The Irony of the Bali Global Warming conference

I concur!

Although we're in the vast minority on these forums!

 

I concur.

However, I think we are in the vast minority for this issue!

 

There are legitimate criticisms of current Global Warming models, and I think it would be foolish to say once and for all we've got it all figured out and here are the numbers.

That said, the study you posted would look a lot more credible to me if it didn't have Fred Singer's name on it. Too much "Pretend-Science for Hire" in his CV for my tastes.

 

When you're already warm and you throw another blanket on the bed it may be hard to predict whether your crotch or your armpits will start sweating first, but you can be certain that you're going to be too hot. Same deal with global warming: the models have a devil of a time with the details but the data are already unambiguous.

 

Why is "Global Warming" the "doom" for one extreme and "non-existent" for the other extreme? Always sidestepped in both sides is CO2 pollution. There is not much to debate that this is being generated by human activity. Yet all discussions leave this common area for the extremes. Why?

 

Maybe because CO2 isn't considered a pollutant by many reasonable people, which by definition excludes the majority of lawyers in black robes on the US Supreme Court.

 

I'm going to say something stupid,
Forget global climate change.

Now what about depletion of resources, increasing CO2 levels displace oxygen in the atmosphere. No one is saying these things don't exist. We can act on it to minimise our impact on the earth or we can just throw our hands in the air and say f*** our kids and their kids, they will just have to put up with our mess. The people in the most affluent countries have the biggest impact, that's us.

 

Studies in oceanography would lead me to believe otherwise. This also goes for soils and freshwater systems. My hope is there is some method (or collection of) of breaking the positive feedback loop before it gets out of hand and proves even more deleterious for lifeforms (including us) than it does now. I do not think it will happen quickly enough. The oceans may be close to saturation and become a net carbon source rather than a net sink but we need to do more studies to be sure. What's frightening is that no one thought it would reach that point so quickly.

It would be wonderful if more people studied the other effects of massive CO2 release into the global carbon cycle. Here is a good place to start.

The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle

Since many of you cannot read the scientific journals I'll post the RealClimate article that talk about them and cites the sources for those who do have access. Is the ocean carbon sink sinking? I've read (have)three of the four papers David cited in that article.

 

That is not stupid Pat. In fact that is what I've been telling people in a round-about way. You don't have to believe in global warming, global cooling, or global dimming to see the other effects of anthropogenic pollution and excess emissions. You are on the right track IMO. If contrarians want to dig in their heals and refuse to believe that "global warming" is occuring then that is fine, if they then decide to also dismiss the other effects of fossil fuel burning and deforestation then there is a problem. A problem with their grasp on reality.

 

The something stupid was: - "Forget global climate change."
I think to do so would be very stupid.

 

You know I agree with you. I am just saying that there are other effects to fossil fuel use than just climate change and that more people will likely be swayed to curb their use if they understood those effects.

 

OK, now I follow.
For a second there I thought you were a climate change skeptic all of a sudden.
I should have read all of your post. I'm not very bright this late at night.

 

Even if you forget about pollution and all the problems associated, there's still global conflict over energy. It should be obvious to ANYONE with half a brain that we shouldn't depend on the middle-east, or anyone else for our energy resources.

Energy independence for all nations would reduce global conflict. Easier said than done, but it won't happen if nobody decides it needs to. So no, there's no irony in addressing problems that affect people all around the world. The irony is that anyone would say it's not something we need to do.

 

If the liberals wouldn't freak at the idea of drilling ANWR maybe we wouldn't be so reliant upon middle eastern oil.

 

wow!!! a GW thread that actually addresses the fact all year suntans is not the only thing we have to worry about...

always wondered why financing middle east countries to act on their "ideologies" never seemed to be important..

undermining our economy

destroying our environment

lowering our quality of life when forced to pay more for comfort and basic needs

taking employment dollars out of america's pocket and shipping it elsewhere
(ever think of how many employees would be needed if the government fully backed alternative energy with tax credits, low interest loans and deferments??)

hugh advantages of localized power sources like water, wind, and solar... brings jobs to the heartland. someone has to build and maintain them...
everyone complains about walmart (ooops!! wrong thread) taking jobs away from americans... now we get some back and enjoy a HUGE benefit in return

 

One of the very core reasons for focusing on CO2 pollution (vs. GW) is that burning all the world's oil is a problem, but of 'debatable' consequences for many right now. But then shifting to coal and burning all the world's coal makes the oil contribution insignificant....really, really insignificant...and conversely make any effect of CO2 pollution vastly, vastly greater.

It's only when the layman understands how much coal needs to be burned to maintain the energy appetite of the world, that the GW issue becomes secondary.

 

If you forget about the exhaust, then there is a very easy, as well as cost effective solution to energy independence. Coal. We have enough in the US to last for hundreds of years.

Of course, it makes that other little problem a lot worse.

 

If people wild actually start giving a %$#@ and conserve we wouldn't need to in the first place. I'm sorry but I do not relish the idea of destroying fragile ecosystems just so some jackarse can continue to drive his Excursion back and forth to work while thumbing his nose at those who do conserve. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not the answer here.

 

I suspect the people who deny anthropic global warming are the same people who deny evolution. Both groups use the same sort of tactics: Invent false data, and apply bogus reasoning to real data. The only difference is the GW deniers don't claim the Bible as their source of information.