IRELAND TO LEAD THE WAY IN GREEN FASCISM?
Did you notice that Friends of the Earth is calling on the Irish Government to make its carbon emissions target legally binding? The environmental lobby group is publishing a bill today that would legally oblige the Government to meet its own target for reducing emissions by 2010. It says such a move would put Ireland are the forefront of international efforts to tackle global warming and would allow changes to be made on a phased basis rather than at the last minute.
I hope the Irish Government has the good sense to ignore the "bill" produced by these eco-wackos. Friends of the Earth like to chase environmental chimera, and the notion that carbon emissions are driving climate change is so demonstrably preposterous, so profoundly unscientific, that only a publicity-seeking politician courting cheap votes in a looming election would jump on such a farcical bandwagon...hang on a second......
David Vance
23 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (23)
You overlook the inconvenient truth that the entire scientific community of climatologists is behind this "preposterous" idea. Against them are ranged a few mavericks supported by a few right wing think tanks and commentators.
Mavericks - such as Copernicus, Galileo, Edward Jenner etc etc have a habit of confounding and wrong-footing the scientific community ;)
I agree. Gallileo was persecuted for his theory (Copernicus had the same idea but kept mum until his death) and even today the creationists will not accept Darwin.
But to describe the AGW theory as preposterous and unscientific in the light of current knowledge is, er, preposterous and unscientific ;)
Can you explain why antropogenic emissions, so miniscule in proportion,cause the problem?
There are good arguments on both sides, CO2 and Solar. There is only one fact that is certain, that is that climate change is happening. The reasons are still open to DEBATE.
Sensible comment and I agree with you, let's debate - and forget all this "the debate is over" business which some wish to foist on us.
Governments do need to do something to plan for the changes that will take place, such as building up sea defences, investing in more renewable energies including Nuclear,(which they need to do anyway to supplement the decreasing world oil reserves), but not to panic, not to slap green taxes everywhere and certainly to to vote catch.
Another point of interest is what will happen if the CO2 reduction target that is legally required to be met by 2010 is not met.It is possible or even probable that the level chosen is just not achievable without economic meltdown.
"As usual the deniers refuse to debate the science."
Posted by you on Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 02:25PM
As David says above, can you explain why antropogenic emissions, so miniscule in proportion,cause the problem? Let's get it on. To aid your explanation, I've been looking at a couple of numbers. According to this randomly chosen site - http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm -
"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."
I assume that the numbers reported account for volcanos and so on.
I calculate that in 1958 CO2 made up a measely 0.0315% of the atmosphere. Since then humans have raised this to an enormous 0.0378% of the atmosphere. It makes you wonder how we can still breathe.
sarc/off
If this increase, if correctly attributable to humans, results in measurable temperature rises then we have a problem. The problem is that CO2 is clearly so volatile, so dangerous in minuscule amounts that the next large volcanic eruption will result in boiling seas.
So, is it all a con? Is it a bunch of political hokum? Or is CO2 really so volatile? If so, how so?
I do believe that this is one hell of a con, on 2 levels.
To build a global market firstly in Carbon Credits, so lots of folk make money, and secondly to control what happens in the 3rd world.
In the 3rd world they are spending lots of time and money on persuading governments not to industrialise. Rather to grow crops, and as we have already seen, much of the crops normally grown for food in the US are being turned over to ethanol production. That would mean that in order for the 3rd world to compete in food production for humans, plus ethanol production they would have to employ GM crops. The GM people have not had much luck persuading everyone else to use their products, but they could force the 3rd world to use it if this con gets the backing it needs.
It will of course not happen, unless of course we do indeed embrace green fascistic governments.
The science is indeed complex and the margin of error in the predictions made by the models is very large. It is important to remember that science is not concerned with consensus but with prediction and evidence.
Currently we have no way of knowing if the hypothesis of anthropogenic induced global warning through increased carbon dioxide is the main factor.
Well said and quite right.
Let's DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the hope / belief that the whole thing is a scam / con trick by grant-hungry scientists and power- hungry governments.
Sorted.
"Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth..."
See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
"can you explain why antropogenic emissions, so miniscule in proportion,cause the problem? "
ALL greenhouse gases - including water vapour - are "miniscule" by comparison to oxygen and nitrogen. And yet they account for a greenhouse effect of 33C.
How can it be! How can such small concentrations raise the temperature by 33-fricking-degrees?
The answer is "by absorbing infrared". Let's see if Pete can remember that for next time, or will he just repeat the same discredited nonsense again and again...
"The problem is that CO2 is clearly so volatile, so dangerous in minuscule amounts that the next large volcanic eruption will result in boiling seas."
...like that. Even if the next large volcanic eruption were as big the biggest volcanic eruption of the last 100,000 years it still wouldn't result in as much CO2 at its peak as humans currently put out each and every day. All the volcanos of the world put together do not do that. And so is anyone predicting "boiling seas" from that level of output, less than the current daily output from humans? Nope. Straw man.
Depending on a number of factors a major volcanic eruption has a cooling effect. Sulphur dioxide not CO2 is important.
You call that a debate?
"Depending on a number of factors a major volcanic eruption has a cooling effect. Sulphur dioxide not CO2 is important. "
I know. Tell it to Pete Moore.
The point is that even ignoring the sulfates, the CO2 from volcanos is nowhere near human-induced CO2 emissions. Furthermore volcanic eruptions are rare while human CO2 output has been sustained for decades. Yet these guys continuously act like the opposite is true and completely ignore data to the contrary.
Yes. It's called science. Duh!
Of course, politics is easier, which is why so many more study it at university.
I note you have ignored Frank's post at 11.30. Watch out for those boiling seas.
I didn't ignore Frank at 11.30, I always ignore him.
Before you have the impertinence to pull me up on ignoring others, look to yourself. Answer my reply and questions from a couple of days ago on the previous bonkers-greenie thread. Answer my points to you above. Tell me how human CO2 emissions raise atmospheric temperatures when those emissions are barely measurable. When you've done that, you can tell me why temperature changes always precede CO2 changes by around 800 years.
You keep repeating the same crap. Frank has already answered you on CO2 (see his posts at 11.30 and 12.16 above).
Your point about the 800 year time lag was also answered a few days ago. Do try to keep up. I suggest you re-read the Royal Society paper which deals with 12 of the most common objections to the AGW theory. It's at:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
"I always ignore him"
You call that a debate?
Friday, April 13, 2007 at 12:10AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Moore
There you have it - Pete Moore is another one who claims to want a debate and runs from it.
He isn't interested in the answer to his question.
I think it's even possible that he doesn't even understand the question he asked.