Global Warming Scientist Admits Poor Work
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.
But Professor Jones said he had not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
Read the whole thing. Anthropogenic climate change denialists should not feel that their claims have been correct. They are not. As Jones pointed out, the denialists are not doing any research, not even with the publicly available data. That is probably because, like the lobbyists in “Thank You for Smoking”, the professional denialists’ jobs are to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt and mislead people about the state of the science.
The facts are simple: humans have released a huge amount of sequestered carbon during the industrial era. Carbon dioxide levels have increased. If no changes are made, carbon dioxide levels will increase more quickly.
If the denialists don’t like the solution, trying to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide that is being released, what solution do the critics offer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1041 hrs
what solution do the critics offer?
RUN FOR OUR LIVES!! AIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1048 hrs
Yes, humans are pumping CO2 and other things into the air and it is bound to have some impact. The earth also has massive correcting mechanisms (see the giant algae blooms in the ocean). Here’s what always gets me though…
Let’s say that it’s all true and the planet has a “fever.” Can we be realistic about the impact of that? Will the oceans rise? Perhaps some. But also vast swaths of tundra in Canada and Siberia, for example, should become farmable. Could Global Warming be the answer to world hunger?
The fact is that everything has consequences. Some good. Some bad. What I object to is overreacting and destroying our economy and standard of living based on a flawed science and an unbalanced obsession with the negative.
Posted by Owen on February 13, 2010 at 1052 hrs
For the sake of argument, say everything that Jones has been selling is correct. Then look at what they wanted to do in Copenhagen. Those proposals would have had a miniscule effect on global temps, but would have had tremendous impact on developed economies.
Would it not be far more productive to use our talents and technologies to adapt to changes, than to try to stop or change the changes.
All of the above said - I find the entire AGW meme a load of hooey. As big of a load of hooey as using “stimulus” taxpayer money to purchase foreign wind turbines.
The entire thing is political corruption from top to bottom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1105 hrs
Could Global Warming be the answer to world hunger?
Not fast enough to matter. Thawed tundra will not give us soil that we can farm. The Canada shield has almost no soil on it. As more carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, the oceans become more acidic.
There are a number of climate models that predict what will happen as carbon dioxide levels increase. Yes, the earth warms, yet areas of desertification increase. Oceans rise, both from ice melt and from expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
No one has overreacted. We have known about this for decades and done little to nothing about it. There is a scientific consensus that human activity is currently the most important cause of changes in the climate and that it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future. Should we just wait for sea level to increase? Sure, it’s probably only going to increase five feet in the next century and that won’t matter much to Wisconsin, but that will be destructive to the states that border the ocean. It can be even more destructive to islands and low-lying countries like Bangladesh.
What alternative do you recommend? Why do you think that doing something that helps people in the time of your grandchildren is destroying our economy?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1116 hrs
Yes, humans are pumping CO2 and other things into the air and it is bound to have some impact. The earth also has massive correcting mechanisms (see the giant algae blooms in the ocean). Here’s what always gets me though…
Let’s say that it’s all true and the planet has a “fever.” Can we be realistic about the impact of that? Will the oceans rise? Perhaps some. But also vast swaths of tundra in Canada and Siberia, for example, should become farmable. Could Global Warming be the answer to world hunger?
The fact is that everything has consequences. Some good. Some bad. What I object to is overreacting and destroying our economy and standard of living based on a flawed science and an unbalanced obsession with the negative.
Owen, I LOVE this response. Perfectly measured. This is exactly how most ‘deniers’ feel, and yet we are the ones slapped with the moniker of ‘fear monger’ by the likes of the true believers, even though they are the ones running around with the biblical rhetoric in regards to the effect of climate change. I am sick and tired of people like Free Lunch trying to project who they are onto me… FACT: Climate change legislation as it is being discussed now will be devastating to the US economy, and cost us jobs. FACT: We cannot say whether or not US climate change legislation will have ANY impact on global greenhouse gas levels. FACT: The “true believers” have been moving the goal posts on this argument for ten years, and now have the American public so twisted into knots about it that they don’t know what to believe. FACT: The people lobbying hardest for climate change legislation stand to make BILLIONS from its implementation, and they are not criticized for their profiteering the way industrialists are. FACT: The science has been botched, fudged, lied about, and fixed in order to keep the grant money flowing… These so called scientists are also not criticized for their profiteering…...
Climate change is natural. Human beings may well have an impact on it, but carbon dioxide should be the least of our worries. Furthermore there are far, far, far, more impactful environmental atrocities occurring all over the world every day, hell, right here in Milwaukee every time it rains hard…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1116 hrs
All of the above said - I find the entire AGW meme a load of hooey.
What do you base your opinion upon?
There are no scientists who are saying that human activity is not affecting the climate. There are certainly people who question whether the proposed solution will work, but, that does not mean the problem does not exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1121 hrs
Not fast enough to matter. Thawed tundra will not give us soil that we can farm. The Canada shield has almost no soil on it. As more carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, the oceans become more acidic.
There are a number of climate models that predict what will happen as carbon dioxide levels increase. Yes, the earth warms, yet areas of desertification increase. Oceans rise, both from ice melt and from expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
Who’s the fear monger?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1123 hrs
Sigh.
The planet heats up and cools down all the time, just like it has done in the 11 ice ages (that we know about) over millions of years.
Now you want to look at 100 or so years worth data and try to convince me that man is causing global climate change. Get back to me when you have a few hundred thousands years of data and then let’s talk. In the mean time, quite using every excuse in the book to crush our standard of living and crippling our economy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1125 hrs
There are no scientists who are saying that human activity is not affecting the climate.
Hmmm… you need to get out more..
Here are 100 for starters. There are several thousand more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1129 hrs
And some nice debunking of the Mann hockey stick
and
OMG!! The sun affects the Earth’s climate? Yes, it really does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1133 hrs
OK kids. “Normal” CO2 = 300 parts per million or 3/10,000 of the Earth’s atmosphere. It has changed by approximately 80 parts per million or 8/100,000 of the Earth’s atmosphere.
“Acidic Oceans”? Uncontrollable warming? Cats and Dogs living together; mass hysteria?
Come on. There are many things much more serious. And if it were that big a deal, why do the alarmists go for solar and wind power to replace coal instead of advocating nuclear? And why are the alarmists making goo-gobs of money in carbon trading when they have “skin in the game”? Can you say conflict of interest? The whole thing stinks of a hoax bigger than Piltdown Man.
Posted by Steve on February 13, 2010 at 1139 hrs
neomom -
The letter you refer to says that the proposed solution of limiting carbon dioxide emissions is not likely to work. It does not deny that human activity is affecting the climate.
While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.
This letter is about policy, not about the underlying scientific facts. The question of which policy is best is an important one, a question that the anthropogenic climate change deniers are not engaged in because they refuse to look at the evidence that humans are involved in changing our climate.
Can you name any scientists who have published any research that shows that the general conclusion that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that it has increased in the atmosphere due to human activities, and that it will continue to increase?
Of course the Sun affects our climate, that does not mean that our activity does not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1208 hrs
Nice ghostbusters quote Steve!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1209 hrs
There are no scientists who are saying that human activity is not affecting the climate.
I love these tactics… “I am going to ignore the facts, and pretend.” Getting a leftist to talk straight is like trying to get a tomcat to stay home at night…. FUTILE.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1213 hrs
Steve,
Nuclear is likely to be part of the solution, but dealing with waste from nuclear power plants is a serious problem that the US has not shown the political will for. Could you name some of the scientists who are ‘making goo-gobs of money in carbon trading’?
Piltdown Man was accepted by a few scientists, but there was a question of whether it was a hoax from the beginning, particularly because independent scientists were not allowed to examine it. No one relied on it because they could not. When scientists were allowed to examine it, it was quickly determined to be a hoax. The hoax was about making England look good. It had nothing to do with our discoveries about the history of hominids.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1220 hrs
Nuclear is likely to be part of the solution, but dealing with waste from nuclear power plants is a serious problem that the US has not shown the political will for.
What? We sank hundreds of millions into the Yucca Mountain facility…. Oh, yeah…. Thats right, Barry pulled the plug on that because he wants a “Green Economy”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1229 hrs
The head of the IPCC is making millions. (link to article in UK Telegraph has been “blacklisted”?)
Or have you not been paying attention. Oh and The Algore, too.
CONFLICT…..OF…..,INTEREST.
I am aware of what Piltdown Man was, thanks. If you don’t get the sarcasm, that’s your problem.
I know. You are just going to say the equivalent of, “That’s not true”. So don’t bother.
Your nuclear “problems” arguments are BS. The issues are SOLELY political, not technological. The Chosen One killed Yucca Mountain to appease Reid and the anti’s. There was no other reason.
Posted by Steve on February 13, 2010 at 1229 hrs
Doug said “I love these tactics… “
Fine, Doug, name the scientists who are saying that human activity is not affecting climate and show me what research they are using to come to that conclusion.
Why would you object to providing evidence?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1233 hrs
Here you go, FL:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
Posted by Steve on February 13, 2010 at 1238 hrs
climate change denialists
Why don’t you just use the word infidels. That way we will know that you are really talking about a religion and not science. You sound like the creationists - they want it to look like science but claim their explanation is immutable. Sorry, can’t be both ways.
Scientific theories are meant to be challenged and eventually modified or debunked. Once you say that the issue is closed, you are no longer in the realm of science.Posted by Charlie Hillman on February 13, 2010 at 1306 hrs
As Jones pointed out, the denialists are not doing any research, not even with the publicly available data.
And, of course, you conveniently fail to mention the raw data is not available for said research, because the IPCC has either refused to release or lost it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1316 hrs
Free Lunch, no one is obligated to provide any evidence or research to contradict global warming scientists. It is their duty to prove their case; including the ability to predict both past and future events.
Spreading uncertainty and doubt about their case is a duty, not a malfeasance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1326 hrs
cynical,
The IPCC does not control the raw data. Any researcher can use it.
Steve,
Your author was not publishing a research paper and his overview was published in a journal that is not carried in ISI. When asked about the publication of various climate change denialist papers, ‘Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of E&E replied, “I’m following my political agenda—a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”’ - From the Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 September 2003
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1337 hrs
BVBigBro -
Scientists have made their case about the human impact on climate, just as they made the case about the danger of smoking. Look how long the tobacco industry paid for fraudulent claims by supposed scientists so they wouldn’t have to deal with the danger of their product. Look at how many credulous folks were willing to believe the lies of the tobacco industry.
The evidence about human activities has been gathered. The mechanism is reasonably well understood. The ball is now in the court of the deniers. The deniers are not doing science. Their opinion is not a scientific opinion and it is not an informed opinion.
The issue is not closed, but the evidence is being gathered. The evidence that has been gathered so far is clear. More evidence will not undo the evidence that has been gathered, just as the earth will never be considered flat again. Those who refuse to work with the evidence are not doing science. They are not being honest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1345 hrs
The ball is not, cannot and never will be in the court of anyone other than scientists wishing to influence public policy. Public policy is a matter to be decided by the public, not scientists. The public gets to decide if they have proven their case sufficiently to warrant altering public policy, not scientists. They have not proven their case to the public.
Scientists, like most professionals, have both a narrow field of expertise, a limited understanding of a nations’ people and their interests as a whole, and a correspondingly poor record when allowed to enact public policy. The public is entirely correct to be sceptical of any and all claims by such people.
We don’t allow scientists to regulate carbon for the exact same reasons we don’t allow generals to declare war.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1358 hrs
The IPCC does not control the raw data. Any researcher can use it.
Interesting. If that were true (which it isn’t), then why did Jones tell the reporter “this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1404 hrs
FL: And the Climategate emails regarding suppressing of dissenting viewpoints? Oh, right…you’ve never heard of them.
I’m out. Y’all have fun with this yahoo. We’re all infidels.
Posted by Steve on February 13, 2010 at 1450 hrs
Yucca Mountain doesn’t need to be the solution to the nuclear fuel “waste” issue. But this idea is going about as far as Yucca right now. In other words, Obama is a big fatty-fat liar on supporting nuclear.
Here is a big mea culpa from a former AGW true believer over “ClimateGate”. As well as a mini-list of some of the significant issues in the IPCC reports. Another IPCC faux paux? Using a non-peer-reviewed report from the World Wildlife Fund. Jones and Mann and the railroad engineer (Pachauri) in charge at the UN have exactly zero credibility on this anymore.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1620 hrs
Fine, Doug, name the scientists who are saying that human activity is not affecting climate and show me what research they are using to come to that conclusion.
There are thousands of them, and I am not going to sit here and type out names… Try google.
Even if I were willing to spend hours typing out names, I’m sure you would try to minimize their importance with talking point platitudes about oil money, or ties to industry. Your side is losing this battle, I can take comfort in that much at least.
Scientists have made their case about the human impact on climate, just as they made the case about the danger of smoking. Look how long the tobacco industry paid for fraudulent claims by supposed scientists so they wouldn’t have to deal with the danger of their product. Look at how many credulous folks were willing to believe the lies of the tobacco industry.
The evidence about human activities has been gathered. The mechanism is reasonably well understood. The ball is now in the court of the deniers. The deniers are not doing science. Their opinion is not a scientific opinion and it is not an informed opinion.
Are you trying to suggest that we ‘reasonably’ understand the Earth’s climate? HAHAAHA. We didn’t even have a name for El Nino until the twenties, and we still don’t know exactly what causes it. I don’t know exactly who you think you’re kidding, but it’s pretty clear to everyone here at least that you are the one who is uninformed and buying into junk science…. It is you who sounds like the people denying the dangers of smoking.
The climate science community was pushing global warming to keep the grant money flowing, Climategate proved that…. Yet you are still buying into the meme and spouting the talking points.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 2123 hrs
What alternative do you recommend? Why do you think that doing something that helps people in the time of your grandchildren is destroying our economy?
You think further devastating the economy will result in a positive impact in the time of my grandchildren? There would be no positive impact from the implementation of Cap and Trade legislation… Do you not understand that industry will flood out of this country and set up shop in countries (like India, China, Mexico, or any of dozens in sub-saharan Africa) that have far more lax environmental laws? What would be the net impact on the environment if heavy industry continues to create the same amount of CO2, but also is allowed to dump waste in potable lakes and streams, or isn’t required to scrub exhausts of FAR more harmful gases like SO2 or NO? You clowns don’t even realize that through your do-gooder meddling you are going to do far more damage to the environment, at the expense of our economy…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 2135 hrs
Using manipulated numbers to push global warming is becoming one the biggest scams of this century. Much of it driven by grant hungry researchers at liberal colleges seeking self-aggrandizement and the approval of peers. On the political side, the anti-capitalism warming movement is supported by many of the usual suspects who have supported socialism for the last 40 years… and now lack a focus for their hopes since the demise of the former Eastern Block. They have been joined by every whack-a-do fringe group that feels they can attract attention to their cause by claiming it is related to global warming. Unfortunately, mother nature has just not been playing along…. maybe she’s a capitalist.
First, CO2 is not a precursor to warming… it is actually more of a lagging indicator if you compare the graphs that the Goracle has invented. Beyond that, as neomom points out, the sun has a far greater effect on temperature than the miniscule presence of CO2. The sun, being a variable star to some degree, alters it’s energy out put slightly, though to great effect here on Earth.
Ok, let’s imagine Lambeau Field as the atmosphere… covered 10 feet deep (so, 360’x160’x10’). 99% of the atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogen… so that covers the whole field save for a small corner of the endzone (24’x24’) The amount of CO2 we are discussing would be an area about 4’ by 4” (or .036%)... not quite enough room to park a Smart Car. Of course, we are only arguing about the portion of that CO2 that is man-made… so .117% of that Smart Car, or an area the size of the ash tray in the Smart Car (Do they have ash trays?). Yes, that is what the global warming alarmists are pinning the full effect of warming on… about a tennis ball in comparison to a football field.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 2303 hrs
Yes, that is what the global warming alarmists are pinning the full effect of warming on… about a tennis ball in comparison to a football field.
Fabulous visual!!!
Other points of note. When folks went out to find these vaunted temperature monitoring stations they also found them in cities, asphalt parking lots, next the A/C exhaust vents and the like. In other words, all sorts of places that would skew numbers higher.
The overall damage to actual science is pretty big with the shenanigans of the Climate hucksters. They politicized science and that is the real tragedy here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1056 hrs
Dead on neomom. There is a website that has been monitoring US temperature recording stations: http://www.surfacestations.org/
They have surveyed 82% of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network recording sites and it was determined that 69% of these sites have readings that are artificially higher by more that 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). They false readings are due to many of the reasons cited in #33.
Also, for all the global warming alarmists out there… do you realize that the 25 dirtiest cities in the world all have something in common? They are all extremely poor. The policies that you blindly support all lead to more people being poor, and that does NOTHING to abate pollution. It’s not the SUV’s that you should dread, it’s the poverty caused by living the life styles that you demand from the rest of the world.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/26/pollution-baku-oil-biz-logistics-cx_tl_0226dirtycities.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1153 hrs
Not to pile on Free Lunch or anything…
But here are a few scientists - some former believers - that are now questioning whether there was ever any “warming” at all...
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1254 hrs
Though I’m solidly in Free Lunch’s camp, the sentiments expressed in #3 and #4 by Owen and neomom respectively I find to be oddly, logically sound. “Yes, man is contributing to the warming of the climate, but so what” is actually in line with the role of a pure scientist; describe, explain and predict. Sort of like that episode of Star Trek TNG where a crew is observing the daily lives of a civilization they know are about to be annihilated, but the Prime Directive prevents them from stepping in.
What I don’t understand is how you make the leap to doing anything about it is horrible for the economy. Surely, abandoning coastal regions, where a majority of the worlds population live, and moving vast numbers inland would be a tad more than an economic inconvenience.
Even in the shorter term, it seems clear that the world economy is moving in a direction away from a reliance on fossil fuels. To ignore that and fail to become leaders in new fuel innovation would be the truer detriment to the U.S. economy.
And Family Guy, if you were to be smacked in the nuts with that tennis ball, believe me, it would seem bigger than several football fields.
Posted by jimspice on February 14, 2010 at 1549 hrs
Surely, abandoning coastal regions, where a majority of the worlds population live, and moving vast numbers inland would be a tad more than an economic inconvenience.
That might be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. I’d say the 9-11 truthers and perhaps the flat earth society might actually have more credibility on their issues than anyone does on this one. There has been a predictable and steady general rise in sea level for the past 200 years or so, at a rate of about 1.7mm/year. No global warming, and no truth to what the Goracle would have you believe.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/slide81-500x375.jpg
Another bothersome fact for the global warming alarmists among us would be that only the gullible and guilty progressive led western nations are buying into the “economic suicide” fix for warming. China, India and Indonesia have all openly ignored our misinformed leader’s calls for action. They continue to go gang busters with fossil fuels while we waste a fortune subsidizing less than efficient forms of energy. Should we research alternative energy? Surely, it might be useful someday, and it might even be cost-effective eventually. Should we force this still embryonic technology on people at gun point? Simply ridiculous. When it can compete with fossil fuels on it’s own merits, then it will be ready for prime time. All three of the worlds new economic powerhouse nations know this… we, sadly, do not.
While your tennis ball to the tenders comment might be slightly humorous, the argument still sits there like an elephant in the living room. Trying to blame anthropogenic CO2 for global warming is like trying to blame a tidal wave on a toilet flush.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 2035 hrs
India sets target on carbon emissions
“India committed Sunday to reduce the intensity of its carbon emissions by 20 to 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels, meeting a deadline for developing countries to set voluntary carbon-curbing actions. “
“China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to cut carbon emissions intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with levels in 2005.”
Posted by jimspice on February 15, 2010 at 1256 hrs
And, pretty good article on developing countries motives re: reducing carbon emmisions.
Posted by jimspice on February 15, 2010 at 1258 hrs
Of note however jim, is that both China and India are putting out these missives voluntarily. They are not signing onto any global treaty as was attempted by Kyoto and Copenhagen. But considering that China is bringing a new coal plant online at the rate of about 1 per week, I wouldn’t take those pledges to the carbon bank.
China needs to reduce emissions of all pollution. But as these pictures attest - Carbon Dioxide is not their primary problem. Compare those pictures to anyplace here in the US today and you will find their “bar” is set much lower.
India is nowhere near the development of China yet, however, they are planning on “fueling” their economic growth largely with nuclear power.
To go back to the post that you said was “oddly, logically sound”. Regarding the whole carbon trading schemes. Even though the EU signed onto Kyoto and the US did not. Even though the EU implemented a scheme for carbon trading. The CO2 emissions in the EU were increasing at a higher rate than the US.
Further, the “green” economy in Spain lost 2.2 jobs for every 1 job created. Largely because government subsidies pick the winners and losers and don’t let the market or innovation allow the best solutions to rise to the top. This is the model that Obama is touting, but is hardly going to spur large and sustainable economic growth. Centrally planned economies never do.
With the above failures, I ask again, would it not be better for the economy to allow our entrepreneurs innovate ways to adapt to any perceived change?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1331 hrs
Perhaps you should read between the lines jimspice.
In its statement announcing the target, the environment and forests ministry did not spell out what measures India, the world’s fifth largest polluter, would take to meet the goal. The statement also said the targeted cuts will not be not legally binding.
I can state anything I want in a non-specific and non binding fashion. Barack Obama did it so well that he was elected president. In the end, nothing changed. India is building it’s economy and manufacturing. What you see India doing is called “lip service”. It’s action and not words that tell a nations intentions. A link to the wishful thinking of some think tank in Hawaii does little to prove any point either. As Neomom said, China is opening a medium sized coal fired power plant every 5 days. They are building roads as fast as they can. The Chinese car market is now the worlds largest and it is assumed that China’s demand for oil will double by 2010. Hardly sounds like they have joined the “Green Police”, now does it. Keep believing jimspice… don’t let the reality dissuade you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1433 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134036
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 11:00 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 101
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:26 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).