The Sustainable Word :-Everything you need to know about global warming in five minutes
I had the following conversation at :- http://sustainableword.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/everything-you-need-to-know-about-global-warming-in-five-minutes
on July 27, 2010 at 8:03 pm | Reply rogerthesurf
I like the way he quotes his sources.
on July 27, 2010 at 10:22 pm | Reply Brian Bell
Thanks for the comment Roger. Would you like to see more information?
on July 31, 2010 at 6:56 pm | Reply rogerthesurf
I was being ironical, your hedge fund manager is simply parroting off stuff he has been told or read without critically assessing it. Neither has he quoted, as far as I can see, where he got his information from.
A modest critical assessment of some aspects of AGW is found on my site if you are interested. All critical facts are referenced and the logic is fairly obvious to the lay person.
on July 31, 2010 at 9:45 pm | Reply Brian Bell
Interesting website. Whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is irrelevant and a waste of time to argue about. Besides, “Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?” is a false dichotomy. A more accurate term would be “global weirding.”
The widespread use of fossil fuels is unsustainable no matter how you slice it. I’m also confident, given the exponential growth of renewable energy, it will be a non-issue in the next couple of decades.
Someday we’ll all laugh about how ridiculous it was to run our civilization with prehistoric plant matter.
on August 1, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Reply rogerthesurf
The unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is quite a different issue from the sustainability of fossil fuels.
The second is a reasonable and it is an inevitable fact that these things will not last forever.
The premise that we are poisoning our planet with the gas that is the basis of all life as we know it on this planet, while it is only at trace concentrations, is the ridiculous notion.
on August 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm | Reply Brian Bell
I would argue a consensus of scientists, many Nobel prize winners, makes the anthropogenic hypothesis worthy of our consideration and action. The disinformation, smear, and conspiracy campaigns against scientists is creating doubt in the mind’s of the general public and serves only the fossil fuel industry’s interests.
What makes more sense: Thousands of scientists are collaborating and orchestrating an elaborate hoax to keep research money flowing their way OR the fossil fuel industry, including oil, coal, etc, are protecting their source of hundreds of billions of profits per year. Just follow the money on the (very small number) of research reports and scientists coming out against AGW.
What won’t last forever? I suppose you mean atmospheric CO2, which lasts anywhere from 100 to 500 years. This is why temperatures will continue to rise even if we stopped all fossil fuel usage now.
Why is this premise so ridiculous to you? We are causing changes to our environment all around us (rain fall changes, biodiversity losses, a freakin island of plastic the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific. We put a hole in the ozone layer, which we caught and fixed, hopefully in time.
Carbon (C) is the basis of all life, not CO2.
on August 3, 2010 at 5:32 pm | Reply rogerthesurf
Fact 1. If atmospheric CO2 drops below about 180 ppmv then all plants will stop growing and everything including us, that depend on them will die.
This is why I say CO2 is the basis of all life.
Yes of course we are doing nasty things to our planet and this is of concern. Please don’t get me wrong on this.
The ozone hole is still there by the way. I know because in my country, we cover up every summer because of it.
But blaming anthropogenic CO2 is ridiculous because
1. The world has been warmer than now many times, some of those times within written historical time, when anthropogenic CO2 or any CO2 was low.
2. There simply is no empirical evidence to link CO2 with Global warming. If you find some let me know. (Do not confuse observations and theories with evidence)
3. Any economist will tell you that to lower emissions to 40% below 1990 level (about 57% from present) is economic suicide. Which means every normal person is going to suffer hardship and poverty and all associated evils if the IPCC has its way
4. Considering therefore the cost mentioned above, we need to be VERY VERY certain that a. the planet is in danger fron CO2. b. The IPCC measures will be effective in saving the planet.
So the point is :- why are we being encouraged to chase CO2, which is a beneficial gas, to the point of ruining our economies and way of life, when the real bogeys include some of the things mentioned in your comment.
Now I think this is a very rational approach, so there is no need to get emotional about the questions I ask.
I for one could use some support from an oil company or two, unfortunately I know of no such cases.
Scientists around the world are skeptical of AGW for the very reasons I have outlined above.
What is most worrying though is the general lack of analysis on what IPCC proposed measures will do to our economies. I have actually asked the Minister of Climate Change in my country for such an analysis, but no answer as yet.
on August 4, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Reply Brian Bell
I’ll respond to some of your points:
on August 5, 2010 at 8:33 pm | Reply rogerthesurf
I would rather listen to your own reasoning. Unless you reason for yourself, you will fall victim to the many lies around the place.
In answer to 2. Whereabouts did I deny that the climate has warmed?
In Answer to 3. They dont disagree with my assertion that we may pay a very high price, they just say that it may be the lesser of the two evils.
In answer to 4. IPCC is not a source I respect. It is a political organisation with its own agenda.
Read closely though and you will never see that they are positive about anything. Always say “could” (used 8 times) , “certainty” , “will” and “positive” etc are not used used in relation to the proposed mitigation measures.
Neither is any empirical proof offered.
on August 8, 2010 at 8:35 pm | Reply Brian Bell
My reasoning as a climate scientist? So you don’t deny the climate has warmed. What about CO2 concentrations? Correlation, but not causation? Is it only part of the puzzle? Is there something else along with CO2? Methane? NO4? Soot in the air? Glacial melting reducing albedo?
How much will it cost to get our society off of fossil fuels?
Your reasoning as a normal human being. There is nothing in the world that cannot be explained to someone of normal intelligence.
I do not deny proper observations, however we both know there is some controversy over some of them. However that is not the point.
If you had taken the time to read my blog more carefully, you would realise that the true issues are 1. What is causing these changes that we observe, and 2. Can mankind do anything about it.
I think you are mixing a number of different issues.
The “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis is a seperate one from the sustainablity of fossil fuel use.
Yes we should look after our resources because one day they will run out.
Pollution of the planet is another issue.
Of course we need to look after the planet, reduce garbage and pollutants that threaten natural life and water purity.
But note that the AGW theory addresses none of the above, in fact it threatens to take resources away from the remedies needed for the above!
AGW is therefore another issue to be considered in isolation.
In an earlier comment, I pointed out – world regularly warms and cools? Most of the warming peaks have been warmer than today, and a number of those warmings have been within recorded history. A cool period troughed in the 14th century and temeratures have climbed since then until today.
If warming like this is a regular thing and has happenend many times with no anthropogenic CO2, it is very reasonable to ask why are we blaming CO2 on this one?
“How much will it cost to get our society off of fossil fuels?”
Now you are getting right into my field of expertise.
Economist may not be able to predict everything, but one thing that is easy to predict is an economic collapse when a key element essential to the economy is suddenly withdrawn.
If we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to the levels (40% below 1990 levels = 57 % below current) as demanded by the IPCC and at the rate demanded by the IPCC, the cost on us personally in the western world, will be widespread poverty and we may even see our children starve.
The fact the IPCC has glossed over this fact is an indictment on their whole operation.
On top of that western countries are asked to transfer their wealth to third world countries for reasons perhaps you should read about.
If this is the price of saving the world, I think we need very good proof that we are actually addressing the issue before we commence.