Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

California Bill AB 32

AB32, if passed, will commit the state of California to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2020, here is a summary and details of the bill.

Web Link


Comments

AB 32 passed in 2006 and has been law for some time now.

In fact a study was recently released noting that California's economy has continued to grow while also becoming the world's second most environmentally sustainable, in part because of AB 32: Web Link


Web Link ..... Californians being unfairly penalized.

Web Link ..... One of the biggest contributors to California air pollution.


One of the biggest contributors to California air pollution.

From the article...

"In layman's terms, nearly one-quarter of Kern County's ozone problem may be attributable at times to off-shore sources, making it completely beyond local control. "

It's that "...may be attributable at times..." that bothers me. I don't have trouble believing that pollution from major contributors like China is making it's way all over the world.

There are several spots in the article re. Conley's work that are also less than definitive. For example...

"As we learn more about the transport of ozone from Asia, ocean-going ships and even Europe, it seems possible that the five exceedances over the past 32 months -- all which occurred in Fresno County -- might not have happened were in not for ozone transported from outside the valley."

It'll be interesting to see more data, more findings. The central valley has been a dust pit as long as I can remember. Even as a kid there, people told me they thought living and breathing in the valley took 5-10 years off of their lives. China may be pushing the needle over the line, but the needle's been close to that line a long time in the valley.


AB32 was sold as a solution to global warming:Web Link

It won't have any affect on global temoeratures at all.

Just another lie by the government class and their minions.


Most people are so happy to save a buck that they keep buying useless cr@p from the major upwind polluter China, which at the same time accelerates the loss of our clean and controlled American manufacturing jobs to those pigs.

Will breathing Chinese pollution bother anyone enough to stop supporting filthy practices? Or is that up to the next guy?


Well, just one letter off, but embarrassing none the less.

AB 32 is a environmental law, but mtpy intention was to call attention to SB 32 which is currently under consideration. Web Link

This bill would mean reducing emissions to 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050. That appears to me to be a Herculean effort.


80% of 1990 is definitely ambitious.


Uffish, as you counseled me the other day, words matter. Referring to the Chinese as "those pigs" is EXTREMELY offensive and you should retract it. (Disclosure: My in-laws are retired Chinese factory employees.)

Also, your concern about the loss of our "clean and controlled American manufacturing jobs" to China is both misplaced and outdated. First, we're not losing them to China anymore... we've been losing them more recently to Vietnam and other nations, but even that offshoring movement has largely stalled because of rising labor costs overseas. And second, it's been many years since what you call "useless cr@p" was the focus... it was long ago supplanted by furniture, high-tech devices and other top-end products whose offshore manufacture has enabled business to generate higher profits -- a favored conservative principle if I'm not mistaken.

Finally, China IS at last addressing its pollution problems, both air and water. Pollution got out of control in the rush to build an explosively growing economy based on coal-fired power plants. For China, as for the US in the last century, dealing with pollution became a top priority only when the public health impact became obvious.


Responding: Technology has existed for some time now for cleaner energy, and choosing the cheap and dirty route to wealth was a conscious choice for China. China has arguably the world's top economy and for many years on the influx of American dollars could afford clean technology and could afford to impose pollution standards like ours. Yet they still won't commit themselves to our same standards. In fact they have recently contracted to build numerous new coal plants.

So what if Vietnam is also engaged in dirty practices. We shouldn't buy from dirty manufacturers there either.

Why aren't retail products labeled for pollution output? Perhaps heavily pollution-derived products shouldn't be allowed to be sold in this country on the basis of creating a US health hazard. Remove the reward for cheap and dirty manufacturing and loan them the money for clean technology if necessary.

Who cares what type of manufactured product pollutes? High tech or junk toy-of-the-month-- if pollution is not controlled it's pollution just the same. And high tech has added dangers from myriad toxic gas releases, inadequate burn boxes, solvent dumping, toxic waste dumping. Does China have any healthy marine life at all any more?

Finally, if an American marries into a filthy country like China and becomes too easily offended by people calling out China as the pollution pigs they are, that's not anyone else's problem.


The Chinese aren't as concerned about the environment as Americans. They're much more concerned with obtaining wealth. That is my observation, and it is not intended as a slam on Chinese culture. I imagine there are poor schlubs in other countries with similar priorities. It's a "Pyramid of Needs" thing.

Aphrodisiacs are also important to some in Chinese cultures. Parts of many a rare animal are believed to be strong aphrodisiacs -- the more rare, the more powerful its effects.

And, because this is TA, note that I did not write "all Chinese." But those that have spent any time living in China know that my assertions are true.

The best way to decrease population growth and increase concern for the environment? Lift more people out of poverty. It works every time in every culture.

Note to "uffish thought" -- there needs to be a balance between wealth creation and environmental regulations that enables the best overall environmental protections.


An interesting read on man made environmental issues and what is the target versus what should be the target for correction: "'Radical transition' of economy needed to curb climate change: study", Web Link

"BONN, Germany (Reuters) - Harmful impacts of global warming such as heat waves and sea level rise are mounting and show a need for a "radical transition" to a greener economy, a study presented at U.N. climate talks said on Tuesday."

"Damage is growing even though average temperatures have risen only 0.85 degree Celsius (1.5 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, less than half the 2C set as a maximum acceptable rise by almost 200 nations, it said."

"Lift more people out of poverty. It works every time in every culture." I agree. "--there needs to be a balance between wealth creation and environmental regulations that enables the best overall environmental protections." I agree.

What has happened relative to our influence on our environment happened quickly. I have no illusions that reversing the bad will be either quick or easy, but the effort must be made. It will take awareness and a series of measures to accomplish, if it can be - and it will take time. How much time? I don't know, but I would venture to say that it appears it will take more time to correct than it did to create.

Changing behavior is no easy task.


Americans can clean up pollution by not buying products from filthy countries just to save a buck.

Who here has committed themselves to not funding pollution if an alternative exists?


^^^ Changing behavior is no easy task. ^^^

Nor will it impact the climate.

You can post observations of climate change -- which isn't in dispute -- until the cows come home, but that is no substitute for scientific proof that humans can halt or reverse climate change by reducing plant food emissions.


I prefer to avoid the CO2 controversy and focus on reducing general air pollution. That will reduce CO2 emissions along with it.


>>"...if an American marries into a filthy country like China..."

Uffish, for one so sensitive to perceived gender bias, your ignorance is particularly odious -- and hypocritical.

China is not a "filthy country"... it's a breathtakingly beautiful country with a terrible pollution problem caused by horribly warped government and business priorities -- not unlike the warped priorities that caused America's own pollution nightmares a century ago. The Chinese government put economic development in front of all other considerations, and their people are paying the price for the government's continued bad decisions.

But as for the Chinese people themselves, calling them "pigs" is bias far worse than the perceived gender slight of calling a woman by her first name, and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.


"At the end of the day, I think carbon pollution is worthy of being controlled, whether you believe in global warming or not. I do believe that all the CO2 gases, greenhouse gases from cars, trucks and utility plants is not making us a healthier place, is not making our society better, and it's coming at the expense of our national security and our economic prosperity. So put me in the camp that it's worthy to clean up the air and make money doing so. This idea that carbon's good for you. I want that debate. There's a wing of our party who thinks carbon pollution is OK. I'm not in that wing". Senator Lindsey Graham (R SC)

"Global warming, dependence on foreign sources of fuel, and capitalism have come together to create opportunities for us that were unimaginable just a few short years ago," he said, in a video recording unearthed by BuzzFeed. Rubio predicted that legal caps on greenhouse gas emissions were inevitable, and he argued that Florida should prepare to become "an international model of energy efficiency and independence" and the "Silicon Valley" of clean energy." Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl)


>>country with a terrible pollution problem caused by horribly warped government<<

You seem to be agreeing that China is a pollution pig too. And yes they know it is filthy.

No one called the individual people pigs for their air pollution. Obviously in Communist China it is not the individual factory worker calling the shots.

The term pig as applied to individuals is for those causing rhinoceros to go extinct to ignorantly try to make up for their sexual inadequacies. Or who cruelly skin puppies alive, or who come here and wipe out entire abalone fields to illegally sell. We would agree those individuals would be pigs, right?

Luckily that is not most individuals. And luckily all of that is illegal in the United States. Thank god for our western culture.


Finally, if an American marries into a filthy country like China and becomes too easily offended by people calling out China as the pollution pigs they are, that's not anyone else's problem.

That is probably the most racist thing I've ever seen posted on TA.


See above.


What ever does the color of someone's skin have to do with their country being a gross polluter? That is the most stupid thing I've read on TA in a long time.


^^^ Changing behavior is no easy task. ^^^ - "Nor will it impact the climate." fdrouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, 1 hour ago

One of the most arrogant and equally ignorant statements this individual has made to date, and there have been many more than one can count. Unbelievable.

This individual's continued attempts to try to segregate CO2 from all other possible and potential and named pollutants appears to be no more than a cheap parlor trick, and the data shows it. Why he is so persistent in his efforts to deny the undeniable is beyond any reasonable and rational thinking; but he continues.

Thank goodness he is not in any position to have influence over others.


Isn't there room for different beliefs about CO2 as a greenhouse gas? So someone else thinks differently.


>>"Thank god for our western culture."<<

Unfortunately, uffish, your bigotry is representative of the ugliest side of Western culture -- the foul stench of stereotype, fairy tale and ignorance is as odious as the foul stench of air pollution.

Skinning live puppies? Garbage, a fully-disproven urban legend. The slaughter of endangered species? The West and Africa have been equally guilty. Overfishing and oceanic theft? A worldwide problem. And your claim to applying the word "pigs" to only the Chinese who commit such crimes? A bald-faced lie that fools nobody.

As for my "marrying into" China, every man should be so lucky. I consider a privilege to have been introduced to such a beautiful country and such an ancient and magnificent culture, with a history that was more than 5000 years old before America was born. I'm honored to have been so openly welcomed by the people of China in general and by my wife's family in particular. I've been overwhelmed by their gentleness, caring and devotion to family (the latter of which puts us Westerners to shame.)

And I have, on occasion, been profoundly ashamed of the contrasting treatment those wonderful people have sometimes experienced from my own countrymen -- too many of whom are cultural clods, dogmatic ignoramuses and stereotype-driven bigots.


There is, of course Uffish , room for all views. Some folks believe that we never landed on the moon. Their view does not compromise the future of the world. Some people believe that the Earth was created in seven days about 5000 years ago. Their views do not compromise the future of the world.

And then some folks refuse to acknowledge that mankind is contributing to AGW..........


"Isn't there room for different beliefs about CO2 as a greenhouse gas? So someone else thinks differently." There is all kinds of room; opinions are like belly buttons ... everybody has one - but what does that have to do with topic or the facts thereof?

It is curious, and previously noted, that you feel the need to defend anyone (other than yourself, of course), and fd in particular. One has to wonder why that is? Do you feel a need to be the person with the shovel and wheelbarrow that follows the horses asses on parade day collecting all the prizes plopped down?

CO2 has been identified as one of the ingredients causing environmental distress, yet one individual resists the data, resisting it to the point of personally attacking others, including worldwide organizations that were created to and specialize in climate change.

Calling CO2 plant food, when discussing climate change is rather like calling the lion that just killed an American in Africa a cute little Kitty. It may be, from a distance, but it is still a killer.

Many have provided link after link after link on climate change, sea level rise, the ozone and the damage we've caused it over a series of recent threads. The volume of data is staggering, really. And you come back, in defense of the indefensible, with "isn't there room ..."? No uff, there isn't; not if we are to recognize, understand and combat climate change going forward. We need to take better care of this planet we live on for our sake, our children' sake and the sake of all that call this planet home now and going forward - or, maybe centuries, maybe thousands of years from now or more, some species will be doing archeological digs looking for the remains of that once interesting but then extinct species called humans, just like we look for dinosaur bones now.


Glad you found something you needed Mike. I'm happy to be American and happy we have laws protecting our environment. Sorry but China doesn't respect much of their own environment much less others' and your being huffy and accusative doesn't make that pollution smell any better or the extinctions any more acceptable because of their 1.39 BILLION population.


How colorful, George: >>the person with the shovel and wheelbarrow that follows the horses<<

So there's "plenty of evidence." Except that there's been no rise in temp over the last 15-20 years.

I think there may be other temporary effects canceling out a temperature rise but am not qualified to say so with certainty one way or another. Neither is anyone here or anywhere else.

>>We need to take better care of this planet we live on for our sake, our children' sake and the sake of all that call this planet home now and going forward<<

+1 on that.


^^^ Many have provided link after link after link on climate change, sea level rise, the ozone and the damage we've caused it over a series of recent threads. The volume of data is staggering, really. ^^^

You are enhancing your ignorance of the scientific method. And your ignorance of climate science is equally stunning.

Evidence of climate change is not proof that the cause is anthropogenic. In fact, evidence is growing that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 does not cause global temperature to increase.

But ideologs like George prefer to join the mob and shout down anyone that is skeptical of alarmist claims, even though those same alarmists have been proven wrong again and again.

^^^ Calling CO2 plant food ^^^

It is plant food you fool. And pointing out the tragedy in South Africa doesn't change that fact. You're still a fool, and an insufferable one at that!


There are a very few that simply prefer to argue, to always be right, to have the last word and to repeat their misinformed opinions to death, as if that makes their opinions right; contrarian to the extreme.

The evidence that has been presented here and on other recent threads is interesting and eye opening, at least for those with an open mind and able to comprehend what is written.

I'm not going to convince anyone of anything and see no use in trying, particularly with anyone as cantankerous as our far fetched Gualala little buddy. The evidence of his folly is here for anyone to see. He can believe whatever he likes, no matter how far fetched.

The rest of the educated world will hopefully continue to research climate change and our impacts and effects on said climate change in the hopes of being able offset the damage done and extend our presence on this planet, along with all other critters that live here.

I am grateful for the discussion on topic and have learned something from it.

Have a nice day.


The Paris Climate Summit takes place in early December, but there are those that are working on it now in preparation. "Why the Paris Climate Summit might actually work", Web Link

Here is the lead from this piece: "The Paris Climate Summit is approaching more quickly than it might seem. Though it actually takes place in early December, there are fewer than 20 negotiating days left on the diplomatic calendar before the international community gathers in the French capital."

"Their goal is to construct something that has eluded the world for more than two decades: a meaningful, effective and enforceable global climate change agreement. Based on recent climate science findings, the summit can be viewed as the last chance for the global community to meet the mandate countries agreed to back in 1992 — avoiding "dangerous human interference with the climate system." Negotiators have defined that danger threshold as global warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."

From this piece (like many others posted here), there are links within; they are blue in color. In the second paragraph I just posted, we find the first one; Based on 'recent climate science findings' - the segmented part is a link in the piece. When opened, it provides us with this: "Global warming may cause largest ocean species migration in 3 million years, Web Link

Both articles provide us with good information and are worth the read. The second one (linked in the first) provides us with a great deal of different information from the first.

Here's one excerpt from the 2nd piece linked here: "The study, which attempts to quantify the shifts in biodiversity that may occur during this century throughout the global ocean, offers a stark warning ahead of global climate talks in Paris in December."

"It finds that global warming may not alter the oceans in a profound way if emissions are cut sufficiently to meet the globally agreed upon temperature target of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to preindustrial levels. Some policymakers now consider that goal to be nearly impossible, given the continued rise in planet-warming greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide."

I think it reasonable to highlight part of that to try once more to get one individual to understand that CO2 can be and is more than "plant food" in this context: "Some policymakers now consider that goal to be nearly impossible, given the continued rise in planet-warming greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide."

To highlight our little Gualala buddy's 'misconception' or impaired capabilities to envision a larger image, I would offer that of course CO2 is "plant food"; but it is also so much more.

But of course he has been shown that numerous times and simply refuses to acknowledge it, or any of the other facts and scientific evidence presented that disagrees with his view of life. To each his own, but it would be nice if he didn't put his issues on such public display ... and so often, too.

As I said, both pieces are worth the read for anyone (like me) that wants to learn more.


Web Link .... A sitting US Senator wants to prosecute global warming skeptics. Maybe he posts on TA too.


There are always those that find themselves at the extremes. It has been my experience that more wins take place somewhere in the middle.

It might be a good idea to learn as much as we can, use this Paris Summit to establish a good framework to work from and do our best to be constructive before we haul off and threaten folks with punishments.

Just like one poster here who seems to refuse to admit that CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas and is contributing to the negative consequences of climate change, this clown Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, might want to learn more before threatening severe consequences and further tying up our judicial system (and our money) in ignorance.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste; it's even worse when that ignorance is publicly demonstrated. We need to feel sorry for them, try to be compassionate and continue to try to educate them. There are always a few at the extremes in any species.


George continues to confuse evidence of climate change -- which no credible climatologist disputes -- with proof that it is caused by humans. He also confuses catastrphic climate alarmism from government bodies seeking tax revenue and more power with proof that climate change is caused by humans. It's as though he's never heard of the IPPC AR5, let alone read it. (Not the summary, which isn't fully supported by the report itself.)


