Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Shady]

Btw, I'm not denying that global warming could exist. Or that C02 is the prime cause. But C02 is not pollution.

[waldo]

But it's not pollution.

what's air pollution, Shady?

[jbg]

....The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend the rest of your natural life in Indiana."

Actually, it was death by beheading.

[jbg]

the only dance is yours Pliny... your avoidance dance. As you've done many times over, you drop your unsubstantiated opinion and proceed to challenge others to refute it. As I pointed out to you, I've played your game, several times now - I pointed out a couple of those instances where you, danced and bobbed and weaved and shucked and jived... after lengthy exchanges across multiple threads, your Mr. Wizard self was laid bare, exposed for its nothingness, its nonsense. This is now the second time I've replayed the following exchange sequence. As I said, if you're not prepared to bring Mr. Wizard out again...

I am having trouble following all those internal quotes. Also, in Canada, is the first word of a sentence capitalized? I am not familiar with all of the rules of the Canadian language.

[waldo]

I wouldn't be so quick to put faith in such propaganda.

wow! That you would label the Greenhouse Effect as... "propaganda"! Knowledgeable scientists/persons don't dispute the Greenhouse Effect... it's not a contentious entity/physical science phenomenon (unless you're on the fringe of the denial fringe) - it isn't theoretical, its an observed fact. I mean, jeezaz! If the Greenhouse Effect didn't exist, the earth would be, quite literally, frozen over. But, then again, you've already shown yourself to be on that fringe of the fringe, right?

I believe such things as environmental disasters have occurred (oil spills and other nuclear disasters).

But not global warming

then you sir, are on the fringe of the fringe. No self-respecting denier, or fake skeptic, actually doubts global warming... I mean, it's an indisputable fact. You can say you don't agree with how the warming has occurred - you could do that! But to suggest there is, there has been no recent (relative timed) global warming... that's looney-tunes!

[waldo]

You haven't heard about capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, have you? Or isn't that done in the Canadian language?

what language do you use in Ajax?

Also, in Canada, is the first word of a sentence capitalized? I am not familiar with all of the rules of the Canadian language.

I'm all for having you stay focused on grammar... you appear to relish it!

[Moonbox]

Whatever it is it's barely even English. A Grade 8 english class would work wonders I think.

Anyways, I have a serious question, more along the lines of how we'd try and fix things assuming everyone agreed on the topic.

Canada and the USA have been exporting manufacturing jobs for decades now to the point where we're primarily service-based economies. Most climate change initiatives and treaty negotiations have focused on expensive measures to be taken by developed nations only. The logic behind essentially adding environmental taxes to countries with declining manufacturing industries, while at the same time exempting the countries whose manufacturing continues to expand explosively, seems a bit screwy. What we'd essentially be doing is giving companies in North America added incentives to outsource their jobs and their pollution to China etc.

Can someone please explain why this would be a good idea? Considering many climate experts are telling us that it's already getting to be too late to fix, the argument that developing countries are still playing catch-up and that they're the worst-affected or that we should lead by example just doesn't fly. Just think about it. We need to reduce our emissions because, which especially hurts developing countries, who are going to refuse any reductions and expand their emissions exponentially even though it apparently hurts them....

Edited September 24, 2012 by Moonbox

[madmax]

Canada and the USA have been exporting manufacturing jobs for decades now to the point where we're primarily service-based economies. Most climate change initiatives and treaty negotiations have focused on expensive measures to be taken by developed nations only. The logic behind essentially adding environmental taxes to countries with declining manufacturing industries, while at the same time exempting the countries whose manufacturing continues to expand explosively, seems a bit screwy. What we'd essentially be doing is giving companies in North America added incentives to outsource their jobs and their pollution to China etc.

Can someone please explain why this would be a good idea?

Thank you Moonbox.

[Wild Bill]

Whatever it is it's barely even English. A Grade 8 english class would work wonders I think.

Anyways, I have a serious question, more along the lines of how we'd try and fix things assuming everyone agreed on the topic.

Canada and the USA have been exporting manufacturing jobs for decades now to the point where we're primarily service-based economies. Most climate change initiatives and treaty negotiations have focused on expensive measures to be taken by developed nations only. The logic behind essentially adding environmental taxes to countries with declining manufacturing industries, while at the same time exempting the countries whose manufacturing continues to expand explosively, seems a bit screwy. What we'd essentially be doing is giving companies in North America added incentives to outsource their jobs and their pollution to China etc.

Can someone please explain why this would be a good idea? Considering many climate experts are telling us that it's already getting to be too late to fix, the argument that developing countries are still playing catch-up and that they're the worst-affected or that we should lead by example just doesn't fly. Just think about it. We need to reduce our emissions because, which especially hurts developing countries, who are going to refuse any reductions and expand their emissions exponentially even though it apparently hurts them....

Moonbox, it only seems screwy if you believe the initial premise - that environmental taxes are designed to improve or protect the environment.

They are not! They are designed to transfer wealth from 'us' to 'them'.

That is why Kyoto exempted the biggest polluters on the planet. It is why carbon can be traded instead of actually reduced. It is why Russian and China can take all those used car batteries we dutifully take to a recycling station and on the way across the water to supposedly be safely recycled they are simply dumped overboard!

It is all a scam! Some are in on the scam and others prefer not to see the scam in favour of "feeling good".

And that is the long and the short of it!

[Shady]

what's air pollution, Shady?

Lead, carbon monoxide, sulfer, etc. You know, real pollution.

[waldo]

Canada and the USA have been exporting manufacturing jobs for decades now to the point where we're primarily service-based economies. Most climate change initiatives and treaty negotiations have focused on expensive measures to be taken by developed nations only. The logic behind essentially adding environmental taxes to countries with declining manufacturing industries, while at the same time exempting the countries whose manufacturing continues to expand explosively, seems a bit screwy. What we'd essentially be doing is giving companies in North America added incentives to outsource their jobs and their pollution to China etc.

this was a most difficult post to decipher... you've already acknowledged you don't follow these climate change related threads; it's now equally clear you don't follow or understand the ongoing attempts to realize agreements, binding or otherwise. The initial Kyoto agreement had exclusions given the respective state of countries development at the time - nothing says it clearer than this historical graphic. As I've stated previously, at the time of the initial Kyoto Treaty, the U.S./industrialized nations were the overwhelming principle cause of emissions accumulated in the atmosphere; any temporary exemptions reflected, principally, on that fundamental and undisputed fact. I've also previously highlighted study estimates that suggest, even at China's current accelerated emission rates, China still won't have matched the cumulative emission output of the U.S. until between 2030-2050 (depending on various scenarios).

the only reason the extension to Kyoto exists (from the recent Durban COP) is because the U.S... and China... and India, blocked the completion of a new treaty. The Kyoto extension was simply a fall-back to "somethings better than nothing"!

since you presume to speak on outsourcing, let me play on the article I regularly trot out - one that highlights the outsourcing of emissions from developed countries.

[waldo]

They are designed to transfer wealth from 'us' to 'them'.

That is why Kyoto exempted the biggest polluters on the planet.

It is all a scam! Some are in on the scam and others prefer not to see the scam in favour of "feeling good".

And that is the long and the short of it!

educate yourself... see my preceding post - start there.

[Pliny]

the only dance is yours Pliny... your avoidance dance....

This is now the second time I've replayed the following exchange sequence. As I said, if you're not prepared to bring Mr. Wizard out again...

Replaying exchange sequences shows nothing. I still mean exponential not linear. The carbon build up is exponential and, if the theory is correct, there should be a concurrently exponential rise in temperature. There isn't. That is the fact of the matter. We know that the last century has seen a 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase in overall global temperature, everything else is climate. In a century maybe we can map some more trends. The "projections" on warming haven't so far been all that accurate just like the "scientific" projections on the weather next week may not be.

[waldo]

Replaying exchange sequences shows nothing.

you have nothing to offer Pliny - why do you bother to reply if you're not prepared to substantiate your unsubstantiated opinion/claim?

[bleeding heart]

I am having trouble following all those internal quotes. Also, in Canada, is the first word of a sentence capitalized? I am not familiar with all of the rules of the Canadian language.

Isn't it odd that a joke really loses its effect after the eleven thousandth time it is spoken to the same listeners?

I guess people crave some variety.

[Pliny]

you have nothing to offer Pliny - why do you bother to reply if you're not prepared to substantiate your unsubstantiated opinion/claim?

How much has the temperature risen lately, waldo? Must be well past the linear rise of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century by now. You have been arguing about it now for well over a decade. That huffing and puffing must have contributed somewhat to a rise....doncha think?

[Moonbox]

I've also previously highlighted study estimates that suggest, even at China's current accelerated emission rates, China still won't have matched the cumulative emission output of the U.S. until between 2030-2050 (depending on various scenarios).

So...what then? We wait until 2030-2050 for China to pollute their way to prosperity and equality with the USA? Isn't the damage already being done? Who are going to be the next set of developing have-nots after China and India?

the only reason the extension to Kyoto exists (from the recent Durban COP) is because the U.S... and China... and India, blocked the completion of a new treaty. The Kyoto extension was simply a fall-back to "somethings better than nothing"!

Kyoto was a toothless and therefore useless agreement, as was Copenhagen. If people are serious about actually doing something about it, the agreements have to be binding and they have to include all of the major players.

since you presume to speak on outsourcing, let me play on the article I regularly trot out - one that highlights the outsourcing of emissions from developed countries.

Thanks!? That's precisely what I was talking about. There's a reason why this is happening. Western countries are outsourcing their manufacturing to places where labour is cheaper and environmental laws lax/non-existant. Slapping new and expensive climate regulation on western industry while not doing the same for China only accelerates this trend. We end up with little/no net emissions reductions and weaker domestic economy.

If we want a climate treaty, China and India etc need to play ball, otherwise we're going to need to wait for nuclear fusion or something equally spectacular.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Moonbox

[WWWTT]

what's air pollution, Shady?

Shady is right!

Carbon dioxide is not pollution.

In fact,all life on Earth would die without its presence in our atmosphere.(all life as we know it is carbon based)

As far as I'm concerned,regulating carbon emissions is more unnecessary government enforcement!

But there are some good things about lessening our dependency on fossil fuels that must be attended to.

WWWTT

[waldo]

So...what then? We wait until 2030-2050 for China to pollute their way to prosperity and equality with the USA? Isn't the damage already being done? Who are going to be the next set of developing have-nots after China and India?

wait? Of course not... do you interpret anything I've ever stated as suggesting 'we' delay emission reduction targets/commitments? As I stated, my presenting that graphic was simply in response to your continuing to pound out the 'Kyoto exceptions' drumbeat. Again, at the time of the initial Kyoto Protocol, in regards to cumulative emissions, those countries granted temporary exemptions were not a part of the industrialized nation grouping that had caused the atmospheric accumulation. Again, my reference to 2030-2050 (scenario dependent), was simply to provide a perspective on the history of accumulated emissions, particularly in regards the studies I mention that suggest China's emission levels won't match those of the U.S. (even at the current China accelerated rate), until between 2030-2050 (scenario dependent).

Kyoto was a toothless and therefore useless agreement, as was Copenhagen. If people are serious about actually doing something about it, the agreements have to be binding and they have to include all of the major players.

easy for you to say. Yet, Kyoto was anything but a failure... as a first step,... building a 'road map', one that provided a framework for a myriad of items, each iteratively built upon, COP meeting after COP meeting. The Kyoto Protocol did legally bind developed countries to emission reduction targets... but you knew that, right? Oh, I guess you didn't. So, we had 195 countries sign/ratify the legally binding Kyoto Protocol... of course, most significantly absent was the world's #1 emitter, the U.S.. Perhaps you have some silver bullet solution to getting all countries engaged, actually have them meet their agreed to binding targets and/or move them beyond pledged reduction commitments to all encompassing binding agreements... with your suggested 'teeth'. But your "teeth" would be better than the "teeth" within Kyoto that Canada avoided... by renouncing Kyoto at COP17... but you knew that, right? Yes, that's right, Harper Conservatives avoided the Kyoto Protocol teeth, the teeth you're so clamoring for, by bailing from it. Oh, I guess you didn't know that one either, hey?

Thanks!? That's precisely what I was talking about. There's a reason why this is happening. Western countries are outsourcing their manufacturing to places where labour is cheaper and environmental laws lax/non-existant. Slapping new and expensive climate regulation on western industry while not doing the same for China only accelerates this trend. We end up with little/no net emissions reductions and weaker domestic economy.

If we want a climate treaty, China and India etc need to play ball, otherwise we're going to need to wait for nuclear fusion or something equally spectacular.

you don't know what you're talking about. There are no new considerations to exempting any countries. My linking that article/graphic was to reinforce a most inconvenient point for China bashers... that a significant level of the emissions attributed to China (to developing countries) are as a result of meeting western countries consumer demand; i.e., the effective outsourcing of developed country emissions to developing countries. Of course that's a bit of a contentious item itself when deciding what reference levels to assign to those developing countries that deal with the brunt of western countries emission outsourcing.

[socialist]

You haven't heard about capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, have you? Or isn't that done in the Canadian language?

you get your ass handed to you in this thread and you criticize my spelling. i know first words need capitals. i just choose not to waste my time with it when i'm typing. waldo doesn't use capitals and by reading old posts he had put every one of you foolish deniers in your places at one time or another.

i appreciate waldo's knowledge and his care for the earth. we need more people like him. plus it's funny watching him rip the deniers on this forum apart with FACTS.

[waldo]

Carbon dioxide is not pollution.

In fact,all life on Earth would die without its presence in our atmosphere.(all life as we know it is carbon based)

As far as I'm concerned,regulating carbon emissions is more unnecessary government enforcement!

no - it's not toxic pollution; however, it is air pollution, deemed dangerous & subject to monitoring, reporting, regulation and verification - see the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). (I earlier detailed the related EPA endangerment finding and related regulation that aligns with the U.S. Clean Air Act).

your overall know-nothingness... and denial, is profound - you and Shady deserve each other!

[waldo]

the only dance is yours Pliny... your avoidance dance. As you've done many times over, you drop your unsubstantiated opinion and proceed to challenge others to refute it. As I pointed out to you, I've played your game, several times now - I pointed out a couple of those instances where you, danced and bobbed and weaved and shucked and jived... after lengthy exchanges across multiple threads, your Mr. Wizard self was laid bare, exposed for its nothingness, its nonsense. This is now the second time I've replayed the following exchange sequence. As I said, if you're not prepared to bring Mr. Wizard out again...

Replaying exchange sequences shows nothing.

you have nothing to offer Pliny - why do you bother to reply if you're not prepared to substantiate your unsubstantiated opinion/claim?

....doncha think?

yes! I do think you're blustering, you're avoiding, you're back-pedaling. Is there a particular reason you won't substantiate your unsubstantiated opinion/claim? Where is your Mr. Wizard? Release the Wiz, Pliny!

[Pliny]

While this substantive post goes unresponded to, see dribble below:

No wonder so many good posters have left.

"Drivel" would be a better word. Why are you still here?

[wyly]

Shady is right!

Carbon dioxide is not pollution.

In fact,all life on Earth would die without its presence in our atmosphere.(all life as we know it is carbon based)

As far as I'm concerned,regulating carbon emissions is more unnecessary government enforcement!

But there are some good things about lessening our dependency on fossil fuels that must be attended to.

WWWTT

shady is rarely never right.

concentrations that exceed natural levels becomes a pollutant, CO2 levels of 5% are fatal...HVAC engineers design building air exchange systems that deal with far lower levels of CO2 to counter SBS, Sick Building Syndrome

[Pliny]

yes! I do think you're blustering, you're avoiding, you're back-pedaling. Is there a particular reason you won't substantiate your unsubstantiated opinion/claim? Where is your Mr. Wizard? Release the Wiz, Pliny!

Temperature rise should be exponential if the AGW theory is correct. It is not exponential and we will have to wait a century to see if it is even rising linearly. The theory that current GW, that is; the rise of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in a century, is entirely from anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus incorrect.

The "projections" are getting closer, 2020 is your latest projection for catastrophe. What will be your excuse if there is no catastrophe? We acted soon enough? Some scientists are saying it is already too late. Are they right, waldo? We managed to save the ozone layer, thank goodness. Can we do the same with GW or will we have to maybe divert some sunshine out into space with a big mirror or something. Let's start collecting revenues to get that done. We could have a sunshine tax. If it is sunny where you are, you pay the tax. Maybe absorbing heat with solar panels will give you credits to reduce the tax. That would boost solar panel sales. It could have saved Solyndra! But nooooo....where is the attention focused instead?...carbon taxes. Sheesh!