the activists, to be on the right side of history. I wish I had a better understanding of the science; sadly, I am deficient in my ability to wrap my head around the physical, natural, and formal sciences, one of the many shortcomings of my intellectual capacity.

Very few people understand completely the science behind AGW. That's equally true of so many topics in today's uber specialized world. What's strange is how most of those topics are fully accepted by the lay world as things to be left to the experts.

The difference with AGW? It's been made political by those with agendas that they believe trump the importance of dealing with what's real.

Science can't be sold to those who aren't sufficiently educated in it. Politics can be.

So AGW, for the huge majority of us, is rejected or accepted based on "faith", either in politics for the denialists or in science for the realists.

I study and work in the field of politics, so I do not rely on the politics of AGW and GW/CC in general for my information. The majority of my knowledge on GW/CC comes from the IPCC, and the UCS. I know the consequences of listening to talking heads who try to integrate the science and politics, and the end-result is usually them being wrong. As another poster said, it is best to have division of labor. Scientists need to be scientists, and activists need to be activists.

The I suggest you take a look into how poorly the IPCC does their science. PMZ made a very ignorant statement when he claimed that very few understand the "science" of AGW.
He made that statement because he doesn't understand the first thing about science or the scientific method. The scientific method was created so that political talking heads COULDN'T politicize science. There would always be a check for a bad scientist in that EVERY EXPERIMENT MUST BE REPEATABLE .....BY ANYBODY.

If a experiment is not repeatable it is not real. It is pseudo-science. That's why the "theory" of AGW is failing so profoundly. They ignored the scientific method for the benefit of their pocketbooks and their politics. They chose activism over science.

I dare you to take a look at the claims made by the prophets (because that's what they are...religious prophets) of AGW. They claimed that because of global warming there would be no snow in winter. Then when that claim was demolished by Mother Nature they claimed that global warming would create MORE snow. Do you understand that that makes the "theory" untestable?

Do you even know what that means?

Do you understand how that instantaneously invalidates everything they have ever claimed? From a scientific standpoint?

Do yourself a favour...take a look at a basic scientific encyclopedia, learn some of the terms....anyone with a brain can understand the basics. Then look at how the AGW prophets violate every basic scientific rule there is....

 

[westwall]

Politics is an extremely important ingredient in the mix necessary to minimize the total cost of the required transition from energy from life based intermediates, to energy more directly from our only real source, the sun.

But politics has no role in the definition of the problem. That can only be done by science.

Science and engineering of course both have roles in solving the problem as well as defining it.

Of course, and that is where us activists come in. Also, we do not simply need to be working with governments to make the transition from fossil fuels and no self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage to renewables and self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage. Some of the greatest strides in the environmental movement in recent years have been in changing corporate policies so that they are geared towards sustainable development. Civil society organizations that play an strong role in actual conservation and preservation efforts, like the Audubon Society and World Wide Fund for Nature, must play a key role as well.

Lastly, we have to think beyond addressing the environmental issues of the USA. Our country has a greater desire to combat environmental degradation than, say, India or China. The environmental movement needs to become a more global phenomenon than a domestic one, and that will start when we start heeding the warnings of scientists, and the advice of the sincere activists against environmental degradation, that being individuals in global civil society. In this regard, I use the last UN Rio+20 Conference as an example of the divide between grassroots activists, governments, and governments' pertinent institutions. In authoritative fashion, hundreds of environmental civil society organizations, including the most notable, 350.org, walked out of their plenary meetings in protest of the weak nature of the eventual conference outcome document. With that being said, activisms transcends the political sphere; it is a holistic effort.

The US is, by far, the biggest single contributer to the current problem. China and India will pass us someday. Many other countries have contributed virtually nothing to the problem but will suffer the consequences. That's a global political nightmare that probably has no solution.

But, we can be leaders in, and take opportunity from, the technology that will ultimately solve the problem.

Among our abundant resources are solar and hydro and wind, all fuel-less energy sources. We also have an abundance of people educated to participate in the solution, and much investment wealth.

What are the obstacles? As near as I can see only dysfunctional politics. We have a Congress that we elected that accomplishes nearly nothing and has for decades. We have a business structure that is focused on profits today rather than growth.

It is within the power of we, the people, to fix our mistakes, and enjoy the fruits of world leadership as we have in the past.

Can we earn that leadership role? We are acting like the answer is no, we can't. It's too hard.

China surpassed the US in pollution long ago. If you're going to make such a ridiculous claim I suggest you put it in the appropriate fantasy forum. You see prepster, they fail even the basics...in everything...and yet the ignorant still take them seriously. However, those with a brain have moved on...



China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter


China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[RollingThunder]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

There may be a lot of debate in political and economically based circles where many of the participants have a strong vested interest in continuing their profits from the sales of fossil fuels, but there is no longer any debate on the reality of anthropogenic global warming among the actual experts in scientific circles. The illusion that there is still any real debate on this basic point in the world scientific community is just an artifact of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign intended to prevent or delay any effective action to impose the very necessary limits on carbon emissions. A propaganda campaign, BTW, that is very similar to the one conducted by the American tobacco industry to delay warning the public on the negative health effects of smoking even after the medical evidence was completely clear to the actual medical researchers.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.
(source)

 

[westwall]

What a laugh. The AMS in their POLITICAL statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of AGW "theory" is so bad that "EVERY PREDICTION WE HAVE EVER MADE HAS FAILED, BUT BELIEVE US ANYWAY"

What a joke they have become...

