To argue against measures combating fossil fuel use is just dumb.
Tell me which organic based fuels, fossil or not, do not produce oxides of carbon (which some scientists have claimed links and a precursor to AGW). Ethanol, biodiesel, wood, animal fat (makes synthetic fuels), grass(biomass)? Since the wonks in the ether have decided CO2 is a pollutant (as CO is). Even the process of rotting wood and decaying grass (think of it as slow burning) create these "Pollutants" and possibly lead to AGW.
The real solution is to move to alternatives such as nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, temp differential, et. al.. Is not about dumb people combating fossil fuel use. It is about being proactive in adopting measures that reduce pollution and minimizing the use of ORGANIC BASED FUELS what ever the source (that is all those compounds which have all those C's, O's, H's and more in their structures)
Your comment pointed out what you have done to be energy efficient... great. How can that be applied so a family who earns only $45,000 per year in San Francisco? Vancouver, Seattle, Boston....... Calling someone who uses inexpensive NatGas to warm their home in Cheyene dumb because they want to use and advocate the cheapest way to survive is counter productive. Price of energy alternatives, especially cleaner NatGas, determine use of fossil fuels these days... not rants. I hear very little from the "conservation" side of the energy equation. I do not hear Obama telling anyone to turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater. People waste energy on a grand scale... Obviously you do not. Kudos. and I hope you can get your story published in other than "Mother Earth News"
I did not say people are dumb if they use fossil fuels. I said people that ARGUE AGAINST reductions in fossil fuel use. It's much different. I use fossil fuels every day but I would like to use less.
There is a difference between fossil based organic fuels (oil gas coal) and non-fossil based organic fuels like wood biomass ethanol etc. Fossil fuels release carbon stored millions of years into todays atmosphere resulting in much higher greenhouse gas levels. However, if you burn a log it is not much different than letting it rot in terms of carbon emmisions. The log took in carbon in its growth and rotting or burning releases it.
No way did I call the person in Cheyene dumb for using natural gas. Read what I wrote. And anyone in any income bracket can conserve energy. And the last time Obama DID call for conservation measures by keeping your tires properly inflated they made fun of him.
(and me and my house did make it on national television Didn't you see it?)
Wow! I can now appreciate why you have the name of Wizard69. It took a lot of "magic" to draw a connection between Al Gore, the banking industry and global warming. Here, let's see what you can do with these three: ice cream, the cha cha and mac minis.
I'm not going to get into the "is global warming man made and can we control it" argument I just have 1 question as to what is wrong with what the CoC wants.
The CoC wants this "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to force the E.P.A. to arrange a climate science hearing before any federal climate regulation is passed."
Usually, if you're 100% certain in all your facts and there's nothing but evidence to support your claim you'd welcome a chance to prove it so I'm really lost as to why the CoC saying they want a hearing is enough to make Apple and Nike abandon ship - isn't this something that happens (or should happen) anytime Congress weighs science as it relates to policies?
I guess what I'm really after is if Curtis and Mel are 100% accurate and 100% sure it's a no brainer what exactly is wrong with having a climate science hearing as it pertains to the EPA where it would, invariably, come out there there is nothing but complete and total proof about AGW?
(Note I'm not asking for links on either side, I'm not asking for people to try to convince me, or others, either way, I'm simply asking what is wrong with the CoC's stance that there be a hearing before policy is made)
I used to feel the same way. Back in 1994 I heard all that "left wing propaganda" about where the RNC wanted to take the nation. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Starve the Beast. Maybe an opportunistic war in the middle east. Radical deregulation of financial markets and energy trading.
Nice blame everything bad in the world on the Republicans, I might let you get away with that if it wasn't for your ignorance likely being picked up by others on this forum.
First; the republicans did justcut taxes for the weathy they did so for just about everybody. Now we have the democrats saying they will raise taxes on the wealthy but the reality is everybody will be paying more taxes.
Second; the wars in the middle east would have happened no matter what. It is a result of a defective culture and really bad political processes over there. Without a doubt I can assure you more wars will be fought there in the future. That will be the case until the world gives up on the people in the middle east and effectively and completely wipes them out. The important thing is to take care of that before the arms build up going on over there is complete.
Third; the issues with banking are not the result of one party or a lack of regulation or even one specific piece of legislation. A good deal of the problem came from out side influences and demands being made on the banking industry. Some of these from heavily democratic states. When banks are threatened with discrimination lawsuits because they won't lend to known risk areas, in effect forced to make bad loans and told not to worry about it then why should the management of these banks care. It should come as no surprise here that nobody has ended up in court yet, because frankly the government doesn't want the dirty laundry washed in public.
Fourth; deregulation of the energy sector is exactly what you want if you expect to make alternative energy sources viable. If energy is dirt cheap then investment in other sources goes down. It should be noted that that is exactly what has happened.
Quote:
I didn't believe any of it. Then.
Well you should now as the perception of high energy prices has stimulated a lot of research and investment. I say perception because energy prices aren't really that high though nobody believes me when I tell them gasoline use to cost $10 a gallon.
Quote:
If we stick to what we can actually point to in the real world, climate change denial has become rather "fringe" position.
Why is it a fringe position to say I see nothing to suggest that global warming is real or that it is man made. It is most interesting to note that Russian scientists have come to a different conclusion from their own data. It is also very very interesting to note that the actual data used by the promoters of global warming in the USA have keep that data secret. In any event the claim of global warming flies in the face of what we are experiencing today.
Quote:
"Fringe" as in not-supported-by-the-facts. The Chamber's support of that position is consistent with a fairly radical attitude that moderate conservatives have mostly abandoned.
This is one thing I find disgusting about you and people like you in the global warming camp. The Chamber said nothing that even comes close to what you have attributted to them above. They never said it is not happening they objected to current legislation being proposed. The Chanber is actually more centered than I am.
Quote:
I'm not in favor of radicalizing the conversation either. But we can't simply write-off "left-wing" hyperbole any more. Far too much of it has proven to be frighteningly accurate.
What has been proven? Really I've highlighted this several times already in this thread but apparently nobody can say. Obviously what every IT is hasn't been proven all that well as we would have seen a response other than the uneducated saying you are wrong. If I'm wrong then there should be freely available EVIDENCE that man is the cause of global warming or that it is indeed happening. Yet I've seen nothing to back up these claims.
Quote:
fdp3
Global warming might be happening if every data set in the world indicated that. They don't however so before you can promote that you need to resolve those issues.
Second the data on CO2s influence on temperatures is not at all clear. Especially at the levels we are talking about. Clear this problem up and you might have a few more people on board. Worst there isn't even a solid link to past warm periods on the planet and CO2 levels. Further if Co2 levels have varied over the centuries when man was not around to influence those levels then how do you separate what is manmade from natural causes.
Personally I think most of you could do more good for the environment by going out and getting a shovel and planting a tree or two. It is obvious critical thinking isn't part of the sheeps mentality.
Well other than it would significantly reduce the political power of the left and this is exactly what Apple doesn't want to happen. The last thing Apple wants the public to know or realize is that there position in regards to global warming is built on a house of cards. You think Apple has people mad at them over high computer prices just wait until they cause people to loose good paying jobs or see a tripling or more in taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
I'm not going to get into the "is global warming man made and can we control it" argument I just have 1 question as to what is wrong with what the CoC wants.
There is nothing wrong with what the CoC wants unless you of course are so wrapped up in the dogma that you can't emotionally handle that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes.
Quote:
The CoC wants this "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to force the E.P.A. to arrange a climate science hearing before any federal climate regulation is passed."
The problem is global warming is the whip the left is using to promote and sustain there position in the world. To even suggest it is wrong or has been politically forged is to complete undermine any power they have developed with this mantra.
They really don't want you to know that the data isn't there to make the changes they want to make.
As to left or right it should be noted that this fabrication came from the left well out of left field. It has put rational people on the defensive, because it is an unusual way to gather political power. Who would have thought that people would be so gullible and so easy to scare into giving up on everything that is good in life and America for this witches brew of half science?
Quote:
Usually, if you're 100% certain in all your facts and there's nothing but evidence to support your claim you'd welcome a chance to prove it so I'm really lost as to why the CoC saying they want a hearing is enough to make Apple and Nike abandon ship - isn't this something that happens (or should happen) anytime Congress weighs science as it relates to policies?
This is real easy. Some of those so called facts are facts. Some are vigorously disputed. Some are outright lies. Some come from drawing the wrong conclusions from the known facts. Some of the offered facts aren't in fact facts but computer models. Finally; the conclusions arrived at are made by simply dismissing significant factors in the calculations such as how much energy gets transferred from the sun in a given year.
Quote:
I guess what I'm really after is if Curtis and Mel are 100% accurate and 100% sure it's a no brainer what exactly is wrong with having a climate science hearing as it pertains to the EPA where it would, invariably, come out there there is nothing but complete and total proof about AGW?
Exactly!!! If the data is that good then they have nothing to fear and should be happy to present it publically. The problem of course is that it isn't high quality data or even high quality conclusions we are working with here. The left will fight the CoC and others because they don't want to look like fools in public.
Quote:
(Note I'm not asking for links on either side, I'm not asking for people to try to convince me, or others, either way, I'm simply asking what is wrong with the CoC's stance that there but a hearing before policy is made)
I think if you look at the issue not as a science problem but as a political one you will see why the current administration reacts in horror. If your policies are built on a house of cards you don't want people pulling on those cards.
Nice blame everything bad in the world on the Republicans,
Okay. Pull yourself off that cross.
I haven't blamed everything bad on the Republicans. There is plenty we might criticize the Left for and I'm only too happy to pile on. But it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion of the actual flaws of the left when the right just keeps flogging straw-men and paranoid fantasies. As long as people have to respond to birther nonsense and death panel drivel and, yes, climate change denial, the left gets off scott-free.
Quote:
Well you should now as the perception of high energy prices has stimulated a lot of research and investment. I say perception because energy prices aren't really that high though nobody believes me when I tell them gasoline use to cost $10 a gallon.
From 2003-2008 the price of a barrel of crude rose from $25 to $147. You're suggesting this was a benefit because it stimulated research into alternatives that Republicans don't want to fund?Cancer stimulates research too. Argue for that. And on the Right the ensuing crisis was NOT seen as an opportunity to research our way out of the clutches of the fossil fuel industry and middle east blood-feuds. It was seen as an opportunity to Drill, Baby, Drill!
Quote:
Why is it a fringe position to say I see nothing to suggest that global warming is real or that it is man made.
Because only a handful of discredited experts can be cited to support the notion. They generally use out of date and cherry-picked data to support the position. That's pretty much the definition of 'fringe'. The vast majority of people qualified to publish studies on the topic, some of whom were originally skeptics, have come to another conclusion.
And you cite RUSSIAN scientists? The captive, state-controled academy that gave us Soviet Agricultural theory? You know that Russia has an enormous stake in it's fossil fuels industry? You might as well have cited an Exxon press release.
I'd read and comment on the rest of your points if there is no interest in arguing in good-faith then it's really a waste of time.
When an energy company supports the new regulations you need to ask yourself why. I suspect one reason is the desire to siphon off a lot of government donated dollars as profit. If a company was really interested in clean energy they would be funding some of the newer nuclear concepts that have been proposed. Building yet another coal burning plant isn't really solving any problem
2.
Fossil fuels suck. However that has little to do with CO2. There are far greater pollution issues associated with fossil fuels that are being ignored here and have a far greater danger to the environment. One of the things that really saddens me about the global warming crowd is that they are taking focus off real environmental issues to promote a political agenda. Ultimately I do hope the evironmental movement holds them responsible fir this huge set back.
3.
Just because a business exists and expresses a different opinion than yours does not make them bad or a threat. In any event people have to realize that it takes awhile for technology to catch up. Lead acid car batteries are a good example. Ideally lead handling would be minimized in society, but a good alternative isn't there yet. So we compensate with recycling and tight controls. That doesn't make lead good or the battery company bad, it is just a way to get by
4.
CO2 as a polutant is kind of a joke. Let's face it we all exhale CO2, so a logical conclusion to draw is that there are to many if us and that some need to die!!! While there are good reasons for some to die, CO2 isn't one of them. What I urge everyone here to do is to be very skeptical about claims surrounding CO2 or else we end up with somebody using it to justify truely radical solutions to a non existant problem.
5.
CO2 levels have varied through out the history of the planet yet plant and animal life has survived. It is obviously not a hazzard to mankind. The stark reality is if CO2levels are changing we might not have any control over the problem anyway.
6.
Our current problems with pollution from fossil fuels is in part created by the same environmental movement that rejected nuclear solutions. The sad part here is that we could have been much farther ahead with nuclear power if research wasn't halted for no good reason. Notably the same techniques of fear and scaring of the common folks are being used again. Do we really want to make the same basic mistake again in less than fifty years time?
7.
With a few dollars a year thrown at research into clean nuclear sources we could be set for power production for centuries. All the so called green sources won't last but a few years as demand outstrips reliable production capacity. Like it or not the economy has to keep growing if we are to create a better future for our children that requires power.
8.
More taxes suck! The last thing I need from the government is higher taxes which makes it even harder for me to do the things I want to do that are environmentally sound. A good portion of the todos are focused on energy usage of my house. Simply put taxes don't help at all. It's not just income taxes either, if energy efficiency where really important for the country sales tax on insulation wouldn't exist.
9.
If global warming is so well studied why is it so damn cold this year and why didn't the clowns predicting global warming announce it coming. It might have a lot to do with the sun, with that factored out of their equations they would look kinda silly discussing it wouldn't they.
Not at all, but I bet you do. I reserve judgement until I actually see it and read more reviews especially from the other Apple fanboy, NY Times' David Pogue. But so far Mossberg has presented a very persuasive, well documented case for liking it, having used it for 9 months.
Yes, I know. You can buy hemp milk where I live in the grocery stores along with hemp seeds in cereal. What you can not do is grow your own hemp legally, according to the feds (generalized).
If you look at the laws on this, the reasons given for passing them, and those that benefitted there passing, you could draw some different conclusions as to why the laws were passed.
I do understand it. I've been following the movement for years.
I did not say people are dumb if they use fossil fuels. I said people that ARGUE AGAINST reductions in fossil fuel use. It's much different. I use fossil fuels every day but I would like to use less.
There is a difference between fossil based organic fuels (oil gas coal) and non-fossil based organic fuels like wood biomass ethanol etc. Fossil fuels release carbon stored millions of years into todays atmosphere resulting in much higher greenhouse gas levels. However, if you burn a log it is not much different than letting it rot in terms of carbon emmisions. The log took in carbon in its growth and rotting or burning releases it.
No way did I call the person in Cheyene dumb for using natural gas. Read what I wrote. And anyone in any income bracket can conserve energy. And the last time Obama DID call for conservation measures by keeping your tires properly inflated they made fun of him.
(and me and my house did make it on national television Didn't you see it?)
August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to range of $2.5, President Obama hasn't had conservation any where the top of his agenda.
Did it make "Mother Earth News"? Sorry, I gave up on commercial TV as a source of news a decade ago. \
We agree on carbon cycle and long sequestered Petroleum and Coal. You obviously have a background in chemistry.
From 2003-2008 the price of a barrel of crude rose from $25 to $147. You're suggesting this was a benefit because it stimulated research into alternatives ...
On a completely technical standpoint this is true and is well known. For example - T. Boone Pickens was planning on building the largest wind farm in the whole of the country back during the time that oil and ng prices were through the roof but since ng prices have dropped so far it's no longer economically feasible so he's delayed building it. NG would have to be around $7/MMBtu for wind to be more profitable. Now the gov't may dump money into the research but the only way a financially aware company is going to do anything with their own money is if they stand to make a profit from it.
August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to range of $2.5, President Obama hasn't had conservation any where the top of his agenda.
I'm curious why no candidate pointed out the easiest and most "duh" way to save gas - above 40 mph roll up your windows. Maybe since I'm an engineer it makes perfect sense to me so I don't get why people don't get it but, seriously, rolling up your windows increases the efficiency of your vehicle by roughly the same 3% as inflating your tires but it's much easier as most people don't have air compressors in their home or car.
I don't there is anyone who has had rudimentary physical science couses who does't believe that "CLIMATE CHANGES". It has changes for billions of years. (earth approx 4.5B years old). The discusion should be relegated to AGW. That means "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
What is the temp of the earth supposed to be and remain at? Who determines what is the ideal
temperatue...... the temperature of Paris in 1275 AD, 1787? 1930? 1500BC? How about Great lakes area 12,000 BC, 800AD, 1920AD? How arrogant can you get mankind? Pollution can be controlled. The carbon cylce, which includes animal and plant life forms is far too complex for even the most sophisticated modeling programs to predict let alone control. Want to control Carbon.... control and reverse reproduction of species, including humans, the biggest users of carbon compounds.
What you're forgetting, and what many in the anti-globl warming crowd are forgetting, is that what we do is different from what the solar system does that affects the earth, and is different from what happens on, and in, the earth itself.
It's not a matter of what we do being the entire mover of the earths climate, but that what we do is tipping it over.
What's important to acknowledge is that industry is releasing all the carbon accumulated below ground, and taken out of the surface over a period of hundreds of millions of years, over a few decades.
This has a serious affect. Then the cutting down of major forests around the world also has a major effect.
Those of you who think that scientists don't know about, or don't understand what the ecology does by itself are very naive about what science is all about.
No sane scientist denies that major volcanos have affects, some major. None deny that sunspots have affects. None deny that the sun warms a small amount, and cools a small amount, and that affects weather here. It's well understood that these are serious problems that we have no control over.
But we are also contributing to the problem. And our contribution is the only one that we can effect.
If someone gives you a glass of water and says that there is a 10% chance that there is poison in the water, but that their testing hasn't yet confirmed it, do you drink that water because you're thirsty, or do you wait until the tests come back? Do you go somewhere else for a different glass of water?
We can't go anywhere else.
Even if global warming wasn't pretty much considered a fact that could have very serious effects, shouldn't we take measures now, before we might find out it's too late?
You'd rather sit back until everyone is 100% certain of exactly what's happening first?
That makes no sense.
That's an industry position from people who don't care about the future, just about present sales and profits.
August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to range of $2.5, President Obama hasn't had conservation any where the top of his agenda.
Did it make "Mother Earth News"? Sorry, I gave up on commercial TV as a source of news a decade ago. \
We agree on carbon cycle and long sequestered Petroleum and Coal. You obviously have a background in chemistry.
Conservation is still a big part of his agenda, but Republicans still oppose it.
He said that same thing about Vista that he's now saying about 7.
Here's two quotes from him:
"After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced." ? Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 2007
"After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced." ? Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2009
Conservation is still a big part of his agenda, but Republicans still oppose it.
That's rather misleading - point to a bill that is 100% conservation and does nothing else but promotes conservation. There is no bill that has but 1 thing listed and that is "ask Americans to be more energy efficient" - there's always something else tied to it. All the bills are loaded with so many things you can say Republicans oppose x, y, and z and you can say Democrats oppose that same x, y, and z just because they were part of a different bill that was geared for something else.
That's akin to saying Republicans don't want people to have health care - every sane person wishes everyone had health care - that's not the argument. The argument is 1) how to implement it and 2) how to pay for it.
I'm curious why no candidate pointed out the easiest and most "duh" way to save gas - above 40 mph roll up your windows. Maybe since I'm an engineer it makes perfect sense to me so I don't get why people don't get it but, seriously, rolling up your windows increases the efficiency of your vehicle by roughly the same 3% as inflating your tires but it's much easier as most people don't have air compressors in their home or car.
In this part of the world (South and Southwest)people keep the A/C is running full and windows are closed in all kinds of mild weather. What part of fuel economy is wasted on running the A/C compressors? I have even witnessed (Central Texas visits) cars running with A/C running, UNATTENDED, in grocery parking lot. Also saw a lot of running diesel pickups for some dumb reason, even in spring and fall. when A/C is totally unwarranted due to prevailing cool ambient temps.
In 1948 A/C was driving 40+ MPH with windows DOWN and side vents windows tilted to reverse.
In this part of the world (South and Southwest)people keep the A/C is running full and windows are closed in all kinds of mild weather. What part of fuel economy is wasted on running the A/C compressors? I have even witnessed (Central Texas visits) cars running with A/C running, UNATTENDED, in grocery parking lot. Also saw a lot of running diesel pickups for some dumb reason, even in spring and fall. when A/C is totally unwarranted due to prevailing cool ambient temps.
In 1948 A/C was driving 40+ MPH with windows DOWN and side vents windows tilted to reverse.
I think the big problem is that back in the day this wasn't true because of the massive inefficiency of the A/C compressors. However, the newer the vehicle the more efficient they are and, on top of that, they have better aerodynamics (lower coefficient of drag) and when you open the windows you kill that. The reason for the 40 mph is because drag has a velocity squared element in it's calculation so, as oppose to energy needed to run the A/C it isn't a constant (it's not even linear for that matter!).
I live in North Texas and, yeah, I see the same thing. Sitting in traffic w/ the A/C on isn't nearly as efficient as just rolling down the window and certainly leaving it in park is a bad idea. However, there may be an argument for leaving it running while you run inside. That would be the same as allowing your thermostat to go unchecked while you're at work and then get home and crank it down to 75 (or whatever). It actually turns out that it's more efficient to regulate the temperature throughout the day than it is to "spot cool" (for lack of a better phrase).
However, with all that said, it's still a bad idea (conservationaly speaking) to leave it running when it isn't moving. I still see cars driving down the highway at 60, 70 and even 80 mph with their windows down and, quite possibly the A/C on - that's a double whammy.
Is it just me or is "use the A/C above 40 and keep your windows rolled up" easier than asking people to constantly monitor their tire pressure?
Also, most morning I leave the windows up and just have my car bring in the outside air so I'm getting the benefits of no windows down nor am I running my A/C
EDIT: Depending on the vehicle your break even point will vary - the more aerodynamic the lower the break even speed, the less aerodynamic the higher the break even speed
Comments
---------------------------
To argue against measures combating fossil fuel use is just dumb.
Tell me which organic based fuels, fossil or not, do not produce oxides of carbon (which some scientists have claimed links and a precursor to AGW). Ethanol, biodiesel, wood, animal fat (makes synthetic fuels), grass(biomass)? Since the wonks in the ether have decided CO2 is a pollutant (as CO is). Even the process of rotting wood and decaying grass (think of it as slow burning) create these "Pollutants" and possibly lead to AGW.
The real solution is to move to alternatives such as nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, temp differential, et. al.. Is not about dumb people combating fossil fuel use. It is about being proactive in adopting measures that reduce pollution and minimizing the use of ORGANIC BASED FUELS what ever the source (that is all those compounds which have all those C's, O's, H's and more in their structures)
Your comment pointed out what you have done to be energy efficient... great.
I did not say people are dumb if they use fossil fuels. I said people that ARGUE AGAINST reductions in fossil fuel use. It's much different. I use fossil fuels every day but I would like to use less.
There is a difference between fossil based organic fuels (oil gas coal) and non-fossil based organic fuels like wood biomass ethanol etc. Fossil fuels release carbon stored millions of years into todays atmosphere resulting in much higher greenhouse gas levels. However, if you burn a log it is not much different than letting it rot in terms of carbon emmisions. The log took in carbon in its growth and rotting or burning releases it.
No way did I call the person in Cheyene dumb for using natural gas. Read what I wrote. And anyone in any income bracket can conserve energy. And the last time Obama DID call for conservation measures by keeping your tires properly inflated they made fun of him.
(and me and my house did make it on national television
Wow! I can now appreciate why you have the name of Wizard69. It took a lot of "magic" to draw a connection between Al Gore, the banking industry and global warming. Here, let's see what you can do with these three: ice cream, the cha cha and mac minis.
Now THAT'S some damn funny stuff!
The CoC wants this "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to force the E.P.A. to arrange a climate science hearing before any federal climate regulation is passed."
Usually, if you're 100% certain in all your facts and there's nothing but evidence to support your claim you'd welcome a chance to prove it so I'm really lost as to why the CoC saying they want a hearing is enough to make Apple and Nike abandon ship - isn't this something that happens (or should happen) anytime Congress weighs science as it relates to policies?
I guess what I'm really after is if Curtis and Mel are 100% accurate and 100% sure it's a no brainer what exactly is wrong with having a climate science hearing as it pertains to the EPA where it would, invariably, come out there there is nothing but complete and total proof about AGW?
(Note I'm not asking for links on either side, I'm not asking for people to try to convince me, or others, either way, I'm simply asking what is wrong with the CoC's stance that there be a hearing before policy is made)
I used to feel the same way. Back in 1994 I heard all that "left wing propaganda" about where the RNC wanted to take the nation. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Starve the Beast. Maybe an opportunistic war in the middle east. Radical deregulation of financial markets and energy trading.
Nice blame everything bad in the world on the Republicans, I might let you get away with that if it wasn't for your ignorance likely being picked up by others on this forum.
First; the republicans did justcut taxes for the weathy they did so for just about everybody. Now we have the democrats saying they will raise taxes on the wealthy but the reality is everybody will be paying more taxes.
Second; the wars in the middle east would have happened no matter what. It is a result of a defective culture and really bad political processes over there. Without a doubt I can assure you more wars will be fought there in the future. That will be the case until the world gives up on the people in the middle east and effectively and completely wipes them out. The important thing is to take care of that before the arms build up going on over there is complete.
Third; the issues with banking are not the result of one party or a lack of regulation or even one specific piece of legislation. A good deal of the problem came from out side influences and demands being made on the banking industry. Some of these from heavily democratic states. When banks are threatened with discrimination lawsuits because they won't lend to known risk areas, in effect forced to make bad loans and told not to worry about it then why should the management of these banks care. It should come as no surprise here that nobody has ended up in court yet, because frankly the government doesn't want the dirty laundry washed in public.
Fourth; deregulation of the energy sector is exactly what you want if you expect to make alternative energy sources viable. If energy is dirt cheap then investment in other sources goes down. It should be noted that that is exactly what has happened.
I didn't believe any of it. Then.
Well you should now as the perception of high energy prices has stimulated a lot of research and investment. I say perception because energy prices aren't really that high though nobody believes me when I tell them gasoline use to cost $10 a gallon.
If we stick to what we can actually point to in the real world, climate change denial has become rather "fringe" position.
Why is it a fringe position to say I see nothing to suggest that global warming is real or that it is man made. It is most interesting to note that Russian scientists have come to a different conclusion from their own data. It is also very very interesting to note that the actual data used by the promoters of global warming in the USA have keep that data secret. In any event the claim of global warming flies in the face of what we are experiencing today.
"Fringe" as in not-supported-by-the-facts. The Chamber's support of that position is consistent with a fairly radical attitude that moderate conservatives have mostly abandoned.
This is one thing I find disgusting about you and people like you in the global warming camp. The Chamber said nothing that even comes close to what you have attributted to them above. They never said it is not happening they objected to current legislation being proposed. The Chanber is actually more centered than I am.
I'm not in favor of radicalizing the conversation either. But we can't simply write-off "left-wing" hyperbole any more. Far too much of it has proven to be frighteningly accurate.
What has been proven? Really I've highlighted this several times already in this thread but apparently nobody can say. Obviously what every IT is hasn't been proven all that well as we would have seen a response other than the uneducated saying you are wrong. If I'm wrong then there should be freely available EVIDENCE that man is the cause of global warming or that it is indeed happening. Yet I've seen nothing to back up these claims.
fdp3
Global warming might be happening if every data set in the world indicated that. They don't however so before you can promote that you need to resolve those issues.
Second the data on CO2s influence on temperatures is not at all clear. Especially at the levels we are talking about. Clear this problem up and you might have a few more people on board. Worst there isn't even a solid link to past warm periods on the planet and CO2 levels. Further if Co2 levels have varied over the centuries when man was not around to influence those levels then how do you separate what is manmade from natural causes.
Personally I think most of you could do more good for the environment by going out and getting a shovel and planting a tree or two. It is obvious critical thinking isn't part of the sheeps mentality.
Dave
I'm not going to get into the "is global warming man made and can we control it" argument I just have 1 question as to what is wrong with what the CoC wants.
There is nothing wrong with what the CoC wants unless you of course are so wrapped up in the dogma that you can't emotionally handle that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes.
The CoC wants this "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to force the E.P.A. to arrange a climate science hearing before any federal climate regulation is passed."
The problem is global warming is the whip the left is using to promote and sustain there position in the world. To even suggest it is wrong or has been politically forged is to complete undermine any power they have developed with this mantra.
They really don't want you to know that the data isn't there to make the changes they want to make.
As to left or right it should be noted that this fabrication came from the left well out of left field. It has put rational people on the defensive, because it is an unusual way to gather political power. Who would have thought that people would be so gullible and so easy to scare into giving up on everything that is good in life and America for this witches brew of half science?
Usually, if you're 100% certain in all your facts and there's nothing but evidence to support your claim you'd welcome a chance to prove it so I'm really lost as to why the CoC saying they want a hearing is enough to make Apple and Nike abandon ship - isn't this something that happens (or should happen) anytime Congress weighs science as it relates to policies?
This is real easy. Some of those so called facts are facts. Some are vigorously disputed. Some are outright lies. Some come from drawing the wrong conclusions from the known facts. Some of the offered facts aren't in fact facts but computer models. Finally; the conclusions arrived at are made by simply dismissing significant factors in the calculations such as how much energy gets transferred from the sun in a given year.
I guess what I'm really after is if Curtis and Mel are 100% accurate and 100% sure it's a no brainer what exactly is wrong with having a climate science hearing as it pertains to the EPA where it would, invariably, come out there there is nothing but complete and total proof about AGW?
Exactly!!! If the data is that good then they have nothing to fear and should be happy to present it publically. The problem of course is that it isn't high quality data or even high quality conclusions we are working with here. The left will fight the CoC and others because they don't want to look like fools in public.
(Note I'm not asking for links on either side, I'm not asking for people to try to convince me, or others, either way, I'm simply asking what is wrong with the CoC's stance that there but a hearing before policy is made)
I think if you look at the issue not as a science problem but as a political one you will see why the current administration reacts in horror. If your policies are built on a house of cards you don't want people pulling on those cards.
Dave
Nice blame everything bad in the world on the Republicans,
Okay. Pull yourself off that cross.
I haven't blamed everything bad on the Republicans. There is plenty we might criticize the Left for and I'm only too happy to pile on. But it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion of the actual flaws of the left when the right just keeps flogging straw-men and paranoid fantasies. As long as people have to respond to birther nonsense and death panel drivel and, yes, climate change denial, the left gets off scott-free.
Well you should now as the perception of high energy prices has stimulated a lot of research and investment. I say perception because energy prices aren't really that high though nobody believes me when I tell them gasoline use to cost $10 a gallon.
From 2003-2008 the price of a barrel of crude rose from $25 to $147. You're suggesting this was a benefit because it stimulated research into alternatives that Republicans don't want to fund?Cancer stimulates research too. Argue for that. And on the Right the ensuing crisis was NOT seen as an opportunity to research our way out of the clutches of the fossil fuel industry and middle east blood-feuds. It was seen as an opportunity to Drill, Baby, Drill!
Why is it a fringe position to say I see nothing to suggest that global warming is real or that it is man made.
Because only a handful of discredited experts can be cited to support the notion. They generally use out of date and cherry-picked data to support the position. That's pretty much the definition of 'fringe'. The vast majority of people qualified to publish studies on the topic, some of whom were originally skeptics, have come to another conclusion.
And you cite RUSSIAN scientists? The captive, state-controled academy that gave us Soviet Agricultural theory? You know that Russia has an enormous stake in it's fossil fuels industry? You might as well have cited an Exxon press release.
I'd read and comment on the rest of your points if there is no interest in arguing in good-faith then it's really a waste of time.
fdp3
When an energy company supports the new regulations you need to ask yourself why. I suspect one reason is the desire to siphon off a lot of government donated dollars as profit. If a company was really interested in clean energy they would be funding some of the newer nuclear concepts that have been proposed. Building yet another coal burning plant isn't really solving any problem
2.
Fossil fuels suck. However that has little to do with CO2. There are far greater pollution issues associated with fossil fuels that are being ignored here and have a far greater danger to the environment. One of the things that really saddens me about the global warming crowd is that they are taking focus off real environmental issues to promote a political agenda. Ultimately I do hope the evironmental movement holds them responsible fir this huge set back.
3.
Just because a business exists and expresses a different opinion than yours does not make them bad or a threat. In any event people have to realize that it takes awhile for technology to catch up. Lead acid car batteries are a good example. Ideally lead handling would be minimized in society, but a good alternative isn't there yet. So we compensate with recycling and tight controls. That doesn't make lead good or the battery company bad, it is just a way to get by
4.
CO2 as a polutant is kind of a joke. Let's face it we all exhale CO2, so a logical conclusion to draw is that there are to many if us and that some need to die!!! While there are good reasons for some to die, CO2 isn't one of them. What I urge everyone here to do is to be very skeptical about claims surrounding CO2 or else we end up with somebody using it to justify truely radical solutions to a non existant problem.
5.
CO2 levels have varied through out the history of the planet yet plant and animal life has survived. It is obviously not a hazzard to mankind. The stark reality is if CO2levels are changing we might not have any control over the problem anyway.
6.
Our current problems with pollution from fossil fuels is in part created by the same environmental movement that rejected nuclear solutions. The sad part here is that we could have been much farther ahead with nuclear power if research wasn't halted for no good reason. Notably the same techniques of fear and scaring of the common folks are being used again. Do we really want to make the same basic mistake again in less than fifty years time?
7.
With a few dollars a year thrown at research into clean nuclear sources we could be set for power production for centuries. All the so called green sources won't last but a few years as demand outstrips reliable production capacity. Like it or not the economy has to keep growing if we are to create a better future for our children that requires power.
8.
More taxes suck! The last thing I need from the government is higher taxes which makes it even harder for me to do the things I want to do that are environmentally sound. A good portion of the todos are focused on energy usage of my house. Simply put taxes don't help at all. It's not just income taxes either, if energy efficiency where really important for the country sales tax on insulation wouldn't exist.
9.
If global warming is so well studied why is it so damn cold this year and why didn't the clowns predicting global warming announce it coming. It might have a lot to do with the sun, with that factored out of their equations they would look kinda silly discussing it wouldn't they.
Dave
Not at all, but I bet you do. I reserve judgement until I actually see it and read more reviews especially from the other Apple fanboy, NY Times' David Pogue. But so far Mossberg has presented a very persuasive, well documented case for liking it, having used it for 9 months.
Just like he did with Vista.
Yes, I know. You can buy hemp milk where I live in the grocery stores along with hemp seeds in cereal. What you can not do is grow your own hemp legally, according to the feds (generalized).
If you look at the laws on this, the reasons given for passing them, and those that benefitted there passing, you could draw some different conclusions as to why the laws were passed.
I do understand it. I've been following the movement for years.
I did not say people are dumb if they use fossil fuels. I said people that ARGUE AGAINST reductions in fossil fuel use. It's much different. I use fossil fuels every day but I would like to use less.
There is a difference between fossil based organic fuels (oil gas coal) and non-fossil based organic fuels like wood biomass ethanol etc. Fossil fuels release carbon stored millions of years into todays atmosphere resulting in much higher greenhouse gas levels. However, if you burn a log it is not much different than letting it rot in terms of carbon emmisions. The log took in carbon in its growth and rotting or burning releases it.
No way did I call the person in Cheyene dumb for using natural gas. Read what I wrote. And anyone in any income bracket can conserve energy. And the last time Obama DID call for conservation measures by keeping your tires properly inflated they made fun of him.
(and me and my house did make it on national television
August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to range of $2.5, President Obama hasn't had conservation any where the top of his agenda.
Did it make "Mother Earth News"? Sorry, I gave up on commercial TV as a source of news a decade ago.
We agree on carbon cycle and long sequestered Petroleum and Coal. You obviously have a background in chemistry.
From 2003-2008 the price of a barrel of crude rose from $25 to $147. You're suggesting this was a benefit because it stimulated research into alternatives ...
On a completely technical standpoint this is true and is well known. For example - T. Boone Pickens was planning on building the largest wind farm in the whole of the country back during the time that oil and ng prices were through the roof but since ng prices have dropped so far it's no longer economically feasible so he's delayed building it. NG would have to be around $7/MMBtu for wind to be more profitable. Now the gov't may dump money into the research but the only way a financially aware company is going to do anything with their own money is if they stand to make a profit from it.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...lays-his-plan/
August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to range of $2.5, President Obama hasn't had conservation any where the top of his agenda.
I'm curious why no candidate pointed out the easiest and most "duh" way to save gas - above 40 mph roll up your windows. Maybe since I'm an engineer it makes perfect sense to me so I don't get why people don't get it but, seriously, rolling up your windows increases the efficiency of your vehicle by roughly the same 3% as inflating your tires but it's much easier as most people don't have air compressors in their home or car.
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/u...he-windows-up/
I don't there is anyone who has had rudimentary physical science couses who does't believe that "CLIMATE CHANGES". It has changes for billions of years. (earth approx 4.5B years old). The discusion should be relegated to AGW. That means "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
What is the temp of the earth supposed to be and remain at? Who determines what is the ideal
temperatue...... the temperature of Paris in 1275 AD, 1787? 1930? 1500BC? How about Great lakes area 12,000 BC, 800AD, 1920AD? How arrogant can you get mankind? Pollution can be controlled. The carbon cylce, which includes animal and plant life forms is far too complex for even the most sophisticated modeling programs to predict let alone control. Want to control Carbon.... control and reverse reproduction of species, including humans, the biggest users of carbon compounds.
What you're forgetting, and what many in the anti-globl warming crowd are forgetting, is that what we do is different from what the solar system does that affects the earth, and is different from what happens on, and in, the earth itself.
It's not a matter of what we do being the entire mover of the earths climate, but that what we do is tipping it over.
What's important to acknowledge is that industry is releasing all the carbon accumulated below ground, and taken out of the surface over a period of hundreds of millions of years, over a few decades.
This has a serious affect. Then the cutting down of major forests around the world also has a major effect.
Those of you who think that scientists don't know about, or don't understand what the ecology does by itself are very naive about what science is all about.
No sane scientist denies that major volcanos have affects, some major. None deny that sunspots have affects. None deny that the sun warms a small amount, and cools a small amount, and that affects weather here. It's well understood that these are serious problems that we have no control over.
But we are also contributing to the problem. And our contribution is the only one that we can effect.
If someone gives you a glass of water and says that there is a 10% chance that there is poison in the water, but that their testing hasn't yet confirmed it, do you drink that water because you're thirsty, or do you wait until the tests come back? Do you go somewhere else for a different glass of water?
We can't go anywhere else.
Even if global warming wasn't pretty much considered a fact that could have very serious effects, shouldn't we take measures now, before we might find out it's too late?
You'd rather sit back until everyone is 100% certain of exactly what's happening first?
That makes no sense.
That's an industry position from people who don't care about the future, just about present sales and profits.
Just like he did with Vista.
He didn't actually care much for Vista.
August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to range of $2.5, President Obama hasn't had conservation any where the top of his agenda.
Did it make "Mother Earth News"? Sorry, I gave up on commercial TV as a source of news a decade ago.
We agree on carbon cycle and long sequestered Petroleum and Coal. You obviously have a background in chemistry.
Conservation is still a big part of his agenda, but Republicans still oppose it.
He didn't actually care much for Vista.
Yes he did. He loved it at first.
He said that same thing about Vista that he's now saying about 7.
Here's two quotes from him:
"After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced." ? Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 2007
"After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced." ? Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2009
I do understand it. I've been following the movement for years.
Good to hear.
Frustrating people make nature illegal, blame us for the outcomes and tax us for their cause.
Conservation is still a big part of his agenda, but Republicans still oppose it.
That's rather misleading - point to a bill that is 100% conservation and does nothing else but promotes conservation. There is no bill that has but 1 thing listed and that is "ask Americans to be more energy efficient" - there's always something else tied to it. All the bills are loaded with so many things you can say Republicans oppose x, y, and z and you can say Democrats oppose that same x, y, and z just because they were part of a different bill that was geared for something else.
That's akin to saying Republicans don't want people to have health care - every sane person wishes everyone had health care - that's not the argument. The argument is 1) how to implement it and 2) how to pay for it.
I'm curious why no candidate pointed out the easiest and most "duh" way to save gas - above 40 mph roll up your windows. Maybe since I'm an engineer it makes perfect sense to me so I don't get why people don't get it but, seriously, rolling up your windows increases the efficiency of your vehicle by roughly the same 3% as inflating your tires but it's much easier as most people don't have air compressors in their home or car.
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/u...he-windows-up/
I did not know that!
In this part of the world (South and Southwest)people keep the A/C is running full and windows are closed in all kinds of mild weather. What part of fuel economy is wasted on running the A/C compressors? I have even witnessed (Central Texas visits) cars running with A/C running, UNATTENDED, in grocery parking lot. Also saw a lot of running diesel pickups for some dumb reason, even in spring and fall. when A/C is totally unwarranted due to prevailing cool ambient temps.
In 1948 A/C was driving 40+ MPH with windows DOWN and side vents windows tilted to reverse.
I did not know that!
In this part of the world (South and Southwest)people keep the A/C is running full and windows are closed in all kinds of mild weather. What part of fuel economy is wasted on running the A/C compressors? I have even witnessed (Central Texas visits) cars running with A/C running, UNATTENDED, in grocery parking lot. Also saw a lot of running diesel pickups for some dumb reason, even in spring and fall. when A/C is totally unwarranted due to prevailing cool ambient temps.
In 1948 A/C was driving 40+ MPH with windows DOWN and side vents windows tilted to reverse.
I think the big problem is that back in the day this wasn't true because of the massive inefficiency of the A/C compressors. However, the newer the vehicle the more efficient they are and, on top of that, they have better aerodynamics (lower coefficient of drag) and when you open the windows you kill that. The reason for the 40 mph is because drag has a velocity squared element in it's calculation so, as oppose to energy needed to run the A/C it isn't a constant (it's not even linear for that matter!).
I live in North Texas and, yeah, I see the same thing. Sitting in traffic w/ the A/C on isn't nearly as efficient as just rolling down the window and certainly leaving it in park is a bad idea. However, there may be an argument for leaving it running while you run inside. That would be the same as allowing your thermostat to go unchecked while you're at work and then get home and crank it down to 75 (or whatever). It actually turns out that it's more efficient to regulate the temperature throughout the day than it is to "spot cool" (for lack of a better phrase).
However, with all that said, it's still a bad idea (conservationaly speaking) to leave it running when it isn't moving. I still see cars driving down the highway at 60, 70 and even 80 mph with their windows down and, quite possibly the A/C on - that's a double whammy.
Is it just me or is "use the A/C above 40 and keep your windows rolled up" easier than asking people to constantly monitor their tire pressure?
Also, most morning I leave the windows up and just have my car bring in the outside air so I'm getting the benefits of no windows down nor am I running my A/C
EDIT: Depending on the vehicle your break even point will vary - the more aerodynamic the lower the break even speed, the less aerodynamic the higher the break even speed