The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

[Ban Hammer 13,475]

So what you are saying is that if we let potentially fertile land world-wide grow plants and trees without being inhibited we can decrease the impact of rising CO2. Anybody spot a problem here?

yeah, all them hippies that will show up to hug the trees!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

yeah, all them hippies that will show up to hug the trees!

Not a problem around here. The local pharmacy has plenty of calamine lotion.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[james&olya 1,121]

Not a problem around here. The local pharmacy has plenty of calamine lotion.

Clever

If all this vegetation is going to save us from the consequences of markedly higher CO2 levels, maybe we need to get busy uncovering all the land that has been paved over and built upon. Also maybe changing agricultural practices to keep vegetation growing on the land continuously year-round. But if this is to be our 'fix' for the CO2 problem and we don't return the land to its natural state to do this, maybe that fix isn't going to save us? Think about it!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Clever

If all this vegetation is going to save us from the consequences of markedly higher CO2 levels, maybe we need to get busy uncovering all the land that has been paved over and built upon. Also maybe changing agricultural practices to keep vegetation growing on the land continuously year-round. But if this is to be our 'fix' for the CO2 problem and we don't return the land to its natural state to do this, maybe that fix isn't going to save us? Think about it!

You can play around a bit with the scenarios. Cultivated land and managed groves optimize the use of resources to promote growth, rather than inhibit it. Old growth and wildland contain a lot more anaerobic processes that actually increase the concentration of the potentially more dangerous gases like methane, a greenhouse gas, and ammonia. But, then again, so do poultry and livestock contribute to the release of these "swamp gases". Also there is the issue of run-off contamination and saline concentration from the use of irrigation.

The key thing to take away from the NASA study, would be that the climate model will have to be further refined to include other variables, not just the ones that support one political conclusion, or the other.

[james&olya 1,121]

climate model will have to be further refined to include other variables, not just the ones that support one political conclusion, or the other.

Science has nothing to do with politics! If it does, it is not science! Reasonable politics is informed by science. Reasonable science is indifferent to politics.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Science has nothing to do with politics! If it does, it is not science! Reasonable politics is informed by science. Reasonable science is indifferent to politics.

It's denier-speak for saying that somehow Left Wing politicians (because of course, only they would believe that humans could affect the climate) will stand to gain something by forcing everyone out of their cars and on bicycles....like maybe Chariman Mao will be smiling down from heaven at them.

Edited January 5, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Science has nothing to do with politics! If it does, it is not science! Reasonable politics is informed by science. Reasonable science is indifferent to politics.

Seriously?

[Pooky 3,825]

The key thing to take away from the NASA study, would be that the climate model will have to be further refined to include other variables, not just the ones that support one political conclusion, or the other.

Get the science right, get the scientists back to being trusted, remove the doubt and give the politicians no choices.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Get the science right, get the scientists back to being trusted, remove the doubt and give the politicians no choices.

Are you fvcking serious? Scientists must now be distrusted? Accepting science doesn't require faith or trust, just a bit of logic and rationale.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Are you fvcking serious? Scientists must now be distrusted? Accepting science doesn't require faith or trust, just a bit of logic and rationale.

You mean the like the Big Tobacco Scientists and the Exxon-Mobil Oil Scientists and the Monsanto Hybrid Corn Scientists? We should trust those too?

[Pooky 3,825]

Are you fvcking serious? Scientists must now be distrusted? Accepting science doesn't require faith or trust, just a bit of logic and rationale.

Where have you been the past couple of years, hiding in a cave?

It may not make a ripple in the scientific community itself, but there have been a string of high-profile instances where climate change scientists have been made to look like fools, at best, and cynical manipulators, at worst - to the general public.

Himalayan glaciers, anyone?

The "Climategate" e-mails?

That's the kind of trust I'm talking about, the trust of the general public that the scientists involved aren't making it all up, or cutting bits out that they don't want people to see because it doesn't fit with their theories. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one iota whether there is any truth in these controversies, the damage is done with the people who matter, the public, and the climate science community has to win back that trust.

[james&olya 1,121]

Where have you been the past couple of years, hiding in a cave?

It may not make a ripple in the scientific community itself, but there have been a string of high-profile instances where climate change scientists have been made to look like fools, at best, and cynical manipulators, at worst - to the general public.

Himalayan glaciers, anyone?

The "Climategate" e-mails?

That's the kind of trust I'm talking about, the trust of the general public that the scientists involved aren't making it all up, or cutting bits out that they don't want people to see because it doesn't fit with their theories. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one iota whether there is any truth in these controversies, the damage is done with the people who matter, the public, and the climate science community has to win back that trust.

The problem is not that the scientists cannot be trusted! The problem is that the media, faux news in particular, cannot be trusted to be responsible in who they are willing to quote or give a soapbox to. They have an agenda and the truth takes a back seat!! I am not even sure the truth is ever even allowed to get on board that train! When they are willing to quote bozos so out of the mainstream thinking within the scientific community, and not ever point that out to their viewers, it's no wonder you have so many people that are now so sure that GW is a hoax. That was/is the agenda at faux news and it is at the behest of its corporate/big oil backers. The general public is not in a very good position to sort out who is and is not a reputable scientist on any given issue. This is where honest journalism has a responsibility and it is a responsibility totally ignored by faux!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where have you been the past couple of years, hiding in a cave?

It may not make a ripple in the scientific community itself, but there have been a string of high-profile instances where climate change scientists have been made to look like fools, at best, and cynical manipulators, at worst - to the general public.

Himalayan glaciers, anyone?

The "Climategate" e-mails?

That's the kind of trust I'm talking about, the trust of the general public that the scientists involved aren't making it all up, or cutting bits out that they don't want people to see because it doesn't fit with their theories. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one iota whether there is any truth in these controversies, the damage is done with the people who matter, the public, and the climate science community has to win back that trust.

I figured you were referring to the so-called 'Climategate', but I wanted you to come out and say it. First of all, there are several aspects of GW. There is the scientific theory - which is conclusive and not open for scientific debate. It is real and there isn't going to be an email or a scientist caught in bathroom stall tapping his secret in morse code that it is all just a hoax. There is also the conclusive evidence that CO2 emissions have a significant impact on earth's rising temperature, which is also not up for scientific debate. Juxtaposed to that solid science are the deniers, who have used this so-called 'Climategate' as a gotcha moment, to suggest that if one scientist could have made errors, exaggerated data, or flat out fudged the results, that that would make the whole theory of Global Warming a joke.

If we are to leave science up for public debate, trust, or scrutiny, the real science gets dumbed down to stupid, rhetorical arguments as demonstrated here in this thread, in newspaper letters to the editor, and on news stations across the country. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is already taking bold steps in not only trying to reduce CO2 emissions, but preparing for the ecological consequences of the rapidly rising temperature. Global Warming is real and is far too important to get caught up in the unscientific public debates. What we should be discussing/debating over is how best to reduce CO2 emissions and not in these incredibly stupid arguments that because it's snowing in Florida, the earth isn't getting warmer, so there's nothing to be concerned about.

As for the so-called, 'Climategate' fiasco - The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming – two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

Edited January 6, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Boiler 45,928]

The House of Commons Report was a whitewash. Plenty of info on that.

But for argument sake lets say it is not a scam, that the proponents are correct and that everything will happen if CO2 emissions are not curbed.

Does anyone really believe that there is a hope in hell of all these regulations actually doing anything? That the Chinese and Indians will take any notice? Just imagine the Italians obeying!

Carbon trading tempts firms to make greenhouse gas

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19878-carbon-trading-tempts-firms-to-make-greenhouse-gas.html

Just one example.

There are people around where I am who have wind generators, I looked at the numbers, I was interest in putting one in.

45 year pay back. Except it would not last that long.

Only works if you have a massive (expensive) battery back up or are grid tied. Both the generator and batteries have global warming sic impacts.

In the UK you have the crazy situation of wind generators being paid NOT to supply the grid, the supply is to intermitant and screws up their distribution.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does anyone really believe that there is a hope in hell of all these regulations actually doing anything? That the Chinese and Indians will take any notice? Just imagine the Italians obeying!

The regulations on acid rain and ozone depleting compounds have been successful in reducing those harmful chemicals in the atmosphere.

Do you have some evidence that regulations on air pollutants have not been successful in improving air quality?