32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[tangentlama]

But you want "poor brown people" to forego modernity - to exist in backwardness and squalor scratching the land for food - simply because your dogma informs you that CO2 is the evil bringer of manmade global warming, when nothing could be further from the truth.

A line straight out of Spiked-Online.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You keep referring to 'global warming', and to be frank, it makes you look as though you haven't bothered to read any of the data that many here have posted in reply to yours and bigfishes corporate-sponspred propaganda.

For example, global-warming is but one aspect of climate change.

Er, isn't 'climate change', reference to a temperature increase caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere?


In any event, I'll say you're right.

Now: what are the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic climate change that we must needs worry about?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You people obviously are reading the thread: tangent just piped up, and I see free spirit is online.

Well, just step up and put your money where your mouth is.

Why must we be worried about climate change?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You keep referring to 'global warming', and to be frank, it makes you look as though you haven't bothered to read any of the data that many here have posted in reply to yours and bigfishes corporate-sponspred propaganda.

For example, global-warming is but one aspect of climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHG)

-from Wikipedia.

Why are they so concerned with 'greenhouse' gases, if it isn't about warming?

 

[tangentlama]

Er, isn't 'climate change', reference to a temperature increase caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere?


In any event, I'll say you're right.

Now: what are the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic climate change that we must needs worry about?

You will have to summarise your questions and wait for replies, JC2.
We're in a different time zone here.

In the meantime, perhaps you could consider using your water supply for only one day, every two weeks, and then come back and tell us all about you and you family's experiences.

Or perhaps you could research into the effects of drinking groundwater polluted by (take your pick - pesticides/petrochemicals/heavy metals - just one will do).

Alternatively, you might find it interesting to research the current status of marine life and the pollutants in the sea which are manmade, and affecting their lifecycle/health. Be sure to check out all types of industry who are both regulated (and the type of regulation) as well as those who dump unchecked their pollution into the ecosphere.

So now you have several anthropogenically caused changes to both climate and environment to be going on with. Do let us know how you get on, won't you?

 

[free spirit]

You people obviously are reading the thread: tangent just piped up, and I see free spirit is online.

Well, just step up and put your money where your mouth is.

Why must we be worried about climate change?

OK fuck it I'll play... standby

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You will have to summarise your questions and wait for replies, JC2.
We're in a different time zone here.

In the meantime, perhaps you could consider using your water supply for only one day, every two weeks, and then come back and tell us all about you and you family's experiences.

Or perhaps you could research into the effects of drinking groundwater polluted by (take your pick - pesticides/petrochemicals/heavy metals - just one will do).

Alternatively, you might find it interesting to research the current status of marine life and the pollutants in the sea which are manmade, and affecting their lifecycle/health. Be sure to check out all types of industry who are both regulated (and the type of regulation) as well as those who dump unchecked their pollution into the ecosphere.

So now you have several anthropogenically caused changes to both climate and environment to be going on with. Do let us know how you get on, won't you?

The question is simple, and doesn't need summarizing.

'What are the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change that we need worry about?'

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the meantime, perhaps you could consider using your water supply for only one day, every two weeks, and then come back and tell us all about you and you family's experiences.

Or perhaps you could research into the effects of drinking groundwater polluted by (take your pick - pesticides/petrochemicals/heavy metals - just one will do).

Maybe, if you explain what either has to do with anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

OK fuck it I'll play... standby

Good man. I appreciate your efforts made so far, to educate me and others.

And you're an honourable adversar....er, teacher.

 

[tangentlama]

There's melting going on at the poles, but in Antarctica at least, the increased precipitation also means that ice continues to form at a greater rate.

This is something that even an alien can understand.

Would you care to source your restatement, just to double-check you're reporting the facts accurately.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Would you care to source your restatement, just to double-check you're reporting the facts accurately.

I sure will, but it will have to wait till after supper.

 

[tangentlama]

In the meantime, perhaps you could consider using your water supply for only one day, every two weeks, and then come back and tell us all about you and you family's experiences.

Or perhaps you could research into the effects of drinking groundwater polluted by (take your pick - pesticides/petrochemicals/heavy metals - just one will do).

