global warming

[subroc]

so what im hearing is that oil is still our best option?!

I expect if you have an automobile that runs on gasoline and a furnace that burns oil then the answer for you is yes.

If you have a natural gas furnace you will need natural gas to run that.

If you are choosing something new, you will need to do your own cost benefit analysis to determine if the technology is proven and cost effective unless you are willing to pay the premium for unproven or less than cost efficient/effective technologies.

It appears that many preach alternatives but fail to act. Al Gore is a prime example. While preaching all alternatives his home used massive amounts of resources (you can look it up). Until he was called on it he hadn’t made any modifications. After being called on it he has since, I believe, made some modifications. He is pretty much a phony.

Now if one is wealthy, they could take all these great cutting edge technologies and install many of these systems in their homes and the cost be dammed, but if you have an existing structure, the cost of these systems for the average man or woman will/could be excessive.

Now if you are an activist and your first impulse is to just hate the oil companies, I expect the best thing for you would be to stop using oil and use alternative products for your energy needs. That effort will have a two-fold benefit. You will feel better by not using the dreaded product “oil” from your enemy the oil companies and it will leave more oil available for your fellow citizens, that don’t share your hatred of oil and oil companies, to use. It may cost you more but there is a premium to being on the leading or cutting edge of anything.

[IowaBayDog]

I am surprised at your panning of the wind power industry. I see hundreds of wind power generators whenever I traverse your fair state. If you go to Vestas website they are sure proud of the fact their windmills reduce CO2. There are quite a few Iowa farmers that are benefiting from that wind power.

Sarge,

You may need a little reading comprehension brush up, my statements were all opinions of the environmental wackos not my own.
"They are against, coal cause its dirty, wind because a bird might die..."

But thanks for throwing in the Geothermal and clean coal stuff to prove my point. Wind power does provide a lot of jobs in Iowa, not mine though, it is highly subsidized and there are skeptics to whether it will ever pay off and they may be right. I think it is a good investment myself to provide added capacity in high usage times and has little environment impact unless you are a Kennedy. A power storage system is needed to make it more reliable but those are even a higher Capital cost making it even more fiscally unfeasible.

[zeus3925]

But thanks for throwing in the Geothermal and clean coal stuff to prove my point. Wind power does provide a lot of jobs in Iowa, not mine though, it is highly subsidized and there are skeptics to whether it will ever pay off and they may be right. I think it is a good investment myself to provide added capacity in high usage times and has little environment impact unless you are a Kennedy. A power storage system is needed to make it more reliable but those are even a higher Capital cost making it even more fiscally unfeasible.

Actually, I threw that in for you on purpose. Enjoy!

[Marvin S]

From IBD, Issues & Insights, 1-21-2009

Beyond Belief -

Climate Change: Despite years of media bombardment about the imminent dangers of global warming, the alarmists are losing ground. Fewer Americans are buying into the myth.

From a Rasmussen poll -

Recently polled - 44% of US voters blame long term planetary trends for the (perceived) global warming: only 41% say human activity is responsible.

In July 2006 - 35% believed the cause of warming to be natural, while 46% said humans were responsible.

Last April 34% said long term global trends, while 47% said man was to blame.

Lefties - I think you are losing the propaganda war - you may actually have to get a real job.

[subroc]

How important is Global Warming? Dead Last!

http://people-press.org/report/485/e...olicy-priority

[BlackDog1337]

How important is Global Warming? Dead Last!

http://people-press.org/report/485/e...olicy-priority

Social Security is 3 lol i think that might should be moved down a bit lol

[zeus3925]

I would expect that GW would be ranked something like we see in the Pew poll. Several things affect people's understanding of issues.

People tend to focus on issues that are immediately before them.

Secondly, the problem must be limited in scope and easily understandable.

Thirdly, the solutions must be perceived as workable and quick in achieving success.

The perception of global warming is akin to the proverbial frog in water slowly warming to the boiling point. GW is an issue that is not easily understandable. The "fixes" appear to be long, expensive and, to a degree, painful.

Right now, the without addressing the top two issues,on the PewPoll list, fixes for the others on the list will not be possible or be anemic at best.

[Henry V]

So what exactly is the point of posting these poll results? Do you want us to conclude that global warming/climate change is not important because only 30% ranked it as a “top priority”. Given the economy and two wars, etc I am amazed that global warming is still listed by 30% of American as a “top priority”. I certainly wouldn’t have rated it that high, but I do wonder how many folks rated it in their top 3 or top 5 priorities. Unfortunately, the poll report does not give such details.

If I didn’t know better, I could jump to the conclusion that this poll was posted to suggest that those of us that think differently on this topic are somehow out of touch. Funny, I remember similar things being said about our views on Sarah Palin being a slam dunk winner for the republican ticket.

As the survey summary states:

The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities.

Since you are interested in these polls, you should also take a look at this one from Pew. http://people-press.org/report/417/a...global-warming
Here is a line from the 2008 report.

Overall, 71% of Americans say there is solid evidence of higher global temperatures, compared with 77% at the beginning of last year. There is less of a consensus about the cause of global warming. Roughly half of Americans (47%) say the earth is warming because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.

If the fact that only 30% of Americans view global warming as their “top priority” makes you feel better or that folks with an environmental mindset want to move us back to the stone age makes you feel better, then keep up this level of discussion.

If you think the Antarctic is warming then you should take a look at this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ca-red-or-blue

If you think the artic ice is on a long term increase then take a look at this: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Want to know what CO2 levels are doing check out this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html

In a related article at: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm NOAA scientists state:

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

So, what I have learned here is that many believe the climate is changing but that humans have no influence on the process. Do you folks believe that humans have played a role in documented increases in atmospheric CO2 levels? If so, can someone here give me some idea of what is likely to happen from this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since it is not going to be global warming? Maybe since this is not related to climate change I should start a new thread if I want any answers.

[Henry V]

For scientific evidence that the tropics have expanded. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=online-news

And I am still waiting for someone to help me understand how this trend will affect the planet since I have learned here that it can't be global warming.


Please also help me understand how its all good that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is now higher than ever based on hundreds of thousands of years of record from ice cores.

[Cody Covey]

has anyone said that the earth WASN'T warming at one point in time. or that co2 levels have gone up. all that most here are saying is that global warming isn't man made, the earth isn't even warming anymore and you people still spout this stuff as fact...i do applaud you for sticking to your guns and trying to use pretty graphs that provide no evidence helping your cause