Why Climate Change is Worse Than We Thought

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Greven

So the real reason for carbon taxes is to punish the US?

Farmers and indigent consumers wanted to punish the industrialists for the tariff that fell most heavily on working class consumers and farmers. The solution they adopted was the income tax. That solution wasn't a solution anymore than Carbon taxes will make the climate do what we want it to.

If the climate will be a real problem, then we should return to what enabled the greatest improvement in living conditions and technological creation in the history of the universe, namely the laissez-faire economy.

I frankly don't support carbon taxes, but I understand their intention. Getting me to argue for them ain't going to happen beyond that.

The income tax originally fell solely on the very rich. It was expanded much later to include more and more people, while the very rich now skirt it by earning more income through capital gains.

Recall Romney's assertion that his tax rate was a mere 14%. The rich create loopholes in the system, because money is power. Further, as they retain more money, they gain even more power... it is a cycle that leads to what we have today.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: johnwick

Stop using logic.

It irritates the illogical.

Please do apply the logical approach to defending this claim:

originally posted by: johnwick
Yes because Hansen didn't say " hide the decline" in relation to the fact his already bs fudged numbered model was showing the same 20 plus year decline in temps that has been recorded at present right?

Or give it up because you can't.

Admit it's wrong or conjure a way that your claim is right, I don't care, just stop deflecting.

Um... That was an exact quote from Hansen at East Anglia.

Just type it into google, I'm not making it up, it is a fact man.

originally posted by: johnwick
Um... That was an exact quote from Hansen at East Anglia.

Just type it into google, I'm not making it up, it is a fact man.

Then do so and share it and prove me wrong.

Stop quibbling over the effort and step up to the plate.

a reply to: lostbook

Mr Hansen is a fraud.

Global Warming - NASA Scientist Dr. Hansen caught again
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: johnwick

John, in 20 years we'll all either be frozen or burnt to a crisp, I don't know.

What I do know is that in 5 months, we'll be talking about global cooling and 6 months after that, we'll be talking about global warming.

I think there might be a pattern somehow.

I just can't put my finger on it.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Greven

So the real reason for carbon taxes is to punish the US?

Farmers and indigent consumers wanted to punish the industrialists for the tariff that fell most heavily on working class consumers and farmers. The solution they adopted was the income tax. That solution wasn't a solution anymore than Carbon taxes will make the climate do what we want it to.

If the climate will be a real problem, then we should return to what enabled the greatest improvement in living conditions and technological creation in the history of the universe, namely the laissez-faire economy.

I frankly don't support carbon taxes, but I understand their intention. Getting me to argue for them ain't going to happen beyond that.

The income tax originally fell solely on the very rich. It was expanded much later to include more and more people, while the very rich now skirt it by earning more income through capital gains.

Recall Romney's assertion that his tax rate was a mere 14%. The rich create loopholes in the system, because money is power. Further, as they retain more money, they gain even more power... it is a cycle that leads to what we have today.

Finally!!!!!

Something we can all agree on.

Good on you for finding the middle ground.

Now, since we all agree this is the biggest problem, and causes the most ecological damage, what can we do to fix this?

I say hang them all as an example to anyone that wants to follow in their carbon footprint.

But i'm an a hole, so maybe i'm just rushing to judgement here.

This must be a science-free discussion zone.


Lots of talk about politics and potential taxes which I would expect in a political forum. I had to check and see if this was in the political forums. Shock...not really, I jest.

It is always the same with this subject the science doesn't get debated even with both sides agree taxes are stupid the science still doesn't get debated.

a reply to: johnwick

Because the rise in CO2 compared to the past is a misnomer - the problem is MUCH deeper then simply climate change (not to mention the plant life was much different, and much more widespread then it is now - Mega-fauna of our past processed much more c02 then their modern counterparts ). I know many like to think of our species as somehow above nature, but we are completely dependent upon the ecological conditions of our planet for survival - Biological systems have a direct impact on the ecological condition of an environment - this isn't rocket science. There are pretty narrow conditions for the survival of advanced species - there are NUMEROUS examples of mass die offs due to climate change in the fossil record - most mass extinctions can be directly linked to a drastic change in climate.

There has been a drastic ecological change on this planet that correlates with human industrialization. Replacing a natural environment with pavement will have an impact on local temperature - you expand that on a global scale, you have global change. I have lived a short life, yet 4 billion people have been born in my lifetime. Before the 1800's, our population never reached over 1 billion. Everyone born needs resources - housing/food/transportation/food/etc. all of those things costs finite resources to supply.

The population growth of modern nations has lowered drastically, but most successful modern nations rely upon developing nations massive population growth to support their lowered population growth through immigration/outsourced labor (and most of the world is still "developing"). It's a vicious cycle, that left unchecked, will totally consume us.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I came up with an awesome solution to fix the broken planet.

But nooo-ooo!

Apparently the government can't "afford" the 20 million!

(I think it's going towards a golf trip)

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: johnwick

John, in 20 years we'll all either be frozen or burnt to a crisp, I don't know.

What I do know is that in 5 months, we'll be talking about global cooling and 6 months after that, we'll be talking about global warming.

I think there might be a pattern somehow.

I just can't put my finger on it.

Basic probability puts climate "change" at 67%. 33% that it gets cooler, 33% that it gets warmer, 33% that it stays the same.

And in a Democracy, perception is everything.

a reply to: Grimpachi

When science and tech can accurately predict tomorrow's weather... I may debate it...

Until then, I am skeptical of a forecast decades in the distance...


.02

To all the AGW crowd. What is the percentage of CO2 that is in the atmosphere is exhaled by humans ? Without exhaling the CO2 , we would not live long.....

Update on that . There is app 8 billion people in the world that exhale app 2.4 pounds of CO2 daily. That puts it at almost 20 billion pounds of CO2 / day released into the atmosphere . IT IS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING .

a reply to: JacKatMtn

There is a very big difference between weather and climate - just saying.

a reply to: Syyth007

Share with me...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: johnwick

John, in 20 years we'll all either be frozen or burnt to a crisp, I don't know.

What I do know is that in 5 months, we'll be talking about global cooling and 6 months after that, we'll be talking about global warming.

I think there might be a pattern somehow.

I just can't put my finger on it.

You just about made me spit out 12 year single malt scotch.

Bad rabbit!!!

Stop pointing out the obvious in such a perfectly ironic fashion.

Some of us can't control ourselves in the face of high brow Monte python style humor.

The Andy coffman angle would be right up there as well.

It is funnier because they don't get it, the irony... It is overwhelming at times.

Maybe we are just 'seasoned" thus remember the 70s and they don't.

Either way, my money is on your prediction, history repeats, in the short and long term.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The climate will change. Because it is always changing.

Our climate is different than it was 10,000 years ago.

It was different 50,000 years ago.

It was also totally different 120,000 years ago.

Man is a small, insignificant, narcissistic species that inhabits the surface of a very large space-rock.

Since it is late and I must earn a living, I'll share what he cannot:

originally posted by: johnwick
Yes because Hansen didn't say " hide the decline" in relation to the fact his already bs fudged numbered model was showing the same 20 plus year decline in temps that has been recorded at present right?

He is referring to this email, which says this:

from: Phil Jones
subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
to: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

He is attributing it to Hansen, when Hansen was not the one who said it. If one understood the context, Keith Briffa's "hide the decline" is not temperature but related to tree growth. Many do not understand this context.

Books can help understanding.

a reply to: Greven

arrghh.. thanks goodness Mann went to PSU (apologies PA folks)...

This is bringing up nightmares of the hockey stick deal...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
This must be a science-free discussion zone.


Lots of talk about politics and potential taxes which I would expect in a political forum. I had to check and see if this was in the political forums. Shock...not really, I jest.

It is always the same with this subject the science doesn't get debated even with both sides agree taxes are stupid the science still doesn't get debated.

I want to debate the science.

Fact co2 even factors higher has never once caused out of control warming.

Fact the co2 we are releasing was stored away in the most prolific existence of life on this planet.

Fact since it has been trapped underground the world went from tropical paradise to nonstop ice ages.

Fact plants need more co2 , at present they are in a famine.

Care to discuss these known facts?

a reply to: beezzer

Indeed, man is a narcissistic species, but I'd argue our insignificance on overall biological life of this planet - we are the most dominant advanced species on this planet for a reason - our ability to exploit resources to support the advancement of our population is unparalleled in the natural kingdom. We have unleashed unseen forces on this planet - If modern society was to collapse, what do you think would happen to the 450+ known nuclear reactors dotted around the globe? What effect would those unattended reactors have on biological life? It takes massive resources, and much time to safely decommission a nuclear reactor.

If not properly decommissioned, an unattended nuclear reactor will eventually result in a nuclear chain reaction - which would hive dire consequences on all biological life - not to mention the numerous nuclear/industrial waste "holding" and processing sites that would contaminate the local environment, that would not be conducive to any biological life.