Copenhagen Climate Treaty

[madmax]

The issues is the proposed "solutions" that will do NOTHING to actually stop the alleged climate change. .

Is that important

How about a Carbon tax on consumption and we lower income taxes. HST with a feel good measure.

The only way to deal with excessive carbon emmissions is to reduce them.

Or as one climatogist said during the Kyoto talks. I was the least important person at the conference. It was all political.

[Oleg Bach]

Those Germanic socialist are still on the march - They have great success with the EU - Hitlers dream come true - now they are attempting to pollute the west. Thank God that their males are so feminized that they are a non-issue.

[Riverwind]

How about a Carbon tax on consumption and we lower income taxes. HST with a feel good measure.

I could support a modest carbon tax provided it takes into account how geopraphy greatly influences how easy it for someone to reduce their CO2 emissions. For example, coal, gas or nuclear is the only practical sources of electricity in Alberta, Sask and the Martimes which puts them at a huge disadvantage when compared to hydro rich provinces like Quebec. The easiest way to address regional dispartities would be to send all tax revenue from the carbon tax back to the province where it was collected. So far, none of the proposals for a carbon tax have included any such regional adjustments so I oppose them. I also don't think a revenue neutral carbon tax will be effective since it would likely be too law to affect behavoir. It makes more sense to use the revenue to fund R&D into alternate sources of energy.

[wyly]

Well first there was global warming but that was proven to be untrue as the Earth is getting colder, not warmer.

Now, you environmentalists have changed the name to Climate Change because you found your first try to be false.

Not much credibility there.

well first any vist to a legitimate web site will show you absolutely positively it's getting warmer...

here's a link to a NASA website nasa but they're probably in on the socialist plot to get your money right?

It's been Climate Change since 1988 when the IPCC was formed....did you think CC stood for global warming

[Riverwind]

well first any vist to a legitimate web site will show you absolutely positively it's getting warmer...

Why don't you try reading websites that provide information instead propoganda? You might learn something.

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/...-of-kilter.html

The earth has entered a cooling phase - that is a indisputable fact. The only debate is about the significance. Alarmists insist that it is bump on the road to hellfire and brimestone. Sceptics insist that it is a sign that the climate models exagerrate the effect of CO2.

In any case, the science is definitely NOT settled no matter what your favorite alarmist expert says.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Why don't you try reading websites that provide information instead propoganda? You might learn something.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/...-of-kilter.html

The earth has entered a cooling phase - that is a indisputable fact. The only debate is about the significance. Alarmists insist that it is bump on the road to hellfire and brimestone. Sceptics insist that it is a sign that the climate models exagerrate the effect of CO2.

In any case, the science is definitely NOT settled no matter what your favorite alarmist expert says.

as I suspected NASA is a socialists propaganda tool which is in on global conspiracy to take your money:lol:

and you come up with a personal "Blog" as proof positive of the conspiracy, too bad the Blogger supports the IPCC....

"I might learn something" one thing I learned is your reading comprehension is not what it should be you have no idea what the blog site's about....From the owner of the Blog spot Roger Pielke, Jr. who you infer does not support CC

Dr. Pielke-The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

[Riverwind]

as I suspected NASA is a socialists propaganda tool

NASA gets funding it if produces science that supports the idea that catastrophic warming is coming soon. If you only rely on sites like NASA then you will be misinformed as to the state of science. There is no 'conspiracy' among government agencies to promote specific policies - all they care about is ensuring funding and they have discovered that 'climate porn' gets people's attention which means more funding. It is the activists and politicians who then take the relatively policy neutral science and use it claim that only their preferred policies will solve the 'problem'.

and you come up with a personal "Blog" as proof positive of the conspiracy

I see you didn't bother to read the post I linked to. If it provided quotes from recent discussions amoung climate scientists on how they should deal with the fact of of global cooling. It made it clear that your claims about warming are out of date.

The post had nothing to do with the motivations behind activists and politicians that insist on specific anti-CO2 policies that happen suit their social agenda.

From the owner of the Blog spot Roger Pielke, Jr. who you infer does not support CC

I am perfectly aware of his nuanced positions on the science and policy. If you actually read his research in more detail you would find that he, like most other sceptics, accepts that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. He also feels that CO2 regulation is necessary but he feels that all of the policy options which are currently being discussed are doomed to failure due to magical thinking. Pielke himself does not attempt to explain why people would advocate policies that cannot possibly work - that is my own opinion based on the statements of people advocating the policies.

Simple question for you: if you heard people advocating policies to solve a certain problem and you knew those policies would not work would you 1) assume the advocates are idiots or 2) assume the advocates have an agenda other than the one they state?

[wyly]

NASA gets funding it if produces science that supports the idea that catastrophic warming is coming soon. If you only rely on sites like NASA then you will be misinformed as to the state of science. There is no 'conspiracy' among government agencies to promote specific policies - all they care about is ensuring funding and they have discovered that 'climate porn' gets people's attention which means more funding. It is the activists and politicians who then take the relatively policy neutral science and use it claim that only their preferred policies will solve the 'problem'.

I see you didn't bother to read the post I linked to. If it provided quotes from recent discussions amoung climate scientists on how they should deal with the fact of of global cooling. It made it clear that your claims about warming are out of date.

The post had nothing to do with the motivations behind activists and politicians that insist on specific anti-CO2 policies that happen suit their social agenda.

I am perfectly aware of his nuanced positions on the science and policy. If you actually read his research in more detail you would find that he, like most other sceptics, accepts that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. He also feels that CO2 regulation is necessary but he feels that all of the policy options which are currently being discussed are doomed to failure due to magical thinking. Pielke himself does not attempt to explain why people would advocate policies that cannot possibly work - that is my own opinion based on the statements of people advocating the policies.

Simple question for you: if you heard people advocating policies to solve a certain problem and you knew those policies would not work would you 1) assume the advocates are idiots or 2) assume the advocates have an agenda other than the one they state?

I read the link...you read into it far more than what is there...coming to conclusion for a coming cooling while all the data supports a rising trend...that's quite a leap for you to make to assert a cooling trend with no data...deniers argue against warming with mountains of data supporting it, but have no issue supporting a cooling trend with no data to back them up...

there is no doubt as to the warming that argument has ended, now it's only a question of how soon and and how severe, anyone arguing a different position is on the outer fringe...when it comes to taking a position on how much must be done to prevent it, over estimate the damage and we waste some money, underestimate the damage potential and we could be facing environmental collapse, which is the safer option to err on?...

[Riverwind]

I read the link...you read into it far more than what is there...coming to conclusion for a coming cooling while all the data supports a rising trend.

Trends always depend on a starting point: The trend for the last 10 years is down. The trend for the last 100 is up. The trend for the last 1000 is close to flat. The trend for the last 10000 is down.

The trend for the recent 10 years is significant because all of the models predicted sustained warming due to the constantly increasing CO2 component. The lack of warming must be explained. Some alarmists are turning to the oceans and suggesting that we are in a 20-30 year lull after which the warming will continue. Others say it will start warming soon.

Last key point: it does not make a difference how much data suggests warming - the question is how much did CO2 contribute to it. The attribution of CO2 as the cause of the majority of the warming depends entirely on the climate models and if the projections of these models are wrong then they cannot be used as evidence that CO2 caused the warming. The data over the last 10 years strongly suggests the models are wrong.

it comes to taking a position on how much must be done to prevent it, over estimate the damage and we waste some money, underestimate the damage potential and we could be facing environmental collapse, which is the safer option to err on?...

I look at it a different way:

Fact 1)

CO2 free technology that can be deployed at the scale required does not exists and is not likely to exist in the foreseeable future.

Fact 2)

If the extreme warming scenarios are true then there is nothing that can stop a major disaster at this point.

Based on these facts I conclude that adaptation is the ONLY rational policy choice because any moneys spent on mitigation will simply take money and growth away that could be used to pay for adaptation which we will be forced to pay for anyways. Adaption also has the benefit that it is money spent locally so there is no need to conclude unenforceable international agreements which shower benefits on the countries willing to renege on their promises.

As for you dismissal of the sceptical scientists as 'fringe' you forget that science is truth - not popularity. It is quite possible that these so-called fringe scientists will be heralded as visionaries 30 years from now while the likes of Mann and Hansen enter the lexicon as famous fraudsters.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Trends always depend on a starting point: The trend for the last 10 years is down. The trend for the last 100 is up. The trend for the last 1000 is close to flat. The trend for the last 10000 is down.

The trend for the recent 10 years is significant because all of the models predicted sustained warming due to the constantly increasing CO2 component. The lack of warming must be explained. Some alarmists are turning to the oceans and suggesting that we are in a 20-30 year lull after which the warming will continue. Others say it will start warming soon.

Last key point: it does not make a difference how much data suggests warming - the question is how much did CO2 contribute to it. The attribution of CO2 as the cause of the majority of the warming depends entirely on the climate models and if the projections of these models are wrong then they cannot be used as evidence that CO2 caused the warming. The data over the last 10 years strongly suggests the models are wrong.

the warmest years since 98, deniers like to point at 98 as the high and it's been all down hill since...the error is 98 was a very strong El Nino year, it was anomaly the ten warmest years on record occurred since then... a single cool year does not indicate a downward trend we just came out of a la Nina and the temps were still warmer than average ...the significance is not in the last 10 yrs it's the last 30, 10 yrs is to short a period to define a long term trend...and the trend is ever upward...

the link between CO2 and temp is absolute there is no other smoking gun...

I look at it a different way:

Fact 1)

CO2 free technology that can be deployed at the scale required does not exists and is not likely to exist in the foreseeable future.

Fact 2)

If the extreme warming scenarios are true then there is nothing that can stop a major disaster at this point.

Based on these facts I conclude that adaptation is the ONLY rational policy choice because any moneys spent on mitigation will simply take money and growth away that could be used to pay for adaptation which we will be forced to pay for anyways. Adaption also has the benefit that it is money spent locally so there is no need to conclude unenforceable international agreements which shower benefits on the countries willing to renege on their promises.

As for you dismissal of the sceptical scientists as 'fringe' you forget that science is truth - not popularity. It is quite possible that these so-called fringe scientists will be heralded as visionaries 30 years from now while the likes of Mann and Hansen enter the lexicon as famous fraudsters.

30 yrs ago those advocating a warmer planet were the fringe and now that the scientific world agrees with them you set out to make them part of the established elite..and the holdouts are the visionaries .

we can pay up and do what we can or our grandchildren risk the consequences of our inaction......

[Riverwind]

it was anomaly the ten warmest years on record occurred since then... a single cool year does not indicate a downward trend we just came out of a la Nina and the temps were still warmer than average

All of the analyses that I have looked at start with 2001 since that is the start date for the IPCC AR4 climate model projections. 2001 was a cool year so the negative trend since then cannot be dismissed because of the 1998 El Nino. In any case, it does not make a difference if you deny the fact of cooling because it is being discussed by climate scientists in the peer reviewed literature. The only point of disagreement is the significance of the cooling.

the link between CO2 and temp is absolute there is no other smoking gun...

You really need to learn to to stop conflating issues. CO2 causes temperatures to go up but so do many other things. The question that we really care about is "how much of the past warming is due to CO2 and how much warming is likely in the future". There absolutely no evidence outside of the climate models which supports the IPCC claim that CO2 is responsible for the majority of the warming over the last 50 years. If the models are shown to be wrong then the IPCC can no longer claim that CO2 is known to be the primary cause of the warming over the last 50 years.

we can pay up and do what we can or our grandchildren risk the consequences of our inaction......

Oh yes - bring in the grandchildren. The fact is doing "something" about CO2 will be incredibly expensive and that will increase poverty and suffering today. It is not at all clear that causing certain pain today is justified in the name of a hypothetical problem that may never materialize.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Odds are a warmer planet won't have even close to the effect that's being predicted but to deny the earth is warming is moronic.

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

The Harper government is going to get completely embarrassed around the time of the Copenhagen conference on Climate Change. The fact of the matter is the Harper government has no plan to address the issues relating to this issue and they will be attacked by the Canadian public and will most likely lose in the polls as a result from it. Anyone want to weigh in on this?

[Riverwind]

Odds are a warmer planet won't have even close to the effect that's being predicted but to deny the earth is warming is moronic.

Agreed. However, it is not the sceptics that claim the earth has not warmed from CO2 - it is the alarmists that need a strawman to attack that say that.

When having a discussion about climate it is important to break the problem in to seperate components:

1) Does CO2 affect temperature?

2) Has the planet warmed?

3) How much of that warming is due to CO2?

4) How much warming will occur in the future?

5) What are the effects of this warming on human society?

6) What is the most effective policy to deal with any changes caused by the warming?

The science is settled on 1) and 2) but having answers to 1) and 2) does not answer questions 5)-6) which are the questions we really care about.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Agreed. However, it is not the sceptics that claim the earth has not warmed from CO2 - it is the alarmists that need a strawman to attack that say that.

When having a discussion about climate it is important to break the problem in to seperate components:

1) Does CO2 affect temperature?

2) Has the planet warmed?

3) How much of that warming is due to CO2?

4) How much warming will occur in the future?

5) What are the effects of this warming on human society?

6) What is the most effective policy to deal with any changes caused by the warming?

The science is settled on 1) and 2) but having answers to 1) and 2) does not answer questions 5)-6) which are the questions we really care about.

They also aren't sure about 4) and 5) there was a study awhile back which indicated that the effect of CO2 might be exagerated somewhat.

[Riverwind]

The fact of the matter is the Harper government has no plan to address the issues relating to this issue and they will be attacked by the Canadian public and will most likely lose in the polls as a result from it. Anyone want to weigh in on this?

Climate change is an obsession of the elite. Opinion polls place action on climate change as pretty low priority compared to jobs and the economy. Polls that actually put dollar figures on the cost of combating climate change find that support for action drops to zero as the personal cost increases above $100 or so. IOW, Harper is doing exactly what the Canadian public wants him to do - talk a lot but do nothing.

[ba1614]

Climate change is an obsession of the elite. Opinion polls place action on climate change as pretty low priority compared to jobs and the economy. Polls that actually put dollar figures on the cost of combating climate change find that support for action drops to zero as the personal cost increases above $100 or so. IOW, Harper is doing exactly what the Canadian public wants him to do - talk a lot but do nothing.

That's what it really boils down to Riverwind.

We in the middle class are struggling enough to put food on the table and raise/educate our kids, while living somewhat comfortable. Schemes like cap and trade are going to put a load on us that will have an impact, and it isn't proven that it will do anything but make the "trader" boatloads of cash.

I completely agree with, and practice, reducing emissions through conservation and development of more efficient energy sources. We can achieve a lot of this through incentives which will reduce emissions. In the mean time look for solutions that will truly have a positive global effect without further burying the middle class.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Real problem with trying to deal with climate change is the best options are ones that people are even more against. Like nuclear reactors probably the best energy source in exsistance right now but no one is willing to build them. Go figure.

[Riverwind]

Real problem with trying to deal with climate change is the best options are ones that people are even more against. Like nuclear reactors probably the best energy source in exsistance right now but no one is willing to build them. Go figure.

The insanity is not limited to nuclear. Solar in a desert is a viable option that is being blocked by environmentalists:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/science/...h/19mojave.html

A proposed solar energy project in the California desert that caused intense friction between environmentalists and the developers of renewable energy has been shelved.

...

The Wildlands Conservancy, a California environmental group, had tried to block the solar development, as had Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who proposed that the area become a national monument.

And people wonder why I question whether environmentalists really care about CO2 emissions.

[ba1614]

Real problem with trying to deal with climate change is the best options are ones that people are even more against. Like nuclear reactors probably the best energy source in exsistance right now but no one is willing to build them. Go figure.

I am completely 100% in support of nuclear energy while we keep striving for better sources.

The insanity is not limited to nuclear. Solar in a desert is a viable option that is being blocked by environmentalists:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/science/...h/19mojave.html

Seems like a no brainer doesn't it?

[wyly]

Real problem with trying to deal with climate change is the best options are ones that people are even more against. Like nuclear reactors probably the best energy source in exsistance right now but no one is willing to build them. Go figure.

it's full of problems, storing used fuel, NIMBY...until there are safer reactors built this isn't like to develop...

wind, hydro, tidal, solar all better long term eco friendly futures...

[Guest TrueMetis]

it's full of problems, storing used fuel, NIMBY...until there are safer reactors built this isn't like to develop...

wind, hydro, tidal, solar all better long term eco friendly futures...

Storing used reactor fuel is easy there are even new reactors that can half the amount of time it takes to decay and the amount of fuel a reactor needs for one year is tiny. Also to my knowledge things that take a long time to decay tend to be less harmful, It's the shit that decays right away you have to be worried about.

A reactor hasn't had real devestaing effects since Chernobyl, 3 mile island was nothing. Hell go to Chernobyl now the amount of radiation is basically back to normal.

A nuclear reactor is safer than pretty much every other power plant. More people die per year because of coal plants than have died because of nuclear plants since nuclear plants have exsisted.

Wind: alright for windy places but kills a lot of birds and if the wind stops your screwed, not reliable.

Hydro: Utterly devastates the river it's built on.

Tidal: Totally screws up currents especially if it's built at a delta.

Solar: proabably one of the better option build them in the deserts but like riverwind said enviromentalists won't let it happen.

Like I said the best option is nuclear right now fission eventually fusion.

[wyly]

All of the analyses that I have looked at start with 2001 since that is the start date for the IPCC AR4 climate model projections. 2001 was a cool year so the negative trend since then cannot be dismissed because of the 1998 El Nino. In any case, it does not make a difference if you deny the fact of cooling because it is being discussed by climate scientists in the peer reviewed literature. The only point of disagreement is the significance of the cooling.

the trend is ever upward...

Even the highly “cherry-picked” 11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation).

warmer

You really need to learn to to stop conflating issues. CO2 causes temperatures to go up but so do many other things. The question that we really care about is "how much of the past warming is due to CO2 and how much warming is likely in the future". There absolutely no evidence outside of the climate models which supports the IPCC claim that CO2 is responsible for the majority of the warming over the last 50 years. If the models are shown to be wrong then the IPCC can no longer claim that CO2 is known to be the primary cause of the warming over the last 50 years.

everything else has been eliminated, CO2 is the only smoking gun left...why do you insist on looking for the obscure when the cause right in front of you??

the models are correct they hold up......temp increases can drive CO2 increases...the reverse is also true, CO2 increases can drive temp increases...in previous warmings temp increases preceded CO2 increases but there was a lag of about 800 yrs in CO2 increases...we now have CO2 increases preceding temp increases! where is the lag(the smoking gun)? there is none... CO2 is driving temp ...

Oh yes - bring in the grandchildren. The fact is doing "something" about CO2 will be incredibly expensive and that will increase poverty and suffering today. It is not at all clear that causing certain pain today is justified in the name of a hypothetical problem that may never materialize.

and what is the cost of doing nothing and you're wrong? your grandchildren will not be impressed...if we're wrong we end up with a healthier environment, if we're right and do nothing? the cost is unimaginable...

[wyly]

Storing used reactor fuel is easy there are even new reactors that can half the amount of time it takes to decay and the amount of fuel a reactor needs for one year is tiny. Also to my knowledge things that take a long time to decay tend to be less harmful, It's the shit that decays right away you have to be worried about.

A reactor hasn't had real devestaing effects since Chernobyl, 3 mile island was nothing. Hell go to Chernobyl now the amount of radiation is basically back to normal.

A nuclear reactor is safer than pretty much every other power plant. More people die per year because of coal plants than have died because of nuclear plants since nuclear plants have exsisted.

Wind: alright for windy places but kills a lot of birds and if the wind stops your screwed, not reliable.

Hydro: Utterly devastates the river it's built on.

Tidal: Totally screws up currents especially if it's built at a delta.

Solar: proabably one of the better option build them in the deserts but like riverwind said enviromentalists won't let it happen.

Like I said the best option is nuclear right now fission eventually fusion.

Chernobyl had a population of 200,000, today 60-70

In theory, all scientists and engineers who work in the area should leave for two weeks after a maximum of 15 days; in practice, no one enforces the rule.

there is still a 30km exclusion zone around the plant...you want to volunteer your family to move there?

Wind-bird deaths are minimal, domestic house cats are estimated to kill a billion birds per year, windmills are built in areas of high wind, future battery development will improve energy storage

Hydro: still a clean option, better designs can improve river conservation

Tidal: hasn't been built yet and you're predicting problems that haven't come up as yet

Solar: don't need to be built in deserts, every rooftop can become a solar collector

Nuclear is the option we don't need, there are good reasons why governments are reluctant to build them...without fusion this is going nowhere...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Chernobyl had a population of 200,000, today 60-70there is still a 30km exclusion zone around the plant...you want to volunteer your family to move there?

No but that's because I don't want to go to Russia and what you posted says that people can live there. Even if it wasn't true and the place was still radioactive shitty soviet reactors that were held together by duct tape and built when the Russian couldn't figure out tractors have no bearing on today's reactors.

Wind-bird deaths are minimal, domestic house cats are estimated to kill a billion birds per year, windmills are built in areas of high wind, future battery development will improve energy storage

Tech that's 10 years off isn't to useful now and wind mill use a shit load of space something the enviro's hate.

Hydro: still a clean option, better designs can improve river conservation

How exactly? In order to build a hydro plant you have to dam a river how can you design it differently?

Tidal: hasn't been built yet and you're predicting problems that haven't come up as yet

They were trying to build some in England and they've been put on hold for exactly that reason.

Solar: don't need to be built in deserts, every rooftop can become a solar collector

There goes the power industry. Oh well. You do realize that setting it up that way would be horribly inefficient right?

Nuclear is the option we don't need, there are good reasons why governments are reluctant to build them...without fusion this is going nowhere...

Nuclear energy produces more energy per kilogram of fuel than any other source of power it make oil look like nothing and oil makes most other energy sources look like crap. Government don't build them because people are idiots and are afraid of all but non-exsistent threats.

Are you going to deal with what I said about storage? what about the amount of people who die from conventional power plants compared to nuclear plants?

Edited October 9, 2009 by TrueMetis