Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 48):
Stricter regulations will push the oil companies and/or others to try to better develop alternative energy sources.

Oil companies are all for it. Big revenue generating opportunity, better shareholder value, etc. and bragging rights. Problem is that consumers won't pay more for it. The only way this is going to work is to legislate traditional cars out of the market (effectively making them illegal) and replace them with new generation cars with alternative fuels.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:54 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 50):
Oil companies are all for it. Big revenue generating opportunity, better shareholder value, etc. and bragging rights. Problem is that consumers won't pay more for it. The only way this is going to work is to legislate traditional cars out of the market (effectively making them illegal) and replace them with new generation cars with alternative fuels.

Let me clarify that when I say they are all for it I am referring to the development of fuel alternatives, not tighter regulation.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8593
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:04 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6505127.stm

According to the article above, even running out of Oil would ruin the environment. So guys, don't stress about emissions, we are all dead anyways   

We are on a "highway to extinction" according to another BBC article from last week. . .

edit: typo

[Edited 2007-04-03 21:07:43]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 15):
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12):
Even then you'll have to convince me that it was actually man and not some other source that caused the change. So far all I have seen is a concentration of what man is doing to the almost total exclusion of any

Because in the news tailored to gnat-like attention spans the wider background usually gets stripped off and only the "most interesting" aspects remain.

No, the real science has been butchered by people with political and financial agendas.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 20):
And of course anyone who would dare question the science is automatically treated to name calling and ridicule.

I agree with your point but, strictly speaking, it's those who scientifically question the politicised version who are being shut out.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 27):
Original 2001 report; Current IPPC report undergoing final drafting with present conference:

That would be final "selective editing".

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
Why doesn't this get the same press that the graph showing CO2 following temperature change does?

Bingo.

If the IPCC is so sure their "science" is sound:

  • Why do they dismiss the real evidence that CO2 levels lag temperature levels. I.e. CO2 levels cannot be responsible for temperature levels but the reverse may be true.
  • Why do they ignore the fact that solar activity levels correlate much more closely to temperature levels?
  • Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators?
  • Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing?


Why is it that any scientist who tries to use the unpoliticised science is dismissed as biased and obviously paid by the energy industry, with no evidence required?

Why is it that those who've jumped on the bandwagon are accepted as obviously unbiased, even though there's clearly huge political and even financial gain to be made by doing so?

  • How much funding and political mileage is there in saying the world's coming to an end and it's our fault but... if you give me loads of funding and a secure job for life, I'll find a way to save mankind?
  • How much funding and political mileage is there in saying it's just the way the world is, there's not a lot we can do about it?


We keep being told that the climate models are so accurate now that there's no longer any doubt. The models predict temperature levels will rise due to a rise in CO2 levels because they're designed to. Well, if you base your models on a fundamentally flawed theory, your model is bollocks.

Not content with that, the propaganda merchants start to predict ever more frightening weather patterns - worldwide flooding and hurricanes, yet man-made global warming actually predicts that more extreme latitudes will be affected more than the equator. That should mean a more uniform temperature across the planet therefore less severe weather... but you don't get funding, a secure job and/or political credit if the disaster you're saving us from is no big deal.

The whole thing is just too convenient for anti-capitalists - that's why it's gained so much momentum. Anyone who hides behind such travesties as the IPCC report should be obliged to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle (available on YouTube now, I believe) and answer the damn questions instead of spouting political propaganda.

It's probably obvious that I'm a bit "upset" by this. As I said in another recent thread, it was amusing for a while until I realised how much the political interests had swamped and mutilated the real science. I find this far more frightening than the threat of global warming.

What next? An intergovernmental study showing that gravity is getting weaker and we all need to abandon our western, industrial lifestyles and pay more tax or the earth will fall apart? An intergovernmental study showing that scientists are surplus to requirements because the future lies with intergovernmental studies?
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:49 am

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 23):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):

Why doesn't this get the same press that the CO2 graph following temperature change does?

Because you can't make taxes on travel due to the sun? Because you can't get elected that way? I don't know. Mainly because it's not what's currently acceptable, I think.

Oops, sorry, Halcyon, I meant to include your reply to PPVRA in my post above. The "Bingo" was directed at both of your comments.  Smile
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:18 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 27):
A rhetorical device, clearly, but I hope you understand that that is the agreed ultimate consequence should the Greenland ice cap and major ice sheets of Antartica melt. I will not here try and convince you this is happening. Take a look at the recent official international reports on the subject (IPPC).

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Director of the IARC, says that this is not true.  Smile And he's an expert in his field.

Quoting David L (Reply 53):



Quoting David L (Reply 54):

Oops, sorry, Halcyon, I meant to include your reply to PPVRA in my post above. The "Bingo" was directed at both of your comments. Smile

Thank you, and that post was excellent. I'm glad that you took the time to write that all, because it's so spot on. We have all sorts of people who say, well, I think that those 2500 (Oh really, are they all scientists? As you talked about above.) know what they are talking about. Just because some person says it's true does not make it so. And when you look at the counter evidence (which has a lot more concurrent evidence, and not one all important "CO2 preceeds temperature!,"), you might see why the whole thing does not really fit together and why getting so worked up about the whole thing is probably doing nothing but hurting your health!  Smile
 
ozglobal
Topic Author
Posts: 2597
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:58 am

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 55):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 27):
A rhetorical device, clearly, but I hope you understand that that is the agreed ultimate consequence should the Greenland ice cap and major ice sheets of Antartica melt. I will not here try and convince you this is happening. Take a look at the recent official international reports on the subject (IPPC).

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Director of the IARC, says that this is not true. Smile And he's an expert in his field.

And a hundred other experts say that it is in the intergovernmental study. You will always find some diversity of scientific opinion on any given topic. How long did it take you to find this one?
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:16 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 56):
How long did it take you to find this one?

I knew it off the top of my head. How many times have you been open to different opinions? How many of these scientists are actually experts in their fields? How many are agreeing to go with the herd? How many people don't want to lose research money?

The earth has seen great changes and will continue to. There is no reason to believe, based on past evidence, that this trend won't die off soon. Cleaner environments are always better, but do you really have to regulate tooth and nail? One of the largest problems I have with global warming is how political it's become. I'm also upset that all the "evidence" I've seen could be so easily skewed. This can work both ways, too, so don't try to get me there.

Also, I do believe in global warming, if you have not gotten this, but I highly doubt that humans are the largest cause.

Off for now,
Lucas

EDIT: Off to dinner and then a 6:30-9:30 PSY class. Oz, I did not actually think that I'd left that IARC thing in there. I started typing it after you first posted that, but then I got bored and closed the window out. FF saved it for me though, so I guess I'm just lucky.  Wink

[Edited 2007-04-04 02:21:44]
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:34 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 49):
That is far different than...

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 48):
but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so

Nowhere in the Constitution is the SC given the power to mandate what a regulatory agency in the Executive Branch must regulate.

Understood, and editorializing or not, given the current make-up of Congress, EPA action on this sort of thing appears likely. Trust me, as our largest client, we keep a close eye on the political climate just so we can figure out if we all need to get new jobs because of blanket cuts for their funding.

As to the Supreme Court issue, it is a far cry from actually doing anything, but I'll bet they will, especially if a Democrat is elected to the White House in 2008.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:38 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 56):
Quoting Halcyon (Reply 55):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 27):
A rhetorical device, clearly, but I hope you understand that that is the agreed ultimate consequence should the Greenland ice cap and major ice sheets of Antartica melt. I will not here try and convince you this is happening. Take a look at the recent official international reports on the subject (IPPC).

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Director of the IARC, says that this is not true. Smile And he's an expert in his field.

And a hundred other experts say that it is in the intergovernmental study.

But how long do they say it will take? I asked you before to post any reliable source that states this will happen in any of our lifetime...
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:35 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 58):
but I'll bet they will, especially if a Democrat is elected to the White House in 2008.

Whether this suit had had any success a democrat in the WH in 2008 means more money will flow from the individual to the coffers of the U.S. Treasuary. It is in their nature to take.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:54 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 56):
And a hundred other experts say that it is in the intergovernmental study

That IPCC report includes non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators, in its list of "2500 scientists who agree". It also includes scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing. It's an affront to science. They threw out any evidence that was inconvenient and turned what was left upside down.

The usual argument that "a hundred other scientists think this" or "a thousand other scientists think that" is irrelevant if the whole basis for the theory is clearly flawed. It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks about Step 5 if Step 1 can't happen.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 56):
You will always find some diversity of scientific opinion on any given topic. How long did it take you to find this one?

It's not hidden away anywhere, it's the kind of thing real scientists, not motivated by political fame, have been saying for years but it's becoming increasingly trendy for people not to listen unless it's been given their flavour of politics. What room is there for diversity of opinion when the data shows CO2 levels cannot be driving temperature levels? CO2 levels follow temperature levels. If you can't get past that stage, there is absolutely no point in spending time, money and resources trying to predict what the result will be.

The propaganda only works because its fundamental flaws are brushed aside so it can get to the main part of its agenda. It's not science.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:50 pm

I'm not understanding why China, expected to become the world's largest producer of CO2 this year, is held exempt from any concerns? They are producing on average a new coal power plant every day. Where is the outrage? Is the concern they have no money? Bullsh*t.
I say this as someone who is scrapping a Mercedes because it will no longer pass smog tests here. Meantime they've never heard of such a thing in parts of Asia that will make your eyes burn. Screw the whiney Euros, we know they would like us to pay for their benefit, that was the real point of Kyoto.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:48 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 6):
I have yet to be more amazed at pollution than my visit to Beijing a couple of years ago. Hardly any of the vehicles in use there would pass a tailpipe test here in the states. When I see them doing something to curb their emmisions then I'll start to wonder why we are not doing something more about ours. I have not been to India but I would not be surprised to find the same conditions there.

All 4-wheeler passenger transport in India must comply with a minimum of Bharat II emission standard (equivalent to Euro II). In the 10-15 major cities, all vehicles sold must comply with Bharat III (~Euro III) norms. By 2010, all passenger vehicles must comply with Bharat/Euro III norms, while those sold in major metros (~80% of total) must meet Bharat/Euro IV norms. Two wheelers and commercial vehicles have their own norms. See this link .

Fundamentally, the fact that pollution is such an issue today is the result of cumulative output from the development in the western world. The development of India and China may bring things closer to the tipping point, but it is the developed world whose pollution brought things this far. It is upto them to pay the majority of the price. It becomes a question of those who are prosperous not wanting to give it up or compromise, against those who are making a dash towards prosperity who are unwilling to take the foot off the pedal .

In a society like India, the voices of conservation get heard even as the desire to be prosperous drives us forward. Undoubtedly we'll cause a lot of pollution going forward, but that does not mean we do nothing about it. Rapid industrialization is inherently polluting, and mankind has not found a sweeping commercially viable solution to entirely eliminate that pollution; given a cheaper polluting option we'll pick it. To blame us of shortsightedness or deliberate ignorance is useless - all the pollution that ever occured were a result of the same, and our attitude is no different.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:58 pm

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 55):
I'm glad that you took the time to write that all

It was very late last night so I just got the main points out in my last post and didn't thank you. Believe me, it was hardly any effort at all - this has been building up inside me (and many, many others) for a few months and my only difficulty is regulating how much spews forth when I open the release valve.  Smile

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
In a society like India, the voices of conservation get heard even as the desire to be prosperous drives us forward. Undoubtedly we'll cause a lot of pollution going forward, but that does not mean we do nothing about it.

But there's no scientific evidence that you'll be contributing to global warming. In fact, the science suggests otherwise. Local pollution is, of course, another matter.

Another issue of the propaganda concerns rising sea levels. If this is caused by global warming, why isn't the rise uniform across the planet? Why is the sea level only rising in some places and not others, e.g. the Maldives. It couldn't possibly be due to land rising and falling, as it's been doing since it was formed, because there's no planet-saving solution to that, therefore no money, job security or fame.  sarcastic 

This scare mongering is no more than an attempt to trick people into changing their views to suit other people's political agendas: usher the people past the basic facts without letting them get a good look, blind them with irrelevant "science", scare them into submission then implement the master plan... which has nothing to do with the environment. It's fraudulent.

All the scientific evidence suggests we're witnessing completely natural variations in the earth's climate. It's been hotter before and mankind, animals and plants all just got on with it.

Ignoring the evidence that CO2 levels cannot be driving temperature levels is scandalous. Dismissing the correlation with solar activity as being irrelevant is scandalous. It is not science.

Those who know me know I'm all for state sponsored healthcare and social security - I'm not a "complete capitalist" - but I will not sit back and watch our lifestyles being attacked with fake science for purely political reasons. Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can do other than persuade as many people as possible to look at the real science and not blindly follow the propaganda just because it suits their political needs.


 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:28 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 64):
blindly follow the propaganda just because it suits their political needs.

It's like "fighting crime" or "improving education" as a political platform...the whole global warming issue has become an opportunity for politicians to appear that they are behind something -- after all, who isn't for cleaner air? "Hey, this guy is going to clean up the environment!" Yet at the same time consumers refuse to accept responsibility (I don't mean 100% of consumers...I know a lot of us recycle, curb consumption, etc so no letters please-I'm talking general terms).

Pure population growth has a big impact on the environment--but don't dare tell people they shouldn't have so many kids. We have a "need" for all of these electrical devices and we just find the nearest wall outlet without thinking about what it really means.

Then, you have public outrage every winter when electric bills go up a few dollars because utilities have to pay for gas-fired generation instead of cheaper coal-fired generation.

Yet politics has allowed us to reduce the problem into blanket hyperbole about industries and a single adminstration and a single unsigned treaty. It's so much more complex than that.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 65):
the whole global warming issue has become an opportunity for politicians to appear that they are behind something

And the problem is even worse now as all political parties jump on the bandwagon. They have to "outgreen" each other with more and more extreme, and unnecessary measures.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 65):
Pure population growth has a big impact on the environment

Locally, yes, but not on climate.  Smile
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:11 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 66):
Quoting 767Lover (Reply 65):
Pure population growth has a big impact on the environment

Locally, yes, but not on climate. Smile

Oh. I would disagree. The more people, the more housing/food/goods needed, the more electricity burned, the more cars, bigger cars to haul bigger families...etc etc etc
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 67):
Oh. I would disagree. The more people, the more housing/food/goods needed, the more electricity burned, the more cars, bigger cars to haul bigger families...etc etc etc

Not at anything like the current population level. There will be local pollution where a factory's speweing out fumes or pouring waste into a river. The scientific evidence indicates that greenhouse gases, let alone those which are man are "manmade", are not responsible for climate change. If it were the case, why was it warmer in the Medieval Period than it is now yet there were far fewer people causing much less polution?

Seriously, the evidence suggests that the notion that we can affect the climate by changing our habits is like telling people not to swim in the sea because it will divert the Gulf Stream.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:42 am

Quoting David L (Reply 64):
But there's no scientific evidence that you'll be contributing to global warming. In fact, the science suggests otherwise. Local pollution is, of course, another matter.

I don't recall mentioning global warming in my previous post in the first place. I dealt exclusively with the question of pollution, and answered a question about emission standards for automobiles in India. There are decent standards and they are enforced. For examples, in the New Delhi capital region, all public transport - bus, taxi and autorickshaw - runs on CNG, not diesel/petrol. There's also a metro. Someone like me who experienced Delhi in the late 1990s through today has seen a significant improvement in the quality of the Delhi air. Back then it was intolerable, with an acrid pall of smog everywhere. That's not the case anymore.

From a developing nation's perspective, the debate that is more relevant is not global warming but balancing growth with the need to minimize pollution from a quality of life perspective. Typically the phase of rising industrialization is always a polluting one. Tokyo of the 1950s and 60s was smogfilled stifling mess. That's not the case today. Similarly, New Delhi or Beijing are going through their own Tokyo in the 1950s phase now. IMO the global warming debate merely detracts from a genuine emphasis towards conservation and pollution reduction, by hardening peoples' positions over the debate and not allowing them to think beyond.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
Two wheelers and commercial vehicles have their own norms

I'll wait for the day I see these held to some sort of pollution standard.



But you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breathe waiting for it to happen.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
Fundamentally, the fact that pollution is such an issue today is the result of cumulative output from the development in the western world. The development of India and China may bring things closer to the tipping point, but it is the developed world whose pollution brought things this far.

Of which who has benefited? Can you name one country that hasn't had to start from scratch to get those benefits unlike the industrialized west? Let me give you a hint, it starts with the letter I.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
It is upto them to pay the majority of the price.

I'm sorry but that is BS. The technology you so valiantly point to above has been in place in this country since the mid 1970's. Blaming us for your countries failing at not adopting the same proven technology for 30 years is ridiculous. The fact remains your country will still have how many millions of these things running around without any emissions controls for how many years?

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f294/DrHansZarkov/India-Delhi-driver_of_moped_at_stop.jpg

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
It becomes a question of those who are prosperous not wanting to give it up or compromise, against those who are making a dash towards prosperity who are unwilling to take the foot off the pedal .

In this country more steel mills and auto plants have been closing than have been opening for decades. Those that remain are probably held to some of the strictest pollution standards anywhere. Can India say the same? This kind of assumption makes CO2 out to be some sort of substance that never goes away, like DDT. Every time it rains pollution in the form of CO2 and sulphur dixoides get washed from the sky. It's how acid rain used to form and kill the trees on the east coast of our country. But we recognized that problem and made serious attempts to fix that, years ago. So by your argument, we should have to pay more even though we have been doing more over the past few decades to clean up the air. Mean while in your country....



Pollution controls seem to be a Johnny come lately idea. How about if you pay extra as a penalty for not using proven existing technology sooner?

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
In a society like India, the voices of conservation get heard even as the desire to be prosperous drives us forward.

Yep, that's why there are over a billion of you trying to exist on a land area only a little more than a third the land area size of our country. If you take out Alaska and Hawaii your country still is less than half the size of ours. Yet as of 2005 our birth rate is only two thirds of of yours. How about if we charge your country extra for just polluting the world with more people that just consume more and add to the stress on the food chain and other, nonrenewable, resources?

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 63):
To blame us of shortsightedness or deliberate ignorance is useless -

Just as claiming that our country should pay more than any other simply because we discovered or invented a lot of those things which makes life more enjoyable for all today.  faint 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2586
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:31 am

RXdjer: I have no intention of getting into a torn shirt open fly argument with you. The assertion is that India pollutes and will continue to pollute significant regardless of the number of emission standards or level of enforcement as a byproduct of rising industrialization.

A cheaper and more polluting technology will be used more than a cleaner but more expensive one. It is the free market at work. The emphasis will always remain on growth, even if it pollutes. It is that simple. The US went through its own phase of heavy industrialization and pollution before laws and technology caught up. India will do the same - pollution from India will increase significantly in the near future before it starts to taper. The availability of clean technology is not sufficient; its commercial viability is more important.

Further, we do all this entirely on the basis of our drive to develop, not because someone else pollutes a lot. There's no national debate on not enforcing pollution standards because X country also pollutes. If the US argument regarding pollution and Kyoto is that China and India are not involved, that is your argument. Our argument has nothing to do with China or the US being used as a copout; heavy industrialization entails pollution, and clean commercially viable technologies do not entirely address it. Reducing industrialization is not an option. It may be to the US, but not to us.
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:04 am

I must say that most of the Americans in this thread are not reflecting well upon our country to the world. At this point, questioning global warming is like questioning evolution or gravity. The science is as solid as science gets. And time is too short for squabbling over the shadow of a doubt present. There's a shadow of a doubt in Einstein's mechanics too, that doesn't mean we stop building airplanes and spacecraft until we're absolutely, positively, 100% sure it's right.

To sit here and whine that we have to reduce our CO2 emissions while poor countries don't is asinine. First, there aren't too many Chinese or Indians with anywhere near enough money to drive a Suburban around, or even enough to buy anything that uses electricity. Second, America is supposed to be a country that sets an example for the rest of the world. The issue that I see among the far right wing in this country is that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You guys still think the rest of the world is as down at America's knees as it was during the days of the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods System, and you want to trample over and scoff at the rest of the world accordingly, but on other issues you take the most cowardly stand possible. If you really want to be the generation that presides over America's decline from pre-eminance to a second rate power, and hand over the mantle of global power to an increasingly united Europe, China, and India, go ahead and start here. I just hope our next president has the cajones to ignore you and take the global lead on climate change. America needs its credibility back and this is the ready-made solution.

If America doesn't take the lead on climate change, I fear my children will not have an earth worth living on. If America doesn't take the lead on something, I fear my children will not have have a world worth living in.

For those of you who've been members of this site for several years and haven't seen me in a while, this post might come as a bit of a surprise. But a lot has changed since I last showed up here. I was wrong then, and I'm going to fight for what's right now.
 
ozglobal
Topic Author
Posts: 2597
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:10 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
I must say that most of the Americans in this thread are not reflecting well upon our country to the world. At this point, questioning global warming is like questioning evolution or gravity. The science is as solid as science gets. And time is too short for squabbling over the shadow of a doubt present. There's a shadow of a doubt in Einstein's mechanics too, that doesn't mean we stop building airplanes and spacecraft until we're absolutely, positively, 100% sure it's right.

To sit here and whine that we have to reduce our CO2 emissions while poor countries don't is asinine. First, there aren't too many Chinese or Indians with anywhere near enough money to drive a Suburban around, or even enough to buy anything that uses electricity. Second, America is supposed to be a country that sets an example for the rest of the world. The issue that I see among the far right wing in this country is that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You guys still think the rest of the world is as down at America's knees as it was during the days of the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods System, and you want to trample over and scoff at the rest of the world accordingly, but on other issues you take the most cowardly stand possible. If you really want to be the generation that presides over America's decline from pre-eminance to a second rate power, and hand over the mantle of global power to an increasingly united Europe, China, and India, go ahead and start here. I just hope our next president has the cajones to ignore you and take the global lead on climate change. America needs its credibility back and this is the ready-made solution.

If America doesn't take the lead on climate change, I fear my children will not have an earth worth living on. If America doesn't take the lead on something, I fear my children will not have have a world worth living in.

For those of you who've been members of this site for several years and haven't seen me in a while, this post might come as a bit of a surprise. But a lot has changed since I last showed up here. I was wrong then, and I'm going to fight for what's right now.

L.1011, Welcome to my respected users list....
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
At this point, questioning global warming is like questioning evolution or gravity.

Spoken as a child.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
The science is as solid as science gets.

Science exists to question science, so that statement has no validity.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
First, there aren't too many Chinese or Indians with anywhere near enough money to drive a Suburban around,

Which do you think there are more of in the world, those vespa's in dire need of repair, or suburbans?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
If America doesn't take the lead on climate change, I fear my children will not have an earth worth living on.

The industrial revolution started when? And you children aren't going to have a planet to live on? Now just exactly who is scare mongering?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
pbottenb
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:27 am

Quoting YWG" class=quote target=_blank>YWG (Reply 21):
To put it into a basic idea, humanity is slowly ....



blah...blah

insert 10000 words here

.....blah blah...blah....




that “technology will save us” is only a dream of many politicians and something must be done within the next upcoming generation of people or else we are finished.

YWG



The Living Planet Report 2004
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/lp...4.pdf

This must have been the longest post in the history of a.net. Do you really think that you will affect any change in behaivior by pasting 10,000+ words on an internet forum? Its this kind of ridiculous rant that makes many people who are concerned, but not yet convinced, think that global warming is the rantings of abunc of lunatics...

PB
 
MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:52 am

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 75):
Do you really think that you will affect any change in behaivior by pasting 10,000+ words on an internet forum? I

In all fairness, it was only 1,945 words, and he did split it into two paragraphs to make it read easier....  sarcastic 

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 75):
Its this kind of ridiculous rant that makes many people who are concerned, but not yet convinced, think that global warming is the rantings of abunc of lunatics...

Very true. Similar to the warning of imminent flooding of our major cities that I commented on earlier. I've asked twice for the person making that warning to post just when this flooding is likely to occur. So far I've been ignored, and I know the reason is that worst case scenarios say this might happen centuries from now....
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:25 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 73):
L.1011, Welcome to my respected users list....

Ewww, a French respected user list?

Just kidding.  Wink

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74):
Spoken as a child.

Way to dodge the issue...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74):
Science exists to question science, so that statement has no validity.

Of course it does. Where exactly is the questioning science? Just as no one has released a scientific paper extolling the evidence for intelligent design or against gravity recently, the scientific arguments against climate change and against doing something about it are weak to say the least.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74):
The industrial revolution started when?

Hypocricy is bliss, isn't it? On the one hand, there's no way that a mere 200-odd years of polluting can cause climate change, but on the other hand if climate change hasn't happened that big long 200-odd years, there's no way it's ever going to happen. It's like saying if I get in my car, and drive for 2 minutes, I can't expect a crash to have already happened because I've only been in the car for two minutes, but at the same time if a car crash hasn't already happened in those two minutes, there's no way it'll happen. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 200 years is a lot less than a blink of an eye.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74):
And you children aren't going to have a planet to live on? Now just exactly who is scare mongering?

I never accused you of scare mongering. And I never said they won't have a planet to live on. I question whether a world characterized by rapidly shrinking landmasses, constant severe weather, wild swings between heat and cold, drought and flood in formally comfortable areas, rapidly declining biodiversity, and the crushing realization that one's parents and grandparents may have just sent the species on its way to extinction is worth living on. The fact is, this is something worth scaremongering about.

Look, I question the wisdom of environmentalists whose mantra is based on sacrifice by residents in the developed world. I want my cheap, processed foods, my unnecessarily large house, and my Chevy Suburban or my high-powered BMW just as much as any other good American. With real leadership and real vision, we can convert to fully renewable electricity. We can replace petroleum as a transportation fuel with, rather than inefficient, ineffective corn-based ethanol, biobutanol based on sugar or plant waste. We can be plenty environmentally responsible and maintain our standard of living. As I said before, it just takes cajones on the part of someone in power.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:44 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
Where exactly is the questioning science?

As stated above, if it falls outside of a very narrow line, that being it's all mans fault, it's suppressed and ridiculed. William F Buckley JR had it completely right in his column the other day:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4682449.html

And in this thread as well....

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
Why doesn't this get the same press that the graph showing CO2 following temperature change does?

Yet that fact is all but ignored.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
On the one hand, there's no way that a mere 200-odd years of polluting can cause climate change, but on the other hand if climate change hasn't happened that big long 200-odd years, there's no way it's ever going to happen.

And yet we are all going to DIE in 50 years if you believe Al Gore. And the planet will be made almost uninhabitable in the same time frame, kids and grandkids, if we listen to you....

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
I fear my children will not have an earth worth living on.

Which means that somehow, you expect the idyllic world we live in to continue forever, regardless of what we can see of it's violent past, that was completely void of man. I equate this with those that say we shouldn't touch an old growth forest. Something was there before the old growth forest and something touched it to make room for the forest that is there today.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
I never accused you of scare mongering.

Correct, I accuse you, and all others like you that want to cry that the sky is falling and it's all our fault and that we can actually stop the sun from burning hotter, or in any way shape or form impinge upon a natural cycle that is older than the species known as man. Only vanity makes someone think that way.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
I question whether a world characterized by rapidly shrinking landmasses, constant severe weather, wild swings between heat and cold, drought and flood in formally comfortable areas, rapidly declining biodiversity, and the crushing realization that one's parents and grandparents may have just sent the species on its way to extinction is worth living on. The fact is, this is something worth scaremongering about.

Unless of course, that type of world is the norm and the small slice of relative peacefulness we have experienced in that past couple of thousand years is the abnormal. Ever think about that? But take heart, from the Buckley column the other day:

There is, now and then, offsetting good news. The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have learned, will be less pessimistic than earlier reports. It will predict, e.g., a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century, substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches — and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:42 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
Hypocricy is bliss, isn't it?

Yes, it is:

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
Look, I question the wisdom of environmentalists whose mantra is based on sacrifice by residents in the developed world. I want my cheap, processed foods, my unnecessarily large house, and my Chevy Suburban or my high-powered BMW just as much as any other good American.

Hmmm.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 69):
I don't recall mentioning global warming in my previous post in the first place.

I was just just pre-empting others from making the accusation.  Smile

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
At this point, questioning global warming is like questioning evolution or gravity.

No, at this point the manmade global warming propaganda is like questioning evolution or gravity. Look at the science, not the politics. The so-called "science" offered by the political scare mongers is as distorted, butchered and dishonest as it gets. Its apologists continue to ignore the fundamental questions and try to conduct the battle in an area that has no relevance to the issue.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
Where exactly is the questioning science? Just as no one has released a scientific paper extolling the evidence for intelligent design or against gravity recently, the scientific arguments against climate change and against doing something about it are weak to say the least.

Absolute nonsense. The scientific arguments against manmade climate change are easy to find but also, apparently, easy to dismiss if they don't suit your political agenda. Time and time again the real science is swept under the carpet and the announcement is made that "the debate is over". Open your eyes, take your fingers out of your ears, look at the evidence and listen to the science - it is there.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
It's like saying if I get in my car, and drive for 2 minutes, I can't expect a crash to have already happened because I've only been in the car for two minutes, but at the same time if a car crash hasn't already happened in those two minutes, there's no way it'll happen. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 200 years is a lot less than a blink of an eye

Again ignoring the fact that the scientific objection to the propaganda contains real substance and considers evidence from millennia of data.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
Way to dodge the issue...

Talking of dodging the issue, what about addressing the fundamental flaws in the propaganda you appear to support?

Again I ask:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):


Why do they dismiss the real evidence that CO2 levels lag temperature levels. I.e. CO2 levels cannot be responsible for temperature levels but the reverse may be true.

Why do they ignore the fact that solar activity levels correlate much more closely to temperature levels?

Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators?

Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing?

Why is it that any scientist who tries to use the unpoliticised science is dismissed as biased and obviously paid by the energy industry, with no evidence required?

Why is it that those who've jumped on the bandwagon are accepted as obviously unbiased, even though there's clearly huge political and even financial gain to be made by doing so?

How much funding and political mileage is there in saying the world's coming to an end and it's our fault but... if you give me loads of funding and a secure job for life, I'll find a way to save mankind?

How much funding and political mileage is there in saying it's just the way the world is, there's not a lot we can do about it?

Why is data that shows clearly how CO2 levels cannot be driving temperature levels used by the propagandists to "prove" the opposite? Did they think no-one would bother to check the facts as long as they lied about "2500 scientists" agreeing? Did they think that if they showed a graph of temperature levels near (but not too near  sarcastic  ) a graph of CO2 levels, people would fall for it? I guess so, since it's the whole basis of their propaganda.

IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:16 am

David L has been added to your repsected user list.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 81):

Thank you so much - Halcyon, too. However, I'm doing this for me because I'm getting really peed off by it.  biggrin 

I've been a member here since 1999 and built up pretty good relationships with some A.netters. It's inevitable that my rantings on global warming are going ruin some of those and I'm sorry about that but it really is one issue where I find it difficult to remain diplomatic to preserve those relationships. It makes me mad!  hissyfit 

On other issues we can disagree and we know there's no point in going too far because it's all a matter of opinion, e.g. politics. However, on this issue there is a lot of well defined evidence to discuss, some of which is not open to opinion and can only be countered with political double-talk.

As someone who studied physics at university, I'm outraged by the blatant abuse of science in this matter. I really do find it quite frightening in a "Big Brother" way. If politicians can overrule science in this manner, and so easily, I dread to think what their future "projects" might include.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting David L (Reply 68):
The scientific evidence indicates that greenhouse gases, let alone those which are man are "manmade", are not responsible for climate change.

Ah. Okay. I see your point -- I was thinking "environmental impact" not specifically "climate" (even though that's what the thread title states -- my bad.)
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:59 am

I've just watched The Great Global Warming Swindle again and it occurred to me that I may have been putting too much effort into detailing the scientific points when the argument can be summed up thus:

Propagandists: "The debate is over. Don't bother examining the science, just take my word for it. Now you have to change your political point of view to match mine".

Scientists: "Examine the science very carefully... please!".

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 83):
Ah. Okay. I see your point -- I was thinking "environmental impact" not specifically "climate" (even though that's what the thread title states -- my bad.)

No problem, I assumed that's what you meant but I couldn't risk letting it go.  Smile
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
if it falls outside of a very narrow line, that being it's all mans fault, it's suppressed and ridiculed.



Quoting David L (Reply 80):
The so-called "science" offered by the political scare mongers is as distorted, butchered and dishonest as it gets. Its apologists continue to ignore the fundamental questions and try to conduct the battle in an area that has no relevance to the issue.



Quoting David L (Reply 80):
Open your eyes, take your fingers out of your ears, look at the evidence and listen to the science - it is there.

I think we'd all like to see this alleged science. From real scientists, not the Competitive Enterprise Institute or William F. Buckley Jr.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
Why doesn't this get the same press that the graph showing CO2 following temperature change does?

Yet that fact is all but ignored.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
we can actually stop the sun from burning hotter

No one is suggesting that we can change the temperature of the sun. But the fact is, solar output is much less important than insolation. 93 million miles of space, a few hundred miles of atmosphere, and an ozone layer do wonders to insulate us from the sun's fits and tantrums. It's not as though temperatures on earth vary along the 11 year sunspot cycles or spike around the world every time there's a solar flare.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
And yet we are all going to DIE in 50 years if you believe Al Gore.

I'm going to assume, judging from your political positions, that you're a fairly religious person. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Working on that assumption, isn't it equally alarmist to worry about, prepare for, or act in such a way as to not be left behind by the Rapture? Oh wait, you're one of those Christians that doesn't take all of the Bible literally? I'm one of those environmentalists that doesn't take the word of Al Gore literally. No one is suggesting that Greenland's ice sheet is going to slide off tomorrow and we're all going to be drowned by the huge splash.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
Only vanity makes someone think that way.

The same sort of vanity that makes you think that God gives a crap if you go to your pointy building every week? Again, please correct my assumption if it's incorrect.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
And the planet will be made almost uninhabitable in the same time frame, kids and grandkids, if we listen to you....

Let's not exaggerate what I said. The planet won't be uninhabitable, but the standards of living we currently enjoy in the developed world will be very difficult to maintain, because so much money will be soaked up by projects to offset the effects of climate change. You can essentially write off the developing world. It's not as though I'm pulling these predictions out of my ass, there's plenty of science to back them up.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
Which means that somehow, you expect the idyllic world we live in to continue forever, regardless of what we can see of it's violent past, that was completely void of man.

Catastrophism was discredited long ago. If you think that major climate shifts and various other violent events are the norm, I'd imagine that a certain Worlds in Collision, by a certain Immanuel Velikovsky is on your reading list?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
Unless of course, that type of world is the norm and the small slice of relative peacefulness we have experienced in that past couple of thousand years is the abnormal.

Are you even saying that type of world is desirable? I suggest you look into just what that type of world would entail.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
I equate this with those that say we shouldn't touch an old growth forest. Something was there before the old growth forest and something touched it to make room for the forest that is there today.

So your banking your credibility on this subject on your support of leveling old growth forests? So the species supporting, CO2 sinking, air cleaning, atmosphere maintaining, and albedo-increasing effects of those old growth forests are superflous? So you believe that not only do we not need to restrict our carbon emissions, we can also remove what's essentially saving us from serious climate change right now and nothing bad will happen? I don't know how you can be so intellectually dishonest as to use science to support any of your positions, if you're so happy to disregard it completely.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 78):
It will predict, e.g., a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century, substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches — and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore.

I suggest you read up on what a 23 inch sea level increase would result in. And again, Al Gore does not speak for the entire environmental movement.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 79):
Hmmm.

At least I have the balls to admit that my issues with carbon restriction advocates lie not with the science but with my own personal, material desires; as well as the brains to realize that changing people's lifestyles is driving an unnecessarily hard bargain, when in fact our efforts should lie, as I said further on in the paragraph, in making our habits more environmentally responsible.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:39 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
I think we'd all like to see this alleged science. From real scientists

I'd like to see the science too. But when I read that the latest warning contains the signatures of:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators?

Then to me it seems as if they are just inflating their numbers to achieve some desired effect in the vain hope that no one will back check who those names belong to. When I then read that:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing?

I start to wonder just what it is that they have to hide? Why are they afraid to include those who disagree and their disagreements in the report? It makes their report all the more suspect. If it were truly a fair an honest document they would be happy to report that some members don't agree and here is their statement. If the evidence that made up the report was so overwhelming, then the dissent would look flimsy. Instead, now it looks more powerful than ever since it appears that the authors of the report want to keep those views hidden from general view.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
But the fact is, solar output is much less important than insolation. 93 million miles of space, a few hundred miles of atmosphere, and an ozone layer do wonders to insulate us from the sun's fits and tantrums.

The fact is that if our planet was just a few million miles closer or farther away from the sun, we wouldn't exist at all. Since the Sun's output itself is the variable, if for some reason it burns hotter for a few thousand years, then we will most certainly feel those effects. The same would be true if it were to burn a little less fiercely. Can you say ice age?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
I'm going to assume, judging from your political positions, that you're a fairly religious person.

Bad assumption

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
Again, please correct my assumption if it's incorrect.

You stand corrected.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
No one is suggesting that Greenland's ice sheet is going to slide off tomorrow and we're all going to be drowned by the huge splash.

Al is.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
It's not as though I'm pulling these predictions out of my ass, there's plenty of science to back them up.

I'm quite sure that someone in Ferdinand and Isabella's court said basically the same thing referring to the fact that the earth was surely flat. Up until Yuri Gagarin made his space flight there were many who said, heck there are still a few nut jobs that say, space flight was impossible because the radiation would kill an ordinary human being. The science in both those cases was thought to be airtight.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
Catastrophism was discredited long ago.

I'm sure someone, somewhere along the Indian Ocean basin said exactly that same thing on December 25th 2004. Or perhaps near the bases of Mount Pinatubo, Mount St. Helens, or Krakatoa. Then again I'll bet that someone said something similar on the night of April 17th 1906 in San Francisco, or in Anchorage on March 26th 1964. And these were but small events compared to some of the known geological events in our recent past. They are far more unpredictable than the weather and it is kind of strange to see anyone who supposedly see the "science" in global warming treat them with such cavalier disregard.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
Are you even saying that type of world is desirable?

No but what I am saying is that to think that man has the power to change what the planet is going to do on its own is ridiculous. Whenever one of these volcanoes pops off, or a hurricane storms ashore the bubbleheads on TV relate to it in the terms of how many thousands of nuclear bombs that power is equal too. And yet you think that somehow we have the power to stop the inevitable. That is true vanity.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
So your banking your credibility on this subject on your support of leveling old growth forests?

I did not say I supported leveling old growth forests. You do like making unfounded assumptions. The analogy is that tree huggers say that to cut down an old growth forest is sacrilege. I say that something had to be there before the forest was. What makes the forest more important than what was there before it? Why is the forest there now and not what was there previous? What did man have to do with that change? Absolutely nothing yet we are somehow responsible for any change that occurs in our climate now. That's called vanity.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
I suggest you read up on what a 23 inch sea level increase would result in.

Perhaps irrigating deserts? Just because the water level rises does not mean we cannot find some way to make use of it.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
Al Gore does not speak for the entire environmental movement.

Unfortunately for the movement he has the loudest and most often quoted voice. So by default his is the message that comes across and with it, all the preconceived notions that global warming alarmists are somehow just not quite right in the head.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
At least I have the balls to admit that my issues with carbon restriction advocates lie not with the science but with my own personal, material desires; as well as the brains to realize that changing people's lifestyles is driving an unnecessarily hard bargain, when in fact our efforts should lie, as I said further on in the paragraph, in making our habits more environmentally responsible.

Vanity does not have to be equated with the Bible or religion at all. All through your post you did what every global warming alarmist does. You ridiculed any suggestion that might deviate from the "man is the problem" scenario. The Sun, which is more powerful than man will ever be, is just not possible of creating climate change. You're so sure that you don't even give the thought any credence. Since I obviously don't agree with your position, then I must surely be some sort of religious nut who believes "it's all God's plan" who is hunkered down somewhere waiting for the rapture to occur. BTW, although I do not believe in the rapture, living the life that fundamentalists say is necessary to be included in the rapture is not that hard and certainly doesn't take a whole lot of worrying to accomplish. Yet your responses evoke an almost religious fervor in your belief that man is the sole culprit behind global warming and that we have to radically alter our lifestyles or your children and their children will face some sort of disastrous future. William F. Buckley had it right. You have more in common with the Spanish Inquisitors than you may realize.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:28 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
I start to wonder just what it is that they have to hide? Why are they afraid to include those who disagree and their disagreements in the report? It makes their report all the more suspect. If it were truly a fair an honest document they would be happy to report that some members don't agree and here is their statement. If the evidence that made up the report was so overwhelming, then the dissent would look flimsy. Instead, now it looks more powerful than ever since it appears that the authors of the report want to keep those views hidden from general view.

Agreed. Science that isn't conducted to the highest standards shouldn't be considered science. But it's not as though this is the only scientific report around on the issue. As I said, rather than trying to poke holes in the scientific evidence supporting my position, I'd like to see the scientific evidence supporting yours.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
The fact is that if our planet was just a few million miles closer or farther away from the sun, we wouldn't exist at all.

Of course. But the differences in insolation received by Earth vs. Venus or Earth vs. Mars are substantially greater than the variations the Sun goes through, that you're providing as evidence of primarily outside causes for climate change.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
Since the Sun's output itself is the variable, if for some reason it burns hotter for a few thousand years, then we will most certainly feel those effects. The same would be true if it were to burn a little less fiercely. Can you say ice age?

I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of the greenhouse effect. Mars and Venus, if bestowed with the same atmosphere we have, would be habitable for humans. Maybe some of Earth's less adapatable species wouldn't do well, and both are pushing the limits of the Sun's comfort zone, but dry, dead Mars and hellish Venus compared to comfortable Earth show the power of the greenhouse effect. Remember, Venus is hotter than Mercury and a hell of a lot further away.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
I'm quite sure that someone in Ferdinand and Isabella's court said basically the same thing referring to the fact that the earth was surely flat. Up until Yuri Gagarin made his space flight there were many who said, heck there are still a few nut jobs that say, space flight was impossible because the radiation would kill an ordinary human being. The science in both those cases was thought to be airtight.

There wasn't legitimate, peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that either of those beliefs were true. Comparing the scientific standards of the late 1400s to today is risky business.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
I'm sure someone, somewhere along the Indian Ocean basin said exactly that same thing on December 25th 2004. Or perhaps near the bases of Mount Pinatubo, Mount St. Helens, or Krakatoa. Then again I'll bet that someone said something similar on the night of April 17th 1906 in San Francisco, or in Anchorage on March 26th 1964. And these were but small events compared to some of the known geological events in our recent past. They are far more unpredictable than the weather and it is kind of strange to see anyone who supposedly see the "science" in global warming treat them with such cavalier disregard.

I suggest you look up the definition of Catastrophism. Catastrophism refers to massive, planet-wide changes like climate change, movement of the continents, polar shifts and such being primarily caused by singular, catastrophic events, like say, a sudden and rapid change in the power of the Sun. We now know that most major change on Earth is caused by gradual, measured change, like increases in CO2 levels or continental drift/plate tectonics, with a scattered catastrophe like an asteroid impact here and there. The total number of truly catastrophic events in Earth's history is probably well under 50. That works out to one every 92 million years. You're referring to localized natural disasters which, while horrible, didn't have a lasting effect on the planet as a whole.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
No but what I am saying is that to think that man has the power to change what the planet is going to do on its own is ridiculous.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
And yet you think that somehow we have the power to stop the inevitable.

What exactly is Earth going to do on its own? What is the inevitable? Is it.....climate change?! The very climate change that will cause the very sea level changes that will cause the very disasters I described earlier? Ah, I love the smell of hypocracy in the morning.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
What makes the forest more important than what was there before it?

It was what that big, powerful Earth that humans can't control and is going to do whatever it wants put there.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
Why is the forest there now and not what was there previous?

It was the most effective use of the resources and conditions present in the area.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
Perhaps irrigating deserts? Just because the water level rises does not mean we cannot find some way to make use of it.

Because deserts aren't legitimate habitats, used by thousands of different species of plants and animals that have evolved to meet their specific conditions? Oh wait, humans can't live there without air conditioning and sprinklers, it can't be worth anything.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
Unfortunately for the movement

You're dead on on that one.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
So by default his is the message that comes across and with it, all the preconceived notions that global warming alarmists are somehow just not quite right in the head.

As someone who is clearly cognizent of that fact, I don't see why you continue to quote him as some sort of prophet for the entire movement.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
You ridiculed any suggestion that might deviate from the "man is the problem" scenario.

Not at all. My most important point is that climate change is happening and if allowed to continue it will have catastrophic effects. Man is a part of the problem. Of course variations in insolation play a role, cow farts play a role, now all of the CO2 that's been locked up in ice caps for millions of years is escaping and playing a role. The fact is, human actions are the part of the problem we can do something about. My point is, it's worth doing something about.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
Yet your responses evoke an almost religious fervor in your belief that man is the sole culprit behind global warming

Hah. Religious fervor would involve blind faith, rather than a reasoned position based on peer-reviewed, published scientific data.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
that we have to radically alter our lifestyles

You'll notice that in the paragraph you actually quote I state that I don't feel that way at all. Reading is a wonderful tool. I believe that people should be able to maintain their lifestyles as much as possible. I don't see how using a compact flourescent bulb instead of an incandescent one really affects your lifestyle unless you have a thing for Thomas Edison. I don't see how driving the hybrid Lexus RX instead of the gas one affects your lifestyle when the hybrid has more horsepower. I don't see how the electricity flowing into your house being solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, or any other of a myriad of clean, renewable energy sources rather than coal, oil, or gas really affects your lifestyle.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:21 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
Mars and Venus, if bestowed with the same atmosphere we have, would be habitable for humans.

Unfortunately the Sun and those planets distances from it contradict your assumption.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
but dry, dead Mars and hellish Venus compared to comfortable Earth show the power of the greenhouse effect.

And just think, man has never visited Venus.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
There wasn't legitimate, peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that either of those beliefs were true.

By today's standards but there was according to the standards of the day. Do you think that 500 years from now, if we as a species are still around, they will look back and not question how we arrived at certain assumptions or how we could not have seen what will seem basic to them? Vanity in play again.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
You're referring to localized natural disasters which, while horrible, didn't have a lasting effect on the planet as a whole.

I was?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
And these were but small events compared to some of the known geological events in our recent past.



Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
What exactly is Earth going to do on its own?

Whatever it wants to, and we don't have the power to even slow it down. Or do you think the technology exists to change the weather, stop earthquakes, and silence volcanoes?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
Ah, I love the smell of hypocracy in the morning.

It's the smell of vanity, your own, and it stinks.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
It was what that big, powerful Earth that humans can't control and is going to do whatever it wants put there.

Correct. Flood control was practiced on the Mississippi from the great 1927 flood on. Yet 66 years later, after billions had been poured into levees, the river did what the river does, flooded. If we can't control one river, you some how expect us to be able to control things on a planet wide scale. Vanity in action.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
It was the most effective use of the resources and conditions present in the area.

But the point is that man did not plant those forests. They were here when native americans arrived. Yet something else was there before and the change occurred all by itself, with no help or hindrance by man. Too think that you can have any meaningful change in what the planet is going to do suggests you have been watching way too much Star Trek.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
Because deserts aren't legitimate habitats, used by thousands of different species of plants and animals that have evolved to meet their specific conditions? Oh wait, humans can't live there without air conditioning and sprinklers, it can't be worth anything.

This makes no sense although you are free to go to many parts of the desert, as I have, and see that it's just sand. Sure there are parts of the desert that contain a rich diversity of life, but take a walk across much of Kuwait, or parts of western China, or a lot of the interior of Australia and tell me what you see.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
I don't see why you continue to quote him as some sort of prophet for the entire movement.

Because unfortunately for the movement, he is to virtually everyone outside of it. That's the reality of the situation.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
My most important point is that climate change is happening and if allowed to continue it will have catastrophic effects.

Climate change has been happening since the Earth first formed. Through it's many evolutions it has had catastrophic effects. There are certainly more extinct species than ones alive today and the vast majority of extinct ones never had any contact with man since they existed before we did. Considering that man has only been around in a civilized sense for about 5 thousand years, it's pretty cheeky to assume that everything happening now is some how attributable just to us.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
Religious fervor would involve blind faith, rather than a reasoned position based on peer-reviewed, published scientific data.

Which you demonstrate every time you ridicule, without investigation, any other theory advanced, such as the Sun, of which there is a pretty good chart above, as a possible source for global warming.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
I don't see how using a compact flourescent bulb instead of an incandescent one really affects your lifestyle unless you have a thing for Thomas Edison. I don't see how driving the hybrid Lexus RX instead of the gas one affects your lifestyle when the hybrid has more horsepower.

And if those are the things you want to buy, have at it. But to condemn the rest of the population as some sort of lugheads because we don't believe in the theory, or want those products is once again, vanity in action.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
I don't see how the electricity flowing into your house being solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, or any other of a myriad of clean, renewable energy sources rather than coal, oil, or gas really affects your lifestyle.

I don't either and when those first 5 sources of power become economically viable and technologically advanced enough to work day in and day out as the last three, actually 4 since you forgot to include nuclear, then by all means lets make the change. But today they are not. Ask the Danes about wind power. If you are lucky enough to live on a volcanic island as they are in Iceland, then geothermal is your thing. But just try damming up a river now days and see where it gets you. Try hoisting a wind farm on the coast near Nantucket or Hyannis Port and see how far you get. And just try using solar power in northern Ohio in the winter time. Those sources of energy remain local at best and several of them run afoul of other tree huggers interests. Good luck making it happen but first you have to stow that vanity and it's looking like it's going to take an awfully large trunk to do it.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm

L.1011 - find The Great Global Warming Swindle on YouTube and address the fundamental flaws. It contains views from scientists with the highest credibility and independence, the types you say don't exist. It gathers together the scientific objections to the propaganda, which have existed for years, in one convenient place so even those who claim "it's difficult to find" can stop pretending it doesn't exist.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
I think we'd all like to see this alleged science. From real scientists, not the Competitive Enterprise Institute or William F. Buckley Jr.

Why is it that that the lead authors of the IPCC report who disagree are not credible yet those who agree are? If you want to ignore the views of the few climate scientists who are funded by the energy industry, please do - I have. You also fail to address the fact that the alarmists' "findings" are financed and reviewed by organisations who are profiting from the scare, financially and politically.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
No one is suggesting that we can change the temperature of the sun. But the fact is, solar output is much less important than insolation. 93 million miles of space, a few hundred miles of atmosphere, and an ozone layer do wonders to insulate us from the sun's fits and tantrums. It's not as though temperatures on earth vary along the 11 year sunspot cycles or spike around the world every time there's a solar flare.

You really believe the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature levels over several centuries and the direct correlation between solar activity and CO2 levels over several centuries is just coincidence?

You really believe that the fact that CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels by up to 800 years shows that CO2 levels drive temperature levels? Remember, that's not just the portion man's responsible for, that's all of it.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
There wasn't legitimate, peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that either of those beliefs were true. Comparing the scientific standards of the late 1400s to today is risky business.

Nor has there been much in recent reports. The reviewing is being done by "government experts" and there is blatant selective editing.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86):
All through your post you did what every global warming alarmist does.

 checkmark 

We're still waiting for the fundamental flaws in the alarmist theory to be addressed scientifically - don't make me post them yet again. Until then, there is no point in addressing the "science" beyond that. As I said before, if Step 1 isn't true, Step 5 is irrelevant. Any "scientist" who can't explain the flaws yet continues to promote them as being "fact" is not a true scientist.

IT IS NOT SCIENCE
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:54 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 49):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 47):
but COLLABORATION.

Collaboration at what cost to this country? More than a few countries that signed the ill fated Kyoto agreement have failed to meet their obligations.

 checkmark 

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 49):
I shudder to think of the recriminations and cost to this country if we had been stupid enough to sign on to that piece of junk science.

 checkmark 

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
Why do they dismiss the real evidence that CO2 levels lag temperature levels. I.e. CO2 levels cannot be responsible for temperature levels but the reverse may be true.

Why do they ignore the fact that solar activity levels correlate much more closely to temperature levels?

Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators?

Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing?

Dude, you're good.

Quoting David L (Reply 61):

 checkmark 

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
At this point, questioning global warming is like questioning evolution or gravity.

 sarcastic 

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 72):
I'm going to fight for what's right now.

Yeah, you fight the good fight  sarcastic  . Are you sure you sat out long enough?

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 73):
L.1011, Welcome to my respected users list....

 sarcastic 

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
We can replace petroleum as a transportation fuel with, rather than inefficient, ineffective corn-based ethanol

With electricity? From this (just one, I know) link http://www.tritrack.net/efficiency.html , the best I could get from this is that "Electric cars emit 10 times less nitrous oxide (NOx) than gasoline internal combustion engines" but also "Photo voltaics (solar cells) are next in line for commercialization. Electric power plants may eventually fit in the shingles on your roof, but for now it would take a lot of those shingles to move present day cars". It seems pretty impractical.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
I think we'd all like to see this alleged science. From real scientists, not the Competitive Enterprise Institute or William F. Buckley Jr.

Look further down here.

Quoting David L (Reply 89):
L.1011 - find The Great Global Warming Swindle on YouTube and address the fundamental flaws.

He can find it via this Op-Ed link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

-R
Living the American Dream
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:30 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 85):
when in fact our efforts should lie, as I said further on in the paragraph, in making our habits more environmentally responsible.

Yes, I saw your whole quote. It was:

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
Look, I question the wisdom of environmentalists whose mantra is based on sacrifice by residents in the developed world. I want my cheap, processed foods, my unnecessarily large house, and my Chevy Suburban or my high-powered BMW just as much as any other good American. With real leadership and real vision, we can convert to fully renewable electricity. We can replace petroleum as a transportation fuel with, rather than inefficient, ineffective corn-based ethanol, biobutanol based on sugar or plant waste. We can be plenty environmentally responsible and maintain our standard of living. As I said before, it just takes cajones on the part of someone in power.

My earlier comment stands.

As for leadership, it is not as simple as all that. Example: Leaders enacted Clean Air standards that were too difficult to meet with the current infrastructure that we have in this country (aging coal-fired power plants and shortage of generating capability for the amount of demand we have). Making the technical changes necessary to bring the plants in line would require lots of capital (=rising costs for consumers) and more critically, require bringing plants offline for extended periods of time (did you know we actually have a capacity shortage in this country, meaning that we can't really afford to have plants offline. Oh, and these power plants are often forced to be readily available per Department of Energy reliability requirements.) So the regulations had to be relaxed a bit to be more in line with what is feasible.

Ok. So then why don't we build new, clean-technology gas-fired plants? Wrong (game show buzzer sounds.) Do you konw how long it takes to get a permit to build such a thing in today's nimby & environmentalist environment? Even if this were decided today, it would probably be 15 years before such a plant were operational.

So you see, it isn't as simple as all that. So in the meantime, I suggest you drive a more efficient vehicle and live in smaller confines.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2287
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:30 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 87):
Of course. But the differences in insolation received by Earth vs. Venus or Earth vs. Mars are substantially greater than the variations the Sun goes through, that you're providing as evidence of primarily outside causes for climate change.

Just as a final note, scientists recently announced a significant global warming trend...... ON MARS!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I don't think that National Geographic has been funded recently by "Competitive Enterprise Institute or William F. Buckley Jr."
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8593
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:45 pm

It's no longer available on YouTube.com because of a copyright claim. Watch it on google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...eat+globa%3B+warming+swindle&hl=en
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:26 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 93):
Watch it on google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...hl=en

Thanks for that. As far as I'm concerned, watching that and considering the scientific issues raised is a prerequisite for discussing the topic. It contains nothing new but it serves as a reminder that there is plenty of unbiased, scientific evidence that the Great Global Warming Swindle is the biggest political fraud in history.
 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
By today's standards but there was according to the standards of the day. Do you think that 500 years from now, if we as a species are still around, they will look back and not question how we arrived at certain assumptions or how we could not have seen what will seem basic to them? Vanity in play again.

Arriving at modern scientific standards is not a process characterized by gradual, cumulative change. The scientific method was essentially developed between the first controlled experiment, by Francis Bacon in 1590, and Issac Newton's formulation of the concept of a hypothesis in 1687. Occam's Razor was developed in the 1300s, but since 1687 the only major developments in the methods of science have been the development of placebos in 1937 and double blind clinical trials in 1950, neither of which have anything to do with this branch of science. Although future societies will certainly have superior scientific understanding, there is little further development available in the methods.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
I was?

Yes. Their impacts were localized both in time and space.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
But to condemn the rest of the population as some sort of lugheads because we don't believe in the theory, or want those products is once again, vanity in action.

You really seem fixated on this concept of vanity. First of all, I certainly don't condemn the rest of the population as lugheads because they want those products. As I said, I want those products, and I don't equate desiring them with vanity. As for not believing in the theory, people who are aware of the evidence and still don't believe in human-influenced climate change are lugheads, just as anyone who is aware of the real evidence of evolution and still doesn't believe it would be. As for David's film, there was a movie back in the 20s called "Reefer Madness" that people were pretty confident about as well.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
when those first 5 sources of power become economically viable and technologically advanced enough to work day in and day out as the last three

A quick glance at the CIA World Factbook will demonstrate that plenty of countries are generating very significant portions of their electricity from those 5 sources and plenty of others. Ocean thermal, blue energy, current power, wave, tidal, and a variety of other methods will help as well.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
Try hoisting a wind farm on the coast near Nantucket or Hyannis Port and see how far you get.

I don't why Ted Kennedy cares about his view, he looks in his liquor cabinet a lot more than outside his windows anyway.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
you forgot to include nuclear

Yes, I did. I should clarify that I have no issue with nuclear power.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 88):
And just try using solar power in northern Ohio in the winter time.

That's why you don't put up solar panels in northern Ohio or suburban Seattle. And why geothermal or wind won't work well in Florida. The fact is, we have a huge country with enormous variations in conditions. Different areas can be exploited for their various electricity generating talents. The South will do well with solar power, and solar shingles and emerging solar nanotube technology will make the scarily low solar efficiency numbers we see a thing of the past. Wind power will do well in the Northeast and Texas, geothermal in Alaska, Hawaii, and the West. Tidal will be effective on the Atlantic coast, ocean thermal will be effective in the Northeast, wave power will work well along both coasts, current power stations in the Straits of Florida will use the Gulf Stream to its full potential, and massive estuaries like the Mississippi Delta and Chesapeake Bay will allow vast blue energy production. The gaps can be filled in with nuclear power and landfill gas, provided by new plasma arc gasification technology, and with electricity transmission. New hydrogen SuperTube transmission systems will be vastly more efficient than copper wire. It will take money and it will take brains, but it's clearly worth it.

Quoting David L (Reply 89):
the direct correlation between solar activity and CO2 levels over several centuries is just coincidence?

What scientifically proven mechanism would link solar activity and CO2 production?

Quoting David L (Reply 89):
You really believe that the fact that CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels by up to 800 years shows that CO2 levels drive temperature levels?

Increased CO2 > Higher temperatures > Melting ice and permafrost > CO2 locked up in that ice and permafrost in the form of bubbles is released > Further CO2 increase > you get the picture.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 90):
With electricity? From this (just one, I know) link http://www.tritrack.net/efficiency.html , the best I could get from this is that "Electric cars emit 10 times less nitrous oxide (NOx) than gasoline internal combustion engines" but also "Photo voltaics (solar cells) are next in line for commercialization. Electric power plants may eventually fit in the shingles on your roof, but for now it would take a lot of those shingles to move present day cars". It seems pretty impractical.

Electric cars are yesterday's news. Environmentalists, carmakers, and government alike have realized that. If you quoted the rest of that sentence, you'd see that I advocate biobutanol, another plant-based internal combustion fuel that simply works better than ethanol.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 91):
Do you konw how long it takes to get a permit to build such a thing in today's nimby & environmentalist environment?

I do. Just as some environmentalists assigning blame to the decisions of individual consumers rather than government is counterproductive from a public relations standpoint, some environmentalists resisting clean energy, rail, and transit projects for local impacts is incredibly counterproductive to the wider issue.

I'd also be very interested to hear your reactions to today's climate report and the shenanigans of the Bush administration and the Chinese government in relation to it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science.../06/climate.report.reut/index.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ticles/0406climate-report0406.html
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8593
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:16 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
What scientifically proven mechanism would link solar activity and CO2 production?

When warmed, oceans produce more CO2.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
Increased CO2 > Higher temperatures > Melting ice and permafrost > CO2 locked up in that ice and permafrost in the form of bubbles is released > Further CO2 increase > you get the picture.

Wrong.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif


Higher CO2 concentrations DO NOT yield higher temperatures. Look at the graph. Temperature peaks first, then several years later CO2 peaks.

Increased solar activity > Warms Oceans > Increases CO2 concentration

[Edited 2007-04-07 00:31:55]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:42 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
I'd also be very interested to hear your reactions to today's climate report and the shenanigans of the Bush administration and the Chinese government in relation to it.

I read the three links you posted but I didn't see any "shenanigans" on the part of the U.S. One article implied that the US delegation sort of "refereed" a dispute brought up by China:

"...China insisted on striking the word "very," injecting doubt into what the scientists argued were indisputable observations. The report's three authors refused to go along with the change, resulting in an hours-long deadlock that was broken by a U.S. compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.

The second CNN article seemed to offer a different take on that same scenario:

(Gary Yohe, one of the report's lead authors) said China, Russia and Saudi Arabia had raised most objections during the night to a 21-page summary which makes clear that the poor will suffer most. Other participants also said the United States had toned down some passages.

The article doesn't say what passages were toned down, so I can't comment on it. In the end the report was ratified so I'm sure the delegates felt it was representative enough to get their message across.

As for this statement:
U.S. delegates rejected suggested wording that parts of North America may suffer "severe economic damage" from warming.
Again, I wasn't there so I don't know why they objected, but it didn't prevent the ratification of the report or the overall message. Perhaps they were reacting to flawed economic data? Or perhaps ego prevented them from wanting to admit that the superpower could fail? I can't assess this.

However, the article did say that the U.S. "toughened some sections by saying "significant loss of biodiversity" was possible in parts of Australia such as the Great Barrier Reef by 2020.

As for Kyoto, I believe it is flawed policy for several reasons. The Clinton Administration even thought it was flawed policy. You are probably too young to remember that. That's why Bush entered a partnership with Australia and other SEAsia nations on an alternative program to Kyoto. I don't know if it will work, but it was at least some accountable action. (Accountable in the sense that it is public knowledge and open to scrutiny, if not actual regulations.)
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:54 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
Increased CO2 > Higher temperatures > Melting ice and permafrost > CO2 locked up in that ice and permafrost in the form of bubbles is released > Further CO2 increase > you get the picture.



Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
What scientifically proven mechanism would link solar activity and CO2 production?

Proof positive that you haven't even looked at the science.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
I'd also be very interested to hear your reactions to today's climate report and the shenanigans of the Bush administration and the Chinese government in relation to it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science.../06/climate.report.reut/index.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu....html

It's more of the same and I see the review process has been done by "government experts" again.  sarcastic 

Why haven't they addressed the fundamental flaws in their argument? Their predictions assume that increases in CO2 cause temperature rises when it cannot be doing so. Their models predict a temperature rise due to a rise in CO2 levels because that's what they were designed to do. The whole basis for their theory is wrong!

Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle and tell us what's wrong with the science behind it.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:16 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
there is little further development available in the methods.

I'm quite sure that they said that back in middle ages as well.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
Their impacts were localized both in time and space.

And they were used as examples of that. What you aren't taking into account are evolutions of the planet that make those events look very small in comparison and they have happened with frequency, over 4 billion years, in our planets past.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
You really seem fixated on this concept of vanity.

Because vanity is what drives the global warming alarmists. It's the "it's all about me" attitude. They seem to have no concept that the planet existed before they got here, went through numerous changes without the help or hinderance of man, and will continue to exist in some shape or form after we have departed the scene. Yet to the global warming alarmist, it's all about us and what we are doing or not doing. At least one other good theory has been presented twice here and you have ignored or ridiculed it. Such is it with all global warming alarmists. If it isn't mans fault, it can't be good science because that would mean that there is something larger and more powerful than man at work. Not a God or other entity but simple nature. It is impossible for global warming alarmist to comprehend that since doing so would admit that the universe does not revolve around them. That is the vanity I speak of and you have given us a brilliant display of it.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
A quick glance at the CIA World Factbook will demonstrate that plenty of countries are generating very significant portions of their electricity from those 5 sources and plenty of others.

Generating yes, at what economic cost and how does the technology stand up to day to day usage. The fact book shows Denmark as an exporter of electricity but in several years past they have been a net importer of electricity because good weather has kept the wind down.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
Ocean thermal, blue energy, current power, wave, tidal, and a variety of other methods will help as well.



Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
The gaps can be filled in with nuclear power and landfill gas, provided by new plasma arc gasification technology, and with electricity transmission. New hydrogen SuperTube transmission systems will be vastly more efficient than copper wire. It will take money and it will take brains, but it's clearly worth it.

And where is the technology? Is it ready for day to day usage and will it compete price wise with existing technology? If it isn't then what good is it today?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
another plant-based internal combustion fuel that simply works better than ethanol.

And is beginning to start big time concerns in third world countries as well as make it's mark here in this country as the price of corn and other staple foods goes through the roof.

http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2007/04/06/news/ag_news/news42.txt

LINCOLN, Neb. — Increased production of biofuels such as ethanol might help farmers’ bottom lines and address climate-change concerns, but it could inflate food prices worldwide, warns a former White House economist. “Worldwide, especially in developing countries ... food price increases are definitely something we’re going to have to come to grips with,” said David Sunding, who served on former President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.

The combination of rising energy prices and the demand for corn, which is used to produce ethanol, will continue to drive up commodity prices, he said. Corn prices have already begun to soar. A rush to turn more acres into corn production could decrease supplies of other commodities, driving up prices of them as well.



http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=6327057

Last year Erickson paid $130 for a ton of corn, now he says he pays about $170. "It's just $40, but when you're doing that day in and day out, when your feed bill is $200,000 a month, $40 bucks adds up a lot quick."

So all is not the rosey picture when talking about biofuels.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, aerolimani, ANITIX87, BaconButty, Baidu [Spider], casinterest, DocLightning, Flanker7, kelval, noviorbis77, scbriml, ThePointblank, wingman and 34 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos