Climate change accelarating - Rifkin asks if we are asleep

[gpatt0n]

While most folks dwell on the words of Biblical scholars predicting the 'end of the world' most folks in the south are dismissive of the idea that mankind, through the wonder of the most pressing issues that might address.

 

Here is an article about the increase in global warming and the issues being observed on the New Jersey Coastline.

 

Probably more disturbing is this video featuring economist Jeremy Rifkin.

 

 

While there are certainly disturbing aspects of Rifkin's interview, the other side of the coin explains why apparently the only investment going on these days is for new energy sources ... and what he calls the third industrial revolution.

 

pubby

[bigocobb]

While most folks dwell on the words of Biblical scholars predicting the 'end of the world' most folks in the south are dismissive of the idea that mankind, through the wonder of the most pressing issues that might address.

 

Here is an article about the increase in global warming and the issues being observed on the New Jersey Coastline.

 

Probably more disturbing is this video featuring economist Jeremy Rifkin.

 

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/m9wM-p8wTq4?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/m9wM-p8wTq4?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

While there are certainly disturbing aspects of Rifkin's interview, the other side of the coin explains why apparently the only investment going on these days is for new energy sources ... and what he calls the third industrial revolution.

 

pubby

 

I don't understand your statement above in bold. Did you leave something out?

[markdavd]

Scientists have 'forseen' disaster related to 'climate change' of some sort or another for 3 decades. Many claimed New York would be underwater by 2010. None of their predictions have come true.

 

The thing to realize is that most if not all of these so called scientists have done all of their research using government grants. They can't get grants by saying everything is fine.

 

It isn't happening!

 

Look at this current study of sea level data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/new-sea-level-dataset-now-available-still-flat/

[ca2ga]

I agree, total hogwash. From the same site markdavd referenced: http://wattsupwithth...ate-fail-files/

 

The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

 

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

 

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN "disappears" 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

 

The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

[gpatt0n]

I don't understand your statement above in bold. Did you leave something out?

 

Nope, just referenced the Rev. who said that May 21st was end of the world and then, when that failed, said sometime in November. Then, of course, there is the December 21, 2012 day that ends the Mayan calendar.

 

The ChristianPost did a poll and they report:

 

This end times theology is called premillennialism and 65 percent of surveyed evangelical leaders identify with it.

 

Most general polls asking the question show about 25-30 percent of the folks thinking we live in the end times; many of which are evangelical Christians. Additionally, the Jehova Witnesses believe we are in the midst of the end time and have been since 1914 (according to their watchtower publication.) It is a matter of theology to them.

 

-------------------

 

Markdavd, I understand your resistance to change.

 

Do know that I grew up literally about 2 miles from the banks of the Mississippi river and the flooding of Ole Man River this spring was certainly in the hundred year flood category.

 

While folks along the river learned a long time ago to build levees and most of the population was not forced to evacuate their homes, the plain fact is that even will have impact on the world food supply. Hence, if the decline in supply is such that it raises the price five percent, it will, by definition put some people in places like Africa, Asia or some of the island economies out of the market.

 

You do know that impacts on 50 million people while obviously large, really reflects just under .3 percent of the world's population. I find it highly likely that the increase in food costs wrought not only by this particular flood but other impacts including $4 gallon gasoline on the cost of food production is going to make for a much more unstable world economy.

 

Will we have another financial crisis?

 

You do know that part of the reason for the uprisings in the Middle East is that people are just frigging hungry. Seems hunger is one of those things that motivates people to take to the streets with an attitude.

 

Finally, the UN's predictions are broad but because they are specific - i.e. use specific numbers - it will always be easy to refute the figures mainly because there really aren't good numbers - at least numbers that are timely for the region.

 

What is critical about the global warming scenarios is that when there is a trend ... and the 200 year trend is to burn and deposit increasing amounts of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere ... roll on with an inevitability that approaches that of tides so long as moon circles the earth. Whether a particular milestone happens in 2010 or 2011 is in the long term, hardly worth a footnote.

 

pubby

[smitty]

PUBBY,

 

If at this very moment every human were to disappear, do you believe global warming would reverse and the Earth would return to its pre-industrial (or whatever) climatic state?

[bigocobb]

Nope, just referenced the Rev. who said that May 21st was end of the world and then, when that failed, said sometime in November. Then, of course, there is the December 21, 2012 day that ends the Mayan calendar.

 

-------------------

 

pubby

 

I just meant that it reads as an incomplete sentence, in my view, and I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

 

"While most folks dwell on the words of Biblical scholars predicting the 'end of the world' most folks in the south are dismissive of the idea that mankind, through the wonder of the most pressing issues that might address."

[Scott]

Global hoax.

[AcworthDad]

PUBBY,

 

If at this very moment every human were to disappear, do you believe global warming would reverse and the Earth would return to its pre-industrial (or whatever) climatic state?

