backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Nfarce.. on Oct 27 at 8:45 PM


A new treaty, similar to the Kyoto accord, will be ironed out in December. The worlds major industrial nations hope to use the treaty to keep the worl  (Source: Droughts and Heat Waves)
Much uncertainty about new accord remains, though

Global warming is one of the most controversial topics of debate on an international scale.  The majority of climatologists support the theory that man is causing warming, yet there are some climatologists that have different takes on the matter, pointing to sun cycles or other factors as the possible culprit.  Further complicating the issue is that most policy decisions are being led by politicians, like IPCC officials, which, while often holding advanced degrees in scientific topics, are seldom climatologists.

As the U.S., Japan, China, UK, and other nations debate in advance of the Copenhagen conference in December, there seems to be a clear consensus that something needs to be done to address climate change.  The key issue though is what to do and how much to spend and on that topic there appears little hope of reaching a consensus.

The nations seem mostly likely to reach a "Goldilocks" solution championed by the U.S.  Such a solution would attempt to not be drastic enough to cause resistance, but not weak enough to be ineffectual -- in other words, it would aim for "just right".  In order to do this a series of interim steps in carbon control will likely be rolled out.

Yvo De Boer, the Dutch diplomat who leads the United Nations climate secretariat and oversees the negotiations describes, "There isn’t sufficient time to get the whole thing done.  But I hope it will go well beyond simply a declaration of principles. The form I would like it to take is the groundwork for a ratifiable agreement next year."

One thorny issue is the topic of poor and developing nations.  While it might be a bit of a pain for the U.S. to curb its carbon habit, it's doable.  However, for some poor nations they simply have no means to turn away from polluting technologies such as coal or wood burning.  Representatives from the U.S., European Union, and the 16 other largest emitters met in London this week to iron out aid for these poor nations to help them meet climate objectives.  According to officials the talks went quite well.

Another key holdup, though is the U.S. Congress's inability to agree on global warming legislation.  Currently legislation that would set up a carbon trading scheme and binding targets for emissions is mired in Congress and will likely not see passage until early next year -- after the international agreement will likely be ironed out.  The lack of a concrete plan from the U.S. cast doubt on the talks.

Officials point out that the Kyoto Accord took four years after the initial convention to iron out details -- and the U.S. never was on board with that treaty.  While there's much uncertainty about the nature of the new agreement, it will likely seek terms that will try to constrain warming to 2 degrees Celsius above current levels.  That way island nations and coastal states will be protected against potentially catastrophic flooding that some speculate a warming climate could create.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By ChickenMcTest on 10/23/2009 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 4
Hasn't the earth's temperature changed drastically over the billions of years it has existed?

I remember reading dinosaur books to my little cousin which stated that the Jurassic period was "hot and humid". I know that woolly mammoths existed during the ice age.

So.. wouldn't preventing a change in planetary temperature potentially be just as bad as preventing an increase in temperature?

Maybe it would be better for humans to keep the temps constant. Maybe you could make a good argument against global warming because change in temperature would be harmful to humans. Regardless of warming or cooling or the event being natural or man-made, should we try to stop a drastic change in temperature?




RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By lightfoot on 10/23/2009 4:17:19 PM , Rating: 5
Screwing with the environment is only good if you do it on purpose and call yourself an "environmentalist."

It's evil if you do it on accident and call yourself an "employer."


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By Mint on 10/26/2009 12:33:55 PM , Rating: 3
The hilarious thing is that Greenpeace is responsible for more CO2 emissions than all corporations combined with their 50 year FUD campaign against nuclear power.

I think the evidence for AGW is pretty compelling, but I hate the exaggeration of both its impact and the marginal benefit of taking action.

I did some calculations, and if we can miraculously generate wind/solar at an amortized premium of $0.05/kWh, buying $100B of it every year to displace coal will reduce CO2 emissions by 8%, and it'll take 20 years to reduce the manmade part of atmospheric levels by 3%.

So these greenies want to spend at least $2 trillion to reduce the global temperature by 0.03 degrees? No thanks. I'd rather wait 20 years for solar/wind to become cheaper. Even that report of 300,000 deaths per year due to AGW would pin the cost of saving each life at $10M each. We can do at least 1000x better with sustainable development.

I also wish that those against carbon legislation would focus on this rather than make often bogus claims against the science. It would restore credibility to the movement. Personally, I support nuclear power and PHEV for improving air quality and resource independence. The AGW benefit is just a minor consideration.


By Ammohunt on 10/26/2009 2:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Thats becasue the envrionmetal movement has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with destroying truly free societies and the system that provides that freedom capitalism. Power and control of people through crisis humankinds oldest trick in the book.


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By JediJeb on 10/23/2009 4:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to absolutely prove that humans are causing global warming would be to stop ALL carbon emissions from humans for 100 years. After that, if the temperature dropped we will just have to maintain the total ban on carbon emissions, if it still rises then we can go back to the way we were.


By autoboy on 10/23/2009 7:12:32 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, that wouldn't prove anything. It would simply prove that we are morons at the scientific model.

You have to reduce a system to a single variable to do an experiment like that. If the temperature dropped after stopping emissions, it could just as easily have dropped because of something else, like a reduction in sun spots, or an increase in the # of pirates.


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By McDragon on 10/23/2009 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yes it has, however we can be pretty sure that the Dinosaurs didn't cause the change that killed them off - Most believe it was a large metor that ended up cooling the planet.

Whether global temps are rising or not I'm not sure, but I know the Artic is melting away. If that is man-made, then I see reason to try to prevent it - Especially as noone can really say for certain how far it will go.

