You can’t make this stuff up ….
According to this article, college students are rising up to encourage their universities from divesting in fossil fuels companies, because of climate change problem.
When I was in college, there was an effort among college organizations for their universities to divest from companies who did business in South Africa.
So, in my opinion, what these students ought to be protesting for is (at the least) a carbon tax, to incentivize R&D into non-C energy. Better yet (IMO) is a serious federal research program — $10-20 billion/yr — into technologies like nuclear fusion and air capture and carbon sequestration. Continued tax breaks for solar and wind. Credits for home-based solar panels. Drive up the demand for solar panels, and (unexpectedly) you will help drive down the price.
We can’t stop using energy, and that’s the difference from South Africa
Quark Soup by David Appell: Divestiture from Fossil Fuel Companies
I was not aware that McDonald’s was protesting the policies in South Africa when Davy got his diploma in his Happy Meal!
He shows he learned and earned his BS degree and he is Piling Higher and Deeper with every comment he makes.
It actually will only re-inforce it. The rich, who can pay, will continue to live as they are. The poor will have to have the “final solution” since they cannot pay for their own carbon.
Yeah, I remember guys like David in college that were perpetually angry because they couldn’t get laid.
They were the ones at parties/concerts that would sneak on stage in the middle of a song, grab the mic and start lecturing others about the latest fashionable global iniquity…until drowned out by all the boos.
But you did and continue to make a difference David and isn’t that what it’s all about? If not for the Appells of the world, college students wouldn’t have found it necessary to invent the term buzz-kill.
Kudos!!!
University administrators should agree to the students’ demand, provided the students agree to tuition increases that result from the reduced return on investment, along with a curtailing of scholarship funds for the same reason.
I was at Cornell during the apartheid protests and shanty town that was set up in the arts quad. The administration cleared out the entire mess a few days before graduation, so that the big donors weren’t repulsed by the hippy dreck that was living there for months.
Good times.
Most students grow up to realise they were wrong. Presumably David has not reached this stage yet.
Recent studies of the brain show that some individuals are incapable of intellectual growth past their twenties. Explains alot, doesn’t it.
Naw, what these students should be focusing on his studying. Or being responsible, and getting the hell out of the way and let those who really want to study attend those schools.
But, I guess if they were responsible, they would already be focused on bearing the burden of responsibility for their personal beliefs, and not trying to force others to believe as they do.
*is studying
“students ought to be protesting for is (at the least) a carbon tax, to incentivize R&D into non-C energy.”
Taxes on energy are the most regressive taxes a government can impose. Carbon taxes on fossil fuels would raise energy prices on fossil fuels relative to green sources. The associated rise in energy costs would translate to higher costs and therefore higher prices for all good and services throughout the economy. Manufactures would defect overseas even faster in search of lower energy cost markets in order to keep prices down. It is not rocket science to understand that poorer people spend a greater amount of their household income on energy than wealthier people. Carbon taxes would absorb more of the little disposable income that they currently have. Less money to spend on costlier goods … a lose/lose situation.
Environmentalism is a moral issue. I know, I was one, before climategate. I hope Appell can sleep at night pondering the consequences of his moral position.
Ock
Fossil fuel energy *should* cost more — it has expensive side effects.
Generating power with fossil fuels creates more damage than value-added, according to Yale economist William Nordhaus in a 2011 paper:
Muller, Nicholas Z., Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus. 2011. “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy.” American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75.
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
To summarize that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages. Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars). Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
The National Academy of Sciences estimates that fossil fuel use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
No one on forums like this wants to mention external costs, because including them makes it clear that we are all subsidizing fossil fuels by a huge amount through worse health, higher medical costs, and ecosystem damage.
Good heavens, David! Read what you just wrote. “Generating power with fossil fuels creates more damage than value-added, according to Yale economist William Nordhaus in a 2011 paper: “
Dear God! The falsity in that statement is utterly and entirely ridiculous. Have you people no appreciation for history? The entire advancement of humanity, decrease of hunger, increase of healthcare, economic growth worldwide over the last two centuries is owed to burning fossil fuels.
IT ABSOLUTELY CANNOT COST MORE DAMAGE THAN ADD OR WE WOULD HAVE NEVER ADVANCED. I’ve read that piece of idiocy. I can’t believe someone with your education could possibly believe that tripe. Were you not required to study history at some point? Physics itself should have taught you better than that. What the hell David? You think we should still be in chariots? How much work can get done without fossil fuels?
” I can’t believe someone with your education could possibly believe that tripe. ”
I can. I have seen it all too often.
“we are all subsidizing fossil fuels by a huge amount through worse health, higher medical costs, and ecosystem damage.”
Appell genuinely believes that if the fossil fuel industry was shut down tomorrow, the world would be economically richer. On the nut job scale, that is pretty high up there in the rankings. It certainly scores higher than UFO’s built the pyramids and Big Foot…
They have done a lot of good. They have also done a lot of damage — not just in the past, or now, but damage that will continue for millenia. Nordhaus adds it up.
Yes, people die so much younger now. Why a century ago, the ALE was a grand 50 years! But today, it is a paltry 78. At least in the energized world. Of course in the non-fossil fuel world it is so much better!