 

Nope. The liberal assumption is that man has a significant impact on climate and that man must adapt liberal environmental programs to reverse climate change. It's all a huge hoax.

[gpatt0n]

I just meant that it reads as an incomplete sentence, in my view, and I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

 

"While most folks dwell on the words of Biblical scholars predicting the 'end of the world' most folks in the south are dismissive of the idea that mankind, through the wonder of the most pressing issues that might address."

 

Yes, there are some missing words in that. Sometimes when writing on a laptop, a section of text will highlight and disappear as my hands dance over the pointer pad. It happens often enough to note and usually I catch it and restore the text with a "ctrl+z" ...but ever so often disappearing text makes me look the idiot.

 

"While most folks dwell on the words of Biblical scholars predicting the 'end of the world' most folks in the south are dismissive of the idea that mankind, through the wonder of the industrial revolution are to blame and they activey ignore actions they could take on the most pressing issues that might address."

 

Not the best sentence ... but still cognizant of the direction of the topic took as those on the right say that mankind's combined consumption of hydrocarbon energy sources along with monoculture agricultural practices, particularly in animal husbandry, are of no environmental consequence.

 

of course what gets me is that, aerosols and hair sprays, not really introduced until the 1950s' had, by the late 1980's so depleted the ozone that the risk of sunburn had grown enormously and there was danger of a massive global disaster so great that CFC;s have been effectively banned in everything from automobile air conditioners to Maybelline hair spray ... in a treaty signed by George HW Bush.

 

The point being how can that comparatively small chemical pollution have such dramatic impact and how you can suggest that everyone could such on a tailpipe and be healthier for it.

 

pubby

[kcarlsonlpn]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. To insinuate that because a scientist's claim is even 50 years off the mark it is untrue is akin to insinuating that someone arriving to your house .00000001 seconds later than they said they'd be is somehow not a punctual person.

 

I mean these scientists are able to recreate the effects of carbon emissions on the atmosphere in a lab environment...and yet folks deny its existence. And yet something like the rapture, something based 100% on myth and completely unable to pass any scientific test, is somehow believable.

 

There's an ulterior motive in place and I'm not sure where it comes from.....does the acceptance of man-made climate change somehow conflict with heartfelt religious views, is it a political thing, is it a matter of not trusting the scientific method, is it simple brainwashing accomplished by corporate interests? I mean there has to be a reason that one would choose to be so blind to a life/death issue that is staring them in the face. It's like pretending that an 8ft grizzly isn't standing 3ft away from you while you poke her cub with a stick.

 

 

 

mrnn

[lotstodo]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. To insinuate that because a scientist's claim is even 50 years off the mark it is untrue is akin to insinuating that someone arriving to your house .00000001 seconds later than they said they'd be is somehow not a punctual person.

 

I mean these scientists are able to recreate the effects of carbon emissions on the atmosphere in a lab environment...and yet folks deny its existence. And yet something like the rapture, something based 100% on myth and completely unable to pass any scientific test, is somehow believable.

 

There's an ulterior motive in place and I'm not sure where it comes from.....does the acceptance of man-made climate change somehow conflict with heartfelt religious views, is it a political thing, is it a matter of not trusting the scientific method, is it simple brainwashing accomplished by corporate interests? I mean there has to be a reason that one would choose to be so blind to a life/death issue that is staring them in the face. It's like pretending that an 8ft grizzly isn't standing 3ft away from you while you poke her cub with a stick.

 

 

 

mrnn

They cannot accurately recreate the past with their models, so why should we believe that they can accurately predict the future? The hockey stick graph that is still to this day being paraded around by the warmists like a captured enemy soldier's head is an admitted fraud. (excuse me, admitted "mistake" so that Mann could keep his job) I taught engineering research, prototyping, and proof of concept as a TA in the ESM Department at Georgia Tech many moons ago, and I assure you that when you start out with a foregone conclusion (man is causing global warming) and try to prove it, you will certainly find or unintentionally fabricate evidence in your favor. You will often confuse correlation with causation. You will ignore and suppress all evidence to the contrary as an "anomaly" or as being influenced by unknown outside factors. You will design experiments to prove your theory, build assumptions into those experiments, estimate data, and justify it all as surrogacy for the sake of expediency. You will criticize and ridicule all competing scientific research. I can also assure you that this is not the Scientific Method. From my experience, when government is involved intimately in science, the problems of government creep into the science. People point to the Manhattan Project and NASA as examples of Government Science at it's best. In those cases, Government did not guide the science and did not campaign for any single solution. It is also interesting to note that after the Apollo program, when NASA was becoming a branch of government and not a research facility, we had bureaucratic problems creep in that led to the deaths of 14 brave men and women.

