Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? 25

[cranky108]

With that logic, you should be proactive and go to church, just in case there is a god.
Or we should build space weapons, just in case there are little green men who want to eat us.

Blind faith in anything, emotional, or otherwise, can be a ruin of any society, people, or civilazation. But don't get me wrong, some religons have shaped our civilazation in a very positive way (It works both ways).

The key, from my perspective, is who is setting the agenda, and the goal? Is it population control, or money?

 

[hokie66]

We have a new Opposition Leader in Australia, the change brought on by a public groundswell against an Emissions Trading Scheme. Tony Abbott has the reputation of being a tough guy, and apparently has more common sense than the others.

 

[apsix]

Alternatively, you can view CO2 reduction as an insurance policy, not a foreign concept to most of us.

 

[NomLaser]

How so? You assume that CO2 has a link to the warmth of the globe. What happens when it proves to be false and there is no link between CO2 and GW but in fact it is Sol that is causing it. Then you have done nothing but spun your wheels and created policies that do nothing to help and only hurt the economies of developing/delevoped nations.

 

[rb1957]

good point ap6 ... how much do you pay for insurance ? actually, it'd be interesting to see what the bookies are offering in Los Vegas for climate predictions.

 

[moltenmetal]

OK, I admit it. I made it all up, and got a couple thousand greedy self-serving climate scientists to agree with me. I figured it would look good on my resume.

It's all a scam. Get back in your SUVs, go back to your monster homes, crank up the thermostat, turn on the plasma TV and forget about the whole thing. Don't worry- the planet's big enough to deal with whatever we puny humans can throw at it.

Get real, folks!

Until you can credibly dispute that we humans have doubled the CO2 content of the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, I'll remain really concerned about what the consequences of that might be. As I've said repeatedly here, I doubt we'll ever know for sure- the earth is an unbelievably complex system. I'll still think it's best that we do whatever we can to reduce how quickly we collectively p*ss through our finite stocks of fossil fuels. If we're serious about this, there needs to be a significant tipping charge on atmospheric emissions to provide the market feedback to fund the change. Otherwise, platitudes about conservation are just more hot air.

 

[owg]

Hi Moltenmetal: I think we are almost on the same side. I would like to see us do the things that make sense whether or not there is anthropogenic global warming, and also make sense if we are running out of cheap energy. Check out Searching_for_a_Miracle_web10nov09.pdf
Diagram 2 page 28 for a good overview of the energy situation.
The link is at

http://www.postcarbon.org/new-site-files/Reports/Searching_for_a_Miracle_web

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[NomLaser]

Molten, don't get me wrong, I do think that we need to limit what we put in the atmosphere (air, water and land) but I don't think it needs to be a drastic taxation that Cap and Trade will impose on developed nations.

Nor do I believe that CO2 and warming are linked. There are so many holes in the AGW theory (I call it a theory because it's nowhere close to being proven) from CO2 trailing warming, claims by warmist that tree ring data is only usable until 1960, ice core data, CRU scientists even admitted that there was a link to solar activity and warming and not to mention everything that has been leaked from emails to Fortran code that shows how sloppy they were with the data. There's just too many holes in their theory to make any scientific estimation.


I'll come back and add links to back up my points after my meeting in a few.

 

[ivymike]

cap-and-trade is just a backdoor means of eliminating progressivity in the tax system.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I'll still think it's best that we do whatever we can to reduce how quickly we collectively p*ss through our finite stocks of fossil fuels. If we're serious about this, there needs to be a significant tipping charge on atmospheric emissions to provide the market feedback to fund the change.

Those two sentences are a perfect example of the misdirection that has so many so many skeptical of the AGW "science". The first sentence is all about the very legitimate and valid cause for conservation. But the second sentence then uses that setup to the non-sequitur conclusion to require taxing pollution. The underlying presumption that taxing pollution will lead to conservation doesn't make sense. Taxing pollution will most likely lead to a reduction in pollution, which is more likely to actually increase consumption, not decrease it.

If you want to address consumption, and I agree that it needs addressing, then address consumption.
If you want to address pollution, and I agree that it too needs addressing, then address pollution.

But these are two separate issues. To suggest that taxing pollution is a means towards conservation is a disservice to both issues.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jmw]

Porf Lintzen here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Read what he has to say about CO2 and climate change.
He has written this so even the uneducated man on the street can understand.
One article says we would have to burn all our Fossil
There is also a good article from German scientists about the false greenhouse effect saga: here

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

CajunCenturion: if you take "carbon sequestration" off the table, CO2 emission reductions EQUAL fossil fuel conservation. Given the finite nature of fossil fuels, and our agreement that CO2 sequestration will cause us to p*ss through these finite reserves FASTER, conservation and energy efficiency are the only options worth considering.

 

[Junior37c]

given the push for clean coal that is at the moment the most pallatable option politically that's capable of filling the grids needs. I'd say it's a big ask to take carbon sequestration off the table.

 

[rb1957]

IMHO carbon sequestration is the core of the debate ... 1/2 of us think it's a complete waste of time and money, the other 1/2 believe it's the only thing that's going to save us.

 

[moltenmetal]

A star to you OWG for that fabulous link!

An interesting quote from the forward to that article,

“Global institutions, national governments, and even many environmental and social activists are barking up the wrong trees. Individually and as groups, they have not faced the full gravity and meaning of the global energy (and resource) conundrums. They continue to operate in most ways out of the same set of assumptions that we’ve all had for the past century- that fundamental systemic changes will not be required; that our complex of problems can be cured by human innovation, ingenuity, and technical efficiency, together with a few smart changes in our choices of energy systems.

Most of all, the prevailing institutions continue to believe in the primacy and efficacy of economic growth as the key indicator of systemic well-being, even in light of ever-diminishing resources. It will not be necessary, according to this dogma, to come to grips with the reality that ever-expanding economic growth is actually an absurdity in a finite system, preposterous on its face, and will soon be over even if activists do nothing to oppose it.”

Note that what the author here is talking about isn’t “peak oil” per se- he’s talking about humanity running into one or more limits of the finite earth we depend on. We don’t know which, or which combination of limits we’ll run into first: it could be either the fossil fuels themselves, or the planetary carrying capacity of the planet for the effluent of combustion of all those fossil fuels, or it could be something else. I’m betting on the carrying capacity being the limit long before we run out of the fuels themselves. But the pyramid scam called "economic growth" will take us to one limit or another- that is certain. And like all economic problems, it will require an economic rather than a technological solution.

 

[cranky108]

Lets face it, a carbon tax will only lead to black market, cheating, and goverment greed. Which is why goverment officials want it so badley. They smell money in there pockets.

It's just another tax and control scheme, that will hobble most industrilized nations, and allowing emerging nations to emit as much carbon as they wish. It will result in shifting manufacturing to nontaxed nations resulting in no net reductions.

If the greenies were really concerned about global warming they would be pushing nucular energy. But insted we have simpletons who for money will march for any cause.

It's easy to see that the leaders don't have a clue how much energy a nation requires, and the magnitude differences between what they believe will work, and what is really required (check the air in your tires).

 

[GregLocock]

" if you take "carbon sequestration" off the table, CO2 emission reductions EQUAL fossil fuel conservation."

No, it doesn't. CO2 emissions reductions will increase the burning of natural gas in static installations displacing coal.

Coal is an inconvenient fuel for mobile applications, while CNG and LNG are both perfectly practical fuels for mobile applications, in both IC and GT engines. It is not done on a wide scale yet because liquid hydrocarbons are easier to handle, but there is no serious problem to be overcome.

As such CO2 emissions reductions will directly force the use of a valuable fuel (NG) in place of one which is less intrinsically useful, and far more plentiful.



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> if you take "carbon sequestration" off the table
Why would you take anything off the table?
Are you also taking this off the table?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/29/clean.coal.technology/

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[owg]

CajunCenturion - Your referenced clean coal report includes the intriguing phrase "the remaining carbon monoxide can be safely burned underground". Sounds like our old friend "sequestering" to me. I think we need a better reference to able to figure this one out.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[NomLaser]

This is just the tip of the iceberg if Cap and Trade ever passes

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/new-from-copenhagen-denmark-rife-with-co2-fraud/

News from Copenhagen: Denmark rife with CO2 fraud

Scams in many countries are subject to investigation by authorities

Authorities in several countries investigate VAT tax fraud stemming from the Danish CO2 quota register

Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper.

Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.

Denmark’s quota register, which the Energy Agency within the Climate and Energy Ministry administers, is the largest in the world in terms of personal quota registrations. It is much easier to register here than in other countries, where it can take up to three months to be approved.

Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven’t been removed from the register.

One of the cases, which stems from the Danish register, involves fraud of more than 8 billion kroner. This case, in which nine people have been arrested, is being investigated in England.

The market for CO2 trade has exploded in recent years and is worth an estimated 675 billion kroner globally.