Working to cope with climate change

[saveliberty]

You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?

That is your game, I am simply relating the understandings and observations of the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue.

The dominant group in the study area as been caught manipulating data and methodology. They are a small group that runs the society where published papers are peer reviewed. In a most unscientific way, they have supressed opposing views.

 

[saveliberty]

Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.

Please show how it means anything different.

Higher levels of atmospheric CO2, counteract the other influences of warmer temperatures, additional water and nitrogenous fertilizers, reducing plant growth by roughly 48% (40/84) compared to these same conditions with lower levels of atmospheric CO2.

So hothouses are lies and worthless. lol

You are misreading the paragraph it doesn't say counteract at all. It says, "combined". Talk about poor reading comprehension and skills.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it climate change or global warming faither?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established in 1987 to review the scientifc evidence and understandings regarding the issue of global warming.

Climate change is the process, a gradual warming of the globe is the symptom we are realizing in the modern climate change.

There is no room for faith in this issue. The science is based on facts, observations and interconnected science understandings that involve most fields of natural science.

AGW is all about manipulating data and funding.

that is your unsupported and irrational conspircay theory

None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything. Just long standing cycles that existed before man.

These are simply your false and flawed misunderstandings and arrogant ignorances on display.

IPCC, redistributing wealth through climate policy since 1987

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy

...The IPCC predicts an increase in sea levels of 3 feet by 2100 due to thermal expansion of the ocean. The areas shaded in red would be underwater.

Predictions for temperature increases range from 1.8 degrees (best case) to 8 degrees Celsius by 2100 if no action is taken to slow the current growth in global CO2 emissions. The thermal expansion of the oceans due to increased sea temperatures can be estimated, but the key unknown is the rate at which the land ice in Greenland and Antarctica will melt. The water contained in those glaciers represents approximately 39 feet of sea level equivalent. Even a fraction of that “melt” would be catastrophic.

Scientists believe climate change will also affect the basic elements of life for people around the world such as access to water and food production. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

The ramifications of global climate change, while uncertain, paint a devastating portrait of an unsustainable world. What the United States does now is critical to eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of catastrophic outcomes for future generations.

Investments made today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the cost of adaptation in the future. The notion of a no-cost, “do-nothing” option contradicts a key principle in business and life: probability diminishes in importance as the risk of disastrous consequences rises. If the world waits to act, climate change could be abrupt and impervious to any last-ditch, 11th-hour heroics.

Sounds like an accurate and legitimate climate concern message to me.

Greenhouse gas performance and commitment | Entergy

• 
  In 2001, Entergy partnered with Environmental Defense and became the first domestic utility to voluntarily enact a five-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels. Entergy beat the original target by 23 percent while increasing sales 21 percent during the same period.

• In 2006, Entergy made a second commitment to stabilize CO2 emissions from its power plants and controllable purchased power at 20 percent below 2000 levels through 2010. Our cumulative CO2 emissions for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were 122.9 million tons, 4 percent better than our stabilization goal of 127.7 million. Since we made our first stabilization commitment in 2001, we have emitted 327.4 million tons of CO2, which is nearly 17 percent below our cumulative stabilization goal for the eight-year period.

• Entergy established a $25 million Environmental Initiatives Fund with 80 percent dedicated to changes in Entergy-owned assets and 20 percent for the purchase of CO2 offsets (e.g., agricultural projects, geologic sequestration or enhanced oil recovery).

• Through the EIF, Entergy has made capital improvements on its existing fossil fleet, including coal plants, to improve efficiency. Improvements include increasing production from non-emitting nuclear units through capacity up-rates and increasing capacity factors, and increasing production from more efficient, low-emitting combined cycle gas turbines and combined heat and power resources.

While I wouldn't call this list profound, they are certainly productive steps in the right direction and demonstrate a sincere effort to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Many major corporations are headed in a similar direction.

IPCC is an EnviroMarxist organization that has a policy of redistributing wealth through Climate change.

(this post was made on a Climate neutral basis, the climate was not dramatically altered as a direct or indirect result of this post)

LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?

Cap & Trade.

Biggest securities fraud in over a century. Literally giving well connected looters license to sell nothing at an enormous price. Goldman Sachs (major contributor to Obama) can sell you indulgences (carbon credits) which allow you to sin (manufacture goods) with the blessing of the church. You can resell the indulgences, giving a fee to the issuing agency.

Like all religions, AGW is ultimately about stealing as much money as possible before getting caught. All fraud boils down to money - global warming is a prime example.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?

Cap & Trade.

Biggest securities fraud in over a century. Literally giving well connected looters license to sell nothing at an enormous price. Goldman Sachs (major contributor to Obama) can sell you indulgences (carbon credits) which allow you to sin (manufacture goods) with the blessing of the church. You can resell the indulgences, giving a fee to the issuing agency.

Like all religions, AGW is ultimately about stealing as much money as possible before getting caught. All fraud boils down to money - global warming is a prime example.

That's not even how it works.
Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.

And you may be surprised to know that energy companies do not own the atmosphere.




Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not even how it works.

That's exactly how it works.

Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.

The sale of nothing for an enormous price.

And you may be surprised to know that energy companies do not own the atmosphere.

No one is selling the "atmosphere." It is the selling of indulgences. It is good old fashioned fraud.

Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?

Hard to say, it's all fraud. It's all a means of the well connected using the power of the state to steal from the productive.

A will give B nothing,

C brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.

C bribes A to pass more laws requiring B to buy nothing at very high prices.

In a civil society, this type of corruption is frowned upon. But in the current kleptocracy, it's just the way things are done. The "skeptics" are just Martin Luther nailing the 95-theses to the door of your corrupt church.

AGW is nothing more than a vehicle for fraud and corruption. It's never been more than that. That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met with attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's not even how it works.

That's exactly how it works.

Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.

The sale of nothing for an enormous price.

They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission. A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free. I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.

No one is selling the "atmosphere." It is the selling of indulgences. It is good old fashioned fraud.

The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2. You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.

Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?

Hard to say, it's all fraud. It's all a means of the well connected using the power of the state to steal from the productive.

Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?

A will give B nothing,

C brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.

C bribes A to pass more laws requiring B to buy nothing at very high prices.

In a civil society, this type of corruption is frowned upon. But in the current kleptocracy, it's just the way things are done. The "skeptics" are just Martin Luther nailing the 95-theses to the door of your corrupt church.

AGW is nothing more than a vehicle for fraud and corruption. It's never been more than that.

Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?

That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.

You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?

 

[Trakar]

You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?

That is your game, I am simply relating the understandings and observations of the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue.

The dominant group in the study area as been caught manipulating data and methodology. They are a small group that runs the society where published papers are peer reviewed. In a most unscientific way, they have supressed opposing views.

That is your unsupported delusional conspiracy theory, asserting such does not make it compelling or legitimate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission.

You're selling "bugbear farts." You claim that these have magical properties and only the wise can smell them. Naturally, George Clooney and Matt Damon pontificate about the sweet aroma of the bugbear farts.

That there is no evidence that a bugbear exists is beside the point, the "kool kids" need to show how wise they are, how caring and in-tune, so they smell the farts without question, attacking and snubbing those who would be crass enough to question.

A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Except the first company has to GET the indulgence from somewhere, before the grand game of trading indulgences can commence.

Will Pope Algore the Malfeasant grant special indulgence on the faithful allowing them to exhale? Seeing how it is a carbon sin to breath, and all....

Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free.

Well damn, we can take nothing, and auction it off.

Ain't fraud sweet?

I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.

It will remove trillions from the economy - that's the whole point. You don't set up securities fraud of this magnitude NOT to loot the **** out of the economy...

This is the biggest theft in human history, the well connected ripping off virtually the entire globe. About 2 or 3% of the wealth of the entire world will be given to some very crooked fuckers. Pope Algore and scumbags like Michael Mann are just conmen, convincing the stupid that the ripoff is for their own good. Hey, but you can pat yourself on the back, you're saving the village from the wrath of the volcano god.

The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2.

How original.

I wonder why no one has ever thought to sell an indulgence to allow the masses to sin before this?

You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.

ROFL

Uh-huh....

Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?

Dude, this is a fraud, a scam, the long-con. The same routine has been used repeatedly throughout history. Call it the volcano god, Gaea, or Anthropogenic Global Warming, it's all the same old con. People just don't bother to learn, to look at history. We're always eager to believe the next apocalypse myth, and to rape, murder and pillage in service of the latest myth.

Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?

A good con needs some level of plausibility. One thing that is predictable about the climate is that it's in a constant state of flux. We have had papers on every subject from ice ages to population bombs in the last hundred years. I have a popular science from 1965 that shows the flying cars we would all drive by the year 2000. I was told all through High School that California would be falling into the ocean long before I reached adulthood. Nuclear annihilation was right around the corner. Jimmy Carter told me that the Soviets were vastly superior to us, thus we would inevitably fall to them and must appease as a means of survival.

None of it happened, it was all bullshit speculation. Because people love doomsday. Part of it is ego, we grasp that we are going to die, so how can the world still go on without us? Thus the world must be ending.

The con-men The Algore's and Phil Jones, and those holding their leashes, latch on and use this to manipulate the stupid.

You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?

In my 20's, a Jehovah's witness came to my door to convert me - so that his filthy church could rip me off, since that is the real reason they exist. He went into his silly shpeal. Being young, I foolishly started to debate him, pointing out that they had predicted that Jesus would return in September of 1914, then when it didn't happen, they moved the date, and then came up with the idea that Jesus DID return, but no one noticed. He went into all the dogma points of why I just didn't grasp the wisdom of the fact that Jesus really had returned.

Now I don't argue dogma with fanatics, be they JW's or AGW's. I take the broad view, looking at the scam, the con, not the details of dogma.

No, I won't argue scripture with you, I don't believe your scripture. But I do see your fraud, it's as clear as day, the same fraud that's been used repeatedly for thousands of years.

Luther called you on it, and I'm calling you on it.

 

[Trakar]

Please show how it means anything different.

Higher levels of atmospheric CO2, counteract the other influences of warmer temperatures, additional water and nitrogenous fertilizers, reducing plant growth by roughly 48% (40/84) compared to these same conditions with lower levels of atmospheric CO2.

So hothouses are lies and worthless. lol

You are misreading the paragraph it doesn't say counteract at all. It says, "combined". Talk about poor reading comprehension and skills.

Hothouses only warm the interior environment, they do not manipulate the other factors.

"...But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation – alone or in combination – promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases..."
Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

 

[saveliberty]

So your source had conflicting internal issues. Thanks for playing.

 

[Trakar]

So your source had conflicting internal issues. Thanks for playing.

Nothing internally conflicted in the source, just in your confused misread fail.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, Flat, you do not understand the differance between cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon. Cyclic carbon is carbon that is already in the system, burning do not add it or remove it from the system. Sequestered carbon, in the form of petroleum, natural gas, or coal, is not presently in the system. When you burn it, you add it to the system. Now there are methods to re-sequester that carbon, but they are very expensive, and of doubtful success.

We have added carbon to the system to the point where we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4. We have also added other GHGs, NOx, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as powerful of a GHG as CO2. In reality, we are well past the equivelant of a 450 ppm CO2 level. And we are starting to see the consequences right now.

You know ye Ole Rocks how fond I am of you -- but I'm APPALLED at insistence on defending the indefensible. Biomass for power generation is a dirty environmental mess. It is NOT zero Carbon, just like an EV is NOT zero emissions. But since the EPA can wave a wand and say that the shit that comes out of a BIOMASS incinerator does not stink, you think you can ignore the Sierra Club, ME and other REAL environmentalists and mimic those govt pinheads with all the redefinitions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.

America will do what it has been doing since Reagan and sit on the sidelines with global warming and allow all the other countries like China to develop green energy sources and make all the profits while America uses global warming for nothing but campaign donations. In the mean time our children suffer from air born pollution and become weaker with each new generation all because the people world rather play politically correct instead of responsible free thinkers.

The Sierra Club is a load of geeks, riding their thumbs, on timber and nuker donations. You cannot get the Sierra Club, to advocate re-greening, for that reason. You cannot get Al Gore to support legal pot, since he likes to circle-jerk with wingnuts, for money, and they all will come to the foregone conclusion, to construct nuclear power plants.

Look at all the assholes, who don't know biomass digests CO2, when the plant media grows, and the CO2 is released, when it burns, IF it burns! Hemp makes a lot of food and durable products, in addition to fuels.

I had one wing-nut asshole at another site ask why natural gas isn't CO2-neutral. Coal and petroleum are former plant-matter, so they are like CO2-neutral biomass, but to burn THAT is ridiculous, since it can be stored, for later generations to use, wisely, when people are smarter and they burn petroleum cleaner and less egregiously, if at all.

Petroleum is not clean. Petroleum products like gasoline and pesticides are not for huffing, f-tards. Huffing breaks chromosomes. Got B and G cancer? You have been huffing pesticides and car exhaust. Sorry! Clean up.

Why are we not harvesting hemp and switchgrass, when we need to hedge, against CO2-accumulation, which is so bad, never mind how, carbonic acid can destroy the oceanic food chain? ****-tard the wing-nut and his pals need to write off their petroleum agendas.

The methane releases accelerate, the CO2 releases accelerate, the warming accelerates, and the acidification accelerates. People are letting this happen, even if ****-tard people are not the only or primary source, of the pollution. ****-tard people will reform or die. No TV works, when you break it, me tardies.

You can ignore the majority of REAL environmental groups like the Sierra Club (not lawyers selling stuffed teddy bears) at your peril.. Biomass is NOT carbon neutral, displaces food crops, contributes NOx and SOx in the smokestack, and uses large amounts of other fuels and water to get it to the fire.. If you had a REAL alternative, one you wouldn't mind living right next to --- the fucktards might listen to you....

 

[bobgnote]

You can ignore the majority of REAL environmental groups like the Sierra Club (not lawyers selling stuffed teddy bears) at your peril.. Biomass is NOT carbon neutral, displaces food crops, contributes NOx and SOx in the smokestack, and uses large amounts of other fuels and water to get it to the fire.. If you had a REAL alternative, one you wouldn't mind living right next to --- the fucktards might listen to you....

I let the Sierras go in the 1990s, when a timber guy got on their board, and a lot of pro-nuclear media showed up, in and around the SC.

If YOU have time, to put up with a shitload that asks for money, has nothing to offer, and strokes in a circle with you, go ahead. Hit on the SC. It's for ****-tards, like you. You go for whatever they are selling, FT. I don't.

You are a ****-tard: Coal releases sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, biomass must release some NO2. Your head is far, far up your own ass, claiming SO2 from biomass.

And if we do not re-green, we will have problems, in traffic. I bet you don't drive well.

You don't listen because you are a ****-tard, not from any fault in my logic.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not even how it works.

That's exactly how it works.



The sale of nothing for an enormous price.

They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission. A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free. I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.






The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2. You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.



Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?

A will give B nothing,

C brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.

C bribes A to pass more laws requiring B to buy nothing at very high prices.

In a civil society, this type of corruption is frowned upon. But in the current kleptocracy, it's just the way things are done. The "skeptics" are just Martin Luther nailing the 95-theses to the door of your corrupt church.

AGW is nothing more than a vehicle for fraud and corruption. It's never been more than that.

Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?

That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.

You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?

IMHO -- the sale of credits was a WONDERFUL invention for REAL pollution because you could assess cost to the act of polluting.. Therefore the credits had economic meaning. With CO2 it's different. It's a fertilizer, it's cow farts, it's the fizz in your beer. REAL hard to find the actual transaction cost with something that doesn't cause measurable damage.

Should FARMERS and the soda industry and your Grandmother have to participate in carbon credits? Of course they SHOULD --- but with a wave of baton, the minions of Muldur exempted them from the fray -- giving LESS meaning to the remaining players in the marketplace. Grandma wasn't a huge contributor to NOx and SOx pollution, but we have to have a talk with her about her "carbon footprint"..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You claim that these have magical properties and only the wise can smell them.

Where do I claim that?

Naturally, George Clooney and Matt Damon pontificate about the sweet aroma of the bugbear farts.

Why are you obsessed with celebrity?

That there is no evidence that a bugbear exists is beside the point, the "kool kids" need to show how wise they are, how caring and in-tune, so they smell the farts without question, attacking and snubbing those who would be crass enough to question.

I can see you don't want to be taken seriously. So I won't. Now run along and play.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's exactly how it works.



The sale of nothing for an enormous price.

They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission. A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free. I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.






The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2. You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.



Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?





Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?

That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.

You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?

IMHO -- the sale of credits was a WONDERFUL invention for REAL pollution because you could assess cost to the act of polluting.. Therefore the credits had economic meaning. With CO2 it's different. It's a fertilizer, it's cow farts, it's the fizz in your beer. REAL hard to find the actual transaction cost with something that doesn't cause measurable damage.

Really? What was cost of actual polluting in the case of So2 and NxO emissions?

How accurately must the cost of Co2 emission be pinned down before its worth doing anything about?

What would the cost of you getting cancer or heart disease be to your family? Do you have an exact number? If not, you probably shouldn't worry about trying to not get cancer or heart disease. Unless you can figure out the cost of it in exact economic terms - why worry? Just pretend it doesn't exist. And find a blog that supports your viewpoint.

Should FARMERS and the soda industry and your Grandmother have to participate in carbon credits? Of course they SHOULD --- but with a wave of baton, the minions of Muldur exempted them from the fray -- giving LESS meaning to the remaining players in the marketplace. Grandma wasn't a huge contributor to NOx and SOx pollution, but we have to have a talk with her about her "carbon footprint"..

You're really confusing matters bringing your grandma into the picture. I'd imagine most grannies have relativiely small carbon footprints compared to younger people. What's your point?

 

[flacaltenn]

Grannies with six kids don't have small carbon footprints... They are as bad as a small factory in their carbon footprints.

How do you accurately monetize CO2 emissions if you don't bring in farmers and grannies? Afterall it's population GROWTH that drives the whole CO2 curve in 1st place don't it?

The cost of polluting in terms of NOx and SOx (REAL pollution) was largely felt LOCALLY in terms of health risks, acid rain, etc. Quite EASY to monetize it. Nitric acid rain didn't fall far from the source. So you could view the factory location and geo-limit the damage and pretty much assess the cleanup cost. So to speak..

CO2 only has meaning as a pollutant on a GLOBAL scale. Try to wrap your mind around the bill from Vanuatu for a Printed Circuit Board manufacturer in Santa Clara, CA.

PS --- I know the credits markets are by country. But the damage is GLOBAL (or so you say). So how is the value assessed? Will we be liable someday thru the IPCC for actually writing checks to Vanuatu? If so, the credit market better dam well write that check --- Because the UN ain't gonna stick ME with it..