If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

[kimmielittle]

(UNEP 2009; Kehrwald, et al. 2008) (endnote #2). One third of the world’s population and their agriculture rely on the annual glacial and snowpack cycle…(Kundzewicz, et al. 2008: 5)…

I invite you to read the actual paper

bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Kehrwald%20et%20al%202008.pdf

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035556.shtml

If climatic conditions dominating the mass balance of Naimona’nyi extend to other glaciers in the region, the implications for water resources could be serious as these glaciers feed the headwaters of the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers that sustain one of the world’s most populous regions.

Closer examination shows that the study only addresses mass loss from a single glacier in the Himalayas. It does not address the hydrology of the rivers at all. I don’t think there is even a single hydrologist on the crowded study team.

web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf

At an AGU meeting in December dismisses the concern over the impact of Himalayan glacier loss on water supply.

As we have calculated, melting glaciers (specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.

 

[kimmielittle]

Ah, I get it. So a Catholic is free to employ moral relativism on matters which the Pope did not speak about… OK. What will you do when the Pope makes an ex cathedra pronouncement about AGW?

I believe the last time The Holy Father asked for prayer and action by Catholics…He called it Natural Disasters.

gmanetwork.com/news/story/243147/news/nation/victims-of-natural-disasters-in-pope-s-prayer-intentions-for-january-2012

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5656

The Pope said that it is unwise to think of natural disasters as God’s way of punishing sinners. He said that “calamities and tragic events must not arouse our curiosity or our desire to find the supposedly guilty, but should be occasions to reflect, to reject the illusion that we can live without God.” A wise man, reflecting on tragedies, seems them as a reminder “about the precarious nature of existence,” the Pontiff said.

Pope Benedict added that the faithful should try to see God’s presence in all aspects of life. In a talk centered on the need for constant conversion, he said: “However, in order to recognize His presence it is necessary for us to approach Him with awareness of our own lowliness and with profound respect.”

Doesn’t sound like He will be doing so soon…eh?

Re: water vapor feedback – actually, it does not matter. All that you need to know is that water vapor feedback is independent of CO2.

BUT NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD… Or the Physics of Climate! I know you’d love to separate the physical mechanisms…How else can CO2 be the main driver of warming temperatures?

It doesn’t work that way.

 

[kimmielittle]

and some people emitting GHGs (without striving to reduce)

Who do you know that doesn’t strive to reduce their GHG’s ?

Processed chesseses…EVEN EVIL BIG OIL and EVIL KOCH BROTHERS Strive to reduce their GHG’s.

Deny, deny, deny. Let’s just hope that their denials are genuine and they truly believe them, and thus are not culpable of sin. Nevertheless, it doesn’t get us “in the know” people off the hook of apprising them of their wrongdoing, and trying to reduce these killings.

It looks like you “IN the Know” people would NOT need unsupported claims…???

 

[kimmielittle]

Unfortunately there are many non-Catholics in the world, and even Catholics, who do not know what the Holy Father said. So perhaps for them abortion is not a sin, tho it most certainly is for those who understand (through teachings, reason, or conscience) that the fetus is a human life. ((As if we weren’t all fetuses at one time.))

Ignorance is NEVER a defense…per abortion.

So here we have it – some women having abortions deny the fetus is a human life (tho they understand they are killing something),

How does a Catholic NOT know Abortion is NOT subjective?

There is no Catholic…That does not know what The Church teaches on abortion…They may choose to hide that fact…BUT THEY KNOW.

Your logic in trying to couple the two - abortion and a belief in an unproven hypothesis AGW - CAGW ] fails!

 

[kimmielittle]

lynnvic: Thanks. That’s what I was trying to say…

Then Lynn failed you!

 

[kimmielittle]

Water vapor is a positive feedback. Lindzen’s iris hypothesis about clouds having a net negative feedback (or cancelling out the WV positive feedback) has not been found to hold water unfortunate for us and other forms of life on earth.

Hmmmmmm…Did you miss the CERN CLOUD experiment?

Please give us proof that water vapor is a “Positive” feedback.

You are aware it will take empirical evidence to do so?

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, such changes are pretty quick. Little Ice Age begun ca. 1560 and it triggered the Thirty Years War that started in 1618, which gives about 60 years.

Zhanga et.al., The causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis pnas.org/content/108/42/17296.full

Glad you posted that!

Now try to tie the Little ICE Age:
1 To Global Warming
2 Anthropomorphic causes

It was COOLING not warming that caused that distress to humankind.

Follow the pea…

You didn’t look up the verse, did you?

Assumptions are dangerous in debate. So is trying to interpret Revelations

 

[kimmielittle]

From my 1998 thesis on Environmental Victimology:
According to a comprehensive Harvard study, small particulate (including sulfate) air pollution mainly from combustion of fossil fuels is linked to the deaths of about 60,000 Americans each year, factoring out cigarette smoking and many other factors. Populations in the highest polluted areas were found to have 15% to 17% higher mortality rates from such pollution than populations in the least polluted areas (Pope, et al. 1995; Dockery and Pope 1994).

Dockery, D. W., and C. Arden Pope III. 1994. “Acute
Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution.” Annual Review of Public Health 15:107 132.

Pope, et al. 1995 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523269/pdf/envhper00354-0064.pdf

Question: do you have the Dockery - Pope Data that made these claims?

Because The Pope and Dockery/Pope studies have been widely criticized and the researchers have refused to release their raw data. Senator Richard Shelby introduced legislation aimed at forcing the release of raw data from studies used in agency rule and regulation decisions, but the raw data from the Pope and Dochery studies the EPA used has never been reviewed by opponents or independent experts.

acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.483/news_detail.asp

 

[lynnvinc]

I invite you to read the actual paper

bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Kehrwald%20et%20al%202008.pdf

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035556.shtml

Closer examination shows that the study only addresses mass loss from a single glacier in the Himalayas. It does not address the hydrology of the rivers at all. I don’t think there is even a single hydrologist on the crowded study team.

Quote:
If climatic conditions dominating the mass balance of Naimona’nyi extend to other glaciers in the region, the implications for water resources could be serious as these glaciers feed the headwaters of the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers that sustain one of the world’s most populous regions.

web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard…der-Kargel.pdf

web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf

At an AGU meeting in December dismisses the concern over the impact of Himalayan glacier loss on water supply.

Quote:
As we have calculated, melting glaciers (specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.

So your point is that there are not enough glaciologists and hydrologists to study each and every of the 1000s of glaciers in the Himalayas. Maybe that’s a field you could go into when you get to college. And if the one glacier studied is found to be on-net melting, it ergo means we should not suspect that other unstudied glaciers are losing net mass thru melting.* I’d rather suspect that on the whole they are (or at least will be in the future, due to AGW), and do the prudent thing to reduce my contributions to AGW now, rather than assume the glaciers will not be melting.

And you seem to imply that because glacier melt is not harming the bulk of the Indian subcontinent at this point (only local villages nearer to the glaciers–as if they are not people too), it could never harm the glacier watersheds of North India, Pakistan, and China, etc, in upcoming years, decades, and centuries. Or that because there are other contributing harms to water issues (such as wasteful use of water), we should ignore the harms and potential harms from glacier melt due to AGW.

As mentioned when we are talking about our human-caused harms thru AGW, there is no statute of limitations on sin or wrong-doing, and that makes it important to reduce our GHG emissions today, so we can hope that glacier melt does not become as big a problem as it could decades and centuries down the road, should we do nothing to mitigate AGW. The people in the Himalayan watersheds will have to address their water usage and waste. We outside of the Himalayan watersheds should address our contributing factors, tho they have relatively smaller effects at this point. Someone’s big flaw or sin, doesn’t make our more minor flaw or sin go away; and due to the nature of AGW and the harms it could cause for 1000s of years, I think our flaws on this are not so small.

---

*NOTE: there are many factors that can explain why some glaciers may not be losing mass or may not be losing it at a rate as fast as with other glaciers – AGW is expected to cause greater evaporation, leading to greater water vapor in the atmosphere, and increasing net precipitation (which means snow for colder climates, such as on high mountains).

 

[lynnvinc]

Question: do you have the Dockery - Pope Data that made these claims?

Because The Pope and Dockery/Pope studies have been widely criticized and the researchers have refused to release their raw data. Senator Richard Shelby introduced legislation aimed at forcing the release of raw data from studies used in agency rule and regulation decisions, but the raw data from the Pope and Dochery studies the EPA used has never been reviewed by opponents or independent experts.

acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.483/news_detail.asp

Hadn’t heard that story. But is it strange there would be opponents to health and life issues who wouldn’t be concerned about people’s exposure to pollutants, even their own children and progeny. Or not. Think of all the abortions – we are a child-hating society. That’s for sure.

I don’t remember the study well, but I think the premise was that small particulate matter could more easily bypass bodily filters and lodge in the lungs. I imagine they got the mortality data on lung disease from heavily polluted areas with lots of that small particulate matter and compared with with mortality data from least polluted areas with least amount of particulate matter. Something like that, maybe controlling for smokers and other causal variables to lung disease. Maybe they tied that in with some other lab info on lungs and pollutants.

You could probably do your own study and publish it if you doubt them so much. All I’d ask is that you keep an open mind and err on the side of life, if there are to be any errors.

I don’t have any problem with their study – it makes sense to me. At most it might be 40,000 people dying from the small particular matter, instead of 60,000. But then it could be 80,000 for all we know.

 

[kimmielittle]

So your point is that there are not enough glaciologists and hydrologists to study each and every of the 1000s of glaciers in the Himalayas.

No…It was a an observation that your particular study came to a conclusion made claims based on one single glacier…extrapolated that study out to include hydrology assumptions without benefit of at least 1 hydrologist .

Maybe that’s a field you could go into when you get to college.

One of my mentors is a glaciologist Dr. Julie L. Schramm … igsoc.org/annals/25/
International Glaciological Society

And if the one glacier studied is found to be on-net melting, it ergo means we should not suspect that other unstudied glaciers are losing net mass thru melting.*

And ignore advancing glaciers? Because that is what this study did.

I’d rather suspect that on the whole they are (or at least will be in the future, due to AGW),

Scientific evidence says REGIONAL not global That’s what the “G” in AGW stands for ] Black carbon soot ] not CO2 is the “causative” of known glacier retreat.

That is why I gave you this pdf
web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s something to understand global warming by a very good and decent man deeply concerned about life on earth and the well-being of his grandchildren on into the future. youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

 

[kimmielittle]

Hadn’t heard that story. But is it strange there would be opponents to health and life issues who wouldn’t be concerned about people’s exposure to pollutants, even their own children and progeny. Or not. Think of all the abortions – we are a child-hating society. That’s for sure.

How in the world does endorsing bad science equal saving lives?

scientificintegrityinstitute.org/enstrom121510.pdf

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18414188

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16282158

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896449

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12872178

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12881887

I don’t remember the study well,

Let’s see you used the study as a Thesis yet you didn’t research the raw data OR lack of?

You could probably do your own study and publish it if you doubt them so much. All I’d ask is that you keep an open mind and err on the side of life, if there are to be any errors.

A bit of scientific research says others have already criticized them See references above ].

I don’t have any problem with their study – it makes sense to me.

Yeah…lack of data and Normal Scientific Procedure and Ethics ] makes sense to some

At most it might be 40,000 people dying from the small particular matter, instead of 60,000. But then it could be 80,000 for all we know.

Let’s see 1995 to 2005…60 000 x 10 = 600, 000 bodies to hide NOT COUNTING the hundreds of thousands before 1995 ] AND EPA can’t find one body for Congressional hearings?

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s something to understand global warming by a very good and decent man deeply concerned about life on earth and the well-being of his grandchildren on into the future. youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

Awwwww…

There is a man who took $720,000 from sorosorg to “politicize science”.

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

I guess the word “decent” is completely subjective.

Subject to ones moral / ethical compass.

He might be a “decent man” but to “politicize science” when Normal Science demands objectivity and be pristine ]…Well let’s just say A “decent” Scientist doesn’t taint Normal Science…AND That is the legacy he chose to give his grandkids.

 

[lynnvinc]

Awwwww…

There is a man who took $720,000 from sorosorg to “politicize science”.

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

I guess the word “decent” is completely subjective.

Subject to ones moral / ethical compass.

He might be a “decent man” but to “politicize science” when Normal Science demands objectivity and be pristine ]…Well let’s just say A “decent” Scientist doesn’t taint Normal Science…AND That is the legacy he chose to give his grandkids.

Just because someone gets money from someone (in this case, if your story is true, then well after decades of doing the science) does not mean he has falsified the science, or that he was expecting to make a mint when he did the science. Maybe the money was to help him rebuild after his house tragically burned to the ground. Who knows. There are good and generous people in the world who want to help people in need.

I know this man, and he is a very very good man.

 

[lynnvinc]

Quote:
Since much of my CO2 emissions last a very long time in the atmosphere, some lasting up to 100,000 years,

You know this claim has no empirical evidence - IPCC doesn’t even claim this - I have proven to you:

Quote:
Physically impossible in Earths constraints!

CO2 is heavier than the atmosphere.
CO2 is much heavier than Methane.
SOOT is much heavier than CO2

According to IPCC:
Methane lasts approximately 10 years in the atmosphere
Soot lasts Days in the atmosphere

The LAWS of Physics says CO2 has to react to gravity. - BETWEEN - The lighter Methane - 10 years ] and heavier Black Carbon Soot - days ].

CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years.

Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years.

Why does methane CH4 ] stay in the stratosphere longer? Why does a bowling ball CO2 ] take more energy to 'lift" and stay air-born than a ping-pong ball Methane ]? Inertia vs gravity.

Earth’s Standard gravity is g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 All things in a vacuum… fall at the same rate.

Diffusion earths warmth and air currants ] is the kinetic energy inertia ] that makes CO2 rise. Otherwise it would stay as fog like dry ice CO2 ] does in a vacuum ] on the surface.

Why does simple example ] if all things fall at the same rate gravity - g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 ] do heavier objects say, in a tornado, fall sooner than lighter objects? It takes much more energy inertia ] for the heavier object to deify gravity.

Atmospheric Methane CH4 ] and CO2 share the same space, the stratosphere. Both subject to the same inertia. Inertia is blind to the object - It is the objects mass weight - surface ] that reacts to the inertia.

With CO2 the heavier, the inertia would have to be stronger directed, at about 3 times, to CO2 … than Methane, the lighter less energy needed to defy gravity ], to stay longer in the atmosphere than Methane.

A righteous cause …doesn’t need fabrications.

You know we covered this on another thread and I’m sorry to say the analysis of your friend (whoever he or she may be in your quote) is total bunk. I ran it by experts in the field and they said so, addressing your very same points that you keep bringing up.

A portion of CO2 can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.

Sorry, but you are just dead wrong on this. If anyone is sincerely interested in learning about this, please contact David Archer at the University of Chicago, or ask about it on RealClimate.org. They will give you expert information on it. Here is David’s entry on it: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ (note that much of CO2 is absorbed back into the ocean and plants, it is only a small portion that could last for that long of a time). Even the experts other than David have suggested 100 to 200 years, so your friend is way way off.

I trust him much more than I trust you and your unnamed friends sitting in some armchair coming up with wild schemes to supposedly debunk science bec AGW is an “inconvenient truth.”

And throwing rotten eggs at scientists is not going to change the laws of physics. Sorry about that, bec it would have been great if CO2 were not such a problem, and we could all get back to our regularly scheduled lives without any need to address AGW.

 

[lynnvinc]

Scientific evidence says REGIONAL not global That’s what the “G” in AGW stands for ] Black carbon soot ] not CO2 is the “causative” of known glacier retreat.

That is why I gave you this pdf
web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf

Well, the science is advancing rapidly (unlike the glaciers), and they are now more and more able to understand AGW’s impacts on smaller and smaller regional levels. Better keep up before it leaves you in the dust.

Of course, there can be and are more causes to a problem such as glacier loss, and soot is one of them. In fact that is one of the problems Dr. Hansen feels can and should be addressed – which would not only improve local health (imagine inhaling that soot in kitchens), as well as reduce AGW, since the black soot absorbs heat. Reduction of soot would have a great impact on reducing several problems. Glad you brought it up.

I’m thinking maybe solar ovens in India, at least for some applications. Found this terrific website about a very cheap oven made from those reflective windshield shades: solarcooking.org/plans/windshield-cooker.htm . The site also has a link to other solar ovens.

Also, biofuel made from manure. I’ve seen some applications in Indian villages where they have a big biofuel pit where everyone brings the cattle dung (and I believe human dung can also be used), which otherwise would have been in part used to make dung cakes mixed with straw for cooking, and other things. The pit produces gas, which is used to fuel a generator so they can have electricity (so their children too can study at night and hope to go to college), plus some gas cooking stoves.

The remainder from the pit is actually a much better fertilizer for their crops.

See, I just don’t understand why the anti-environmentalists are so much against mitigating AGW. There are just so many great things to do that also solve many other problems, as well. If AGW is a hoax (and I surely do not think it is, tho I would hope it is), it is surely the best hoax ever perpetrated. See what it’s done for us. We’re saving $1000s from all the measures we’ve implemented, and I really love my new Chevy Volt (and I’ve never loved a car before…as the man in the ad says), and I have to keep telling myself it is a thing and not a person, so an inappropriate object of love I love that I can drive on my wind-powered electricity and do less harm to people. That’s what I love about it.

 

[kimmielittle]

You know we covered this on another thread and I’m sorry to say the analysis of your friend (whoever he or she may be in your quote) is total bunk.

Can you provide us evidence that CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol…is wrong?

Can you provide us evidence that Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol. …is wrong?

Can you provide us evidence that the atmosphere is heavier than CO2 and CH4?

Can you provide us evidence that Earth’s Standard gravity is g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2…is wrong?

Can you provide us what ** magic** CO2’s Molar Mass has that makes it defy gravity longer than Methane CH4’s ] Molar mass?

Can you provide us evidence that the airborne partials CO2 and CH4 have unequal inertia kinetic energy - convection ] applied to them?

I ran it by experts in the field and they said so, addressing your very same points that you keep bringing up.

I can copy paste their so called “addressing” here if you wish? They DID NOT address what I said…AND you know it.

They attempted to move the pea…

They tried by talking of “concentration” of CO2 - Do you see me “addressing” CO2 Concentration?

THAT Follow the pea…attempt - by them, was dishonest.

So much for YOUR favorite Scientists Integrity.

A **portion of CO2 **can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.

Really??? What portion of CO2?

Can you provide evidence that CO2 Separates from CO2 in it’s atmosphere life…1 part Carbon - 2 parts Oxygen?

**CO2 goes up into the atmosphere Driven by earths warmth - diffusion - wind - convection - inertia - kentic energy ] as CO2 AND returns as CO2. **NO PLACE in it’s Atmospheric Life does it separate and then come back together…SO NO A Portion of the CO2 molecular… DOES NOT somehow Magically separate into portions and rejoin.

Sorry, but you are just dead wrong on this.

You need to prove ALL the above wrong. Proving ALL known Physics wrong…Sorry

If anyone is sincerely interested in learning about this, please contact David Archer at the University of Chicago,

Yes! It was Mr Archer’s book non peer-reviewed ] that made the CO2 stays in the atmosphere 100,000 year claim…Yet, couldn’t defend it on a molecular scale to a kid… Nor could your friendly Scientists at real climate…if you remember.

1 Atmosphere is lighter than CO2 and Methane CH4 ].

2 Atmospheric inertia is blind to the object - It equally applies force against both CO2 and CH4 - It is the objects mass weight - surface ] that reacts to the inertia.

3 The CO2 Molecule does not separate - Thus It’s whole Molar weight applies - ALL the time…It is ALWAYS heavier than Atmosphere AND Methane CH4

4 The LAWS of Physics gravity - inertia ] apply to BOTH CO2 and CH4 equally. - Being equally applied against each other…The heavier will defy gravity for LESS time than the lighter object.

5 CO2 is heavier than Methane CH4 ]…It has to return to Earth sooner than Methane [CH4 ]

6 According to IPCC Methane Molecules stay in the Atmosphere 10 years.

(note that much of CO2 is absorbed back into the ocean and plants,

Follow the pea…

That isn’t Atmospheric… life now is it?

it is only a small portion that could last for that long of a time).

Nonsense!!!

So a “small portion” of CO2 has physical attributes differing from regular CO2?

Even the experts other than David have suggested 100 to 200 years

IPCC is the ONLY one that Claims 100 years…BUT if you look at AR4…they HID the actual report within AR4…saying Co2 has an atmospheric life of 4-5 years. This is not unknown to you…I gave you references.

I trust him much more than I trust you and your unnamed friends sitting in some armchair coming up with wild schemes to supposedly debunk science bec AGW is an “inconvenient truth.”

Once again…I’m not here to debunk science…NORMAL SCIENCE…I’m challenging UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIMS made by Post-normal science.

And throwing rotten eggs at scientists is not going to change the laws of physics.

Then can I expect you to be more civil toward me and my challenges?..Because I just gave you the LAWS of Physics which apply on an atmospheric molecular lifetime level of CO2 and CH4

 

[kimmielittle]

Just because someone gets money from someone (in this case, if your story is true, then well after decades of doing the science) does not mean he has falsified the science,

Oh my my my…So scientist who received money from say KOCH Brothers…may not be bad? You’ve come along way

Maybe the money was to help him rebuild after his house tragically burned to the ground.

I gave you the link to the Soros org PDF - Do a search within the PDF for “politicization of science” - What part of “politicization of science” don’t you understand?

I know this man, and he is a very very good man.

Famous last words of the neighbor of serial killers.

Being a “very good man” doesn’t equate to “good” or even “trusted” Scientist. And when a Scientist does “politicization of science” to a whole field of Genuine Honest Normal Science…

And when Moral / ethical compasses make excuses for the “politicization of science” …

 

[kimmielittle]

Of course, there can be and are more causes to a problem such as glacier loss, and soot is one of them. In fact that is one of the problems Dr. Hansen feels can and should be addressed – which would not only improve local health (imagine inhaling that soot in kitchens), as well as reduce AGW,

Black Carbon soot ] is not CO2…no matter who tries to move the pea…

Stick with the AGW hypothesis OR Pollution.

Also, biofuel made from manure.

Ahhhhhhhhh It IS the Bio-fuel FROM manure …THAT IS THE Black Carbon Soot ] Problem.

India has shown no desire to cut Soot levels.

I’ve seen some applications in Indian villages where they have a big biofuel pit where everyone brings the cattle dung (and I believe human dung can also be used), which otherwise would have been in part used to make dung cakes mixed with straw for cooking, and other things. The pit produces gas, which is used to fuel a generator so they can have electricity (so their children too can study at night and hope to go to college), plus some gas cooking stoves.

India is not a poor country. They need to be encouraged to provide infrastructure to dependable energy sources, for all it’s residents.

In approximately 1910 we USA ] electrified the West. What would have happened if we didn’t provide equal access to affordable energy? Greater class separation?

What are the reasons holding back India from providing affordable energy?
It can’t be money - there is plenty of money for producers of energy.

Could it be a desire to keep class separation?

See, I just don’t understand why the anti-environmentalists are so much against mitigating AGW.

Just who is an anti-environmentalist?

You consistently use this term without definition.

I really love my new Chevy Volt

We are glad you love OUR new Chevy Volt.

I love that I can drive on my wind-powered electricity

Can you offer evidence that you are actually getting 100% percent wind power…Cause Green Mountain 100% Wind… won’t tell where it gets it’s backup energy.