52858220.jpg
The Queen Does Her Part – Just 2 Horsepower

In one of his most out-spoken interventions in the climate change debate, he said a £15 billion annual programme was required to halt deforestation or the world would have to live with the dire consequences.

“We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall,” he said. “We are asking for something pretty dreadful unless we really understand the issues now and [the] urgency of them.” The Prince said the rainforests, which provide the “air conditioning system for the entire planet”, releasing water vapour and absorbing carbon, were being lost to poor farmers desperate to make a living.

“What we have got to do is try to ensure that these forests are more valuable alive than dead. At the moment, there is more value in them being dead,” he said. He estimated that the cost would be about £15 billion a year but said that this should be viewed as an insurance policy for the whole world. “That is roughly just under one per cent of all the insurance premiums paid in the world in any one year. It is an insurance premium to ensure the world has some rainfall and reasonable weather patterns. It is a good deal.” He also said consumers had to play their part by choosing products that were environmentally sustainable and called for improvements in labelling.

I wonder if Prince Charles and the Royals will take the lead, and set an example or is that just for the commoner?




  1. JimR,

    Somehow I’m having more trouble finding the information about coal. Let me know if the links I’ve already provided have convinced you or if you need more information.

  2. JimR says:

    Holy crap, you really went to town there LOL. I haven’t looked at everything yet, but what i was looking for was was a list or two of the -“hundreds of scientists, many of whom have an interest in showing that global warming is false”- that I could verify are noted for skepticism of human causes for global warming. They would have to have given a passing grade to the papers of course.

    I just realized something… you said “… in showing that global warming is false”. I thought you were still talking about the human causes for global warming when I first (mis)read your statement. I happen to be skeptical of the latter, in that we may have hurried global warming along a bit, but other “natural” and complex misunderstood factors are causing it regardless of mans piggishness. But for your proof, I’ll accept either reason to be on the list.

    I’m still going to look at the last 2 links. Unfortunately it’s very late here again and tomorrow I’m out of town for the day again. If you don’t mind, I’ll get back to this Friday.
    Hope that’s okay with you… gotta feed the family. G’night.

  3. #63 – JimR,

    Holy crap, you really went to town there LOL. I haven’t looked at everything yet, but what i was looking for was was a list or two of the -”hundreds of scientists, many of whom have an interest in showing that global warming is false”- that I could verify are noted for skepticism of human causes for global warming. They would have to have given a passing grade to the papers of course.

    The problem with that tack is that there really are very few practicing climate scientists who dispute that global warming is either real or human caused. It has been compared to finding the doctors that are willing to state that the link between tobacco and cancer is not well established. There are a few … very few.

    If you look at the lists that people have made up of climate scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change, it usually takes just a few minutes per name, sometimes a bit longer to determine that they are A) not in any field related to climatology (by far the majority) or B) have zero papers published in any peer reviewed publication (another big chunk, verifiable with google scholar, watch out though, they’ve started to include orgs like junkscience.com as if it were a peer reviewed publication. It isn’t; look at the journals.) or C) have known ties to organizations like junk science, the heartland institute or other known ExxonMobil funded sites. Finding a list of scientists that dispute warming and do not fall into any of those three categories really is difficult. If you think you found one, let me know. I’d love to check it out.

    I just realized something… you said “… in showing that global warming is false”. I thought you were still talking about the human causes for global warming when I first (mis)read your statement.

    Actually, I misspoke (mistyped?). I did mean have an interest in showing that either A) global warming is not happening OR B) is not human caused. So, your misreading of my statement came out perfect.

    And, what I meant by an interest in showing this is that the nations that appointed these scientists have a financial interest in finding the scientists that dispute anthropogenic climate change (just to be really clear). The scientists themselves may be perfectly respectable and reputable and honest in their dispute. However, the governments are most certainly NOT disinterested parties.

    I happen to be skeptical of the latter, in that we may have hurried global warming along a bit, but other “natural” and complex misunderstood factors are causing it regardless of mans piggishness. But for your proof, I’ll accept either reason to be on the list.

    I’m still curious what gives you your reasons to doubt this. Certainly, science and scientists can get the facts wrong. This has happened before. However, they have overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic global warming is indeed true. I would love for them to be wrong. It’s a real long shot though. It’s not the bet we should be making when we’ve already thrown away 30 years on inaction.

    If you don’t mind, I’ll get back to this Friday.

    Take your time. Thanks for letting me know though so that I’ll check back tomorrow. I might not have.

  4. JimR says:

    Scott, I’m not asking for just any list of practicing climate scientists who dispute that global warming is either real or human caused… I’m asking for an example of any of the lists you said existed as stated below.

    When I do use IPCC, yes, I also consider that reviewed. In fact, reviewed by hundreds of scientists, many of whom have an interest in showing that global warming is false, and all agreeing that the data is true.

    You’re the one who said they exist for all the peer reviewed papers of the IPCC! Where are the names of the “practicing climate scientists, many of whom have an interest in showing that global warming is false” ??

    Pretty straight forward question.

  5. JimR says:

    Me:“I happen to be skeptical of the latter, in that we may have hurried global warming along a bit, but other “natural” and complex misunderstood factors are causing it regardless of mans piggishness. But for your proof, I’ll accept either reason to be on the list.

    You:I’m still curious what gives you your reasons to doubt this. Certainly, science and scientists can get the facts wrong. This has happened before. However, they have overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic global warming is indeed true. I would love for them to be wrong. It’s a real long shot though. It’s not the bet we should be making when we’ve already thrown away 30 years on inaction.

    It’s not that I doubt human cause. Doubt and being skeptical are entirely different. These scientists, although they are giving it their best shot, are obviously still discovering what makes climate, and therefor what changes climate in the first place. Clues: Hurricanes aren’t increasing like they thought, the ice shelves are melting faster than they thought, areas they thought would originally get warmer are colder and vice versa. It’s not so simple a process that you can point a finger at a culprit… yet. So if a more complex and far reaching phenomena is happening, we could be wasting time or sealing our fate doing the wrong things to either stop the process or protect ourselves from the inevitable forces of nature. They are too sure of themselves and are making excuses instead of doing the tough work of advancing their knowledge into the unknown.

  6. JimR says:

    PS. Sorry about the long time between posts. This week was extremely busy for me.

    I see deniers who make me cringe because their arguments are simply illogical and ignorant. Because of them people like you who have the best intentions at heart get turned off by their stupidity.

    I hope my train of thought seems as rational to you as is is to me. This is not about “I’m right and you’re wrong”. It’s just what it is for the moment. I’m (medium) skeptical only because I see significant holes appearing in the information at hand. As that info is becomes available I constantly reassess.

    You and I both understand that, taken as a group, humans are selfish sons of biatches, and the more selfish biatches of that group run things. Unfortunately you and I are are in the minority. I understand completely your stance on this issue, and I hope you understand mine.

    Are we cool?

    James

  7. #65 – JimR,

    The list of authors is available for each of the IPCC publications. I believe each will have their nationality associated. So, just look at whether they are from a nation with an interest in denying global warming.

    As I said in one of my later posts, I do not believe the scientists themselves to be biased. I do believe that the particular scientists chosen were, in some cases, chosen for their views on the subject by biased governments, such as the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, and Australia.

    So, when feeling skeptical about any particular IPCC report, read the list of authors for that report. Sorry I had misunderstood your question. Unfortunately, I know of no single list of all of the scientists on the IPCC. I was surprised not to find that easily.

    However, it is actually more relevant, since they do work in teams, to check the authorship for any particular report you wish to look into.

    #66 – JimR,

    Doubt and being skeptical are entirely different.

    Actually, being skeptical is all about doubt. Unless I’m missing something, all of the applicable definitions of “skeptical” involve having doubt.

    Regarding the exact effects of climate change, I too am skeptical. Many are very difficult to forecast accurately.

    Some, like the melting of the cryosphere and the acidification of the oceans are very well established. Some are moderately well established, such as the prediction that rain patterns will change. Some are far less definite, the frequency of particular types of storms, the exact locations that will get more or less rain, in fact, the more local any prediction is the less likely it is to be well established.

    However, the global effects are enough for me. In fact, for me, it is enough to say that humans are changing the climate faster than at any time in the last N million years. If we are changing the climate dramatically and rapidly, and that is well established, then we should stop doing so. It really is that simple. We’re fucking with global environment on a huge scale. That has to have catastrophic effects. Some are foreseen and foreseeable, some will be complete surprises.

    For me, drastic action is indicated strongly, regardless of specific local effects.

  8. Dang!! Meant to close that italics after the “Doubt and being skeptical are entirely different.” Oh well.

    As for time between posts, we should probably just take this offline at this point. I’m not sure how many more times I’m going to go back to posts 6 pages or more back. If you want to continue the conversation (and I know I do), please leave a note for me on my blog. I’ll get your email address from it and will email you.

    http://tinyurl.com/6a5p37

    Or, feel free to pick any of my environmental posts and we can continue the conversation over there. I’m about to start a new one about the acidification of the oceans. I’ll probably write that later today.

  9. bobbo says:

    #69–Scott==fun thread. Yea==chill out on Scottie–in the main, its friendly==but I think the same thing of Mouseturd, so don’t go by me.

    Work this into your post on the ocean acidifying==the GREAT WINE ANALOGY copyright by bobbo.

    Why does wine max out at 12 per cent alcohol? Its at that level that the waste product of yeast (the alcohol) reaches a level that kills off the yeast. Seems in a closed system–like the Blue Marble Earth==even when there is available area, oxygen, and food ((ie–plenty of carrying capacity as normally thought of)) an organism in oversupply will kill itself off from its own effluent.

    What is the human equivalent?

    Yes, its carbon.

    WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and, I must say, seeing it so clearly so much earlier than the neo-con retards here and in our government, does not give me sufficient satisfaction to outweigh my disappointment.

  10. JimR says:

    Webster’s Dictionary

    skep·tic

    Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, from skeptikos thoughtful, from skeptesthai to look, consider

    doubt:
    3 a: to lack confidence in

    That’s the difference I’m talking about Scott.

    Scott:”Some, like the melting of the cryosphere and the acidification of the oceans are very well established. Some are moderately well established, such as the prediction that rain patterns will change. Some are far less definite, the frequency of particular types of storms, the exact locations that will get more or less rain, in fact, the more local any prediction is the less likely it is to be well established.

    I’m not denying any of those things happening and never have. Sequestered carbon, already deep down in the ocean, every some thousands of years makes it’s way to the surface acidifying the SURFACE oceans. Is it the tail wagging the dog, or are we responsible for that phenomena too?

    Secondly, never talk about exact locations of storms. There are far fewer hurricanes worldwide, when there should be far more. Those types of errors in IPCC prediction get swept under the rug with lame excuses.

    So I become skeptical again.

  11. JimR,

    I thought J answered that issue on storms back in post #45. Besides, even if storms become more frequent, as predicted, and as I personally expect, though not as confidently as some other effects of warming, I would still expect variance from one year to the next. Wouldn’t you? One year does not a statistical base make.

    Anyway, I’m not coming back to this particular thread.

    We can pick it up again on some later global warming post. I’m sure there will be many. Or, if you can’t wait, since this thread is now down to three people, feel free to comment on my new post. I had you in mind when I wrote it and would love to continue a well thought out and respectful debate on the details of climate change. We’ll probably both learn something. Who knows? Maybe bobbo will chime in and teach us both a thing or two as well since he seems to have checked in again.

    Putting the Global in Global Warming

    Either here or on my blog is fine with me. Catch you on the next thread.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5246 access attempts in the last 7 days.