 

I tell you what though, lets assume for just one brief second that they are 100% correct (they are not) and that man's CO2 contributes to global warming exactly as the warmists claim. Lets use their own math on the subject. Proposed solutions (Kyoto and Waxman Markey) would lower the global temperatures by eight one hundredths of one degree by 2050. That amount is totally insignificant. It is in fact immeasurable. For this we would give up significant portions of our economy to global carbon managers and remove trillions of dollars of productivity from the world GDP. In this case, there is no money in proving that global warming climate change is cyclical and materially unaffected by the actions of mankind, but there are literally billions of dollars annually in AGW.

[AcworthDad]

They cannot accurately recreate the past with their models, so why should we believe that they can accurately predict the future? The hockey stick graph that is still to this day being paraded around by the warmists like a captured enemy soldier's head is an admitted fraud. (excuse me, admitted "mistake" so that Mann could keep his job) I taught engineering research, prototyping, and proof of concept as a TA in the ESM Department at Georgia Tech many moons ago, and I assure you that when you start out with a foregone conclusion (man is causing global warming) and try to prove it, you will certainly find or unintentionally fabricate evidence in your favor. You will often confuse correlation with causation. You will ignore and suppress all evidence to the contrary as an "anomaly" or as being influenced by unknown outside factors. You will design experiments to prove your theory, build assumptions into those experiments, estimate data, and justify it all as surrogacy for the sake of expediency. You will criticize and ridicule all competing scientific research. I can also assure you that this is not the Scientific Method. From my experience, when government is involved intimately in science, the problems of government creep into the science. People point to the Manhattan Project and NASA as examples of Government Science at it's best. In those cases, Government did not guide the science and did not campaign for any single solution. It is also interesting to note that after the Apollo program, when NASA was becoming a branch of government and not a research facility, we had bureaucratic problems creep in that led to the deaths of 14 brave men and women.

 

I tell you what though, lets assume for just one brief second that they are 100% correct (they are not) and that man's CO2 contributes to global warming exactly as the warmists claim. Lets use their own math on the subject. Proposed solutions (Kyoto and Waxman Markey) would lower the global temperatures by eight one hundredths of one degree by 2050. That amount is totally insignificant. It is in fact immeasurable. For this we would give up significant portions of our economy to global carbon managers and remove trillions of dollars of productivity from the world GDP. In this case, there is no money in proving that global warming climate change is cyclical and materially unaffected by the actions of mankind, but there are literally billions of dollars annually in AGW.

 

Here we go again!

 

Global Warming has no credibility, especially when a man like this is involved:

 

[markdavd]

 

 

I mean these scientists are able to recreate the effects of carbon emissions on the atmosphere in a lab environment...and yet folks deny its existence.

Please cite a peer reviewed study showing they've been able to do this.

[gpatt0n]

this from National Geographic:

 

Is It Happening?

 

Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

 

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

 

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

 

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

 

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

 

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

 

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

 

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

 

The next page of the articles starts with the heading:

 

Are Human's Causing It (Climate Change)?

 

National Geographic Magazine

 

Now, I know that the folks here are conservative but I don't buy that the National Geographic Magazine or its editors are pursuing any agenda but the health and welfare of the Earth. I certainly don't buy they are part of some government conspiracy designed to take our guns, take our cars and make us slaves to a tofu and matzos diet.

 

I should add that those conservatives who reject the science do have a vested interest in continuation of the inefficient status quo and those who earn wealth from it. It is past time for change and the longer we delay in making critical changes in the organization of society, the more dramatic the changes we as a species and world eco-system will have to endure.

 

The real kicker in all this is despite protestations to the contrary, the only down side to a more energy efficient, more eco-aware, existence is that we might have to adopt new technologies that are not as 'profitable' to the established energy companies who sought to 'win the game' by cornering the existing resource base of the second industrial revolution. What most of the neo-conservatives don't even realize is that the major oil company's dropped their skepticism to the science in 2006 and, not being dumb, are seeking to control innovation in the energy field instead of trying to quell or destroy it, which they did over the decades preceding.

 

The green revolution is supported by true conservatives as they are a risk averse lot. That means out of sense of wisdom and prudence, they seek to hedge their bets for the future. Yet the neo-conservatism we see practiced, particularly on this forum, asks us to bet the farm on a political promise that if we protect the market dominance of Saudi Arabian light crude, all will be rosy.

 

It won't be rosy and the down side to continuing on the path we have charted in the last century is that global climate change could so radically alter the world that mass extinctions continue to escalate and may even include homo sapiens in its list of vanished life. Definitely not good at the extreme; but not good even even if it is only half as bad. As National Geographic says, "It is happening" and Humans are the cause."

 

pubby

[TabbyCat]

[dapandlap]

Good One TC,

"the sky is falling / the glaciers are melting"

[Georgia Dawg]

They can't even tell us if it's going to rain next Friday and we're supposed to believe their long range predictions?

[markdavd]

It's obvious Pubby has drunk the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change kool aid, and no amount of REAL scientific facts to the contrary will change his mind. He believes every breath he breaths out and every beer or soft drink he opens help change the climate by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In his mind it's 100% anthropomorphic. Sun cycles and natural events have nothing to do with it.

 

For the rest of us, here is an interesting analysis of 1990 predictions compared with what actually happened: 990 IPCC predictions confront the data

 

[TabbyCat]

It's obvious Pubby has drunk the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change kool aid, and no amount of REAL scientific facts to the contrary will change his mind. He believes every breath he breaths out and every beer or soft drink he opens help change the climate by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In his mind it's 100% anthropomorphic. Sun cycles and natural events have nothing to do with it.

 

For the rest of us, here is an interesting analysis of 1990 predictions compared with what actually happened: 990 IPCC predictions confront the data

 

 

 

Oh, stop with scientific data already!

 

Let's just ignore that the rate of loss of carbon from the atmosphere is at least four times greater from people BREATHING than the rate of measured post-industrial increase in atmospheric CO2.



 

Clearly, we all should breathe less.

 

Let's ignore that the rate of fossil fuel burning energy release is minuscule compared to the rate of the sun’s delivery of energy to the planet. Yep, there's input to oppose all the output.

 

Let's also ignore that solar impact (energy from the sun) and planet albedo (shortwave radiation reflected from the Earth back into space) were the primary parameters over the course of Earth’s climate history.

 

Let's ignore that significant regional climate changes have been around since well before the industrial period and have been documented for at least one thousand years.

 

EVIL "global warming" is ALL due to the use of fossil fuels, and WE are all responsible. We nasty breathing, consuming humans.

 

Do your part and breathe less today!

 

[Cathyhelms]

Oh, stop with scientific data already!

 

Let's just ignore that the rate of loss of carbon from the atmosphere is at least four times greater from people BREATHING than the rate of measured post-industrial increase in atmospheric CO2.



 

Clearly, we all should breathe less.

 

Let's ignore that the rate of fossil fuel burning energy release is minuscule compared to the rate of the sun's delivery of energy to the planet. Yep, there's input to oppose all the output.

 

Let's also ignore that solar impact (energy from the sun) and planet albedo (shortwave radiation reflected from the Earth back into space) were the primary parameters over the course of Earth's climate history.

 

Let's ignore that significant regional climate changes have been around since well before the industrial period and have been documented for at least one thousand years.

 

EVIL "global warming" is ALL due to the use of fossil fuels, and WE are all responsible. We nasty breathing, consuming humans.

 

Do your part and breathe less today!

 

 

Oh Tabby, you forgot about the cows................the methane producing cows. How could you???

[markdavd]

Oh Tabby, you forgot about the cows................the methane producing cows. How could you???

I want to know when they're going to start limiting CO2 producing drinks - especially soft drinks, beer and to a lesser extent, champagne.

 

Someone who really believes in man made climate change would have to also believe these things are big contributors to the CO2 problem!

[chainshaw1]

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/10/australia-killing-camels-for-carbon-credits/

 

The only real solution here is to start killing camels.

[gpatt0n]

I want to know when they're going to start limiting CO2 producing drinks - especially soft drinks, beer and to a lesser extent, champagne.

 

Someone who really believes in man made climate change would have to also believe these things are big contributors to the CO2 problem!

 

No, that is not true.

 

But what I also know is that last week, as the temperature zoomed past 90-degrees Fahrenheit, the television stations started with this warnings of unhealthy air due to Atlanta being in an non-attainment area for air quality. Yep, if you have respiratory problems, the spiel goes, stay inside because the air outside could make you sick.

 

This is largely due to the particulates dumped in the air of the metro area from automobiles, electric generating facilities and other man made sources.

 

Yes, man has effectively poisoned the air of the metro Atlanta area and we all know it. (Well maybe not. I'm sure those who reject the potential that many can impact climate by changing the concentrations of various elements in the atmosphere will reject that particulates in the atmosphere could impact the breath-ability of air in the Atlanta nonattainment zone.)

 

The key contention of those who reject any kind of global climate change being wrought is that man is too weak, too ineffectual, to inconsequential to alter the chemistry of the atmosphere to the degree ... actually to any degree.

 

The actual charted increase in parts per million of Co2 going back a few centuries and increasing rapidly in the recent decades is similarly inconsequential... despite pretty strong logic that if you change the volumes of various chemicals, you get vastly different outcomes.

 

I.e. what is the difference between the blood alcohol level of .003 and .010?

 

Well, I'll only observe that those who find it easy to criticize that there is no practical difference in climate in an atmosphere with CO2 at 180 ppm and 480 ppm would most likely see no reason a human's ability to navigate an automobile in traffic with a blood/alcohol content of .003 and .010 would differ. Why? Because in that view, chemistry doesn't matter.

 

And that is the issue. Does chemistry matter? Heck, does science matter is maybe a better question. Not, apparently, if it threatens their love affair with burning hydrocarbons.

 

pubby

[TabbyCat]

No, that is not true.