I only wish the politicians would convert coal to Nuclear power plants, but I'm afraid that it's too politically 'hot'. At least in many countries here in Europe.


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By MrBungle123 on 10/23/2009 5:07:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Whether global temps are rising or not I'm not sure, but I know the Artic is melting away. If that is man-made, then I see reason to try to prevent it


There is no doubt the earth as warmed since the rise of civilization... Its been warming since the end of the last ice age. The climate is cyclical. We don't have enough reliable data to even determine what "normal" is... or if there even is such a thing as "normal"... how old is this planet? And we have how much data? yeah.

You have to look at the group of people that are writing these treatys and pushing these initives... They are all politicians which stand to gain either lots of power or money or both off of these deals at the expense of the rest of the population...

Why are we even listening to them? They have so many conflicts of interest going on that its not even funny... Its like letting a car salesman pick the car you're going to buy and borrowing money from the mob to finance it.

Al Gore, probably one of the largest hypocrites in world history flies around in a private jet telling everyone to quit driving while he racks up 20K per month electic bills and stands to make billions by selling carbon credits to companies and individuals that will be soon labeled "polluters". And yet the media and the government hold him up on a pedistal as some sort of earth protecting hero... Wake up people! You need to ask yourself what you're getting out of this deal because you can bet that its going to cost you thousands in higher prices and increased taxes... The pay off is that according to folks like Al Gore in a 100 or so years the earth will be a few degrees cooler... Yet look at how he lives... not exactly the lifestyle of a person that has the convictions he claims he does. This whole deal stinks on ice.


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By stilltrying on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By McDragon on 10/24/2009 9:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I believe we have reliable temperature data going back some centuries - But it seems that global temperature is not an accurate measurement here. The Artic is warming drastically fast, but I don't think the same is happening in the Antarctic.

Over here, I see alot of good debates between scientist who talk about suncycles and sunspots, and those who talk more about carbon-cycles...All common people who don't really stand alot to gain anyhow
While it would be nice to be able to shut out the noise-generators like Gore, greenpeace and the rabid anti-treehugger crowd, I still get the impression that a lot of independent experts are deeply concerned...And that's enough to get me concerned.


By SPOOFE on 10/24/2009 5:39:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I believe we have reliable temperature data going back some centuries

We know that around 700-1000 years ago, they were growing grapes for wine in Britain, where the climate is far too cold for it now; and that Greenland was home to plowed fields in what is now permafrost.

Note that the infamous "Hockey Stick graph" (a cornerstone of the whole "Man's Causing Climate Change" movement) never showed this Medieval Warming Period in its charts... similarly, the graph has also been shown to be the product of cherry-picked data, revealed by a peer review of the authors' own data. Many other prominent studies in that vein have also never undergone peer review, and in at least one case the author spent years trying to prevent anyone else from getting their hands on his raw data, culminating in the discovery that the raw data itself was lost or destroyed or merged with other information.

The sloppiness of the science that "proved" man-made global warming is atrocious. All they have is this supposed "consensus", but the consensus almost universally comes from either people who haven't done any studies of their own or haven't had any access to any raw data; generally, the consensus is born out of a desire to get funding, and in the politically charged climate we're in now, you just plain won't get any funding to get results that don't support the prevailing view.

And finally: Consensus isn't science. Gallileo would've agreed with me on that one.


By sxr7171 on 10/24/2009 8:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, I agree 100%

These people really disgust me.


By stromgald30 on 10/23/2009 7:17:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I only wish the politicians would convert coal to Nuclear power plants, but I'm afraid that it's too politically 'hot'. At least in many countries here in Europe.


Huh? Europe is already very much powered by nuclear. France, Belgium, Sweeden, Switzerland, and Germany are among the top 12 countries in nuclear usage.

I think America faces the most difficulty in moving to nuclear because of fear-mongering and rabid political regulations.


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By AlexWade on 10/24/2009 8:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know the Artic is melting away.


Actually, the Arctic is not melting but increasing since the 2007 low, which was the lowest in RECORDED history. Anecdotal evidence exists, however, that the Arctic was much lower than the 2007 low based on ship logs. For proof of Arctic increase, please view this link. It has several years of Arctic sea ice coverage from June 2002 to present.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent...


By Lifted on 10/24/2009 3:47:44 PM , Rating: 3
And as Michael Asher learned the hard way, ice coverage is not the same as ice volume. The thickness of the ice has reduced steadily and drastically over the last 30 or so years.


RE: Please correct me if I am wrong but...
By Lifted on 10/24/2009 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
This video, while basically a Michael Asher bitch slapping, actually has a good graphic of the ice thickness decreasing over the years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0


By AlexWade on 10/25/2009 9:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
I know what you are saying. But ice-thickness and ice-mass IS increasing. Ignore the biased blind-believes of the Catlin ice crew. Their stated mission was to prove the effects of global warming, and not see what is true. In short, they had the answer before the trip, so ignore them. I don't know much about them, but I did read their manifesto/mission statement.

I was clued into this article. Translation by Google.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t...
quote:
The result is surprising. The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is obviously thicker than the scientists had suspected. Normally, new ice formed after two years was about two feet thick. "There were, however, measured ice thickness of up to four meters," said a spokesman of Bremerhaven's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research.


(I think Google mistranslated a little. I think it should read 2 meters deep and 2 feet deep.)

See also: http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Research/R...


By sxr7171 on 10/24/2009 8:02:33 PM , Rating: 5
It is pure fucking arrogance to think that we can even make a tiny dent on global climate patterns when we know the earth of its own accord has been through ice ages and heat spells. This is all a crock of shit put forth by people seeking to make money out of this scam and to recruit idiot do-gooders to collect the money.

The combined arrogance and stupidity of these people and the amount of publicity they get makes me sick to my stomach.

BTW, after Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize it got added to the list of worthless prizes in the world. These idiots and their stupid publicity stunts.


By Chris Peredun on 10/23/2009 4:07:32 PM , Rating: 5
Reminds me of the story of Cnut the Great, who placed his throne on the shore and ordered the tide to stop coming in.

Spoiler alert - it didn't work.




By ChickenMcTest on 10/23/2009 4:14:11 PM , Rating: 4
But... But... But.. Carbon Credits!!! and cap and trade!


By armulyman on 10/24/2009 1:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
check this out.....
http://blog.ted.com/2007/11/david_keith.php

according to this guy we can in fact order the tide to stop.

It seems as if it is a solar problem and not because of CO2, then there are still many solutions.


By therealnickdanger on 10/24/2009 1:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
I just watched a great documentary on this whole topic:

"Fall of the Republic"

http://prisonplanet.tv/

It was available for free in WMV format a couple days ago, but now it seems the only free version is the torrent. It's a long one, but it's got a lot of good stuff in it.


By ClownPuncher on 10/23/2009 5:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
Will you sign my petition to stop the rain in Seattle?


By someguy123 on 10/24/2009 3:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
not even the sun can stop the rain in seattle.


By Oregonian2 on 10/24/2009 9:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
Strangely enough, I like the rain "down here" in metro Portland. Send Seattle's rain south a bit. Guess I've gotten used to the moss behind my ears.


By stromgald30 on 10/23/2009 7:10:31 PM , Rating: 4
My thoughts exactly.

How do they expect to control the global temperature?!? These politicians are getting so delusional about the power they control.

I don't believe in man-made global warming, but I understand/support curbing pollution and reducing fossil fuel usage. That can be quantified and enforced. But, how is someone going to tell mother nature what to do?


By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 6:35:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't believe in man-made global warming, but I understand/support curbing pollution and reducing fossil fuel usage.

That's one of the worst parts about the whole thing: If you don't toe the party line, the whole thing, you get labeled a "denier" and you're attacked nigh-mindlessly. There are aspects of pollution control that are great; I remember LA in the '80s, I remember the horrible feeling of my lungs filled with smog after walking up a hill, I remember gasping for breath. I'm enthusiastic about efficiency-oriented thinking in developing cars and generating power. I think it's great.

Why isn't it enough to be against pollution because cleaner air, water, and land is just plain healthy? How come this Doomsday scenario has to be invented? Sure, you might scare a few people into agreeing with you, but when the bubble bursts - like the dot-com bubble in the late '90s, or the more recent housing market bubble - you're going to wind up doing more harm than good.


By myhipsi on 10/26/2009 8:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How come this Doomsday scenario has to be invented?


Because it's not about protecting the environment, it's about controlling the planet's production means through a global carbon tax which will systematically reduce the middle class of this world to the proletariat class.


By Spuke on 10/26/2009 3:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because it's not about protecting the environment, it's about controlling the planet's production means through a global carbon tax which will systematically reduce the middle class of this world to the proletariat class.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a fear of terrorism. Or, more accurately, an unwillingness to be affiliated with the oil controlling nations. The AGW theory's been around for longer than the Iraq war but it hasn't really taken off until the war became unpopular (at least not in the US). But, in typical human fashion, instead of saying we don't want to be affiliated with the Arab oil states anymore, we pick something else that will achieve a similar result.

Besides, fear usually motivates more than common sense. The problem is, Western governments have trade agreements, etc. with these nations so our governments can't just back out. BUT, if the people demand it, there's nothing the governments can do about it but do what we say. Do you see Obama getting up in front of the Arab states saying we're going to use less of their oil? NOPE! So the governments keep those pacts in place while the people demand things to be changed. So you only change what's demanded (hence the reason the US government isn't keen on making domestic oil drilling easier). Then the oil states can't complain or accuse "us" of potentially crippling their economies (which I think is coming eventually..the complaining).

That's my theory.


By sxr7171 on 10/24/2009 8:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
You deserve a 6.

Everyone is just looking for the next scam. This one is going to make a lot of people rich for doing absolutely nothing.


By Schrag4 on 10/24/2009 8:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
I don't care if they get rich. However, for every person getting rich off this scam, many, many people will get poorer. All to try to stop something we couldn't possibly stop, and also something we don't even know is a 'bad' thing.


By Spuke on 10/26/2009 3:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't care if they get rich. However, for every person getting rich off this scam, many, many people will get poorer.
I'm actually looking to get into one of the "green" industries. That's where the money will be for the next 10-15 years. I would invest in a "green" company if you have the means. No reason us regular people can't profit from this too.


So when the temprature goes up 2 degrees then what?
By BZDTemp on 10/23/2009 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is about the most stupid idea I've heard in a long time. For sure some politicians are behind this.

We need to scale back our CO2 emissions in a serious way not try and set up some random limit. And I am sorry to say but while the big countries in Asia need to make sure they get it right it's up to us to set an example - after all the energy consumption per capita is by far the largest in the US (like 3xtimes the one in Europe). On the up side when you spend a lot making changes also mean big results. Just look at the cars where a average US car uses a lot of gas the average European or Asian car uses a lot less. Just changing the US car standards to those in the rest of world will matter greatly where as those elsewhere have no real alternative (yet).




By knutjb on 10/23/2009 7:38:30 PM , Rating: 4
Ok, so tell me if the US use so much energy why is China about to pass the US in emissions with India close on their heels? I don't want to hear the US is soooo rich and must pay for everyone else because (insert tear-jerking story here).

