World Politics

[CentralCaliBike]

I see all denial. The topic of my post was to ditch the denial and embrace the positive impact of cleaner and leaner technology.

I do not see man made global warming is the only logical result from the facts that we have at this point in time (in fact I do believe it is even the most logical). I also have no problem with cleaner air and renewable energy, but we have made many mistakes in the past based on fear and inaccurate information and the ideas proposed by the same people that brought us global warming would destroy what little economic stability that we currently have if implemented to their fullest extent.

Note: we were building passive solar homes in the 70s in my family, long before the global warming became a concern - just seemed to make sense to design homes that would save the owner money on his/her electric bill.

 

[Race Radio]

I have actually read a large number of the emails - some were posted many pages ago and they are not all taken out of context (really there is only one that could be argued was misstated in context and that is open to debate).

As far as the Arctic Ice cap - it actually increased at the fastest rate for the past 30 years in 2007 and 2008: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/

As I wrote, the emails cover a small fraction of available evidence of global warming.

Unfortunately that brief respite from the trend reverted in late 2008 resulting in the most rapid decrease in recorded history.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926194613.htm

You are welcome to your opinion however the vast majority of the evidence and science does not support it. A couple of emails will not change this.

Regardless of what you believe is happening waste is not good.

 

[scribe]

Note: we were building passive solar homes in the 70s in my family, long before the global warming became a concern - just seemed to make sense to design homes that would save the owner money on his/her electric bill.

It would make sense if solar panels over a specific percentage of roof were national code requirements for new buildings and high percentage rehabs. Add to it required reverse meters that feed back into the electrical grid.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

As I wrote, the emails cover a small fraction of available evidence of global warming.

Unfortunately that brief respite from the trend reverted in late 2008 resulting in the most rapid decrease in recorded history.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926194613.htm

You are welcome to your opinion however the vast majority of the evidence and science does not support it. A couple of emails will not change this.

Regardless of what you believe is happening waste is not good.

I do not disagree with your final statement - however, I believe that people who are worshiping at the alter of man made global warming do find themselves wasting a lot (fore instance all of the time, money, and fuel for the summit a couple of weeks back).

When I lived in Arizona we occasionally talked about how the causes of the Grand Canyon would have resulted in disaster relief if the Feds would have been around when it was forming.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It would make sense if solar panels over a specific percentage of roof were national code requirements for new buildings and high percentage rehabs. Add to it required reverse meters that feed back into the electrical grid.

Just well planned passive solar design can save a lot without even the cost of the solar panels - the panels themselves are fairly reasonable at the moment but if you mandated them I am certain they would go up in price.

 

[BroDeal]

I have no problem with alternative energy development, obviously we have a finite source of energy in coal, oil, and nature gas. I also enjoy clean air - but the man=made global warming claims are just not reasonable. Look at the amount of material produced by the auto industry and compare it to the amount of pollution produced by a decent size volcanic eruption and you will see that man just cannot compete with the natural environment for changing climates.

Been listening to Rush a bit much?

"Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

And then there is goold old Wikipedia: "In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources."

 

[BigBoat]

We are entitled to health care, and cable TV and a motorhome and a house in the Hamptons and first class airfare a cell phone...no an iPhone, free internet, Calvin Klein Jeans, oh... I need my house painted and... geez, just go ahead and make my house payment for me and.. I have a tummy ache that is clearly somone else's fault... free education, college and graduate school.... eek!

There will come a time when those who pay for stuff get tired of paying for those who don't. My favorite quote from Margaret Thatcher, " the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money".

Be very careful what you wish for.

Yeah you said it.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Been listening to Rush a bit much?

Not for several years - in the past ten I doubt I have heard an hour of his show.

 

[scribe]

Govt has got to lead meaningful change. Supply and demand would force solar
panel cost up in the short run. But increased manufacture and new technology will lead to much cheaper cost later.

 

[BroDeal]

Govt has got to lead meaningful change. Supply and demand would force solar
panel cost up in the short run. But increased manufacture and new technology will lead to much cheaper cost later.

The prices of solar have been dropping so fast that it does not make financial sense to put in a system. Calculate the long term benefit and compare it to what would be gained by waiting two years using recent price decreases, and the two year wait is a better financial decision. It has been that way for a while now.

A government mandate would bring in a larger number of competitors and probably drop prices even faster.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Been listening to Rush a bit much?

"Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

And then there is goold old Wikipedia: "In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources."

Here is an article that give an interesting take on your post http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html (basically says the same thing although brings up some other interesting facts about other active (but not erupting) volcanoes.

However, when Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980 it produced "540 million tonnes of ash" in 9 hours (about 540,000 thousand time it's current production), as usual the scientists apparently failed to consider the amounts of pollution caused by the eruptions. http://www.slideshare.net/missm/mt-st-helens-173645

 

[Hugh Januss]

It seems like a simple choice to me. Those who discount the theory of global warming or climate change are basically willing to trade their own finacial well being for a possible huge reduction in their grandchildren's and greatgrandchildren's quality of life.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The prices of solar have been dropping so fast that it does not make financial sense to put in a system. Calculate the long term benefit and compare it to what would be gained by waiting two years using recent price decreases, and the two year wait is a better financial decision. It has been that way for a while now.

A government mandate would bring in a larger number of competitors and probably drop prices even faster.

When the auto industry found that adding lead to gasoline would increase the life of an engine GM and Standard Oil began producing ethyl (leaded gasoline) - of course they had to charge more and so the price of gasoline went up. In the 1970s the government regulated oil and eventually they outlawed leaded gasoline - interestingly enough the oil companies decided they needed more money to produce the unleaded gasoline.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It seems like a simple choice to me. Those who discount the theory of global warming or climate change are basically willing to trade their own finacial well being for a possible huge reduction in their grandchildren's and greatgrandchildren's quality of life.

Just curious - why the term climate change since the man made global warming community insists that we are going to warm, down, and blow away as dust? Why not just stick with "man made global warming"?

 

[BigBoat]

I do not see man made global warming is the only logical result from the facts that we have at this point in time (in fact I do believe it is even the most logical). I also have no problem with cleaner air and renewable energy, but we have made many mistakes in the past based on fear and inaccurate information and the ideas proposed by the same people that brought us global warming would destroy what little economic stability that we currently have if implemented to their fullest extent.

Note: we were building passive solar homes in the 70s in my family, long before the global warming became a concern - just seemed to make sense to design homes that would save the owner money on his/her electric bill.

Global warming is a BUSINESS just like everything else. People want BIG MONEY and POWER because its the only thing that means anything to them. Some value love, affection & helping others achieve their goals. Some only want to garner as much as possible because they believe they are entitled. Gore & his partners stand to make a billion dollars off of their investments by playing both sides; advocating for government regulations while investing in private enterprises that help "clean up" the "mess" 'evil' corporations have created.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

BTW, there is NO consensus, alot of the people who dont agree have been bullied out of speaking or blackballed altogether. The type of people that act this way are NOT scientists, legitimate science is about purposing and theory and then allowing it to be challenged or disproven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51xjrvr4bM

 

[Hugh Januss]

Just curious - why the term climate change since the man made global warming community insists that we are going to warm, down, and blow away as dust? Why not just stick with "man made global warming"?

Really, that is all you can comment on?
The actual model I believe calls for warming and drought in many areas with melting of polar icecaps and catastophic rising of the oceans, but also an increase in tropical and general freak storms. Hence climate change is the best term to descibe it.

 

[scribe]

When the auto industry found that adding lead to gasoline would increase the life of an engine GM and Standard Oil began producing ethyl (leaded gasoline) - of course they had to charge more and so the price of gasoline went up. In the 1970s the government regulated oil and eventually they outlawed leaded gasoline - interestingly enough the oil companies decided they needed more money to produce the unleaded gasoline.

Do you think lead dangers are a bunch of bunk, too?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Really, that is all you can comment on?
The actual model I believe calls for warming and drought in many areas with melting of polar icecaps and catastophic rising of the oceans, but also an increase in tropical and general freak storms. Hence climate change is the best term to descibe it.

The hurricane season this past year was one of the quietest in recent history.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Do you think lead dangers are a bunch of bunk, too?

No - was one of the causes of the fall of Rome.

 

[BroDeal]

When the auto industry found that adding lead to gasoline would increase the life of an engine GM and Standard Oil began producing ethyl (leaded gasoline) - of course they had to charge more and so the price of gasoline went up. In the 1970s the government regulated oil and eventually they outlawed leaded gasoline - interestingly enough the oil companies decided they needed more money to produce the unleaded gasoline.

What? The free market failed. How can this be? Someone here needs to take responsibility and alert Faux News.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

CentralCaliBike, there is ample evidence to be pretty sure that human factors are contributing to climate change. (Way more than is required to call someone a doper in CN forums.) So to fight against it means that it must be conflicting with one of your core beliefs? (Just like evangelicals being so anti-evolution.)

Is it because it implies that free-market capitalism is a failed ideology?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

BTW, there is NO consensus, alot of the people who dont agree have been bullied out of speaking or blackballed altogether. The type of people that act this way are NOT scientists, legitimate science is about purposing and theory and then allowing it to be challenged or disproven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51xjrvr4bM

Interesting and entertaining format - I might not buy all of what is said but it does raise some interesting questions.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

CentralCaliBike, there is ample evidence to be pretty sure that human factors are contributing to climate change. (Way more than is required to call someone a doper in CN forums.) So to fight against it means that it must be conflicting with one of your core beliefs? (Just like evangelicals being so anti-evolution.)

Is it because it implies that free-market capitalism is a failed ideology?

I just do not agree that there is "ample" evidence - also, I believe that capitalism is greedy (the reason that monopolies are not helpful to the public), but it is that greed that keeps people productive.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

There is ample evidence. If you don't believe me, you can start from Wikipedia and follow the links. I know Wikipedia can be edited by anyone so always be skeptical, but the references provided, to more respected sources, can set one off on a link-following, late-night adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

but it is that greed that keeps people productive.

And why should people be productive?