Perhaps we should “re-halve” ALE so that idiots could not breed.
Nordhaus subtracts the costs but doesn’t add back the benefits. That’s why “environmental economics” is a crank branch of economics in much the same way psychoanalytics is a crank branch of psychology.
What ya had to do a regroup thar toshinmack! 😆
Or one could also add: in much the same way “Therapeutic touch” is a crank branch of medicine. It might be endorsed by sections of the medical profession, but it’s still junk.
>> if the fossil fuel industry was shut down tomorrow, the world would be economically richer.<<
I didn't say that. I said they cause damages, and that users of a product who damage public and private property should pay for that damage. Doing so makes it clear those fuels cost more than their price at the pump; including that cost makes it clear that alternatives are often cheaper already.
“I didn’t say that. I said they cause damages, and that users of a product who damage public and private property should pay for that damage.”
I’m glad then that you aren’t making that claim. However, in a roundabout way this *is* Nordhaus’s argument, which is, of course, an absurd proposition. I read that paper you linked to some time ago, and I will never get that 60 minutes of my life back.
Nordhaus’s “VA” = value-added: “The VA of an industry is the market value of output minus the market value of inputs, not including the factors of production—labor, land, and capital.”
But once again I’m sure you, an engineer, know better than the experts. For how many fields now have you claimed that?
Nordhaus is simply doing accounting, not making policy suggestions.
Sorry, that is a lie. Accounting means you list liabilities AND assets. Listing only liabilities is cherry picking. Or what most know as itinerant farm labor.
Perhaps you should read it again; maybe this time you’ll notice the VA parameter.
And Yeah, toshinmack your FOS!
In Nordhaus’s paper he asserted that a hypothetical berry farm was financially damaged by fossil fuel industries and should therefore receive compensation. No where did Nordhaus mention how the berry farm was going to get its supplies shipped in, its produce shipped out, its tractors to work, its computers to operate, and so on. The offsetting benefits apparently didn’t exist.
I’m not an “environmental economist”. On the other hand I’m not an expert in psychoanalytics, therapeutic touch, homeopathy, UFO’s, young earth creationism, Yowie hunting or a thousand other junk ‘science’ fields, whether academic in nature or otherwise. But most of us of average intelligence or better, can separate bullshit from reality, most of the time.
Have you still not found Nordhaus’s VA parameter?
Hey Toshinmack do us a favor and link it then all knowing Cuoooomlee!
Let’s do a little test. Let’s ban the Berry Farm from using fossil fuels. Let’s see if they are still in business the next day.
Or you can intellectually masturbate over Nordhaus “value add” calculation.
Some ideas are so fundamentally stupid, one doesn’t need to figure out how Nordhaus has screwed up his value add calculations.
There is value created, and there is damage done in the process. That’s true of nearly everything. Nordhaus is simply trying to do the accounting. Strange you find that so threatening.
Again, Accounting 101. First day of Accounting/ T Charts.
Try actually taking a course in accounting. Neither Nordhaus nor you apparently have a clue about that field.
It is strange how those who have rejected conventional religion cannot live with uncertainty. They must replace one type of belief system with another, although they may all be equally irrational (if not less fashionable). Most claims in mainstream science are wrong most of the time. In fringe academic fields the probability of veracity approaches zero.
So do you think that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
Without fossil fuels, life expectancy would be 30 years and every tree in the forest would be cut down by now.
I see he is baiting again!
😆 thanks Steven.
Nobody is discussing the small % of claims that turn out to be accurate, or reasonably close to the truth anyway. It’s the vast quantity of rubbish that is the issue. The false claims that routinely circulate in the peer reviewed literature is, regrettably, now a rich source of fodder for fools and ideologues.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
Yes, the “most published research findings are false” paper — the deniers ultimate fall back position.
Again: do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or that CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
Yeah Ok,what was it again toshonmack?
>> Without fossil fuels, life expectancy would be 30 years <<
That's debatable — there are other energy sources besides fossil fuels, and a huge amount of the energy goes wasted in the U.S. — but even if true it doesn't change the accounting — use of fossil fuels usually come at the expense of damage elsewhere (and into the future).
More energy increases well-being only up to a point — and the US is past that point. A plot of the Human Development Index as a function of per capita electricity use turns over at about 4000 kWh/yr: http://is.gd/RjYm26
The U.S. uses about 3 times that, with little extra to show for it. A similar curve holds for total energy use. (In fact, U.S. per capita total energy use peaked in 1979 and is now about 16% lower.)
“but even if true it doesn’t change the accounting ”
It most certainly does! But then that is you ignorance of the field and the facts. Robbing a person of 40-50 years of their life is a HUGE expense. And offsets anything that CO2 can be doing. Basically it is the bull in the china shop and dwarfs all other costs. Period.
Well Mr.FOS is still hanging like a Klingon!
Toshinmack? Do you have work tomorrow?
Cause I don’t 😆
David, you are entirely confused as to what use of fossil fuels add to the balance. Further, you reference IR. It has not been demonstrated that the total affect of increasing the energy balance carries a cost vs a benefit.
Moreover, your “peak energy use” reference another statist absurdity! Worse it is an apples to oranges comparison! Energy use in the US is necessarily higher than many places because of our area, population distribution, and other characteristics. That we’ve found efficiencies doesn’t mean we’re doing less.
In the last century average human life expectancy has doubled, technology has controlled the scourge of disease and living standards have never been higher and even the poorer nations are starting to catch up. In the early 1900s the average lifespan in Brisbane Australia was less than 40 – and that without major scourges like Plague etc.
Since the 60’s environmental protection measures have improved and air/water pollution control has improved decade by decade – I don’t include CO2 in this claim or developing countries – China for example – who should be ashamed of not fitting well tried pollution reduction technologies to their power plants.
I know this to be true as I enforced environmental protection laws in an advanced country and my father was a power station engineer and I observed the transformations that took place here in the 60/70s in that industry.
Only someone who hated humanity could wish away all of the advances made possible by cheap energy for a future where the past with the average lifespan of less than 40 is reborn.
Nobody is wishing away anything. They are saying that are huge emissions are changing the climate of the planet for millenia, and that our energy use (which is now much bigger than it once was) is, when generated by fossil fuels, creating more damage than value-added. And that market prices for fossil fuels do not reflect their true cost.
RE: And that market prices for fossil fuels do not reflect their true cost.
Ditto for hybrid car batteries, CFLs, wind turbines, GMFs…
Someone should tell toshinmack when most people was in school there was this thing called the Cold War and why he still has his freedoms today, and before that….. well you get the picture.
In today’s newspapers Prof Marcia Langton, who is Aboriginal, rips Tim Flannery a new one. Prof Flannery is our well paid Climate Commissioner, CAGW champion and Gaia advocate.
From the SMH:
Perhaps Dr Appell might wish to comment on the new apartheid of stealing land from indigenous people to lock it away for green religious purposes.
Or that same land grab in Africa that is so close to his dear heart.
You honestly want to discuss stealing land from indigenous people? In which century should we begin?
Ya can begin with Mine!
And when did it become justifiable and right?
Can you start with Neanderthals? Should we pay reparations to those with the most Neanderthal DNA?
Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[14] Here the author discusses how Neanderthals could have gone extinct due to the violence that they encountered. They experienced violence in many ways. Some of the forms of violence came from other Neanderthals, animals, and Modern Humans. Neanderthals were known to be an intense species; they would attack large powerful animals that would sometimes turn out to be extremely deadly.[15] Also from competition from other humans, Modern Humans acted very violently towards Neanderthals. Some experts envision a time where Modern Humans killed off Neanderthals in certain areas.[16]
David – Sorry I don’t get updates, only now noticed your comment.
The point is that green climate policies of locking up land over the rights of indigenous peoples is apartheid NOW. If you claim to be against such then be consistent and criticise policies which discriminate. Prof Langton is Aboriginal and a lady of the left.
Me pointed out the story of the green grabs and displacement (and deaths) of indigenous peoples as a result of initiatives such as REDD.
And this is not to go into the massive number of deaths due to starvation and malnutrition-related disease in Africa due to food price inflation caused by the ethanol mandates.
Always with CAGW people it is ‘do what I say not what I do’.
Appell is an easy target for mockery because he is such a dope.
We’ve been there, done that in terms of squandering untold billions on all this BS! How many more billions do we need to keep throwing down the same rat hole? The classic definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Subsidies for expensive solar panels actually slow down the rate of technological advances that make them cheaper. This is because subsidies reduce pressure to lower cost.
Not when competing technologies get to dump their pollution without cost.
No one should dump pollution without cost. But the whole question is whether CO2 is really pollution or capable of the kind of drastic climate change that alarmists say it is causing. Until an unadjusted set of data shows dramatic warming, it is hard to buy into it.
As far as major hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. there does not seem to be convincing evidence that any of these have increased significantly, if at all.
You’re the expert, I know, but every science academy in the world accepts the basics of climate science, and believes that uncertainty is no reason for inaction.
Only half right. No one argues against Climate warming. Since that is not the debate. AGW is the debate, and not all accept it, nor do all think that there is need for action. real scientists stick to science, and shun the religious aspect.
Nice try at a straw man.
They can believe what they want. We can believe different.
Yeah ya can breath all the clean air ya like and drink the cleanest water too but now days if there is no economy ya can starve and freeze while ya enjoy it. So enjoy!
So you believe you have the right to damage the property of others, without compensating them? Is that your position?
You think you have the right to confiscate the property of others without just compensation?
I think you are FOS that what I think thar Toshinmack!
No more than you believing your beliefs are the only possible ones. I caused damage to someone, because you believe so. My beliefs are my property. You would not only damage them, but destroy them.
Don’t step into any of his traps, he likes to make them and avoids any that goes his way.
So don’t feed him, suyts mentioned that to Me. And Toshinmack I still think your FOS!
The science says you are causing damage…. Denying that is your way of being comfortably numb, while shirking your moral and ethical responsibilities to others and to future generations.
The science says no such thing. The science does not actually enumerate damages from Global warming, and does not then attribute what is natural and what is man made. Those are all subjective judgements made with insufficient data by those with an axe to grind, not scientists.
Toshinmack I think your are FOS, now do you want Me to keep repeating it?
Not only that but I thein there are allot of others here that think the same, but I could be wrong on that, but I doubt it.
And another thing not so long ago you didn’t have time fer Me….. What was it you said again???????
Yeah I thought so! 😆
I’ve always felt my moral responsibilty was to not force my beliefs onto others. And no matter what you choose to believe, uncertain science is still belief.
Exactly.
No one is forcing anything on you…. You keep avoiding the question: should you be held responsible for the damage you do to the property of others? Should others be held responsible for the damage they do to yours?
Yeah toshinmack I still think your FOS. now keep avoiding and doing what you do and I’ll keep saying your FOS!
It’s not a hard concept to understand now is it?
An invalid question, because my rsponsibilty for the damage is questionable. You believe it’s so. And extremely disingenuous to state your position is not a forcing of belief. You wouldn’t be asking the question.
You don’t think air pollution causes damages?
You don’t think carbon dioxide causes warming?
As I wrote earlier, denying these things is just your way of avoiding grappling with hard questions and consequences of your life. That’s not just a moral failure, but dumb too.
Yeah, I remember something about you, what was I said again?
>>You think you have the right to confiscate the property of others without just compensation? <<
Do you understand any of this? That's precisely YOUR position…. I'm arguing for the opposite — that those who damage property should be held accountable for it.
So when government restricts the use of property, they should compensate the owner? Restriction is damage.
>>So when government restricts the use of property, they should compensate the owner? Restriction is damage.<<
When *anyone* restricts or damages property, the owner should be compensated. Is that not a fundamental principle of law? Or do you think I have the right to damage your property, without paying for that damage?
Apparently you do not read what you write. While it is a foundation of the Constitution, the government regularly violates it. And you are advocating them to violate it more. Farmers in the central valley of California, home owners in Montana, ranchers in Oregon. The examples are too numerous to enumerate.
You are calling for the restriction of land use without compensation. That is illegal. Except apparently when the government does it.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/dont-steal-the-government-hates-competition.jpg
Land owners cannot do anything they want with their land. In particular, their pollution is regulated, because it affects the property and well-being of others. Likewise, users of a product should pay for the damages done by its pollution.
Stop constructing your straw men. No one said “anything”. The issue was – if the government restricts the use of your land (no farm on farmland, no house on residential, etc.), is that theft? You said yes. Now you are trying to create a straw man.
What box of cracker jacks did you get your debating skills from?
Exactly. Windfarm operators should be fined and jailed for killing eagles and other raptors under existing wildlife protection laws.
😆
Don’t ever fart in public again thar Toshoinmack and soon not even on yer own property! 😆
I already said, people should pay for the damage they do to the property of others. There wasn’t an asterisk on that.
By the way, the American Bird Conservancy supports wind power, and argues for it to be better placed. Wind turbines kill far fewer birds than do domestic cats, collisions with glass windows, automobiles, power lines, and communications towers.
Yes, a wind turbine in an underground tunnel will do wonders for energy.
Another Strawman. I can get you just as many bird (brained) outfits that seek to bar wind turbines WHEREVER they are placed. So appealing to a (false) authority does not work. Try again. And this time, go back to debating 101. You failed so far.
😆 Doesn’t matter thar Toshinmakc what they support, do the crime do the time.
If they make exceptions fer one then they can make them for all.
Government has the right (and obligation) to restrict pollution. That includes damages from carbon pollution. Users of a polluting product should pay for the damage their pollution does to the property and health of others.
You are a one trick pony. That was not the question. Are you going to answer it or continue to spout your mantra with no thought behind your sheepful bleatings.
Alarmists should pay compensation for all the people they starve and freeze to death.
No one has starved or frozen to death. (Aren’t you supposed to be working at your super fantastic defense industry job, instead of blogging?)
No one has starved or frozen to death? What rock do you live under?
Phil, it maybe the rock with greenpiss all over it. 😆
That was the issue — whether people can damage the property of others without compensation or penalty. You think you should be able to do so — until someone damages *your* property.
Sorry, you are not clairvoyant OR Karnac. So what I Think is unknown to you on the subject. What is known is that you are either refusing to address the question or incapable of it.
Frankly I have no idea what your question is, or how it pertains to the issue of who should pay for damages from energy use.
So you ignore it. Typical. You have been here longer than I. If you failed to read the posts, why are you responding to them? Selective amnesia?
I have read your comments. I can’t detect a coherent position.
I have not stated a position. So I guess you were looking in all the wrong places. I am asking questions. A forgotten endeavor given the new religion of Climate science, but actually still a valid way of discerning information.
RE: Not when competing technologies get to dump their pollution without cost
Get a clue. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
Guess who pays much of the cost of cleaning up Superfund sites?
Guess who pays for cleaning up pollution that isn’t classified as a Superfund site?
CO2 is not a toxin. Grow up man,
No one says CO2 is a “toxin” — it is a gas that, at current and anticipated levels, has unwanted consequences, i.e. it is a “pollutant.” And the Supreme Court has ruled it as such for legal purposes.
Oxygen also has unwanted consequences. I guess that is the next thing on the list to ban.
What about dihydro-monoxide? Kills more people than guns do every year.
RE: Guess who pays the cost…
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2011/06/14/ciba-geigy-corp-settles-superfund-suit-for-20-mill
http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/sites/npl/alabama/cibageicpal.html
I don’t have to guess. I lived it.
Sometimes, the source company, sometimes the assignee. When one company purchases the assets of another, they assume the risk of Superfund provisions. But in the end, the evil consumer pays via taxes and higher prices.
Who pays the cost of the “Windfall Profits Tax”? We do.
Get a clue, sir.
Over the last 16 years, CO2 has risen exponentially – and temperatures have been flat. Hansen forecast that temperatures would increase exponentially this century – but temperatures have been flat.
Peer review failed. Deal with it.
😆 too funny, Maybe drewski can direct him to some help, and then agaion why isn’t toshinmack barking at coolwhipi about not using his real name here or that other doorknob physicist that post here?
I realize it’s convenient for you to pretend otherwise, but I’m sure you have heard that more than one factor affects climate, especially in the short-term:
“Global temperature evolution 1979–2010”
Environmental Research Letters Volume 6 Number 4
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Why are you arguing with me? It is your side which says CO2 is the only variable which affects the climate.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41314_Marc_Morano-_Courting_Mendacity/comments/#ctop
That’s a lie, and you know it.
I quoted and linked you an article written by another idiot who was attacking me, and you blame their article on me. Brilliant David. Did you even bother to read the link I provided?
😆
I hardly attribute any climate science expertise to LGF.
Yep that can of Quark cup O soup is much better, Eh LMAO!
Thousands of people freeze to death every year because they can’t afford heated shelter. Hansen adjusting temperatures doesn’t help people stay warm, other than the world class assholes at Doha.
“Thousands of people freeze to death every year because they can’t afford heated shelter”
This has actually become a major problem in the U.K. over the past few years, in no small part due to the U.K. government wasting millions on wind turbines.
CRU said that children will only experience “virtual cold”
Perhaps then the U.K. ought to be making Starbucks and Google pay a fair tax rate.
Perhaps you can actually grow up and understand that “fair” is subjective. Hardly a way to run anything.
Perhaps the U.K. should make fuel cheaper so low income people, especially seniors, don’t have the ride the buses all day to stay warm.
Look, everyone wants cheap energy — nominally cheap. But the price at the pump or on one’s bill doesn’t reflect its true cost. Those costs are being paid elsewhere, and will be paid far into the future. I think it’s fair that if my use of an energy product creates damage to private or public property, I should be held accountable for that. And so should you.
Yes, we see the “price” of cheap energy. Extended life spans, enhanced medical care, more leisure time. I can see the price is just too high to pay. We should go back to the time when ALE was only 45 years. That way, at least everyone was carbon neutral. And of course much healthier and happier.
Oops! Almost forgot the /sarc tag.
By the same logic, government officials who needlessly increase the price of that energy by switching to (and subsidizing) wind turbines, thereby causing low income people to freeze to death because they can’t afford to heat their homes, should be thrown in jail.
@David: In case you are interested, here is a website documenting wind power in Ontario, despite the fact that 75% of Ontario’s electricity already comes from non-carbon sources (specifically nuclear and hydroelectric):
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/
“Better yet (IMO) is a serious federal research program … air capture and carbon sequestration.”
David “air capture and carbon sequestration” is called agriculture.
Not really, because agriculture requires land use changes, which are responsible for about 10% of current emissions. (More plants also change a planet’s albedo in the wrong direction.)
WOW toshinmakc magically appeears or appells right after Coolwhip? What a coincidenke!!! 😆 What’s the odds of that???
Do you have the figure to show that?
David:
Comic relief for the peanut gallery! How kind of you!
When are you going to lead by example and go visit the North Pole without taking any item that contains the “Evil” carbon or was produced using “Dirty Energy”!
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
I compared the right violations to apartheid, but what I should have said is that they are far, far worse; in about a generation, it will be seen as the greatest intergenerational crime of all time.
We’re already seeing it. It’s called climate alarmism. It’s costs are immeasurable. It is responsible for poverty, disease, tyranny and wars. It’s one of the worst contrivances humanity has invented. Why don’t you guys just go back to burning witches?
Yeah after the socialist blacks took over South Africa they ran it into a third world nation from what was formerly a first world nation.It was the best nation in Africa economically but now just another socialist economic hellhole just like the rest of that dark continent.
Now pollution,crime and economic problems have skyrocketed after the Marxist take over and no longer worth visiting.
Yes, those stupid people — they didn’t get how good their oppression was, right?
No, they traded one form of oppression for another.
Yeah I’m sure it was as you say and so forth and so on, now what was it I said about you again????
Hey did anyone see what toshinmack did right at the start tonight?
LOL,
I wonder if David Appell knows that before the age of fossill fuels came along that huge forested areas were being cut down to fuel the cooking and warming fires and provide for some industrial and commercial power.
That Fossil fuel production and consumption has been getting cleaner and cleaner over the decades to the point that it now require sensitive devices to measure them in very small amounts that can be low as parts per billion and done by specific clean air enforcements that cost a lot of money.
I wonder if David knows about the vast increase in mitigation costs in making their emissions cleaner over the decades by legislation such as the Clean Air act of 1970? Such as the numerous clean air requirements imposed over the years good or bad that have been levied on companies and the cars that we drive on the road with?
Somehow I doubt David A. realizes the decades of imposed costs put on Industry have already been levied in the effort to cut pollution way down and still he and others fail to realize that a carbon tax of a sort has already for many years been imposed on them by means of pollution regulations.
The cost of production and consumption has already been driven up by the many regulations and still we get this “damage” cost argued about anyway.
Even PHD holders can be grossly ignorant of past regulatory history.
Yeah that wouldn’t be so. 😆 And yeah you and Will was here the other day err night toshinmack said he was ignoring Me, 😆 now not so much it appears. LMAO! I wonder why the intress all of a sudden????
Of course I know all this. That doesn’t change the accounting of present damages, which is what Nordhaus et al are trying to add up.
PS: Most of Nordhaus’s calculations are for traditional air pollution, not carbon pollution, or water pollution, or black carbon, etc. (It might help if you actually read the paper.)
Yep I’m sure it will, now what was it I said about you before?
It is still Bull Shit!
Nordhaus’s calculations = Model driven drivel. GIGO at its worst.
David A. once again trying to look smart with people who long ago know the answer to his loaded question:
“So do you think that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?”
The man is trying to make something of nothing since no one has stated in the opposite of what David ask in the thread but then we know he is a typical dishonest warmist jack ass because Skeptics have many many times accepted the well known understanding that CO2 absorbs and emit some IR and that Earth emits some as well and this dipstick knows that we know but wants to show that HE knows it too.
Pathetic!
😆 yep!
Haha, so David Appell went to such a tough school that he had time to protest a country he’s never even been to & still graduate? Man, his education must be really worth something.
He got his degree for his Happy Meal!
Absolutely remarkable, I have seen stupidity in my life, but Appell certainly takes the prize… wow, just wow!
Today’s entertainment!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..
“Wind turbines kill far fewer birds than do domestic cats…”
Yes, eagles and hawks live in mortal fear of cats…
“As pet-owners ourselves, we share your concern for the safety of your pet. Raptors hunt a variety of prey, including rodents, birds, rabbits, snakes, and insects. Large raptors, such as Red-tailed Hawks and Great Horned Owls, can attack and kill small pets. We have received dozens of inquiries about dogs and cats weighing anywhere from 6 to 60 pounds.”
http://hawksaloft.org/hawks-aloft-inc-2/frequently-asked-questions/
Another gem from Davey…
“carbon pollution” 😆
All life forms are pollutants!
Life forms are closed carbon loops.
Except for “climate criminals” like myself, and everyone else who eats, rides in a vehicle or uses electricity or other manufactured products.
Are you supposed to be working at your taxpayer-funded job? Does your boss know your fake name?
You are getting pretty desperate David. Pathetic.
Why not close your carbon blowhole, it is stinking up the place with nonsense.
😆 What Gator said. LMAO!
No they are not. Animals expel Carbon. Plants ingest carbon.
YOu do not think before you write.
Animals eat plants (closing the cycle).
Ecosystems are closed. Life is not. Your do not know what you are talking about. Gazelle’s do not eat leopards.
And animals eat other animals! 😆 and some plants eat animals. LMAO!
All carbon lifetimes are a loop, including the burning of fossil fuels.
David’s blowhole is spewing. I like to give him just enough rope!
I guess he forgot why they call it fossil fuels! 😆
Burning fossil fuels is a loop only on geological timescales of millenia to millions of years. That’s inapplicable to human civilizations.
I know you know this, though, and are just playing rhetorical games.
The vast majority of the past 600 million years had CO2 levels much higher than now, and life survived just fine on land and at sea. Cut the bullshit David.
😆
The entire biosphere is a loop. However that loop will not close until the end of time, or the biological activity ends. The loop started with the first life form and will end when the last life form dies. We are only a minor player in the biological loop of this planet.
All carbon exhaled by life forms comes from carbon they ingested from eating plants, or eating animals who eat plants.
In any case, humans only exhale about 0.9 kg CO2/day. American’s energy use creates about 46 kg/day per person.
That is patently false – even you argue against that thesis. Carbon is not neutral or there would have been none to start the chain, and there would be none to drill or mine for (remnants of past life). That is the carbon left over after the “cycle of life”.
Sorry, you are arguing against yourself. Carbon is constantly being drawn out of the earth and put back into it. Life is not in stasis. It is in constant conflict.
Wah Wah Wah! 😆
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2007/07005gerhard/images/04.jpg
Eeeeeek!!!
>>The vast majority of the past 600 million years had CO2 levels much higher than now, and life survived just fine on land and at sea.<<
A large number of species went extinct after the PETM. And their well-being wasn't nearly as dependent on a finely honed agriculture system to feed 7-10 billion people. And when the oceans rose they could just walk inland.
No cheese with yer whine to night thar Toshinmack, causes too much damage! LMAO!
Of course there is a natural carbon cycle. Right now the addition of human activities has disrupted the cycle, which his why carbon is building up in the atmospheres and oceans. That wasn’t happening for millenia before the Industrial Revolution.
Can you quantify the natural carbon cycles? I would love to see the math on it. Please display it for us.
Yeah, not much happened before we got here…
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Earliest%20Piece/Images/28.jpg
> http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2007/07005gerhard/images/04.jpg
Could you be more stupid? Even climate scientist in the world is aware of this cartoon (though the red part is too big). And yet they are warning that human CO2 emissions are seriously altering the climate. Have you ever wondered what they know that you don’t?
“Could you be more stupid?”
Yes, I could believe that tiny wedge drives climate! 😆
“Have you ever wondered what they know that you don’t?”
You mean like scam taxpayers and create useful idiots like you?
So you see a cartoon, and don’t bother to ask yourself how, if it is true, have so many professional scientists come to a different conclusion than you?
Chicken Little, I was a climatology student three decades ago, spent many years as a geology student, and have a degree in Remote Sensing.
I see an idiot that thinks a minor trace gas has more power than the Sun. 😆
Then you were a poor student, because, of course, no one says CO2 has more effect than the Sun. You should have studied harder.
I’m not the one with a disturbing acorn phobia, Chicken Little! 😆
I don’t hyperventilate over a trace gas.
“Burning fossil fuels is a loop only on geological timescales of millenia to millions of years. That’s inapplicable to human civilizations.”
All of this is cyclical Chicken Little. As carbon is released, it is absorbed, it does not wait for an appointment from you or anyone else, no matter how self important you may feel.
These assertions fit into the Gaian cult/ideology (or whatever you prefer to call it), that views human life as hostile to life. However, we can redeem ourselves, such as by sitting under the One Tree playing bongo drums naked, like Na’vi. Appell might even get to see a few more nibbles in such a place than would otherwise be possible.
Some carbon released is absorbed — much of it acidifying the oceans. Much of it remains in the atmosphere, warming the planet for many millenia. The carbon content of the atmosphere will be about 10% higher in 100,000 years because of the carbon emitted today.
Oceans are alkaline professor. Stop trying to frighten the kiddies.
On the balance of evidence, this will be good for the biosphere. Plankton loves CO2 and its the basis of life in the oceans, for example.
Or it may be lower – as it has been in the past. The fun part is the uncertainty. Which scientists always try to delve into. The religious faithful just accept the fact that “the debate is over”.
Like all compounds, the ocean has an acidity, and it is increasing — 30% since the pre-Industrial era.
It has not passed the neutral plane yet. It is still very base. It is not acidic, so it is not more acidic. It may be less base. Your problem is you are now trying to take a percentage between a negative number and a positive number.
And that is mathematically incorrect.
Alarmist speak. They are alkaline, Mr physicist.
We classify pH > 7 as “alkaline,” but any such compound also has an acidity. The ocean’s acidity has increased by 30% since pre-industrial times, and organisms react to that parameter, not to how humans happen to classify it.
“We classify pH > 7 as “alkaline,”
So we call it alkaline, professor.
😆 30% from what pH?
Call it whatever you want — marine organisms don’t care, as their biology reacts to the chemical parameter known as “acidity.” It has increased 30% since pre-Industrial times.
Wood, Spicer, and Widdicombe (2008) found that increasing dissolved CO2 increases calcification rates and improves the rate of regeneration of damaged body parts [Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7].
Riebesell (2004):
“coccolithophores may benefit from the present increase in atmospheric CO2 and related changes in seawater carbonate chemistry…increasing CO2 availability may improve the overall resource utilization of E. huxleyi and possibly of other fast-growing coccolithophore species…if this provides an ecological advantage for coccolithophores, rising atmospheric CO2 could potentially increase the contribution of calcifying phytoplankton to overall primary production…a moderate increase in CO2 facilitates photosynthetic carbon fixation of some phytoplankton groups…CO2-sensitive taxa, such as the calcifying coccolithophorids, should therefore benefit more from the present increase in atmospheric CO2…”
Iglesias-Rodriguez et al (2008) confirmed Riebesell findings experimentally, concluding that coccolithophores, which account for a third of all marine calcium carbonate production, flourish and calcify much better at higher levels of CO2.:
“Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.”
😆 what was that again 30% from what pH? LMAO!
Here are a few peer reviewed papers that show how increasing levels of CO2 are significantly benefiting the planet. (These papers are largely observationally based, not theoretical model based.)
Lo, T.-T. and H.-H. Hsu. 2010. Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11, 210–215.
Liu, S., R. Liu, and Y. Liu. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation of global LAI during 1981–2006. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20, 323-332.
Steven I. Higgins and Simon Scheiter (2012). Atmospheric CO2 forces abrupt vegetation shifts locally, but not global. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature11238
For humans directly, a paper on how CO2 increases dramatically improve rice production. Again, it is difficult to argue with the conclusions of this paper because it’s based on experimental results, not theoretical modelling:
Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.
Or…
Wood, Spicer, and Widdicombe (2008) found that increasing dissolved CO2 increases calcification rates and improves the rate of regeneration of damaged body parts [Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7].
Riebesell (2004):
“coccolithophores may benefit from the present increase in atmospheric CO2 and related changes in seawater carbonate chemistry…increasing CO2 availability may improve the overall resource utilization of E. huxleyi and possibly of other fast-growing coccolithophore species…if this provides an ecological advantage for coccolithophores, rising atmospheric CO2 could potentially increase the contribution of calcifying phytoplankton to overall primary production…a moderate increase in CO2 facilitates photosynthetic carbon fixation of some phytoplankton groups…CO2-sensitive taxa, such as the calcifying coccolithophorids, should therefore benefit more from the present increase in atmospheric CO2…”
Iglesias-Rodriguez et al (2008) confirmed Riebesell findings experimentally, concluding that coccolithophores, which account for a third of all marine calcium carbonate production, flourish and calcify much better at higher levels of CO2.:
“Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.”
Leftists just want their fare share…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=youtu.be
Damn old age! “fair share”.
Here is the bottom line. From circa 1950-2012 we have over 60 days of actual data on the effects of CO2 added to the biosphere. Observational and experimental research shows largely positive outcomes.
On the other hand we have theoretical modelling papers (they all seem to be written by Rahmstorf these days) which predict the world will implode (or something) in 100 years from now. Such papers are untestable. It’s not Rahmstorf fault. The journals themselves have to be held to account for publishing untestable theories or at least not holding them to a high standard.
The above summary greatly simplifies a complex issue. Whenever something changes, there are inevitably positive and negative consequences. That’s the nature of change itself. The key question however, is, do benefits outweigh costs and who benefits and who looses?
“60 days” – “60 years”
In terms of typos this morning I think I’m breaking records…
I feel your pain…
This could explain our hero’s issues…
“Toxoplasma gondii is a species of parasitic protozoa in the genus Toxoplasma. The definitive host of T. gondii is the cat, but the parasite can be carried by many warm-blooded animals (birds[2] or mammals, including humans).
Studies have shown behavioral changes in humans, including slower reaction times and a sixfold increased risk of traffic accidents among infected, RhD-negative males,[30] as well as links to schizophrenia including hallucinations and reckless behavior. Recent epidemiologic studies by Stanley Medical Research Institute and Johns Hopkins University Medical Center indicate that infectious agents may contribute to some cases of schizophrenia.”
http://davidappell.com/David_Appell_3.jpg
Links for the interested…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
The artificial HDI that DA linked. His 2002 graph needs updating. In 2011, HDI switched to a newer artificial algorithm. And in a move that should have David endlessly clapping his hands, therefore unable to spew, US CO2 emissions have dropped to a 20 year low.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/electricity.cfm
Useful info on electricity rates, fuel ratio, dollars per BTU…
The shape of the graph hasn’t changed, nor does the conclusion: the US has longed passed the point where more electricity equals a better well-being. That is, we waste a huge amount of electricity, and use what we do use relatively inefficiently.
Actually, annualized US CO2 emissions from energy use peaked only in Jan 2008, at 6.0 Gt CO2e/yr, according to EIA data. Per capita, they have been dropping since at least 1973.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf
“the conclusion” – The difference between a scientist and an acolyte is a scientist does not reach a conclusion until all the facts are know. An acolyte reaches one based upon faith.
No conclusion has been reached yet because you cannot even answer the basic question.
David, you really should have your physician do some serology testing for Toxoplasmosis.
Many sceptics and critical thinkers, as well as libertarians and other groups, are highly sympathetic to the idea of ‘going off the grid’ and being independent and self sustaining. Such groups find government support of any type anathema. Hence Appell lecturing on this is a bit rich. Sustainability and energy independence are not the issues under debate, but instead the crank ideas Appell connects to such objectives.
I have acreage that I am working to restore to indigenous flora and fauna, I recycle to the point that I need no garbage pick up, and I have worked my entire life to “take only pictures and leave only footprints”. I was part of the effort that cleaned up America’s first National Scenic Riverway, and volunteer in my local community to clean up and protect our local ecosystem.
I am grateful for the gift of this amazing planet and resent people like Dr Strangecatlove telling me I am polluting. The fact is we could use more CO2, and my 80 mile commute is my contribution.
Yes in my new home I’m putting in water tanks and the latest technologies such energy efficient heat pumps. I don’t mind any of this because it will save me money in the long run and government energy policy is really bizarre right now. It’s an insurance policy against stupid people who might impact on my life. Although if you are a poor person you have none of my options.
“The theory behind the ‘toxic ocean acidification’ scam proceeds like this: as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the concentration in the oceans also increases due to dissolution [true – all other things being equal]. CO2 dissolved in water reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the seas acidic [a half truth – they become very slightly less alkaline]. This acidity dissolves the shells of marine life causing mass extinction [an utter falsehood].
As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less alkaline or a little more neutral.”
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
I wonder the percentage they’d be throwing around if the pH was 7.0 instead of 8.1 from the 8.2 pre-Industrial times. 😆
Whatever percentage sufficiently scary enough to garner grants.
What scares me is not acidification of our oceans, it is the assholification of the scientific community.
Exactly, they have to twist things to make look worse than it is. 😆
I think we all agree that pollution is bad. We do not agree that CO2 is pollution. It all boils down to an increase of 1 molecule per 10,000 of a beneficial trace gas can cause catastrophic, out of control warming. David has swallowed the scare talk and believes the adjusted charts and other progaganda put out by the alarmist crowd. We do not. There are way too much obvious embellishment on their part. We are never going to agree, so no sense wasting time arguing about it.