Maybe, if you explain what either has to do with anthropogenic climate change.

I'll give you one of many examples, but you're supposed to attempt this research yourself, rather than have it handed to you on a plate by either me, or worse, have it spoonfed to you by one of the more sinister corporate-bureaucrats who certainly have neither JohnnyCanuck2's nor JoeAverage's best interests at heart.

Briefing
The Aral Sea, located in the former Soviet Union (today's Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) has shrunk by more than 60% in over 30 years! Look at these satellite images of the sea to see how much it has changed.

What happened to the Aral Sea? The Aral Sea region is big cotton farming country. The Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers flow through cotton farmland into the sea. In the 1950s, the Soviet government decided to divert some of the water from these rivers to irrigate the cotton fields. As more water was diverted for agriculture, less and less river water flowed into the sea.

Changes to one part of a region often lead to other changes. Here are some of the results of the shrinking of the Aral Sea:

As water has been drained from the rivers for cotton farming, the sea's water has become much saltier.
As more water has been taken from the rivers, the sea's water level has decreased by over 60%.
Drinking water supplies have dwindled, and the water is contaminated with pesticides and other agricultural chemicals as well as bacteria and viruses.
The farms in the area use some highly toxic pesticides and other harmful chemicals. For decades, these chemicals have been deposited into the Aral Sea. When the wind blows across the dried-up sea, it carries dust containing these toxic chemicals.
Lakes and seas tend to have a moderating effect on the climate. In other words, the land right next to a body of water tends to be warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer than land that's not near the water. As the Aral Sea has lost water, the climate has become more extreme.
What would it be like to live near the Aral Sea? Below are some things the local people might say about their experiences since the sea began to shrink. Read the quotes, and match them up with the causes above. Each quote can be matched to more than one cause. When you're finished, you will be able to help the people of the Aral Sea region figure out why they are having so many problems.

"I live in the town of Nukus. My father and grandfather were fishermen in this town, but as you can see, the boats are now sitting in the middle of a desert."

"I am 30 years old. Last year, I started having trouble breathing, and I always have a bad cough. I live 20 miles downwind of the Aral Sea."

"I am a fisherman, but these days there's not much money in fishing. The fish who used to live in the Aral Sea don't seem to like the water conditions any more, and they're dying out quickly. Perhaps we should reintroduce some saltwater fish into the sea."

"I can't believe I have to wear so many layers of clothes these days! I guess I'll have to knit a new sweater, if I can get some wool."

"I am a doctor in the town of Muynak. In the past decade, I've treated many people with throat cancer, diseases caused by microorganisms, and other serious conditions."

From: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/activities/14/aral.html

 

[bigfish]

I don't think they're being bribed, but something must have made them this passionate about the subject. They must believe that global warming is going to lead to something pretty bad.

I'm wondering what that is, and if I should be worried?

I don't believe they're just full of hot air, as it were.

Maybe, JC, but most of them are probably on the take, in my view. There's loads of wonga slushing around them, they're up to the necks in it. Gunther and is gang go on and on and on about Evil Exxon funding the evil "deniers", but the money shelled out by Exxon on a handful pro capitalist think tanks in the last 10 years pales into insignificance compared with the billions Greenpeace alone recieves from its secretive and extremely wealthy pro capitalist backers. Some figures in the article below.

The Well-Funded "Well-Funded Denial Machine" Denial Machine


One of the arguments which frequently emerge from the warmers in climate change debates is that the scientific expertise of sceptics has been bought – literally – by oil companies. We see this tired argument again wheeled out in the aftermath of the Inhofe 400 list. For example, James Wang of non-profit organisation Environmental Defense tells us,

The aim of the report is to refute that only a handful of scientists - mostly in the pocket of oil companies - still dispute that global warming is happening, and that it's caused by human activities.

The logic of the "industry funded sceptics" argument seems to be that scientists can’t possibly have an honestly held position which contradicts the “consensus” because the consensus cannot possibly be mistaken, so their opinion must have been paid for. These scientists (and, for that matter, anyone with a public profile who has anything critical to say about global warming) are whores – “industry shills” , “corporate toadies”, or part of the “well funded denial machine” – who not only prostitute themselves, but also sell us all out to an apocalypse for dirty, dirty dollars... Those who "deny" climate change are in fact, denying a "holocaust". As ecowarrior Mark Lynas puts it,

I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.

It would be hard for the warmers to escalate the rhetoric against their detractors and for the tone to sink any lower. Yet still, the inclination of those using this argument is not to engage their sceptical counterparts in scientific discussion, or even to allow their political opinions on the best way to act on the available evidence to be challenged in an open and democratic way. Meanwhile, the scientific and political debates go unheard, and are overwhelmed or shut down by the shallow rhetoric of 'consensus science versus industry-funded sceptics'.

This is not merely the language of hairshirt lunatics and fringe activists operating in the blogosphere and Internet forums, but even the "considered" opinion of "experts". But far from lending the argument credibility, this expert opinion only reveals its own shallow, fragile and nervous claim to objectivity and the hollowness of the political environment that it thrives in.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-funded-denial-machine.html

 

[free spirit]

-from Wikipedia.

Why are they so concerned with 'greenhouse' gases, if it isn't about warming?

because at some point it was decided that anthropogenic / man made climate change was a more accurate description.

I'm not entirely sure I agree, but the logic as essentially that the phrase global warming for many people implied to them that all areas of the world would get warmer - this isn't true, obviously the warming is an average across the world, with some areas warming much more than others, and some areas even cooling. Essentially warming only describes the main underlying trend, and that's not something that's applicable to everyone, it's also about changes in weather patterns etc. so 'anthropogenic climate change' is the phrase that's being used to cover both the actual global warming, and the effects of this on the rest of the climate.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Maybe, JC, but most of them are probably on the take, in my view. ]

Which just shows, you and I might be in agreement re: the questionability of the whole climate change industry, but we're coming at it from totally different directions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

because at some point it was decided that anthropogenic / man made climate change was a more accurate description.

I'm not entirely sure I agree, but the logic as essentially that the phrase global warming for many people implied to them that all areas of the world would get warmer - this isn't true, obviously the warming is an average across the world, with some areas warming much more than others, and some areas even cooling. Essentially warming only describes the main underlying trend, and that's not something that's applicable to everyone, it's also about changes in weather patterns etc. so 'anthropogenic climate change' is the phrase that's being used to cover both the actual global warming, and the effects of this on the rest of the climate.

Now, let's hear about the catastrophes.

 

[tangentlama]

Now, let's hear about the catastrophes.

You have time for this type of bullshit, yet no time to make sincere research yourself

 

[tangentlama]

Now, let's hear about the catastrophes.

You want to hear about anthropogenic catastrophes - I gave you the Aral sea already...

May 2008
On Tuesday, the Boston chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace sponsored a talk by Ra’ed Al-Mickawi, director of Bustan. Taking its name from a word meaning "fruit-yielding orchard" in both Hebrew and Arabic, Bustan is an organization fighting for environmental justice in the Bedouin communities of Israel.
Having cultivated low-impact agricultural practices over several generations in Israel’s Negev Desert, Bedouin culture has long been centered around self sufficiency, communal autonomy, and a deep connection to the land. In 1962 the Israeli government began a relocation program, forcing the Bedouins from rural and agriculture rich areas into small, contained urban townships.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, explained that the goal of this forced relocation program was to eventually clear Bedouins out of the Negev completely, "in order not to disturb development plans." Today, most of Israel’s nearly 200,000 Bedouin reside in seven "recognized" townships constructed by the Israeli government. The rest live in about 45 "unrecognized" villages subject to regular house demolitions and forced relocations.

Those seven "recognized" townships make up what is known as the "Bedouin Triangle." Directly adjacent to the "Bedouin Triangle" are 22 agro and petrochemical factories, an oil terminal, closed military zones where the Israeli military tests new weapons, quarries, cell towers, a power plant, several airports, a prison, two rivers of open sewage. Also adjacent to the Bedouin communities is Ramat Horav, an enormous toxic waste incinerator about which Ben Gurion University epidemiologist Batya Sarov, formerly a specialist at Chernobyl has commented, "The environmental monitoring at Chernobyl was better, and the health risks no more severe."

As a result, the Bedouin community is plagued with extremely high rates of acute and chronic conditions such as asthma, cancer, lung diseases, sleep apnea, miscarriages, and an infant mortality rate three times higher than the national average. Additionally, Bedouins are routinely denied access to basic resources such as water access, municipal garbage removal, or health care. Despite approximately 72,000 Bedouins living alongside high voltage power lines, few have access to electricity.

http://www.ace-ej.org/bedouins_fight_serious_environmental_injustices

About Ramat-Hovav:
Ramat-Hovav industrial park is probably the biggest toxic hotspot in the Middle East. It is a self managed municipal authority. Ramat-Hovav contains most of Israel's chemical factories which pollute the area, historical unmanaged dumping areas, more than 2,500 acres of evaporation ponds piped from the factories, a national toxic waste site which includes incineration, and more.

The air, soil and groundwater pollution emitted by these factories cause severe illnesses among the Negev population.
An epidemiological survey recently released by the Israeli Health Ministry finds a clear connection between the pollution and the high cancer and respiratory illnesses among Jewish and Bedouin communities in the area.

http://1breathtime.com/negev/index-eng.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You have time for this type of bullshit, yet no time to make sincere research yourself

I actually have done a little reading. I just want to see how the things I've learned, stack up against the things you believe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You want to hear about anthropogenic catastrophes - I gave you the Aral sea already...

http://www.ace-ej.org/bedouins_fight_serious_environmental_injustices


http://1breathtime.com/negev/index-eng.htm

I don't think you understood the question.

 

[tangentlama]

There's melting going on at the poles, but in Antarctica at least, the increased precipitation also means that ice continues to form at a greater rate.

Would you care to source your restatement, just to double-check you're reporting the facts accurately.

I sure will, but it will have to wait till after supper.

Thank you. Please don't forget.

It will go some way to proving whether you understood what is happening in the Antartic, at the very least.

 

[bigfish]

Which just shows, you and I might be in agreement re: the questionability of the whole climate change industry, but we're coming at it from totally different directions.

I can live with that.

 

[free spirit]

Now, let's hear about the catastrophes.

OK, firstly here are the various emissions scenarios that the IPCC are basing their predictions on. Essentially there are 6 main scenarioa,

A1FI = Ongoing rapid global economic growth based mainly on fossil fuels
A1B = Ongoing rapid global economic growth based on a mix of fossil fuels and renewables
A1T = Ongoing rapid global economic growth with a large scale switch to renewable energy
B1 = rapid changes in economy towards less energy intensive sectors
All the above incorporate population growth peaking around 2050.
B2 = Slower population & economic growth, with more localised solutions to environmental, economic and social issues.
A2 = High population growth, slow economic growth, slow change in technology.

Basically they're not saying any of these scenarios are more likely than any other, just using them to allow them to investigate the likely impact of different scenarios related to global greenhouse gas emissions over the next century.

Basically this graph outlines some fairly realistic emissions scenarios, and gives the lie to the idea that it's all pointless, nothing we do will make any difference etc. Adopting a longterm global policy of switching to renewables on a large scale this century, while maintaining strong economic growth will allow emissions to rise slightly til the middle of the century, then fall to below current levels by 2080, and 25% below current levels by 2100. In contrast the same economic growth based on fossil fuel will lead to a quadrupling of greenhouse gas emissions by 2100.

***

This graph gives average predicted temperature changes based on the various emissions scenarios - note that these do not include year on year fluctuations due to stuff like el nino / la nina effects, solar variations, volcanic eruptions etc. The bars in the middle give the range of temperatures that is considered likely - ie the temperature change at the end of the century for any given scenario is predicted to be within that range.

On the right is an image showing the most likely predicted distribution of temperature changes across the world for the different scenarios.

***

This graph gives long term stabilisations temperature predictions for various different concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases using CO2 equivalence. This is basically the temperature range they predict the earth will finally stabilise at in a few centuries time if we manage to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at various levels.


more in a minute.

