Go here: http://www.google.com/search?q=clim...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=active You will find this: A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/iamcc.tg/articles/EP-abstracts/epmadisson.html and this: An Intergenerational Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Change http://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ucsbec/1053.html Which concludes... and this: Equitable Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Change http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=200574 Your contention that no cost benefit studies have been done is ridiculous. As the examples show, not only have cost-benefit analyses been done, but there's a ton of papers on how the costs should be apportioned.
i agree, the planet flucutates in temperature and always has. its been warming since the iceage, basically. that makes perfect sense. But i suppose the just of the problem is how can we be certain that recent temperature increases are not just part of the earths cycle rather than man caused events? right? And i dont think we can be certain...we cant even predict the weather next sunday, let alone over the next several hundred years. Of course, that doesnt mean we dont try to take care of our planet,
As always, take documentaries with a grain of salt but the Swindle documentary has opinions from former members of the IPCC who resigned because their opinions on global warming were discarded. It later talks about how certain parts of the IPCC report that claimed greenhouse gases were not as dangerous as once thought were deleted from the report due to pressure from non-governmental organizations and the like.
lol rimmy. Too bad that search is down or I'd be happy to unearth some quotes form NewYorker where he claimed all environmentalists wanted humanity to revert back to the stone age. Calls for pragmatism from NewYorker is about as ridiculous as pretending to be a different race to defend a racist slur.
I have no doubt that this is true, just like it's true that many members of the IPCC work for various large oil companies. The devil is in the details. What data was deleted? How accurate was it? Was it supportable from a scientific standpoint? Claiming that GHGs are "not as dangerous as once thought" seems highly suspect. The physics has not changed dramatically.
There is a philosophical argument that I guess one could argue is "anti-industrialism" called deep ecology. But I always found it to be more of a study of "relative value" than a treatise against human development. It is definitely anti-capitalist.
that would be a funny site though...to see some people trying to live off the land, kill their own food, get by without cell phones etc
Although not to the extent to which you're joking, some people try to live as close to that ideal as possible. http://www.lowimpactliving.com/
Actually the IPCC does agree. Because of another debate on another BBS, I've been geeking out on this subject lately. The issue isn't total volume, the issue is what is a forcing, or an external factor. Total emissions from man account for about 5% of the total of the amount of carbon circulated through then environment as part of the natural carbon cycle. The fact is, however, that the CO<sub>2</sub> levels have risen in lockstep with man made emissions. If you devide out some portion that the natural carbon cycle is able to uptake, that is exactly the amount that the CO<sub>2</sub> has gone up. Most real climate scientists who are sceptics don't try to claim that the rise in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> isn't related to man. The Great Global Warming Swindle relies on three key arguments. One from a paper that the author of the paper has renounced. One from a pair of Danish scientists who have been proven to manipulate their data, and who have abandoned the argument used and one from a Dr. Wunsch of MIT who has said that his comments were cherry picked and manipulated by the director, and that the documentary does not reflect what he really said. I can fairly readily document all of this if anybody doubts. As for the article by Mr. Will, his argument seems to be that the problem is so massive and unplesant to deal with that we should instead pretend that it isn't happening. That sounds more like a pathology than a plan.
1) there are little things people can do to help in their everydays lives 2) the problem is there but be careful b/c some of the 'solutions' can lead to bigger problems and those 'solutions' may be insignificant. to me the piece basically say...dont make rushed decisions which can turn out to be worse. think it though and consider all costs and benefits
And this video is complete sh-t, so say the some of the experts prominently featured in the video. They were tricked into appearing into it and taken madly out of context. Use the search function to find out more. Now, I know you will come back with a huffy post about how I dismissed this video out of hand without watching it. I actually tried to watch when the first thread on thsi was started but had to stop after a few minutes because I realized it was pure trash. It was 100% propaganda, and I can say that without having viewed it in its entirety; To take a similar example, one does not have to read "Mein Kempf" or "the protocols of the elders of zion" to know that they are both useless crap.
So says AN EXPERT featured in the video. As I said before, documentaries are to be taken with a grain of salt. Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge that I may not know everything about everything. I know you think you're a walking talking authority on everything but I'll form my own opinions thank you very much. EDIT: And I didn't selectively respond to your post because I began writing the response before you edited your post. Responding to that part, that's fine that you didn't watch all of it. However, you have been known to bash people for forming an opinion on something without watching or reading the entire thing so take from that what you will. EDIT2: Also, since you haven't seen it, how can you know whether or not a certain scientist was featured prominently?
Like I said above, I don't need to put feces under a microscope to know that it is full of sh-t. And by the way, "only ONE of the experts here was tricked into appearing in this 'documentary' and has repudiated it entirety" is like saying "well it's only COVERED in feces, we haven't seen the inside yet". search function
I know, I'm familiar with your posting on here. No, you've just been proven a liar. You said experts and using the search function I found only one instance of one expert claiming that they were misled. It's not my fault you intentionally tried to mislead everyone about this. Ah, yes. The "I'm too lazy to answer your question" answer. Genius. It's amazing that the only type of arguing you seem to engage in is attacks on the character of others. Instead of arguing the facts here, you bring up an argument that one person in a documentary claims that they were misled. If it's such obvious bull and you're such an expert in the field, it shouldn't be too hard for you to put us in our place, right? As I've said before, you are not interested in debate and discussion so I'm not even sure why you ever come in here.
I went back and reread Kahn's point and I misread the statement he quoted. Natural emissions do outweigh man made emissions several times over. However, the IPCC report specifically states that these natural emissions cannot alone explain the observed warming. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
I never said they did. In fact, natural emissions can account for none of the observed warming and I think I pretty plainly said that. And your quote from the IPCC, BTW, says absolutely nothing about natural CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. It talks about volcanic arisols and solar irradiation and other forcings, which are outside factors affecting the dynamical system that is the climate. Natural emission of CO<sub>2</sub> is not a forcing, as it is an internal variable of the climate system. Anthropogenic emissions, on the other hand, are a forcing.
