Global warming becomes even harder to deny...

[shetline]

...although I'm sure we have a few naysayers here, not to mention plenty of Republicans in government, who are up to the challenge!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html
The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
One Republican who apparently doesn't have his head completely up his ass about this, a House rep. from NY, Sherwood Boehlert (from the northeast, gotta be a "RINO" ;) ) commissioned this report.

But of course, since this is science and not religion, the report and the research behind it are certain to be studded with words and phrases such as "likely", "probably", "according to the best available data" -- all of which translate into Right Wingerese as "I only have to pay attention if I want to, and I don't want to".

Maybe I should just relax. It's only possibly a global disaster. Probably isn't happening. Probably isn't our fault if it is happening. Probably won't be that bad if it does happen, and maybe we can't do anything about it anyway. I'm sure I can dig up something someone said somewhere that there's nothing to worry about, and since no one will be able to absolutely completely refute that person, and that'll be good enough for me.

No, no let's not rush into anything rash that might have untold terrible side effects like reducing our dependence on foreign oil, conserving natural resources, and making the air cleaner -- but just to be on the safe side, let's commission a few more reports instead.

[Aurora]

I wonder what George Bush thinks or is he still in denial?:p

[e1618978]

How realistic is this scenerio?

1. Continuing release of CO2 continues to raise the average temparature of the globe.

2. As a result, the salinity of the arctic ocean drops, since the ice is melting and the there is increased flow from Siberian rivers.

3. The gulf stream stops flowing

4. With the gulf stream no longer suppling the deep ocean with cold/dense water, the hotter surface temparatures reach deeper, and the deep ocean shrinks.

5. Once the the ocean temparature reaches 18 C at 300-2000 feet, it triggers the release of methane from the continental shelves.

6. The methane accelerates global warming, pushing us into another thermal maximum event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

[southside grabowski]

Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.

[Northgate]

Why are you such a f*cking liar! It's not very Christian of you.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.
You're apparently forgetting that the most economically successful state in the country has emissions and fuel economy laws a good two times higher than federal mandates.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.


Hey Moe! Why would anyone believe someone who says he's leaving, and makes a big deal about it, and then comes back under a different handle?;)


Another link about the same report : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/?GT1=8211

Of course Moe is so blatant about his conservative viewpoint I still kind of wonder if he's real.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
How realistic is this scenerio?
How "Al Goreish" of you. Thanks for posting it. In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore explains this part (what you just posted) with pretty pictures.

I encourage everyone to go watch this movie. I've seen it 3 times with different people I invited. I plan on inviting as many as I can too.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by e1618978
With the gulf stream no longer suppling the deep ocean with cold/dense water

I'm a bit of a n00b on this topic so don't shoot me, but I was under the impression that the gulf stream actually provides warmth, not coldness.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chucker
I'm a bit of a n00b on this topic so don't shoot me, but I was under the impression that the gulf stream actually provides warmth, not coldness.

It moves warmth and coldness around, it doesn't add energy where there was none before or anything.

The flow starts out in the arctic, where water freezes, leaving denser saltier water which sinks. The cold water runs south along the bottom of the ocean, and later warm water comes back north along the surface.

Originally posted by Gilsch
How "Al Goreish" of you. Thanks for posting it. In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore explains this part (what you just posted) with pretty pictures.

I encourage everyone to go watch this movie. I've seen it 3 times with different people I invited. I plan on inviting as many as I can too.

I haven't seen it yet. "Al Goreish" - compliment or insult?

Actually, if we are in the process of recreating the Eocene, then more power to us. I doubt that we could stop the global warming trend, we should spend more time figuring out how to enter the eocene directly without a thermal maximum type extinction event. Maybe we could start harvesting and burning the methane? because CO2 is a lot less dangerous that mass releases of methane...

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
I haven't seen it yet. "Al Goreish" - compliment or insult? Sorry, I thought it was clear it was a compliment. Go watch the movie. You'll enjoy all the information/data which you seem to be familiar with.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.
Much of the talk denying global warming is fabricated by those who hate climatic stability and want to destroy our civilisation.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy. Your right! pay no attention to those glaciers that have melted,pay no attention to the gulf stream temps or rising sea levels,pay no attention to the worst hurricane season on record,pay no attention to the billions of tons of crud we poor into the atmosphere and pay no attention that not for a tropical storm coming by where I live we wouldnt have had a drop of rain in 3 months. Your right its just a bunch of Liberals making stuff up. Bad Liberals.:lol:

Seems its the way Republicans deal with everything, just Spin & Lie do it enough people will think its gospel.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Much of the talk denying global warming is fabricated by those who hate climatic stability and want to destroy our civilisation.


Good one!;)

[SDW2001]

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Putting aside the obvious biast of CNN's article for a second, let's look at this quote. It all comes down to what I've been saying here for several months now.

We don't have confidence in temp data before 1600

We didn't have truly accurate temp readings before the middle of the 20th century (1/10th of a degree or better)

The Earth experiences warming and cooling cycles lasting hundreds if not thousands of years. Most recent examples are quoted above.

The article and report draw several conclusions that cannot be drawn with any certainty. If CO2 is responsible for warming, then how do we explain that warm period that lasted for nearly 400 years beginning in the year 1000? Answer: We can't. It happened on its own. Man made CO2 levels and "warming" may very well just be a coincidence. Given what we know about warming and cooling cycles, there is more evidence for it being a conincidence than not.

But as usual, most here on AI will dismiss these criticisms as seg did preemptively in his opening post. But SDW! IT's the National Academy of Sciences!!! will be the response. Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.

So you are saying it is like the church? 8)

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001

But as usual, most here on AI will dismiss these criticisms as seg did preemptively in his opening post. But SDW! IT's the National Academy of Sciences!!! will be the response. Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.
It is essentially unknowable, therefore, we will assume what is most conducive to lack of regulation. Good one.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
It is essentially unknowable, therefore, we will assume what is most conducive to lack of regulation. Good one.

Why do you think I oppose regulation?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
So you are saying it is like the church? 8)

Let's assume I answer "yes" to that. This brings to mind some questions.

Does anyone question the church?

Are such inquirers mocked, or embraced by the liberal left?


Seems to me that global warming proponents, environmentalists and liberals in general are perfectly willing to question assertions that don't fit their worldview, but those that do? Well, those theories are accepted as fact.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Given what we know about warming and cooling cycles, there is more evidence for it being a conincidence than not.
I don't think you're qualified to make such a statement. The people who study this as their livelihood think the opposite. To them, the evidence is strong enough to favor global warming. Even if they are wrong about the conclusions, the evidence is on their side. Obviously, there is evidence and theories against global warming, but I don't think theres more against than for.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You know, there is so much nonsense in what you post defending what every day becomes more indefensible that it's a waste of time to even address your lame excuses.

How ironic that you posted a thread entitled Gorebot when it's pretty clear that you're a big time apology propagandist. A REPUBLIBOT.

[southside grabowski]

Fortunately,reliable folks are monitoring this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsvVppXSTWM

[Chucker]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Fortunately,reliable folks are monitoring this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsvVppXSTWM

Does that woman take herself seriously?

[BRussell]

This is a good graph of the data. It shows that this larger study (right) confirmed the findings of the earlier study (left).

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/06/23/science/0623-nat-webCLIMATE.gif

[Chucker]

In the future, such graphs should be addressed the same way supposed screenshots from future OS X versions are. That is, we need an "IT'S FAKE!!" camp and a "CONFIRMED!!" camp, and we need lots of ridiculous reasons of why it must be true or can't be true, like pixel 4901 is off or the wrong color.

I'll start: the anti-aliasing of the "High confidence" is inconsistent between the left and right sides.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chucker
In the future, such graphs should be addressed the same way supposed screenshots from future OS X versions are. That is, we need an "IT'S FAKE!!" camp and a "CONFIRMED!!" camp, and we need lots of ridiculous reasons of why it must be true or can't be true, like pixel 4901 is off or the wrong color.

I'll start: the anti-aliasing of the "High confidence" is inconsistent between the left and right sides.
no need to actually look at the evidence in order to dismiss it. if it favors global warming, it was clearly fabricated by the vast left wing conspiracy, which is trying to force communism on us in order to destroy the economy. the only question left is, how many babies did these scientists eat before making up the graph?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
This is a good graph of the data. It shows that this larger study (right) confirmed the findings of the earlier study (left).

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/06/23/science/0623-nat-webCLIMATE.gif

Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere.

[hardeeharhar]

Write the authors of the study.

[jamac]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
no need to actually look at the evidence in order to dismiss it. if it favors global warming, it was clearly fabricated by the vast left wing conspiracy, which is trying to force communism on us in order to destroy the economy. the only question left is, how many babies did these scientists eat before making up the graph?

Those must be the same scientists who want to legalize gay marriage. Kill them!!!! (in christian sort of way!)

[Placebo]

Still nobody has addressed my question, why not pretend global warming is definite and switch to alternative energies when, global warming or no global warming, we'll reduce oil dependence and increase the electricity available on the grid? You conservatives are just looking for an excuse not to.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Placebo
Still nobody has addressed my question, why not pretend global warming is definite and switch to alternative energies when, global warming or no global warming, we'll reduce oil dependence and increase the electricity available on the grid? You conservatives are just looking for an excuse not to.

Because it would cost money in terms of research and infrastructure, and it would force many people to rethink.

People don't like to think, and even less, they like to rethink.

Unless it's really forced upon them. Which is gonna happen somewhere between the US adopting proper units and the UK adopting proper English. :p

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere. Here's the actual study. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html)

[e1618978]

If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable - even if you manage to reduce CO2 on a per-country basis, that just reduced the prices of carbon based fuels, and other countries burn more. Trying to convince the Republicans and trying to reduce emissions are both a waste of time.

We should spend our time and energy trying to predict the changes that will occur, and figure out our survival plans. The battle over conservation is mental masterbation.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable - even if you manage to reduce CO2 on a per-country basis, that just reduced the prices of carbon based fuels, and other countries burn more. Trying to convince the Republicans and trying to reduce emissions are both a waste of time.

It is, it is. And maybe, maybe not. If the alternatives are better and cleaner than carbon based fuels, and at the right price, people will adopt them. Change starts from within. As technology evolves, it will be a personal choice to rely on the electricity grid $$ or be independent from it 0$ for example.

It will be about a super fast electric car like Ian Wright's $100,000 (for now)Wrightspeed X1 that does 0-60 in 3 seconds and beats almost any exotic car that burns fossil fuel and is uber expensive....and slower and "dirtier" cars. In fact only the Bugatti Veyron with its $1,200,000 price is faster than the Wrightspeed.

You guys are thinking old school. At the pace technology appears to be moving, we will have very cool energy saving or even independent alternatives. It won't have to be the early adopters, hippies or the "treehuggers" embracing those alternatives. We will ALL have options.

Let me give you a recent example that's not really about energy alternatives completely, but about the change of people perception of things.

I'm a huge motocross fan. For a couple decades, most mx bikes had 2 stroke engines....a mixture of oil and gasoline. In 1997 Yamaha became the first major manufacturer to experiment with 4 stroke high performance engines. Doug Henry was the ONLY rider racing a four stroke bike.

Two stroke and four stroke bikes make distinct sounds so it was always easy to spot or hear Doug approaching at the races. It was a novelty. Something that would "never catch on". He was the underdog riding the funny sounding bike so everybody cheered him and his Yamaha YZF400 when he came by at the tracks.

In 1998...just a year later....Doug Henry won the 250cc motocross championship on...you guessed it...a 4 stroke bike. Fast forward to 2006. This year, every major manufacturer sells both two stroke and four stroke bikes. However, if you manage to go to a National Motocross race this year, you'll notice something very "strange". Not a single top 40 rider on what used to be the 125cc. or 250cc championships races two stroke bikes.

Let me repeat that. Not ONE top professional rider rides two stroke bikes anymore. In 5 years, 4 stroke motocross bikes went from novelties, to mainstream. That, thanks to new environmental laws that prefer the cleaner running 4 stroke engines.

We don't have unlimited reserves of fossil fuels so the price of them is not going to come down drastically. The days of $1.70/gallon are over. (I'm in California)

Thinking that convincing the Reps. and trying to reduce emmisions is a waste of time is defeatist. We will all be able to vote twice to make these changes happen faster. Politically and with our wallets.

I for one intend to make a LOT of money working to bring those choices to the marketplace. But that's another story. ;)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
It is, it is. And maybe, maybe not. If the alternatives are better and cleaner than carbon based fuels, and at the right price, people will adopt them.

Your electric cars are fueled by coal based power plants. Nuclear is only an option if we use breeder reactors, since we will run out of uranium otherwise, but we can't trust most of the world with breeder reactors (due to nuclear weapons). 85% of our power generation capacity produces CO2, and we have to quintuple that capacity in the next 40 years as the 3rd world westernises. Hydroelectric is close to being maxed out. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power are pipe dreams, not able to scale enough to make a difference.

Hope for fusion, plan for coal.

[NOFEER]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy. how true
what about the medieval warming period?? all the stuff they talk about fails to explain why the mwp and why the little ice age started, why it stopped....they keep rehashing the same hash man. chicken littles.

[Placebo]

We have to stop using oil now anyways, with Peak Oil and all.

[Bergermeister]

What if they are right and global warming is really happening due to human activity? If we act now, we can help make the problem less; if we do nothing, then the cost of cleanup later will more than off-set any immediate impact on our economy, and might even be too late to correct the wrongs.

If they are wrong, so what, it might cost a little in the short term to change our ways, but we will be the better for it. When we are discussing survival, I for one hope we don't selfishly choose the wrong path.

There is plenty of money to be made in a "green" fashion; it's just that big business is too lame to act responsibly and wishes to complain about tthe cost of transferring over and government is controlled by big business (how many politicians are businessmen? how many are blue-collar workers? Cheney, for example, was chairman of which company? Bush owned what company?). Then they create the image of fear that attempts to act responsibly are a threat to our way of life, blahh blah blah. What they mean is it is a minor threat to THEIR wallets in the short term, and therefore is a crime against humanity.:err: The sad thing is how many common folk actually fall for the story.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
Your electric cars are fueled by coal based power plants. Nuclear is only an option if we use breeder reactors, since we will run out of uranium otherwise, but we can't trust most of the world with breeder reactors (due to nuclear weapons). Right now they are for the most part...but what if your house was energy independent? Did you consider that? Then "my" superfast and efficient electric car would just be another appliance. 85% of our power generation capacity produces CO2, and we have to quintuple that capacity in the next 40 years as the 3rd world westernises. Hydroelectric is close to being maxed out. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power are pipe dreams, not able to scale enough to make a difference. I suggest you do more research. And I can't verify or challenge your figures right now. There's other technologies besides the ones you mentioned. I am drinking out of a cup made out of corn right now and you couldn't tell the difference between a plastic one and this one.

As inneficient as solar is right now, it's getting better and it will become more efficient. Like any technology. Like all those technologies you mentioned. New cheaper/materials are being developed all the time. How do you define a pipe dream by the way? All those technologies are available right now inefficient or not...at a higher price for now....and if you know they will never be able to "scale enough to make a difference"...well...send me tomorrow's lotto numbers if you don't mind.
Hope for fusion, plan for coal. What I hope for is for humans to make a responsible choice and do their part as individuals and not become defeatists. That's what I hope. But hey, most inventors heard how their inventions/experiments were nothing but "pipe dreams" and how they would never work. History is full of examples....of how the naysayers and defeatists were wrong.

Who would've thought 100 years ago that today we'd be communicating over these "internets"....wirelessly from our couches in our living rooms via portable laptop computers in front of our 42" LCD screens while watching overseas newschannels in real time?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere.
Just curious, Chris, since you've never actually definitively stated your position: do you think that this planet is older than, say, a million years?

It makes a difference. If we're going to have a serious discussion we're going to need to know just what constitutes 'good evidence' in your eyes.

Ta. :)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I suggest you do more research. And I can't verify or challenge your figures right now.... How do you define a pipe dream by the way?

I need to do more research because you can't challange my figures - sorry, but that is a joke.

Pipe dream:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

scroll down to "solar"

[shetline]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Who would've thought 100 years ago that today we'd be communicating over these "internets"....wirelessly from our couches in our living rooms via portable laptop computers in front of our 42" LCD screens while watching overseas newschannels in real time?
Beware technological optimism. Just because technology keeps doing more and more amazing things is not a good reason to suppose it will solve every puzzle or solve it fast enough for us.

Now, I'm not totally sold on the idea that Peak Oil = Doomsday, and that there's nothing we can do about it. We're already weathering a pretty hefty increase in the price of crude oil now better than some people would have thought.

But there are potential dangers in our current dependence on oil, and I'd even say some chance of some of the more dire Peak Oil predictions coming to pass. Need for solutions does not automatically produce solutions. Need for fast solutions does not automatically produce rapid progress towards solutions. Need for solutions does not automatically produce completely desirable solutions.

Suppose getting off oil is as difficult as curing cancer? Cancer is a problem we've been working on for a long time now, and while we've made progress, it's been slow progress. In most cases it's far more accurate to say we've made progress in treating cancer, as opposed to curing it. Many of those treatments are very unpleasant and involve ugly trade-offs, like drugs with unpleasant side effects, or having parts of your body hacked away which you might otherwise have preferred to keep.

Suppose oil hits $250 per barrel next month. How many people will have solar panels on their roofs the month after that? How many people will have hydrogen powered cars in a month, and how many hydrogen fueling stations will be in place for those drivers to use, and how many solar-powered hydrogen production plants will be operating and at what capacity?

If we try to go the ethanol route, how much valuable farm land will be switched from feeding hungry mouths to feeding hungry cars? How much rain forest will be destroyed to plant sugar cane for ethanol production? How quickly would corn ethanol lobbyists who want to sell lots of corn get out of the way of the US using a far more efficient sources of ethanol like sugar cane?

You mention the internet and wifi as some of the amazing things technology has produced for us. Well, stop and think about how long such technologies have been in development. You could go back to the early 90s, even mid 80s, and find lab demonstrations and pilot projects for much of what we enjoy today.

Imagine that for some bizarre hypothetical reason the world had suddenly NEEDED to have wifi internet access in every home, and needed to have it BADLY, in, say, 1992. How far do you think that technology would have been rushed along by 1993? How widely available do you think it could have been?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
I don't think you're qualified to make such a statement. The people who study this as their livelihood think the opposite. To them, the evidence is strong enough to favor global warming. Even if they are wrong about the conclusions, the evidence is on their side. Obviously, there is evidence and theories against global warming, but I don't think theres more against than for.

The thing is that it boils down a statement that anyone can make. It's not difficult to comprehend. We know the Earth warms and cools over thousands of years. Why are we now concerned that the earth appears to be warming over say, 50-100 years?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gilsch
You know, there is so much nonsense in what you post defending what every day becomes more indefensible that it's a waste of time to even address your lame excuses.

How ironic that you posted a thread entitled Gorebot when it's pretty clear that you're a big time apology propagandist. A REPUBLIBOT.

Orginally posted by SDW2001:

But as usual, most here on AI will dismiss these criticisms as seg did preemptively in his opening post.

Don't bother responding, just dismiss my argument as nonsense and be on your way.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Chucker
Because it would cost money in terms of research and infrastructure, and it would force many people to rethink.

People don't like to think, and even less, they like to rethink.

Unless it's really forced upon them. Which is gonna happen somewhere between the US adopting proper units and the UK adopting proper English. :p

That's stupidity. It's not a question of rethinking, it's a question of replacing fossil fuels with cheap, abundant and safe alternatives. It will take decades for us to ween ourselbves from oil, a notion I fully support by the way. But it's going to take a long time.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The thing is that it boils down a statement that anyone can make. It's not difficult to comprehend. We know the Earth warms and cools over thousands of years. Why are we now concerned that the earth appears to be warming over say, 50-100 years?

Because this time, it affects us, and this time, we have the technology to possibly minimize its effects?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
I need to do more research because you can't challange my figures - sorry, but that is a joke. lol No, but your reading comprehension skills seem to be. I didn't say you needed to do more research because I couldn't "challange" (it's spelled challenge by the way) your figures. I asked you to do research on where the technologies are NOW, and where there'll be shortly, not a couple of years ago like most of the quotes from that website you linked to.

Besides, a "little" point you and the politically or financially motivated naysayers seem to be missing. I am not suggesting solar or other technologies will replace fossil based fuels completely. I don't think we need to. The technologies are coming that will enable us to lessen or even stop our contribution to the problem if we so chose to. We will have market driven options.

Unfortunately for the defeatists, winger politicians and whiners the solution is not either or. Just as you don't amputate a limb because of a pulled muscle, one does not need to become a hermit to lessen or neutralize his or her carbon footprint.

All in all, it appears to me that it is you who is -waiting- for a pipe dream when you can easily get off your ass now and make better choices instead of telling others that they have no choice but to wait for fusion to happen if indeed "there is a problem" to begin with.

Have fun paying exorbitant prices for your electricity and gas bills a couple of years from now while I drive a faster and cleaner car that I plug to an outlet in my fully or almost energy independent home.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by shetline
Beware technological optimism. Just because technology keeps doing more and more amazing things is not a good reason to suppose it will solve every puzzle or solve it fast enough for us. Fair enough. The problem with popular perception is that since we don't have the technologies to change everything today and cut our dependency of oil immediately, everything else is a "pipe dream" or unchecked optimism.

What we have right now, technology is moving very quickly by the way, are ways for each of us to make a contribution to solving the problem. If not completely now, very soon. The "problem" will still be there, but why not try to contribute to lessen it if we have market driven products that will save us money to begin with??

By the way. The cancer analogy is interesting because cancer figures have JUMPED in recent years. Do you not think there is a relation between those figures and a more polluted air, water supply,food supply and widespread availabitly and adoption of household chemicals?

My father died of cancer August 16th of last year. He suffered horribly from a very rare form of cancer that ultimately resembled the flesh eating bacteria. He is my hero because he fought it till the very end.

I wish more of us showed a desire for a better and healthier life. I won't wait for circumstances to prove me right or wrong. I'll do my part and hope others do theirs because we share the same planet and because there will be a lot of very cool products that will make those choices easier. Market based capitalism. Those are the new greens.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
one does not need to become a hermit to lessen or neutralize his or her carbon footprint.

Neutralizing your footprint is impossible. If you use less, the resulting lower price makes other people use more.

[Placebo]

It doesn't "make" them use more. People use how much they need.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Placebo
It doesn't "make" them use more. People use how much they need.

Yeah - that was why consumption skyrocketed when the prices were low in the 80s... Any why it dropped during the oil crisis, because people use what they need. Maybe there is a limit to how much an individual will use, but not a society or an industry.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
Neutralizing your footprint is impossible. If you use less, the resulting lower price makes other people use more. Yeah, I like how you forgot the lessen part. What lower prices? You really think energy prices are gonna come down and not go up in the future?? :???: You are a handful of contradictions.

I don't know. If I'm producing more energy than I need...and I make use of the technologies already available (and that keep improving almost on a monthly basis)...I could prove you wrong easily. I'm working on that. The harder part would be to plant enough trees to offset the CO2 I breathe out. :D

Maybe there is a limit to how much an individual will use, but not a society or an industry. Oh brother. Or is it bother? Now you seem to be whining we can't solve the problem 100%. It's all or nothing to you apparently.

So the bottom line is you don't believe global warming is man made and even if it were, you'd rather take the side of the people who will cover their ears and cover their eyes and do nothing about it because...well...it's a lost cause anyways. Got it.

I hope you don't have kids, because in reality, we're just borrowing the planet from them right now. I trust that you will make good choices once you become aware that you actually have them in the future. Unless of course you choose to remain an irresponsible, unhealthy polluting machine forever. ;)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, I like how you forgot the lessen part. What lower prices? You really think energy prices are gonna come down and not go up in the future?? :???: You are a handful of contradictions.

I don't know. If I'm producing more energy than I need...and I make use of the technologies already available (and that keep improving almost on a monthly basis)...I could prove you wrong easily. I'm working on that. The harder part would be to plant enough trees to offset the CO2 I breathe out. :D

Oh brother. Or is it bother? Now you seem to be whining we can't solve the problem 100%. It's all or nothing to you apparently.

So the bottom line is you don't believe global warming is man made and even if it were, you'd rather take the side of the people who will cover their ears and cover their eyes and do nothing about it because...well...it's a lost cause anyways. Got it.

I hope you don't have kids, because in reality, we're just borrowing the planet from them right now. I trust that you will make good choices once you become aware that you actually have them in the future. Unless of course you choose to remain an irresponsible, unhealthy polluting machine forever. ;)

I give up - you are impossible.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
I give up - you are impossible. Awwww. Better luck next time. :D

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Awwww. Better luck next time. :D

Luck has nothing to do with it when you refuse to understand what I am saying.

Maybe Dogbert will have more success with you than I have had:

http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-19-02-2006.gif

[jamac]

I just want to stink less. Everything else is irrelevent.

how much do you want to stink?

[Chucker]

Originally posted by e1618978
Luck has nothing to do with it when you refuse to understand what I am saying.

Maybe Dogbert will have more success with you than I have had:

http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-19-02-2006.gif

So basically, your point is: "since chances that your good intentions and efforts will actually make any discernible difference are incredibly low, might as well not try".

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Chucker
So basically, your point is: "since chances that your good intentions and efforts will actually make any discernible difference are incredibly low, might as well not try". That's the republican strategy for November.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chucker
So basically, your point is: "since chances that your good intentions and efforts will actually make any discernible difference are incredibly low, might as well not try".

Not incredibly low, zero. The only way you could make it non-zero is to implement a global totalitarian state that controlled consumption.

My point is that we should put our effort to figuring out how to deal with global warming as it happens, instead of hoping for a technological solution, and instead of blaming people for CO2. Otherwise, we will have spent all our time trying to stop the oncoming train, and none of our time figuring out how to get off the tracks.

There is nothing particularly bad about buying a Prius, but there isn't anything particularly good about it either. All it does is make the driver feel superior, it does not actually help reduce global CO2, or help the human race at all.

A hummer driving scientist who is working on ways to live with global warming is helping the situation a whole lot more than the prius driving environmentalist that keys his car.

[hardeeharhar]

Actually the severity of global warming is mediated by current and future fossil fuel consumption. So our best solution is prevention of worsening global warming -- which is what everyone is more or less arguing for...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually the severity of global warming is mediated by current and future fossil fuel consumption. So our best solution is prevention of worsening global warming -- which is what everyone is more or less arguing for...

go back and read the cartoon...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
go back and read the cartoon...

Ahem. I am saying we need to work quickly to make fossil fuels non-fungible, that is make their use obsolete internationally...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Ahem. I am saying we need to work quickly to make fossil fuels non-fungible, that is make their use obsolete internationally...

And how do you propose doing that?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
Luck has nothing to do with it when you refuse to understand what I am saying.
Maybe Dogbert will have more success with you than I have had:
It is obviously you who doesn't get it...or doesn't want to get it. It's funny how symbolic of your arguments a... cartoon... is. A pretty silly one at that too. My point is that we should put our effort to figuring out how to deal with global warming as it happens, instead of hoping for a technological solution, and instead of blaming people for CO2. :lol: Well, wasn't "hope for fusion plan for coal" your best suggestion? Last time I checked, fusion was a technology. You're all over the place now. Sorry to see you so confused. I wonder what those "Hummer driving scientists" will be working on if it's not technological solutions.
A hummer driving scientist who is working on ways to live with global warming is helping the situation a whole lot more than the prius driving environmentalist that keys his car.
:lol: that one takes the prize. Wow.

Yeah, comparing a scientist to an average Joe is so accurate. By the way, a scientist working on global warming sounds like an environmentalist to me. So I guess both are environmentalists, but one of them just happens to be smarter with his money and a law breaker at the same time right?.

I'm sure the "Hummer driving scientist" enjoys his gas fill-up days of $150-$170(at current prices in CA). Why the zealous insistence that there is just one way to go about it?

By the way, did it occur to you that a Prius owner these days may just be an average person wanting to save some money on gas?? The horror! That can't be true!
Why you have to label them as "environmentalists" and even criminals to boot is beyond me. Pretty absurd and extremist of you.

Sales of hybrids will account for 4% of all sales within the next couple of years....that's gonna be a lot of SUV "keying" "environmentalists"!! :wow:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

The World Cup is a communist plot designed by people who want to destroy our glorious American sports.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The World Cup is a communist plot designed by people who want to destroy our glorious American sports.

What you talking \'bout Moe? Baby killing, torturing, raping, murdering, eating low I.Q. foods, these are the glorious sports of the slack-jawed redneck American.

[Relic]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The World Cup is a communist plot designed by people who want to destroy our glorious American sports.

Coooooool!

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The World Cup is a communist plot designed by people who want to destroy our glorious American sports.

:lol:

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
It is obviously you who doesn't get it...or doesn't want to get it. It's funny how symbolic of your arguments a... cartoon... is. A pretty silly one at that too. :lol: Well, wasn't "hope for fusion plan for coal" your best suggestion? Last time I checked, fusion was a technology. You're all over the place now. Sorry to see you so confused. I wonder what those "Hummer driving scientists" will be working on if it's not technological solutions.

:lol: that one takes the prize. Wow.

Yeah, comparing a scientist to an average Joe is so accurate. By the way, a scientist working on global warming sounds like an environmentalist to me. So I guess both are environmentalists, but one of them just happens to be smarter with his money and a law breaker at the same time right?.

I'm sure the "Hummer driving scientist" enjoys his gas fill-up days of $150-$170(at current prices in CA). Why the zealous insistence that there is just one way to go about it?

By the way, did it occur to you that a Prius owner these days may just be an average person wanting to save some money on gas?? The horror! That can't be true!
Why you have to label them as "environmentalists" and even criminals to boot is beyond me. Pretty absurd and extremist of you.

Sales of hybrids will account for 4% of all sales within the next couple of years....that's gonna be a lot of SUV "keying" "environmentalists"!! :wow:

You continue to not understand my central point: it is much better to have scientists working on ways to live with global warming than it is to have scientists working on ways to conserve energy.

Trying to save money on gas is fine if that is what you want to do, but it will do nothing to help global warming. Global warming is unstopable due to supply and demand - conservation lowers prices, which then cause increased consumption.

It doesn't even save any money to buy a hybrid car, because the extra cost of the car is more than you will pay on gas until gas goes above $9/gallon.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you, but feel free to fail to comprehend as always.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
And how do you propose doing that?

Fund a massive international research initiative into advancing alternate energy sources. If we can get off of fossil fuels in one or two decades, we will be better off than trying to fix the developing problems associated with global warming after another half century of fossil fuel use.

You know the appropriate poor richard's saying...

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
Neutralizing your footprint is impossible. If you use less, the resulting lower price makes other people use more.
fun·gi·ble (from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fungible)/WordNet ® 2.0)
adj: of goods or commodities; freely exchangeable for or replaceable by another of like nature or kind in the satisfaction of an obligation. n: a commodity that is freely interchangeable with another in satisfying an obligation.

Okay, now that were sure everyone knows what "fungible" means... :)

To say that oil is fungible is not the same as to say that demand for oil is totally inflexible and that demand essentially cannot be reduced. Those are two different things. That oil is fungible only means that it's difficult or impossible to target, say, totalitarian Middle Eastern regimes, to feel the pain if and when you reduce consumption of oil. That has no bearing on whether reduction of total overall consumption of oil is possible or not.

Gallon for gallon, barrel for barrel, it probably is difficult to reduce oil consumption through conservation alone. But what justifies your seeming certainty that every single drop of fuel you save driving a Prius instead of a monster SUV will be consumed by someone else, at just the same rate you'd have been consuming it yourself? That would imply, conservely, that every single gallon of gas you pump into your car is a gallon of gas that someone else suddenly has to do without in an immediate, not just long-term consumption, sense.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by shetline
Gallon for gallon, barrel for barrel, it probably is difficult to reduce oil consumption through conservation alone. But what justifies your seeming certainty that every single drop of fuel you save driving a Prius instead of a monster SUV will be consumed by someone else, at just the same rate you'd have been consuming it yourself? That would imply, conservely, that every single gallon of gas you pump into your car is a gallon of gas that someone else suddenly has to do without in an immediate, not just long-term consumption, sense.

Yes, every gallon of gas that you pump into your car is one that somebody else has to do without. You can see this in action every day in the decisions people make: do I drive on this picnic? Do I buy this SUV? Do I keep the plant open for a 3rd shift? For some people and industries, the price of oil helps them make those decisions, and when you have enough people and industries in the mix, the market is very fluid.

Another way of thinking of it is on the production end - the oil industry (including OPEC) is currently pumping at 100%. OPEC has the power to make prices go up by restricting supply, but has no power to make prices go down once they are pumping at full capacity (and they have stated that they would prefer lower prices/higher production). That oil goes somewhere, and production is the ONLY factor that determines how much oil is burnt (well, production minus the oil used in the plastic industry, and cheese whiz production).

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
You continue to not understand my central point: it is much better to have scientists working on ways to live with global warming than it is to have scientists working on ways to conserve energy. Oh boy. So your argument here is that scientists aren't working on ways to live with global warming. Great. I'm sure you got this from good sources. How about we work on both so we have options like I've been saying all along?? If not work on both...I suggest they better become engineers because we're sure gonna need a massive amount of levees worldwide.

Maybe you didn't get the oh...6 or 8 times I have said in this thread that there are options available and not to just conserve energy, get healthier, but to become independent....or even energy producing as some are starting to do. Trying to save money on gas is fine if that is what you want to do, but it will do nothing to help global warming. Global warming is unstopable due to supply and demand - conservation lowers prices, which then cause increased consumption.So using less fossil fuels will do nothing to lessen global warming. Got it. Funny how you refer to supply and demand but then not apply it to emerging technologies that will also benefit from supply and demand. Including hybrid and/or electric cars. Typical.

In the real world, not yours apparently, higher prices affect people's spending patterns. Here's that word again...when that happens, and there are options, we all benefit.

It doesn't even save any money to buy a hybrid car, because the extra cost of the car is more than you will pay on gas until gas goes above $9/gallon. Rubbish. They aren't that expensive to begin with unless you're shopping for something for under $20k. With your logic it would seem nobody would buy higher priced cars either...including your environmentalist scientist who drives a Hummer. You know, the one who got his car keyed by the environmentalist Prius driving te-rro-rist? I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you, but feel free to fail to comprehend as always. Judging from all the comments you're getting I think it's pretty clear that you are the obtuse one here. My offer for your reading comprehension skills kit is still up. Let me know where to send it.

Speaking of the world cup....how dare those environmentalist Germans try to conserve energy by using solar energy in their stadiums and facilities?? Stupid suckers.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Fund a massive international research initiative into advancing alternate energy sources. If we can get off of fossil fuels in one or two decades, we will be better off than trying to fix the developing problems associated with global warming after another half century of fossil fuel use. Mods, please delete this post. It makes too much sense. ;) Thank you.

Man, it's not that f-ing difficult. Like some wise man said earlier....we can make things like that happen when we make use of our options. We can vote both politically and with our wallets.

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
Yes, every gallon of gas that you pump into your car is one that somebody else has to do without.
Not that I buy the argument that this is true, but let's suppose for the moment that you're right. Even then, doesn't driving a more efficient vehicle, burning half the gasoline to accomplish the same amount of travel still make sense, since, if the same gas is going to get burned by someone else anyway, it could then be put to more productive use by that other person?

Just how much justification can you try to put forward that sheer gratuitous wastefulness doesn't matter?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by shetline
Just how much justification can you try to put forward that sheer gratuitous wastefulness doesn't matter? Every gallon of gas we waste is a gallon that the Chinese DON'T get to use.

It's our patriotic duty!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by shetline
Not that I buy the argument that this is true, but let's suppose for the moment that you're right. Even then, doesn't driving a more efficient vehicle, burning half the gasoline to accomplish the same amount of travel still make sense, since, if the same gas is going to get burned by someone else anyway, it could then be put to more productive use by that other person?

Just how much justification can you try to put forward that sheer gratuitous wastefulness doesn't matter?

I agree that your argument makes sense - save gas to save money, or save gas so that others can use it more productively (although, I'd say that there is just as big a chance that it will be used for towing BillyBobs pontoon boat to the lake), but don't think that by economising you are lowering global CO2 production. If you look back in the thread I think that you will find that I was not trying to justify waste, I was just trying to point out that global warming is unstopable - so spending all your time trying to get people to conserve is really the wrong track if you want the human race to survive. It is not that conserving is bad, it just isn't where you want to spend your time if you are worried about global warming.

hardehar - I agree with you about the big research push for alternatives, but I don't think that the alternatives will amount to a significant percentage of energy production even if we do that. In the unlikely event that they displace coal, oil and natural gas - great, but we need an additional plan in case they can't.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Rubbish. They aren't that expensive to begin with unless you're shopping for something for under $20k.

break even point for a honda civic hybrid is $9.60 per gallon of gas:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-05-31-hybrid-costs-usat_x.htm

and that does not even count battery replacement, which is outside the "total cost to own" 5-year window.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
break even point for a honda civic hybrid is $9.60 per gallon of gas:
and that does not even count battery replacement, which is outside the "total cost to own" 5-year window. If I want to buy a Civic Hybrid because of the cost of gas...the cost of my time in traffic...I'll shop around and pay what I want to pay and then get a big grin when at the end of the month I KNOW for a fact I saved money compared to a more expensive gas guzzling SUV I could've opted for. Funny how you didn't mention the Prius(that you seem to have chosen as your target in your posts) from that article because it wasn't convenient to the argument you're fab er trying to make.
Edmunds.com's assumptions in the study paint a "worst-case scenario," says Honda spokesman Andy Boyd. A less-aggressive approach would require hybrid Accord be driven only 17,000 miles a year before it becomes thriftier than the standard Accord. The Ford Escape hybrid not only gets great gas mileage, but has lower maintenance requirements — fewer oil changes and brake-pad replacements, for example — meaning fewer trips to the dealer, says Bryan Olson, hybrid Escape marketing manager. "I tell people to think of the value of your time."n the unlikely event that they displace coal, oil and natural gas - great, but we need an additional plan in case they can't. It appears to me you're the only one claiming nothing's being done (or that we're saying nothing should be done) in that regard for some bizarre reason.

No one is saying we can turn back global warming for sure... but we can reduce it and lessen its impact and avoid having to deal with the catastrophic consequences 20 or 30 more years of burning fossil fuels and dirty energy production/consumption without doing anything, will bring us. Time to take those blinders off.

Why it is so difficult for you to get it is a mystery.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
No one is saying we can turn back global warming for sure... but we can reduce it and lessen its impact

No, you can't. Not by conservation, anyway.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by e1618978
No, you can't.

Yes, you can. Your hypothetical "someone else will use it" idea is just that, hypothetical.

This isn't NihilisticOutsider.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chucker
Yes, you can. Your hypothetical "someone else will use it" idea is just that, hypothetical.

This isn't NihilisticOutsider.

No - it seems to be IrrationalOutsider. You guys are so resistant to this idea because you have wasted a bunch of your lives fighting helplessly against CO2. I believe that humans cause global warming, and that we don't have the capibility to stop it, so we better get ready for a new geological Epoch with a thermal maximum followed by the NeoEocene - global warming is much worse that you make out because of its invincibility, and harping about Prius cars is just fiddling while Rome burns.

You can see supply and demand setting prices if you just look at the world around you. Look at the patterns of car purchasers - they buy less efficient cars when the price of gas goes down.

It is unbelievable to me that you all can't see the evidence that fills the world around you. Just look at the prices of any commodity - Australian fruit is expensive right now because of crop failures, price goes up and people use less. If the whole US stopped eating imported rice, the price would drop, and other countries would jump on that oppertunity to feed themselves. etc.

The same things apply to oil, coal and natural gas.

There are only three ways to stop global warming:

1. Kill most of the people in the world, as many as you can without disrupting our technological culture.
2. Global totalitarian state, probably combined with #1
3. Invent an alternative energy source which can scale, and is cheaper than petrochemicals. This will definitely not be wind power, geothermal, tidal power, or biofuel, and will probably not be solar or nuclear fission.

Actually, biofuel may be the answer, in that it will cause massive famine in poor countries due to farmland competition. Biofuel can't supply 6-9 billion people with energy, but it could supply 500-800 million people.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
No, you can't. Not by conservation, anyway. :lol: Just because you...say so. Ok, cool.
Are you Moe's older brother or father? I see your logic:

Laws of nature, exist only when it's convenient for me.

Free market capitalism and its laws, such as supply and demand only exist when they're convenient to me.

People who buy energy efficient cars are "environmentalists" (as if that were a bad thing) and SUV keying eco-tuhrrorists. No - it seems to be IrrationalOutsider. You guys are so resistant to this idea because you have wasted a bunch of your lives fighting helplessly against CO2. We have wasted a bunch of our lives fighting helplessly against CO2? Is that the best you could make up? How pathetic. But I guess it fits your little imaginary world better, rather than realizing we're just regular people who want to save money and do our part, whether "right" or not to reduce our OWN footprints.
The only time we've wasted...is with you.
I believe that humans cause global warming, and that we don't have the capibility to stop it :D That's not what you were saying earlier when you said: "If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable". global warming is much worse that you make out because of its invincibility, and harping about Prius cars is just fiddling while Rome burns. You're the one with the Prius obsession. So what are you doing about it? Please enlighten us.

Don't become a cartoon man.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
Actually, biofuel may be the answer, in that it will cause massive famine in poor countries due to farmland competition. Biofuel can't supply 6-9 billion people with energy, but it could supply 500-800 million people. Don't become a cartoon....too late. :no:

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
That's not what you were saying earlier when you said: "If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable".

Every reply you make is poorly thought out blather, I banish you to my ignore list. And my opinion is still the same, if you carefully compare that post to my more recent ones with a rational mind, you will notice.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978

There are only three ways to stop global warming:

1. Kill most of the people in the world, as many as you can without disrupting our technological culture.
2. Global totalitarian state, probably combined with #1
3. Invent an alternative energy source which can scale, and is cheaper than petrochemicals. This will definitely not be wind power, geothermal, tidal power, or biofuel, and will probably not be solar or nuclear fission.

Actually, biofuel may be the answer, in that it will cause massive famine in poor countries due to farmland competition. Biofuel can't supply 6-9 billion people with energy, but it could supply 500-800 million people.

Well 1 and 3 seem to solve the problem.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
I banish you to my ignore list. And my opinion is still the same, if you carefully compare that post to my more recent ones with a rational mind, you will notice. No,No!! Please, don't banish me!!!! Must suck to get tangled in your own web of contradictions and irrational thoughts. Pretty weak. :no:

Originally posted by midwinter
Well 1 and 3 seem to solve the problem. I'm partial to number 1 myself. Especially if we get to use our nukes! Yipee!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Gilsch

I'm partial to number 1 myself. Especially if we get to use our nukes! Yipee!

I was thinking more Matrix-y or Hitleresque furnace.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
I was thinking more Matrix-y or Hitleresque furnace.

I'm not advocating #1, mind you - also the decomposing bodies would produce more CO2, unfortunately.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not advocating #1, mind you - also the decomposing bodies would produce more CO2, unfortunately.

You seem to be assuming that we couldn't come up with a way to capture that CO2 and use it for our own nefarious purposes.

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
There are only three ways to stop global warming:

1. Kill most of the people in the world, as many as you can without disrupting our technological culture.
2. Global totalitarian state, probably combined with #1
3. Invent an alternative energy source which can scale, and is cheaper than petrochemicals. This will definitely not be wind power, geothermal, tidal power, or biofuel, and will probably not be solar or nuclear fission.
I admit the problem is very difficult, but I don't think the problem is all that intractable.

Without going as far as option 2, I think it's possible to use tax incentives and tax penalties to artificially manipulate the desirability to conserve energy and/or use alternative sources of energy. Yes, this would take an unusual amount of dedicated political will among all of the largest energy consuming nations. These measures don't have to be completely effective, however, they merely need to help us reduce production of C02 enough to buy a more time for option 3.

You're right that individual choices to conserve, especially when they're completely voluntary, won't add up to enough to stop or even significantly slow the problem of global warming. But they do help build the political climate for change, do help in demonstrating the possibilities for getting by with lower consumption of fossil fuels, and do help attract investment into the technologies used by those trying to conserve. With enough of that, and, frankly, enough pain and fear caused by ever stronger hurricanes, increases in things like flooding, drought, famine, etc., I do think it's possible to build the necessary political will, and institute measures effective enough to make a difference, without having to go nearly as far as a global totalitarian state to get the job done.

As for option 3, I think there are some promising technologies on the horizon which just need a bit more time and investment to bear fruit. A lot of the basics for replacing oil are already there, we just need to improve efficiencies here and there, and figure out how to scale up and deploy these technologies in what will admittedly have to be a complex, multi-solution approach to replacing the attractive versatility of oil and other fossil fuels.

One big advantage of oil is that it's both a source of energy and a very convenient carrying of that energy. Hydrogen could be made into a useful carrier of energy, but you need a sources of energy like solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear to produce it. Biofuels could solve some of the problems which can't be solved using hydrogen, so long as the need for biofuel can be kept low enough so as to not take too much land out of use from food production. Distributing and using more energy in the form of electricity will help use use sources of energy that work better when implemented as large-scale centralized operations.

Maybe we do need a back-up plan if all of this fails, but giving up and not even trying to stave off catastrophe is hardly a good solution.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by shetline
Without going as far as option 2, I think it's possible to use tax incentives and tax penalties to artificially manipulate the desirability to conserve energy and/or use alternative sources of energy. Yes, this would take an unusual amount of dedicated political will among all of the largest energy consuming nations. These measures don't have to be completely effective, however, they merely need to help us reduce production of C02 enough to buy a more time for option 3.


Tax incentives would only work if you had a world government. Even if you got 90% of the world's countries to fall in line, that would just make the financial rewards that much greater for the remaining 10%. Anyway, they would not fall in line - look at the Kyoto accord.

Originally posted by shetline
You're right that individual choices to conserve, especially when they're completely voluntary, won't add up to enough to stop or even significantly slow the problem of global warming. But they do help build the political climate for change, do help in demonstrating the possibilities for getting by with lower consumption of fossil fuels, and do help attract investment into the technologies used by those trying to conserve. With enough of that, and, frankly, enough pain and fear caused by ever stronger hurricanes, increases in things like flooding, drought, famine, etc., I do think it's possible to build the necessary political will, and institute measures effective enough to make a difference, without having to go nearly as far as a global totalitarian state to get the job done.

The more successful that you are convincing people to conserve, the greater the price-lowering effect of that conservation on oil. People are selfish, they will burn the oil given the chance.

Originally posted by shetline


As for option 3, I think there are some promising technologies on the horizon which just need a bit more time and investment to bear fruit. A lot of the basics for replacing oil are already there, we just need to improve efficiencies here and there, and figure out how to scale up and deploy these technologies in what will admittedly have to be a complex, multi-solution approach to replacing the attractive versatility of oil and other fossil fuels.

One big advantage of oil is that it's both a source of energy and a very convenient carrying of that energy. Hydrogen could be made into a useful carrier of energy, but you need a sources of energy like solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear to produce it. Biofuels could solve some of the problems which can't be solved using hydrogen, so long as the need for biofuel can be kept low enough so as to not take too much land out of use from food production. Distributing and using more energy in the form of electricity will help use use sources of energy that work better when implemented as large-scale centralized operations.

Maybe we do need a back-up plan if all of this fails, but giving up and not even trying to stave off catastrophe is hardly a good solution.

Scaling alternative energies is a long-shot bet. They currently supply less than 1% of our energy needs - and only 15% of our energy is CO2-free (including Nuclear). Our CO2-free energy supply has to scale to 3200% (to get to 5x our current supply) in the next 40 years - that is 9% growth, not so bad except most of that is nuclear fission and we will run out of uranium (unless we allow breeder reactors in the 3rd world).

The problem is that I have never heard of anyone trying to figure out a back up plan - all our effort is going into conservation and alternative energies.

[Gilsch]

You're a brave man Shetline. However...........

All action is futile. Repeat. All action is futile.

[Placebo]

No, since a large-scale CO2 scrubber has already been invented. If we cut down our current emissions and put the scrubbers into use, we'll be fine in a century or two.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Placebo
No, since a large-scale CO2 scrubber has already been invented. If we cut down our current emissions and put the scrubbers into use, we'll be fine in a century or two.

link? Cutting down on our emissions is impossible, unless you mean emit less CO2 while still burning the same amount of oil (as I explained above), but if we could pull carbon out of a smokestack and store it, then problem solved (provided the process does not use some scarce material, or have some noxious by-product).

Scrubbers would also probably be expensive, and therefore limited to the west for the most part. Which would further increase the benefit of burning as much oil as you can make a profit on (to keep it out of the hands of the unscrubbed 3rd world).

[Aquatic]

Oh boy. Hey Gilsch you like my sig?

[tonton]

Originally posted by e1618978
Without a global dictatorship that has total control of its citizens, conservation will not work period.

Bullshit. Without conservation, people living in industrialized American cities would have to wear gas masks RIGHT NOW. Conservation HAS worked, if not so clearly for global warming (which is definitely debatable), then at least, obviously, for urban pollution.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Oh boy. Hey Gilsch you like my sig? This is an automated response. All action is futile. Repeat. All action is futile.

:???: Any reason why I should or shouldn't?

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
Tax incentives would only work if you had a world government. Even if you got 90% of the world's countries to fall in line, that would just make the financial rewards that much greater for the remaining 10%. Anyway, they would not fall in line - look at the Kyoto accord
Without the US signed on, and the US producing more greenhouse gasses than anyone else, it's not amazing that the Kyoto accords haven't accomplished much yet. Even if the US eventually signs on, it's going to take some work to build the political will to get serious about global warming -- I'm not denying that.

But let's go with your hypothetical 90%, or even say 80%. But let's say that's not 80% measured in numbers of people or numbers of countries, but weighted according to current levels of consumption. Get the US, Europe, Japan, Australia and China signed up, and you're probably there or damned close. Sure, the 20% left over can take advantage of the situation, but how much and how fast?

There will be a lot of poor countries in that 20% who weren't guzzling oil that badly even when it was half the price it is right now. These people aren't going to suddenly buy SUVs and monster trucks overnight no matter how cheap oil gets. They aren't going to suddenly double factory production and air condition entire cities in a month or a year or even five years.

Beyond that, how hard would it be to convince oil producers to act, with the blessing of countries all around the world, to cut back production while maintaining artificially higher prices? Sanctioned price fixing. Sure there will be some cheating, but countries worried about running out of the oil their trying to sell might gladly stretch their reserves, make higher profits, and put off they day of reckoning when oil either runs out or is in such low demand it's no longer the cash cow it once was.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by shetline
Sure, the 20% left over can take advantage of the situation, but how much and how fast? There will be a lot of poor countries in that 20% who weren't guzzling oil that badly even when it was half the price it is right now. These people aren't going to suddenly buy SUVs and monster trucks overnight no matter how cheap oil gets. They aren't going to suddenly double factory production and air condition entire cities in a month or a year or even five years. Good points. Here's a little fact that's overlooked somehow. Gas prices are higher in most of those poor countries. My family owns coffee plantations in Central America and I can tell you that gas prices are at least 10% higher there-at $3/gallon in CA that's 30 cents more- except for diesel which gets subsidized a little bit by governments.

The country I'm most familiar with has the lowest prices in the region. At $100 monthly minimum wage it's silly to assume that like you said, they would be able to afford SUVs and monster trucks and if they could...somehow...then be able to afford the high prices of gas.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by shetline
Without the US signed on, and the US producing more greenhouse gasses than anyone else, it's not amazing that the Kyoto accords haven't accomplished much yet. Even if the US eventually signs on, it's going to take some work to build the political will to get serious about global warming -- I'm not denying that.

But let's go with your hypothetical 90%, or even say 80%. But let's say that's not 80% measured in numbers of people or numbers of countries, but weighted according to current levels of consumption. Get the US, Europe, Japan, Australia and China signed up, and you're probably there or damned close. Sure, the 20% left over can take advantage of the situation, but how much and how fast?

There will be a lot of poor countries in that 20% who weren't guzzling oil that badly even when it was half the price it is right now. These people aren't going to suddenly buy SUVs and monster trucks overnight no matter how cheap oil gets. They aren't going to suddenly double factory production and air condition entire cities in a month or a year or even five years.

Beyond that, how hard would it be to convince oil producers to act, with the blessing of countries all around the world, to cut back production while maintaining artificially higher prices? Sanctioned price fixing. Sure there will be some cheating, but countries worried about running out of the oil their trying to sell might gladly stretch their reserves, make higher profits, and put off they day of reckoning when oil either runs out or is in such low demand it's no longer the cash cow it once was.

1. You realise, of course, that China and Russia are allowed to pollute as much as they like in the Kyoto accord, and even leftist european countries that signed it against their financial interest are violating their quotas.

2. You must not watch the news much - "Sanctioned price fixing?". Look at the whining that is going on about $3 gas - and it is going much higher without price fixing. Any pollitician in a democratic country that tried this would be voted out very quickly.

3. No matter how poor those 20% of the non-complying countries are, factories will move there soon enough. Anyway, every country will be non-complying (as you can see with Kyoto).

Without a global dictatorship that has total control of its citizens, conservation will not work period.

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
1. You realise, of course, that China and Russia are allowed to pollute as much as they like in the Kyoto accord, and even leftist european countries that signed it against their financial interest are violating their quotas.
Then we need a better accord. It will be difficult to achieve, certainly won't be followed strictly, but I see no reason we can't do better than we're doing now, good enough to buy us some time, without requiring a world-wide totalitarian government.
2. You must not watch the news much - "Sanctioned price fixing?". Look at the whining that is going on about $3 gas - and it is going much higher without price fixing. Any pollitician in a democratic country that tried this would be voted out very quickly.
It wouldn't have to be overt, this could be behind the scenes negotiations, and all I'm talking about is supporting some price floor which discourages the automatic consumption of all oil which one person tries to conserve by somebody else, I'm not recommending urging or sanctioning oil producers to charge $250/barrel.

Besides, adjusted for inflation current oil prices aren't really all that terribly high right now. It's very difficult to imagine that prices wouldn't be much higher than they are now if so much pent-up demand is actually out there, as you're claiming, waiting to burn up every drop of oil anyone tries to conserve.
3. No matter how poor those 20% of the non-complying countries are, factories will move there soon enough.
How fast is "soon enough"? It could be slow enough that by time the rest of the world has found something better to burn than fossil fuels, that what they've found will be more attractive to use, even for poorer countries. We'll still be a lot better off if a good portion of the world tries to make the switch from oil and succeeds, even if some poorer countries keep burning oil for a while after that.
Anyway, every country will be non-complying (as you can see with Kyoto).

Without a global dictatorship that has total control of its citizens, conservation will not work period.
Okay, I get it. You're very cynical about human nature. Quite often a cynical attitude does make for an accurate predictor of human behavior.

On the brighter side, however, although it hasn't been quite as big of a challenge, we have managed to get off of CFC's to an effective degree through coordinated international effort, and there are already signs that's paying off with a recovering ozone layer, even with cheating going on and less than 100% compliance.

I'm also impressed that Y2K software compliance went so well, with so few actual problems having occurred. While some of the possible problems were overplayed (not every goddam computer relies on keeping track of today's date to run right!) there was real potential for major disruptions of economic activity. Surprisingly enough, however, a lot of people really heeded the warnings and got their acts together before disaster had to strike, people spent the money they needed to spend to prepare rather than nay-saying all warnings, sticking their heads in the sand, and watching their short-term bottom lines only.

What could have been a disaster turned into such a major yawn that some people wondered if all the fuss had been worth it. I'm pretty sure it was worth it, and it's a damn good thing we didn't have to learn the answer for sure the hard way.

I'm hardly a wide-eyed fan of the collective wisdom of humanity. But I do think it is possible, possible enough to not throw my hands up in the air and act like the only thing left to do is prepare for climatic disaster, possible enough not to blithely dismiss all efforts at conservation as hopeless symbolic gestures or mere issues of family budgets, for people to get energized enough to occasionally do what needs to be done for the collective good, to great enough an extent to make a difference.

[Aquatic]

Of course conservation will not work. Why? Because we can't conserve. We can not bring ourselves to conserve. By nature, we are just too greedy. It'd never work. Sort of like communism. Seriously.

What's the real problem? Half of it is tech/behavior leading to GHG emissions. What is the other half? Population.

Per capita emission rates have remained static since the 70s. Population is skyrocketing. The REAL root of the problem is population. And those explosive populations in developing nations will, yes they will, have factories. That, and of course America is still growing substantially, along with many other industrialized nations.

Hits on the other part of your quote, now you see why I made it my sig Gilsch.

Are there any other environmental scientists here?

Anyone that does not "believe" in global warming is just plain wrong. As far as scientists can tell. See the other thread, I don't feel like rehashing.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by shetline
But I do think it is possible, possible enough to not throw my hands up in the air and act like the only thing left to do is prepare for climatic disaster

I would be fine with the situation if we were preparing for disaster as well as trying to conserve, but we are not. There is no effort to re-locate populations away from low lying areas like New Orleans and Myanmar, for example - we wait for Nature to kill the people instead.

We need to spend time figuring out how to quickly convert atmospheric methane into CO2, for example, because that would help us eliminate the thermal maximum event. If we get to the Eocene conditions without dying off, then we are home free - the Eocene was some sweet sh*t - tropical jungles from pole to pole, and lots of rainfall - not as much land, but more usable land. Warm oceans, coconuts hanging from every tree, it will be a return to the garden of eden (but without man, if we don't start getting ready to kill the thermal maximum).

[rufusswan]

I'm posting primaily to see if I am still getting the "you can't post, cause it's been less than 30 secs since your last post" error msg. [mods may delete this at will, please]

Aquatic, glad to see someone is left in the world that understands that population pressure is the primary source of most of our ills; povery, environmental destruction, etc.

e1 61 89 78, your point is well taken. I have pondered this and it would be a monumental task to say the least. Even today, in America, most areas or cities cannot handle 2" of rain per hour without disasterous flooding. Add the anticipated 20-30 rise in sea level, well we're a talkin a major mo-fo disaster! I heard people bandy about the idea that we would have to build some levees. Hell, most folk today don't think we can build 1500 miles of fence to ward off illigal immigrants. What would we need to hold back the 'aquatic' problems? {pun intended, no harm, no foul} My guess is about 20 or 30 THOUSAND MILES of levees. MOVE CITIES???? Hell, we sat around for 100 years waiting for NewOleans to fall into the sea. But I do agree, we need to work equally hard at correcting, mitigating, and responding to what is to come.

Paz

[e1618978]

Originally posted by rufusswan
I'm posting primaily to see if I am still getting the "you can't post, cause it's been less than 30 secs since your last post" error msg. [mods may delete this at will, please]

Aquatic, glad to see someone is left in the world that understands that population pressure is the primary source of most of our ills; povery, environmental destruction, etc.

e1 61 89 78, your point is well taken. I have pondered this and it would be a monumental task to say the least. Even today, in America, most areas or cities cannot handle 2" of rain per hour without disasterous flooding. Add the anticipated 20-30 rise in sea level, well we're a talkin a major mo-fo disaster! I heard people bandy about the idea that we would have to build some levees. Hell, most folk today don't think we can build 1500 miles of fence to ward off illigal immigrants. What would we need to hold back the 'aquatic' problems? {pun intended, no harm, no foul} My guess is about 20 or 30 THOUSAND MILES of levees. MOVE CITIES???? Hell, we sat around for 100 years waiting for NewOleans to fall into the sea. But I do agree, we need to work equally hard at correcting, mitigating, and responding to what is to come.

Paz

Actually, total sea level rise will be 270'.

[rufusswan]

Well, if you are correct, the the problem wouldn't be 10X as bad, but 100X as bad.

I'm not up to doing the math, but I would guess that moving that much mass/weight FROM the poles TO the equator would be enough to slow the rotation of the earth. Our 24 hour day would grow by a noticable amount.

Maybe we'll all start growing gills, and additional webbing 'tween the digits.

Paz

[e1618978]

Originally posted by rufusswan
but I would guess that moving that much mass/weight FROM the poles TO the equator would be enough to slow the rotation of the earth. Our 24 hour day would grow by a noticable amount.

I doubt it, most of the earth is made of molten metal and rock - and the density increases as you go down. The thin crust of rock and water is neglegable.

[jimmac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html

A little something about Gore's movie.


;)

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
I doubt it, most of the earth is made of molten metal and rock - and the density increases as you go down. The thin crust of rock and water is neglegable.
Depends on your meaning of "negligible". For the guys who decide when to add leap seconds to world's clocks, it'll probably would make a small but noticeable difference.

[Aquatic]

Yeah e# that sounds really great, except for one problem. You think the global ecosystem will evolve fast enough? I think biodiversity short term (hundreds of years) will take a hit. Of course long-term it will go up, as we know, wetlands and tropics have the highest biodiversity and production. Or perhaps the Earth will dry out. Maybe it will get wetter. Maybe the thermohaline current will stop. This is the most complicated topic...there is. Amazing how something so simple...1 variable, 1 degree...can have such an impact. Hey that went all Lord of the Rings eh.

Better get to buildin' an ark folks!

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Population is skyrocketing. The REAL root of the problem is population.

It has been a while since people talked about the population crises. I guess some think the doom and gloom didn't pan out, but really much of it has. We just get use to loosing are open space, environment, resources little by little.

In an ideal world we would have stopped at a couple of billion people, but it is too late for that.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Placebo
No, since a large-scale CO2 scrubber has already been invented.


Did you mean the forests? Sadly they're under some pressure, but maybe when the permafrost melts, they can move northward.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Yeah e# that sounds really great, except for one problem.
One problem?

Today's forecast: very hot and humid, with a chance of showers or thundershowers during the afternoon.
Tomorrows's forecast: very hot and humid, with a chance of showers or thundershowers during the afternoon.
Extended 50,000 year forecast: very hot and humid, with a chance of showers or thundershowers during the afternoon.

Not to mention a whole planet crawling with bugs the size of cocker spaniels. Maybe more on the chihuahua size as you approach the poles. <shudder!>

I wonder how long it would take for the oceans to recover from the horrendous pollution they'd pick up by swamping through all of the crap in and around our costal cities?

Hey, maybe we can nuke our way into nuclear winter? :err: j/k

[shetline]

Taking an easy way out?

How to Cool a Planet (Maybe) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html)

(Looks like the old "appleinsider" username for the NYT doesn't work any more, so you'll have to sign up to get into the article if you haven't signed up already.)
In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming: Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science. Few journals would publish them. Few government agencies would pay for feasibility studies. Environmentalists and mainstream scientists said the focus should be on reducing greenhouse gases and preventing global warming in the first place.

But now, in a major reversal, some of the world's most prominent scientists say the proposals deserve a serious look because of growing concerns about global warming.
Curbing emmissions of greenhouse gasses is still I believe the most responsible way to go about averting a major climate crisis, especially since conserving non-renewable resources like oil and coal is a sensible long-term thing to do regardless of climate issues.

The effectiveness, and possible dangerous and unpredictable side effects of some of these global cooling solutions, is something that has to be considered seriously. But compared to losing major coastal population centers and tens, if not hundreds of millions of lives to rising sea levels, the subsequent poisoning of the oceans, radical ecosystem shock, and further massive loss of human life due to argricultural losses as we head into Eocene-like conditions?

If things start to look bad and reducing greenhouse gases isn't happening or going fast enough, I think we need to start seriously considering some of these geoengineering solutions, or develop new and better ideas along the same lines. I'd even think rushing into such plans in the next 5-10 years might be a smart idea if problems with increasingly stronger storms and ususually high instances of both drought and flooding continue unabated.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by shetline
If things start to look bad and reducing greenhouse gases isn't happening or going fast enough, I think we need to start seriously considering some of these geoengineering solutions, or develop new and better ideas along the same lines. I'd even think rushing into such plans in the next 5-10 years might be a smart idea if problems with increasingly stronger storms and ususually high instances of both drought and flooding continue unabated.
We should attack the problem from all directions and not wait to see if A or B or C work or aren't working fast enough.

We should get people educated on the problem so that they can make a decision to become involved. One option would be to become educated and take action from an individual standpoint. Buy products that conserve energy. Buy products that produce energy. Try to become energy independent as soon as the technologies allow for it. (in rural areas it's happening...it's still expensive at the urban level).

GE (I'm only choosing them for name recognition) is implementing an initiative called Ecomagination. It will invest $1.5 Billion annually by 2010 in research in clean technology research and development which is equivalent to 50% of it's current R&D budget.

Toyota(yes, Toyota) is developing and testing genetically engineered trees and plants that have a superior ability to recycle air and remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Another option or step.

But, but...that won't do it! Well, it's one of the many approaches that are gonna be needed to tackle the problem. For the ones with reading comprehension skills: ONE OF MANY.

Scientists are also working on biodiesel from algae because some forms of algae are capable of producing 30 times more oil per acre than the crops we are currently using for biofuels. That could alleviate the concern about feeding the people or the SUVs. ANOTHER option.

Again, I can't emphasize this enough. Education and helping people get educated. We can get involved from an individual standpoint...NOW. For example, we could switch to compact fluorescent lights (or CFLs). Don't laugh.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has published a report that says that using compact fluorescents and other energy efficient lighting would cut the world's electricity bill by one tenth. From the link: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5128478.stm) A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth.

That is the conclusion of a study from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which it says is the first global survey of lighting uses and costs.

The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power.

Better building regulations would boost uptake of efficient lighting, it says.

"Lighting is a major source of electricity consumption," said Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the report's authors.

"19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website.

The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.

I 'bolded" the part about better building regulations. Like I've been saying on this thread, here's where we come in aswell. Since commercial and public sector buildings account for 43% of the electricity used for lighting, we can elect individuals, or get the ones we voted for to give us better building regulations for example. Another approach, another option.

And with super efficient LEDs around the corner (getting better and better all the time) the future looks bright, no pun intended, in this area. Plus they are very cool.

I could go on and on but..I won't. We have options and not just waiting for the shit to hit the fan and then try to re-locate hundreds of millions if not a billion people. It's frustrating to read posts by know-it-alls who'd rather sit there and type excuses and "reasons" why X and Y won't work instead of becoming aware of the technologies that do exist now (and the ones being worked on) and the options that we currently have available.

Sure, let's prepare for a worst case scenario, but first let's work on the root of the problem now because we have plenty of options and we won't find out how far they'll take us until we try/adopt them. Besides, the more we can lessen the effects of global warming now, the more time to come up with better solutions and technologies.

An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.an-inconvenient-truth.com)

[MaxParrish]

Given how dubious the science is, particularly with the grifters who pose as objective scientists, it's best we wait and see.

First, continued global warming at predicted rates IS not a 100% certainty, any more than the reconstructed climate history that says current warming is unpredicented (the NAS gave it a 66% likehood of being "unprecedented").

Untested and uncertain models of long-term trends, even if they were perfect for human caused warming, cannot predict fluxations in non-human forcing (or non-forcing).

Second, the degree of warming is a wide range...1.6 to 5.5 degrees C.

Third, the impact of warming (it could be a very good thing) is not certain.

Fourth, the financial impact is not certain.

Fifth, the effectiveness of counter measures are uncertain.

Sixth, the cost of prevention (or remediation or adaptation) is uncertain.

THEREFORE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING?

Nonsense...

[jimmac]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Given how dubious the science is, particularly with the grifters who pose as objective scientists, it's best we wait and see.

First, continued global warming at predicted rates IS not a 100% certainty, any more than the reconstructed climate history that says current warming is unpredicented (the NAS gave it a 66% likehood of being "unprecedented").

Untested and uncertain models of long-term trends, even if they were perfect for human caused warming, cannot predict fluxations in non-human forcing (or non-forcing).

Second, the degree of warming is a wide range...1.6 to 5.5 degrees C.

Third, the impact of warming (it could be a very good thing) is not certain.

Fourth, the financial impact is not certain.

Fifth, the effectiveness of counter measures are uncertain.

Sixth, the cost of prevention (or remediation or adaptation) is uncertain.

THEREFORE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING?

Nonsense...


Max go back and read some of the info on this. From what I'm reading here it sounds like you know very little.


" Third, the impact of warming (it could be a very good thing) is not certain. "

Lots of stuff out there about the impact. Written I might add by people much more versed in this subject than you or I.


Ps. Who are these " grifters "? What proof do you have that they are " grifters "? They certainly have the credentials to add credence to their claims and integrity.

[shetline]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Given how dubious...
Only is the minds of non-scientist wingnuts and a few hired industry lackeys is the evidence "dubious". There might be some details to quibble over, and like all responsible scientists the scientist predicting global warming talk in terms of probabilites and margins of error -- but study after study keeps showing the same basic general conclusions, all pointing in the direction of pending disaster of one degree or another, and all show that it's most probably due to human effects on the environment.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by jimmac
Max go back and read some of the info on this. From what I'm reading here it sounds like you know very little.
WHAT, NOW I'M REPSONSIBLE FOR YOUR READING? I've read the hand twisting 'peer reviewed' articles, nothing but speculation about the unknown. Little more than fear mongering with "what ifs"; well "what if" an astroid hits earth, "what if" we have another Krakatoa, "what if" UFO's are true, "what if" there is warming, "what if" its bad...etc. Such chicken little piffel.

Warming is just as likely to be a good thing - the Medival Warming Period brought increased food production, expanded settlement to Greenland and Iceland, created a great climate for Europe. Hell, it would even lower Winter energy needs...who can say?

Before trillons are spent, the previous probabilities need resolved.
Ps. Who are these " grifters "? What proof do you have that they are " grifters "? They certainly have the credentials to add credence to their claims and integrity.
Grifters? Frauds? Mountebanks? I mean Mann and his hockey team that did a con job in his first "hockey stick" study and created a cottage industry of hucksters and flim-flamers in pursuit of government grants. Toss in Jones, Espir, Briffa. How do I know? Cause I spent the last couple of weeks reading their statements and noting their activities - the NAS tried to whitewash it, but none to successfully.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by shetline
Only is the minds of non-scientist wingnuts and a few hired industry lackeys is the evidence "dubious". There might be some details to quibble over, and like all responsible scientists the scientist predicting global warming talk in terms of probabilites and margins of error -- but study after study keeps showing the same basic general conclusions, all pointing in the direction of pending disaster of one degree or another, and all show that it's most probably due to human effects on the environment.
Horse poo. Even if the science was untainted by unsupported claims in peer reviewed papers, the jump from "there is warming" to "pending disaster" is a disingeniious leap - a carney trick used by Gore in his recent "Triumph of the Green Will" propoganda piece.

Scientists have margins of error in climate warming model, they have NO idea of its likely impact on human well being. Sure, they say the ocean will rise 1.5 feet (OH HORRORS), and that it might be 3.6 degree C warmer but it's cost/benefit is unknown. And given the science being saturated with fakery, it may not happen and may not be unprecedented.

[shetline]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Such chicken little piffel.
Because Real Men speak with utter certaintly, none of these sissy errors bars or wussy confidence intervals, no, if these so-called scientists really knew what they were talking about, and not just swindling us for more research grants, they'd speak boldy and confidently and proclaim the TRVTH, in simple, absolute Yes and 100% terms we can all understand!

[addabox]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
WHAT, NOW I'M REPSONSIBLE FOR YOUR READING? I've read the hand twisting 'peer reviewed' articles, nothing but speculation about the unknown. Little more than fear mongering with "what ifs"; well "what if" an astroid hits earth, "what if" we have another Krakatoa, "what if" UFO's are true, "what if" there is warming, "what if" its bad...etc. Such chicken little piffel.

Complete gibberish. You're simply pretending that all things that cannot be predicted with 100% certainty are equally unlikely. Thus, saying that cigarettes cause cancer is of a piece with speculating that power lines do as well, and both theories must be dismissed out of hand.

Warming is just as likely to be a good thing - the Medival Warming Period brought increased food production, expanded settlement to Greenland and Iceland, created a great climate for Europe. Hell, it would even lower Winter energy needs...who can say?

"Just as likely"? "Who can say"? You haven't been reading the literature at all, have you?

Before trillons are spent, the previous probabilities need resolved.

Right out of the industry backed disinformation campaign, which it sounds like is your primary source (as disseminated through various right wing blogs, editorials, think tanks, foundation and articles). Unless science can do what it cannot-- nail down the future with 100% certainty-- we are restrained from action until "more research is done", i.e., forever.

Grifters? Frauds? Mountebanks? I mean Mann and his hockey team that did a con job in his first "hockey stick" study and created a cottage industry of hucksters and flim-flamers in pursuit of government grants. Toss in Jones, Espir, Briffa.

This is such a grotesquely wrong-headed gloss on the state of the science and the "controversy" surrounding Mann et al's research it scarcely deserves response, but suffice to say that despite the vigorous promotion of McIntyre's attacks by such respected scientific entities as the Wall Street Journal and various far right congressional experts (leading to seemingly endless editorials about the "broken consensus" on global warming, all relying on the same few bits of information), Mann's interpolation of the data is born out by dozens of independent researchers.

This kind of seizing on irrelevant squabbling as evidence that the whole edifice of scientific research is some kind of con game backed up by heavy handed censorship is very typical of the right's new game plan for attacking the science they find unpalatable, as is the predictable canard that such research is simply an unseemly scramble for funding.

The trick is to make sure every shred of "controversy" is endlessly promulgated, tossed back and forth between interlocking systems of disemination, until it seems like you never see "climate change" without "controversial" attached. The shear volume of repetition makes up for the paucity of actual legitimate criique. It's a familiar model from the evolution "debate".

Eventually, I suppose, they'll conceive everybody that science is