Irony. Capping the fossil fuel industries will make the clean energy industries bloom. Don't blame the environmentalists, blame the fossil fuel industries. Right now, you are defending them.

I guess we are both guilty, except I call out the oil companies, and the bankers that own them.
You should too. I'm not on anyone's side for slamming AGW, when I believe GW is happening and we as a species should look for alternatives, and solutions to nature's control over our lives, as we have done for many millennium.

I'm not pro oil, and you know humans can't do shit to this Earth in any meaningful way, without an all out nuclear assault.

eta: It's not just the capping of the oil industry. They will simply pass that cost onto the consumers anyways. They can and will still spend time and energy and resources trying to stifle new technologies, and lobbying for more control.

My solution is just cut them off at the knees. Sorry I can't be more creative right now. I'm kinda buzzed.

This post was edited by datajunky on Dec 9 2009 07:11pm

Plenty of things have worked just fine in the past. The AGW crowd is mostly fighting against the powerful oil, coal, industrial polluters and the politicians that are funded by them. Even the whole "Climategate" thing reeks of astroturfing on their part.

Same thing. You might as well just cut a check to the oil companies right now. They are paying for everything already as it is. They want global warming hype. Take a look at the GW history, and compare it to the price of oil. Let me know when a pattern emerges for you. It shouldn't take long.

Look at the lobbyists they have. Man.. wars are fought over oil.
It's not like this fraud is outside of their realm of expertise or anything.

This post was edited by datajunky on Dec 9 2009 07:24pm

More on the natural vs human contributions.

Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 200 and 280 parts per million for the past half-a-million years.

post 1750, it has risen to 389 ppm.

Keep this in mind when we look at the rest of the numbers.

Natural cycle:
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation (animals and bacteria eating plants) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt ( yes, plants also give off CO2). These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesize.

Parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more. (Carbon sink)

Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - 1/100 of the amount of human emissions, which we will look at next:

Human:

Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s.

Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year. (land use change)

So, humans account for around 32 Gt each year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans.

The remaining amount is staying in the atmosphere, accounting for the ~2ppm rise each year.


That means humans account for 4% of all carbon in the total environment each year (your website lists it at 3.6% but is a little out of date as it lists CO2 at 360ppm but it is currently at 389ppm), but account for 60% of the contribution to atmospheric carbon each year.

We are producing more than can be dealt with by carbon sinks, which keeps it in the atmosphere.

We have increased the levels of atmospheric carbon more than 40% total since 1750. By mid century we will have effectively doubled it at current rates of annual increase.




Now, that website you posted lists the human contribution to the greenhouse effect based on a 4% total carbon contribution. A common method of global warming deniers. They should have based it on a 60% total contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gasses, not 4% to the total environment which includes carbon sinks (plants, the oceans, natural sequestration, etc).

Re-run the numbers with those stats.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 07:40pm

The AGW is propagated by their own set of politicians, with their own funding for predetermined research, bent on imposing world government, and using your hokey religion for an excuse. As for Climategate, those who exposed them didn't write the damning emails, your guys did, so feel free to drop your crying about "astroturf".

The emails aren't damning of the science. They are damning of other things.

Fill in the blank.

data manipulation for political purposes, political denial of scientific discussion from skeptics, seething rage against skeptics, refusal to respond to FOIA requests.

In terms of data manipulation, tree ring data plots were used up to 1961 and then actual thermometer temperatures were plotted afterwards. Tree rings classically are low, so it resulted in a hockey stick chart. Now, that hockey stick still shows the real temperature warming post 1961, it just makes it look more dramatic after the middle of last century. That was a political move and should not have been done. However, it does not manipulate the actual science, it just manipulates a chart for political purposes.

Read my previous info and plug the numbers and see what you get. Those numbers are not and have not ever been in dispute.

Question: does one priest who molests little boys mean all priests molest little boys? No that just means theres one/a handful of bad priests out there. Does one unethical scientists who fudges data mean all scientists are unethical and fudge their data? Probably not. Looking at a set of emails out of context doesn't really mean anything.