Global Warming

[ddmoit]

If you have over an hour to kill, and a decent Internet connection, this is worth a view...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle


EDIT: Well shoot, the link is broken now. Well, just do a Google search on "the great global warming swindle" and you'll get to it.

EDIT: YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

[Sponsored Links]

[Scooter]

I don't think there is any debate about Global Warming-it exists, it is happening fast, it is accelerating, and it is bad. There is absolutely, positively no debate that the ice in both poles is shrinking, Glaciers are retreating, and the climate is on average, about 2° warmer over the past 10 years. This is fact.

The debate is what is causing the warming. On that subject there are many theories. The plurality appears to be that it is human activity, but again there is another side to this theory that it is part of natural cycles. This debate is not fact--it is opinion. And you can choose to believe whom you want.

I question whether we (the USA) acted today whether it would be enough. China has refused to do anything, and has now taken the lead as to greenhouse gases over the USA this year. So the world can now get off our back, and can blame China. Ultimately trying to get the world to do something in unison is like trying to herd cats.

[muley]

Well, can't believe I'm saying this but agree with Scooter. :wtf: I think the warming debate in a way is a misnomer, the better way to put it is that the earth is currently warming. The earth has on routine warmed and cooled long before mans arrival, and will continue to do so if he is not here. Additionally, there are core samples that have seen global warming w/o increased CO2, suggesting that perhaps, increased CO2 atmospheric levels are caused by global warming, and not the cause of global warming. At the end of the day, some chicken littles are making some very bold claims that just simply are not backed by science, and the debate is alive and well with many leading scientist skeptical of the human causation theory. IMHO, we simply do not have enough accurate long historical data to conclude whether this is just a sort spike upward, or a longer term trend. One thing is for sure, the earth is dynamic, and nobody is really sure what the "overall" average teperature is. It's like measuring a half a inch on a football field and proclaiming that inch the average hieght of the grass.

[ddmoit]

Maybe global warming is caused by Dan, Scooter, and Muley all agreeing on something.

Sure we're warming. But I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary, and I don't think human activity is a significant cause. And, we've been warmer before while humans have been around.

I think the clip does a pretty good job of explaining the motivations behind the groups that are behind the human caused theories.

It also makes another important point. Many people are concerned about doing nothing - even those that aren't convinced of human causes. But few people are willing to consider the potentially horrible consequences of doing something. This show dwells on that topic towards the end of the program.

[Scooter]

If you two can form an opinion based on scientific theories, then you guys are smarter than me. I have to trust that our government will listen to the science, reach a conclusion, and make the right choice.

I just hope they don't listen to political hacks with an agenda, whether it is from the right wing nazi Rush Limbaughs or somebody from the left.

There really is a cause--and one has to look at science to explain this to our collective leadership. But I am powerless to do anything.

[madmax]

Scooter
Remodeler -- Southern Cal.




Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,053 If you two can form an opinion based on scientific theories, then you guys are smarter than me. I have to trust that our government will listen to the science, reach a conclusion, and make the right choice.

I just hope they don't listen to political with an agenda, whether it is from the right wing Rush Limbaughs or somebody from the left.

There really is a cause--and one has to look at science to explain this to our collective leadership. But I am powerless to do anything.
__________________
Scooter
"Sir, I May Be Drunk, But You're Crazy, and I'll Be Sober Tomorrow"
WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934


1. Yes I am smarter.

2. The political hack with the agenda is Al Gore.

3. Global warming is hardly happening fast. The Earth has been warming for 20,000 years. The sea levels increase about the thickness of a nickel each year which isn't that much considering the fact that the sea level has gone up 400 ft in the last 20,000 years. In case you are counting, that is 400 feet before George Bush took office.

4. The reason the Earth is warming is because the orbit is not perfectly circular. When the Earth gets closer to the sun it gets warmer.

[Rob Z]

Max,

I agree with you about Al Gore, but are you sure about #4?

[ddmoit]

I don't know about #4 either. It sure wasn't featured in the clip I linked.

[jgleason]

Not sure about #4 either but the sun's energy output is not constant. Some would argue that the higher solar activity of the last 60 years has had something to do with the earth's climate of late.

No denying man has an impact, how significant is the question. There is evidence that the earth has been warmer in the past (yes while man has inhabited the planet). Who is to say that the current climate is the best for us? Maybe a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature would actually be better. Personally, I wouldn't mind it being a bit warmer. :D

[ddmoit]

Joe, they address the solar effect in the clip. It's far more plausible than CO2.

It absolutely has been warmer than it is now during the time of human civilization. All indications are that things were better for humans when it was warmer.

[HS345]

I just hope they don't listen to political hacks with an agenda, whether it is from the right wing nazi Rush Limbaughs or somebody from the left.

Rush is a nazi? Oh man, now ya tell me. :stupid2:

[madmax]

Rob Zschoche
Bathroom Remodeler, Wash. D.C. Area, Charter Member :)




Join Date: May 2001
Location: Loudoun County VA
Posts: 6,232 Max,

I agree with you about Al Gore, but are you sure about #4?




I can't prove #4 because it is still a theory, but it makes sense to me. It is called Milankovitch Theory(1920) and it was named after Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian scientist/astronomer.

It is fairly simple. Milankovitch beleived the Earth's orbit is not perfect. When the Earth moves closer to the sun it will get warmer and when the Earth is farthest from the sun it will get colder.

[ddmoit]

I'm not ready to put much stock in that theory, Madmax.

First of all, our orbit is not round, but elliptical. During the year, our distance from the Sun changes by nearly a million miles. In fact, when it is Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, we're actually closer to the Sun than in the Summer.

[Scooter]

The average temperatures have not consistently risen since the beginning of time. So Max, that statement is false.

There was a time in our history called "The Ice Age", actually 2-3 of them, the last of which formed most of the lakes in Minnesota.

There was a mini-ice age in the Dark Ages in about 700 AD which lasted about 4 generations.

Now, I can't remember the ice age, because I'm not old enough, but ask John, I think might remember it.

As far as I know, the orbits of the planets have remained constant. They are eliptical, but that is an annual thing, not an ever increasing shrinking of the planet's orbit.

Indeed, the planet ought to be cooling off, not heating up. That is the case with other planets.

I think you've been listening to that fat, drug addict, gass bag on radio, Rush Limbaugh too much.

[ddmoit]

Indeed, the planet ought to be cooling off, not heating up. That is the case with other planets.

So long as we have an atmosphere, I don't think that rule applies to us.

[Oldrem]

This was on a Milwaukee radio station about 6 weeks ago. I found one of the links - unfortunately they quit including them after 30 days:

By Charles Sykes

(Note: Last week I published some Annoying Questions for Ms. Snodgrass, or any other science teacher, editorial writer, pundit, or politician who thinks there's no question that man is the cause of global warming. Feel free to try them out. This is the updated version published in CNI Newspapers.)

*Why did the glaciers melt?

*Why were the Vikings once able to farm in Greenland? (Could it be that the climate has gone through warming and cooling cycles before... without human involvement?)

*Why were the Middle Ages warmer than the global temperature now? Why did it cool off during the "Little Ice Age" (from 1600 to 1900)? And what warmed us up after that?

*Why are global temperatures now cooler than in the 1930s?

*Why is the polar ice cap on Mars melting? (Are SUVs really THAT evil? Or could it have something to do with the sun?)

(Ms. Snodgrass, are you all right? Why are you getting so red? Is it hot in here?)

*Why are temperatures in east Antarctica going down?

*You said that there's a "consensus," that man causes global warming, Ms. Snodgrass. So how do you explain Richard Lindzen? (He's the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.)

*Why have the "experts" been wrong so often? Like when they predicted global cooling? (Here's a copy of the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek, with the headline, "Our Cooling World." Here's my favorite part; "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically...The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it... The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.") So were they wrong then, Ms. Snodgrass? Or now? Do you think they could they change their minds again?

*And why were they wrong about hurricanes? (There weren't any last year) So why should we believe them now?

*Since most climatologists can't tell you what the weather will be next weekend, how they can say what it will be next century?

*If we adopted the Kyoto treaty how much would the temperatures actually go down, especially if it doesn't cover countries like China? What if we got rid of all of our factories and all of our cars? How much cooler would it be?

*Every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power a mid-sized city. According to George Will, China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030. Should we shut down one our own plants every time China opens another one? And if we did, would that mean we wouldn't have to come to school during the winter anymore?

Ms. Snodgrass?

Links: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

[jvcstone]

Well, since we are still a geologically active planet with all sorts of thing going on above and below the surface, conditions will continue to change and evolve. Accurate weather records have been kept for what? 200 years or so at most, so nobody on the planet can make a positive statement as to what normal climatic conditions are. In fact, looking at the geologic history, nothing is normal for very long before something happens to upset the status quot. Over the past 50 years or so there appears to have been a warming trend, and some computer models indicate that the warming would be even more if not for a phenomenon known as solar dimming. (another pollution by product that some would like to lay at the feet of man also). While we as a species have been pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere--after all it is a by product of burning anything carbon based which every living thing here is--nature can put a lot of it up there also. Shoot one good volcano would make our coal burning power plants look like slackers. Also we as a species, through our clear cutting/ slash and burn approach to Forest management, are rapidly removing one of the major CO2 banks. But since CO2 is currently (for millions of years but not always) the second most abundant gas in the atmosphere, while its percentage may vary over time, I think man would have to be contributing a whole lot more to have much of an effect. The one fact that is most obvious to me is that mankind, because of it's inflated ego and arrogance, has not learned during our 2 million or so year existence that momma nature is and will do whatever she wants, and we have absolutely no control over it. This period of warming might just be the prelude to another ice-age (of which there have been many--not just the Pleistocene ones of the past 100,000 years that we are use to referring to), but then again, maybe not. None of these high profile scientists on either side of the debate have any more of a clue as any of us do. But it is expedient to keep the peasants worked up over something or other of no consequence in order to keep them from looking at what is really going on behind their backs.

One final little tidbit to muse over---our sister planet Venus has a surface temperature much higher than it should in relation to it's distance from the sun. The atmosphere on Venus is essentially 100% CO2,-- so I hope we don't get too carried away with burning everything in sight for energy, when there are so many other ways to produce it.

JVC

edit--Eric, your post showed up while I was typing, but I think it says about the same thing I am.

[muley]

To further expand your post JVC, Mt. Saint Augustine in Alaska erupted in 1976, releasing about 570X the CO2 that the human population released in 1975, kinda puts things in perspective. Additionally, with deforestation, many people don't realize that trees, much like humans, have a metabolism. New growth younger trees burn CO2 at a higher rate then old growth late succession trees. Therefore, the cutting of late succession trees, and replacing with regeneration seedlings, can actually increase the burning of CO2 over a given area.

[ddmoit]

The whole CO2 thing is likely a mute point anyway. According to the scientists in the clip I posted, CO2 is more likely to be caused by global warming than vise versa. CO2 increases lag behind warming in the historical ice core records.

[MudMaker]

I'm going to Crossville next week on the Crossville Tile Plant tour and looked at the weather prior to the visit..
Looks like in Nashville on Wednesday and Thursday it'll be in the 80's... Maybe the Global warming problem centers around Nashville or a suburb there abouts.... :stick:

[Bri]

It's funny....this all reminds me of the Thin set vs Mastic debate. :shrug:

[Westie]

:shrug: Mastic is causing global warming ??? :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

[sdaniels7114]

I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue about weather the 'Hockey stick' is bunk or weather it means we're all gonna die, and the idea of analyzing the source code used in the computer models is about as appealing as learning to read Sandscrit; but I will say that those in the know about such matters, the people we've trusted in the past, people like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are not debating this issue anymore. Its only those people who shall we say, might have an ax to grind, or might be looking for some attention of their own or who might have a major financial stake in NOT changing the way we do things who still feel that Global Climate Change is something that's undetermined.

If the Doc you trusted for the last 30 years said you ate too many egg sandwiches and didn't exercise enough and therefore you were about to have a Heart Attack would you change your behavior? or go looking for a doc who said that what you really needed to do was eat more egg sandwiches and exercise less?

[ddmoit]

I would gladly take medical advice from a doctor. I would not take medical advice from a painter though. Sagan and Hawkings, while brilliant in their respective fields of expertise, are not smarter than climatologists on the subject of global warming. Would you take tile setting advice from Carl (were he alive) or Stephen? Even the smartest people sometimes lack the wisdom to know when they don't know about something. As for the rest of us - well, who's dumber - the celebrity testifying before Congress, or the knuckleheads who are listening to them?

[MudMaker]

Aaaaaahhhhhhhh........
Change is COOL Man :zztop:
Tommy Chong
Just seemed Appropriate....

[ddmoit]

The theory in this book is also mentioned in the linked clip. This title will be available in The States by the end of the month.


http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6388555-4894808?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174070726&sr=1-1

[sgrandjean]

in my best Carl Sagan voice, "Billyuns and billyuns of years ago..."

[Tom Tee]

Always be concerned about what amount of extra control your pied piper expects of you and how much extra you will pay for him to play his music.

An axium of my life;

Do not go out on your own and create a monster then turn to me to feed it.

tt

[MudMaker]

Tom,

This whole G.W. issyou can be likened to the disclaimer on my Stock Fund prospectus...

Past performance does not determine future results...
It just IS what it IS

[Rd Tile]

GW my ass, ice storm out my window now. :shrug:

[wannaBpro]

http://www.junkscience.com/

This is interesting reading. And we are NOT NOT NOT 3 degrees warmer over the last 10 years. Warmest period is 1930-1940, 3 degrees warmer than the lowest recorded temps on earth, and thats only since the 1800's. we are 1 degree less than that now, therefore only 2 degrees warmer in our short history of recorded temperature. Our atmosphere is 90% water (vapor and clouds) and you can only put a finite amount od CO2 into it. And guess what uses CO2...plants do for nutrition!
Besides, if the UN believes it, I don't. They don't do anything right!

[Hamilton]

The only global warming going on is happening right here in 96% murrieta.
Its a conspiracy i tell you, there is a giant magnifying glass pointed at
my town!

[Tom Tee]

I would love to continue this discussion but I have 2 1/2" of solid ice covering my truck, van and driveway.

Dang, sure could use a bit of this GW where ever it might be.

The what is, is, and is all over everything!!!!!!!

I truly think that weather and wives are the same, they will do what ever they want, whenever they want. They do have warm periods but they also sure do have frigid periods plus other puncuation.

tt

[wannaBpro]

Great video. The Great Global Warming Swindle. :noid:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

[Bri]

The science in that video is 4 years old, and the graphs they show only go up to 1980. Just sayin'. :shrug:

[madmax]

ddmoit
Registered User




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Joseph, MI
Posts: 1,079 I'm not ready to put much stock in that theory, Madmax.

First of all, our orbit is not round, but elliptical. During the year, our distance from the Sun changes by nearly a million miles. In fact, when it is Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, we're actually closer to the Sun than in the Summer.
__________________
- Dan in St. Joseph, MI

Tu


global

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
03-15-2007, 03:02 PM #13
ddmoit
Registered User




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Joseph, MI
Posts: 1,067 I'm not ready to put much stock in that theory, Madmax.

First of all, our orbit is not round, but elliptical. During the year, our distance from the Sun changes by nearly a million miles. In fact, when it is Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, we're actually closer to the Sun than in the Summer.
__________________
- Dan in St. Joseph, MI

Tu ne cede malis.





Stupid post and you distorted the facts.

1. I said the earth's orbit is not round. It isn't much of an elipse either. The radius of orbit is about 93 million miles. In comparison a million miles is about the size of a pimple on your ass. By eye you can't even tell the difference.

2, You didn't say anything that disputed the Milankovitch Theory. If anything you actually said some of the same things that Milankovitch said.


3. Your arguement ingored two key variables. In the summer the earth is farther away from the sun but the earth spins on an axis and in the summer the northern hemispere is tilted toward the sun which results in more direct sun longer days. In the winter the northern hemispere is tilted away from the sun and does not get the direct rays and the days are shorter. You are trying to compare the northern hemisperes summer to it's winter which is stupid. If we are going to look at the earth's proximity to the sun and the cause of heat then we need to isolate the variables and look at distance only. Since we can't change the earth's tilt or the distance to actually perform an experiment then the comparison should be to compare the northern hemispere's summer when the earth is about 93 million miles from the sun to the southern hemispere's summer when the earth is about 92 million miles away.

[cx]

Max, you've already had too many warnings about that kinda post.

If you can't make your points or argue your position without name-calling, we've just got no place for you here. Sorry.

[MudMaker]

AMEN

To cx, that is.....

[wannaBpro]

Seems that when you disagree with the environmental terrorists...thats how they react. There is plenty of science behind the Midevil Warming Period. Do a google search and go to CO2 Science site, lots of information. It seems important to read both sides of the issue and make up your own mind. See if any of the Global Warming Crowd will give you that advice. Good Luck. :tup2:

[Bri]

It seems important to read both sides of the issue and make up your own mind.

Good advice. :)

[SteveVB]

Science who cares??? :shrug: .... not important ....make up your own mind by looking at both sides? :bonk: Doesnt matter either. Politicians are getting involved and in the last year the global warming propaganda train seems to be picking up speed. Anyone who disagrees gets run over. The only thing I KNOW is that it is going to cost you and I and our children a ton of money as taxes increase. Carbon taxes, Usage taxes, Power taxes, Green Something tax, who knows what they will come up with?

[ddmoit]

Excellent point, Steve - and it goes way beyond the topic at hand. As the government involves itself in more and more areas of our daily lives, we are more compelled against our desires to engage and oppose our neighbors who seemingly have more and more control over our lives.

[sandbagger]

there's a lot at stake here with all the money being doled out to "research" on the subject of GW. Disaster sells. When's the last time you heard about anyone getting a research grant to study good weather? :shrug:

[John K]

Agree! Follow the money. Its time for Al Gore to pull out the bicycle. Drop the jet and the mansion.. :lol2:

[Alto]

Here's a good read from an MIT prof which should satisfy all those not inclined to hysterical outburst.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

[jvcstone]

I'm starting to think that the politically driven hysteria about CO2 emissions has more to do with the nuclear energy people than climate change. A big Texas utility (TXU) was recently bought by a group of major investors. TXU had on the books 11 new lignite (coal?) plants to be built over the next several years. Gov. was in the process of fast tracking the permitting process. New owners cancel 8 of the proposed new lignite plants, but I read in some Internet report that they had placed purchase orders with a Japanese heavy industrial firm (Mitsubishi??) for two packaged nuclear generators. There is also a French company with a long record of building nukes that looks at the USA as virgin territory. It's been a long time since a nuke was permitted or built here both because of the environmental opposition, and the huge cost over runs that seemed to be common with the contractors. ( Seems to me that when I make a bid and sign contracts, I can't suddenly tell my client that it's going to cost 50% more just cause I got them by the short hairs--pretty much what Brown&Root did with the south Texas project). And no one seems to know what to do with the waste products yet. So in a nut shell I'm starting to think that global warming is the boogyman, or the usual smoke and mirrors thrown out when it is necessary to get the public emotionally behind a new agenda. I mean , how can the anti nuke crowd have much negative influence when nukes give off zero CO2??

Just my usual morning imagination-

JVC

[Bri]

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Hey Rick....doesn't the the last 2 lines set off alarm bells? I thought it was understood, that the energy companies are running the government. :devil2: ;)

[flatfloor]

the huge cost over runs that seemed to be common with the contractors

JVC same thing happened here on the Shoreham nuke plant (that never opened). My first hand experience on that one...I submitted a bid, for a specified, folding partition, labor and material fully expecting to negotiate the price. They accepted my price but said for security reasons :shrug: I couldn't install the partitions. Issued a full price PO. What the hell it was the ratepayers money. :shake:

The French derive 80% of their power from nukes.

They offer a variety of off the shelf plants, pick one.

And no one seems to know what to do with the waste products yet

They claim to have a method to recycle the waste that makes the residue useless for weapons and reduces the material left after recycling down to the size of a basketball.

[Scooter]

Duke Engergy, the Nation's leading coal producer, has made their own private study and determined that Global Warming is real, and they along with half a dozen USA Leading manufacturers are clammoring for reducing our carbon footprint.

Denmark has seen fit to adopt the Kyoto Treaty. They have experienced a 50% growth in their economy with zero (0) percent increas in energy costs. Their green house carbon footprint is down 25%. Britain has similar, albeit slightly lower numbers.

Going green will not destroy our economy, and indeed will stimulate it.

There is enough wind in the plains states from the Olk panhandle to Southern Canada to produce 85% of our electrical needs.

[ddmoit]

Duke Engergy, the Nation's leading coal producer, has made their own private study and determined that Global Warming is real, and they along with half a dozen USA Leading manufacturers are clammoring for reducing our carbon footprint.

I'm surprised to see you taking stock in any corporate funded study.

Denmark has seen fit to adopt the Kyoto Treaty. They have experienced a 50% growth in their economy with zero (0) percent increas in energy costs. Their green house carbon footprint is down 25%. Britain has similar, albeit slightly lower numbers.

I'm not up on the state of Denmark's economy, but let's suppose your number is correct. How do you know that the increase can be attributed to their alleged adherence to the Kyoto Treaty? How do you know that their economy wouldn't have grown by 75% without Kyoto? As for the carbon footprint, that means nothing to those of us who are unconvinced that man-made carbon sources have any significant influence on the climate.

Going green will not destroy our economy, and indeed will stimulate it.

If going green is cheaper, why haven't we done it without being coerced? If I could buy a fuel source of equivalent energy that was cheaper than fossil fuels, I would switch today on price alone.

Paying more for something does not stimulate the economy. It means doing with less, which is the opposite of economic stimulation.

When we are coerced into buying things that we wouldn't freely choose to buy, sure, some area of the economy is stimulated - but only at the expense of some other area of the economy. That's not growth.

There is enough wind in the plains states from the Olk panhandle to Southern Canada to produce 85% of our electrical needs.

Maybe so, but at what cost? If it was competitive with current energy prices, it should already be happening - and without subsidies.

[bikemike]

Hey Dan,

I haven't read through this thread, but thought I would chime in that I wouldn't mind some "local warming" here in Michigan. That is, as long as my request doesn't cause some icebergs to melt and sink the state of Florida.

[ddmoit]

I love the character building aspects of Michigan weather. :yeah:

[Scooter]

I'm surprised to see you taking stock in any corporate funded study. Well this is a study from the very industries that ought to be against any treaty or government regulation of greehouse gases. They have concluded that the science is accurate and the doom is real. They have no agenda, and what they are saying is against their own interests, so I have to believe that they did this, not out of any political agenda, but because they concluded it was the right thing to do.I'm not up on the state of Denmark's economy, but let's suppose your number is correct. How do you know that the increase can be attributed to their alleged adherence to the Kyoto Treaty? How do you know that their economy wouldn't have grown by 75% without Kyoto? The point is that the conventional argument is that abiding by the Kyoto accords, it would be economic ruin. I've given you two examples of countries that have abided by it, and have shown incredible growth, no increase in oil consumption (can we say that?) and a negative growth in carbon footprints. I agree that you and can argue whether or not it is appropriate or not, but one thing is very clear, by going green, there is no exconomic ruin. So why not?If going green is cheaper, why haven't we done it without being coerced? If I could buy a fuel source of equivalent energy that was cheaper than fossil fuels, I would switch today on price alone. For the reason that people won't change to "green roofs" or flourescent bulbs. Notwithstaniding their proven positive effects on the environment, and their cost savings, some people want to be pigs and are just plain stupid.Maybe so, but at what cost? If it was competitive with current energy prices, it should already be happening - and without subsidies. I don't I ever mentioned the word "subsidy"--you did. My point is that we could power the whole of the United States with wind and not import a quart of foreign oil. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that make Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuala irrelevant? Isn't that a good thing? And what is the cost of the Iraq war? At last count it was ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Yeah, I remember, "no blood for oil" but we gave the blood, but still don't have the oil. Take that same ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and go green, and make the Middle East irrelevant.

[jvcstone]

California has been using wind generated electricity for years now--Texas has recently started, and if I'm not mistaken now has the largest wind generation capacity in the states, and more wind mills going up every day. Probably a miniscule percentage of what goes into the grid everyday, but it does seem to be economic enough for large utility companies to buy in.\
I also understand that Holland gets over 50% of their power from wind generators sited off coast in the north sea. They are some awesome windmills, even by dutch standards. There is a proposal to put some in off of the East Coast, but the bird people are against them, and the coast dwellers are giving the old not in my front yard you don't protest.

JVC

[ddmoit]

I've seen the California wind mills near Bakersfield (I think). I don't know who owns them or if they're being government subsidized (which means they're not otherwise economically viable.) I didn't mind the looks of them. I didn't see any piles of dead birds either.

[Scooter]

Some cities produce their own power, but they pay for and build their own generation facilities, use what they make, sell the rest into the grid. Los Angeles DWP, by way of example, is a net exporter of power which brings in some nice revenue to offset the cost of generation, and give the subscribers a nice break.

There are about half a dozen sites, but the ones I know are near Palm Springs. They've been there for 2-3 decades now, and contribute nicely to the grid without any greenhouse issues. Cleanest power source, second only to solar of course.

You are assuming, without any facts, that because a government built them that (a) they were subsidized; (b) that no one else would build them; and (c) they are all unprofitable. All three assumptions are wrong.

Bush's Generals, hand-picked by himself, have again gone off the reservation, and have adopted a "green" position on global warming.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/04/15/us-generals-urge-bush-to-take-climate-action/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Famericas%2F6557803.stm&frame=true

[ddmoit]

You are assuming, without any facts, that because a government built them that (a) they were subsidized; (b) that no one else would build them; and (c) they are all unprofitable. All three assumptions are wrong.

I clearly stated that I didn't know who owned them of if they were subsidized or not.

If the government does own them, how can they not be subsidized by taxpayers, since the government produces nothing? The government starts by taking money from someone. What they do with it after that cannot be considered production; it is merely redistribution.

By the way, if LA is selling its excess power, why are there rolling brownouts on occasion?

[SteveVB]

Denmark has seen fit to adopt the Kyoto Treaty. They have experienced a 50% growth in their economy with zero (0) percent increas in energy costs. Their green house carbon footprint is down 25%. Britain has similar, albeit slightly lower numbers.

50% growth over what period? the last 50 years?, the last year?, the last decade?.
Seems like they have grown GDP in the last few years a little over 2%. This year expected 2.2% in 2004 it was .3% so if the 50% figure you quote is the change in the change thats a bit misleading-no?

They are a net exporter of oil- a few hundred thousand barrels a day- any chance that had somethig to do with their incease in GDP from 2004 levels in the .3% trange? or more to your point- do you think the exports of oil had anything to do with the 0% increase in energy cost you posted? Spin.

I cant find a reduced carbon footprint for Denmark- maybe you could provide a source- a quick search turned up this chart which is out of date, but actually the latest number shows Den was UP 20% in the last year of the report-2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
now if that footprint number you quote includes offsets from carbon credits and such- your numbers are really bogus. They in fact may not have decreased their foot print at all, and I would guess that after you net out all of the credits the co2 production continued to increase. The credits are a joke- it just allows those who have high emmissions to pay those who dont for the privilege. In real terms it is the worst form of income distribution on a world wide scale. Denmark buys some credits from some third world countries to offset its footprint- a big business with billions of dollars at stake and corruption will become rampant as third world countries come up with all sorts of bogus projects to "fund"

[sgrandjean]

Dan says:
If the government does own them, how can they not be subsidized by taxpayers, since the government produces nothing?

I think the federal (and states too) government produces plenty of hot air when the legislature is in session. And that, my friends, is a prime example of Congress' reasoning behind throwing money into research about methane gas. :rolleyes:

Cheers.

[Scooter]

To me, and maybe we are splitting hairs here, a subsidy is a payment by government to a private person to offset the cost of a good or service.

I don't think a government can subsidize itself, except where the cost of providing the service exceeds the revenue. In so far as the LA DWP, they are a next exporter. My understanding of the windmill power in Palm Springs is that it needs no raw material or maintenance other than keeping the thing lubricated. Like I say, they are all 30 years old and functioning just perfect.

As for rolling brown outs, you do not understand the power grid. Such brown outs may originate in Oregon, Nevada or Northern California, and that grid as well as other components of it has to taken down until another source of power is purchased and injected into the grid as a whole.

Of course, we now know that Enron took power generation plants off line, to artificially create a brown out, and bring down the grid, so they could rescue the situation by supplying power at an inflated rated. All with the blessing of Ken Lay (dead) and his buddy George Bush. The days of a private entity supplying power in an unregulated fashion are over and it was proven to be a failed experiment.

To my knowledge, we have had no brown out at all since Enron evaportated of any substance. At least I haven't heard of any down here, nor experienced any.

[Bri]

http://www.treehugger.com/time%20change.jpg


:yipee: :yipee:

[Alto]

Bri- that's a hilarious letter! Re your earlier post- most politicians are jumping on the GM bandwagon hoping for carbon taxes and greater social control, or just out of a need to seem concerned because "everybody knows" global warming is real and man-made.

Now don't get me wrong- I've been green as a leprechaun for over 20 years now- energy star appliances every time I need to replace something, CF bulbs everywhere they fit, recycle almost everything. I just don't like bad science coupled with a media frenzy. By the way, the EU has missed it's Kyoto limits on CO2 emissions, and doesn't seem likely to meet them anytime soon.

There is a price point at which green power becomes economical, and more and more folks will switch to it based on price alone. See how many more gas/electric hybrid vehicles are being sold now that gas is expensive? That's an example of price point switching but it'd be better if green energy prices went down to beat fossil fuels.

There's a couple of cool power generation stations going up in Nevada that use an array of parabolic mirrors to focus concentrated sunlight on fluid tanks that heat up and drive a generator turbine. A 1 megawatt and a 1-1/2 megawatt plant if I remember correctly. Now that's clean energy.

The greatest energy savings could be realized by simple architectural changes to make all new homes more passively solar. The tech has been around since the seventies.

[Scooter]

I flourescent bulb per home. Will save TONS of energy.

[ddmoit]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the results of this survey...

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=AY2638954S&news_headline=three_quarters_believe_global_warming_a_natural_occurrence

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

[Hamilton]

What are we taking a vote on it :scratch: Everyone in favor say aye.... LOL.
Whats the worlds population these days i havent heard lately.....6-7-8
billion. Gee this makes the odds like 4 billion laymen opinions vs several
thousand professional opinions. Majority rules. Maybe we should have a witch
hunt, those dang scientists!

[ddmoit]

Yeah, democracy can be scary, eh Jack?

I wouldn't put too much stock in those few thousand scientists though. I wonder how many scientists of the vast majority (in the words of the article author) are actually climate specialists? The ones who aren't are only slightly better qualified than the average Joe to have an opinion worth considering. Then there are the scientists whose funding depends on studying the things that politicians want them to and telling them what they want to hear.

[jgleason]

You've got to wonder how the calculations are made to factor out bad data being collected. Great link...

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[ddmoit]

Oh, brother. It's worse than I thought.

[Scooter]

OK, I think finally puts the issue to rest--the President has come out being very concerned about global warming:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7408504973132978571

[Bri]

This is pretty good. :)

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

[Hamilton]

Thanks for sharin that Bri.

[sandbagger]

OK, folks,

1. that is NOT an amateur video. :shake: Who paid for it? Who produced it?

2. it's good, very good - and very bad. The whole premise has so many holes it's laughable, but it addresses the viewer at a very emotional level. :sick:

3. I fully expected the guy to say at the very end "and vote for Al Gore for President." :tongue:

[HS345]

Wow, far out man. That was, like, totally............................simplistic, and downright silly. :lol1: :lol2:

This guy asserts that no one he has shown it to has been able to poke any holes in it. What, did he show it to a captive audience of single celled organisims?

Gimme a friggin' break.

Did you read any of the responses? I got through about half a dozen before I was wretching so violently I had to x out. :sick:

I fully expected the guy to say at the very end "and vote for Al Gore for President."
I expected Algore himself to come on at the end and say, "I'm Algore and I approved this message".

[Hamilton]

1. that is NOT an amateur video.
How do you know? Is your responce to this paid for by the opposing party?

The whole premise has so many holes it's laughable
Please point out the holes, i missed them.

[ckl111]

I've seen the matrix he used for his argument before only the question was "Should you believe in God". The column headings were a) believe in God or b)don't believe in God. The rows were 1) God exists or 2) God doesn't exist.

You can use the same logic to conclude you should believe in God because at worst you went to church for nothing.

[cx]

Please point out the holes, i missed them.Pretty much what Colin just said, Jack. First you gotta accept his premise. Which he may well just have made up.

In the case of global warming caused by humans, we're dealing with a scientifically quantifiable question. Unfortunately, we only recently began any actually scientific testing that will possibly one day permit us to arrive at a factual answer.

Instead we have a whole lot of emotional, and half-scientific, and political argument over the matter, some of which leads to arguments such as those presented in that film clip. That's not scientific, Jack, that's more of a debate-class gimmick to my thinking.

Is there Global Warming going on? Maybe.

If so, is any of it caused primarily by human actions of any kind? Maybe.

Would it be going on if there were no humans on the planet at all? Likely. It did the last couple time we know of.

Can we stop it if it is going on? Hardly.

Will humans adjust to whatever conditions result from it if it happens? Maybe. They did last time.

If all the humans die as a result of Global Warming if it is happening, will the universe go on as though nothing has happened? Probably.

Do we take ourownselfs too seriously at times. I think so.

Let the record show that I am generally in favor of being better stewards of our planet, but Al Gore doesn't have the answers, he's just more aware of the questions than the next guy, perhaps. And more vocal about it. But best I can tell he's not a good representative of any scientific basis for most of the claims.

My opinion; worth price charged.

[HS345]

cx, :goodpost:

[Bri]

I often wonder if you guys who believe we can't possibly elevate CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are the same people who think cigarettes don't give you lung cancer, or eating a bucket of lard everyday won't make you gain weight or give you heart disease, or that dumping raw sewage into our lakes and rivers and oceans is just OK too. I mean, think of the money we could save if we just dug a well and then placed the toilet over the same hole. For goodness sakes, we've been spewing crud into the air 24/7 since before the industrial revolution. I'm surprised God hasn't given us a collective slap upside the head years ago. :twitch:

[cx]

I'm surprised God hasn't given us a collective slap upside the head years ago.From another completely unsupportable but very popular premise, Bri.

Sure we spew plenty CO2 into the atmosphere. And what does that do? There are plenty theories, of course, but even if they are to be believed, let alone proven, how much is our total worldly output compared to a couple Mount St. Helen's size eruption from ol' Ma Nature herownself?

Not saying we shouldn't do better, Bri. See the last paragraph of my last comment. But we are but a little piece of the bigger picture, whether we want to accept that or not. This earth is capable of producing a natural event at any given time that makes our total existence meaningless by comparison, so far as environmental impact is concerned.

I'd certainly like to keep the place cleaner while I hafta live here, and I'm all in favor of everyone participating in that. But when we start trying to force the whole world to alter their lives based upon some dubious "science," I tend to get a bit defensive.

We may be warming. And I have no doubt that ten thousand years from now the planet will look a great deal different than it does today. And ten thousand years after that it will look very different again. With or without us that's gonna be the case. We'll adjust or die.

Just axe any dinosaur. :)

[Hamilton]

Yeah, so that guys opinion wasn't based on whether humans are causing
this or not. He weighed the case, in a manner kind of along the line
of "our children are the inheritants" and what do we want to do as responsible
thinking people. Encouraged everyone to come up with their own test as
well.

Can we stop it if it is going on? Hardly.
I wouldnt doubt the ability of man technically. I seriously doubt the ability
of the worlds nations to come together to work on something as large
as this type of global scale project though.

[kate42]

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/globwarmsmiley.gif (http://www.millan.net)

[dl]

You can use the same logic to conclude you should believe in God because at worst you went to church for nothing.

Interesting. But this only works if I accept the premise that if God exists then my fate is determined by whether I believe it or not. I do not accept this premise and even the Bible does not teach this (judged by your works etc).

I'm trying to see the fallacy in the global warming version of the argument simply because the argument is so convincing whether you believe it's a problem or not, but so far I don't see one.

Not even mentioned is the fact that "doing something" about global warming has other benefits even if global warming turns out not to be a problem. For instance, freeing ourselves from dependence on Arab oil.

- DL

[Bri]

how much is our total worldly output compared to a couple Mount St. Helen's size eruption from ol' Ma Nature herownself?

I see this arguement a lot CX. Of course that is a factor...lucky for us...it doesn't happen everyday 24/7. Mother nature can fix itself, if given time. Us humans never let up though.

[kate42]

:wave:

For instance, freeing ourselves from dependence on Arab oil.

Better yet, freeing ourselves from dependence on oil period. Let's find ( or use if it's out there ) cleaner, more efficient energy sources. :tup2:

[jvcstone]

Speaking as a geologist, I agree with CX in that while the planet may be warming up again, it is only human arrogance to think that some how we control nature. Still I would be buying the first lotto ticket--not because that worst outcome is better than the second scenario's worst outcome, but because investment into developing alternative, renewable, environmentally clean sources of energy can't help but be a boom for mankind's future. (thats assuming that we do have much of a future, and we quit spending all the money on destroying ourselves)

JVC

[StevieG]

it might have something to do with that big orange thing in the sky
who can say they know what the perfect temp should be

[dl]

> how much is our total worldly output compared to a couple Mount St. Helen's size eruption from ol' Ma Nature herownself?

But the fact is that volcanoes put out particulate matter and this is a cooling factor rather than a warming factor. Krakatoa cooled the earth by a degree or two for about 100 years somewhat masking the start of global warming. Also ironically the early attempts to clean the atmosphere (stack scrubbers etc) probably just added to the warming.

- DL

[Bri]

it might have something to do with that big orange thing in the sky

Ditra? :talk:

it is only human arrogance to think that some how we control nature.

Well, there are days in the summer where we are told it's dangerous to go outside and breath. People die because of air quality. It wasn't increased solar flares that put all that brown crud in the air.

[jvcstone]

But the fact is that volcanoes put out particulate matter and this is a cooling factor rather than a warming factor

Yes, but volcanoes also produce huge amounts of CO2 Read recently that one that popped off up in Alaska during the 70's put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the coal fired plants in total for the year. Course they also produce hugh amounts of other nasty stuff too--like H2S which is a big cause of acid rain.

Maybe we should just outlaw volcanoes for good.

JVC

[jvcstone]

Well, there are days in the summer where we are told it's dangerous to go outside and breath.

Good grief Bri---I think you need to move,

JVC

[dl]

Here's a 400,000 year chart of CO2 levels, temp, and sea level. (http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/climatechart.pdf) Note the "spikes" at the right end. What do you folks who believe this is all naturally caused propose to explain those spikes? Where are those spikes going to be if we wait another 100 years, or even 20 years to see what happens?

And the complete article (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=biztech&sc=&id=17057&pg=1&a=f) - worth a read imo.

- DL

[sandbagger]

ah, yes - the old CO2 "correlation" chart. One of my faves - if you're looking for a good example of bad statistics. :suspect:

Correlations are interesting things. They are basic tools of any researcher. But they are TOOLS, and just like your tile saw, must be used properly to get quality output. Correlation is a statistical technique which can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. The researcher must never assume a correlation means that a change in one variable causes a change in another. To repeat - correlation does NOT equal causation. Statistics 101. Other than the existance of a relationship, correlations don't prove anything. zero. zilch. nada.

so back to the CO2 chart. Can one say with high confidence that the two variables (CO2 & temp) are related? While there are a number of math tests one can use, observation will suffice with this much data. Yes, there is a relationship. (assuming the data is valid) From here we get into theories (or hypotheses). :blah:

Theory #1: A change in the CO2 variable causes a corresponding change in the Temp variable. But why not Theory #2: A change in the Temp variable causes a corresponding change in the CO2 variable? And while the chart give me no insight as to which might be true, it does provide a plenty of evidence why NEITHER may be true; ie, maybe there is a 3rd variable. :idea:

Let's look at the chart again. Let's accept the observed correlation between the two variables as real. Now what? Look closely at the two lines and what do you notice? This not a trick question. The two lines very nearly trace the same path; ie, it would appear that they move in unison. Or pretty darn close. But how can this be if the change in X causes a change in Y? Common sense tells us that a system as large as the ecosystem is going to take some time to react - kinda like turning a supertanker in the ocean.

The dirtly little secret about that graph is that it makes a much stronger argument for external factors causing CO2 and Temp to move in near unison; ie, a third variable. (or maybe more.) Solar activity is the most obvious, and in fact there are other charts indicating a strong relationship (sorry, will have to find later), and we know there's been an increase in solar output for several years. The sun, it seems, is not such a constant as some would lead us to believe. And there's a fourth, which may have been mentioned (by me, even) - sub-oceanic volcanos. The Ring of Fire, many scientists are starting to believe, is a primary cause of oceanic warming. And guess what? Warmer oceans correlate with higher temps and more CO2! :stick:

The bottom line? That pretty chart with 400,000 years of data tells us something. But it takes a lot more than a statistical correlation to tell us what. :yawn:

[sandbagger]

well, sorry if I was a little verbose. :o :blah: :blah: :blah:

here's some interesting info about James Hansen that has recently come to light - he's been getting more than a little help from George Soros.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

But if you're going to read Hansen, you owe it to yourself to check out Hansen's former NASA colleague - Dr Roy Spencer. It turns out Spencer felt it improper to violate the agency's public speaking policies (unlike Hansen) so he left NASA.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

I'd love to see these guys in a debate, but won't hold my breath. :gerg:

[dl]

> correlation does NOT equal causation

Art, I totally agree with you - this is one of my pet peeves. What's needed is mechanism. However trying to prove causation based on those cycles is not the reason I posted it and you answered the wrong question. Those theories you mention may be contributing factors for the cycles (which are normally attributed to solar and orbital variations), but if they explain those spikes at the right I think we would have noticed something.

To restate my question more clearly: regardless of causative factors for those cycles, given the 400,000 year history represented there, what explanation or theory do you propose for the huge anomaly at the right edge of the chart? If it is not caused by all the CO2 spewed into the air, and deforestation, what caused it? Did the sun suddenly get closer, or hotter, our orbit shift drastically? The only semi-plausible explanation I've seen is that over the years they've built parking lots and buildings around measuring stations which raise the ambient temperature and invalidate recent records relative to historical records and calculations.

- DL

[HS345]

I have a question.
On the 400,000 year chart. Those big spikes about 100,000+ years ago. Was that before, or after the industrial revolution? I'm just sayin'. :shrug:

[jvcstone]

Interesting chart, and if you take a hard look at it, it definitely demonstrates that this warming cycle is natural and repeating, and man doesn't have much to do with it at all.
The peak that seems to be occurring now after a period of glaciation that ended roughly 10 -12,000 years ago is no more dramatic than the peaks that occurred after similar periods of glaciation that ended roughly 340,000, 240,000, 140,000 years ago, or roughly every 100,000 years. Homo sapiens had absolutely nothing to do with any of them, so why do we think that we are the cause now of something that happens time and time again no matter what the dominant species happens to be.
We'll ( well the earth will) be past this peak in a few thousand years, and start sliding into another ice age. Guess the fear mongers will have the sky falling from a different direction then--oh please, lets create more CO2 or it will be the end of life as we know it.

I think we should start a pool--will homosapiens be here to usher in the next ice age, or will we be just dust on the winds of time???

JVC

[Scooter]

Most, perhaps all, of the current crop of Presidential Candidates acknowledge global warming, and most call for reducing the carbon footprint. Even John McCain, is now advocating joining the Kyoto Treaty. Fred Thompson, who mocked global warming last April, has now called for reducing the carbon footprint.

McCain actually was against it, called for hearings in 2001, and changed his mind. But I'm sure all of you have more, and better information than he reviewed in his Senate hearings.

[ddmoit]

McCain actually was against it, called for hearings in 2001, and changed his mind. But I'm sure all of you have more, and better information than he reviewed in his Senate hearings. Or, lack his ulterior motives.

[Scooter]

What motives would that be?

McCain be a lot of things, but he doesn't pander popularity--he is a straight shooter. I disagree with him on most things, but he is not a political panderer, and votes his conscience--and is not afraid to change his mind if he felt he was wrong.

[ChrisIL]

I haven't read this whole thread, but regardless of the science, I think CO2 reductions/caps will soon be a reality in the U.S.

Last week, Kansas denied a permit for a new power plant solely on the basis of its CO2 emissions. Link (http://www.kdheks.gov/press_room.htm)

Look for this decision to get appealed and go through the courts until somebody on the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether CO2 is an air pollutant. Or not.

EDIT: I see that the US Supreme Court has already decided on this issue in a case in Massechusetts. It's coming on the state level, and most would rather have a national policy/law rather than letting the states try to "one up" each other on permit issues, controls, etc...

I read/heard somewhere there are 11 climate change proposals pending before U.S. Congress. One or a few of these surely will get put into place as law soon. Maybe not before the election, but certainly in the next 2 years.

Regardless of the science, climate change will soon have an impact on the U.S. economy, as industry and auto makers adjust to whatever news laws are coming.

[HS345]

And the myth continues to crumble.

Will the mainstream media report this? (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131)

[ddmoit]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status.

[kate42]

Climate Change Brings African Disease to Europe?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313713,00.html

[HS345]

Kathleen, Haven't you heard? Everything is caused by global warming. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html)

[ITO]

It's a long read, but a good one, and I may have even posted it here before...

Aliens Cause Global Warming (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)
Michael Crichton
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

[ddmoit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_sc/divorce_environment_6;_ylt=Aj0KraH_Kp6o6WENG5HUkWUE1vAI

Imagine the legislative free-for-all that can come from this.

Right away there should be a tax (paid to the UN) on divorces and on people who don't marry by the age of 25. You greedy single people are destroying the planet!




:D

[Dave Taylor]

This study an global warming and Liu are just plain wrong......
which is just about anytime NSF and NIH team with the U of Michigan to fund a study.

We all here at TYW forums already know through extensive study what really is a PRIMARY cause of the warming of this here globe. It's plain as a smoggy day: Real Root Cause of Global Warming, yes indeedy! (http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=56635)

[sandbagger]

Kathleen, Haven't you heard? Everything is caused by global warming.now, Greg, that's just silly and you should know better. Everybody knows it George Bush's fault. Just listen to any Democrat speak about anything.

[HS345]

You're right Art. What was I thinking? :scratch:

Oh well, I'll just leave my truck running today to atone for my sin. :devil2:


Sincerely, Greg
Evil Conservative Ind. LLC

[HS345]

I dug this thread up because in the coming months leading up to the election the subject of man made global warming will become increasingly important.

Let me pose a question. Can anyone point to even ONE credible, peer reviewed study, which proves the existence of man made global warming?

[ddmoit]

I'm not sure why this would be an election issue, Greg. Both presumptive candidates of the two major parties believe in man-made climate change. Both men seem to be perfectly willing to employ the coercive force of government to address the issue. You'll have to find another issue to distinguish the two from one another.

I suppose you could make a determination about which of the two is the lesser man-made climate change evil doer.

[HS345]

Hi Dan, democracy is, and always has been an exercise in determining the lesser of "evils". No one man has the correct answer to every problem.

However, you may have inadvertently made a great point. You refer to the subject of "climate change". What happened to "global warming"? Could it be the planet doesn't "have a fever" after all? Could it be the purveyors of this hoax had to change the name because the whole "warming" thing wasn't working out?

Just askin'.

[sandbagger]

I suppose you could make a determination about which of the two is the lesser man-made climate change evil doer.that is pretty easy to do. We know that both candidates are trying to play the middle and de-emphasize their base, correct? We just saw McCain do it in his snub of Billy Graham. And while we know that the one elected will then move back, all signs clearly indicate that Obama will move much farther left than McCain will move right. In fact, we've already seen McCain start to dance a little with regard to GW.

While I think it's ridiculous how McCain is pandering to the Church of GW - and I certainly don't trust him - the damage a Democrat congress can do with Obama in the White House should motivate even a Paul supporter to suck it up and vote for McCain. :D

[HS345]

At least one politician has our best interests in mind. Dana Rohrabacher (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-warner-debate-senator-rohrabacher-do-you-really-think-the-world-is-filled-with-morons/)

[HS345]

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda. See article. (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734)

[jvcstone]

Global climate change is a much better term for what is going on. We have had record highs 7 of the first 10 days in June, but it is snowing in Seattle. Go figure. Of course, who can say what is normal and what is not since accurate climate records only go back a few hundred years, which is just a blink of the eye in this planets history. But I imagine that folks all over the globe are talking about how radical the weather has been lately.

Personally, I think it is great when people respect the environment they live in. Don't crap in your own mess kit is always good advice to follow, and in reality, this old world is our mess kit, and when we pollute, we aren't doing our selves nor coming generations any favor--even if it saves the polluter a few bucks. But to think that humanity has so much control over mother nature that we can raise or lower global temperature at will is simply human arrogance. We are once again given an emotional piece of political hogwash to focus on while our very existence as free people is being eroded. Isn't it amazing how many get sucked into the fun house of smoke and mirrors and never do look behind the curtain???

JVC

[HS345]

John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Global warming and the price of a gallon of gas. (http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html)

Everyone should read this, the Global Warming hoax is nothing more than a tool of the radical left to bring down the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth. And it just may succeed.

[ddmoit]

Greg, it's really not fair for you to pin this solely on the "radical left". Statists of all ilk are embracing climate change for the power grabbing opportunity that it is.

This isn't left vs. right. It's you vs. the state.

From what I can gather from you collection of posts, you are going to pull the lever for a man who believes the government can and should intervene when it comes to climate. Whether you want him to or not, he will interpret your vote as an endorsement of his climate change vision.

[HS345]

Dan,
Did you even read the article?
It absolutely CAN and should be pinned on the radical left, which seems to have taken over the Democrat Party.
We've been over the presidential voting process ad nauseum, I see no need to rehash them again here.

[ddmoit]

So, McCain is part of the radical left, or is he not embracing man-made climate change? Which is it?

[HS345]

McCain may not be a part of the radical left, but he certainly has been known to break bread with them. Much to his, and this nations detriment.

[sandbagger]

This isn't left vs. right. It's you vs. the state.and the Left wants a much bigger state than the right - even Bush's Right. There is a clear choice between the two candidates. Maybe not the choice many of us would like, but a choice nonetheless. Obama or McCain will become president come January. It's as simple as that. :shrug:

[jvcstone]

And no matter which one of the two wins, we will continue merrily along the path to global fascism.

JVC

[SteveVB]

And no matter which one of the two wins, we will continue merrily along the path to global fascism

Words worth repeating...

McCain may resist just a bit more than Obama, although resist may be too strong a word for McCain.

voting is a balance of lesser evils - no candidate ever embodies all of ones views. Assuming you even have views...

[HS345]

democracy is, and always has been an exercise in determining the lesser of "evils". No one man has the correct answer to every problem.

voting is a balance of lesser evils - no candidate ever embodies all of ones views.
Hey there Steve, I guess great minds think alike eh?:yeah:

Either that or..................................never mind. :uhh:

[ddmoit]

A mises.org blogger weighs in on the subject...

http://blog.mises.org/archives/008228.asp

[HS345]

Dan, :goodpost: actually, GREAT POST.

This pretty much sums up the true "environmentalist" agenda:As should be clear by now, environmentalism is not actually opposed to global warming - ending the "threat" posed by global warming is the last thing on their agenda. Their real goal is to use the global warming scare to bully the developed world into reverting into the pre-industrial, pre-civilized age. They oppose viable alternative energy sources for the same reason that they oppose viable fixes to the crises they invent - they oppose nuclear energy, hydro power, and they are organizing to oppose wind power just as it has become viable. If solar panels ever become viable, they will certainly invent reasons to oppose them too.

Environmentalism has nothing to do with protecting the environment, in fact, many of the actions taken by supposed environmentalist groups are harmful to the environment.

There are scientists who feel that solar activity plays a big role in global warming, go figure :rolleyes:, and that we may be entering a period of decreased solar activity. The next sun spot cycle is way over due, and if it doesn't come soon it could mean trouble. This has happened before, and the last time it did, there was a mini ice age. Therefore there is a very real possibility that we should be worried more about global COOLING. Global cooling would be far more devastating than global warming.

[ddmoit]

It's time to 'fess up, Greg. What did you do to the Sun spots? :rolleyes:

[MudMaker]

What did you do to the Sun spots?

Weren't they a singing group in the 50's??

[ddmoit]

You're close, Frank - just off by a handful of decades...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-VTH9Obc7s&eurl=http://www.sunspotmusic.com/

[sandbagger]

ending the "threat" posed by global warming is the last thing on their agenda.good article, but I'm surprised that this is a surprise. There's a consistent theme among Liberals that has been true - and consistent - for many years. Liberals are about issues, not solutions. Think about it - what problem has a Liberal ever solved? They certainly aren't about energy independence. The proof to that is very simple. What is the one thing that Liberals despise most about the US? It's power, of course. And what would true energy independence do to that power? :uhh: (that was a rhetorical question.)

[HS345]

It's time to 'fess up, Greg. What did you do to the Sun spots?

Here's a hint. They're burning a hole in my pocket. :devil:

[ddmoit]

I find your post somewhat ironic, Art. At once you call out liberals for being issue oriented (and at what point does McCain earn the liberal label?), and then you go off on energy independence.

The issue of energy independence is as anti-free market as ideas get.

For instance, our government for several years now, has blessed us with sugar independence. All of our sugar comes from domestic sources. No evil-doer can cut off our sugar supplies.

Unfortunately, we pay twice the going world market rate for sugar in this country. Our otherwise uncompetitive domestic sugar producers are protected by heavy tariffs on imported sugar. We've lost American jobs as candy manufactures have moved to Canada, where a relatively free market for sugar still exists.

Energy independence is just another way of saying that Americans will not be free to buy fuel from whomever they please. It's flat-out protectionism. Lastly, it's just another smoke screen to hide the insidious inflationary harm that visits all Americans courtesy of the Federal Reserve.

[HS345]

Dan, just so we're clear. Are you saying you don't like the Federal Reserve?:D

I can't speak for Art, but I suspect he is not talking about "energy independence" in the same vein as "sugar independence".

[ddmoit]

I doubt very much that Art advocates further tyranny. But, anytime our government endeavors to do anything, it does so by plundering the wealth of others, and exercising its self-declared monopoly on the use of force.

[ddmoit]

:topicoff:

Speaking of the Federal Reserve, here is one of their own charts:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?chart_type=line&width=1000&height=600&preserve_ratio=true&s[1][id]=BORROW#

[SteveVB]

Fun with statistics and graphs

try this one- same info as above different series, paints a little different picture, aggregate over a shorter period and the numbers are not as shocking, and you can see the action "quicker" not 150 billion but rather 45 billion, , if you would aggregate a year that would make your point even better- just depends on what point you want to make.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTBORR

So this shows the fed reserve lent monies to banks to keep them working, which if they didnt when everyone woke up Monday after BS fell apart no one would have anything to be writing about- the second depression would have started... scared the shit out of me on Sunday when BS said they were insolvent and the IOUs they gave to everyone were no good- a cascade from Asia was on its way until fed backed JPM stepped in.

[sandbagger]

The issue of energy independence is as anti-free market as ideas get.I couldn't disagree more, Dan. anytime our government endeavors to do anything, it does so by plundering the wealth of others, and exercising its self-declared monopoly on the use of force.and there we agree 100%. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any posts where I've advocated MORE government.

In a truly free market we'd be able to explore energy sources currently off limits. We wouldn't have the enviro wackos dictating "energy policy." Did you know it's virtually impossible to build more of the one of the cleanest energy sources of all - hydroelectric? And, yes, the free market will get us into alternate power systems for vehicles - when the economics make sense. We have enough coal for several hundred years - and it's cheap!

and now for my caveat. Does it make sense for the US to buy nothing from external sources? Probably not. So I'd like to define "independence" as the ability to choose whom we deal with.

[ddmoit]

Put that way, we may very well be in agreement.

[HS345]

Group hug!:D

[kate42]

Art, Dan

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :cheers:

[sandbagger]

:calm:

[StevieG]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusTO

[HS345]

Stevie, your link doesn't lead to anything.

Is this the George Carlin video you were trying to link to? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0

George Carlin was a conservative? Who'da thunk it? :yipee:

[MudMaker]

Rush Friday was saying that he was a Liberal... What's up? Which was he?? :confused:

[HS345]

I think he was both, and neither, Frank. I was just kidding, because of the way he was talking about environmentalists in the YouTube video. :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

[MudMaker]

Kinda half n half.... :)

A caller on Friday I believe, said that he (Rush) should play that dialog more often, and Rush's comment was that it may mean more coming from a Liberal than he...

[ddmoit]

I get the impression from Rush that he believes anyone who disagrees with him is a liberal. I know many of his listeners believe that; I get accused of being a liberal now and again from avid Rushbo fans.

Anyone who listened to George Carlin at all would know he is not a liberal. He had nothing but contempt for authority - especially self-proclaimed authority. It's hard to be liberal (or conservative) with that attitude. If anything, I'd say he had libertarian leanings, but mostly he was a man who thought for himself. I didn't always agree with his positions, but I respect that he thought for himself.

[flatfloor]

I have to agree with George and his view of saving species. It's out of control and I strongly suspect ulterior motor driven.

For example here on L.I. we have the Okeanos Foundation dedicated to preserving marine life. All I have ever seen them save is a few sickly or wounded Dolphins, turtles, and one or two small non-endangered whales at a cost of millions raised through public funds and private contributions.

No threat here to those species if nature took her course and they died.

[ddmoit]

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.
In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. On was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

[ddmoit]

The late, brilliant, Michael Crichton on scientific consensus....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus

[sandbagger]

"consensus science" is an oxymoron, brought to you by a bunch of morons who think we the public are morons. sadly, the latter may be more than a little true. :rolleyes:

[HS345]

What you mean we, white man?:D

[MudMaker]

Climate Change

"This is a matter of urgency and of national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way," Obama said.
What exactly constitutes a "Serious Way"? :rolleyes:

[sandbagger]

Obama is only serious about one thing - raising taxes. In spite of all his "moderation," I have absolutely no doubt that the question is not 'if' but 'when.'