How Bad Is Global Warming?

[82_28]

Before I go to bed, I must say, Smiths, that that was brilliant. I just had to say it!

[Sounder]

smiths wrote...

and it was urgent long before the IPCC formed

Yes, urgent long before the IPCC, yet this IPCC is affiliated with the 200 largest corporations and Agenda 21. (At least in my mind, correct me if I'm wrong.)

So it seems reasonable to make the case that corporations are front running the narrative, using the 'problem' as a new profit center while at the same time distracting from other of their nefarious, not to say psychopathic, activities.

[Rory]

Whats funny is a guy that does not believe in AGW or carbon forcing advocating for nuclear even after a full meltdown, or not.

Read the original politico article to get that real smarmy sense of Gore's 'depth of vision'.

100 times? I suppose it's all for a good cause, so no foul.


http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/20 ... d-weather/
April 27, 2014

Al Gore makes ‘extreme’ claims about global warming and weather

By Michael Bastasch Published: April 25, 2014

Former Vice President Al Gore made some amazing claims about global warming. The failed presidential candidate told Politico Magazine that “extreme weather events” are 100 times more common today than they were 30 years ago due to global warming.

But Gore’s claims actually run counter to mounting scientific evidence that global warming is not making the weather more “extreme.”

“The game changer for the first question is the extreme weather events related to climate that are now 100 times more common than they were just 30 years ago,” Gore told Politico. “This is having a huge impact. And they’re getting more frequent. More common. Bigger. More destructive. And people are looking at their hole cards.”

“The extreme weather events and the knock-on effects with the stronger ocean-based storms, the bigger downpours, more floods, mudslides, the saturation of that hillside in Snohomish County, for example – these things are way more common now, because the extremes are more extreme and they are more frequent,” Gore added.
Gore’s claims, however, are not even in line with evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group often cited by Gore as evidence that global warming could be catastrophic.

The IPCC found that there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

The IPCC also said “there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” adding “that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”

Extreme weather has been a major talking point for environmentalists and Democrats who want to show evidence that the planet is warming. Last year, politicians jumped on the devastating typhoon that hit the Philippines, saying it was more evidence that human activity was making the weather worse.

“This is all over the world,” Gore said. “In the Philippines, there were four million homeless refugees and still are. That’s twice as many as the Indian Ocean tsunami. The Philippines has always been hit hard by typhoons, but this is something different and the warmer ocean is connected to it. And all over the world, people are saying, ‘Whoa, this is getting pretty crazy.’”

But the IPCC isn’t the only body to counter Gore’s claims. University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. has also presented evidence that weather has not gotten more extreme.
“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Dr. Pielke told the Senate last summer. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
“Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”

So far this year, the United States has experienced a record-low number of tornadoes, according to Pielke, and the number of deaths and the amount of property damage from tornadoes has decreased dramatically in the past six decades.

“The average annual U.S. property losses caused by tornadoes, from 1950 to 2013, is $5.9 billion in today’s dollars,” Pielke wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “However, for the first half of the data set (1950-81), the annual average loss was $7.6 billion, and in the second half (1982-2013), it was $4.1 billion—a drop of almost 50%.”

Sounder - why do you keep posting articles from batshitcrazy, wingnut 'news' sites?

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/about-us/

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit providing original investigative reporting from a team of professional reporters that operates for the public benefit.

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

The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative[3][4] political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney

Pieces of shit - their words are not worth the pixels they are made from.

What does moralmatters.org say - why aren't you posting from them these days?

[Rory]

There is nothing that screams spiritual evolution and the ascension of mankind's essential energies, quite like using nuclear boiled water to drive turbines to power tumble dryers and plasma screen TVs.


Namaste

Word, Rory, word. Here's another:

Thanks, SRP - that graphic/text quote, is brilliant btw. Succinct and true - Word.

nuclear energy is favoured because it allows centralised corporate/state control with long contract times and no easy get out,
contracts constitute the corporate system

solar/wind distributed across decentralized networks run by households and small collectives challenges corporate/state control,
independence cuts the ties

in the places where localized household level power generation has been the most successful, govs are now disincentivizing it

"A report by the Edison Electric Institute, the lobbying arm of the power industry, says this kind of law will put “a squeeze on profitability,” and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, “it may be too late to repair the utility business model.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opini ... inion&_r=0


make no mistake, when you advocate nuclear as a 'solution' to climate change you are singing from the Corporate songsheet, when you argue that it is "needs to be part of the mix" you are singing from the Corporate songsheet

environmentalism isn't about employing capitalist methods to fix problems, it isn't about technological solutions - these are insane and utopian daydreams by pre-pubescent men-children who never grew up from their greedy fantasies of how to get more toys and keep them all for themselves

real environmentalism is about fundamentally changing the system, starting with its motivations, it is leveling and redistributive, it cares as much about sweatshops and children mining coltan for iPhones as it does whales or Indonesian forests
and it was urgent long before the IPCC formed

it is the enemy not just because it threatens profits but because it threatens a wholesale collectivist approach to living with decentralization, conservation of resources and thoughtfulness instead of mindless consumption

there is no room for profit-making corporations in this model, there is no room for the 1%, even if they feign philanthropy

Great summary, smiths. You clearly know your stuff

[slimmouse]

Rory.

Do you have any evidence to prove that all of these energy giants, along with the financial spivs that support them are losing out on this "Global Warming crisis", because from where Im sat theyre raking it in even more , despite emissions increasing?

And please dont blame me, or yourself, or anyone else around here for this.

What fucking planet are some people on here?

[Rory]

Rory.

Do you have any evidence to prove that all of these energy giants, along with the financial spivs that support them are losing out on this "Global Warming crisis", because from where Im sat theyre raking it in even more , despite emissions increasing?

And please dont blame me, or yourself, or anyone else around here for this.

What fucking planet are some people on here?

What's your point? You know fine rightly that oil and coal are increasingly costly to extract and deliver - costs are rising due to reducing EROEI ratios. Less bang for buck. They are using increasingly CO2 producing methods to extract the remaining fossil fuels and recognize that concerted efforts to mitigate climate change will stop them - they fund the vast majority of the denial groups (the rest are kooky, NWO - UN Green Socialist Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists). I say kooky, but could easily just point out that they are largely wingnut right wingers in the US and Australia.

Here is an example of the oil companies, BAU approach to impending catastrophe. 'Fuck you all, bitches, drill baby, drill'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-fossil-fuels-oil

They aren't even denying it anymore - just saying 'we don't give a fuck'

Exxon Mobil says climate change unlikely to stop it selling fossil fuels

On the same day the world's scientists issued their latest report on climate change and the risks it poses to society, America's biggest oil and gas company said the world's climate policies are "highly unlikely" to stop it from selling fossil fuels far into the future.

Exxon Mobil issued a report on Monday on the risks that climate change policies could pose to the value of its assets and future profitability, by coincidence on the same day as the latest paper by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a Nobel Prize-winning United Nations group assembled to assess the science and risks of climate change.

Both Exxon and its critics used IPCC research to bolster their cases.

Exxon's report was in response to the contentions of some shareholders and environmental activists that the assets underpinning the value of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies will be worth less as society restricts consumption of fossil fuels to fight climate change.

The report, the first detailed response to these concerns by a major oil company, acknowledges the need to adopt policies to address climate change. But it concludes that because oil and gas are so critical to global development and economic growth, governments are "highly unlikely" to adopt policies that cut emissions so sharply that fossil fuel consumption would be severely restricted.

"We know enough based on the research and science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk," Ken Cohen, Exxon's government affairs chief, said in an interview. "But given the essential role that energy plays in everyone's lives, those steps need to be taken in context with other realities we face, including lifting much of the world's population out of poverty."

Natasha Lamb, director of equity research at Arjuna Capital, a sustainable wealth management group that filed the shareholder resolution with Exxon, called Exxon's report a "milestone." "It's a huge first step in the right direction and it shows a lot of leadership," she said.

Arjuna and As You Sow, a nonprofit that promotes environmental corporate responsibility, agreed to withdraw their resolution after Exxon agreed to issue a report on climate risks.

But Lamb said she was disappointed that Exxon declined to explain what would happen if society did in fact adopt policies that would lead to sharply lower emissions, something known broadly as a low-carbon standard.

"The question is not whether or not we'll face the low carbon standard, but whether they are prepared to address it. We need to know what's at stake," she said. "But at least now investors know that Exxon is not addressing the low carbon scenario and (is) placing investor capital at risk."

Exxon and the environmental groups agree that climate change is a risk and that society will take steps to reduce emissions from fossil fuels to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They differ, however, on how drastic society's response could be, and what would cost more severely restricting fossil fuel consumption or not doing so and allowing more carbon dioxide to build in the atmosphere.

Exxon, along with other private and government energy researchers, believes that demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow around the world as more people demand access to electricity, heat, and transportation. Exxon predicts that carbon dioxide emissions from energy sources will peak by about 2030 and then begin to decline as society becomes more efficient and switches to lower-carbon fuels.

The Irving, Texas-based company's report notes that its emissions predictions track closely with the IPCC's "intermediate" scenario considered in its last report.

Exxon says that renewable energy sources are not now cheap enough nor technologically advanced enough to meet growing demand for energy, let alone also replace oil and gas. Governments therefore face a choice between restricting access to energy or raising the cost of energy significantly. In Exxon's view, governments will chose to raise the cost of fossil fuels to encourage alternatives somewhat, but stop well short of enacting policies that will sharply curtail consumption, especially in developing countries, because populations would resist and social upheaval would result.

Arjuna Capital's Lamb disagrees. "There's greater risk of social upheaval from climate change itself," Arjuna Capital's Lamb says. "[Exxon's report] ignores the cost of inaction."

Lamb points to some of the conclusions in the latest IPCC report, which says climate change will worsen problems that society already has, such as poverty, sickness, violence and displacement.

The report also says climate change will slow down the benefits of a modernising society, such as regular economic growth and more efficient crop production exactly the types of things that Exxon argues are delivered now only by relatively cheap and available fossil fuels.

[Ben D]

Whats funny is a guy that does not believe in AGW or carbon forcing advocating for nuclear even after a full meltdown, or not.

But CO2 does exhibit a degree of climate forcing effect, the point is though that it is exaggerated by the IPCC computer climate models to blame humans for recent past and projected future warming.....a point becoming more evident the longer the 17 year plus pause continues.

Disregarding the AGW bogey man, concerning power generation, my main interest is to see the masses of people in the world get all the power they need at the lowest price possible to live and prosper moving on into the future. Stopping nuclear power will increase charges if it has to be replaced by power generation other than 'fossil'. If cheaper alternative energy production becomes available at any time...I'm all for it. Apart from that, I really see nuclear energy as a 'gift of the gods' and it needs to be mastered, and in that regard I have absolutely no doubt that the the spirit of mankind is up to it. Those fearful of heart and spirit on the other hand will always be with us to be witness to the courage of their more pure of heart brethren, and to subsequently be inspired to lift their game.

[Sounder]

Y'all got White man salvation sindrome.

Big Al can say any absurd thing, and it doesn't matter because he is on 'your side' and the partisans will flood the narrative with one of thousands of handy propaganda pieces, to chase any interested bystanders back into the hobbit holes of their pretenses.

Ad homs don't change what Mr. Gore said. If you thought the DC article was bad, check out the Politico article.

AGW is the new war on drugs, a new gravy train for connected folk.





Ben, how is that 'lifting of our game' working out for Fukushima? It seems to me that the whole world is doing its best to ignore the situation. I can't quite figure that one out. Collective death wish maybe?

[Ben D]

Y'all got White man salvation sindrome.

-snip-

Ben, how is that 'lifting of our game' working out for Fukushima? It seems to me that the whole world is doing its best to ignore the situation. I can't quite figure that one out. Collective death wish maybe?

