• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives and climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
mhaze said:
No, they might think it was far too weak.
Click to expand...

They might or they do?

mhaze said:
And to note that the subgroup of greens who are fanatical ecofascists advocate carbon taxes does not imply that the reverse attribution is made.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to make sense of this. Can you please explain what you mean?

I guess I'm just wondering why you insist on using the phrase "fanatical ecofascists" to describe anyone that thinks a carbon tax is a good idea.
 
Krikkiter said:
I guess I'm just wondering why you insist on using the phrase "fanatical ecofascists" to describe anyone that thinks a carbon tax is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I suspect he's here to entertain and be entertained.

He does the former, but probably not for the reason he might think and I stopped interacting with him to reduce the latter.
 
Trakar said:
These perfectly exemplify the denial of science and reality that prevent meaningful policy discussion.
Click to expand...
If you say so...nothing. Where's the denial of science? Do you disagree with the assertion that feedbacks between atmosphere and oceans and between atmosphere and biosphere are poorly understood? As I understand the matter, models depend critically on assumptions about these feedbacks. Do you disagree?
 
TimCallahan said:
Okay, I missed AlBell's post (hilited):

It is from climategate, email #4141. All I've found though are blogs which I hesitate to link to.
Unfortunately, when I looked up the climategate blog, I couldn't find the e-mail in question. Thus, I still don't know the scientist - whom you could easily have named in your initial assertion. You have the choice of simply answering the question I asked or acting like a sarcastic jerk.
Click to expand...

Okay, mhaze, I asked AlBell if he could find the e-mail in question. He couldn't. So, either give up the name of the scientist involved, as well as the source of your quote, or admit that it is, in some way, bogus.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
If you say so...nothing. Where's the denial of science? Do you disagree with the assertion that feedbacks between atmosphere and oceans and between atmosphere and biosphere are poorly understood? As I understand the matter, models depend critically on assumptions about these feedbacks. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...


How disingenuous of you.

Do you agree with the following statement:

"The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."
 
TimCallahan said:
Okay, mhaze, I asked AlBell if he could find the e-mail in question. He couldn't.
Click to expand...


I searched climategate + email 4141 and had to wade through a few pages of questionable sources.

I did find this site which may be reputable (or maybe not) but it's the best I could come up with in a few minutes of looking ...

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4091


date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: "Bo Kjellen" <REDACTED>
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
to: "'Asher Minns'" <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>

Dear Asher, and all,

I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change
might be a better labelling than global warming. But somehow I also feel
that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that
human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system. That
is why the IGBP in a recent publication "Global Change and the Earth System"
underline that we now live in the anthropocene period. Climate change is one
of the central elements of this process, but not the only one: loss of
biological diversity, water stress, land degradation with loss of topsoil,
etc etc all form part of this - and they are all linked in some way or
another. Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now
interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know
relatively little: we are in a totally new situation for the human species,
and our impact added to all the natural variations that exist risks to
unsettle subtle balances and create tensions within the systems which might
also lead to "flip-over" effects with short-term consequences that might be
very dangerous.

And then, the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort.
During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes,
and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment
policy credible - in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have
to be used. And it wasn't, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in
the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat "more
dangerous than terrorism" the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we
all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global
change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the
world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue.
It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some
fundamental value systems have to be challenged.

Bo
​


Someone needs to explain the evilness behind this email, because I frankly, can't see it. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Do you disagree with the assertion that feedbacks between atmosphere and oceans and between atmosphere and biosphere are poorly understood? As I understand the matter, models depend critically on assumptions about these feedbacks.
Click to expand...

You understand incorrectly.

The models calculate the feedback, not "depend on it".

Models may contain uncertainty, but this is not the same thing as "poorly understood" (for example there is uncertainty about what the next role of dice will be, even though the dice are well understood)

The biggest uncertainty has nothing to do with ocean-atmosphere or biosphere-atmosphere feedback but involves clouds.

Uncertainty does not prevent you from making usable predictions. For example models typically give a result for climate sensitivity of 3.5 dec +/- 1.5 deg C for every doubling of CO2. While there is uncertainty "no warming" is still not a plausible result.


So, basically, your understanding was almost completely misguided.
 
citizenzen said:
I searched climategate + email 4141 and had to wade through a few pages of questionable sources.

I did find this site which may be reputable (or maybe not) but it's the best I could come up with in a few minutes of looking ...

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4091


date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: "Bo Kjellen" <REDACTED>
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
to: "'Asher Minns'" <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>

Dear Asher, and all,

I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change
might be a better labelling than global warming. But somehow I also feel
that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that
human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system. That
is why the IGBP in a recent publication "Global Change and the Earth System"
underline that we now live in the anthropocene period. Climate change is one
of the central elements of this process, but not the only one: loss of
biological diversity, water stress, land degradation with loss of topsoil,
etc etc all form part of this - and they are all linked in some way or
another. Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now
interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know
relatively little: we are in a totally new situation for the human species,
and our impact added to all the natural variations that exist risks to
unsettle subtle balances and create tensions within the systems which might
also lead to "flip-over" effects with short-term consequences that might be
very dangerous.

And then, the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort.
During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes,
and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment
policy credible - in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have
to be used. And it wasn't, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in
the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat "more
dangerous than terrorism" the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we
all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global
change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the
world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue.
It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some
fundamental value systems have to be challenged.

Bo
​


Someone needs to explain the evilness behind this email, because I frankly, can't see it. :confused:
Click to expand...

Thanks, citizenzen,

I don't see it as evil either. Also, Bo Kjellen isn't one of the major scientists behind global climate change. This is what I found out about him on a site devoted to honorary degrees given out by Stockholm University in 2011. Kjellen was a recipient of one of these, a degree in law:

Bo Kjellén is a former Swedish ambassador. He was for many years head of the Swedish delegation in the global climate change negotiations. He chaired parts of the negotiations of the UN Climate Change Convention, which was adopted at the 1992 UN Summit on Environment and Development, and he also chaired the negotiations of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, adopted in 1994. Bo Kjellén remains engaged as writer and lecturer in international environmental matters, not only related to climate change, and he has actively supported teaching and research in environmental law at Stockholm University.
 
mhaze said:
I think what you are saying is that if someone doesn't believe in whatever the latest trend is in Fear of Carbon Dioxide...
Click to expand...


As I recall, in a thread in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum, you claimed that carbon dioxide plays almost no role in warming the surface temperature of Venus.

If you (still) think CO2 isn't doing anything there then I guess that explains your lack of concern with it here.
 
Question to no one in particular: what do you think swung Earth out of the Snowball effect during the end of the Cryogenian geologic period?
 
Travis said:
Question to no one in particular: what do you think swung Earth out of the Snowball effect during the end of the Cryogenian geologic period?
Click to expand...

Magic. It's just a natural cycle, the Earth has really been on a gradual recovery from the Snowball Earth and that explains the current warming trend. No further explanation needed, it just happens!
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
...

It has to be remembered that the purpose of a carbon tax is to eliminate the use of carbon fuels, not provide a sustained new source of revenue to play with and fund programs that are going to need long term investment. A carbon bank would also help stretch these funds as the low interest loans/investments are paid back intothe bank.
Click to expand...

Ah! This is not a carbon tax.

It is a tax on coal extraction and oil importation.

Taxing oil importation makes more domestic sources recoverable by giving them a greater margin.

Taxing coal extraction raises the cost of coal relative to its competitors, and applies to both energy and metallurgical/chemical coal. The latter is the big win because China is as addicted to foreign high quality coal as a junkie is to his needle.

So, I don't care how you burn it, just that when you do, you are funding its replacement.
 
Travis said:
Question to no one in particular: what do you think swung Earth out of the Snowball effect during the end of the Cryogenian geologic period?
Click to expand...

Ok, ok, ok... I think I have it... either one of the three....

1. Solar flares

2. Heat Islands

3. Ice Hockey
 
Corsair 115 said:
As I recall, in a thread in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum, you claimed that carbon dioxide plays almost no role in warming the surface temperature of Venus.

If you (still) think CO2 isn't doing anything there then I guess that explains your lack of concern with it here.
Click to expand...
Respectively, you never understood the issues on Venus. Almost as if you didn't want to.

liquid CO2 under high pressures, and sulfer clouds. Etc.

Basically you were repeating a scientifically false mantra - "Look at Venus, it's got gobs of CO2, and it's a furnace! That's what we'll wind up like!".

A mantra of ignorant loons of the left.

The high pressure present on the surface alone explains most of the "temperature". There is almost no water vapor, which causes most of the "greenhouse effect" on Earth. Almost no sunlight gets to the surface, hence the surface cannot be warmed by sunlight.

To establish a POSSIBLE UPPER FRACTION of the temperature of Venus due to a greenhouse effect, one would look at the equivalent temperature for 92 atmospheres pressure and then consider any excess temperature existing on Venus as being the result of heat buildup under the atmospheric components. Then you'd estimate a fraction due to the 20 mile thick sulfer layer. Etc.




BenBurch said:
Ah! This is not a carbon tax.

It is a tax on coal extraction and oil importation.

Taxing oil importation makes more domestic sources recoverable by giving them a greater margin.

Taxing coal extraction raises the cost of coal relative to its competitors, and applies to both energy and metallurgical/chemical coal. The latter is the big win because China is as addicted to foreign high quality coal as a junkie is to his needle.

So, I don't care how you burn it, just that when you do, you are funding its replacement.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. More precisely, delusional green economics (ignoring fungible nature of a commodity).

Australia would simply ship more coal to China.

And they'd laugh all the way to the bank.
 
Last edited:
L.Y.S. said:
What does faith have to do with it? There are mounds of evidence. I ask again, what makes this evidence wrong?
Click to expand...

Faith has a lot to do with it. Faith drives beliefs such as windmills and solar, even if they cost ten times more per delivered kilowatt, are certainly "Good" because they (are believed to) have a lowered "carbon footprint" and will help Save the Planet.

Faith in greeniness drives beliefs that we "Must do something now", that we must have "urgent action now" to spend hundreds of billions on alternative energy, largely without critical examination of whether it has a chance of working.

Faith extends to the need to spend all this money, even when it is printed out of thin air in addition to the other 40% of spending that is printed out of thin air.

Gaia will care for you, brother. Do not worry about things, but remain faithful, and you shall be saved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tXfX4qpGjc
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Vulcanism and orbital mechanics.
Click to expand...

And.....I wonder how volcanoes can stop a runaway ice age?

Could it be greenhouse gases? ;)



We should start making a list of the other basic things you will need to not believe in if you don't accept the existence of greenhouse gases.

1) Obviously Earth never escaped the Marinoan Glaciation.

2) Venus is clearly some sort of lie.

3) Ditto Mars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom