Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[cajun squealer]

Dear Hammer,

I too am concerned about your level of CO2 inhalation. Please remove your head from your anal orifice, and resume breathing as normal.
You're welcome.

Wishing you a quick and speedy recovery,

Cajun Squealer

[h2o_dog]

I heard on the radio last week that the global temperatures on Mars are rising right along with Earth's.....


I guess George Bush is to blame for that too.

[Hammer]

Something is wrong with this picture...Cajun Squealer- purple and gold, Mike the Tiger, Tiger Stadium, crawfish, gumbo, all that jazz and a crude Internet post...Pretty much all goes together...I got that part but where did the Madison, MS part fit in? Madison is a nice, quiet, conservative, family oriented hamlet with two fine golf club developments, no bars and a lot of churches IE not the kind of place a Cajun Squealer type of cat would normally be hanging out making such a crude post...

As for PML's latest post, I see what you are saying but I have to go with the IPCC, the NAS, NASA and other scientists on the core argument that current temperature increases are above the baseline natural condition and they are being caused by GHG emissions...Some of the other issues you raise are peripheral and I am not prepared to go there but evern if you are right on the peripheral issues, you dont throw a basket of good apples out becuase one or two are spoiled...

In particular, your part about dissenting viewpoints getting quelched interests me because I know for a fact that the Bushies were doing this very thing to pro-GW scientists as recently as 6 months ago so hearing you say that the reverse is now happening is very strange indeed....Particuylarly since it has been less than a month since the IPCC issued its latest findings....Incidentally, the White House Council on Environmental Quality will soon issue a report that is pro-GW...That doesnt happen without the endorsement of the President and will additional evidence that Cheney's influence is waning...

As for Mottlet, I dont think that I or anybody else can truly win an Internet debate...I just wanted to be the first to claim victory and you gotta admit the "game/set/match" smack is classis as is "scoreboard" so I will go there as well...

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Hammer, I think what you are seeing from the Bush administration is a movement in the direction of enviro friendly measures, but in a slow, deliberate, rational process. I think the Adm. believes that more research is needed before we undertake huge cost expenditures for carbon emission control, removal, storage, etc. And keep in mind that there are other reasons to take more actions toward energy conservation, especially regarding petroleum --- the primary one being national security. So, whether one believes totally in the GW research and recent conclusions reached by some scientists, I think we can all agree on certain measures that make sense, are cost efficient, and will make our country stronger and safer. I just don't think we are at a point yet with this "science" that we need to make decisions based out of panic, putting the cart before the horse.

If the science and the conclusions of the UN group are sound, then they will hold up under more scrutiny and after much scientific peer review. But, I am afraid that many groups, who will benefit from the proposed measures to cure the projected GW problems, will apply enough pressure that causes many to politicize the matter and forget the science and needed debate --- all in the name of doing something, whether really beneficial or not.

I, for one, as indicated in this thread, remain very skeptical of these claims, as do many others (as also indicated in this thread). And if there is a real problem with real, workable solutions, then many of us skeptics will need to be on board with the plan for it to work. That will require persuasion and some level of acceptable proof or support, explained in layman's terms. Such cannot be simply decreed by fiat. And I have a lot of unanswered questions --and sadly, I have probably read more about it and have more knowledge about it than many (and I am far, far from an expert on any aspect of this subject). I simply try to rely upon logic, reason, and my common sense. It will take much more than an Al Gore movie to convince most folks about the need for any actions that will ultimately cost them a lot of money or result in them having to make huge sacrifices in their lives. The "science" so far is not even close to this level of persuasion for the general population.

[Hammer]

Good takes PML...My response is that so far- and granted it is very early in the game- many of the GHG emission reduction strategies are paying for themselves and then some via increased energy efficiency...Think about the physics/chemistry of the CO2 emissions during combustion and this makes perfectly good sense...That is why the business community has jumped on the bandwagon...A lot of GHG emission reduction is good business and they want to be ahead of the curve before federal emissions standards are created and implemented for GHG as already exist for SOx, NOx, particulates and Mercury....

It is not the scientists whom are talking about drastic changes in lifestyles but the nihilist, anti everything, anarchists and the deep green ecology religious fringe groups...I think we would agree that their rhetoric is just that and is counter productive to reasonable conversation although some of the things they are for, such as no more deforestation fo the Amazon, makes good sense- both economically and environmentally in a world where markets function without imperfection...

What a lot of this is about is getting old, outdated institutions out of the way so markets can work...Said another way, we want the maximum amount of GHG emission reductions and sequestration at the minimum cost...Only markets can do that but they have to be allowed to work without imperfection...Kyoto was a very primitive, flawed first step but it had to be taken to get things going...The US could have signed on for the first round with virtually no impact on our economy...We did not and will have to catch the next bus- the problem is that the cost of waiting is high and grows ever higher- putting US companies at a growing competitive disadvantage...That is why CA, OR, WA, AZ and NM and the 9 NE states have started their own efforts.

Agreed that China, India and Brazil wil have to get on board but I believe that is a three card ante/shell game of he said/she said IE it serves our purposes to point at them and it servers their purposes to point at us. As the science continues to accumulate, the less viable this strategy.

I am a card carrying member of the gridlock party IE I dont want either party to have too much power. Clinton/Gore with a Republican Congress worked well. Bush/Cheney with a Republican Congress has been a disaster. Heaven forbid we have a democratic presidnet and democratic congress. GW will be a major political issue in the 2008 political election so the Republicans better get on the ball SOON. GWB has got to understand this or he will make it that much harder for a Republican to get elected President.

[JDgator]

Did you guys see this?




U.S. sets tighter emissions standards for ships, trains

By Jim Jelter
Last Updated: 3/4/2007 1:57:00 AM



SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Over the years, exhaust-spewing automobiles have been the primary target of tighter emissions standards. This past week, the federal focus moved to ships and trains, whose smokestacks have long belched black soot unhampered by pollution regulations.

The crackdown came from Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency, which proposed a combination of requirements aimed at slashing particulate emissions from diesel locomotives and ship engines by up to 90% and cutting harmful nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 80% by 2030.

The rules, expected to become final by the end of the year, would affect about 21,000 locomotives, 40,000 vessels, and cost roughly $600 million to implement.

According to the EPA, the plan takes a huge step toward combating respiratory illness, eventually saving the nation $12 billion a year in health-care costs. Major port cities like New York, Long Beach and Houston, where railroad lines gather at dockside shipping terminals, stand to benefit the most in terms of improved air quality.

The proposed clean air locomotive and marine diesel rule is the latest step in the government's wide-ranging effort to clean up diesel engines, which was expanded in 2004 to include construction and farm equipment. Buses and trucks were the first to bow to tighter exhaust rules back in 2000.

At the behest of the railroads, shipping companies and engine manufacturers, the changes will be phased in gradually.

For the railroads, new locomotives must meet the new rules by 2009. Enforcing the stricter requirements for existing locomotives might drag out until 2010, depending on when the industry can come up with what the EPA calls certified systems for "remanufactured" engines -- those that have been disassembled, cleaned and rebuilt.

The EPA estimates it will cost the railroads on average $34,000 per locomotive to bring them in line with the new rules.

Locomotives are already making the switch to cleaner-burning diesel fuel, a 2004 rule that cut the allowable level of sulfur emissions by 99%.

By 2015, the EPA wants all new diesel locomotives to use catalytic converters, a version of which was introduced by the auto industry 30 years ago.

The clampdown on marine engines is expansive, covering everything from ocean-going freighters to ferries to tugs, trawlers and diesel-powered yachts. It will likely not include retrofitting existing ships with new engines, however.

General Electric Co. (GE), whose transportation business tops $3 billion a year in sales, is one of the world's biggest locomotive makers. It has been aggressively marketing itself as a provider of fuel-efficient, low-emission engines and is one of several manufacturers brought into the EPA's rulemaking process alongside environmental groups and state-level legislators.

Other major diesel engine makers retooling to meet the new requirements include Cummins Engine Co., Inc. (CMI), Detroit Diesel, a unit of DaimlerChrysler Ag (DCX), and Perkins Engines, a subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc. (CAT).

[MSDawg870]

Global Warming is real They're shoveling it off of their driveways by the foot in the North as we speak. Be Afraid Be Very Afraid

[Hammer]

Memo to MSDAWG870:

Hottest November and December on RECORD in NYC this past winter...Latest first snowfall EVER...

In case you missed it, the debate on this thread is not about whether or not the Earth is getting hotter- there is absolutely no question about that....The doubting Thomas's are questioning what is causing the warming of the Earth- MAN or NATURE?

To suggest that the Earth is not getting warmer is completely ridiculous as anybody older than 10 or 15 can tell you...We used to have winter in MS-

[GordonGekko]

Channel 4 in the U.K. is premiering a documentary tonight called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It brings together experts showing how the U.N. used the signatures of scientists on their study, without the approval of the scientists, and then refused to remove them. Likewise, many of the experts cast into serious doubt that CO2 is the cause of global warming as opposed to the effect of global warming.

You may be able to find it on the net somewhere, you can google "The Great Global Warming Swindle" if you like. I think many of ya'll would be interested.

This documentary, fringe or not, seems to pretty well sum up my beliefs.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Actually, the trend over the last few years is an overall slight cooling of the earth. But, if you go back to the end of the little ice age during the middle ages, the overall trend since then is a slight warming. Many geologists say we are and should be beginning another cooling trend. The meteorologists are primarily the ones projecting further warming of the earth's temps.

So, it certainly appears that No. 1 --there is a debate as to whether we are still experiencing global warming or will in the future; No. 2 --there is considerable scientific debate re what is causing any such global warming --- nature or man or both; and No. 3 --there is much debate as to whether any recent perceived climate changes are being caused by global warming, global cooling, or more importantly, anything that man can do anything about.

Its all about as clear as mud at this point. But, I will admit there is at least enough cause for concern to justify more research expenditures. Thus, the need for much more research and honest debate before we launch into plans that will cost billions or trillions to implement. We need to first make sure those plans are needed and even more importantly, will make enough of a difference to matter.

What we can all come together on right now, without any more debate, is the need to continue to clean up our environment --air, water, earth --- and to wean ourselves off of our dependence upon petroleum and oil, particularly foreign oil for our own national security. We can move forward to develop alternative energy sources that are cost efficient and sustainable. We can improve our gas mileage of our new vehicles. We can all use less energy at home and make our homes more energy efficient. As Hammer said, this will not only help the environment, but save you money as well.

There are plenty of areas of potential improvement that we can all agree on the need for, right now, in which we are clearly not doing all that we can, to keep us busy for years moving in a positive direction. And if the world's scientists can at some point arrive at scientifically supported conclusions that much more drastic measures and sacrifices are needed by all in order to save ourselves from some man-caused future disaster, then at such time, we can all get on board and do our part. But, the scientific community, IMO, has a lot more research to do to arrive at those conclusions and to convince the skeptics.

[JDgator]

What we can all come together on right now, without any more debate, is the need to continue to clean up our environment --air, water, earth --- and to wean ourselves off of our dependence upon petroleum and oil, particularly foreign oil for our own national security. We can move forward to develop alternative energy sources that are cost efficient and sustainable. We can improve our gas mileage of our new vehicles. We can all use less energy at home and make our homes more energy efficient.

Agreed!

[Dingy]

We can move forward to develop alternative energy sources that are cost efficient and sustainable.

Agreed, BUT ethanol based fuels derived from corn (a.k.a. E 85) are NOT the solution we need.

[Hammer]

Here is the deal on ethanol...Gasoline needs an oxygenate to make it burn clearner ie higher octane...That oxygenate used to be MTBE but that has proven to be a carcinogen so it was outlawed and ethanol is filling the gap...That is where most of the market for ethanol is coming from (alogn with a $.50 per gallon federal tax credit) although corn ethanol is an important first step in getting the US economy on the road towards energy independence...

Food for Thought:

1 out of 2 American Men and 1 out of 3 American women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime...

I believe the science of GW is legit and that we are in worse shape than we think we are...I believe that higher temperatures, manmade chemicals and human tissue are not a good combination...I believe that the changes we are seeing in waterfowl migration patterns in the Mississippi Delta are an indicator of GW related changes.

That is my hypothesis, let's see if yall can disprove it. I dont want opinions, I want facts. Lets speak the language we all speak. Let's talk wildife. Let's talk polar bears, lets talk caribou migration routes, let's talk neotropical migratory songbirds, let's talk reptiles and amphibians. Show me the literature that tests the hypothesis tha increasing CO2 percentages in our air is not having an effect on these issues.

Then show me the research that shows there have been more volcano eruptions and more forest fires since 1750 to present than there were prior to 1750 since your hypothesis is that these sources are why there is global warming. I have given you facts, figures and science. You have given me hypotheticals. Give me science.

[Dingy]

No scientific study can ever be done to prove that CO2 (and other proposed causes) is causing the changes in animal distribution patterns because it is NOT. Temperatures are changing distributions. Come on, it's science . At best, inferences can be made (inductive reaoning). What is causing those temperatures...you decide.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

The current problem with ethanol as a complete substitute for gasoline is that it takes quite a bit of energy to produce --- I believe I saw an estimate lately that put it this way -- it takes approx 1 unit of energy to create 1.4 units of energy in the form of ethanol. Once a way has been found to make ethanol production on a grander scale more efficient in terms of energy consumption and cost, then it may provide a viable alternative to petro based fuels such as gasoline.

And the other problem with ethanol is that even if it could be produced in a way that is more energy and cost efficient, what impact would huge increases in corn production have on our environment in the US? And for us duck hunters, what impact would it have on breeding grounds and wetland habitat? Even more grasslands and wetlands being converted into corn production could be a disaster for our duck populations. This very projected problem has already been discussed in DU and DW magazine articles in the past.

Right now, I don't think that the alternative to petroleum gasoline as a major energy source for the US will be sufficiently reduced or replaced by any one single alternative energy source (barring some miracle discovery). I think it will be a number of things, forming the pieces to a giant puzzle. Autos: increase gas mileage, develop more hybrids and electric vehicles. Ag industry: convert to biodiesel as primary fuel source for all farm related machinery. Electric Power for homes/business: generate more from nuclear, hydro dams, wind, solar, etc. ---phase out coal in current form. And with each alternative energy source, we will need to be mindful of not causing more harm than good. Too much energy from any single source will likely cause other environmental problems.