[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 21 10:20:58 PDT 2007
This is what I don't get. If the problem is as bad as they are saying,
which from what I can gather means that I will die of heat prostration
or drowning sometime before my natural lifespan would normally arrive,
then why are we talking about carbon pricing, low-carbon technologies,
and curbing deforestation? If it's that bad, outlaw coal power plants
tomorrow. Hell, give those companies that own them free money to
replace them with the power plant of their choice that uses
hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, or whatever other kind
of greener power plants there are available. Mandate a total ban on the
internal combustion engine starting ten years from now. Make it illegal
to buy a new one, and illegal to import one. Sign the damned Kyoto
protocol and tell the non-complying countries that we'll be nuking their
worst polluting plants in 20 years, if they don't dismantle them first.
One a day, with the schedule posted on the Internet. As an added bonus,
the particulates sent into the upper atmosphere will help cool our
planet down.
Or could it be that it's not that bad - but there is a lot of money in
crowing about it? We've been over this ground before, but our biosphere
is a complicated set of interacting variables that I don't think we can
model that precisely. However, I would be happy to have our government
take every penny that we plan on throwing at Iraq next year and throw it
at electric car research instead. If nothing else, it will make the
impact of the Middle East on our country decrease instead of the steady
increase we've seen. Saving our lives later would just be a bonus.
Paul
Ted Moffett wrote:
> On 10/20/07, *g. crabtree* <jampot at roadrunner.com
> <mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't know if human induced global warming is a reality or not.
>
> ...enough with the endless doomsday carping that we have been
> subjected to for the past few years. We have heard you. Endless
> repetition is not a solution. How about if the eggheads get together
> with the real heroes of the information age, the engineers and come up
> with something that more closely resembles a solution. (I mean a real
> solution. Not the walk, ride a bike, and car pool eye wash) I'd rather
> listen to a few years of here's the plan, guys, then anymore
> repetitions of here's the problem.
>
> -------------
>
>
> Did you read the information from the Stern Report, on solutions to
> slowing greenhouse gas emissions, that was offered in the very post
> that you responded to above with your criticisms? You criticize that
> "endless repetition is not a solution," while not even acknowledging
> the detailed economic and technological means to address the problem
> of human induced global warming, that the Stern Report addressed. I
> wonder if you sincerely are interested in solutions to human induced
> global warming, given you do not believe there is sufficient evidence
> it even is a problem, as you state above. And this was exactly the
> main point of my post that you responded to... How can people be
> motivated to push for solutions to a problem they do not believe
> exists? The effort just to convince people there is a significant
> problem is thus a major part of the solution.
>
> Below read information from the Stern Report, and also from a report
> by the Union of Concerned Scientists, about solutions to lowering
> greenhouse gas emissions:
>
> The Stern Report:
>
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1935209,00.html
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
> <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm>
>
> *Recommended actions*
>
> *·* Three elements of policy are required for an effective response:
> carbon pricing, technology policy and energy efficiency.
>
> *·* Carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation,
> will show people the full social costs of their actions. The aim
> should be a global carbon price across countries and sectors.
>
> *·* Emissions trading schemes, like that operating across the EU,
> should be expanded and linked.
>
> *·* Technology policy should drive the large-scale development and use
> of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products.
>
> *·* Globally, support for energy research and development should at
> least double; support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies
> should be increased my up to five times.
>
> *·* International product standards could be introduced.
>
> *·* Large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best
> ways to curb deforestation should be started very quickly.
>
> *·* Climate change should be fully integrated into development policy,
> and rich countries should honour pledges to increase support through
> overseas development assistance.
>
> *·* International funding should support improved regional information
> on climate change impacts.
>
> *·* International funding should go into researching new crop
> varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.
>
> *Economic impacts*
>
> *·* The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
>
> *·* Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP
> each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could
> be more than 20% of GDP.
>
> *·* The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of
> global GDP; people could be charged more for carbon-intensive goods.
>
> *·* Each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but
> emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a tonne.
>
> *·* Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit
> the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.
>
> *·* By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at
> least $500bn.
>
> *·* What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over
> the next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can
> have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Union of Concerned Scientist Report on global warming science and the
> Northeast USA, solutions to problem:
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/economists-reduce-emissions.html
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html
>
> --------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ted Moffett <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* lfalen <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com> ; J Ford
> <mailto:privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:07 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming:
> Skepticism &Replicatability
>
>
>
> All-
>
> One of the main road blocks that must be addressed to solve
> the global warming crisis, is the large number of people who,
> for one reason or another, do not accept that there is an
> overwhelming scientific consensus that significant action is
> necessary to prevent substantive negative impacts. The
> choices these people make as consumers, in lifestyle, and as
> voters, are hampering efforts to mitigate this crisis. They
> would rather not bother to study the science, or only choose
> to believe the small minority of scientists who insist the
> consensus is in error. Or maybe they don't believe the
> scientific community or the scientific method is to be
> trusted, or is reliable. Or for many, even if they fully
> acknowledge the problem, they are too dependent on their
> current lifestyle to make the changes required to transition
> away from a fossil fuel/energy dependent way of living.
>
> For those who insist they do not believe the scientific
> consensus, the hundreds of scientists who have spent years of
> their life studying this issue, and have emphatically
> concluded that human emissions are dangerously warming the
> planet, it appears that reasoning with a brick wall might be
> more rewarding... At least the bricks will not respond in a
> manner that insults a person's intelligence.
>
> Studying the minority views of the scientists who reject the
> scientific consensus that human emissions are dangerously
> warming the planet is necessary to continue to test the
> veracity of the consensus. Indeed, as this process of
> skepticism on this issue continues, the self corrective
> mechanism of replicatability of findings by other scientists,
> perhaps the most fundamental principle of the scientific
> method, to insure that the science on this issue is not
> corrupt, fabricated, politically biased, etc., the
> consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the
> planet has only increased. And the claim that human induced
> global warming will not have drastic consequences is more and
> more an incredible position.
>
> At the bottom of the PDF document at the first link below are
> approximately 70 published papers on climate science that
> support the conclusions on the science of climate change in
> the Stern Report. No doubt Al Gore and other environmental
> loonies have conspired with these scientists in
> political subversion to spread socialism and other
> dastardly nefarious plots, in a vast global cabal to undermine
> the free market system, using global warming as a boogeyman to
> scare the bejezzus out of the naive gullible hoi polloi.
>
> And I've fallen for it!
>
> *Chapter 1: The science of climate change*
> <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf>:
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf
> <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf>
>
> Stern Review on the economics of climate change:
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
> <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm>
>
> --------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 10/19/07, *lfalen* <lfalen at turbonet.com
> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>> wrote:
>
> Ted
> I don't think that you should so easily dismiss George
> Willl's comments. He is just a journalist and a lay
> person on global waming but Lomberg whow he sites is a
> scientist and his statements should be taken seriously.
> Global warming has plusses an minuses as Will pointed out.
> Not everything is negative. Glogal warming by itself may
> be a benefit overall. What problems there are are better
> solved by the free market system(with some government
> guide lines) not draconian government regulation which
> would stifle the economy. This is not to say we should not
> be concerned about air pollution. It is a problem and
> measures should be taken to curtail it. There has already
> been some improvement in this area. As an example, in the
> 1960"s you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly
> ever smell it from just acrose the river. Efforts to find
> cleaner fuel should be continued.
> Roger
>
> -----------------
> Ok, I'm going to bite on this one.
>
> As much as I really hate the nay-sayers regarding the "global
> warming" -so-called-issue, I'd like to ask this:
>
> IF the ice caps are melting as quickly as is being stated, (a)
> doesn't this put more water into the atmospher, i.e., through
> evaporation; (b) doesn't this mean there will be more water to
> fall as rain; (c) the areas that are experiencing drought
> right now - won't they in fact see an increase in water
> through rain and/or the swelling of rivers, creeks,
> water-ways; (d) what are the pro/cons of using ocean water,
> processing it and putting it into pipes as un-salted water for
> communities in need? I see adds where a company is saying
> they "capture" billions of gallons of water a year for use -
> in what way?
>
> And no, I really don't care to get into it about the "global
> warming" alarmists. I'm just asking the above questions.
>
> Thank you.
>
> J :]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list