Global Warming: The New Religion

[Njaco]

Originally Posted by Civettone ......As 95% of scientists agree that there is global warming going on,....

They also say there is NOTHING anyone can do about it.

[FLYBOYJ]

Again as stated, it goes back to who or what is causing it. Personally I believe about 20% of it is manmade, but that's my own oppinion.

Right now it's the fad. A few years from now acid rain will be in vogue....

[Jabberwocky]

Has anyone here read the Stern Report or the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

I've waded through both, for professional and personal interest (as well as the EC findings and the some of the anti-GW reports, like those from the CATO institute). As far as the majority of climate scientists are concerned, the debate is over, and was over about 8-10 years ago. Golbal Warming is occuring and humans are definately contributing, although they are still arguing about the TOTAL contribution of mankind and the ultimate outcomes of it.

The debate now is political: who pays for what is essentially the largest market failure in human history?

The first world doesn't want to pay (even though it can best afford it) for greenhouse gas emissions, because it is the chief emitter, and will be impacted by ETSs or other schemes relatively harder although probably for a shorter interval, as the technology to correct the problems will be developed in the first world. There are some European governments who have realised that a 1-2% sacrifice in first world GDP over the next 10 years is likely to prevent a 10% collapse in first world GDP and up to a 20% collapse in worldwide GDP if we don't reverse current trends.

(Its also an efficiency issue. In the aviation industry emissions per flight have been cut by more than 40% in the past 20 years, and the smaller budget carriers, with newere fleets, are up to 30% more efficient than their legacy airline forebears. When new aircraft like the B787, A380 and A350 com on line, expect to see a further 10-12% reduction in fuel burn and a 15% reduction in overall emissions. There are similar stories in the automotive industry and manufacturing)

The developing world doesn't want to pay. It uses older technology and first world cast offs to circumvent its own development cycle. So its older, less efficient industries are responsible for relatively higher emissions than comparable first world industries, despite a lower per capita emission base. Imagine the environemental impact when (not if) the Chinese and Indians double their 'carbon footprints' per capita, in about 10 years time (or possibly less).

The third world can't pay. Its at the bottom end of the food chain, and it doesn't have the cash or the political clout and will to do anything about it. Its going to survive of trickle down effects. Unfortunately, the parts of the world that will be most effected by global warming are also usually the least developed, so the poorest 40% of the world is forecast to suffer the worst effects.

[Civettone]

Good post, Jabberwocky! Spot on!

Originally Posted by Njaco

They also say there is NOTHING anyone can do about it.

No, they don't. Source??

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Right now it's the fad. A few years from now acid rain will be in vogue....

That bird flew some years ago. GW has been around for over 20 years now and can in no way be compared to the pseudo-scientific wonder stories of a new ice age, meteors, etc
And isn't acid rain related to GW?

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

And isn't acid rain related to GW?

Kris

No

[Matt308]

Its not an argument of whether GW is occurring here folks. The argument is whether man's contributions are solely driving the warming. Go back and review the video. We have encountered other eras of global warming during virtually no manmade Co2 emissions and yet other eras of global cooling during peak CO2 production.

They question becomes whether we as a society spend billions and billions of dollars with virtually no results. Cause and effect. Here is where the chicken littles of the GW religion are falling short. I'm not buying it without further correlation between the two.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

No

Aren't both caused by air pollution? I said they were related, not the same. Though I can understand you can see they are not related as it's not the same kind of air pollution.

Originally Posted by Matt308

The argument is whether man's contributions are solely driving the warming.

That's not what they're trying to prove. The question is: is it mainly anthropogenic?

I'm not buying it without further correlation between the two.

I think the difference is the rate of warming. These changes happened over a longer period than the current GW.

Kris

[Matt308]

Georgia flunks the Prius


Toyota may be flying high in eco-friendliness with its Prius hybrid car, but Georgia emissions testing equipment doesn't see it that way. 2004 Toyota Prius hybrids are now being required to go through emissions testing to complete yearly registration procedures, but the each and every one fails the test.

The emissions test requires that a probe be placed in the vehicle's exhaust pipe to measure the particulates emitted while the engine is at idle or the use of OBD-II to test 1996 and newer vehicles. The problem is that the Prius doesn't exactly "idle." When the Prius is "on" and at a standstill, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is stopped. If the ICE is not running at a constant idle speed, the emission test cannot complete and the vehicle fails.

Owners must still pay the $25 testing fee for the aborted test even though all emissions tests centers across the state of Georgia know ahead of time that the vehicle will fail the test. Heather Abrams of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division says that the Prius must take the doomed test regardless so that the vehicle information can be put into the state's system. Owners must take their failed emissions certificate to a GCAF Waiver Center to get permission to receive a new tag or call in with the code number on the aborted test.

"We don't want the consumer to have to go any further than necessary to get their tag," said Abrams.

"I don't think it's right that I have to pay $25 if their system can't even accommodate my car," said Prius owner Rich Harrelson. "Why don't just exempt the Prius in general?"

Perhaps Chuck McClellan of MidTown Emissions says it best, "They say no good deed goes unpunished. I guess this is one of those deals."

And before you think that the state is just trying to milk Prius owners out of $25 for a failed test, the state only gets 95 cents from every emissions test. The state is currently in the process of updating its system so that 2005 model year Prius hybrids will be accommodated. There is no word, however, on how other hybrids like the Civic Hybrid and Toyota Highlander Hybrid fair in testing.

[Negative Creep]

I did read that the emissions produced in making the Prius (or pious as it's also known) are far more than the average large engined car puts out in its lifetime. There are also concerns about disposing of the batteries at the end of their life. The most environmentally friendly thing to do it to buy a used car!

[Matt308]

Oh sweet irony!

[Matt308]

The "uptake on anthropogenic carbon" (that's manmade emissions for everyone by Civvetone) that are supposedly directly linked as our primary causal factor of global warming are very directly identified in the WMO Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Climate Change 2007:Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.

Examples and conclusions are sprinked throughout the document, but concise references are found on page 2 and more specifically in Table SPM-1. This report concludes that if manmade emissions are not curtailed the following are only a few scenarios and their likelihood of occurrence.

Impact to water supplies, decrease in farming yields, declining air quaility in cities - Likelihood? Virtually certain.

Increase in deaths due to infectious respiratory diseases, etc., wildfire danger, yadda yadda yadda - Likelihood? Very likely.

And it lists others. So Civvetone here is backup to my statement that the Global Warming doom and gloomers are promoting manmade emissions are the primary reason for increased earth temperatures. I have cited your own precious document from you lauded scientific pool of well meaning wackjobs.

[Civettone]

Matt, you said and I quote:

The argument is whether man's contributions are solely driving the warming.

Unless my language of the English language is failing me again, this is not the same as

So Civvetone here is backup to my statement that the Global Warming doom and gloomers are promoting manmade emissions are the primary reason for increased earth temperatures.

But at least you answered for which I thank you. And you did some reading up in the process which is always good for you!
Kris

edit:
sole·ly (sōl'lē, sō'lē)
adv.
1. Alone; singly: solely responsible.
2. Entirely; exclusively: did it solely for love.

pri·mar·y (prī'mĕr'ē, -mə-rē) pronunciation
adj.
1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.

[Ajax]

sole·ly (sōl'lē, sō'lē)
adv.
1. Alone; singly: solely responsible.
2. Entirely; exclusively: did it solely for love.
pri·mar·y (prī'mĕr'ē, -mə-rē) pronunciation
adj.
1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.

Civettone, you know full well those mistakes were made because they were typed at speed, and if we went around correcting everyone there woldn't be time for debate. You correcting Matt is just a cheap way of "getting at him". Don't bother...

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Matt, you said and I quote:

Unless my language of the English language is failing me again, this is not the same as

But at least you answered for which I thank you. And you did some reading up in the process which is always good for you!
Kris

edit:
sole·ly (sōl'lē, sō'lē)
adv.
1. Alone; singly: solely responsible.
2. Entirely; exclusively: did it solely for love.

pri·mar·y (prī'mĕr'ē, -mə-rē) pronunciation
adj.
1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.

And with that note you 28 year old student social welfare sponge...

[Civettone]

you know full well those mistakes were made because they were typed at speed

No Ajax. This time you're wrong. I already replied to his post with the following: That's not what they're trying to prove. The question is: is it mainly anthropogenic? So Matt knew very well what it was about.

And with that note you 28 year old student social welfare sponge...

You just made my day. I should feel offended - as I'm working to pay my studies - but I found that one quite original!
So ok, we had our fun and I am quite satisfied with that last post of mine and you got to give me the finger and put a little insult in so I'm ready to call it quits if you are

Kris