Global warming crowd takes a break

[FishForLunch]

The extreme lows in the mid west seems to have put a damper on the global warming alarmists. It was 4 F this morning in Northern Kentucky brrrr...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Global warming or global cooling?Add to Clippings
SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

At first I have to say that I am an independent civil engineer who among others gives advice to people about optimize tenements regarding to conserve energy and decrease carbon dioxide emission, so I know this subject very good.

This is one of the most stupid commentary I´ve ever read about this topic. Must be dictated right from the US government which, like all governments, compose the things how it´s best for them and blink a fact about this global problem. I was at the end of my tether as the US environment minister is one of the few which don´t see any need for action regarding this problem.

It starts with the statement that in Kashmir they had record snowfalls and in Mumbai they had a temperature low record:

So you have to know that warm air absorbs more dewiness than cold air. In consequence of that the intensity of precipitation will rise with a global warming and not drop. Therefore this is rather a affirmation of the global warming.

About the temperature low: There were always some sporadic phenomena and this is nothing new to us, but you can´t deny that, from a global standpoint, the temperatures mostly going up rather than going down. There are many winter sports regions which exist from tourism and now have problems as there more often is not enough snow.

The argument that the decrease of glaciers is only a fact of micro-conditions is nonsense. From a global point of view the disappearance of the glaciers is gaining ground and the few glaciers which advance, are rare individual cases.

The extreme weather phenomena like hurricanes (New Orleans), Tornado's, snowstorms, rain with floodings, catastrophic droughts, etc are on the rise throughout the world.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

Also absolute nonsense as it´s very expensive for the government and the industry (especially the air polluting industry like for example coal-fired power stations, indirect the car industry and of course the oil industry) to do something against the pollution of the environment. So it´s not surprising that the environment minister also in sense of the economic doesn´t want to do anything. Sadly that the same is true of most of governments all around the world as the industries mostly have the authority over them. The lobby of this people is much more powerful and has much more billions of money than the ones which want to do something against the global warming.

There I have to say that the pollution from the cars is at the moment less responsible for the global warming than the pollution through the industry and the excessive consumption of energy for e.g. heating houses or air conditions and in this way the massive emission of carbon dioxide, the main cause of the global warming. This (pollution through cars) of course will be a much bigger problem if the Asian developing countries bloom and everyone wants to have a car.

It´s true that no one knows what will happen 100 years from now, but it´s a fact that the the average temperature will rise between 2,8°C at best and 6,4°C at worst case scenario, but only if we will stop to limit the carbon dioxin emission drastically. How scary the situation will be if the temperature rises for about 6,4°C, points out the fact, that between the warm stage and the ice age there was only a temperature difference of 4°C! So nobody can tell us what will happen in the future, because it never happened before to our world.

All in all the government has to do something immediately against the global warming without being narrow-minded and it´s irresponsible to gamble with the future not only of our children but of all humans!

[Pirate]

Nonsense, mr engineer.

You pick at the article, yet your points absolutely ratify exactly what it is telling us. Its message is two-fold: (1) proponents of "a coming global warming calamity" will accept one side of the data, and willingly and abruptly dismiss anything to the contrary as if it never existed, which is not scientific and is more like propganda in a cause, and (2) the global warming crowd jumps to the most dire consequences possible, without ever stopping for a millisecond to consider if a few degrees of warming might ultimately be countermanded by other natural factors in the design of our world. Might there even be POSITIVES with some warming? Might the positives outweigh the negatives? Perish the thought! Don't dare think that.

For example, let's look at warming. There probably is some degree of warming going on. (Man made? Very very dubious science with that part of the claim!)

But even if so, if it does actually occur, what happens? There is less ice and more warm land. There is more sun. There is more evaporation and rain. More fresh water. More wind and pollination. Put all that together, and what do you ultimately get? You get more vegetation. That makes LESS carbon dioxide, and more oxygen. More cloud cover. Wow. A completely natural PENDULUM OF NATURE that will gradually send the climate back the other direction without government mandate and intervention.

Meanwhile the Chicken-Little-Gores of the world are screaming for government minions to stop what is completely a part of the cycle of nature. Micromanage the environment. Control our atmosphere. And so on. Jump on the "PC" bandwagon that demands we see global warming and cede our liberty to the "climate police." Make it harder to make a living with a "protect the climate" rationale.

Pure rubbish.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

From Pirate: Nonsense, mr engineer.

You pick at the article, yet your points absolutely ratify exactly what it is telling us. Its message is two-fold: (1) proponents of "a coming global warming calamity" will accept one side of the data, and willingly and abruptly dismiss anything to the contrary as if it never existed, which is not scientific and is more like propganda in a cause,...

Which contrary?

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

The opinion of a individual. There are always a few people with other opinions, but how long does it take for the writer to find an article of someone who plough a lonely furrow with this opinion? Also don´t forget, this quote is from 1972!

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead....

I don´t know which weather forecast the writer watches every day but mostly the predictions are right. Maybe in the past the hit ratio was bad. Nowadays the accuracy is about 90%.

...The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

Like I said, no one can tell us which climate we will have in the future (the predictions for 100 years widely differing) but every model predicts a global warming!

Here for example a nice article about the big influence of the industry (oil):
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Enough said, to where the big money is and the interests of all persons concerned. Like always, it´s all about the money.

...and (2) the global warming crowd jumps to the most dire consequences possible, without ever stopping for a millisecond to consider if a few degrees of warming might ultimately be countermanded by other natural factors in the design of our world.

This is not true. Here some scientific proven facts:

If we talk about global warming you have to know the coherences of the greenhouse effect!

At first there is a natural greenhouse effect:

The earth is warmed by the sun and at the same time radiates heat to the atmosphere. If solar radiation and irradiation of the earth are balanced than theoretically (i.e. an atmosphere without any CO2 and water vapor) there will be a mathematical global average temperature of –18°C. But as we have water vapor, clouds and CO2 of volcano's the irradiation of the earth is limited and so the mathematical global average is 15°C (a difference of 33°C!).

Now to the man made greenhouse effect:

Beside of water vapor there are some other gases which bottle the thermal radiation up, called greenhouse gases like: CO2, methane, laughing gas and ozone for example. This fact leads to a warmer atmosphere which can absorb more dewiness, which will boost the greenhouse effect even more. You also have to know that CO2 takes effect not until 30 years after emission, has a durability of at least 100 years and has a share of 50% to the greenhouse effect.

In the past we have had many temperature fluctuations because of big volcanic eruptions (e.g. Krakatau) or slowing of the gulf stream (little Ice Age) for example. Essential is the difference of the mathematically global average temperature. Since the start of the weather records the temperature difference before 1900 was 0,5°C lower, after that date we are 0,8°C over the average. 30% of that can be ascribed the increased activity of the sun, but the rest is the result of a man made climatic change, with a verisimilitude of 95%. A lot of the increase of the warming goes direct into the oceans, that is alongside the melting ice of the poles, why we notice an advance of the sea level of 3mm per year.

Also from the weather records you can identify the start of the industrialization. If you will bring the argument that the weather records don´t exist long enough, you can detect the development of the climatic in the stratification of the ice (like the annual rings of a tree) at north pole or antarctic.

But even if so, if it does actually occur, what happens? There is less ice and more warm land. There is more sun. There is more evaporation and rain. More fresh water. More wind and pollination. Put all that together, and what do you ultimately get? You get more vegetation. That makes LESS carbon dioxide, and more oxygen. More cloud cover. Wow. A completely natural PENDULUM OF NATURE that will gradually send the climate back the other direction without government mandate and intervention.

Yes there is more evaporation (about 6% more per degree Celsius). The rain will be more but unequally distributed around the world and the year. There will be more regions with long torrid periods. Otherwise the intensity of precipitations will rise. There will be more rain for example in a shorter period of time, which leads to more floodings.

Otherwise there will be be long period of droughts because of the unequally distribution through the year, and because of that the ground-water level will fall. Freshwater will be more and more valuable like oil nowadays. At the moment there are already more countries with problems in getting freshwater as countries with an excess of freshwater.

Like I said before the biggest amount of the warming goes direct into the oceans. Warmer oceans save more energy (also does a warmer atmosphere with more dewiness) which will lead to a rising number of storms (hurricanes) with bigger intensity and, because water is one of the best heat reservoir, the hurricane season will last longer.

There will not be more vegetation as the natural disasters which destroys vegetation (like storms, wildfires, droughts) will rise. And how long does it last till new trees grow up? Not fast enough. Furthermore the most amount of the CO2 emission is not absorbed by the vegetation but by the oceans again!


Every alien company can affirm you a gain of natural disasters in the last years. The rise of the so called once in a century disasters amass ominous the last few years, all around the world.

[TheBlueVan]

all i know is a little regulation of pollution is definitely a good thing. so i think there could definitely be some positives that might come out of a global warming scare

by the way, its time to find alternative fuels and energy sources, and this is a good motivation to do so

[chumdawg]

I am, of course, no scientist--and in this case, that may not be a bad thing--but I've always viewed it as the ultimate pinnacle of human arrogance to think that we can somehow, with our aerosols and burning fossil fuels, dramatically alter the landscape of a celestial object.

In short, my belief is that the earth is a whole lot bigger than we are. And I belief that life--the hardy kind of life that survived all kinds of conditions and got us to where we are now--will continue on.

Do I believe that we should be responsible stewards of the planet, else we bring about our own demise? Not in the least, at least not in the sense that that phrase is understood. I believe that we are, to our planet, the most infinitessimal bearing on its being. In other words, I believe that we could try our damndest to make it unhabitable, and we would never succeed.

Some things are way, way, WAY bigger than we are.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I am, of course, no scientist--and in this case, that may not be a bad thing--but I've always viewed it as the ultimate pinnacle of human arrogance to think that we can somehow, with our aerosols and burning fossil fuels, dramatically alter the landscape of a celestial object...

hmmm. How about if we REALLY tried. If we set up a grid pattern for dropping ALL of our nukes with maximum global coverage (rather than just tossing 'emo ncities and such), THEN could we dramatically alter the landscape of this celestial object?

perhaps we are just not trying hard enough

[Mavdog]

so you believe we are incapable of influencing and changing our environment chum? well, those extinct animals, the ponds and lakes that have been turned into dead zones by acid rain, heck even the children who have half the lung capacity they should due to the dirty air in the cities they live in.....yes, we do affect our climate and our world, and we can make it uninhabitable if we do not realize what we do can cause reverberations through our planet.

pirate, the rise and fall in temperatures does occur on a cyclical basis through the eons. the recent rise has been one of the most rapid the scientists have been able to quantify. to say that the rise will bring us wonderful things flies in the face of what is predicted.

the forecasts show less "warm land" as the seas and oceans will rise.

there will not be "more sun", there's the same amount. how would a rising temp affect the sun?

here's the question: IF our activities are accelerating the rise in temps why continue them? IF we can change our activities to decrease the rise in temps, why not do it?

would it not be the best policy to act and stop the contribution to the rising temps even if it is shown that these activities were only partly responsible? in other words, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? absolutely!

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you believe we are incapable of influencing and changing our environment chum? well, those extinct animals, the ponds and lakes that have been turned into dead zones by acid rain, heck even the children who have half the lung capacity they should due to the dirty air in the cities they live in.....yes, we do affect our climate and our world, and we can make it uninhabitable if we do not realize what we do can cause reverberations through our planet.

pirate, the rise and fall in temperatures does occur on a cyclical basis through the eons. the recent rise has been one of the most rapid the scientists have been able to quantify. to say that the rise will bring us wonderful things flies in the face of what is predicted.

the forecasts show less "warm land" as the seas and oceans will rise.

there will not be "more sun", there's the same amount. how would a rising temp affect the sun?

here's the question: IF our activities are accelerating the rise in temps why continue them? IF we can change our activities to decrease the rise in temps, why not do it?

would it not be the best policy to act and stop the contribution to the rising temps even if it is shown that these activities were only partly responsible? in other words, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? absolutely!

IF

The idea that I should react to something just in case it is true is ridiculous, and actually should make born-again Christians out of every person on the planet.

the rise and fall in temperatures does occur on a cyclical basis through the eons. the recent rise has been one of the most rapid the scientists have been able to quantify.

So, this is the most rapid that they HAVE BEEN ABLE TO QUANTIFY, yet you are sure that temperatures have not done the same thing, say 3 eons ago when they could not quantify them?

How long is an eon? Was global warming the cause of the death of all dinosaurs supposedly 85 gazillion years ago or whatever the number is now? I'm sure there is some scientists that say that with no evidence whatsoever, making thier "science" faith based and not fact based. But that is another topic. . .

[FishForLunch]

Now it seems they are firing guys who have different thesis on global warming (See Oregon).

I did my Masters in Environmental engineering. I have worked with climate models in school, to get them to work is a art, so many assumptions it is mind boggling.

What happened to celebrity causes like AIDS, Land Mines, why don't they go back to them.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Yes I know, that to bring the climatic models to work is a science in principle, but it´s naive and irresponsible to do nothing and wait for "wondrously self-regulating forces" of nature.

[purplefrog]

I am honored to post on this forum because we have members that know more about global warming than the following Nobel Laureates who have all agreed that it is real and at least in part a result of human activiity. There is always some dissent in science. So when you say that there is controversy about some issue you must be clear about the extent of that controversy. In this case the clear majority of Nobel Laureates (a little more than 100 out of about 140) were willing to put their names along side this issue. In Gore's film he mentions that a survey of scholarly articles written on global warming revealed that 100% of those reports (over the past 5 years) in scientific journals supported its existence. On the other hand 53% of the MSM articles on the subject questioned the validity of climate change. I can't stand Al Gore. He makes my stomach turn whenever I see him, but if this is even close to being true then there is no controversy. Period. So while there are many respected members of this forum that clearly do not believe in global warming, I will have to side with the majority of Nobel Prize winners(see list below)... at least this one time.

NOBEL LAUREATES
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

[dude1394]

Okay snarky so what do they reccomend? Getting rid of Gore's jet-setting?

Do they reccomend Nuclear Energy by chance????

Even if there is global warming, the scare-mongering that is going with it makes dealing with it untenable.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay snarky so what do they reccomend? Getting rid of Gore's jet-setting?

Do they reccomend Nuclear Energy by chance????

Even if there is global warming, the scare-mongering that is going with it makes dealing with it untenable.

Regulate CO2 emissions at the Federal level.

On a side note, I personally oppose Governor Perry's willingness to fast-track the building of the coal plants in Houston/Bryan/College Station area by TXU. While we desperately need the energy that these plants will provide this is an opportunity to force utility companies to think about alternatives when these pressures emerge. These coal plants will significantly increase CO2 in the Metroplex and in Central Texas.

As far as scare-mongering is concerned, you may be assuming there is nothing to be scared about or that the threat is being overstated. If so, I don't agree with that assumption because most of our great scientists support the reality of global warming and the need to do something about it. I would definitely prefer a clear headed debate without emotion but unfortunately that does not typically generate any public interest, nor does it move our legislators. I admit that it is difficult to make a case for global warming without sounding like an alarmist or an extremist. That being said, the issue needs to be addressed in a serious way and I actually think that bipartisan support will put a national plan in place in the near future.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay snarky so what do they reccomend? Getting rid of Gore's jet-setting?

I wish someone would temper Gore's dog-and-pony show. He is not the right messenger for much of anything, including global warming/climate change. Sit down Al and let someone else make the case.

[capitalcity]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

...let someone else make the case.

Everybody's on somebody's payroll. Where are you gonna find the guy without preconceived notions or a political agenda?

Perhaps global warming will thaw out a caveman who can give us an unbaised opinion on the subject.

[TheBlueVan]

what i dont understand is why everyone is so against some form of regulation. if global warming IS happening, we can do what we can to stop it. if, by chance, its not, then at the very least we'll have a cleaner, more efficient, and healthier earth. whats the harm in that?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by TheBlueVan

what i dont understand is why everyone is so against some form of regulation. if global warming IS happening, we can do what we can to stop it. if, by chance, its not, then at the very least we'll have a cleaner, more efficient, and healthier earth. whats the harm in that?

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

This is exactly the point. Money makes the world go round! And those responsible persons among the politicians and the industry only will do something if they are up to their necks in it!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

This is exactly the point. Money makes the world go round! And those responsible persons among the politicians and the industry only will do something if they are up to their necks in it!

Ah bull-honkey. Driving up the cost of doing business in the long run hurts the worker way more than the entrepanour. Europe has kyoto and their emisssions are going up.

The best way to do this is to work towards alternative energy in a positive, not a punative way.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

it won't cost anyone their job. in fact, the initiative will spur job growth as the investments are made in the new technologies.

it is a falacy to believe that countries that do not curb their levels of air pollution won't suffer an economic cost. the health expenses alone are a huge burden.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it won't cost anyone their job. in fact, the initiative will spur job growth as the investments are made in the new technologies.

I don't buy it mavie. I can agree that it will create new(read different)jobs as resources are re-allocated. But from what I've read the expectation is that kyoto for example will dampen GDP, I see no way to spin that to "more" economic growth and more jobs. If you double the cost of gasoline for example it WILL effect the economy and jobs.

it is a falacy to believe that countries that do not curb their levels of air pollution won't suffer an economic cost. the health expenses alone are a huge burden.

So somehow the chinese and indian economy's are LIMITING their growth by not complying with cleaner technologies? Bull honkey man. When you can sell a widget cheaper than the next guy, you win.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't buy it mavie. I can agree that it will create new(read different)jobs as resources are re-allocated. But from what I've read the expectation is that kyoto for example will dampen GDP, I see no way to spin that to "more" economic growth and more jobs. If you double the cost of gasoline for example it WILL effect the economy and jobs.

the expectation of declining GDP as a result of kyoto is based on industry pulling back on the throttle to reduce the level of emissions mandated. IF there were hard caps on the amount produced, yes, the forecast could be true.

however, there are not any hard caps that will force industry to shut down production. so those forecasts are not based on reality.

it is not an either/or...

So somehow the chinese and indian economy's are LIMITING their growth by not complying with cleaner technologies? Bull honkey man. When you can sell a widget cheaper than the next guy, you win.

uh, no, the point is not that they are "limiting their growth", the point is that they recognize pollution is harming the health of the pop.

we do not want these economies to stop their growth. we're tied at the hip.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

"How much is the world?"...

[FishForLunch]

So you feel if the US and Europe cut down on emissions drastically it will compensate for the emissions that China and India contribute. Why do you think this way, is it because you are naive or is it wishful thinking.

Each of those nations have a billion people to take care of and lift out of poverty, they could give a rats ass about the western governments desire to stop "Man Made" global warming as some with the loudest voices define it.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

So you feel if the US and Europe cut down on emissions drastically it will compensate for the emissions that China and India contribute. Why do you think this way, is it because you are naive or is it wishful thinking.

Each of those nations have a billion people to take care of and lift out of poverty, they could give a rats ass about the western governments desire to stop "Man Made" global warming as some with the loudest voices define it.

I see it as a task and challenge for US and Europe to assist the developing countries and to pass our experiences regarding this problem to them, so they don´t make the same mistakes. Probably the cut down on emissions of the developed countries by far wouldn´t be enough to compensate.

If with naive you mean idealistic, you are right.

[jacktruth]

Scientific studies build on scientific studies. So if you build on scientific studies that identify human factors, so does yours. If you build on scientific studies that identify human factors in an effort to refute it, you don't get funding.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that scientists have no agenda. Academics is just as biased about propogating preferred theory as Corporate-funded research.

Seriously, try to get a grant to research the affect of a catastrophic global flood (of biblical proportions!) on land and sea animals. You won't get it because you are cleary trying to disprove the 85 gazillion years theory.

As a side note, according to one of my graduate economics professor at UTA that specializes in environmental law, not a single US environmental regulation was based on scientific knowledge. The research, rather, is focused on the economic impacts of the potential environmental law on local constituents (will I lose my job in the next election if this law passes?).

There is an oil-cartell sized deposit of clean buring coal in Montana that we could be using to reduce emissions? Why don't we? Because politicians from dirty coal states make sure the laws don't allow it.

[dallas_esq]

I can't believe that Algore isn't more sensitive about the environment. Oh streisand and the rest of the crowd. Let's make sure we all get down to 9 tons so that the environmental crowd can get a few more frequent flyer miles.

Quote:
MORE: Some greenhouse perspective:

The typical American is responsible for 10 tons of CO2 emissions annually through their direct energy use of home, cars and air travel, and about 24 tons of CO2 including their purchases, activities and the other services we all share throughout the economy.

By comparison, a Gulf Stream III business jet (10-12 passenger) from New York to Los Angeles will emit around 31 tons of CO2 during the 6 hour flight.

__________________

wow

[Rhylan]

dude, can you give me a source on that? I've been saying that for awhile now. Need to use it to needle a guy at work, but he'll demand a source.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

dude, can you give me a source on that? I've been saying that for awhile now. Need to use it to needle a guy at work, but he'll demand a source.

If you are speaking to me rhylan.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2314.php

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Here a choice of the best links around climate and emissions: http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data...items/3170.php

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Here a rough calculation of CO2 emission per person in [kg]:

Plane:

Short trip: (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,47

Medium range trip: (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,35

Long haul trip: (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,24

Bus/Train:

(Stretch of way in [miles])*0,10

Cars:

Compact cars (small consumption of gasoline): (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,26

Big cars (high consumption of gasoline): (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,37

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Natural there are many opinions in science and that’s good, otherwise no progress would be obtained. Of course has the warming also something to do with the raised sun activity, which I mentioned in one of my posts before, but the opinion that this is the main reason for the warming is a little bold and doesn´t find many supporters under the climate scientists at the moment. Nevertheless this is a very interesting field of research and you always have to be open to new ideas.

Global warming is without a question a topic you can excellent argue about. But in my opinion it´s a big gamble to be that hesitant, wait which theory is right and do nothing. If the leading prevalent feeling in science, that a big fraction of the global warming is man made because of the increased emission of CO2, the consequences could be much more worse than a lower GDP.

The argument of Mr. Steyn that to do something “…could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.”, is a little far-fetched as there are many countries which do something for the environment without having that bad influence. And don´t forget that USA is responsible for a fifth of the entire CO2 emission and contrary to the developing countries the US has the economic power and the technical knowledge and possibilities to do something.

If the US claims to be a leading world power, they also have the duty to be a paragon on the subject of environment protection (not only to prevent global warming) and it´s very sad that the government don´t care much about it.

[FishForLunch]

UN should demand that cosmic rays do not interfere with the earth. Meanwhile Al Gore blamed the bush administration for ignoring the ravages of cosmic rays. Is Henrik Svensmark any how connected to BIG OIL?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Bush definitely has the power to deny the cosmic rays to interfere with the earth. The basis is prepared as he has signed a new National Space Policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101701484.html

[dude1394]

I believe that the US has continued to drop the amount of greenhouse gases per GDP over the last 15 or so years.



If so what more do you want? We continue to invest in cleaner technology. If you really want to make even more of a dent get the enviro-wackos to get behind Nuclear Energy in a big way. However from what I've read even that won't take the place of oil as there isn't enough nuclear material to supplant oil/coal.

[purplefrog]

I have two comments.
First, I am not sure why you would want to graph Carbon and GHG as a function of GDP because the data can be potentially misleading. It seems to me that if the economy is growing in sectors that are not using much in terms of fossil fuels then you would see a decline (as shown in your graph) even though there is no net reduction in emissions. For example, in the nineties along came the dot.com boom and much was invested in computer software development. The economy grew and there was no concommitant increase in emissions because these industries do not require much in terms of energy consumption. I admit that I am not sure if this really explains the chart, but it might be worth checking out.

My second comment is that from 2000-2005 the graph shows projections and not actual data collected. It would be interesting to know if the projections were accurate.

I would like to see data on net C02 emissions over the past 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there was also a small decrease and I will see if I can find those data later. You are right in saying that we are investing in cleaner technologies and I have heard the 'N' (nuclear) word being brought up again (and I am not so sure that it would be such a bad idea). What concerns me is that we are still building coal plants to generate electricity. The coal plants that TXU is planning to build in Texas will generate alot more CO2. They should be required to use the existing technology to capture the CO2, but Perry doesn't it see this as important. Without Federal regulations on CO2 we will continue to invest in dirty energy and imo that's a really bad energy plan.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

That’s also my opinion purplefrog. Furthermore the GDP of USA from 1990 (5.803,3 billions US Dollar) till 2000 (9.824,7 billions US Dollar) has a much bigger growth than the gain of greenhouse gases (look here: http://www.grida.no/Emissions.aspx?m=36&countryiso=US) and because of that the chart logically will go down. This doesn´t surprise me as this is a statistic from the US government.

Following, some stats of the development of emissions for USA and worldwide:

Distribution between Oil, coal and gas of the CO2 emissions in a chart: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/co2_...lected_regions

CO2 emission per capita relating to the income average: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/nati...ons_per_capita

CO2 emission per country and the change of emission: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm

Greenhouse gas emission per country and the change of the emission: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm

It´s not the point to find alternative energy sources, despite this is very important (would be nice to find something, but at the moment there is no alternative technology to cover the whole need of energy). So the best way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases is to cut the consumption of energy and use emission reducing technologies.

[jacktruth]

Global Hot Air
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The political left's favorite argument is that there is no argument. Their current crusade is to turn "global warming" into one of those things that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with "diversity" and "open space."

The name of "science" is invoked by the left today, as it has been for more than two centuries. After all, Karl Marx's ideology was called "scientific socialism" in the 19th century. In the 18th century, Condorcet analogized his blueprint for a better society to engineering, and social engineering has been the agenda ever since.

Not all the advocates of "global warming" are on the left, of course. Crusades are not just for crusaders. There are always hangers-on who can turn the true believers' crusades into votes or money or at least notoriety.

Whether the globe really is warming is a question about facts -- and about where those facts are measured: on land, in the air or under the sea. There is no question that there is a "greenhouse" effect. Otherwise, half the planet would freeze every night when there is no sunlight falling on it.

There is also no question that the earth can warm or cool. It has done both at one time or another for thousands of years, even before there were SUVs. If there had never been any global warming before, we wouldn't be able to enjoy Yosemite Valley today for it was once buried under thousands of feet of ice.

Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today's hysteria about global warming.

It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce "solutions" for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede.

Yes, Virginia, there are skeptics about global warming among scientists who study weather and climate. There are arguments both ways -- which is why so many in politics and in the media are so busy selling the notion that there is no argument.

If you heard both arguments, you might not be so willing to go along with those who are prepared to ruin the economy, sacrificing jobs and the national standard of living on the altar to the latest in an unending series of crusades, conducted by politicians and other people seeking to tell everyone else how to live.

What about all those scientists mentioned, cited or quoted by global warming crusaders?

There are all kinds of scientists, from chemists to nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further. That ploy has already been used.

Then there are genuine scientific experts on weather and climate. The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report -- or even saw it before it was published.

One of those very distinguished climate scientists -- Richard S. Lindzen of MIT -- publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that.

In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that "everybody knows" that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living.

Among the climate experts who are not part of that "everybody" are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of "everybody."



Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

[dude1394]

Thomas Sowell is a great man.