Subscription Center
Jan 14, 2009 03:30 PM | 52
It's a topic that is likely to come up more and more after President-elect Barack Obama moves into the White House next week. Obama has said that preventing and reversing global warming will be a top priority in his administration—a change from the previous administration's stance that voluntary efforts would be enough—likely through a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme.
Under that type of program, the government sets a cap or overall level for pollution and polluters can trade licenses to pollute to keep within their levels. But opponents of such a scheme note that such a move would ultimately drive up energy costs, because power plant owners will pass along to consumers the costs of staying within the mandatory limits.
So is preventing climate change worth that price, estimated by some to be as much as 1 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP)?
Environmentalists and climate change contrarians (though no one denied the reality of global warming) squared off last night over the issue during a debate sponsored by Intelligence Squared US in New York City—and set to be televised by the BBC in March. Among those arguing it's not worth the cost: Bjorn Lomborg, an economist and founder of the Copenhagen Consensus, an experiment aimed at ranking world problems based on cost-benefit analysis; lawyer, author of "The Bottomless Well" (a book describing the endless supply of energy available) Peter Huber, a senior fellow at the conservative thinktank the Manhattan Institute; and biogeographer / revivalist preacher Philip Stott of the University of London.
Arguing that climate change must be halted: journalist and would-be politician Oliver Tickell; former Sierra Club president and environmental consultant Adam Werbach, CEO of sustainability consultancy firm Saatchi & Saatchi S; and consultant and business school professor L. Hunter Lovins of Natural Capitalism Solutions.*
On the table for debate: Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money.
The audience, a packed house composed primarily of residents of the Upper West Side of Manhattan but also everyone from an Environmental Protection Agency staffer to a busload of students from Penn State, initially didn't favor the motion, with 49 percent opposed, 35 percent undecided and only 16 percent supporting it.
But then the debate was joined:
Bjorn Lomborg—Cap and trade schemes and other carbon cutting efforts are too expensive for too little good and, besides, there's better ways to spend the money. For example, he said, two billion people mostly in developing countries lack access to adequate sanitation, and a million people, mostly children, die from malaria—both crises that could be addressed with better funding. At present, companies, donors and the like prefer to be politically correct than effective, he argued. "Do what's rational, not what's fashionable."
Oliver Tickell—Reductions are worth the price to stop global warming, which otherwise will wreak havoc. Otherwise, he warned, the climate will likely transform into one that prevailed on Earth 55 million years ago, long before humans existed. "Even if it's $1 trillion for adaptation and mitigation," he said, "that's the same as current spending on weapons."
Peter Huber—There's no point in taking steps to reverse global warming unless other major polluters, including China and India, do the same. Coal, the major source of greenhouse gas emissions, cannot possibly be replaced by alternatives because at as little as 3¢ per kilowatt-hour there's nothing as cheap to make energy, something especially important in the developing world. "We can't stop poor people from burning carbon in easy reach … Five billion poor people are the main problem [for greenhouse gas emissions]," he insisted. "Their fecundity has beaten our gluttony."
Adam Werbach—Fixing climate change is worth it because it will also address some of the world's other problems. He argued that by, for example, upgrading the technology in the electrical grid, U.S. consumers could save $20 billion. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time," he said, pointing out that it was possible to combat malaria and climate change simultaneously.
Philip Stott—The climate is such a vast, complicated system that we cannot control it and shouldn't even bother trying. He noted that humans thrive successfully in climates ranging from Sibera to the Sahara, and, so, surely can adapt to temp rises of 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 degrees Celsius)."What climate do they [climate scientists and other proponents of action] want to produce for us?" he asked. Besides, even the Europen Union, the leading national voice for action on climate change, is largely failing to do anything, with most of its 27 countries woefully short of their commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and at least half are opposing further carbon cuts.
L. Hunter Lovins—It's not actually going to cost that much relative to the benefits that fixing it will deliver. She noted, for instance, that the country could save as much as $2 billion that it now borrows annually from China to pay Saudi Arabia for its oil. "If you add up all the studies that have been done," by state governments quantifying the savings produced by combating climate change, she said, "that's $500 billion in savings to the U.S. and 5 million green jobs." Further, the U.S. spends $480 million in taxpayer dollars annually buying diesel for the North Kabul Power Plant in Afghanistan. Instead the country should encourage the Afghans to grow jatropha for biodiesel, create a biodiesel industry and jobs there and not have to pay for the diesel anymore.
In summing up after a round of questions, Huber pointed a spectral finger at members of the audience in favor of paying for carbon cuts to go out and purchase offsets to cover the emissions of their "sooty souls" as well as the emissions of several people in the developing world (since they can't do it for themselves) for the next 10 years at a cost of roughly $40,000.
Werbach, on the other hand, quietly noted that the kinds of steps taken to combat climate change—such as improving energy efficiency—also save money and, in the case of corporations, can result in a better product. "Wal-Mart wants quality socks that won't fall down and those probably have less energy in them."
The sentiments of the crowd changed after the debate, with 48 percent still for paying to cut carbon while 42 percent now convinced it wasn't worth the price. (Ten percent said they were still undecided.) After the debate, participants decried the format as no way to get at ideas and Huber had an inkling why his side succeeded: strategic voting. In other words, many of those already convinced that cutting carbon is a boondoggle pretended to be undecided. That's a strategy that may find its ultimate expression in the Congress in the near future.
Credit: © iStockphoto.com/Tom Young
*Note (1/16/09): This sentence has been edited since posting.
Tags:
skeptics,
debate,
economics,
climate change,
New Yoirk,
global warming
More News Blog:
Next: Detroit auto show reveals electric future
Previous: Scott Gration reportedly tapped for top NASA post
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 “@Carnegro: A havoc of heauxs” // yes I approve this term. How does the poem go again...
FlyingTrilobite Tomorrow's Globe shocker: Rob Ford is Vinz Clortho, Keymaster to Gozer. Plans to unleash Destructor/Marshmallow Man upon downtown.
BecCrew Dragon Island Blue is taking over my life
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
52 Comments
Add CommentIf global warming continues at the current rate it does NOT matter how many people die of any illness. At the and all of humanity will be extinct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the question whether it is worth the price is only rhetoric.
Gee, I don't know... is survival of the human race worth it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably not, considering how badly we've messed up this planet. However, I can hope that we can learn better.
Some good points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I notice that no one suggested that the apparent cost was so high because we have not being paying our environmental dues for the past 150 years or so. That is, we have not factored the full environmental life cycle (cradle to grave) cost of production of goods and services from our ecosystems. This has meant that we have over-developed and over-consumed to the point we are now at where there is wide agreement things need to be fixed. But many are baulking at the possibility of huge costs associated with the fix. My point is that if we had been looking at true costs all along, and paying full price,we would not be in this position. The low cost of consumer goods is due to the environment not being paid its dues as part of the cost of production and disposal. In a sense the environment has subsidised our quality of life. This can't continue forever, as we are beginning to understand.
I can understand the reluctance to take on the costs. But it can be easy too, don't let the politics make you feel incapable of making a difference!
How can a household carry the cost without suffering? Well it's about reducing our consumption. Because what we consume generates carbon dioxide and pollution. And we pay for that. So don't support "planned redundancy". That's where your appliance fail after just a few years amd repairs (amazingly) cost more than a new machine. My Mom (bless her) had a front-loaded washing machine that lasted her 28 years! And she got that in 1949! (sic) So you get my point...the same thing with cars, printers, TV's and dozens of other items. If we only support buying options that promise lonf product life, that will reduce consumption and the dreaded greenhoause gases. And it has dozens of other advantages too. Come on guys, we really don't need a lot of the crap the corporations con us into buying. Go for lasting qualities. Say "NO" to the endless tirade of advertisers and spin!
At the risk of offending you all, I hate to point out that we are generally overweight. You can save a lot by eating less. I went on a Weight Wachers programme, and lost 2lbs?week, and halved my food bill! And the stuff I stopped buying was the high-priced treats thatt added so much in calories, cost so much, and surprise surprise, were environmentally damaging to produce - highly processsed, high waste, damaging to other species, expensive and excessive packaging to name a few. Don't start me on packaging, one of the real environmental killers and a huge cost fraction of our purchases.
Why would companies want to pass the expense of carbon trading onto the consumer. At first, maybe this is the only options, but invest in the technology to not use as much energy and that will lower the cost of the product, increasing profits margin and lowering the price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe companies that don't do this will end up like GM and Ford, begging for more money to revive their sinking ship...no? Times are moving on, the technology will to.
So how much would it cost if we did what James Hansen said, put a big tax on carbon and then refunded 100% of the revenue on an equal per person basis? Think it wouldn't work? Every economist knows it would. Is it free? No, that can't be. But the only cost is in what you voluntarily change to save energy--and you're not going to waste your own money. (The trick is you get he same amount back whether you pay lots of tax or a little.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, even better. Say there's an international agreement to do this with a particularly high tax on oil (fully refunded). This was tried from 1979--1985, except we were stupid and paid the tax to OPEC. But it worked. US oil imports dropped 40%, the world did likewise, and we flattened OPEC for 18 years. That's what a good climate policy would do, if we had brains. And it would save so much money .... Well why don't you just go read: Carbonomics: How to Fix the Climate and Charge It to OPEC. It explains it all clearly, and its recommended by a Nobel economist, the "father of energy efficiency" (Art Rosenfeld) etc. Just check it out.
What stupidity... Again, 95% of the greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOR... We can hardly make a dent in climate change. When are we going do some real research and realize this is political dogma! Do the math!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way... Check out Black Smokers and Hydrothermal venting. This phenomenon is responsible for heating and cooling of the oceans and thus producing more or less water vapor. Most climatologists/scientists are afraid to speak up against "Man Made" global warming for fear they will lose their funding... Such it is with politics and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Hansen is writting the GISS data for profit. There is no global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt didn’t take long. About two hours later, Lubos Motl, of the Reference Frame posted his results obtained independently via another method when he ran some checks of his own:
David Stockwell has analyzed the frequency of the final digits in the temperature data by NASA’s GISS led by James Hansen, and he claims that the unequal distribution of the individual digits strongly suggests that the data have been modified by a human hand.
With Mathematica 7, such hypotheses take a few minutes to be tested. And remarkably enough, I must confirm Stockwell’s bold assertion.
But that’s not all, Lubos goes on to say:
Using the IPCC terminology for probabilities, it is virtually certain (more than 99.5%) that Hansen’s data have been tempered with.
Quite simply, mankind doesn't want to solve anything, they just want to keep going the way they are going. I know this is an outrageous statement, but I can prove that it is true:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe I've found a way to immediately cool the Earth cheaply and simply, profitably turn CO2 from coal-fired plants into fuel, de-acidify the ocean with a practical mechancial method, and produce cheap, clean, abundant, and power portably. They are posted on my blog (due to the space limitations of this forum) at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod (if my thesis is true then little interest will be shown to these "solutions").
My analysis is that mankind is determined to use the same thinking that got themselves into the problems to solve the problems. Furthermore, change operates on the simulus/response level (the most primative and fundamental psychological level), so behavior will continue until it is extinquished, not intellectually but physically. Since it takes 50 years for the CO2 emitted now to fully warm the surface of the Earth, no change will occur until it is too late, because the punishment is not associated with the behavior.
By the way, every single culture before us that has encountered the same problem (i.e since the end of the Younger Dryas about 12 thousand ago when agriculture allowed the formation of cities) has crashed and burned primarily due to the ossification of the elite (i.e. the status quo was too comfortable for them to order change). In other words, the thesis I am forwarding is that we are ultimately no better (when it comes to surmounting the challenge of environmental degradation and climate change) than the dinosaurs that we took over from when they all died the last time the Earth entered the hot state (i.e. the PETM, about 55 million years ago).
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"Ultimately, responding to global warming is a political issue." --Lorrie Goldstein, Sun, 16 March 2008
"What I learned in the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific data and empirical information on policy impacts." --Dr Jim Hansen, NASA
"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ossification that leads to political inertia manifests itself in non-adaptive ideology:
Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference. --The Nation, Feb '08
The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution. --Climate Resistance, Mar '08
"Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will (work). What is needed is a fundamental cure." --Dr Lovelock, Oct '07
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity..." --Dr Lovelock, Aug '08
A one degree rise over 100 years was seen as a cause for panic requiring drastic changes to our lifestyles and trillions in cost in the form of carbon taxes or carbon trading. Since temperatures have declined since 1998 and during the past two years temeratures have dropped by an historically record amount of .75 degress celcius in less than two years. Since even the UN IPCC now recognizes this drop and now refers to the situation as Climate Change instead of the now obviously rediculous phrase Global Warming. Since the IPCC now accepts that solar activity will continue to cool us for another 7 to 8 years despite the fact that their seven computer programs each calculated that this cooling would be impossible due to the man -made affect of fossil fuel burning. Since the never proven theory of global warming has now been proven to be impossible in the face of ever increasing carbon dioxide levels and simultaneous dramatic cooling. Since we are experiencing record snowfalls, rapidly increasing ice cover and worldwide record cold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it be prudent not to spend trillions on a problem that never existed, and does not exist beyond any reasonable doubt?
Not if you like living in filth. Which incidently is scientifically is shown to breed illness and disease. As does extreme changes in climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am afraid that the stupidity is yours. the amount of water vapor is essentially constant. So amount of water vapor in the atmosphere cannot explain the indisputable fact that the climate is changing because of an increase in heat trapping by greenhouse gases. What arrogance to think that the mundane fact that you cite trumps the work of thousands of highly educated and skilled researchers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat arrogance to think that this mundane fact trums and vitiates the hard work of thousands of highly educated and dedicated climate scientists. The stupidity is all yours, in addition to smug arrogance. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is essentially constant, therefore, it is irrelevant to the climate CHANGE issue. The cause of climate change is the greenhouse gases that ARE INCREASING by leaps and bounds -- principally human generated carbon dioxide, methane nitrous oxide, CFCs and ozone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdeerhunter, if you really want to know the most probable and provable cause of warming and cooling it is solar activity. It is a well know fact that there is a correlation between solar activity and temperature variations. The unknown fact was how this seemingly small variation caused such large changes. recent research indicates that solar radiation blocks cosmic radiation which is a major cause of cloud formation. More solar activity less cosmic radiation getting into the atmosphere, less clouds, more sun, more warmth. Less solar activity, more cosmic radiation getting through, more clouds, more shade, cooler temperatures. This correlation seems to hold true for the last 400,000 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFar be it for me to argue with all of those thousands of very bright scientists that say carbob dioxide is warming the earth, howver it is hard for an uneducated person like myself to understand why the earth is cooling rapidly while carbon dioxide levels are rising. Why is it that this was demed impossible by all the super smart scientists who ran this through seven computer programs taking La Nina and solar activity into account and said cooling was impossible....and yet it is cooling dramatically.
My gues is the smart scientists who have developed and so far proven their theory of solar activity being responsible are probably correct. After all today's cooling fits their calculations exactly and they have 400,000 years of back-up while all those super smart global warming scientists depending on supporting global warming for their paychecks have not been correct for the twenty years they have tried and are now do far off it is laughable.
PS- manmade greenhouse gases are 3% of the total carbon dioxide levels and.00001 part of the atmosphere. This amount of carbon dioxide cannot warm the earth, it is simply scientifically impossible.
Those super smart global warming scientists seem to think that man made carbon dioxide never breaks down like the 97% of natural carbon dioxide although once again being uneducated I cannot understand the difference; one carbon, two oxygen...somehow man made CO2 lasts forever and forces the temperature up.
What a joke!
The Olympic motto:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMain - not a victory, main - participation!
And with climatic changes. And with financial crisis.
At first officials, politics and economists create a problem, then, for means of the tax bearers with her struggle.
If to destroy gamble, the crises will not arise, but any economist does not act against gamble.
If to introduce power on the basis of isothermal converters of a thermal energy of an environment in job, it is possible to forget about emission of harmful substances in an atmosphere, about deficiency of fresh(stale) water and deficiency of the foodstuffs.
The breadboard model of the isothermal converter is created and works, but the idea is not supported by the officials.
And the press is pleased - is about what to print - problem of climatic changes is, the financial crisis is.
