This was an eye opener - cont.

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15701167#post15701167 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
ok, fine scott.


but just play along, humor me, and list say....3 major organisations.

i understand that scientist have been wrong in the past, but the majority of scientist, and the vast majority of the most credible associations believe. what more proof do you need. i'm not saying dont be skeptical. but if they tell you to act, you act.

if your doctors tell you you need heart surgery, are you going to say...well my priest said he could cure it with herbs so no thank you?

I think you are missing the point. Just because the majority of scientific organizations believe something, does not make it true and it does not provide any "proof" (as you refer to it).

I advocate taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, etc. The key word there is "steps", not massively disruptive leaps. Impatience will not help solve the problem and is just as likely to do more harm as it is to do good. We need to be persistant in working towards a realistic goal. Setting unrealistic goals and ramming them through society by declaring the absolute urgency does not help. For many people, it may actually hurt the situation to set goals that cannot be acheived because it breeds a sense hopelessness when those goals are not acheived.

Here is something to think about:

While generally noble and upstanding, scientific organizations do have self-interests. As a group, climatologists have personal investment and stand to gain from an issue such as climate change. I am not talking just about monetary gain, though scientists are much more likely to recieve research funding if there is there is an issue they can help resolve that is percieved to be very important. They also gain from notoriety, attraction of more gifted young scientists to the field, a personal sense of importance and contribution to a cause, etc. I don't want to imply that climate change is some conspiracy theory, because it is not. I will say that there is some element of self-interest that plays a part in the positions adopted by large scientific organizations and the manner in which those organizations express their positions on particular topics. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, but it needs to be understood that even scientific organizations are not totally selfless.

Scott

 

[stugray]

The founding father of "Greenhouse Warming", Roger Revelle , in his own words "look before you leap"

"In the premiere issue of Cosmos, in 1991, Revelle and coauthors S.F. Singer and C. Starr contributed a brief essay, "œWhat to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap." The three write: "œDrastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective."

They continue, "œStringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that "˜. . . those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits.'"

Revelle and his colleagues conclude, "œIt would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. "˜Look before you leap' may still be good advice."

Stu

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15715534#post15715534 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
The founding father of "Greenhouse Warming", Roger Revelle , in his own words "look before you leap"

"In the premiere issue of Cosmos, in 1991, Revelle and coauthors S.F. Singer and C. Starr contributed a brief essay, "œWhat to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap." The three write: "œDrastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective."

They continue, "œStringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that "˜. . . those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits.'"

Revelle and his colleagues conclude, "œIt would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. "˜Look before you leap' may still be good advice."

Stu

Fred singer is a JOKE. and so are you for quoting him from way back in 1991! wakey wakey its 2009 now! get a grip! 18 year later the world now knows what a corrupt JOKE fred singer and his cronys are.


Fred singer also denied the link between passive inhalation of tobbacco smoke and lung cancer, while being paid by the tobbacco industry. he also denied that CFC's were damaging the ozone layer and there was no hole in the ozone layer. he also said that any steps taken to cut CFC's would damage the U.S economy. where have we heard that before?!

Now stop this denial nonsense and stop posting links to these SCUM BAGS.

 

[ScooterTDI]

I haven't read the whole document Stu is quoting from, but I don't see how the quotes Stu provided could be considered "denialist". It isn't saying that nothing should be done about climate change. It is simply saying that the steps taken to couter climate change should be performed in a well-planned and methodical manner that accounts for the relationships between the risks and benefits.

By the way, you are making a "JOKE" out of yourself with the disrepectful tone of your comments. We are all adults here and we should be able to discuss these sorts of topics as such. I'm not trying to be rude. I have the utmost respect for your viewpoint, but there is simply no need to resort to name-calling. Stu and I have not called you anything disrepectful and I think it would be appropriate if you reciprocated that courtesy.

Scott

 

[stugray]

Rossini,

I am perfectly aware when the quote was published.

I guess once wise statements get to be over 10 years old we cannot use them anymore.

Hmm..... Wisdom has a shelf-life. I did not know that.

And for the record I AM ON your side of the entire argument.
I have stated that before. I just think that alarmist thinking is counter-productive.

As has been pointed out before, the last time there was widespread panic about the climate, the scientists were warning us about the impending ice age. See how that turned out?

Stu

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15720789#post15720789 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I have the utmost respect for your viewpoint, but there is simply no need to resort to name-calling. Stu and I have not called you anything disrepectful and I think it would be appropriate if you reciprocated that courtesy.

Scott

This bears repeating It's a key element to keeping these discussions open. It's alright to attack the idea, but don't attack the person.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15721111#post15721111 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
As has been pointed out before, the last time there was widespread panic about the climate, the scientists were warning us about the impending ice age. See how that turned out?

Stu

There is a big difference between the "ice age" panic of the 70's and the current climate talk of today. Even back than, the scientists promoting the ice age panic were a small minority with most climate scientists actually expecting warming instead. It's just back than, ice age fanatics made for better news stories

 

[Rossini]

I saw scenes from Kenya on the news last night. Their worst drought in living history. Wildlife and livestock lay dieing. People killing each other over the last supplies of food and land with tufts of dry grass on.

While this and lots of other global warming related issues go on. People in the west live their comfortable lives twiddling their thumbs over whether it's worth acting on this huge global problem and trying to find ways of making it look like it's not man made and wont cause too much of a problem if it was anyway.

It is a CRIME to life on this planet. We have known about man made climate change and global warming for over 20 YEARS and we are still looking for excuses.

 

[ScooterTDI]

How do you know the drought in Kenya is the result of global warming? There have been severe regional droughts that have occurred long before humans started producing greenhouse gases in quantity. As I understand it, global warming isn't currently the major driver of whether particular natural disasters occur. Rather, it may be contributing to the severity of the of those disasters.

It is very easy to take any natural disaster and blame it on global warming. It seems that people now claim that nearly every natural disaster nowadays is somehow tied to global warming without any evidence of causality.

I think you are really ignoring what I have been trying to say. So I will repeat again, for the millionth time, that I am not against taking steps to counter global warming. There more than enough reasons to become more energy efficient and reduce emmisions. I am against making impatient and irrational changes that have not been clearly planned out. You can't change the world entirely in a day, month, year, or even a decade. We should start now, but we should have a clear long-term plan of action that has been thoroughly explored before we start making too many drastic changes.

Lets take the example of ethanol. There was a substantial push to shift towards ethanol because it was considered a renewable energy source before the full implications of ethanol as an energy source were explored. Corn farmers in the US started sending a significant proportion of their crop to ethanol plants to produce this fuel. This drove up of the price of corn and food in general. Now the US is a MAJOR exporter of corn. When the corn crop was shifted more towards ethanol production, the quantity of exported corn was reduced and the prices for foreign markets increased.

Don't you think those folks in Kenya would have liked to be able to buy corn at a lower price so that they would be better able to feed their families during their time of hardship?

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

If anyone is interested, here is a USDA link talking about how the U.S. will have to fill Kenya's production/consumption gap this year:

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent GAIN Publications/Kenya Corn Update_Nairobi_Kenya_8-27-2009.pdf

Scott

 

[Rossini]

climate change costs lots of money hey scooter.

just think how much it will cost in the future if we dont start reducing emmisions now and protect against going past +2 degrees increase.

and yes global warming is "amplifieing" natural disasters, I never said it was the sole cause of them. It has been altering rainfall patterns in eastern africa for years now, this is a very well studied subject apparantley.

time to stop fiddling while rome burns.

and yes like any right minded person I am completley against current biofuels and have supported campaigns against them for a few years. hopefully there will be a second generation that can be grown sustainabley.

We all know why the U.S went Ethanol crazy though dont we. It's all those pathetic one person occupancy gas guzzling SUV's that are driven in north america......

 

[Rossini]

.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15735558#post15735558 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
climate change costs lots of money hey scooter.

just think how much it will cost in the future if we dont start reducing emmisions now and protect against going past +2 degrees increase.

and yes global warming is "amplifieing" natural disasters, I never said it was the sole cause of them. It has been altering rainfall patterns in eastern africa for years now, this is a very well studied subject apparantley.

time to stop fiddling while rome burns.

and yes like any right minded person I am completley against current biofuels and have supported campaigns against them for a few years. hopefully there will be a second generation that can be grown sustainabley.

We all know why the U.S went Ethanol crazy though dont we. It's all those pathetic one person occupancy gas guzzling SUV's that are driven in north america......

Well, then I guess I just don't understand some of your comments. The ethanol situtation is a DIRECT result of policy being made in a RUSH to solve the global warming situation. Had the policy makers taken the time to fully investigate the implications of ethanol as an energy source, they probably would not have been pushing for it. In the rush to solve the problem, they actually delayed MEANINGFUL reforms from being made.

I am not against current biofuels, I think that some more work needs to be done to make them viable solutions, but there is a sound foundation of principles that has been set. Ethanol wouldn't be bad if they figure out how to cost-effectively catalyze the breakdown of cellulose on a industrial scale. Soybean biodiesel is semi-viable because soybeans are legumes that actually improve the nutrient content of the soil. Instead of letting fields go fallow, farmers could be producing soybeans to make fuel out of. Of course, there is still the possibility that biodiesel production could affect food prices. Even better would be the algae-based biodiesel produced on non-arable land. Gasification of waste materials may be viable in the next few years. In short, a lot of progress has been made.

I don't understand how SUVs are related to ethanol. Explain?

Scott

 

[billsreef]

You really have to look at the corn lobbyist to learn why we use corn to produce ethanol. It has nothing to do with coming up with a green alternative (other than a marketing gimmick), and everything to do with subsidy's to corn growers. Even if ethanol was a good alternative, There are far more efficient crops to be growing to produce it, corn is one of the least efficient. Unfortunately one can't really dig into the meat of the corn for ethanol problem without getting into politics

 

[ScooterTDI]

That is likely all true, but using ethanol as a fuel was at least pushed for under the guise of reducing global warming and energy consumption. I am sure that at least some of the policy makers involved were not fully aware of the "real" reasons to promote ethanol and simply rushed into it due to the alarmist mentality that has been associated with global warming in recent years.

Scott

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15736186#post15736186 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
That is likely all true, but using ethanol as a fuel was at least pushed for under the guise of reducing global warming and energy consumption. I am sure that at least some of the policy makers involved were not fully aware of the "real" reasons to promote ethanol and simply rushed into it due to the alarmist mentality that has been associated with global warming in recent years.

Scott

That would be the marketing gimmick I referred to

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15736241#post15736241 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
That would be the marketing gimmick I referred to

:thumbsup:

 

[Rossini]

[i
I don't understand how SUVs are related to ethanol. Explain?

Scott [/B]

You know those big ugly pathetic SUV's. Well they have large internal combustion engines that can run on fuels like ethanol.

:eek2:

At the end of the day if we are to tackle global warming people will have to get smart and sensible and drive fuel efficient and electric/hydrogen cars. Not on fuels that have pushed food prices up, caused huge human rights issues for indeginous people in tropical countries, and massive environmental degradation like deforestion of the worlds most bio diverse places and massive release of green house gases from burning and converting these tropical forests.

Driving a car/truck that does low mpg has got to be one of the most ignorant selfish things anyone can be doing in todays times.

 

[jdhuyvetter]

Uh oh, you try to take away my 1967 Mustangs, we going to fight!!!!!

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15736318#post15736318 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
You know those big ugly pathetic SUV's. Well they have large internal combustion engines that can run on fuels like ethanol.

:eek2:

At the end of the day if we are to tackle global warming people will have to get smart and sensible and drive fuel efficient and electric/hydrogen cars. Not on fuels that have pushed food prices up, caused huge human rights issues for indeginous people in tropical countries, and massive environmental degradation like deforestion of the worlds most bio diverse places and massive release of green house gases from burning and converting these tropical forests.

Driving a car/truck that does low mpg has got to be one of the most ignorant selfish things anyone can be doing in todays times.

Yes, I know what an SUV is. I am wondering how you concluded that SUVs are responsible for the push for ethanol.

People forget that energy is energy and its not free (from a physics perspective). Yes, electric cars don't emit at the tailpipe. They emit at the powerplant. Of course, the dynamos at the powerplant are a lot more efficient than the typical gas engine, but there is still a significant net CO2 emmision involved because those powerplants are usually running on things like coal and oil. Now, if nuclear power were more widely used we could have electric cars with virtually no CO2 emmisions, but we would have to find appropriate methods of disposing/storing the nuclear waste. The thing to keep in mind with electric cars is that the energy storage devices like batteries can have a very serious environmental impact that needs to be adequately addressed before the electric vehicles can be considered a truly viable option.

Biofuels (and other alternative fuels) do not necessarily have to drive food prices up. Like I mentioned, extra soybeans can be planted on fallow fields and algae-based biodiesel can be produced on non-arable land. This minimizes or eliminates the impact on food prices.

Scott