dblboggie answers some climate questions

Copied this over from "next door" seeing as few of us seem to be visiting there any more. I've made some modifications and clarifications here.

dblboggie wrote:But me, I need more than compelling. Compelling is not proof.

But you do not understand how science works, it is founded on doubt like that. Even when something is blindingly obvious, there is still an element of "on the basis of current evidence and understanding..."

dblboggie wrote:with absolutely no challenge from the mainstream media, then I think it’s safe to say that the political class have an agenda that is less than honest or noble.

Once again... when did I ever claim to give a crap what the media says? I have often criticised the role the media plays in damaging the cause of this very serious issue. The right wing likes to pretend there is parity, the left wing blows the evidence out of proportion.

dblboggie wrote:And I am saying this in all sincerity, sincerity as real as yours. I have studied and worked in the political arena for many, many years. Just as you have made an assiduous study of AGW, so have I made an assiduous study of politics and history, as well as having the advantage of actually working in the center of politics in this country gaining personal, hands-on experience. I should hope that you would grant me that as well.

Of course I do, but you are not a scientist and have only the slimmest grasp of how it works and climate change is a scientific issue. I'm not saying that to piss you off, it is quite clear by how you address this issue that you are not scientifically astute and seemingly, you have no great desire to be so.

dblboggie wrote:it is valid observation born of long experience in politics and a good knowledge of history and human nature.

And I feel the issue you keep avoiding is the one I keep trying to drag you back to: that human nature and history shows our capacity to do ourselves damage and to appeal to external forces when a simple change of lifestyle would suffice. So many societies have collapsed through over-irrigation, chopping down too many trees, building houses in the wrong areas, refusing to adapt to particularly hot or cold climates. We would rather build another church, sacrifice a goat or execute non-conformists. And it is a mistake we keep making, we will never learn.

dblboggie wrote:Finally, I want you to know that while we may vehemently disagree on various issues, and we might trade the odd barbed comments with one another in jest or no, that I do indeed respect you and would sit down and have a pint with you in a heartbeat.

I'll hold you to that some day

dblboggie wrote:After all, I could be completely wrong about warming and its source. Stranger things have happened. But I am extremely certain that the political agenda is what I say it is and will not fix warming in the slightest.

Despite this parody that exists about me, constructed by certain others who no longer get one iota of attention from me, I am more than willing to concede that I am wrong about a great many things. But you must provide compelling arguments and sound evidence. Too often on this board the only "arguments" that are provided by evolution deniers, climate change deniers and general anti-science snobs when broken down could be loosely places into the following categories:
* Veiled threats (believe in god or else)
* Appeals to conspiracy (on climate change and evolution for e.g.)
* "Stop victimising me"
* Argument from personal ignorance
* Outright lying

I know I can be quite intense sometimes, I wouldn't deny that, but I tend to get angry at what I perceive to be a lot of dishonesty with certain posters next door, the idea that the end always justifies the means. Such people usually get the most scathing responses. I know it isn't right, but I despise dishonesty. People can accuse me of a lot of things, but I don't feel that dishonesty is one of them so when I get annoyed with you, or others, it is usually because I feel you (or they) are being less than honest in debates. And especially with you, you keep repeating the same flawed arguments that I have researched and provided you with detailed explanations. You accused me in another thread of ignoring some of your points, I feel you do it to me all the time and simply repeat what you said before only with MORE CAPS.

It seems then, that you are ignoring qualified explanations (because I post almost entirely data from academic sources) while never seeing why you ought to be backing up your claims. A lot of people with whom I disagreed next door are guilty of that, demanding I back up my every claim while they will rarely if ever back up their own. See the disparity here? Understand why I get annoyed?

dblboggie wrote:Actually, I am not taking anyone’s arguments on faith. That there are credible scientists out there who disagree with the AGW alarmists is enough for me to fight against the agenda of those who are taking one side of this debate – the side that conveniently gives politicians an excuse to tax and restrict fundamental freedoms.

Over 90% of active climate researchers accept the human impact. That number only increases the more qualified they are.

Survey from 2009: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Survey from 2010: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

dblboggie wrote:That there is legitimate debate amongst credible scientists as to the actual cause of warming is enough to give me immediate pause when I consider the political consequences being proposed by the political class

But there isn't, not as much as the right wing press claims.

dblboggie wrote:consequences with very real negative impacts on everyone right now, and not 100 years from now. If the scientists can’t agree on the thing, then that’s all I need to examine the other side of this equation – the political side. You could say we have +AGW/-AGW = P . As long as there are disagreements between the AGW's they cancel each other out; that leaves P all by itself as the big concern because politicians are almost uniformly for the AGW alarmists.

Read those surveys and then think about what you posted here.

dblboggie wrote:But that does not, in my mind, justify the sort of raw power grab being proposed by our politicians. The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that politicians have seized upon the AGW issue to effect massive and unconstitutional usurpations of our liberties that will do nothing to actually ameliorate mankind’s alleged contributions to warming.

No it doesn't, but that doesn't make the science a MYTH and SCAM and other adjectives you choose to use because of it.

dblboggie wrote:Or is there someone out there like that that I haven’t heard of? (Which is possible as I just don’t devote much if any time to studying “AGW” because I am convinced that the real aim of these studies – and why governments fund them - is the forwarding of a purely political agenda having nothing to do with the environment.)

If there ever is one, I would be sure to post it.

dblboggie wrote:but I tend to blow it off once I’ve hit my “seems to suggest” quota.

As I have said before, that is because of how science works. It leaves room for maneouvre, room for debate and issues for the critics to quibble over.

dblboggie wrote:That, and so much of the work is so derivative it’s not funny. It’s like trying to piece together some massive jigsaw puzzle. One paper will have various bits relying of several other papers, and calculations based on findings on others works, whose works were derivatives of others work ad infinitum. It’s like it never ends. How does one check out all the works referenced without going slightly crazy?

Well I would agree there, but it all depends on how the journal prefers papers to be formatted. Some expect no more than 1000 words, which means no actual discussion of data outside of your own paper while providing references to all of your sources. But you learn to cope with it, and you have to when writing your own work, because you can't reference and read everything. Scientists rarely make their work penetrable for the general population, but many take pride in adapting their writing style for a wide audience, even if a wide audience will never actually read it.

dblboggie wrote:Well, for one President Obama; for two, his former “green energy czar” Van Jones (whose appointment tells one volumes about Obama’s agenda), among many others in his Cabinet and in Congress.

Neither are scientists, and their opinions on the matter are no good reason to be dismissing it.

dblboggie wrote:That “piece of paper” as you so disrespectfully put it,

Pause there... assuming your offence is real, please remember this conversation every time you make sweeping generalisations about Europe... every time you look at our political systems with pompous derision in your heart, every time you use the term "social democracy" with utter contempt, every time in ignorance you refer to every other political system as "soft tyranny". It cuts both ways. But now we are in Tex's forum, let's make a new start... I feel we already have.

dblboggie wrote:That “piece of paper” is NOT just a piece of paper… it is an idea and an ideal – and what it has wrought is unprecedented in history.

I disagree. All of our countries have had pieces of paper that we have held sacrosanct to our way of life at some point in our past that made us think our country or our empire was unique and would last forever because of this very special piece of paper. They were wrong because eventually, the clauses therein became damaging to society. What makes you think yours is any more special?

The US is a young country and you have not had to face up to the inadequacies of your Constitution in the way that much older nations have done. We had Magna Carta in 1215, used to limit the power of the king and give freemen certain rights and protection from the crown. Within two hundred years, elements were starting to become counterproductive to changing society and it couldn't keep up. Today, some elements are still enshrined in our laws but most of it is now irrelevant. Now, you might think that the uniqueness of your Constitution sets is apart from Magna Carta and that it will outlive any cataclysmic change to society. But then, your Constitution hasn't yet had to survive something as cataclysmic as The Black Death, has it?

Take as much offence as you like, but history will prove me right. I also notice that you did not answer the question over whether this piece of paper is more sacrosanct than a single human life.

dblboggie wrote:What is that to an atheist? Why all the concern?

Why is that relevant? I don't want the human race to become extinct and I don't want the world poisoned for my children and their children because this generation was too selfish and too greedy to do anything about it.

dblboggie wrote:Why should we sacrifice our liberty, our pleasures, all in the name of “saving the earth” when none of it matters anyway?

To an agnostic with Christian sympathies such as yourself, living in a country that is so-say built on Christian values, do you not feel any responsibility of stewardship toward this planet? And isn't avarice supposed to be a sin?

dblboggie wrote:Don’t you see? There are scientists on the side of AGW and scientists who refute AGW.

3%. Why do you have so much faith in this 3% that you do not trust the 97% when you openly admit to not understanding either what the 97% or the 3% are saying?

dblboggie wrote:Their conclusions are always couched in equivocal terms that seem more designed toward CYA (cover your ass) purposes than scientific purposes.

How do you know that when you admit to being scientifically limited? Is this just a case of you allowing your prejudices to fuel your better judgement?

dblboggie wrote:And most of the scientists supporting AGW are being paid by governments or universities with government grants to study AGW.

And the 3% are not?!

dblboggie wrote:The IPCC is a political body,

Advised by scientists.

dblboggie wrote:a part of the U.N., which is an organization that is not a fan of the U.S. by a long shot.

Give me a break and drop the victim act.

dblboggie wrote:So why should I put my trust in these people with so much on the line?

Why should you put your trust in the 3% of fringe writers?

dblboggie wrote:It is not the scientists who are suggesting the political solutions. It is the POLITICIANS! And they are very definitely out to “get” me and the rest of our citizens. And it is not paranoia if they really are out to get you. :giggle:

So how do you cope with the cognitive disonance of denying scientific reality based on the actions of politicians? Furthermore, how do you cope with the cognitive disonance of denying data you admit to not understanding... and accepting the 3% you do not understand over the 97% you do not understand? Can you explain that to me?

dblboggie wrote:is that under our Constitution and founding documents, ALL men were created equal with inalienable rights granted by our “creator” and that eventually, our founding documents promise prevailed and slavery was in fact abolished.

Tell me, how long after that Constitution was written were "negros" actually given freedom? Wasn't it about 100 years?

But you are missing my point on slavery. This is about market demand and government interference. You mean to tell me that slavery was abandoned because the market deemed it no longer viable as an industry? Not because the government decided it needed to end for humanity's sake? Do you feel "tyrannised" that your government some 150 years ago eradicated slavery?

dblboggie wrote:No one, but that misses the point doesn’t it?

No it doesn't. You keep pointing to natural changes in climate as though:
a) I ever claimed otherwise
b) Any climate researcher on any side of the debate ever said otherwise
c) You have a clear mechanism for that warming

dblboggie wrote:Or perhaps they just needed to plant trees to replace those they were cutting down, no? Trees are a renewable resource after all.

Yes they are, and look how difficult it was to get that to happen in the 1980s when we started to realise what a serious problem climate change was going to be.

dblboggie wrote:“Slight change” my ass.

The bigger the problem, the bigger the change needed. The more urgent the problem, the more urgent the need to stop talking and actually do something.

dblboggie wrote:Then why are there scientists who say it’s cooling?

For instance, I once referenced an article from a 2007 issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics titled “Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.”

Temperatures are climbing across the globe. Did you read the paper? I did, this is about tracing natural trends, i.e. omitting data for CO2 rises, showing that as I have stated time and again we should be in a cooling phase right now but we are not because of greenhouse gases. Context is everything. The sun is cooling yet the planet is still warming.

dblboggie wrote:I thought we were still getting warmer? So which is it? Are we getting warmer right now or cooler? Which scientists do I “believe,” the ones saying it’s getting warmer or the ones saying it is getting cooler?

Don't be obtuse. There are two factors at work here, the natural cooling of the sun in decline of its phase and the warming of greenhouse gases. I mean, I'm not artist but look at this simple example and tell me precisely what you disagree with.

dblboggie wrote:I have pointed to the fact that AGW models seem to completely ignore water vapor.

Because vapour is an effect, not a cause, of warming. So if vapour is increasing, it cannot self-evaporate without a warming mechanism.

dblboggie wrote:And it is known that when warmer, the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Well no. The oceans are becoming quite acidic at the increase in CO2.

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf

dblboggie wrote:It’s just funny that CO2, a substance that all energy production (natural and manmade) emits and that all living creatures emit, as well as all decaying matter, and of course our oceans, was “found” to be the culprit; and only that CO2 being produced by man; which is a small fraction of a small fraction of atmospheric “green house” gases. It was the US Dept of Energy itself who determined that of the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, man contributes just 3.207%. The other 96.793% of atmospheric CO2 is not created by man. And yet I’m supposed to believe that that tiny amount of CO2 produced by man is somehow completely wrecking our global climate.

You have always pointed to the benefit of increased CO2 yet read these as food for thought:

Rubisco activase constrains the photosynthetic potential of leaves at high temperature and CO2
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations

dblboggie wrote:Then why do I keep seeing scientists saying that it is in fact cooling and that we are heading for a 30 year cooling period?

I would suggest you are misunderstanding what they are saying. Many say that the sun is cooling as it is at the end of a cycle, and will start warming again. The fact that this planet is warming anyway suggests another mechanism. Seeing as you deny scientific reality of CO2, perhaps you have another answer?

dblboggie wrote:But what is that relationship? Which causes which?

CO2 causes temperature rises. We call it "The Greenhouse Effect" for a reason.

dblboggie wrote:Discerning scientists disagree.

3%

dblboggie wrote:For crying out loud! It is only “very likely” that the 1990’s was the warmest decade since 1861??? Who are these clowns?

Based on current available evidence. As I said, scientists don't deal in absolutes, they leave that to the religious lobby.

dblboggie wrote:You’ve ignored the scaremongering being shouted from every media and political mountaintop in the Western world claiming calamitous events, the near destruction of planet earth itself if mankind doesn’t stop producing the life-giving substance we call CO2 and they call a “pollutant,” is that it?

Yes I do ignore the media. I'm concerned only about the science.

dblboggie wrote:For crying out loud Matt, you are an educated person with a decent grasp on world history, how could anything be more obvious?

I fail to see what my qualifications in history have to do with this scientific issue; besides my advanced degree is in an environmental science. Why must I keep asking for examples and why do you keep failing to provide them? As I keep saying to you, the lessons we truly fail to learn from history is the idea that we should change our lifestyle to avoid destructive behaviour. But we do not. We keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We sacrifice a goat to appease the spirits when all we need do is stop overirrigation. You are walking blindly into this all over again in the name of putting your society above humanity.

dblboggie wrote:the very government you so adore and trust to do right by you.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

dblboggie wrote:And if you think that the “ballot box” is giving you some measure of protection against that greed, then you are more naïve than I would have thought.

At least we can vote bad governments out. I feel that your problem in the US is that you have a two party system with no major third party, no small parties to win single seats and few if any independents, but that is for another debate entirely.

dblboggie wrote:and I do not wish to see it destroyed just because someone “believes” that “AGW” poses a massive threat to mankind sometime within the next 100 years or so.

Over here we have a saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Far too busy navel gazing over your supposed "freedoms" that you are prepared to let the world burn just so you can preserve them.

Imagine this scenario. There is an asteroid coming toward the earth. It will hit us in about 18 months. The only way we can destroy it is to build some futuristic superweapon in three parts. The first part will be built in Sweden, the second part in eastern Russia and the final part in some northern US state. Now, would you quibble over your freedoms not to let the government build this if the state involved doesn't want it on their land? Would you quibble over the rest of the world not telling "mighty America" what to do? Would you rather die to protect the freedoms, despite the sense of urgency and despite the fact when you are dead your "freedoms" will mean shit?

dblboggie wrote:How the hell could anyone “trust” a government that would do something like that?

I'm not asking you to trust your government, I'm asking you to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus and not to go looking for snippets to misrepresent, or champion fringe writers because they appeal to your prejudices. And despite your suggestion to the contrary above, neither do I trust mine particularly. Well, I find our coalition slightly more trustworthy than the outgoing Zanu-Labour government but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do or trust their motives on everything.

dblboggie wrote:That the CO2 we are producing is going to kill earth? Really?

It already is damaging our environment.

dblboggie wrote:And that “minor change” you keep referring to, what is that? Stop producing energy? Use more biofuels? Hey, I got a news flash for you, biofuels produce CO2 when burned!

No, cutting CO2 emissions and sticking to those targets.

dblboggie wrote:Look, I don’t need to debate science,

Perhaps you should instead of listening to the Rush Limbaughs of this world. People like that are clearly only interested in appealing to people's prejudices. He has no scientific training, and his insistence on liberal conspiracies means that I think you ought to know better than to listen to him.

dblboggie wrote:What you and Bubbles seem to be willing to ignore is the blatant political agenda of politicians who would exploit the issue for their own personal gain (power and money).

Because you are denying scientific reality in the name of your supposed freedoms. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

dblboggie wrote:So you think that this little bit of predicted warming (not the scary Al Gore global Armageddon version) and sea rise is going to prevent all future generations from producing food ever again?

No, but crop yields are going to drop all over the world for a variety of different reasons, particularly in areas that already have a marginal landscape. Furthermore, climate change is having a devastating impact on our insect pollinators, particularly honeybees. They are responsible for 40-50% of our annual food production.

dblboggie wrote:Really? You believe that AGW threatens the worlds populations, even though in the not so distant past mankind survived quite handily in climates even warmer than today’s? Is that your contention?

What not so distant past would that be then?

dblboggie wrote:And who says a warmer climate is going to “screw up the planet” for crying out loud?

As shown in the paper above and many more like it, crop yields are already dropping.

Look at this list of positives and negatives by a qualified person actively reading climate science today. His blog is very good, I urge you to read answers to the common arguments that you post.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

dblboggie wrote:and you think they are going to stop in the name of “AGW?” Riiiiiiiight.

Well I was wrong about China, I put my hand up to that one. They have recently reneged on agreements to cut emissions and burning fossil fuels.

India on the other hand is taking the issue seriously in setting up their own scientific body to monitor glaciers in the Himalayas and establishing targets and standards for their industries.

dblboggie wrote:The part where we somehow come up with an average from something that is constantly changing over the entire sphere we call earth. Who is doing the measurements? What are they using for those measurements? What exactly are they measuring? When are they measuring it? Are those measurements distributed uniformly throughout the world? What governments are making these measurements? There are so many things to consider with something involving the entire planet it’s not funny. And yet you seem to be quite content with “global averages” obtained who knows how. And with all that measuring we get statements like "it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade." I am not impressed in the slightest.

Right, okay. Scientists don't really know what they are doing. If you actually read any actual papers on climate change, and more specifically global average temperature, the papers explain all of that.

dblboggie wrote:I’ve said before that there are credible scientists who assert that it is the rising temperature that causes CO2 to increase.

3%

Please read those two surveys.

dblboggie wrote:After all, in warmer weather bodies of water release more CO2 into the atmosphere. So who is to say with any degree of certainty just what that relationship is?

No, see above that the increasing temperature is making the oceans more acidic.

dblboggie wrote:No, it is about the oft used device of saying the sky is falling and we must act now (said act being something that favors governments over the governed) and then placing that “global calamity” so far in the future that when the calamity fails to materialize a century later, no one will remember why those crazy laws were passed.

No, you are missing my point that the scientific community did not warm us about global cooling in the first place and they are warning us about global warming now.

dblboggie wrote:So, care to take another crack at this point? You know... the one I actually meant to make?

Not avoiding anything. You rambled on again about tyranny. Apparently, laws were passed to prevent global cooling that you think was predicted in the 1970s. Well, science never predicted it and what laws are you referring to anyway?

dblboggie wrote:For crying out loud Matt, on the one hand you are beating up corporations and on the other you are condoning (or just honestly don’t see) the very sort of activities by politicians that many corporations will gladly capitalize on.

Okay ummm... "oil is going to run out eventually"? Could I put it in more simple terms to justify why Shell and BP are investing future fuels?

dblboggie wrote:I would submit that it is Exxon Mobil doing the honorable thing by not buying into the hype and sideling up to the government trough to get their fill of government cash. But that’s just me.

And the end always justifies the means for you? I thought better of you than that.

dblboggie wrote:Besides, what citation do you have to support this allegation that Exxon Mobil is funding “right wing” pressure groups?

Nobody really, just the Royal Academy of Sciences. I've posted the page for you numerous times.

dblboggie wrote:I would advise them to fund “right wing” pressure groups to torpedo this suicidal “cap-and-trade” legislation that would cripple not just Exxon, but anyone producing anything requiring the use of energy.

I guess scientific integrity is of no concern to you. Well, to me it is. Once again, the end always justifies the means.

dblboggie wrote:Drinking too much water can kill you too – so can too much oxygen – so can too much of ANYTHING! So what? Who says we have too much CO2 in the air?

The science says so but I guess you don't need to debate that? The point is, there is too much of it in the air now and I have posted articles showing you the damage it is doing yet you keep repeated this myth. It is not the panacea the scientifically illiterate right wing bloggers pretend it is.

dblboggie wrote:We’ve had much higher levels in the past, right?

Not in human civilisation, no.

dblboggie wrote:So who makes the decision about how much is too much? And when we had that “too much” CO2 in the past (long before man’s industrial output), how did our ecosphere bring it down?

Damaging the environment now isn't enough for you? You want to see considerable and irreversible damage before you accept that?

dblboggie wrote:As for “biofuels,” they have been in use since, well, forever

Of course they have, and these resources haven't gone away, so why carry on using damaging fossil fuels when we have the capacity to harness them in an efficient manner?

dblboggie wrote:And the “green” movement has done everything in their power to block the use of this energy source in the U.S. for decades.

As you may know, I personally have no problem with nuclear, especially the investment in fusion power. As I have also said in the past, I do not trust the green lobby (Greenpeace etc) so why you keep lumping me in with them I cannot fathom. And bearing in mind my formal qualification in an environmental science I find it even more bizarre.

dblboggie wrote:So please, tell me, what is the exact “technology” that this “green revolution” has produced that makes it the next “industrial revolution” or the next “information technology” revolution?

What makes you think that any of those things were entirely new? What makes you think that those revolutions were not built on technology and concepts that already existed, only done more efficiently?

dblboggie wrote:And you can be sure that the “green” movement will find reasons to oppose that sort of growth as well (if they haven’t already).

I fail to see your point? Is this just about airing your prejudice against "liberals" now? Because that is a childish reason to deny science, because some green campaigners just want to make a lot of noise.

dblboggie wrote:I don’t think we should purposely despoil our environment, but I also think that the “green” movement and the political class have taken the issue way, way, overboard.

In some ways I agree, but that is no good reason to deny scientific reality because you don't like "liberals".

dblboggie wrote:A reasonable person could easily conclude that another agenda is afoot that has nothing to do with either the environment or energy production, would you not agree?

To an extent yes, but the point I keep trying to hammer home is that the science is clear. I have given you papers to read on this, the damage that we are doing now at a point where we can still do something about it.

dblboggie wrote:Go ahead, google it. Read for yourself. Don’t take my word for it (as if you would). Spain’s “green job” economy has been a complete and utter bust in every way.

Spain has always had one of the weakest economies in the EU anyway. I fail to see why you think Spain should be the benchmark for how any future fuels programme is naturally going to end up, or why you think their investment in green technology is the cause of their dilemma.

dblboggie wrote:This is just not sound economics, period.

But that has nothing to do with the scientific argument.

dblboggie wrote:but environmental extremists, “green” wackos and progressives in our government are making sure that we are not allowed to get at those resources.

Oh, I wonder why?

dblboggie wrote:So what does that tell you about their real agenda?

It tells me that you keep avoiding the scientific issues on this. Burning fossil fuels is damaging our environment. Is it any wonder they are opposing increasing output exponentially until it does run out?

But I guess if the 3% of fringe climate scientists talks to you and the 97% are "green wackos" then knock yourself out with the false assumptions. All you are interested in is looking for articles that presuppose your prejudices.

dblboggie wrote:I don’t know how much more obvious a thing could be.

And I don't know how much more obvious the science can be so I guess we are at a deadlock

dblboggie wrote:See above on Shell and BP. Of course they “want” it... just like they want that government money.

I cannot see that they are making enough money from the government to be investing as much as they are and taking on as many graduates as they are in those sectors and investing so much in R&D.

dblboggie wrote:And who is to say that oil is that finite? Does not the process which created oil in the first place still continue to this day? Is there some evidence that this process has suddenly halted?

Do you know how long it takes for that process of fossilisation to occur on those levels? We could never forcibly create enough to fulfill our current demand anyway.

dblboggie wrote:then you can be sure there will have been a serious hunt for the next big thing – and that hunt will have ensued long before supply is exhausted

Bearing in mind that most oil companies are being extremely short sighted at the moment, I beg to differ.

dblboggie wrote:you are patting them on the back because their apparent agenda comports with your world view and so you see the act with blinders on.

Are you any different in applauding Exxon-Mobil for undermining the scientific process? If they were so concerned with scientific honesty, they would be researching it an publishing their data in regular channels instead of funding luddites with no understanding or knowledge in the science.

dblboggie wrote:And there is a legitimate debate as to how to interpret this record. As I’ve mentioned before, there is no certainty that increased CO2 levels are caused by warming and not the other way round.

Certain enough for 97% of active climate researchers.

dblboggie wrote:But I think that I make a compelling argument about the agenda being forwarded by governments in the name of AGW.

But you still continue to avoid the science or completely dismiss what you admit to not understanding.

dblboggie wrote:Why do the same politicians who profess to be so concerned about our CO2 output still oppose the use of nuclear power (at least here in the U.S.)?

You would have to ask your Senator. All I know is that both our previous government and the current one seemingly have no opposition to nuclear and have riled the green lobby by funding such development and expansion of existing nuclear power stations.

dblboggie wrote:Sorry to be so long-winded buddy. Sometimes the “spirit” just moves me, so to speak, and I just start typing and can’t stop.

I certainly know that feeling so I'm just as guilty there.

dblboggie wrote:You know, I honestly hope that someday we might actually be able to meet in person and discuss the great issues of the world and history itself. I should think that I would enjoy that very much.

Yes perhaps when you are over this way sometime in future.

dblboggie wrote:Who says we have too much CO2 in the air?

Atmospheric CO2 at highest level for 20 million years. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296

Natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000-20,000 years. Increase of 100ppm in modern times has taken 120 years.

dblboggie wrote:And it is known that when warmer, the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

More problems with ocean acidification where it absorbs too much CO2.

http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/9/075/Statement_RS1579_IAP_05.09final2.pdf

No, nothing to see here, right?