 

[elbows]

Regardless of the scientific realities, I have long assumed that various resource crisis, most notably oil & gas supply not keeping up with demand, will overtake the climate change agenda in a big way.

In may areas the climate change & peak oil scenario's are compatible, will lead to similar policy. Coal and biofuels are the areas where they diverge significantly.

 

[elbows]

And perhaps most importantly, an international agreement on climate change that includes binding targets for reduction in fossil fuel use, is probably one of the more certain ways to avoid future world resource wars.

 

[david dissadent]

Wait till they start burning the oil shales from the Bakken and the "heavy oil" ie crappy kerogen tar sands from the Orinoco and Athbasca too keep the lights on.

Those kerogen heavy formations are where the sedimentary history has produced the kinds of rocks that contain the organic rich sedement that when it is burried deep enough breaks down into the lighter carbohydrates that make the different oil grades. (deeper still and it becomes gasses), but the kerogen deposits dont get deep enough so they are very thick very heavy but still hydrocarbons. I am not sure how much of this is in the world, but it is one more thing we can burn to keep the steam turbines turning in the power stations.

 

[tangentlama]

Wait till they start burning the oil shales from the Bakken and the "heavy oil" ie crappy kerogen tar sands from the Orinoco and Athbasca too keep the lights on.

Those kerogen heavy formations are where the sedimentary history has produced the kinds of rocks that contain the organic rich sedement that when it is burried deep enough breaks down into the lighter carbohydrates that make the different oil grades. (deeper still and it becomes gasses), but the kerogen deposits dont get deep enough so they are very thick very heavy but still hydrocarbons. I am not sure how much of this is in the world, but it is one more thing we can burn to keep the steam turbines turning in the power stations.

There are some companies looking to develop the Negev this way.
More here:

2006
In addition to erosion, water pollution and carcinogenic by-products, shale oil extraction is said to produce four times more greenhouse gas than conventional oil production. In Estonia, the only country in the world that relies on shale oil for electricity, "About 97% of air pollution, 86% of total waste and 23% of water pollution... come from the power industry," according to Anto Raukus, the editor of the journal Oil Shale.

Furthermore, shale oil processing generally requires immense amounts of water, as illustrated by the Estonian case, where "91%... of the water consumed in Estonia was used in the power industry" in 2002.

Now let's mull over the Israeli context for a moment. According to the JNF, Israel is over-consuming its water resources by 25 percent. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the cumulative water deficit has led to the qualitative deterioration of potable aquifers into brackish or polluted waters. The reality is, we don't have the slightest drop to spare.

http://www.bustan.org/2006/04/solar_energy_not_shale_polluti.html

 

[david dissadent]

Shale oil production uses incredible amounts of water.
There are some companies looking to develop the Negev this way.
In Estonia (2002), 91% of the water consumed was used in the power industry.
More here: http://www.bustan.org/2006/04/solar_energy_not_shale_polluti.html

Sorry I was not talking about converting it to a form of oil (as is currently done to the Athbasca tar sands in Canada) to be burned in transport but direct buring in powerstations, which is probibly the only way that shale will return a positive return on energy invested.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

OK, firstly here are the various emissions scenarios that the IPCC are basing their predictions on. Essentially there are 6 main scenarioa,

A1FI = Ongoing rapid global economic growth based mainly on fossil fuels
A1B = Ongoing rapid global economic growth based on a mix of fossil fuels and renewables
A1T = Ongoing rapid global economic growth with a large scale switch to renewable energy
B1 = rapid changes in economy towards less energy intensive sectors
All the above incorporate population growth peaking around 2050.
B2 = Slower population & economic growth, with more localised solutions to environmental, economic and social issues.
A2 = High population growth, slow economic growth, slow change in technology.
.

[snip]

That's all great. But the question is, what harm will result? What bad things are coming if we don't cut back on CO2?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I read something interesting tonight. It was saying that certain countries have been relatively successful in reducing their emissions, or holding them steady. UK is apparently one of them.

And the reason, in UK's case is......

...wait for it......



because Thatcher faced down the Coal unions, and brought about the conversion of the UK from a coal based, to a gas-based, energy system.


Margaret Thatcher: environmental hero.