"an inconvenient truth"

[YetAnotherOne]

do I want less pollution? of course.

Bingo. The question most on the left refuse to address is, "Is chasing this particular fantasy the highest and best use of our limited resources?" Given the current status of the Kyoto clock I think the answer must be a resounding, "No!" To wit, " Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about US$ 202,087,765,601 while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.002095726 °C (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C."

Tragic that we're flushing amounts of money that could do real good in the world right down the toilet based on today's popular environmental mythology.

[GodOfRhythm]

Actually, Brad.

There's at least one study I recall that showed the effects like no other. I do not remember the specifics (and that's not an excuse, in this case) but it concerned the following:

A scientist wanted to study the effects of airplane emission on the environment and temperature. He was unable to test these under circumstances of no air traffic, tragically, 9-11 happened and he got a chance to actually empirically measure and experiment, the data that he found was, that by Planes not being allowed to fly in the US for at least a day he temperature actually dropped for 1C or more.... That to me is surefire proof.

[SeventhSon]

yeah says you and some liberal conspiracy theory website which you keep touting. how about some other souces which are reputable?

You mean like Exxon's own funding disclosures? http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...ing_report.pdf

The author of the article quoting Bob Carter, Tom Harris, is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. http://www.highparkgroup.com/team.htm

I'm with YetAnotherOne on this. I think it is incredibly naive and humanocentrically arrogant to truly believe humans are the prime reason for the earth's cooling and warming cycles which have been occurring for millions of years prior to our arrival.

Well a Republican Congress can see fit to listen to the climate scientists at The National Research Council.

do I think Algore is any kind of believable spokesperson for any movement, much less this particularly moronic one, LOLOLOL

Well, there's not much I can do if you can't look beyond the politics. fuck al gore. in the absence of me knowing fuck all about climate science, i have to defer to people smarter than me. it basically boils down to who you are willing to believe, right? you have yet to produce the name of one nobel laureate or phd in climatology that supports your position. or a single study published in a peer review science journal that supports your position. the scientists and the sources you do provide seem very suspicious *to me*.

btw, please stop labeling me (or whoever disagrees with you) as a left wing liberal. i voted for bush and consider myself a conservative. i drive gas guzzlers. when did you global warming skeptics stop beating your prostitute wives? :ROTF:

[RacerX]

A scientist wanted to study the effects of airplane emission on the environment and temperature. He was unable to test these under circumstances of no air traffic, tragically, 9-11 happened and he got a chance to actually empirically measure and experiment, the data that he found was, that by Planes not being allowed to fly in the US for at least a day he temperature actually dropped for 1C or more.... That to me is surefire proof.

Sounds like an urban legend to me, Ward. You got a link?

[SeventhSon]

Last time I checked he was a physicist who had never spent any time teaching or conducing serious study in the area of climate science. Like so many other "scientists" whose opinion the left touts he may be brilliant in his field but his statements here are mere conjecture. Keep it up and you'll do a better job of discrediting the movement you believe in than could any of your opponents.

And Wikipedia? Give me a break. Would you like me to edit that entry on the Oregon Petition for you?

Like I said, I have to defer to people smarter than me. I trust his ability to look at the evidence objectively more than *gasp* you!

brad, where's the study that supports your position? on exxon's web site?

Agreed about Wikipedia. But you post the Oregon Petition as if it were a meaningful set of scientists that support your position. Where is the nobel laureate, the phd in climatology, or the peer reviewed study that supports your position?

[SeventhSon]

Sounds like an urban legend to me, Ward. You got a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

There was NOVA episode on this as well. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

[GodOfRhythm]

Exactly, Seventh!

Global Dimming, that was it! It's effects actually mask those of the heating, by blocking out the sun and acting like a second ozon layer beneath an already affected one (the real one).

Now of course the mainly 'visual' effect of such vaportrails are not a global warming effect in se, but they adequatly show that man has a significant impact on the environment and the actual global temperatures.

[SeventhSon]

Bingo. The question most on the left refuse to address is, "Is chasing this particular fantasy the highest and best use of our limited resources?" Given the current status of the Kyoto clock I think the answer must be a resounding, "No!" To wit, " Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about US$ 202,087,765,601 while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.002095726 °C (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C."

Tragic that we're flushing amounts of money that could do real good in the world right down the toilet based on today's popular environmental mythology.

link, brad?

[YetAnotherOne]

Actually, Brad.

There's at least one study I recall that showed the effects like no other. I do not remember the specifics (and that's not an excuse, in this case) but it concerned the following:

A scientist wanted to study the effects of airplane emission on the environment and temperature. He was unable to test these under circumstances of no air traffic, tragically, 9-11 happened and he got a chance to actually empirically measure and experiment, the data that he found was, that by Planes not being allowed to fly in the US for at least a day he temperature actually dropped for 1C or more.... That to me is surefire proof.

That's not surefire proof, it's a data point ... and one I wouldn't be too quick to tout if I were a global warming true believer. After all if the mere cessation of air traffic in the United States caused that percipitous and immediate a drop in the global mean temperature there's absolutely no ground to believe the we're doing irreversible damage to the environment. To the contrary, it suggests strongly that if we at some point in the future determine that we're causing real damage, the damage can be undone easily and immediately. I don't think that's a conclusion most of your fellow travelers will support.

Besides, the Earth's entire greenhouse effect accounts for only about +33C. Water vapor accounts for 90% of that or about 30C leaving only a possible +3C to be divided among all other sources. For the sake of argument let's say that CO2 accounts for the entire +3C (which, by the way it doesn't). Humans are responsible for well under 5% of the world's atmospheric CO2. In the simplest back-of-the-envelope linear estimation that implies that human activity accounts for roughly 0.15C of the Earth's greenhouse effect which, of course, negates the possibility of your data point being due to anything other than poor science.

Suppose for the sake of argument that I'm off by a factor of 10 and that human activity is responsible for 1.5C of the Earth's greenhouse effect rather than the 0.15C we actually are responsible for. Does it then even pass the smell test to suggest that temporary cessation of a moderate fraction of the world's air traffic (in the overall picture of human activity, air travel itself being a relatively small user of hydrocarbon fuels which release CO2) could possible account for as much as a 1C drop in global temperature? I'd suggest that it does not though YMMV.

[YetAnotherOne]

link, brad?

www.junkscience.com

This is the part where I point out that even if the author of the site accepted funds from an oil company that doesn't necessarily invalidate his research. At least no moreso than those who accept funds from governments and other agencies who tend to fund only those studying problems they believe actually exist. Since government sponsored research is inherently biased, Exxon et al. are merely being responsible participants in the debate by funding the unheard opinion to give balance to the debate.

[SeventhSon]

www.junkscience.com

This is the part where I point out that even if the author of the site accepted funds from an oil company that doesn't necessarily invalidate his research. At least no moreso than those who accept funds from governments and other agencies who tend to fund only those studying problems they believe actually exist. Since government sponsored research is inherently biased, Exxon et al. are merely being responsible participants in the debate by funding the unheard opinion to give balance to the debate.

you're right, hypothetically it doesn't. but where is the published research that supports that cool piece of javascript with the spinning dollar figures?

gee, why don't i support a scientist on the payroll of a multinational who supports a position that will save his corporate sugar daddies untold billions of dollars? remember, there is no proof that tobacco causes lung cancer! :ROTF:

[SeventhSon]

Does it then even pass the smell test...?

That's the point, Brad. I don't want you to do my smelling for me. You are not a climate scientist either. Neither am I.

We can argue back and forth about this, and you can continue to incorrectly label me a leftist liberal, but it will not change the fact that an overwhelming number of scientists (who aren't funded by corporations that stand to profit from skepticism)...climate scientists that a Republican Congress called before them...believe that global warming is happening, and that it is caused by humans.

In the end, you throw your hat in with the people you believe are credible. Bob Carter and junkscience.com don't pass the smell test for me in terms of objectivity and credibility. That is all. YMMV.

[SeventhSon]

thread revival

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE7KO8FR1.DTL

"Six leading energy companies went on record supporting mandatory limits on emissions of CO{-2}, including Shell, Duke Energy, Exelon, General Electric, Sempra Energy and PNM Resources, an Albuquerque utility. Even the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, voiced its support for new limits on greenhouse gases.


Only two energy firms testifying opposed new regulation: American Electric Power and Southern Co., electric utilities in the Midwest and South whose power plants are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the country. Both companies prefer the system of voluntary reductions by industry favored by the Bush administration.



...


Critics have noted the contrast between BP and another oil giant, ExxonMobil, which has spent millions of dollars in recent years funding groups that question global warming science and oppose carbon regulation."

[fett]

:ROTF: Yur anus, my anus, my ass!!!!!. I have to admit that there may be a case for "Global Warming" based on our use of petro-chemicals. There are a few holes in their "Ozone" however. We have been around for a few hundred thousands of years, give or take. Earth has gone through many stages of "Earth Changing" events. The Beatles; EVH and Hair Bands. etc. My point is that we have only been capable of measuring changes in our enviorment for a few hundred years. That meausuring and montoring has become very refined and somewhat more precise as we delvelope the way the differentriate the changes. The "conservatives" say we have no real basis to compare to come to the conclusion that "WE" are fukking it up and that's why there is globial warming. The "radicals" say that the average temp of the world has risen 1 degree over the measured period of time, aka 100 years and if we keep this up, it's the end. I'm somewhere in the middle. I think that temp changes on the earth have been going on since day one. I can just see these guys when there is another Krackatoa (sp:ROTF: )_or a massive earthquake to make continents. God Bless the Weather Channel.

[SeventhSon]

by your reasoning, we have no basis for concluding that dinosours existed because no human has seen one. or calculating the age of the earth, etc. the point is you can look at the evidence (ice core samples, etc.) and come to scientific conclusions that are either accepted or not accepted. the vast majority of scientists have looked at the evidence and have concluded that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans. it's hard/impossible to find scientists who support the opposing viewpoint that aren't on exxon's payroll.

The problem with the media is that they give these shills the same amount of "time" to speak their position on these confrontational interviews. Because confrontation is good theater + generates ratings. That gives the illusion that the debate is equally divided. But it's not.