PDA

View Full Version : Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?



FRED
07-09-07, 11:16 AM
Or is global warming more of a political than a scientific movement?

We believe there is more politics than science in the global warming debate. Doesn't mean go out and buy a Hummer. The U.S. should have been conserving energy and developing alternatives to fossil fuels over the past 30 years for other reasons: lower the toxicity level of emissions, reduce a major source of global political tension and social injustice, and allow a more gradual transition to alternative energy than we may experience as demand rises in Asia and Africa when reserves are declining.

First in a series.


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8f8v5du5_ag"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8f8v5du5_ag" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Sapiens
07-09-07, 12:11 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ttLBqB0qDko"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ttLBqB0qDko" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>




<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5172825450398506493&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

synthesis66
07-09-07, 07:45 PM
Humans are incapable of understanding the most simply of things, yet a concept like global warming. Having said that, one must then pose the following litmus test, "Can governments and corporations use the idea to fleece the public?" If so, it's a go.

bill
07-09-07, 08:11 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left colSpan=2>Zero carbon Britain in two decades New report outlines radical map of solutions </B></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>


</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width="70%">Contact: Jessa Latona 07704 273 067 (Email: media@cat.org.uk (media@cat.org.uk))</TD><TD align=right width="30%">Date: 09/07/2007</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


http://www.cat.org.uk/news/images/36870.jpgThe Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) today released ‘zerocarbonbritain’, a blueprint for Britain to reduce its carbon emissions[1] to zero by 2027. The report draws on CAT's 35 years of experience as well as consultations with world-renowned experts in climate science, climate policy and renewable energy technologies.

zerocarbonbritain outlines a framework of policies to drive the transition to a zero carbon economy. It defines a global carbon budget and identifies an equitable portion for Britain.

Paul Allen, CAT Development Director and co-author said, “zerocarbonbritain is a radical yet pragmatic vision of Britain’s energy future, based on a reading of the most recent science and driven by bold new policies.[2]

“Using only existing and proven technologies, the report maps a potential scenario that could arise from these policies and integrates solutions to the intimately connected issues of climate change, energy security and global equity.

“zerocarbonbritain is scientifically necessary, socially possible and technically achievable - we must now make it politically thinkable.”

Sir John Houghton, former Co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Director General of the UK Met Office said, “The authors of zerocarbonbritain present a time-scale for action that begins now. I commend their imagination (coupled with realism), their integrated view and their sense of urgency, as an inspiration to all who are grappling with the challenge that climate change is bringing to our world.”

Contact: Jessa Latona, Media Officer, 01654 705957 mob 07704 273067


[1] From fossil fuels
[2] The report recommends the adoption of Contraction & Convergence, the global framework for negotiations and management of climate change; administered on a national level, through a system of personal carbon permits (specifically Tradable Energy Quotas, TEQs) in absolute terms over the next 20 years.
http://www.cat.org.uk/index.tmpl?refer=index&init=1


The Report:http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

Fox
07-10-07, 08:08 AM
Although there are many arguments against global warming, there are certainly not put forward in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", at least not the valid ones anyways.

Here's an article (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html) about a scientist being mis-quoted to appear being against global warming when in fact he is for it.

and here's another article (http://www.lobbywatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=38&page=1&op=2) about another "documentary" by Martin Durkin

but if I can stop the Hearsay and Ad Hominem (the mode du jour for global warming deniers, and riddle through out this first 10minute segment); and address the only facts presented.

Here's a verifiable graph of temperature over the last 2000 years
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Notice how the 0C point of this graph is at or above all models for the Medieval warming period. This graph also ends at 2004 and 2005 was hotter still (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006.htm). In either case, a different graph than the one presented in the segment
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png))

and here's the Holocene temperature
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Perhaps a convincing argument can be made with this one, however 'Swindle has clearly chopped off the more recent (and most accurate) data to prove his point.

also here is a review (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414) from more noteworthy Global warming skeptics. If you want to be a global warming critic, then review this site. However by taking off on this tagent with Martin Durkin as a reference, Itulip is risking its credibility.

Best to stick with predicting financial doom

EJ
07-10-07, 09:52 AM
We're not passing judgment on Global Warming or its advocates, we are entirely sympathetic to the objectives of the movement, and we agree with the actions that the Global Warming advocates recommend, but for different reasons, as we list above.

Our credibility is only at risk if we accept conventional wisdom without question. We are old enough to recall the days 30 years ago when it was widely believed that OPEC would keep oil over $100 a barrel forever, 20 years ago that Japan was due to overtake the US economy, and so on. Anyone who made significant investments in line with those popular beliefs lost a lot of money. It is wise to question popular beliefs, especially when evidence abounds to demonstrate the common error of confusing of correlation with causation, in this case climate change and human activity.

We're trying to build an investment thesis here. If the Global Warming theory and the political impetus behind it falls apart in five years after we have made significant related investments because the movement is primarily based on religious and political motives rather than science, then we have not served the interests of our community.

bill
07-10-07, 11:04 AM
Our credibility is only at risk if we accept conventional wisdom without question.


I enjoy the questioning and would like to see more of it with a lot of details to support the same. That means get researching and bring as much information material to Itulip as possible and question it until we derive at some cutting edge conclusion.


Regarding the “zero carbon Britain” report http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/images//zerocarbonbritain.pdf on page 45 it is my first finding on how payments will be made using TEQ (Tradable Energy Quotas).


3. SURRENDERING CARBON
PERMITS






All fossil fuels are assigned a carbon rating

according to their greenhouse gas or radiative
forcing effect. Whenever an end user purchases
fossil fuels they surrender to the vendor the
corresponding number of carbon permits. This can
be carried out electronically adapting existing
banking technology.
These permits are then returned up the supply line
till they return to the primary producer or importer,
who in turn returns them to the energy policy
committee for accounting purposes. A national
database of all participating citizens will need to be
established.
Although dependant on efficient implementation of
information technology, it should be no more
difficult than managing credit cards or oyster cards.














<!-- toctype = X-unknown --><!-- toctype = text --><!-- text -->

Fox
07-10-07, 12:02 PM
We're trying to build an investment thesis here. If the Global Warming theory and the political impetus behind it falls apart in five years after we have made significant related investments because the movement is primarily based on religious and political motives rather than science, then we have not served the interests of our community.
hmm, you have more faith in the global warming movement than I do. As we move into a massive economic upheaval coinciding with a fuel crisis, surely that the Impetus behind the Global warming movement will fall apart is a certainty.

