(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: The Kyoto treaty, even if fully implemented, would only save us about a tenth of a degree of future temperature rise many decades from now. What a waste of effort! You can see for yourself here at the Junk Science website.
Answer: There are three big problems with this claim.
First, it's a red herring. The purpose of Kyoto is to establish international political and economic mechanisms for dealing with global warming, by taking the first tentative steps toward a difficult goal. You may as well time me walking to the sidewalk where I parked my car bicycle and then tell me at this rate I will never get home.
Second, Kyoto is a step-by-step process. The second phase (much less third, fourth, etc.) has not even been negotiated yet. How can anyone claim anything about how effective it is going to be? Junk Science and other sources of this propaganda are starting their dubious calculations from the assumption that Kyoto ends in 2012 when round one is over. That is just wrong.
Third, the temperature several decades from now is to a large extent already determined by the current energy imbalance, thanks to extra CO2 already in the atmosphere. Short of a complete cessation of emissions today, there is no foreseeable way to avoid the bulk of the warming "in the pipeline." This is mostly due to the extreme thermal inertia of the oceans and therefore the climate system as a whole. It means that our actions today, or our inaction, will have consequences several decades hence.
Finally, I have a rather personal peeve with people who vociferously criticize any attempt at a solution and yet propose nothing in its place. You'd think if they were so sincerely concerned about how ineffective Kyoto will be (as, frankly, they should be), they would be agitating for more action rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying "I guess we should just sit it out." It's like a guy standing on the sidewalk watching all his neighbors fight a house fire, saying "you'll never make it, you don't have enough people."
Shut up and help!
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Flat
solman Posted 9:22 pm
15 Mar 2007
Wisdom REQUIRES answers to the following questions before taking immediate action [answers including a reasonable range of uncertainty are entirely acceptable]:
What action do you propose?
What will it accomplish?
What will it cost?
How much more will it cost to accomplish the same thing if we wait?
Advocates of immediate action on global warming have utterly failed to answer any of these.
Because they have not been answered, I suspect that people who want immediate action on global warming do not believe that the case for immediate action can be supported by facts.
That is to say, if the general public were given clear answers to these four questions, advocates of immediate action believe that they would decide to do nothing.
If Kyoto is not the action that you are proposing, then either say what that action is, or concede that given present technology, there is no available action that justifies the cost.
Permalink
Inquirer Posted 9:13 pm
23 Mar 2007
Permalink
Alastair Posted 6:23 am
30 Jun 2007
We can agree to disagree on the causes on global warming but I think we can all agree that finding alternatives to fossil fuels is fundamentally a good thing for everyone. This would be a good idea both from an economic perspective and also because of the reality that oil is a finite resource.
Global warming activists, green politicians and the left wing media are motivated more by a socialist and anti-capitalist agenda than genuine concern for the environment and they also have ideas that wouldn't work even "if" CO2 was the real cause of global warming.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:27 am
30 Jun 2007
http://www.greyfalcon.net/smith.png
Furthermore, he believed that it was the proper role of the government to regulate public goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Which includes such things as air quality, and "atmosphere" quality.
_
If anything, we're paying far more taxes dollars for fossil fuels than we are renewables.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/nucleartaxes
_
If you want to pay less taxes, we should go green.
Permalink
hansman1982 Posted 3:42 pm
26 Jan 2008
Interesting how 1 year global whatever is going to cause more hurricanes and mankind is going to be wiped off the face of the earth because of it, then when there are fewer hurricanes immediatly global thingy is going to cause fewer hurricanes. Whats up with that?
My guess is that you answered question 1 with "We aren't entirely sure what global climate change is going to do." Ok based on that how do we know WHAT!!! to do? I agree, we should reduce, reuse, recycle but beyond that do we know what cause and effect is for our actions. Remember, if we mess something up horribly Mother Nature won't give us a participation award, kiss on the cheek and a "You'll get it next time" speech.
Also, in another article I saw that it is believed that rapid climate change caused mass extinctions before (appeared to be around the time of dinosaur extinctions)...I thought the scientific consensus was that an asteroid or meteor hit the earth thus plunging the entire world into nuclear winter. That is just what was always force fed to me by scientists, I dunno, I guess you could say that the nuclear winter was dramatic climate change...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:04 pm
26 Jan 2008
Technically, global warming causes climate change. This is why you hear both terms used in different settings.
And as for cooling, the science on that was never accepted as anything more impressive than "ambiguous".
http://greyfalcon.net/lindzencooling.png
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling
Interesting how 1 year global whatever is going to cause more hurricanes and mankind is going to be wiped off the face of the earth because of it, then when there are fewer hurricanes immediatly global thingy is going to cause fewer hurricanes. Whats up with that?
(1 year? No idea what thats about.)
As for the "less hurricanes" over 2006, thats largely because an El Nino coincided with the hurricane season.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/200 ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061129-hu ...
But in general, thats largely because there is stronger evidence towards increased frequency of "big hurricanes". Or an increase in intensity.
Than there is in an increase in hurricane frequency in general.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 10:37 pm
26 Jan 2008
Yes, those super-rich beneficiaries of capitalism, that top 1% which own half of the world, and their bought-and-paid-for government representatives... Theeeey want to bring us that great evil, socialism. LOL!
I seriously doubt it will have much effect (if any) on CO2 emmissions.
It probably won't, but not because Kyoto is in any sense "socialist," which it isn't...
If the global warming alarmists were really serious about this great hoax, why don't they instead of spending millions on climate research spend that money on finding alternative energy supplies so that we are less relient on fossil fuels. I guess that would make too much sense.
Well, actually what's wrong with this pseudo-solution is that it doesn't make enough sense. In an expanding, capitalist economy, "alternative energy supplies" merely form a supplement to the everyday consumption of, say, 85 million barrels of oil every day, without stopping even one of those barrels from being combusted -- with the consequent abrupt climate change effect.
We can agree to disagree on the causes on global warming but I think we can all agree that finding alternatives to fossil fuels is fundamentally a good thing for everyone.
No, finding alternatives to fossil fuels is a good thing for those who have found them. That 40% of humanity that lives off of less than $2/day? You'd actually have to share the benefits of alternative energy with them, and that would be socialism.
Global warming activists, green politicians and the left wing media are motivated more by a socialist and anti-capitalist agenda than genuine concern for the environment Yeah, there's no reason to be concerned about capitalism, except, of course, that its relentless consumption of resources will eventually destroy the ecosystemic fabric that keeps us alive...
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:24 pm
26 Jan 2008
Abrupt climate change affects overall climate, not day-to-day (or even year-to-year) weather reports. When the climatologists talk about how hurricanes will generally become more extreme, they don't mean that any specific year will contain more extreme hurricanes.
My guess is that you answered question 1 with "We aren't entirely sure what global climate change is going to do." Ok based on that how do we know WHAT!!! to do? I agree, we should reduce, reuse, recycle but beyond that do we know what cause and effect is for our actions. Remember, if we mess something up horribly Mother Nature won't give us a participation award, kiss on the cheek and a "You'll get it next time" speech.
The suggestion implied in Kyoto is that we now know what NOT to do -- in short, DON'T burn 85 million barrels of oil every day, and DON'T burn a lot of coal, because of the (as of yet untold) HARM it could do to global ecosystems.
Also, in another article I saw that it is believed that rapid climate change caused mass extinctions before (appeared to be around the time of dinosaur extinctions)...I thought the scientific consensus was that an asteroid or meteor hit the earth thus plunging the entire world into nuclear winter. That is just what was always force fed to me by scientists, I dunno, I guess you could say that the nuclear winter was dramatic climate change...
No scientist is force-feeding you anything. The "rapid climate change" extinctions are the ones that occurred in the Permian-Triassic boundary, 251.4 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
hansman1982 Posted 2:15 am
27 Jan 2008
Hurricanes:
For 2004-2007 scientists were clamoring that the hurricane season was going to be more intense and have more hurricanes...2006 - 2007 neither is true AND now scientists are claiming that global warming is going to intensify the el nino effect and generate more wind shear in the atlantic which equals (according to these same scientists as earlier) fewer hurricanes of less intensity. My point: we have no clue what global warming will do other than raise tempuatures .7 degrees C per 100 years.
[The suggestion implied in Kyoto is that we now know what NOT to do -- in short, DON'T burn 85 million barrels of oil every day, and DON'T burn a lot of coal, because of the (as of yet untold) HARM it could do to global ecosystems.]
This is my point exactly - we dont know what to do, and as I said reduce reuse recycle - also, kind of amazing how Kyoto forces America to not only reduce emissions but also allows other countries to do nothing at all. Shouldnt we force all countries to reduce? Russia gets to stay below their 1991 levels (Soviet Union) which are way ABOVE!!! todays levels. Also they get to sell their carbon "credits" to other nations...it all sounds like a scam. How about a Joe Protocol...everyone reduce the rate at which we increase co2 emissions per year by 50%, everyone, everywhere, not that some countries have to reduce while others can increase while others dont have to do anything.
[No, finding alternatives to fossil fuels is a good thing for those who have found them. That 40% of humanity that lives off of less than $2/day? You'd actually have to share the benefits of alternative energy with them, and that would be socialism.]
How many of these 2.4 billion people use fuel at all? So in reality sharing green fuel technologies would be with people who could afford it.