 

But what I also know is that last week, as the temperature zoomed past 90-degrees Fahrenheit, the television stations started with this warnings of unhealthy air due to Atlanta being in an non-attainment area for air quality. Yep, if you have respiratory problems, the spiel goes, stay inside because the air outside could make you sick.

 

This is largely due to the particulates dumped in the air of the metro area from automobiles, electric generating facilities and other man made sources.

 

Yes, man has effectively poisoned the air of the metro Atlanta area and we all know it. (Well maybe not. I'm sure those who reject the potential that many can impact climate by changing the concentrations of various elements in the atmosphere will reject that particulates in the atmosphere could impact the breath-ability of air in the Atlanta nonattainment zone.)

 

The key contention of those who reject any kind of global climate change being wrought is that man is too weak, too ineffectual, to inconsequential to alter the chemistry of the atmosphere to the degree ... actually to any degree.

 

The actual charted increase in parts per million of Co2 going back a few centuries and increasing rapidly in the recent decades is similarly inconsequential... despite pretty strong logic that if you change the volumes of various chemicals, you get vastly different outcomes.

 

I.e. what is the difference between the blood alcohol level of .003 and .010?

 

Well, I'll only observe that those who find it easy to criticize that there is no practical difference in climate in an atmosphere with CO2 at 180 ppm and 480 ppm would most likely see no reason a human's ability to navigate an automobile in traffic with a blood/alcohol content of .003 and .010 would differ. Why? Because in that view, chemistry doesn't matter.

 

And that is the issue. Does chemistry matter? Heck, does science matter is maybe a better question. Not, apparently, if it threatens their love affair with burning hydrocarbons.

 

pubby

 

It pretty much comes down to what "science" you trust.

[gpatt0n]

It pretty much comes down to what "science" you trust.

 

I have great skepticism for 'industry' research. It all started when I did a little research back in college - old days long time ago. Like many, I've not been a fan or great user of sugar and have consumed diet colas going back to their introduction in the 1960's and 70's.

 

Many will remember that the saccarin-sweetened colas of the 60's were notorious for their aftertaste and the cola companies came up with a new artificial sweetener called sodium cyclamate. It was an instant hit and diet drinks started taking off.

 

The sugar lobby didn't like that; not one bit. They hired some scientists who fed lab rats the equivalent of 4,000 diet colas a day to their small sample of rats for two years. At the end of this study, a miniscule portion of the rats developed a malignancy and under the FDA rules, any suspicion that an additive could cause cancer was enough to have the product banned. And banned it was on the strength of that one, non-replicated study.

 

Here are some excerpts from an official response from Exxon-Mobile repudiating the assertion that they deny the impact of climate change from the burning of hydrocarbons (and oil.) Apparently Exxon-Mobil and I accept the same science.

 

 

ExxonMobil is not a climate change denier

 

We have the same concerns as everyone on energy and greenhouse gas emissions, says Nick Thomas

 

 

Nick Thomas

The Guardian, Friday 10 July 2009

Article history

 

You report the views of Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute, who attempts to portray us as climate change deniers (ExxonMobil is still funding groups that question global warming, 2 July). We are not. We take climate change seriously and have the same concerns as people everywhere - how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the risks to society and ecosystems from increases in greenhouse gas emissions are significant. We agree that it is prudent to address these risks. We have researched this issue for more than 25 years, and produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists serve on the IPCC and numerous scientific bodies. But the article ignored these facts.

 

You stated that last year we "handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds" to lobby groups that "question the reality of global warming". Like many other companies, we seek to promote discussion on issues that are relevant to us and contribute to a wide range of academic and policy organisations. These have a diverse group of supporters and obviously we cannot, nor do we try to, control what they say on any particular issue.

 

The article made no mention of other organisations we have funded, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the Brookings Institution, Princeton University and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction.

 

Ward says: "If the company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it." We are not interested in funding such views. Over the past few years we have discontinued contributions to several policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from this important discussion about how the world will secure energy for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner. We review our contributions on an annual basis.

 

Meanwhile, we are addressing the risks of climate change by reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions, helping consumers reduce theirs, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and participating in policy dialogue. Specifically we have developed emission-reducing technologies such as tyre liners that keep tyres inflated longer, advanced fuel-economy engine oil, and lightweight motor vehicle plastics.

 

We are working on technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions, such as lithium battery separator film for hybrid electric cars, research into advanced engines, and ways to generate hydrogen on board vehicles. We are investing more than $100m in technology to separate carbon dioxide from natural gas, which could help carbon capture and storage applications.

 

In addition we are sponsoring breakthrough research to make alternatives like solar and biofuels more available and affordable on a wider scale.

 

There is no single solution to the challenge of reducing emissions while meeting growing energy needs. We need to produce and use hydrocarbons more efficiently, and improve and develop alternative energy sources.

 

• Nick Thomas is director of corporate affairs for ExxonMobil International uk.publicaffairs@exxonmobil.com

 

pubby

[smitty]

...snip...

 

"While most folks dwell on the words of Biblical scholars predicting the 'end of the world' most folks in the south are dismissive of the idea that mankind, through the wonder of the industrial revolution are to blame and they activey ignore actions they could take on the most pressing issues that might address."

 

...snip...

 

pubby

 

...snip...

 

There's an ulterior motive in place and I'm not sure where it comes from.....does the acceptance of man-made climate change somehow conflict with heartfelt religious views, is it a political thing, is it a matter of not trusting the scientific method, is it simple brainwashing accomplished by corporate interests? I mean there has to be a reason that one would choose to be so blind to a life/death issue that is staring them in the face. It's like pretending that an 8ft grizzly isn't standing 3ft away from you while you poke her cub with a stick.

 

 

 

mrnn

 

Unless y'all are saying that global warming belief is religion-like, I don't see what religion has to do with this. ...And BTW, GW is lefty religion: there's dogmatic belief in something that cannot be proven, and adherence to it requires political submission--shame on me for being prosperous; shame on America for protecting industrialism; for killing mother Earth. Let's act against our Nation's interests while promoting foreign interests and relieve ourselves of this guilt; so that foreigners will like us.

 

Y'all know me. I like to skip to the nitty-gritty. Don't be afraid to answer the questions below in the negative or affirmative. Don't wow us with long-winded deflection.

 

 

If at this very moment every human were to disappear, would global warming be reversed? Would the Earth be returned to its pre-industrial (or whatever) climatic state?

 

 

To me, it seems the Earth is warming...Yes, I think it is, but, I don't believe it would cool if humans were to disappear. It sure as hell ain't worth gutting America's economy just to show the rest of the world that we care so much that we're going to emaciate ourselves just to see if it would work.

 

Yes, or no lefties. Answer yes, or no.

[LPPT]

Unless y'all are saying that global warming belief is religion-like, I don't see what religion has to do with this. ...And BTW, GW is lefty religion: there's dogmatic belief in something that cannot be proven, and adherence to it requires political submission--shame on me for being prosperous; shame on America for protecting industrialism; for killing mother Earth. Let's act against our Nation's interests while promoting foreign interests and relieve ourselves of this guilt; so that foreigners will like us.

 

Y'all know me. I like to skip to the nitty-gritty. Don't be afraid to answer the questions below in the negative or affirmative. Don't wow us with long-winded deflection.

 

 

 

 

To me, it seems the Earth is warming...Yes, I think it is, but, I don't believe it would cool if humans were to disappear. It sure as hell ain't worth gutting America's economy just to show the rest of the world that we care so much that we're going to emaciate ourselves just to see if it would work.

 

Yes, or no lefties. Answer yes, or no.

 

Wouldn't it just get warmer if we don't change what we are doing?

[surepip]

To deny mankind's negative effect on the environmental during the past 50 years is indeed very much akin to the religous fanatics who prosleytize about THEIR religion. And you are either with them or against them.

 

Many megalarge cities, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, etc. have seen the direct impact of auto emmissions and have tried different variations of limiting the emmissions and they saw the conditions improve rapidly. When Brasil actually reduced the number of gas burning autos in Sao Paulo, the air quality did improve. They had a period of time where alcohol [not gasahol] vehicles were a reasonable percentage of the cars on the street. It showed results.

 

Then the alcohol manufacturers tried to drive up the price by restricting supply and the consumers got cold feet at the scarcity of alcohol and the system collapsed on itself.

 

And it is not just burning fossil fuels for cars and power, it is also burning off the remains of deforested areas around the world......Amazon, Malaysia and Indonesia, parts of Asia. The deforestation is as bad or worse than the CO2 emmissions because it removes much of the plantlife which helps clean the air we breath.

 

We have seen many areas [Lake Erie, Chesapeake, even the Chattahoochee, where some conservation efforts made drastic improvements in a short period of time.

 

You make jokes about human CO2 emmissions, but they, and animals as well, are a large part of the problem. As is feeding them. It takes a lot of CO2 to grow the corn, soya, and wheat to attempt to feed the world. And we are doing a poor job on that, with millions starving simply because there are too many of us.

 

Is New York or Miami going to vanish under water next year ? No, but we are seeing a visible melt off of our ice reserves world wide and it will have an effect. Might be another generation, or even 2. But it is happening.

 

Some of the improvements we have made world wide in the past 20+ years are helping. In addition to limiting CO2 where possible, we have severely restricted, worldwide, the use of many other chemical compounds which we learned were indeed causing problems with the Ozone layers. Halon and other such gases and propellants have been banned worldwide and that helped as well.

 

But to take radical stands ignoring obivious science is much akin to those who stand up preaching against teaching evolution in the schools and endorse only Creationism.

 

Foolish and short sighted.

 

And yes, like it or not, the USA is in the front position as THE country who consumes the most fossil fuel per captita, and who produces the most CO2 and other noxious emmissions. And yes, it is time to seriously look at ways to curb the consumption and thus reduce emmissions.

 

Or we can just continue our greedy selfish ways and watch the environment degrade.

[markdavd]

Wouldn't it just get warmer if we don't change what we are doing?

The problem is, it will get just as warm even if we do change things.

 

Some models ignored by the scare mongers show that due to climate feedback, it will get warmer if we do reduce CO2.

[smitty]

Wouldn't it just get warmer if we don't change what we are doing?

 

Uh....what?

 

If we're doing it, wouldn't it stop if we all disappeared?

 

To deny mankind's negative effect on the environmental during the past 50 years is indeed very much akin to the religous fanatics who prosleytize about THEIR religion. And you are either with them or against them.

 

Many megalarge cities, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, etc. have seen the direct impact of auto emmissions and have tried different variations of limiting the emmissions and they saw the conditions improve rapidly. When Brasil actually reduced the number of gas burning autos in Sao Paulo, the air quality did improve. They had a period of time where alcohol [not gasahol] vehicles were a reasonable percentage of the cars on the street. It showed results.

 

Then the alcohol manufacturers tried to drive up the price by restricting supply and the consumers got cold feet at the scarcity of alcohol and the system collapsed on itself.

 

And it is not just burning fossil fuels for cars and power, it is also burning off the remains of deforested areas around the world......Amazon, Malaysia and Indonesia, parts of Asia. The deforestation is as bad or worse than the CO2 emmissions because it removes much of the plantlife which helps clean the air we breath.

 

We have seen many areas [Lake Erie, Chesapeake, even the Chattahoochee, where some conservation efforts made drastic improvements in a short period of time.

 

You make jokes about human CO2 emmissions, but they, and animals as well, are a large part of the problem. As is feeding them. It takes a lot of CO2 to grow the corn, soya, and wheat to attempt to feed the world. And we are doing a poor job on that, with millions starving simply because there are too many of us.

 

Is New York or Miami going to vanish under water next year ? No, but we are seeing a visible melt off of our ice reserves world wide and it will have an effect. Might be another generation, or even 2. But it is happening.

 

Some of the improvements we have made world wide in the past 20+ years are helping. In addition to limiting CO2 where possible, we have severely restricted, worldwide, the use of many other chemical compounds which we learned were indeed causing problems with the Ozone layers. Halon and other such gases and propellants have been banned worldwide and that helped as well.

 

But to take radical stands ignoring obivious science is much akin to those who stand up preaching against teaching evolution in the schools and endorse only Creationism.

 

Foolish and short sighted.

 

And yes, like it or not, the USA is in the front position as THE country who consumes the most fossil fuel per captita, and who produces the most CO2 and other noxious emmissions. And yes, it is time to seriously look at ways to curb the consumption and thus reduce emmissions.

 

Or we can just continue our greedy selfish ways and watch the environment degrade.

 

blah-blah-blah.

 

Yes, or no, please.

[surepip]

PUBBY,

 

If at this very moment every human were to disappear, do you believe global warming would reverse and the Earth would return to its pre-industrial (or whatever) climatic state?

Yes, I believe it would over a period of time.

 

I think what we will end up encountering in the next decade....maybe sooner, or later, is mass starvation around the globe.

 

So far, we have been fortunate in that the USA, Brasil, Canada, Australia, parts of the EEC, and a handful of other countries around the world manage to keep producing enough grain to feed most of the world. The geographical areas who have taken the worst hits climate wise have not been those areas which produce the abundance of grain we need.

 

But, in the process, the price of grain feedstuffs has more than doubled during the past 3 years. We saw the 1st bad hit on this the spring of 2008. Much like the price of gas, we are getting acclimated to the new higher prices which for grains, have remained at high levels even though most of the grain growing countries have made their quotas so to speak.

 

We may end up with shortages this year though at the rate we are not getting the crops planted in the midwest due to the vast quantities of rain and snow melt. While at the same time the soybean belt through the south is in a drought and now is being scorched by unseasonably high temperatures.

 

We are producing twice the bushels of corn per acre with half the fertilizer over 20 years ago, and it has not been enough of an increase to allow the supply to catch up with the demand.

 

Some will be in a position over the next decade....mabye even this year, of deciding which countries we simply turn our backs on and allow their populations to starve because we need the grain for ourselves.

[Cathyhelms]

The sun just had a sunspot larger than Earth, look for temps to rise more, soon, along with crazy weather patterns. I think Pubby conveniently forgot about the global cooling scare of the 70s. It's all about money and how much they can get from global economies to support their claims. It's a huge income producer.

 

Normal heating and cooling aren't able to be controlled by man. Sorry to disappoint.

 

Hmmmm, 2003 was an interesting year in relation to the sun. My link

[Thoughts from the Evil Galaxy]

All I've got to say is that if it were this easy to distroy the planet we'd have been gone a long time ago. I don't believe the Religious Apocalyptics nor the Enviromental Doomologist, both are extremist in my view and both have ulterior motives behind their predictions... :closedeyes:

[TabbyCat]

To deny mankind's negative effect on the environmental during the past 50 years is indeed very much akin to the religous fanatics who prosleytize about THEIR religion. And you are either with them or against them.

 

Many megalarge cities, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, etc. have seen the direct impact of auto emmissions and have tried different variations of limiting the emmissions and they saw the conditions improve rapidly. When Brasil actually reduced the number of gas burning autos in Sao Paulo, the air quality did improve. They had a period of time where alcohol [not gasahol] vehicles were a reasonable percentage of the cars on the street. It showed results.

 

Then the alcohol manufacturers tried to drive up the price by restricting supply and the consumers got cold feet at the scarcity of alcohol and the system collapsed on itself.

 

And it is not just burning fossil fuels for cars and power, it is also burning off the remains of deforested areas around the world......Amazon, Malaysia and Indonesia, parts of Asia. The deforestation is as bad or worse than the CO2 emmissions because it removes much of the plantlife which helps clean the air we breath.

 

We have seen many areas [Lake Erie, Chesapeake, even the Chattahoochee, where some conservation efforts made drastic improvements in a short period of time.

 

You make jokes about human CO2 emmissions, but they, and animals as well, are a large part of the problem. As is feeding them. It takes a lot of CO2 to grow the corn, soya, and wheat to attempt to feed the world. And we are doing a poor job on that, with millions starving simply because there are too many of us.

 

Is New York or Miami going to vanish under water next year ? No, but we are seeing a visible melt off of our ice reserves world wide and it will have an effect. Might be another generation, or even 2. But it is happening.

 

Some of the improvements we have made world wide in the past 20+ years are helping. In addition to limiting CO2 where possible, we have severely restricted, worldwide, the use of many other chemical compounds which we learned were indeed causing problems with the Ozone layers. Halon and other such gases and propellants have been banned worldwide and that helped as well.

 

But to take radical stands ignoring obivious science is much akin to those who stand up preaching against teaching evolution in the schools and endorse only Creationism.

 

Foolish and short sighted.

 

And yes, like it or not, the USA is in the front position as THE country who consumes the most fossil fuel per captita, and who produces the most CO2 and other noxious emmissions. And yes, it is time to seriously look at ways to curb the consumption and thus reduce emmissions.

 

Or we can just continue our greedy selfish ways and watch the environment degrade.

 

Who denied that the climate is changing?

 

[lotstodo]

Who denied that the climate is changing?

 

The same people who want the status quo in healthcare.

[gpatt0n]

Who denied that the climate is changing?

 

The same people who want the status quo in healthcare.

 

And both are unsustainable, untenable positions.

 

pubby

 

Smitty, your question, properly understood, is whether we have reached the tipping point in terms of Global Warming ... whether the warming that has occurred because of the rise in C02 is at the point that the feedback loop makes further warming inevitable? I have no scientific basis on which to base the opinion but I pray the answer is no; that we can stem the rise before the permafrost in the Siberian tundra warms to the point that it begins releasing its stored carbon and creates the feared feedback loop that will result in cataclysmic climate change. That, unfortunately is the danger of ignoring the trend.

[surepip]

Unsustainable and arrogantly greedy. We can do whatever we want to do, regardless of how it might effect the rest of the world, and we can do this simply because.....

 

And then we wonder why so much of the world sees us as just that, the great DEVIL. Don't we kind of bring it onto ourselves.?

 

All other bets and arguments aside, isn't the current price of gasoline enough of a kick in the ass to show us we need to explore the alternatives ? Forget all the other possible negative effects our greedy consumption of fossil fuels might be causing, just looking at what it is costing us economically should make anyone with an ounce of common sense to see we need to seek the ways and means to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels if for no other reason that we cannot financially afford not to.

 

And the same argument goes for finding a means to have a real, competitive healthcare system where the companies compete to write every policy they can, finding ways NOT to exempt potential customers but simply providing good coverage for a competitive price and lower what we pay annually on a per capita basis. If we were paying double what the rest of the world was paying for gasoline there would be a lot more incentive to find alternatives. Same should go for health insurance.

[markdavd]

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/10/australia-killing-camels-for-carbon-credits/

 

The only real solution here is to start killing camels.

This is a serious item in the news and nobody in the "we're killing our plant" crowd wants to comment?

 

I wonder how much carbon can be 'saved' if we were to outlaw chicken raising? Those flocks have to put out a lot of CO2.

 

 

 

[AcworthDad]

This is a serious item in the news and nobody in the "we're killing our plant" crowd wants to comment?

 

I wonder how much carbon can be 'saved' if we were to outlaw chicken raising? Those flocks have to put out a lot of CO2.

 

I'm surprised surepip has not suggested killing all the world's chickens.