Climate change . . .

[Scott Anaya]

Luc,

Sorry, i don't know enough of the Duoro's weather or climate to be able to predict global warmings affect there. I wish i did :!: maybe i can get a scholarship to live and study that for a year over there?

All I know about to date is the effect warming is having on us here Alaska and the circumpolar north.

[Bryan Robinson]

I started this topic ( 38 posts ago ) wanting to know If the Port industry was going to attend the Climat conference in Barcelone .
Scott or Bryan or any Portonian for that matter , would you venture a guess as to how the micro-climate of the Douro valley be affected ?

Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

That question is way, way over my ability to even hazard a wild guess. The vineyard managers should know how temperature changes affect them. That might be a good question to ask the port trade.

[Glenn E.]

As the sun warms the earth’s ocean, it reduces that area the phytoplankton will live in, which in turn reduces the ocean’s photosynthetic capacity, and thereby raises CO2 levels. That is why CO2 levels rise and fall in lockstep with sunspot counts and temperature records. It has nothing to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

More specifically, CO2 is a byproduct of warming, not the cause.

Thanks for your want of discussion on this....I wasn't at all taking any of it as an attack on me....just on several thousand (and overwhelming majority) of the world's leading scientist heheheeee

People love to quote that, but it was a political statement not a scientific one. More that half of the signatories were politicians with no scientific background. Which makes it tough for me to take seriously.

If you say "we have to reduce our carbon footprint because we're destroying the planet" I'm going to require conclusive proof. So far, that proof doesn't exist. All we have are political bandwagons and anecdotal evidence.

If you say "we should reduce our carbon footprint because it's the right thing to do" I'm going to ask "why is it the right thing to do?" So far, the answer has been to revert to #1.

If you say "we think that man's carbon footprint may have a long term detrimental effect on the planet but we can't prove it conclusively, but we do know that reducing our carbon footprint does NOT have any negative long term effects so we think that we should do it just to be safe" then I'll listen. Sadly, most people react better to #1 or #2.

[Roy Hersh]

Continuing to spew carbon into the atmosphere might be perfectly harmless,

This quote takes the Grand Prize and I don't think I even need to mention what it is for.

[Scott Anaya]

If you say "we think that man's carbon footprint may have a long term detrimental effect on the planet but we can't prove it conclusively, but we do know that reducing our carbon footprint does NOT have any negative long term effects so we think that we should do it just to be safe" then I'll listen. Sadly, most people react better to #1 or #2.

I agree and that's been kinda my underlying point. And the reason anyone should also consider is because it means we will be saving carbon producing resources and processes which will be saving us energy and most importantly saving us money. It's the fiscally conservative thing to do.

But for the folks who want business as usual one could also just flip that argument on its head too, or nuance it a bit. Instead of requiring conclusive proof that emmissions ARE harming (or will harm) the planet before we limit them, why not require the polluters to show with conclusive proof that increasing Green House Gas causing emmisions will have no harm on the planet? I mean BEFORE we do something or increase something like greenhouse gas emmissions, shouldn't That be proven to have no harm conclusively and with the appropriate degree of scientific certainty

[Derek T.]

if we all saved energy and saved money, we could all buy alot more PORT :!:

That's it. With that one statement I am now declaring myself an Eco-warrior

[Scott Anaya]

It's all about connecting with your audience. Thanks for the chuckle!!!!!

[Glenn E.]

Continuing to spew carbon into the atmosphere might be perfectly harmless,

This quote takes the Grand Prize and I don't think I even need to mention what it is for.

I'm going to guess it's a movie quote or something else that I'm just not familiar with, right?

Ripped out of context, that one sentence might sound rather shocking to the Global Warming Faithful (tm). But let's remember the full paragraph it was part of:

However, reducing our carbon emissions has little to no potential down side. Continuing to spew carbon into the atmosphere might be perfectly harmless, but it also might be catastrophic. Very elementary risk analysis says that we should play it safe.

[Glenn E.]

But for the folks who want business as usual one could also just flip that argument on its head too, or nuance it a bit. Instead of requiring conclusive proof that emmissions ARE harming (or will harm) the planet before we limit them, why not require the polluters to show with conclusive proof that increasing Green House Gas causing emmisions will have no harm on the planet?

I understand what you're getting at, but no true scientist would get on board with that concept. The problem is that it is exceptionally difficult - if not outright impossible - to prove a negative. Using that sort of logic, creativity and innovation would cease. It is relatively trivial to prove that man's carbon emissions are harming the planet, and yet we we can't even do that conclusively.

Besides, someone in the past had to throw caution to the wind and drink the liquid coming off of those rotting grapes in order to give us wine and ultimately Port.

[Bryan Robinson]

As the sun warms the earth’s ocean, it reduces that area the phytoplankton will live in, which in turn reduces the ocean’s photosynthetic capacity, and thereby raises CO2 levels. That is why CO2 levels rise and fall in lockstep with sunspot counts and temperature records. It has nothing to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

More specifically, CO2 is a byproduct of warming, not the cause.

…There is good evidence to support it.

A few years ago, the most significant ice core ever was analyzed. The Vostok Ice Core was drilled deeper, and analyzed with the most accurate instruments available. It found that temperatures rose and fell ahead of CO2, and as such, proved CO2 was rising and falling as a result of something temperature related.

The analysis took place between 2003 and 2006. Being that it pretty much destroys any historical precedent for the greenhouse gas warming theory, most advocates just pretend it doesn’t exist. That is why greenhouse gas global warming literature that references ice core data, tends to cite sources and papers published prior to 2003.

In the interest of being fair, not all greenhouse gas theory advocates who know about the Vostok Ice Core are that intellectually dishonest. Some do make an honest effort to address the new data.

Along with the GISS restatement of temperatures, the total failure of greenhouse gas driven climate models to predict anything close to observations, and the Hadley Centre radiosonde observations failing to find a greenhouse forcing signature, the Vostok Ice Core is just one more piece in an avalanche of data in the past 24 months that kicks the legs out from under the greenhouse gas crowd.

At this point, the only thing keeping the CO2 warming theory alive is inertia. OK, maybe the $50 Billion dollars various entities are paying “researchers” to claim manmade global warming is real might help a little too.

[Roy Hersh]

Those whacky British scientists: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/massive-ic ... 0000000001

[Glenn E.]

Climate in Antarctica is complicated and more isolated from the rest of the world.

Much of the continent is not warming and some parts are even cooling, Vaughan said. However, the western peninsula, which includes the Wilkins ice shelf, juts out into the ocean and is warming.

And from that they conclude that the fracture is the result of global warming???

This is why I hate politics. Once a political movement gets started, there's no stopping it. Even normally respectable people will jump on board because - politically - it is the right thing to do.

[Luc Gauthier]

if we all saved energy and saved money, we could all buy alot more PORT :!:

That's it. With that one statement I am now declaring myself an Eco-warrior

Wait . . . Save energy , Save money : Buy More Port , Notre Raison d'Être .
Scott , I think your on to something !!

[Roy Hersh]

Glenn,

Again, I think you have it absolutely backwards with your statement ...

This is why I hate politics. Once a political movement gets started, there's no stopping it. Even normally respectable people will jump on board because - politically - it is the right thing to do.

Actually, politically - it is the LEFT thing to do.

Hasn't anyone taught you your right from your left yet?

I think we need to discuss this over a good bottle of Port. :hello:

[Glenn E.]

Actually, politically - it is the LEFT thing to do.

Hahaha... you are correct, good sir!

I think we need to discuss this over a good bottle of Port. :hello:

Once again you demonstrate that you are a very wise man indeed!

We do need to get together, though. It's sad that we live mere minutes apart and yet have only ever conversed electronically!

[Luc Gauthier]

Actually, politically - it is the LEFT thing to do.

Hahaha... you are correct, good sir!

I think we need to discuss this over a good bottle of Port. :hello:

Once again you demonstrate that you are a very wise man indeed!

We do need to get together, though. It's sad that we live mere minutes apart and yet have only ever conversed electronically!

Glenn , you are so right !!
Meeting Le Sieur de Porto is a must . . . It's sad , we live mere miles apart , well 2,280 miles actualy