1 final thing...if dramatic climate change happened before humans then what caused that? The sun? A massive sudden release of co2 or methane? And is there a link somewhere that shows how much co2 humans produce as a percentage of the total amount of co2 in the air along with total co2 production on earth. I have never seen this number, I want to but it being "hidden" raises some questions about it, either we dont know it or we dont contribute that much.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:43 am
27 Jan 2008
This is my point exactly - we dont know what to do
No, the ruling elites know what to do:
Shift agricultural production toward local, small-scale agriculture. They would rather promote "alcohol fuel" as the alternative to beat the "foreign oil" addiction.
End globalization. They could do this themselves, by promoting local protectionism. Nope: cheap labor is just too tempting, so the fossil fuel binge necessary to keep the multinationals in power continues.
Phase out the "car society." We could go everywhere on subsidized mass transit, while "through streets" were replaced by "not a through streets." Use the new land created by the emptying of roads to grow food. Start near the elementary schools. No, instead everyone is sold a a Prius and told their you-know-what doesn't stink.
abolish hunger and homelessness by feeding and housing everyone regardless of ability to pay
They just don't want to do it.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:28 am
27 Jan 2008
More or less. This is largely where the actual debate has moved to.
It's not a question of whether we are causing global warming.
It's a question of what changes will happen as a result of global warming.
Which of course is rather difficult since it's trying to predict exactly when and where a complex system will exhibit a specific behavior.
How many of these 2.4 billion people use fuel at all? So in reality sharing green fuel technologies would be with people who could afford it.
Most of those people living on those meager dollars a day use wood, and of course vegetables.
Both of which are "solar powered".
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png
http://www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedFiles/articles/iss ...
1 final thing...if dramatic climate change happened before humans then what caused that? The sun? A massive sudden release of co2 or methane?
Well obviously a lot of variables working in tandem, however the primary cause was changes in the earth's orbit relative to the sun. And shorter changes in the sun's solar intensity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLAYRdSnRSI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdB_p7dmAwU
The problem with "It's the Sun" though, is that we know "It's primarily not the Sun".
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
Even the skeptics admit that.
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
And is there a link somewhere that shows how much co2 humans produce as a percentage of the total amount of co2 in the air along with total co2 production on earth. I have never seen this number, I want to but it being "hidden" raises some questions about it, either we dont know it or we dont contribute that much.
Sure thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v4FZvhvcc&feature=re ...
Also we can know it's "fossil carbon" by to comparing the relative ratio of carbon isotopes.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
And also because the proportional decrease in ambient oxygen.
(Arg, can't find the chart for this)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/015.htm#figTechS ...
Big proportional spike in sulfur emissions
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-8.htm
Even the guy from "The Great Global Warming Swindle" admits industry was the cause of the increase in CO2 emissions.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon
Permalink
rowcom22 Posted 7:28 am
05 Feb 2008
...that being to prime the green machine for its eventual replacement of the military machine. Gotta get that big funding cranked up if you're gonna take over the world's government bodies. This site is presumably on board as a propaganda arm.
This site, by the way, is spectacular! You guys have really left nothing to chance here. This, along with the media barrage, should persuade the cattle nicely. Kudos.
Permalink
brownbat Posted 4:19 am
23 Jun 2008
If this were the case, then one might argue we should exploit all the cheap energy we can as long as possible, turning that energy into worthwhile projects like levees for low lying coastal cities and on drought resistant crop research.
It'd be interesting to hear any response.
Permalink
brownbat Posted 4:38 am
23 Jun 2008
Bad plans are bad plans, and if Kyoto is one, it should be outed as such. Your better argument is that Kyoto isn't so bad, despite my residual worries (that Kyoto just encourages relocation of carbon producing industries to emerging economies, leading to net increases in carbon output with no economic gain).
If this solution would actually be harmful, I think it's important for people to speak up, even if they haven't come up with the magic bullet on their own. You should take an implied alternative course of action as "let's wait to see what else we can come up with."
Wasted effort, when it wastes any resources which could fight other problems, is more harmful in the long run than no effort at all.
Permalink
sudsdrinker Posted 10:41 am
24 Jun 2008
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 12:39 pm
24 Jun 2008
over 90% free allocation to polluting industries, including reserves specifically for certain fuels, which, surprise surprise incentivize construction of more of those sources because someone's gotta collect on the pot (for those of you wondering why new coal goes up with a $40 "price" on carbon). I say "price" because no one is actually paying $40 per ton they emit, which means overconsumption/production of emissions intensive goods continues, which creates a scarcity of remaining credits and drives up the price for all credits, even for their puny reductions. All of which are overshadowed by the the CDM problems.
Nothing against Europe, they're taking some licks while we sit back and watch how it goes - we're gonna have an easier time of this than they did and we owe them (though we do subsidize their low Rx prices with our high ones, so maybe we call it even). But there is no need to defend the admittedly broken Kyoto (Phases I&II) to defend action on GHG's in the future.
Permalink