U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

What?
How is he getting rich from emissions trading?

If this is a scam all markets are scams. Which is fine, but not what you are trying to say. At least I don't think so.

This is the timeline presented by conservatives:

Based on this post, it's hard to tell what you actually believe, or are willing to consider, even with the various forms of evidence provided to you, that contradict what you're actually saying - rather than what you actually believe.

Carbon Credits benefits the whole U.S. and other countries, as well as the industry manufacturers in numerous ways. Al Gore doesn't benefit from Carbon Credits directly, unless he runs some kind of manufacturing plant that requires the purchase of credits for excess emissions, or by selling credits for being below the carbon emission line.

What needs to be pointed out, is that to invest and develop environmental technologies and products, you need to be able to make a profit to continually employ people, buy and maintain equipment, and so forth.

It's already been said that new green technology would take and investment of time before seeing a notable return, but with the leaps and bounds in technology being ahead of projected analysis, we're already seeing returns almost 50 years ahead of schedule. The returns we're seeing are minimized waste production, reduction in carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and profitability and sustainability.

A lot of the products and tech we're seeing now, couldn't even be imagined 10 years ago, let alone immediately after the industrial revolution, when concerns for the environment were sparked. Seriously, Smartphones now have the capacity to launch rockets into space, and communicate with the astronauts. Which used to take entire buildings and an entire elite team and commanders to do.

If it's not a scam, then where is difference they made to how industry and the way it pollutes is? Or where is the difference in CO2 in the atmosphere? Where is the positive changes to the environment?

There's a lot of money involved, surely there should be a lot of examples, no?

There are a few examples of products and technology that actually neutralize chemical waste, which are bought and sold to companies that wish to reduce their environmental impact, but don't have the means to produce it themselves.

I've also pointed out that story of the concept design challenge by that Canadian University team of students that designed a car to travel most of the way across the US on roughly a single gallon of gas, which greatly reduces carbon emissions. There are probably thousands of examples out there that do this, or things like this, and continue to develop.

"That $100.00 could have bought 1 gallon of gas!" - Futurama's Al Gore.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatefinance

Yes, I looked at it through the Forbes article earlier.
Primary document Survey: http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

Sent out 7,062 surveys of eligible respondants
1,862 completed at least some of the survey
Only 1 out of 4 AMS members responded to the survey

6 people wrote to them objcting to how climate change was defined
Defination: the premise that the world's average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world's climate may change as a result

All 6 sugested changing 150 to 50 as this was more accurate in terms of what has been established so far.

Ipad: *** you and your limiting copy/pasting abilities
This is why I did not copy/quote.

P. 7 is when they go over respondants answers.

Just the adjustments to the cost of large waste producers encouraged the multi-billion dollar, multi-national manufacturing company I work for to change unilaterally from liquid paints to powdercoat paints. In the 5 years since we changed over, we've reduced our waste water production by almost 80%. We also recycle all scrap metal, paper, cardboard and plastic packaging, and any plastic based materials we used in production processes.

That's a pretty sizable amount of reduced pollution and it's because the cost of being green has significantly dropped, the consumer base is encouraged to buy green products through tax credits, and the cost of manufacturing the old way has risen significantly.

Being green has increased our profitability, companies that lobby under the guise of what green legislation will do to their profits are spending money on that instead of improving their products or processes. It's a financial decision, and it's paying off for a lot of manufacturers.

I'd love to talk it about some more and show you how Gore profits on his trading of credits and provide sources, but I still have a ton (ok maybe only 500lbs left) of electronic recycling to do first.

I'll see what sources I can find later.

Ok. emissions trading was thought up by economists as a free market way of handling this*, going back to the 60's.

The first cap and trade system was in 1990.

Wiki overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

There are 5 markets, iirc, throughout the world that trade credits. If Gore is getting rich off trading he's not different than any other person playing in the markets.

*edit: handling this "commons problem"

So I can claim to be carbon neutral by buying credits on a market where both the share holders and the brokers make transaction fees on the trading of such credits and the actually credits themselves may fund a study or a lecture somewhere that might inspire someone to do a conceptual design one day?

You and I have different definations of a scam. By your response I assume you think most financial instruments are scams. Especially derivative markets, as that is basically what this is.

Global carbon market value rises to record $176 billion

Edit: to give comparision on market size the over the counter (OTC) derivatives has a market of $693 trillion+
http://www.bis.org/press/p131107.htm

It's kinda funny, the double standard. If a conservative did what Al Gore has done, he'd be heralded for putting his money where his mouth is, but since he's a wacko environmentalist, it's a scam.

Except its not 92% of the community. AGW is a minority belief with most scientists on the fence in the "not enough info" category. That "consensus" was a huge bait and switch. They sent out 3000 surveys to published scientists with a variety of questions, three were alluding to AGW. Out of the responses they picked out ~100 that had answered affirmative to the AGW questions and sent those a second survey with only AGW related questions. Its no surprise that the majority of a carefully selected group would respond in affirmation.

It would be like sending a survey to 100 members of the KKK and then stating 97% of Americans want Hispanics deported.

The primary complaint about AGW is that they haven't proven the CO2 forcing more H2O factor of their models. The current factor was derived by comparing the temperature difference then dividing by the CO2 increase. A factor can not be assumed to prove itself.

The entire thing had turned into a get rich quick scheme. Every human function on the planet can be connected to CO2. All food, clothing, transportation, and every product is linked to CO2. By controlling CO2 you can control each and every facet of human life. Nothing is "carbon neutral" and thus any entity that could regulate the basis for nearly all life on the planet would hold god like absolute power over humans.

No sense trying to talk to these people.

Nice Strawman.


Well, you've been proven wrong on every page at least twice, but I find your delusional state amusing, so keep posting.

Yeah, among climate scientists, it's probably higher.
This pretty much makes no sense.

Interesting, I point out the blatant holes in the crap you and pleeblo post. Yet you keep droning on about hypothesis testing AKA Assuming and best guess testing, and (the koch brothers are the only billionaires in the world)


I'd rather be delusional than this..

What the hell. Everything you are using to post your opinions on this forum has used hypothesis testing and assumptions

This is getting silly

No, you have attempted to point out blatant holes, and so far have ended up shooting yourself in the foot. Sometimes eviscerating your own argument with the sources you provide.

Yes, hypothesis testing is (to some degree) essentially guess and check. Guess what? The modern world is based upon it, including farming and dairy techniques. It is generally how you find things that work.
You use it in medicine, in science, in engineering, in agriculture, hell, even when troubleshooting things in your own home.

It is when you don't use it, or use it properly (proper checking, etc.) that you tend to run into issues.

*Cough*

Source of the "97%" and "consensus" reference.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/


Two question online survey went to 10,000 scientists, only 3100 responded. Out of those 3100, 77 were selected for the 2nd survey which had 75 of them respond in the affirmative. So "97%" is actually 75 out of 10,000.

Whats Up With That tears apart the entire thing along with pretty much all of AGW theory. Lots of physicists and mathematicians hang out there. All the material is sourced and data / studies verified. They even have archived copies of the NASA temperature record, good think too cause they caught NASA going back and "editing" archived data to create those "record highs".

All the names and qualifications are public record on the petition project. There have been several attempts to discredit it but so far none have succeeded and all the names have long since been verified. The democrats have resorted to yelling "Koch brothers!" as their only defense. There is a huge backlash brewing in the scientific community about AGW theory and how its' being paraded around as "settled". Nothing in science is "settled".

Another argument against AGW theory is the assumption that the temperature of 1900 was some sort of "normalized" standard. The world was in a small ice age during that period and any temps would of been lower then standard. Go back further, long past industrial age, and the world gets hotter during the medieval era. Even further back and you get even greater variances with mass death being associated with cold and abundance of life associated with heat.


That's because you have no clue what AGW theory actually states. All you know is the little 10s sound bites or cheesy animations on sites "for the laymen". CO2 only absorbs and remits inferred radiation on three specific bands, mostly at 15um but also some at 4.2um and 2.8um. There is a fourth side band that also gets remitted but has very small amounts of energy, it's right at 2um. CO2 can't create energy, you can't get more energy remitted then was originally emitted from the earth. The first three bands are already remitting 100% of the energy emitted from the earth, more CO2 can not increase the amount remitted, it can only serve to lower the ceiling at which all 100% has been remitted and thus localize the effect (higher local temperatures over cities, lower in surrounding rural area's). Any further increase in global warming must come solely from that 2nm band and only at an incredibly small amount. This is basic physics and pretty much impossible to argue against.



What AGW theory requires is a CO2 forcing component. The idea that raising the atmospheric concentration of CO2 results in more H20 evaporating from the Ocean, which is the primary green house gas of Earth. That evaporating H2O could also free more trapped CO2 which starts a killer cycle that melts the polar ice caps, ends Winter on a global scale. The problem is that coefficient hasn't been proven or demonstrated in any way. It exists purely in theory and was arrived at by dividing the average temperature growth by the average increase in atmospheric CO2. That works fine as a short cut for a hypothesis but can not be used as a proof of the hypothesis. There is no direct evidence that CO2 is responsible for the increase and thus you can't just assume it.

Btw that number is also where the models keep screwing up. They use one number and the models get it right for a few decades but then it fails to model historic temperature. So they tweak the value and it predicts the past but then fails to predict the present. What AGW theorists have resorted to doing is using different coefficients for different periods of time in order to get the line produced to match up with historic record. As though the CO2 in the middle ages was different then the CO2 in the 1800's which was different then the CO2 during the 70's which is different then the CO2 after 1990.

The reality is these people have no idea what they are doing. It started off as a good hypothesis that could of used some funding a decade or five of time without political influence. What we got instead was mass hysteria by the left in an attempt to get laws passed that cedes them more power based purely on fear. Its the exact same bullsh!t that the right did after 9/11 with the patriot act and other policy's / laws. "Do whatever we say cause we're trying to protect you from the evil terrorists" is no different then "Do whatever we say cause we're trying to protect you from the evil corporate CO2 producers".

Anyhow none of this really matters as the leftist posters here refuse to approach anything with reason. I make these posts just to show how utterly ridiculous their level of knowledge is, even as they resort to name calling and insults. They may even attempt to refute it, typically with very bad information that's more political then anything. Especially the "consensus" argument, that's f*cking hilarious to hear since I actually know where that figure came from.

This is the source for the 97%, provided by Pleebo, in the "A new war you can't blame on Bush, or can you" thread.
This, again? This is the, what, third or fourth time you have posted the *almost* same flawed argument. At least there is no direct mention of "it violates the laws of thermodynamics!", although you imply it.
We can go, yet again, into the specifics of why this is incorrect, and does not show a grasp of the physics involved.
Among others, yes...
Any kind of global climate model which doesn't take into account CO2 will be inherently invalid. So by definition, an anthropomorphic global warming model will also take that into account.
Methane hydrates are the major concern; I profess ignorance to any mechanism of trapping CO2 which would be directly released by an increase in temperature. The methane hydrates can result in increased CO2 production as a side effect, if bubbles don't make it to the surface. Which would affect the CO2 content and acidity of the water, and possibly reduce the capacity as a carbon sink, but probably unlikely given the relative size. But potential for the destabilization of methane hydrates isn't something to sneer at. Not the least because of the climatic concern, but also from the potential for causing large shifts of seafloor.
I can't speak to the derivation of the coefficient.
There is no question that the global average temperature is increasing. The time period and associated velocity of the change is roughly correlated to the change in atmospheric CO2. Which does not neccesarily mean causation. However, I can't say that any other alternative proposal has apparantly withstood scrutiny to date.
Sourced from: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

If true, that indicates is that there are likely other feedback/damping mechanisms that aren't being accounted for. How do you find out more about it? By playing with the coefficient in different models, at different times, to try to see if you can find a pattern.
No, it may either not be presented correctly, or understood correctly, but the claim that they have no idea what they are doing, as a whole, is pretty silly.
Blah blah blah, political rant.

Derivative markets are one of the hugest economical scams out there!
Those and ETFs.

When a conservative does this, they are running a scam as well.
A scam by any other name is still a scam.

You want a scam sign up for Amway.

Don't you play around in the forex market?

That is a derivative market.

So you are participating and making money off of a scam (as you see it) but you are annoyed with Gore?

That's what happens in a world run by snake oil salesmen. Nobody will listen to any reason. Just mob mentality.