To make significant investments on global warming movement is to bet against the house. The house being the world wide oil, gas, and coal industries, Main stream global commerce, and billions of hungry Asian's, and African's (not to mention cold and soon to be hungry European's, and North American's)

It may be a quick reaction to think that the world is changing because of the hype around the Live Earth concerts. But A quick count of the number of cars in the concert parking lots will show you that talk is a lot cheaper than action (certainly a lot cheaper than a wind farm or even a Prius)

My Global Warming investment advice, buy shares in Air Conditioners, Coal, and suicide booths because that is what we'll need a lot of in the future.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/72/200px-Suicide_Booth.JPG

Tet
07-10-07, 12:28 PM
Here's a verifiable graph of temperature over the last 2000 years
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


I thought this article yesterday in my daily fishwrap was pretty interesting.

Weather station moves add degree of difficulty<!---- END STORY TITLE -------->
Some doubt accuracy of U.S. weather data

By Robert Krier

The nation's weather records, consulted for comparisons whenever it's exceptionally hot, cold, wet or dry, are skewed at the source: weather stations.

That's because nearly all have been moved at one time, and when that happens, consistency goes out the window.
Two years ago, more rain fell on downtown Los Angeles than in any year in city history. It didn't go down as a record.

The city's official weather station had been moved six years earlier – from the top of a building to the grounds of the University of Southern California – as part of a National Weather Service effort to standardize weather stations at ground level. So, although the old station measured 38.32 inches of rain – more than twice the normal amount – and topped a 121-year-old mark by two-tenths of an inch, rainfall at the new station was short of a record.

More at the link
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070709-9999-1n9station.html

Funny stuff, to think that our weather people work numbers and statistics the same way that our BIS folks do for our unemployment rate.

San Diego's weather statistics have been gathered at 12 locations since 1849.

How anyone can conclude they are comparing apples with apples is beyond me. I hear that China is seeding their weather getting ready for the Olympics, how does one compare temperatures and rainfall records when the weather actually is manipulated by man? We live in interesting times, falling for different versions of the same scam over and over. I'm going to warn my children to be on the lookout for the Ice Age scam thirty years from now.

Contemptuous
07-10-07, 01:42 PM
Fox - My compliments to you for your posts.

You will find it tough sledding (yes it's a feeble pun) on these forum pages to put forward these ideas. The term "limits to growth" although eminently logical, with a global population entering the steeper part of it's exponential curve, is unfortunately tainted by many of it's sillier proponents, who appear to have thoroughly discredited it in the eyes of the I-Tulip majority. Hence the difficulty you encounter to gain unrestrained recognition of the idea.

I've seen some satellite pics (could not dig them up for this post but will try to relocate) of the North Pole with 30 year time-lapse. Others must have seen these also. They are quite scary, with ice shelves the size of half of Wales calving off the main pack.

Time lapse photography from five miles up with a thirty year gap betwee shutters does not lie, but this simple fact seems lost in the debate about "gullibility".

My own sense is that what is at work here amongst the skeptics is the "reverse thesis credibility factor" - i.e. because so many naive and alarmist people have glommed onto the global warming and resource depletion bandwagon, I-Tulip sees this phenomenon and veers unduly towards skepticism as the antidote.

Reality has a wonderful way of confounding the search for truth - this time around, the logical thesis - exponential global population at the vertical end of it's curve is really and truly confounding the skeptics, who will belatedly and very reluctantly climb on board the thesis when the event is already well along and the world is struggling with problems we've literally not ever seen before.

"Not ever seen before" is the automatic red flag to a skeptic. They say "aha! So you are saying "this time it's different"! This leaves you in the unenviable position of saying "Yes, this time it really is different". Charley Maxwell, a petroleum analyst with 45 years in the business, reiterates precisely that - "Yes, this time it really is different" in an article posted elsewhere on these pages. That was regarding oil depletion, to which Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA has just agreed (only days ago!).

This thread should turn the question around. Collect multiple sources of charts evidencing the secular data for mean temperatures, which I agree with Fox, does indeed at very least starkly and clearly suggest global warming, and then work backward from there to examine all known possible causes. CO2 pops right up on the short list. Sunspots? I wonder... It's certainly not a closed question, but this inverted examination method provides a clear causal chain derived from the secular obvseved data as the start point - and the secular data is pretty damn clear.

I-Tulip is leader in this methodology in financial forensics - but if I may suggest, it hesitates on the environmental or resource depletion ones. Maybe there is not enough manpower to really become authorities in more than one admittedly highly complex area (deciphering economic cans of worms, an I-Tulip specialty)

What I would submit to I-Tulip is simply this - to carefully examine their predisposition to eschew popular ideas like "Peak Oil" and "Global Warming" and so verify if the inclination to disbelieve shows a singularity across these related themes. If there is a high level of consistency of skepticism, then the quite natural distaste for the dumbed down popular "movements" is possibly impeding the investigation. I agree, the "popular movements" full of inordinate righteousness really are a pain in the ****.

I submit this with full and due respect for the overwhelming quantity of superb far seeing work this community performs in many other areas.

To become more closely associated with issues which have been unfortunately popularised or "dumbed down" is nothing whatsoever to be concerned about for I-Tulip - this community has already more than established it's credentials. It should consider lending it's weight to ALL the most critical issues of the day.

bill
07-10-07, 02:42 PM
What I would submit to I-Tulip is simply this - to carefully examine their predisposition to eschew popular ideas like "Peak Oil" and "Global Warming"

What I would like to see you submit is a few idea’s in detail for a investment play based on the future of global warming and it’s impact. What new business idea or asset investment would you suggest using Global Warming as a bases?

<!-- toctype = X-unknown --><!-- toctype = text --><!-- text -->

Contemptuous
07-10-07, 07:01 PM
Hi Bill,

< What new investments ... for Global Warming? >

I have no idea what you could invest in for global warming. The entire desert swath of poorest countries in the world may face mass desertification if the theory is true, and soaring petrochemicals will nail them on food production even if desertification won't Maybe both will? Are we going to just sit here and watch if we eventually conclude it's occurring?

I know the Europeans (mostly Scandinavians and Germans) lead the way on good EROEI forms of alternative energy. France leads the way on Nuclear. For once, maybe America could 'fall in line' and follow their ideas for a change?.

If we go by the warnings of the EIA, and these old-timer energy analysts, something in this whole general area needs to be done - and maybe done pretty quick. Even the sober minded ones say we should have started something 20 years ago, the crest is maybe breaking right now or extremely soon, and we are going to be fairly well screwed.

All the great, easy investments are in the petroleum and nat. gas patch. PE's are really low, because so few people in the institutional money fully believe this yet. There are some superb, low risk investments lying scattered all around that area.

Moe Gamble has it right - sometime around 2010 - 2012 when the global public finally figures out this is really breaking, there will indeed be the 'Bolshevik moment' as Tet would so dryly describe it, and you'd just want to be out of the markets and hiding under a desk somewhere.

OK, so does I-Tulip give us the go-ahead to all start being really terminally glum, long-faced, unreconstructed doomers now? What fun - everyone gets to be a doomer! Cool!

bill
07-10-07, 07:30 PM
All the great, easy investments are in the petroleum and nat. gas patch. PE's are really low, because so few people in the institutional money fully believe this yet.

Why would you want to invest in a fossil fuel based energy when all the reports I have read regarding global warming is suggesting a non carbon solution?

Contemptuous
07-10-07, 10:46 PM
Bill -

It has to do with whether you prefer to invest your safe money in venture startup ideas with potentially block buster returns, or in safe cookie cutter ideas within the same generally aggressive growth theme - energy in the 2010's and 2020's.

I like what's going to make me a return with some predictability. I'm not sure if your question was serious or just to draw me out - I'll assume the latter.

Pick the rip-roaring growth sector - energy, and try to select the safest risk adjusted performers within it. I prefer largest, fastest reserve growth mid-caps in petroleum as the safest risk adjusted performers in a terminally declining petroleum market. The petroleum doesn't end, it tapers off, and gets a lot pricier. I'll leave it entirely to others to invest in the new technology venture stuff.

I thought it would be obvious that the Exxon's, the Gazprom's and the Petrochina's of the world are going to "run out of petroleum to sell" long after they've made their investors a ton of returns off of $300 dollar oil. Meanwhile all the alt-energy investments will probably save mankind, but in the process as an investor you are taking on a lot of risk even just tyrying to identify the long run winners.

I'd rather own silver bullion, with huge upside as money printing and credit continues to ramp up globally to cushion economies from the rising cost of energy. It is a slightly speculative play compared to gold, but hugely less speculative than investing in a basket of alt-energy firms in their early years, at least in my view.

FRED
07-11-07, 12:03 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42119000/jpg/_42119418_flare_nasa_203.jpg
'No Sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm)

By Richard Black

BBC Environment Correspondent

Solar flare pictured by Trace (Nasa)
Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

Tet
07-11-07, 12:26 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42119000/jpg/_42119418_flare_nasa_203.jpg
'No Sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm)

By Richard Black

BBC Environment Correspondent

Solar flare pictured by Trace (Nasa)
Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
Truly the funniest thing I have read in quite some time, not suprising that it comes from the BBC and the brit Royal Academy of idiots. This report says nothing regarding how stars actually work, how they produce heat and what to concern ourselves with regarding stars and yes the sun is a star. The report should be measuring the amount of helium found on the sun to give us an indication of if the sun is causing the climate change. Failing to provide that information would lead me to conclude the report is bullshit, which most things coming from Royal Academies and the BBC are. At some point our sun is going to grow so large it swallows up Mercury, the sun will actually be producing less heat when it does but the effect on Mercury is one even the Royal Academy can understand. Later the sun will grow to a size it swallows up Venus and later it will swallow up Earth, all this will be done while the output of energy is decreasing. Maybe the Royal Academy should sit next to a campfire and report on it's effects on body heat, now move 2 feet closer and report on the effects, note the campfire hasn't changed. Once again funny stuff.

bill
07-11-07, 12:35 PM
I thought it would be obvious that the Exxon's, the Gazprom's and the Petrochina's of the world are going to "run out of petroleum to sell" long after they've made their investors a ton of returns off of $300 dollar oil.


What do you mean by “draw me out”?

The reason for my question was I wanted to hear what a investor that has strong beliefs in peak oil and global warming would invest in.
Your response was Oil, as a matter of fact a future of $300 dollar oil.
Wow $300 oil!
If we are running out of oil and the result is $300 dollar oil government policy would apply a massive tax to subsidize and develop alternative energy sources and energy efficiency. A taxation to subsidize alternative energy as well as taxing carbon produced from oil will have a major impact on oil companies returns. Many new carbon tax bills are already being introduced to stop global warming and reduce carbon output by oil and gas energy. In effect carbon reduction will be a major cost to the oil producers and furthermore a tax on oil could accelerate and credit alternative energy as oil reserves deplete. If this peak oil is real all governments will not stand silent to the last drop of oil in the name of national economic security, they will have a plan, a alternative plan of action and I think that plan of action is now being formulated. I think that the public will support the same government action and avoid getting raped by the oil companies down to the last drop of oil. The people will demand change and that change will result in less dependence on oil. That’s the trend I see developing now regardless of the oil price.
By the way keep a close eye on the gulf. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4958345.html

July 11, 2007, 12:09AM
EXPLORATION
Devon Energy wagers $100 million on repeating Chevron's success drilling in the rockbed miles beneath Gulf waters
Digging deep for new oil

By KRISTEN HAYS
2007 Houston Chronicle


Last year, Chevron illustrated the potential of the lower tertiary, an ancient rockbed several miles beneath the water's surface. The company announced that a successful well test showed Jack could be the biggest find in North America since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the nation's largest oil field, was discovered in the late 1960s.
That test, known as Jack 2, came two years after Chevron drilled Jack 1, the field's first exploratory well. Both were drilled more than 20,000 feet below the seabed in 7,000 feet of water.
Jack 1's result transformed the Jack prospect into a discovery. Jack 2 provided enough information to indicate the field could hold 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids — which could boost U.S. reserves by as much as 50 percent.

Contemptuous
07-11-07, 04:04 PM
Hi Bill,

You wrote:

<< If this peak oil is real all governments will not stand silent to the last drop of oil in the name of national economic security, they will have a plan, a alternative plan of action and I think that plan of action is now being formulated. >>

I'm with you 100% in hoping that's the case. We in the industrialised world may see quality of life degraded, but people in the poorest parts of the world may be absolutely devastated because global crop production could well be in the front line of inflationary effects.

For the rest of it all, I've got nothing invested in the 'Peak Oil' idea other than my money in some energy hedges. No ideological baggage at all.

bill
07-11-07, 05:04 PM
Hi Bill,

You wrote:

<< If this peak oil is real all governments will not stand silent to the last drop of oil in the name of national economic security, they will have a plan, a alternative plan of action and I think that plan of action is now being formulated. >>

I'm with you 100% in hoping that's the case.




You hope that’s the case, oil companies get taxed and those tax dollars generated are used for a alternative energy plan?
You have stated that your investment would be in oil and $300 dollar oil would make investors a ton of returns.
If oil companies are taxed to support a transition for new energy it will not be good for oil companies returns going forward.


<!-- toctype = X-unknown --><!-- toctype = text --><!-- text -->

Contemptuous
07-11-07, 05:51 PM
Hi Bill,

You are thinking and second guessing far in advance of the markets. Oil at $80 and $100 a barrel will make investors fat returns. Oil companies with substantial returns are very underpriced right now. I'm not even referring to PE expansion, as it's currently at a very low, unglamorous level in the petroleum sector.

When the general public gets into the viewpoint that petroleum has become the world's #1 strategic asset, you'll see PE expansion chasing their net profits upwards, as the price of the oil leads the way like one of those fake rabbits leading the greyhounds at the race-track.

You write as though the moment "Peak Oil" (which you hint at still considering a comical idea) is acknowledged, the global oil majors, and mid-tier companies will overnight be regarded as wounded ducks not worth anyone's investment. Far from it. This will become THE global strategic resource, and they'll move closer than ever to being producers of a commodity which becomes the world's primary equivalent of MONEY.

I mean well. I don't mean to engage in any personal confrontation with anyone. It's the nearsighted idea, that "depletion is dumb hysterical nonsense" that I wish to rebut - not the individual who may espouse it. The idea that it's not 'different this time' will be revealed wrong - even the normally staid head of the IEA is being quite explicit on the issue already - and delay will be a quite expensive mistake in the process of recognition.

I'm not greatly impressed with the venture capital idea of investing for the long haul - what you seem to be angling is a better fly-trap for profits. Please note, I have not said anything about the MERIT of those alt-energy companies, only about INVESTING in them.

Waiting for it to be safe to get into alt-energy, while the Peak Oil thesis became accepted by the mainstream media, means you had to forego lots of profits in very safe large cap energy and energy service stocks - for the entire past five years, as you probably considered them overhyped and overbought all the way up.

The alt-energy venture stuff is probably full of promise. But they go up, they go down, they go all around. Will you grant me at least that technology startups of any kind are not what you might call "lower risk" investment vehicles?

There are some superb companies in that space. You will probably be able to find some small focused mutual funds that collect a basket of these alt-energy venture firms and rocket up like a saturn booster. I think one should go for it!

I doubled a 60K investment in Uranium juniors in the past 18 months, but now I'm not sure I want to keep playing at that, because I see a lot more people piling in. Please don't hector me about my position on alt-energy as an investment just because my views about "Peak Oil" may irritate you. I've cited some pretty respectable petroleum analysts to support this case. If you don't buy it - I don't feel crestfallen that I've not persuaded you.

Petroleum stocks in any depletion scenario have YEARS to run before their investment prospect fades to the point they are not viable investments. Even with a very sharp peak, we are talking in geological time.

If I've utterly misunderstood the probing and direction of your questions here, where you seem to wish to box me in on some illogic, and you were instead genuinely seeking some my point of view about why investing in 'old school' Petroleum could be profitable, then please accept my apologies for misunderstanding the gist of your questioning.

I drive a little turbo-diesel Jetta that gets 47 miles per gallon on the freeway, and I invest in mainstream petroleum and natural gas stocks. What do you drive?

quigleydoor
07-11-07, 06:07 PM
<img src="http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/images/hbr/hbrsa/current/0703/R0703F_A.gif"/> (<a href="http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbr/articles/article.jsp?pageNumber=1&ml_subscriber=false&articleID=R0703F&_requestid=22622&value=R0703F&referer=/hbsp/hbr/articles/article.jsp&reason=unknown&productId=R0703F&ml_action=get-sidebar&ml_context=sidebar&ml_issueid=BR0703&ml_id=R0703F&ml_sidebar_id=1">Source: Swiss Re via Harvard Business Review</a>) The arguments about average global temperature will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But does anyone doubt the reinsurance industry's statistics on the frequency of "acts of God"?

Contemptuous
07-11-07, 06:23 PM
Exactly Right.

Stephen Leeb's newsletter, The Complete Investor, foresaw the spike in insurance claims five years ago because he recognized the global temperature change issue (whatever the cause!) was real, and that it would prompt increasing natural disaster insurance claims which would boost the profits of the top insurance carriers.

Talk about prescient deductive reasoning! His pick of course was Berkshire Hathaway, who's balance sheet is so strong they thrive every time smaller insurers take a big hit.

Leeb's call on 'global temperature change' and it's investable consequences was made FIVE YEARS before this chart! Now that's a guy with an open mind - who's looking far ahead!

quigleydoor
07-11-07, 06:49 PM
Stephen Leeb's newsletter, The Complete Investor, foresaw the spike in insurance claims five years ago because he recognized the global temperature change issue (whatever the cause!) was real, and that it would prompt increasing natural disaster insurance claims which would boost the profits of the top insurance carriers.

Talk about prescient deductive reasoning! His pick of course was Berkshire Hathaway, who's balance sheet is so strong they thrive every time smaller insurers take a big hit.

How do you distinguish the top carriers from the losers who priced their policy premiums too low?

Contemptuous
07-11-07, 09:01 PM
QuigleyDoor,

<< How do you distinguish the top carriers from the losers who priced their policy premiums too low? >>

Straight answer? I don't know.

I clearly noted it in Mr. Leeb's reco for Berkshire Hathaway about five years ago, but I did not invest into that recommendation.

As he described it back then, the mechanism by which larger and better capitalized insurers actually can prosper in an era of rising insurance claims is counter-intuitive.

Rising claims don't beat the shares down necessarily. Instead they create an environment permitting higher premiums. It was described as being similar to how small-cap stocks can boost their growth in an inflationary environment - the pricing ceiling is removed on the upside.

This description is vague because I read this recommendation five years ago, and your chart of insurance claims jogged my memory. I will try to dig up the old issue in order to quote his explanation as clearly as he proposed it, if it's of material interest to you.

quigleydoor
07-11-07, 09:21 PM
This description is vague because I read this recommendation five years ago, and your chart of insurance claims jogged my memory. I will try to dig up the old issue in order to quote his explanation as clearly as he proposed it, if it's of material interest to you.

Yes, I would appreciate it, and I'm sure other students here would as well.

FRED
07-11-07, 10:55 PM
The global greenwash (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LPNTLOZY43BILQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/money/2007/07/09/cmgreen09.xml)

11/07/2007 (Telegraph UK)

Financial providers have gone green with a vengeance. But are they really helping to save the earth or just using climate change as a gimmick to sell mediocre products?

bill
07-11-07, 11:22 PM
The Bankers want green, the government is promoting it and the people will get green.

Don't forget to look for the logo: http://www.green-e.org/

Contemptuous
08-03-07, 01:46 PM
Seems that for the current administration the scientific basis for global warming's attribution to CO2 has been accepted.

That leaves a good part of the debate on ITulip on whether there is any real science in it somewhat of a rearguard action, insofar as even the current Republican administration is now running ahead of us on the issue.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Bush calls climate change talks

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44038000/jpg/_44038020_bushafp203b.jpg Mr Bush says technology holds the key to curbing emissions

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA --><!-- S SF -->US President George W Bush has announced that his government will host a multinational conference on climate change in Washington next month.


The US has invited the UN, EU and 15 of the world's leading economies to the high-level talks on 27-28 September, the White House said in a statement.

The talks will seek to set the stage for an agreement by 2008 on a long-term goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Scientists say the accumulation of such gases is causing global warming.
<!-- E SF -->
Mr Bush had first proposed the conference on 31 May, shortly before the G8 summit in Germany.

'Global framework'

In his invitation, Mr Bush said the US was "committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008".

<!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif</TD><TD class=sibtbg>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The United States is committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


US President George Bush

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

<!-- S ILIN -->Q&A: Bush's climate goals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6709439.stm)
<!-- E ILIN -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->
This would then contribute to a global agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009, he added.

The US has invited representatives from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea and the UK, as well as the European Union and United Nations.

A White House spokeswoman told the AFP news agency that Mr Bush had invited several EU member states separately "to make sure that these leaders, who have shown great leadership and interest on the issue of climate change, are represented as well".
The conference will be hosted by the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
At the G8 summit in June, Mr Bush agreed to make "substantial" but unspecified cuts in emissions and to negotiate a framework to seek a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2009. No mandatory target was set for the cuts.<!-- E BO -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

medved
08-03-07, 03:15 PM
However by taking off on this tagent with Martin Durkin as a reference, Itulip is risking its credibility.

I don't see iTulip using Durkin as a reference. This video is just a small trickle of anti-warming propaganda in a huge flow of pro-warming propaganda. Durkin does nothing more, than interview some climatology/geophysics experts and, also, showing the political side of the GW movement.

I would rather let experts figure it out between themselves. We do have time to wait for them to do it in spite in massive amounts of global whining. What *is* suspicious (and very profitable to some people, as the video clearly explains), is massive support of the GW propaganda by the politicians and the media. You have to have a lot of guts to oppose it. Precisely what contrarians are supposed to do.

m.

Tet
08-03-07, 03:26 PM
The Bankers want green, the government is promoting it and the people will get green.

Don't forget to look for the logo: http://www.green-e.org/

http://www.green-e.org/images/logo.gif

Odd, but my money is green as well, I wonder if there's a connection.

Rajiv
08-03-07, 03:50 PM
There are factors in addition to CO2, for example, particulates and aerosols, that contribute to Global Warming. However they are mostly emitted in conjunction with CO2 emmision. If emmisions are controlled, they are short lived in the atmosphere -- and their impact on GW will rapidly reduce. However, without CO2 capture, CO2 will have an effect on GW for a much longer time.

See "Impact Study - The Atmospheric Brown Cloud : Climate and other Environmental Impacts" (http://www.rrcap.unep.org/issues/air/impactstudy/)

Contemptuous
08-03-07, 03:56 PM
What do we think might be the bottom line as far as we can see forward today?

Is Global Warming bunk? Is our Government once again on the wrong side of the issues, and as contrarians are we moving closer to the truth by debunking the US Government's now embracing the global warming thesis along with half the other nations in the world?

One thing is for sure, if they are all wrong, there must be a great number of dupes in the top echelons of all the major industrialized nations all acting as dupes with remarkable synchronicity, for them to all have chosen the false conclusions rather than the true conclusions?

Is there a risk we might fall foul of mere conceit, to be seeing the majority of government's consensus of views on this topic that way?

In my book, humans do have a certain rudimentary ingelligence. The top echelons of Government, although many of them may be venal, also represent a certain distillation of that intelligence as they bring in specialists from all quarters to derive their national policy.

So what does that say about a consensus of 20 or 30 of the world's top industrialized nations, now including the US, all convening for a summit on Global Warming where CO2 is squarely ast the top of the agenda?

That means all the best (or at very least, the most widely accepted) science, in all these 30 countries, contributed through an arduous (long) process to the point where all 30 nations agree this CO2 is the most likely area to investigate the cause of GW?

Who are we as contrarians, to believe that mere "rugged individualist's" contrarian spirit provides us with a better insight?

I'm just wondering about the value of contrarianism for it's own sake - Is merely being contrarian sometimes more a societal reflex than it is a genuine move towards uncovering hidden truths where lots of specialists worldwide are agreeing on the opposite?

It's counterintuitive, but sometimes consensus, or the distilling of many senior specialists thoughts on a subject from around the world, can provide some real intelligence on any matter. It seems the collective intelligence is pointing towards CO2, as that is what they are meeting to talk about.

When you see Governments like that of the US, which has historically resisted this idea, moving towards it, that would at least suggest a reason to re-examine any conclusions to the contrary?

To merely deride "populism" and smiley faced "pro-green idiots" in this globally emerging discussion seems a fairly thin answer to the wide consensus now emerging at government levels?

medved
08-03-07, 06:46 PM
What do we think might be the bottom line as far as we can see forward today?

Is Global Warming bunk? Is our Government once again on the wrong side of the issues, and as contrarians are we moving closer to the truth by debunking the US Government's now embracing the global warming thesis along with half the other nations in the world?


One thing is for sure, if they are all wrong, there must be a great number of dupes in the top echelons of all the major industrialized nations all acting as dupes with remarkable synchronicity, for them to all have chosen the false conclusions rather than the true conclusions?


Is there a risk we might fall foul of mere conceit, to be seeing the majority of government's consensus of views on this topic that way?


We should not oppose *every* government consensus, only the most doubtful ones. GW (30 years ago it was global cooling) is exactlythe case. I don't even want to make the judgement whether GW is real or not. I would leave it to the experts and give them more time (and, maybe, more resources for research). What is veruy suspicios, is the magnitude of the GW propaganda and its acceptance by the political establishment. This has nothing to do with science.



In my book, humans do have a certain rudimentary ingelligence. The top echelons of Government, although many of them may be venal, also represent a certain distillation of that intelligence as they bring in specialists from all quarters to derive their national policy.


They also represent distillation of power-hungry partisan interests. Somehow, everybody is quick to recognize influence of the military-industrial complex and the 'evil' oil companies. Nobody pays attention to the bureacracy/media/academia complex, and this is a real force. There are a lot of people and organizations in this complex, benefitting from GW hysteria.


So what does that say about a consensus of 20 or 30 of the world's top industrialized nations, now including the US, all convening for a summit on Global Warming where CO2 is squarely ast the top of the agenda?


It says about the same, that any "globalization" does. By going "global"you can avoid scrutiny of your voters. The same way the "global" companies avoid local laws and responsibility to their shareholders.


That means all the best (or at very least, the most widely accepted) science, in all these 30 countries, contributed through an arduous (long) process to the point where all 30 nations agree this CO2 is the most likely area to investigate the cause of GW?

Who are we as contrarians, to believe that mere "rugged individualist's" contrarian spirit provides us with a better insight?

We cannot provide a better insight, but we can do some DD and give different issues the right priorities. In my view the dangers of global economic turmoil are much higher, than the dangers of GW (in spite of the gov't, media and academia telling me goldilocks tales). And most of this problem is created by excessive gov't control. They will get even more control to fight against GW, that's why they like it so much (just like military contractors like war).



I'm just wondering about the value of contrarianism for it's own sake - Is merely being contrarian sometimes more a societal reflex than it is a genuine move towards uncovering hidden truths where lots of specialists worldwide are agreeing on the opposite?

It's counterintuitive, but sometimes consensus, or the distilling of many senior specialists thoughts on a subject from around the world, can provide some real intelligence on any matter. It seems the collective intelligence is pointing towards CO2, as that is what they are meeting to talk about.


When you see Governments like that of the US, which has historically resisted this idea, moving towards it, that would at least suggest a reason to re-examine any conclusions to the contrary?

Again, it is not the specialists, that are the problem. They should argue with each other, not with us. It is the noise, that surrounds them in media and politics, that bothers me.



To merely deride "populism" and smiley faced "pro-green idiots" in this globally emerging discussion seems a fairly thin answer to the wide consensus now emerging at government levels?


I did not find any derision on this board (maybe, missed some messages). However, I have observed politization of the environmental movement for quite some time. We would be very wise to listen to Patrick Moore, one of the cofounders of Greenpeace (he was shown in the video). He left this movement long ago precisely because it became too political. Now that the "political environmentalism" went mainstream we should be even more cautious.

m.

Contemptuous
08-04-07, 12:39 AM
Medved -

The stakes are high.

Can we afford to keep speculating past the eleventh hour with the number of cars globally set to double in another 15 years as the exponential industrialisation of Asia and other parts of the world really gear up?

I am with you 100% on not triggering economic collapse with stupid hastily thought out conclusions. But the Europeans, burdened with much higher taxes than us are forging ahead with sizable moves into alternative energy and emissions caps yet the paradox is their economies are strengthening while ours weakens?

Evidently the non-business savvy of the eco-fascists (if that is what skeptics wish to call them) has not put a significant dent into EU growth, while they follow these emissions cuts much more determinedly than we do? US does not, yet it's economy lags EU? So much for the theory that cutting emissions represents economic suicide?

I also think economic collapse is a walk in the park compared to a true runaway global warming. One is man-made, the other is beyond our subsequent tinkering if it occurs! Big, and critical distinction in "risk management"!

I am most emphatically not a smiley faced eco-guy. I drive a really smelly diesel car (that likes to fart black soot at traffic lights) and I delight in it's 50 MPG but what's spewing out of my tailpipe hardly is friendly to the environment, and frankly I don't care enough to qualify me as ecologically correct. Bad on me, as I think it's a real issue.

Having said that, I think the earth really has all the equilibrium of a giant spinning top. Our conceit says it does not, but we may get our comeuppance yet. Give it a nudge and pretty soon the even spin has turned into a really nasty wobble, and all us little conceited ants will get flung into something hot, dry and dusty - and very much harsher than what we've had.

I asked Fox to come back here and provide us with a few more of his excellent charts, but I think he's so numbed out by the eco-cowboys in this old boy's club of a community he's just wandered off to look for more measured opinions elsewhere.

Appreciate your balanced input.

Contemptuous
08-04-07, 03:28 AM
This was also posted on Tet's "biofuel scam " thread. It is relevant here :

____________


Found this post by Richard Russel on Ethanol. The EROEI number seems a bit of an eye opener? If Prof. Pimentel of Cornell's numbers are right, this is the most colossal energy scam of the decade?

It's easy enough to have iTulipers buy the notion ethanol is a scam, because many are tuned into the idea that there's a scam at every corner - what's harder is to get them on board for some other issues, where there is no scam theory to orient them into the same familiar scam discovery methodology.

The scam logic always wants to open the left door (the contrarian read) to discover the bottom line, while the right door remains unopened, because it's "too obvious".

Examples might be things like climate change, where we are reading new headlines every day, or dwindling oil, where we are reading new headlines every day, all being developments that might even be real, let alone urgent.

At that point the political stereotypes step in unfortunately, and kick up a lot of dust so people can't see each other any more.



August 1, 2007
By Richard Russell

The idea of using corn to make ethanol is one of the stupidest ideas of the last 50 years. Farmers dropped other crops and turned to corn, which the government subsidized to the tune of over one billion dollars. Corn shot up to its highest price in a decade, but farmers over-planted. Then more recently, the price of corn collapsed. In the meantime, the price of other crops surged, running up the price of food in the US. In all, a new high in government stupidity.

The real problem with ethanol from corn is that it requires fuel to make the corn. David Pimentel a professor from Cornell has done the analysis. An acre of U.S. corn can be processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel. That is $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before the corn even moves off the farm.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps and other treatments are needed to separate the ethanol from the water. All these need energy.

Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTU's are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."



News clips from a recent James Dines newsletter.

> 3. The world is facing an oil supply "crunch" within five years that
> will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s
> dependence on oil cartel Opec. In its starkest warning yet on the
> world’s fuel outlook, the International Energy Agency said "oil
> looks extremely tight in five years’ time" and there are "prospects
> of even tighter natural gas markets at the turn of the decade." The
> IEA said that supply was falling faster than expected in mature
> areas, such as the North Sea or Mexico, while projects in new
> provinces such as the Russian Far East, faced long delays.
> Meanwhile consumption is accelerating on strong economic
> growth in emerging countries.
> Javier Blas, Financial Times (London), 10 Jul 07
>
> 6. Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough,
> according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train
> acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Fueled by rapid
> growth in coal-reliant China, rates of carbon dioxide emission from
> industrial sources increased from 2000 to 2004 at a rate that is over
> three times the rate during the 1990s."If you wonder what side of
> global warming’s effects – droughts, warming and others – we are
> going to get, a little or a lot, we are going to get a lot," says Angela
> Anderson of the Washington, DC-based National Environmental
> Trust. Countries are using more energy, and "no region is
> decarbonizing its energy supply," the study says.
> Dan Vergano, USA Today, 22 May 07
>
> 7. Solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that
> convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the
> world. But even a quarter century from now, says the Energy
> Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power
> might account for, at best, 2% or 3% of the grid electricity in the
> United States. In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the
> main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are
> being built around the world at a rate of more than one a week.
> Andrew C Revkin & Matthew L Wald, Front Page,
> New York Times, 16 Jul 07
>
> 11. With the country punished by record heat waves, floods and
> droughts this summer, it is no wonder that Beijing, which has
> long viewed global warming as a problem that rich nations
> should solve, is waking up to the fact that China may be
> especially at risk. The Qinghai-Tibetan plateau is warming up
> faster than anywhere else in the world, Chinese scientists said.
> Threatening to melt glaciers, dry up the 3,395-mile Yellow River
> and cause more droughts, sandstorms and desertification. The
> nationwide economic boom has propelled China into overtaking
> the United States as the world’s No 1 source of greenhouse gas
> emissions. That far outstrips the cutbacks wealthy nations are
> committed to make under the Kyoto Protocol.
> Robert Collier, San Francisco Chronicle, 1 Aug 07
>
>

DemonD
08-04-07, 07:25 PM
Found this post by Richard Russel on Ethanol. The EROEI number seems a bit of an eye opener? If Prof. Pimentel of Cornell's numbers are right, this is the most colossal energy scam of the decade?

It's easy enough to have iTulipers buy the notion ethanol is a scam, because many are tuned into the idea that there's a scam at every corner - what's harder is to get them on board for some other issues, where there is no scam theory to orient them into the same familiar scam discovery methodology.

The scam logic always wants to open the left door (the contrarian read) to discover the bottom line, while the right door remains unopened, because it's "too obvious".

Examples might be things like climate change, where we are reading new headlines every day, or dwindling oil, where we are reading new headlines every day, all being developments that might even be real, let alone urgent.

At that point the political stereotypes step in unfortunately, and kick up a lot of dust so people can't see each other any more.



August 1, 2007
By Richard Russell

The idea of using corn to make ethanol is one of the stupidest ideas of the last 50 years. Farmers dropped other crops and turned to corn, which the government subsidized to the tune of over one billion dollars. Corn shot up to its highest price in a decade, but farmers over-planted. Then more recently, the price of corn collapsed. In the meantime, the price of other crops surged, running up the price of food in the US. In all, a new high in government stupidity.

The real problem with ethanol from corn is that it requires fuel to make the corn. David Pimentel a professor from Cornell has done the analysis. An acre of U.S. corn can be processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel. That is $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before the corn even moves off the farm.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps and other treatments are needed to separate the ethanol from the water. All these need energy.

Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTU's are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."


I will agree it's pointless to argue a popular opinion because it's popular.


Since Russell's article isn't available free to the online world, I went straight to the source and googled "pimontel cornell ethanol" and found an article directly about his findings.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

From there I found the exact scientific publication which is free for the online public (unlike Russell's all-too familiar "alternative energy sucks!" refrain that everyone and their brother is shouting at this point.)

Here is a link to the article (pdf)
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf

Anyone who wants to a have a serious debate on the "con" side of the ethanol debate, I implore you to refrain from the words "boondoggle" and "swindle" as they will be tuned out by any rational person. However, if you would like to successfully influence someone, use the facts from that article. The only arguments i can posit against that article is that he did not mention EROEI's of either rapeseed to diesel or sugar cane ethanol (just stated that sugar cane ethanol is negative and costs brazil too much money). Also that article is 2 years old which means the data are probably 4 years old - might there have been advances in agri-tech improving the ratios?

Finally I would like to see a "pro" side arguing against Pimentel but someone not from a government office. One very good argument he makes is that the main proponents of positive EROEI's of corn ethanol are from government offices that likely have a link to big agri business.

Jim Nickerson
08-05-07, 01:08 AM
I will agree it's pointless to argue a popular opinion because it's popular.


Since Russell's article isn't available free to the online world, I went straight to the source and googled "pimontel cornell ethanol" and found an article directly about his findings.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

From there I found the exact scientific publication which is free for the online public (unlike Russell's all-too familiar "alternative energy sucks!" refrain that everyone and their brother is shouting at this point.)

Here is a link to the article (pdf)
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf

Anyone who wants to a have a serious debate on the "con" side of the ethanol debate, I implore you to refrain from the words "boondoggle" and "swindle" as they will be tuned out by any rational person. However, if you would like to successfully influence someone, use the facts from that article. The only arguments i can posit against that article is that he did not mention EROEI's of either rapeseed to diesel or sugar cane ethanol (just stated that sugar cane ethanol is negative and costs brazil too much money). Also that article is 2 years old which means the data are probably 4 years old - might there have been advances in agri-tech improving the ratios?

Finally I would like to see a "pro" side arguing against Pimentel but someone not from a government office. One very good argument he makes is that the main proponents of positive EROEI's of corn ethanol are from government offices that likely have a link to big agri business.

Nice research, DemonD, to come up with Pimentel and Patzek's paper. I did not read the entire paper.

In that paper page 69, last paragraph, Food Versus Fuel Issue, they get into the issue of using corn a human food resourse vs. using it to produce ethanol and say this "raises ethical and moral issues." To me all things are relative as is the concern of the authors on this issue. I will argue that the ethical and moral issues arise when humans are producing children willy-nilly without apparent forethought as to how the possible product of their copulation--another human--will be fed, clothed, sheltered and possibly educated. Worrying about how the child will be fed, given healthcare, etc. after the deed of "getting some," as we said down South, is as closing the barn door after the horse is out. What happens is people fuck to get their "jollies" and the not infrequent happenstance outcome is another human on the planet for which all the do-gooders and hand-wringers are to worry, take up collections, send supplies, etc.

Life to me in all forms from the lowest up to us, if we are the highest form, is an incredible phenomenom. I truly despise flies, and just as truly I hate to kill them, though I will and do. Of all forms of life, it is only humans who can exercise some possible forethought before "doing it" in a manner that might or might not result in another human on the planet. It also seems that it is humans rather than any other life-form that may be working toward the destruction of Earth as a place fit for life. The moral and ethical dilemma I believe is not what others on the planet should do to look after every blasted new human that gets spat out of a uterus, but what individuals should take upon themselves as the responsibility of serious forethought before producing more and more babies. I aver the immoral and unethical behavior is in those who produce new humans without recognizing the responsibilities of their actions.

I have no idea as to the level of ignorance that may exist today in some societies with regard to what makes babies, but if there is a moral and ethical dilemma that faces those who are fortunate enough to be educated on this planet, then it would be to aid those who aren't educated in reproductive physiology obtain some control over what may result from their sexual appetites. That will be the appropriate attempt, as I see it, to close the barn door before the horse is out.

Pimentel and Petzek state 3.7 billion of the expanding 6.5B on earth are malnourished, and that more than 250,000 people--babies--are added to the Earth's population daily. This behavior cannot go on unchecked indefinitely in my opinion.

It seems to me, and admittedly I have only a superficial interest in the long-term energy problems facing the planet, that what appears to be the idiocy with regard to EROEI from the current US policy in promoting corn-based ethanol, there can be a "brighter side" with regard to population control--lack of which I believe is a very dire problem for the planet. If my opinion appears dispicable, my only suggestion is "get over it." It's said here on iTulip with regard to the Fed, "watch what it does, rather than listening to what it says." The same can be considered as sage advice perhaps with the corn for ethanol vs. corn for food for the starving. Watch what the US does, rather than what it says.

There is all this commotion in the hallowed halls where our elected officals hangout to gather their salaries and other compensations about not providing foreign aid without strings attached when it comes to issues where anything would produce measures of birth control are not to be supported. Then on the other hand, this country appears on track to waste corn in ETOH production, support corn producers, and ethanol producers while in effect setting up those in the world whose survival might depend upon our exports of corn or even other grain products for starvation.

I am as reluctant as anyone can be regarding giving our US government credit for doing much good in the world, but if there were to be any conscious effort on the part of those who actually control what goes on politically in the US to be working to reducing the Earth's population, then, by Jove, I might be moved to admit they are not totally worthless humans running the government, or at least controlling it.

Somewhere above I should have worked it in that despite my perception that life is a wondrous biological phenomenon, when evolution has resulted in humans having a level of mentation that allows conscious decisions, one of which is whether or not to produce children, and whether because of ignorance, religious doctrine and fear of hell or whatever other religious may fear, there is no thought given to production of new humans, then to me human life become quite cheap as I choose to see things.

Contemptuous
08-09-07, 04:33 AM
Yet another signpost that the little band of iTulip skeptics are now situated in a rearguard action against the CO2 "global warming myth".

They will now have to deny and debunk the UN's considered opinion on the matter as well as that of the Federal Administration (now on board also), the G8, and most of the industrialized nations in the world.

As the number of skeptics within governments and major international bodies dwindles, and the world's largest bodies increasingly sign onto the idea, iTulip's small band of skeptics will find themselves increasingly at the margins of the debate - motivated primarily by the fear of being co-opted by other (more pedestrian?) communities' celebrity causes, and in so doing, losing their cherished contrarian identity and sense of splended isolation in the midst of an imagined vast and ignorant public.

Counter intuitively, the "vast and ignorant public" with it's populist notions on the matter will have been proved correct.

__________________


Heat Waves, Storms Foreshadow Next 50 Years, UN Says (Update2)

By Brian K. Sullivan

<!-- WARNING: #foreach: $wnstory.ATTS: null at /bb/data/web/templates/webmacro_en/20601087.wm:257.19 -->Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) -- This year's record global temperatures and rain, heat waves and storms are a preview of the weather extremes that will become more frequent in the next 50 years, the United Nations said.

The global surface temperature was 1.89 degrees Celsius (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than average in January and 1.37 degrees warmer in April, the UN's World Meteorological Organization said today in a statement.
The warming is ``unequivocal,'' with 11 of the past 12 years ranking among the hottest since temperatures have been measured, the statement said. The changing climate is also responsible for unusual weather around the world, from flooding in England and Wales to rare snowfall in South America, said the UN agency, which studies weather, climate and water.

``Climate change projections indicate it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent,'' the organization said. ``The average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely the highest during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in the past 1,300 years.''

A heat wave in India produced temperatures as high as 45 to 50 degrees Celsius, the agency said. The Netherlands and Germany reported the warmest January since 1706. Last month Bulgaria recorded its highest temperature, 45 degrees Celsius.

Harvard Economist

In June, heavy rains and flooding across southern China affected more than 13.5 million people and killed 120. About the same time, the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea hit Oman, killing more than 50.

The findings add to evidence the world needs to address the causes of climate change, said Robert Stavins, a Harvard University economics professor, in an interview. Stavins is leading a two-year effort at Harvard to develop a plan for a successor to the Kyoto Protocols, limiting emission of greenhouse gases, when they expire in 2012.

``It is important that the nations of the world -- including the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, such as the United States and China, the European Union and others -- begin working seriously on a meaningful international agreement on global climate change,'' Stavins said in an e-mail interview.
The meteorological organization, along with its 188 members, is working to monitor and observe changes so that countries that will bear the brunt of climate change will know how to adapt.

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian K. Sullivan in Boston at
bsullivan10@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: August 7, 2007 17:00 EDT

Jim Nickerson
08-12-07, 02:05 AM
I am as reluctant as anyone can be regarding giving our US government credit for doing much good in the world, but if there were to be any conscious effort on the part of those who actually control what goes on politically in the US to be working to reducing the Earth's population, then, by Jove, I might be moved to admit they are not totally worthless humans running the government, or at least controlling it.



Despite the loathing I have for most elected officials in this country, reluctantly I must again acknowledge that perhaps there is real thoughtfulness to the contrary behind what superficially appears to be callous disregard for the future of the planet. Specifically, it seems our government and most others except for China have no orientation toward population control; however, if one properly interprets the news, then one may begin to believe that the elected buffoons have taken it upon themselves to help curb the earth's population starting right here in the USA.

US slipping in life expectancy rankings By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer 8/12/08

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812/ap_on_he_me/life_expectancy_5;_ylt=AoHEcIAz55nZ8V0Qs0RkZkxkM3w V