The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 178

Thread: Global warming - a big, healthy dose of reality here:

  1. #21
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    there was no bait, just wanted you to address the topic of the post. the article was not intended to refute global warming, just to show the intentions and dubious methods of those pushing it
    We all know by now that there are dubious methods involved ANY time there is money to be made. Its the American way! The pharmaceutical industry is full of profiteering and dubious advertising/research. That doens't mean some people don't need medicine.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    There is nothing new in the article that was posted to start this thread. If the author wanted to present credible arguments he probably should not have cited as evidence a petition that anyone on this board could have logged into and signed (search "Oregon petition climate change and see for yourself).

    Here are some interesting comments by other climate scientists since the email "scandal" that are worth reading:
    From The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Dec. 8, 2009
    "The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent. ...
    “AAAS expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private e-mails ... should not cause policymakers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change.”


    From The Met Office (the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service), the Natural Environment Research Council and the UK’s Royal Society (the UK’s national academy of science), Nov. 24, 2009
    [/I]"The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, we can likely expect a world of increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human populations.
    “However, even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment, the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened. …
    “Without coordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilization could be severe.”[/I]

    From a Statement by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, Dec. 4, 2009
    “Working Group I of the IPCC firmly stands behind the conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the community of researchers and its individuals providing the scientific basis. ... The key finding of IPCC AR4, ‘The warming in the climate system is unequivocal,’ is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth.
    “The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide.”


    and, my personal favorite from Nature, the highly respected British scientific journal, in its editorial Dec. 3, 2009.
    “The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, U.K., have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall.
    “To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe. ...
    “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real – or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
    Last edited by Henry V; 01-04-2010 at 09:47 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Let's ALL assume YOU are correct, Henry V! Please answer these simple questions:

    1. Are you favoring the carbon credit system being proposed and the subject of the "Cap & Trade" bill in congress, to be voted on soon?

    2. Aren't you just somewhat skeptical this program is reminiscant of the old 'sin-selling' game used by the 16th century Catholic Priests called indulgences?

    3. Are you willing to have your electric bill increased by 25 to 50 % because of this new 'tax' on your way of life?

    And for the benefit of many on this BB, could you please explain how this new bill and tax will benefit you personally, which is what I can't find it doing for me? It may be I'm too dense to see all the benefits, and once I see how they are benefitting you, it might be the same for me.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Only for you UB.
    Yes, let's assume that my point of view which is consistent with the vast majority of climate scientists is correct. Here are some simple answers to your questions. For a more detailed response you may want to look at my previous responses to your badgering in June, 2008 at http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...+change&page=3
    1) Yes, generally but I am not sure it will work at reducing carbon emissions. A direct energy tax and strong regulation may be more effective and simpler.
    2) No, and I'll give you credit for trying to equate believing in science to religion.
    3) Yes, I believe in full cost accounting. I think we do our children and grandchildren a tremendous disservice by externalizing the full costs of our energy consumption to them. You have peaked my curiosity, why do you believe the data and the "precise" models of the economic extremists that make these type of projections?
    4) I have nothing to gain financially. I am not a climate scientist, I am not working on carbon sequestration, or development of alternative energy sources. I expect my children to gain in the long run if we conserve more energy and transition to an economy not based on overly cheap and finite sources of energy.

    I don't think this new petroleum oil thing is going to work out we need to stick to whale oil regards,

  5. #25
    Senior Member Steve Amrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    St. Peters, MO
    Posts
    1,869

    Default

    This question is for DNF and Henry. 30-40 years ago it was thought by science we were heading for another ice age and similar death to us all type predictions. If you were old enough and had a opinion then based on the reported science how did you feel then ? Some say this is still a valid theory and based on todays temps....
    "Communism only works in Heaven, where they don't need it, and in Hell, where they already have it" Ronald Reagan

  6. #26
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default

    I expect my children to gain in the long run if we conserve more energy and transition to an economy not based on overly cheap and finite sources of energy.
    There is, never has been, anything wrong with conservation. Will the proposed legislation actually do that? If Al Gore is an example, he simply expects to continue consuming obscene amounts of energy by virtue of someone else doing the conserving

    Here in Pennsylvania, we will be forced to conserve, since our electric rates have just gone up by 30%. Since I was on a Thermal Storage system, my outlay may rise 50%!

    The theory for thermal storage units was that energy consumption overnight was greatly less than during the day when businesses were using lights,heating, machinery, etc. Yet, the power company can't shut down their power generation facilities at 5PM. So, by heating water overnight (when excess energy was simply going to waste), this would provide back-up for heat pumps to draw upon during business hours. So, from 7AM to 5PM, I was penalized for drawing more than 2KWs/hour for more than 15 consecutive minutes. My experience was that it was almost impossible to do this in winter, when I was penalized about $18 for the extra 3KW I would draw. The hot water heater was also on a timer so that it did not heat water during the peak hours. Having this system had requirements: a heat pump with EER of at least 8 (back in 1991 there weren't many of those made) & a high-efficiency, 80-gal hot water heater. The cost of these requirements, over and above an "ordinary" heat pump heating system was about double ($9000 v. $5000 back in 1991). The basic "customer charge" for having such a system was also higher than a "regular" customer charge as it required a special electric meter.

    PP&L puts conservation tips into each bill I receive ... everything from switching to curly lightbulbs to unplugging any appliance when it is not in use ... including things like lamps, radio and TVs.

    They've also suggested to thermal storage customers that they replace their systems with new higher-efficiency heat pumps OR (get this) GAS. When did you last hear of the electric company suggesting that you switch to gas heat? For many people gas is not an option (unless it's going to be propane). That leaves oil, wood, coal or electric. What will more wood-burning or coal-burning stoves do for the carbon footprint?

    The Fed will give me back a credit of $1500 for replacing my heating system with the "right" kind of heating system. I could do geo-thermal but $1500 doesn't make much of a dent in the $20,000 price tag for such a system. PP&L is giving something like a $500 rebate for installing certain systems.

    If PP&L is telling people to find another way to heat their homes, and pull the plugs on their appliances when not in use, what do you think they believe will happen to energy costs with, or without, a cap & trade bill?

    PP&L has historically been one of the big dealers in re-selling their elec capacity to others. They did get left holding some unpaid bills from their sales to utilities in California a few years back. Remember the California fiasco ... brownouts, etc.

    Utilities like PP&L purchase their fuels years in advance of delivery of electricity to its customers. They have made money hand over fist recently since they were operating on fuels purchased years before at lower prices. So, if they're raising rates dramatically now, one has to believe that their fuel costs are about to increase a lot, and they are planning ahead.

    I'd expect higher gas prices as more people switch to natural gas and propane for heating. I'd expect higher prices for all other types of heating fuels that could be used by homeowners (wood, coal, wood pellets, and oil).
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    All I know is that I have never broken ice with my boat like I did yesterday. I can't remember a cold stretch like we are having now. Global warming? PFFFFFFT. Yeah right.


    Are you cringing Dave?

    BTW, I think that God has an excellent sense of humor. Ever notice how all these global warming conferences always have lots of snow on the ground?

  8. #28
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    All I know is that I have never broken ice with my boat like I did yesterday. I can't remember a cold stretch like we are having now. Global warming? PFFFFFFT. Yeah right.


    Are you cringing Dave?

    BTW, I think that God has an excellent sense of humor. Ever notice how all these global warming conferences always have lots of snow on the ground?
    Not cringing at all. Shivering, yes. I have no agenda or stake in this debate. What I cringe at is the politicization of the science by both sides of this debate, along with the potential profiteering agendas by both sides. I just want an honest assessment and scientific discovery, and let the truth be known. It's not always easy, or even possible when dealing with such large space and time scales.

    This also attempts to answer Steve's question to me. At that time 30-40 years ago, we also thought phones needed cords in order to work. Obviously times, technology, and our understanding of things advances. If, with the data and technology available at the time, that is what they thought (yes, I remember that) then obviously they were wrong. It seems by the current debate however, that has been recongnized and corrrected. Maybe. Again, all I ask for is an honest, unbiased, scientific study of the issue.
    Last edited by dnf777; 01-07-2010 at 12:06 PM.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  9. #29
    Senior Member brandywinelabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post

    This also attempts to answer Steve's question to me. At that time 30-40 years ago, we also thought phones needed cords in order to work. Obviously times, technology, and our understanding of things advances. If, with the data and technology available at the time, that is what they thought (yes, I remember that) then obviously they were wrong. It seems by the current debate however, that has been recongnized and corrrected. Maybe. Again, all I ask for is an honest, unbiased, scientific study of the issue.
    Exactly. Perhaps those that are now crying wolf because they believe that global warming is occuring are missing as much as the ice age purveyers were 30 yrs ago. And perhaps those that point out both are more in tune with what is really happening. No warming, no ice age, just normal cycling.
    Which is what I believe. Yes we should try to do our part to keep polution down and conserve. But with realistic, common sense approach without all of the hype.
    Greg W.

    Brooks Black Gold At Briarwood JH (Louie)
    Brandywine's Belle on Wheels JH (Belle)
    Serengetti Sadie O'Brandywine SH -MH passes (Sadie)
    CH Brandywine's Westdale Duggan MH (Duggan)
    CH Alpenglo's Jasmine O'Brooks JH CD (Jasmine)
    Brandywine's Flagship SH (Brandy)

  10. #30
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandywinelabs View Post
    Exactly. Perhaps those that are now crying wolf because they believe that global warming is occuring are missing as much as the ice age purveyers were 30 yrs ago. And perhaps those that point out both are more in tune with what is really happening. No warming, no ice age, just normal cycling.
    Which is what I believe. Yes we should try to do our part to keep polution down and conserve. But with realistic, common sense approach without all of the hype.
    I don't have the answers, but if we are to accept that this is a natural cycle, we would have to also accept it is the most drastic natural swing in history. That's a little bigger leap than I'm willing to make, so I'm waiting for more info, as it continues to snow here.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •