Global Warming Petition Project

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Global Warming Petition Project

John · Senior Member

I noticed this and signed.

By the way has anyone noticed that Dr. Lindzen of MIT published a paper last summer that shows the assumptions in the 11 leading climate models as at odds with 16 years of satellite data on the trapping of long-wave (radiation).

-- Edited by John on Saturday 21st of November 2009 09:11:06 PM

GoogleNaut · Guru

Personally, I am still 'deliberating' on this subject. While I acknowledge that humans put 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, and that this must have an effect, the data I've seen perportedly demonstrating clear signs of human accelerated temperature rise is exceedingly noisy---the error bars are very wide--and in such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to draw much of a conclusion. Certainly not anything as Draconian as a policy of global, economically 'invasive' carbon-caps...

I do however feel very strongly about reducing our dependence upon fossil petroleum based energy--we would do ourselves a great service in finding other ways to supply our energy. This is more modivated by national security, political and economic interests, rather than climate change. The climate change aspect is just incidental...

In my Humble Opinion,

Ty Moore

-- Edited by GoogleNaut on Saturday 21st of November 2009 04:55:46 PM

-- Edited by GoogleNaut on Saturday 21st of November 2009 04:56:14 PM

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

GoogleNaut wrote:

Personally, I am still 'deliberating' on this subject. While I acknowledge that humans put 10 billion tons of CO2...

30 billion; see the Keeling curve.

GoogleNaut wrote:

into the atmosphere each year, and that this must have an effect, the data I've seen perportedly demonstrating clear signs of human accelerated temperature rise is exceedingly noisy---the error bars are very wide--and in such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to draw much of a conclusion.

I disagree.

GoogleNaut wrote:

Certainly not anything as Draconian as a policy of global, economically 'invasive' carbon-caps...

That's where you want to differentiate yourself from scientifically accurate exponents of bad policy by finding good policies that stem from the same facts.

Government personnel and persons financially supported by government are the biggest fossil fuel profiteer community. Without them, getting off fossil fuels would be a lot easier. Without their fossil fuel beholdenness, getting off fossil fuels would be a lot easier.

Consider, therefore, carbon tax dividend that starts out by returning to the citizens, in equal shares, the carbon tax that now is being collected. Like Dr. Hansen's carbon-tax-and-dividend recommendation, only with the dividend first, in advance of any new carbon tax.

This tax reduction will so greatly help get government out of fossil fuel conservation and substitution's ways that no additional tax will ever be necessary. Do you agree?

How fire can be domesticated

John · Senior Member

General warming and cooling trends in climate are nothing new in Earths history. A good case can and has been made that a warming trend just happened to occur shortly after the industrial revolution with its emissions of CO2. It is notable that most of the CO2 above pre-industrial levels was released after most of the warming occurred say about 1940. Then we have the interesting cooling period from 1940 to 1975 followed by a warming period from 1975 until about 2000. Now another flat to cooling trend is in progress. I see little in this that shows human CO2 is the main driver or that it will lead to a catastrophe.

Dr. Lindzen of MIT published a paper last summer that shows that the trapping of long-wave radiation which had been assumed to increase with temperature is in fact going in the opposite direction based on analysis of 16 years of satellite data. By recalibrating climate models to match this now data the catastrophe disappears given plenty of time to affect a smooth transition from fossil fuel (which are not of unlimited supply) to other forms of energy generation.

Therefore, I see no need for a major government power grab on this issue.

-- Edited by John on Sunday 22nd of November 2009 06:16:56 PM

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility of global warming. Although the computer models predicting global warming could be wrong the fact is that even if global warming is a remote possibility it demands that action be taken because it is better to be safe than sorry. And there is also the possibility of runaway global warming which could make our planet an uninhabitable Venus hellhole. This could be caused if the ice caps melt and the underlying methane gas is released and it can also be caused if India and China industrialize and adopt a massive consumption lifestye.

The good news is that nuclear power can provide massive amounts of energy without carbon emmisions and nuclear power can also be used to produce hydrogen to power the automobiles. Solar power will never be viable unless we can get the solar panels closer to the sun which will require the nuclear powered rocket to build this infrastructure.

John · Senior Member

The question is what is safe? It seems to me that whole world is on the path to industrialization and only those in the "first world" economies have given this issue any real notice. Given the subterfuge that has gone on with the IPCC and supporting elements I consider going along with their plan riskier in a political and economic sense than see their arguments for ecological catastrophe to be persuasive.

I don't disagree that a some level of carbon emissions we could have some impact but a the same time we many run out of economical carbon fuels before that occurs. What I'm rejecting is that there is any significant human impact on the climate to date. We are clearly in my mind in just another natural swing like we have about 1000 years ago.

However, a broke clock is right twice a days and if the climate fear cause the extreme green crowd to relent on their opposition to nuclear energy that is a good thing. However, allowing preliminary progress of two plants is only one small step. Yet, cutting back fusion research is perhaps a more telling step.

It is ironic that while I very suspicious of the AGW theory at the same time the energy policies that I advocate would go a lot further to reducing CO2 emissions than what the environmentalists policy would.