What the press would do(make), if there was no D8=0=A>A2KE of crises, a deficiency of fuel, deficiency of fresh(stale) water and deficiency of the foodstuffs?
vetto@nm.ru
Combating climate change (don't you love how global warming has been replaced with "climate change, to incorporate any change; warming or cooling, drought or flood)...) is impossible when the weapon of choice (carbon dioxide) has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt incapable of changing the climate. It is absolutely absurd to first claim that temperatures are rising because of elevated carbon dioxide levels and cooling is impossible, then when it does in fact cool to say that, oh well, this is only weather and besides carbon dioxide may also cause cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCleaning the air is a wonderful goal, the only technology that can make a measurable difference in air quality is nuclear. One nuclear plant produces seven times the power of all the wind and solar in the US. It does it at 1/5 the cost and with zero emissions. No other senergy source comes close to this record and potential. One trillion tons of coal are burned each year in this country for electricity. This produces 50% of our power. We get 20% of our power from nuclear with no pollutants. This is the equivalent of burning 400,000 tons of coal not being burned each year. So-called "alternatives" of wind and solar require 75% back-up from fossil fuel plants and can only clean an immeasureable amount of pollutants.
If you are serious about wanting clean affordable and abundant energy nuclear is the best option, natural gas could be far better if resources are unblocked and coal will be the only remaining source if nuclear and natural gas are unreasonably blocked. In any event, no matter what the enrgy choices are the climate will continue to be controlled by natural forces as it has been lo these billions of years.
Solar and wind power are good for peak power, nuclear , geothermal and wave power are needed for base power- cars that are series Hybrids using electricity for 40miles and an external combustion engine like the cyclone engine (which can burn any liquid or gas combustible fuel)- combined with high density vertical algae production and hemp farming for bio-fuel- add to that monolithic dome houses that use passive solar heating and cooling- hybrid solar/LED lighting- geothermic heat exchange heating and cooling- and really we have the technical ability to meet all our energy needs without fossil fuels, whether we have the will or even the desire that's another question completely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain why you think solar and wind are good for peak power. Wind is off 75% of the time and solar is off 60% of the time in optimum locations. they require 100% back-up from conventional power and therefor cannot replace one fossil fuel plant. They cost several times more than any other power source and because of their great inefficiency they cannot clean the air. How does this make them a good peak power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear and geothermal are both dependable, clean and affordable energy.
Wave power has been an environmental and economical disaster wherever it has been tried. The turbines churn through marine life creating a dead zone where only a few crustaceans survive.
Plug-ins and hybrids are effective to lower gasoline usage.
Algae, hemp and any biofuels cannot produce much to meet demand. They are good science lessons, but have no real value as far as being energy sources.
You have a very poor understanding of energy and it's use if you think we can do without fossil fuesl. We use 20 million barrels a day for transportation heat, industry, plastics, etc, etc etc. We have 2.2 trillion barrels of oil reserves in this country (2 trillion in shale oil alone) We have tens of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of years of coal reserves. There is no shortage of energy in this country. The real shortage is in intelligent leadership. Our number one problem is having politicians and many people who think that windmills and solar farms can somehow magically produce oil. They base their so-called enrgy problems on ideas that sound nice but are 100% ineffective and impractical. They develop energy policies that have zero energy in them. They create energy policy based on support from political groups rather than on the needs of the country for financial and military security.
We could all go back to cutting down forests for our energy and farming with plow horses. Burning cow dung for heat and living in log cabins. There are a lot of things we can do, the question is what is the smart thing to do.
I realise that this is just a summary of the debate but, from that summary, it's very apparent that the skeptics have no argument, except emotional ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLomborg simply says that there are better ways to spend the money, not addressing the consequences of human induced climate change. Huber says we shouldn't try because not every country will join in - i.e. still not addressing the issue. Stott says that climate is complicated and countries claiming to be taking action are failing, again not arguing the worth of mitigation.
At least the others put forward cases for why not doing something could be catastrophic. Whether countries actually will take action before it's too late is another matter.
AGW springs from the same well as Creationism. It requires strict adherence to dogma, and questions are not welcome, as they may upset the whole game. AGW is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that ultimately it will come down to AGW being admitted as a huge mistake due to systemic errors in land based data collection. The climate modelers will blame NOAA et al. for giving them bad data, NOAA will blame the climate modelers for not correcting the data properly, and everyone will want to put this behind them as quickly as possible and try to save face.
"AGW springs from the same well as Creationism. It requires strict adherence to dogma, and questions are not welcome, as they may upset the whole game. AGW is not science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, does this statement actually come from an adherent of science? With thousands of climate scientists reasonably certain, from the data, that GW is primarily A, it is dogmatic, in the extreme, to claim that AGW is not science.
......and I observe that being unable to address any of my points you resort to a non-reply which is the response of someone who has no rational answers and yet having no intelligent reply still feels the need to say something no matter how meaningless, inane or ignorant it sounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thousands of climate scientists predicted the earth would warm for the next 100 years. Those thousands of scientists were aware of the predicted lessened solar activity and the La Nina and with seven computer programs found with absolute certainty that these natural affect would not overcome the warming caused by AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the last two years temperatures dramatically dropped by the largest instrument recorded amount in history. the extremely troubling 1 degree rise in temperature in the last 100 years was eclipsed by the .75 degree drop in one year as verified by NASA. Those thousands of bright climate scientists then abruptly changed the name of their study fro Global Warming to Climate Change and now state that cooling may persist until the middle of the next decade. This would be eight continuous years of cooling. These thousands of bright climate scientists now don't give temperature comparisons from year to year and insist it is far more valuable to compare today's temperatures to their hand-picked averages. It is so embarassing for them that cannot bring themselves to give actual temperature differences from year to year and have come up with the preposterous explanation that global warming has caused global cooling.
These brilliant climate scientists discounted the correlation between solar activity, cosmic radiation and cloud formation. Now that we are experienceing very rainy weather worldwide and record snowfall and enormous glacial growth they now claim the most important thing in the world to study is rain patterns.
These mercinary scientists have been proven wrong by their own predictions. They had said cooling was absolutely impossible and it cooling at a pace greater than any since the invention of the thermometer. Global warming has been disproven beyond any doubt whatsoever and to blindly keep believing in it is a religion.
Manmade carbon dioxide is 3% of the total in the atmosphere. This total CO2 is 338 PPM (parts per million) or .000338. Since man is responsible for 3%, this is 10 of the 338 PPM or .00001 part of the atmosphere. The way "greenhouse gases work is they slow down long wave reflected solar radiation. Carbon dioxide only slows only a narrow band of this radiation. There is not anywhere near enougn man made CO2 or anywhere near enough of the available bandwidth to heat the atmosphere. Saying this amount of CO2 heats the planet is like peeing into the Pacific Ocean and saying that you have raised the tides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why no calculations exist to show how this could be possible. It is because it is scientifically impossible. OK, here comes the UN and in order to prove to us there is global warming they produce computer programs into which hundreds of thousands of bits of information are inputted. First, programs are a horrible way to predict anything because they can be even subconciously tweked to give almost any answer desired. OK, now for twenty years that these programs havebeen in exustence they have never accurately predicted temperatures. The only predictions they get right are those they make about temperatures after they happen. For twenty years they have predicted temperatures would go up and for twenty years they did. In early 2007 at their convention they said temperatures would continue to rise and they would for 100 years. From early 2007 to today temperatures have dropped at historic rates. This is easily varifiable by checking any of the world's scientific agencies including NASA.
The IPCC itself now admits it is cooling. It seems the word has not filtered down to the people still quoting global warming nonsense in these posts. I suggest you educate yourself to what is going on today. I know it is not being published much, but it is easily verified. The world is cooling and those who choose to deny it are looking pretty dumb about now. Please take a little bit of pride in what you say and please verify these facts before you continue to delude yourselves.
The scam is over. Man made global warming never did exist. There is no advantage to trying to keep up a facade to try and save face. You were duped. You were conned. The longer you deny reality the more foolish you look. Right now to informed people those of you clinging to a belief in man made warming are looking pretty rediculous.
Would the fall of civilization be enough economic incentive? How about the extinction of Homo Sap?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReference: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas Downloaded from:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
The following is an article by Mark Lynas based on his book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. It was published in the Guardian on 23 April 2007.
"1�C: Nebraska isnt at the top of most tourists to-do lists. However, this dreary expanse of impossibly flat plains sits in the middle of one of the most productive agricultural systems on Earth. Beef and corn dominate the economy, and the Sand Hills region where low, grassy hillocks rise up from the flatlands has some of the best cattle ranching in the whole US. But scratch beneath the grass and you will find, as the name suggests, not soil but sand. These innocuous-looking hills were once desert, part of an immense system of sand dunes that spread across the Great Plains from Texas in the south to the Canadian prairies in the north. Six thousand years ago, when temperatures were about 1C warmer than today in the US, these deserts may have looked much as the Sahara does today. As global warming bites, the western US could once again be plagued by perennial drought devastating agriculture and driving out human inhabitants on a scale far larger than the 1930s Dustbowl exodus."
===Book and article continue through our extinction at 6 degrees centigrade of warming========
1�C is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Since the year 1750, we have already caused 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming. You didn't notice it because you are not 300 years old. The rate of global warming continues to speed up. It won't take much longer. Mark Lynas is unclear on the starting point, but Americans stop eating soon. American civilization collapses and 99.99% of all Americans and Europeans die. Cannibalism happens. YOU and I will be among the dead. Read: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond and "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan. Something like 2 dozen civilizations have already disappeared because of climate changes smaller than the one we have already caused. Starvation was the cause of most deaths, but some people were killed to be eaten.
"The rate of global warming continues to speed up. It won't take much longer. Mark Lynas is unclear on the starting point, but Americans stop eating soon. American civilization collapses and 99.99% of all Americans and Europeans die. Cannibalism happens. YOU and I will be among the dead. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, I told you how silly you look. Now do you believe me?
Would the extinction of the human species have enough economic impact for those economists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal Warming can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of
the oceans. Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo
Sap will go EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken NOW.
October 2006 Scientific American
"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find out."
Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would kill most terrestrial life."
www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=672
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1535
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2509.html
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or 1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.
The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007. Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one we are doing to ourselves.
OIL SHALE, TAR SANDS AND COAL MUST BE LEFT IN THE GROUND TO AVOID THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS.
We have to convert to plug-in hybrid cars so that electricity made by low-CO2 methods powers most of our driving. Nuclear power produces the least CO2 of ANY source of electricity.
32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 4 producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China, India and Russia. Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action in the USA, China, India and Russia. Coal, oil shale and tar sands must be left untouched in the ground.
I have no connection to the nuclear power industry.
Cheer up asteroid, the huge increase of 1.4 degrees just dropped .75 degrees according to NASA, GISS and similar figures are verified by every major scientific institution in the world. The climate is not warming, it is cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, if you want to discuss cleaning the iar of real pollutants, nuclear is the only real way to do this. Natural gas is a far cleaner energy for power, but the largest deposits have been declared off-limits by congress. If we had true leadership instead of poliliticians motivated by contributions and support from special interests we would have ample supply of cleaner natural gas. If they were true leaders they would be supporting the cleanest most affordable power there is, nuclear.
We agree on this point Asteroid, but you surely don't believe all those boogey man stories concocted by people trying to make a buck off of scaring people.
The earth is cooling, this cannot be denied. Global warming is a failed theory. Suggesting that global cooling is caused by global warming or that massive worldwide cooling is simply "weather" is simply a desperate attempt to keep the money flowing into "research" on "climate change". We spend tens of billions each year propping up "solutions" to a problem that does not exist with "solutions" that are incapable of solving these imaginary and disproved "problems".
We are told we must triple our efforts and ignore the fact that the supposed problem has disappeared. This is pork and these attempts are just to perpetuate the wasteful and useless spending on non-productive energy that adds csot to all our energy for no reason.
We are told we need to pay carbon taxes or carbon trading taxes of up to 40% on our energy in many parts of the country. This money after filtering through the government will be spent on wind and solar projects. This power will cost several times more than any other source. This power will require fossil fuels 75% of the time. This power will require a one on one back-up from fossil fuel. During the 75% of the time the fossil fuel is necessarily used it will be taxed at up to 40%. the money you and I will pay will then be used to build more highly expensive, grossly inefficient wind and solar power.
No reasonable person can think this makes any sense. It is a non-workable solution to a non-existant problem.
Because humans exhale CO2 and employ machines that exhaust CO2, humanity does contribute to atmospheric CO2 content. However, that great carbon sink -- the oceans, along with that immense nuclear furnace -- the sun, are the two main reasons for earth's climate variations. Controlling human population would have a small effect on atmospheric CO2 content as well as a pheripheral effect on earth's climate. As NASA's Dr. Hansen has implied, spending trillions of dollars on carbon trading schemes would be a fraud leading only to more millionaires on Wall Street.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDahun- Solar: you most be thinking about photoelectric panels which may be good for an individual's roof but not where we are going in large scale energy production. Large scale energy production uses solar concentration to run either Stirling engines or steam turbines- heat is stored in molten salt so power can be maintained over night or on cloudy days- what if it's cloudy for a whole week? the short answer is you don't build in those areas
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind: I question your figures but lets look at price - lets look at a blurb from an article from 2006
"Thanks to the efforts of the wind industry and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Wind Energy Program, the cost of electricity from wind has dropped from $0.35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 1980 to less than $0.05 per kWh today at good wind sites. DOE's goal is to improve the technology to further reduce costs to $0.03 per kWh for projects at low wind speed sites and $0.05 per kWh for offshore sites by 2012." new wind installments now produce energy cheaper than coal, and they are incrementally improving all the time- so again what is your point, yes the wind doesn't blow everywhere all the time, that's why we have the grid.
Algae: the DEO estimated that it would take 15000 sq miles to replace all petroleum use in this country - that estimate was based on using open pond systems- High density vertical systems have been estimated as able to produce 10-100 times what an open pond system given the same area.
Taking the low estimate that cuts the figure to 1500 sq miles- still a large area but this doesn't take in the following- 1. Series Hybrids can reduce direct oil used in personal vehicles by 80% 2. There are smart construction methods, heating and cooling technology, lighting technology that could reduce home energy consumption by 75% with no loss in comfort. 3 Hemp can be used in thousands of ways, many of which could replace petroleum in products. 4. I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that we have to get rid of all usage of fossil fuels - I'm more making the point that we have the technology right now to start to move away from fossil fuels- will it be expensive? sure!! it is also expensive to maintain a global empire so that we not feel afraid that we will lose access to other countries petroleum.
Dahun- Solar: you most be thinking about photoelectric panels which may be good for an individual's roof but not where we are going in large scale energy production. Large scale energy production uses solar concentration to run either Stirling engines or steam turbines- heat is stored in molten salt so power can be maintained over night or on cloudy days- what if it's cloudy for a whole week? the short answer is you don't build in those areas
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind: I question your figures but lets look at price - lets look at a blurb from an article from 2006
"Thanks to the efforts of the wind industry and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Wind Energy Program, the cost of electricity from wind has dropped from $0.35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 1980 to less than $0.05 per kWh today at good wind sites. DOE's goal is to improve the technology to further reduce costs to $0.03 per kWh for projects at low wind speed sites and $0.05 per kWh for offshore sites by 2012." new wind installments now produce energy cheaper than coal, and they are incrementally improving all the time- so again what is your point, yes the wind doesn't blow everywhere all the time, that's why we have the grid.
Algae: the DEO estimated that it would take 15000 sq miles to replace all petroleum use in this country - that estimate was based on using open pond systems- High density vertical systems have been estimated as able to produce 10-100 times what an open pond system given the same area.
Taking the low estimate that cuts the figure to 1500 sq miles- still a large area but this doesn't take in the following- 1. Series Hybrids can reduce direct oil used in personal vehicles by 80% 2. There are smart construction methods, heating and cooling technology, lighting technology that could reduce home energy consumption by 75% with no loss in comfort. 3 Hemp can be used in thousands of ways, many of which could replace petroleum in products. 4. I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that we have to get rid of all usage of fossil fuels - I'm more making the point that we have the technology right now to start to move away from fossil fuels- will it be expensive? sure!! it is also expensive to maintain a global empire so that we not feel afraid that we will lose access to other countries petroleum.
Global warming is not just for the next 100 years. That's just how long most of the models were run for the IPCC's latest report (enormous computing requirements means you have to make choices: either longer runs, or more repetitions and better resolution/certainty). Nor is Obama's choice to "prevent" or "reverse" global warming. Those are no longer choices available to us. We have what's called "committed" warming of more than one additional degree C already 'in the pipeline,' as well as over 1 meter of sea level rise just from warming of the ocean (no melting considered at all).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe choice that remains to humanity is to take drastic action to *slow* global warming in the *hopes* that we may avoid runaway climate change -- meaning that heating, ice melting, and all the climate effects that cascade from that, go out of our control so that the rate of change, and the ultimate result, are both unpredictable and uncontrollable (but certainly dire for humans and many plant and animal species long before us). "Drastic action" will almost certainly include both massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and (I'd venture) some form or forms of 'geoengineering,' as distasteful and risky as that may be to many of us.
The debate within scientific circles at this point is, how much more greenhouse gas can we "safely" emit to the atmosphere before we get runaway heating? Because the pace of both anthropogenic emissions and many aspects of climate change has exceeded those predicted even by the IPCC in the last 2 years, the "curve" of emissions reductions required to keep the atmosphere within 'safe' (i.e., non-runaway) levels is getting ever steeper. We have already released so much there isn't much "room" in the atmosphere for additional GHG before we hit 'dangerous' levels, and most of that space should, morally, go to developing nations.
Think "recession" will fix the problem? Think again. During Russia's decade of decline after the fall of the USSR, their emissions fell 5% per year. What the industrialized world is looking at, to remain a safe planet, is 9% per year reductions, every year (not just once). Go look at the press in the UK; they cover this much more frankly than in the US. We haven't come to terms with what's going to be required of us because, unlike the UK, we haven't made any concrete commitments yet about how much we'll reduce by when. What Obama has announced to date (20% below *current* levels by 2020) is simply insufficient; ask any climate scientist. We are in for a rude awakening in this country.
Global warming is not just for the next 100 years. That's just how long most of the models were run for the IPCC's latest report (enormous computing requirements means you have to make choices: either longer runs, or more repetitions and better resolution/certainty). Nor is Obama's choice to "prevent" or "reverse" global warming. Those are no longer choices available to us. We have what's called "committed" warming of more than one additional degree C already 'in the pipeline,' as well as over 1 meter of sea level rise just from warming of the ocean (no melting considered at all).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe choice that remains to humanity is to take drastic action to *slow* global warming in the *hopes* that we may avoid runaway climate change -- meaning that heating, ice melting, and all the climate effects that cascade from that, go out of our control so that the rate of change, and the ultimate result, are both unpredictable and uncontrollable (but certainly dire for humans and many plant and animal species long before us). "Drastic action" will almost certainly include both massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and (I'd venture) some form or forms of 'geoengineering,' as distasteful and risky as that may be to many of us.
The debate within scientific circles at this point is, how much more greenhouse gas can we "safely" emit to the atmosphere before we get runaway heating? Because the pace of both anthropogenic emissions and many aspects of climate change has exceeded those predicted even by the IPCC in the last 2 years, the "curve" of emissions reductions required to keep the atmosphere within 'safe' (i.e., non-runaway) levels is getting ever steeper. We have already released so much there isn't much "room" in the atmosphere for additional GHG before we hit 'dangerous' levels, and most of that space should, morally, go to developing nations.
Think "recession" will fix the problem? Think again. During Russia's decade of decline after the fall of the USSR, their emissions fell 5% per year. What the industrialized world is looking at, to remain a safe planet, is ~9% per year reductions, every year (not just once). Go look at the press in the UK; they cover this much more frankly than in the US. We haven't come to terms with what's going to be required of us because, unlike the UK, we haven't made any concrete commitments yet about how much we'll reduce by when. What Obama has announced to date (20% below *current* levels by 2020) is simply insufficient; ask any climate scientist. We are in for a rude awakening in this country.
of course reducing carbon emissions isn't the only why to stop global warming- you could set off a large volcano, a medium sized nuclear war, or getting hit by a comet- which would all result in a cooler climate- some suggest dropping iron particles into the oceans to act as super fertilizer for algae, or using nuclear energy to power machines that would take the carbon out of the air, or spraying aerosols into the sky - so cheer up we don't just one way to make life suck - we are ingenious little monkeys and have a multitude of ways to ruin the future for our children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What stupidity... Again, 95% of the greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOR... We can hardly make a dent in climate change. When are we going do some real research and realize this is political dogma! Do the math!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amount of water vapor that can be in the atmoshpere is a function of the heat of the atmoshpere.
Also water vapor has different spectral blocking than other green house gases. These difference in the amount spectral blocked from leaving have been taken into account. These CO2 equivelant numbers are based on the math that the spectral blocking of a particular gas or particle is having. The "math" has been done.
In addition "water vapor" is sort of a loose term. Depending on the structure and height of the water vapor it has different effects.
"Check out Black Smokers and Hydrothermal venting. This phenomenon is responsible for heating and cooling of the oceans and thus producing more or less water vapor."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou left out the word "partly" or "barely". Where is the evidence for a marked increase activity for the last 150 years?
"Most climatologists/scientists are afraid to speak up against "Man Made" global warming for fear they will lose their funding... Such it is with politics and science."
Who are these "Most climatologists/scientists". If your taking about the USA don't you belive that disproving global warming would have been the side to favor to get funding over the last 8 years if people were running in fear?
"Since temperatures have declined since 1998 and during the past two years temeratures have dropped by an historically record amount of .75 degress celcius in less than two years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since we are experiencing record snowfalls, rapidly increasing ice cover and worldwide record cold."
It's funny that these statements can be found again and again without any reference to the details.
On "Solar activity/Cosmic rays/cloud formation". It does have an effect but the effect is not as large as you belive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"manmade greenhouse gases are 3% of the total carbon dioxide levels and.00001 part of the atmosphere. This amount of carbon dioxide cannot warm the earth, it is simply scientifically impossible."
The question of amounts by mass or parts isn't the issue. The issue is solely the amount of spectra and the energy at that spectra that was not blocked that will be blocked. "Stuff" that we have alot of already blocks what is has for a very long time. It's the new "stuff" that blocks different spectra. If you added a bunch of new "stuff" with the same spectra blocking it wouldn't matter a bit.
"Those super smart global warming scientists seem to think that man made carbon dioxide never breaks down like the 97% of natural carbon dioxide although once again being uneducated I cannot understand the difference; one carbon, two oxygen...somehow man made CO2 lasts forever and forces the temperature up. "
This is called a strawman arguement. No one belives this. It does "break down" or get absorbed. It's purely the amount that does actually get absorbed over a period of time. More plant actitivty and cooler more cycling oceans absorb more but there are upper limits and beyond that it just builds up.
"then when it does in fact cool to say that, oh well, this is only weather and besides carbon dioxide may also cause cooling. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you own a "strawman" arguement of the day calendar? No one says this.
"One nuclear plant produces seven times the power of all the wind and solar in the US."
Your losing the distinction between the amount that is harvested and the amount that can be pratically harvested.
"So-called "alternatives" of wind and solar require 75% back-up from fossil fuel plants"
Another way to say that is there is a small installed base now. There are different levels of "back-up". There is hot "back-up" and cold "back-up". Cold "back-up" does not pollute until it is turn on. The economy of scale, time of day, location, and back-up requirements are all inputs as to whether something is pratical or economical.
"They had said cooling was absolutely impossible and it cooling at a pace greater than any since the invention of the thermometer. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople could almost go belive what you say then you leap off the deep end.
You site no papers or data.
The term thermometer was first used in 1624. The little ice age was around 1650 to 1770. That temperature change was 1C. And I'd think we'd notice this 0.75C if it was at all comparable.
"AGW being admitted as a huge mistake due to systemic errors in land based data collection"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting how many arguements like this assume that "AGW" is something new. It was guessed at in the 50s. It was a debate in the 80s. It was generally accepted in the 90s. Now in the 00s this is not some new thing like bell bottoms. 96% certain is fairly certain at least.
Carbon dioxide only slows only a narrow band of this radiation. There is not anywhere near enougn man made CO2 or anywhere near enough of the available bandwidth to heat the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually it's a few bands and it depends how much enery used to escape in those bands and it is more than CO2. Methane has a "CO2 equivelant number" in that it blocks a different band. If there was nothing at that band then it would be less of an equivelant.
"This is why no calculations exist to show how this could be possible."
They were done in the 1950s. Find them. They exist.
"OK, now for twenty years that these programs havebeen in exustence they have never accurately predicted temperatures."
Define accrately. They did not predict exact averages they predicted that a trend would continue. The year to year average is also influcenced by many other things. It is what thing is influence which trend in the year.
"In early 2007 at their convention they said temperatures would continue to rise and they would for 100 years."
Strawman. Did they say something like "the will raise every second in an absoulte straight line for 100 years"? No. And nothing close to what you mentioned either. They will trend up by a certain amount based on several factors.
The IPCC itself now admits it is cooling.
Strawman. Even the past records some years are cooler than others. A short term drop is not a new trend.
"I suggest you educate yourself to what is going on today. I know it is not being published much, but it is easily verified."
These are standards you do not hold yourself too. The lastest report "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.", "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
" There is no indicatation that the IPCC is going to send out in any for some kind of mid-report "oops".
"The longer you deny reality the more foolish you look."
Find a mirror quickly.
"the huge increase of 1.4 degrees just dropped .75 degrees according to NASA, GISS and similar figures are verified by every major scientific institution in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The earth is cooling, this cannot be denied."
Does these two statement of yours make it any clearer?
The INCREASE of 1.4 has been DECREASED by 0.75.
1.4 - 0.75 = 0.65
Correct?
0.65 is not negative 0.75. That would be a decrease of the estimate 2.15.
I can only assume that whatever you read was not read correctly.
I would also be interested in the acutal source of the information, not an incorrectly interpeted version of it.
Dahun:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world has been cooling for ten years. Adherence to dogma in the face of countervailing evidence is religion.
This sums up the AGW hysteria better than I can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html
Can we afford not to eradicate climate change? Just ask the big insurance companies how much NOT taking action will cost. The figure is mind-boggling and dwarfs present world-wide bailout sums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think fixing climate change is worth it. Global warming is only getting worse and we have to at least try to do something to help it. As someone posted bfeore they said that the global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit and if the global warming is 6 degrees centigrade, we humans go extinct. I find that to be pretty ineresting, if its only up to 1.3 it will probably be a couple hundred more years for it to reach 6 degrees centigrade. But even still we should try to change it as much as we can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that fixing climate change is worth it. Global warming will only be getting worse so i think we should try what we can to help fix it. As someone posted before that the global warming is already 1.3 degree Fahrenheit. And that if the global warming is 6 degrees centigrade, we humans go extinct. For the global warming to reach 6 degrees centigrade it will probably take another couple hundred years. But even still we should try to fix global warming as much as we can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMars and earth have each cooled 0.5 deg C since the 1970's and their ice caps have receded accordingly. Reduced solar activity is the most likely cause of this temperature decline. Sunspot activity has ceased and earth's temperature is now falling rapidly. Based on these observations and a review of the Vostok ice core series, it is highly probable that earth is at the dawn of a new ice age. During this ice age, atmospheric CO2 content will decline as colder oceans absorb more CO2. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will then be applauded by today's Warmists who will begin trading carbon "additives" and Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee will be viewed as an environmental Mecca.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs was said in the article, energy efficiency is the best policy to limit climate change. But also we must spread family planning methods to the 950,000,000 starving people who are also putting unacceptable pressure on the world's ressources. If we eat less meat we will free up enough cereals to feed the world. And experience in the developped world shows that well fed people have small healthy families. So therefore we will have enough money to do enough R & D to discover how to clean up air pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmmm...the cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBillions versus the EXTINCTION OF THIS ENTIRE HUMAN RACE?
THAT is a tough one.