Global warming ????

[Anthony Butler]

The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:

Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?

The more relevant comparison is GDP per capita. Here's the latest stats from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

As you can see the top 10 is comprised of 6 Western European countries, three countries rich in natural resources (and not a lot of people) and the US in 9th place. The next 10 are 7 Western European countries. 1 resource rich country, another country that is essentially a large trading port and Japan.

You can, of course, distort the meaning of this question by including EU countries like Belarus and all the former Iron Curtain countries who were essentially operating third world economies until very recently

[Craig Sweet]

Pat Mucci...there are several ways to change the climate....Melvyn mentioned volcanic activity...and it would appear that has happened more than once...another would be a collision with a large object, such as a meteor....and it would appear that has happened more than once....THE DIFFERENCE between "man made" climate change, and those "naturally" occuring events...is we are changing the chemical make up of our atmosphere in a manner that allows more heating.

Interestingly, as the climate warms, areas that have been frozen and "holding" carbon, thaw and release that carbon, compounding the problem.

[Carl Nichols]

The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:

Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?

The more relevant comparison is GDP per capita. Here's the latest stats from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

As you can see the top 10 is comprised of 6 Western European countries, three countries rich in natural resources (and not a lot of people) and the US in 9th place. The next 10 are 7 Western European countries. 1 resource rich country, another country that is essentially a large trading port and Japan.

You can, of course, distort the meaning of this question by including EU countries like Belarus and all the former Iron Curtain countries who were essentially operating third world economies until very recently

How about we pick three countries that are relatively similar to the US -- the UK, France, and Germany. Do you know what the ratio of their per capita carbon footprint is to their per capita GDP, and how that stacks up against the US?  I have no idea what the answer is, but that seems to be at least a relevant comparison.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would anyone here debate the existence of dinosaurs? 

Probably not, so why question scientists when it comes to climate change?

That's a hell of an analogy.
One based on physical evidence and the other based on theory.

Which scientists shouldn't we question ?

Are you aware that accepted theories on cancer, developed by hard working, brilliant scientists, have subsequently been proven wrong ?

So, which scientists shouldn't we question ?

Never forget what Charlie Chan said to number two son.

I don't think anyone doubts that global warming is a fact.  Maybe some do.
As to the incremental effect that humans have had on global warming, I don't think anyone has proven their incremental theory.

[Buck Wolter]

Have you scientists read the emails from East Anglia and the CRU?

Here's a summary:
"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

Like anything else the main science here is economics -- just follow the money and incentives.

[Steve Lang]

How about dinosaur dung? vs geochemical vs terrestial sources of hydrocarbons?

Do those claiming a finite supply of hydrocarbons in the world use that claim as a basis of slowing their use or increasing their use... i've lost track?

one could say france had "energy policy" right, but they have a pretty active chemical industry like most of europe.. one that's always been pressed for feestocks..

always interesting to think that mother earth has been producing and trapping hydrocarbons from the beginning, a little of this way, a little of that, a little of a lot here, a little or a lot there..

EXAMPLE
Molecular geochemical evidence for the origin of natural gas from dissolved hydrocarbon in Ordovician formation waters in central Ordos Basin
Li Xianqing, Hou Dujie, Tang Youjun, Hu Guoyi and Xiong Bo

Having studied the biomarker composition and maturity of dissolved hydrocarbons from Ordovician formation waters, the authors presented molecular geochemical evidence for the controversial origin of natural gases in central Ordos Basin. The dissolved hydrocarbons in Well Shan 12 and Well Shan 78 are relatively high in abundance of tricylic terpane, pregnane series and dibenzothiophene series and low in Pr/Ph (< 2) and hopane/sterane ratios, indicating the source input of marine carbonates. In contrast, the dissolved hydrocarbons in Well Shan 81 are free from tricyclic terpane and pregnane series, with trace dibenzothiophene series and high Pr/ Ph (3.27) and higher hopane/sterane ratios, which are the typical features of terrestrial organic matter. Furthermore, Well Shan 37 and Well Shan 34 are between the two situations, having a mixed source of marine carbonate and terrestrial organic matter. The maturity of biomarkers also supports the above suggestions. These results are consistent with the geological background and source rock distribution in this region.

[Jud_T]

Let's just start with getting off the middle east oil teat...

[Tom_Doak]

Have you scientists read the emails from East Anglia and the CRU?

Here's a summary:
"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

Like anything else the main science here is economics -- just follow the money and incentives.

Buck:

There are also financial incentives in play for the powers that be; indeed, those financial incentives are what give them the money to fight the science so hard.  Just follow the money and incentives.

[Jud_T]

Oil & Gas lobbying expenditures went from about $75mm/annum under Bush to about $175mm/annum under Obama...Coincidence?

[Craig Sweet]

That $175 million for lobbyist is a drop in the bucket when balanced against the BILLIONS in tax breaks and subsidies the oil and gas industry gets...last time I checked it was close to $90 billion a year.

[Matt Kardash]

Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.

That doesn't seem right at all.  That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming.  I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.  

Matt, what is it that you do?

I am an Environmental Scientist. Needless to say, my background had me studying a lot on paleoclimatology. Currently, I am working to reduce industrial wastewater pollution.

Thanks. What is your view on the current state of the science on whether the climate change that has occurred over the last century has caused/is causing extreme weather?

Temperature = energy
Increase the temperature in a system = increased energy in a system
More energy = more potential for large/extreme weather systems
It's basically simple thermodynamics.

[Buck Wolter]

Have you scientists read the emails from East Anglia and the CRU?

Here's a summary:
"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

Like anything else the main science here is economics -- just follow the money and incentives.

Buck:

There are also financial incentives in play for the powers that be; indeed, those financial incentives are what give them the money to fight the science so hard.  Just follow the money and incentives.

Tom-
I don't disagree with that but lets not make scientists out to be some group of altruists. Would it be financially/professionally easier to be a climate change believer or denier? How many sceptics are going to get tenure in the PC environment we are in.

[Craig Sweet]

Interesting take on it Buck.  I would think the real big money would come from the oil and gas industries and it is not going to those who preach climate change...

[RSLivingston_III]

I don't understand what the denialists get out of doing their thing. Are they getting paid off by the carbon industry? Do they need to see a major city underwater to be convinced?

[DMoriarty]

Here is Bill O'Reilly's response to the "pin-heads" who mocked him for his "time comes in, tide goes out" comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#

With logic like this, it is a wonder scientists even bother to even try and argue their case. 

[Colin Macqueen]

Buck,
".......but lets not make scientists out to be some group of altruists.........How many sceptics are going to get tenure in the PC environment we are in."

A more worrying question is how many scientists are able to get tenure fullstop?!!.  I've watched science from the sidelines as a life-science/microscopy technician for the last 45 years and I believe scientists are very much altruistic. Why else would they keep plugging away at a relatively poorly paid job with long hours, a peer review second to none other, lack of promotional prospects and no promise of continuing employment. The vast, vast majority are passionate about truth in science and love the scientific paradigm. It verges on being vocational and I think this is altruistic.
Cheers Colin

[Matt Kardash]

Here is Bill O'Reilly's response to the "pin-heads" who mocked him for his "time comes in, tide goes out" comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#

With logic like this, it is a wonder scientists even bother to even try and argue their case. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5Xn9X6xtU&feature=channel

[Craig Van Egmond]

First of all very few people actually deny that climate changes occur. I am old enough to remember the coming ice age in the 70's after all.

There are a number of problems with the human caused global warming claims. One is that the scientist offer no real solutions and another is that their spokes people are all filthy rich guys with multiple mansions who fly in jets to talk about how the little people are destroying the planet. Also people who claim the debate is over and ridicule people who don't believe the way they do, that just comes off a little preachy.

When Al Gore sells all his material goods and moves into a solar powered yurt and takes the train to his conferences maybe he will gain some credibility.  Ed Begley Jr. should be the model that others aspire too.

I have faith that there the world's best scientists are working on real solutions, because that's what they do.  However, like all professions however there are people who research problems (engineers)  and there are people who actually fix problems (techicians).  Spend less time preaching and more time fixing.

[Sean_A]

I am in the Kirk camp.  Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system?  Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint?  I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

http://www.gizmag.com/volvo-v60-plug-in-hybrid-diesel-geneva/17712/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/25/volkswagens-xl1-concept-plug-in-diesel-hybrid-has-313mpg-fuel-e/

[Jeff Taylor]

Anecdotal yes, but if temperature record and peer review cannot be trusted, then what are we to do? Is it really warming in an alarming fashion on the western peninsula of Antarctica?

http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-duplicity/#comments

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am in the Kirk camp.  Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system?  Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint?  I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward. 

Sean, I'd agree.

But, I have to ask, would you buy an electric car today ?

The pocketbook seems to be the fastest educator.

We have to educate and incentivize people to change their behavior and I don't think we've done a good job at that.

In addition, we've politicized the issue and process of conversion, and that's not good.

Asking people to return to nature, ala Ed Begley, isn't the answer.

Low cost, efficient alternatives may be the answer.

Solar power is a good example.  It's too expensive to justify massive conversions.

[Jeff Taylor]

I am in the Kirk camp.  Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system?  Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint?  I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward. 

Sean, I'd agree.

But, I have to ask, would you buy an electric car today ?

The pocketbook seems to be the fastest educator.

We have to educate and incentivize people to change their behavior and I don't think we've done a good job at that.

In addition, we've politicized the issue and process of conversion, and that's not good.

Asking people to return to nature, ala Ed Begley, isn't the answer.

Low cost, efficient alternatives may be the answer.

Solar power is a good example.  It's too expensive to justify massive conversions.

How about narrow fairways and small greens for everyone?

[Sean_A]

I am in the Kirk camp.  Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system?  Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint?  I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward. 

Sean, I'd agree.

But, I have to ask, would you buy an electric car today ?

The pocketbook seems to be the fastest educator.

We have to educate and incentivize people to change their behavior and I don't think we've done a good job at that.

In addition, we've politicized the issue and process of conversion, and that's not good.

Asking people to return to nature, ala Ed Begley, isn't the answer.

Low cost, efficient alternatives may be the answer.

Solar power is a good example.  It's too expensive to justify massive conversions.

However,

Pat

At the moment, no I wouldn't consider a hybrid car.  However, that is as much about self preservation as anything as my wife works for Jag and there isn't that much upside compared to the well engineered diesels I can buy.  That said, the day is coming!  However, I do live in a smaller house and use smaller appliances than I would like and can afford.  I drive a smaller engine car than I would like and can afford.  I recycle and thats a drag.  I used crappy energy saving light bulbs before they became black market items and use recyclable batteries which are never as good as a proper battery.  I plan car journies to max out the efficiency of the journey.  These are conscious choices to play my little part or at least off set my excesses of travel.  After a while one doesn't even feel that much envy for others - tee hee.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I wouldn't buy an electric car today because they don't have the range or infrastructure.  But I would buy a plug-in diesel hybrid that didn't sacrifice looks or performance (Fisker Karma anyone?).  The technology is on our doorstep.  Frankly, about the only thing Obama's done which I'm 100% behind is the increase in required fleet MPG.