DuckSouth.com

DONT FEEL TOO BAD PML & OTHER NAYSAYERS, YALL ARE ONLY A YEAR OR TWO BEHIND THE AVERAGE AMERICAN ON THIS ISSUE

Climate issue now 'conventional' in US, S&P says

London, 17 May: Climate change has moved from "controversial" to "conventional" in the US, according to Standard & Poor's, although costs are difficult to estimate since control technologies are uncertain.

"2006 will be seen as the year when climate change moved from the controversial to the conventional in the public mind," said Swami Venkataraman, S&P director in corporate and government ratings. "Industry seems to accept that controls are now very likely," he added, during a 14 May conference call on the financial impact of global warming organised by the credit ratings agency.

US legislation requiring large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions early, "before adequate technology can develop," would impose a big financial burden, Venkataraman said, while reductions over a longer period "will provide a significant cushion for carbon emitting companies to adjust".

Venkataraman is pessimistic about the near-term prospects for carbon capture and sequestration. "Outside of enhanced oil recovery operations, which are profitable at current oil prices, carbon storage technology in other destinations, such as aquifers, remains commercially unproven," he said. "Carbon capture is also unproven in power plants and is very expensive with current technology."

An 11 May S&P report estimated the capital cost of carbon dioxide capture on a standard pulverised coal plant at $940/kW, compared with total plant cost of $2,438/kW. Further, it would take 25% of the power station's output to run the technology. An "integrated gasification combined cycle" (IGCC) plant burning eastern US coal would cost $2,795/kW, with a $450/kW capture cost and a 15% power loss.

There are also legal risks, he added. If utilities are responsible for carbon dioxide stored underground for hundreds of years, leakage could give rise to liabilities.

Energy efficiency could make a large contribution to reducing GHGs, but most rate structures reward utilities for selling power and deter them from promoting conservation. Regulators should implement "decoupling tariffs" that separate utility profits from the amount of power sold, he said.



Updated 17 May 2007

I am only posting becasue I want to be part of msducks history when this baby turns into the longest thread ever! Way to go guys!

The number of people who believe the "global warming/abrupt cataclismic climate change induced by man-caused increases to CO2" theory is irrelevant to the ultimate question of whether it is true or not. And so far, the evidence in support of this theory is almost non-existent, while the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Soap operas, tv game shows, reality shows, etc. are mainstream or "conventional" and watched by most. Unlike the mindless sheep of our society, I prefer the company of the less than mainstream ---the unconventional --- who are grounded in reality and truth.

Ok, PML, humor me by answering three questions:

First, what is your definition of global warming?

Second, is your position that global warming, as caused by humans, couldn't ever occur, or is that GW just isn't happening now?

Finally, you criticized alot of evidence which some people have posted up here as not being solid. What evidence would be strong enough to convience you that Global warming exists?

"Ok, PML, humor me by answering three questions: "

Would it make any difference if I did?

For a good read on the topic of alleged man-caused global warming and the predicted abrupt cataclysmic climate change that is supposed to occur if the world, particularly the US and George Bush, does not do something about it very soon, I commend to your reading the recent best selling book by Michael Crighton, "State Of Fear".

This book is a great read. And although the story/plot is one of fiction, the book contains numerous interesting fact references to scientific studies, etc., that are blended into the plot line and dialogue. IT will keep you on the edge of your seat. If you need a good book to read this summer while at the beach, etc. while relaxing on summer vactation, this is a good one.

Without giving away the specific story, the book explores a scenario whereby the dire consequences of global warming are not happening and frustrating the leaders of the global warming/green party movement ---- to the extent that they begin to attempt to help out mother nature in bringing forth disasters that can be blamed on global warming in order to further their political causes. It is scary stuff.

I would not look for this book to made into a movie by Hollywood anytime soon, as the bad guys in this book are liberal environmental wackos ---pretty much like most of Hollywood --- there is even a character in the book who is an actor of the enviro-activist type --- and his ultimate fate is worth reading the entire book alone.

JD, getting back to scientific references, data, etc., this book contains numerous such references that pretty much debunk every claim coming out of the global warming doomsday camp. Apparently this book has caused such a stir among the doomsday crowd, that Al Gore has felt the need to feel defensive and publicly attempt to discredit this book and the author. And once you have read it, you will understand why. This work of fiction by Crichton has more actual factual references than the entire "documentary" by Al Gore called "An Inconvenient Truth" ---such an appropriate, ironic name.

this has got to be one of the longest threads

I also recommend you check out the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism".

Po Monkey Lounger wrote:"Ok, PML, humor me by answering three questions: "

Would it make any difference if I did?

It would to me.

You argue a strong case, but I wonder if your stance is based on emotion or reason.

If you were acting rationally, then you must have weighed the evidence on both sides. You would have considered arguments for and against the existence of global warming. I'm just wondering if you have a mental "scale" which could potentially point to gm if the evidence is strong enough, and what evidence is holding you back.

I'll be honest, my opinions on gm change as I consider new evidence, and part of my opinion is based on emotion: fear of environmental catastrophe, and fear of change. But I very clearly see points for and against gm and I am not so emotionally attached to my view that I cannot change sides when new evidence emerges.

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times.



BTW, global warming made this dog poo in front of BRF's blind so he could smell it.

Here is an interesting article from Newsweek magazine back in 1975 predicting a new ice age and disasterous climate change as a result .


http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsw ... gworld.pdf

What a blast from the past. Those scientists back then were contemplating MELTING THE POLAR ICE CAPS!!!! Quite obviously, such absurd measures were not necessary, and no such dire climate change occurred. We are still here. But now, we are seeing predictions of the same type of dire consequences, but allegedly to be caused by global warming, not cooling.

Chicken littles, start your engines.

On January 22, 2007, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) released a landmark series of principles and recommendations calling for the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Read A Call for Action (pdf).

The USCAP is an unprecedented alliance of leading non-governmental organizations and major corporations. This very diverse group of business and environmental leaders have come together to call for mandatory action, with a comprehensive approach involving near-, mid-, and long-term targets, and a range of effective policies.

Members of USCAP:

American International Group (AIG)
Alcan
Alcoa
Boston Scientific
BP America, Inc.
Caterpillar, Inc.
ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense
Florida Power & Light
General Electric
General Motors Corp
Johnson & Johnson
Marsh
National Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy
Natural Resources Defense Council
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Shell
Siemens
World Resources Institute

LOOK AT ALL THE VERY LIKELY CANDIDATES FOR JOINING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT GW HAPPENS- COMPANIES LIKE AIG (so they can pay more in insurance claims), PG&E (so they can pay more in carbon taxes), SHELL (so they wont sell as much gasoline), ALCOA (so they will pay more in carbon taxes since smelting aluminum takes so much electricity), etc, etc

JD, since you indicated that you would indeed like to hear my answers to the questions posed, then I will respond by saying that your questions suggest that my points (and those of others) have not been made as succinct as I had hoped.

My positions on this matter can be summed up as follows. To the extent the average global temperature of the earth is indeed warming (and even that is subject to debate), it is doing so due to numerous factors, only a tiny portion of which could be caused by anything that man is doing or not doing. The alleged slight variations in average global temperature are within normal historical parameters and are not something indicative of catastrophic climate change. And even if there were a threat of such catastrophic climate change, there is nothing that could be done by man to stop it. The suggestion or theory that man can control the average global temperatures and the climate like a thermostat by simply manipulating CO2 emissions is pure folly.

I have seen it described this way by scientists trying to put this into perspective for the laymen (me included). Imagine a football field (100 yards) which represents all of the greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere (all of which are factors in our climate) Carbon dioxide would represent about 1 inch out of that 100 yards. And out of that 1 inch, only a tiny fraction would be related to man-caused emissions. Think about that and let that sink in. And then apply a little logic, reason, and common sense.

There are so many factors that affect climate --many still admittedly not even known to scientists, and many known, but very difficult to quantify in any meaningful way --- that there has been NO demonstrated accurate computer model to predict climate change. Yet, we are being asked to go into "panic mode" by the doomsday crowd who base their dire forecasts on these admittedly flawed models. As a good quick example, several of the future dire projections of climate change, sea levels, etc. cited in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" have already been withdrawn, modified, and heavily watered down. Why? They were gross exaggerations based not on science, but on flawed computer models with a desired outcome to scare the masses into action. Yet, instead of being called on this by the mainstream media, these gross misrepresentations are "excused" as little white lies that although untrue, will lead to purported progress. Any means to justify the desired ends. This type of mindset is dangerous IMO, as it could potentially lead to the wasting of vast valuable resources that could better be used elsewhere. Keep in mind that this is the same doomsday crowd, in many respects, as was issuing alarmist calls to action in the 70s due to alleged global cooling (as an example, see the article I linked above).

It's the "alarmist" view that I have the most problem with and that is driven by money. To justify the alarmists' funding, they have to show a huge problem. And if these problems are presumed or believed to exist, but do not actually exist, valuable and scarce resources will be spent to fix non-existent problems using "cures" which will not work or may make things worse. (Imagine if the US had heeded the call of the global cooling alarmists during the 70s and begun efforts to try to melt and reduce the size of the polar ice caps ---- assuming it could be done at all, billions or trillions would have been wasted and the consequences could have been disasterous.)

There should be room for both sides of the argument, as the scientific debate is far from over. The only ones claiming it is over are the ones with political agendas and/or who stand to benefit financially and are positioning themselves for such. It's a complex issue and open debate should be encouraged, rather than shouted down. And the more you examine the raw data, science, and evidence to support he CO2 based global warming theory, it does not stand up to the light of day.

Many of us skeptics are concerned about limited resources and our dependence on foreign fuels, and just believe you don't need the reason of climate change to do common sense things. I don't have a problem with sensible conservation and doing what we can to keep our air, earth, and water clean, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the middle east. I do have a huge problem with the chicken little doomsday alarmists. It is their position that has no real basis in science to-date, and who are agenda driven on this issue. Science, logic and reason should drive any changes we make, not emotion and fear.

It matters not how many people "believe" something. What matters is this question: "Is it true"?

As to Hammer's assertion that there is money to be made resulting from this hysteria ---NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. But, for how long? At some point, this gig will be up.

I think the following sums up my concern....

Junk Science: Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory
Thursday, May 24, 2007

By Steven Milloy

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Global warming alarmists may want to expedite their efforts to hamstring the global economy with greenhouse gas regulation. A new study touted as showing that we’re not sufficiently panicky about manmade carbon dioxide emissions actually supports the exact opposite conclusion.

“Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough, according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions,” USA Today shrieked this week.

The study authors reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s.

Since increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels allegedly are causing global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right?

Wrong, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center.

By overlaying the atmospheric carbon dioxide trend onto graphs of near-surface temperatures, surface temperatures and ocean temperatures, it is readily apparent that ever-changing global temperatures aren’t keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

The bottom line is that while we may be burning more fossil fuels than ever before — relatively inexpensive coal, oil and gas are facilitating steady global economic expansion — that activity isn’t having any sort of discernible or proportionate impact on global temperatures.

Not surprisingly, the study authors don’t seem to want you to know that fact since nowhere in their study do they even mention the word “temperature,” let alone do they present a graph comparing trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide with global temperature.

Are such increasing rates of carbon dioxide emissions grounds for future worry?

Study author Michael Raupach of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Research in Canberra, Australia, told the Orange County Register that, “If emissions continue to increase at the rate of 3.1 percent a year, carbon dioxide concentration would rise to 560 parts per million in 2050 and soar to 1,390 parts per million in 2100.”

That sure sounds scary, but what would such increases really mean for global temperatures?

No one knows for sure. But it could easily be a non-event and there’s no scientific basis for pressing the panic-button.

First, despite all the carbon dioxide emitted by man since the industrial revolution, manmade carbon dioxide is an exceedingly small part of the total greenhouse effect — on the order of about 0.11 percent.

Remember that we’re talking about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in parts per million. You may choose to believe that a 3 percent annual increase in manmade carbon dioxide emissions — releases that represent way less than 1 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions — is something to worry about, but the numbers seem to speak for themselves.

Next, we’re not even really sure of the true relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. While the alarmists want us to believe that rising carbon dioxide levels necessarily increase global temperatures, scientific data from Antarctic ice cores indicate the exact opposite — increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide appear hundreds of years after increases in global temperature.

If the temperature-carbon dioxide relationship indicated by the ice cores is correct, then Raupach’s concern is entirely backwards and misplaced.

On the other hand, even if it were true that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels discernibly increased global temperatures, temperatures wouldn’t likely increase by very much.

Based on the physics of the greenhouse effect, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from the pre-industrial period (supposedly around 280 parts per million) to 560 parts per million (about 48 percent higher than present levels), might lead to an increase in average global temperature on the order of less than 1 degree centigrade — and we’ve already experienced about 60 percent of that increase.

A further doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1,120 parts per million would result in even less of an increase in temperature because of the energy absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Essentially, the Earth only radiates so much energy back into the atmosphere that is available to be absorbed by carbon dioxide. Once all that energy is absorbed, superfluous carbon dioxide will not add to the greenhouse effect.

Study author Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution made the bizarre comment in the press release that we must “shift more of the economy toward activities like service industries and information technology” — as if the ever-expanding global population won’t require even more goods like food, energy, housing, clothing and transportation in the future.

We should, of course, strive for energy efficiency and new energy technologies to an extent that’s reasonable. But we shouldn’t condemn conventional energy sources based on dubious reasoning, risk harming the global economy for no good reason and deprive poor nations of their right to develop — all in the misguided hope of manually adjusting the global thermostat.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html

"We should, of course, strive for energy efficiency and new energy technologies to an extent that’s reasonable. But we shouldn’t condemn conventional energy sources based on dubious reasoning, risk harming the global economy for no good reason and deprive poor nations of their right to develop — all in the misguided hope of manually adjusting the global thermostat. "

EXACTLY! Thanks for sharing Gordon.

Joel,

That '05 goose hunt pic is a classic! LOL!

I wonder if carbon dioxide could prevent a 26-page thread from getting highjacked

New topic: A Comparitive Analysis of Global Warming Proponents to Lemmings. Discuss.