Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: wroberson

Don't get me start on dinosaurs. I've proven they were dead and buried before any asteroid impact. As for what killed them, the best answer I have is bird flu.

Quote: wroberson

I rarely question the government. I'll go after politicians in a heartbeat. I'm always questioned their true motives, but the body that is the government has my trust.

I would like to note that a Shell Gas Station where I live had gas at 3.66 yesterday. Today it was 3.91. The Valero station still have gas for 3.63.

Don't get me start on dinosaurs. I've proven they were dead and buried before any asteroid impact. As for what killed them, the best answer I have is bird flu.


Edit: While I'm at it I would also like to note the Big Bang Theory is wrong. It has to do with stars exploding. They explode in 2 ways. Stars at or above 1.4 solar masses explode into supernova and release all the elements and the heavier ones to, like carbon. When smaller stars explode they create a nebula. Because of the "tiny" or small size, all the H and He blow off and what remains is a ball of carbon. Smaller stars do not blow off their carbon. Since the Big Bang Theory states that the Universe was created from a tiny point of mass, smaller than 1.4 solar masses, the Universe could not have come from this. If it had, at the center would be a mass of carbon smaller than our Sun.

Next we have the time it takes for enough carbon to be created and time to condense into planets.
The Universe would have to be 21 million years old in order for enough carbon to fuse together to create Earth.
Even it you calculate that 2% of all carbon was created instantly, there just hasn't been enough time.
The elements from larger stars is where the material came from to create our planet. Not from a tiny spot that came out of nowhere. The reason the Theory is widely excepted has to do with the Church. You can see this in the newest idea, "Boson God Particle". If you recall, this particle is said to hold mass, (together), and created atom. It was also voted on to be the ways things are.

...I... what? Just... what?

You know what... here. You're obviously interested in this sort of thing, so try to give yourself something approximating a background.

(And what the hell, since you've "proven the dinosaurs were dead before any asteroid impact," you may want to give these guys a try, too.)

Quote: 24Bingo

...I... what? Just... what?

You know what... here. You're obviously interested in this sort of thing, so try to give yourself something approximating a background.

(And what the hell, since you've "proven the dinosaurs were dead before any asteroid impact," you may want to give these guys a try, too.)

Thanks 24Bingo. I had started writing a response to that 4 different ways. There's just too much to type and it would be boring. Heck, just peruse the Wikipedia page and it will not state anything like what was offered above.

Quote: boymimbo

The government is providing loans, which act as a subsidy if unpaid or defaulted, but it acts more as in investment. So far, on 34.4 billion in loan guarantees, the default rate is 2% on these loans, with Solyndra being the poster child failure for the GOP. The government's purpose is clear -- it is providing start up moneyin order to foster a new renewable energy industry in order to get off foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions. A 690 million cost (in defaults) to create 60,000 ongoing jobs is a good ROI at a one time cost of 11,500/employee. Even banks expect a higher default rate than 2%, and the government expected a default rate of close to 30% (10 billion).

Don't worry, the default rate will keep climbing. Just this one bumps the default cost by over 5%, which is why I find the government's reporting hard to believe.

But the administration that can make a red line disappear can surely bury some bad loans.

$45 million more out of 34.4 billion only increases the default rate by 0.13%.

(and to be fair with you, I agree with you on the disappearing "red line"). Actually, I mildly disagree with you, but I'll post about that in the Syria thread.

Nice try.

Quote: boymimbo

$45 million more out of 34.4 billion only increases the default rate by 0.13%.

(and to be fair with you, I agree with you on the disappearing "red line"). Actually, I mildly disagree with you, but I'll post about that in the Syria thread.

Nice try.

I said default costs, not rate. See you in the Syria thread.

Quote: wroberson

Edit: While I'm at it I would also like to note the Big Bang Theory is wrong. It has to do with stars exploding.

No, no it doesn't.

Quote:

Next we have the time it takes for enough carbon to be created and time to condense into planets.
The Universe would have to be 21 million years old in order for enough carbon to fuse together to create Earth.

Yes, it is older that 21 million years, so I have no idea what you are on about with the rest of this post.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that one.

