Tales from the post Apocalyptic 400PPM CO2 planet Earth

[CrusaderFrank]

Oct 16, 2016

My wife and I went back to Cold Spring to celebrate our wedding Anniversary. We were reminiscing about that day, a beautiful, perfect peak of fall foliage day, CO2 about 385, we had a string quartet play for an hour and had them play 2nd movement of Eine kleine Nachtmusik as a special song for the wedding party. We originally were going to hire a quartet from Julliard, but refused to play outdoors, so the wife replaced them immediately. The Julliard group said something about the cool temperature affecting their instruments. I wonder if we called them today, in this 400PPM CO2 environment, would they be willing to play outdoors or would they now be concerned about the CO2 vaporizing their instruments and turning them into jellyfish.

 

[jc456]

Those who reject mainstream science and the need to reduce our CO2 emissions. I do not need a name to fight for; but, as I have stated, their positions threaten the welfare of our children.

or not.

 

[jc456]

Global warming or not, we are destroying our environment, wasting natural resources and keeping fighting each other. We could do better...

True...there are many actual environmental problems that need to be dealt with...problems that are real and to which actual solutions exist...

But they will never be addressed or dealt with so long as the AGW scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....can you point to any environmental problem that climate science has not blamed on CO2?....and have they offered any solution at all other than crippling world economies?..which certainly would not help environmental problems...look at the environmental state of the great socialist failures...china...USSR...etc.

Deserts are taking over the lands, monster jelly fish takes over the seas and smog is taking over the atmosphere. Well done, humanity! Global warming is our least problem, if at all.

Certainly there are other problem. Jelly fish are not among them. You present a false dichotomy. Global warming is a large problem, but working on it does not prevent us from working on others. And many problems have the same solution. You mention smog (which is not much of a problem these days outside China). What do you think the solution to smog might be?

so why can't you post evidence of the global warming problem?

 

[Crick]

Oi... www.ipcc.ch. Look up Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.

 

[SSDD]

Oi... www.ipcc.ch. Look up Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.

And strangely enough...there is not a single bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....claim there is all you like, but we all know that it isn't there....your fervent belief that it is there won't make it magically appear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oi... www.ipcc.ch. Look up Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.

IPCC, is the "redistribute wealth by climate policy" group

 

[Crick]

Show us where it says that in AR5 Frank. Show us, Frank, that Ottmar Edenhofer wasn't talking about what nations are doing in the face of global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us where it says that in AR5 Frank. Show us, Frank, that Ottmar Edenhofer wasn't talking about what nations are doing in the face of global warming.

AR5 featured the fictional concept of "excess heat"

Ottmar called agw a scam to redistribute the wealth

 

[Crick]

You satisfied neither of my requests. Edenhofer was describing what the nations of the world are doing in response to global warming. He was NOT describing IPCC policy or aims. That is patently obvious from his actual statement. And, of course, there is nothing about redistributing wealth anywhere in AR5, 4, 3, 2 or 1.

You're an idiot and you lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You satisfied neither of my requests. Edenhofer was describing what the nations of the world are doing in response to global warming. He was NOT describing IPCC policy or aims. That is patently obvious from his actual statement. And, of course, there is nothing about redistributing wealth anywhere in AR5, 4, 3, 2 or 1.

You're an idiot and you lie.

He was being interviewed in his capacity as the voice of the IPCC.

You know the redistribute wealth quote came from the interview, why you would attribute it to AR5 can only mean it's another squid ink deflection where you throw up some smoke and dart away

 

[Crick]

I seem to be having a case of Post-Disappearitis. I put up posts and they disappear. I wonder who might be responsible for such a thing.

Here is a more complete transcript of the inteview (Edenhofer by Bernard Potter of GWPF)

Interview by: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.
******************************************************************************

As I've said here repeatedly, Edenhofer is talking about the policies of the nations of the world in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. You may note that the term "IPCC" appears nowhere in this text.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I seem to be having a case of Post-Disappearitis. I put up posts and they disappear. I wonder who might be responsible for such a thing.

Here is a more complete transcript of the inteview (Edenhofer by Bernard Potter of GWPF)

Interview by: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.
******************************************************************************

As I've said here repeatedly, Edenhofer is talking about the policies of the nations of the world in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. You may note that the term "IPCC" appears nowhere in this text.

So you're claiming victory because you failed to post the beginning of the interview where he's introduced as IPCC

 

[Crick]

How do you get through life being that dense? The text I posted of the interview from which you all love to quote shows without question that Edenhofer is not talking about the IPCC. He is talking about the policies of nations. Don't be such a fucking idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC has no power to make countries do anything. I never said it did, nobody said it did. Ottmar said that climate change has nothing to do with science but is about wealth redistribution

Crick next post will be another squid ink deflection.

 

[jc456]

I seem to be having a case of Post-Disappearitis. I put up posts and they disappear. I wonder who might be responsible for such a thing.

Here is a more complete transcript of the inteview (Edenhofer by Bernard Potter of GWPF)

Interview by: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.
******************************************************************************

As I've said here repeatedly, Edenhofer is talking about the policies of the nations of the world in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. You may note that the term "IPCC" appears nowhere in this text.

well crick, in his statement about spreading wealth he states:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

what policy would that be if not the recommendation from the group putting it out the IPCC. He admits it right there, you don't have to post up AR5, AR5 won't have the words in it. It is his statement to the objective of the policy. To say anything else is just flat out lying.

 

[Crick]

It would be the policy of the nations who wish to reduce anthropogenic global warming, as the text of the interview CLEARLY displays.

Can you not fucking read?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It would be the policy of the nations who wish to reduce anthropogenic global warming, as the text of the interview CLEARLY displays.

Can you not fucking read?

Crick makes up imaginary arguments, then argues against them and insults everyone in the process.

" One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." - Ottmar

 

[jc456]

It would be the policy of the nations who wish to reduce anthropogenic global warming, as the text of the interview CLEARLY displays.

Can you not fucking read?

no fool he uses 'we' that represent him. He is not a country, instead he is someone pushing a policy.

 

[Crick]

So, you cannot fucking read

Interview by: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun [which was attended by national representatives and NOT by the IPCC] at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.

If you want to continue to insist that Edenhofer is talking about something the IPCC is doing, you'll just have to free yourself from the idea that you AREN'T one of the dumbest fucks on this board.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you cannot fucking read

Interview by: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun [which was attended by national representatives and NOT by the IPCC] at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.

If you want to continue to insist that Edenhofer is talking about something the IPCC is doing, you'll have to free yourself from the idea that you AREN'T one of the dumbest fucks on this board.

How fucking classic!

" One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." - Ottmar