Don't play Poker much, do you? I hope not for your sake because you stink at bluffing.

Let me start, well ... at the beginning; "It's as though he's never heard of the IPPC AR5, let alone read it." The initials for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are IPCC, not IPPC. There have been five assessment reports (AR5 for example, the latest one) that they have done, with the most recent being completed showing Climate Change 2013 as one element. The Final Draft is dated June 7, 2013.

Although I have heard of the IPCC and their Reports, you are correct on one thing; I have not read them. The one I'm looking at now has fourteen (14) Chapters, which does not include what they refer to as Annexes & "Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment". You're kidding, right?

But it seems you have read it, and I applaud that effort. Maybe you could share some of your extensive wisdom on the latest Report?

Well, if not, I understand - what with all those technical terms and stuff, so why don't we open this up so others can help: "IPCC AR5 full final report released – full access here", Web Link

"From the IPCC website: Final Draft

Note

The Final Draft Report, dated 7 June 2013, of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis was accepted but not approved in detail by the Twelfth Session of Working Group I and the Thirty-Sixth Session of the IPCC on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. It consists of the full scientific and technical assessment undertaken by Working Group I."

"The Final Draft Report has to be read in conjunction with the document entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) and presented to the Panel at its Thirty-Sixth Session. This document lists the changes necessary to ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policymakers, which was approved line-by-line by Working Group I and accepted by the Panel at the above-mentioned Sessions."

Let's get this party started, and thanks fd for the Report!


Just as I'm trying to close up for the day and hit the sack, O run acrid this (and just couldn't resist): "Rick Santorum Wants Pope Francis To Stop Talking About Climate Change", Web Link

Imagine that.

From the piece: "Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change."

"Santorum, a devout Catholic, told Philadelphia radio host Dom Giordano on Monday that the pope should "leave science to the scientists.""

"His comments come as the pope, who earned a master's degree in chemistry before turning to the priesthood, becomes increasingly vocal about climate change. Pope Francis is preparing a groundbreaking encyclical to be released in the coming weeks that's expected to make the case that taking action to fight climate change is a moral and religious imperative."

That's how it starts off. Here's how it ends up: "Despite his pleas to the pope, Santorum has a history of rejecting established science. He denies that climate change is man-made and has dismissed global warming as a "hoax" despite the fact that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities," according to NASA."

"Santorum has also rejected evolution and instead believes in "intelligent design,” according to Discover magazine."

"Pope Francis says evolution does not contradict church doctrine."

Santorum, a loser in his last bid for republican nomination for President, is going to run again. Here's his website: Web Link


Wow, George has never ever mis-typed anything an TA. But petty thinkers rely on illogical arguments such as "False Cause" and "The Fallacy Fallacy" to make their argument.

That and excessive bloviating on observations that aren't in dispute.

People like George will continue to be lead around by the nose until they understand that evidence of climate change -- which is always occuring -- is not proof that it is being caused by man, let alone anthropogenic GHG releases. It would also help if he understood that the IPCC reports are political reports with cherry-picked science intended to advance a political cause. (And to benefit a few cronies at the expense of the many.)


Regarding IPCC 5, here is a statement from Working Group 1 in October, 2014

"Increased certainty on humans’ role. (more) The AR4 stated it was “very likely” — a figure that corresponds to at least 90% certainty — that human greenhouse gas pollution has caused more than half of observed warming. Scientists are now more certain than ever that observed warming can be attributed primarily to human activities such as deforestation and greenhouse gas pollution. The AR5 states with 95% certainty that humans have caused more than half of observed warming since 1951. Furthermore, the estimate of the human component of warming has increased over time while the estimate of the influence of natural factors has decreased."

"Short-term slowing of surface warming. (more) The AR5 mentions a reduced rate of surface warming over the past 15 years. Possible causes include emission of light-blocking aerosols by developing countries as well as the redirection of heat to the deep ocean. Research indicates that total global heat content is rising without pause, though, and surface warming is likely to resume when the ocean heat cycles back into the atmosphere"

Web Link

Read the reports yourself. Choose to believe the thousands of scientists or to believe the energy industry trolls.


^^^ Scientists are now more certain than ever that observed warming can be attributed primarily to human activities such as deforestation and greenhouse gas pollution. ^^^

Not scientists -- politicians and politicized scientists. Principled scientists don't claim more "certainty" after it is shown that all of their predictions were miserably wrong based on actual observations of temperatures over the past 18 years despite adding 25% of all anthropogenic CO2 in that time frame.


Maybe we can take a break from the absurdity of phrases like "politicized scientists" and take a gander at what Americans appear to believe about Climate Change, according to this specific set of research out of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Eight maps that reveal Americans incoherent opinions on climate change

Web Link

In short, some of the opinions expressed above in the thread is aligned with, and typical of, most Americans.


Not "is", but "are".


Let's take a break from more distractions and get back to the science. Here's a timely summary from Dr. Fred Singer: Web Link

One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show.This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.

That's an understatement!


Singer is an interesting 90 year old man who also claims that there is no relationship between passive smoking and cancer, his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,

His opinion is certainly worth considering.


The deniers of AGW are closely coupled to those who feel that mankind was put here for a purpose - that destiny is somehow involved. Its a very western perspective; That humans are superior to and above all other flora and fauna. Western religions have not helped dissuade that attitude - world without end, amen, amen, etc.

Couple that with the sorts of folks, like FD, who probably grew-up on Robert Heinlein and other Sc-fi authors who always painted a picture of mankind taming or overcoming nature or even leaving earth once it is trashed, and you have got what we got today. While nearly everyone acknowledges the problems, they have an incredibly difficult time accepting responsibility, only the notion it can be fixed somehow. That is one of the conclusions one can draw from the Yale study I linked above.

A post-modern manifest destiny perspective. True Believers, one and all, baptized in arrogance, entitlement and ignorance. Amen.

(FYI - I am having to remove apostrophes and quotes to submit posts - they seem to generate SQL syntax errors. I wonder if humans are the cause? Maybe God hates contractions?)



O, so I can post, so long as I have nothing to say?


I, too, have been having issues with posting since yesterday afternoon. SQL syntax errors, even without quoting. Yet I got the two above in ... and maybe this one.


Boney notes the odd opinions of Dr. Fred Singer... and those opinions are also purchased.

His secondhand-smoke-is-harmless advocacy was part of a PR campaign financed by tobacco companies, just as his climate-change-skeptic organization was funded by Exxon and ARCO.

Despite the massive photographic evidence to the contrary, Singer has insisted the glaciers of the world are actually growing, not shrinking. And he is confident that the oceans are neither warming nor rising.

Hmmm.


^^^ O, so I can post, so long as I have nothing to say? ^^^

Why change now? As for posting problems, simply precede every apostrophe with a backslash until the IT guys fix their SQL scrubbers.

^^^ His opinion is certainly worth considering. ^^^

Real scientists are skeptical by profession. Rigid ideologues harp on them for challenging politicized science. Nice try at using the illogical fallacy fallacy, though.

^^^ just as his climate-change-skeptic organization was funded by Exxon and ARCO. ^^^

So what? It pales in comparison to the sums paid by the governments to fabricate a link between anthropogenic CO2 releases (about 4% of the total) and global temperatures. Besides, if you're truly concerned by purchasing influence look no further than government-funded science. Unless you're a hypocrite like Peter Gleick. Then you can pretend the government is as pure as the driven snow while fabricating evidence against the Heartland Group.

As for glaciers, Mike Gaynes has over-simplified Singer's position and has also failed to recognize that glaciers don't all grow or all recede at the same time. Some goes for the polar ice caps.


Just as George said cannot post with an apostrophe in message


Fred Singer on Second Hand Smoke: Web Link

Seems the accusations by Mike Gaynes are both untrue and common smear used against AGW skeptics.


^^^ Just as George said cannot post with an apostrophe in message ^^^

Are you sure?


Government-funded scientists caught fudging the data again: Web Link

It's disturbing that they do so frequently and with alacrity.


Accusations? Untrue?

Read your own link sometime.

This article confirms his views in his own words. The worst he believes about secondhand smoke is that it is irritating, unpleasant and "cannot possibly be healthy"... but he rejects the view that it causes disease.

Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Singer. You may step down.


EPA’s Flawed Science

So what is the truth about SHS and lung cancer? EPA fudged their analysis to reach a predetermined conclusion, using thoroughly dishonest procedures. EPA "scientists" made three major errors: (1) They ignored "publication bias." (2) They arbitrarily shifted the statistical "confidence intervals." (3) They drew unjustified conclusions from a risk ratio that was barely greater than 1.0.

Since none of the epidemiological studies provided the clear answer they wanted, the EPA carried out a "meta-analysis," lumping together a selected group of studies. Unfortunately, this approach ignores publication bias, the tendency for investigators not to publish their studies if they do not find a positive result.

The EPA, in order to calculate a positive risk ratio, relaxed the confidence intervals from the generally accepted 95 percent standard to 90 percent—and admitted this openly.

Even so, their "risk ratio" was just a little above 1.0—whereas careful epidemiologists, because of the presence of confounding factors, generally ignore any result unless the risk ratio exceeds 2.0.

To sum up this somewhat technical discussion, I can state with some assurance that the EPA analysis—to paraphrase my former teacher, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli—is "not only wrong, but worthless." -- Dr. Fred Singer

No where does he say that the SHS doesn't cause disease. Instead, he criticizes the EPA for fudging numbers and failing to use methods employed by epidemiologists.

Again, Mike Gaynes is falsely accusing Dr. Singer of denying the SHS-disease link to discredit his views on climate science. It seems that is the preferred method of alarmists and their minions because it is soooo much easier than getting into to the deep weeds of the science.


In the article, Singer claims that collusion between Big Tobacco and science shills is non-existent:

any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies

That is simply not true. The man is either an idiot or, far more likely, a shill for the industry, just like Willie Soon is for the Koch Bros and Big Oil.

Both have zero credibility except for with those whose confirmation bias they satisfy. They are paid liars.

Web Link


Vast Tobacco Conspiracy

No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course. Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have consistently ignored factual information, have not bothered to consult primary sources, have never interviewed any of the scientists they try to smear, and generally have operated in a completely unprofessional way.

The ultimate aim of these attacks has been to discredit skeptics of similarly unsupported global warming fears. I am a nonsmoker, find SHS to be an irritant and unpleasant, have certainly not been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby, and have never joined any of their front organizations. I serve on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization.

My father, who was a heavy smoker, died of emphysema while relatively young. I personally believe that SHS, in addition to being objectionable, cannot possibly be healthy. Yet people like Oreskes and Conway repeatedly try to divert attention from scientific facts by claiming I and other scientists who disagree with her on global warming are mere shills for tobacco companies.

Seems to me that it is those launching ad hominem attacks against Dr. Singers that are the liars.


Let's try it once more - from what I tried to post yesterday:

Nice addition (link), Coasters. Very interesting.

Even the energy industry is now publicly recognizing climate change: "Big Oil Must Ditch Low Profile in Climate Clash: Shell CEO", Web Link

Here's another, which I posted here yesterday, but is worth the repost because of its oil industry recognition: "Why the Paris Climate Summit might actually work", Web Link

Although the prepared statements are very carefully worded, it is a good first step to see energy CEO's recognize the issue, the problems the issue presents and a willingness to participate in solutions.

From the second piece: "On Monday, the leaders of six global oil and gas companies sent a letter to top U.N. climate official Christiana Figueres, offering support for the implementation of a carbon price."

"The chief executives of Shell, BP, Total, Statoil, Eni and the BG Group wrote:

We acknowledge that the current trend of greenhouse gas emissions is in excess of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is needed to limit the temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The challenge is how to meet greater energy demand with less CO2. We stand ready to play our part."

I would also take this opportunity to once again highlight a specific part of this letter from these global energy CEOs: "The challenge is how to meet greater energy demand with less CO2."

Seems even these oil titans see more to CO2 than simply "plant food" acknowledging it as a “greenhouse gas emission”. Go figure.


More science by the government and for the government to hoodwink us all:

Web Link

Gee, those government scientists wouldn\'t have an incentive to lie and deliver what the government wants them to deliver, would they?


Dimwits can call CO2 plant food until they are blue in the face, but CO2 is a poison to humans. Go watch the movie Apollo 13 and see how they had to scramble to cobble together a CO2 scrubber before the level in the spacecraft rose to lethal levels.

Carbon Dioxide poisoning Web Link

"At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death."

A very recent news report indicated that for the first time, CO2 levels just reached 4.0% everywhere on earth.

Hypercapnia Web Link

"According to other sources, symptoms of mild hypercapnia might include headache, confusion and lethargy."

Apparently the deniers must more sensitive to increasing CO2 levels, since they are confused.

Note that from my reading of this stuff, Carbon Dioxide poisoning is a different process than Carbon Monoxide poisoning, in which the CO binds tighter to hemoglobin than oxygen does so you're oxygen-starved. I am not a biochemist but Carbon Dioxide poisoning seems to be a different mechanism.

Today's ecosystem evolved and humans happened to be here while the atmospheric mix is just right for humans to thrive. It's quite likely that no matter how the mix changes, it won't be as optimum for humans as it was 200 years ago.

- - -

Global temperatures may not really be increasing right now as a result of climate change, but the climate is clearly changing. One reason for the lack of an increase in temperature might be jet contrails. Web Link

"Scientists therefore thought contrails had a net warming effect. ...

Then Sept. 11, 2001 presented a unique opportunity to study what the sky looked like without airplanes and contrails."

Read the whole web page for the full story. It's pretty well documented that in the 3 days of "no fly" in the U.S., it was sunnier with higher daytime temperatures.


The report 90 year old scientist Fred Singer was so concerned about is out, and his worst fears are confirmed.

What if the missing heat has been there all along? In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change flagged an odd phenomenon: Atmospheric temperature data collected over the past few decades suggested that global warming had slowed down beginning around 1998. Global warming skeptics crowed, and scientists delved into the global climate system to find out where the missing heat had gone. But a new analysis suggests that the real culprits are the data themselves. When better corrections for various sources of bias are applied to the data, the authors say, the so-called global warming hiatus vanishes—and in fact, they argue, global warming may have sped up.

Web Link


^^^ Dimwits can call CO2 plant food until they are blue in the face, but CO2 is a poison to humans. ^^^

Dimwits can call CO2 poisonous to humans until they are green in the face, but CO2 remains essential to life, including human life. They also tend to overlook the manipulation of the temperature record, this time to explain away "the pause." It's just their latest fear mongering in preparation for Paris later this year: Web Link

But they got "Boney Bills" to fall for it!

The fact remains that catastrophic climate change alarmists have yet to prove that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 causes climate change. In response to legitimate scientific skepticism, they resort to manipulating the data and releasing their hounds to politicize the "settled" science. (If it's settled, why are they compelled to manipulate the data? Sure, they can mask the "pause," but they still can't "predict" the Little Ice Age or the Mideval Warming!)

Completely eliminating anthropogenic CO2 releases -- about 4% of the total -- won't have any measurable impact on global temperatures.


Hi FD, could you explain where you get the 4% additional release figure? The numbers as I've seen them are that the pre-human baseline was about 350 parts CO2 and now we're at something like 450 parts (ppm? Too lazy to look it up, lol).


"Dimwits can call CO2 poisonous to humans until they are green in the face, but CO2 remains essential to life, including human life." Very funny stuff. Water is essential to life, including human life too, but I don't think one would do well treading water alone in the middle of the Pacific.

Too much of anything can be hazardous to one's health.

As to "...catastrophic climate change alarmists have yet to prove that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 causes climate change." The proof is in abundance, both on this thread and others like it contained in the countless links provided. In order to know that, however, one must first click on the links, then one must read the links, then one must be able to comprehend what was written and read.

But there's always one that prefers to be the contrarian to the extreme who, no matter what data is provided, will tell all the Earth is still flat. Some just want to argue and be the center of attention, even when looking the fool.


How about one day of not being at each other's throats. Just one.


^^^ Hi FD, could you explain where you get the 4% additional release figure? ^^^

Here you go: Web Link

^^^ The proof is in abundance, both on this thread and others like it contained in the countless links provided. ^^^

For the umpteenth time, observations of climate change -- which is not in dispute -- is not proof that it is being caused by anthropogenic releases of CO2. You may as well claim that it is raining whenever you see that the ground is wet.


This is from the site Francis just supplied:

"Impacts of increasing CO2 on other systems

Continued emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will affect climate and ocean chemistry, subsequently influencing both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. The warming effects of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases impinge on agriculture, natural systems, and a host of environmental variables. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also directly translates to increasing acidity of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, which is corrosive to the shells and skeletal material of many marine organisms. Subsequent impacts on ecosystems are largely not understood." Web Link

Thanks, Francis,


You may as well claim that it is raining whenever you see that the ground is wet

Or that scientists are politically driven whenever you disagree with their hypotheses.


^^^ This is from the site Francis just supplied: ^^^

That's a non-sequitur argument. "It does not follow" that because a government agency has useful facts that their hypothesis on AGW is valid or true.


Carbon is for the masses to deal with.

John Kerry injures his leg biking in Europe and commandeers a giant CO2-spewing C-17 cargo transport to airlift the poor baby from Geneva to Boston. Because, you know, the Swiss have such bad doctors. (?) And because he can.

Web Link


"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper."

The study went on to find:

"Though it should be noted that the literature basically finds this to be more prevalent on the conservative side of the ledger..." Web Link


It sounds as though FD means that human releases are only 4% of the total atmospheric CO2 _on a yearly basis_. But it seems to have added up to a 30% or so increase over time as another 100 ppm has been added to the atmospheric total, now at 400 ppm. CO2 may not be the cause of global warming but we need to curtail it anyway for perhaps as yet unknown reasons.

Web Link .... (some consider this a poor site) "Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years* (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

*Although it's been 10 X higher in the past.


Some of the climate change deniers continue to claim that there is no proof that additional CO2 effects the temperature. The truth is there to behold to those willing to read.

Web Link


Mr Bills, you are just wasting your (figurative) breath, and at the same time feeding our trolling drama queen.

I have little doubt you know that already, but thought I'd give a reminder.

Have a grat day.


George, I totally agree with your assessment of the trolling drama queen. There is no possibility of change.

However, there have been 840+ visits to this thread. For the benefit of those who are undecided I feel the errors and misstatements should not go unchallenged .

Besides, I have breath to waste!


Well about the only thing I can say to that is - CO2, you know ... that "plant food", is in over-abundance around the globe.

I'm just glad it is figurative breath - were it the real McCoy, you'd be adding to climate change!

Which is worse for our environment; CO2 or methane? I only ask because CO2 is what us humans expel through breathing. Methane, on the other hand, is expelled from 'below the equator' from those same humans.

Me thinks someone has been expelling methane on this board. Maybe that's "plant food" too.


I note that "Boney Bills" relies on an alarmist website that poses as skeptics.

You have to do better than that. There's a lot of garbage on that site. The least you could do is point out what you consider "proof."

And I tire of your feeble "you're an igorant denier" accusations. None other than an expert in atmospheric phyisics has shown that the temperature response to additional CO2 is non-linear.

Fred Singer explains the dubious nature of the pause "discovered" by NCDC -- and how that will likely ignite a debate among other alarmist groups: Web Link

Not that it will prevent George or "Boney Bills" from prostrating themselves before the alter of big government that is using the AGW hoax to needlessly expand its powers.


"Path to 2 C emerges as thorn at climate talks", Web Link

Nothing really new, surprising or profound in this one; just repetition. However, what some may find interesting in this piece is : "Translating the requirements of science into political language that satisfies 195 nations, including highly climate-vulnerable states and major users or producers of fossil fuels, is a big ask."

Interesting how "195 nations" seem concerned about reducing Carbon emissions ("plant food', right?), yet we seem to have the good fortune to have The top expert on the plant on climate change (unrecognized, of course), specifically Carbon emissions, that completely disagrees with these "195 nations".

Are we lucky, or what. I'm sure glad we aren't falling for all that crap. Thanks fd.


"Broncos players have a fart tax and Von Miller is the fartiest", Web Link

We might just have a solution here! Maybe our State legislators can glean something from this; a fart tax, starting with Gualala. Gotta start somewhere and it sure seems the 'air' from that direction passed offensive years ago and only seems to get worse over time.

After all, we all want to do our part in this climate change/global warming matter, don't we?


"You have to do better than that. There's a lot of garbage on that site. The least you could do is point out what you consider "proof.""

Earlier in this thread I pointed out the "proof". Obviously you either did not read or did not comprehend, one more time

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


One more proof of CO2 effect on climate change.

Web Link


Carbon sink-the ability of plants and oceans to absorb increasing amounts of CO2 is in turmoil. "The amount of carbon the Amazon’s remaining trees removed from the atmosphere fell by almost a third last decade, leading scientists to warn that manmade carbon emissions would need to be cut more deeply to tackle climate change."

"Brienen said the forests may also be experiencing an unanticipated consequence of higher CO2 levels. He suggests the accelerated growth is leading to trees dying younger. The dead trees decay, slowly releasing much of their stored carbon to the atmosphere."

The idea is consistent with a prediction by an Australian scientist in 2009 that the Amazon would lose much of its ability to absorb carbon as the air became more rich with it."

Web Link

"His results are based on detailed observations over 117 rainforests sites around the world. The effect is most marked in African rainforests, but holds good everywhere from northern Australia to the Amazon. And the implications are massive. Every degree centigrade of temperature increase, he has calculated, will eventually result in 14 tonnes of carbon emissions per hectare of rainforest, equating to 24.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon worldwide - two and a half times the entire world carbon emissions in 2007. Under a warming rate of 1-2 C per year, forests will end up producing 1.2Gt per year of carbon, more than they are currently absorbing as a sink (about 1Gt per year). In all tropical rainforests hold about 200-300 Gt carbon in biomass, mainly in standing trees."

Web Link


"World's plants and soils to switch from carbon sink to source by 2100, study shows"

Study after study demonstrates that we need to take action now!

Web Link


What is happening with the Arctic tundra?

Web Link


Posted to another climate thread and belongs here, too: Denial of human impact on global climate goes beyond simple contrarian attitude, imho.

Over seven (7) billion humans on this planet creating and using all sorts of chemicals for all sorts of applications - and we don't have a role in climate change?

C'mon; common sense is in dire need for those that are so arrogant as to believe that.

The questions would be; 1) exactly what impacts are we contributing to (positive and negative)? 2) how are we contributing? 3) what can we do to offset/reverse the bad effects to our environment 4) what projections can be legitimately provided toward correction?

That, seems to me, would be the touchstone to understanding and efforts going forward.


>> 3) what can we do to offset/reverse the bad effects to our environment <<

Simple. Human overpopulation is a major blight on the planet. Each country needs to reduce their population (and not by exporting the excess).

Let's face the fact that technology has not caught up with the population explosion and should not be counted on for pie in the sky solutions when the real one is staring us in the face.


Since you consider world population a crucial issue, obviously moving "illegals" from one country to another would not change the world be useless as it would not change world population. So what are your suggestions?

Should we outlaw religious organizations that forbid contraceptives?

Should we encourage abortions?

Should we deny medical treatment to those over a certain age?

Should the government limit reproductive rights?

Have you seen the movie "Soylant Green"? Web Link


What do you suggest, BB?


The only things that has proven successful in the past are oppressive, reprehensible government actions such as we're done in China and improvement in the education of women. Education allows women to move from a male dominated, child rearing role to one of financial and sexual independence.

The other side of the education coin is that increased education means increased financial ability which leads to more consumerism leading to an increase in the use of carbon based energy which lead to increased release of CO2.

One could, with just a little stretch, conclude that population reduction will speed up anthropogenic climate change!!!!! ( that is a totally unsupported by any logical reasoning, but that does not mean that some here would believe it)


uff, you are and have been on a "population" reduction path for quite some time now; "Human overpopulation is a major blight on the planet. Each country needs to reduce their population (and not by exporting the excess)."

We, of course, could have some fun with that (at the expense of others); for example, we can certainly claim that ISIS is doing their part. We could bring it closer to home and recognize police actions around the country over the last year. As Mr Bills notes, moving illegals from one country to another won't help because that's not a reduction. Maybe we should speed up all those sentenced to death. Would that help?

I would ask you, uff; What do you suggest? Serious answers are preferred, please.


Barring some spectacular event, it appears the folks who claim to know say we will hit the point of zero population growth in the year 2067 with a worldwide population at that time of 10 Billion.

Web Link


^^^ Earlier in this thread I pointed out the "proof". Obviously you either did not read or did not comprehend, one more time

^^^

I don't take reading assignments from those that worship at the alter of global warming. Both you and others have repeatedly demonstrated that you confuse observations of global warming with proof that it is AGW.

When you link an article with "proof," at least have the courtesy of quoting that portion of the article that you consider "proves" AGW.

^^^ The only things that has proven successful in the past are oppressive, reprehensible government actions such as we're done in China and improvement in the education of women. Education allows women to move from a male dominated, child rearing role to one of financial and sexual independence. ^^^

No, the only thing that has proven successful is raising people out of poverty. I know you crave oppressive government power to bend others to your will, but free market capitalism -- not the crony capitalism we now have -- is the best way to lift people out of poverty. It's a twofer -- wealthier couples have fewer offspring and wealthier people are more concerned about the environment. The heavy-handed Chinese approach you're praising has absolutely no concern for the environment. The collapse of the USSR and Soviet bloc countries made it clear that environmental concerns under Communist rule get the short end of the stick every time.

^^^ I would ask you, uff; What do you suggest? Serious answers are preferred, please. ^^^

In other words, if you don't have a complete solution acceptable to George, then you can just shut up.

^^^ Should we outlaw religious organizations that forbid contraceptives? ^^^

That's what those on the far Left want to do, particularly those in the rainbow jihad.

^^^ Should we encourage abortions? ^^^

That is what the far Left is already doing. Free abortions for everyone at any time! Yippee! Give the far Left free rein and they'd include adolescents as well.

^^^ Should we deny medical treatment to those over a certain age? ^^^

The far left is already promoting that, namely one of the Obamacare architects.

^^^ Should the government limit reproductive rights? ^^^

The far left would do that in a heartbeat.


"I don't take reading assignments from those that worship at the alter of global warming." Sort of makes it difficult to have a dialog - of any consequence or value - when one is so special, so intelligent, so all knowing - that one won't even look at opposing views, let alone consider them.

So why then do you post at all? It's not to intellectually engage. It's not to learn. It's not to debate. It's certainly not any interest in the data provided because you don't even look at it.

A drama queen troll is all that's left with.

Have a great day.


I will simply assume that you're having a bad day.

I said " The only things successful are oppressive, reprehensible government actions such as were taken in China"

Francis commented "The heavy-handed Chinese approach you're praising has absolutely no concern for the environment"

No reasonable person would conclude that the words oppressive and reprehensible would be confused with praise.

There is really little value in discussing the rest of your rankings.


China crushing it on Climate Change

Web Link

Darn those "pigs"!!!


^^^ No reasonable person would conclude that the words oppressive and reprehensible would be confused with praise. ^^^

No reasonable person would conclude that is the only way to control population growth. Just as most rational people wouldn't invite illegal aliens to settle in California, then fret about overpopulation during a drought.

^^^ There is really little value in discussing the rest of your rankings. ^^^

More to the point, you can't refute any of those assertions -- you know that they're true.


While I did notice your total failure to address your ignorant comment regarding my affinity to the Chinese system of population control, let's look at some of your other comments

You said that the far left (rainbow jihad) wanted to outlaw religious organizations that forbid contraceptives. Please show some basis for that statement.

You said the far left is encouraging free abortions. Can you find a single government program that encourages or pays for abortions?

You said the far left is promoting the denial of medical services to the aged. Can you find any evidence in legislation that supports such a claim?

We're these simply the rankings of an over imbibed individual or can you support them in any way.


One way to show population growth is to help the poor not get pregnant. I'm becoming a fan of free contraceptives although I don't like insurance companies being obligated to pay for that.

I especially like the idea of providing free contraceptives to people in hungry third world countries, or even paying them to get something like Norplant or IUDs or even being sterilized, if that's what they would like to do. The Packard Foundation had a program to help them that way.


Typo. Slow, not show...


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium