From Australia no less

[cybercoma]

then taking actions that hamper economic activity are futile, a waste of time, and an imposition on poor and middle class people who cannot afford to buy "carbon offsets" (link).

Some things to consider.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning an increased concentration will raise the surface temperature of the planet.

Human activity, from deforestation to the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Therefore, there is without a doubt anthropogenic global warming.

If globe is warming naturally, going through a cycle (whatever you want to call it), should we be adding to it if we can find a way to reduce our impact?

edit: I'd just like to add, that anyone who thinks we should create economic strife in the process is incredibly myopic. Offing humanity by increasing poverty will be just as bad if not worse than the effects of global warming. We need to work on a viable solution to reduce our added impact on global warming.

[B. Max]

name='cybercoma' date='Apr 29 2007, 11:33 PM' post='213940']

Some things to consider.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning an increased concentration will raise the surface temperature of the planet.

Wrong, it never raised temperatures in the past, why would it now. It is a minor player as a green house gas and should not even be considered as a green house gas.

Human activity, from deforestation to the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Therefore, there is without a doubt anthropogenic global warming.

There is no evidence to suggest that.

If globe is warming naturally, going through a cycle (whatever you want to call it), should we be adding to it if we can find a way to reduce our impact?

We are not

[jbg]

Human activity, from deforestation to the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Read Mann's excellent book 1491 and learn about the pre-Columbian deforestation of both Americas. Trust me, there was plenty of it.

[cybercoma]

There's no point discussing anything about the environment to people who deny that carbon dioxide traps heat and deny that less trees absorbing carbon dioxide will create higher concentrations. I'd like some evidence from a credible source, perhaps from a peer-reviewed journal, that this is the case. Clearly it is not, since there is consensus on these two things among those who actually study this for a living.

I'm not supporting Kyoto, nor am I saying we should jump into something that will create economic problems for our nation, but you're still going to treat me as though I am. If you can't accept even the simplest of facts that there is agreement on by hundreds of environmental scientists, there's really no point in even discussing the matter.

[sunsettommy]

There's no point discussing anything about the environment to people who deny that carbon dioxide traps heat and deny that less trees absorbing carbon dioxide will create higher concentrations. I'd like some evidence from a credible source, perhaps from a peer-reviewed journal, that this is the case. Clearly it is not, since there is consensus on these two things among those who actually study this for a living.

I'm not supporting Kyoto, nor am I saying we should jump into something that will create economic problems for our nation, but you're still going to treat me as though I am. If you can't accept even the simplest of facts that there is agreement on by hundreds of environmental scientists, there's really no point in even discussing the matter.

CO2 does not "trap heat".It absorbs IR and reradiate heat in all directions.Some of it still leave the earths atmosphere anyway.Part of the IR from earth never get absorbed at all and goes on into outerspace.

"Greenhouse gases" DELAY heat transfer to outspace.Heat still goes out in time.

Trees that are young and actively growing vigorously absorbs significant CO2.The aging tree absorbs little and the dead tree release CO2.

A recently published science paper claims that increasing forest cover actually promote warming of the earth.

Peer review process is only one conduit for credible sources.They managed to allow the "hockey stick paper bad as it is slip through and land on the front page of the 2001 IPCC report.

It took two NON scientists to expose the worthlessness of the paper.Where were the credentialed climate scientists who failed to spot the low grade statistical quality of the paper?

LOL

Shall I have to list the many consensus errors to show that it is a worthless standard?

Consensus is NOT a valid measurement for understanding science.It can take just one person to topple the so called consensus and has happened so many times.

You need to drop this idea that a consensus position proves the science of anything.

[ScottSA]

I think people are still busy splitting hairs over cause and whether we can affect change.

That's hardly a "hair split". In fact, it's the very heart of the Kyoto issue. If we're dealing with natural cycles, then taking actions that hamper economic activity are futile, a waste of time, and an imposition on poor and middle class people who cannot afford to buy "carbon offsets" (link).

What an excellent business idea! Like opening a perfectly legal mugging shop.

[sunsettommy]

Here is a SNIP from a blog written by a scientist ( CRABBY ) on the forum I am A Administrator of.

A New Dark Age for Science

Ordinarily, as I introduce the study of science to a classroom full of nervous students, I begin by describing a time, over two thousand years ago, when science was simply a matter of conjecture and hypothesis. The Greek philosophers, who dominated thought during that period, spent considerable time speculating about the nature of the world and its workings. Amazingly, it appears that it never occurred to these great thinkers to test their ideas with experiments. Consequently, scientific “truth” was recognized solely on the basis of influence, consensus, and compatibility with cultural beliefs. Science did not begin an organized movement forward, making real progress, until the hypothesis making of the Greek philosophers was wed to experimentation. These two endeavors lie at the heart of the scientific method, and are indispensable requirements for an honest investigation of scientific phenomena.

It is human nature to develop an attachment to an idea or a hypothesis, and while science has always faced the challenge of such biased expectations, the truth eventually emerges as a consequence of honest researchers setting personal bias aside. Even well orchestrated frauds are exposed, because false ideas wither in the face of properly designed experiments. This self-correcting nature of science has served us well, until now.

It is obvious to this observer that we are on a dangerous path where, once again, scientific truth is being established by popularity and consensus. This radical swing away from a well-established strategy of dispassionate, rational investigation, to a policy of advocating a convenient truth that better fits a social agenda, will hurt rather than hinder, and may damage the value of science permanently.

More here if you want to see just how worthless the concept that consensus is.

[jbg]

I think people are still busy splitting hairs over cause and whether we can affect change.

That's hardly a "hair split". In fact, it's the very heart of the Kyoto issue. If we're dealing with natural cycles, then taking actions that hamper economic activity are futile, a waste of time, and an imposition on poor and middle class people who cannot afford to buy "carbon offsets" (link).

What an excellent business idea! Like opening a perfectly legal mugging shop.

I assume you mean the sale of carbon credits?