Anthropogenic climate change poll

[American Dream]

Sweejak wrote:

What Left are we talking about, Soros, Gore, Strong, MSM, UN?

I don't personally consider any of these to be creatures of the Left...


Sweejak wrote:

Who is calling for making the hiding of data illegal these days? Last I saw was on WattsUpWithThat, a purportedly "Right wing" site.

Yes, but there's plenty of left voices who oppose government secrecy and spying, and all that shite, too...

[lightningBugout]

If we were a single community operating solely in the interest of our long term well being and that of our offspring and lived in a world without obscene corporate interests and all the bogus webs they spin, there would simply no longer be any "debate" about climate change.

[Sweejak]

True, and so honest people of both flavors might be closer than thought.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I do not buy into the current status of what is commonly called Right/Left. Sure they're useful terms occasionally, but I wish there were some other terminology. Antiwar calls both houses the "War Party". Given the state of affairs I can go with that.

Tarpley is a good case in point, he's reviled as a Right winger, but for as long as I've been listening to him he is all about FDR type solutions, FDR the man who admired Mussolini! He reminds me of Joseph Cannon, whom I'm sure would be appalled at the comparison.

BTW I've snipped Tarpley's show today. Not too good. FYI
http://web.me.com/kaaawa/Temp./Tarpley- ... mails.html

[Sweejak]

If we were a single community operating solely in the interest of our long term well being and that of our offspring and lived in a world without obscene corporate interests and all the bogus webs they spin, there would simply no longer be any "debate" about climate change.

Yeah and if we had a little of that highly valued democracy we could designate where our taxes go and there would be no Health debacle, and I'd wager the wars would have been shut down. Why? Aside from the polls which indicate that to be true, especially about the war, I think most folks want the same damn thing and I don't think most people want to destroy the earth, they want clean water, they want clean air.

[Penguin]

Id like to add that naturally I share the trepidation regarding what could possibly be rationalized by the existing power structures, with issues like these... The what and the how, and by whom.

[wintler2]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

SPPI doesn't reveal it's funding, but it's run by Robert Ferguson, who was the initial Executive Director of the largely Exxon-funded "Center for Science and Public Policy" (CSSP)...

In case that matters.

Of course it does, nice rigor.

Concentrating our efforts solely on reducing CO2 is a disaster in the making.

Emissions trading systems DO NOT focus solely on CO2, also cover CH4, HFCs, SO2 etc, also many carbon offsets are based on reducing landclearing & deforestation, building soil carbon.

The carbon tax cap and trade thing is IMHO a blatant bogus ripoff. It effectively hamstrings any effort to pour energy into producing alternate energy solutions.

Not true - how does making burning fossil fuels more expensive hamper renewables?? Quite the opposite.. what is your reasoning?

Peak Oil and Peak Net Energy will solve the CO2 problem whether we like it or not.

AGAIN, NOT TRUE. There is more than enough carbon in coal alone to cook the planet, even if we burnt no more oil or natural gas (see Hansen & Kharecha 2007 paper, discussed here). As i think this boards first peak oil zealot i believe oil peak is past, but oil is not decisive in climate change. Oil supply decline may well increase total GHG emissions as we buy coal>oil, NG>oil, shaleoil>oil, tarsands>oil (already happening).

[Jeff]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

SPPI doesn't reveal it's funding, but it's run by Robert Ferguson, who was the initial Executive Director of the largely Exxon-funded "Center for Science and Public Policy" (CSSP)...

In case that matters.

Of course it does, nice rigor.

And a nice irony detection to you.

[23]

Our lifestyle affects the environment in more ways than one.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/0911 ... waste.html
Americans Toss Out 40 Percent of All Food

(excerpted)

U.S. residents are wasting food like never before.

While many Americans feast on turkey and all the fixings today, a new study finds food waste per person has shot up 50 percent since 1974. Some 1,400 calories worth of food is discarded per person each day, which adds up to 150 trillion calories a year.

The study finds that about 40 percent of all the food produced in the United States is tossed out.

(excerpted)

ScienceNOW, an online publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reports that food waste occurs at the manufacturing level and in distribution, but more than half is wasted by consumers, according to a separate study earlier this year by Jeffery Sobal, a sociologist at Cornell University.

(excerpted)

Addressing the oversupply of food in the United States "could help curb to the obesity epidemic as well as reduce food waste, which would have profound consequences for the environment and natural resources," the scientists write. "For example, food waste is now estimated to account for more than one quarter of the total freshwater consumption and more than 300 million barrels of oil per year representing about 4 percent of the total U.S. oil consumption."

[Wombaticus Rex]

One of the 2 that voted "Who Cares?"

There's a dozen more important and dangerous problems and this whole debate is just a mud pit that serves TPTB.

Ahhhh.....feels good to use that acronym again, huh? TPTB. I did it again.

[orz]

[X] WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?

[wordspeak2]

I'm more concerned about mass HAARP-related weather modification operations going on than I am about AGW. Certainly, AGW, though I believe it's real, will continue to be used as distraction from the reality of weather warfare, and to usher in support for global governance. The U.S. military has bragged about seeking to control the weather by 2025. If AGW was out of their control before, they're working on changing that. Hurricane Katrina was probably more of a test than anything.
The liberal/conservative divide that sees idiotic right-wingers fighting liberal environmentalists, with the liberals increasingly winning, is what you'd expect. Global warming will continue, and TPTB will harness the fear and destructive potential that accompanies it.

[wordspeak2]

Btw, who knows what information was released about AGW by those hackers a few weeks ago?? Did anybody catch that?

[Sweejak]

Btw, who knows what information was released about AGW by those hackers a few weeks ago?? Did anybody catch that?

There's probably a couple of other threads as well.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... sc&start=0

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... highlight=

[wordspeak2]

mm, thanks.

[Hugo Farnsworth]

Concentrating our efforts solely on reducing CO2 is a disaster in the making.

Emissions trading systems DO NOT focus solely on CO2, also cover CH4, HFCs, SO2 etc, also many carbon offsets are based on reducing landclearing & deforestation, building soil carbon.

Emissions trading systems will be abused just as economic systems are today. It will concentrate political power and create abuses we can only imagine now. The net energy required to deploy and enforce it can build a lot of wind and solar plants, plant trees, etc. All we need is a change in the tax code to punish frivolous and wasteful uses of energy, and incentives to promote alternative and renewables.

The carbon tax cap and trade thing is IMHO a blatant bogus ripoff. It effectively hamstrings any effort to pour energy into producing alternate energy solutions.

Not true - how does making burning fossil fuels more expensive hamper renewables?? Quite the opposite.. what is your reasoning?

It takes oil (or another form of fossil fuel energy) to build alternative energy solutions. Adding cost to these efforts hinders and delays them. California is doing an admirable job of meeting its reduction in GHG emissions; any increase in dollar (or carbon tax) cost will delay or prevent it from meeting the goals the state has set out.

Peak Oil and Peak Net Energy will solve the CO2 problem whether we like it or not.

AGAIN, NOT TRUE. There is more than enough carbon in coal alone to cook the planet, even if we burnt no more oil or natural gas (see Hansen & Kharecha 2007 paper, discussed here). As i think this boards first peak oil zealot i believe oil peak is past, but oil is not decisive in climate change. Oil supply decline may well increase total GHG emissions as we buy coal>oil, NG>oil, shaleoil>oil, tarsands>oil (already happening).

Of all the fossil fuels, NG has the smallest carbon footprint. As net energy declines, the costs of mining and transporting coal will become very unattractive. Who would want to build a coal power plant when the transport costs are so high that wind/solar is cheaper? Shale oil and tar sands will be an energy sink in the future. We must prioritize what we do with the remaining cheap energy we have. If we have reached peak (and I agree with you on that point) net energy is about to decline very rapidly. It's ironic, we want the same things for our future, we are just disagreeing on how to get there.