Meet the Climate Killers

Two interesting articles from Rolling Stone:

The Climate Killers

As the World Burns


I'd comment but honestly what's the point lol.

If you're open-minded about the global warming debate then read on for some perspective on the much less popular "holy crap, it's actually REAL" side of the fence.

If not then feel free to once again only focus on one side of the propaganda while proceeding straight to the post reply button to tell me how brainwashed I am for posting this and how drunk we all are off Al Gore's Kool-Aid.

Meanwhile Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch have a fresh batch of Tang ready for you...

reply to post by mc_squared


Are you trying to say that Warren Buffet is wrong when he says that implementing cap and trade is just one huge tax? Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you are lying to yourself if you don't think Cap and Trade is a tax and a massive redistribution of wealth.

reply to post by Feeling Frisky


Cap & Trade mostly sucks, but not because it's a big scam invented by Al Gore like the internet.

Cap & Trade sucks because it will definitely become exploited by the economists.

This is how most environmentalists feel about it. See more here:

The Story of Cap and Trade

Heck, even the devil of climate science himself - James Hansen - agrees:

Cap and Fade


The problem is instead of trying to blame all the scientists and environmentalists for this - the people should focus their outrage where it really belongs: on the system.

Unfortunately dangling the carrot of the almighty dollar is the only way to get most people off their lazy butts to do something - even saving the world. So Cap and Trade is ugly but effective.

If people just made a conscious decision to start being more resourceful, to move towards renewable energy for the greater good, and to just consume less - we wouldn't need this "scam".

But no, people would rather convince themselves they don't need to do anything because it's all a big hoax.

So that's when plan B has to come in, which of course only fuels the fire. Then it becomes a vicious cycle.

reply to post by mc_squared


Well the truth of the matter is:
1. We don't know that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gases, because the whole solar system has heated up.
2. Even if it is man made and we implement cap and trade, we can only effect temperature by less than a degree over the next 100 years.
3. Cap and Trade in Europe has not accomplished a thing but taking peoples money.
4. Whose to say that the Earth getting warmer is a bad thing. It is only bad if you get your water from a glacier or live on the coast. Maybe those people should pay to solve a problem that doesn't really affect most of us.

I agree we should consume less and be enviromentally responsible but it isnt going to happen. Even if I personally consume half of what I do now there are still six hundred cell phones on the market, each of them made and ready for sale before they're wanted and half of them will never be bought and end of wasted.

We have hundreds of different types of cars that to this day still aren;t reprocessed the way the companies promised in the earlier 00's and we still have these same corporations that want us to pay for our CO2 using damaging business practises that wont stop when all they have to do is pay a sin tax which they will pass on to the consumer.

I'm all for the enviroment (still undecided on MMGW) and certainly don't deny the climate changes but I will not for one second believe that a carbon tax will do anything and definately dont trust corporations and their manufacturers will change their business models and become paragons of virtue and sacrifice to safe the planet.

Cheers

Cap and trade sucks thats for sure. Here in wisconsin we are way above normal temperature wise . And everybody says its a cold year????? Maybe you all are being chem trailed with dimming crap? The planes backed off here in wis, and they said on the local weather that we will be above normal for the nex 3 months????. LOOK up and keep a eye on the chemtrails and then relate it to your local weather. First you will see that we dont have many blue ski days when the planes really lay it on.

reply to post by thebulldog


I completely agree the corporatists are the main problem. But to fight them everybody needs to wake up and educate themselves on what's really going on. Instead everybody's jumping on their side.

I have already said what I needed to say about this problem in this thread. Have a look if you're interested.

There are other ways out of this mess other than Cap & Trade. But it requires everybody properly educating themselves on the issues first. But nobody wants to really do that. Education has taken such a giant backseat to propaganda and disinformation and utter laziness. It's no wonder we're complete slaves to these people already.

Environmentalism actually provides a lot of ways to free ourselves from the system - for example the opportunity to take your own home off the grid. This is why the corporatists fear it so much - they're afraid all the little sheep will figure out how truly enslaved they are and how much opportunity there is to escape by switching to a self-sustainable economy.

But apparently even conspiracy theorists can't see this bigger conspiracy because they're too busy fear-mongering over carbon credits as if it actually changes anything.

reply to post by mc_squared


Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree noone wants to educate themselves and get wrapped up in their own chosen dogma. I have a sister we lovingly call the earth muffin and she always has a solution to environmental disasters.

As long as their is common sense going forward with the change I will be on board. I am willing to make sacrifices for our planet so long as it isn't soley making the fat cats richer .

Edit to add a bit about going off the grid

I have a documentary about becoming a steward of the land and its a great source of information on how one can reduce their dependence on intrusive energy systems. The issue in Canada is the government isn't fond of such situations. Recently a family that has a natural gas well on their property (and has used it for over 70 years) was told they need a permit. They went apply and recieved a letter back telling them to cap it promptly or legal action would be taken. It was manly to get them on hydro.

While natural gas has its own problems, many communities are not allowed by law to reduce their dependence. The extent of "going green" is using mercury filled bulbs or installing inefficient solar panels.

That said the solar paint that is indevelopment has a chance to change many things providing it isn't a chemical nightmare ofr the environment.
Cheers OP

[edit on 14-1-2010 by thebulldog]

reply to post by Feeling Frisky


Um...truth?

1. The Solar System thing is a complete myth - pushed out by the very people who are the subject of this article. I just addressed this in another thread:

(see third post down)

2. I think you really need to check where your information is coming from (probably these guys above again). If we curb our emissions properly starting right now the temperature response is expected to be somewhere between 1.5-4.5 degrees (Celsius). If we continue with business as usual it could be as bad as 9 degrees.

