Does Copenhagen matter?

Leslie Carlson

If you think global warming is bad, check out the meltdown in Copenhagen.

It's been hard not to go from immense hope at the start of the conference (finally, a fair, binding international agreement based on science!) to crushing dread at the deadlock and paralysis of current negotiations.

But is a climate treaty really necessary?

On the one hand, I understand why so many people feel so strongly and urgently that an agreement among nations is the critical starting point. Greenhouse gas emissions don't respect national borders, and the cost for such an effort must be borne fairly across and among nations. Portland and Multnomah County have been very successful at limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the past few years and have a strong plan for climate action over the next 40, but if no other countries do anything, the effect of our small region's work means nothing.

(BTW, check out K.C. Golden's posts from the Copenhagen conference to get an Oregonian-on-the-street view of what's happening there--and what's at stake.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger--part of the U.S. delegation--recently made the case that while a treaty is important, an outside, grassroots climate movement is even more important. The Governator points to to civil rights, women's suffrage and slavery as examples of movements where the public will ran far ahead the action of elected leaders.

At this point, prospects for an international treaty out of Copenhagen look increasingly dismal, despite the much-anticipated arrival of President Obama tomorrow. Instead, negotiators will try to craft a political agreement that can be fashioned into a treaty next year...maybe.

Just why is this so difficult? I have a couple ideas. First: changing the first world's economies--which have prospered for decades on cheap, easily extracted oil--is a mighty big change indeed. It's not an incremental change, it's a transformational change. Getting agreement on how to change, and on who pays, and how much, is exceedingly difficult.

Second: There hasn't been enough political heat, despite the riots in Copenhagen and last month's worldwide actions sponsored by 350.org. I predict this is going to change.

The fact is that right behind the boomers and GenXers is a tidal wave of concerned young people. As they get the experience to take over from the the rest of us, we'll see more regulation, different kinds of businesses and more action to protect the climate. It's the youth in Copenhagen and on college campuses across the country that seem seem more willing to act--and act up--to get their concerns addressed, far more than we tired, middle-aged enviros.

I'm with Desmond Tutu. If there is very little hope today in Copenhagen, let's remember the hope represented by the youth of the world, whom I hope will take the reins and break the deadlock for once and for all.

Just do it soon. Please.

Comments

  • Christine Lewis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Leslie for bringing attention to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Students and youth from the northwest, Oregon in particular, have been engaging climate policy on the international and national levels for a while now. I was part of a NW student delegation at the Montreal negotiations 4 years ago, and the delegation from Oregon and Washington is three times as large this year in Copenhagen. Check out the Cascade Climate Network's COP 15 Blog, where youth are reporting back to our communities and answering questions about the UNFCCC.

    Let's turn up the heat and push for a fair, ambitious, and binding treaty!

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I support the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and favor all reasonable efforts to achieve that goal, including increasing US fuel and energy consumption taxes to force conservation. I am however at a loss to understand how carbon emission reduction - a worthy goal - has suddenly become all about how much money the "developed nations" will pay the "developing nations". The US, the UK and various other European powers may owe reparations for past sins committed against third world countries, but what that has to do with carbon reduction is a mystery to me and I suspect a lot of people.

  • (Show?)

    Fixed the video. Thanks, Leslie!

  • (Show?)

    Leslie, I agree with you that carbon emission reductions are what's important, not a treaty. At the same time, since the goal is to reduce global warming, we do need to reduce global emissions.

    Since Kyoto we've seen the developed world slightly reduce it's carbon emissions while the developing world surged ahead of us in their total emissions. It's very hard to see how we can hope to reach any reasonable CO2 targets without the cooperation of China, India and Japan in particular, not to mention much stronger efforts by the U.S.

    If there is a way to do that without a treaty, that's fine. But if not, we can reduce Oregon's CO2 emissions to zero and that will only reduce global emissions by 15/100ths of one percent (or about 1 1/2 minutes of China's annual emissions).

  • jamieeee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Of course top UN IPCC scientists admit the world has not warmed since 1998. That was revealed in the emails.

    Another UN IPP scientist said we do not understand climate.

    Please read the actual emails and ignore the attempted cover-up

  • jamieeee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    the oil company money for the CRU and their UN IPCC climate alarmists:

    11 Sep 2000, From: "Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
    I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation... (968691929.txt)

    <hr/>

    24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue... (. . .) 19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. (959187643.txt) ------------------- Note: Esso is a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil.

  • (Show?)

    I’ve argued before here on Blue Oregon and elsewhere that any comprehensive effort on climate change by Oregon needs to have a strategy for dealing effectively over time with China (and India). I’m advocating more Mandarin and study abroad programs in China. We have opportunities now to sell our green expertise there.

    Another China related note. The NY Times recently reported “China is preparing to build three times as many nuclear power plants in the coming decade as the rest of the world combined, a breakneck pace with the potential to help slow global warming.” See here.

    Of course, Copenhagen matters.

  • Brian C. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Admittedly I'm still a tad cynical about the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarms sounding and some of the proposed solutions but I strongly agree that all nations (at least all of the heavily populated ones) need to be on-board with reducing carbon emissions. I also think it's vitally important to find common ground on the issue. Instead of banging the warming drum harder and resorting to name calling (lose "DENIER!!!" altogether for example- divisive), sell the myriad of reasons why decreasing global CO2 emissions is a wise move. Cleaner air, water & earth. Eliminating dependence on foreign sources/energy independence. Reduced costs in the long run. It's all good but we gotta have everyone down with a plan that's not heavy handed and doesn't punish the poor. Ultimately it all starts with the individual and their values are clearly illustrated through spending habits and lifestyle choices. Measures perceived as draconian will only seed revolt. Persuade with well reasoned arguments and proven facts rather than proselytize on only one hypothesized outcome. In other words, cool down the rhetoric.

    For the record, I'd wager my so-called "carbon footprint" is smaller than most in the room and will gladly go head-to-head with your monthly electricity, natural gas & gasoline bills. Point is, many who shriek the loudest about climate change don't appear to walk their talk which is troubling. They're no less hypocritical than the right-wing douche bag preacher who lectures and judges society while secretly violating all that he professes.

  • (Show?)

    As a counter to Tutu, Woody Allen: "More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

    And Jack, the whole "Oregon's percentage of pollution in the world" line is specious. Would you say the same about creating Oregon jobs? "Oh, we can create jobs for all unemployed Oregonians but that would be just a fraction of the unemployed in Beijing"?

    Jack, do you vote? Probably not. Because when's the last time your action of voting actually swayed an election? Collective action starts with each of us.

    Acting on the climate crisis will benefit us. And it's what moral leadership is about.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I am however at a loss to understand how carbon emission reduction - a worthy goal - has suddenly become all about how much money the "developed nations" will pay the "developing nations". The US, the UK and various other European powers may owe reparations for past sins committed against third world countries, but what that has to do with carbon reduction is a mystery to me and I suspect a lot of people."

    How about the fact that the European empires and, more recently, the American corporate empire have plundered many of the underdeveloped nations and left them unable to cope with many of the demands that will be placed on them to participate in reversing these climatic changes?

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When I was young, young people were against war. Notice how much effect that has had.

    I doubt much will be done to curb emissions until direct costs to powerful nations are greater than the cost of reducing greenhouse emissions. That means millions of dispaced people in poor and small nations, loss of many species, and perhaps enough tipping points reached to screw up the climate for millions of years.

    Our best hope may be intervention by an intelligent species from another planet.

    Klaatu barada nikto.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is encouraging to note that young people are politically active in the climate change debate, but the question is as a percentage of their age group, how do they stack up? I fear they are in a distinct minority. One consolation is that this small group can have some effect as appears to be the case in Copenhagen, but if they are the only activists or have little support from older generations they will very likely become discouraged and wander off to nowhere as many of the anti-war activists of the Vietnam era appear to have done.

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama could have made one speech and changed the outcome.

    The "aging enviros" were the high water mark in green thinking. Not because we know more, but converts are always the most zealous. If we don't do it, it ain't gonna happen. Applies equally to the not so inconsequential surviving parents of boomers as well.

    You first have to get real, which, to date, hasn't exactly been gen X's strong point, and it's obvious that those older (look at Jamieeee, aka billy, aka marie, aka JK, aka Jim Kar-lock) think they'll die before the chickens come home to roost, and won't tolerate any threats to their long established ways.

    We've seen this with women's rights. Ultimately it will happen. Same with sustainable environmental policy. The only question is how long will it take and how much damage will be done between now and then. In both cases, the outcome could be forced overnight, if the majority that thinks that way just.did.it.

    But, no, thoughts always turn to the comforts and security of home and role and, well, best take it slow. The greatest enemy of necessary, difficult change that flies in the face of the status quo is "go along to get along" (re-reading that, I think I might have topped my greatest heresy in the eyes of this blog's regulars). That's just how you all rationalize that you're doing something. You will never get anywhere. If it is so important, then, stop, and refuse to go along at all, until the next steps make sense to you.

    And another "environmental" post never mentioning population. There is no more significant appreciation of it among gen X than boomers, so there's one area they aren't proving better. It gets rebutted, though not discussed. "Jobs" is PC for "more people". That also affects the likelihood of individuals becoming their brothers' keeper. Dissolution of responsibility varies with numbers, so the stated hope would be against the flow of play on that level as well.

    Maybe it's for the best. Makes little sense making huge sacrifices, if attitudes don't change. If attitudes change and people actually get some veridical mental models of the situation, then the sacrifices will flow freely. If we don't...that's just another in a long line of species that went extinct because they just couldn't figure it out.

    Oh, jamieee et al. can finally put up or shut up . So, you know more than the rest of us what CO2 will be in 2015? Laugh all the way to the bank! That's right. An Irish bookmaker is taking bets on...well, you name it. Polar Bear survival, all kinds of species, CH4 levels, CO2 levels, average ocean temperature, average global rise in sea level. You've skreeched incessantly that you know all this things far better than most. You should be able to clean up.

    Sarah Palin, here's your chance to clean up on what you know about polar bears that we don't! In fact, I strongly recommend you sink every penny you have into your "facts", all of which would fetch very favorable odds. If you are 1/3 right, you would be in the clover in a decade. In fact, you would lose everything, just as you would have us do.

  • (Show?)

    And Jack, the whole "Oregon's percentage of pollution in the world" line is specious. Would you say the same about creating Oregon jobs? "Oh, we can create jobs for all unemployed Oregonians but that would be just a fraction of the unemployed in Beijing"?

    Evan, employment in Oregon is not dependent on employment in Beijing. Global warming is a function of global CO2. If we lower our carbon footprint, global warming won't skip Oregon.

    Jack, do you vote? Probably not. Because when's the last time your action of voting actually swayed an election?

    If they cancel the election, I don't try to vote anyway because then my vote really won't count. I never said that Oregon shouldn't do its part. I simply think it is important to understand that this is a global problem and requires a global solution. We can't be satisfied just doing "our part."

    Collective action starts with each of us.

    But if it ends with just a few of us, nothing is accomplished. Since Kyoto, the developing nations that were exempt from emission targets have increased their CO2 emissions by more than 6 billion tonnes (China alone by nearly 2 billion). Apparently, collective action didn't catch on.

  • Tim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Copenhagen isn't about global warming.

    It's about taking down capitalism. "There’s a ghost lurking…and Karl Marx said…a ghost running through the streets of Copenhagen. And I think that ghost is silent, somewhere in this room…amongst us…coming thru the corridors and underneath. And that ghost is a terrible ghost. Nobody wants to name him or her…it’s capitalism. Capitalism is that ghost. (applause)"

    Hugo Chavez got A LOT of applause. Here's the video. I know how much Chavez means to you.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tim, unfortunately you are wrong. I wish Copenhagen was about taking down capitalism. However, it is all about continuing its raping of other cultures and countries just to make some more money for a few people, with some scraps for a few others.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Obama could have made one speech and changed the outcome."

    Most likely too late now. Obama's credibility is receding like glaciers around the world.

  • colon cleanse (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think he is talking about capitalism.Obama taking good decision to control global warming problem which world is facing today.We have to take some serious decision to avoid global warming.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Admittedly I'm still a tad cynical about the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarms sounding and some of the proposed solutions,,,

    With the release of the ClimateGate emails it’s clear we should all be more than just a “tad bit” cynical about anthropogenic global warming.

    So much of the data has been doctored, manipulated, or altered that it’s pretty clear we need to put on the brakes to any treaty that would shell out billions to third world nations and economically cripple the US until new climate information, untainted by politics, is made available.

    This rush to sign some kind of climate treaty without reliable information is reminiscent of how we got mired in Iraq. Let’s not make an even more disastrous decision that causes even more problems for our children and grandchildren.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "With the release of the ClimateGate emails it’s clear we should all be more than just a “tad bit” cynical about anthropogenic global warming."

    Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away.

    "Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"

  • jamieeee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"

    Oh, really? How about this from a UN IPCC "scientist" and lead author of the IPCC report:

    Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! (1089318616.txt):

    <hr/>

    11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)

  • Jonathan Radmacher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Buckman Res and Tim, have you read these emails, or just listened to the Fox News version?

    For me, the pathetic thing about progressives going after worldwide carbon issues is that locally, Sam Adams couldn't even get transportation projects linked with carbon output. Which is crazy. Shouldn't we be looking at the carbon effect of everything, especially if it potentially increases carbon output (not necessarily, though ... obviously getting rid of idling cars on a freeway decreases their carbon output)

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Shouldn't we be looking at the carbon effect of everything, especially if it potentially increases carbon output (not necessarily, though ... obviously getting rid of idling cars on a freeway decreases their carbon output)"

    Problem is that most of the "solutions" we hear don't really reduce carbon output, or are simply guesses. For instance:

    Mass transit actually uses more energy than new (smaller) cars. But they push transit. (This surprises most people until they realize that the average Trimet bus only carries 9 people and even when this increases in the denser cities, the energy usage does not get much better - equivalent to a 20-24 mpg car.)

    High density is unproven, at best, and probably emits more CO2 when you count the emissions from making all that concrete and steel.

    Solar & wind are NOT CAPABLE of supplying our energy needs because they are NOT available 24/7. Nuclear is. Nuclear is also off the table. (Its not about CO2 -- it all about promoting favorite projects.)

  • Edward I. O'Hannity (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We are part of a coalition to go back to a late 1950s-era scientific and corporate concept of the causes of Global Climate Change. Take a moment to view this YouTube Clip produced by a large U.S. Corporation in 1958 and draw your own conclusions.

    ~EIO

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Jack. Having fought against the soundbite last session, it's frustrating to see it again - but I knew you were smarter than the soundbite. You responded:

    Collective action starts with each of us.

    But if it ends with just a few of us, nothing is accomplished. Since Kyoto, the developing nations that were exempt from emission targets have increased their CO2 emissions by more than 6 billion tonnes (China alone by nearly 2 billion). Apparently, collective action didn't catch on.

    There is no evidence that collective action on climate will end with just a few of us. California (itself one of the world's top ten economies) is acting. Europe is acting. The Northeast, Washington, etc. are acting. China is acting. And yes, Kyoto didn't solve everything. But I'd argue that's because folks like the U.S. failed to lead, rather than the idea of collective action is flawed.

    The United States has a moral responsibility to take strong leadership because we're the world's richest country by far, we pollute twice as much per GDP as many European countries, and we contribute over 20% of the world's global warming pollution, despite being less than 5% of its population.

    We need to lead, in a serious way. This isn't a time to say, "well, China might not follow through on its commitments" - it's a time to say, "The science is clear. Not acting will cost us 5-20% of our GDP. We're taking the lead." We've dithered on this and worried and pointed fingers way too long.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "collective action on climate"

    At this juncture it's more like collective delusion in continuing what many closet skeptics on the left have concluded is as phony as aything in history.

    The AGW movement has been a remarkable demonstration of the near total absense of so many to recognize BS. The obvious cause is the desire for this calamity to be real. After all it fit so well with so many left wing causes and added gravity and urgency to them all.

    "Global warming proves we need more bike facilities" etc.

    But other than it's massive size this movement is just another push by fanatasism. It has all the traits of extremism highlighted by imaginations running wild with fabrications and advocacy. From the vast polar bear scare tales to Oregon's own tall tale about ocean dead zones being caused by CO2 emissions nearly the entire left tunred off their BS detectors and joined the chorus of certainty and alarm.

    It has been too good to be true, but who cares, right?

  • JJ Ferguson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Classy blog. Two link spammers and a yelling, senile old man that thinks he's the "savior"!

    [Editor's note: Linked website removed. -editor.]

    I guess it'll have worth in 100 years when people are trying to figure out just WTF we were thinking about.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "It's about taking down capitalism"

    Then how do you explain that governments and others pushing for action on climate change are encouraging capitalists to invest in products that are climate-friendly?

    Are governments being anti-capitalist when they recall unsafe products such as toys painted with lead-based paint, salmonella-infected food, automobiles with defective parts, etc..?

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't think capitalism is the problem - in this case. The Soviet Union burned plenty of fossil fuel to spur economic growth. Labor unions support unsustainable growth to create jobs and raise wages.

    Capitalism cannot solve the climate problem, as it is incapable of longterm strategy; but government regulation can warp capitalism to serve societal needs, as it does in other areas. Unfortunately, I do not see the will to do this any time soon. Humanity is not good at dealing with slow emergencies. They do not stimulate the hormonal response needed to motivate change.

  • (Show?)

    Evan, my comments were not meant to excuse inaction by the United States. On the contrary, I am arguing that we need a global agreement that gets everyone involved in solving the problem.

    If you just look at CO2 emissions since Kyoto, the U.S. has not done that much worse than the European countries. The real problem is in the developing countries and its huge. But even the performance of the developed countries is anemic compared to what is needed to meet the emission targets we've set for ourselves.

    And as for the examples of civil rights, women's suffrage and slavery that Leslie cited as the result of "grass roots activism," in each case it took legal, binding documents to effect change.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JJ, "I guess it'll have worth in 100 years when people are trying to figure out just WTF we were thinking about."

    How perfect. Default into a position that requires 100 years for you to accept how the ludicrous the entire AGW episode is. Especially when people try and put the shine of smarts and legitimacy on the stupid and lies by equating it to "civil rights, women's suffrage and slavery.

    Is that play really supposed to be persuasive?

    "Civil rights, women's suffrage and slavery" and now climate change?

    Or is it merely a self assurance thing to convince yourself you're supporting a noble cause?

    Because it's no more noble than Oregon's seasonal Ocean Dead Zones are caused by CO2 emissions.

    You may need 100 years to figure out just WTF you are thinking but that 100 years is a little too convenient for yout to never admit how duped and/or dishonest and wrong you are.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, Jamiiieeee, Bill, etc.:

    Can you point me to your own published, peer-reviewed research that shows conclusively the results you speak of? Please - no cut and paste. We all know your expertise in that area. I'm talking about your very own, peer-reviewed, published, independent research that you have conducted at your own facilities. Oh, and your resume if you have that handy would be great too.

    Back to Leslie's question: yes it does matter. It also matter's that PGE adds scrubbers to the Boardman operation to reduce the mercury that is polluting the public lakes, streams, and rivers. It matters that Portland encourages solar and wind alternatives. It matters that Oregon city planners design and encourage shorter commuting times. It matters that we live in a clean environment.

    Regardless of what China does, like politics, environmental issues can start locally.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ”...have you read these emails, or just listened to the Fox News version?”

    Come on, can’t you do any better than snarky “Fox News” references?

    Go online and read the emails yourself. There is a clear tone that seeks to limit peer review, avoid sharing climate change data, discredit those who question the anthropogenic global warming argument, and otherwise subvert scientific method.

    And now we hear the raw data supporting climate change was “dumped” and everyone will have to trust the homogenized, condensed data.

    Sorry but my days of blind faith ended with Vietnam and Watergate.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott,

    How do you think like this?

    You want "very own, peer-reviewed, published, independent research"?

    Is that some stupid ploy or what? The abundant work by many people with expertise around the globe is readily avaialble. If you're so deluded and incompetent that you've missed it all or can't handle any "links" to it then nothing will help you.

    I'd ask you the same dopey question. But I'm not that dopey. Like most people who are interested I've read IPCC reports and summaries, followed RealClimate for years and also caught the bulk of the many problems raised by skpetics which address the IPCC/AGW claims.

    Unlike many here who blindly accept every AGW claim made while adding a few of their own.

    Despite your advocacy, legitimate environemental work does not and should not need or rely upon a global warming fraud. Far from it. But then CO2 is not pollution either.

    So what if Portland "encourages" solar and wind alternatives? Using tax dollars for costly programs which don't provide the benefits is not encouraging. It's waste.

    Oregon city planners are NOT designing and encouraging shorter commuting times. They are spending $100 million tax dollars on the same theory used for SoWa/Tram, Beaverton Round and other flops by the "smart growth" movement which is as phoney as AGW.

    Yeah it matters that we live in a clean environment.

    But progrssives caught up in one phony scheme after another lesson the ability to provide things like a clean Willamette River and halt to cronic sewer breaks in Portland stream corridors. Among other legitimate needs.

    What? Nothing to say about the Ocean Dead Zones? There's not yet a single progressive BS detector around on that? Why? To protect your champions of deceit? Typical.

  • Leslie Carlson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And as for the examples of civil rights, women's suffrage and slavery that Leslie cited as the result of "grass roots activism," in each case it took legal, binding documents to effect change.

    I agree with you, Jack. I just don't think we're going to get it out of Copenhagen. Maybe we'll get it in Mexico City next year. In the meantime, we need the grassroots to keep up the pressure (just as they've done in Copenhagen) until we do get a fair, binding and ambitious legal agreement among nations.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Can you point me to your own published, peer-reviewed research that shows conclusively the results you speak of? "

    This is an absurd challenge that I will turn back on the author. Where is your research reviewed not by your peers but by knowledgeable authorities?

    We can't be authorities and do analyses on all topics of interest to us. Who could be sufficiently informed to write papers reviewed by experts in the field on economics, health care, climate, military intervention in Afghanistan, and others of similar importance? In most instances we have to trust others who are specialists in these fields and use whatever elements in our education and experience can help. On climate change I'm persuaded that the panel that is composed of the world's top scientists (the IPCC) is the most reliable source of information and that the deniers funded by corporate interests are cause for skepticism.

  • Gerry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age." - Time Magazine, Sept. 10th 1923

    "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer." - Time Magazine, Jan 2nd. 1939

    "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." - Time Magazine, June 24th 1974.

    "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." - Time Magazine, April 9th 2001

    Fire and Ice

  • Stephen J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "It matters that Oregon city planners design and encourage shorter commuting times" - Redneck in Damascus

    If you think shorter commuting times matter so much, then move into the city you fucking idiot.

  • Jonathan Radmacher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Buckman Res:

    I've not read the hundreds of thousands of hacked emails (neither have you). I've seen several where the author was talking about how to present his data in a way that better-justified his conclusions. I think it's something that happens in science every day, and that there's absolutely no reason to think this was some kind of grand conspiracy. Not even grand; more amateur.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Stephen - what makes you think I work for a living?

    You fucking idiot.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "We can't be authorities ...."

    Exactly.

    So stop posting like you are one.

  • Stephen J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Hey Stephen - what makes you think I work for a living?" - Redneck in Damascus

    Oh that's right, you're probably married to your sister and on welfare like the rest of Damascus. What's for dinner? Road kill and Bud weiser?

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott,

    Compared to the Blue climate justice sheep here who will have problem with the Obama administration wanting to hand over $100 Billion /year for ten years to developing nations under the guise of AGW I am an expert.

    You blues deliberately can't recognize anything.

    You interpret, excuse, cover, embellish and distort.

    Jonathan,

    No you haven't red squat. I have and the leaked e-mails and data/programmer notes displays what is nothinglike your silly version of an author innoncently talking about how to present his data in a way that better-justified his conclusions.

    You made that up out your ignorance. The chaos and malfeasence in the leaked material is completely clear and needs none of your additional BS. If you want to pretend otherwise go ahead. Feel good too.

    But does NOT happen in science every day. Quite the contrary as scientists from all over the planet have conveyed. Some have described the process behind the scenes as the worst they have ever seen. Sloppy, egregious and outright fraudulent. There is abundant reason to know that there has indeed been extensive colusion to defraud the masses.

    But you don't. Otherwise you wold know how a CRU memebr facilitated the inappropriate adjustment of the 150 year New Zealand temperature record. The same for the 315 year England record. Same for Australia, Alaska and the US.

    "grand conspiracy"? That's black helicopter talk meant to disparage skeptics instead of facing facts.

    Did Jane Lubchenco use a "grand conspiracy" to add Oregon's Ocean Dead zones to the AGW fraud?
    She didn't need to. She did what goverment and academia have been doing all over the place. Cooking the science to accomodate their social and environmental justice agenda and generate funding. You don't care how much they lie because they are hard core letists called progressive.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Blue climate justice sheep here who will have NO problem

  • Nick Roland (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lesile, how long do you think we have until millions begin dieing from Global Warming?

    I've heard 5-7 years kicked around quite a bit. Do we have that long? I am hoping you can give us a timeline or post a link that includes a timeline.

    Thanks, Nick Roland

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The sheeple of the world like Richard and his ilk all belong to the renown 1% club. With their profound evidence of "some say" and unnamed self-proclaimed experts they crave attention when none is warrented.

    The fact of the matter is the only difference between GW and gravity is that is there aren't any major petro-chemical companies with large lobbying and public relations budgets whose profitability depends on people disbelieving gravity. Therefore think tanks are not endowed with grants for "scientists" to write anti-Newtonist papers. Slickly-produced video press releases do not flood every television station every time they do so. No one conducts polls on the subject of gravity and puts out press releases on how skeptical the public is about gravity claims, etc etc etc. Scientists aren't forced to waste their time over and over again stating and restating the basic facts about gravity while well-funded deniers lie about evidence that's staring everyone in the face and well-meaning journalists give equal time to both sides of the "controversy".

    The problem with global warming deniers isn't that they're out of the mainstream of climate science, it's that practically none of them are actually engaged in science. What they are is hacks, being paid to come up with plausible-sounding crap to prevent anyone getting anything done. For example earlier this month, Rep. Inhofe told reporters that he would travel to Copenhagen with a “truth squad” with undeniable proof that GW is a hoax. Today Inhofe along with a couple of aids were heckled by the 3 reporters who bothered to show up to the press conference. And the "truth squad?" They were a no-show.

    Now Richard will follow with a post reminding everyone how stupid they are compared to his vast and superior intellect. But the fact is I don't give two shits what he thinks nor do I care enough to cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire.

  • jamieeee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Stephen J. If you think shorter commuting times matter so much, then move into the city you fucking idiot JK: Look in the mirror you f**kin idiot - city dwellers DO NOT have shorter commute times. See livablePortland.com/commutetime.html Average commute time for: “Principle City(ies)”:............26.3 min “Non-Principle City(ies)”.....25.7min

  • jamieeee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Nick Roland: Lesile, how long do you think we have until millions begin dieing from Global Warming?

    I've heard 5-7 years kicked around quite a bit. Do we have that long? I am hoping you can give us a timeline or post a link that includes a timeline. JK: Nobody is going to die from global warming.

    However some are already dying from Al Gore’s lies and the panic he has started: People are dying from increased food prices caused by they phony bio fuel movement. People are dying from delayed electrification caused by Al Gore. Al Gore and his zombie followers are already the climate criminals.

  • mathematician (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One thing seems certain: the actions and policies of the Obama Administration suggest that they don't take climate change much more seriously than the wingnuts hogging the conversation on BO. Copenhagen and cars for clunkers should tell you what they're thinking.

    One thing I agree with right-wing libertarians about: either shit or get off the pot. If you really trust the overwhelming scientific consensus, then don't support half-assed actions that will result in expensive failures.

    The less-evilometer cannot move to the left in favor of the D's if their actions are too feeble to be meaningful. In fact, it's more evil to cause economic hardship to people in a cosmetic attempt than it is to do nothing, so I must move the less-evilometer one more inch to the right.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott, What was that supposed to be? Just another totally contrived tale?

    I can tell you've studied very little. Why study "gravity" right?

    First you get the 1% horribly wrong as polls show beleif in CO2 emissions caused global warming to be waning into a minority status.

    So where does the 1% come from other than your idiotic tantrum?

    If one wants to avoid being a sheeple they need to have some level of skeptisism, curiosity and challenge, instead of the Blue baaaaa as you buy every single AGW claim.

    Your jibberish about "profound evidence" and "unnamed self-proclaimed experts" is a small minded pretense that the opposing expertise and science does not exist.

    You're horribly wrong.

    Filler crap like "craving attention" is more foolishness.

    In short you are a political zombie.

    The well-funded army is that of the government and academia perpetrating this AGW fraud. By comparison there is no counter funding worth even mentioning.

    But you rely upon what you parrot as "mainstream" of climate science in order to avoid the fatal flaws in that so called mainstream. A mainstream which has produced summaries which mainstream participants have reported was not in the body of work and reviews. Peer review has been retarded into obstructionist tyranny to stack the deck of peer review and rig publications.

    The list of various professors and scientists enaged in science who reject AGW is extensive.

    I suggest you at know this to be the case but are simply lying. That's the AGW way.

    You can't get anything right Here's what happened at the press conference.

    BREAKING: Pelosi Bars Republicans from Copenhagen Press Conference

    However, the truth squad is all over the place and the only way any web active person misses it is by deliberately avoiding it.

    You can't even get our little exchange remotely correct. I am not suggesting I Richard am of higher intellect or that you should give a crap what I say. I am obviously pointing that there is much you should care about but don't.

    Try this. www[dot]foresight[dot]org/nanodot/?p=3553 It's a very easy presentation of the cooked up temperature rise from global warming being extreme and historical.

    If you have trouble with simple graphs you'll be unimpressed.

    But the easy way to grasp this is to remember the current temperature is on the far right of every graph. And look for where the far left of every graph is repeated in the graph directly below it on a grander scale.

    And stop all your potty talk.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott, What was that supposed to be? Just another totally contrived tale?

    I can tell you've studied very little. Why study "gravity" right?

    First you get the 1% horribly wrong as polls show beleif in CO2 emissions caused global warming to be waning into a minority status.

    So where does the 1% come from other than your idiotic tantrum?

    If one wants to avoid being a sheeple they need to have some level of skeptisism, curiosity and challenge, instead of the Blue baaaaa as you buy every single AGW claim.

    Your jibberish about "profound evidence" and "unnamed self-proclaimed experts" is a small minded pretense that the opposing expertise and science does not exist.

    You're horribly wrong.

    Filler crap like "craving attention" is more foolishness.

    In short you are a political zombie.

    The well-funded army is that of the government and academia perpetrating this AGW fraud. By comparison there is no counter funding worth even mentioning.

    But you rely upon what you parrot as "mainstream" of climate science in order to avoid the fatal flaws in that so called mainstream. A mainstream which has produced summaries which mainstream participants have reported was not in the body of work and reviews. Peer review has been retarded into obstructionist tyranny to stack the deck of peer review and rig publications.

    The list of various professors and scientists enaged in science who reject AGW is extensive.

    I suggest you at know this to be the case but are simply lying. That's the AGW way.

    You can't get anything right Here's what happened at the press conference.

    BREAKING: Pelosi Bars Republicans from Copenhagen Press Conference

    However, the truth squad is all over the place and the only way any web active person misses it is by deliberately avoiding it.

    You can't even get our little exchange remotely correct. I am not suggesting I Richard am of higher intellect or that you should give a crap what I say. I am obviously pointing that there is much you should care about but don't.

    Try this. www[dot]foresight[dot]org/nanodot/?p=3553 It's a very easy presentation of the cooked up temperature rise from global warming being extreme and historical.

    If you have trouble with simple graphs you'll be unimpressed.

    But the easy way to grasp this is to remember the current temperature is on the far right of every graph. And look for where the far left of every graph is repeated in the graph directly below it on a grander scale.

    And stop all your potty talk.

  • RyanLeo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Climate change, environmentalism and everything related alone with no potential for a job or economic gain would mean nothing and this thread would have died at 11 comments.

    Call it what it is, more evidence and action on climate change means more jobs for radical leftists who have this urge to "save the world!"

    To quote the late grate George Carlin, "Save the world, hell we don't even know how to treat each other much less save the fucking planet?!?"

    Fact is, action on climate change that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed at Copenhagen IF acted on seriously would put a serious halt to the economic growth of China and India.

    China and India will NOT adhere to any emissions reductions goal proposed by Obama & Co. so long as it hampers their economic growth without hundreds of billions per year in US taxpayer dollars.

    Obama saved face. No real agreement and action will occur. It will still be upper class, educated radical leftists from Europe and the US trying to impose their point of view and "saving the world" on everyone else who are mostly black haired, brown eyed and brown skinned who just want to better their economic condition.

    Copenhagen means nothing.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! (1089318616.txt):

    And yet the paper he's referring to is in the IPCC report so he wasn't successful was he? Does that increase your confidence in the IPCC report any? Knowing you probably not.

    11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)

    The paper in question was submitted directly to the "troublesome editor" who somehow got it into the journal Climate Research. The paper was later shown to have major scientific errors. For instance it used data from moisture sensitive proxies when it should have used temperature sensitive proxies and failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies. It should not have been published without major revision to correct the errors. The editor-in-chief, Hans von Storch, wanted to print a retraction and plan to improve the peer review process but the publisher wouldn't let him so he resigned in protest and several other editors joined him. Why would you want to have your name associated with a journal that demonstrably published an error filled paper and refused to correct the error?

    As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

    Sounds like sarcasm to me. Without more context it's impossible to tell and you're just seeing what you want to see.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gerry, Time magazine is not peer reviewed literature. The only one of those quotes that refers to what climate scientists say is the last one. Sensationalizing the message helps them sell magazines.

  • jamieeee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    David Appell (riverrat): The paper in question was submitted directly to the "troublesome editor" who... J: Tell us which paper that was. Or did you just make this up?

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    David Appell (riverrat): And yet the paper he's referring to is in the IPCC report so he wasn't successful was he? J: Was it? Then tell us which paper it is?

  • The "Crying Indian" is Dead Of Old Age (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You first have to get real, which, to date, hasn't exactly been gen X's strong point, and it's obvious that those older (look at Jamieeee, aka billy, aka marie, aka JK, aka Jim Kar-lock) think they'll die before the chickens come home to roost, and won't tolerate any threats to their long established ways.

    Thank you Richard and Jamie (Jim Kar-lock) for demonstrating the contention! (Is this blog managed? Either take his name out of the spam filter or delete his posts. Can Dems take a stand on ANYTHING without dithering to the point that it's meaningless?!?)

    Now, I have a question about the motivation for this article. Look back at other, similar posts. Has this gone any different? What did it accomplish? Is this the best that "progressives" can do, to engage in pointless, circular debates with people that aren't listening and can't think it through, until there is no choice left but a monumental blood bath, just like Dem "leadership" left us with in the mid nineteenth century?

    How about demonstrating that you understand more science than shit for brains, Kar-lock and his trained one-eyed snake Richard? Keep it to falsifiable claims. That's science. Both sides. If one cannot state data that would cause them to accept the null hypothesis, it is faith. There are no data which will cause Richard and James to accept the null. You could take them 100 years in the future, show them that it's exactly as predicted, or worse, and they would have a rationalization. That is faith. Strong faith. Preachers would be jealous. It is not science. Science is about falsifiability. Ditto with "accepted science".

    Both sides of this debate suffer from the fact that most Americans constantly lie to themselves. They decide what they think based on the same in-group, out-group perceptions that they used on the play ground in grade school. Most have never seen ANYONE suck it up and speak the truth, let the chips fall where they may. That's even actionable in our society. Is that how the "lie generation" is going to save us? Their expertise on the subject?

    It's your choice and the choice our leaders have. Are you going to do good science, or rattle the cages some more to get the grass roots fired up? Seems you don't dig what those "aging enviros" had to say. "You're either a part of the solution or a part of the problem". Which is worse? To say there is no problem, or accept that there is one mega problem, and this is the best you're prepared to do? How has this contributed towards a solution? We can all do better, and until we do, we are no better than Kar-lock! Well, no one is that egocentric, but, at the end of the day, our help is no better than his damage. In fact, he's getting further. There can be no more pitiful comparison.

    And another "environmental" post never mentioning population.

    And heel dragging. Hillary- that raving liberal- has finally agreed to mention the elephant in the room (Dec. 23). Let's see how much coverage that gets here.

  • Anita Berber (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's a good short article , written for simple minds, making the case that it is absolutely pointless to talk about CO2 emissions apart from population control.

    You know, on that note, the Democratic Party of America is as out of it as Kaarlock and his Ludtite friends! All you Dems that tell deniers to get real... You going to do that with the 20% of Dems that are Catholics, where the Church's position is that any population curbs that don't involve abstinence are evil and will be the end of the human species? Literally, they say that.

    Humans are in this position because they care more about what the ape next to them is doing than judging the absolute effect of their own behavior on the environment around them. Evolution is posing the question to us directly. Can you go against the herd to realize your own best interest? Cynical vested interests are betting the farm that we can't. If this is the best Dems can do, I fear they are right.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    j,

    I shouldn't respond because you still haven't figured out that riverat and David Appell are two different people. I'm actually kind of flattered that you think I might be as knowledgeable as he is.

    The paper in question was Soon and Baliunas (2003). You can find it in the journal Climate Research. The troublesome editor was Chris de Freitas.

    The papers referred to by Mann and in the IPCC report are McKitrick and Michaels (2004) & Kalnay and Cai (2003) which were cited and discussed in Chapter 3 the IPCC AR4 report.

    Dave but not David Appell

  • Chris Faddis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Reread Z's link about Paddy Power. All the proof you need that jaime and Richard are blowing it out their ass. Or are we to believe that they could clean up with what they know that we don't but selflessly have decided to share it with us, instead?

    I'm a Catholic youth minister, and I've always been against violence, but recently I'm beginning to think the Civil War metaphor is appropriate. John Brown was a patriot. If more had followed his example, almost a million American lives would have been spared. Now we're talking millions, with an "s". This society sees nothing wrong with glorifying mafiosi that only serve the most limited of self interests. If that's the standard, and history shows the alternative, I have to ask, just why the hell should people like jamieee not be beat bloody, or worse? Richard is at least debating. As the Butthole Surfers so poetically put it, "it's better to regret something that you have done than to regret something you haven't done". I'm getting the distinct impression, that 25 years on, I will deeply regret not beating "jaime" to a bloody pulp. I mean, I would in the sense that he's not worth it, but that's where the Butthole Surfers come in.

    Ah, but then, you don't care as much for the outcome. Only the methods. Guess I meant "send $$$ to the Democratic Party. We need all 100 seats in the Senate. We're making progress. Obama will do the right thing". Much better.

    I'm used to getting plenty of complaints. That's action for you. Feel free. You can contact my bishop at:

    The Right Reverend Bishop Michael F. Burbidge 715 Nazareth St. Raleigh, NC 27606 voice: (919) 821-9700 fax: (919) 821-9705 email: [email protected]

  • mathematician (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Copenhagen: Where Obama Took on Africa

    If George W. Bush had pulled some of the things Obama has done here, he would have been burned in effigy on the steps of the convention center. With Obama, however, even the most timid actions are greeted as historic breakthroughs, or at least a good start.

    "Everyone says: 'give Obama time,'" Bassey told me. "But when it comes to climate change, there is no more time." The best analogy, he said, is a soccer game that has gone into overtime. "It's not even injury time, it's sudden death. It’s the nick of time, but there is no more extra time." Naomi Klein

  • Jonathan Radmacher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard:

    Surely there is some other site out there where you can troll around, spewing your self-righteous drivel. You write (and think) like you're all methed up.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Compared to the Blue climate justice sheep here who will have problem with the Obama administration wanting to hand over $100 Billion /year for ten years to developing nations under the guise of AGW I am an expert."

    Richard: The deal is, according to Sec.of State H.Clinton that the U.S. would give $10 billion over ten years and other nations would donate the other $90 billion over ten years. Media Matters has been calling Faux News windbags on misrepresentations on this that you have inflated. Get your facts right.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    $10 Billion a year is $9,999,999,999/yr too much.

    If the earth's atmosphere is contaminated by CO2, then it won't know which country the offending contaminant came from.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard,

    I took a look at your graphs over at foresight.org. They only show data from one ice core in central Greenland. Don't you want to get a global picture? Don't you want to compare that core with the data from several others including some from Antarctica to get a broader picture and cross check for confidence levels? There is an ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin on the Antarctic Peninsula that shows an unusually cold period during the MWP that counters the one in Greenland.

    I have trouble with simple graphs like this because they don't present the whole picture. It makes me wonder if they cherry picked the core to best illustrate their viewpoint.

  • Nick P. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is one place where the world can't really wait for slow generation change, particularly as massive corporations expend millions of dollars challenging the very idea that human beings are responsible for global climate instability.

    I don't expect a treaty, and even if one were drafted it wouldn't be worth the paper that it was written on. Large, imperialist nations like the United States, France, Russia, Australia, etc., have a long history of only respecting treaties so far as they benefit their hegemony. A climate treaty would be no different.

    I find it utterly disgusting that the imperialist countries attempted to blackmail the semi-colonial world into signing a treaty that allows the imperialist nations twice the level of carbon emissions. I also find it scandalous that the countries causing pollution (the U.S., China, etc.) are not paying climate reparations to the countries most effected by them.

    While the attempt of the author to bolster "the youth" as a solution to this problem is cute and all, such arguments are wearing quite thin. Particularly for people in places devastated by global climate instability. The change must come sooner rather than later, and capitalism is incapable of solving the problem because... wait for it... caring about the environment just isn't profitable, and never will be.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris Faddis | Dec 19, 2009 1:22:35 PM Reread Z's link about Paddy Power. All the proof you need that jaime and Richard are blowing it out their ass. J: Since you are so sure of your position please tell all of us where to find actual proof that man's CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.

    This is two parts: 1. Prove that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming in the real atmosphere.

    1. Prove that it is man's 3% of total annual CO2 emission that is causing the problem instead of nature's 97%

    If you can't do that, you are just blindly following con artists like al gore.

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    jamie: I believe that prior to the industrial revolution the CO-2 content of the atmosphere was below 300 PPM and that now it is at about 380 PPM. That, therefore, is an over 25% increase which is associated with industrialization.

    And, I also believe that the heart of climate-change denial comes from people not wanting to admit that their own lifestyles are part of the problem.

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As for the result of Copenhagen, it must be considered a failure, as it ended merely with a vote to "take note" of the document presented by the wealthy and powerful countries. A mere statement of intent- that's all that was "accomplished".

    Which is about the same as what was accomplished in Rio in '92 and not nearly as good as what was done in Kyoto in '97 (when a binding agreement was reached).

    A retreat away from the only binding agreement. Movement in the wrong direction.

  • Billy Busdriver (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, basically, no one cares that the earth's environment is going to hell in a handbasket. It's all a debate about CO2! Seriously, if CO2 wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion?

    I guess not.

    JK obviously doesn't understand betting. Bookies set odds on best data. They agree with the warming hypothesis. Can you not comprehend that if you are right and everyone is wrong, those odds are wrong? The difference between what you know and what they know is payout for you when the numbers show you are right. We are confident enough to put up billions. Why are you not confident enough to make easy money from the fact that we don't understand the odds? It's really simple. You can put money on exactly how you think we're wrong, and in 10 years if you are right, you rake it in. If you really think you know something, why the hell are you arguing with us here?

    I can tell you that if Paddy Power were offering bets on JK's scenario, I would sink every penny I have into it. That is sure money. That is being sure of your facts. Like the poster said, JK, "put up or shut up".

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    j,

    1. Prove that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming in the real atmosphere.

    Dangerous is such a subjective word. Many people think the whitewater rafting I do is dangerous but I think I'm in more danger on my drives to the river. If you take the word "dangerous" out of your statement it has been "proven" that CO2 does cause warming in the atmosphere. It is the second most important GHG after water vapor but water vapor can't build up in the atmosphere like CO2 because once it reaches a certain level it will precipitate out in the form of rain, etc. The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent mostly on temperature. So water vapor is 36-72% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 is 9-26%. It varies like that in part because the atmosphere is not always completely saturated with water vapor.

    The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 280 ppm in 1830 to about 390 ppm today, a 39% increase. It's easy to show that the increase is primarily due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. If that increase in CO2 caused a 1% increase in heat retained by the Earth system that's nearly a 3 C increase in temperature (you have to measure it in terms of absolute zero and the average temperature on the surface is about 288 C above absolute zero). So by the evidence the increased CO2 has cause less than a 1% change so far.

    Where the possibility of danger to our civilization comes in is that the change in CO2 levels is happening much faster than it normally does in a natural cycle, increasing in a couple hundred years by an amount that would normally take well over 1000 years. The natural systems that our civilization is dependent on have not evolved to handle that rapid of a change and it's going to be disruptive of them. In addition to added CO2 in the atmosphere CO2 levels have also been increasing in the oceans acidifying them which may turn out to be just as big a problem in itself. Another place where the oceans come into play is that they act as a huge heat buffer, slowing down the increase in atmospheric and surface temperatures by absorbing heat. If we were to stop increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 tomorrow it would take at least 50 or 100 years before a new balance was reached and temperatures stopped increasing (actually several hundred years but most of the warming would happen it the first hundred). After that it would probably be at least 500 years before the cryosphere (ice sheets, glaciers) reached a new balance so sea levels will continue rising for a while. How disruptive all of that will be to our civilization remains to be seen but it would be foolish to think it won't cause some big problems.

    2. Prove that it is man's 3% of total annual CO2 emission that is causing the problem instead of nature's 97% You need to learn about the Carbon Cycle. It works kind of like respiration. Every year CO2 is released as a part of the carbon cycle when vegetation dies off and rots or is eaten by animals who convert the carbohydrates to energy and exhale CO2 and every year CO2 is absorbed by plants when they grow and use photosynthesis to convert that CO2 to carbohydrates. There are a number of other processes involved as well but this post is long enough already. Read the web page I pointed to for more details. So every year the carbon cycle is roughly in balance and human emissions due to fossil fuel use add carbon to the carbon cycle that has been sequestered from it for in most cases hundreds of millions of years. The problem is the total level of CO2. You can't really separate human released CO2 from the natural once it has become part of the carbon cycle. The increase in CO2 is directly attributable human activities.

    Or you can blindly follow con artists like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. Choose your poison.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Billy Busdriver | Dec 20, 2009 11:43:04 AM JK obviously doesn't understand betting. Bookies set odds on best data. They agree with the warming hypothesis. J: The degree of mis information on this blog is simply amazing. It is you who does NOT understand betting.

    Bookies don’t give a damn about the data. The only thing they look at is the bets that are placed. That is a reflection of public opinion, not data. (Of course the betting pattern of the public is data - they only data that matters to a bookie.)

    Billy Busdriver Can you not comprehend that if you are right and everyone is wrong, those odds are wrong? J: Can you not comprehend that science is NOT a popularity contest. It is truth based on data. And the fact that the data has been fudged has now been verified. All that is left are the congressional hearings and criminal trials of the “scientists” who created the greatest scientific scam of the century. (Or maybe 2nd after Eugenics, a popular delusion which was one of the foundations of the Third Reich)

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    J: Can you not comprehend that science is NOT a popularity contest. It is truth based on data. And the fact that the data has been fudged has now been verified. All that is left are the congressional hearings and criminal trials of the “scientists” who created the greatest scientific scam of the century. (Or maybe 2nd after Eugenics, a popular delusion which was one of the foundations of the Third Reich)

    J, I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. The emails from EAU don't prove any nonscientific fudging of the data and even if they did the data in question is but a small part of the whole of the data. It wouldn't change the conclusions one bit. Of course you already know that because the data is being fudged to fit the conclusion, right? (To be perfectly clear to everyone that last bit was sarcasm.) There may be congressional hearings that won't find much but there will be no criminal trials.

    The 3rd Reich is so last century BTW.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat If you take the word "dangerous" out of your statement it has been "proven" that CO2 does cause warming in the atmosphere. J: Can’t take out the word dangerous David, because if you cannot show a danger, there is no reason to trash the world’s economy.

    riverat It is the second most important GHG after water vapor but water vapor can't build up in the atmosphere like CO2 because once it reaches a certain level it will precipitate out in the form of rain, etc. J: You forgot the little detail of clouds. More water vapor, more clouds, some of which cause cooling: result a natural temperature regulator. Also you forgot to mention the process of evaporation which acts like a refrigerator.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent mostly on temperature. So water vapor is 36-72% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 is 9-26%. It varies like that in part because the atmosphere is not always completely saturated with water vapor. J: Thanks for finally admitting that CO2 is at most 26% of any warming effect. Why don’t you spread that around a bit more, for instance to Bill Bradberry and Jackie Dingfelder.

    riverat The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 280 ppm in 1830 to about 390 ppm today, a 39% increase. It's easy to show that the increase is primarily due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. J: If it’s so easy, why didn’t you show it? Perhaps because you have to rely on, now discredited, IPCC writings by the climate criminals at the CRU?

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat: The emails from EAU don't prove any nonscientific fudging of the data and even if they did the data in question is but a small part of the whole of the data. It wouldn't change the conclusions one bit. J: Prove? Probably not by themselves, but they are good leads for a prosecuter to follow to the following offences, both ethics and legal:

    • Threats to delete data subject to FOI. (probably a crime if deleted)
    • Requests for others to delete emails subject to FOI (probable crime)
    • Hiding data supporting papers to prevent review of claims that the climate is a problem. (ethical)
    • Hiding flaws in the data (the famous trick)
    • Attempts to replace editors of peer reviewed journals (ethical)
    • Falsification of data to be published in papers and IPCC reports. (Probable academic fraud)
    • Prevention of the publication of opposing papers (ethical)
    • Request to forge a date on a paper to meet the IPCC deadline (Probable academic fraud)
    • Falsifying research paid for by taxpayer funds. (Probable crime)
    • Trying to suppress the Mediaeval Warm Period (ethical/science fraud)
    • Admission that climate is cooling, while telling the world it is warming. (ethical)
    • Abuse of trust as a peer-reviewer. (ethical)
    • Biasing the IPCC report to emphasis warming (ethical)

    BTW: They solicited money from oil companies!

    That you cannot see this is truly sad.

    See SustainableOregon.com for more

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    J,

    I may have gone off on your use of the word dangerous a bit. The danger as I see it is explained in the third paragraph. I don't think responding to global warming will "trash the world's economy". It will just change it. There will be some pain in adjusting to the change but what else is new?

    Clouds can be either global warming negative, as in your example, or global warming positive. Have you ever noticed how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than on a clear night? That's clouds holding heat in. The net effect of clouds appears to be slightly positive overall but as they say more research is needed. There is no evidence that clouds net effect is big enough to override the signal from CO2.

    When water evaporates the heat of evaporation doesn't just disappear. Remember the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. The heat is carried in the water vapor by convection and released later in a different location. The net effect globally is zero.

    I have never said anything other than that CO2 is at most about a quarter of the greenhouse effect. The total greenhouse effect is around 58 F. If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere the average temperature on the surface of the Earth would be about 0F. If CO2 is 1/4 of the greenhouse effect that amounts to14.5 F. I wouldn't call that insignificant. I don't see how increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 180 years by 39% isn't going to cause changes in the balance of the greenhouse effect.

    Coal is around 70% carbon on average. Converting the 1400 lbs. of carbon in a ton of coal to CO2 produces 2.57 tons of it. (1 carbon [atomic weigh 12] plus 2 oxygen [at wt 16] = 1 CO2 [at wt 44]. 44/12=3.67 A CO2 molecule weighs 3.67 time the carbon atom in it. 1400 * 3.67 = 5138 5138/2000 = 2.57). So burning 1 ton of coal produces about 2.57 tons of CO2. You can do similar calculations for the other fossil fuels and from that calculate the total CO2 produced. We have a pretty good idea of the amount of deforestation from satellite imagry so we can estimate the CO2 released by that as well. It turns out that the yearly increase of CO2 is about half of what human activities are releasing. Why don't you tell me where it's all going if it isn't causing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Secondary evidence is that the ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmospheric CO2 is increasing because all the fossil fuel we're burning has a higher C12/C13 ratio than the atmosphere. Also, there has been a measurable decrease in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere commensurate with the amount of carbon we're burning. Was that easy enough for you? And don't give me some BS about human releases of CO2 being only 3% of natural releases until you've read up on the carbon cycle and passed the test.

    Maybe I'll answer your next post tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

  • Frances (unverified)
    (Show?)

    rat, you're arguing with a guy that (quoting from one of his websites) is More tolerant than a progressive claims to be, without the wasteful spending and crazy ideas.

    In fact, he's crazier than a loon without the enigmatic call and striking plumage.

    Read his "ideas". I put up with this daily. You don't need to waste your life. Believe me, he isn't worth it.

    [Editor's note: Linked website removed. -editor.]

    Example:Billy Busdriver | Dec 20, 2009 11:43:04 AM JK obviously doesn't understand betting. Bookies set odds on best data. They agree with the warming hypothesis. J: The degree of mis information on this blog is simply amazing. It is you who does NOT understand betting.

    I can tell you that he didn't understand one word of what was written, and really thinks he answered the point. When you think of something to add, reread this and his response and try to put yourself in that limited frame of reference. Now look at your point. Total waste, isn't it?

    I can also tell you he'll never put his money down because he doesn't have any. That answer to your question shows how much financial sense he has.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat: There will be some pain in adjusting to the change but what else is new? J: “some pain”!!!! Yeah, how many will be forced to remain in poverty? How many will have their standard of living reduced? How many will die? Don’t you think we should be damn sure before we do this to a billion or two people? At least have a look at all that data behind the CRU/IPCC models and forecasts, that the CRU climate criminals have been hiding for years?

    riverat: When water evaporates the heat of evaporation doesn't just disappear. ...The heat is carried in the water vapor by convection and released later in a different location. J: As ususal you left out a little detail that devastates your claim: That “different location” is higher in the atmosphere, above most of your CO2, where much of the released heat is radiated to space. The net effect is to cool the earth like an air conditioner (same thermodynamics) that serves as a temperature regulator.

    riverat: The net effect globally is zero. J: B.S. See air-conditioner, above.

    riverat: I have never said anything other than that CO2 is at most about a quarter of the greenhouse effect. J: After months of avoiding the question, you finally admitted the tiny role of CO2.

    riverat: If CO2 is 1/4 of the greenhouse effect that amounts to14.5 F. I wouldn't call that insignificant. I don't see how increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 180 years by 39% isn't going to cause changes in the balance of the greenhouse effect. J: Now tell the readers that the effect of CO 2 is logarithmic and we are well on to the flat part of the curve (from levels far below any level seen in millions of years, if ever), so additional CO2 has much less effect and is not really significant.

    riverat: It turns out that the yearly increase of CO2 is about half of what human activities are releasing. Why don't you tell me where it's all going if it isn't causing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. J: OK, right after YOU tell me where the 97% of CO2 NOT released by man is going. My answer is simple: same place as nature’s CO2. NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN that it is Man’s CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere, rather than a simple correlation (which is NOT proof).

    riverat: Secondary evidence is that the ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmospheric CO2 is increasing because all the fossil fuel we're burning has a higher C12/C13 ratio than the atmosphere. J: Either that or there are natural sources of CO2 that have the same signature as man’s CO2. NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN THIS.

    riverat: Was that easy enough for you? And don't give me some BS about human releases of CO2 being only 3% of natural releases until you've read up on the carbon cycle and passed the test. J: Just add up man’s part of the chart at page 4 of YOUR link: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/Images/carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg I did this some time ago at: sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html and got 3.3% as man’s contribution, including land use & concrete manufacturing. Man’s fuel CO2 alone is not listed on that NASA chart, but fuel & cement together add up to only 2.5%, so one could guess that the current proposals to let people die by cutting fossil fuel use only would reduce a tiny part of probable 2% of total emissions from fuel use.

    Laughable David, if it wasn’t for the people that will die under the proposals that you advocate.

    But the good news is that all the lies, hidden data and frauds from the warmers are now being exposed.

  • Jiang Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rat, you're giving aid and comfort, doing it here...

    Do you two not know how to exchange email addresses, or just really don't give a damn about the entire readership that isn't interested in your constant circling each other with the exact same rhetoric, over and over. Dogs do that when they're afraid to fight. Get on the porch and shut up, or do it.

    One year ago. Same drivel, same speakers. Two years ago. You've fouled the bandwidth from day one, just because poor feckless Kari can't manage a blog. You're a waste of bandwidth, both of you!

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, I know what kind of troll JK is. Sometimes I just can't help myself from correcting some of his factual errors. It gives him a chance to keep showing what kind of simple minded idiot he is. I'm still tempted to keep replying but I'll let it lay.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat: Yeah, I know what kind of troll JK is. J: And you, David Appell won't even use your real name. Probably because you keep getting nailed with your many inaccuracies.

    Now you are still towing the CRU/IPCC line. Even after the top CRU?IPCC "scientists" have been caught engaging in : Threats to delete data subject to FOI. (a crime if deleted) Requests for others to delete emails subject to FOI (probable crime) Hiding data supporting papers to prevent review of claims that the climate is a problem. Hiding flaws in the data (the famous trick) Attempts to replace editors of peer reviewed journals Falsification of data to be published in papers and IPCC reports. (Probable academic fraud) Prevention of the publication of opposing papers Request to forge a date on a paper to meet the IPCC deadline (Probable academic fraud) Falsifying research paid for by taxpayer funds. (Probable crime) Trying to suppress the Mediaeval Warm Period Admission that climate is cooling, while telling the world it is warming. Abuse of trust as a peer-reviewer. Biasing the IPCC report to emphasis warming AND, worse of all: They solicited money from oil companies!

    More at SustainableOregon.com

  • Aaron Cady (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: jamie | Dec 22, 2009 4:53:19 AM

    riverat: Yeah, I know what kind of troll JK is. J: And you, David Appell won't even use your real name. Probably because you keep getting nailed with your many inaccuracies

    How is simply saying, "no it's not" getting nailed? At least he can write his name without having the post rejected. And when did your name become "jamie", hypocrite. You must have thought that was a "good argument" in the famous Python skit. No, this doesn't sound much like K arlock "arguing"... I mean how bad is it when a comedy sketch is the best summary of this whole page?!?

    Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

    Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

    Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

    Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

    Man: It is!

    Mr Vibrating: It is not.

    Man: Look, you just contradicted me.

    Mr Vibrating: I did not.

    Man: Oh you did!!

    Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.

    Man: You did just then.

    Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!

    Man: Oh, this is futile!

    Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

    Man: I came here for a good argument.

    Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

    Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

    Mr Vibrating: It can be.

    Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

    Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

    Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

    Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

    Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

    Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!

    Man: No it isn't!

    Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

    (short pause)

    Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

    Man: It is.

    Mr Vibrating: Not at all.

    Man: Now look

    Come on editors! You collect a lot of ad. money. How about some editing? You have a banned poster outing people and wasting bandwidth on every enviro topic. You've only inconvenienced us by putting his name in the spam filter. Your other post was well edited and look at how it's a decent discussion. You have to work to restore civility here; it doesn't just happen. I've seen a lot of bitter old men on porches shouting whatever in life, and I've yet to see one stop one day, because they realized it was rude. You cite them for disturbing the peace, or it continues.

  • (Show?)

    We talked about the confluence of climate change and population growth today on OPB's Think Out Loud, the conversation continues over there, as well.

    there

  • Dave Snelker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can we still blame George Bush for US lack of involvement and unwillingness to sign a treaty? I thought we voted for change we could believe in. Looks like we got W's third term.

  • Lawrence Baker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The World is held hostage to a 20th Century fossil fuel product line. The use of fossil fuels is here until the Earth gives up. The advancement in SCIENCE with new inventions (new economy) is unfunded and will not happen this Century. Greed is a disease. Good enough is never good enough and the hunger for profit and power is never satisfied- the soul is never grateful. I am sure the poor, resource rich, countries and Europe are taking a second look at U.S and Communist China industrial relations and reexamining their own alliances. American Multinational corporations have no loyalty to any one country. At least at Copenhagen 15 no one was seriously injured. The next convention will be held in the “narcotic” designated country of Mexico where mercenary drug lords and Federallies will be available for hire (contractors) to crush the “Friends of the Earth” demonstrators; that outcome could be quite different. I know many of the Republican, multinational corporate backed right wing hate propagandist that openly broadcast here are banned from broadcasting in Europe. Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Hannity, Faux News and the other paid propagandist are working the multinational corporate backed subversive right wing organizations “U.S Citizens Association” and “Freedom First” (sic) in the same style Hitler used to whip up the “Brown Shirts” in Germany. (Planned August- D.C assault) It always amazes me how people can be manipulated to act, not in their own self interest, but in the interest of the propagandist that control them. (19 year assault) ”Free Trade” (sic) agreements have nullified our American national Sovereignty and Constitution and we are heading for World Corporate Totalitarianism. American Freedom and Democracy- Free Enterprise and a Competitive Market (capitalism) - Free Press-are gone. The multinational corporation’s corruption of our government is near complete, now they want the World. The real question is: Can the Chinese Communist Party be corrupted by the multinational corporations or will the Party eventually arrest them for corruption and chop their heads off? - (Chinese penalty for corruption- like the death penalty for Treason in the United States.) That is an interesting marriage of strange bedfellows. The Chinese certainly are not blind sided; they built the Great Wall to keep the barbarians out and the structure of Communism well defines who the Devil is. As far as I know, General Motors has the only corporate delegate in the Communist Party and that delegate has only an alternate position.

  • Sir Ranulph Fiennes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How about the fact that the European empires and, more recently, the American corporate empire have plundered many of the underdeveloped nations and left them unable to cope with many of the demands that will be placed on them to participate in reversing these climatic changes?

connect with blueoregon