Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[DC Tom]

I want to know how much better the stock market would be if it weren't for global warming.

 

8%-24%

[3rdnlng]

 

Or what the professionals call "a number."

I don't understand your new math. I count 17 numbers.

[/dev/null]

 

Or what the professionals call "a number."

3.5

[B-Man]

GREEN CORRUPTION: Carbon Offsets May Have Dramatically Increased Emissions.

 

That’s the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits “was like printing money.” . . .

 

The SEI sampled 60 random projects and found a whopping 80 percent of them to be of questionable green merit. The majority of these bogus Russian and Ukrainian offsets were used by the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (the EU ETS), a program already bogged down with problems pricing carbon. “[T]he poor overall quality of [Joint Implementation] projects may have undermined the EU’s emission reduction target by some 400 million tons of CO2,” said Anja Kollmuss, one of the leaders of the study.

This has huge implications, then, for Europe’s green goals. For years EU members have chosen to outsource emissions cuts with these carbon credits, but the lack of proper oversight at the UN level of the projects abroad supposedly generating these cuts now leaves the supposedly eco-conscious bloc in a bind. “If the EU was taking its climate targets seriously, then at least 400 million ETS certificates would have to be deleted to counter that,” Kollmuss pointed out.

 

But perhaps worst of all are the perverse incentives the SEI report alleges these credit swaps have created for actually increasing emissions. According to a study released in the journal Nature Climate Change, plants in Russia “increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas,” resulting in an increase in emissions as large as 600 million tons of carbon dioxide—roughly half the amount the EU’s ETS intends to reduce from 2013 to 2030.

 

 

 

 

It’s like the whole thing is just one big scam.

[DC Tom]

GREEN CORRUPTION: Carbon Offsets May Have Dramatically Increased Emissions.

 

That’s the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits “was like printing money.” . . .

 

The SEI sampled 60 random projects and found a whopping 80 percent of them to be of questionable green merit. The majority of these bogus Russian and Ukrainian offsets were used by the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (the EU ETS), a program already bogged down with problems pricing carbon. “[T]he poor overall quality of [Joint Implementation] projects may have undermined the EU’s emission reduction target by some 400 million tons of CO2,” said Anja Kollmuss, one of the leaders of the study.

This has huge implications, then, for Europe’s green goals. For years EU members have chosen to outsource emissions cuts with these carbon credits, but the lack of proper oversight at the UN level of the projects abroad supposedly generating these cuts now leaves the supposedly eco-conscious bloc in a bind. “If the EU was taking its climate targets seriously, then at least 400 million ETS certificates would have to be deleted to counter that,” Kollmuss pointed out.

 

But perhaps worst of all are the perverse incentives the SEI report alleges these credit swaps have created for actually increasing emissions. According to a study released in the journal Nature Climate Change, plants in Russia “increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas,” resulting in an increase in emissions as large as 600 million tons of carbon dioxide—roughly half the amount the EU’s ETS intends to reduce from 2013 to 2030.

 

 

 

 

It’s like the whole thing is just one big scam.

 

Creating something out of nothing, then claiming a credit for it. It's like no one's ever heard of Enron.

[Gary M]

 

Creating something out of nothing, then claiming a credit for it. It's like no one's ever heard of Enron.

 

Or Obama's resume!!

[/dev/null]

 

It’s like the whole thing is just one big scam.

Because it is

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I've answered it I thought. A few times.

 

To me, the debate isn't a true debate because everyone is arguing different things. I don't care if climate change is man made or a part of the Earth's natural cycle, at least not in a political sense (I do care in a scientific sense). I'd rather put aside the politics and focus on preparing for the climate change we seem to be very much in the midst of. I believe it's a real and occurring phenomenon (or cycle) and those who are trying to say it's not happening are either paid for by the oil and gas industry or otherwise letting their politics get in the way of reason. I also believe this happens on the other side of the equation and isn't limited to "deniers" (I only use that word for clarity sake).

 

That said, I don't believe carbon taxes are the answer, or that we as a nation can do anything other than set the best example possible for India and China to follow as they emerge as industrial powers. I'm not in favor of excessive regulation, but I am in favor of reasonable regulation and understand there is a world of difference between the two.

You've danced. Like with this post.

 

Specifically: I want to know exactly what data/story/assertion you need to hear, to literally throw your hands up, and say "Enough! The line has been crossed, and this AGW stuff is now obviously BS".

 

See, I don't think that line exists for you. The line was crossed for me the second that I saw 50+ models all moving the same way, point by point, within a standard deviation of each other. That says: everybody is doing the same thing, intentionally. Or: "consensus" You would expect at least one group to be way off, a statistical outlier, because they are running their own methodology. Not one deviation? You're telling me that nobody flat out F'ed up? That ain't science.

 

When these models were compared with the emprical data, they all failed the same way, for the same reason: they have all overestimated CO2 sensitivity.

 

Please consider: in all of this modeling, the ONLY factor these people have 100% control over is CO2 sensitivity. You can't control for a volcano. You can't control for solar flares. You can't control for just about every damn thing in a planet's climate. BUT! When every model follows the same failed path, with precision? That says everybody is using the same variables. Or, more precisely, everybody is using the same CO2 sensitivity value...as a constant.

 

The real problem for the wacktards: if we reduce CO2 sensitivity, ALL the models fall into line, and produce outcomes consistent with the observed data. Do you know what that means? It means the end of the AGW theory as a relevant, never mind political, issue. .3 degrees of warming over 100 years? Done.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_bot

 

This kind of prediction should be easily measured over the next few years if it holds any merit.

Hey, I have already extended the invitation to all of you to meet me in Battery Park next summer. I will have paper mache kiaks and canoes all ready to sell(proceeds - cost go to charity). Why not celebrate Al Gore's prediction from 2006, that in 10 years NYC would be covered in 3 feet of water?

 

How's about we deal with one prediction, hilariously, at a time?

I don't understand why these alarmists are so worried.

Their prediction of the world oil supply running out by 1997 will solve the carbon emission problem overnight.

PEAK OIL!

"Opponents of alternative energy"? Really?

 

That's some awfully foolish phrasing right there.

Seriously, are we not doing phrasing anymore? I mean, literally, or figuratively, I've swallowed as much as I can take from you.

Yeah, but, then there's the troll who wants you to believe that's what's happening...so that something else works later...

 

Only because I've barely practiced in the past 14 years. When I finally nailed Eric Johnson's "Manhattan," start to finish, there was just nowhere else to go...

Blow it out your ass.

 

Show us YYZ or go home. (No really, if you can play YYZ, I'd love to see that. YYZ on youtube separates the...women, especially, from the girls)

Actually - its pretty much all of PPP

Yet, when we ask you a serious question, you go all PPP on us.

This whole thread is an obfuscation. You could actually have the same same thread on gravity and since no one here can explain Newton's math on the subject it could be obfuscation away....

 

I have a graduate degree in physics. I can explain Newton's and Einstein's math on the subject, you ****head.

 

Of course, if I did, you'd just accuse me of "obfuscating with details."

 

As much as I respect your opinion, kind man, this is a discussion about chemistry, biology, and earth science. A house built upon the sand will not stand. You'll have to dial it down a grade or few to effectively answer the basic questions that are being posed with carbon dioxide and methane being released into the atmosphere at the current rate.

Dial-a-platitude?

 

Is this some new Media Matters offering? Did you sign up for the 3 year plan, and thereby saved 20% on your daily manufactured platitudes?

Edited August 28, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

I have to believe that a lot of the "science" that is taking place on the effects of man made global warming is "supportive" science, meaning that the scientists already have a conclusion that they want to find and with so many data points to sift through they can concoct an explanation to support their claims. We see this in basically all industries, where you have sponsored scientists who are paid for by certain corporations to support their theories.

 

I'm not saying that man has or hasn't contributed to this warming pattern that we have seen, but based on my limited knowledge on the matter, I do know that the earth has gone through many forms of climate change through out its history. And I do know that there is an agenda to place additional forms of taxation and wealth distribution schemes being offered as panacea's to Climate change. Naturally, people are skeptical.

 

To be honest, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, that yes there could be some effect from humans contributing to this but that the effects are overstated and exaggerated.

[Deranged Rhino]

I have to believe that a lot of the "science" that is taking place on the effects of man made global warming is "supportive" science, meaning that the scientists already have a conclusion that they want to find and with so many data points to sift through they can concoct an explanation to support their claims. We see this in basically all industries, where you have sponsored scientists who are paid for by certain corporations to support their theories.

 

I'm not saying that man has or hasn't contributed to this warming pattern that we have seen, but based on my limited knowledge on the matter, I do know that the earth has gone through many forms of climate change through out its history. And I do know that there is an agenda to place additional forms of taxation and wealth distribution schemes being offered as panacea's to Climate change. Naturally, people are skeptical.

 

To be honest, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, that yes there could be some effect from humans contributing to this but that the effects are overstated and exaggerated.

 

It works both ways. The oil industry has paid and sponsored plenty of climate change denial science, as much as the greenies have sponsored science to prove MMGW. In fact, I'd bet almost all of the contrary science is funded by the oil and gas industry.

[Azalin]

 

It works both ways. The oil industry has paid and sponsored plenty of climate change denial science, as much as the greenies have sponsored science to prove MMGW. In fact, I'd bet almost all of the contrary science is funded by the oil and gas industry.

 

Which is exactly why there are skeptics - the science is anything but settled, neither side has a monopoly on truth, and both are influenced by special interests.

[Magox]

It works both ways. The oil industry has paid and sponsored plenty of climate change denial science, as much as the greenies have sponsored science to prove MMGW. In fact, I'd bet almost all of the contrary science is funded by the oil and gas industry.

 

For sure, I don't doubt for a minute that the "contrary science" is largely funded by the oil groups. I guess my point is that I believe that when studies are conducted in virtually any field, all too often, I think, there is a predetermined conclusion that scientists are looking to find and that with enough data points you can put them together to paint a conclusion that fits their views.

 

 

Its just difficult to know what truly is the case. Like I said, I guess man has contributed some to global warming but I also believe that it has been vastly overstated. I could be wrong, I really don't know.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Which is exactly why there are skeptics - the science is anything but settled, neither side has a monopoly on truth, and both are influenced by special interests.

 

Agreed.

 

For sure, I don't doubt for a minute that the "contrary science" is largely funded by the oil groups. I guess my point is that I believe that when studies are conducted in virtually any field, all too often, I think, there is a predetermined conclusion that scientists are looking to find and that with enough data points you can put them together to paint a conclusion that fits their views.

 

 

Its just difficult to know what truly is the case. Like I said, I guess man has contributed some to global warming but I also believe that it has been vastly overstated. I could be wrong, I really don't know.

 

I hear you.

[Nanker]

So if all the well-read intelligent progressive scientists are so smart - why haven't they come up with some ideas that would find a use for CO2? It can be extracted from the air fairly easily. What can it be used for in industry - currently not a whole lot, but there are some uses for it that don't involve putting it back into the atmosphere. Why aren't they promoting solutions instead of carbon "credits"?

[unbillievable]

From the beginning, the debate on Global Warming has centered around proving it false. We basically accepted it, the second it was announced, then spent the next 30yrs trying to prove it wrong, despite it's inability to predict anything accurately.

 

Is there any other branch of science that works this hard to prevent an honest review?

[DC Tom]

 

In fact, I'd bet almost all of the contrary science is funded by the oil and gas industry.

 

And that's a big part of the problem. You can't get research grants from "pro-global warming" sources (i.e., most of them) to study climate change if your research doesn't support the narrative, because the research community insists on not accepting negative tests.

 

And that's an important, if not vital, omission. For a theory to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. You have to be able to design and execute a test against it that can prove it wrong. If you actively prevent that research, your basically subverting the scientific process.

[Tiberius]

 

And that's a big part of the problem. You can't get research grants from "pro-global warming" sources (i.e., most of them) to study climate change if your research doesn't support the narrative, because the research community insists on not accepting negative tests.

 

And that's an important, if not vital, omission. For a theory to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. You have to be able to design and execute a test against it that can prove it wrong. If you actively prevent that research, your basically subverting the scientific process.

This sounds like complete bull crud. The whole research community is just simply biased against the Republican worldview that it simply can't accept any old deviation from the norm...

 

Those research institutions just are not as fair minded as little old Conservative Tommy. Whatever!

 

Go EJ!

[DC Tom]

This sounds like complete bull crud. The whole research community is just simply biased against the Republican worldview that it simply can't accept any old deviation from the norm...

 

Those research institutions just are not as fair minded as little old Conservative Tommy. Whatever!

 

Go EJ!

 

Welcome back, retard. Nice job misunderstanding what I posted.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Tom's absolutely right!

 

I see it first hand how the whole Asian carp thing is playing out. Thank God the Corps stood tall! They handled it exactly the way Tom said it should be handled. If they didn't and just got run over by the eDNA pushers, they'd have everyone thinking that there are swimming fish dropping the eDNA. That's anything but the case, like I have been saying all along. The "other" vector studies are well under way for years now...

 

Just my two cents.

You hit the nail on the head:

 

"For a theory to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. You have to be able to design and execute a test against it that can prove it wrong. If you actively prevent that research, your basically subverting the scientific process."

[TH3]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon

 

Pesky hoax won't die