Perhaps you should have deleted the post since you disagreed with it.

Quote: thecesspit

No, no it doesn't.



Yes, it is older that 21 million years, so I have no idea what you are on about with the rest of this post.

No. WMAP data enable us to determine the age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 0.4%.

The Earth would have been created in the last 4.5 billion and we're still 3 billion years short.

The point is with the initial mass in the Big Bang Theory being smaller than 1.4 "earth suns", solar masses, what really happened was that it blew off it's shell of hydrogen and helium, leaving behind a white dwarf. I would have to say it's infinitely small.

Quote: wroberson

No. WMAP data enable us to determine the age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 0.4%.

The Earth would have been created in the last 4.5 billion and we're still 3 billion years short.

You said '21 million'. Your numbers don't add up at all. Even if you meant 21 billion, this doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

The point is with the initial mass in the Big Bang Theory being smaller than 1.4 "earth suns", solar masses, what really happened was that it blew off it's shell of hydrogen and helium, leaving behind a white dwarf about 1.2 solar masses in size.

I suggest you don't have a clue what the Big Bang Theory is. It's not about a supernova event.

Just saying a person knows nothing about the conversation does make you right. Lots of people will believe you though.

Would you say that the Bang couldn't exist because sound requires air and molecules to move? I could have just posted that. It's a valid argument. No explosion could have taken place without oxygen for fuel and molecules for the sound the explosion make didn't exist until after the event.

EDIT: The idea is, and I'm not about to go looking to the formula, it would have taken 21 billion years for enough carbon to condense into Earth from the moment of the Big Bang until Earth was completely formed when popular science says the Universe is 14 billion years old. There this gap of 7 billion years. For 4.5 billion of those years, Earth is said to be forming.

I don't know which theory of the big bang you're talking about.

That everything expanded from a single tiny point,
or the one that says the Universe formed out of nothing?
The brane theories of the Universe where 2 brane touch and at the point of contact is a Big Bang.

The most popular theory and the one I was taught was that the Universe formed from a tiny mass of infinite density.

EDIT: I never said it was a supernova event. A supernova requires a mass the size of of at least 1.4 solar masses. The mass before the big bang was a tiny mass of infinite density. As far as I know, they've never fingered the mass of being of any size. Only that is was of infinite density.

Please remember that the Theory is common law because the powers that be voted it be to that way.

More importantly....

Why is this thread in the "general gambling" sub-forum?

Quote: wroberson

Would you say that the Bang couldn't exist because sound requires air and molecules to move? I could have just posted that. It's a valid argument. No explosion could have taken place without oxygen for fuel and molecules for the sound the explosion make didn't exist until after the event.

...

...

...

...wow. WOW.

...I've seen a lot of people convinced the term "Big Bang" meant an actual explosion, but this is the first time I've seen anyone think it meant a literal bang.

Quote: wroberson

Just saying a person knows nothing about the conversation does make you right. Lots of people will believe you though.

I -think- you mean to say it doesn't make me right. No, it doesn't. But if someone says 'theory X is wrong because it says A and B which means C' and the theory doesn't say A and B, then you have to question if the commentator knows what they are talking about. There's not much point arguing about C if A and B are so far off base.

Quote:

Would you say that the Bang couldn't exist because sound requires air and molecules to move? I could have just posted that. It's a valid argument. No explosion could have taken place without oxygen for fuel and molecules for the sound the explosion make didn't exist until after the event.

No, no it's not if we are talking about the Big Bang. See the above comment.

Quote:

EDIT: The idea is, and I'm not about to go looking to the formula, it would have taken 21 billion years for enough carbon to condense into Earth from the moment of the Big Bang until Earth was completely formed when popular science says the Universe is 14 billion years old. There this gap of 7 billion years. For 4.5 billion of those years, Earth is said to be forming.

You said -21 million- years, not BILLION. Huge difference. Population III and II stars generated the Carbon which is in the earth. I have no idea on the theory of carbon creation that suggests the Big Bang Theory is incorrect. Hoyle wrote papers on Nucleosynthesis that suggests the origin of most of the heavier elements on earth, even though he himself reject the Big Bang Theory (based on other ideas).

Quote:

I don't know which theory of the big bang you're talking about.

That's okay, I have no idea which theory of the big bang you are on about either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory is a good concise explanation.

Quote:

The most popular theory and the one I was taught was that the Universe formed from a tiny mass of infinite density.

EDIT: I never said it was a supernova event. A supernova requires a mass the size of of at least 1.4 solar masses. The mass before the big bang was a tiny mass of infinite density. As far as I know, they've never fingered the mass of being of any size. Only that is was of infinite density.

You kept on talking about solar masses and star explosions.

Quote:

Please remember that the Theory is common law because the powers that be voted it be to that way.

Which powers were that? Is the law passed in the US Senate? Or a resolution in the UN? When was this vote? The Big Bang Theory is a prevailing theory in cosmology that currently best explains observed phenomena in the universe. Further data may make no longer a useful predictive model. It's not the only predictive model (the Steady State Model is another) it's the one that seems to fit best... it has at least three problems that are being worked on.

You could quite easily discuss those holes if you desire, but to discuss and criticize a theory, it's helpful to be able to understand the theory itself. And not talk about star explosions, carbon masses, and sound/oxygen explosions.

Las Vegas saves the planet from doom:

Quote:

The historic neon "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign will soon be lit by solar energy under a plan approved this week by the Clark County Commission.

Spearheading the effort to switch the sign to clean energy was the Las Vegas nonprofit the Clean Energy Project and Green Chips, a public-private partnership that promotes environmental sustainability. According to a release, the sign has stood at the south end of Las Vegas Boulevard since 1959.

[...]

Three solar trees, placed along the central median of the street, will power the sign, according to the release. Workers will start construction this fall. The project will wrap up around New Year's Day.

OTOH, if they put a miniature one at the airport, they'd probably have it so you could purchase a minute of light for a dollar. (eh so you could take a picture beside it)

This reminds me, there was a device I read about that generates electricity from people walking. That might be useful in Vegas.


here

I just saw this article- maybe it or something like it has already been discussed?
Google: "And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year"

Is the article bogus?

The article is bogus. The ice cap is still well below its 30 year average (1981-2010). This year is still about 1 "standard deviation" below that average, and seems to be following the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 track quite closely. 2012 was an anomoly.

See the image in the Arctic ice thread.

Climate change should look at trends, not single events.

Quote: boymimbo

The article is bogus. The ice cap is still well below its 30 year average (1981-2010). This year is still about 1 "standard deviation" below that average, and seems to be following the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 track quite closely. 2012 was an anomoly.

See the image in the Arctic ice thread.

Climate change should look at trends, not single events.

I just saw that thread- thanks!

Do research and decide for yourself if the article is bogus. Do not rely upon people with a strong agenda to inform you.

Quote: boymimbo

Climate change should look at trends, not single events.

Which is why to make assumptions on a "trend" as short as 30 years is silly. It is as if I took reading of sunrise and sunset the last 30 days and said based on the "trend" that within a year we would never see the sun again.

Not exactly the same, AZ. Data does show that the earth is indeed subject to climate fluctuations based on cycles. These fluctuations occur over hundreds and thousands of years, not over the last 30.

Of course if there was a larger dataset you would use that dataset to hone predictions. But Arctic sea ice extent is only measurable since a 1979 satellite started to monitor it.

As Paco noted, you can state "wait and see" and do nothing, or do something based on a likely outcome. Given that the last 6 years have all had ice levels well below that 30 year average, you might want to add that to the entire argument that climate change *is* occurring.

Quote: boymimbo

As Paco noted, you can state "wait and see" and do nothing, or do something based on a likely outcome. Given that the last 6 years have all had ice levels well below that 30 year average, you might want to add that to the entire argument that climate change *is* occurring.

That is crazy. To add another example, it would be as if you only looked at a table of the DJIA for the last six years because "that is all we have" and ignore everything since then. We know that glaciers used to cover much of what is now the USA and that they have been retreating for thousands of years.

The thing about "climate change" is that is has been happening for 4.5 billion years. To even think 30 matters in such a long chain defies logic. To think we can affect it equally defies logic. We simply cannot affect "the climate" on an entire planet.

We can have all the headlines about "Santa's Workshop being underwater" that the lamestream media likes. Santa moved all but token production away from the North Pole and to the Pacific Rim as early as the 1970s. Everything else up there will adapt, just like it always has and will.

Whatever you say, AZ. 97% of climate scientists will disagree with you. Data disagrees with you, too. Glaciers have been receding for thousands of year, but never at this RATE.

The magnitude of the "climate change" in the last 100 or so years in such a short timeline outweighs anything that happened in history (as far as we know), with the exception of major asteroid impacts. Everything else has happened quite gradually, over thousands of years. Man-made inputs via the increases of greenhouse gases fits the data models far better than sunspots, volcanic events, solar variation, tilting of the earth, or any other non man-made explanation put forward.

Quote: boymimbo

Whatever you say, AZ. 97% of climate scientists will disagree with you.

97% of scientists once thought the earth was flat. Science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. It was once thought that breaking the sound barrier would kill whoever tried to do it. Science has a long history of turning on a dime when they learn something new. They also have a history of persecuting those who dare say they do not believe what science is pushing at the moment.

Quote:

Data disagrees with you, too. Glaciers have been receding for thousands of year, but never at this RATE.

So what about the rate? Again, we do not know that this is the fastest rate ever because we have only accurately measured once.

Quote:

The magnitude of the "climate change" in the last 100 or so years in such a short timeline outweighs anything that happened in history (as far as we know), with the exception of major asteroid impacts. Everything else has happened quite gradually, over thousands of years. Man-made inputs via the increases of greenhouse gases fits the data models far better than sunspots, volcanic events, solar variation, tilting of the earth, or any other non man-made explanation put forward.

It fits the data models because the same people pushing the AGW Scare made the data models. I will state it yet again. You cannot compare data <150 years old with today because the former is "estimated" by various sources and the later is measured and recorded daily. In addition, the years about 1500-1900 were far colder than the average. It is like when you get a 50 degree day in the middle of January. You might feel warm enough to jump in the pool, but it is still very cold.

It is the height of human arrogance to state that the temperature now is the "right" or "best" one and even worse to assume we can keep it there as if we are setting a thermostat.

I will let those words stand on their own, because they couldn't be more perfectly stated.

Quote: boymimbo

I will let those words stand on their own, because they couldn't be more perfectly stated.

Very well. I don't mind because I stand behind what I state. I am not going to say someone else set a red line a year from now.

Quote: AZDuffman

97% of scientists once thought the earth was flat. Science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. It was once thought that breaking the sound barrier would kill whoever tried to do it. Science has a long history of turning on a dime when they learn something new. They also have a history of persecuting those who dare say they do not believe what science is pushing at the moment.

People in general have a history of persecuting those that disagree with them. I don't see that limited to science. I also disagree with 97% earth was flat quip... philosophers knew the earth was round for a long time.

Quote: AZDuffman

97% of scientists once thought the earth was flat. Science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. It was once thought that breaking the sound barrier would kill whoever tried to do it. Science has a long history of turning on a dime when they learn something new. They also have a history of persecuting those who dare say they do not believe what science is pushing at the moment

Wow, what incredible logic. Since pseudo scientists got it wrong hundreds of years ago, all of todays science is trash. Unbelievable. Come to think of it, yes , believable since its coming from AZ. Belong to flat earth society?

Quote: terapined

Wow, what incredible logic. Since pseudo scientists got it wrong hundreds of years ago, all of todays science is trash. Unbelievable. Come to think of it, yes , believable since its coming from AZ. Belong to flat earth society?

Did I say it was "all trash?" No, not at all. But I do believe AGW is trash. I believe this based on the logic previously stated and that every "solution" involves new taxes and reductions in personal freedoms. Heck, Al Gore has made more preaching it than any of the crooked TV Ministers out there.

I do not belong to the "flat earth society," that is what the AGW believers are. "Just listen to the scientists! Don't use your own logic! The consensus is in, no room for debate!" Sounds more flat-earth-types to me.

Quote: AZDuffman

Did I say it was "all trash?" No, not at all. But I do believe AGW is trash. I believe this based on the logic previously stated and that every "solution" involves new taxes and reductions in personal freedoms. Heck, Al Gore has made more preaching it than any of the crooked TV Ministers out there.

Your reaction is based on the proposed political solutions, not the science. AGW can be true without tax or freedom changes being implemented. You have to seperate those two ideas within the debate.

Quote:

I do not belong to the "flat earth society," that is what the AGW believers are. "Just listen to the scientists! Don't use your own logic! The consensus is in, no room for debate!" Sounds more flat-earth-types to me.

This is not a fair evaluation of the current situation in science or climate change. Papers that buck the consensus do get debated and discussed, and often found flawed in their methodologies. Sometimes these add data to refine the hypotheses on the details on the theory, or might indeed be the game changing paper that means the ideas are completely over hauled. Sometimes a scientist produces a long series of hugely flawed research (for one item, see Andrew Wakefield) and the scientific community ostracises that person. For good reason. Bad science, like bad workmanship should be exposed.

Quote: thecesspit

Your reaction is based on the proposed political solutions, not the science. AGW can be true without tax or freedom changes being implemented. You have to seperate those two ideas within the debate.

Not my reaction so much as my skepticism. As a MAWG I have seen more than one "crisis" invented or exaggerated to meet the agenda of those giving the push. We were supposed to have a massive heterosexual AIDS crisis by the late 1980s. This was to get massive funding for AIDS which in the early 1980s was seen as a gay-disease. Well the crisis never happened, AIDS remained a disease that is mostly in the gay and drug-use communities, and its funding is far above what it should warrant based on how much we spend on it vs. things that kill far more people and are far less preventable (e.g.: heart disease.)

We were supposed to be "out of oil" by now. Not only have we statistically extracted every drop since they said that but we have more proven reserves at the same time. In the meantime tons of money down the drain on Jimmy Carter's "Synfuels" idea.

We were supposed to have world starvation by the mid-1980s, today we hear about the "obesity epidemic." The answer is "more money."

We have been in a constant "education crisis" since the 1960s. When I was in first-grade my parents wondered how they would help if needed on the "new math." By high-school I wondered what "new math" was so I asked a teacher. She said, "When? Oh, my, that was about three "new maths" ago." In 1989 Bush41 had a major meeting on it. Bush43 and Teddy Kennedy joined forces to write a major bill on it. The answer is always "more money."

Do I even need to go on?

(Or WMD in Iraq, or that the Afghans were behind 9/11) - to add some politics. Do I need to continue?

AIDS is very much an epidemic in Africa both among heterosexual and homsexual populations, and without the attention it could have easily become the same crisis here. Yes, the press overreacted. Of all AIDS cases in Subsaharan Africia, 60% are woman.

Technology found new reserves in oil. At $100/bbl new technologies to extract oil and gas from shale became palpable, as did the oil sands. At $40/bbl these technologies would not be seen as useful.

There is plenty of starvation and malnutrition still going on in Africa and in poor Asian countries. This problem is not solved.

Kids are dumber than ever.

Quote: AZDuffman

97% of scientists once thought the earth was flat.

This couldn't be more wrong, or ridiculous. And it won't become true just because you continue to repeat it.

It was *scientists* who showed that the Earth was round, refuting the popular myth believed by people with no training who insisted on ignoring the evidence.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

This couldn't be more wrong, or ridiculous.

It was *scientists* who showed that the Earth was flat,

Yes, before others showed it was not.

Christopher Colombus proved it was not with the 4 ships he sailed to America.

That would be the Nina, the Maria, the Santa Pinta, and the Paff Familia Frigate?

Actually, only the first 3 made it to America. The Paff Familia Frigate fell off the edge !

Quote: MichaelBluejay

This couldn't be more wrong, or ridiculous. And it won't become true just because you continue to repeat it.

It was *scientists* who showed that the Earth was flat, refuting the popular myth believed by people with no training who insisted on ignoring the evidence.

You are missing a 'not' in that sentence...

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, before others showed it was not.

Who were these 'others' exactly?

Quote: boymimbo

AIDS is very much an epidemic in Africa both among heterosexual and homsexual populations, and without the attention it could have easily become the same crisis here. Yes, the press overreacted. Of all AIDS cases in Subsaharan Africia, 60% are woman.

In the USA, gay males are still about 2/3 of AIDS cases despite being 1-2% of the population. Rates are also about three times higher for blacks than any other group. This begs a few questions. Is there a higher rate of homosexuality among black males than any other group? (I say "yes" based on incarceration rates alone) and is there something genetic among blacks that makes them more susceptible to AIDS? I say "probably" based on that is would not be the first thing that black genetics (sickle cell) has unique to the race, plus many races have unique genetic issues.

But to go further down that road needs a thread-split. AIDS did not become the hetero-disease it was pumped to be in the mid-1980s. Not even after 30 years. It did become the "in" cause with Hollywood and a vocal group demanding more funds. And it is far more preventable than cancer or heart disease.

Quote:

Technology found new reserves in oil. At $100/bbl new technologies to extract oil and gas from shale became palpable, as did the oil sands. At $40/bbl these technologies would not be seen as useful.

My point exactly, let the market figure things out and amazing things will happen.

Quote:

There is plenty of starvation and malnutrition still going on in Africa and in poor Asian countries. This problem is not solved.

Much of that starvation is because of man-made reasons. Seizure of white-owned farms in Zimbabwe made it a basket case. Wars in other places do the same. The case in the 70s was that starvation could not be solved. The world produces enough food, politics prevents its distribution sometimes.

Quote:

Kids are dumber than ever.

Agree, and not just because I was once asked if Puerto Rico was the 52nd or 53rd US State.

Everybody knows PR is the 51st state. Dumb kids.

Quote: EvenBob

Everybody knows PR is the 51st state. Dumb kids.

Of course its not the 52 or 53rd, those are the District of Columbia and Guam. lol

Quote: terapined

Of course its not the 52 or 53rd, those are the District of Columbia and Guam. lol

I thought East Carolina was in there somewhere.

All kidding aside, I was really asked that. At least the Lebanese girl who complained to me that Israel was "our 52 state" was from Lebanon. These kids were and Central and Baseline in Phoenix.

I have a reason for bringing this up again.

Today or Tomorrow may be the first day without a sunspot since 8/14/2011. It's significant and a spotless day this late in the cycle will signal our turn toward solar minimum. Here's a link so anyone can see the first spotless day on the sun in 2 years when it. It's party time!

http://spaceweather.com/

That fact is as insignifcant as the fact that it's 90 degrees here in Niagara Falls. Solar minimums are a contributor to the temperature of the planet, but it seems to have a cumulative effect -- that is, years without sunspot activity has the potential to cool the planet, while years with high sunspot activity has the potential to warm the planet, but these effects are ESTIMATED to be negligible compared to the greenhouse gas effect.

I say estimated, because there is some degree of disagreement in the community as to the degree of warming/cooling as a result of variability in solar output (which between minimums and maximums result of a 0.1% difference).

It is well known that cow farts are the cause of global warming.

Global warming is being pushed by the same people that felt the earth was flat and that said we were going to
have global cooling in the 70's

Man made global warming is political..period it is made up to obtain millions in grants to
allow them to study nothing as long as they get paid.

Right where i am now setting there was 1 mile of ice milions or thousands of years ago, which would you
prefer... and now i am setting on dry land..... where did the water go from the 1 mile of ice without
coverings the entire world.... in addition would the global warming nuts rather have the mile of ice or what
we have now.

If you use your head... which no one in the global warming community can do, you would understand
that the world got from many areas were covered in ice, to the northern part of the US being now ice free
and useful lands without any help from man or the suv. If the world can make that change on its own, there
is nothing it can not do without the help of man, indeed there are so many varibles that every prediction from
the global warming crowd from loss of artic ice to rising sea levels to more hurricans has been completed wrong.

The real question is smple....... no scientist alive any place in the world can tell you what the exact
temperature should be that day in that location if no man had ever stepped forth on the planet... it is impossible,
and if you can not determine what the temperature should be if we did not exist, you cant determine a difference
because we are here.

Scientists that believe in man made global warming have made up their minds that there has to be a bad impact
by man so any difference they see or make up has to be caused by man.

According to many in the nut case community the world will increase by1-2 degrees every 100 years,
and many beleive 25% of that is man made. Lets assume the worst.... a 2 degree increase and 50% of the change is
man made.....lets assume you kill every man, women and child on earth and you will save 1 degree every 100 years.
opps dont want to do that, ok lets kill only half and we will save 1/2 of 1 degree every 100 years,,opps that still to
strong of a reaction... ok then lets just cut back 20% of the human activity, lets take away 20% of the jobs in the world
that cause polution and add that 20% to world poverty, we can save 2/10th of a degree every 100 years


It should be clear by now this is all political, just a way to collect more taxes from the haves and give it to the have nots.
The availability of oil as a resource has led to the greatest advancement in human condition that the world have ever seen,
so lets go ahead and tax it, regulate ,it make it much more costly and see what benefit that has for all of us.

In the mean time i will keep a Prius in the glove compartment of my Tahoe in case i need it.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

It should be clear by now this is all political, just a way to collect more taxes from the haves and give it to the have nots.

Close, but Al Gore is not a have-not. Neither were the owners of Solyndra. It is about taxing the working-man to death and regulating his activities so they can give it to those with the right political pull.

I now await a believer to say, "shut up and listen to the scientists, the debate is over!"

AZ



Hey i can be convinced, i live in Wausau Wisconsin, some 1 mile under the ice that used to be
here.... all any man made global warming beleiver has to do is call me and tell what the
temperature would be in Wausau today had no man ever stepped foot on the earth, then i
can tell him or her what the temperature is and walla, we have the effect of man.

see that is simple, surely all the scientists in the world can answer one simple question.

dicesetter

The scientific debate is pretty much over, and a consensus has pretty much been reached. Dicesetter may be one hellofa crap player, but his opinion on global warming is just that, an opinion. I understand his point of view that scientists are trying to keep their jobs, and that happens for a few percent in every industry out there.

And absolutely politics is at play here, which clouds the science. Global warming plays among party lines, and you can see that in the polling numbers where 9 of 10 Dems believe in AGW while 4 in 10 GOPs believe the same.

I'd like to see the GOP simply admit that AGW is likely real and to propose different solutions than their democrat counterparts. The thing is that on both sides the solutions are the same, so the GOP just denies the science so that it doesn't have to put out a strategy. Newt did that - climate change was in his book, and he got it removed in time for the Iowa caucuses.

If you want to solve AGW, then you have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or find a way to take them out of the atmosphere, and traditionally there are many ways to do that: tax the crap out of the emitter or tax the crap out of the consumer, give incentives for green power, and find ways to clean up emissions. All of these things cost money in the short term, but in the long term, savings can be enormous. But no one wants to think beyond the next election cycle.

Lower world oil prices due to a reduction of demand saves Americans lots of money. A $.10 / gallon change in the price of gas saves Americans about 13 billion dollars.

An acceptable solution might be "we know it's happening, but we're not going to do anything about it"... kind of like Social Security, the Deficit, and anything else that spans past the next Election day.

Quote: dicesitter

AZ



Hey i can be convinced, i live in Wausau Wisconsin, some 1 mile under the ice that used to be
here.... all any man made global warming beleiver has to do is call me and tell what the
temperature would be in Wausau today had no man ever stepped foot on the earth, then i
can tell him or her what the temperature is and walla, we have the effect of man.

see that is simple, surely all the scientists in the world can answer one simple question.

dicesetter

I can tell you that the Urban Heat Island effect in a city of 130,000 likely adds a degree or two while global warming adds another degree. So, as of 9:54am CDT, the temperature at the Wausau airport was 77 degrees. So I can tell you, as a dude who has a post-graduate degree from UBC in Meteorology that the temperature in Wausau would likely be 75 degrees.