Consensus DENIED!

[Alceste]

Of course Global Warming may be occurring, what is at issue here is the effect humans have had.

No, what is at issue is: what are we going to do about it?

Europe says: let's invest in alternative energy and transportation and aggressively reduce carbon emissions

North America says: let's stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away, or if forced to discuss it, scrape the bottom of the scientific barrel for anyone who will tell us it's not happening. Anyone. Then we can just sit around and talk about those crazy scientists and how they can't agree on anything - rather than riding bikes, growing our own food or installing windmills - right up until our food runs out.

 

[tomspug]

rather than riding bikes, growing our own food or installing windmills - right up until our food runs out.

While these suggestions make for a great quality of life, they are not going to change the world. I certainly would prefer to live a life that is less reliant on technology in commerce but that is the way our country is. We HAVE to drive to work (or use public transportation).

It is this notion that somehow the future of the world depends on reducing carbon emissions. Bull crap! Ask a REAL environmentalist how to save the world. They will tell you to save the rainforests, protect endangered species, and keep our environment clean. THAT is how you keep the world safe from our filth, not buying solar panels and riding bikes.

 

[tomspug]

I am wondering why you consider a physicist is competent to speak on the field of global warming. Would you also consider climate scientists competent to speak about physics?

You do know that climate falls under PHYSICAL SCIENCES don't you?

 

[Storm]

Would you want a geologist to design your house, or a structural engineer? Seriously, Tom, that was the worst argument I've ever seen from you.

 

[Alceste]

It is this notion that somehow the future of the world depends on reducing carbon emissions. Bull crap! Ask a REAL environmentalist how to save the world.

A real environmentalist, like, say, David Suzuki?

The current global warming crisis has elicited an incredible response from unlikely allies. The world's top scientists agree that we need to stop our fossil fuel addiction if we're going to stop destroying the planet. Even economists are responding to this call for action.

Reducing our fossil fuel dependency requires action on many fronts, including how we live. Here are several ways you can stop global warming, reduce energy consumption and make a difference:

• Have a home energy audit done. Organizations can send out trained professionals to inspect your home and suggest ways to conserve energy. This will also save money on your energy bills. For more information, visit Green Communities Canada at www.gca.ca.
• Create an energy efficient home by purchasing appliances that are ENERGYSTAR© approved, and replace traditional light bulbs with energy efficient compact fluorescents. Remember what your parents told you -turn off all lights when you leave a room, and unplug all unused appliances.
• Purchase your electricity from sustainable energy sources. Ontario residents have a choice of going with green power, and they should.
• Choose locally grown, organic foods that are produced without pesticides. Food transportation causes tremendous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Choose products that generate the least waste and make sure that you compost all organic waste. Recycling paper, cardboard, cans, and bottles also helps reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with landfills.

author - David Suzuki

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Of course Global Warming may be occurring, what is at issue here is the effect humans have had.

The last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report concluded that Global Warming is "unequivocal", not "may be occuring". Another conclusion was that human activity as the main driver is very likely, meaning above 90% certainty.

Also, theres the fact that (according to the most up to date studies), North America has significantly reduced its carbon emissions over the past decade, while Europe has...well, not gone down

No! Its not a fact. Why do you bother to post things like this without checking them for accuracy first? It makes you look like you're ignorant or deliberately spreading falsehoods. I doubt you want people to see you that way so...make a simple change to your mental habits and check your facts first.

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2007 Flash Estimate

As you can see from the statistics above released by the Energy Information Administration (the official energy statistics from the U.S. Government) the net total of carbon emissions has risen "significantly" since 1997. In fact, since 1990 U.S. carbon emissions have risen 19.34%.

Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2006 and inventory report 2008

And as you can also see from the above information compiled by the European Environment Agency, the EU has reduced its carbon emissions from 1990 to 2006 by 7.7%. Not all that significant and the level of emissions haven't improved much since 1998 so you're right about the last decade having stayed pretty much level. However, its still on track to reach the Kyoto treaty targets and his introduced an even more significant -20% reduction target for all 27 EU countries to reach by 2020.

China has increased significantly. So...are we going to convince China to reduce its carbon emissions, or are we going to just sell them our unused carbon credits?

Many international organisations are trying to convince China to reduce its carbon emissions. Do they have your support?

 

[tomspug]

Would you want a geologist to design your house, or a structural engineer? Seriously, Tom, that was the worst argument I've ever seen from you.

No. But you'd want a landscaper to design your landscaping and a geologist to approve the land before you build.

People are so one-track minded on this issue. The amount of factors that affect environmental science is so huge. And everyone is trying to make it so f-ing simple. Is a physicists opinion relevant. YES! Of course it is! As is an astronomer, especially one who is an expert on gravitational and solar impacts on our planet. How about a geologists opinion? Does it matter? YES! YES AGAIN! This is what I don't get about you people that refuse to hear anything from anyone other than climatologists. As if climate scientists understand everything about weather and climate. They RELY on the other physical sciences to come to their conclusions, so what do YOU think? Is the opinion of physicists relevant to climate or not?

 

[Father Heathen]

Excellent. Very fun to watch!

Just curious, but did you take a peak at their episodes on the bible and creationism?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

No. But you'd want a landscaper to design your landscaping and a geologist to approve the land before you build.

People are so one-track minded on this issue. The amount of factors that affect environmental science is so huge. And everyone is trying to make it so f-ing simple. Is a physicists opinion relevant. YES! Of course it is! As is an astronomer, especially one who is an expert on gravitational and solar impacts on our planet. How about a geologists opinion? Does it matter? YES! YES AGAIN! This is what I don't get about you people that refuse to hear anything from anyone other than climatologists. As if climate scientists understand everything about weather and climate. They RELY on the other physical sciences to come to their conclusions, so what do YOU think? Is the opinion of physicists relevant to climate or not?

But isn't just the scientific organisations that represent climate science who have made clear that there position concurs with the IPCC findings, its major scientific organisations across the spectrum of sciences! You won't find an exception. Of course, there are a few dissenting voices within those organisations but they are so very few. See New Scientist – Climate Myths: Many leading scientists question climate change

Yes, predicting climate change and understanding the factors involved is extremely complex. This is why it is so significant that the balance of evidence so strongly supports human activity as the main cause of Global Warming.

 

[rojse]

No. But you'd want a landscaper to design your landscaping and a geologist to approve the land before you build.

People are so one-track minded on this issue. The amount of factors that affect environmental science is so huge. And everyone is trying to make it so f-ing simple. Is a physicists opinion relevant. YES! Of course it is! As is an astronomer, especially one who is an expert on gravitational and solar impacts on our planet. How about a geologists opinion? Does it matter? YES! YES AGAIN! This is what I don't get about you people that refuse to hear anything from anyone other than climatologists. As if climate scientists understand everything about weather and climate. They RELY on the other physical sciences to come to their conclusions, so what do YOU think? Is the opinion of physicists relevant to climate or not?

The climate scientist understands how the results from geology, astronomy, and so forth areas affect climate. That is their job. Geologists might argue about the relevance of one area, physicists about another, but a physicist is not equipped to make value judgements about the work of geologists, geologists are not equipped to make value judgements about the work of physicists, but climate scientists are equipped to understand geology and physics if it relates to climate science.

 

[Troublemane]

Of course Global Warming may be occurring, what is at issue here is the effect humans have had. Also, theres the fact that (according to the most up to date studies), North America has significantly reduced its carbon emissions over the past decade, while Europe has...well, not gone down. China has increased significantly. So...are we going to convince China to reduce its carbon emissions, or are we going to just sell them our unused carbon credits?

Wooops, yeah I was wrong. What I had thought was a decrease was actually a decrease in the US's total contribution of greenhouse gasses. It used to be the USA was the greatest contributor to total global emissions, now its China.--And I agree, its not a decrease in emissions (I see now we have a net increase of 1.6%-3% depending on what data you look at), its just that China is now producing more than US.---Still, it doesnt change what I said, that this is a money-making scheme of selling carbon credits to developing nations. Not to actually make them reduce their emissions. Why reduce when you can just pay for carbon credits?


Also, the EU is saying its emissions have not gone down according to their report, but have largely stabilized. I said in my quote that "europe has not decreased", and according to the report you cite the EU is 2.9% above their goal for 2007. What does this mean? It means they have not decreased according to their goal of being down 20% by 2020, but have leveled off---I was accurate in my statement there.

..So, I will admit to ignorance on North America's apparent decrease being due to the numbers I was looking at, but I was not wrong about EU being at a level of relative stability. And still, none of this changes my statement regarding my opinion about carbon credits. Its still more about money than actually helping the planet.:angel2:

 

[Storm]

And still, none of this changes my statement regarding my opinion about carbon credits. Its still more about money than actually helping the planet.:angel2:

Agreed.

 

[rojse]

None of this changes my statement regarding my opinion about carbon credits. Its still more about money than actually helping the planet.

Wait a moment - if we fix the amount of carbon that can be emitted each year, and decrease over time, we force companies to examine their carbon output to improve their practices, because carbon output gradually becomes more expensive.

Because of the introduction of this scheme, the company I work for is implementing several extremely expensive schemes to reduce their greenhouse gas output.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

..So, I will admit to ignorance on North America's apparent decrease being due to the numbers I was looking at, but I was not wrong about EU being at a level of relative stability. And still, none of this changes my statement regarding my opinion about carbon credits. Its still more about money than actually helping the planet.:angel2:

Yes, the EU is falling behind on its commitments and has levelled off. *sigh*

The carbon credits scheme is open to abuse too, although I do consider it much better than nothing like rojse's example demonstrates.

I really believe we have to take matters into our own hands. We can't simply rely on government and business to do everything for us. So, I'm interested in Transition Towns and also what we can do as individuals. I think attitudes are changing and there are an increasing number of people willing to make big changes to their lifestyles and work together. I'll be starting an Internet discussion/networking forum on such things some time soon.