Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Highest Ever in Earth History

[TimG]

What specifically are you speaking to? ... an example or two might help put perspective on your claim.

I am always amazed at your willful blindness to what is actually being said about AGW by alarmist scientists in media. Here is the APS statement on climate change:

The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

It is one example among many. The message from alarmist scientists is always 'CO2 is threat, we must reduce CO2 no matter without any thought to the cost'. They conflant science with policy and incorrectly assume that the science dictates the policy.

Edited September 1, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Then you must also think they should not be concerned about waldo's subjective notions about "proper balance". Or do such statments only apply when you disagree?

I already explained how it works. Regardless of where you or me or waldo stand on this issue, programming will be determined as I outlined. It has nothing to do with giving "equal time" to any side. Theres more than 2 sides anyways theres a whole bunch. Some people think that there is no warming. Some people think there is warming but theres not enough evidence to support that its caused by CO2. Some people think its caused by the sun. Some people think its a global socialist conspiracy to tranfer wealth from the first to the third world.

How many sides are we gonna give equal time to?

[TimG]

programming will be determined as I outlined. It has nothing to do with giving "equal time" to any side.

I agree.

Theres more than 2 sides anywys theres a whole bunch. Some people think that there is no warming. Some people think there is warming but theres not enough evidence to support that its caused by CO2. Some people think its caused by the sun. Some people think its a global socialist conspiracy to transfer wealth from the first to the third world.

I agree too. The issue are people like waldo who think that anyone who disagrees with the IPCC dogma is a "denialist" and should not be given any voice in the media because they so not represent the scientific consensus. The media should be providing enough to ensure people have an accurate understanding of the different POVs and should not be governed by any preconceived notions about who is more likely to be right. Edited September 1, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

The media can cover the issue with any slant it likes, or not cover it at all, or try as hard as they can to randomly produce the most outlandish lies, and the amount of accurate information communicated would remain about the same as it is now. Mainstream media science reporting is garbage, always has been, always will be.

[waldo]

If alarmists could actually stick to the science and remind people that the the science does not dictate a policy response then your 'false' balance premise might have some merit. But that never happens. The science is always conflated with policy in the media which means the proper balance is to give equal time to each side.

Science does not dictate policy; what scientists and/or scientific organizations (of note, presence) are you speaking to... those you claim are using the science to "dictate" policy response? Most certainly, when the IPCC ultimately formulates it's SPM, that is not a dictatorial vehicle, on any level. That SPM, of course, is simply a summary reference of the underlying science intended for policy makers... it is not policy on any level or account. What specifically are you speaking to? ... an example or two might help put perspective on your claim.

I am always amazed at your willful blindness to what is actually being said about AGW by alarmist scientists in media. Here is the APS statement on climate change:

The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

It is one example among many. The message from alarmist scientists is always 'CO2 is threat, we must reduce CO2 no matter without any thought to the cost'. They conflant science with policy and incorrectly assume that the science dictates the policy.

wow! It's a good example, but not for your purposes... but really, could you have found a more benign 'motherhood' statement - how is that statement at all "dictatorial"... you're equating the word used, "urge", to an "authoritative command/order"... how does one translate that into an actionable policy derivative command/order? You're simply ticked because they had the veracity to extend reference to mitigation, above and beyond your oft expressed, adapt-R-Us (only), comfort zone. It truly begs the question... is there any atmospheric CO2 ppm level that TimG is not prepared to reach for?

in any case, your link affords a more complete extended commentary on the APS 'National Climate Change Policy', quite categorically qualifying the policy's scientific basis for advising on a mitigation path to begin to reduce GHG emissions, now... the extended commentary also specifically elaborates on the phrase you extracted/quoted, most particularly in regards to the role of its membership:

With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to

support

policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological

options

for addressing and mitigating climate change.

I trust you will note the carefully worded phrasing that doesn't advise the role of physicists in setting policies and actions; rather, it speaks to the role of physicists in developing technological options... for addressing and mitigating climate change.

[TimG]

how does one translate that into an actionable policy derivative command/order?

I have no interest in your word games. You asked for an example of scientists claiming that science required CO2 mitigation and I gave you one. There are many others.

The fact is the science does not dictate what policies we should adopt. It was wrong for the APS to urge "governments to [adopt] policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases" because such a stance assumes that reducing CO2 is possible, practical and less expensive than dealing with the effects of climate change.

When it comes to those questions the opinion of the APS and other scientists is completely irrelevant. They are not economists or engineers and are not qualified to comment on them.

The clarifications that you quoted were only added after much protest by sceptics in the APS and do not change the fact that the original statement was unambiguously demanding in terms of policy. i.e. if it wasn't for sceptics the APS statement would be the same as it was in 2007.

