Professor says Global Warming a Scam

icarus

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

"In nearby Cache Creek there's a new mountain rising. It's made of garbage from the Vancouver area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_Creek_landfill
Want one in your back yard?
__________________



In Thunder Bay ON, they have tapped the century old landfill for it's methane to produce ~3 mw of power from the landfill gas, instead of having it spew forth as waste. To it's credit, the current landfill has evolved in the last ten years from a typical landfill full of "waste" to one that is nearly a model of what disposal should be. Recycling of nearly everything without fee, and done easily, and then separation on the tipping floor for further sorting of scrap, compostables etc.

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories_local.php?id=292589

All that said, it is still amazing what you see people throwing away. We go to town about once a month, and include a couple of bags of recyclables, and one small bag of stuff that either won't compost or won't recycle, The bulk of that is plastic packaging that they won't take.

Back to the OP. I second the question, are you prepared to live with the consequences of your non action? A climate scientist who is studying the effect of climate change on the Boreal Forest gave a presentation and he made the following comment (sic).

"If 97 doctors, who are all cancer specialists have said that you have serious cancer that requires serious treatment, but you also have 3 Doctors (who may or may not be cancer specialists!) suggest that you either aren't sick or don't require treatment, what are you going to do?"

The point is, we all can argue from now to when the cows come home the nuance of climate change. Once again, I would urge people to read and understand some original source material instead of all the other spin. I find it very interesting that the number of people who consider global warming (climate change if you prefer!) a serious issue has gone down in North America in the last ten years, while the numbers have go up most elsewhere. (Although the denial orchestration is making some inroads in Europe nowdays!) This, in spite of more and more mounting evidence (from the real climate science community) that comes out every year.

Tony

dwh

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

I would like to clear up what seems to be a misconception...

Not all skeptics are poor deluded fools victimized by the propaganda of the denial cabal.

I'm certainly not, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to shove me into that particular pigeonhole.

BB.

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

I am not sure I would want to go down the "appeal to authority" type argument. If of those 97 specialists, none is a specialist in Oncology and many are not even MD's, and quite a few of them are former Vice Presidents and Billing Clerks (aka tax authorities)...

For example:

Michael Mann:
A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics ( 1998 )

Don't see "cancer specialists" (aka Climate Scientist) in there.

Prof Jones and his recent diagnosis:

In an interview on the BBC on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones admitted that (here and here):

• There has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995.
• The warming periods of 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1975 to 1998 were very similar and could all be explained by natural forces.
• The data and papers the hockey stick graph used prominently in the last two UN IPCC reports is based on has been lost. The hockey stick temperature record was the basis for a claim of unprecedented warming recently, which was attributed to man's CO2 emissions due to using fossil fuels.
• The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) may have been warmer than now and recently, but there is insufficient data from the tropics and the southern hemisphere to be sure of that. He says the MWP is best expressed in North America, the North Atlantic and Europe, and parts of Asia.

Probably the reason is that the dire predictions that we here are all we have ten years until it is too late... And some proclamation like:

July 2008
(former VP) Gore calls on the US to produce all its energy from zero-carbon sources within 10 years, saying that the future of human civilization is at stake.

That is a totally a impossible solution. Just to build all of the nuclear reactors, dams, infrastructure would require a huge use of concrete and steel which is already a large producer of greenhouse gasses in the first place:

Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2 emissions. Dr Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2 emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy.

And, for the most part, we are just outsourcing the CO2 production to Asia... US and Europe have dropped CO2 emissions and China/India have increased by about the same amount:

Large regional differences: China and India jump by 9% and 6% while OECD countries plummet by 7%

OECD countries

The recession in OECD countries has led to large drops in output of heavy, energy-intensive industries such as steel and basic chemicals production, oil refineries and power generation. In Europe, CO2 emissions from industries regulated by the Emissions Trading Scheme fell by 11.6% and in the USA, industry emissions from fuel combustion fell by 11% and power generation by 9%. Total emissions in the European Union (EU-15) fell by 7% to 3.1 billion tonnes and in the USA by 7% to 5.3 billion tonnes. The total CO2 emissions in Japan and Russia fell by 11% to 1.2 billion tonnes and 9% to 1.6 billion tonnes, respectively. Total CO2 emissions fell by 7% in all industrialised countries with quantitative greenhouse gas mitigation targets under the Kyoto Protocol.
China and India

Since 2000, CO2 emissions in China have more than doubled, and in India have increased by more than half. Since the end of 2008, China, has been implementing a large economic stimulus package over a two-year period. This package includes investment in transport infrastructure and in rebuilding Sichuan communities devastated by the 2008 earthquake. In 2009, CO2 emissions jumped by 9% to 8.1 billion tonnes, even though China has doubled its installed wind and solar power capacity for the fifth year in a row. India where domestic demand makes up three-quarters of the national economy is relatively unaffected by the credit crunch. Emissions continued to increase in 2009 by 6% to 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2. India has now surpassed Russia as the fifth largest CO2 emitter.

It appears, at this time, even if a people take the issue of CO2 seriously, there is little that they can do--and governments around the world seem to be making the problem worse rather than better by their polices (falling industrial output/CO2 in the west, increased industrial/CO2 output in the east).

I am sure it is easy to find other people with other opinions/sets of facts that counter the above...

With the Mars article, I was just trying to show how many changes in opinions and facts there have been even in few years.

Is the information interesting? Yes. Is it something that I would would change the entire world for in 10 years (or less) for... Not at this point.

In the end, the industrial world is lessening its carbon emissions and some other parts of the world are increasing their's...

At this point in time, pretty much the definition of a zero sum gain right now.

Why would not people have diminishing concerns about the warnings of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming/climate change.

At this point, the people "pushing" the solutions seem to be the ones receiving monetary benefits (gov. funded scientists, governments raising taxes and controls) or live a lifestyle that does not seem to indicate their seriousness about the issue.

James Cameron "Avatar" filmmaker:

James Cameron, filmmaker and prominent Global Warming activist, recently told The Los Angeles Times that we have to accept the fact that we must live with less in order to save the environment.
Easy for him to say, but funny, I don't recall seeing For Sale Notices on his three houses in Malibu, JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys, Corvette, Ducati, Ford GT, yacht, submarine fleet, lavish mountain resort, fleet of dirt bikes, etc. etc. etc.

I guess just his three homes total 24,000 sq.ft.

Bless him for being successful... But--he is just making the whole discussion look silly.

-Bill

icarus

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Bill,

The preceding series of posts illustrates the black hole where this discussion is heading.

I wrote : If 97 doctors, who are all cancer specialists have said that you have serious cancer that requires serious treatment"

To which you responded with: "If of those 97 specialists, none is a specialist in Oncology and many are not even MD's, and quite a few of them are former Vice Presidents and Billing Clerks (aka tax authorities)... "

Which clearly illustrates the rift that this conversation is beginning to cause. Your reference to tax authorities and former Vice Presidents not so subtly (and not inadvertently) points out the political nature (and perhaps your bias). Your reference to Mann also exacerbates the point. You could cite and post thousands of references to how Mann should be discounted, all the while, I can cite and post an equal thousands as to the veracity of his work. (I personally think that the "climate gate e-mail scandal" is nothing but a tempest in a teapot, leveraged by the denial community, but that too illustrates the rift!)

So I would urge everyone to get their last word(s) in, and then have the mods lock the thread, and let's all agree to move on while we still have the respect of one another. I will endeavor to make this my last word(s).

Tony

PS to DWH.

"I would like to clear up what seems to be a misconception...

Not all skeptics are poor deluded fools victimized by the propaganda of the denial cabal.

I'm certainly not, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to shove me into that particular pigeonhole."


If I offended, I apologize. My intention is (was/will be) in this conversation to open peoples eyes to the potential of their own biases. If you feel you are free of any internal or external bias, then there should be no pigeonholing.

T

mikeo

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

can I have the Last Word! Pretty Please?

[Ok--you may. I will close thread by multiple requests. -Bill B. Moderator]