Who do you mean by “totalitarians”? What control of the world’s financial levers don’t they already have?
Indeed. But there’s nothing remarkable in what he actually said, especially when you remember that the role of Working Group III is to deal with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts and economists like Edenhofer.
Why not? It’s a serious discussion, and it’s not simple. As Edenhofer says, “And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.” Simply giving every person on the planet an equal quota for carbon emissions is not necessarily a good idea so this needs to be discussed. Are you suggesting they should not discuss how to deal with the problem and the unintended consequences that different solutions might have?
Non-sequiter.
I couldn’t agree more.
The entire premise of that audit is that the IPCC is not allowed to use non-peer-reviewed literature. On that basis they claim the report is “discredited”.
I’m not at all surprised that you think that.
Yes, on a grading system where quoting Popper costs you marks. Remember that.
I think you’re being a little optimistic.I bet with that ratio I could get a college grant, Or at least a PhD, if you were on the board
This may come as a great shock to you, but most scientists are in it because they want to find out the truth. It’s a quest for knowledge. Corny but true. You may want to read these:
Well, that’s just silly. The reason coal is a big deal is because (a) it produces a lot of CO2 per unit of energy, and (b) there is enough coal left to burn that if we burn it all it will raise CO2 concentrations by a lot.
Really? I wasn’t aware that uranium and all the other pollutants were being captured. Last I read, burning coal released 100 times more radiation into the enviornment than generating the same amount of energy with nuclear power due to the uranium and thorium contained in the fly ash emitted by the power plant (assuming no accidents, of course). If you remove CO2 from this page it’s still an awfully long page.
Nice conspiracy theory. Remarkably the conspiracy started way back in the 1800s, when the seeds for AGW were sown. Not only are these guys powerful, they’re patient.
Do you actually follow the science at all?
Well, that’s a pretty damning indictment of your research skills. Are you seriously trying to claim that the oil industry funded CRU to fabricate an entire field of research in order to eliminate coal as a competitor, while ignoring the ramifications for themselves vs wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric? Because that’s what your post certainly looks like.
Okaaay…
Er… You do know what this is, don’t you?
This is just part of the above. In the beginning you give out credits to carbon emitters so they can keep operating. Over time you give out less.
The Kaya identity (Kaya, 1990) is a decomposition that expresses the level of energy related CO2 emissions as the product of four indicators: (1) carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of total primary energy supply (TPES)), (2) energy intensity (TPES per unit of GDP), (3) gross domestic product per capita (GDP/cap) and (4) population. The global average growth rate of CO2 emissions between 1970 and 2004 of 1.9% per year is the result of the following annual growth rates: population 1.6%, GDP/cap[12] 1.8%, energy-intensity of –1.2% and carbon-intensity –0.2% (Figure 1.5).
That’s silly.
Wait, what? Where does the IPCC propose Eugenics?
The IPCC points out the obvious fact that in order to reduce the impact of climate change we need to reduce carbon emissions. It’s not rocket science.
Well, it is obvious you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. You want to cut back on the very gases that make this planet more habitable than it’s ever been before. You want to starve plant life of a necessary food. I’m sure the animals, the human race and God, wont thank you for that.
My husband and I just finished presenting a paper at the Amer Soc of Criminology on “Corrections in India.” Since both the crime rate and recidivism rates there are way lower than in America, we focused on cultural differences, using Dworkin’s (1977) contrast between rights-based ethical codes, which justify individual satisfaction and require assertive behavior in social relations, and duty-based ethical codes, which normalize fulfillment of social expectations. In India, a guiding principle is dharma, which means duty or righteous way of life; in such a society other people loom large in their thinking, as they strive to fulfill their duties to them, and this still holds sway to some extent in modernizing India. In America, OTOH, people focus on their rights, which loom very large to them, with others’ rights & one’s duty to respect or fulfill them seeming insignificant or nil.
Funnily enough, as I was reading your post and about half way down, I started to ask “have you ever heard of Natural Law? Then, as I progressed further down you started to ‘see’ what the problem was without really identifying it. If you go back through US history, all he way back to that declaration made by the first Pilgrims, then later in the Us Declaration of Indpendence and then in the US Constitution, you will notice something very special. They are all documents/doctrines based on Natural Law. Natural Law did then and still does today, espouse things such as “duty” and 'sacrifice” and “loyalty”. Unfortunately, todays increasingly secular world and its drift to moral relativism is seeing those concepts trashed and subverted to an ethic based in utilitarian personal hedonism. If we got back to understanding our natural Law heritage, the concept of looking after planet Earth would be a given. If you want proof of that, read the Bible and it will tell you how man was goven stewardship over the world. The Catholic Catechism says the same and it is a Natural Law based creed.
Well said. The Bible actually gives us “dominion,” but since we don’t live in kingdoms with kings anymore, it is hard for us to understand this duty/responsiblity. We tend to think of a king as someone who lives high on the hog and oppresses everyone. I’m thinking that being a king is actually a very tough job of responsibility for the welfare of the kingdom. It is a job of tremendous personal sacrifice. Luckily that dominion is not exactly directly in our hands, but through Christ, as today’s Divine Office points out (in the quote beneath Psalm 8): “The Father gave Christ lordship of creation and made him head of the church” (Ephesians 1:22).
It doesn’t have to be that way. There are plenty of religious folks who should be involved in doing what is good and right by their religious standards – the environmental movement should be packed with such folks. Where are they??? I think Gore’s movie should have been titled “The Complete and Utter Moral Failing.”
I just did this post on my blog at catholicecology.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/beyond-gaia-the-medea-hypothesis/ :
Partly true, but when you consider ocean and soil acidification, and too much of a good thing (for plants) being bad, plus the impact of warming which the CO2 causes in the real world, it’s not a pretty picture. Here’s what I recently wrote in a paper:
Not partly true at all. Firstly, soil acidification is not caused by CO[sub]2[/sub]. If you wish to understand the reaons for soil acidification, then embark on a study of Australian soils, which are all naturally highly acidic. Despite that fact, Australian is a net exporter of food.
Here you go, John:
Here you go Jason.
Not even close, I’m afraid. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
How is a prediction that Sydney has 50 years (from 2004-2054) to avoid catastrophic climate change falsified by a dam capacity of 66% in 2008 and 62% in 2010?
You know, I’m really struggling to decide if this is a perfect example of the self-deception required to maintain a belief system that is directly contradicted by the facts in front of you, or if this is a perfect example of the deception required to support a claim that you know is untrue.
Another one? Has it occurred to you that if your argument had merit, you wouldn’t need to misrepresent? Doesn’t that tell you something?