How come the temp trend line has headed south for 10 yrs? Oh that's why it's now the irrefutable "climate change" because "global warming" doesn't work when temps go down. This is all about power.


RE: So when the temprature goes up 2 degrees then what?
By TSS on 10/24/2009 4:34:24 AM , Rating: 1
Dude....

A country with a population of 300 million is about to be passed, so isn't passed yet , by a country that has 1300 million people and a country with 1000 million people is close on their heels.

You should emit less regardless if this is a power play or not. If those 2 emitted the same per capita as the US does, man made climate change or not, that isn't going to be a good thing.


By SPOOFE on 10/24/2009 6:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You should emit less regardless if this is a power play or not.

Why? It's not just population; industry uses an immense amount of power, and per capita, the U.S. generates more (in terms of value, not volume) of the world's industrialized commodities than China. Why WOULDN'T we be using more power than anyone else? Heck, last time I compared the figures, our power usage was even more efficient than China's, per unit of production.


RE: So when the temprature goes up 2 degrees then what?
By TSS on 10/24/2009 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
oh could you gimme a link to those efficiency number then? all i can find is useage per capita which is just plain frightening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

what's funny though is that the US isn't highest on that list per capita. heck canada uses more. Iceland and Norway use more then DOUBLE of what the US does. Guess living in the snow has it's downsides.

anyways on your first point the best i can come up with is this (do note this is in USD, not tonnes, so value not volume):

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9114/comodities...

the data explorer itself:
http://data.un.org/Browse.aspx?d=ICS

There are industrialized commodities on there, but it's alot of individual charts. i checked the hard coal and iron ores ones, and though it doesn't say if it's import or export (so i'm assuming production), china beats the US very very hard. i checked those because i remember US steel beeing a big name at some point, and america is said to have huge coal reserves. You'd expect those 2 to be higher in a nation of production.

The reason you use so much energy is because you import double of what the chinese do. For a country with almost 1/5th the population. Consumption costs energy too yknow. Dare i say it even more then production because there's nothing of offset the loss of (usable, to not turn this into a physics debate) energy in the process of production.

What is produced, and how much energy is spent, hauling the trash of the products you've consumed around? personally i was shocked to learn that my poor and sober existance with my dad produces about a garbage bag a day in trash, i can only image how that must be in america. Not to mention the added cost of recycling (you don't need to recycle what you haven't used in the first place!)

finally, making a comment on how much more you get out of a single watt compared to the chinese doesn't mean anything when you consider you then go on to use 9 more watts when a chinaman, doesnt.

but you can bet your ass you and everybody else will complain and panic when they *do* start using those extra watts.


By jhb116 on 10/24/2009 3:16:21 PM , Rating: 3
First off - calm down - its not worth getting ready to launch nukes over.

Secondly - statistics can be manipulated to tell whatever story they want. The point he (or she?) is trying to make is that it is a very misleading figure and that the amount of goods produced for worldwide consumption should also be included. I'm not sure if his claim is accurate, however, for sure - the US, Japan, China and Europe rank very highly in produced goods for worldwide consumption.

Finally - yes it is a great idea to become more efficient - we should - the problem with this idea is that they plan on trying to limit worldwide temp rise to 2 degrees with very likely very costly measures. I would argue we don't know enough, yet, about climate change to make such assertions and cause major burdens on any society. We need a OPEN scientific discussion in the scientific community without political manipulation getting in the way. Meanwhile - we need to push more efficient techs we do have and research new ones to become more efficient.


By Laereom on 10/24/2009 3:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ratio of GDP to carbon dioide emissions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

Per metric ton of CO2 emitted, the U.S. produces $1,936 of goods and services. In China, that number is $450.


By BZDTemp on 10/25/2009 5:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Energy usage than just electricity. If you look at the whole picture you will find Norway in fact uses less than the US even though it is a country with a pretty cold climate.


By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 6:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason you use so much energy is because you import double of what the chinese do. For a country with almost 1/5th the population. Consumption costs energy too yknow.

Yeah, and the Chinese magically don't consume? Of course they do. Their huge country + much less advanced highway system = much less efficient moving stuff around.

And hell, the US manages this greater efficiency even with all sorts of labor rights, regulations, zoning laws, environmental impact studies, and generally all sorts of hoops to jump through that are much more stringent than what China requires.

The bottom line is that comparing energy used per capita is an extremely deceptive metric when trying to decide how much SHOULD be used.


By jithvk on 10/26/2009 1:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
U.S. generates more (in terms of value, not volume)

dude.. here the volume counts. not the value.

Consider the situation if US is producing only gold and China is producing is only iron. Which will have higher value and which will have higher volume? The power needed will be more or less the same for a specific volume.

Also, china is more cheaper for manufacturing. That means, a same commodity produced in China will be cheaper than if it is produced in US.

You cant compare efficiency like that.


By AnnihilatorX on 10/24/2009 8:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, so tell me if the US use so much energy why is China about to pass the US in emissions with India close on their heels? I don't want to hear the US is soooo rich and must pay for everyone else because (insert tear-jerking story here).


I seriously doubt your mental capability.

There are 2 groups of children. 1 of them eats 6 sweets a day, but they have only 10 people in their group. The other group only eats 2 sweets a day, but they have 30 people in their group.

And you are saying, if the children in first group is consuming so many sweets why is the children in other group consuming so many sweets. The fact is, they aren't, 3 times less.


Wood Burning
By lightfoot on 10/23/2009 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Burning wood in a sustainable fashon should not be a problem with Kyoto. Any carbon released to the atmosphere had previously been captured by the trees that grew the wood. So long as a country is not burning more wood than it is growing, such a practice should be considered carbon neutral.




RE: Wood Burning
By tjr508 on 10/23/2009 4:24:24 PM , Rating: 5
Underground hydrocarbons like oil and coal also formed from carbon that was once in the atmosphere.


RE: Wood Burning
By rikulus on 10/23/2009 4:47:10 PM , Rating: 5
Indeed it was, and as another poster pointed out, during the age of the dinosaurs the earth was "hot and humid," allowing incredible plant growth which in turn allowed massive animal growth. The earth wont stop supporting life if global warming continues... but... there are some downsides. Lots of animals and plants are likely to go extinct due to climate change, polar bears for one. Not that humans aren't doing a super job of sending animals to extinction as it is. Then there is rising sea levels, which I doubt are going to put NYC underwater personally, but for areas near sea level or below are a potentially huge problem. And, it seems evident that global warming has effects on where precipitation falls, so places where people are living that have been good for growing food stop being so, famine, etc.

Those seem like the three big issues to me, depending on how you look at them maybe they are catastrophic, maybe they are inconvenient. I think it will be more inconvenient when the world's accessible oil supply starts running out, so we should strive to cut back oil use for that reason. Even if it's 100 years or 300 years, it's not really THAT far in the future all things considered, and we're really f$%@ing over the people that it happens to.


RE: Wood Burning
By walk2k on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wood Burning
By just4U on 10/24/2009 1:53:19 AM , Rating: 4
The thing is much of what they are proposing will NOT help the environment. Most of us that don't agree with this carbon credit stuff or believe in man made global warming are not pricks flipping the finger against a cleaner earth..

It's just much of what's proposed serves little purpose in actually helping. Clean up our lakes, get rid of polution, make sure industry doesn't poison surronding areas, preserve wildlife and trees, develop better ways for waste management.. etc. These are all great things to work towards BUT ...

WTF, we don't see true initiatives in this regard. NO we get BS instead.


RE: Wood Burning
By Hieyeck on 10/24/2009 11:30:23 AM , Rating: 3
I say we start a GW-is-silly movement. Burn 10 trees for each one they save!


RE: Wood Burning
By MonkeyPaw on 10/23/2009 5:16:48 PM , Rating: 5
That's the funny thing about monitoring people's fireplaces. Little do people know that trees will turn into CO2 one way or another--either by fire, or by decomposition. It's that whole law of conservation of matter rearing its ugly head again.

What I'm even more curious about is how much CO2 we've prevented from entering the atmosphere by storing carbon up in wood structures. My house is 80 years old, so where's my carbon credit for preventing that CO2 from reaching our skies?


Ocean Acidification
By jdietz on 10/23/2009 8:36:23 PM , Rating: 3
The real problem is not global warming. It is ocean acidification. Nothing short of controlling carbon will deal with the problem. Eventually, the oceans will no longer support life. In the near term, big crustaceans (coral reefs, starfish, etc..) will die off. They rely on a basic ocean to form their protective shells.




RE: Ocean Acidification
By Laereom on 10/24/2009 3:49:23 PM , Rating: 3
Meh, with a nice, big, resource-rich place like the ocean, something else will take their place.


RE: Ocean Acidification
By Smokey48 on 10/24/2009 10:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 has been more than twenty times higher in the geological past -- for over a hundred million years at a stretch. Yet the oceans did not become acid.

That's because the ocean has an essentially unlimited buffering capacity.

The notion that the oceans will acidify if the minor trace gas CO2 goes from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand is as ridiculous as believing that a 0.6°C rise in temperature over the past century will wipe out the polar bears.

Sheesh, this is Daily Tech, not Marvel Comix. Learn some chemistry.


and one more thing
By Randomblame on 10/24/2009 3:14:56 AM , Rating: 3
the kyoto accord is the reason that millions of asthmatics like myself are now getting ineffectual rescue inhalers. Now they have sulfur in them which is a known asthma trigger! Anything to save the planet though right? Who cares about the people living on it...




RE: and one more thing
By FastEddieLB on 10/25/2009 5:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an asthmatic too and those sulfur formulas taste like crap >_< I much prefer my old Albuteral, at least it had a taste you could agree with.


Where's the are the scienitic findings??
By jhb116 on 10/23/2009 5:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
The are so many articles that say "many climatologists agree" - just because someone says something, doesn't make it true; just look at the Internet. Usually there is some kind of vetting of the scientific evidence to point to such that most can agree. As far as I can tell - there has been no proper scientific discussion on this topic. In fact - all I've seen is a bunch of political maneuvering/talk which is very likely just a scheme for someone to get rich - oh say like carbon trading.

It is likely that there is SOME human component, however, it is also likely that none of these schemes will have any impact thereby necessitating a "real" scientific solution to enable humanity's survival. I fear that both sides are so entrenched with "I'm right and you are wrong" that it will be too late to save humanity once they both realize they are both wrong.........




By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 6:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"many climatologists agree"

That's how they get funding, by claiming to study something that supports the prevailing public relations issue.


Just write?
By BloodSquirrel on 10/23/2009 4:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
in other words, it would aim for "just write".


This sure is a great article you rote, Mick!




RE: Just write?
By lightfoot on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
By Amiga500 on 10/23/2009 5:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
We should be focussing on climate control.

There have been numerous large changes in the planet's climate. To help ensure the development of the human race long into the future, controlling the planet's climate is something we should aspire to.

The current approaches to "global warming" are not exactly what I would consider climate control.

Direct manipulation of the energy levels transmitted by the sun to the earth is required. No point aspiring to half measures.




No please
By v1001 on 10/23/2009 5:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
Eff that, I'm always cold.




great
By Randomblame on 10/24/2009 3:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
the only reason any climatologists say global warming is real and is caused by man is that they'd be out of a job without the mass panic they've stirred up. Anyone else been hearing the warnings about this particular treaty? It supposedly has One World Government stuff in it...




By on 10/24/2009 8:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.myyshop.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.

Myyshop.com commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, myyshop will provide service for you all, welcome to myyshop.com

Air Jordan 7 Retro Size 10 Blk/Red Raptor - $34

100% Authentic Brand New in Box DS Air Jordan 7 Retro Raptor colorway

Never Worn, only been tried on the day I bought them back in 2002

$35Firm; no trades

http://www.myyshop.com/productlist.asp?id=s14 (Jordan)




strategy
By spepper on 10/24/2009 10:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
the global oligarchists continue to intentionally misinform and propagandize, through the hoax of AGW, to sound a false alarm in order to get nations "on board" with their twisted form of dictatorship, through the format of treaty that bypasses sovereign government rule-- our very own oligarchist here in the USA is about to sign over our sovereignty, bypassing the US Constitution and making it an ancient relic with the stroke of his pen-- welcome to the "new world order"-- warning: control over your own daily lives ending soon!




Only 2 degree F?
By Fox5 on 10/24/2009 10:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a 2 degree increase in average global temperature considered a massive temperature increase? Like enough to completely change the world's weather patterns and even melt quite a bit of arctic ice?




How about we stop the funding
By david5831 on 10/25/2009 1:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
How about the goverment stops funding any study to do with global warming for 1 year. All funding to all sources. Lets see if the problem goes away. Or if the world thinks its still somthing to study of such great importance. The money factor seems to always cause problems and it hard to sort out whats real.




Nobody gets it
By FastEddieLB on 10/25/2009 5:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
What amazes me is that nobody on this planet seems to know anything about the physical properties of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) or tries to apply logic using said properties in the argument of man-made global warming.

Either CO2 a light gas as the EPA would have you believe, or it's a heavy gas as some science teachers would have you believe. Either way, it doesn't work.

It goes like this:
Argument 1: This argument assumes that CO2 is a lightweight gas and goes high into the atmosphere where it can't get filtered by plants. This is flawed because if this were the case then it would mean CO2 has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the days of the dinosaurs with no means of it being filtered back into oxygen. Not just because of every living thing on the planet, but because of volcanoes as well.

Argument 2: When I was young I was taught that CO2 is in fact a heavy gas. Some sort of experiment where you mix vinegar and baking soda to release CO2 and then pour the gas into a paper bag on a balance scale. This is a more logical assumption because the CO2 then clings to the ground where it gets filtered back into oxygen by local plant life. However, this thing of it getting up into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas no longer applies because it's too heavy to get that high up to have that effect.

So by applying logic to the CO2 argument of Global Warming it effectively falls apart. That said, it is nothing more than a prime example of demagoguery.




By Boze on 10/26/2009 7:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
...everyone's running around screaming:

"I know I'm right!"
"I know I'm right!"
"I know I'm right!"

instead of running around screaming:

"I'm going to research until I find the answer!"
"I'm going to research until I find the answer!"
"I'm going to research until I find the answer!"

Only a few scientists are conducting the research just to see what answer they receive. And the problem is compounded by who is doing the funding. Do you really think Exxon-funded scientists are going to go back to Exxon with a report that says, "Everything you're doing sucks, you need to stop right now." Yeah, that'll go over like a lead balloon. Do you think a Coalition To Save The Planet scientist wants to return to his funding committee a report that says, "Global warming / climate change is a function of the natural cycle of the Sun and the Earth. Sorry treehuggers."

You all must be out of your minds...

Michael Crichton was 100% right when he said we need double-blind funded science, such that the funders don't know who's doing the research and the researchers don't know who's funding them.

We need to get back to doing actual science, instead of spinning science for a desired outcome.




wrong article location
By spepper on 10/27/2009 9:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
by the way, just realized-- this whole article subject and discussion is about politics-- NOT science-- this article should not even be located in the web site's "science" section!




Climate Change=Global Warming=Useless Crap
By Cerin218 on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
2 degrees?
By zinfamous on 10/24/09, Rating: 0
goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By MrBungle123 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By lightfoot on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
By MrBungle123 on 10/23/2009 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
ah crap... you're right we're a bunch of "racists" too.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By JohnnyCNote on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By MrBungle123 on 10/23/2009 6:09:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Please explain how a bureaucracy to establish "control over the behavior of every member of the human race" would ever have a hope of being feasible, when even the largest and most advanced nations are barely able to keep track of their own populaces.


That depends... can you pull your head far enough out of your ass to connect a few dots?

Government passes "cap and trade" legislation or signs a carbon emissions treaty. This leads to government mandates caps on individual carbon emissions. This leads to the introduction of "carbon credits" to allow those who can afford to pay to contine polluting. Carbon credits function like a new tax in the market causing prices on all manufactured goods and activities which cause carbon emissions to rise (driving, flying, electric lights, food harvested with a tractor). The increased prices cause individuals to MODIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR in order to adjust for the INCREASED COST OF LIVING.

Specific behaviors which are deemed "heavy emitters" can be targeted by regulating comittees and require extra carbon credits to participate in making them cost prohibitive.

Possible targets:
-non solar or wind power generation.
-use of non flourescent lighting.
-driving "unnecessarialy large" personal vehicles [SUVs/Pickup Trucks]
-wood/gas heat in homes
-*anything that uses energy whos participants dont make large enough campaign contributions*

Thats how.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By JohnnyCNote on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By MrBungle123 on 10/23/2009 6:56:36 PM , Rating: 4
Oh so its of no consequence that its the United Nations Climate Conference that is being used to promote this treaty? No I guess not... they would *NEVER* write up anything that might try and centralize power under an international organization that could effectively function as a world government... that's just not possible, I mean just because its a treaty and we're required to follow any ratified treaty by our constituion, there is no way this could be used to circumvent the will of the people by global power grabbers... I finally see now! You're so smart Johnny, wow and to think I was totally under the impression that you were a historical and political ignoramus...

/sarcasm


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By JohnnyCNote on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By munky on 10/23/2009 7:33:28 PM , Rating: 5
Who's been talking? FYI, most European nations forked over their sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable central govt, without even having a vote by its citizens. Don't think the US is immune to this same agenda.

If the bureaucrats really want to prove their good intentions with this "global scamming" then make them lead by example - everyone of them better be driving a hybrid, and be held accountable for carbon emissions just as much as the next guy. But I guarantee you the oligarchs in power will continue their cushy lifestyle and laugh all the way to the bank while the common people are robbed of their individual freedoms under the so-called "green politics"


By JohnnyCNote on 10/23/2009 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that their actions should reflect their views. If you want to ensure your desires for the future of the US continued survival are met, I'd suggest getting active in the campaigns of those candidates whose positions are in concert with your own (if you don't already) . . .


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By stilltrying on 10/23/2009 7:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/i...

sure seems like a model for global government, laws, and economic shifting to me

go back to your hole cnote


By JohnnyCNote on 10/23/2009 7:28:23 PM , Rating: 1
Have you read the document, all 181 pages?

quote:
go back to your hole cnote


I was going to let my last post be my final one for tonight, but in view of the response, I'll stick around a bit longer . . .


By stilltrying on 10/23/2009 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of shared vision talk in this pdf. i guess they think its their world to run however they see fit.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By mmntech on 10/23/2009 6:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
Public interest in global warming has waned significantly so the left is just pandering to the academics right now.

I do think there is some genuine concern about the environment in the global warming movement, at least among the general population. However, the issue has become so twisted by politics. The socialists have latched onto it as a means of securing wealth redistribution for the developing world. That at least seems to be a lot of what the propaganda is swirling around. It's just another way for the socialists to blame all the world's problems on the G8 in particular and the West in general.

The way they've constructed the propaganda machine would make Goebbels proud. People who disagree with the "consensus" are either being paid off by big oil, or are functionally retarded. Of course big oil is probably contributing to it's own fund but it probably pales in comparison to what Greenpeace and "green" industry is getting to support AGW.

It's interesting to see so many people on Dailytech disagree with AGW though. I figure this crowed is at least somewhat educated, though I've been proven wrong sometimes. lol It shows people aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By zinfamous on 10/24/2009 5:14:31 AM , Rating: 1
you are insane.

or just paranoid & ignorant.


By Laereom on 10/24/2009 3:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, get it right. He's functionally retarded. Now, go plant some trees, avoid consumption, and buy some carbon credits.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By matt0401 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
By NA1NSXR on 10/23/2009 9:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Just, wow. I am going to just assume you aren't old enough to have completed an education yet and just believe that you don't know any better. Kids today are freaking scary. I think this will be the shortest cycle in human history where the lessons of the most intense mistakes get forgotten the quickest.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By stilltrying on 10/23/2009 10:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU&eurl=ht...

The social contract destroyed in under 5 minutes


By VitalyTheUnknown on 10/24/2009 12:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
This video is mind-boggling stupid. I can't even belief how this guy can feel so right and be so completely wrong.
I'm just going to destroy his argument in one sentence.

He is not elected representative of his neighbors.

It's just that simple.


By stilltrying on 10/24/2009 2:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
What about those that dont vote such as myself because I do not need a master or someone to represent me. Are you currently being represented in politics? Were you during the last presidency? If you play the game then you are in it win or lose. What about those that dont want to play the game of rigged fraudulent elections (ACORN, FLORIDA CHAD COUNT). I guess they are at the collectivists mercy. Collectivism is nothing more than enforcing ones will on others through force. It is that simple.


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By stilltrying on 10/24/2009 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
But you do fail in the moral arguement. If govt can do something and claim moral goodness why can others also not do the same thing? You cant even battle the arguement because you dont know how. You cant defeat it. All you can do is say that it is morally right since they were elected to do this to you but you cannot do it to others. WOW strong debate.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 10/24/2009 7:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
What about those that don't vote such as myself because I do not need a master or someone to represent me.

You have the right not to vote, just don't be surprised when government's future politics evolve into strong contrast with your position.

Are you currently being represented in politics?

Yes.

Were you during the last presidency?

Yes.

What about those that don't want to play the game of rigged fraudulent elections (ACORN, FLORIDA CHAD COUNT).

No country is immune to dishonest schemes and crafty plans, investigate it case by case, form your own opinion, make your Verdict, learn a lesson, vote for trusted candidates.

Collectivism is nothing more than enforcing ones will on others through force.

Well, You are probably one of those panic-stricken anti-socialists, but here is the truth my friend, you are living in a social environment where only interaction and intercommunication, collaboration, teamwork can bring beneficial results for a society as a whole and for you personally. There can not be functioning society without at least some form of collectivism.
When Japan attacked United States of America collectivism (army) overpowered enemy, when your life is under threat you call well-known number 911 and police, rescuers, surgeons will do their job fine even if you completely have no faith in collectivism.

But you do fail in the moral argument. If govt can do something and claim moral goodness why can others also not do the same thing?

Jesus Christ, government are not aliens from a distant planet, who came to the earth to impose their moral values, they are people, just like you, bright and sometime thick, sharp and dumb, elected to represent public interest, and it's in your interest to choose wisely from candidates who are willing to serve you.

You cant defeat it. All you can do is say that it is morally right since they were elected to do this to you but you cannot do it to others.

We choose our delegates not on the basis of morality but on the principle of our needs. Morale of chosen deputies, commissioners, lawmakers is in direct correlation to standard ethics and conscience of citizens voting for them.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 10/23/2009 11:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with you "matt0401", I have always supported politicians who view Globalization as a positive course. Some, especially people in their forties are afraid of that change, but, it's just a worry of loosing their identity, their customs, language etc. Young people today have different mindset, they know that it is the only way to finally end wars and hostility towards each other, to cooperate on much bigger scale, getting people together for big, unprecedented scientific endeavors for great breakthroughs in medicine, technology, cosmology, science, just like "large hadron collider project" which will hopefully yield results in near future, and that, is exactly the fruit of globalization.

So, sooner or later we will have "one government" and it's not wild vision or my fancy imagination it's just going to be necessity for humand kind, if it wants to make a leap in advancement and I believe we have that unique trait for progress.


By matt0401 on 10/24/2009 1:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you. One thing I forgot to add is that the fear of a "world government" isn't even rational. Governments that micromanage like that fail. The Soviet Union is a good example (Of course they had other problems as well). All we will have will be something like a UN that doesn't suck, that actually enforces things and gets things organized. It's just an added layer of government. Sovereignty will still be there in that a country will still exist, it's just that more cooperation and organization will exist.

This is a bad thing?


By JohnnyCNote on 10/24/2009 1:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some, especially people in their forties are afraid of that change


Finally, a rational post! Just for the record, I'm 53, but I have no problem with change when it's necessary. however I do know there are more than enough people who are afraid of change, and some are a lot younger than 40!


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By Nfarce on 10/25/2009 6:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Young people today have different mindset, they know that it is the only way to finally end wars and hostility towards each other


Actually you "young people" have been trying to change the world, stop poverty, and stop wars for nearly half a century now since the hippy liberals in the 60s where you similar mindset "young people" broke out of the mold of traditionalism and thought you had the answers to everything.

No, you "young people" just don't have a grasp on reality. It takes decades of learning real world experiences (those over age 40 as you mention) to gain the knowledge, wisdom, and common sense awareness of reality to understand and make rash decisions. Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE who thinks they can stop conflict - so long as mankind exists - is living in some fantasyland Utopia.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 10/26/2009 12:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
You can hear me, but you're not listening. I showed to you the tool by with we can achieve humanity's goals and that instrument is the globalization, the integration of national economies into the international economy, creation of a "world government" which regulates the relationships among governments, system which hippies didn't have in The Sixties. Realization of their failure in the past on reaching a noble goal in earlier social environment have accelerated the process of transforming our entire political climate and gave boost on the establishment of new global rules by means of a worldwide Unification (goods, labor, capital, technology). And this is a new reality that takes place today and only a blind or dense man wouldn't see it.
Don't get me wrong, I do not insist that our future is land of prosperity and human happiness, I merely indicate a natural direction of human civilization.


By Nfarce on 10/27/2009 8:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I showed to you the tool by with we can achieve humanity's goals and that instrument is the globalization, the integration of national economies into the international economy, creation of a "world government" which regulates the relationships among governments


Congratulations! You get the moonbat post of the month award. World government? World economy? One collaborative entity controlling EVERYTHING ? Integration of MY income and property from MY hard work into some global cause? Are you KIDDING ME???

Oh I can hear you alright. Please, exit stage left. I don't like what I hear. Please, post this at the top of some new thread on DT and see what kind of reaction you get from other readers. That would be choice.


By knutjb on 10/23/2009 7:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is what happens when you get enough like minded politicians who think they can change the world simply because they say so.

How much will this dog & pony show cost?


RE: goodbye sovernignty hello world government!
By AlexWade on 10/23/2009 8:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actual words from the Copenhagen treaty, Annex I, section 38.b, page 19-20:
quote:
The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.


REDD is an acronym for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. (Annex II, Section 19.h, page 33)

I apologize, but I tried to find a link from a neutral website. Having failed that, I found this link.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10...


By AlexWade on 10/23/2009 8:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
(Follow-up) Thanks "stilltrying" for providing the actual link straight for the UN. I couldn't find it.


Only goal is One World Govt.
By stilltrying on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Only goal is One World Govt.
By TSS on 10/24/2009 10:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well seeing as you got rated up, might as well post this here for anybody who finds it interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8&feature...

It's the new documentairy by Alex Jones, with conspiracy theory and all that. Also toutches on cap and trade (alot on it, actually).

As always i find his films a bit over the top, and using the same propaganda techniques he's accusing this new world order of. But since goebbels everybody has been doing that anyway and atleast he tells people to think for themselves (oxymoron ftw, lol) so i guess it's better then "yes we can".


RE: Only goal is One World Govt.
By stilltrying on 10/24/2009 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree fully. Propoganda from every conceivable angle. Alex Jones does discuss issues that the mainstream wont, good thing IMO. He is a sensationalist just like the MSM. He does like to spread his fear though just the same as the rest. Confuse people or send them into fear has been used and abused so much in America it is sickening. At least people are waking up to their even seeing the propaganda and the hidden stuff that usually doesn't make it out for the masses.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki