The Political Economics of "Global Warming"

[johnuk]

hmmm - the consensus is that man is changing the climate of the planet, per the EPA:

As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “likely” to “uncertain.”

What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

What are the consequences of this? That is debated, but it does not look good.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Sir Nicholas Stern for the British government, which discusses the effect of climate change and global warming on the world economy. Although not the first economic report on global warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.[1]

Its main conclusions are that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested a year in order avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be. Stern’s report[2] suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, and it provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. He stated that "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

There is disagreement between scientists on the precise mechanics and consequences of global warming - but the principles are accepted by almost all, the likely consequences are not exactly known but they are certainly not good......

[svend]

CO2 is converted by plants into O2, humans breath out CO2 as well as every other mammal on earth. it has been brought out the the current warming is by the sun. We have no control over what energy our sun produces and send out in the form of solar radiation. But we can see the effects of the sun on other planets as well as our planet. Not brought out in any of these replies is the fact that one volcano in a single eruption can send up as much sulfric acid and CO2, ash and other chemicals into the upper astmosphere as man has in the last 100 yrs. Also these chemicals are high enough to interact with the ozone layer and will stay up for 3 years or more. I know in the last year we have had more than 1 major volcanic eruption.

[Abba'sLil'Girl]

hmmm - the consensus is that man is changing the climate of the planet, per the EPA:



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html



This study from the EPA was done in 2001. "Consensus" has changed since then as new data seems to refute the claims of environmentalists.

Let's look again at what the EPA "knows" . . .


Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


Not one of these data points "connects the dots". It simply states that we have seen CO2 rise as well as a minimal increase in temperatures, and that CO2 levels will probably continue to rise given the fact that it remains in the atmosphere for long periods of time. Yet, this doesn't tie CO2 to temperature change, and it certainly doesn't equate to a "global warming catastrophic emergency." In fact, new studies show that temperature may affect the rise in CO2 levels, not vice versa (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en). Keep in mind, we're not debating that CO2 has risen. We're debating whether or not it is the sole cause of global warming and more importantly what the real political agenda behind the issue is.


Read what NOAA had to say in their 2005 report regarding CO2 levels:

A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate experts.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/31/ups-and-downs-redux/

Let's look at a report that appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics regarding CO2 and its relation to temperatures (Note: The article was produced by Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China):

“Despite the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 concentration, the components IMF2, IMF3 and IMF4 of global temperature changes are all in falling” and that “the effect of greenhouse warming is deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate change in the coming 20 years. Consequently, we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”

Furthermore . . . “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling, however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/

As for what to do to reduce CO2, consider a report by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They show that there is a slow rise in the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase (although it is barely significant over the past 25 years). Cutting back on emissions doesn’t result in much of a slowdown in the rate of atmospheric CO2 build-up.


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/04/10/dialing-in-your-own-climate/

So, if recent data shows that cutting back on CO2 wouldn't even scratch the surface in combatting "man-made global warming", then, what's the real reason behind the global warming agenda?

The following link is to a documentary that gives a vast amount of scientific information that dispels "man-made global warming". Please take a look at it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

I really think everyone should view this documentary. It enlightening to say the least.

[Widowsmyte]

johnuk:

You are being duped. Good stewards is a must, but what is being thrown at you is JUNK science. CO2 is a "by-product" of global warming NOT the cause.

I will post a very interesting video later tonight... please watch it.

Thanx and God-bless your caring good-steward heart!!!!

[Widowsmyte]

Hello Johnuk:

If you are from England, then my link (as promised) will be a bit ironic indeed.

So, as you hunker down in the lounge --- use the following:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

It is from Britain's 4 documentary program.

It is on Google Video -- use The Great Global Warming Hoax [in your search].

It pops up right away and comes in nine parts - each about 8 or 9 minutes each. WATCH IT ALL.

You are required to do due diligence and not simply sit back, accept "man's words" as being all you need -and then condemn.

I always find it MOST intriguing [when] Christians are buying into "concensus science" (there is NO such thing in science) that says MAN is capable of destroying God's created Earth! REALLY? HOW sloppy of God NOT TO PLAN AHEAD VERY WELL and have an earth capable of handling SO MANY HUMANS IN a world that is industrious. What WAS He thinking? Must've caught Him COMPLETELY unawares!!!

Hmmmm now that I think of it... what ELSE did He not make the appropriate planning for????

(Tongue lovingly & firmly in cheek, but you have to admit... do you see anywhere in scriptures where the "X"ths seal judgment or Trumpet judgement or Bowl judgement says, "and I heard a loud _____ and a voice saying; 'Pour out the CO2 so that a 1/3rd of the earth shall burn up, the leaves turning...

When this happens there will be NO confusion as to who is "globally warming" our environment -and- it WON'T be man.

[phew! I'm done... time to get off my soapbox]

[Widowsmyte]

Oops! ALG:

Sorry! I just now finished your longer post and see you already got there.

Nice job! I'll just.... go.... back.... to...sleep...now-w-w-z-z-z-z

Humbly yours - widowsmyte

[Widowsmyte]

Dear ALG:

Two other "simple" ways to ponder the "raging debate"....

Try a little experiment at home:

Put as many icecubes you can into a glass.
Fill the glass to the very brim.
Let the ice melt...

And then tell me -- how much water overflowed the glass?

Yup, you got it... NONE. That is because water's ice is unique [in that] it expands in the solid phase and contracts in the liquid. It is LESS dense hence, melting polar ice will NOT make the seas rise anymore than your glass over-flowed.

And item #2: How is it [that] these GREAT scientists who "debate" the amount of CO2 there is in the atmosphere when these SAME scientists CANNOT tell you how much RAIN falls on the planet on any given day?! They are "dead-certain" when it comes to invisible, tastless, amorphous CO2, but cannot determine water droplets. Hmmmm... someone's technique is lacking me thinks.

Humbly yours

[Abba'sLil'Girl]

Dear ALG:

Two other "simple" ways to ponder the "raging debate"....

Try a little experiment at home:

Put as many icecubes you can into a glass.
Fill the glass to the very brim.
Let the ice melt...

And then tell me -- how much water overflowed the glass?



Did the experiment. . . didn't work. Um, I ended up eating the ice. Sorry. :tinfoil

:gtongue

One of the most interesting parts of the Brit doc is where they show satellite pictures over the last decade or so where we can see the poles naturally expanding and contracting. Seeing as I live on the coast somewhere in the USA and did not experience any catastrophic flooding, then . . . I think I'll be okay. :yay

Best regards,

[svend]

Same thing with the polar ice, the weight of the ice is already pressing on the ocean water. as the ice melts well the water will actually drop. Another point is during the 1800's (i'll try and find this link) one of the early explorers of Austrailia mapped the high tides over a period of time and set a bench mark in the coral to mark the highest tide. this bench mark is still there and well it still marks the high tides.

[Inprayer]

Aside from the "scientists" that are bought and paid for by the fossil fuels industry there is no serious debate about global warming among scientists.

The world is warming as a result of mankind - the question is what are we going to do about it?

Actually there are lots of independent scientists who disagree on this issue. In fact there is a growing consensus that Global Warming is being caused by variations in the suns temperature.