 

[itfitzme]

what a laugh. The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of agw "theory" is so bad that "every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"

what a joke they have become...

*prove it!*

 

[prepster]

Politics is an extremely important ingredient in the mix necessary to minimize the total cost of the required transition from energy from life based intermediates, to energy more directly from our only real source, the sun.

But politics has no role in the definition of the problem. That can only be done by science.

Science and engineering of course both have roles in solving the problem as well as defining it.

Of course, and that is where us activists come in. Also, we do not simply need to be working with governments to make the transition from fossil fuels and no self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage to renewables and self-sustainable and self-regulating energy usage. Some of the greatest strides in the environmental movement in recent years have been in changing corporate policies so that they are geared towards sustainable development. Civil society organizations that play an strong role in actual conservation and preservation efforts, like the Audubon Society and World Wide Fund for Nature, must play a key role as well.

Lastly, we have to think beyond addressing the environmental issues of the USA. Our country has a greater desire to combat environmental degradation than, say, India or China. The environmental movement needs to become a more global phenomenon than a domestic one, and that will start when we start heeding the warnings of scientists, and the advice of the sincere activists against environmental degradation, that being individuals in global civil society. In this regard, I use the last UN Rio+20 Conference as an example of the divide between grassroots activists, governments, and governments' pertinent institutions. In authoritative fashion, hundreds of environmental civil society organizations, including the most notable, 350.org, walked out of their plenary meetings in protest of the weak nature of the eventual conference outcome document. With that being said, activisms transcends the political sphere; it is a holistic effort.

The US is, by far, the biggest single contributer to the current problem. China and India will pass us someday. Many other countries have contributed virtually nothing to the problem but will suffer the consequences. That's a global political nightmare that probably has no solution.

But, we can be leaders in, and take opportunity from, the technology that will ultimately solve the problem.

Among our abundant resources are solar and hydro and wind, all fuel-less energy sources. We also have an abundance of people educated to participate in the solution, and much investment wealth.

What are the obstacles? As near as I can see only dysfunctional politics. We have a Congress that we elected that accomplishes nearly nothing and has for decades. We have a business structure that is focused on profits today rather than growth.

It is within the power of we, the people, to fix our mistakes, and enjoy the fruits of world leadership as we have in the past.

Can we earn that leadership role? We are acting like the answer is no, we can't. It's too hard.

Well, it depends upon what you are measuring and how you are measuring it. I believe on a per capita basis, US C02 emissions are the highest in the world, with China and India right behind us. Overall, China recently surpassed us in terms of C02 emissions. However, C02 emissions are only part of the problem, albeit the largest problem. Other issues include deforestation and biodiversity destruction. On those fronts, especially deforestation, the US is not the main culprit, as the EPA shows that forestry in this country actually serves as a net carbon sink.

With that being said, I prefer to frame combatting environmental degradation in a global context, as in that regard, we can truly make a difference on a planetary scale.

 

[RollingThunder]

what a laugh. The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of agw "theory" is so bad that "every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"

what a joke they have become...

*prove it!*

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The walleyedretard clings to his denier cult dogmas without any regard to any facts or evidence. Anyone who is actually following the science knows that many of the early predictions proved accurate and that the main way that they have "failed" was in being too conservative. The climate scientists didn't expect the Arctic ice cap to melt away so soon or so rapidly, they didn't expect that Greenland would begin melting so fast or so much and they didn't expect that Antarctica would begin losing ice mass so soon. In many other areas things are happening much faster than they expected 30 or 40 years ago. Don't expect the denier cultists to acknowledge that though, no matter how much evidence you show them. Their cultic myths and dogmas seem much more real to them in their little private bizarroworld than what is actually happening in the real world.

 

[itfitzme]

what a laugh. The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the worthless science of agw "theory" is so bad that "every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"

what a joke they have become...

*prove it!*

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The walleyedretard clings to his denier cult dogmas without any regard to any facts or evidence. Anyone who is actually following the science knows that many of the early predictions proved accurate and that the main way that they have "failed" was in being too conservative. The climate scientists didn't expect the Arctic ice cap to melt away so soon or so rapidly, they didn't expect that Greenland would begin melting so fast or so much and they didn't expect that Antarctica would begin losing ice mass so soon. In many other areas things are happening much faster than they expected 30 or 40 years ago. Don't expect the denier cultists to acknowledge that though, no matter how much evidence you show them. Their cultic myths and dogmas seem much more real to them in their little private bizarroworld than what is actually happening in the real world.

Oh, I know. It's really dark where they keep their heads. It is very odd.

I just enjoyed making larger font than he.

 

[westwall]

*prove it!*

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The walleyedretard clings to his denier cult dogmas without any regard to any facts or evidence. Anyone who is actually following the science knows that many of the early predictions proved accurate and that the main way that they have "failed" was in being too conservative. The climate scientists didn't expect the Arctic ice cap to melt away so soon or so rapidly, they didn't expect that Greenland would begin melting so fast or so much and they didn't expect that Antarctica would begin losing ice mass so soon. In many other areas things are happening much faster than they expected 30 or 40 years ago. Don't expect the denier cultists to acknowledge that though, no matter how much evidence you show them. Their cultic myths and dogmas seem much more real to them in their little private bizarroworld than what is actually happening in the real world.

Oh, I know. It's really dark where they keep their heads. It is very odd.

I just enjoyed making larger font than he.

Show us an accurate prediction.