Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

This is such an important issue which will no doubt effect all of us one way or the other once governments get their way.

The serious introduction of NSF however, would have an incredible positive effect on the numbers being thrown around out there.

Because so many subscribers on this forum have passionate ideas about this subject, I thought we should open an area which would be dedicated to this subject only.

That way, the thousands of visitors we get to to this site, will be able to see quite quickly what postive effects NSF would have if more land owners instigated its principles.

Moderator: webmaster

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby duane » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:37 am

The following article puts the manufactured case for a commodity market based on the trading of CO2 to rest.

The Chicago Climate Exchange is dead...RIP.

Let's hope our Government finally sees the light and says "that economics will not solve any ecological issue".

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553236/201011091851/The-Crash-Of-The-Climate-Exchange.aspx

One of the Governments chief advisors on CC is the economist, Ross Garnaut. Only he could believe putting a price on CO2 would save an environmental disaster.

More interesting reading comes from:
http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/10WaystoGametheCarbonMarkets_Web.pdf
and

http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby ghosta » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:14 pm

Why bother trying to deal with climate change its simply a myth that we can realistically do anything about it. There are too many vested interests on both sides to see any worthwhile worldwide action. On one hand we have the dirty polluters who want to keep making money. On the other side we have the grubby solar (and similar) industries which are grabbing for government subsidies.

Why not let future generations deal with the problems as they arise. Humans are adaptable. So what if there will be 40 million refugees from the flooded deltas of Asia heading our way ......it wont be our problem.

Angela Helleren
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 6:45 am
Location: Victoria

Re: Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby Angela Helleren » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:12 am

I would prefer my taxes to subsidize clean energy solar, geothermal, wind, any day instead of continuing to subsidize coal! Yes it's sibsidized! Of course there's a conservative base out there just waiting for our options to run out so they can peddle their NUCLEAR ambitions. John Howard didn't believe in Climate Change either 'til Ziggy proposed 24 Nuclear power plants as a cure!

There's nothing clean about nuclear. 6o years ago the Nuclear industry said, don't worry, we'll figure out what to do with the dangerous waste later......still waiting for a safe way to store it, so meanwhile it gets turned it into depleted uranium weapons (do you like the use of the term 'depleted' to make it somehow sound safe)and using them on other countries during war and contaminating their lands. 3,ooo tons dropped over Iraq in the last war. Our soldiers also would have been exposed to the fine particle carried in the desert sands. Just as Peter Andrews has spent over 30 years trying to educate people to the benefits of NSF, Dr Helen Caldicott has spent the time informing the public about the dirty nuclear industry. http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm

Both are Australians to be proud off and listened to! Both have been up against powerful lobbyist with vested interest in doing the the wrong things when it comes to the health of our environment.

Duane, remember ABC's Catalyst program that showed the environmental tests carried out by scientist to find out why Peter's methods worked? I shock my head at the time as the following segment of the programme was on the Beverley uranium mine in SA. Despite the fact that environmental impact studies had not been completed, they were allowed to continue using mining methods banned in many other countries. Most telling was the long uncomfortable silence by the mining guy (being interviewed) while searching the corners of his mind for an answer to the interviewers question re ground water safety.
Many hands make light work.
Unfortunately, too many hands stirring anti clockwise, has spoiled mother natures recipe.
Back to basics.

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby duane » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:04 am

Angela said
Duane, remember ABC's Catalyst program that showed the environmental tests carried out by scientist to find out why Peter's methods worked? I shock my head at the time as the following segment of the programme was on the Beverley uranium mine in SA.


I certainly do.....

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby duane » Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:51 pm

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.


Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).


The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.
Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!
While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.


" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal


Return to “Carbon Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest