Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[SuBe]

Yeah I did, that doesn't disprove every scientist who believes in Global Warming.

It's a Belief? Like a Religious Belief? Or, is it based on Fact? And, if it is based on FACT, why do they have to alter or destroy evidence?

 

[The Overlord]

It's a Belief? Like a Religious Belief? Or, is it based on Fact? And, if it is based on FACT, why do they have to alter or destroy evidence?

Did all of them of alter evidence? Can you prove all of them did? Just because one or two people tried to alter evidence, does that mean everyone involved did?

I think a good question, do the majority of scientists believe or not believe in this?

 

[BlackLantern]

Did all of them of alter evidence? Can you prove all of them did? Just because one or two people tried to alter evidence, does that mean everyone involved did?

it also doesn't mean they should get the benefit of the doubt

I think a good question, do the majority of scientists believe or not believe in this?

a better question is, why alter data in the first place??

 

[The Overlord]

it also doesn't mean they should get the benefit of the doubt



a better question is, why alter data in the first place??

You always get a rotten apple with every bunch, it doesn't prove they are all corrupt.

 

[BlackLantern]

You always get a rotten apple with every bunch, it doesn't prove they are all corrupt.

Corruption, like rot, can spread through a tree quickly

am I saying all of them are corrupt, no....but the chances of it are just as good as corruption in any other industry

I think what has happened on both sides of this debate is that the lies have piled up so much, that coming clean is no longer an option....you have to keep the lie going or everything comes crumbling down

 

[The Overlord]

Corruption, like rot, can spread through a tree quickly

am I saying all of them are corrupt, no....but the chances of it are just as good as corruption in any other industry

I think what has happened on both sides of this debate is that the lies have piled up so much, that coming clean is no longer an option....you have to keep the lie going or everything comes crumbling down

But again it doesn't really proven that even a majority of the climate experts are corrupt or lying, all it really proves is there was a rotten apple in the bunch, which happens with almost every group.

Now of course its a nasty PR blow for them, but does it disprove the scientific findings of the other climate experts who have not been to be corrupt?

 

[BlackLantern]

not technically, BUT the perception is now there that it may be corrupt

 

[Paradoxium]

Yeah I did, that doesn't disprove every scientist who believes in Global Warming.



Are you saying corporations are destroying the environment to save money? What gives them the right to pollute the air I breathe? Why do they own the air?

Also just because the government can't force them not do this, doesn't make it any less immoral. I mean would be moral if these companies moved to a dictatorship that doesn't care about its citizens and polluted those places?

If the idealized Libertarian version of capitalism existed, these companies should decide not to do this on their own, the fact that they don't and acting in a such short sighted and immoral seems to suggests that version of capitalism doesn't really exist.

Loaded question. I don't sugarcoat the fact corporation will abuse the environment. I am the guy who posted the pollution in China links after all. Some pretty horrifying stuff. My assertion is, buying carbon credit like some cheat code for a video game to feel less guilty of polluting is absurd. It doesn't change the fact you polluted. And the political solutions sucks, not that the problem doesn't exist. This is after youweigh all the pros and cons. As I have said, in personal practice, I am hardly what people consider a waster. Far less than pretty much every politician that preaches "teh green".

 

[Paradoxium]

Did all of them of alter evidence? Can you prove all of them did? Just because one or two people tried to alter evidence, does that mean everyone involved did?

I think a good question, do the majority of scientists believe or not believe in this?

The problem is never whether altered or not altered. It's the fact they completely ****ed up the program and database that aggregates data and outputs it. There is no audit trails, and they did not keep the raw data. The idiots, could not afford an actual professional programmer and use a real database. **** use an free open source database if you must; not some moronic 70s card style version (which also leaves too much room for human error). There are programming flaws that first year classes teach you how how to avoid in there. When this type of stuff is the backbone of their work, there is no excuse for that. If you are pro-green with some integrity, you need to sort this **** out.

This is all in the HARRY_READ_ME.

The media, both in the pro-green and even skeptic movement have a hard time discerning this because it is too dry, boring and/or confusing for the average reader. I have yet to see anything from the pro-green side explain it that isn't stupidly presumptuous. And any thing from the skeptic side that elaborates it really well. It seems to be from the engineers and programmers. If there is any smoking gun of fail, it is the HARRY_READ_ME.

 

[The Overlord]

Loaded question. I don't sugarcoat the fact corporation will abuse the environment. I am the guy who posted the pollution in China links after all. Some pretty horrifying stuff. My assertion is, buying carbon credit like some cheat code for a video game to feel less guilty of polluting is absurd. It doesn't change the fact you polluted. And the political solutions sucks, not that the problem doesn't exist. This is after youweigh all the pros and cons. As I have said, in personal practice, I am hardly what people consider a waster. Far less than pretty much every politician that preaches "teh green".

Well maybe the carbon credits is not the correct to deal with this, I have heard criticism of this from many areas. But that still doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Though governments can be just as guilty of this, its a major problem.

 

[Paradoxium]

I have no problem addressing it as a properties rights issue when possible (pollution). It is more sound than fear mongering people.

 

[Paradoxium]

Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure

How much tax money and pollution was produced out of this?

 

[BlackLantern]

envirofail

 

[Carcharodon]

It's a Belief? Like a Religious Belief? Or, is it based on Fact? And, if it is based on FACT, why do they have to alter or destroy evidence?

A belief can be based on fact, SuBe. You're confusing the definitions of faith and belief.

 

[Paradyme]

Erm...

Nathan Myhrvold's Anti Global Warming Scheme

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?cat=15

I think this is my favorite comment from the article

Let Microsoft fix global warming? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[VampElvis]

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

So does this mean Bo must go, as an example to all of us on how to reduce our carbon footprint?

 

[Hobgoblin]

Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory takes on Global Warming. In a nutshell, they say its all a scheme to make money and control people's lives. There was a collusion between politicians and scientists to make money.

 

[bell110]

Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory takes on Global Warming. In a nutshell, they say its all a scheme to make money and control people's lives. There was a collusion between politicians and scientists to make money.

Oh the irony.

 

[Paradoxium]

French Constitutional Court Rejects Carbon Tax

 

[Paradoxium]

Oregon Taxpayer-Envirowned.



Walmart, others make money on Oregon's energy tax credits

When Oregon started handing out jumbo tax subsidies for renewable energy projects two years ago, one of the biggest beneficiaries was also one of the world's richest corporations -- Walmart.

No, the retail giant hasn't branched to solar panels or wind turbines.

Instead, Walmart took advantage of a provision in Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit that allows third parties with no ties to the green power industry to buy the credits at a discount and reduce their state income tax bills.

State records show Walmart paid $22.6 million in cash last year for the right to claim $33.6 million in energy tax credits. The cash went to seven projects, including two eastern Oregon wind farms and SolarWorld's manufacturing plant in Hillsboro. In return, Walmart profits $11 million on the deal because that's the difference between what it paid for the tax credit and the amount of its tax reduction.

The loser in the transaction is Oregon's general fund -- which pays for public schools, prisons and health care programs -- because the state is out the full $33.6 million in tax revenues.

Walmart isn't alone. An analysis by The Oregonian shows Costco and U.S. Bank, which also rank among the nation's top 200 wealthiest businesses, have made millions by buying up energy tax credits to cut their Oregon tax bills. Dozens of other companies and hundreds of individual Oregon taxpayers also have cut their tax bills by buying up the tax credits.

"It's so convoluted," says Eric Fruits, an adjunct economics professor at Portland State University who has studied Oregon's energy incentives. "You've got all these dollars swirling around. Everyone is trying to grab them as fast as they can."

Walmart, Costco and U.S. Bank, which top the list of energy credit buyers, shelled out a combined $67 million to avoid paying $97 million in Oregon income taxes.

Walmart and others are making money on projects that were closed, went belly up or never produced the energy or energy savings they initially claimed.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski and state energy officials say they recognize problems with the energy tax credits and are working to overhaul the program when state lawmakers convene for a short session in February. Among the targets of the overhaul is the pass-through option.

"The governor believes there's been a public value to the program," says Anna Richter Taylor, Kulongoski's spokeswoman. "That said, he also is very supportive of efforts to align the rate better with other public investment portfolios."

In other words, granting money to companies for doing nothing but toasting up numbers. Fantastic way to save the environment.

 

[Paradoxium]

Fahrenheit 451 for Cash-Strapped UK Seniors

Some cash-strapped British pensioners are buying books from charity shops and burn them to keep warm as freezing temperatures gripped the UK, a London newspaper reported Tuesday.

Don't forgets to tax them to pay for the carbon credits, since carbon credits will prevent global warming

 

[bell110]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18390_the-6-most-bizarre-global-warming-side-effects.html

Global Warming Side Effects: It's worse than I thought.

 

[Paradoxium]

Primary United States Climate Centers now caught in Data Manipulation

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. “Opening, unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task,” he says, “and the deeper I dug the more amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations.” Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. “The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called ‘The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000. That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says Joseph D’Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. “Think of it this way,” he continues, “if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis’ temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?”

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 “anomaly map” from GISS shows a very hot Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. “One small problem: there have been no temperatures recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle,” he said.

 

[Paradoxium]

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A warning that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research.

 

[:eek:]

Past Decade the Warmest Since 1880

By LiveScience Staff
posted: 23 January 2010 10:50 am ET

When an unusually cold stretch of weather grips much of the world, as one did in December, it can leave people wondering what ever happened to global warming. The gradual inching up of temperatures popularly known as climate change is alive and well, according to NASA

The decade 2000 through 2009 was the warmest since reliable modern records have been kept, going back to 1880. There are, of course, monthly and even annual variations that buck the trend.
According to NASA's Earth Observatory, 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, and 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures (despite that frigid December, which was unseasonably cool for much of North America, Europe, and Asia).
2009 was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, which is the warmest year on record. Importantly, 2009 tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.
Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.
Since 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, NASA said in a statement this week. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.
"That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). "In contrast, the difference between, say, the second and sixth warmest years is trivial since the known uncertainty — or noise — in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."
"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said GISS Director James Hansen. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."
And what about that chilly December? Climate experts say we can continue to expect stretches that vary considerably from the norm.
In December, high air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.
"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.
El Niño can have a great effect on any given month or year. El Nino is marked by warmer water in the Pacific off the coast of South America. It alters weather patterns in the United States and around the world.
An especially powerful El Niño cycle in 1998 is thought to have contributed to the unusually high temperatures that year, and Hansen's group estimates that there's a good chance 2010 will be the warmest year on record if the current El Niño persists. At most, scientists estimate that El Niño and its cool sister La Niña can cause global temperatures to deviate by about 0.2°C (0.36°F).
Warmer surface temperatures also tend to occur during particularly active parts of the solar cycle, known as solar maximums, while slightly cooler temperatures occur during lulls in activity, called minimums.
A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.
"In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn't stopped global warming from continuing," Hansen said