A question for Warmists

[TKoontz 0]

Quote

as the case for man made global warming collapses, the clamor for cap and trade increases, and its justification becomes more diverse.

First off, sorry for the long reply time. Second, you are provably wrong here. First I point you to this report:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

After that I recommend you read up on the IPCC and their 4 reports spanning from 1990 to 2007:
FAR SAR TAR and AR4

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1

The case for man-made global warming (Note I said warming, not necessarily climate chance, because you are correct, our current understanding of global climes is not deep enough to say what the outcome will be) Is getting nothing but stronger and stronger to the point that a majority of climate scientists in the world today agree.

Now, to the issue at hand. As Bill pointed out, there have been things done in the past that have drastically reduced our output without hurting the economy (see catalytic converters) and did not, deniers would assert, ruin our country and limit personal freedoms. I'll admit that I don't know enough about cap and trade policies beyond their basic function to give a good opinion on them, but I am certainly not against government intervention to promote/enforce cleaner practices.

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[brenthutch 444]

I fixed the spelling. Thanks for pointing that out. To get back to the topic of my post; Does a cap and trade policy have an intrinsic value independent of the climate debate?

[weekender 0]

Quote

>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people?

Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people."

the original model for cap and trade was based on this exact program and i agree with you. it worked. pollution went down. the motivation behind it was to reduce pollution. no one will ever convice me that the motivation behind cap and trade was to reduce pollution/carbon. it was to make the traders and bankers rich in a new unregulated OTC market and bring tons of rev's to cash strapped states and nations

my opinion is based on my experience as a carbon derivative trader. i worked with the people who created carbon credits through the Kyoto protocols. my bank securitized them and marketed them to institutional accounts. similiar to mortgage derivatives. No one i met, including people who worked for Mr Gore himself, did not seem motivated purely by greed. It made me very cynical about the green movement.

the market fell apart when our congress did not pass cap and trade. the US banks got out of the business and the credits are now worthless.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[billvon 3,120]

>SOx is not an inevitable result of combustion of a hydrocarbon, CO2 is.

Since coal and oil contain sulfur, SOx emissions are inevitable - unless you filter the sulfur out before or after you burn it.

Since coal and oil contain carbon, CO2 emissions are inevitable - unless you filter the carbon out after you burn it.

But nice try. Maybe try the "YOU'RE TWISTING MY WORDS!" thing next.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people?

Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people."

SOx science is based on a solid research foundation

CO2 alarmism is not

Back in the 70s and 80s there were deniers who claimed that SOx science was bogus. I know, my brother was prominent among them.

Really?!?! This is what you have been reduced to? "My brother" I wish I had been able to use that on a research paper when getting my MBA. "Even though Milton Friedman would disagree, by brother says the government should run everything" That is priceless! RAOTFLMAO.

Imbecilic comment even for you.

My brother was head of environmental chemistry for a very large electric power utility, whose interests were in denying any link between SOx emissions and acid rain.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The case for man-made global warming (Note I said warming, not necessarily climate chance, because you are correct, our current understanding of global climes is not deep enough to say what the outcome will be) Is getting nothing but stronger and stronger to the point that a majority of climate scientists in the world today agree.

Um...no.

Quote

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TKoontz 0]

A news article that exposes a tweaked poll from a college.

That's your home run. That's the indisputable proof that I'm blowing smoke out my ass at you all.

I bring you an article directly from Science, one of the most tightly peer-reviewed scientific journals out there, and you refute it with some half-assed story in the National Post about an online survey that was fudged by 'researchers'? Did you even take the time to read it?

Notice they said researchers. Not professors, not doctors, hell, not even grad students. Researcher means someone like me, a junior in college with an associates degree that made up a two question poll and emailed it to a bunch of scientists in vaguely related fields (see "Earth Scientists"). I'll at last admit when I know nothing or very little of the subject in question (refer to my earlier post).

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A news article that exposes a tweaked poll from a college.

That's your home run. That's the indisputable proof that I'm blowing smoke out my ass at you all.

I bring you an article directly from Science, one of the most tightly peer-reviewed scientific journals out there, and you refute it with some half-assed story in the National Post about an online survey that was fudged by 'researchers'? Did you even take the time to read it?

Notice they said researchers. Not professors, not doctors, hell, not even grad students. Researcher means someone like me, a junior in college with an associates degree that made up a two question poll and emailed it to a bunch of scientists in vaguely related fields (see "Earth Scientists").

Actually, Peter Doran is a full professor at UI Chicago and was named a Leopold Fellow in 2008, and the study was published in EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

So, you were saying?

Notice that the warmist community has no problem with using the same poll to claim their bogus 'consensus'...maybe you should take that up with them.

Quote

I'll at last admit when I know nothing or very little of the subject in question (refer to my earlier post).

Maybe you should have stuck with that instead of posting.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Imbecilic comment even for you.

Regarding imbecility, I recall the perfesser to his many proclamations of "anecdote does not equal data".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 444]

So if we could "filter" out CO2 you would have no problem burning coal to our hearts content?

[TKoontz 0]

What community are you talking about? Surely you don't mean the scientifically literate community because I can guarantee you that these 'researchers' you found a quick blurb on would get laughed out of the room if they tried presenting this as evidence againt global warming.

Here's the way it is. The vast majority of the *qualified* scientific community accepts that our world is warming up. It is caused *primarily* by an increase in greenhouse gasses, of which, a vast majority we are directly responsible for.

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What community are you talking about? Surely you don't mean the scientifically literate community because I can guarantee you that these 'researchers' you found a quick blurb on would get laughed out of the room if they tried presenting this as evidence againt global warming.

Actually, Peter Doran is a full professor at UI Chicago and was named a Leopold Fellow in 2008, and the study was published in EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

So, you were saying?

Quote

Here's the way it is. The vast majority of the *qualified* scientific community accepts that our world is warming up. It is caused *primarily* by an increase in greenhouse gasses, of which, a vast majority we are directly responsible for.

Wow... that's so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to start.

First... no evidence that CO2 is the primary driver - that's been proven both by historical record and the fact that the temp anomaly has been flat for the last dozen years while CO2 continues to rise.

Second, human CO2 is a vanishingly small fraction of the CO2 total - maybe 1%, if I recall correctly.

You should have stuck with that "admitting when you don't know anything about a subject" thing you mentioned upthread.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>So if we could "filter" out CO2 you would have no problem burning coal to our hearts
>content?

If you could :

- filter out the CO2, SOx, NOx and heavy metals from the exhaust stream;
- mine coal without eliminating mountains and destroying forests;
- safely store the waste products without requiring impoundment dams that kill people when they collapse;

yes, then burn coal to your heart's content. There's nothing inherently evil about coal

[TKoontz 0]

I retract my previous statement about the 'researcher' identity. I was wrong on that front.

I denounce that poll as being faked, as would and do the rest of the scientific community. So I'll refer you to, yet again, my post to the article in science which I can guarantee you, is legitimate.

What I'm getting from your posts is that you're trying to break down the GW movement by pointing out people who have fudged evidence to suit their goals. The entire deniers movement is based around misinformation and skewing of scientific data. So which is worse?

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[TKoontz 0]

I never said CO2 is the only, or primary contributor (it's either this thread or the other on the same topic)

CO2, HOx NOx SOx VOCs and a whole slew of other compounds cause GW, however these are the primary contributors. Hell, CO2 isn't even close to the worst in destructive capability or residence time, it's just the most commonly produced.

Comparatively, human CO2 is small on a global scale, I won't argue that.

Let me be a little more clear on what I'm saying:

1. GW is occurring and humans are responsible (to a large extent)

2. The Scientific community is largely in concensus on this

These are the only two points I'm attempting to make, I'm not sure where the disconnect is but I've already given you all the evidence in previous posts you need to concede that I do in fact, know what I'm talking about and that I'm not just making these things up to pander to the GW movement.

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I retract my previous statement about the 'researcher' identity. I was wrong on that front.

I denounce that poll as being faked, as would and do the rest of the scientific community.

You *did* see the part where it was published in EOS (American Geophysical Union publication), right?

Let's see your proofs of it being faked.

Quote

The entire deniers movement is based around misinformation and skewing of scientific data.

LMAO!!! Yeah, let's see the proof of THAT, too, given that the warmists change the data when it doesn't fit the conclusions.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Let me be a little more clear on what I'm saying:

1. GW is occurring and humans are responsible (to a large extent)

Unproven.

Quote

2. The Scientific community is largely in concensus on this

Equally unproven.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Imbecilic comment even for you.

Regarding imbecility, I recall the perfesser to his many proclamations of "anecdote does not equal data".

Who claimed "data"? Just one counter example is all that is needed to disprove rushmc's claim.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>So if we could "filter" out CO2 you would have no problem burning coal to our hearts
>content?

If you could :

- filter out the CO2, SOx, NOx and heavy metals from the exhaust stream;
- mine coal without eliminating mountains and destroying forests; or killing miners due to shoddy safety standards (think SAGO, Upper Big Branch...).
- safely store the waste products without requiring impoundment dams that kill people when they collapse;

yes, then burn coal to your heart's content. There's nothing inherently evil about coal

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TKoontz 0]

Jesus fuck....

I grow tired and frustrated of presenting defenses to your inane, stubborn, and willfully ignorant retorts. The time and energy required to provide a single person who's scientific opinions are utterly inconsequential the appropriate proof, citations, peer reviewed articles, and other testimonials is not worth my time nor that of anyone else's besides the most patient educator.

Feel free to contact my professor, Simone Aloisio, if you really want some knowledge dropped on your ass in a much less patient and polite manner than mine. As for me, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm off to calmer seas before my feathers get any more ruffled

-Rooster

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I retract my previous statement about the 'researcher' identity. I was wrong on that front.

I denounce that poll as being faked, as would and do the rest of the scientific community. So I'll refer you to, yet again, my post to the article in science which I can guarantee you, is legitimate.

how the fuck can you GUARANTEE anything? Science isn't about guarantees, it's about repeatable results. You can't even meet your guarantee that his researcher was some flack with an AA.

*BTW, the notion that science can only come from a Ph.d is a bit elitist. While most science is mature enough that it requires considerable years of experience to explore the cutting edge, the scientific method does not require a degree at all.

It's these sort of sweeping declarations that has many non deniers quite suspicious of the motives and claims from the climatologists. 'how dare you question me, I'm saving the world.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Jesus fuck....

I grow tired and frustrated of presenting defenses to your inane, stubborn, and willfully ignorant retorts.

So in other words, you can't provide evidence to back up your claim?

Quote

The time and energy required to provide a single person who's scientific opinions are utterly inconsequential the appropriate proof, citations, peer reviewed articles, and other testimonials is not worth my time nor that of anyone else's besides the most patient educator.

So in other words, you can't provide evidence to back up your claim?

Quote

Feel free to contact my professor, Simone Aloisio, if you really want some knowledge dropped on your ass in a much less patient and polite manner than mine.

Was he one of the 75?

Quote

As for me, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm off to calmer seas before my feathers get any more ruffled

-Rooster

Well...bye.

Maybe you can visit the library and do some actual research on the issue while you're away.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TKoontz 0]

Quote

how the fuck can you GUARANTEE anything? Science isn't about guarantees, it's about repeatable results. You can't even meet your guarantee that his researcher was some flack with an AA.

*BTW, the notion that science can only come from a Ph.d is a bit elitist. While most science is mature enough that it requires considerable years of experience to explore the cutting edge, the scientific method does not require a degree at all.

It's these sort of sweeping declarations that has many non deniers quite suspicious of the motives and claims from the climatologists. 'how dare you question me, I'm saving the world.'

Last post for reals this time* (lol I'm tring)
Guarantee was a dumb choice of words, obviously I can't guarantee anything in science. I was getting a bit frustrated at that point and misspoke/typed. Happens to us all

I don't think PHD's are the only capable ones of producing science, at all in fact. However, I do tend to defer to them a bit more as their degree supposedly indicates a bit more knowledge in their subject.

I usually try to invite discussion on issues, I don't like blind acceptance of any view. However being dismissive when I'm providing evidence to support my claims does tend to make me a bit grouchy.
For what it's worth my motives lie only with the science, and as of yet I haven't seen anything that's more convincing than the GW data, hence my sticking to that side of the debate.

-Rooster

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I usually try to invite discussion on issues, I don't like blind acceptance of any view. However being dismissive when I'm providing evidence to support my claims does tend to make me a bit grouchy.

You were certainly being dismissive and discouraging discussion when you write statements like 'I have no idea who this person is, but if he's a "researcher" he must be some unqualified punk who doesn't count.'

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>SOx is not an inevitable result of combustion of a hydrocarbon, CO2 is.

Since coal and oil contain sulfur, SOx emissions are inevitable - unless you filter the sulfur out before or after you burn it.

Since coal and oil contain carbon, CO2 emissions are inevitable - unless you filter the carbon out after you burn it.

But nice try. Maybe try the "YOU'RE TWISTING MY WORDS!" thing next.

This "filter out the CO2" has me intrigued. Just how would we do that?