Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Timstuff]

People complain when the term "terrorism" is used to stir up fear and get peopel to sign away their freedom, but environmentalists are just as bad when it comes to "climate change." If you convince enough people that the world is going to melt, you could take over the world. That is the biggest reason I am against the "climate change" movement. Not only is there plenty of data conflicting with what big science and the enviro-nuts want us to believe (for example: did you know that Antarctica's sea ice has expanded nearly 30% in the last 10 years?), but also they are going to use it to take away freedom and cost us a lot of money.

I have no doubt that human beings cause damage to their environment when we are not careful. However, the idea that everyone has a "carbon footprint" that is going to destroy the earth is nothing but a bogyman to scare people into accepting extreme environmental policies, laws, and taxes. The only thing that "carbon credits" has done in the European Union is turn pollution into a commodity-- there's an entire market just for selling industrial emissions, which IMO is absolutely ridiculous.

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but this goes beyond conspiracy-- this is just a bunch of stupid scared people following the decrees of the science Czars, and any dissenters are rapidly consumed by an angry lynch mob-- even if they are scientists. If you are a scientist who discovers evidence against man-made "climate change," if you publish it you could lose your grant money. The scientists who come out against the climate change movement always get shunned, because no-one wants their fantasy of a subdued populous to be destroyed. "Climate change," just like terrorism as the new political buzz word, and just like terrorism it's going to be used to take our liberties away in the name of security.

The one hope I have ATM that people will start blocking the climate change scare tactics out, since "going green" is going to mean lots of new taxes that people can't afford, and we're all freezing our nuts off right now. "Financial crisis" is a bigger buzz word right now than "climate change," and they happen to be two agendas that do not get along very well.

 

[Carcharodon]

If you are a scientist who discovers evidence against man-made "climate change," if you publish it you could lose your grant money. The scientists who come out against the climate change movement always get shunned...

While I think most of your post is extreme, I have to agree with this part. This is scary, especially because I believe that politics belong nowhere NEAR science. Period.

Scientific integrity becomes in danger of being destroyed when special interests become involved...from oil companies to Al Gore.

 

[SuBe]

While I think most of your post is extreme, I have to agree with this part. This is scary, especially because I believe that politics belong nowhere NEAR science. Period.

Scientific integrity becomes in danger of being destroyed when special interests become involved...from oil companies to Al Gore.

This is the Most Reasonable post I've ever seen from you.

 

[SsM]

While I think most of your post is extreme, I have to agree with this part. This is scary, especially because I believe that politics belong nowhere NEAR science. Period.

Scientific integrity becomes in danger of being destroyed when special interests become involved...from oil companies to Al Gore.

I think scientific integrity was all but destroyed years ago.

 

[Carcharodon]

This is the Most Reasonable post I've ever seen from you.

...what? It's not like this is the first time I've expressed this sentiment. Even in conversations with you.

I also love how that implies that each and every post I've made debating this using scientific reasoning (like with the Mars example earlier in this thread) is somehow inane babble by comparison. That's very interesting.

But, um...thanks?

 

[SuBe]

I don't come back and read through every post in this thread, and I'm sorry if I missed or forgotten something you've posted in the past. But, it's big of someone to admit that Politics can affect scientific "findings" for more funding.

 

[EXT.23]

double, whoops

 

[EXT.23]

Actually, if the sun were the only common factor the melting rates should be different. Solar energy dissipates the farther away it travels from the sun.

What you're presented is an extremely oversimplified view of what's going on. There are all kinds of factors that can affect the melting of ice on Mars, including atmospheric pressure variation (which can have a strong effect on melting temperatures under Mars' environmental conditions). That's not to mention the fact that carbon dioxide composes more than 90% of Mars' atmosphere, and that level is probably subject to fluctuation from natural sources.

The actual likelihood is that the warming is a result of a combination of factors, both on Mars and here on Earth. The problem with your argument is that it looks at melting rate, but it doesn't factor in any phenomena other than solar activity (which, again, is not at all likely to be the only factor).

distance may cause the energy to dissipate but considering the axis of the poles can still compensate. while it may be true that the composition of the atmosphere of mars may allow for melting based on the degree of solar output, other "phenomena" you state can hardly be tacked up to involvement of a living species on the planet..it's just something that occurs on the planet. now i won't say that human involvement doesn't play any role on the environment, but i won't say that it's just gas consumption and big industry that's causing the warming...ya know?

 

[Metamorpho1977]

There is no such thing as global warming. It's polar bears licking the salt off of the ice.

 

[chaseter]

That is why we can't eat their livers...because they eat so much damn salt...DAMN THEM

 

[Metamorpho1977]

exactly, but polar bear ribeyes are out of this world. move over beef, once Bobby Flay discovers them, it's all over.

 

[Timstuff]

BTW, in case anyone reads my post here and thinks I'm some kind of eco-system hating loony, I'd like to point out that I don't even own a car. I just ride my bicycle everywhere.

 

[chaseter]

A bicycle with a gas guzzling 4.8 liter V8

 

[Carcharodon]

distance may cause the energy to dissipate but considering the axis of the poles can still compensate.

Care to elaborate?

while it may be true that the composition of the atmosphere of mars may allow for melting based on the degree of solar output, other "phenomena" you state can hardly be tacked up to involvement of a living species on the planet..it's just something that occurs on the planet.

Looks like you missed the point. Nobody's saying that the CO2 on Mars is biogenic. That, and this quote: "while it may be true that the composition of the atmosphere of mars may allow for melting based on the degree of solar output..." makes very little sense in the context of this discussion, given that that's NOT what I said.

The point is that there are other factors in play that prevent such a simple comparison from being made. Such a comparison ignores a lot of other influences and factors. That means that such a comparison, in terms of establishing cause and effect, is scientifically invalid. Sorry. You can argue with the scientist if you want, but there it is.

Beyond that, there IS evidence that there may be biogenic greenhouse gasses on Mars. Methane, to be precise.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/6213127.html

It's a pretty exciting discovery with respect to the whole hunt for life on Mars. Could be nothing, could very well be something.

 

[Timstuff]

A bicycle with a gas guzzling 4.8 liter V8

If by V8 you mean my legs, then I have two. But that won't stop me from using them to harm mother nature anyway!

 

[Galactus]

Global warming or no global warming... the planet is still warm. It seems January was the 7th warmest on record:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1192

 

[xisaacx]

its hard to believe anything really when apparently the 2nd ice age was supposed to wipe us out and still hasnt.

 

[chaseter]

We are on like the 10th ice age or something.

 

[Paradoxium]

I do make an effort to be energy efficient and lead a ascetic'ish lifestyle. But I don't believe in AGW Science. It's not conclusive enough. But again the way I conduct my lifestyle is generally low on the "carbon foot print" (but for efficiency reasons not cause of environment) except for a few things that is related to this upcoming question.

So I was wondering, and this is for the environmental tree huggers.

This is a serious question.

What do you use to wipe your butt that is environmentally friendly? Cause I prefer toilet paper. Three ply. From what I understand, recycled paper leaves a carbon footprint... and of course normal toilet paper. So what is it? Banana leaves? Cloth that gets reused? Well?

t:

 

[chaseter]

I scoot across the carpet.

 

[SuBe]

carpet

 

[SuBe]

Global Warming "Bait-and-Switch"
by Paul Driessen

Fred Schwindel’s TV City ad promises 40” flat screen televisions for $200. You rush to his store, to learn he’s “fresh out” – but has some 42” models for $1000.


http://magazine.townhall.com/coulter


That’s “bait-and-switch,” and Fred could be prosecuted for consumer fraud.

In the political arena, however, bait-and-switch is often rewarded, not punished – especially in the case of global warming alarmism. Instead of fines or jail time, politicos get committee chairs, presidencies, speaking fees and Nobel Prizes. Scientists and bureaucrats receive paychecks, research grants and travel stipends for Bali. Activists get secretive government payments for “public education” campaigns. Companies get government contracts, subsidies and seats at the bargaining table. And all are lionized or canonized for supporting Climageddon theories and policies.
Global warming bait-and-switch starts with simple statements that few would contest – then shifts seamlessly to claims that are hotly disputed and supported by little or no evidence.

The bait: Global warming is real. The switch: Global warming is intensifying and threatens agriculture, human civilization and the fabric of life everywhere on earth.

Bait: 99% of scientists agree on the presence of human-caused global warming. Switch: The debate is over. Humans are the primary cause of temperature increases.

Bait: Atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing. Switch: CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas and is reaching unprecedented and dangerous levels.

Bait: Earth warmed during the twentieth century, as CO2 levels increased. Switch: Runaway warming is increasing hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and causing species extinction.

Bait: Even little things like reducing personal energy consumption help the environment. Switch: We can stop climate change by switching to wind and solar energy.

The perpetrators of these B/S schemes may never be chastened or prosecuted. However, as in the case of consumer fraud, an informed public is less likely to get fleeced.

President Obama and congressional Democrats support a $650 billion carbon cap-and-trade tax on every household, business and factory in America. If they introduce legislation amid this recession, voters, energy consumers and more responsible legislators should keep important facts in mind.

Global warming (aka climate change) has been “real” since time began. Witness the Ice Ages, interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period (950-1350), Little Ice Age (1400-1850), Anesazi drought, Dust Bowl, and conversion of verdant river valleys into the Sahara Desert some 4,000 years ago.

No one yet knows what solar energy fluctuations, planetary orbit shifts, recurrent oscillations in ocean currents, cloud cover variation and other natural forces combined to cause these potent climatic changes. But there is no evidence that they have suddenly been displaced by human CO2 emissions.

Growing numbers of scientists say the climate change debate is far from over, and global warming was never a crisis. Over 650 certified meteorologists and climate scientists are on a US Senate compilation of climate cataclysm skeptics – and 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, saying they dispute claims that humans are causing climate change, and the changes will be disastrous.


Many of them are meeting in New York March 8-10, at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. They may not drive the final nails into the coffin of climate hysteria, but their findings and analyses underscore the lack of evidence for scary “forecasts” that are routinely generated by woefully inadequate computer models and self-interested researchers, activists and politicians. They will point out that planetary temperatures are no longer rising, hurricanes are not increasing in number or intensity, ice caps are not disappearing, and moderate temperature and CO2 increases benefit plant growth.


The UN’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change claims to be the world’s “most authoritative body” on the subject. However, only “something on the order of 20%” of the panel’s scientists “have some dealing with climate,” admits a senior member. Even the IPCC chairman is an economist, not a scientist.

Worse, says atmospheric scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, the IPCC insists that human carbon dioxide emissions drive global warming. It has “never seriously investigated” the possibility that climate change might be natural. The IPCC sees only what it is looking for; it sees nothing it is not looking for.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may have “soared” from 280 ppm to 385 ppm over the last century. But this represents an almost trivial rise from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% – the equivalent of an increase from 3 cents to 4 out of $100, or from 1.08 inches to 1.44 inches on a football field. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which nature controls via evaporation and precipitation.

Planetary temperatures may have increased during the last century, as CO2 levels increased. But not in a straight line. They rose 1900-1940 (1934 was the century’s warmest year), fell 1940-1975, rose again 1975-1998, then stabilized and even declined slightly from 1998 to 2008.
New York, Holland and Bangladesh might be inundated by a 49-foot rise in sea level, if the entire West Antarctic ice sheet melted. But that would require a global temperature spike far greater than even Al Gore has prophesied. The average temperature for the peninsula’s two-month summer is barely 36 F; in the winter, temperatures are below minus 50.
Unplugging unused appliances and switching to CFL bulbs may help jet-setting Hollywood celebrities feel better. But they will not stabilize Earth’s climate. Even grounding Al Gore and John Travolta’s private jets, scrapping every US automobile, mothballing America’s coal-fired power plants, and slashing US CO2 emissions by 80% (back to 1905 levels), as President Obama wants to do, will have little effect.

Even the IPCC recognizes that perfect compliance with the Kyoto Protocol by every country would reduce global temperature increases by only 0.2 degrees by 2050 (assuming CO2 does drive global warming). But Europe has put its greenhouse gas reduction programs on hold. Australia is poised to reject cap-and-trade plans. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants every week.

Nearly 85% of US energy is hydrocarbon based, whereas wind turbines currently provide 0.5% and generate electricity only 25% of the time. Even absent the deepening recession, taxing and penalizing hydrocarbon use and CO2 emissions will drive up energy costs and extinguish far more jobs than can possibly be created via government-subsidized renewable energy and green-collar job initiatives. The impacts on poor families, economic civil rights, living standards and civil liberties would be severe.
Not surprisingly, the more people understand these facts, the worse the hysteria gets. Al Gore: Soaring global temperatures will “bring human civilization to a screeching halt.” Energy Secretary Stephen Chu: “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” NOAA scientist Susan Solomon: “In ten years the oceans will be toxic, and all life in them will die.” NASA astronomer James Hansen: “Death trains” are carrying poisonous fuel to “coal-fired factories of death.”
Hollywood horror movie writers couldn’t possibly top this stuff.

So when Congress and the President call for more economic pain through energy restrictions and cap-and-trade bills, demand solid evidence for catastrophic warming and human causation. Don’t accept worthless computer models and worst-case scenarios. And don’t be conned by bait-and-switch tactics.

 

[Carcharodon]

I don't agree with his overall sentiment, but there was a lot in that article I did agree with.

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.repoweramerica.org/plan/

Anyone seen this site? What do people think about the American West as "the Saudi Arabia of solar power?"

 

[SuBe]

As long as my Tax Dollars do go pay for it, I'm fine with it.

By the way, what's to ensure that there won't be environmentalists won't take them to court when they want to build this stuff like the Wind Farms in California?