Po Monkey Lounge picked one part of a post I made about plausible reasons for reduced fall flights in the south Delta...Rather than allow his post about GLOBAL WARMING to hijack that thread, I have challenged him to a showdown here at the GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL, not to embarass, but to enlighten him and any other non-believers...6 shots to get us started...
BULLET 1: The NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES- which is the #1 scientific authority in the United States- said in June, 2005 that "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nation's taking prompt action."
BULLET 2: The INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE Fourth Assessment in February, 2007: "Very High Confidence in Scientific Consensus"
BULLET 3: 11 states in the NE United States and 6 in the Western United States have started Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives that MANDATE reduced emissions of greenhouse gases within the next 5 years...THese states account for about 1/3 of the GNP of the US
BULLET 4: There is more CO2 in the our air than at any time in the last 2 MM years and possibly as far back as 30 MM years...BY definition, that is not a natural phenomena...It is the result of human emissions of fossil fuels as concluded by every credible scientist on the planet
BULLET 5: BP, Shell, American Electric Power, Wal-Mart, AES, Duke Energy, Constellation Energy, Alcoa, GE, Virgin Atlantic and many, many more companies are voluntarily reducing their CO2 emissions and encouraging the US government to adopt the Kyoto Protocol...
BULLET 6: Al Gore was been nominated for a NOBEL PRIZE because he was right...He learned about the linkage between climate change and CO2 emissions as an undergraduate at Yale and did something about it as a US Senator, as a Vice President and as an Ex-Vice President....He stood up for what he believed in and was right and for that I salute him.
BRING IT-
Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
Personally I prefer John McCain but Gore would be my second choice...For that matter, a McCain/Gore ticket would be awesome...
Incidentally, I dont think anybody in their right mind would suggest that the US is better off because George W. Bush "WON" the 2000 election that it wouldbe if Gore had won....Two reasons (A) you might think you want one party to control the White House and both houses of Congress until you get it and (B) Bush has proven repeatedly that he is simply not Presidential material...
Clinton/Gore with a Republican Congress was a good situation...Bush will do much better his last two years because there is a Democratic Congress but heaven help us if the Democrats get control of the White House and both houses of Congress...
I am a registered Independent because no one has created the Gridlock Party.
Incidentally, I dont think anybody in their right mind would suggest that the US is better off because George W. Bush "WON" the 2000 election that it wouldbe if Gore had won....Two reasons (A) you might think you want one party to control the White House and both houses of Congress until you get it and (B) Bush has proven repeatedly that he is simply not Presidential material...
Clinton/Gore with a Republican Congress was a good situation...Bush will do much better his last two years because there is a Democratic Congress but heaven help us if the Democrats get control of the White House and both houses of Congress...
I am a registered Independent because no one has created the Gridlock Party.
-
mossyisland
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:17 am
- Location: morgan city, ms
Great comment MossyIsland- the science is overwhelming and the consequences are far worse in 2005 than the science predicted in 2000...The time to do something is now- before it gets any worse- and there is a lot all of us can do, including recycling yoru newspaper, cans and bottles, switching to energy efficient light bulbs, carpooling as much as possible, dont leave your truck running unless necessary, making sure the air pressure in your tires is right, setting your thermostat a little higher in the summer and a little lower in the winter, further insulate your house, etc...Note that most of this stuff is not only good for the environment but it was also save you MONEY!
Hunters are America's original conservationists and we ought to be out front on GW and CO2 instead of buying into the hype of a few oil companies- most of whom (even Exxon) are rapidly changing their tune.
Whether you believe the science or not, you can take this to bank:
The US Congress will soon enact MANDATORY GHG emissions limits...There might be some short term inconveniences but long term, this will make us a safer, healthier, more productive country.
Hunters are America's original conservationists and we ought to be out front on GW and CO2 instead of buying into the hype of a few oil companies- most of whom (even Exxon) are rapidly changing their tune.
Whether you believe the science or not, you can take this to bank:
The US Congress will soon enact MANDATORY GHG emissions limits...There might be some short term inconveniences but long term, this will make us a safer, healthier, more productive country.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
For a dissenting viewpoint from an expert on the topic, see the following article at the link below:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html
A key excerpt from the article:
The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.†So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html
A key excerpt from the article:
The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.†So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish.
Last edited by Po Monkey Lounger on Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
Here's some information from Wikepedia on climate protection and the Kyoto Protocol. Note that the senate under Clinton rejected the terms of the Protocol 95 to zip.
United States
The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. China is projected to take over at the top of the table by 2030.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 9, which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others.
Bush said of the treaty:
"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.
In September 2006 the journal Nature reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had blocked an internal report which concluded that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.
The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol's object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key portion of this excerpt bears repeating:
The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility.
United States
The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. China is projected to take over at the top of the table by 2030.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 9, which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others.
Bush said of the treaty:
"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.
In September 2006 the journal Nature reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had blocked an internal report which concluded that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.
The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol's object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key portion of this excerpt bears repeating:
The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
Even more dissent from other reputable experts:
Global Warming Skeptics Shunned
by Fred Lucas
The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.
A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.
That view is not in line with the state policy of Oregon to reduce "greenhouse gases," which are considered by many researchers to be the chief cause of global warming.
And Taylor is not alone.
Although a recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report summary said there is 90 percent confidence that human activity is the main cause of global warming, climatologist are far from unanimous in that view.
"It seems if scientists don't express the views of the political establishment, they will be threatened and that is a discomforting thought," said Alabama state climatologist John Christie, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Christie told Cybercast News Service that while research has not been politicized in his state, he's concerned about others. State climatologists in Virginia and Delaware as well as Oregon have faced scrutiny from state government officials for their views on global warming.
Christie stressed that Taylor and others do not deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are problematic to the environment, nor do they deny that global warming exists. Rather, he said, they argue that the matter is not as catastrophic as environmentalists argue.
Environmental groups have argued that global warming skeptics should be ignored or marginalized, but the American Association of State Climatologists urges policymakers to move cautiously when addressing the matter.
"Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible," the AASC says in a policy statement . "The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long term climate future."
The policy statement recommends that "policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climate conditions regardless of future climate."
"Climate is always changing on a variety of time scales and being prepared for the consequences of the variability is a wise policy," it says.
Delaware state climatologist and leading skeptic David R. Legates recently filed a friend of the court brief opposing his state's position in a multi-state lawsuit to force the Bush administration to impose stronger regulations on autos.
The state's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control objected because Delaware has taken the position that changes are needed to curb the risk of rising sea levels.
In Virginia, Gov. Tim Kaine has sought to distance himself from state climatologist and global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels by noting that he is not a gubernatorial appointee.
But Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, was appointed in 1980 by then-Gov. John N. Dalton (R), according to press reports. Nonetheless, Kaine insists that Michaels is speaking only as a research professor and not on behalf of the state.
There are 47 state climatologists, each recognized by the director of the National Climatic Data Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are typically professors of a state university.
Former Vice President Al Gore - whose film on climate change "An Inconvenient Truth" has been nominated to win an Oscar for best documentary - is the latest global warming proponent to echo allegations that skeptics are offering money to scientists to debunk global warming claims.
But Christie counters that it's the "alarmist" view that is driven by money.
"Follow the money," he said Wednesday. "To justify their funding, they have to show a huge problem."
There should be room for both sides of the argument, says Jan Curtis, a board member of the state climatologists group who works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Center in Portland, Ore.
"It's a complex issue and we encourage open debate," Curtis said.
He declined to take a position in the global warming debate, but said of the skeptics, "They are concerned about the limited resources and our dependence on foreign fuels. They just believe you don't need the reason of climate change to do common sense things.
"The real issue here is conservation of limited resources as the population grows," Curtis said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A portion of this article that bears repeating for emphasis and suggests the most sensible response to all of this, IMO:
"Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible," the AASC says in a policy statement . "The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long term climate future."
