The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Jantar]

Sure, theoretically... it could.
If CO2 was the limiting factor, which unless there was a shortage it isn't.
So in summation, no, more CO2 would not increase crop production for the simple reason than it is not scarce. Things like nutrients, water and sunlight would increase crop production.


And onto your argument, what I don't understand about it is that you are of the opinion that we should reduce the amount of pollution we produce, but oppose carbon trading for the sheer reason that you can't see proof that global warming exists. The net effect of carbon trading will be to reduce net pollution levels... which you have nothing against (I would assume/hope).


....

Perhaps you haven't heard about a process that happens in plants called photosynthesis. It is a process whereby sunlight provides the energy to convert CO2 and H20 into sugars and starches. It is what makes plants grow. Note that the major component is CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a fertiliser , and increased CO2 levels does indeed equate to more vigorous plant growth.

Now to your point that you made in a couple of posts about industries that produce CO2 also produce other pollutants. That being the case a CO2 tax would reduce such emmisions.

I would like to point you to our energy system where the major users of natural gas are the combined cycle power stations. They burn methane gas in this reaction: 2CH4 + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 2H2O + heat
Or 2 methane molecule + 3 Oxygen molecules produce 2 CO2 molecules plus 2 water molecules plus heat. Note that the only emmisiions are CO2 and water. Why do you wish to tax water production?

[Jantar]

You have to start somewhere, and while I don't personally agree with how they started, they have atleast done something which is better than if the "global warming doesn't exist" crew had their way.

If you examine some scenarios of:
1) Do nothing, AGW false
2) Do something, AGW false
3) Do nothing, AGW true
4) Do something, AGW true

then you get these possible worst case results:
1) Nothing changes
2) Economic collapse, depression
3) End of world as we know it
4) Possibly mitigate effects

I would chose to do something as the worst case of doing nothing is worse than the worst case of doing something

However the evidence is that you get these possible worst case results:
1) Nothing changes
2) Economic collapse, depression
3) Improved food productivity, fewer wars, more trade, more discoveries.
4) Economic collapse, depression

[Max Preload]

The only way vegetation produces CO2 is if you burn it. (Be it old stuff as in oil or new stuff as in forest fires). The rest of the time all the plants are actually absorbing CO2 and releasing O2 as part of the photosynthetic process.

They emit CO2 when they decompose and at night.

Either way, I for one do not believe CO2 to be the bogey man that it's played out to be. I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming - there is no concensus that it exists - not even a majority. The IPCC is a political not scientific organisation, so I sure as hell don't believe any fucking thing they say. I also don't believe anyone needs any more reason than the simple fact Enron backed the Kyoto Protocol in order to conclude carbon trading schemes are nothing but money-making scams.

Sometimes people make things far more complicated than they really are. Ironically, they can't see the forest for the trees...

[Badjelly]

Hey Quasi, after you've finished Air Con, perhaps you should read this book:

http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Poles-Apart/2553210/

Gareth Morgan couldn't decide whether he believed in climate change or not, so he hired the best international scientists to answer his questions and these are his findings. Combined with anecdotes from his own recent trips to Antarctica and the Arctic this is something completely unique in books about climate change - somebody who has approached the topic with an open mind, somebody who has the resources to explore such a topic and somebody who has personally investigated all of the issues.

So what was his conclusion? Read the book to find out.

[Finn]

Hey Quasi, after you've finished Air Con, perhaps you should read this book:

http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Poles-Apart/2553210/

Gareth Morgan couldn't decide whether he believed in climate change or not, so he hired the best international scientists to answer his questions and these are his findings. Combined with anecdotes from his own recent trips to Antarctica and the Arctic this is something completely unique in books about climate change - somebody who has approached the topic with an open mind, somebody who has the resources to explore such a topic and somebody who has personally investigated all of the issues.

So what was his conclusion? Read the book to find out.

Riiiiiiight. Paid "experts" are never bias. Especially scientists.

[Quasievil]

Hey Quasi, after you've finished Air Con, perhaps you should read this book:

http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Poles-Apart/2553210/

Gareth Morgan couldn't decide whether he believed in climate change or not, so he hired the best international scientists to answer his questions and these are his findings. Combined with anecdotes from his own recent trips to Antarctica and the Arctic this is something completely unique in books about climate change - somebody who has approached the topic with an open mind, somebody who has the resources to explore such a topic and somebody who has personally investigated all of the issues.

So what was his conclusion? Read the book to find out.

Hi mate, yeah I prolly will, howeve after watching him on 20/20 I discounted it as a vested interest scenario to be honest mate, not saying I wont read it, but he is an economist

[Badjelly]

Hi mate, yeah I prolly will, howeve after watching him on 20/20 I discounted it as a vested interest scenario to be honest mate, not saying I wont read it, but he is an economist

So you reckon Gareth Morgan has been paid off by the Wild Green Elite?

I'm sure you know he became very wealthy when his share of TradeMe was sold, and he's been in the process of giving that money away. Perhaps he'd run out and needed a top-up?

[Quasievil]

So you reckon Gareth Morgan has been paid off by the Wild Green Elite?

I'm sure you know he became very wealthy when his share of TradeMe was sold, and he's been in the process of giving that money away. Perhaps he'd run out and needed a top-up?

im not sure if you saw the article on tv, but honestly mate it was like an infomercial complete even with product placements, some carbon gas swallowing machine or something design to save the population before we all die, which I would bet good money he has a vested interest in as a shareholder.
It was one sided and it didnt have any real facts or figures or science involved.

I assure you that whilst I obviously seem to have a firm opinion, I am keen to read the other side of the argument also.

[Skyryder]

im not sure if you saw the article on tv, but honestly mate it was like an infomercial complete even with product placements, some carbon gas swallowing machine or something design to save the population before we all die, which I would bet good money he has a vested interest in as a shareholder.
It was one sided and it didnt have any real facts or figures or science involved.

I assure you that whilst I obviously seem to have a firm opinion, I am keen to read the other side of the argument also.

Yes Right on. I tuned in thinking I'd get some insight but all it was was an advert for Gareth Morgan's book. So the programme gave you some opinions in that he did not know who was right or wrong. Some of the comments made suggested to me that his wife is a firm believer of man made global warming where as Gareth Morgan is not. The fact that he has hired 'both camps' on the global warming debate should make his book an interesting read one way or the other.


Skyryder

[Quasievil]

Yes Right on. I tuned in thinking I'd get some insight but all it was was an advert for Gareth Morgan's book. So the programme gave you some opinions in that he did not know who was right or wrong. Some of the comments made suggested to me that his wife is a firm believer of man made global warming where as Gareth Morgan is not. The fact that he has hired 'both camps' on the global warming debate should make his book an interesting read one way or the other.


Skyryder

Anyone that hires either camp should disclose it all otherwise the event is biased.
Either way it will be all inconclusive with doubt all over the show.
Im largely convinced its all about the money

[Jantar]

I am currently reading a book on the Warmer's point of view. Its called Melting Point by Eric Dorfman, and deals with "New Zealand and Climate Change Crisis." So far it is interesting more for what is incorrect, or unverifiable than from any evidence of warming.

Many of his claims are just simply a result of poor research like the 1878 Clutha flood which he claims was measured at 5700 cumecs. The flow was actually estimated at 4200 - 5400 cumecs (with 4700 being the accepted value) and the first flow measuring equipment wasn't installed until 1932. Or the Hawea Dam which he claims is on the same river and has a maximum controlleable flow of 200 cumecs. Its actually on a tributary and that 200 cumecs is the maximum permitted flow when the lake is in its normal operating range. The Dam can pass almost double this volume.

It is like many warming articles and papers that I have read where a false premise is made then built upon as though it were real. It is also the main reason why I like to see the original data for any claim that is made.

However, once I finish this book I shall read AirCon, followed by Gareth Morgan's book.

[Quasievil]

Hows that ice on the beach guys bloody global warming......damn cold huh

[jonbuoy]

C´mon Quasi theres even evidence from NZ scientist now...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/4...z-paua-mussels

[Quasievil]

C´mon Quasi theres even evidence from NZ scientist now...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/4...z-paua-mussels

Incorrect as it doesnt provide evidence the Co2 is made made and thats the argument here, so your happy to pay $3,000 more tax on the basis of that article ?????

[Hitcher]

Or you could always carpool...