the great global warming swindle

[Borodog]

The idea that "big corporations" are all opposing the pro-global-warming agenda is a myth. There is a huge pro-man-made-global-warming push being made by corporations that see "alternative energy" as the gigantic subsidy cash cow that it is.

[djames]

I agree with that. I think that many opposed to lessening a greenhouse gas emission effort cite (incorrectly) that it would be too costly to do so. Perhaps for some corporations it will be, but certainly not for all.

Regardless of the corporations though, if consumers demanded this, then corporations will follow. So, why do consumers find it too onerous or costly to curb greenhouse gas emissions? I believe it's just laziness and/or cynicism.

[Jcrew]

Regardless of what C02 reduction restraints we use, it will be mostly the big companies that benefit substantially raising the barrier to entry into markets.

[PantsOnFire]

I think the main problem with this issue is that facts have become confused and integrated with theories, possibilities and likelyhoods.

There are two main facts:

1. Global warming is real and the earth's overall temperature is rising.

2. Man has an effect on his environment and climate.

The list of theories, possibilities and likelyhoods is too large to outline by me so I'll just throw out some of the more popular ones.

The first theory is that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations directly causes an increase in global temperature. Water vapour is by far the most abundent greenhouse gas, however CO2 is the second most abundent. Humans have no effect on water vapour levels but do contribute to increases in CO2 levels.

A competing theory to this is that solar variations and cosmic radiation directly cause the increase. This theory is still valid since it has not been proven if increased CO2 causes a temperature increase or if a temperture increase causes a CO2 increase. Here is one of the many articles on this subject: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archiv...eatures1.shtml

A third, fairly new theory, revolves around the asteroid striking Siberia in 1908. A Russian scientiest has proposed that the material released in that detonation affected a high layer of clouds. Here is one of many articles on that subject: http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/...le-bxh-khs-ykd

Two of the biggest stumbling blocks to making headway on any global warming theory is the lack of understanding of the complexities of cloud cover and cloud formation and deep ocean currents effects on climate. As such, any earth climate model either ignores these factors or makes assumptions on their impact. This is why the output of climate models don't spew out and answer on predicted future ocean levels or temperatures, they output a predicted range. And those factors are only two out of another hundred that are unknown and also input into the models as assumptions.

Now on to the questions:

1. Is global warming bad? Before you set out to correct a problem, you should know if you have a problem in the first place. Well, a lot of what global warming will bring with it will certainly be bad. There will definitely be a rise in sea levels. Glaciers and ice will melt causing significant changes to the environment. Droughts will be more severe. What about storms? Well, that's an interesting one because a lot of people believe that hurricanes and tornados will become more frequent and more intense. However, that too is also a theory and right now it's a very weak one with little or no evidence.

So are there any good aspects to global warming? If there is increased CO2 and precipitation, plant life will flourish, agriculture will prosper and in general biogrowth will certainly improve. (droughts will be localized while overall global precipitation will increase). Unfortunately not much more of the "good" has really been examined. The focus has been on the "bad".

2. Humans are affecting climate so should we do something about it? Well, to answer this, we needed to answer the first question as "yes". Then we need to decide how bad a thing this is. We need to figure out how we are affecting climate and to what degree (pun unintended). Well we have clearcut forests, created agricultural land, bred flatulating farm animals, built concrete and asphalt cities and burned fossil fuels. All of these factor in somehow to our climate.

I could keep going on and on here but I am going to cut to the chase.

After sifting through the theories we have decided to come up with a solution to global warming in the form of the Kyoto Accord. This accord aims at reducing CO2 emissions from human sources by 5.2% in 2012 compared to the year 1990. However, that's not all humans that's just some humans since there are entire countries exempt from this accord. So the overall reduction, even if met exactly, will be somewhat less than 5.2%.

Here is my poker analogy to this solution. It's like going all-in with 72 offsuit on the first hand of the WSOP.

There is another scientific (and practical) maxim that comes to mind here and that's "maximum effort for minimum result".

The Kyoto Accord, IMHO, is a knee-jerk reaction in an effort to appease ourselves that we are saving our own lives.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that "big corporations" are all opposing the pro-global-warming agenda is a myth. There is a huge pro-man-made-global-warming push being made by corporations that see "alternative energy" as the gigantic subsidy cash cow that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the extremely rare times where I 'somewhat' agree with borodog on something. Corn ethanol is a gigantic subsidy and a complete waste of time. It is being pushed as a solution to climate change when it is better to just burn oil. Not surprisingly some oil companies (i.e. Shell = Iogen) are behind these "feel-good" companies and are reaping billions in subsidies. Unfortunately almost all of the good alternative energy programs are being criminally neglected.

Whether or not this is a coincidence is a debate I do not want to get into.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to pick any two points you are unsure of and I will address them. I do not have enough time to cover everything.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware that silicone breast implants have been approved again for use? And, that the bulk of the "science" and medical positions as to the dangers of silicone breast implants were found to be unsupportable?

[/ QUOTE ]

However, that's completely different from them being "beneficial to a woman's health." From the Wiki article:

"The 1998 documentary on breast implants was shown on Channel 4 only after it had been rejected for broadcast by the BBC whose in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program. Another researcher hired by Durkin to work on this same documentary allegedly quit her job, claiming that her research had been ignored and that "the published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case." She is also reported to have said: "I don't know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I'm really glad I didn't put my name to it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

[John Feeney]

Not sure is these have been posted already. I don't think so, but...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nsch-responds/

[Jimmyjohn]

Note the last three lines. Cutting edge stuff!!!

[ QUOTE ]
PATRICK CONDON
Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to
global warming was called off after one of the explorers got
frostbite.
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off
what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean
after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme
cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic
equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part
of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the
expedition.
On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a
plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to
Minneapolis later this week.
Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a
1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the
first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.
But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off
from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their
gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of
Arnesen's snowshoes.
They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said
the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to
blisters that then turned into frostbite.
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then
Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the
temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside
temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off
was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to
Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because
the bottles froze.
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school
groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with
photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's
1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will
Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits
and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to
global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with
global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with
global warming is unpredictability."


[/ QUOTE ]