3. Again - there are far better options but nobody wants to get off the couch...

4. I'm sorry but this is a horribly selfish and naive attitude to have. How are the the people of the Maldives on the hook to "pay" for their sinking island while the rest of the world just keeps polluting away because it's "not their problem"? I mean why don't you go on to the Haiti Earthquake thread and suggest those guys should dig themselves out of their own problems while you're at it.

But also the threat of Global Warming is a much bigger issue than just how it affects us. Carelessly messing with the balance of nature like that is something on par with blasphemy for anyone who has any respect for life or the delicate process that brought it where it is today.

According to the researchers' collective results, the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species.

By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says

So it's not just the polar bears. Also I've seen studies that claim by 2100 we could lose 80-90% of the species on the planet if we continue with business as usual.

80-90% of all the rich and beautiful diverse things that have taken billions of years to develop potentially wiped out because we're a bunch of smug #### who only care about money.

And by only caring about money I mean that on both sides: Jerks who want to exploit climate change for profit, and those people who refuse to educate themselves properly about this issue - because believing it's just all about your money is easier than facing the possible unpleasant truth.

reply to post by thebulldog


good to hear bulldog - I'm glad to see there's still some people on this site who see the bigger picture

As for the Canada thing - that happens to be my home too - I imagine Harper's trying to put the clamps down on anyone wanting to do things their own way because we have the second largest oil reserve in the world, and he's in bed with all the profiteers who stand to make a lot of money off of it.

I'd be very interested to see your documentary.

"spent millions on misleading studies"

the article did not mention or link to one single alleged misleading study.

I am very interested in seeing these misleading scientific studies and the scientists who allegedly put their names on them.

Or maybe they just want everybody to think that any science that does not toe the official party line is corrupt.

Where is the proof?

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Deny Arrogance]

reply to post by Deny Arrogance


Well one of the biggest is the whole Soon & Baliunas fiasco, which is responsible for a lot of the rhetoric behind the Medieval Warming period and the idea that Solar variation is responsible for Global Warming.

If you want proof beyond Wikipedia, check out this investigative report:

Soon and Baliunas are astrophysicists affiliated with the harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who study solar variation (i.e., changes in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun). Solar variation is one of the many factors influencing Earth’s climate, although according to the IPCC it is one of the minor influences over the last century.

In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil-funded groups had already begun to spotlight the work of Soon and Baliunas to raise doubts about the human causes of global warming. To accomplish this, Baliunas was initially commissioned to write several articles for the Marshall Institute positing that solar activity might be responsible for global warming. With the Baliunas articles, the Marshall Institute skillfully amplified an issue of minor scientific importance and implied that it was a major driver of recent warming trends.

(pg 14)

Full Report

By your own standard, IPCC is not to be trusted:

IPCC wins the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with contributions from external experts The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepares periodic climate assessments on science, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation based on the contributions of several hundred expert authors nominated by governments. The majority of experts work in academia and government labs, but a handful work in business, including Haroon Kheshgi and Brian Flannery from ExxonMobil. Over the years, they have contributed to three IPCC assessments and two special reports and have served as review editors for IPCC publications. The valuable contributions of these experts were recognized, when the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

reply to post by Deny Arrogance


Actually No.

Your quote in fact validates the complete opposite.

Flannery and Kheshgi are climate change skeptics. They acknowledge global warming is real but they question whether it is man-made. (amazing coincidence that they work for Exxon, huh?)

Anyway see for yourself:

Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi were among the scores of scientists who helped write the U.N. panel's latest broad assessment of climate science, published in 2001. It said atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had jumped by 31% since the start of the industrial age and the 1990s were "very likely the warmest decade in instrumental record." Most of the observed warming of the past 50 years, it said, is "likely" the result of "human activities." Still, the panel said, models of climate change remain a work in progress. Among the remaining uncertainties it cited is to what extent "natural factors" unrelated to human activity play a role.

The Exxon scientists say they agree with much of the assessment. But they argue that policy makers often disregard the uncertainties noted in it. In 2003, Mr. Kheshgi and a University of Illinois scientist published a paper in an American Geophysical Union journal arguing that oceans, plants and soil suck up more of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel burning than previously thought. As a result, the paper said, models that predict a big buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere need to be rethought.

Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi argue in their papers for more research into how the world can live with, rather than avoid, the effects of global warming. That concept, known as "adaptation," worries some environmentalists because they fear it will deflect attention from reducing fossil-fuel emissions. But it's one of the subjects that the U.N. climate-change panel has studied, and Mr. Kheshgi argues it's only prudent. "Climate change might pose serious risks," he says. "But it might not."

Source


So the fact that these guys were included as part of the IPCC assessment sort of refutes the whole idea that the IPCC attempts to stifle all dissenting opinions over AGW, doesn't it?

I agree with the individuals that contend the currently available climate data is not sufficient (or trustworthy enough) for us, as a people, to definitively know what causes the fluctuations in global temperatures that have occured throughout Earth's history.

One thing we do know is that the Sun plays a very dominant role in determining Earth's global temperatures. Many scientists say that this information is false, but just as many or more scientists contend it is irresponsible to underestimate the power the Sun has to influence earth's climate.

I submit the following article for discussion:
(The Original title of this article was "No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds" but the powers that be changed it.

www.sciencedaily.com...


I also submit the following video for comment: