PDA

View Full Version : The Climate Change Climate Change



Terry Britton
06-26-2009, 04:33 PM
The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

YardleyLabs
06-26-2009, 05:47 PM
In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov (http://www.globalchange.gov/). It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

dnf777
06-26-2009, 08:43 PM
In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov (http://www.globalchange.gov/). It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

Especially when too many scientists to name have recanted their previous claims and now affirm that global climate change is REAL, and the result of human activity. (Michael Crichton, the science-fiction writer notwithstanding) I was really disappointed to hear officials in the prior administration report that their scientific panels' reports to the president were "cleared" and revised by the W.H. policy advisors who have no science background whatsoever.

I am afraid however, that things haven't changed as much as I'd hoped they would. I fear that Obama has been read the lobbyists set of rules, and is realizing that he must play. Energy production, food production, and information technology have come to be controlled by an alarmingly few sets of entities, who all stand to profit from the current system they've devised. Don't look for change...at least not soon.

subroc
06-26-2009, 09:12 PM
...Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

Show me proof that it does...

Hopefully whatever report you deem to cite will not be peppered with might, should, expected to, probably, if, etc. I hope that report considers the fact that man and beast live on the planet and there is waste involved with that activity and it includes cow farts and the like in its analysis. I hope it doesn't rely on models that don’t include atmospheric moisture as the most prominent green house gas. I hope it considers that the changes in CO2 could be/is a trailing indicator to climate change. I hope it cites all CO2 sources. I hope it looks at the possibility that increased sun activity could be the entire story.
I expect the status quo of normal weather patterns are the cause of any weather related activity and there is a preponderance of evidence that can be explained in more than one way which in my way of thinking isn’t a proof.

Terry Britton
06-26-2009, 10:47 PM
In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov (http://www.globalchange.gov/). It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

The manmade global warming crowd does little to promote actual scientific analysis by tainting data such as adjusting, moving, or placing sensors so that heat will increase or be much higher (south side of buildings near asphalt). They leave out full analysis such as the changing of earth's orbit over time, and other external radiations. They ignore the many glaciers that are growing, and the major significance that under water volcanoes have. They ignore places where the sea levels are going down rather than increasing as their models state they should. It is a big money grab and political push.

You are buying into unethical marketing.

Do you realize the start of the global warming craze was concocted to end coal mining strikes in the UK, and to help push nuclear plants in the UK so that the miners union would have less power?

No, if you want to argue about Peak Oil, yes we are on the downward swing and need to implement solutions. I have a pretty in depth paper on Peak Oil, and justifications on alternatives.

We shouldn't be conned on why we need better technologies to replace oil under the guise of manmade global warming and the cap and trade taxes which will do the opposite of their intentions while other countries will become worse at using up resources.

YardleyLabs
06-27-2009, 08:11 AM
The manmade global warming crowd does little to promote actual scientific analysis by tainting data such as adjusting, moving, or placing sensors so that heat will increase or be much higher (south side of buildings near asphalt). They leave out full analysis such as the changing of earth's orbit over time, and other external radiations. They ignore the many glaciers that are growing, and the major significance that under water volcanoes have. They ignore places where the sea levels are going down rather than increasing as their models state they should. It is a big money grab and political push.

You are buying into unethical marketing.

Do you realize the start of the global warming craze was concocted to end coal mining strikes in the UK, and to help push nuclear plants in the UK so that the miners union would have less power?

No, if you want to argue about Peak Oil, yes we are on the downward swing and need to implement solutions. I have a pretty in depth paper on Peak Oil, and justifications on alternatives.

We shouldn't be conned on why we need better technologies to replace oil under the guise of manmade global warming and the cap and trade taxes which will do the opposite of their intentions while other countries will become worse at using up resources.

Actually, a great deal of effort goes into trying to correct for issues such as routine waste production, measurement error, etc. Unfortunately, the rate of change in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is accelerating, not slowing down, with dramatic increases in just the last 30-40 years. More recent evidence suggests that the earth's natural defenses are becoming overwhelmed so that a higher and higher percentage of the gasses passed into the atmosphere is failing to be absorbed naturally. This is creating some exponentiation in the rate of greenhouse gas concentration.

The scientific research must continue both to help us better understand and address the extent, causes and mitigation of climate change and to address approaches for adapting to the changes that now appear inevitable. It has been clear for decades that our environment has a finite capacity for supporting human activity. In the 19th century, air pollution was worse in Europe than it is today. It has improved both because of improved technologies and tighter regulation.

In this country, air pollution in cities has long been known to have serious health impacts costing billions of dollars every year. That too has improved through a combination of regulation and technology improvements. Parts of our rivers that were dead or dying under the onslaught of industrial wastes are now being revived because of regulations forcing cleanup. Some businesses were unable to make the required changes and disappeared. Other businesses replaced them and the economy grew. The river two blocks from my house once again has fish, even if they should not be eaten more than a couple of times per month.

Cities and towns along the north eastern seaboard dumped their raw sewage into the ocean for centuries. When the costs of burying their garbage became too high, they began to dump that garbage into the ocean. Who could ever fill such an infinite and self cleaning resource? Unfortunately, the answer was us, and we did. Beaches had to be shut down and the concentration of ecoli hit hazardous levels. Despite the beliefs of some scientists that the ocean could effectively handle large quantities of garbage dumping, they were wrong. Massive areas of death grew off the shores of New York, New Jersey, and Long Island. But nothing was done until this garbage finally began to float up on the beaches, forcing their closure and leading to regulatory prohibitions on ocean dumping. In the Gulf of Mexico, the problem of fertilizer poisonng of the ocean remains a serious problem with a 7000 square mile area of death that blossoms each summer.

We have known for years that our rate of consumption of some natural resources -- principally fossil fuels -- was not sustainable indefinitely. While the market price of fuel covered the costs of extraction, refinement and distribution, it does not cover the costs of replacement. In economic terms, that means the free market has encouraged over consumption. Regulations and taxes have helped, but not enough. The need for reducing fossil fuel usage now is justified both for conservation and protection of the atmosphere. As with the ocean, we have proven that the atmosphere is also capable of being used up by the activities of man. The free market will not protect the atmosphere any more than it protected our rivers because there is no one responsible for paying for the damages caused to all of us. As a consequence, regulation is needed. The form of that regulation is a reasonable matter for debate. That the market underprices the value of irreplaceable resources and underprices the cost of damaging the environment is simply a statement of fact.

Keith Farmer
06-27-2009, 08:57 AM
"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.


The fall of man in the garden after rebelling against God brought about sin (which brought as its penalty death, disease, thorns, etc.). Sin brought about degradation in the human race as well as the animal kingdom. That degradation brought about God's judgement on mankind in the form of the flood (a global flood not a local flood).

The flood radically changed this world. Before the flood the Earth was pure; and God called His creation good! No disease, no death, no harmful rays from the sun (the Earth actually was protected by a layer of water in the atmosphere...in fact, there was no rain prior to the flood...the water protected the Earth). Man lived life upwards of 900 years. After the flood the life expectancy is less than 100 years. So, in light of the events that came about as a result of man's sinful rebellion against God then I agree that the problematic events we see in terms of "climate change" are totally man made.



We have known for years that our rate of consumption of some natural resources -- principally fossil fuels -- was not sustainable indefinitely.


Kinda flies in the face of "millions of years" theories does it not?




.

JDogger
06-27-2009, 09:37 AM
The fall of man in the garden after rebelling against God brought about sin (which brought as its penalty death, disease, thorns, etc.). Sin brought about degradation in the human race as well as the animal kingdom. That degradation brought about God's judgement on mankind in the form of the flood (a global flood not a local flood).

The flood radically changed this world. Before the flood the Earth was pure; and God called His creation good! No disease, no death, no harmful rays from the sun (the Earth actually was protected by a layer of water in the atmosphere...in fact, there was no rain prior to the flood...the water protected the Earth). Man lived life upwards of 900 years. After the flood the life expectancy is less than 100 years. So, in light of the events that came about as a result of man's sinful rebellion against God then I agree that the problematic events we see in terms of "climate change" are totally man made.


.

So forget the scientific arguments pro and con. Climate change is the result of a lack of faith. :rolleyes:

Terry Britton
06-27-2009, 09:39 AM
Remember that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas contributing 72% of the greenhouse effect, and that we as humans breath out 100% water saturated air at 98.6 degrees with each breath.

The gases that the ones that want to control us with are minor players in the greenhouse effect.

Making water illegal would go much farther in reducing any greenhouse effects. Maybe draining all ponds completely so that there is less water surface to feed water vapor formation that creates any greenhouse effect would be much more effective than trying to control minor gasses which would have no effect in trying to balance out the additional energy gained from our cyclical orbit or from all of the active volcano regions under our oceans that have been active in the past 15 years.

As far as the garbage, it should be converted into fuel grade ethanol via gasification method or bio-diesel via he turkey cooker method.

Bob Gutermuth
06-27-2009, 10:22 AM
This is wonderful, the dems have invented a piece of fiction(global warming) and now they are going to tax the heck out of us to protect us against this fiction.

Terry Britton
06-27-2009, 10:50 AM
This is wonderful, the dems have invented a piece of fiction(global warming) and now they are going to tax the heck out of us to protect us against this fiction.

Bob - I am affraid that is the tip of the iceberg on what may be going on.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-population-reduction-agenda-for-dummies.html

and why:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/40217

Keith Farmer
06-27-2009, 10:55 AM
So forget the scientific arguments pro and con. Climate change is the result of a lack of faith. :rolleyes:


Never said a word pro or con about science...and faith is really not the issue either.

The situation being discussed is not the result of cow farts, human exhalation, CO2 gases resulting in greenhouse effects, etc. All those things are what they are. They perhaps contribute to an upset in things climatic but the very possibility that those things are able to contribute to any disorder is that God removed His hand of protection from the Earth and judged the Earth as the direct result of sin.

Therefore, the problem with the world is the problem of sin. Sin separates us from the protection and fellowship of God. The chaotic world we see now is 100% the result of sin. Everything else falls in line under that.

The bible declares that one day there will be a restoration of things as they were prior to the disorder. It is called the New Heaven and New Earth. For now, things will only grow worse and worse...because of sin!


.

K.Bullock
06-27-2009, 11:03 AM
This is wonderful, the dems have invented a piece of fiction(global warming) and now they are going to tax the heck out of us to protect us against this fiction.

Not everybody gets it Bob ...if your a friend of Barak it works in your favor. Big labor is in the dems food line yet again.



That the labor community would support the bill was not entirely expected, though it's not entirely surprising either. The AFL-CIO's argument is that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill, likely to put tens of thousands of people to work in green industries. The union even notes, in its letter to lawmakers, that it is hoping to improve the legislation by strengthening "its international competitiveness provisions."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/union-backs-climate-bill_n_221360.html

Gerry Clinchy
06-27-2009, 11:47 AM
Okay, for argument's sake, let us presume that it is desirable to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. It does make sense to me that fossil fuel would be in finite supply. As our society has become more technologically advanced and populations have grown, we have found ways to deplete these fuels at a faster rate.

I believe that the finite supply of fossil fuels is the more immediate problem. While new discoveries indicate there are more fossil fuels available than we realized 30 years ago, we still lack the technology to extract them cost-effectively. This is a practical reason for us to seek alternatives to fossil fuels.

The question becomes whether "cap & tax" is the best solution to the problem for the U.S. or the rest of the world.

While the U.S. may use more fossil fuels than any other country, that does not necessarily mean that the U.S. consumption is creating the most damaging effect on the environment overall. There is no question that countries in the former Eastern Bloc, and China, and even poor Third World countries are using more of these fuels now than they did 30 years ago. A lot more. It would be foolish to argue that all those Chinese imports are being manufactured using candlelight and animal dung :-)

It would also seem foolish to imagine that such countries are more concerned with pollution than they are with basic survival. Using global warming (IF it is even a factor) as the basis for seeking alternative fuels really takes a backseat, IMHO. If we solve the problem of finding alternative fuels, the secondary issue (IF it is a factor) will also get solved.

IF (notice the word "if"), this increased use of fossil fuels (NOT just in the U.S.) has some effect on climate change, are countries like Russia, China, etc. also putting in place, or will put in place, regulations to constrict their industrial capacity for the purpose of protecting the world environment? Somehow, I don't think so. Every day we are reminded that those countries are more concerned with protecting their own "turf" than they are with the welfare of the larger human situation.

Jeff mentions the damage to oceans and inland waters due to garbage. To our credit we acknowledged these problems & have sought ways to improve upon them. What happens with garbage in N Korea, Russia, etc? If they've come up with better ideas, we ought to look at them.

Nuclear power seems to hold the most immediate solution to replacing fossil fuels in large-scale industrial/commercial use. However, we should be well aware that other countries (like Russia) are far more lax in their protections for preventing nuclear "accidents". Do we remember Chernoble, and the far-reaching atmospheric effects of that disaster? Do we expect that if N Korea were to put nuclear energy into commercial uses it would be more responsible than Russia was?

The question becomes, is cap & trade (tax?) the best way to solve the problem for the U.S.? First, I don't see any way that it will have any bearing at all on what other countries will do about the problem.

Cap & trade will be a unilateral action, that will simply make energy more expensive for the U.S. businesses and individuals. Doing so puts U.S. products at a greater disadvantage in the world market. The increased cost of energy to individuals means that the economic condition of the whole population (except maybe for some connected well politically) even more precarious than it is already. When consumers must spend more of their paycheck for heating and cooking fuel, there is less left for disposable consumer spending.

As Pennsylvania braces itself for a 30% increase in electrical costs, I can only imagine what that will do to the local economies. Even though our local electric company (PP&L) made more profit last year (at its present rates) than any time in history, their price increase (we are told) is because they are preparing to pay more for fuels in the coming years. Needless to say, Pennsylvania power companies have always depended pretty heavily on coal as a fuel. Coal will be fuel-non-grata with regard to carbon emissions. Other states are in a similar position.

Interestingly, as PA faces increased costs for heating and electricity, people are turning to "alternatives" that may not help the pollution. People are talking more about pellet stoves, wood stoves, coal stoves, etc. than they are about windmills and solar panels.

The Fed is offering tax credits equal to 30% of the cost of installing solar and/or geothermal home systems. Of course, if the system costs $25,000, that means you're getting $7500 back. Coming up with the other $17,500 could be a problem if you just lost your job. That money that the banks are giving back to the government, maybe it should pay for installing more residential solar panels at the grassroots level?

Let's try this one: In places like AZ with lots of sun available, solar panels can be cost-effective. Government grant installs solar panels on residential homes. Solar panels then provide electricity needed for the residence. Resident pays reasonable amount for the electric it uses from those panels to repay the government grant for the installation (plus interest until the grant & interest are paid in full). Excess electricity is then sold at a reasonable rate to the local electric company (by the resident). The electric company then sells that electricity to other consumers (business or residential) Very important to keep the bureaucracy to barest minimums.

Eventually, the resident will have paid off the "loan" & get their electricity free. The amount NOT paid for electricity can be used to maintain the solar panel equipment. The resident can continue to sell its excess to the electric company for the use of other customers. (Perhaps the sale of the excess electricity to the power company can be worked into the maintenance of the solar panel system, just as the power company maintains its other electrical capacity.)

Seems to me that such a program could be "tested" in one community, on small scale, to see if it works. Worst case scenario is that you end up with several homes with solar panels, no longer dependent on fossil fuel for electricity.

If this works, then it seems reasonable to me that a private enterprise could develop around installing solar panels for residential consumers that are paid for via "installments" and excess sold to local power companies. This example only works well for places like AZ.

There are lots smarter people than me out there. There have got to be better solutions to our energy problem than cap & trade.

Coal, within the limits of our present technology, is high in pollution. OTOH, one nuclear accident could trump all that pollution big-time.

Without a world-wide effort to replace finite fossil fuels, anything we do that further depresses the U.S. economy at a time when it is already struggling just doesn't compute for me. We have also seen that when the U.S. economy goes down, the ripple effect throughout the rest of the world is undeniable.

Makes me think of Milton Friedman, in that the capitalist system has fueled the economy of the world; even for those countries who decry it so loudly.

Our focus should be how to not further depress the U.S. economy as we search for the viable alternatives to fossil fuels. If cap & trade does not accomplish both objectives, it will be bad for the U.S. and for the world.

Sorry this is so long.

WRL
06-27-2009, 12:02 PM
You know, I don't buy the whole "global warming" thing.

How do we know that this is NOT a normal occurance?

You know, the earth used to be covered by a lot more water and glaciers and snow. It was called the ice age.

What happened to all of the "frozen water"????

I would bet it either melted or evaporated. I don;t recall in any discussions of the ice age how carbon emissions melted the ice. It seems to me that "man" at that time was lucky to be able to cook food let alone drive a car.

Just watched a show on TLC the other day. Very very interesting.....do you know they have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the magnetic poles change every so often? While this happens, there are "catastrophic" changes that occur. Some species survive and some do not. However, it does tell about how the water and ice amounts change and "relocate".

So are the poles reversing due to some Republican conspiracy to promote fossil fuel use??

I think not.

WRL

Pete
06-27-2009, 12:17 PM
I would love to hear the explaination from these spudo scientists explaining the swing in temperatures from up to down and back again over the eons of time .

lets face it,,,its just normal changes that has gone on since the beggining of time. Its really a no brainer. if it never happened before then yes We might be the culprits ,,,,but this is normal,,,,,I promise the sky will not collapse.:D But if we can convince enough people,,,and the scientists can still keep going to work in the morning to justify their waste of time and money for the taxpayers. After this is debunked and billions of money are wasted ,,we will now try to convince the world of global cooling being mans fault.

The planet may be warming but so what its nothing man can do about it.
Like we say in idaho ,,,if you don't like the weather just wait a minute

Pete

Pete

Terry Britton
06-27-2009, 12:21 PM
Wouldn't implementing the Picken's Plan be much cheaper than all of this Cap and Trade while creating jobs that actually produce and stay in the US? I am not confident Cap and Trade will produce anything but massive taxes that will hinder innovation and new technologies.

tpaschal30
06-27-2009, 01:02 PM
There will always be oil


There will still be oil in the ground 10 years from now, and 50 years from now and 500 years from now. This will hold true no matter if you take a pessimistic or optimistic view about the amount of oil still available to be extracted. Let's suppose that the supply really is quite limited. What will happen as the supply starts to diminish? First we would expect to see some wells run dry and either be replaced with new wells that have higher associated costs or not be replaced at all. Either of these would cause the price at the pump to rise. When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, or cars that run on alternative fuels. Each consumer will react to the price change differently, so we would expect to see everything from more people bicycling to work to used car lots full of Lincoln Navigators.

If we go back to Economics 101, this effect is clearly visible. The continual reduction of the supply of oil is represented by a series of small shifts of the supply curve to the left and an associated move along the demand curve. Since gasoline is a normal good, Economics 101 tells us that we will have a series of price increases and a series of reductions in the total amount of gasoline consumed. Eventually the price will reach a point where gasoline will become a niche good purchased by very few consumers, while other consumers will have found alternatives to gas. When this happens there will still be plenty of oil in the ground, but consumers will have found alternatives that make more economic sense to them, so there will be little, if any, demand for gasoline.

subroc
06-27-2009, 01:30 PM
The democrats would rather attempt to accelerate that process by artificially inflating the cost with taxes and onerous regulation regardless of the economic outcomes. They don’t appear to care if alternative technologies are ready for prime time, efficient, cost effective or for that matter work or make any sense at all.

As it relates to this issue, democrats are silly.

DSemple
06-27-2009, 02:07 PM
Good posts Gerry, Terry, & Jeff.

I'm not smart enough to know who is right, but I'd be more inclined to believe the Democrat leaders on the Global Warming issue, IF I SAW THEM PUT IN PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH.

I see Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and the other Democratic leaders consume more fossil fuel EACH, then everybody put together in the small city I live in.

Buying Carbon Credits makes as much sense as a fat guy buying extra Weight Watcher points.

....Don

Gerry Clinchy
06-27-2009, 02:39 PM
Buying Carbon Credits makes as much sense as a fat guy buying extra Weight Watcher points.

....Don

Where do I get those Weight Watcher points? :D

Regarding the gasoline scenario put forth ... I believe that we are closer to using alternate fuels for industrial/commercial uses and even residential heating/electrical usage than we are to having a mass marketable alternative to the gasoline engine.

Seems we should do what we can do cost-effectively (industrial, commercial, residential) as soon as possible, giving us some time to come up with a decent alternative to the gasoline engine.

If we are going to drive less (due to increased cost of gas), then we need those other alternative energy sources to provide other means of transportation, i.e. electricity powers urban rail service, for example. We'll need to make that electricity a viable economic alternative. Otherwise, we all better be prepared to spend more time not traveling anywhere.

If it seems inevitable that the cost of all kinds of energy will increase, then we better be finding some ways to generate the wealth that will fund those increased costs of living.

tpaschal30
06-27-2009, 02:40 PM
Where do I get those Weight Watcher points? :D

Regarding the gasoline scenario put forth ... I believe that we are closer to using alternate fuels for industrial/commercial uses and even residential heating/electrical usage than we are to having a mass marketable alternative to the gasoline engine.

Seems we should do what we can do cost-effectively (industrial, commercial, residential) as soon as possible, giving us some time to come up with a decent alternative to the gasoline engine.

If we are going to drive less (due to increased cost of gas), then we need those other alternative energy sources to provide other means of transportation, i.e. electricity powers urban rail service, for example. We'll need to make that electricity a viable economic alternative. Otherwise, we all better be prepared to spend more time not traveling anywhere.

If it seems inevitable that the cost of all kinds of energy will increase, then we better be finding some ways to generate the wealth that will fund those increased costs of living.

The market will provide.

Bruce MacPherson
06-27-2009, 09:54 PM
In the most recent report on climate change from the xxx, the primary conclusion is:

"1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)"

The most recent report is available at http://www.globalchange.gov (http://www.globalchange.gov/). It was released June 16, 2009 and provides a rather thorough summary of both the evidence supporting the existence of global warming that is primarily human induced and a detailed assessment of the impacts expected in the US. While I tend to be a fairly voracious reader and a skeptic about almost everything, I cannot independently evaluate all of the evidence on global climate change. However, my BS alarms go off in full force when I read the challenges to the science generated with great regularity.

As has been demonstrated in prior threads, this forum does little to promote scientific discussion in the face of ideological and religious commitments. Personally, I tend to believe that the burden of proof of safety rests with those engaging in activities that significantly change our environment, not with those seeking to minimize those impacts. It is clear that human activity is dramatically changing aspects of our atmosphere. Show me the proof that those changes have no negative consequences.

Sure man made activity can have an impact so can natural occurrences to numerous to mention. This is more about money for a few than actual science so wake up and smell the coffee. More countries are buying out of this madness than are buying in and most of them are more than happy to see the U.S. blythely skipping down this path to less productivity and second rate status.

YardleyLabs
06-28-2009, 07:05 AM
Sure man made activity can have an impact so can natural occurrences to numerous to mention. This is more about money for a few than actual science so wake up and smell the coffee. More countries are buying out of this madness than are buying in and most of them are more than happy to see the U.S. blythely skipping down this path to less productivity and second rate status.
I agree it's about money. It's about the profits of coal-burning utilities that were purchased by speculators after they had been ordered to clean up their emissions or close. Instead they lobbied successfully for variances allowing them to continue poisoning the air over eastern cities long after they were supposed to have shut down. It's about the profits of the petroleum industry which wants to ensure that no alternative technologies are developed unless they are in control. Both have spent fortunes to subsidize "scientific" research to sow confusion much as the Tobacco Industry did with the Tobacco Institute. It's also about a Republican Party that has sold its soul to these industries in its efforts to raise funds.

As to other countries:

Show me another country that has as large a carbon footprint per person as the the United States.
Show me a mature developed country that has not already done more to reduce its carbon footprint than the United States. I'm awake and I smell the coffee. Do you?

Hew
06-28-2009, 07:26 AM
It's also about a Republican Party that has sold its soul to these industries in its efforts to raise funds.
It's instructive to note that if the GOP has "sold its soul," it is to industries that produce jobs, fuel the economy of the country and provide for a standard of living unmatched nearly anywhere else in the world. In contrast, the Democrats have sold their souls to labor unions and ambulance chasing trial attorneys...groups that parasitically wrench their livelihood out of somebody else's wallet. Who do you have to thank for the electricity that powered your computer to type your last post, the local coal-fired electrical utility or the AFL-CIO?

YardleyLabs
06-28-2009, 08:18 AM
It's instructive to note that if the GOP has "sold its soul," it is to industries that produce jobs, fuel the economy of the country and provide for a standard of living unmatched nearly anywhere else in the world. In contrast, the Democrats have sold their souls to labor unions and ambulance chasing trial attorneys...groups that parasitically wrench their livelihood out of somebody else's wallet. Who do you have to thank for the electricity that powered your computer to type your last post, the local coal-fired electrical utility or the AFL-CIO?

Actually, the bulk of my electricity comes from the nuclear facility at three mile island. My asthma probably owes a lot of its episodes to the coal fired plants in Ohio.

subroc
06-28-2009, 08:35 AM
It's instructive to note that if the GOP has "sold its soul," it is to industries that produce jobs, fuel the economy of the country and provide for a standard of living unmatched nearly anywhere else in the world. In contrast, the Democrats have sold their souls to labor unions and ambulance chasing trial attorneys...groups that parasitically wrench their livelihood out of somebody else's wallet. Who do you have to thank for the electricity that powered your computer to type your last post, the local coal-fired electrical utility or the AFL-CIO?

great post...

subroc
06-28-2009, 08:36 AM
Actually, the bulk of my electricity comes from the nuclear facility at three mile island. My asthma probably owes a lot of its episodes to the coal fired plants in Ohio.

I believe democrats loathe nuclear power as well.

YardleyLabs
06-28-2009, 08:38 AM
I believe democrats loathe nuclear power as well.
I grew up in Oak Ridge TN where all the original residents still glow in the dark.;-)

[If you don't know. that is where the plutonium for our atomic bombs was refined.]

Julie R.
06-28-2009, 10:55 AM
If it seems inevitable that the cost of all kinds of energy will increase, then we better be finding some ways to generate the wealth that will fund those increased costs of living.

Obongo has already done that, he's generating wealth by having tons of money printed so he can give out more to the non working have-nots. The voters that would normally be most hurt by the increased costs of living due to higher energy costs aren't the slightest bit worried because you and I will be subsidizing them. And don't forget they also have Hugo Chavez and Joe Kennedy to keep their furnaces running. ;-)

Gerry Clinchy
06-28-2009, 11:36 AM
As to other countries:

Show me another country that has as large a carbon footprint per person as the the United States.
Show me a mature developed country that has not already done more to reduce its carbon footprint than the United States.I'm awake and I smell the coffee. Do you?

It's logical that the U.S. should have the largest carbon footprint per person, as I might venture that it has one of the largest GNPs in the world, if not the largest.

The countries who are using less fossil fuels are doing so very probably because they had to ... they did not have great reserves of petroleum and money was obviously a good motivation to fuel their homes and businesses with something other than petroleum products.

What is surprising to me is that Europe has long been paying very high gasoline prices. That should have provided a very good reason to develop an auto that could replace the internal combustion engine? My guess is that ultimately the U.S. will play a greater role in developing that technology than those countries who have had the "motivation" for a longer period of time.

While I surely would support the idea of better public transportation, the advances in that regard in other countries is even more driven by money & downright physical need.

While Japan is a very advanced society, we often forget how little land they have to support their population. Urban apartments are smaller, for example. Not just because they are environment conscious, but because land is in shorter supply v. their population. Some idiosyncrasies are that since home ownership is out of reach for many, they buy cars instead as their status symbols. Then the cars are used sparingly due cost of gas. So, if we try to measure a country's environmental consciousness just by the size of its carbon footprint, we may be overlooking the more compelling reasons for the end result.

Consider also that if people in Vietnam ride bicyles a lot more than we do, it's because they can not afford either the car or the gas.

The U.S. may have the largest carbon footprint per person, but one also can see in today's U.S. recession has rippled into a world-wide recession that the carbon footprint of the U.S. fuels the world economy, not just our own economy.

And we have yet to determine, without reasonable doubt, whether a large carbon footprint is a black a sin as what's going on in countries like Iran or North Korea. Somehow, I don't believe that N Korea's record of social consciousness would indicate concern for conducting its nuclear program with due care for its population or the environmental safety of the rest of the world.

Henry V
06-29-2009, 09:56 AM
Can one of you deniers tell me the benefits of these documented trends in CO2. Also, help me understand why you believe this is no big deal despite the fact that the best available science suggests that something has dramatically changed in the past 100 years. (i.e. Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the previous 500,000 years.)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png

badbullgator
06-29-2009, 10:37 AM
And all the taxes and change is targeted at preventing a rise of temperatur of 1 deg on average. Even you supporters of GW should know that is BS.
Climate changes and we can;t do anything about it no matter what we do. By the time it is a factor you and I and all our great grandchildren with be long gone.

Keith Farmer
06-29-2009, 11:47 AM
(i.e. Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the previous 500,000 years.)




One has to begin with the belief that the Earth is millions of years old to buy that garbage.

In fact, the only true history book that science backs up with geological studies, as well as other sciences, dictates that the earth is only several thousand years old. So anyone who says 500,000 years is blowing their theoretic smoke...it simply is not true!


.

Hew
06-29-2009, 12:22 PM
One has to begin with the belief that the Earth is millions of years old to buy that garbage.

In fact, the only true history book that science backs up with geological studies, as well as other sciences, dictates that the earth is only several thousand years old. So anyone who says 500,000 years is blowing their theoretic smoke...it simply is not true!
.
And they're off......

Henry V
06-29-2009, 12:39 PM
Another interesting article at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-peril-below-the-ice

DSemple
06-29-2009, 01:02 PM
One has to begin with the belief that the Earth is millions of years old to buy that garbage.

In fact, the only true history book that science backs up with geological studies, as well as other sciences, dictates that the earth is only several thousand years old. So anyone who says 500,000 years is blowing their theoretic smoke...it simply is not true!


.

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/DSemple/hs-2003-28-a-web.jpg

Keith, the good Lord also made this beautiful Galaxy and it's 28 Billion light years away.

Keith Farmer
06-29-2009, 09:01 PM
Keith, the good Lord also made this beautiful Galaxy and it's 28 Billion light years away


First of all that is almost double what astronomers say:



“… its size is inextricably bound up with its age. The Universe is fifteen billion light years in size because it is fifteen billion years old” (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, p. 3).


However, the size of the universe is estimated based on the Hubble Constant which is simply a rate of expansion that begins by assuming an old age of the Earth and working backward using this constant to establish the "Big Bang" date. Again, it is all theory...can't you see that?! (By the way, scientists had to adjust their dates because they had actually come up with the Earth being older than the cosmos...by billions of years...once they adjusted their theories they reconciled the time estimates and...well).

Do not be fooled, in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The stars and the galaxies were created on the fourth day:

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. (NIV)





.

Franco
06-29-2009, 10:18 PM
Do not be fooled, in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The stars and the galaxies were created on the fourth day:

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. (NIV)


.

Ancient man's attempt in explaining our being. Great creative writing but very weak in substance.

They tried to explain it by what was known then and what was believable then.

All the major religions on earth have thier different opinions on the origins of our existence. That's how religions began.

I'm just glad that today we have real information.

Terry Britton
06-29-2009, 11:19 PM
First of all that is almost double what astronomers say:



However, the size of the universe is estimated based on the Hubble Constant which is simply a rate of expansion that begins by assuming an old age of the Earth and working backward using this constant to establish the "Big Bang" date. Again, it is all theory...can't you see that?! (By the way, scientists had to adjust their dates because they had actually come up with the Earth being older than the cosmos...by billions of years...once they adjusted their theories they reconciled the time estimates and...well).

Do not be fooled, in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The stars and the galaxies were created on the fourth day:

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. (NIV)





.

Things start getting really interesting when you dive into Modern Physics with time concepts where at one point may see millions of years while another being moving at a faster speed may only see a day elapse.