Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]346908[/split]

 

[sithgoblin]

US President George W Bush's plan to cap greenhouse gases by 2025 has been dismissed as "disastrous" and "Neanderthal" by some ministers at a climate change meeting in Paris.

Mr Bush has unveiled a plan to halt the growth of US emissions by 2025, which the US says is tougher than its previous goals.

But delegates at the ministerial-level meeting of major carbon emitters, including the US, Australia and the European Union (EU), were less than impressed.

Germany accused Mr Bush of turning back the clock to before last December's UN climate talks in Bali and even to before last July's G8 summit.

In a statement entitled "Bush's Neanderthal speech," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said: "His speech showed not leadership but losership. We are glad that there are also other voices in the United States."

South Africa blasted Mr Bush's proposal as a disastrous retreat by the planet's number-one polluter and a slap to poor countries.

Mr Bush's speech on Wednesday came at a key time in efforts to craft a new UN treaty for slashing the heat-trapping fossil-fuel gases that scientists fear will ravage Earth's climate system.

The Bali talks yielded a two-year "roadmap" designed to culminate in a planetary deal that will tackle carbon emissions beyond 2013, after the present pledges in the Kyoto Protocol run out.

These negotiations have the delicate task of bridging the US on one side and the EU and developing countries on the other - and Mr Bush's critics said his speech had provocatively staked out old positions already blamed for prolonged stalemate.

Instead of setting a date for cutting US emissions, Mr Bush had merely outlined a year - 2025 - by which the emissions would peak, they said.

In addition, Mr Bush renewed his attack on Kyoto-style mandatory emissions caps and pressed big emerging countries to make concessions, saying they should not get "a free ride" in the next climate treaty.

"There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the US is proposing," South African Environment and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said, describing the Bush administration as "isolated."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto shrugged off what he called "hot-blooded reaction" to the Bush speech and compared what he said was the administration's record of setting goals and achieving them with those who sought "short-term political benefit" from rhetoric.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/18/2220481.htm

 

[Doctor Evo]

I believe that climate change is a natural course for the planet. It goes from very hot to very cold and everything in between. We've seen it in our own history and we will continue to see this trend in the future. It's just a natural part of the Earth's cycle. I don't even see how it's debatable...I mean...how does anyone explain the ice age and the melting of said ice age as NOT being climate change?

Honest question: are you under the impression that climate scientists are unaware of natural climate cycles?

 

[Doctor Evo]

The Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Started to Collapse and Nothing Can Stop It

For decades, scientists have feared the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet—a vast swath of ice that could unleash a slow but unstoppable 10-foot rise in sea levels if it melted. So here is today's terrible news: we now know the ice sheet is melting. And there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.

The accelerating collapse of the ice sheet is reported by two different teams of scientists, in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters. Its collapse has been predicted for decades, most prominently by glaciologist John Mercer, but this is the first tangible evidence that it's actually now happening. Warmer waters are most likely responsible for the melting.



The New York Times explains why the position of the ice sheet makes it especially vulnerable to runway melting:

The basic problem is that much of the West Antarctic ice sheet sits below sea level in a kind of bowl-shaped depression [in] the earth. As Dr. Mercer outlined in 1978, once the part of the ice sheet sitting on the rim of the bowl melts and the ice retreats into deeper water, it becomes unstable and highly vulnerable to further melting
This is no longer just speculation or the plot of a blockbuster film. "This is really happening," NASA's Thomas P. Wagner emphasized to the New York Times. "There's nothing to stop it now."

The relative good news is that the melting will take place over a few hundred years—so take a breath—but it means an inevitable 10-foot rise in sea level. That's enough to engulf large tracts of coast all over the world. Plan accordingly, humans.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.1249055

I can't wait for JKD to explain that this was all natural and we humans had absolutely nothing to do with this. Just the cycle of the Earth huh?

Well...about that....

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/503527/1/grl51035.pdf

 

[Destructus86]

I can't reply to someone because they are in the old closed thread now. grrr

The question was...(roughly) do I believe climate scientists are unaware of natural climate change?

No. I'm sure they are fully aware of it. What I do believe is that politicians are not away of it. Politicians only look for the data and research that matches their own thinking on the subject. I think you'll find very few with an unbiased opinion. How else do you explain some politicians completely ignoring the FACT that natural climate change even exists?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I can't reply to someone because they are in the old closed thread now. grrr

The question was...(roughly) do I believe climate scientists are unaware of natural climate change?

No. I'm sure they are fully aware of it. What I do believe is that politicians are not away of it. Politicians only look for the data and research that matches their own thinking on the subject. I think you'll find very few with an unbiased opinion. How else do you explain some politicians completely ignoring the FACT that natural climate change even exists?

Can you support this assertion beyond speculation?

 

[Destructus86]

Can you support this assertion beyond speculation?

Just check out the news. Do a google search. There have been plenty of politicians..especially on the GOP side of things that have rejected climate change.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Just check out the news. Do a google search. There have been plenty of politicians..especially on the GOP side of things that have rejected climate change.

Oh, I thought you were referring to politicians who think ACC/AGW is real.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

The humans who cause the overshoot of carrying capacity do have the means to exist, but only temporarily. Just how temporary this period of time is depends upon several factors, as I mentioned before.

When you looked up the UN projection, did you even once stop to wonder why the population decreases before reaching a stable equilibrium? Do you understand what that stable equilibrium actually represents?

Again: you fail to take into account rates associated with these processes, instead opting to consider the more simplistic and less realistic set of assumptions implicit in your argument.

You can disagree until you're blue in the face. You're still wrong.

Read a book on the subject. It'll do you good. I recommend the text by Stephen Case.

I do disagree because a human being cannot exist without food for very long. If a person exists, it means there is enough food to support their existence. It works that way for all species. This is not a complex concept.

I can't reply to someone because they are in the old closed thread now. grrr

The question was...(roughly) do I believe climate scientists are unaware of natural climate change?

No. I'm sure they are fully aware of it. What I do believe is that politicians are not away of it. Politicians only look for the data and research that matches their own thinking on the subject. I think you'll find very few with an unbiased opinion. How else do you explain some politicians completely ignoring the FACT that natural climate change even exists?

Oh scientists are quite aware of natural climate change. Go to 1:26: "Climate always changes. That's the missing agenda. Every climate scientist knows this. Nothing unusual about climate change. The idea that climate somehow was stable until the industrial revolution and our carbon dioxide emissions is simply silly."

[YT]C35pasCr6KI?t[/YT]

Even the most alarmists of scientists will allow natural climate variability into the discussion when/if the climate doesn't do what they predict. For instance, during the last year or so when it was finally admitted that there has been no warming for almost two decades (it was denied for years), natural climate variability was finally allowed into the discussion. Now....if there is any warming....natural climate variability is quickly jettisoned from the conversation and it's all about humans again.

Jørgen Peder Steffensen on natural variabilty. At 3:26:
http://climateclips.com/archives/132

"The problem is that we agree completely that we've had a global temperature increase in the 20th century..yes. ...But an increase from what? Probably an increase from the lowest point we've had in the last 10,000 years. And this means that it would be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase of temperature in the 20th century was manmade or was a natural variation. It would be very hard because we made ourselves a very poor experiment. We started to observe meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years."

And when you see that temps began to increase before our CO2 emissions could be a factor, you have to ask what alarmists think was instead supposed to happen post-1950. Were we supposed to go back to the temps of the Little Ice Age? Was the climate supposed to stop changing for the first time in earth's history?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I do disagree because a human being cannot exist without food for very long. If a person exists, it means there is enough food to support their existence. It works that way for all species. This is not a complex concept.

To which I respond, once again:

When you looked up the UN projection, did you even once stop to wonder why the population decreases before reaching a stable equilibrium? Do you understand what that stable equilibrium actually represents?

Again: you fail to take into account rates associated with these processes, instead opting to consider the more simplistic and less realistic set of assumptions implicit in your argument.

It's become painfully obvious that you're out of your depth here, and this conversation is no longer interesting. There's no sport in this anymore, nor is there any opportunity to educate a man who refuses to be educated.

I'm out.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

To which I respond, once again:

It's become painfully obvious that you're out of your depth here, and this conversation is no longer interesting. There's no sport in this anymore, nor is there any opportunity to educate a man who refuses to be educated.

I'm out.

Fine with me. Your continued effort to pretend people can exist without food is never going to make any sense.

 

[floreairfoot]

I was hearing a lot of back and forth on NPR today, reguarding the new Obama "Climate Regulations".. I kept wondering where the push was suddenly coming from, since it's been a losing issue in Congress.

It looks like I found out.. not surprisingly, it's all about the $

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/

"An environmental advocacy group backed by hedge fund tycoon Tom Steyer is set to unleash a seven-state, $100 million offensive against Republican "science deniers" this year, a no-holds-barred campaign-style push from the green billionaire that could help decide which party controls the Senate and key statehouses come November."

I suppose he wasn't planing on giving up any of his money without some new regulations, how else would he make the green?

Apparently these new adds are going to bully climate change skeptics, labeling them anti-science or whatnot.

 

[SV Fan]

I suppose he wasn't planing on giving up any of his money without some new regulations, how else would he make the green?

Just out of curiosity how does Steyer stand to profit on renewable energy? He was a hedge fund manager who actually made his billions of coal and oil.

 

[floreairfoot]

Just out of curiosity how does Steyer stand to profit on renewable energy? He was a hedge fund manager who actually made his billions of coal and oil.

You're absolutely right, a majority of his wealth came from coal and oil.. not that it matters for a man like Steyer.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/tom-steyer-green-energy-presents-opportunity-to-make-a-lot-of-money/

"Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer last year touted green energy policies as a potential windfall for companies that invest in renewable energy technology.

“It’s a big business opportunity,” Steyer told like minded activists and policymakers at a gathering at his California home. “It’s a chance to make a lot of money.”

A video of his remarks was posted to the website Complete Colorado on Wednesday.

The event promoted the efforts of Advanced Energy Economy, a group of green energy businesses co-founded and chaired by Steyer."

Tom Steyer sees the opportunity to make even more money with his new "green" investments.

His environmental stance (whatever the hell that is) also falls in line with his position on the Keystone Pipeline.. but not because he cares about the environment...

The Keystone Pipeline would be in direct competition with TransMountain, a pipeline he's invested in.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062713-661681-obama-donor-benefits-from-keystone-demise.htm?p=fullZobacz

"A billionaire hedge fund manager and Barack Obama donor is pushing the president to stop the pipeline that would compete with one he's invested in. That pipeline could send Canadian oil to China."

"If Keystone XL is killed, it will leave TransMountain as the only game in town for transporting oil directly from the oil sands to export terminals, up to 900,000 barrels a day. And most of that oil will be shipped west to China."

Tom Steyer is a snake.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Wyoming Says Teaching Climate Change Would Wreck The State's Economy

Earlier this year, the Wyoming legislature became the first in the U.S. to reject new science standards for schools. Lessons on climate change, lawmakers said, would brainwash kids against the state's coal and oil industries. Now, parents, scientists and even churches are fighting the decision.

The science guidelines in question are the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), adopted so far by 11 states and the District of Columbia. The National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science—working with 26 state governments—developed the NGSS to update K-12 science education in schools for the first time since 1998. Essentially the NGSS provides benchmarks for what students should learn in each grade, but leaves decisions about specific textbooks and how to teach the curriculum up to individual districts, schools and educators.

In Wyoming, a committee comprised of 30 science educators spent 18 months studying and comparing the NGSS with existing guidelines in other states, and then unanimously recommended that it be adopted by the State Board of Education. However, in March, the legislature added a footnote to the state budget that prohibited any public spending to implement the NGSS—effectively killing it. Then, a month later, the State Board of Education told the committee of science educators to develop a new set of standards, which would better reflect the values and economic interests of Wyoming.

As the Casper Star-Tribune reported:

"[The standards] handle global warming as settled science," said Rep. Matt Teeters, a Republican from Lingle who was one of the footnote's authors. "There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming."

Teeters said teaching global warming as fact would wreck Wyoming's economy, as the state is the nation's largest energy exporter, and cause other unwanted political ramifications.

Ron Micheli, the state board of education chairman, agreed.

"I don't accept, personally, that [climate change] is a fact," Micheli said. "[The standards are] very prejudiced in my opinion against fossil-fuel development."

Evolving Perspectives

In the aftermath of the legislature's vote, grassroots campaigns have sprung up across the state. Among the most vocal opponents of the new science standards is the group, Wyoming Citizens Opposing Common Core—which not only faults the NGSS for its failure to "objectively" address "controversial issues" such as climate change, but also takes issue that it "teaches evolution as a fact, starting in elementary grades (current WY standards teach evolution as a theory, and not until 8th grade)."

For instance, the Wyoming Citizens Opposing Common Core objects to the NGSS guideline that, by the end of second grade, students should understand that, "Some kinds of plants and animals that once lived on Earth (e.g., dinosaurs) are no longer found anywhere, although others now living (e.g., lizards) resemble them in some ways."

According to the group, this language is evidence that:

The standards address ultimate religious questions and then use a doctrine or "Rule" that permits only materialistic or functionally atheistic answers.

The standards require a materialistic explanation for any phenomenon addressed by science.

The standards are neither educationally objective nor religiously neutral, because an atheistic or materialistic worldview is consistently affirmed throughout.

The Standards fail to present legitimate scientific critiques of materialistic theories regarding the origins of the universe, of life and its diversity.

Not so, says the Wyoming Association of Churches (WAC), which represents about 10 Protestant denominations statewide. Earlier this month, WAC issued a press release:

WAC believes that God gave us the responsibility to serve as stewards of the created order. Science, on the other hand, is not based upon a belief system but rather a field of study dedicated to the understanding of how the created order works. Therefore, WAC strongly supports the advancement of an education system founded upon 21st century evidence-based science standards, like NGSS, which encourage Wyoming students to think critically, and through greater knowledge, foster stewardship of the created order.

"Science is important, peer-proven," Rev. Warren Murphy, a Cody-based Episcopalian minister told the Billings Gazette. "Faith is something else. It shouldn't interfere with what science is doing. ... Whether it was 6,000 years ago or Adam and Eve or dinosaurs, it was all created by God."

"Our concern isn't fighting the Legislature, and it's not to take issue with other people's faith," he added. "It's simply saying faith is a belief system; science isn't. Let's keep them separate."

Scientific Smackdown

At the same time that the Wyoming Association of Churches was issuing its statement, a group of 46 current and former science and math professors at the University of Wyoming sent the state Board of Education a 36-page paper, titled "Why the Critics of the Next Generation Science Standards are Wrong."

The paper includes a point-by-point rebuttal of objections to the new guidelines, which I'd like to frame and hang on my wall. Some excerpts:

-When someone argues, "Evolution is just a theory" or the "The NGSS presents human's role in climate change as fact rather than theory" the person does not understand the nature or the language of science. The use of the term theory over the years has been troublesome, for it means something entirely different in science than it does in everyday life. In science a theory is a concept that has been thoroughly tested and moved from an hypothesis to a trusted truth, verified in studies (often over generations of use) tested, passed judgment by scientists for years and years, passed many tests through use. An example would be Bernoulli's principles about air pressure and wings, which helps us figure out how to make planes that fly. These scientific theories should be accepted as a working truth. The theory of plate tectonics is another example. It has been tested worldwide for over 100 years, and while it has been modified, and may be further modified in the future, the basic theory remains unchanged.

-When someone argues, "The NGSS does not include the scientific method" that person does not understand the nature of science. There is no single method that scientists use, and in particular they seldom use the linear step-by-step process described in many science textbooks (memorized by generations of students). This method represents an obsolete view of the nature of science.

-When someone argues, "The science standards must reflect the role of energy and agriculture in our state's economy" that person does not understand the nature of science. These specific issues fall into the domain of the social studies, especially history, geography, and economics. They may be included in the state's social studies standards, but have no place in the science standards.

Whatever the outcome in Wyoming, the debate over the new science education standards is just a preview of what's to come in other states, where some legislatures have also expressed disapproval over the NGSS—including South Carolina, which has considered adding guidelines that would soften the language on climate change.

But, advocates of quality science education should take heart that the governor of Kentucky—which, like Wyoming, is a coal state—approved the guidelines even after a legislative committee rejected them. The office of Governor Steve Beshear said the standards are "a critical component in preparing Kentuckians for college and the workforce."

http://trib.com/news/local/educatio...cle_5d0ec624-6b50-5354-b015-ca2f5f7d7efe.html

It is inasane that these bible thumping wackos think they can dictate the legitimate science that hasn't been updated since 1998! It's good to see that some don't let their faith cloud their judgement though and except science without trying to ruin future generations.

 

[floreairfoot]

It is inasane that these bible thumping wackos think they can dictate the legitimate science that hasn't been updated since 1998! It's good to see that some don't let their faith cloud their judgement though and except science without trying to ruin future generations.

Accept science? What does that even mean?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Accept science? What does that even mean?

Yes I meant "accept science" obviously, my phone was on voice to text and sometimes it puts the wrong word in if they sound similar.

And to accept the science would mean to go with the literal thousands of peer reviewed papers that have been done on the study that show humans are responsible for climate change and it we need to do out best to curb it in the future. Something that state doesn't want to accept because they think it will destroy their economy if they tell their youth the truth

 

[floreairfoot]

Yes I meant "accept science" obviously, my phone was on voice to text and sometimes it puts the wrong word in if they sound similar.

And to accept the science would mean to go with the literal thousands of peer reviewed papers that have been done on the study that show humans are responsible for climate change and it we need to do out best to curb it in the future. Something that state doesn't want to accept because they think it will destroy their economy if they tell their youth the truth

I wasn't questioning your spelling; I assumed it was a mistake.

It's just amazing that we're at a point of not being able to question climate science.

Obviously your example is extreme and those people are absurd.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I wasn't questioning your spelling; I assumed it was a mistake.

It's just amazing that we're at a point of not being able to question climate science.

Obviously your example is extreme and those people are absurd.

How much evidence do you need? Like I said there has been not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers that show, without a doubt, that climate change is real and humanity is accelerating it. 97% of the scientific community agrees with this. They have been able to study it for decades. At this point to deny is just plain stupidity.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

As was pointed out on last nights Daily Show the heads of the EPA under Reagan, Nixon, and both Bush's testified that they all know for a fact that climate change is real, man made, and the science on the matter definitively proves this. The only thing in question in their eyes is the pace at which it will effect us.

Funny thing is that the Republicans STILL want to act as if it is not happening.

 

[Human Torch]

Frankly,I think the concept of "man made" climate change is a lot of stuff & nonsense.The climate has gone through periods of change throughout history.It's nothing new.God is not going to allow mankind to destroy His creation.(unfortunately,they tend to mistreat it,of course)It's the height of human arrogance to believe otherwise.Just my two cents.


#InbeforepeoplestartwavingtheirP.H.Ds

 

[Doctor Evo]

God is not going to allow mankind to destroy His creation.

See, this right here is more than a little disturbing. What an irresponsible and dangerous mindset.

 

[SV Fan]

God is not going to allow mankind to destroy His creation.

And if they start causing problems he can just cause a flood and get rid of everybody, because that's how God rolls

 

[BestGirl]

Frankly,I think the concept of "man made" climate change is a lot of stuff & nonsense.The climate has gone through periods of change throughout history.It's nothing new.God is not going to allow mankind to destroy His creation.(unfortunately,they tend to mistreat it,of course)It's the height of human arrogance to believe otherwise.Just my two cents.


#InbeforepeoplestartwavingtheirP.H.Ds

Why are you so dismissive of other people's PHDs? You don't think that makes them more knowledgeable about global warming than you?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Why are you so dismissive of other people's PHDs? You don't think that makes them more knowledgeable about global warming than you?

You're addressing a creationist. That should pretty much answer your question.