Climategate

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The tobacco industry considers the cigarette <---> lung cancer science to be incomplete. For the denialists, no amount of science would be sufficient.

But "Flames in 07" makes a point. The question isn't "are we 100% sure there is global warming", but rather "are we so sure that there is not global warming that we are willing to risk the well-being of our children?". Like I said earlier in this thread, it's not going to be my generation that is going to suffer if there is global warming, but rather our children. And I think that sufficient to argue passionately for change.

As the sun ages it gets larger and hotter.

In one billion years the Earth's surface temperature will be about 150 degrees Celcius.

There will be no liquid water on the surface and life, if any is left, will be located underground.

As a species we are better off trying to figure a way to get off this planet and find a new ones because thats the only way "the Children" will survive.

[Pastiche]

Laugh. The internet really brings out the special ones.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

You are definitely on a side. You are a status quo climate change skeptic. You support actions that don't incovenience or cost you too much. I definitely think you should go out and learn more. CO2 is a pollutant as classified in Canada. There is a canon of literature on how the humans are changing the climate. You can choose to read it or not but do not act like you are a beacon of level-headedness and rationality when you are by definition ignorant to the science.

Just a question, how would you describe yourself?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

You are definitely on a side. You are a status quo climate change skeptic. You support actions that don't incovenience or cost you too much. I definitely think you should go out and learn more. CO2 is a pollutant as classified in Canada. There is a canon of literature on how the humans are changing the climate. You can choose to read it or not but do not act like you are a beacon of level-headedness and rationality when you are by definition ignorant to the science.

This statement is unbelievably arrogant. So you WOULD be willing to spend trillions of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution? You don't see how many, many, many people might have a problem with that?

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

You are definitely on a side. You are a status quo climate change skeptic. You support actions that don't incovenience or cost you too much. I definitely think you should go out and learn more. CO2 is a pollutant as classified in Canada. There is a canon of literature on how the humans are changing the climate. You can choose to read it or not but do not act like you are a beacon of level-headedness and rationality when you are by definition ignorant to the science.

*sigh* I didn't want to start a Flame war. I thought I put together a well constructed post with my own personal thoughts. I talked about where I stood on the issue. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm going to take the high road and leave it at that

[Pastiche]

So you WOULD be willing to spend trillions of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution?

What does this statement even mean? Spending trillings of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution? Are you implying that if we want to mitigate GHG emissions then we have to spend trillions of dollars elsewhere? Because that's patently false.

First, the costs are estimated to be globally trillions, but its not costs as in spending costs. Costs are estimated in GDP losses relative to a BAU.

Second, costs are borne mostly internally. The idea that the world goes out and spends trillions "elsewhere" (to imply redistribution) is just delusional.

The effects will spur economic restructuring. Fossil fuel intensive sectors will contract but, shockingly, efficient and less ghg intensive sectors will absorb that lost investment. There will be some total loss as I've already said. But, it's a risk mitigation effort. Because I'll tell you what if we mess up our agricultural sectors for example we're looking at huge loss.

This is just another case of fear mongering on the other end. "Costs are going to be astronomical!!" But as I've illustrated in this very thread, growth is still positive in a GHG constricted economy as predicted by economic models. Growth is not only positive but vibrant.

What your comment shows is that you don't really have a solid understanding of what the costs actually are.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

*sigh* I didn't want to start a Flame war. I thought I put together a well constructed post with my own personal thoughts. I talked about where I stood on the issue. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm going to take the high road and leave it at that

I'm not starting a Flame war either. I'm just stating that you are not impartial and that you are a climate change skeptic. A statement which is supported by the content of your posts.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Just a question, how would you describe yourself?

I would describe myself as a believer in the science that points to anthropogenic climate change and, as such, a supporter of efficient policies that price carbon effectively to transition us to ultra-low carbon economies within a 50-100 year timeframe. That means we need to start acting now.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What does this statement even mean? Spending trillings of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution? Are you implying that if we want to mitigate GHG emissions then we have to spend trillions of dollars elsewhere? Because that's patently false.

First, the costs are estimated to be globally trillions, but its not costs as in spending costs. Costs are estimated in GDP losses relative to a BAU.

Second, costs are borne mostly internally. The idea that the world goes out and spends trillions "elsewhere" (to imply redistribution) is just delusional.

I'm also curious where this trillions discussion comes from. There has been talk of a trillion dollar cap-and-trade carbon market but that's what it is, a market. Canada could actually make money if it invests in and develops clean energy sources which would mean we could sell our carbon credits to other countries for a profit.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

This statement is unbelievably arrogant. So you WOULD be willing to spend trillions of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution? You don't see how many, many, many people might have a problem with that?

Global warming debate COMPLETELY aside, I think that would be great. I don't think that it is right that we have so much while toilet paper is considered a luxury is so many places. If a trillion dollars would keep kids from starving to death, so be it....

I don't know why "wealth redistribution" is considered such an evil thing....

[zuluking]

Which pisses off the IPCC more: the glaciers not melting fast enough or fact-checkers?

[Ryan Coke]

The science is still very much under debate, and any assertion otherwise is arrogant.

But even if we assume it to be as true and settled as the anthropogenic climate change believers would put forward, the solution as proposed by Copenhagen is a disaster. If that is the direction that climate change control is going, it has already lost.

I am still open minded to the science actually being proven to support AGW, but am very happy to see we are returning back to a state of healthy skepticism and debate, and away from agenda pushing and one sided advocacy.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

As the sun ages it gets larger and hotter.

In one billion years the Earth's surface temperature will be about 150 degrees Celcius.

There will be no liquid water on the surface and life, if any is left, will be located underground.

As a species we are better off trying to figure a way to get off this planet and find a new ones because thats the only way "the Children" will survive.

Chances of humanity lasting long enough to get off this planet must be very small, if we don't kill ourselfs a comet/asteriod probably will long before we have to get off or can get off this planet.

But I saw a show on this and if humanity happens to live long enough to where the sun would boil the earth they said Mars would warm up as earth boils and would be an option that would last another 1300 million years or so...hard to think in those terms.

[Jetsfan]

The UN's panel of climate scientists said on Monday it would probe claims its doomsday prediction for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was wrong, as an expert said he had warned of the mistake

"This number is not just a little bit wrong ... It is as wrong as can be wrong," he said. "To get this outcome, you would have to increase the ablation (ice loss) by 20 fold. You would have to raise temperatures by at least 12 degrees" Celsius."

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/techn...053/story.html

[Jetsfan]

Canadian weather data being ignored.

U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technol...343/story.html

[zuluking]

Which pisses off the IPCC more: not enough hurricanes or fact-checkers?

[HOZ]

Andrew Weaver exits left.......

If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it's a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports.
For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some "dangerous crossing" of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.
Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangerous line between hype and science.

@@@@@@@@
The latest IPCC fiasco looks even more damaging. In the 2007 IPCC report that Mr. Weaver said revealed climate change to be a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles, it turns out one of those missiles -- a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 -- was a fraud.

It keeps getting uglier

Climategate
Glaciergate
Pachaurigate
Hurricanegate
World Wildlifegate
Amazongate

[Pinner]

The lack of snow for the Olympics will only fuel propaganda machine...

[Stormy Lancer]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Global warming debate COMPLETELY aside, I think that would be great. I don't think that it is right that we have so much while toilet paper is considered a luxury is so many places. If a trillion dollars would keep kids from starving to death, so be it....

I don't know why "wealth redistribution" is considered such an evil thing....

You mean Socialism?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Stormy Lancer

You mean Socialism?

Like the USSR only better!