Edited September 2, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The issue are people like waldo who think that anyone who disagrees with the IPCC dogma is a "denialist" and should not be given any voice in the media because they so not represent the scientific consensus. The media should be providing enough to ensure people have an accurate understanding of the different POVs and should not be governed by any preconceived notions about who is more likely to be right.

your calling the recognized, acknowledged, mandated, ongoing, iterative, prevailing, consensus assessments/agreements on the status of climate change science, "dogma"... is inconsequential. The question of your described, 'rightness likelihood', has been determined... it's called the scientific consensus. It is most certainly not the role of the media to present the alternate fringe position of denying outliers, particularly when that presentation, subject to biasing influences or circumstance, is used to cast doubt and uncertainty on the consensus. As I've said/implied, science moves forward and enhances based on the foundation of skepticism... media presentation does not!

[waldo]

I have no interest in your word games. You asked for an example of scientists claiming that science required CO2 mitigation and I gave you one. There are many others.

The fact is the science does not dictate what policies we should adopt. It was wrong for the APS to urge "governments to [adopt] policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases" because such a stance assumes that reducing CO2 is possible, practical and less expensive than dealing with the effects of climate change.

When it comes to those questions the opinion of the APS and other scientists is completely irrelevant. They are not economists or engineers and are not qualified to comment on them.

The clarifications that you quoted were only added after much protest by sceptics in the APS and do not change the fact that the original statement was unambiguously demanding in terms of policy. i.e. if it wasn't for sceptics the APS statement would be the same as it was in 2007.

word games? I asked you for an example of your expression of scientists and/or scientific organizations dictating policy. I quite categorically expounded upon your offered reference to highlight that it provides none of your implied dictatorial, authoritative, command/order, actionable, policy derivatives. Rather, it presents a rather benign, somewhat 'motherhood' statement, urging support for a mitigation path to reduce CO2 emissions... emphasizing a role for the organizations membership (physicists), in supporting, not setting policies and actions... in developing technological options.

again, the policy statement commentary is clear in providing a scientific basis for supporting a mitigation strategy, a basis physicists most assuredly have helped to determine. Again, I ask: is there any atmospheric CO2 ppm level that TimG is not prepared to reach for?

I should have bet on you bringing this particular statement forward... like, really, has there been one expounded upon more within your denialsphere? For your edification, you should recognize that the original 2007 policy statement stands, as is... the follow-up extended commentary doesn't change anything other than providing additional clarity and/or qualification... it also, of course, explicitly negates your claims of this scientific organization setting dictatorial policy.

[waldo]

Go BAMA! ... oh... by 2030!

U.S. rolls out plan to cut power-plant pollution 30 per cent

The U.S. power sector must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 per cent by 2030 from 2005 levels, according to federal regulations unveiled on Monday that form the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate-change strategy.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal is one of the most significant environmental rules proposed by the United States, and could transform the power sector, which relies on coal for nearly 38 per cent of electricity.

Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Monday that between 2020 and 2030, the U.S. amount of carbon dioxide the proposal would reduce under the plan would be more than double the carbon pollution from the entire power sector in 2012.

The country’s roughly 1,000 power plants, which account for nearly 40 per cent of U.S. carbon emissions, face limits on carbon pollution for the first time.

of course, Harper steps forward yesterday in Parliament and says 'no biggee'... "Canada has already gone there" (I paraphrase). Of course, coal in Canada is not king! What with Harper tying Canada's emission reduction policy directly to what the U.S. does... what's he going to do now? How's that already committed 17% reduction level doing right now, hey Harper Conservatives? Say what, reductions in Canada's emissions aren't happening?... say what, emissions are predicted to rise?

U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change

As President Barack Obama unveiled the first major regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, his ambassador in Ottawa urged Canada to do the same and take action to combat climate change.

It is a reminder to Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the political challenge he now faces: His chief climate-change policy has been to match U.S. action, but now the Americans are getting more aggressive, and publicly suggesting Canada act too.

In the United States, “king coal” is the biggest source of emissions. In Canada, coal’s impact is much smaller, and the fastest-growing source of emissions is oil production, notably from Alberta’s oil sands, which will account for 80 per cent of the growth from now to 2020.

The United States is already far ahead of Canada in meeting its emissions targets.

Both Canada and the United States have committed to reducing emissions to 17 per cent below their 2005 levels by 2020. Even before the new coal policy was announced, the United States was on track for a 7.5-per-cent reduction.

.

[Keepitsimple]

The hypocracy and smugness of the Obama government is sickening - this is the guy that brags about the thousands of miles of pipelines that he's built that could "encircle the Earth and then some.".......and after almost two complete terms as President, he is just now getting around to reducing coal emissions - with a plan that is yet to be tested? Is it any wonder the man is not respected anywhere in the world.....

For example, total oil sands greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 were 55 mega tonnes, which is equivalent to only 4.3% of the emissions from the U.S. coal-fired power-generation sector, according to 2013 Environment Canada data, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and 2013 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers data.

With the majority of the focus on impeding oil sands development, the growth in coal consumption has run unabated, reaching its highest level since 2006. The U.S. has increased its yearly consumption of coal by nearly 50% since the 1980s, while China has quadrupled its demand since 2000.

In the meantime, the oil sands continue to be the global hydrocarbon scapegoat among environmentalists and celebrities supporting the movement. Just this past week, Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu toured the oil sands and described them as “filth” created by greed

Link: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/02/canadas-energy-patch-is-under-green-siege/

Edited June 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

Go BAMA! ... oh... by 2030!

Way to go Obama! Nobody has increased the level of jobs going overseas than him!

[waldo]

Way to go Obama! Nobody has increased the level of jobs going overseas than him!

even if... if... you were right on that point, just what does it have to do with the proposed emission reductions. Oh wait, you mean just like all those outsourced emissions the USA (and other 'western' countries) have sent "overseas"? Like that?

[waldo]

The hypocracy and smugness of the Obama government is sickening - this is the guy that brags about the thousands of miles of pipelines that he's built that could "encircle the Earth and then some.".......and after almost two complete terms as President, he is just now getting around to reducing coal emissions - with a plan that is yet to be tested? Is it any wonder the man is not respected anywhere in the world.....

Simple, you don't wear bitter well!

[Shady]

even if... if... you were right on that point, just what does it have to do with the proposed emission reductions.

Because it's not necessary. Obama continues to cripple the U.S. economy while strengthening his competitors. Oh well, more jobs for India, China, and probably even us! Can't complain I guess.

[waldo]

Can't complain I guess.

then what's your problem/beef?

[Shady]

then what's your problem/beef?

My biggest problem is that our economy depends on a strong American one. When economic illiterates like Obama undermine it, it ultimately affects us.

[waldo]

My biggest problem is that our economy depends on a strong American one. When economic illiterates like Obama undermine it, it ultimately affects us.

so you do have a problem then! Make up your mind.

[Shady]

so you do have a problem then! Make up your mind.

I wouldn't if there was a way to guarantee we'd get all the jobs Obama's pushing out of the country. Unfortunately there isn't. Did you know that counties in the United States that are part of the new oil and natural gas boom have the highest median income? Big time paying middle class jobs!

[waldo]

I wouldn't if there was a way to guarantee we'd get all the jobs Obama's pushing out of the country. Unfortunately there isn't. Did you know that counties in the United States that are part of the new oil and natural gas boom have the highest median income? Big time paying middle class jobs!

green jobs, Shady! Green jobs!

[GostHacked]

even if... if... you were right on that point, just what does it have to do with the proposed emission reductions. Oh wait, you mean just like all those outsourced emissions the USA (and other 'western' countries) have sent "overseas"? Like that?

Reducing emissions will have a direct impact on the level of power the USA can produce. This could increase the cost of electricity since it is at a premium. Increase costs of electricity (like fuel) has an impact on industry and manufacturing.

However, emissions can be reduced with scrubbers and the like. But then you are using energy to reduce the carbon emissions. Then you need a whole infrastructure to store said CO2 emissions. That takes power, infrastructure, technology and manufacturing. So I am not sure where the savings is to tell you the truth.

The high cost of electricity has probably been a factor in car manufacturers to start having their cars built overseas. Cadillac does it, GM overall does it. And you can bet car parts for many new cars are made overseas. Why? the cost of fuel and electricity is too much and cutting into their profits.

So while you reduce emissions here, you can increase them somewhere else which negates the USA's reduction in CO2 emissions. China does not really care, and neither do places like India and Bangladesh.

The whole globe would need to get behind this in order to make a difference, but you are going to impact goods, transportation, manufacturing, heck, all aspects of society. But if a country like China does not want to get on board, then you will continue to see an exodus of companies wanting to maintain their profit levels and will move a business anywhere to accomplish that.

[Shady]

green jobs, Shady! Green jobs!

I'm for all coloured jobs.

[BubberMiley]

I'm for all coloured jobs.

Even ones that destroy the economy through environmental destruction!

Talk about economic illiteracy...

[Shady]

Even ones that destroy the economy through environmental destruction!

Which ones are those?

[eyeball]

The hypocracy and smugness of the Obama government is sickening...

... Is it any wonder the man is not respected anywhere in the world.....

Between being the King of drone strikes and the POW camp in Guantanamo Bay still open for business?

It's no wonder at all.

Edited June 4, 2014 by eyeball

[jbg]

Of course, seperating the effect of the CO2 from the effect The result is internally consistent junk science that tells us nothing about how the real world works.

Same way Madoff's rate of return was a very consistent 9%.