Europe Could Place Carbon Tax On U.S. Goods

[danielost]

9 hours ago, Torchwood said:

When the 15 warmest years of the last century have all been in the last 16 years, and the planets average temperature is going up and up, then it doesnt really matter whats causing it- yes it might be a little bit natural causes, but the only factor that we know for a fact is new to the scene is the human race producing huge amounts of harmful gasses etc.  Either way we have to recognise that if the average temperature continues to rise (and it will) it will be bad for us, unless we do something.  

the world temp has been higher than now.  there has been more carbon in the air than now.  and yes it does matter what is causing global warming.  because we are going to try to fix it.

[Setton]

6 hours ago, danielost said:

the world temp has been higher than now.  there has been more carbon in the air than now.  and yes it does matter what is causing global warming.  because we are going to try to fix it.

It's not the absolute temperature or carbon that's important. It's the rate of change. Yes, temperatures in the Cretaceous were far higher. But they got there over millions of years. The change we're seeing is over hundreds of years. Life simply doesn't adapt that quickly.

[danielost]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

It's not the absolute temperature or carbon that's important. It's the rate of change. Yes, temperatures in the Cretaceous were far higher. But they got there over millions of years. The change we're seeing is over hundreds of years. Life simply doesn't adapt that quickly.

life can adapt a lot faster than you think,  global warming is not caused by man.   200 years ago we were coming out of the mini iceage.  remember valley forge.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, danielost said:

life can adapt a lot faster than you think,

No, it can't. It takes many generations for organisms to adapt to survive in a new climate.

Quote

global warming is not caused by man.

Assuming you mean climate change, yes it is. See previous posts.

Quote

  200 years ago we were coming out of the mini iceage.

The key word there being mini. The Little Ice Age was only a minor, regional temperature deviation. Even if you just isolate the Northern Hemisphere, it is not comparable to the global changes since the industrial revolution.

Here's the graph:

Quote

remember valley forge

Not sure what a single winter in one place has to do with global climate or the adaptability of life. Unless you're also conflating weather and climate..?

[Torchwood]

Settons graph says it all. 

1 hour ago, Setton said:

No, it can't. It takes many generations for organisms to adapt to survive in a new climate.

 

And thats the key isnt it-  Insects etc can fit "many generations" into a few years, or in the case of fruitflies, many generations would fit into an average commercial break. (which is why they are used for evolutionary biology experiments.)  For Elephants, Humans, and Whales...not so much. If we only get a generation or two to adapt we're stuffed.

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, Torchwood said:

Settons graph says it all. 

And thats the key isnt it-  Insects etc can fit "many generations" into a few years, or in the case of fruitflies, many generations would fit into an average commercial break. (which is why they are used for evolutionary biology experiments.)  For Elephants, Humans, and Whales...not so much. If we only get a generation or two to adapt we're stuffed.

Precisely, and of course if one chunk of the ecosystem (e.g. elephants, whales, humans) goes extinct, the rest falls apart pretty quickly.

[danielost]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

No, it can't. It takes many generations for organisms to adapt to survive in a new climate.

Assuming you mean climate change, yes it is. See previous posts.

The key word there being mini. The Little Ice Age was only a minor, regional temperature deviation. Even if you just isolate the Northern Hemisphere, it is not comparable to the global changes since the industrial revolution.

Here's the graph:

Not sure what a single winter in one place has to do with global climate or the adaptability of life. Unless you're also conflating weather and climate..?

it only took one species 7 years to fill a void slot left by the extinction of one of its cousin's.

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, danielost said:

it only took one species 7 years to fill a void slot left by the extinction of one of its cousin's.

Care to elaborate?

[bee]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

 

 

.

when I look at this graph (and you beat me to it I was going to link to this as well) -

I see.....up and down up and down up and down...and then the big UP that must be the nuclear detonations -
well over 2000 of them - I wouldn't be surprised if one of the major nuclear tests did more damage than all the
aerosols, fridges and car emissions etc in the last 50 years + ...bearing in mind all that took place at ground
level -

this below could have caused as much (temporary?) global warming as decades of industry -- IMO
 

 

Uploaded on Jun 13, 2009

Castle Bravo was the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States, with a yield of 15 Megatons. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 6 megatons, combined with other factors, led to the most significant accidental radiological contamination ever caused by the United States.

In terms of TNT tonnage equivalence, Castle Bravo was about 1,200 times more powerful than the atomic bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The largest nuclear explosion ever produced was a test conducted by the Soviet Union several years later, the ≈50 MT Tsar Bomba.

[Setton]

Just now, bee said:

.

when I look at this graph (and you beat me to it I was going to link to this as well) -

I see.....up and down up and down up and down...and then the big UP that must be the nuclear detonations -
well over 2000 of them - I wouldn't be surprised if one of the major nuclear tests did more damage than all the
aerosols, fridges and car emissions etc in the last 50 years + ...bearing in mind all that took place at ground
level -

this below could have caused as much (temporary?) global warming as decades of industry -- IMO
 

 

 

 

Have a look at the rate and timings of the latest increase. It's noticeably steeper than previous ones and starts in the 1800s - well before nuclear testing.

[bee]

.

Then on this link with very interesting information there is this graph showing a drop in temperature after 1998 -

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

quote --

The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.

Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.

 

see what I mean about claim and counter claims in the Global Warming debate ---

.

[bee]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Have a look at the rate and timings of the latest increase. It's noticeably steeper than previous ones and starts in the 1800s - well before nuclear testing.

.

C'mon -- that graph is hardly detailed -- approx 1 cm is for 200 years - and I think your 'notably steeper' is wishful thinking
if all you have is that.!!

just because a thickish black line has been drawn on top doesn't show or prove anything - but I think the general steep rise
that goes above the Medieval Warm Period peak, is the nuclear testing (over 2000 tests)....

.

[Torchwood]

@Bee, had a look at that article you linked to there, lot of rubbish there.  Mostly seems to be trying to sell a book.  The organisation behind it doesnt appear to actually exist anymore, and seems to have consisted entirely of the bloke who wrote the book, and a receptionist (though this last is apparently shared with several hundred other companies ).   They have had no peer-reviewed papers on the subject.  Alarm bells should ring whenever you read an article which finishes with several paragraphs of Sales Pitch, its a good indicator that somebodys motives are not entirely pure.   Especially when you look up who is publishing the book...which turns out to be (drumroll please!)  NEWSMAX!   

And as for the "science" heres a post that takes it apart http://environmentalforest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/tom-luongos-multiple-lies-about-climate.html

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Torchwood

[Setton]

23 hours ago, bee said:

.

Then on this link with very interesting information there is this graph showing a drop in temperature after 1998 -

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

quote --

The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.

Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.

 

see what I mean about claim and counter claims in the Global Warming debate ---

.

The first thing that should strike you from that link is sources. Any article claiming to be remotely scientific (or even academic) must cite its sources. The author of that website is either making up claims without sources or is guilty of plagiarism. The foundation of science is production of replicable results. If the sources aren't given, other scientists can't test the validity of his conclusions. Of course, I suspect that is deliberate in this case.

As for the graph, this is cherry picking at its finest and one of the most common climate myths out there. With climatology, you have to look at long term trends. Simply picking an unusually hot year as your starting point then claiming everything's cooling down is not convincing. By that logic, I can claim that global warming is wildly out of control - just look how much temperature increased between 2008 and 2013. You can't just isolate a tiny piece of the data.

There have been plenty of academic studies conclusively refuting this argument and providing explanations for the apparent hiatus from 1998. This site gives a fairly accessible overview: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm (with sources

23 hours ago, bee said:

.

C'mon -- that graph is hardly detailed -- approx 1 cm is for 200 years - and I think your 'notably steeper' is wishful thinking
if all you have is that.!!

just because a thickish black line has been drawn on top doesn't show or prove anything - but I think the general steep rise
that goes above the Medieval Warm Period peak, is the nuclear testing (over 2000 tests)....

.

You do know about calculating gradients right? Doesn't matter how big the graph is if you do the maths. Even just using the graph, the MWP appears to start around 600 AD (possibly earlier, need more data) and reaches a peak in 1000 AD, having increased by less than 0.2 degrees. The current warming (between around 1850 and 1950 so not including nuclear tests) has increased by just under 0.5 degrees.

This lets you calculate an approximate warming rate (remember, the rate is what matters most, not the absolute temperature): The MWP warmed at a rate of ~0.0005 degress/year. The 1850-1950 period warmed at a rate of ~0.005 degrees/year. That's 10x faster.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

23 hours ago, bee said:

.

C'mon -- that graph is hardly detailed -- approx 1 cm is for 200 years - and I think your 'notably steeper' is wishful thinking
if all you have is that.!!

just because a thickish black line has been drawn on top doesn't show or prove anything - but I think the general steep rise
that goes above the Medieval Warm Period peak, is the nuclear testing (over 2000 tests)....

.

Take a look at this comparison bee: 

The largest nuclear device ever tested (RDS-220/aka Tsar Bomba) had an estimated energy yield of 2,1x10,7¹⁷ joules and the total energy from the sun that strikes the Earth per second is 1,7x10¹⁷ joules. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

This means that you would have to detonate one Tsar Bomba every 1,23 second in order to match the energy from the sun

Since 1963 nearly all nuclear tests have been underground (only France and China did some after that). The last athmospheric test was done by China in 1980. So for the last 36 years there have been no athmospheric nuclear tests anywhere.

Do you now see why your idea doesn't work ?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[bee]

.

Like I said before the Global Warming debate is all about claims and counter claims -

Data wars

What we do know is that influential scientists reporting to the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
deliberately manipulated data and tried to cover their tracks by deleting emails -

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#40accdbc988d

quote --

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
 

there is something not right about all this business - 

the article and link that I posted has caused a flurry of activity - although it was written by scientist Tom Luongo,
former scientist with Florida University it was mostly about the work of John Casey - 

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

quote --

John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.

In short, John is the very definition of a government insider. He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs.

For example: In 1986, when the space shuttleChallenger tragically exploded, killing seven crew members, John testified before Congress on the cause of the accident. After the testimony, Congress instructed NASA headquarters to bring John in to chair a special internal investigation into why these critical systems failed.

Now, keep that in mind for a moment: Capitol Hill and NASA trusted John’s detailed analytical approach and his engineering credentials so much they asked him to investigate the cause of one of our nation’s greatest tragedies.

 

now those are pretty solid main stream credentials - so nobody can brush him of as a pseudo scientist -
he is a serious guy who is trying to get data and information out -

Ok do you want the good news or the bad news first --- 

Sorry --- the bad news is there is no good news ---

The basis of John Casey's research and conclusions is that the earth isn't warming but we are entering
a period of cooling that isn't going to be a picnic for the human race ---

Basically warming or cooling we are ***** --- over a period of time so it won't all come at once so no one panic -
there could be time to adjust -- 

But no amount of carbon tax is going to make a difference - which brings us back to the thread subject and the 
threats from Europe to add carbon tax to US goods --

Extra Deep Conspiracy Alert --- maybe the UN etc aren't just a bit dim when it comes to Global Warming -
now called Climate Change --- and they KNOW what lies ahead re. cooling and it's a way to give the public a bit of
hope like they're not completely helpless and putting them (us) off the track and also a way of raising a few billion $$$ etc
which comes in handy --- 

hmmmmmm the plot thickens -- 

. 

 

 

 

[bee]

.

This is the first part of a presentation by John Casey --- talking about his research -
other parts on YouTube --- 

 

video description -

Published on Jun 12, 2015

Former NASA expert Dr. John Casey reveals why global warming is a lie, and being backed by establishment scientists, government and even churches. Casey reveals the details of his bestselling book “Dark Winter” – which proves that solar cycles and sunspot activity, not global warming caused by man-made carbon emissions, is creating changes to the earth’s temperature. Find out more at www.Newsmax.com/DarkWinter

 

.

 

[Torchwood]

This isn't a data war- you have no data.  You can't keep bringing up a debating point over and over again after its been demonstrated to not hold water.  Casey isn't a Climatologist, and he's never studied it. He might be the Bees knees when it comes to talking about rockets but it doesn't qualify him to fit a toilet or talk about the climate.  Even a fellow Climate Change Sceptic refused to be associated with him! How the hell can anyone seriously claim he's a leading researcher on the subject?  

A advert for a magazine subscription is not DATA!

BTW, Ive noticed that this November isn't as warm as August was. As long as ignore last January I have to assume that the planet is getting cooler, not warmer...

Edited November 20, 2016 by Torchwood

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Bee are you going to comment on post #65 ? 

[bee]

.

14 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Take a look at this comparison bee: 

The largest nuclear device ever tested (RDS-220/aka Tsar Bomba) had an estimated energy yield of 2,1x10,7¹⁷ joules and the total energy from the sun that strikes the Earth per second is 1,7x10¹⁷ joules. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

This means that you would have to detonate one Tsar Bomba every 1,23 second in order to match the energy from the sun

Since 1963 nearly all nuclear tests have been underground (only France and China did some after that). The last athmospheric test was done by China in 1980. So for the last 36 years there have been no athmospheric nuclear tests anywhere.

Do you now see why your idea doesn't work ?

 

10 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Bee are you going to comment on post #65 ? 

.

yes I was going to get round to it but I was watching something on the telly last night so didn't want to
spend too much time and effort on this thread - that's the thing and I knew it would happen - that any debate
to do with questioning global warming get's errrrrr over heated --- and any dessent has to be crushed asap 

In your post you seem to be arguing that the nuclear testing wouldn't and didn't have any effect on the
atmosphere and environment because the sun is much 'stronger'  than any man made nuclear explosion - ?

And that after a time of around 36 years any detrimental effects would have disappeared..?

Well I think this could be a bit optimistic --- considering the sheer amount of ionizing radiation and crap that
was added to the atmosphere and spread around the planet...

https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/general-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/

quote --

"The first nuclear test was carried out by the United States in July 1945, followed by the Soviet Union in 1949, the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1960, and China in 1964. The National Resources Defense Council estimated the total yield of all nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980 at 510 megatons (Mt). Atmospheric tests alone accounted for 428 mt, equivalent to over 29,000 Hiroshima size bombs."

note the underlined -- isn't that shocking? - IMO the cavalier attitude towards nuclear testing and the risks
and unknown long term effects was crazy and dangerous - has it all contributed to global warming or global cooling?

you are implying no..?

I'm saying I expect it has somehow -?

re the warming / cooling of the climate - when the cold war was at it's height and everyone was scared of nuclear war
kicking off - one of the things talked about was the nuclear winter that would follow nuclear 'exchange'
where all the radiated crap trapped in the atmosphere would block normal sunlight for a long period of time -

so maybe the nuclear pollution could contribute to global cooling more than global warming - the pollution would be
spread out over a few decades not in a few days but it might still have an effect albeit less instant and dramatic -

I hope you are satisfied with my slightly delayed reply ..... 

.

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

16 minutes ago, bee said:

yes I was going to get round to it but I was watching something on the telly last night so didn't want to
spend too much time and effort on this thread

Strictly? 

[bee]

12 hours ago, Torchwood said:

This isn't a data war- you have no data.  You can't keep bringing up a debating point over and over again after its been demonstrated to not hold water.  Casey isn't a Climatologist, and he's never studied it. He might be the Bees knees when it comes to talking about rockets but it doesn't qualify him to fit a toilet or talk about the climate.  Even a fellow Climate Change Sceptic refused to be associated with him! How the hell can anyone seriously claim he's a leading researcher on the subject?  

A advert for a magazine subscription is not DATA!

BTW, Ive noticed that this November isn't as warm as August was. As long as ignore last January I have to assume that the planet is getting cooler, not warmer...

.

I can see you've been ''''triggered'''' as they say --

Yes there is a data war - otherwise how could there be broadly two camps regarding global warming - ?

I'm taking an overview of the subject but scientists and others who have done in depth studies have data -

There's even a mini data war regarding the much banded about 97% figure of published climate scientists that are
part of the scientific consensus agreeing that global warming is an ongoing and increasing 'fact' and that
man made emissions is a dominant factor -

The 97% seems to have become 'gospel' for promoters of global warming -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1e68ec217187

quote --

"Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need."

 

I picked this bit to quote because it brings us back to the thread topic and because President Elect Trump isn't faithful
to the global warming gospel of the Obama Administration - Europe is suggesting punishing the US by levying a carbon
tax on US goods ---- that'll show him eh..? 

.

  

[bee]

13 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

Strictly? 

 

yeah 

.

[bee]

15 hours ago, Setton said:

cherry picking

,

the global warming / global cooling / climate change,  data 'war' is all about different levels of 'cherry picking' -
different sources - different slants - different motives? etc etc 

how else could there be opposing scientific views - ?

. 

[Setton]

8 minutes ago, bee said:

,

the global warming / global cooling / climate change,  data 'war' is all about different levels of 'cherry picking' -
different sources - different slants - different motives? etc etc 

how else could there be opposing scientific views - ?

. 

I have yet to see an opposing scientific view.

And differing scientific opinions come down to different interpretations of the same data not ignoring parts of it.