Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

[FRED]

Or is global warming more of a political than a scientific movement?

We believe there is more politics than science in the global warming debate. Doesn't mean go out and buy a Hummer. The U.S. should have been conserving energy and developing alternatives to fossil fuels over the past 30 years for other reasons: lower the toxicity level of emissions, reduce a major source of global political tension and social injustice, and allow a more gradual transition to alternative energy than we may experience as demand rises in Asia and Africa when reserves are declining.

First in a series.

[Sapiens]

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

[synthesis66]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Humans are incapable of understanding the most simply of things, yet a concept like global warming. Having said that, one must then pose the following litmus test, "Can governments and corporations use the idea to fleece the public?" If so, it's a go.

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Zero carbon Britain in two decades New report outlines radical map of solutions
Contact: Jessa Latona 07704 273 067 (Email: media@cat.org.uk)	Date: 09/07/2007

The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) today released ‘zerocarbonbritain’, a blueprint for Britain to reduce its carbon emissions[1] to zero by 2027. The report draws on CAT's 35 years of experience as well as consultations with world-renowned experts in climate science, climate policy and renewable energy technologies.

zerocarbonbritain outlines a framework of policies to drive the transition to a zero carbon economy. It defines a global carbon budget and identifies an equitable portion for Britain.

Paul Allen, CAT Development Director and co-author said, “zerocarbonbritain is a radical yet pragmatic vision of Britain’s energy future, based on a reading of the most recent science and driven by bold new policies.[2]

“Using only existing and proven technologies, the report maps a potential scenario that could arise from these policies and integrates solutions to the intimately connected issues of climate change, energy security and global equity.

“zerocarbonbritain is scientifically necessary, socially possible and technically achievable - we must now make it politically thinkable.”

Sir John Houghton, former Co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Director General of the UK Met Office said, “The authors of zerocarbonbritain present a time-scale for action that begins now. I commend their imagination (coupled with realism), their integrated view and their sense of urgency, as an inspiration to all who are grappling with the challenge that climate change is bringing to our world.”

Contact: Jessa Latona, Media Officer, 01654 705957 mob 07704 273067


[1] From fossil fuels
[2] The report recommends the adoption of Contraction & Convergence, the global framework for negotiations and management of climate change; administered on a national level, through a system of personal carbon permits (specifically Tradable Energy Quotas, TEQs) in absolute terms over the next 20 years.
http://www.cat.org.uk/index.tmpl?refer=index&init=1


The Report:http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

[Fox]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Although there are many arguments against global warming, there are certainly not put forward in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", at least not the valid ones anyways.

Here's an article about a scientist being mis-quoted to appear being against global warming when in fact he is for it.

and here's another article about another "documentary" by Martin Durkin

but if I can stop the Hearsay and Ad Hominem (the mode du jour for global warming deniers, and riddle through out this first 10minute segment); and address the only facts presented.

Here's a verifiable graph of temperature over the last 2000 years

Notice how the 0C point of this graph is at or above all models for the Medieval warming period. This graph also ends at 2004 and 2005 was hotter still. In either case, a different graph than the one presented in the segment
(Source)

and here's the Holocene temperature

Perhaps a convincing argument can be made with this one, however 'Swindle has clearly chopped off the more recent (and most accurate) data to prove his point.

also here is a review from more noteworthy Global warming skeptics. If you want to be a global warming critic, then review this site. However by taking off on this tagent with Martin Durkin as a reference, Itulip is risking its credibility.

Best to stick with predicting financial doom

[EJ]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

We're not passing judgment on Global Warming or its advocates, we are entirely sympathetic to the objectives of the movement, and we agree with the actions that the Global Warming advocates recommend, but for different reasons, as we list above.

Our credibility is only at risk if we accept conventional wisdom without question. We are old enough to recall the days 30 years ago when it was widely believed that OPEC would keep oil over $100 a barrel forever, 20 years ago that Japan was due to overtake the US economy, and so on. Anyone who made significant investments in line with those popular beliefs lost a lot of money. It is wise to question popular beliefs, especially when evidence abounds to demonstrate the common error of confusing of correlation with causation, in this case climate change and human activity.

We're trying to build an investment thesis here. If the Global Warming theory and the political impetus behind it falls apart in five years after we have made significant related investments because the movement is primarily based on religious and political motives rather than science, then we have not served the interests of our community.

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Our credibility is only at risk if we accept conventional wisdom without question.

I enjoy the questioning and would like to see more of it with a lot of details to support the same. That means get researching and bring as much information material to Itulip as possible and question it until we derive at some cutting edge conclusion.


Regarding the “zero carbon Britain” report http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ima...bonbritain.pdf on page 45 it is my first finding on how payments will be made using TEQ (Tradable Energy Quotas).

3. SURRENDERING CARBON
PERMITS

All fossil fuels are assigned a carbon rating

according to their greenhouse gas or radiative
forcing effect. Whenever an end user purchases
fossil fuels they surrender to the vendor the
corresponding number of carbon permits. This can
be carried out electronically adapting existing
banking technology.
These permits are then returned up the supply line
till they return to the primary producer or importer,
who in turn returns them to the energy policy
committee for accounting purposes. A national
database of all participating citizens will need to be
established.
Although dependant on efficient implementation of
information technology, it should be no more
difficult than managing credit cards or oyster cards.

[Fox]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

We're trying to build an investment thesis here. If the Global Warming theory and the political impetus behind it falls apart in five years after we have made significant related investments because the movement is primarily based on religious and political motives rather than science, then we have not served the interests of our community.

hmm, you have more faith in the global warming movement than I do. As we move into a massive economic upheaval coinciding with a fuel crisis, surely that the Impetus behind the Global warming movement will fall apart is a certainty.

To make significant investments on global warming movement is to bet against the house. The house being the world wide oil, gas, and coal industries, Main stream global commerce, and billions of hungry Asian's, and African's (not to mention cold and soon to be hungry European's, and North American's)

It may be a quick reaction to think that the world is changing because of the hype around the Live Earth concerts. But A quick count of the number of cars in the concert parking lots will show you that talk is a lot cheaper than action (certainly a lot cheaper than a wind farm or even a Prius)

My Global Warming investment advice, buy shares in Air Conditioners, Coal, and suicide booths because that is what we'll need a lot of in the future.

[Tet]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Here's a verifiable graph of temperature over the last 2000 years

I thought this article yesterday in my daily fishwrap was pretty interesting.

Weather station moves add degree of difficulty
Some doubt accuracy of U.S. weather data

By Robert Krier

The nation's weather records, consulted for comparisons whenever it's exceptionally hot, cold, wet or dry, are skewed at the source: weather stations.

That's because nearly all have been moved at one time, and when that happens, consistency goes out the window.
Two years ago, more rain fell on downtown Los Angeles than in any year in city history. It didn't go down as a record.

The city's official weather station had been moved six years earlier – from the top of a building to the grounds of the University of Southern California – as part of a National Weather Service effort to standardize weather stations at ground level. So, although the old station measured 38.32 inches of rain – more than twice the normal amount – and topped a 121-year-old mark by two-tenths of an inch, rainfall at the new station was short of a record.

More at the link
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...n9station.html

Funny stuff, to think that our weather people work numbers and statistics the same way that our BIS folks do for our unemployment rate.

San Diego's weather statistics have been gathered at 12 locations since 1849.

How anyone can conclude they are comparing apples with apples is beyond me. I hear that China is seeding their weather getting ready for the Olympics, how does one compare temperatures and rainfall records when the weather actually is manipulated by man? We live in interesting times, falling for different versions of the same scam over and over. I'm going to warn my children to be on the lookout for the Ice Age scam thirty years from now.

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Fox - My compliments to you for your posts.

You will find it tough sledding (yes it's a feeble pun) on these forum pages to put forward these ideas. The term "limits to growth" although eminently logical, with a global population entering the steeper part of it's exponential curve, is unfortunately tainted by many of it's sillier proponents, who appear to have thoroughly discredited it in the eyes of the I-Tulip majority. Hence the difficulty you encounter to gain unrestrained recognition of the idea.

I've seen some satellite pics (could not dig them up for this post but will try to relocate) of the North Pole with 30 year time-lapse. Others must have seen these also. They are quite scary, with ice shelves the size of half of Wales calving off the main pack.

Time lapse photography from five miles up with a thirty year gap betwee shutters does not lie, but this simple fact seems lost in the debate about "gullibility".

My own sense is that what is at work here amongst the skeptics is the "reverse thesis credibility factor" - i.e. because so many naive and alarmist people have glommed onto the global warming and resource depletion bandwagon, I-Tulip sees this phenomenon and veers unduly towards skepticism as the antidote.

Reality has a wonderful way of confounding the search for truth - this time around, the logical thesis - exponential global population at the vertical end of it's curve is really and truly confounding the skeptics, who will belatedly and very reluctantly climb on board the thesis when the event is already well along and the world is struggling with problems we've literally not ever seen before.

"Not ever seen before" is the automatic red flag to a skeptic. They say "aha! So you are saying "this time it's different"! This leaves you in the unenviable position of saying "Yes, this time it really is different". Charley Maxwell, a petroleum analyst with 45 years in the business, reiterates precisely that - "Yes, this time it really is different" in an article posted elsewhere on these pages. That was regarding oil depletion, to which Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA has just agreed (only days ago!).

This thread should turn the question around. Collect multiple sources of charts evidencing the secular data for mean temperatures, which I agree with Fox, does indeed at very least starkly and clearly suggest global warming, and then work backward from there to examine all known possible causes. CO2 pops right up on the short list. Sunspots? I wonder... It's certainly not a closed question, but this inverted examination method provides a clear causal chain derived from the secular obvseved data as the start point - and the secular data is pretty damn clear.

I-Tulip is leader in this methodology in financial forensics - but if I may suggest, it hesitates on the environmental or resource depletion ones. Maybe there is not enough manpower to really become authorities in more than one admittedly highly complex area (deciphering economic cans of worms, an I-Tulip specialty)

What I would submit to I-Tulip is simply this - to carefully examine their predisposition to eschew popular ideas like "Peak Oil" and "Global Warming" and so verify if the inclination to disbelieve shows a singularity across these related themes. If there is a high level of consistency of skepticism, then the quite natural distaste for the dumbed down popular "movements" is possibly impeding the investigation. I agree, the "popular movements" full of inordinate righteousness really are a pain in the ****.

I submit this with full and due respect for the overwhelming quantity of superb far seeing work this community performs in many other areas.

To become more closely associated with issues which have been unfortunately popularised or "dumbed down" is nothing whatsoever to be concerned about for I-Tulip - this community has already more than established it's credentials. It should consider lending it's weight to ALL the most critical issues of the day.

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

What I would submit to I-Tulip is simply this - to carefully examine their predisposition to eschew popular ideas like "Peak Oil" and "Global Warming"

What I would like to see you submit is a few idea’s in detail for a investment play based on the future of global warming and it’s impact. What new business idea or asset investment would you suggest using Global Warming as a bases?

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Hi Bill,

< What new investments ... for Global Warming? >

I have no idea what you could invest in for global warming. The entire desert swath of poorest countries in the world may face mass desertification if the theory is true, and soaring petrochemicals will nail them on food production even if desertification won't Maybe both will? Are we going to just sit here and watch if we eventually conclude it's occurring?

I know the Europeans (mostly Scandinavians and Germans) lead the way on good EROEI forms of alternative energy. France leads the way on Nuclear. For once, maybe America could 'fall in line' and follow their ideas for a change?.

If we go by the warnings of the EIA, and these old-timer energy analysts, something in this whole general area needs to be done - and maybe done pretty quick. Even the sober minded ones say we should have started something 20 years ago, the crest is maybe breaking right now or extremely soon, and we are going to be fairly well screwed.

All the great, easy investments are in the petroleum and nat. gas patch. PE's are really low, because so few people in the institutional money fully believe this yet. There are some superb, low risk investments lying scattered all around that area.

Moe Gamble has it right - sometime around 2010 - 2012 when the global public finally figures out this is really breaking, there will indeed be the 'Bolshevik moment' as Tet would so dryly describe it, and you'd just want to be out of the markets and hiding under a desk somewhere.

OK, so does I-Tulip give us the go-ahead to all start being really terminally glum, long-faced, unreconstructed doomers now? What fun - everyone gets to be a doomer! Cool!

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

All the great, easy investments are in the petroleum and nat. gas patch. PE's are really low, because so few people in the institutional money fully believe this yet.

Why would you want to invest in a fossil fuel based energy when all the reports I have read regarding global warming is suggesting a non carbon solution?

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Bill -

It has to do with whether you prefer to invest your safe money in venture startup ideas with potentially block buster returns, or in safe cookie cutter ideas within the same generally aggressive growth theme - energy in the 2010's and 2020's.

I like what's going to make me a return with some predictability. I'm not sure if your question was serious or just to draw me out - I'll assume the latter.

Pick the rip-roaring growth sector - energy, and try to select the safest risk adjusted performers within it. I prefer largest, fastest reserve growth mid-caps in petroleum as the safest risk adjusted performers in a terminally declining petroleum market. The petroleum doesn't end, it tapers off, and gets a lot pricier. I'll leave it entirely to others to invest in the new technology venture stuff.

I thought it would be obvious that the Exxon's, the Gazprom's and the Petrochina's of the world are going to "run out of petroleum to sell" long after they've made their investors a ton of returns off of $300 dollar oil. Meanwhile all the alt-energy investments will probably save mankind, but in the process as an investor you are taking on a lot of risk even just tyrying to identify the long run winners.

I'd rather own silver bullion, with huge upside as money printing and credit continues to ramp up globally to cushion economies from the rising cost of energy. It is a slightly speculative play compared to gold, but hugely less speculative than investing in a basket of alt-energy firms in their early years, at least in my view.

[FRED]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?


'No Sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black

BBC Environment Correspondent

Solar flare pictured by Trace (Nasa)
Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.