The Science and Politics of Global Warming

[Voyager]

so far you have given us a blogger and a corrupt railroad engineer that writes soft porn.

Don't forget the carbon tax.

 

[pixelsmith]

yes we must be taxed for carbon. we carbon based units that emit CO2 are evil and must be destroyed.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

yes we must be taxed for carbon. we carbon based units that emit CO2 are evil and must be destroyed.

But you do see how that's a political opinion, right?

What do you think of these tactics:
Conservative thinktanks step up attacks against Obama's clean energy strategy | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[GeoShift]

Oh the global warming debate. Everybody stop breathing and save the earth, no? Ok, how about every man woman and child pay hefty taxes for there carbon footprint? To whom? Well, let's not get into that. How about shut down all the coal power plants in the US that do not meet carbon emission standards, that are not on the inside, and just give wavers to any carbon taxes or penalty for emissions to the ones that are on the inside, and to top it off, don't make them pay a dime in regular taxes on billions in profit. China puts in 3 or 4 new carbon spewing, unregulated for the most part, coal power plants a week, I guess that's ok. Of course 20 billion in our tax money bailout went to move the Cadillac manufacturing there so there going to have to power that operation. Meet the new 2013 Cadillac, proudly made in China. The so called solutions to this problem points out the real reason for making global warming an issue. Just another way to eat out people's substance. Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen, oxygen sustains life. I guess this is bad now but radiation, GMO's, BPA, MSG, mercury, fluoride, to name a few, are all good for us.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It's always interesting to me how quickly the discussion moves from science to the politics. It always amazes me how otherwise intelligent people are blinded by their political affiliations.

 

[mike]

I have to say after the disaster in japan, i'd rather see more coal powered generators than a single new reactor of that type.

 

[mike]

And we are about to intoduce a carbox tax down under, but the elephant in the room is projected population growth will swamp any alleged savings this scheme has

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.
“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” the report states.

Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact - NYTimes.com

And then we have this idea

The Federal Government scheme which turned the Henbury cattle station south of Alice Springs into “the world’s largest carbon farm”

Yeah right in an arid zone prone to bushfire........ one good fire and all that stored carbon goes up in smoke......

Imo the dynamic thats really at play here is robbing peter to pay paul.

Unchecked population growth is the problem, but rather than address that we let it slide and try and force everyone to use less energy, in order to make it go around

If humanity wasnt breeding out of control like a run away train, we would not be having this discussion.
A couple of kids and you generate 40 times the carbon you might save with all the measures mentioned.
But go to any carbon reducing website, and you'll be told to switch ligh bulbs, by a hybrid car, but they dont ever say oh and the best, the very best way to reduce your footprint.... stop breeding.

Children and Their Carbon Legacy: A Way to be an Eco-Hero? | Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy

And my local council has already put the gouge on residents, the cost of dumping a trailer of green waste at the local dump, has increased. Not withstanding the green waste generates methane not carbon, but since the Govt has imposed a carbon tax on dumps, we have to pay.
But the amount extra they are charging is about 2 tons worth of carbon.
People will of course just dump this stuff in the bush rather than pay.... nothing is changed
Other than providing an excuse to rip the public off.

Every single carbon credit this scheme purports to create, is drowned by population growth.

They know it, but not one of the govt websites offering advice to lower your footprint mentions it.
Because more people = more taxpayers = more money

Its all about the money

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Carbon credits are so silly, it makes me sad for the people that think they are helping anything by paying for them. The one thing I take away from the global warming debate, why not pollute less? Drive a more efficient car, recycle, plant a tree. Even if the science is completely wrong, there's nothing wrong with less waste. However, don't get me started on the "recycling" racket. Did you know in some situations, recycling often creates more pollution than it prevents? That bothers me.
Whatever side of the debate you fall on, I think most agree with that.

 

[pixelsmith]

i totally agree with your last statement Angelo. BUT you have not supplied us with any NON political/governmental data to support your AGW theories. NOR have you supplied us with data supporting the historical CO2 levels on this planet showing they have "never been higher".

 

[pixelsmith]

let me help you Angelo because you will not find anything to support such a stupid statement about historical CO2 levels. As you can see CO2 levels(and temps) have been MUCH higher in the past and rarely as low as today.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You're right about that Pixel - CO2 levels were higher before humans were here for various reasons. The have just not been this high since humans were around. And they have never increased so sharply.

 

[pixelsmith]

i would disagree with your last statement. look at the graph.

 

[pixelsmith]

So you are saying Brian Dunning is wrong and made an absurd assumption.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I actually think you may be taking his statement out of context. But if he did make that mistake, yes, it's wrong. Right now though, CO2 levels are at the highest they have been in 2 million years.

 

[pixelsmith]

what is your point about CO2 then? going back 550 million years CO2 and temps were MUCH higher with no humans around. Could it be that fluctuations in CO2 and temps are NORMAL?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Yup - some fluctuations are. However, the scientific evidence now points to this recent increase as being human related.

 

[pixelsmith]

yes... you are correct. every time you exhale you add to the CO2 levels. Now show us NATURAL contributions compared to HUMAN contributions and the argument becomes irrelevant and absurd. A doubling of CO2 will not double temps, the higher the CO2 level, the more diminished the effect is. CO2 levels are a NON issue at this time in our planets history.

 

[pixelsmith]

I will help you once again.

 

[mike]

Carbon credits are so silly, it makes me sad for the people that think they are helping anything by paying for them. The one thing I take away from the global warming debate, why not pollute less? Drive a more efficient car, recycle, plant a tree. Even if the science is completely wrong, there's nothing wrong with less waste. However, don't get me started on the "recycling" racket. Did you know in some situations, recycling often creates more pollution than it prevents? That bothers me.
Whatever side of the debate you fall on, I think most agree with that.

Very valid points, there is nothing wrong with best practise and optimised efficiency.
And yes recycling does have its hidden costs, a classic example is water.
We cant put dirty items in our recycle bin (which has an RFID chip in the lid and its contents photographed as its taken on board the collection vehicle)
So that pasta sauce bottle must be washed first, that paper sour cream carton needs quite a bit of hot water to make it fit for recycling too.
Everything must be rinsed with clean water.
Although i have a friend who uses a bucket of old bath water for this....... But hes a super greenie.

Having said that his plan is to renovate the upstairs bathroom with a catchment tank to save about 50 litres of old bathwater which he will then plumb into the kitchen sink as a gray water spiggot for this purpose.
I suppose all new homes will get this one day, just as we now have dual flush toilets by law in new homes

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Who makes all the intrest on the carbon credits ?
Who thought up the theory of Global Warming?
Who gains from all the products surrounding Global Warming Religion?