The Climate Change agenda

[RF]

Depends on what you mean by "marginal" and "climate patterns".

We have less extreme weather variations in Britain than in the US and mainland Europe so the temperature variation here in Britain is of the the order of one degree celsius, occasionally as much as two degrees but no more.

[RF]

The problem that is affecting our society is not that much how the climate is changing, but how the leftist aparatum is using this phenomena in order to attack the establishment and the industries just as a means to hurt capitalism. In my country, for example, after 1991 almost all the leftist parties and organizations banished from sight only to re emerge (with the same public figures and followers) in the XXI Century as enviromental "activists" which use to attack every single tourist develpoment, beach condominiums and mine projects by default while leaving, unscathered, the polution and damage that the common people produce or that have their origin in goverment activity.

Ah yes, the cultural marxism that aims at subtle thought control to bring about the revolution.

In Britain it is a much simpler process, it is about using taxpayers money to create public sector non-jobs and for pointless ''reserarch'' to promote the environmentalist sectional vested interests. Rather ironic actually, the climate change propagandists always claim that they are opposed by undefined ''vested interests'' wheras in fact they are the vested interests syphoning of public money for themselves.

[Gary]

Apparently Costa Rica is the Greenest country in the world.
Its seems our friend Karl and his countrymen look after our planet the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica

[Karl Heidenreich]

Gary,

There is a lot of propaganda in this but, in some degree, it is true. The funny issue is that those that really take care of the enviroment are those that do not go around screaming the "sky is falling". The Ministry of Enviroment is full of responsible hard working people that are always taking care of inmoral developers and such, without falling in extremes, like the Non Goverment Organizations want. The enviromental tribunal just approved a minery project in the north of the country that put all the neo marxist in pain. The most funny part is that these neo idiots went to the town where the project is going to be constructed and were ejected by a humble but furious population that want (and need) the project.

But there still is a lot of road to walk in this. And we can do without the neo marxists.

[Bgile]

The most funny part is that these neo idiots went to the town where the project is going to be constructed and were ejected by a humble but furious population that want (and need) the project.

Of course they want it ... they are the ones who will benefit from the jobs it creates. I can't imagine any other reaction. The people in the Amazon want to cut down the jungle, too. It provides more space for farming. The people of Alaska want to drill as may oil and gas wells as possible, because each Alaskan gets a share of the proceeds. Alaska is one of the few states without a deficit in these hard economic times.

[lwd]

... The people in the Amazon want to cut down the jungle, too. It provides more space for farming. ...

One has to be careful on things like this. From what I've read it is apparently only a fairly small subset that does. Indeed the forest if managed correctly can produce more food and wealth for the majority than that the cattle farms can. There have been some recent projects that focus on ecological friendly ways of exploiting the forests and they seem to be well received by most locals from what I've read. In no small part because they are sustainable.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

Of course they want it ... they are the ones who will benefit from the jobs it creates. I can't imagine any other reaction. The people in the Amazon want to cut down the jungle, too. It provides more space for farming. The people of Alaska want to drill as may oil and gas wells as possible, because each Alaskan gets a share of the proceeds. Alaska is one of the few states without a deficit in these hard economic times.

In this particular case the neighbors of this project are not asking to cut down their surrounding forest, but that a goverment permit be granted to a company to exploit 1 km2 of land where the minerals are. Just to put things in perspective, the leftist enviromentalists argument is that 1 km2 contains some 16 thousand wild life species... 16,000! There is no space even for 1,000 parrots in that empty piece of land....

[RF]

Apparently Costa Rica is the Greenest country in the world.
Its seems our friend Karl and his countrymen look after our planet the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica

This claim about Costa Rica being the greenest country in the World comes from a trilateralist quango called ''New Economics Foundation'' which is a registered charity, even though its aims are expressly political.

Karl is right in saying that we need to balance the need for jobs and economic growth with the needs of the environment and it seems that Costa Rica has struck the right balance. Left to the EU and its stooge quangos such as the ''New Economics Foundation'' there wouldn't be any balance to the issues such as the mining development Karl mentions; the carbon emission outputs from such a project would prevent it from being permitted.

[RF]

The people in the Amazon want to cut down the jungle, too. It provides more space for farming.

Now this needs to be qualified. A large part of the rainforest has already been cut down by large commercial interests ostensibly for farming and the proceeds of the lumber. The aim here is the quick buck, not balanced economic and ecological development. For the most part the soil is not suitable for agriculture without the application of chemical fertilisers and the lack of supporting forest tree roots has left the soil open to heavy erosion. As a result a lot of the cleared land has been abandoned as useless. This whole process is wrong, particulary as it is the abandonment of cleared land that is causing further clearing of the rainforest, and ultimately there will be nothing left of it.

[RF]

[ The people of Alaska want to drill as may oil and gas wells as possible, because each Alaskan gets a share of the proceeds. Alaska is one of the few states without a deficit in these hard economic times.

Given that it is the US state with the smallest population and the greatest geographical size if Alaska can't balance its budget nobody can. And there is plenty of space for those oil wells without upsetting the nimbys.

[RF]

Following on from the volcanic eruption in Iceland it has been announced that by some miracle the effects of the eruption and the ash cloud won't affect the climate. Not even the CO2 emissions are considered significant.
At the same time it has been further claimed that the ban on air traffic has been beneficial to ''climate change'' because of the saving in CO2 emissions from aircraft not flying.

This does seem to me to be a curious line of reasoning. Would it have anything to do with the ease of imposing carbon taxes on airlines and passengers, whereas trying to tax a volcano really is a case of ''getting blood out of a stone?''

[Gary]

whereas trying to tax a volcano really is a case of ''getting blood out of a stone?''

I cant see Hephaestus paying up

[lwd]

Do volcanos emit any significant amount of CO2? Indeed the dust itself might decrease solar heating a bit. Hardly surprising if it had little effect on solar heating. Consider that some past volcanos have been responsible for significanlty lower temperatures world wide.

[RF]

I believe they do, along with other sulphur based emissions.

There is a theory (far from universally accepted by the scientific community) that at one time there was a ''snowball Earth'' where the whole planet was covered by ice sheet. These conditions would have become permanent if it were not for super volcanic eruptions pumping enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause a global warming sufficient to melt the ice sheet. The quantity of carbon dioxide that would be required for this has been calculated as a minimum of 9% atmosphere content, vastly greater than the current increases in CO2 content. The level of volcanic activity prior to current times has generally been significantly greater.
As I say there is controversy in the scientific profession over this, but geological evidence to support it has been found in Australia, South Africa and eleswhere, which is what caused the theory to arise.

[lwd]

Where would any significant amount of carbon come from for a volcano to be venting? I would think the most likely source of any significant CO2 due to a volcano erruption would be from any forest fires touched off on the sides of the volcano. I hadn't heard the iceball earth theory but it's rather suspect to me. The planet was more active earlier in its history (or prehistory) so I would think if vulcanism could over come the iceball it would simply have prevented it from happening. This is an area where I'm far from an expert though.