So presuming the "Y'all got White man salvation sindrome" is not addressed to me...Fukushima was a disaster that came about because of an earthquake/tsunami..not that I'm implying there weren't errors of judgement locating a nuclear power station there in the first place...but bar the tsunami..the plant would still be operating without problems today. I've never considered you a chicken little but....Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

[Luther Blissett]

Fuck yeah Smiths.

[Ben D]

.And it's breaking out all over....cutting back subsidies for 'green' energy is not only happening in the US, it is happening in Europe as well...the fact of the matter is that solar and wind energy are far too expensive to the poor consumer if they are not heavily subsidized...and even then the costs to the consumer skyrocket due to the high production costs.

Ban Ki Moon is saying that current AGW policies to address global warming harm the world’s poor much more than GW itself...Renewables pave path to poverty

[justdrew]

does anyone in the world give the slightest shit what ban ki moon has to say about anything?

NOW they've found a reason to care about the poor, good for them.

indeed, end the subsidies and ban any non-carbon neutral solution, in ten years start blowing up coal plants and the like. All of a sudden 'renewables' will be built.

Ben, you realize the ENTIRE electrical system is entirely built by subsidy?

[Ben D]

Ben, you realize the ENTIRE electrical system is entirely built by subsidy?

I can't speak for your situation Drew, but where I am, the state's electrical system was built without subsidy. However nowadays after privatisation, there are all sorts of subsidies going to the producers for using 'green' technologies, and the consumers are facing ever increasing charges for their electricity...like the Kwh retail cost has about tripled over the last decade and a half...presently at peak hour...34.0648 cents/kWh

[justdrew]

Ben, you realize the ENTIRE electrical system is entirely built by subsidy?

I can't speak for your situation Drew, but where I am, the state's electrical system was built without subsidy. However nowadays after privatisation, there are all sorts of subsidies going to the producers for using 'green' technologies, and the consumers are facing ever increasing charges for their electricity...like the Kwh retail cost has about tripled over the last decade and a half...presently at peak hour...34.0648 cents/kWh

so your utilities had to purchase all the land involved and negotiate rights of way with every property owner? I'm certain there is a long history of government sponsored electrification programs in Australia. There's no regional monopolies there? any person has the ability to sell electricity into the grid? also, what was the competition like for the current electrical system when it was coming online? oh yeah, there wasn't competition.

[Ben D]

Ben, you realize the ENTIRE electrical system is entirely built by subsidy?

I can't speak for your situation Drew, but where I am, the state's electrical system was built without subsidy. However nowadays after privatisation, there are all sorts of subsidies going to the producers for using 'green' technologies, and the consumers are facing ever increasing charges for their electricity...like the Kwh retail cost has about tripled over the last decade and a half...presently at peak hour...34.0648 cents/kWh

so your utilities had to purchase all the land involved and negotiate rights of way with every property owner? I'm certain there is a long history of government sponsored electrification programs in Australia. There's no regional monopolies there? any person has the ability to sell electricity into the grid? also, what was the competition like for the current electrical system when it was coming online? oh yeah, there wasn't competition.

Qld gov owned everything...land, buildings, generation, transmission, and retail...until privatisation around 15 years ago when consumers had to buy retail from middleman private providers who buy the electricity wholesale, mainly from the still gov. generating company, but also now from the various new smaller green subsidy start up generating companies. Until privatisation, yes,..everything was owned by the state gov....meaning us the people owned it...except in practice it turns out we are treated like battery hens and were never consulted about, nor received any credit or share from the allocation and sale of hugely expensive licenses to the large foreign and local middleman provider companies who moved in and now keep on hiking prices on consumers.

Oh and yes..nowadays anyone can sell electricity into the grid if approved to do so, and any homeowner who installs solar panels on their rooftops gets to be able to sell their excess back into the grid at about twice the normal retail price, though this subsidy is being reduced over time, possibly because the poor are subsidising it through paying more for their electricity....and they are feeling the pain according to charity organisations.