Comments on: Change the climate narrative http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27230 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:21:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27230 Casper in order to exercise logic one must first be able to comprehend what they read. I stated CO2 has increased 20 percent. 300 ppm in 1960 to 370 ppm currently. Oxygen on Earth is currently around 19 percent at sea level and steadily decreasing. The higher the elevation, the lower the oxygen. Thinner air. Fifteen or sixteen percent oxygen content are the limits for large mammals generally though not always.You are correct that humanity has burned up the planet and that the time for debate has passed. I am not so sure that the people of my country have the stomach to do what is required.

]]>
By: Benny Acosta http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27217 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:23:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27217 Casper, your reading is suspect. Anubis didn’t say that oxygen levels have decreased to 20%. He said CO2 has increased by 20%.”Fact one: global CO2 levels have increased 20% over the past 50 years.”If you’re going to post that someone’s logic is suspect you could at least read the post first. That way you don’t look bad misquoting something that is printed on the same screen you’re typing your insult on.Just a thought.

]]>
By: Guillermo http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27175 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:05:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27175 Say rich countries develop and figure out how to deploy climate-friendly technologies. The only way they will share this with China and India is through American companies. The only way China and India will buy this technology is if they are forced to. The only way they are forced to is if they have to cut emissions a certain amount. So we are back to the question of how much they have to cut, aren’t we?

]]>
By: scheng1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27150 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:54:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27150 That’s true. The whole approach is wrong, that’s why it does not work. Right now countries are playing the “blame” game, pushing to the blame of climatic problem to others.If the countries can get their resources together, to make cheap eco-friendly vehicles, so that eco-friendly cars sell at half the price of normal car, the world will be much cleaner and greener within five years.

]]>
By: mike http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27066 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:02:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27066 Colossal ice ages, punctuated by global warming periods, have characterized our global climate for millions of years. Glaciers covered much of North America just ten thousand years ago, for example. This was long before mankind was a significant element on the face of the globe, long before modern industrial farming began, and long before we began generating electricity by burning coal.Now some people would have us believe we are entering (or are already into) a period of global warming. So far the facts fall somewhat short of supporting this claim, but for conjecture’s sake, let’s postulate that that is the case.The question then becomes, “Why is THIS period of global warming thought to be caused by mankinds’ efforts, while all earlier such periods occurred well before mankind was engaged in the suspect activities, and on the scale required, to be the causal agent?” What were the causal agents of global climate change in past eons, and why do we think these are not the reason for MODERN global climate change (if indeed that is what we are witnessing today)?The “SOLUTION” being proposed will have a worldwide impact on the cost, availability, and use of energy by billions of people worldwide. It will seriously impact the economies in which all developed nations operate. It will PREVENT undeveloped nations from advancing.Given all of this, any SANE individual should want to understand the true causal factors which have been responsible for eons of past global climate change, and which will certainly continue to effect global changes in the future.How it is that — in the face of eons of evidence to the contrary — THIS TIME AROUND it is the puny efforts of mankind which are to blame, rather than the natural forces which have effected global climate change in the past eons?

]]>
By: Casper http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27057 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:34:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27057 Anubis, your facts and logic is suspect. For one, we need 20% oxygen to breath at all, the rest is made up of nitrogen and argon.We are wasting our time with this debate, as we will never really know. It is almost like the afterlife and faith versus fact debate. Two things are for sure though, we have poisoned the land and water masses into extinction and that is where the actual challenge lies, the rest will remain rhetoric well into the next century

]]>
By: S. Karl http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27049 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:50:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27049 the only possible solution to this problem is to allot every person on the planet a yearly energy quota ( the right to purchase energy which can be in the form of kilowatts of electricity or the equivalent in oil etc.)The socially insecure or those that need full size pickup trucks and hummers and 8000 ft. houses to haul and house their immense egos and attitude would be able to purchase the energy quotas from the people who live in grass huts and ride bicycles. Now that would be fair.

]]>
By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27025 Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:42:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27025 Fact one: global CO2 levels have increased 20% over the past 50 years.Fact two: global oxygen levels have declined over the past 50 years.Fact three: all glacial ice has receded by 50% or more in the past 50 years.Fact four: industrial farming contributes to thirty percent of global hothouse gas emissions. Bring back organic farming.Fact five: we are increasing coal burning power generators around the world. See Kingston Tennessee for the coal ash spill from a TVA coal fired electric power generation facility. There is no such thing as clean coal.Global warming is by definition increasing CO2 levels which causes decreasing oxygen levels. Every mass extinction on this planet has been accompanied by global warming. The last mass extinction(Eocene Epoch) left the planet absent 40% of it’s life and all glacial ice for thirty million years. Glacial ice returned roughly 2 million years ago with the return of the ice ages. Glaciers give us the multitude of rivers and fresh water lakes that allow life to flourish.Considering whether or not global warming is anthropogenic is a distraction. No one but fools debate the cause of a fire while it rages. As long as we burn fossil fuels we only stoke the fire. I urge all to research Scripps Institute of Oceanography website regarding this subject….www.sio.ucsd.edu

]]>
By: mike http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/11/14/change-the-climate-narrative/#comment-27020 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:13:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5725#comment-27020 The idea of a focus on environmentally friendly new energy production technologies is a constructive idea; the problem, of course, is that the newly-proposed environmentally-friendly energy production technologies are significantly more expensive than the current technologies being used around the world.Another at least equally constructive idea is to actually demonstrate in a scientifically believable way that human production of CO2 has ANY substantial impact on world temperature.Until there is a scientifically-credible proof that human-produced CO2 is actually a threat to the world climate, there is no likelihood that America (let alone China and India) will agree to impose the extra cost on their citizens and their industries (which must compete for business, hence jobs, with every other nation.)

]]>