Jeez. I can't believe you are still trying to ride this nag

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/07/climate-science-scandals-list-of-gates-balloons-to-129/#more-6767

Do watch the video put out by 10:10.org on the page. They called it "No Pressure" but it has also been referred to as "Splatter Gate".
Not only are Warmists wrong, they are also nasty.

You seem to belong to the "It must be doing SOMETHING"

school of thought. In fact the extra 3% CO2 that human activities add to the atmosphere just helps produce more bio-mass. For every 1 ppm atmospheric CO2 gos up, the earth produces 6% more bio-mass.
Even if we did go through oil reserves in 40 years,by that time something will have replaced our dependence on petroleum. Hint...it won't be wind or solar.

A little ironic

http://www.saskenergy.com/Careers/workinginsk.asp

Additional CO2 Does Not Increase Biomass

mopled: This is incorrect. While increasing CO2 temporarily increase conversion to biomass, the effect is small and short-lived - plants just adapt to higher CO2 conc. This has been known since before I heard about it in Botany 101 in 1979.

Greg, there is an enormous body of experiment

to back up the fact that higher CO2 levels lead to faster growth done for the international greenhouse industry, among others. "Get used to it" is not an apt phrase to describe plant behavior under conditions of increased CO2.Try looking here on the C section.
http://www.co2science.org/
for more references that back me up after looking through some of these.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/grasslandswholecom.php

An ex-cathedra statement, with no reference to back it up, falls under a brand new title for Believer musings recently categorized by Christopher Monckton as
"febrile fatuities of the forecasters of fashionable fatalism ". It's a fun read, for us Deniers, anyway
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/07/moncktons-mexico-missive-2/#more-29027

Since CO2 can't change climate, adding more to the atmosphere is only good.

mopled

Got any stats on the tolerance level for humans breathing increased CO2?

Or is it OK for us to run around in wheelchairs?
http://www.logico2.com/Documents/ACGIH%20recommendations%20for%20CO2.pdf

PS mopled

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

No problem

Normal CO2 Levels

The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:

* normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
* acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
* complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
* ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
* general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
* adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
* maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels

* slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
* above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
* unconscious, further exposure death: 100.000 ppm
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

The recommendations you found are pretty much what I found. There is no way human activity could raise atmospheric levels to any where near even uncomfortable because both land and oceanic plants utilize the extra 3-5% CO2 humans may add quite rapidly.
P suspect you didn't bother to read your own reference.
The important thing is the correlation, or not, of CO2 to temperature
Half a Billion Years of CO2 and Climate
Reference
Rothman, D.H. 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167-4171.

"The author states that it is "interesting to ask what, if any, correspondence exists between ancient climate and the [newly derived CO2] estimate." Indeed, it is very interesting to ask that question; for the political future of the entire world rests on the validity or invalidity of the climate-alarmist supposition that changes in the air's CO2 content are major determinants of changes in climate. So what do the new results show?

Rothman reports that the CO2 history he derived "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales." In another place he writes that "comparison with the geologic record of climatic variations reveals no obvious correspondence." And in yet another place he says that although the most recent cool period corresponds to the relatively low CO2 levels of the present, "no correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate is evident in the remainder of the record."

If the truth be told, however, a simple visual examination of the author's plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth's climate was relatively cool. Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N19/C2.php

What IF?

And it is a big if, as the US is getting set to send Western Canada's Oil to China.
I don't think it is going to be that easy even with Big Old Investors pulling the strings and they all came tumbling down.
Reminds me of my sister's husband who was retiring at 35 because of all his investments in Oil but then there was the bust. He now sets up rigs around the world and although he could retire the industry is his life and the travel isn't half bad.
Western Canada is hot and the rest of the country is not, and Environment Canada is a loser and Harper's G20 another farce.
Inflation is biting but interest rates stay at historic lows and the dollar is rising but its value is inflated leaving the rest of the country in toil all thanks to Alberta's Oil.

We may not be able to avoid Climate Change

However that dosen't mean we have to treat it like a race to finished for good. Who says the world needs to function on oil and it is way of life? Ways of reducing climate change should be the norm not countries like Canada who goes out of its way to do the maximum amount of harm it can do the environment for profits for a few. It dosen't matter, posioning the water, the wildlife, the fish and we haven't even gotten to dieases created by contaminated waters as many people are sick. Canada dosen't even have the ability to clean up after a major spill taking those extra risks because do Canadians really think they matter when profits are to be made.

Hey Guys, it has fallen apart and people are scrambling

to look like they knew all along that most of the "downside" of a warming world were exaggerated or plain out wrong.

"CO2-induced Vegetation Growth Slows Global Warming," says A research team of scientists from NOAA, NASA, and the University of Maryland.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/12/08/co2-induced-vegetation-growth-slows-global-warming/

Greenland ice sheet flow driven by short-term weather extremes, not gradual warming: UBC research
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2010/12/08/greenland-ice-sheet-flow-driven-by-short-term-weather-extremes-not-gradual-warming-ubc-research/

Climate change: Met Office halves 'worst case' sea level prediction
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8182278/Climate-change-Met-Office-halves-worst-case-sea-level-prediction.html

Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/

It sure would be nice if you wake up and notice the cold....It's going to be here for a while. That's why "Global Warming" morphed into "Climate Change".
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/us-decade-plus-long-cooling-trend-sinks-further-to-a-minus-91-degree-per-century-rate.html

This is one of my favorites, since it come from one of the chief Believer journals.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

"WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord "

Are you sure you want to continue thinking that this CO2 stuff is on the up and up?

Just asking!

mopled

Oh, I read it. Eventually you will paint yourself into a corner.........
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html

You are toooooo funny RickW

Is posting that silly article the best you can do? My answer to it is a big fat SO WHAT!
Whatever the amount of atmospheric CO2 may be, humans only account for 3-5% of it and it is still plant food.

Speaking of corners, how about this little tidbit found in an article about the demise of the Chicago Climate Exchange.
"The biggest losers are CCX's two biggest investors, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs, that champion of sound money management that serves as the farm team for administration staffing.

Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor purchased a 10% stake on the prospect of making a great deal of money for itself. That investor was Goldman Sachs, accused of selling financial instruments it knew were doomed to fail.

A mechanism for extending carbon trading on the exchange to residences was purchased and patented by none other than Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. Raines profited to the tune of some $90 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the collapse of the American economy.

His interest in climate trading is curious until one realizes cap-and-trade would make housing, like energy, more costly. Cap-and-trade and carbon regulation extended down to the homeowner level would have raised the cost of homes and homeownership and made him richer that way and through his patent.

CCX's collapse was inevitable as both the enthusiasm for cap-and-trade — and the world itself — cooled. After the e-mail exchanges from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveled the extent to which global climate data were being manipulated to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, hopes for profiting off the scam with another scam evaporated."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=553236&p=2

Oil is much more expensive than Nuclear Energy.

Mathieu, yes it is certainly true we need our present Oil supply. We also need to reduce our consumption of Oil as quickly as possible. Even if you are a Triple Denier, like mopled, who rejects both accepted AGW science & Global Peak Oil predictions and believe a serious War in the Middle East is impossible. The effects of that on Oil Price are just frightening.

The simple fact is that Crude Oil currently at 5.4 cents per kwh, including processing & shipping about 7.2 cents per kwh. That will inevitably rise sharply as demand in the Developing World continues its exponential growth. This is an economic catastrophe in the making.

It is entirely economical to begin a rapid phase-out of Oil by use of NG->liquids-> transportation & heating fuel. And Nuclear Energy replacing most NG heating applications and all new Electricity Generation, except NG is good for Peaking Power plants.

The Chinese Nuclear costs are heading to $1.3k per kw or 2 cents per kwh. Maybe half that with CHP. No other energy source can compete with Factory produced Nuclear. The cost of fossil fuel energy will inevitably continue to rise, we MUST begin the transition to a Nuclear Powered World Economy.

mopled

I might ask you the same of your lopsided links....

RickW, that's an retort on the level of

"So's your ol'man!"

Serious war in the Middle East is what the US wants, so switching to CNG isn't going to derail the war agenda, YCTS. Remember Old lady Rothschild once said, "If my sons didn't want war, there wouldn't be any." Getting rid of the Banksters makes more sense than getting rid of the Tar Sands.

I fail to see how shutting down Albeta prevents an ME war.

Oil prices are rising because it is priced in the $US, which is falling. Nukes can't save it. There are countries which want nuclear power,like Iran, which aren't allowed to have it.

Nuclear power is supposed to save the world from what exactly? No warming and plenty of oil?

poor mopled

Rather than gumming up the comments section with links to other peoples opinions, why doesn't mopled think for themselves, make a *rational* argument, and provide a peer-reviewed link that backs up what they are saying?

What's that mopled? Can't find any peer-reviewed articles "debunking" the radiative properties of CO2 in the atmosphere, or the human fingerprint of global warming?

Then go troll somewhere else.

Let's turn that around, Plebe!

Where's the peer-reviewed paper that shows CO2 can change climate?

Here's a link to all the peer-reviewed one could possibly ask for that shows it CO2 is plant food and has little effect on temperature.Try educating yourself
http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/subject_c.php

Here's one of the very latest papers.
Bounoua, L. et al., 2010. Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L23701, doi+10.1029/2010GL045338.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/12/08/co2-induced-vegetation-growth-slows-global-warming/

To YCSTS

Where did my status as a "triple denier" come from? If you are going to use personal attacks, at least point them on some form of evidence. In fact, I would like to know the definition of a "triple denier."

And in reality, we would have to use MORE oil to achieve our goals to be oil independent. More construction, more transportation, highly powered computer and labs for the research, extraction of resources, etc. It's not going to be easy, or clean, to get to a clean future.

As individuals, you can lower our greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on oil, but how can I? As a member of the lower class I have minimal appliances, fluorescent light bulbs, and walk more often than I take the bus. Please tell me how I could possible lower my oil dependency (seeing as it is obviously a resource intended for the middle and upper class).

What I would like to see to address the oil extraction in alberta is oil refinement in Canada as well. We are losing too much of our diversity and our work force to outsourcing because of the slight profit we'll make, including the transportation of goods. The pipeline to the BC coast, to ship oil to China, to ship it back as a refined good, for example is absolutely ridiculous.

Nuclear can readily replace Oil Consumption. An economic Bargain

Mathieu, I didn't claim that you ARE a triple denier - one who denies Peak Oil, Global Warming & Oil Supply Insecurity. If you read my comment, it implies that EVEN a triple denier, cannot escape the fact that Oil is just too expensive to support a growing World Economy. Just the basic supply-demand economics of a rapidly modernizing Developing World combined with growing population, makes Oil a very bad choice for the World's #1 Energy Source (37% of World Energy Supply). Coal is #2 @ 25% and NG is #3 @ 23%. The fact is conventional Oil production has already peaked, and rising demand will ensure, at the very least, a steadily increasing Oil price - making the predominant Energy source, by far the most expensive significant Energy source.

By all Logic, our #1 priority should be to replace Oil consumption as rapidly as possible. That means NG -> liquids & a rapid Nuclear expansion. Instead our governments are on some NUTTY plan of ignoring Oil consumption, and focusing on Electricity with worthless Renewable Energy and wasting NG on Electricity Production, when we should be using Nuclear for all new electricity production, and also for process heat & building heat.

A rapid buildout of Nuclear can easily replace Oil consumption, and provide much cheaper, cleaner, domestic source, reliable Energy to drive our civilization. Happy coincidence, Global Warming Solved, Peak Oil Solved, Oil Wars Prevented, Oil Security Issues Solved. See how France greatly replaced Oil Consumption with Nuclear during the 80's:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf

CO2 and vegetation

mopled: thanks for the link to an interesting paper. Not sure if you read it or not, but they ran a climate model with and without a vegetation feedback (more evapotranspiration in a warmer and wetter climate) in a 2 X CO2 world. The results (look at Table 2!) showed that without this vegetation feedback, mean global temperatures rose 1.94 C (which is on the lower end of climate warming simulations). With the feedback, mean global temperatures rose *only* 1.68 C, a reduction in warming of 0.26 C.

Related to the current article, we'll blow past a 2XCO2 world in no time if we burn natural gas to extract all the tar sands oil, and the slight negative feedback (remember, its only offsets the warming by about 10%) from vegetation will matter very little...

Nuclear power

Agreed. In the long term we should definitely be considering nuclear power as a viable alternative. If only these fucking flower children wouldn't raise sucha fuss about it.