Man Based Global Warming....

You seem to be the small picture sort of guy. Who cares about CARB if our real concern should be getting away from fossil fuels altogether? CO2 is a much larger concern than smog. Guess what, if you are working toward eliminating fossil fuel dependency then a whole lot of other problems go away, including smog. Time for the joke about the two fellows plucking a stream of drowning toddlers out of the river. One finally stops, and starts heading up the bank and walks away upstream. The other one asks, "Hey, where are you going? We need to save these kids!" The reply? "I'm going to find the SOB who's throwing them in."

So who has their priorities askew? My impression is that the folks who want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic should rethink their priorities.

p.s. At 15 I was very much aware of science and political topics, even though I hadn't necessarily decided what side made the most sense.

 

Sure - just look at how Lindzen gets treated. Even by you. All you (and others) do is try to tie him into "big oil" and disparage him - despite the fact that he is an extremely smart, capable, and heavy publishing climate researcher at MIT. He just happens not to believe in global warming alarmism.

 

Is that what Al Gore told you?

 

I know because looking at your chart I can see by inspection that if I calculated control limits from the data that final point is way out, and the point before it is already pushing the limit. The problem of course is what period are you going to calculate for? It's been some years since I was doing SPC charts in the plant but let's take a stab at it with a simplified technique. I no longer have my old manuals or software.

One can calculate limits by reading the chart which I just did so that I could examine this more closely. Let's look at three cases:
1. From start until 1000 AD, ave = -0.21 stdev = 0.058, UCL = -0.036, LCL = -0.384
2. From start until 1900 AD, ave = -0.30 stdev = 0.130, UCL = 0.09, LCL = -0.69
3. From start until 1950 AD, ave = -0.30 stdev = 0.138, UCL = 0.11, LCL = -0.71

Anyway you slice it with that data the final point is out of control, eight standard deviations away from mean with the most inclusive set of limits. It's the sort of thing that if you have an assignable cause you start acting on that cause.

 

...or publish anything that backs up his opinions.

 

Good video.. Thanks. goes nicely with my earlier post on biases, way, way back...

 

Well if I had a dollar for every time you and your posse posted some so-called evidence that was instantly refuted by peer-reviewed research, I'd be able to afford a trip to Tennesse and pay Al a visit.

 

For those that are interested in exploring the implications of GW check out Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer:

Part 1 http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3 and

Part 2 http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090126_11172.mp3

Part three to be made available later at CBC Radio | Ideas | The Best of Ideas Podcast

 

more useless conjecture. The truth is nobody has been able to prove AGW and certainly nobody can prove the ramifications of a rise or drop in the worlds temperature.

 

I guess we have different ideas as to what the big picture is. I'm concerned about a large variety of problems most of which we have a technical solution but not the money or will to implement these solutions. You seem focused on one thing, CO2, and assume that the elimination of human CO2 will fix the world's problems.

Take the Asian Brown Cloud. Per a recent peer-reviewed study printed in the Jan issue of Science; 70% of this cloud is produced by small-scale burning of biomass mostly from small scale cooking and heat. This cloud kills 350,000 people in India and China EVERY year from respiratory illnesses. It is also changing the monsoon pattern, effecting food production, and melting the glaciers that supply the region with drinking water. Study Gets Inside the World's "Brown Cloud" - TIME

We could fix this within a couple of years by providing the poor with efficient cook stoves, (LPG, CNG) or by building some good old coal-fired power plants to provide electricity for heating and cooking. Environment groups love to point out that China is building a coal-fired power plan every week but ignore that currently the Chinese population heats with wood and dung in rural areas and COAL in cities. Which is better, a central coal fired plant or thousands of individuals cooking over a coal fire?

According to the CDC, malaria kills 2.7 million people every year with 80% of these deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. We know that the vast majority of these deaths are preventable with mosquito nets and anti-malaria drugs. Both are readily available today but still millions die per year. Why?, no money to give mosquito nets to the poor.

Aids, clean drinking water, food, poverty, the list goes on and on. If we spend trillions of dollars attempting to eliminate CO2 where do we get the money to address these critical issues?

I am a huge supporter of moving away from oil, not because of CO2, but because of the national security issues involved. If as we transition to EV's some of that power comes from a coal-fired power plant so be it. We are still miles ahead on security AND pollution issues.

Efficiency should be our number one effort. We could see huge reductions in energy use if everyone just switched to CFL and put some more insulation in their attic.

I guess I'm a more pragmatic person that believes that society needs to tackle all of these "small" issues. I also don't believe in putting off the good so we can talk about what would be best.

Good for you. I was working a job 7 days a week (since I was 10), playing two varsity sports, taking advance placement classes, attending college classes (I took 18 credit hours of college classes while in High School) and attending church 4 times per week. (Twice Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday) I was interested in science and politics in High School but global warming wasn't on my radar.

PS. My political thought was also about 120 degrees from where it is today. I attended my first political rally at the age of 17. Who was the candidate? Pat Buchanan!

 

Right. Let's not do anything until absolutely everyone is utterly convinced beyond a shadow of unreasonable doubt that we should have done something fifty years ago.

 

So we should institute a huge tax, a juge infrastrtucture to administer the tax to solve a problem which we are not sure exists and probably have no realistic way to solveif it does exist anyways? Is that very rational thinking? too me that is just feel-good politics.

 

I think many of the goals of the AGW alarmists are admirable, moving away from fossil fuels, more efficiency, alternatives, etc. I just don't agree that the "any means to an end" philosophy is correct. I think that is the same philosophy bush used in the war on terror(iraq) and has been used in dealing with the economy of the US(as long as wall street is happy everything is fine).
If the AGW alarmists eventually go the way of the y2k alarmists, the entire environmental and science structure will be in jeopardy. This would not be a good development for any of us.

 

uh, if we don't fix global warming we won't have a hope in hell of fixing all the "small" problems you listed. They will only get worse and human suffering will rise exponentially. So a pragmatist you are not.

 

Lets say everything AL Gore and Jim Hansen say is correct and we are on the brink of disaster, how do we solve it? The US the EU and the UN putting together a huge bureacracy and a huge and cumbersome carbon trading scheme or tax will not change anything in my view. How do we solve it?

 

Ok, off the top of my head....

I agree, I think carbon trading is far from ideal.

Rather, there should be a carbon tax at source (mine/well) with 100% dividend to the citizenry (making it revenue neutral). "Tax what we burn not what we earn"

All current subsidies to carbon intensive energy production reduced to zero. (Coal and NG are already barely cheaper than renewables).

For biggest return on money spent - invest in energy efficiency re: building improvements (negawatts). But also needed is a massive (Moon Shot level) infrastructure investment into renewable energy, smart grids, public transit, battery tech.

Mandate (although the market will make this happen anyway) an end to the ICE use in light cars and trucks. Move to a Better Place business model for personal transportation.

Promote a massive worldwide investment in biochar technology - good for rural China and India.

All of this would create a massive amount of wealth with a high ROI, while reducing the chance of wars, increase national security, clean the air of pollutants and eventually save many lives and our overall quality of life.

There are no good reasons not to do these things.

 

Well I heard that this conspiracy goes right to the top - even to the President of the United States!

 

I agree. Many of the thing beings pushed by the AGW crowd need to be done. Lets be honest with the citizens and push forward change without wild doomsday scenarios.

Sorry Fibb, I don't see the reduction of CO2 as the solution to the very real and practical problems faced by the world today. CO2 reduction is not going to cure AIDS. If anything it will divert resources from that and other medical issues. AGW is also pulling resources away from other traditional environmental causes: air pollution, water pollution, overfishing, etc.

I have a simple question. If we can't band together fix relatively simple issues with known solutions like malaria, how do you expect to fix AGW?

 

I think you missed my point. The more we delay in reducing CO2 emissions the more catastrophic will be the devastation to the global economy and political stability. And then there won't be any resources to put towards the important problems you've listed - it will all be going into things like wars, and dealing with the massive refugee problem.

We should get started on all of it now.

Something to think about if you care at all at what the Pentagon thinks.

Give the Climate Wars podcast a listen: