Gore's Ten point plan

[jfuh]

As our resident deniers and apologetics have been presenting ad homenin's on Gore . Now I present to you the real issues that are of actual relevance to this sub forum. Gore's ten point plan he presented to Congress on Wed.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6ZYXllyaF0[/YOUTUBE]

1.) Immediately freeze carbon at the existing level; then implement programs to reduce it 90% by 2050. 2.) Reduce taxes on employment and production, instead taxing pollution (especially CO2). These pollution taxes would raise the same amount of money, but make us more competitive by encouraging employment while discouraging pollution.
3.) A portion of the revenues must be earmarked for low-income and middle class people who will have a difficult time making this transition.
4.) Negotiate a strong global treaty to replace Kyoto, while working toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. Move the start date of this new treaty forward from 2012 to 2010, so the next president can to act immediately, rather than waste time trying to pass Kyoto right before it expires. We have to try to get China and India to participate in the treaty. If they don’t immediately participate, we have to move forward with the treaty regardless, trusting that they will join sooner rather than later.
5.) Impose a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
6.) Develop an "electranet" -- a smart grid that allows individual homeowners and small businesses to create green power and sell their excess power to the utility companies at a fair price. Just as widely distributed information processing led to a large new surge of productivity, we need a law that allows widely distributed energy generation to be sold into the grid, at a rate determined not by a the utility companies, but by regulation. The goal is to create a grid that does not require huge, centralized power plants.
7.) Raise CAFE standards for cars and trucks as part of a comprehensive package. Cars and trucks are a large part of the problem, but coal and buildings must be addressed at the same time.
8.) Set a date for the ban of incandescent light bulbs that gives industry time to create alternatives. If the date is set, industry will meet this challenge.
9.) Create Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral mortgage association. Connie Mae will defer the costs of things like insulation and energy efficient windows which cut carbon but are often not used by builders or renovators because they add to the upfront costs of homes, only paying for themselves after several years of energy savings.
10.) The SEC should require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting.

Now instead of him, argue against what is presented here.
I see these ten points as perfectly practical and achievable. So the question, why not?

 

[Sauwan]

[conspiracy]OMG He's trying to ruin us all!!![/conspiracy]

 

[Stinger]

As our resident deniers and apologetics have been presenting ad homenin's on Gore .

Actually we've been talking about the sham he is trying to pull on everyone with his making money off his so-called carbon credits when there is no evidence they offset anything and he continues to preach one thing while doing another.

Now I present to you the real issues

Well those aren't real issues they are just things Gore demands be done, even though he won't do them himself.


1.) Immediately freeze carbon at the existing level; then implement programs to reduce it 90% by 2050.

Why? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of that is man-made?

And if we freeze at current levels to we immediately start killing any new borns since they will breath out CO2? Halt any an all industrial expansion immediately?

2.) Reduce taxes on employment and production, instead taxing pollution (especially CO2).

CO2 is not pollution, it is a natural by-product of many many things. How do you measure exactly how much CO2 a person or a company puts out?
Dumb but typical of a politician. Don't like it, tax it.

3.) A portion of the revenues must be earmarked for low-income and middle class people who will have a difficult time making this transition.

Ahhh yes, transferring wealth, the ultimate global warming fighter.

4.) Negotiate a strong global treaty to replace Kyoto,

China and India?

5.) Impose a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

China? But I'm all for nuclear, I assume that if you are going to oppose coal you support nuclear.

6.) Develop an "electranet"

Another overblown buracracy and I love the part about not letting the market determine the price but putting artifical prices on it set by some regulator. Sheer idiocy. You can do that now at market rates.

7.) Raise CAFE standards for cars and trucks as part of a comprehensive package.

The market will do that when it decides it wants it. But when Gore stops flying around in private planes and big SUV's let know and he might be taken seriously here.

8.) Set a date for the ban of incandescent light bulbs that gives industry time to create alternatives. If the date is set, industry will meet this challenge.

Doesn't need an artifical date, the market will do that as it sees fit. It is already happening.

9.) Create Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral mortgage association.

:rofl another bloated ineffective government bureaucracy.

10.) The SEC should require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting.

It should do nothing of the sort and who would measure it and verify it?

A bunch of bloated government regulation to do nothing about a problem we don't even have evidence exist.

 

[Pull My Finger]

Those ten points would be fine, if GW was happening at a catastrophic rate.

The science used for GW models is fairly new, and has been proven to be inconsistent when compared with observations within meteorlogical, and climatological (is that even a word) circles.

I don't think GW is happening beyond anything natural. Remember in the 50's & 60's they were convinced that another ice age was coming because the earth was cooling until the mid 70's

The fact is, there is so much debate and controversy over it because there is so much conflicting evidence to prove either way.

IMO, the actual 'observational science' is more compelling than the computer models used to predict the future. Computer models are only as good as the information you give them, and we just can't account for all the complexities within our weather systems on a global scale.

I think we should be keeping an eye on the current warming trend - just in case - but to implement massive, and hugely expensive changes based on incomplete science is just nonsense, and only hurts developing countries.

Besides, Gore can't be that concerned with a monthly hydro bill of $1,200 in his 10,000 sqft Nashville mansion... Everyone say it with me now... Hypocrite...

Peace

 

[jfuh]

Why? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of that is man-made?

And if we freeze at current levels to we immediately start killing any new borns since they will breath out CO2? Halt any an all industrial expansion immediately?

Total bs Just 35 power plants generate the same amount of CO2 of the worlds total human population. How many power plants are there? ANd here you are spewing nonsense bullshit rhetoric. The warming trend we see today is due to human interference - the percentage of the atmosphere is an irrelevant point all together as are your posts attempt at spin.

CO2 is not pollution, it is a natural by-product of many many things. How do you measure exactly how much CO2 a person or a company puts out?
Dumb but typical of a politician. Don't like it, tax it.

WRong, 35 coal power plants generate more carbon dioxide than the entire human population. CO2 is definitely a pollutant if there's too much. Just as Botulinus toxin is not toxic if you have ultra low quantities, just a little excess and it's lethal neuro toxin. Again, you've no idea what you are talking about other than the partisan spin bullshit you get from the neocon megaphone news sources.

Ahhh yes, transferring wealth, the ultimate global warming fighter.

Yes, it's free market principles to make the incentives work. Go on please.

China and India?

What about them? They would of course need to be applicable as would the US and Australia.

China? But I'm all for nuclear, I assume that if you are going to oppose coal you support nuclear.

Yes I do, as does Gore and most other rational environmentalists. What about China? They would of course need to be included as would India, Australia and US.

Another overblown buracracy and I love the part about not letting the market determine the price but putting artifical prices on it set by some regulator. Sheer idiocy. You can do that now at market rates.

Key point is creating incentive for decentralized green energy sources ie solar and wind on individual home properties.

The market will do that when it decides it wants it. But when Gore stops flying around in private planes and big SUV's let know and he might be taken seriously here.

Gore's flights are irrelevant, just the same way that other VIP flights are irrelevant. Big SUV's? Is that all you got? Incentive for fuel efficiencies are a must if we are to wane off our reliance from ME oil or oil all together.

Doesn't need an artifical date, the market will do that as it sees fit. It is already happening.

Doesn't hurt then if the market is already on the road anyway. More proof of your partisans rhetoric, oppose anything democratic especially if it's from high profile democrats.

another bloated ineffective government bureaucracy.

Based on what analysis of yours?

It should do nothing of the sort and who would measure it and verify it?

Firstly, why not? THe IRS would be a good institution to go towards. Next, this is the same bs that industry was screaming about sulfurous and nitrous caps.

A bunch of bloated government regulation to do nothing about a problem we don't even have evidence exist.

There's plethora of evidence that states it's very real problem. The only reason that you are in opposition is because environmentalism today is a liberal and leftist agenda - you and your neocon bunch are in opposition to anything other than what you or your boy george set out. Tell me I'm wrong, tell me you're environmental and support environmental causes.

 

[jfuh]

Those ten points would be fine, if GW was happening at a catastrophic rate.

The science used for GW models is fairly new, and has been proven to be inconsistent when compared with observations within meteorlogical, and climatological (is that even a word) circles.

I don't think GW is happening beyond anything natural. Remember in the 50's & 60's they were convinced that another ice age was coming because the earth was cooling until the mid 70's

The fact is, there is so much debate and controversy over it because there is so much conflicting evidence to prove either way.

IMO, the actual 'observational science' is more compelling than the computer models used to predict the future. Computer models are only as good as the information you give them, and we just can't account for all the complexities within our weather systems on a global scale.

I think we should be keeping an eye on the current warming trend - just in case - but to implement massive, and hugely expensive changes based on incomplete science is just nonsense, and only hurts developing countries.

Besides, Gore can't be that concerned with a monthly hydro bill of $1,200 in his 10,000 sqft Nashville mansion... Everyone say it with me now... Hypocrite...

Peace

Very well, simple question here is where we stand today

Red represents with human greenhouse gas contributions, blue represents without human greenhouse gas contributions; black line represents actual recorded temperature anomalies.
So the question is, what's natural about the divergence?

 

[Pull My Finger]

So the question is, what's natural about the divergence?

I can't answer that easily with the info you've given. I don't know enough about the graph, and I think it is a little misleading.

1. It only dates back to 1900.
2. Which greenhouse gasses are we talking about; CO2, water vapor, methane, etc? Individually, or combined?
3. Where were the temps measured; surface or troposphere?
4. Is the graph showing (black line) the temperature compared to human GG contributions (red), compared to what GG would be (blue) without human contribution?

First, it only goes back to 1900, giving the impression that temp is much warmer than ever before, which isn't true.

However, using the graph you've provided:

It clearly shows the temperature rising before the post war boom. If I assume the GG the graph is reffering to is strictly CO2, then right after the boom, CO2 FELL, or remained FLAT - so did the temp. If the IPCC theory is that CO2 is the main contributor to GW then this doesn't make sense.

Also the bulk of the warming took place pre 'boom'.

That graph shows the temp rising, FOLLOWED by a rise in CO2 (blue). It looks more like CO2 is affected BY the temperature, not the other way around.

We know the planet is warming. We also know that humans are adding CO2 to the environment. Proving the correlation is where the debate lies, and that particular graph doesn't prove it.

Is your info strictly from IPCC and Gore's film?

Peace

 

[Stinger]

Total bs Just 35 power plants generate the same amount of CO2 of the worlds total human population. How many power plants are there? ANd here you are spewing nonsense bullshit rhetoric. The warming trend we see today is due to human interference - the percentage of the atmosphere is an irrelevant point all together as are your posts attempt at spin.

Why didn't you answer my question? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and what percentage of that is man-made? If you won't respond to my inquiry then there is no point in trying to discuss the issue with you. This is a basic starting point.

CO2 is definitely a pollutant if there's too much.

It is not a pollutant.

What about them? They would of course need to be applicable as would the US and Australia.

When they agree get back to me.

As far as the rest of the suggestions which only create huge government bondoggles, that's the last thing we need.

 

[Stinger]

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

OK argue here.

 

[jfuh]

I can't answer that easily with the info you've given. I don't know enough about the graph, and I think it is a little misleading.

1. It only dates back to 1900.

THat's because there is no divergence before 1900 based on the modeling - thus irrelevant to the question you asked.

2. Which greenhouse gasses are we talking about; CO2, water vapor, methane, etc? Individually, or combined?

Individually would be inaccurate, it is combined.

3. Where were the temps measured; surface or troposphere?

Surface and tropospheric means.

4. Is the graph showing (black line) the temperature compared to human GG contributions (red), compared to what GG would be (blue) without human contribution?

No, the red, blue and black lines are all temperatures. Temperature changes with respect to natural or artificial gg.

First, it only goes back to 1900, giving the impression that temp is much warmer than ever before, which isn't true.

Actually, it is true and accurate for the last several thousand years.

However, using the graph you've provided:

It clearly shows the temperature rising before the post war boom. If I assume the GG the graph is reffering to is strictly CO2, then right after the boom, CO2 FELL, or remained FLAT - so did the temp. If the IPCC theory is that CO2 is the main contributor to GW then this doesn't make sense.

that would be a mis-reading of the graph, the graph does not give CO2 or GG concentrations only temperature.

Also the bulk of the warming took place pre 'boom'.

How do you figure?

That graph shows the temp rising, FOLLOWED by a rise in CO2 (blue). It looks more like CO2 is affected BY the temperature, not the other way around.

Again, you're reading the graph wrong.

We know the planet is warming. We also know that humans are adding CO2 to the environment. Proving the correlation is where the debate lies, and that particular graph doesn't prove it.

Look at it again. Be clear here, are you now also questioning whether or not CO2 causes warming? Your former question was that you question whether humans are causing thus this graph, if you want to question whether greenhouse gases cause warming that's an entirely different question.

Is your info strictly from IPCC and Gore's film?

Peace

This graph is strictly from the IPCC, however my info is not.

 

[jfuh]

Why didn't you answer my question? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and what percentage of that is man-made? If you won't respond to my inquiry then there is no point in trying to discuss the issue with you. This is a basic starting point.



It is not a pollutant.



When they agree get back to me.

As far as the rest of the suggestions which only create huge government bondoggles, that's the last thing we need.

Lack of any rebuttal noted.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Why didn't you answer my question? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and what percentage of that is man-made? If you won't respond to my inquiry then there is no point in trying to discuss the issue with you. This is a basic starting point.



It is not a pollutant.



When they agree get back to me.

As far as the rest of the suggestions which only create huge government bondoggles, that's the last thing we need.

Lack of any rebuttal noted.

I asked you the above first, your didn't respond but asked questions of me, I respond to those question and asked the above again, and you claim a lack of rebuttal in my post.

Try again the ball is in your court.

 

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Why didn't you answer my question? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and what percentage of that is man-made? If you won't respond to my inquiry then there is no point in trying to discuss the issue with you. This is a basic starting point.



It is not a pollutant.



When they agree get back to me.

As far as the rest of the suggestions which only create huge government bondoggles, that's the last thing we need.




I asked you the above first, your didn't respond but asked questions of me, I respond to those question and asked the above again, and you claim a lack of rebuttal in my post.

Try again the ball is in your court.

:roll: Is this all you got? wah wah wah, I asked you first, no I asked you first - you can't argue the points and you have no credible sources to reaffirm your positions. Total waste of time.

 

[Stinger]

:roll: Is this all you got? wah wah wah, I asked you first, no I asked you first - you can't argue the points and you have no credible sources to reaffirm your positions. Total waste of time.

When you are prepared to engage in a debate of the issue and not your childish rants let me know. You have a question waiting on the table......................................

Originally Posted by Stinger
Why didn't you answer my question? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and what percentage of that is man-made? If you won't respond to my inquiry then there is no point in trying to discuss the issue with you. This is a basic starting point.



I asked you the above first, your didn't respond but asked questions of me, I responded to those question and asked the above again, and you claim a lack of rebuttal in my post.

Try again the ball is in your court.

 

[BodiSatva]

jfuh...

I have been following these debates and you make a lot of assertions and ask a lot of questions, but you don't seem to answer many questions. What I regularly see is that you dismiss something you don't like as "too stupid to take seriously" and then you dismiss the others claim entirely.

Just what I notice and perhaps something to take note of...

 

[Pull My Finger]

No, the red, blue and black lines are all temperatures. Temperature changes with respect to natural or artificial gg.

Ahhh, I misunderstood... Then yes my following interpretations would have been all wrong...

I still don't quite get the graph. Do you have a link?

Actually, it is true and accurate for the last several thousand years.

Well I have to disagree with this. The graphs, and models used by Michael Mann/IPCC have been reasonably proven to be faulty.

At best, the hundereds of assumptions that go into modeling leave too much room for error. This is evident in the varying temperatures they predict.

How do you figure?

As I mentioned, I don't entirely trust the validity of the IPCC predicitons and/or modeling. Still, looking at the black line in the bottom left graph you provided (global temp as whole) there is equal warming before and after the first peak in 1940/50. Here is another graph from Nasa. This graph shows more warming happening pre 'boom'
View attachment 2944

Look at it again. Be clear here, are you now also questioning whether or not CO2 causes warming?

Yes. I hate to agree with Stinger 2wave: Hi Stinger) but he is correct in his assertion that the amount of CO2 is a basic starting point.

CO2 accounts for .054% of the ENTIRE atmosphere. Human contribution to CO2 is an even smaller portion.

Volcanoes alone trump every human contributor to CO2 combined. Even more CO2 comes from animal waste/byproducts, and even more still from rotting vegetation, forest fires, and the like.

Water vapour is the single most important GG. It makes up 95% of GG.

Also, as I mentioned in the previous post, CO2 does not affect temperature. According to different studies (independent of each other) it appears that temperature affects CO2 levels.

if you want to question whether greenhouse gases cause warming that's an entirely different question.

There is no question that GG is linked to GW. Most of us understand how this works. How important CO2 is to GG is the question.

This graph is strictly from the IPCC, however my info is not.

If your info comes from anything based on IPCC modeling or the so called 'hockey stick graph', I would recommend researching some opposing views.

Watch that doc Stinger posted. Another good one is 'Doomsday Called Off'. Then read some papers from some of the astrophysicists, meteorologists, and climatologists (some of whom have won awards for exemplary contributions to their fields) who are outside the IPCC.

Peace

 

[BodiSatva]

jfuh

That sounded like an attack that I made...sorry.
I was just pointing out that we should all be open, even Stinger.

:2wave:

 

[jfuh]

jfuh

That sounded like an attack that I made...sorry.
I was just pointing out that we should all be open, even Stinger.

:2wave:

No harm done, and I'm familiar with your takes and debate style so no worries.

 

[jfuh]

Ahhh, I misunderstood... Then yes my following interpretations would have been all wrong...

I still don't quite get the graph. Do you have a link?

Absolutely
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Well I have to disagree with this. The graphs, and models used by Michael Mann/IPCC have been reasonably proven to be faulty.

At best, the hundereds of assumptions that go into modeling leave too much room for error. This is evident in the varying temperatures they predict.

The NAS report reaffirmed that Mann and the general Hockey stick chart are correct but that high accuracy falls substantially after 1000 years ago - but that rises since the industrial revolution are very accurate. Also reporting high confidence in current model systems.

As I mentioned, I don't entirely trust the validity of the IPCC predicitons and/or modeling. Still, looking at the black line in the bottom left graph you provided (global temp as whole) there is equal warming before and after the first peak in 1940/50. Here is another graph from Nasa. This graph shows more warming happening pre 'boom'
View attachment 2944Yes, this is completely consistent, why? Because we are not taking into account of one of the side effects of the pre-boom. All that "cooling" was pre-clean air act of the 70's. Hence high conc. of particulates and sulfurous oxides heavily and substantially blocked out solar radiation - aka global dimming.
This was a greatly over looked phenomena until 9/11 (ironically) proved that global dimming has a negative effect on global warming. But that it would be suicidal to assume that continuous "dark" pollution would save us from global warming, it'd actually be far more severe.
More on modeling - source

Yes. I hate to agree with Stinger 2wave: Hi Stinger) but he is correct in his assertion that the amount of CO2 is a basic starting point.

CO2 accounts for .054% of the ENTIRE atmosphere. Human contribution to CO2 is an even smaller portion.

Volcanoes alone trump every human contributor to CO2 combined. Even more CO2 comes from animal waste/byproducts, and even more still from rotting vegetation, forest fires, and the like.

Water vapour is the single most important GG. It makes up 95% of GG.

Yes, but unlike CO2 or methane, water vapor condenses and easily falls back to earth, in otherwords it is in equilibrium with environmental changes. CO2 is now completely out of equilibrium with the natural carbon cycle.
Also the green house gas efficiency of carbon dioxide is several magnitudes higher than that of water vapor. Being the 2nd highest concentration greenhouse gas and the most out of equilibrium in the environment today it is clearly problem. It doesn't matter that the atmosphere only consists of such a low percentage of co2 or water vapor because oxygen and nitrogen are both inert in terms of greenhouse gases. The level that we want to look at is looking at the relationship between greenhouse gases present and how and if at all they effect global temperatures. Clearly they do as has been evidenced by the Vostok Ice cores.
Also as per the graph that I've shown with the blue red and black lines we see that natural greenhouse gases are not the cause of this current rise.
But to be more specific I have this graph.

We clearly see that the antropogenic far outweigh the natural contributions of energy to the atmosphere.
To look even further such as volcanoes and greenhouse gases. No need to take my word alone for it.
Source

Also, as I mentioned in the previous post, CO2 does not affect temperature. According to different studies (independent of each other) it appears that temperature affects CO2 levels.

You are referencing to the lead of temp vs that of CO2 in ice cores. Source
In otherwords, coming out of an ice age's initial energy barrier is not the result of CO2 rising first, but most likly natural phenomena such as solar radiation, orbital tilt so on. However it's also logical to assume that the earth would not have warmed up as much without the carbon dioxide expunged into the atmosphere by this initial "jolt". What we see today however is that the temperature and CO2 rises are in synch, as are what we see in ice core measurement toward the later 5/6 of rises.

There is no question that GG is linked to GW. Most of us understand how this works. How important CO2 is to GG is the question.

from the ice cores it is the crucial deciding factor.

If your info comes from anything based on IPCC modeling or the so called 'hockey stick graph', I would recommend researching some opposing views.

Such as? Because I do have other sources ie the weekly journal Nature, Science, and other climate studies.
The IPCC report is the collection of all those scientific studies, I see no reason as to why it need be questioned.

Watch that doc Stinger posted. Another good one is 'Doomsday Called Off'. Then read some papers from some of the astrophysicists, meteorologists, and climatologists (some of whom have won awards for exemplary contributions to their fields) who are outside the IPCC.

None of those are peer reviewed published literature, and the ones that are do not show any disagreement with current climate models or explanations.
Now in a rebuttal to the "doc" that stinger posted - let's proceed.
1. Solar radiation arguement, put forth in a 1991 study was later proven false.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006...
http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut...

2. Volcano CO2 thing is just false (Otherwise Hawaii would be off the charts
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006...

3. "Cosmic rays" don't have any scientific proof or trend data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

4. Lack tropospheric warming was due to outdated data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellit...

5. The 1940-1970 dip in temperature was due to industrial Sulfur aersol emmisions
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/...

====================

Temperature charts (Based off of outdated and partially faked data
http://www.greyfalcon.net/graph.png

=========General debunking============
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#S...


===========Reviews=============
RealClimate: "Swindled!"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

The Real Global Warming Swindle
http://news.independent.co.uk/environ...

C4's debate on global warming boils over
(Part where Durkin says "You Daft ****!")
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...

Good point by point overview of swindled
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?optio... (more)

Finally, Durkin like the other conspiracy theorists believes that global warming is a liberal conspiracy, that's just right up there with believing that the moon landing is a conspiracy as well as 9/11. The government isn't exactly that great at keeping secrets, what with all the blowjobs in the white house and firing of attorneys as well as a "secret wire tapping program". Finally why would governments create something to reject?

A point Durkin brought up? China isn't dealing with global warming so why should we? There are lots of things that China isn't doing, ie democracy, human rights ect. Nothing but a tu quo quoi fallacy. The entire film was nothing but a desperate attempt in the midst of piles of evidence in support of AGW.

 

[OnionCollection]

>> What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?
About 0.038%

>> What percentage of that is man-made?
About a quarter of it