I'm no expert on climatology but I do know my way around European Commission research funding websites. During Framework 7 (FP7 2005-2010) I can find no evidence of a reduction in funding.

In fact one section dealing with environment, now has, as it's title, Environment (including Climate change). I admit the environment budget is paltry when compared to the energy section but even that has made some provision for climate change.

The energy section allocates about €24 billion for non-nuclear reasearch, €23 billion for Euratom but this is expected to rise to €41 billion, this is fundamental atomic research, €0.3 billion on renewables and sustainability and €0.6 billion on nuclear power which is a significant increase in response to the climate change arguement.

Thinskin

 

I'm willing to bet you don't even know what you're talking about. Where are your sources for these statements because they certainly don't make any sense to me.

I'm willing to bet you're running around believing things that have already been debunked.

Yeah, yeah, sure hedonism96 thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries are going to be mistaken or lying about CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Finding people who disagree is no problem. Finding people that are actually nuts are equally easy. Finding people who will create junk science in exchange for money isn't too difficult either and many many times that's what these people are quoting. "Scientific Reports" that were bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobile and debunked with weeks of their appearance.

The real problem is this. The reason so many people try to deny global warming/climate change is because of fear and laziness. First they fear any kind of change, they don't want anything to worry about. and they don't even want to think about having to change their lifestyle. Its much easier to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is OK.

Conclusion #1--You know next to nothing about Global Warming/Climate change, and are willing brainwashed to deny it, because you don't want to worry or change.

Conclusion #2--If you lived another 100 years you'd still be believing and the right wing noise machine no matter how ridiculous they were.

 

This is an excellent post and I think the answer is the oil companies do not need to yet. The last time the oil price signifiantly increased there was a response in research funding because at that price things like biodeisel became more feasible. What was the response, the oil price fell and nobody was interested in sustainability that response was cost driven alone.

So long as the oil price is so cheap the oil companies do not need to counter lobby the global warming lobby. The climatology data is so complex at the moment that the global warming lobby essentially hangs itself.

Thinskin

 

Ocean acidification

This is the third thread in not so long on this subject where I have gone into this in detail. So I'll just repeat this little assertion here that by the time global warming is supposed to have drowned us all, we will all be dead anyway due to bicarbonate (carbon dioxide dissolves in water) acidification effectively killing the worlds oceans, which fix about 50% of atmosperic carbon dioxide.

Thinskin

 

to Whitey , again .........

What absolute crap. full stop. nowhere did I say that any particular science is wrong.
Nowhere did I express an opinion one way or another as to what I believe or dont believe , or even think.
I did say I was confused [as I am by some of the seemingly conflicting information out there]
and my last sentence sumed it up my position quite simply.

You say your a scientist, yet twice you have totally misrepresented what I wrote.

No need for sources for what I wrote, but if anyone was interested enough to want to look up the articles etc. that I refered to , and was to contact me with a sensable and inteligent inquiry I would make the effort. If these things made it into print and news media and documentaries down here then they certainly have many other places around the world.

 

What you've actually exposed here is the end of a cycle that started more than 40 year's ago. The data was in and the hand writing was on the wall beginning in 1970 that we had reached peak oil production, that imported oil was a national security risk, fossil fuels were polluting the atmosphere, and we needed to find alternative energy sources.

As soon as those types of discussions got serious we went from an "energy crisis" to an "energy glut" in about a year's time. The price of oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and electricity plummeted, and suddenly any plans to develop renewable energy sources were abandoned.

But from then on the price of oil was extraordinarily volatile and any "uncertainty" would cause a spike in oil prices. It would be a different excuse every time but the pattern would be the same. The price of oil would suddenly take off and in some instances double in price. This in return increases the price of everything else. Then the interest in renewable and alternative energy would get renewed again, but before any real progress was made the price of oil would plummet again.

There are two very important things to note about these increases and decreases. And that is that once the price of oil reached a new peak, it would fall a but not to the price it was before. Gasoline was even much more easy to see, because if for example the price of oil fell 50% the price of gasoline would never fall 50%.

What makes what is happening right now different is the world oil monopoly managed to eliminate in any serious competition for more than 100 years, but now they know the world supply of oil is running out, so in order to maintain their monopoly the oil companies have become "energy companies" and are now developing other energy sources that will allow them to remain in control.

Sorry to expound so much on what you said, but you seem intelligent, knowledgeable, and interested, and I wanted to share my knowledge with how oil works.

Actually, and this gets back to what I said above, once the major Oil Companies were ready to move into other forms of energy they completely reversed themselves on Global Warming/Climate Change and admitted it was happen and human caused.

The resistance you're seeing now is coming from people who siphon off the economy. Dealing with global warming might hurt their profits and better the whole world die than interfere with their greed.

 

Its a deal. I will be sending you a sensible and intelligent inquiry PM asking for your source will immediately follow this.

 

Sun spot activity does certainly effect earth's temperature, but it doesn't cancel out the observations that the climate change science is based on... scientists, surprisingly, try hard to think of reasons they might be wrong, and check them.

The view that you can't trust what scientists say because science is constantly being 'proved wrong' because people have made 'mistakes' is incorrect. Science is constantly being revised, updated, improved, but that's not the same as stupid scientists getting it wrong and being corrected, it's gaining a fuller picture, or advancing our knowledge to a new level, or making minor adjustments. Doesn't mean they were originally wrong. Sometimes, yes, but not as much as is portrayed.

A few scientists at one institute probably made relatively small alterations to data, yes. And yes, that's pretty bad. But using that to discredit the whole science of global warming is utterly ridiculous.

And there's no friggin conspiracy. Governments and big industry were initially very against the whole idea of climate change, it's taken a lot to start convincing them and they're (the Government) still not doing nearly as much as many scientists would like, and think necessary. It costs them money. Sure, some people make a profit, but that's just because scientists have recommended that making the appropriate changes profitable, is the best way to have them happen. It seems difficult to me, to imagine how else it could be financed, governments would never give the necessary money without raising taxes loads, which is exactly what people like you would dislike. And it's not the scientists who are even making the profit!

Where's the conspiracy?

See above for longer explanation, but yeh, calling the whole science of global warming, supported by scientists across the world, a hoax, because a few people have done some bad things, is utterly ridiculous.

It's completely different. The reason they can't tell you whether it will rain on thursday is because you want to know very specific information, with regards to both time and location, about the behaviour of the weather, which is a Chaotic System. Read a book, look on wikipedia, whatever, if you want to know more or check that I'm not making this up, but yeh: the point of chaotic systems is that you can't predict what they'll do. That's not a limit of our ability, it's a mathematical impossibility.
Climate change, on the other hand, works with measurable, predictable, understandable, testable processes.

 

Your dead right. At the moment, if you want to do any sort of alternative energy research go to an oil company. You get funding, in exchange for exclusivity of course, and it is peanuts or rather seedcorn to them.

Thinskin

 

It all depends if you believe al gore and his right wing liberals.

 

For the first time, the general public is learning that the CRU climate model, which the U.N. relies on, purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This obfuscation was necessary because the MWP was not just warmer than it is now; it had a generally positive impact on humans. The University of East Anglia now admits, in fact, that the CRU has no real evidence that the climate is warming and says it will take at least three years to recompile and analyze the data.


And you should stay blind and deaf to the truth.

 

You're still quoting from the same source, and the source lacks credibility.

 

OK,, show me something different that what is suggested in this quote.

 

First, the fun fact...
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6900E/x6900e0x.htm

Sun spot link for you, it also touches on CO2 effects. It is a video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbAe_g41Zl4

And here is some of the charts documenting the research...
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/The%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20Climate%202009.pdf
from here...
http://www.davidarchibald.info/

Now, the CO2 and cloud cover issue that Man Made Global warming advocates seem to not want to look at. Once again, a video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U
Dr. Spencers site with links to his studies and research...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

So, am I going to get more of the snide...

...remarks or are you going to man up and admit that Man Made Climate Change is just a theory? I see more evidence that it is following the same pattern that it has for the past 500+ years more then any dramatic influence mankind has made.

Have a better one

 

Okay, let's start with the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091210-709111.html

 

I'm glad you brought this up. What I knew is there are huge methane deposits in the deep ocean. Now, when I say huge I'm talking about methane that is so compressed its in its solid form and creates shelves along some ocean formations several thousand feet deep and miles long. And its just raw methane that is trapped there in solid form. If a chunk breaks off its like a giant Fizzy, and returns to the gas state so fast that as it rushes to the surface it cancels the buoyancy of ships and can sink them.

What I didn't know was the specific level where CO2 and Methane are disposed of in the ocean as opposed to the lower levels where methane concentrates. If we change that with too much CO2 as you say it will kill the ocean and us humans in the process. But in the meantime if the amount of Methane passes its balance and breaks off and comes to the surface, picture a fireball the size of a continent..

I'm kind of holding my breath. If the US would make a drastic move right now to switch our fuel to liquid natural gas and ethanol from hemp we could for once in our history cut the oil companies off at the pass, and keep them from continuing to control the debate, supply and demand, and politics of energy.

Hell yes I was worried. You never called or wrote, you just disappeared.

Now that being said I will now read your link and then tell you just how full of shit you are this time.

 

Okay, let's start with the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091210-709111.html

But maybe you should show me some documentation for this statement...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

http://www.examiner.com/x-22564-Des...-but-Obama-still-bows-to-UN-climate-committee

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

As Al Gore once said,, '' the science is settled''.

 

Forget ethanol Stumbler the energetic content is just too low and there are many studies showing that ethanol from corn syrup would actually increase emmisions (I'll dig the reference out for you later).
By hemp, I assume you mean all cellulose based hydrolysates (basically all the plant material we cannot eat). Yes that is possible and the organisms to do this have already been made (I'll dig the reference out on that later as well). The end product biofuel has to have more carbon atoms than ethanol, like propanol, butanol both of which have been demonstrated in which case longer chain hydrocarbons must be possible as well.

Thinskin