backtop

Print 104 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Jul 30 at 9:35 PM
Algal bloom carbon sequestration plot is kicked around once more, despite glaring flaws

It's been over 50 years since the U.S. has experienced as severe a drought as the one plaguing the nation this summer.  Heat levels have set records.  Unsurprisingly, global warming researchers have come out of the woodwork crying doomsday, as they hunt for research grants to fund speculative studies on what "might" happen in a "worst case" warming scenario.

Comments Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., "[Manmade global warming] means more energy that has to go somewhere. In dry conditions it amplifies drying and goes into heating, creating heat waves. It is small on a day-to-day basis, but is always in one direction and it creates stronger, more intense, and longer-lasting drought. No doubt about it."

I. The Return of the Anti-Warming Algae Bloom Plot

A new study by Professor Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute and 29 other authors has some calling for the revival of a head-scratching "carbon sequestration" scheme to fund.

The research community is generally unsure exactly how "hot" the Earth will get before compensatory factors like the water cycle and plant growth "put on the brakes".  And many researchers argue that trying to halt manmade warning is a lost cause and a waste of money.  Last, but not least, some argue that warming's effects on mankind may not be entirely bad, increasing crop yields in some regions and opening up new resources.

Still, that hasn't stopped researchers from coming up with Mouse Trap-style schemes looking to pour money into, in hopes of somehow tipping the balance away from a warming climate.

The study examines such a strategy, which involves dumping iron sulfate into the ocean in hopes of triggering a massive algal bloom, which the team hopes will "mostly" sink to the bottom of the ocean, sequestering the captured carbon.

Photosynthetic plankton
A new study examines/revives the idea of using algal blooms to sink carbon into the sea.
[Image Source: Duke University]

According to the authors, the five-week study in the Indian Ocean was a success.  They conclude "at least half the bloom biomass sank far below a depth of 1,000 metres and that a substantial portion is likely to have reached the sea floor."

However, they admit, "[B]ecause the fate of bloom biomass could not be adequately resolved in these experiments, the timescales of carbon sequestration from the atmosphere are uncertain."

Still they venture a guess that the bloom sequestered 13,000 carbon atoms -- at least for a while -- per ever iron atom.

II. Numbers Look Okay at First Glance...

Given that estimate, it's relatively easy to calculate some basic economics for the scheme.

Iron sulfate (ferrous sulfate) is composed of a single iron (Fe) cation, bonded to a sulfate (SO4) anion.  As a monohydrate, it weighs 151.908 g/mol, versus 44.01 g/mol for CO2.  Thus a ton of carbon (in theory) could be captured with about 240.6 grams of the fertilizer.

ferrous sulfate
Ferrous sulfate would be used to fuel the algal bloom. [Image Source: ByTrade]

Assuming a bulk price of about $1.00 USD/lb. [Source; PDF], that would place the theoretical costs of capturing the carbon at $0.53 USD/ton.  In 2011 there were 34 billion tons of emitted carbon [source], so that would put the sticker price of "halting" carbon increases at about $18B USD per year.

III. ...But the Devil is in the Details

That doesn't sound too bad, but the big issue, is that 35 billion metric tons of carbon would have a deadly effect on ocean life.  Even mid-sized algal blooms can kill fish for miles.  Thus an industrial carbon sequestration scheme, instituted over multiple years could have a crippling effect on the fishing industries, costing the world $225-240B USD per year [source], causing far worse environmental damage than the warming itself caused.

(To be clear, not all algal blooms are harmful, but so called harmful-algal blooms (HABs) would be impossible to screen as it would likely be the luck of the draw of what algae happened to be in the area of the fertilizer dump.)

That's not to mention that nobody is quite sure how long the carbon would stay in the ocean, or what effect sinking billions of tons of carbon into the ocean's carbonic acid cycle could have ocean currents.

Algal bloom
Often algal blooms can prove deadly, killing fish. [Image Source: USGS]

And there are past studies that have suggested that algae sequestration is not even as effective as the current scheme suggests [1][2].  One potential problem -- in one past study, a swarm of shrimp ate the growing algal bloom, preventing it from fully capturing as much carbon as it could have unhindered.

All of these factors have lead to a UN moratorium on the controversial tactic.

So why is such a large team of researchers spending so much money to look into this potentially "killer cure"?  That is not immediately clear, but the answer likely lies with the fact that current sequestration efforts have generally been so unaffordable and far-fetched that even the outlandish of ideas are receiving serious research consideration.

Sources: Nature, UN [via Nature]


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Seems pretty clear to me
By foolsgambit11 on 7/22/2012 7:11:48 PM , Rating: 4
It's a scheme that's cheap and simple, but whose efficacy and side-effects are not well understood. A good reason for both a moratorium and further research.




RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2012 7:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it's a scheme, but there's sadly no money offered to those who can prove man made global warming is a hoax, so they have to come up with crazy stuff like this.

Yeah let's potentially wreck our oceans on the off chance Global Warming is real and, more importantly, actually a global threat...uhh, no, not a good plan.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Amedean on 7/22/2012 7:35:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
sadly no money offered to those who can prove man made global warming is a hoax


Are you kidding......that's where all the money is at! There ain't no big business in planting trees and endangered species don't have super PAC's so who are ya kidding!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Arsynic on 7/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Amedean on 7/23/2012 1:47:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They have tens of billions of government money in the form of research grants.


That has got to be the stupidest supportive evidence for your conspiracy theory.....college grants, really? Research scientist invest a decade of education for grants.....what a waist of intelligence.

WTF who thumbs this statement up?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By ZorkZork on 7/23/2012 6:20:37 PM , Rating: 3
Tens of billions? Which planet are you living on? Can you find a single government that is handing out that amount of money for science (ignoring military research)? And if you do, does all of that money go to pro-AGW?

And I am sure you could find a friendly oil company or OPEC state that would support a scientist if he had any evidence against AGW. After all, they have everything to lose.

This whole conspiracy theory on AGW is even crazier than the moon landing conspiracy theories. The amount of coordination that would be needed would be staggering.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 6:38:08 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a directed and controlled "conspiracy" of course, like shooting JFK or whatever.

Global warming is not about science, but about politics — that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere. Just as the governing class embraces ineffective Keynesian stimulus spending to justify expansion of government, they now extol AGW as the basis for increasing their power to rule over the rest of us.

I remember that in the 1970s, “scientists” had used computer models to “prove” that the increase in industrial activity was about to trigger another ice age. The villains and solutions were the same as with global warming: Economic growth, rising living standards, capitalism and increased economic activity were going to destroy the planet. Then, as now, reduction in the use of fossil fuels, de facto restrictions on the use of automobiles, higher taxes and forced reductions in living standards were the recommended policy responses.

Call it what you want, but there it is.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By ZorkZork on 7/23/2012 7:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
But then it is a directed conspiracy. Because how are you going to get pretty much every scientist on the planet within the field of climate science to agree on AGW? I would imagine that there would be quite a few of those scientists that believe (like you?) that government should stay out of the way of the people unless absolutely necessary. People who like me believe that Keynes was wrong and Friedman is right. To get that many people onboard it has to be controlled. Otherwise it would disintegrate.

To me it sounds more rational that these people are doing proper science and finding out stuff that is troublesome. Occam’s razor?

Aside from this you are absolutely right that there are eco-facists/whatever out there who are against capitalism, individualism, growth, etc. People who believe that we would be better off in small self-sustaining groups eating homegrown vegetables. And yes, those people had weird ideas in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. and still have.

However just because they believe in gravity that doesn’t automatically invalidate all theories about gravity. And it also does not mean that climate research in general is suspect. I believe those people are wrong and that their “stop the world” theories would be devastating to freedom loving individuals in particular and to the human race in general. “Stop the world” is not the solution.

So let’s find some other solution because the science shows that there is a problem.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By senecarr on 7/24/2012 11:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
In the 1970s, Time magazine ran an article on the coming ice age, and since then, every conservative has cited it as some kind of consensus about climatology. Even in the 1970s, there were researchers that had initial research showing global warming via CO2. There was never a consensus among any climate scientists in the 70s that we were heading for an ice age in the near term.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By kattanna on 7/23/2012 10:43:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There ain't no big business in planting trees


the north american forest industry might think otherwise


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By senecarr on 7/24/2012 11:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
They make money planting trees? People pay them to plant trees? Or does the American forest industry make money harvesting trees, and in fact spends money planting them as a cost to have future forests?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By spread on 7/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By wordsworm on 7/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By BB33 on 7/22/2012 9:44:48 PM , Rating: 5
As a Christian I am all for keeping our home clean and enjoyable as is every Christian that I have ever met. However I could not support this plan at this time there are to many unknown variables that need to be answered before something like this goes large scale. The development of clean energy, clean manufacturing and clean modes of transportation should be at the top of our to do lists.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Amedean on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By leviathan05 on 7/23/2012 9:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
So even though we have a very limited understanding of our climate and how the world works, we should act now in order to save it, even though we don't know if our actions will have unintended consequences that could leave us in a worse position than when we started?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Amedean on 7/23/2012 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So even though we have a very limited understanding of our climate and how the world works, we should act now in order to save it, even though we don't know if our actions will have unintended consequences that could leave us in a worse position than when we started?


Can you read? F**k global warming for a moment, we got a host of additional issues related to resource management.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 1:15:21 AM , Rating: 3
This is a poorly written ranting hit piece. I've never once exposed Christian beliefs on Daily Tech, yet I'm calling out Global Warming because of "Jesus"? So you must be a Christian if you're doubtful of Global Warming and aware of the many scandals that has happened recently, the conflicting data, etc etc?

Wordsworm do me a favor and don't strain your brain on my behalf. Your train of logic represents either someone extremely drunk, or extremely narrow minded and retarded. Next time you attempt to troll someone by bringing religion into a completely unrelated topic, do yourself a favor and make sure they are actually religious. You failed pretty hard here.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By wordsworm on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By retrospooty on 7/23/2012 7:51:26 AM , Rating: 3
"For those of us who don't think some demi-God is going to come down out of the sky in a terror of fire, we're worried about the impact we're having on the environment. Some are even dedicating their lives to finding a solution to the problem."

If your worried about the environment, worry abut the air we breath and the pollutants we put into the water (and therefore foodstream). Don't worry about global warming because it isn't happening. That thick brown haze over our cities is real, and our kids are breathing it with every breath.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Dorkyman on 7/25/2012 11:57:32 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe it's just the circle of associates I hang with, but all the religious and Christians I know don't for one second believe that we shouldn't give a crap about "global warming" because Jesus will come to save us. Maybe some biblethumpers in the backwoods, but not the vast majority of folks.

My evidence says your assumptions are inaccurate.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2012 1:39:38 PM , Rating: 4
Obama isn't a marxist? since when?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2012 2:05:15 PM , Rating: 3
I believe you what was i thinking Comrade! WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 2:10:35 PM , Rating: 1
And then there's the fact he's against organized religion, like every good marxist...

oh wait.. ya sorry even I can't keep the sarcasmo-meter @ 11 this long!!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/23/2012 2:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
We'll before the Chicago church...where did he go? The church in Chicago was only for political reasons and to make the wife happy. He very rarely, if at all, goes to church as president unless it's for a photo-op.

I would say, he's not realyl religious at all.

Now his grandparents went to church...while in WA went to a church called..."The Little Red Church on the Hill".


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 2:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
So he's a closet atheist, just waiting for the opportunity to make America an atheist state?

Cause that's what a Marxist would do!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/23/2012 3:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Your readin between the lines and read something which isn't there. Personally could care less if he's is religious or not. If he's a atheist, so what!

I"ll take back what I said about whether or not he's religious. He's religious, the religion of Statism.

But, one of the first things in office he did propose to do. Remove the ability to have charitable deductions on your taxes. Who would that harm/impact the most?

Why the big fight with the Catholic Church? Or even supporting accussations that the Vactican was involved in money laundring.

In the end, a good Marixst with additional training from Uncle Saul. They would know, in order to effect change, one must go into the inside. If religion is the opium of the masses and one wants to effect change on the masses. One place to start is the church.

One thing to remember, Obama isn't a pure Marxist. Rather a fusing of many different ideologies, left leaning ideologies at that. He even admits those ideologies are the ones he chose to learn and surround himself with. Whether it was friends or mentors. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Marxism, communism, socialism, et al...are just shades of grey. They all have the same base color, grey.

One more thing, concerning the church in Chicago, the one he said he sat in all those years. Rev. Wright even admits the only reason Obama joined his church was for political reasons.

One other food for thought...would someone with Obama's background, allow a Mao Zedong Christmas ornament to be hung on the White House's Christmas tree? Only a band of fellow travlers would!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 7:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your readin between the lines and read something which isn't there. Personally could care less if he's is religious or not. If he's a atheist, so what! I"ll take back what I said about whether or not he's religious. He's religious, the religion of Statism. But, one of the first things in office he did propose to do. Remove the ability to have charitable deductions on your taxes. Who would that harm/impact the most? Why the big fight with the Catholic Church? Or even supporting accussations that the Vactican was involved in money laundring. In the end, a good Marixst with additional training from Uncle Saul. They would know, in order to effect change, one must go into the inside. If religion is the opium of the masses and one wants to effect change on the masses. One place to start is the church.


There's a difference between policy differences on particular issues that touch the Church in a democratic society - and actively purging/prosecuting/harrassing citizens for holding a particular religious belief because you are a Marxist looking to cleanse society of the influence of organized religion. If there's a slippery slope between those Obama policies and a Stalinistic purge of Othodox Christian churchmen - you'll have to spell out exactly the steps down that road...

... or don't bother really cause we're getting back to the real crux of the issue:

quote:
Marxism, communism, socialism, et al...are just shades of grey. They all have the same base color, grey.


The thing is you aren't thinking "Marxist" when you or Reclaimer77 calling him a Marxist - you are calling him "left of me".

Now I could point to some academic resources that spell out the political spectrum and how socialism, communism and marxism (marxism is a subset of communism, and has further distinctions within it as well) - but I don't expect everyone to get their rocks off reading that stuff. Maybe start with this and follow some links to start that up if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

The most useful way I can try lighting up your lightbulb would be to say there's no difference between a Wall St Republican, a Paleocon, or a Neo Nazi.

They're all to the right of the political spectrum. They are all "conservative" or a shade of "conservative grey" - but they differ in many respects!

All three would hate each other if sat next to each other: the Wall St Republican would consider the Paleocon a threat to free markets with his opposition to free trade deals and foreign wars. The Paleocon dislikes the Wall St Republican for selling out American jobs to foreigners and not really believing in the need for being tough on immigrants and the other social issues - but paying lip service to them to be elected. They both HATE the neo-nazi for perverting some of their ideas, being psycho crazies and being anti-democratic.

This is mirrored on the left. There's a whole swath of the left which is perfectly normal, rests on a long American tradition going back to Hamilton - and considers marxism the province of anti-democratic crazies.

That's pretty much everyone in America. The number of real, honest to god communists in America is likely among the lowest in the entire world. Other countries have communist parties that you know, really hold office and important positions. They would laugh at a Wall St honey like Obama EVER being called a Marxist.

Likely they pass comments from threads like this around and mock America for "saying the darndest things".

quote:
One other food for thought...would someone with Obama's background, allow a Mao Zedong Christmas ornament to be hung on the White House's Christmas tree? Only a band of fellow travlers would!


You'll have to provide a link this one is interesting!

One of my hobbies is studying conspiracy theory and you will often find symbols are very important to them. There's lot's out there about the way Washington DC is laid out being a loud and clear signal to all of us that we are under the dominion of the masons/illuminati. They're still finding new "signals" like that all the time.

So I'm very interested to read the source for this! I will assess their take but my expectation is that it will read not much different than a typical screed about sun-worshipping masonic cabals (and have as much fallacious reasoning to boot!)


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Paj on 7/24/2012 9:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
Fantastic post.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/24/2012 9:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/200...

Granted the author takes the other direction on it. There are plenty of other stories or links on the subject as well.

As far as what you have said..I agree, in part. Except I would strongly disagree with lumping nazi in with the conservatives. I don't see the left and right political spectrum of Europe the same as right and left here in the states.

The concept of infighting on the right you brought forth is the same on the left, the communist dislike the facists, so on and so forth.

I don't believe in strict lines between ideologies, whether religious or not. I come back to the idea, enemy of my enemy is my friend, rules supreme.

Right now we have groups on the left working together. Until when? Who knows. Those federations always break down, there can only be one!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/24/2012 2:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
After thinking more about the subject. I think I will stay away from those words, marxist, socialist, et al...at least try too. And frame the arguement through the lense of Big-Goverment types(Big G) versus Little-Goverment types(Little G).

Big G are people who support goverment running vast portions of your life, expanding govermental powers and size, and a goverment that dictates to you.

Little G are people who support limited powers and size, the individual rules their life and the individual dictate what goverment does or doesn't do.

Lastly, the comment of just a few communists, socialist and the like are around. It could be true, but it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many of them. It's where and who those people are, whether or not those who support those ideals are in a position to implement them.

Saul Alinsky taught his followers to get off the street and work on the Street to effect change they are seeking. From the inside is where to make the change, not from the outside.

Liberals are only about 20% of the US population, based on surveys. And the liberal ideology is pretty dominate in the "power circles".


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/24/2012 2:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ya that's all this is - It's Jefferson vs Hamilton v42.37

Big vs small government is exactly it. Nothing being discussed now is outside of the American tradition and one of its longest running debates.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 4:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
Please show me how it's an "American tradition" of the Federal Government mandating health care under threat of penalty, or tax, whatever you want to call it. Please, enough with the propaganda.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 11:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's pretty much everyone in America. The number of real, honest to god communists in America is likely among the lowest in the entire world. Other countries have communist parties that you know, really hold office and important positions. They would laugh at a Wall St honey like Obama EVER being called a Marxist.


I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. The majority of this country isn't made up of radicals.

However Obama IS. That's a fact. Also look at his appointees, the people he's appointed to his administration and surrounded himself with. Radicals across the board.

quote:
The thing is you aren't thinking "Marxist" when you or Reclaimer77 calling him a Marxist - you are calling him "left of me".


How about lets not put words in my mouth? He's a Marxist.

Your problem is you hear that and immediately attempt to say "well he hasn't done everything Carl Marx did, he's not a Marxist". This is like saying a Christian cannot commit murder, because Christ was against it. Obviously we know this isn't the case.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/24/2012 11:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about lets not put words in my mouth? He's a Marxist.


I can look it up but you should remember last week you said something very similar to KoS, "socialism, marxism, communism - it's all the same".

So are you walking that back? You said that last week!

Given you think that socialism = marxism = communism all you are saying when you say "Obama is a Marxist" is "Obama is left of center".


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
So he's a blend of very extremist ideologies that no American President should hold dear. Ones that, followed though on, would severely damage this country and it's economy. And that's somehow better to you?

And I guess it's just a coincidence that his policies reflect these beliefs and why at every opportunity to reduce our debt and help the economy recover, he's instead centralized more power and incurred more debt and expanded Government tremendously.

I can't believe we're even debating this still. Come on, take the blinders off. Democrats are "left of center". He's so far freaking left of the Democrat party, he's in another zip code.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/24/2012 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Democrats are "left of center". He's so far freaking left of the Democrat party, he's in another zip code.


Nope - this factually incorrect. Obama is in the right-wing of his party, evidence by the fact Obama has picked the right-wing side of the following issues:

- drone wars and killing american citizens on secret kill lists
- ACA - hard left wanted single payer, obama went for a sell-out to the insurance industries
- market regulation - hard left wanted much more action on new, tough regulations following the economic crisis. Obama instead gave us watered down regulations and policies Goldman Sachs loves (cause well, it was Goldman Sachs people in power)

To back up your claim that Obama is "to the left of the democratic party" you have to refute my three examples and explain how they do not apply AND offer more concrete examples of policy decisions where Obama went further than the far left of the democratic party.

Moving goalposts and arguments from incredulity (a fallacy: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredu... )won't work and aren't convincing to anyone but yourself.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Your examples are cherry picked, in fact, you in general exhibit an amazing ability to be willfully ignorant. Obama is the "right wing" of his party? Honestly, who's even saying that besides you and other Liberals?

quote:
- drone wars and killing american citizens on secret kill lists


Wait, how is this an inherently "right wing" thing? What, because Bush did it so it's "right wing"? Do you even know what right wing means?

quote:
- ACA - hard left wanted single payer, obama went for a sell-out to the insurance industries - market regulation - hard left wanted much more action on new, tough regulations following the economic crisis. Obama instead gave us watered down regulations and policies Goldman Sachs loves (cause well, it was Goldman Sachs people in power)


Ok you're an idiot. The ACA is the single biggest expansion of Government power and influence that has EVER been signed into law. It's also the largest tax increase that this country has ever seen. And you don't believe this is "left wing"?

Now are there some Democrats who wanted it a different way? Sure. Where your point loses it's credibility is that ALL of the Democratic leadership was for it in it's current form. You know, Pelosi, Reid, nearly the ENTIRE Senate?

quote:
AND offer more concrete examples of policy decisions where Obama went further than the far left of the democratic party.


How about his budget? That was SO outrageous, 106% of GDP, not a SINGLE Democrat voted for it. There's quite a few Liberals in the Senate, I'm sure you would agree. And not even THEY could get behind Obama on his budget.

What about his Cap and Trade energy policy, that was stopped cold by Democrats because they knew it would kill the economy overnight?

Trying to frame Obama as some sort of centrist is just laughable. You have no integrity, and quite a bit of ignorance.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/24/2012 5:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
Your comment re: drones

quote:
Wait, how is this an inherently "right wing" thing? What, because Bush did it so it's "right wing"? Do you even know what right wing means?


Can you argue without resort to strawmen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I never said it was cause "Bush did it". Recall that your premise was that Obama was "to the left" of the entire Democratic party, so the measure here isn't what Republicans think, isn't what Bush did or didn't (and actually Obama has used way more drones than Bush ever did), but rather, whether Obama has gone PAST the left of the far left of the democratic party .

This forces us into an analysis of what the far left of the Democratic party wanted FIRST. THEN we look at Obama's policy and see if that was "to the left" of the far left of the Democratic party.

In this particular example, the far left of the Democratic party is against the unwarranted killing of American citizens by drones (examples and support are legion - I will not post links but can google some up if you insist on me proving the easily provable). Therefore, since Obama didn't go further than the far left and BAN the warrantless killing of American citizens and then draw up tribunals for Americans involved in those activities we have to conclude that on drones and warrantless assassination, Obama is to the right of the far left of his party.

quote:
Ok you're an idiot.


Very convincing argument.

quote:
The ACA is the single biggest expansion of Government power and influence that has EVER been signed into law. It's also the largest tax increase that this country has ever seen. And you don't believe this is "left wing"? Now are there some Democrats who wanted it a different way? Sure. Where your point loses it's credibility is that ALL of the Democratic leadership was for it in it's current form. You know, Pelosi, Reid, nearly the ENTIRE Senate?


You're missing the point. The point wasn't whether the ACA was left-wing, but whether Obama was - relative to the far left of the Democratic party - further left than the far left.

Since the far left wanted single payer and an end to the insurance industry - and since Obama ended up bringing forward a rather centrist/right-wing solution that ensured accelerating profits for the insurance industry (originally put forward by the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation: http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/... )-> it is clear that Obama ended up to the right of the left-wing of the Democratic party - actually poaching ground Republicans were happy to claim in the late 80s and early 90s!

Remember: the question isn't whether the ACA was "left-wing" or "the largest tax increase EVER" - the question was whether Obama was to the right of the left wing of his party.

This is certainly true, and you haven't refuted that.

quote:
You have no integrity, and quite a bit of ignorance.


Again, very convincing. How many people have you managed to convince you are right with this kind of tactic? Don't you think this will just push the other person to NOT accept anything you are saying?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 7:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
Who are these "left"? You're arbitrarily citing "the left" without any specifics? I'm pointing out that the ENTIRE leadership of the Democratic party voted for these things, and you're trying to claim the "left" wasn't for it.

Anyway I'm so done with you. This is a comical display of willful ignorance on your part, I'm just embarrassed for you honestly.

But let me close by saying this, the entire Democrat party are radical progressives. If Obama isn't to the "left" of the mainstream Democrat party, that just goes to show how radically left the entire party has moved.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By senecarr on 7/24/2012 12:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Marxist - that word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Ammohunt on 7/25/2012 10:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Nazis are National Socialists try again...


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/23/2012 2:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer!

Keep praktik in the mirror...he's not a...!!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 2:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
wait, are we enemies?

but KoS, you don't even know me!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By KoS on 7/23/2012 3:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
No...talking about companys donating money to the Obama campaign.

I don't consider you a enemy. Maybe a debate "enemy".


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 8:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
great! ;)

"debate enemy" it is! <grimaces, shakes fist>

hahahahahaha


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 4:42:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Class warfare, the politics of envy, and the classic Marxist view of business vs the working class. Whatever you think Obama is, he clearly does NOT believe in what this country was based on and what made it great. He hates Capitalism, except when it favors him and his Cronies. He hates how the free market, not government, can pick winners and losers. He hates that in this country you can become wealthy while so many others aren't (even though he's rich by any measure).


Wow someone really can see into the private mind of Obama - or has a serious case of confirmation bias...

Which is more likely to be true?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 4:59:08 PM , Rating: 1
He confirms it anytime he's speaking candidly off teleprompter about the economy.

You're either willfully ignorant or just trolling as hard as you can to cover the obvious truth. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, craps like a duck...


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 4:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Companies giving him money, hoping he'll keep the Cronyism machine going in their favor, is NOT proof that he isn't a Marxist at heart.


Ok - but corporations would never give $$ to a Marxist, cause a Marxist would want the board replaced by a committee of the workers (fundamental tenet is that workers own and control the means of production.

quote:
He believes that if you own a business, you didn't build that, the Government built it for you. If you're rich, you got that way by stealing from everyone else. If you're well off, you owe that to the collective whole, not because you earned it.


Textbook example of confirmation bias. He didn't say that a businessman who built his own business didn't build that. Here is what came before the quoted text:

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that.

Clearly, he was saying the businessmen who built Google didn't build the roads and bridges that let their workers get to the office, but benefited from that social capital! (more analysis here from that communist rag, The Economist:http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/0...

But hey, that doesn't let you scream about "confiscatory government" and trot out the bogeyman, so you'd rather cherry pick the quote so that Obama fits your preconceived idea of him being a Marxist (or statist) nightmare!

(and as long as we're talking about statism in American politics, you realize there's an unbroken statist tradition dating back to the founding of the country, right? Hamilton was a "statist" - or - was he a marxist before Karl Marx??)


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 4:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
remove the closing bracket from the URL - accidentally means the link doesn't work, take it out and you can read the Economist piece on the "you didn't build that" issue


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2012 5:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Technically since Government doesn't generate its own revenue the businesses and citizens did build the infrastructure via taxes. In the mind of a Marxist/Socialist like Obama who wants to build the economy from the bottom up i.e. using the "workers" this fact wouldn't occur to him since citizens work for the betterment of government not the other way around.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 7:20:33 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, what do I have to own?

quote:
For anyone to listen to that speech and come away with the notion that he was just talking about roads and bridges


Straw man. I never said that was all he was talking about. I added context you deliberately excluded.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting I adopt your position because it's the right one, or because if I don't subscribe to your particular interpretation it's a sign of me being "shallow", "thick headed" "drinking kool-aid" or as in an earlier comment "retarded".

I definitely don't want to be any of those things!

So how do you want to win people to your position? By bullying them with epithets and insults - or - laying out a logical case that wins respect and agreement?

What would you call someone who thinks they have the ONLY correct interpretation and all others are "retarded"?

Arrogant, conceited - just a few that come to mind off the top of my head...


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 10:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
Every rational person out there knows what he was saying. The ONLY ones making excuses for it are Liberals, and the Liberal media. Maybe that should be a hint?

Asside from the content, it was another condescending deliberately offensive shot at the "enemy". Coming from Obama, the supposed "centrist" who was going to bring us together. Instead he's doing his best to rip this country apart and divide us into warring classes. Oh you're not smart, other people are smart. You don't work hard, other people work hard. You're where you are today because uhhh someone built a road! How offensive can you get, honestly?

Roads and bridges came when cars were mass produced, by the free market. Capitalism. Obama is a classic Statist, he actually believes we owe everything to the Government, that it's responsible for our prosperity, and bureaucrats made this nation great. Obama, as evident in his economic policies, doesn't understand or hates the fact that those rich people, those entrepreneurs, those who invest and participate in our capitalist system are the ones allowing the Government to function. We're the producers in this country! NOT the Government.

quote:
Arrogant, conceited - just a few that come to mind off the top of my head...


Obama clearly has these traits in abundance.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By raddude9 on 7/23/2012 5:07:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
He believes that if you own a business, you didn't build that, the Government built it for you.


You watch way too much Fox "News".
Which actually explains a lot...

Obama was clearly and very obviously referring to his previous sentence where he was talking about who built the infrastructure, like Roads and Bridges. Not that you would know that from watching Fox news. They (and I mean Fox News here) ran about 3 hours of "News" over 3 days about this "quote" without once playing Obamas previous sentence, or even interviewing anyone who heard the previous sentence.

Try looking for some actual facts about what happened instead of listening to Fox "News", try:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post...

When Fox news edited the speech they reported it to be:
quote:
Let me tell you something. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The unedited quote is:

quote:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen


Nuff said? Not until you get the facts. Get a clue about your source of "news" kid.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 5:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please. I'm tired of apologist and their mental gymnastics where they try and claim he was taken out of context. This isn't the first time he's made statements like this. They cannot be out of context EVERY time!

I did hear the whole speech, it's all over the Internet. Fox News? What? What I heard in his speech was an unprecedented statement of Socialism from an American President. He's not talking about infrastructure, get a clue! It's a pro-Collectivist rant. He believes we all owe everything to the Government and central planners.

I literally laughed out loud that you think some radical alteration to what he meant has taken place here. Nothing can be further from the truth. His speech, in it's entirety, is a call for 4 more years of failing big government programs and a further browbeating of all these pesky individuals out there who believe in our free markets and communities.

God the idiocy....


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/23/2012 7:42:01 PM , Rating: 4
Oh that'll flip him Reclaimer77 - if there's one way to win an argument its to call your opponent idiotic!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By raddude9 on 7/24/2012 4:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
So if you heard the whole speech and you still quote:

quote:
If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.


Without explaining that the word "that" refers to Roads and Bridges, then you not only mis-quoted the speech, you deliberately distorted the facts.

Look, I enjoy a good crackpot theory as much as the next man, but you need actual evidence, not deliberate distortions to elevate your theory above crackpot status.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 11:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
He's NOT speaking about the roads and bridges. I mean, wow, broaden your mind please.

He's speaking about the Government, and why he thinks his plan of grossly enlarging it and spending us into the ground is the way to move forward in this next term. He's trying to get reelected, not advocate for more roads, in case you didn't notice.

He believes if you got successful, it wasn't because you were smart or worked hard or built a business, he believes in a Statist top-down view of America. That all we have trickles down from the Federal Government and allows us to have whatever we have.

Please do me a favor and tell me you're not a voter. You have a completely naive view of the President, it's like you haven't even been paying attention. This is NOT the first time he's made comments like this, attacked free enterprise and entrepreneurs and businesses. This is NOTHING NEW.

I'm done with this. Until you can come back with at least a shred of acknowledgment that Obama's core beliefs are at the heart of that speech, there's nothing more to talk about.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By praktik on 7/24/2012 11:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's NOT speaking about the roads and bridges. I mean, wow, broaden your mind please.


Shades of a Truther!

Obama didn't say what you think he said, he said what proves my conspiracy theory about him being a closet marxist...

Silverstein didn't mean pull his men out of the burning WTC 7 when he said "“I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”, meaning, maybe the smartest thing to do was burn down the WTC 7 with a controlled demolition.

And if you don't believe THAT, it's cause you are closed minded... OPEN YOUR EYES!!

Funny that Reclaimer77 has stooped to the tactics of a lowly truther....


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By raddude9 on 7/24/2012 4:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
In that sentence he was talking about roads and bridges (and that type of infrastructure if you want to nit-pick). That's clear to anyone and I assume that is clear to you now that you have looked into it.

quote:
This is NOT the first time he's made comments like this


Comments like what? You need proof to support your mad theories, and the only actual evidence you put forward was invalid.

All you are going on about is your own opinion of what Obama believes, and your opinion about what his core beliefs are, and your opinion about what the "heart" of his speeches really mean.

But you have no actual evidence to support your opinions, this is why you make the mistake of misinterpreting reality in a vain attempt to re-enforce your pre-existing beliefs. And now you want me to broaden my mind to include your non-evidence based opinions as fact???

I know it's hard to stay objective, but for the sake of the rest of us, please give it a try. Try using Facts to form opinions, cut down on the conjecture and hearsay, and keep an open mind about the rest.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By ZorkZork on 7/22/2012 8:43:12 PM , Rating: 1
No money whatsoever for research into the “global warming hoax” … except whatever the oil companies are willing to spend. But of course everyone knows that oil companies are pretty much broke and have no money to spend on research (or bribes). Then there are the poor governments of OPEC countries but since they make no money on oil, no grants from them either.

Nah, better apply for one of those gigantic government grants – as everyone knows western governments are awash with cash.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Strunf on 7/23/2012 6:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
lol as if ExxonMobil wouldn't pay for such a research... combined I'm pretty sure there's way more money thrown into proving that global warming is a hoax than the other way around, ExxonMobil makes BILLIONS in profits it would be trivial for them to pay for any research that would help them look better.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 7:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh if you believe this would be a good use of company profits, you really don't understand the difference between a corporation and the government. Governments can afford to fund all kinds of crap, because in their minds they have unlimited money. Hell look at the U.S Government. We haven't even bothered to pass a budget in three years. We can spend to our hearts content, no problem! And if we run out, we'll just print more.

Businesses, obviously, cannot do this. And while ExxonMobile is a huge company that grosses mega-profits, their profit margins are actually pretty thin. Funding research that doesn't directly increase profits would probably not be high on the list of it's shareholders and board, if at all.

For you to believe "way more money" is being thrown at this by businesses as apposed to governments shows a scary break from reality. Companies have expenses and they need to make profits. Governments have none of these constraints.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By ZorkZork on 7/23/2012 7:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
ExxonMobile spend more than 1 billion on R&D in 2010. Thus any funding for AGW would be a drop in the bucket. And killing AGW theories once and for all would seem like a pretty good investment for ExxonMobile.

And if ExxonMobile is unwilling to fork out the cash, talk to the Saudis, etc. If people around the world start believing in AGW then they will be big losers. They should have no troubles finding the money.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 8:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
They could never "kill AGW theories". They wouldn't even TRY. That's my point.

And the Saudis? They probably LOVE our AGW theories , as the price per barrel goes up and up and up while we cut back on exploration and drilling.

quote:
ExxonMobile spend more than 1 billion on R&D in 2010.


A billion isn't what it used to be. This would maybe fund two or three studies tops. Studies that wouldn't change anything, wouldn't be reported in the media because any study they fund would be outright rejected based on nothing but association. So what's the point?

quote:
If people around the world start believing in AGW then they will be big losers.


No, we'll be the losers!


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By ZorkZork on 7/24/2012 8:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They could never "kill AGW theories". They wouldn't even TRY. That's my point.


So your point is that AGW is not science, it is politics. So what would it take for you to consider it science? What kind of evidence? Or is this just because you are tuning inconvenient science into politics simply because that allows you to ignore it?

quote:
And the Saudis? They probably LOVE our AGW theories , as the price per barrel goes up and up and up while we cut back on exploration and drilling.


Cutting back on drilling and exploration has nothing to do with AGW. Part of it seems to be to preserve the near environment (=not the atmosphere) – the rest? Who knows? To combat AGW consumption needs to drop. Residential, industrial and transportation energy usage needs to drop or switched to alternate energy sources (nuclear/reusable). Doing so does not need to be expensive (saving energy can have short ROI depending on what is done).

A significant drop in fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower prices on oil, perhaps coal too. Thus the Saudi’s will be pretty unhappy about it. Chavez and the ayatollahs too! What’s not to like?

quote:
A billion isn't what it used to be. This would maybe fund two or three studies tops. Studies that wouldn't change anything, wouldn't be reported in the media because any study they fund would be outright rejected based on nothing but association. So what's the point?


1% of that would go a long way in disproving AGW (assuming that AGW is a hoax). The ROI on that is pretty good. Much better than a lot of other R&D projects I know of.

quote:
No, we'll be the losers!


Why would saving energy make you a loser? Why would reducing dependence on foreign energy make you a loser (the US will never again be able to produce enough oil for internal consumption)? Why would changes to electricity production make you a loser?


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By Jereb on 7/22/2012 8:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Trying to find my photo of the thermometer in Western Australia when we hit 50 degrees celcius in the shade.

Was an awesome time to have A/C.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By StevoLincolnite on 7/23/2012 1:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, We had that in South Australia too a few years back, was intense!

But it's mostly due to the El Niño and La Niña effect, this Winter has been one of the wettest I can remember and the US is suddenly in a drought which fits in with the El Niño and La Niña effect rather than Global Warming.


RE: Seems pretty clear to me
By geddarkstorm on 7/23/2012 12:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, it's been typical La Nina weather. It's all about the shape of the jet stream, which gets radically altered in path by the ENSO. We're now coming out of that and looking towards a weak El Nino in the coming year or so; at least that's the prediction.


While they're at it ...
By PaFromFL on 7/23/2012 8:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
... Why not just ban cremation and keep feeding us high fructose/glucose corn sweeteners. By also requiring a large amount of wood in coffins, we could sequester carbon while creating jobs for future archaeologists.

It's a shame that current research funding/politics favors Chicken Little and Wile E. Coyote over objective scientists. Global warming and cooling (both gradual and rapid) are natural phenomena. Why not focus research on adapting to the current global warming trend that started 10,000 years ago, rather than trying to change the weather. When we can finally farm Greenland again, a traditional gradual human migration might be more cost-effective than building dikes around coastal cities, etc.




RE: While they're at it ...
By ZorkZork on 7/23/2012 9:33:38 AM , Rating: 1
Taking the carbon that nature has deposited underground over millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere over hundreds of years is anything but natural. The CO2 contents of the atmosphere shows this. How often do we see hockey stick behavior from nature?


RE: While they're at it ...
By WalksTheWalk on 7/23/2012 1:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
I get your point but there are natural cases of this, such as volcanic activity, which is happening all over the globe. The earth is constantly turning itself over on a slow basis.

We do see hockey stick behavior in nature on the micro scale, but not generally on the macro scale unless there's a huge event that causes it like a meteor. The kind of global warming data presented for the current theories are on a micro scale, not macro scale.

We (humanity) are definitely releasing bunches of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't think anyone's saying we're not. It's the impact of it that's up for debate. There are too many points in history where warming events like this have happened and the climate has come back around again and there's a huge lack of understanding since the model is so complex.


RE: While they're at it ...
By ZorkZork on 7/23/2012 5:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is no doubt that earth is constantly changing, but the CO2 change is staggering (by any scale unless accompanied by some kind of catastrophic event). Volcanic activity is not enough to show something like this. As I see it:

1. Humans are releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere (by fossil fuels)
2. Contents of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising (following what looks like a hockey stick curve starting around the time of the industrial revolution)
3. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas

It scares the heck out of me that we increase the concentration of a potent greenhouse gas like CO2 by 50% (and still rising). Of course this could be no problem at all, but when pretty much all scientists that works with climate research tells us that it is a problem then action should be taken (and I do buy into the idea that this is a big conspiracy … big conspiracies are usually something in peoples head and in movies).

We can discuss what action should be taken - I really love my lifestyle, so nothing saddens me more than having to give up cheap energy. That is why I really hope there is a way of cheaply capturing atmospheric carbon and storing it at the bottom of the oceans. Then there would be no reason to worry. Unfortunately the consequences of doing so seem pretty bad too.


RE: While they're at it ...
By PaFromFL on 7/23/2012 1:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
That "carbon that nature has deposited underground" originally was above the ground. We may just be setting things back where they need to be to prevent the unrecoverable catastrophe of global freezing.

To be fair, the effect on the atmosphere of all human activity is tiny compared to past sudden volcanic events. The Earth has a very stable, robust equilibrium, or we wouldn't be here. Humans have reacted to radical climate change, food species extinctions, and other ecological disasters for hundreds of thousands of years. Mostly, we just move around and duke it out for the prime real estate.


RE: While they're at it ...
By ZorkZork on 7/23/2012 6:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
The carbon we are releasing has been trapped for hundreds of millions of years. And it would have stayed there unless some catastrophic event occurred (like an object the size of the moon hitting earth). The temperature variations we have seen over the last 100000 years have been without this additional carbon. Thus this is a new situation.

The fact that the carbon we are releasing has previously been in the atmosphere should be no consolation to us. The climate at that time was very different and probably not that suitable for humans.

It is absolutely true that the total human impact on the atmosphere is tiny, but it is pretty clear that change in CO2 levels must be caused by humans (as it coincides with the industrial revolution and because it correlates well with the amount of fossil fuels burned). And the change in CO2 levels is not tiny. Right now it seems we are up 50% (and rising). Increasing an important parameter 50% in any system at equilibrium will most likely have a significant effect – unless there is something else that compensates. I would love to find something that compensates (because then we could just continue burning fossil fuels until they are depleted), but until then the situation is scary.

Whether the human race will survive a significant increase in temperature is up for debate (and I don’t care much for it), but it is clear that significant parts of the earth will becomes much less friendly to humans. The number of humans who will die from such changes is staggering. Playing dice with the lives of billions of humans is just unethical.

It is not just me who find this situation scary –pretty much all climate scientists on the planet are on the same page. Obviously you can go ahead and believe this is a massive conspiracy but I find it likely (although less pleasant) that these scientists are right.


RE: While they're at it ...
By PaFromFL on 7/23/2012 11:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Medieval Warm Period - Europeans thrive.
Little Ice Age - Europeans suffer.
Current Global Warming - more of an opportunity than disaster.

Change is not always bad. Between Greenland and Antarctica, plenty of real estate will become available, even with rising sea levels. Humans and other hardy species will adapt, like they always do. Over-specialized species will become extinct, like they always do. Greedy humans will use fear mongering to grab power and money, like they always do.


RE: While they're at it ...
By senecarr on 7/24/2012 12:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
Saying real estate becomes available ignores the fact that crops won't grow right for numerous years. Just because Greenland is warmer doesn't mean it suddenly has the same crop capacity as the US Midwest - Greenland still has a lot less daylight. Crops that are adapted to the kind of higher heat in other areas can't be simply transplanted - they'll not follow the same seasons associated with the region.
Saying man will adapt is ignoring all the instances man didn't, man merely moved on to a different spot. If you have a different spot besides the Earth to move on to and a way to get there, let us all know.


RE: While they're at it ...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to stop saying that. Every scientist does not agree on Global Warming, there isn't a majority. That's been busted so many times.

Also "Climatologist" has become a 100% completely political flim-flam field. They study the climate and weather patterns. But that gives them NO expertise to predict how CO2 effects those. They're basically meteorologists who focus on the longer term. They aren't gods.


RE: While they're at it ...
By PaFromFL on 7/24/2012 1:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently, man-made global warming has morphed into a religious belief, and you can't reason with fundamentalists. I believe the climate is still warming from the last ice age, but remain agnostic on the man-made claim. I see no objective evidence that scientists can accurately predict the weather a week out, or the climate a few years out.

Climate models have too many inaccurate knobs to twist, climate scientists do not have a good handle on how everything interacts, and there are probably as yet unknown effects that will be triggered if the warming continues. Even the power output of the sun is currently unpredictable.

It is hard for scientists to remain objective when their funding depends on proving that a problem exists, and it is hard for politicians to resist exploiting a good apocalypse.


RE: While they're at it ...
By ZorkZork on 7/24/2012 8:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
While it is true that not every scientist agrees on AGW, there doesn't seem to be that many who are working in the field of climate science. It always seems to be scientists working in other fields. And while I find Nobel Prize winning chemist to be very knowledgeable on chemistry, they are not the ones that found the Higgs Boson. Nor would I take advice from a particle physicist serious if it was about my health. Same thing with meteorology/climate science.

There is nothing that I would like better bury AGW forever. To find evidence that it is a hoax. I actually believed it was a hoax for a long time. What convinced me was the CO2 hockey stick curve.

So please show me: Where are all of those scientists that disagree on AGW? Which field are they working in? If this has been busted so many times, then please provide some evidence.


RE: While they're at it ...
By PaFromFL on 7/25/2012 8:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
The reason scientists like myself (Ph.D. Physics, M.S.E.E) can express doubt, is that our research funding does not depend on the existence of man-made climate change. We can be objective.

There is a lot of geological evidence for sudden climate change in the past, and the causes are poorly understood. The hockey stick curve proves effect, not cause. The climate is warming, but the data do not tell us why. Weather models are universally inaccurate, and it embarrasses the rest of us when our fellow scientists draw hard conclusions from soft models.

When they start claiming they have the knowledge and ability to control the weather, they provide ammunition for the enemies of science. When politicians use them to support carbon taxes, etc. the climatologists actually harm society.


RE: While they're at it ...
By ZorkZork on 7/25/2012 5:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you have a Ph.D. in Physics it doesn’t mean that you know much about how the climate works.

It would appear that the CO2 hockey stick is a cause of warming – not an effect. That the carbon from fossil fuel that has been burnt since the start of the industrial revolution have ended up in the atmosphere (and stayed there). And from my distant memory of Physics (and reading since), added CO2 should increase the “greenhouse effect” and thus cause warming.

I don’t think that anyone believe that they have an accurate model for earth’s climate. In any case, there are many and it appears that the output varies markedly. However, it seems that pretty much all of them shows that burning fossil fuels will lead to a significant increase in temperature. This is also what my logic (in the previous paragraph) tells me. In addition, I don’t think there are any leading scientists that believe they know the knowledge to predict nor control the weather.

Whether carbon taxes actually harm society is a whole different matter. It is certainly true that increasing overall taxation harms productivity and skews the market. However we already have taxes. The market is already skewed. So if we could change taxes, that would lead to a decrease in usage of fossil fuels, decrease in energy imports (improving the trade balance), and decrease in reliance of despotic/theocratic governments then carbon taxes/cap-and-trade schemes could be a plus. If it just ends up as yet another tax piled on top of the rest then it would cause problems.


RE: While they're at it ...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2012 8:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh, okay Zork have it your way. You went from rational and objective, to one of the faithful members of Church AGW in a matter of days. Nothing I say will shake your faith, I will no longer try.

Believe what you want, I don't give a flip. Science isn't based on belief. When someone can prove conclusively what's going on, I'll buy the theory.

By the way, you keep bringing up the "Hockey Stick". Aren't you aware that it's a complete fraud? The "Hockey Stick" study has been mathematically and scientifically discredited. And Michael Mann, creator of the data set, was charge with scientific fraud and investigated.

Decide for yourself. Are Michael Mann and Climategate your idea of good solid science?

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/the-perpetual-h...


RE: While they're at it ...
By ZorkZork on 7/25/2012 5:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
The hockey stick I am referring to is the CO2 hockey stick – and to my knowledge no one has come up with anything significant against it. That while CO2 concentration is varying in cycles over longer periods, it has been pretty stable when measured over a short period (like 300 years). And it is pretty clear that since the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 concentration has gone up by at least 50% - far beyond anything seen before.

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

This scares me. Here is in my opinion irrefutable evidence that man is doing stuff to the atmosphere that is measurable (we did the same with Freon). That the atmosphere isn’t big enough to dilute the CO2 being generated by man. That earth’s ecosystem isn’t maintaining the previous equilibrium. And from there: CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas … thus increasing concentration should increase the greenhouse effect.

What the effect of this will be? I do not have a clue. I have masters in Electrical Engineering and in Computer Science and that’s a long time ago – I do not know the details of how the atmosphere works. I know enough to say that modeling it is extremely difficult.

However, while I’m usually not very cautious, when it comes to changing the atmosphere without having good models for where we are going, I would like caution to be our guide. This is not like building bridge only to discover that the concrete was bad. Then you just build a new one. It is not like searching for the Higgs Boson, where if your theory is wrong you just create a new one and start searching again.

My understanding is that messing with the atmosphere can easily be irreversible. And it seems totally plausible that increasing CO2 concentration will lead to temperature increases (as CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas). And I have travelled enough to see what small variations of temperature and other things does to agriculture and living conditions for humans, etc.

I do not believe for a second that we today have good models that can predict climate on earth. I am also not sure if anyone has been able to measure a temperature change that is statistically significant – I hear from time to time that meteorologist say that now they have statistical evidence. I hate to hear people talking about weather – weather has little to do with climate.

So while I believe there is evidence for AGW I also believe that a lot of predictions are suspect.


RE: While they're at it ...
By boeush on 7/23/2012 11:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
If some of the undesired effects of global warming that are predicted come to pass, not only Greenland but all of north-west Europe could, after a brief episode of warming, wind up with Siberia-style climate as the meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets alters ocean salinity and the Gulf Stream stops pumping heat into the North Atlantic. Ironically, even as the rest of the world continues to warm (and indeed as less heat is removed from the Caribbean to Europe), Europe could find itself turning into Canada 2.0


500 square miles algae farm?
By BigEdMan on 7/23/2012 12:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
What if you took 500 square miles of desert and flooded it to depth of 4 feet with seawater. You could create control algae blooms. It may also be possible to construct some kind of large aeration system to pump added CO2 & diluted Iron sulfate into the water. Sure you would decimate the local ecosystem. But over time we could figure out the proper ratios to maximize the algae blooms. We can then collect the sediment and (hopefully) safely dispose of it into the Challenger deep. Or perhaps it's possible to filter out the Iron sulfate for reuse and send the rest of the biomass off for biofuel.




RE: 500 square miles algae farm?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/23/2012 1:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What if you took 500 square miles of desert and flooded it to depth of 4 feet with seawater.


Don't know about sea-water, but you should go to the Australian "Desert" during the wet season, you suddenly get in-land oceans and rivers; Flaura and Fauna just springs up everywhere in vast numbers.


RE: 500 square miles algae farm?
By BigEdMan on 7/23/2012 1:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
I once experienced a freak storm in the middle of US state of Utah. We had to hike 20 miles through an ocean of beautiful wild flowers that almost instantly appeared from the ground. The poor things almost never get to bloom and we had to crush them with our boots. So this "Australian "Desert"" sounds like the kind area we should avoid. This type of project requires desolate wasteland.


Sounds like a win to me...
By lennylim on 7/23/2012 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
" in one past study, a swarm of shrimp ate the growing algal bloom, preventing it from fully capturing as much carbon as it could have unhindered."

So we get bigger / more shrimp. Good return for investment, I say.

Doing this on a global scale, without fully understanding the consequences, would be highly responsible. Just like releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Good thing they're experimenting on the small scale to study its effect, instead of just going ahead and doing it for fun and profit, eh?




RE: Sounds like a win to me...
By Fembot44 on 7/23/2012 6:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
"So we get bigger / more shrimp. Good return for investment, I say."

I dont. According to "Empty Oceans Empty Nets," a PBS documentary, harvesting those shrimp, will cause much more damage, ( Its called the bicatch, where 5 Lbs of other sea life dies for every pound of harvested shrimp, making shrimp one of the most environmentally unfriendly foods ).

"Doing this on a global scale, without fully understanding the consequences, would be highly responsible."

Why?


By Galcobar on 7/22/2012 8:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
The article mentioned the unknown effects of sinking carbon into the ocean. Keep in mind that the design of binding the carbon is to create a stable molecule which would not break down on its own. Carbon trapped by diatoms, after all, is the primary source of the fossil fuels we're now burning.

The other issue is that ocean acidification is already observed. The standard presumption in oceanography and biology that the ocean's pH is stable does not hold in the face of reality. The expectation originally was that surface waters which absorbed CO2 would mix with the deeper ocean and dilute the effect. That does not appear to be happening given the rapid changes in ocean pH within the surface layers of the ocean.

Those looking for proof can ask shellfish farmers.

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/12041...




Humans can be so damn shortsighted
By Moishe on 7/25/2012 8:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
Let's potentially ruin our ocean... to fix a natural "problem" that alarmists are claiming is man's fault.

All without proper research or understand of how it works.

That's like.... a man who just ran ten miles.
A random busybody walks in to see this man panting, sweating, maybe shaking a little.
The busybody says "ohh snap, he's having a heart attack" and sets up the defibrillator.

A. No idea WTF is going on
B. No proper tests to determine WTF is going on
C. No idea if this sweating/panting/shaking is normal or helpful
D. Guessing based on only surface data

The "cure" can be worse than the disease, especially if the disease is no disease at all.

People can be so arrogant and short-sighted sometimes. Why? because AGW is not science, it's faith. They've fallen into the same human trap of believing what they WANT to believe. BTW, these are the same people that make fun of other religions for having faith.




What a horrible excuse for journalism
By superstition on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: What a horrible excuse for journalism
By superstition on 7/23/2012 12:11:02 AM , Rating: 3
I should have quoted more because everything up to the deceptively presented opinion of ExxonMobil's CEO refers to science.

....

And, in case anyone hasn't figured it out, hiding things they way this comment system allows has no bearing on how truthful what is being said is. Truth is not determined by popularity. I'm sure if this blog had been frequented by Catholics in Galileo's time, anything he wrote about heliocentrism would have been voted -1. Ridiculous.

Fixed the comments system by simply putting two numbers with each post: the number of posts who hit "agree" and the number who hit "disagree". That way people can focus on what actually matters: the factuality of the post rather than how popular it is.


RE: What a horrible excuse for journalism
By slunkius on 7/23/2012 1:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fixed the comments system by simply putting two numbers with each post: the number of posts who hit "agree" and the number who hit "disagree". That way people can focus on what actually matters: the factuality of the post rather than how popular it is.


I second that. comments should have agree/disagree buttons, and the "report abuse" option. and there would be no need to limit approval/disapproval votes.


By juserbogus on 7/23/2012 9:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
agree!


RE: What a horrible excuse for journalism
By Ringold on 7/24/2012 1:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
In a narrow sense, its correct. GW would boost yields in a few places -- but probably decrease it in more places. Scientists have been ambiguous from what I've read so far, but my gut says net negative. Scientists (rightly in this case) just don't want to go out on a limb.

In the other case, the opening up of new resources, is obvious to any layman and already taking place. Having an ice-free north pole could open up shipping lanes across the top of the world, reducing (according to the Economist) fuel costs for many common routes by 30%. Greenland will have a bonanza of resources opening up to it as the ice recedes and they're already laying some ground-work and opening and re-opening some mines.

Of course, if Greenland lost all its ice in short order then.. well, that'd be A Really Bad Thing. But in a narrow sense the article was correct.


By superstition on 7/30/2012 9:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
The idea that global warming is a boon to humanity is absolutely positively completely obscenely ridiculous.

That it's disguised in this article as being the opinion of scientists rather than the CEO of Exxon is similarly atrocious.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki