Going Green: Saving Money And Saving The Planet

Hi Gary

That was a good 10 minutes worth - maybe I should spend some similar time.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing - it usually works in a 1500 year cycle with a smaller sub cycle and we are part way through the current period.

The debate hinges on what contribution man made carbon emissions are contributing to this current cycle and moving the change beyond what happened last time.

I recall that mural graph that Al Gore presented in his video An Inconvenient Truth wher he had two lines - 1 red indicating climate change and the blue line indicating carbon levels - they both tracked each other and both lines verified. What Al Gore failed to appreciate was that the blue line was 400 years behind the red one.

This means that it is the climate change that drives the carbon levels.

The most active element on the globe that absorbs carbon is the sea plancton which takes in tons of carbon and then dies and sinks to the bottom.

The problem is that whales eat this stuff.

My Grandsons solution is to cut down all the forests to make harpoons to kill all the whales - why not ?

Lets hope we get some more opinions on this topic.

Best regards

Mike Testro

I've troubled myself to do 10 mins of research this time, so feel I can be considered an expert in the topic:

1) The inference that eg Venus doesn't have a climate is quite wrong. Also I thought the argument you were proposing was that since Mars is heating up, global warming has nothing to do with a changing climate, but by an external factor such as the sun? This being the case, it wouldn't matter if a planetry body had a climate or not. As it turns out, Neptune does seem to be warming up, but this could easily be down to seasonal changes since it's year is 164 times as long as Earth's.

More importantly, your statement of "fact" that Mars is warming is actually very much in dispute. Can't say for sure if it is or isn't, but it certainly seems that this "fact" is based on a model that " projects forward trends on ... unverified variables"

source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

2. I think I'm going to claim the fact that most experts in the field are advocating climate change as a point scored for my side of the debate rather than yours. It is not true to say that government grants have only gone to those scientists who are pro-climate change. It is true to say that since the scientific consensus was reached many years ago that climate change is real, you'd struggle to find many credible scientists to fund who disagreed with that view.

source: http://www.post-carbon-living.com/TTHW/Documents/Climate_Change_Consensus.pdf

Even the world's foremost climate-change sceptic does agree that it is real, he just thinks it is less of a problem than most. His government funding is now evaporating, by the way.

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-leading-climate-sceptic-sees-his-funding-melt-away-fast-2362056.html

Other than governments (who I see no reason not to assume are inpependant of any vested interests -the occaisional US president with major links to the oil industry aside), the only other major funding source I am aware of is the Oil & Power industries. It's fair to say they have a vested interest in climate change denial.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7538934/Oil-conglomerate-secretly-funds-climate-change-deniers.html

3. Man-made flurocarbons creating a whole in the ozone layer is to me also a climate change issue, but if you want to stick just to the greenhouse gases / global warming debate, then fine.

4. So the governments are abusing their power by being part of the con? I ask again what is in it for them?

To reply to your comments:

5. "How many researchers proving climate change have had their data debunked?"

I'm sure there are some, but I'm not aware of any -Perhaps you are refering to the scandal of the UEA's Climatic Research Unit doctoring a graph? The research they did and the raw data they collected was repeated by other independant scienetists and found to be valid. There were various governemnt reviews both in UK and US, all of which found the research to be valid.

Source  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Of course since there is a scientific consensus that climate change is real, you could make a fairly strong case for saying all the researchers disproving climate change have had their data debunked...

6 "What happened to global warming" I'm not sure what your evidence-base is here, but the globe is still warming.

source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

7 "what sort of rational person puts any faith in a computer model that projects forward trends on multiple unverified variables"

What are these unverified variables you speak of? The trend in global temperatures since accurate records have been taken? verifyable.  The correlation between this trend in increasing temperature, and the qty of greenhouse gassses emmitted by mankind? veryifyable. The drop in the Sun's energy output over the same period? verifyable.

My final, summarising point is this:

What's more likely:

a) Virtually all of the scientists in the field, and virtually all the governmental bodies that have investigated the matter, are part of a giant evil conspircacy to convince the world they must stop emmitting greenhouse gases. A conspiracy that, if sucessfull, would benefit these governments in ways which are not currently understood (at least by me)

b) Climate change is real and man-made.

Hi Gary

On behalf of my Grandson who is at school today.

Your points 1 - 4

1. You need a climate before any change can happen

2. There are more researchers advocating climate change working on government grants than scpeptics trying to bring reason to the debate. How many researchers proving climate change have had their data debunked?

3. Holes in the ozone layer come and go - nothing to do with climate change but flourocarbons.

4. Kudos to the local electors who HAVE been conned - what is the point of having power if you can't abuse it.

And another point - what happened to "Global Warming"? since the world is not now warming up at the projected rate it is now "Climate Change" - changing from what to what?

And one more - what sort of rational person puts any faith in a computer model that projects forward trends on multiple unverified variables.

If I put that sort of projection into a delay analysis I would be laughed out of court.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mike, a few of questions for you or your grandson:

1) Is Neptune warming at the same rate as Earth? How about the Moon? Mercury? Venus?

2) Compare all those with a vested interest in climate change being true to all those with a vested interest in climate change being false. -Which side has the most money, power, influence, and hence capability for perpetuating a gigantic world con?

3) Is there a "hole" in the Ozone layer? Is the size of this "hole" changing over time? Does the Ozone layer play a significant role in our climate? Is there a "hole" in Mars' Ozone layer?

4) Have all the governments which signed up to the Kyoto agreement been conned, or are they part of the con? If the latter, what's in it for them?

Cheers,

G

Hi Colin

Climate change is a big worldwide con to spread panic and generate income for fixed agenda groups.

Mars is warming at the same rate as Earth - fact. How many 4x4 gas guzzlers are there on Mars?

OK bring on the shout down - I will set my 15 year old grandson onto you.

Best regards

Mike Testro