The policy statement recommends that "policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climate conditions regardless of future climate."
Global Warming Skeptics Shunned
by Fred Lucas
The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.
A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.
That view is not in line with the state policy of Oregon to reduce "greenhouse gases," which are considered by many researchers to be the chief cause of global warming.
And Taylor is not alone.
Although a recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report summary said there is 90 percent confidence that human activity is the main cause of global warming, climatologist are far from unanimous in that view.
"It seems if scientists don't express the views of the political establishment, they will be threatened and that is a discomforting thought," said Alabama state climatologist John Christie, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Christie told Cybercast News Service that while research has not been politicized in his state, he's concerned about others. State climatologists in Virginia and Delaware as well as Oregon have faced scrutiny from state government officials for their views on global warming.
Christie stressed that Taylor and others do not deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are problematic to the environment, nor do they deny that global warming exists. Rather, he said, they argue that the matter is not as catastrophic as environmentalists argue.
Environmental groups have argued that global warming skeptics should be ignored or marginalized, but the American Association of State Climatologists urges policymakers to move cautiously when addressing the matter.
"Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible," the AASC says in a policy statement . "The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long term climate future."
The policy statement recommends that "policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climate conditions regardless of future climate."
"Climate is always changing on a variety of time scales and being prepared for the consequences of the variability is a wise policy," it says.
Delaware state climatologist and leading skeptic David R. Legates recently filed a friend of the court brief opposing his state's position in a multi-state lawsuit to force the Bush administration to impose stronger regulations on autos.
The state's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control objected because Delaware has taken the position that changes are needed to curb the risk of rising sea levels.
In Virginia, Gov. Tim Kaine has sought to distance himself from state climatologist and global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels by noting that he is not a gubernatorial appointee.
But Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, was appointed in 1980 by then-Gov. John N. Dalton (R), according to press reports. Nonetheless, Kaine insists that Michaels is speaking only as a research professor and not on behalf of the state.
There are 47 state climatologists, each recognized by the director of the National Climatic Data Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are typically professors of a state university.
Former Vice President Al Gore - whose film on climate change "An Inconvenient Truth" has been nominated to win an Oscar for best documentary - is the latest global warming proponent to echo allegations that skeptics are offering money to scientists to debunk global warming claims.
But Christie counters that it's the "alarmist" view that is driven by money.
"Follow the money," he said Wednesday. "To justify their funding, they have to show a huge problem."
There should be room for both sides of the argument, says Jan Curtis, a board member of the state climatologists group who works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Center in Portland, Ore.
"It's a complex issue and we encourage open debate," Curtis said.
He declined to take a position in the global warming debate, but said of the skeptics, "They are concerned about the limited resources and our dependence on foreign fuels. They just believe you don't need the reason of climate change to do common sense things.
"The real issue here is conservation of limited resources as the population grows," Curtis said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A portion of this article that bears repeating for emphasis and suggests the most sensible response to all of this, IMO:
"Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible," the AASC says in a policy statement . "The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long term climate future."
The policy statement recommends that "policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climate conditions regardless of future climate."
Re: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
Hammer wrote:BULLET 4: There is more CO2 in the our air than at any time ...
Yes, more CO2 in atmosphere and will continue to increase. Underground fossil fuel deposits are basically carbon sinks developed over millions of years, so when burned they leave a solid/liquid/gaseous state underground and are converted to a gaseous state in the atmosphere. CO2 can hold several times more heat per unit volume than a normal air mix, so as the proportion of CO2 in air increases so will the ability of that air to hold more heat. And since heat is energy it also means that the atmosphere will hold more energy, and the atmosphere will try to "dump" that energy to reach an equilibrium - meaning more nasty storms. The chemistry/physics/atmospherics of increased CO2 loading are pretty hard to argue since it is basic science. I guess it gets a lot more touchy-feely when trying to predict what the actual impacts will be and where and when those impacts occur.
Maybe we could figure out a way to run spinners off CO2 ...
Last edited by gamehog on Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you're gonna shoot the sonofabitch, you better shoot him now."
- Locked Up
- Locked Up
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
And what of Al Gore, the leader of this new political movement that seeks solutions through massive global wealth redistribution?
A little research on Al Gore and his use of private business jets reveals that he flies in them all over the country and the world promoting his film and book.
Here's some interesting stats:
-A Gulfstream IV will use 7.1 gallons per minute or 1.18 mpg.
-A 1,000 mile trip would emit 10.25 tons of carbon dioxide during that trip.
-This jet flies at 45,000 feet in the "delicate" upper atmosphere.
Here is more:
POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
Nashville Electric Service/Gore House
2006
High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month
2005
High 20532 Sept - October
Low 12955 Feb - March
Average: 16,200 kWh per month
Bill amounts
2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)
2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)
Nashville Gas Company
Main House
2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)
2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)
Guest House/Pool House
2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)
2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,†said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures re his electric and gas consumption are in addition to his petroleum consumption via his air and ground travel. One air flight in his private jet probably emits more CO2 emmissions than me and my family do for years.
Gore's hypocrisy would be consistent with most of the Hollywood crowd in attendance at the Oscars who support Gore and his crusade. It is always easy to state what "others should do", as opposed to doing the same yourself.
When Gore sells his mansion and other vacation homes, his airplanes, and gas guzzling cars/SUVs, moves to a modest home or cabin that incorporates solar energy to supplement and lessen electric and gas consumption, rides a bike or drives a small fuel efficient or electric car to work, and otherwise makes drastic changes to his lifestyle to match his rhetoric on alleged man-caused global climate change, then perhaps I might be more inclined to listen and respect his opinions, whether I agree or not. Right now, he just looks like a typical self-serving, hypocritical politician with a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality on a hot button issue that he believes can become the bell-cow issue for the democrats in the future. Such is not true leadership ---just more of the same ol BS.
A little research on Al Gore and his use of private business jets reveals that he flies in them all over the country and the world promoting his film and book.
Here's some interesting stats:
-A Gulfstream IV will use 7.1 gallons per minute or 1.18 mpg.
-A 1,000 mile trip would emit 10.25 tons of carbon dioxide during that trip.
-This jet flies at 45,000 feet in the "delicate" upper atmosphere.
Here is more:
POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
Nashville Electric Service/Gore House
2006
High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month
2005
High 20532 Sept - October
Low 12955 Feb - March
Average: 16,200 kWh per month
Bill amounts
2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)
2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)
Nashville Gas Company
Main House
2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)
2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)
Guest House/Pool House
2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)
2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,†said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures re his electric and gas consumption are in addition to his petroleum consumption via his air and ground travel. One air flight in his private jet probably emits more CO2 emmissions than me and my family do for years.
Gore's hypocrisy would be consistent with most of the Hollywood crowd in attendance at the Oscars who support Gore and his crusade. It is always easy to state what "others should do", as opposed to doing the same yourself.
When Gore sells his mansion and other vacation homes, his airplanes, and gas guzzling cars/SUVs, moves to a modest home or cabin that incorporates solar energy to supplement and lessen electric and gas consumption, rides a bike or drives a small fuel efficient or electric car to work, and otherwise makes drastic changes to his lifestyle to match his rhetoric on alleged man-caused global climate change, then perhaps I might be more inclined to listen and respect his opinions, whether I agree or not. Right now, he just looks like a typical self-serving, hypocritical politician with a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality on a hot button issue that he believes can become the bell-cow issue for the democrats in the future. Such is not true leadership ---just more of the same ol BS.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
I've posted some dissenting views of others for your consumption and enjoyment, laced with some of my own comments. The following is my personal viewpoint.
Lately, after reading many articles about "global warming", the alleged looming crises, and what we can and should do about it, I have arrived at the following conclusion.
There are many special interest groups who stand to benefit greatly from the global warming scare, particulary from the prescribed cures. These special interest groups, whether or not they truly believe the science behind the global warming politics, appear eager to throw their support behind such measures purely out of self-interest and money.
Examples?
Try these:
Farmers/ rural landowners: the carbon credit game will benefit them financially.
DU, DW and other wetland conservation groups: again, the carbon credit game will benefit them financially, expanding their roles and importance in conservation. (While this may benefit the ducks --and that is a good thing --can't we do the same thing without the global warming/carbon credit scam?).
The Green Party/vegan movement: If cattle and other domestic animals raised for meat are significantly contributing to alleged harmful CO2 emissions, then the elimination of meat from our diets and substitution of more veggies, meat substitutes, etc. would benefit this cause, and financially benefit the industries that sell products to this demographic group.
Where there is money to be made, the science will often take a back seat. The above are just a few of the examples that have jumped out at me lately from my readings. I am certain that many of you can point out more and better examples.
BTW: I have no problem with the US taking reasonable steps to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil for national security reasons, and to take reasonable steps to continue to protect and further improve air and water quality. Where cost efficient, environmental friendly alternatives are available, they should be strongly encouraged, supported, subsidized if necessary, and eventually mandated if feasible. But, the proposed massive global wealth transfers, primarily at our expense, that would wreck our economy and strengthen many of our enemies is not warranted by the science and serves no vital US interest.
Lately, after reading many articles about "global warming", the alleged looming crises, and what we can and should do about it, I have arrived at the following conclusion.
There are many special interest groups who stand to benefit greatly from the global warming scare, particulary from the prescribed cures. These special interest groups, whether or not they truly believe the science behind the global warming politics, appear eager to throw their support behind such measures purely out of self-interest and money.
Examples?
Try these:
Farmers/ rural landowners: the carbon credit game will benefit them financially.
DU, DW and other wetland conservation groups: again, the carbon credit game will benefit them financially, expanding their roles and importance in conservation. (While this may benefit the ducks --and that is a good thing --can't we do the same thing without the global warming/carbon credit scam?).
The Green Party/vegan movement: If cattle and other domestic animals raised for meat are significantly contributing to alleged harmful CO2 emissions, then the elimination of meat from our diets and substitution of more veggies, meat substitutes, etc. would benefit this cause, and financially benefit the industries that sell products to this demographic group.
Where there is money to be made, the science will often take a back seat. The above are just a few of the examples that have jumped out at me lately from my readings. I am certain that many of you can point out more and better examples.
BTW: I have no problem with the US taking reasonable steps to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil for national security reasons, and to take reasonable steps to continue to protect and further improve air and water quality. Where cost efficient, environmental friendly alternatives are available, they should be strongly encouraged, supported, subsidized if necessary, and eventually mandated if feasible. But, the proposed massive global wealth transfers, primarily at our expense, that would wreck our economy and strengthen many of our enemies is not warranted by the science and serves no vital US interest.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
Yet another dissenting expert:
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.†. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be one of the BEST articles that I have read on this subject and I highly commend it to your reading ---yes, I know it is a tad long.
And with that, I will conclude my response.
How's that Hammer?
Good topic of debate though.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.†. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be one of the BEST articles that I have read on this subject and I highly commend it to your reading ---yes, I know it is a tad long.
And with that, I will conclude my response.
How's that Hammer?
Good topic of debate though.-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
My questions.
For the sake of debate, lets just assume hypothetically that "global warming", or "global climate change" is occurring, to some extent, due to the actions of man, and particularly the emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases".
What specifically should the US do? Immediately? and long term? And what specifically does such mean for us --- the citizens, in terms of cost and our daily living?
And IF we do these things, will it make any difference if the rest of the world is not doing them ----eg China, Russia, India, the middle east, Europe, Africa, South America, etc. ?? IF one volcano eruption can cause more greenhouse gas emissions than all of mankind on earth put together at our gas emitting worst for many years, then how do we prevent volcanos from undoing any gains we might make? How do we stop volcanos?
And for further debate, lets just say that these scientists Hammer referenced are right. Are they also saying that the excess CO2 buildup occurred solely or even primarily due to US emissions within the last 7 years? What about other countries and their contributions to the excess CO2 emissions? What about recent volcanoes ---how much did they contribute to the problem as compared to human activity? Don't we need to know from where and how the problem is occuring before we start trying to find solutions? Why should the US have to implement more stringent greenhouse gas emissions standards than other countries? Who will enforce all of these standards, if we were to start implementing some of them? Where was Al Gore on all of this when he was a heartbeat away from the Presidency for 8 years? Where were all of these scientists?
These are serious questions to which I have seen few specific answers. I am not interested in hearing how global warming is somehow Bush's fault --- I want this to be a serious discussion for the big boys and girls among us, not the children. And please shelve the over-generalized green party rhetoric ---lets talk in plain terms about what we really mean, how it will impact us, how much it will cost, and will the cost outweigh the potential benefits. Leave the politics aside for now.
For the sake of debate, lets just assume hypothetically that "global warming", or "global climate change" is occurring, to some extent, due to the actions of man, and particularly the emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases".
What specifically should the US do? Immediately? and long term? And what specifically does such mean for us --- the citizens, in terms of cost and our daily living?
And IF we do these things, will it make any difference if the rest of the world is not doing them ----eg China, Russia, India, the middle east, Europe, Africa, South America, etc. ?? IF one volcano eruption can cause more greenhouse gas emissions than all of mankind on earth put together at our gas emitting worst for many years, then how do we prevent volcanos from undoing any gains we might make? How do we stop volcanos?
And for further debate, lets just say that these scientists Hammer referenced are right. Are they also saying that the excess CO2 buildup occurred solely or even primarily due to US emissions within the last 7 years? What about other countries and their contributions to the excess CO2 emissions? What about recent volcanoes ---how much did they contribute to the problem as compared to human activity? Don't we need to know from where and how the problem is occuring before we start trying to find solutions? Why should the US have to implement more stringent greenhouse gas emissions standards than other countries? Who will enforce all of these standards, if we were to start implementing some of them? Where was Al Gore on all of this when he was a heartbeat away from the Presidency for 8 years? Where were all of these scientists?
These are serious questions to which I have seen few specific answers. I am not interested in hearing how global warming is somehow Bush's fault --- I want this to be a serious discussion for the big boys and girls among us, not the children. And please shelve the over-generalized green party rhetoric ---lets talk in plain terms about what we really mean, how it will impact us, how much it will cost, and will the cost outweigh the potential benefits. Leave the politics aside for now.
PML: What a great example of throwing SH&T at the wall and hoping something will stick!
Let me keep this real simple: It has never been changes in global temperatures that have convinced me that there is a problem...It is the % composition of CO2 in our air that scares the hell out of me...We have twice as much CO2 in our air now (in terms of parts per million) than we had 250 years ago...We are screwing with the basic chemistry of the air we breathe and the speed with which this has happened is far greater than can be explained by any natural phenomena that has occurred during that time period...Nobody debates that...
In other words, you have taken a parallel issue and tried to make it the issue...You did the same with the Kyoto issue...Where in my post did I say anything about Kyoto?
Ditto Al Gore...For all you know, Al Gore might plant enough trees (like I do) to offset every bit of his carbon emissions every year...Did you realize that it only takes 2-3 acres of freshly planted hardwood seedlings to offest the CO2 emissions of a 1/2 Ton P/U driven 40,000-50,000 miles per year? How the heck do you figure that $200-$300 per year will cause wealth distribution?
As for your so-called credible scientists, over 2200 scientists ratified the IPCC declaration, the National Academy of Sciences says its true, the Nobel Prize Committee nominates Al Gore but you would cite a couple of state agency scientists?
Can you give me an honest answer to this question: Have you ever defended a tobacco company?
One other question (for now): Do you consider Exxon a special interest and if so, what would be the special interest be of their Chairman/CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledging global warming?
Let me keep this real simple: It has never been changes in global temperatures that have convinced me that there is a problem...It is the % composition of CO2 in our air that scares the hell out of me...We have twice as much CO2 in our air now (in terms of parts per million) than we had 250 years ago...We are screwing with the basic chemistry of the air we breathe and the speed with which this has happened is far greater than can be explained by any natural phenomena that has occurred during that time period...Nobody debates that...
In other words, you have taken a parallel issue and tried to make it the issue...You did the same with the Kyoto issue...Where in my post did I say anything about Kyoto?
Ditto Al Gore...For all you know, Al Gore might plant enough trees (like I do) to offset every bit of his carbon emissions every year...Did you realize that it only takes 2-3 acres of freshly planted hardwood seedlings to offest the CO2 emissions of a 1/2 Ton P/U driven 40,000-50,000 miles per year? How the heck do you figure that $200-$300 per year will cause wealth distribution?
As for your so-called credible scientists, over 2200 scientists ratified the IPCC declaration, the National Academy of Sciences says its true, the Nobel Prize Committee nominates Al Gore but you would cite a couple of state agency scientists?
Can you give me an honest answer to this question: Have you ever defended a tobacco company?
One other question (for now): Do you consider Exxon a special interest and if so, what would be the special interest be of their Chairman/CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledging global warming?
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
No need to attack the messenger. You asked for it, you got it. 
In "Bullets 1-4", you addressed the validity of the GW conclusions and the need for action. My responses addressed each of these assertions. Did you read them?
As for the Kyoto treaty, you addressed it in "Bullet 5". As for Al Gore, you referenced him in "Bullet 6". I did not pluck these topics out of thin air, I only addressed the points you raised.
No, Mr. Waxman, I have never represented a tobacco company. And before you ask, nicotine is NOT addictive to everyone. I occassionally smoke cigars and am not addicted.
As for Exxon and any other oil company --they will make money whether they sell the oil to US based companies, or to non-Kyoto treaty countries like China, India, etc.
With respect to the global warming issue, it is my reasoned opinion that the science supporting the man-caused global climate change is flawed; that the slight climate changes that have occurred, whether heating or cooling, are within normal parameters and are natural; that the projected calamity to occur as a result of alleged GW is wrong and at best greatly exagerrated; that the proposed cures are worse than the condition, will not make any difference anyway if the alarmists are right, and highly detrimental to the US's economic interests; and that the political proponents of such (like Al Gore) are hypocritical and full of schit. That is as short and concise as I can express it.
For the longer winded versions, see my previous posts.
In "Bullets 1-4", you addressed the validity of the GW conclusions and the need for action. My responses addressed each of these assertions. Did you read them?
As for the Kyoto treaty, you addressed it in "Bullet 5". As for Al Gore, you referenced him in "Bullet 6". I did not pluck these topics out of thin air, I only addressed the points you raised.
No, Mr. Waxman, I have never represented a tobacco company. And before you ask, nicotine is NOT addictive to everyone. I occassionally smoke cigars and am not addicted.
As for Exxon and any other oil company --they will make money whether they sell the oil to US based companies, or to non-Kyoto treaty countries like China, India, etc.
With respect to the global warming issue, it is my reasoned opinion that the science supporting the man-caused global climate change is flawed; that the slight climate changes that have occurred, whether heating or cooling, are within normal parameters and are natural; that the projected calamity to occur as a result of alleged GW is wrong and at best greatly exagerrated; that the proposed cures are worse than the condition, will not make any difference anyway if the alarmists are right, and highly detrimental to the US's economic interests; and that the political proponents of such (like Al Gore) are hypocritical and full of schit. That is as short and concise as I can express it.
For the longer winded versions, see my previous posts.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 12 guests