Global Warming/Carbon Trading

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2009

The CO2 bubble is about to burst.....but how do you stop the runaway train of greed that is leading us to a trillion dollar Global Carbon Trading system?

Not only has there been no net warming since 1998 in spite of CO2 continuing to rise, but the two major planks of IPPC's Global Warming orthodoxy have been disproven. More about that later. Enviromentalists and Greens may well have started out to save the world but they are now being used - naive dupes for the Carbon Trading empire that is evolving before our very eyes. Putting aside the obscene profits that European companies have been allowed to make through the ill-conceived European Carbon Credit model, the "traders" themselves stand to make tons and tons of money. It's estimated that Carbon Trading - now in its infancy, is already grossing $50 billion, resulting in commissions of 1-2% - 500 million to a billion dollars. Wait until the US gets involved and things really get rolling. Do you see a vested interest here?

Back to CO2 for a moment. Al Gore's documentary - now mostly disproven - was very influential in starting the Carbon Trading movement. A major plank of the IPCC - the centerpiece of An Inconvenient Truth, was that warming throughout the earth's history was linked directly to CO2 levels. As CO2 rises, temperature rises "in lockstep". This theory was arrived at through ice core samples. By 2003, technology allowed for a more detailed analysis of the ice cores and it was proven - and accepted by the scientific community - that temperature rose first, and CO2 levels rose about 800 years later on average. By the way, the movie was released in 2005 - Al Gore's advisers knew (or should have known) that they were spreading a falsehood (lying). A second plank in IPPC orthodoxy was that CO2 warming's signature is a hotspot in the troposphere. I will not go into the details but after careful analysis of weather balloon data, it's been proven that there is no hotspot.

I'll include a link but the important thing to note is that over the past 10 years or so, more information has become available - much of which is based on observational data - not theories and models. Almost all new data runs counter to IPCC's theories and models. When facts change, theories are supposed to change - that's science. In our brave new eco-world, facts are ignored or adjusted to fit rigid theory.

Ask yourself what would happen if tomorrow, the air came out of the Save the World Climate Change movement. Who would be out of work? What about those billions, maybe trillions of trading dollars? What lengths would people go to ensure that doesn't happen?

Follow the money.

Link to Hotspot: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...6-17803,00.html

Edited July 7, 2009 by Keepitsimple

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

The CO2 bubble is about to burst.....but how do you stop the runaway train of greed that is leading us to a trillion dollar Global Carbon Trading system?

The counterargument:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/th...ent=channellink

I suppose if you believe that it is all wrong, you won't for Harper next election.

Who will you vote for?

Edited July 7, 2009 by jdobbin

Topaz · July 7, 2009

The Global Warming thing may be true but I think its for the reason of man. If you looks at the cities and how heated they get because of all the cement and the heat it gives off. Cities need to start putting more greenery into their cities, down town areas. There's nothing wrong in looking after this planet but when huge companies use it to make billions and trillions of $$$, then its a shame.

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2009

The counterargument:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/th...ent=channellink

I suppose if you believe that it is all wrong, you won't for Harper next election.

Who will you vote for?

Dobbs.....you are a bright guy and I just KNOW that you are taking a sober second look at everything. There are just too many holes in the theories. My post was I admit a little biased, but the point is that there is SOOO much money to be made in the Carbon Markets and so many scientists who's livelihoods depend on supporting Antrhopogenic Climate "Science" that it's like a runaway train. Follow the money. Aren't you feeling just a little bit like a pawn in the hands of a cadre of people who stand to make big, big money?

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

Dobbs.....you are a bright guy and I just KNOW that you are taking a sober second look at everything. There are just too many holes in the theories. My post was I admit a little biased, but the point is that there is SOOO much money to be made in the Carbon Markets and so many scientists who's livelihoods depend on supporting Antrhopogenic Climate "Science" that it's like a runaway train. Follow the money. Aren't you feeling just a little bit like a pawn in the hands of a cadre of people who stand to make big, big money?

I am following the money and the writer of the article.

David Evans has no peer reviewed research on global warming and is funded by the coal industry to deny global warming.

Tim Lambert has full debunked every word he has said.

Edited July 7, 2009 by jdobbin

benny · July 7, 2009

Dobbs.....you are a bright guy and I just KNOW that you are taking a sober second look at everything. There are just too many holes in the theories. My post was I admit a little biased, but the point is that there is SOOO much money to be made in the Carbon Markets and so many scientists who's livelihoods depend on supporting Antrhopogenic Climate "Science" that it's like a runaway train. Follow the money. Aren't you feeling just a little bit like a pawn in the hands of a cadre of people who stand to make big, big money?

Whatever the science, property rights allow owners to force their neighbors to keep their discharges on their side.

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2009

I am following the money and the writer of the article.
David Evans has no peer reviewed research on global warming and is funded by the coal industry to deny global warming.

Tim Lambert has full debunked every word he has said.

The article by Tim Lambert is exactly the kind of claptrap that infuriates people like David Evans (and me). Take a close look at Lambert's rebuttal on the "Hotspot". As Evans has said, IPPC (and Lambert) never come out and say they have actually found the hotspot - they just say that their models prove it! And here's what Lambert says if indeed the hotspot can't be found:

If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.)

Something wrong with the models.....well, he got that part right.

Link: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/th..._science_16.php

benny · July 7, 2009

The article by Tim Lambert is exactly the kind of claptrap that infuriates people like David Evans (and me). Take a close look at Lambert's rebuttal on the "Hotspot". As Evans has said, IPPC (and Lambert) never come out and say they have actually found the hotspot - they just say that their models prove it! And here's what Lambert says if indeed the hotspot can't be found:
If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.)

Something wrong with the models.....well, he got that part right.

Link: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/th..._science_16.php

The hotspots are around the chimneys which should be connected to sequestration devices to protect property rights.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

The article by Tim Lambert is exactly the kind of claptrap that infuriates people like David Evans (and me). Take a close look at Lambert's rebuttal on the "Hotspot". As Evans has said, IPPC (and Lambert) never come out and say they have actually found the hotspot - they just say that their models prove it! And here's what Lambert says if indeed the hotspot can't be found:

Evans has lied about his bio. He has no peer reviewed work and he is not an expert in modelling. And when he says follow the money, I do. It shows he get money from people with a strong interest in denying CO2 has a factor in warming.

ToadBrother · July 7, 2009

I am following the money and the writer of the article.
David Evans has no peer reviewed research on global warming and is funded by the coal industry to deny global warming.

Tim Lambert has full debunked every word he has said.

I think they're may be at best a handful of climatologists who disagree with anthropomorphic warming who aren't paid shills. But, in fact, most of those speaking out against it are not even climatologists, and a number are not even scientists. But time after time, they keep coming back, and some loyal cadre of people who just don't want to face reality keep going "ooh ooh, this guy says global warming's fake and Al Gore wears women's underwear!"

Smallc · July 7, 2009

I prefer to call it climate change, because in this part of the world, it doesn't seem to be warming that it's causing.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

I think they're may be at best a handful of climatologists who disagree with anthropomorphic warming who aren't paid shills.

I find that a lot of what happens seems to be an anti-science mixed with conspiracy theory.

It would help if we saw more peer reviewed work from the people who come to different conclusions about CO2.

noahbody · July 7, 2009

The counterargument:

It is misleading to talk of a cooling trend because, to quote Bob Carter:
this trend is most likely produced by the single exceptionally warm 1998 El Nino year.

The reason for all the hysteria in the first place was that 1998 was proclaimed to be the hottest year on record (which was false). Now, we're supposed to ignore 1998. That means all the predictions from models using 1998 data are also false.

The actual science experiment here isn't "what will happen to the earth's climate?", it is "can you accurately model the earth's climate?" They've been trying since the 70s. Same characters involved. Until it is proven that they can, we shouldn't assume they can and get hysterical over their predictions.

Edited July 7, 2009 by noahbody

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

The reason for all the hysteria in the first place was that 1998 was proclaimed to be the hottest year on record (which was false). Now, we're supposed to ignore 1998. That means all the predictions from models using 1998 data are also false.

I know that those who deny say all the data is false but when the new data was provided, it still showed the hottest years have been growing in our time.

ToadBrother · July 7, 2009

The reason for all the hysteria in the first place was that 1998 was proclaimed to be the hottest year on record (which was false). Now, we're supposed to ignore 1998. That means all the predictions from models using 1998 data are also false.
The actual science experiment here isn't "what will happen to the earth's climate?", it is "can you accurately model the earth's climate?" They've been trying since the 70s. Same characters involved. Until it is proven that they can, we should assume they can and get hysterical over their predictions.

There's an old axiom in science that a theory does not have to perfect to have utility and explanatory power. There is no doubt that there is a strong correlation between carbon emissions beginning towards the end of the 18th century and warming temperatures. Statistical analysis is not simply about finding the highest number, but about trends.

Tell me, do you reject Newtonian Mechanics because it doesn't actually describe how gravity works? Do you reject continental drift because all the precise mechanisms have not been isolated?

benny · July 7, 2009

To keep it simple, money makers are the CO2 emitters.

ToadBrother · July 7, 2009

To keep it simple, money makers are the CO2 emitters.

It's simpler than that. Whenever you have someone claiming that a vast number of researchers are in on some sort of conspiracy, your first response shouldn't be "Yeah, all those rotten climatologists are out to screw us over."

benny · July 7, 2009

It's simpler than that. Whenever you have someone claiming that a vast number of researchers are in on some sort of conspiracy, your first response shouldn't be "Yeah, all those rotten climatologists are out to screw us over."

I have already shown on this thread that we can deal with CO2 without any science (and any sarcasm).

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2009

It's simpler than that. Whenever you have someone claiming that a vast number of researchers are in on some sort of conspiracy, your first response shouldn't be "Yeah, all those rotten climatologists are out to screw us over."

Then it is settled.....the "climatologists" are right and all humans must die.

benny · July 7, 2009

Then it is settled.....the "climatologists" are right and all humans must die.

Climatologists are not primatologists.

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2009

I prefer to call it climate change, because in this part of the world, it doesn't seem to be warming that it's causing.

Well, at least there's one person with an open mind. Back at the beginning in the early 90's, I was really interested in the CO2 debate and somewhat worried because if the theories held up, it would only get worse when the developing world started really industrializing. I've tried to keep an open mind but as more context was put into the arguments, and more facts came to light, I became a skeptic - not a denyer. I just think that as facts and observations change, so should one's willingness to re-consider a particular theory or mantra.

There's always a lot of spin and counter arguments but observations show - at least in North America that:

1) It really hasn't been getting warmer for quite awhile and it does seem like it's cooling (it was supposed to heat up with CO2 rising)

2) Haven't really seen much of major hurricanes (they were supposed to be more common)

3) The ski resorts are booming (GW was supposed to put several out of business)

4) The Arctic ice is recovering faster than expected from a couple of bad years and is pretty well back to normal

5) Antarctic ice is thickening

6) It's cool outside today

Bonam · July 7, 2009

I dunno how people can argue with the statement that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to higher temperatures. The greenhouse effect is trivially explained scientifically, the temperature rise due to a greenhouse effect could be easily calculated (to first order) by any semi-competent university physics student, and it can be easily confirmed in small-scale experiments.

The Earth is a huge system, with an immense thermal mass (especially the oceans) and we have so far increased the CO2 concentration only by a tiny amount. Temperature is also affected on short time scales by a variety of other factors which have an amplitude much larger than the effects of the increased CO2 concentration to date, making getting good data difficult. The signal to noise ratio is terrible, since the signal is tiny (perhaps a few tenths of a degree over decades, so far) while the noise is huge (temperatures vary by tens of degrees due to other factors over all kinds of timescales, be it days, seasons, ice ages, etc).

But the fact that our data on the entire Earth system may not be completely 100% conclusive beyond any doubt doesn't mean that there is any reason to doubt that the greenhouse effect actually happens. It's like doubting the theory of gravity because we have not yet confirmed that every single object in the universe exactly obeys it. The findings have been clearly confirmed in multitudes of smaller-scale experiments, and it's theoretical underpinnings are very clear and simple, and are part of the underlying basis of theories that have already been used to understand and correctly predict much more complex effects.

As for what (if anything) should be done about it, people also completely miss the point on this aspect. Mankind has the technology and capability to affect (over long timescales) the Earth's climate. Our goal should not be to "restore" the climate to what we think it would have been without our influence, but rather to determine what climate would be optimal for human civilization (i.e. to maximize the Earth's carrying capacity for humans) and foster the creation of that climate. It could very well be that a warmer climate will increase the Earth's carrying capacity by improving the productivity of the vast expanses of land in northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, and even Antarctica. A detailed study should be done not on whether the global average temperature is rising or falling, but on what global average temperature would be optimal for the continued growth of our civilization.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

There's always a lot of spin and counter arguments but observations show - at least in North America that:

The problem with looking at local weather is that it isn't looking at global changes.

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2009

I know that those who deny say all the data is false but when the new data was provided, it still showed the hottest years have been growing in our time.

That's because they are supposed to grow in our time. Temperatures have been going up by half a degree celsius per century for millenia. That's about .1 degree every decade on average. It would be worrisome if temperatures were not going up to some degree. I tend to trust our government (the people inside - not the politicians) to measure temperatures accurately. This spring was one of the coldest on record. 2007, 2008, and now 2009 all seem to be part of a cooling trend. Here's a link to StatsCan for annual average temperature in Canada.

Link to Annual: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/...008&rows=61

Link to Spring: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/...009&rows=62

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

That's because they are supposed to grow in our time. Temperatures have been going up by half a degree celsius per century for millenia. That's about .1 degree every decade on average. It would be worrisome if temperatures were not going up to some degree. I tend to trust our government (the people inside - not the politicians) to measure temperatures accurately. This spring was one of the coldest on record. 2007, 2008, and now 2009 all seem to be part of a cooling trend. Here's a link to StatsCan for annual average temperature in Canada.

Once again, measuring local weather and associating it with global changes is a sure way to make a wrong headed decision on whether warming is happening.

Still, the critics you cite believe we are cooling globally, not warming.