All the studies I saw clearly underline a GW trend.
That can mean a year, 10 years, 100 years etc, etc. If you believe as many that the ocean temperatures have more to do with the global temperature than any other factor, how do you explain the lack of rise in the ocean temps over the last few years?
March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
According to the IPCC report we had a sea level rise of rise of 3.1 mm yr (93 -03).
1 millimeter = 0.00328 feet
3.1 x 0.00328 feet = 0.01017 feet per year
230 feet in elevation / 0.01017feet per year = 22,614 years
If the sea level increases by 1,000 times over the current rate you just might have ocean front property in 22 to 23 years for all of about two weeks.... :surprise:
I just quoted the direct study that strongly questions the validity of the claim that there is any cooling occuring in the troposphere.
You're misreading the article. The original "problem" was that satellite measurements showed cooling of the troposphere. Those early satellite measurements were corrected as in the article you cite. The situation now is that the temperature in the troposphere has remained constant (rather than decreasing) whereas the climate change models predict increases in tropospheric temperature. I.e., the corrected data still invalidate climate change theory or, at the very least, does not support it.
Is it unreasonable that I ask another source/reference seriously supporting your theory that there has been some global cooling ?
Excuse me? My theory? I reported that temperatures have been level or decreased slightly during the past ten years, I provided a graph (from a serious and reputable source), you have access to the internet to follow up and you're asking me for more sources? Yes, it is unreasonable.
but any other source?
Yes. Try Google.
That scientific studies display some different or conflicting results is not a failure.
Yes it is. In the case of modeling it is a fundamental failure. Failure to make accurate predictions or to even get the sign (+ or -) wrong indicates very serious problems with the models. The models do not get the troposphere right and they predicted warming over the past decade while the actual temperature either remained constant or decreased. Moreover, if you run those models for past data sets, they would have predicted rising temperatures during the harsh cooling period between about 1940 and the mid-70s. How can you expect the models to be reliable out to 50, 75 or 100 years if they cannot get today right?
The climate models are not so much "scientific studies" than they are numerology or curve fitting. Aside from major and serious physical effects being excluded from them, the models include many physical effects in an ad hoc manner (i.e. as parameters or knobs to turn).
For example, if you read Evans' paper that I referenced earlier, you will see that the "strength" of CO2 as a "driver" was greatly exaggerated. They don't do atmospheric or oceanic circulation, don't handle water properly, neglect biomass and so on. We also see that their predictions are wrong. And we're supposed to affect political change on that basis? I think not.
All the studies I saw clearly underline a GW trend.
When I look at those same "studies" I see natural variability. This particular interglacial period is not extraordinary in any way. In order to show that mankind has any significant impact you will first have to show a significant departure from any of the long term trends.
>"Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them. "
Or it could mean the systems involved in the earth handling of heat, external and internal, are beyond understanding by current science. Especially it means that the tenet that air temperature is an indicator of harmful global warming is wrong.
The problem here is that certain people, including Rev. Gore, want to preach based on simplistic theories that serve their financial or political goals. But the real understanding of the operation of the systems will come from scientists who have nothing personal to gain.
Are you saying these folks are not getting their money's worth.
Not even close. The systems being installed in my neighborhood are in the $50k range. The state gives us a $3000 tax credit. The interest alone on $50,000 is $250 per month at 6%. My highest bill last year was under $200 including Natural Gas. Unless electricity doubles or triples it is just a feel good system. My wife got turned off to it when she found out it was of no value in a power outage. If you go the whole route with batteries to carry the load overnight you are into some serious money and maintenance costs. If the cost comes down into the $15k range here in Southern CA it may be practical.
There are big tax breaks for businesses installing Solar. That figures.
If you factor in the energy/resources required to manufacture + transport + install them, the energy they'll produce during their working lifetime, their purchase cost and their de-commission + disposal costs then they are probably pretty marginal. Of course, I'm SWAGging here so don't kill me for having an opinion. Of course, as fossil fuel etc prices rise then they should become more viable.
I believe the real trick is just to use less of all energy sources and resources.
Whether you believe in the cult of Anthropomorphic Climate Change or not, (and I do not), makes no difference. Good Stewardship I believe it's called.
I believe the real trick is just to use less of all energy sources and resources.
A good thought in some respects. But how does this align with 1) governments encouraging economic activity - wanting higher GDP's. and 2) the growing population of the Earth?
Here in the U.S. our leaders have just sent most people $600/person to keep gas in their tanks, and such. And our state governments encourage tourism - which no matter if you travel by Prius, bus, train, or plane uses resources.
There is no government on this Earth which will promote a smaller economy, lower lifestyle, or ways to decrease their population greatly (even China has had mixed results; and it would be legally impossible in many democracies).
If you have equity in your home, you can use that to install solar panels and immediately start recouping your investment. Your home value will go up $10 to $20 for every dollar you save in electricity costs.
Solar panels are not for everybody, but most people ARE getting their money's worth. Just ask them. Most people save more than the monthly rise in their mortgage payment. That's why they do it.
Most people do the math and figure out they are not throwing their hard-earned money in the trash.
Indeed, the optimum city runs at a 80 business/ 20 residents ratio. MOST to ALL regulations are made with this in mind. Any city violating this "principle" does so at the peril of "bankruptcy". Of course they flirt with insolvency already when they pay police/ fir, etc., who retire @ 100% of working salary (NOT to work). So for example for a well known end destination city in the west they get 100% of working salary in retirement.
Also another thing, a city does NOT want its residents to live where they work. So, of the the 20% residents ratio, a large percentage (of the 20%) travel by CAR to work. So in truth the ones telling you to cut down make/enforce the rules, so you HAVE to travel. Until this changes, all this yada yada is just... yada yada.
Any one can check the/their local cities general plan to verify what I am saying. It is usually under the circulation/transportation sections.
Actually tell us all this in 10,15,20 years when all those folks that provided systems (normally all the past ones have LONG since GONE our of business) and they hit you again for all NEW systems, as there is NO upgrade path.
I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly when you mention an "upgrade path." But I will give it a shot.
The solar panels THEMSELVES will last 25-40 years. One system I was quoted had panels warrantied for 40 years.
The AC/DC inverters will have to eventually be replaced in 10-15 years. But inverters for that purpose will be available forever. The company does not matter. Any solar company in 2023 can sell you a 4.2 kw inverter if/when a 2008 converter dies.
Other than washing the dust off the panels, there is no maintenance.
Ask Ed Begley Jr.
P.S. Roofs get old and need replacing. Houses eventually too. Appliances too. Fences. Cars. Does the fact that something will eventually "die" mean we "do without them?" No. So why would the fact that a solar power inverter "die" prevent us from buying it?
If we based a "buy or not buy?" decision on "will it last forever?" well then we can keep our money in the bank, because we won't be buying anything.
Unless your quoted celeb is going to provide me with tax credits, guarantees, etc. doing the math as per Gagrice's post is the way to go.
It does NOT pencil out, even at a 15,000 dollar system.
Now keep in mind that if one locates a house that is NOT serviced by the power company and it has to get power to the land parcel, that might make sense..
Just saw the tail end of a news article that was talking about a company that had developed some sort of film that you could use to enhance the output of solar cells.
This would make the solar cells so much more efficient that it would reduce the cost per KwH substantially.
I missed all the details on this. Does anyone know anything about this?
It would be nice if this was the breakthrough we've been waiting for.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Here is the calculator for Solar in my area. There calculation comes out with it costing more per month over a 25 year period with solar. They figure I needed a 4000 watt system which is $38k before incentives. If I was in a remote area with high electric bills it may be practical. It just does not come out good.
You also forget I went this route out in Havasu. The solar panels failed before the warranty was up. And the company was no longer around. I don't see any reason to believe a 25 year or 40 year warranty will make any difference if the company is gone under. Solar has a ways to go yet.
Gary says, "The solar panels failed before the warranty was up."
Gary, just like you cannot logically condemn Toyota FOREVER for the 1964 lemon you bought, you cannot logically condemn solar power as a valid technology just because YOU got a rotten deal one time.
How many decades ago was that? From what I can Google, these panels don't go bad "en masse" anymore. There are millions of solar panels in use around the world, and hundreds of thousands are installed every year.
This is proven technology, and it's getting better.
Here is a comparison of my quotes:
Quote 1 for 4000 watt system: Total price before incentives: $27,979.82 Incentives: $12.3K from utility, $1K from AZ, $2K from Feds My total cost after incentives: $12,679.82 Percentage of my total power it would fulfill: 86% ESTIMATED Break-even years: 9
Quote 2 for 3200 watt system: Total price before incentives: $23,616 Incentives: $9.6K from utility, $1K from AZ, $2K from Feds My total cost after incentives: $11,016 Percentage of my total power it would fulfill: 80% ESTIMATED Break-even years: 12
Quote 3 for 3200 watt system: Total price before incentives: $22,748 Incentives: $9.6K from utility, $1K from AZ, $2K from Feds My total cost after incentives: $9,878 Percentage of my total power it would fulfill: 80% ESTIMATED Break-even years: 10
And the higher utility rates go, the better investment it is. Power is getting more expensive, not cheaper, every year.
Other states have even BETTER incentives, like the new one in New Jersey.
Solar is not a boondoggle. It's a real option for a lot of people.
And solar panels are only going to get cheaper too:
Solar power electricity is about to get much cheaper, industry analysts predict, because a shortage of the silicon used in solar panels is almost over. That could lead to a sharp drop in prices over the next couple of years, making solar electricity comparable to power from the grid.
High demand generated by government subsidies worldwide and a shortage of processed silicon have kept prices for solar-generated power much higher than average electricity prices over the past few years. Solar power is more than three times the cost of electricity from conventional sources, according to figures from the industry tracking firm Solarbuzz and the United States' Energy Information Administration. Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s, but silicon shortages, which began in 2005, have pushed up prices to more than $4.80 per watt, according to Solarbuzz.
Crystalline silicon has long been the staple of the semiconductor industry. But it's also the active material in the most common type of solar panel, and the increased use of solar power has led to the shortage of the material. Indeed, the growth in silicon production hasn't kept pace with the rise in solar power. "It takes about two or three years to add capacity," says Travis Bradford, an industry analyst for the Prometheus Institute. The shortage has been severe enough to drive up silicon prices to more than 10 times normal levels, to $450 a kilogram, adds Ted Sullivan, an analyst at Lux Research.
If I could get a 4k watt system installed for $12k I would seriously consider it. Not for the $27k currently offered in San Diego.
Let me put it another way. If the people around me spent $30k to $50k and now I get a better system for $12k who was the dummy? It is the same thing with early purchasers of hybrids or diesel cars or any leading edge technology. The early adopter gets screwed with higher prices.
Another example. I looked at the 24" LCD monitors when they first came out. Cost about $2500. I just bought my wife a new HP computer with all the bells and whistles including HPs latest 24 inch LCD for $1100 at Costco. With a full 2 year warranty. Waiting for the dust to settle is usually the best plan.
Will it make any difference in the GW warming debate when and if I were to go solar. Not one bit. Only to my wallet. Until it makes financial sense to me, it makes no sense at all.
larsb wrote: " Like I already said which is truth: It depends on the situation, the state tax credit, the tax credit given by the utility, etc.
Some states/some situations it DOES "pencil out" just fine. " If it does depend on the state tax credit, or /and the tax credit given by the utility than you need look no further that it is not economically viable.
OF50 wrote: "Just saw the tail end of a news article that was talking about a company that had developed some sort of film that you could use to enhance the output of solar cells.
This would make the solar cells so much more efficient that it would reduce the cost per KwH substantially.
I missed all the details on this. Does anyone know anything about this?
It would be nice if this was the breakthrough we've been waiting for "
It's not but it's a step forward. The company is Applied Materials, Amat,Nasdaq. A semiconductor vendor primarily previously before acquiring a company in solar energy, their "thinfim " technology will lower costs but not significantly increase the effiency ratio.
Hey ! I sent all my financial information , together with a blank signed check and all credit card information first. Is it my fault the King has chosen me to get the $25 million? The fact that Yassar Arafat's widow could not wire transfer due to current turbulent conditions regarding subprime should not prevent me from getting the $25 million that is rightfully mine. That and that Mom always liked me best. johnnyell, What about that nano Viaagrah, I hear it's the best.
I thought all the MLM guys were in jail. Next we will have Al Gore on here selling Carbon Credits in a Ponzi Scheme. Good luck this forum is for the informed not the SUCKER. Let us know when the product is offered at Costco. Then I will believe it is legit.
>The situation now is that the temperature in the troposphere has remained constant (rather than decreasing)
Not according to this research http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/269 "Our analysis shows a trend of +0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years, consistent with the global warming trend derived from surface meteorological stations."
>Those early satellite measurements were corrected as in the article you cite
I have doubts about this because the uncorrected sources were mentioned as showing pretty constant temperatures. I could not open the website you mentioned as the source.
To put this in perspective, even when using the uncorrected data (1998) this would not be enough to say there is no GW http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9755&page=21 The warming of surface temperature that has taken place during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real, and it is at a rate substantially larger than the average warming during the twentieth century.
>Yes. Try Google.
I understand that this was the only source that allowed you to claim there is currently no GW. The validity of this only source collapsed whereas there are numerous sources that underline the GW trend. Cherry-picking a few isolated examples to counter a mass of studies won't do the trick. Are you still calling Global warming a "myth" ?
>In the case of modeling it is a fundamental failure
This would be true if all the models were mostly wrong which remains to be proven. The IPCC panel mentions findings with probabilities. There is no 100% accuracy in climate study.
Thank you for the link and the article concludes :
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
This is certainly good news. Now the bad ones
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080618143301.htm New research suggests that ocean temperature and associated sea level increases between 1961 and 2003 were 50 percent larger than estimated in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Another nasty side effect of man made CO2 is Ocean acidification http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm Ocean acidification is more rapid than ever in the history of the earth and if you look at the pCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) levels we have reached now, you have to go back 35 million years in time to find the equivalents
>some sort of film that you could use to enhance the output of solar cells.
There must be a misunderstanding.
There are 2 main kinds of PV panels. -Cristalline based ones (Mono or Poly) with efficiency factor of 14-18% -Amorphous Silicon using thin film technolgies (Single, dual or triple junction) with efficiency factor around 6% and manufacturing prices up to 40% cheaper.
when choosing a panel, you either buy one or the other technology. there is no combination possible afaik.
Apparently the majority of the misunderstanding is on your part.
Tidester has simply shredded most of your assertions with logical, rational information which you continue to ignore. So much so that it begs the question, do you have some sort of financial interest involved here?
I believe our friend is very concerned about GW. I don't think he realizes that so much of the data has been manipulated by politicians with a greedy interest in GW. Also scientists that will say whatever they are paid to say or not to say. Man Made GW smells of greed and control of the masses. We know that our current and last President have blocked testimony by scientists to push their agenda. That should be enough to strongly question the whole business.
I think the average person on the street is starting to question the so-called consensus. There are a LOT of independent scientists that are not buying into the scam. There are a lot of leaders of major countries that are not buying it either. There are many leaders that signed on because they were convinced it was a legitimate cause. Even some people I consider somewhat bright have been fooled into believing.
I am not arguing for or against global warming. I am arguing against using hysteria to control the minds of the people. That is what has happened all across the World. I am also doing my part to use less fossil fuel and planting enough trees to absorb what I put out. I,m not going to go crazy and drive some little POC Prius to save a few gallons of fossil fuel for the Chinese to use. I'd rather plant 10 more trees.
I am not arguing for or against global warming. I am arguing against using hysteria to control the minds of the people. That is what has happened all across the World.
By calling a Prius a POC (which I assume is not a compliment) you are showing bias based on something other than reality.
The Prius has shown to be nothing if not a well-built car with high reliability. Every single survey of owners shows the satisfaction of the owners to be in the high 90s. Even in the UK where diesel is king, the Prius owners love their cars.
Back to your "control of the masses" theory.
I think that's a completely unfounded statement.
No one ever sat in a room in a secret meeting and said, "OK, we can use the fact that the Earf has been in a NATURAL warming cycle for the last 25 years and blame it on Mankind and start getting RICH off the idea !! We can CONTROL THEIR MINDS !!! HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE HE HA HA HA BA-HA HA !!!!"
Did they? Did that happen? If it did, please enlighten us as to who was in attendance, and who came up with the idea?
I don't think anyone who is pushing GW is channeling Dr. Evil and trying to take over the minds and money of the populace. It's just too outrageous a claim. This is not 1930, when stuff like that really DID happen.
I think if you take the facts in hand, a case can undoubtedly be made for human-enhanced warming. Whether or not EVERYONE believes that is true is irrelevant for now. All we need to know is that the POTENTIAL EXISTS for fossil fuel burning to be a contributing factor to warming and that should be enough for people to start seriously lowering their own carbon footprint, without spending their life savings to do it.
Once science develops enough to the point where these contributing factors can all be deciphered and we can know for sure what effect man has on the climate, then we will know and the proper actions can be decided upon by thinking people.
To just ignore the possibility and go on with "business as usual" is simply both misguided and short-sighted.
>Apparently the majority of the misunderstanding is on your part.
I don't understand. I was discussing PV panels technologies and replying to this...
>Tidester has simply shredded most of your assertions with logical, rational information which you continue to ignore
Did you really look at my posts ? I linked to quite a few studies already. What did I ignore ? What was irrational from me ? Please help me pinpoint any case. Tidested was pointing at some data and I provided some reference showing that this data is very questionable.
>So much so that it begs the question, do you have some sort of financial interest involved here?
Yes, very selfish interest. I hope to leave a sustainable earth to my children or at least not something too much degraded from now.
But apart questioning my good faith, I am waiting for valid arguments from your side. I won't ask if you have stakes in the petrol or the coal industry.
I appreciate discussing with you Gary, as you have very strong views that you express frankly.
Of course we are in disagreement about the GW issues and its consequences.
I am really dubious about global conspiracies. Heck, If everything was going OK as many claim, why the hell would more and more people get into this? Why would more and more governments enact laws to lower CO2 output? As Avalon wrote, all the question is the role of human kind in the process, and bodies like IPCC are working on assessing that.
You can claim that GW does not smell good, but I don't see it smelling any worse than any other business. It is a pretty new activity, not mature yet.
>I am also doing my part to use less fossil fuel and planting enough trees to absorb what I put out.
Even if there is disagreement, you are doing your part to mitigate and that's the bottom line.
My view is that cars play a role in GW in the proportion of the CO2 rejected, but that solutions exist to lower emissions/fuel consumption and improve US's standard of living.
I also think it is a real severe case of "be EXTREMELY careful what one wishes for!" We all want cheap air fares, use less fuel, use less imported fuel; etc., etc., environmental types want higher fuel costs. So when have cheap air fares, use less fuel and the costs of fuel skyrockets, we get an unhealthy air lines, recession and deep pain and massive lay offs. What is happening now is a snapshot of all those divergent things we want.
By all competing definitions, the homeless person is our ideal !!??
The Prius has shown to be nothing if not a well-built car with high reliability.
It is not safe in high crosswinds. That gets the POC sticker from me. The Honda Civic & Toyota Yaris are reliable from what I can tell. They rattle and are noisy on the highway. POC/POC. That should give you my opinion on many of the econoboxes being sold in the USA. Not that the Prius is economical except for gas.
No one ever sat in a room in a secret meeting and said
Tidester posted testimony from a NASA PHD that was told by the Clinton administration what he could & could not say about man made GW. He quit NASA to go into a University where freedom of speech is allowed. Dozens of scientists were denied a chance to voice their opinions and give their scientific data at the recent IPCC conference in Bali.
I don't think anyone who is pushing GW is channeling Dr. Evil and trying to take over the minds and money of the populace. It's just too outrageous a claim. This is not 1930, when stuff like that really DID happen.
If anything it is worse now than 1930. People believe the crap they hear on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the minor news at ABC,CBS & NBC. Unlike many countries the US still has some freedom of speech. So we get whatever the news guy happens to think. Go to the library and look what people are doing. They are checking their email on the free computers. The books barely get read. My wife checks out and reads 4-5 books per week. It is amazing how many were last checked out 10 or more years ago. We are overloaded with information from many sources. I would guess less than 25% is accurate or unbiased. That goes for all of the political and scientific sources.
Just because scientific information comes from NASA, UCLA, EPA, or CNN, does not make it fact. Remember we are still arguing over evolution of man from the monkeys. The scientific world is filled with theories. Many sound good. That does not make them FACTS. On man made GW, I just happen to believe the scientists that are not beholden to some government for their paychecks.
By all competing definitions, the homeless person is our ideal !!??
That is exactly what the GW cult wants for all of us. We walk the streets during the day picking up recyclable trash. Pee in the street and save on water. Most don't drive a car or at least not very far. Eat wasted food that is thrown out in the dumpsters. Use old newspapers to keep warm at night. Ride the bus when switching locations. The average homeless person is what Al Gore would like US all to be.
Too bad Al Gore, the homeless count is way down. They may have bought an old beater to drive. Oh no, more GHG...... :sick: By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
The U.S. had 12% fewer homeless last year than in 2005, and the greatest decline occurred among those who chronically live on the streets or in emergency shelters, according to a federal report to be released Tuesday. The number of people on the street or in emergency shelters on a single night in January, the month in which the tally was taken, fell from 763,010 in 2005 to 671,888 last year, the report says. Most were homeless temporarily. Among those who were chronically homeless, the number fell from 175,914 in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007.
"This reduction is the largest documented decrease in homelessness in our nation's history," says Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which coordinates federal efforts. He says it shows that the increase in housing units for the long-term homeless, funded by HUD and communities, is working.
Would the IPCC panel ever admit they distorted some of the studies? They would not allow equal time to those that have data that refutes studies from the IPCC report? How can you get an unbiased scientific report or study on Climate Change when ALL the scientists are working stiffs just trying to keep their cushy government, University or industry jobs? Science has always been used by man to put forth a theory. Most of the time it is greed for money, status or power.
Gary says, "How can you get an unbiased scientific report or study on Climate Change when ALL the scientists are working stiffs just trying to keep their cushy government, University or industry jobs? "
What makes you think that corrupting their science helps them keep their jobs?
Do you know of anyone who has ever been fired/terminated/had a grant cancelled because they disagreed with GW theory?
I tend to agree that something like that (getting fired for being against GW ) might have flown in the Clinton/Gore era might have flown.
But the Bush Administration has never fully accepted GW as fact. It was just not too long ago that Bush even halfway agreed with the GW theory.
As late as 2004, NASA scientists were blasting Bush about his refusal to adhere to GW data they presented.
So if NASA is presenting science in opposition to what their Boss believes, which they ARE and have been, then please explain to me how is that capitulating to keep their jobs?
Global warming Bush rejects laws for emissions White House makes EPA revise findings; punts solution to next president
By Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Saturday, July 12, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, dismissing the recommendations of its top experts, rejected regulating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming Friday, saying it would cripple the U.S. economy.
In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection Agency made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health or welfare, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.The White House on Thursday rejected the EPA's suggestion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change. The EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with global warming.
"If our nation is truly serious about regulating greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job," EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told reporters. "It is really at the feet of Congress."
White House press secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush is committed to further reductions but that there is a "right way and a wrong way to deal with climate change."
In a setback for Bush, the Supreme Court ruled last year that the government had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. Bush has consistently opposed doing that.
Congress hasn't found the will to do much about the problem either. Supporters of regulating greenhouse gases could get only 48 votes in the 100-member Senate last month. The House has held several hearings on the problem but no votes on any bill addressing it. Both major presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have endorsed variations of the approach rejected by the Senate.
In its voluminous document, the EPA laid out a buffet of options on how to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, ships, trains, power plants, factories and refineries. On Friday, Johnson called the proposals drafted by his staff as "putting a square peg into a round hole" and he said moving forward would be irresponsible.
So, Gary, one more time: HOW exactly does a scientist corrupting his/her data and agreeing with GW theory HELP THEM KEEP THEIR JOBS in the Bush Administration?
So, Gary, one more time: HOW exactly does a scientist corrupting his/her data and agreeing with GW theory HELP THEM KEEP THEIR JOBS in the Bush Administration?
I did not say those behind the man made GW theory would be fired. The Bush administration is much more tolerant of dissent than the previous administration. Fortunately Bush has not buckled to popular opinion based on flawed science. History will praise him for his unpopular stands against great odds.
The debate over anthropogenic — that is, human induced — climate change, is, in other words, just a bit more complicated than Al Gore suggested on "Oprah." Few books have captured this cognitive dissonance as well as "The Deniers," Mr. Solomon's essential, engrossing travelogue through the world of climate-change dissent.
In "The Deniers"' deniers are not the usual suspects paraded out by a media eager for Scopes Monkey Trial II: Flat Earthers' Revenge. They aren't blustery, ill-informed television pundits or slash-and-burn polemicists.
Rather, Mr. Solomon introduces us to legendary scientists with impeccable resumes and prestigious appointments at major universities and mainstream research institutes; thoughtful, serious professionals who, at their own professional peril, looked at one or another of the shibboleths of global warming alarmism — from the debunked "hockey stick" graphic and misread ice core samples to the amateurish or incorrect computer models and fear-mongering — and bravely refused to join the herd, profitable as that may be these days.
So who, exactly, has convened the conspiracy of silence Mr. Solomon is now attempting to shatter with "The Deniers?" Well, it's ... complicated. As the author would learn, many highly-qualified scientists who question even some small aspect of the global warming orthodoxy "don't want to be found at all and try very hard not to appear as dissenters. They have no wish to be called names in the press, or to lose their jobs, or to have their funding cut off as many deniers have."
Beyond the disturbing issue of self-censorship, however, stand those for whom the sexy business of saving the world is much too gratifying to bother with any credible contrarianism. Who wants to just live on an ever-changing planet when one could be a mini-Zeus lording over all the elements? Thus, even a balanced scientific report can end up resembling a lost quatrain from the Book of Revelation in the hands of regulation-happy politicians and reporters with small paychecks and large hero complexes.
Never mind that, as Mr. Solomon demonstrates to great effect in the closing pages of "The Deniers," the practical effect of popular climate change regulation schemes will likely be old-growth forests in Third World countries felled to make way for profitable "carbon intensive plantations." ("Every time we buy carbon offsets to salve our consciences at flying in a jet," Mr. Solomon writes, "we are helping to dispossess someone, somewhere, by boosting the carbon credit value of their land.") Forget that bio-fuel fads are pricing the world's poor out of sustenance. Ignore the myriad other environmental problems that could be addressed with the resources eaten up to solve a problem that very well may not exist.
"The Deniers" is a timely, necessary antidote to a political and scientific discussion poisoned by hubristic groupthink and the kind of scorched earth (mis)behavior that inevitably arises when a movement becomes so uncritically wedded to the commandments of a pseudo-religion its adherents would rather destroy their adversaries than risk debating them.
I wondered how long it would take to come to this. We have had calls for the firing of scientists and other disbelievers of the religion of the day; can the inquisition and McCarthy-style hearings be far behind? I can hear it now - "Are you now or ever have been a denier of global warming caused by mankind?"
The first shot across the bow, so to speak, has been fired in England. Here is a report appearing in the British paper, The Guardian:
"Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists · 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008. James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
Hansen heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Imagine, global warming deniers are being accused of "crimes against humanity"; isn't that what [non-permissible content removed] perpetrators were charged with at the Nuremberg trials over the holocaust when six million Jews and others were killed?
To members of the cult-like religion spawned by Al Gore, failing to agree with their dogma is akin to committing one of the worst crimes in human history. Not only is disagreement sufficient to lose your job and be ostracized in your professional community, you should go to jail, or perhaps a gulag, for it.
That's an opinion piece. He mentions scientists scared to "lose their jobs, or to have their funding cut off as many deniers have" but he fails to point out the one critical flaw in your argument:
Who are the people who are doing the cutting of the funding?
It's certainly no one within the Bush Administration cutting funding to a "denier" ( to use the word for explanation and not denigration. )
It's just the opposite in the Bush guvmint - he WANTS DENIERS !!!
So where are the purse strings which are being cut off?
Does anyone know of a link or a story that identifies a scientist or a project and WHO funded them and who cut them off when they went "off the company line" so to speak? THAT story I'd like to read.
Next we will have Al Gore on here selling Carbon Credits in a Ponzi Scheme.
Listened to Rush a little bit today on the radio. He was playing a 1992 interview with Ted Koppel that included Al Gore. Al was talking about how a hole in the ozone was developing over the United States. Which obviously hasn't happened, among many other statement Gore predicted would be happening in the future.
I use to be in the Gore camp, but the more I hear the words that come out of his mouth, the less credible and nuttier he seems to be.
The question is "Are Automobiles the Major Cause of Global Warming?" Global warming hasn't been proved to even exist beyond normal variance. And automobiles certainly aren't a cause of something that doesn't even exist.
Until fossil fuel burning has been eliminated as a possible contributor to the warming trend, then the contribution of the automobile to such warming cannot be eliminated.
>And yet you hear not a peep about it in the mass media. I wonder why?
I doesn't fit their agenda. They always talk about homeless while republicans are in charge and blame them. Then when Clinton took over the talk quieted down. When Bush was back in we started getting the sob stories and the blame game. Ideally we blame Bush for the homeless now and hope it helps elect the "change" guy or whatever he is; but with homelessness going down, how can we blame anyone?
Media sure can't say homelessness went down while a republican was in the White House!
Once science develops enough to the point where these contributing factors can all be deciphered and we can know for sure what effect man has on the climate,
That will never happen. There are to many variables to know for sure what affect man has on the climate. As mentioned before, a cautiuous and practical approach to protecting both business and the environment would be best for all the people on earf. I think the path we are on now: conservation, alternative fuel sources, pollution reduction is acceptable.
Comments
That can mean a year, 10 years, 100 years etc, etc. If you believe as many that the ocean temperatures have more to do with the global temperature than any other factor, how do you explain the lack of rise in the ocean temps over the last few years?
March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Quite clearly there is not enough evidence to get in a big hysteria fit over.
1 millimeter = 0.00328 feet
3.1 x 0.00328 feet = 0.01017 feet per year
230 feet in elevation / 0.01017feet per year = 22,614 years
If the sea level increases by 1,000 times over the current rate you just might have ocean front property in 22 to 23 years for all of about two weeks.... :surprise:
You're misreading the article. The original "problem" was that satellite measurements showed cooling of the troposphere. Those early satellite measurements were corrected as in the article you cite. The situation now is that the temperature in the troposphere has remained constant (rather than decreasing) whereas the climate change models predict increases in tropospheric temperature. I.e., the corrected data still invalidate climate change theory or, at the very least, does not support it.
Is it unreasonable that I ask another source/reference seriously supporting your theory that there has been some global cooling ?
Excuse me? My theory? I reported that temperatures have been level or decreased slightly during the past ten years, I provided a graph (from a serious and reputable source), you have access to the internet to follow up and you're asking me for more sources? Yes, it is unreasonable.
but any other source?
Yes. Try Google.
That scientific studies display some different or conflicting results is not a failure.
Yes it is. In the case of modeling it is a fundamental failure. Failure to make accurate predictions or to even get the sign (+ or -) wrong indicates very serious problems with the models. The models do not get the troposphere right and they predicted warming over the past decade while the actual temperature either remained constant or decreased. Moreover, if you run those models for past data sets, they would have predicted rising temperatures during the harsh cooling period between about 1940 and the mid-70s. How can you expect the models to be reliable out to 50, 75 or 100 years if they cannot get today right?
The climate models are not so much "scientific studies" than they are numerology or curve fitting. Aside from major and serious physical effects being excluded from them, the models include many physical effects in an ad hoc manner (i.e. as parameters or knobs to turn).
For example, if you read Evans' paper that I referenced earlier, you will see that the "strength" of CO2 as a "driver" was greatly exaggerated. They don't do atmospheric or oceanic circulation, don't handle water properly, neglect biomass and so on. We also see that their predictions are wrong. And we're supposed to affect political change on that basis? I think not.
All the studies I saw clearly underline a GW trend.
When I look at those same "studies" I see natural variability. This particular interglacial period is not extraordinary in any way. In order to show that mankind has any significant impact you will first have to show a significant departure from any of the long term trends.
Or it could mean the systems involved in the earth handling of heat, external and internal, are beyond understanding by current science. Especially it means that the tenet that air temperature is an indicator of harmful global warming is wrong.
The problem here is that certain people, including Rev. Gore, want to preach based on simplistic theories that serve their financial or political goals. But the real understanding of the operation of the systems will come from scientists who have nothing personal to gain.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not even close. The systems being installed in my neighborhood are in the $50k range. The state gives us a $3000 tax credit. The interest alone on $50,000 is $250 per month at 6%. My highest bill last year was under $200 including Natural Gas. Unless electricity doubles or triples it is just a feel good system. My wife got turned off to it when she found out it was of no value in a power outage. If you go the whole route with batteries to carry the load overnight you are into some serious money and maintenance costs. If the cost comes down into the $15k range here in Southern CA it may be practical.
There are big tax breaks for businesses installing Solar. That figures.
I believe the real trick is just to use less of all energy sources and resources.
Whether you believe in the cult of Anthropomorphic Climate Change or not, (and I do not), makes no difference. Good Stewardship I believe it's called.
Just my two-pennorth or £0.02 worth.
This is not new but interesting nonetheless :
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533312/The-sun-is-warmer-now-than-for-the-past-- 11,400-years
A good thought in some respects. But how does this align with 1) governments encouraging economic activity - wanting higher GDP's. and 2) the growing population of the Earth?
Here in the U.S. our leaders have just sent most people $600/person to keep gas in their tanks, and such. And our state governments encourage tourism - which no matter if you travel by Prius, bus, train, or plane uses resources.
There is no government on this Earth which will promote a smaller economy, lower lifestyle, or ways to decrease their population greatly (even China has had mixed results; and it would be legally impossible in many democracies).
When I was shopping a few months ago, I could have gotten a system that did 70% of my electricity for about $12K out of pocket.
See this story:
Electric bill dropped from over $300 to $11.34
If you have equity in your home, you can use that to install solar panels and immediately start recouping your investment. Your home value will go up $10 to $20 for every dollar you save in electricity costs.
Solar panels are not for everybody, but most people ARE getting their money's worth. Just ask them. Most people save more than the monthly rise in their mortgage payment. That's why they do it.
Most people do the math and figure out they are not throwing their hard-earned money in the trash.
Also another thing, a city does NOT want its residents to live where they work. So, of the the 20% residents ratio, a large percentage (of the 20%) travel by CAR to work. So in truth the ones telling you to cut down make/enforce the rules, so you HAVE to travel. Until this changes, all this yada yada is just... yada yada.
Any one can check the/their local cities general plan to verify what I am saying. It is usually under the circulation/transportation sections.
The solar panels THEMSELVES will last 25-40 years. One system I was quoted had panels warrantied for 40 years.
The AC/DC inverters will have to eventually be replaced in 10-15 years. But inverters for that purpose will be available forever. The company does not matter. Any solar company in 2023 can sell you a 4.2 kw inverter if/when a 2008 converter dies.
Other than washing the dust off the panels, there is no maintenance.
Ask Ed Begley Jr.
P.S. Roofs get old and need replacing. Houses eventually too. Appliances too. Fences. Cars. Does the fact that something will eventually "die" mean we "do without them?" No. So why would the fact that a solar power inverter "die" prevent us from buying it?
If we based a "buy or not buy?" decision on "will it last forever?" well then we can keep our money in the bank, because we won't be buying anything.
Unless your quoted celeb is going to provide me with tax credits, guarantees, etc. doing the math as per Gagrice's post is the way to go.
It does NOT pencil out, even at a 15,000 dollar system.
Now keep in mind that if one locates a house that is NOT serviced by the power company and it has to get power to the land parcel, that might make sense..
You need to preface that with "for ME"
Like I already said which is truth: It depends on the situation, the state tax credit, the tax credit given by the utility, etc.
Some states/some situations it DOES "pencil out" just fine.
This would make the solar cells so much more efficient that it would reduce the cost per KwH substantially.
I missed all the details on this. Does anyone know anything about this?
It would be nice if this was the breakthrough we've been waiting for.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
You also forget I went this route out in Havasu. The solar panels failed before the warranty was up. And the company was no longer around. I don't see any reason to believe a 25 year or 40 year warranty will make any difference if the company is gone under. Solar has a ways to go yet.
Check out what it costs per month:
http://sunpowercorp.cleanpowerestimator.com/default.aspx
Gary, just like you cannot logically condemn Toyota FOREVER for the 1964 lemon you bought, you cannot logically condemn solar power as a valid technology just because YOU got a rotten deal one time.
How many decades ago was that? From what I can Google, these panels don't go bad "en masse" anymore. There are millions of solar panels in use around the world, and hundreds of thousands are installed every year.
This is proven technology, and it's getting better.
Here is a comparison of my quotes:
Quote 1 for 4000 watt system:
Total price before incentives: $27,979.82
Incentives: $12.3K from utility, $1K from AZ, $2K from Feds
My total cost after incentives: $12,679.82
Percentage of my total power it would fulfill: 86%
ESTIMATED Break-even years: 9
Quote 2 for 3200 watt system:
Total price before incentives: $23,616
Incentives: $9.6K from utility, $1K from AZ, $2K from Feds
My total cost after incentives: $11,016
Percentage of my total power it would fulfill: 80%
ESTIMATED Break-even years: 12
Quote 3 for 3200 watt system:
Total price before incentives: $22,748
Incentives: $9.6K from utility, $1K from AZ, $2K from Feds
My total cost after incentives: $9,878
Percentage of my total power it would fulfill: 80%
ESTIMATED Break-even years: 10
And the higher utility rates go, the better investment it is. Power is getting more expensive, not cheaper, every year.
Other states have even BETTER incentives, like the new one in New Jersey.
Solar is not a boondoggle. It's a real option for a lot of people.
And solar panels are only going to get cheaper too:
End of silicon shortage means solar panel prices likely to drop
Solar power electricity is about to get much cheaper, industry analysts predict, because a shortage of the silicon used in solar panels is almost over. That could lead to a sharp drop in prices over the next couple of years, making solar electricity comparable to power from the grid.
High demand generated by government subsidies worldwide and a shortage of processed silicon have kept prices for solar-generated power much higher than average electricity prices over the past few years. Solar power is more than three times the cost of electricity from conventional sources, according to figures from the industry tracking firm Solarbuzz and the United States' Energy Information Administration. Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s, but silicon shortages, which began in 2005, have pushed up prices to more than $4.80 per watt, according to Solarbuzz.
Crystalline silicon has long been the staple of the semiconductor industry. But it's also the active material in the most common type of solar panel, and the increased use of solar power has led to the shortage of the material. Indeed, the growth in silicon production hasn't kept pace with the rise in solar power. "It takes about two or three years to add capacity," says Travis Bradford, an industry analyst for the Prometheus Institute. The shortage has been severe enough to drive up silicon prices to more than 10 times normal levels, to $450 a kilogram, adds Ted Sullivan, an analyst at Lux Research.
Let me put it another way. If the people around me spent $30k to $50k and now I get a better system for $12k who was the dummy? It is the same thing with early purchasers of hybrids or diesel cars or any leading edge technology. The early adopter gets screwed with higher prices.
Another example. I looked at the 24" LCD monitors when they first came out. Cost about $2500. I just bought my wife a new HP computer with all the bells and whistles including HPs latest 24 inch LCD for $1100 at Costco. With a full 2 year warranty. Waiting for the dust to settle is usually the best plan.
Will it make any difference in the GW warming debate when and if I were to go solar. Not one bit. Only to my wallet. Until it makes financial sense to me, it makes no sense at all.
"
Like I already said which is truth: It depends on the situation, the state tax credit, the tax credit given by the utility, etc.
Some states/some situations it DOES "pencil out" just fine. "
If it does depend on the state tax credit, or /and the tax credit given by the utility than you need look no further that it is not economically viable.
Btw thanks for your two pence alltorque.
"Just saw the tail end of a news article that was talking about a company that had developed some sort of film that you could use to enhance the output of solar cells.
This would make the solar cells so much more efficient that it would reduce the cost per KwH substantially.
I missed all the details on this. Does anyone know anything about this?
It would be nice if this was the breakthrough we've been waiting for "
It's not but it's a step forward. The company is Applied Materials, Amat,Nasdaq. A semiconductor vendor primarily previously before acquiring a company in solar energy, their "thinfim " technology will lower costs but not significantly increase the effiency ratio.
link title
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not according to this research
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/269
"Our analysis shows a trend of +0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years, consistent with the global warming trend derived from surface meteorological stations."
and not according to this other research
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/science.fu.2006c.pdf
tropospheric trends with a global mean of +0.20 K per decade.
>Those early satellite measurements were corrected as in the article you cite
I have doubts about this because the uncorrected sources were mentioned as showing pretty constant temperatures. I could not open the website you mentioned as the source.
To put this in perspective, even when using the uncorrected data (1998) this would not be enough to say there is no GW
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9755&page=21
The warming of surface temperature that has taken place during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real, and it is at a rate substantially larger than the average warming during the twentieth century.
>Yes. Try Google.
I understand that this was the only source that allowed you to claim there is currently no GW. The validity of this only source collapsed whereas there are numerous sources that underline the GW trend.
Cherry-picking a few isolated examples to counter a mass of studies won't do the trick.
Are you still calling Global warming a "myth" ?
>In the case of modeling it is a fundamental failure
This would be true if all the models were mostly wrong which remains to be proven. The IPCC panel mentions findings with probabilities. There is no 100% accuracy in climate study.
Thank you for the link
and the article concludes :
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
This is certainly good news. Now the bad ones
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080618143301.htm
New research suggests that ocean temperature and associated sea level increases between 1961 and 2003 were 50 percent larger than estimated in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Another nasty side effect of man made CO2 is Ocean acidification
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm
Ocean acidification is more rapid than ever in the history of the earth and if you look at the pCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) levels we have reached now, you have to go back 35 million years in time to find the equivalents
There must be a misunderstanding.
There are 2 main kinds of PV panels.
-Cristalline based ones (Mono or Poly) with efficiency factor of 14-18%
-Amorphous Silicon using thin film technolgies (Single, dual or triple junction) with efficiency factor around 6% and manufacturing prices up to 40% cheaper.
when choosing a panel, you either buy one or the other technology. there is no combination possible afaik.
Apparently the majority of the misunderstanding is on your part.
Tidester has simply shredded most of your assertions with logical, rational information which you continue to ignore. So much so that it begs the question, do you have some sort of financial interest involved here?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I think the average person on the street is starting to question the so-called consensus. There are a LOT of independent scientists that are not buying into the scam. There are a lot of leaders of major countries that are not buying it either. There are many leaders that signed on because they were convinced it was a legitimate cause. Even some people I consider somewhat bright have been fooled into believing.
I am not arguing for or against global warming. I am arguing against using hysteria to control the minds of the people. That is what has happened all across the World. I am also doing my part to use less fossil fuel and planting enough trees to absorb what I put out. I,m not going to go crazy and drive some little POC Prius to save a few gallons of fossil fuel for the Chinese to use. I'd rather plant 10 more trees.
Very concise and well put. I concur 100%.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The Prius has shown to be nothing if not a well-built car with high reliability. Every single survey of owners shows the satisfaction of the owners to be in the high 90s. Even in the UK where diesel is king, the Prius owners love their cars.
Back to your "control of the masses" theory.
I think that's a completely unfounded statement.
No one ever sat in a room in a secret meeting and said, "OK, we can use the fact that the Earf has been in a NATURAL warming cycle for the last 25 years and blame it on Mankind and start getting RICH off the idea !! We can CONTROL THEIR MINDS !!! HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE HE HA HA HA BA-HA HA !!!!"
Did they? Did that happen? If it did, please enlighten us as to who was in attendance, and who came up with the idea?
I don't think anyone who is pushing GW is channeling Dr. Evil and trying to take over the minds and money of the populace. It's just too outrageous a claim. This is not 1930, when stuff like that really DID happen.
I think if you take the facts in hand, a case can undoubtedly be made for human-enhanced warming. Whether or not EVERYONE believes that is true is irrelevant for now. All we need to know is that the POTENTIAL EXISTS for fossil fuel burning to be a contributing factor to warming and that should be enough for people to start seriously lowering their own carbon footprint, without spending their life savings to do it.
Once science develops enough to the point where these contributing factors can all be deciphered and we can know for sure what effect man has on the climate, then we will know and the proper actions can be decided upon by thinking people.
To just ignore the possibility and go on with "business as usual" is simply both misguided and short-sighted.
I don't understand. I was discussing PV panels technologies and replying to this...
>Tidester has simply shredded most of your assertions with logical, rational information which you continue to ignore
Did you really look at my posts ? I linked to quite a few studies already. What did I ignore ?
What was irrational from me ? Please help me pinpoint any case.
Tidested was pointing at some data and I provided some reference showing that this data is very questionable.
>So much so that it begs the question, do you have some sort of financial interest involved here?
Yes, very selfish interest. I hope to leave a sustainable earth to my children or at least not something too much degraded from now.
But apart questioning my good faith, I am waiting for valid arguments from your side. I won't ask if you have stakes in the petrol or the coal industry.
Of course we are in disagreement about the GW issues and its consequences.
I am really dubious about global conspiracies. Heck, If everything was going OK as many claim, why the hell would more and more people get into this? Why would more and more governments enact laws to lower CO2 output? As Avalon wrote, all the question is the role of human kind in the process, and bodies like IPCC are working on assessing that.
You can claim that GW does not smell good, but I don't see it smelling any worse than any other business. It is a pretty new activity, not mature yet.
>I am also doing my part to use less fossil fuel and planting enough trees to absorb what I put out.
Even if there is disagreement, you are doing your part to mitigate and that's the bottom line.
My view is that cars play a role in GW in the proportion of the CO2 rejected, but that solutions exist to lower emissions/fuel consumption and improve US's standard of living.
By all competing definitions, the homeless person is our ideal !!??
It is not safe in high crosswinds. That gets the POC sticker from me. The Honda Civic & Toyota Yaris are reliable from what I can tell. They rattle and are noisy on the highway. POC/POC. That should give you my opinion on many of the econoboxes being sold in the USA. Not that the Prius is economical except for gas.
No one ever sat in a room in a secret meeting and said
Tidester posted testimony from a NASA PHD that was told by the Clinton administration what he could & could not say about man made GW. He quit NASA to go into a University where freedom of speech is allowed. Dozens of scientists were denied a chance to voice their opinions and give their scientific data at the recent IPCC conference in Bali.
I don't think anyone who is pushing GW is channeling Dr. Evil and trying to take over the minds and money of the populace. It's just too outrageous a claim. This is not 1930, when stuff like that really DID happen.
If anything it is worse now than 1930. People believe the crap they hear on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the minor news at ABC,CBS & NBC. Unlike many countries the US still has some freedom of speech. So we get whatever the news guy happens to think. Go to the library and look what people are doing. They are checking their email on the free computers. The books barely get read. My wife checks out and reads 4-5 books per week. It is amazing how many were last checked out 10 or more years ago. We are overloaded with information from many sources. I would guess less than 25% is accurate or unbiased. That goes for all of the political and scientific sources.
Just because scientific information comes from NASA, UCLA, EPA, or CNN, does not make it fact. Remember we are still arguing over evolution of man from the monkeys. The scientific world is filled with theories. Many sound good. That does not make them FACTS. On man made GW, I just happen to believe the scientists that are not beholden to some government for their paychecks.
That is exactly what the GW cult wants for all of us. We walk the streets during the day picking up recyclable trash. Pee in the street and save on water. Most don't drive a car or at least not very far. Eat wasted food that is thrown out in the dumpsters. Use old newspapers to keep warm at night. Ride the bus when switching locations. The average homeless person is what Al Gore would like US all to be.
Too bad Al Gore, the homeless count is way down. They may have bought an old beater to drive. Oh no,
more GHG...... :sick:
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
The U.S. had 12% fewer homeless last year than in 2005, and the greatest decline occurred among those who chronically live on the streets or in emergency shelters, according to a federal report to be released Tuesday.
The number of people on the street or in emergency shelters on a single night in January, the month in which the tally was taken, fell from 763,010 in 2005 to 671,888 last year, the report says. Most were homeless temporarily. Among those who were chronically homeless, the number fell from 175,914 in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007.
"This reduction is the largest documented decrease in homelessness in our nation's history," says Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which coordinates federal efforts. He says it shows that the increase in housing units for the long-term homeless, funded by HUD and communities, is working.
My questions are:
Would the IPCC panel ever admit they distorted some of the studies?
They would not allow equal time to those that have data that refutes studies from the IPCC report?
How can you get an unbiased scientific report or study on Climate Change when ALL the scientists are working stiffs just trying to keep their cushy government, University or industry jobs?
Science has always been used by man to put forth a theory. Most of the time it is greed for money, status or power.
What makes you think that corrupting their science helps them keep their jobs?
Do you know of anyone who has ever been fired/terminated/had a grant cancelled because they disagreed with GW theory?
I tend to agree that something like that (getting fired for being against GW ) might have flown in the Clinton/Gore era might have flown.
But the Bush Administration has never fully accepted GW as fact. It was just not too long ago that Bush even halfway agreed with the GW theory.
As late as 2004, NASA scientists were blasting Bush about his refusal to adhere to GW data they presented.
So if NASA is presenting science in opposition to what their Boss believes, which they ARE and have been, then please explain to me how is that capitulating to keep their jobs?
So even now, Bush again is dismissing GW theory.
Global warming Bush rejects laws for emissions
White House makes EPA revise findings; punts solution to next president
By Dina Cappiello, Associated Press
Saturday, July 12, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, dismissing the recommendations of its top experts, rejected regulating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming Friday, saying it would cripple the U.S. economy.
In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection Agency made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health or welfare, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.The White House on Thursday rejected the EPA's suggestion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change. The EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with global warming.
"If our nation is truly serious about regulating greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job," EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told reporters. "It is really at the feet of Congress."
White House press secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush is committed to further reductions but that there is a "right way and a wrong way to deal with climate change."
In a setback for Bush, the Supreme Court ruled last year that the government had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. Bush has consistently opposed doing that.
Congress hasn't found the will to do much about the problem either. Supporters of regulating greenhouse gases could get only 48 votes in the 100-member Senate last month. The House has held several hearings on the problem but no votes on any bill addressing it. Both major presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have endorsed variations of the approach rejected by the Senate.
In its voluminous document, the EPA laid out a buffet of options on how to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, ships, trains, power plants, factories and refineries. On Friday, Johnson called the proposals drafted by his staff as "putting a square peg into a round hole" and he said moving forward would be irresponsible.
So, Gary, one more time: HOW exactly does a scientist corrupting his/her data and agreeing with GW theory HELP THEM KEEP THEIR JOBS in the Bush Administration?
I did not say those behind the man made GW theory would be fired. The Bush administration is much more tolerant of dissent than the previous administration. Fortunately Bush has not buckled to popular opinion based on flawed science. History will praise him for his unpopular stands against great odds.
The debate over anthropogenic — that is, human induced — climate change, is, in other words, just a bit more complicated than Al Gore suggested on "Oprah." Few books have captured this cognitive dissonance as well as "The Deniers," Mr. Solomon's essential, engrossing travelogue through the world of climate-change dissent.
In "The Deniers"' deniers are not the usual suspects paraded out by a media eager for Scopes Monkey Trial II: Flat Earthers' Revenge. They aren't blustery, ill-informed television pundits or slash-and-burn polemicists.
Rather, Mr. Solomon introduces us to legendary scientists with impeccable resumes and prestigious appointments at major universities and mainstream research institutes; thoughtful, serious professionals who, at their own professional peril, looked at one or another of the shibboleths of global warming alarmism — from the debunked "hockey stick" graphic and misread ice core samples to the amateurish or incorrect computer models and fear-mongering — and bravely refused to join the herd, profitable as that may be these days.
So who, exactly, has convened the conspiracy of silence Mr. Solomon is now attempting to shatter with "The Deniers?" Well, it's ... complicated. As the author would learn, many highly-qualified scientists who question even some small aspect of the global warming orthodoxy "don't want to be found at all and try very hard not to appear as dissenters. They have no wish to be called names in the press, or to lose their jobs, or to have their funding cut off as many deniers have."
Beyond the disturbing issue of self-censorship, however, stand those for whom the sexy business of saving the world is much too gratifying to bother with any credible contrarianism. Who wants to just live on an ever-changing planet when one could be a mini-Zeus lording over all the elements? Thus, even a balanced scientific report can end up resembling a lost quatrain from the Book of Revelation in the hands of regulation-happy politicians and reporters with small paychecks and large hero complexes.
Never mind that, as Mr. Solomon demonstrates to great effect in the closing pages of "The Deniers," the practical effect of popular climate change regulation schemes will likely be old-growth forests in Third World countries felled to make way for profitable "carbon intensive plantations." ("Every time we buy carbon offsets to salve our consciences at flying in a jet," Mr. Solomon writes, "we are helping to dispossess someone, somewhere, by boosting the carbon credit value of their land.") Forget that bio-fuel fads are pricing the world's poor out of sustenance. Ignore the myriad other environmental problems that could be addressed with the resources eaten up to solve a problem that very well may not exist.
"The Deniers" is a timely, necessary antidote to a political and scientific discussion poisoned by hubristic groupthink and the kind of scorched earth (mis)behavior that inevitably arises when a movement becomes so uncritically wedded to the commandments of a pseudo-religion its adherents would rather destroy their adversaries than risk debating them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/06/the-climate-change-deniers/
By Vincent Gioia
I wondered how long it would take to come to this. We have had calls for the firing of scientists and other disbelievers of the religion of the day; can the inquisition and McCarthy-style hearings be far behind? I can hear it now - "Are you now or ever have been a denier of global warming caused by mankind?"
The first shot across the bow, so to speak, has been fired in England. Here is a report appearing in the British paper, The Guardian:
"Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists · 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008. James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
Hansen heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Imagine, global warming deniers are being accused of "crimes against humanity"; isn't that what [non-permissible content removed] perpetrators were charged with at the Nuremberg trials over the holocaust when six million Jews and others were killed?
To members of the cult-like religion spawned by Al Gore, failing to agree with their dogma is akin to committing one of the worst crimes in human history. Not only is disagreement sufficient to lose your job and be ostracized in your professional community, you should go to jail, or perhaps a gulag, for it.
Who are the people who are doing the cutting of the funding?
It's certainly no one within the Bush Administration cutting funding to a "denier" ( to use the word for explanation and not denigration. )
It's just the opposite in the Bush guvmint - he WANTS DENIERS !!!
So where are the purse strings which are being cut off?
Does anyone know of a link or a story that identifies a scientist or a project and WHO funded them and who cut them off when they went "off the company line" so to speak? THAT story I'd like to read.
Lotsa talk about it but no REAL CONCRETE examples of it ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Listened to Rush a little bit today on the radio. He was playing a 1992 interview with Ted Koppel that included Al Gore. Al was talking about how a hole in the ozone was developing over the United States. Which obviously hasn't happened, among many other statement Gore predicted would be happening in the future.
I use to be in the Gore camp, but the more I hear the words that come out of his mouth, the less credible and nuttier he seems to be.
And yet you hear not a peep about it in the mass media. I wonder why? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The question is "Are Automobiles the Major Cause of Global Warming?" Global warming hasn't been proved to even exist beyond normal variance. And automobiles certainly aren't a cause of something that doesn't even exist.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually, they ARE reporting it.
Houston Chronicle.
Los Angeles Times
HeraldNet in Washington state
San Francisco Chronicle
All those papers ran the story, one of them even TODAY.
Until fossil fuel burning has been eliminated as a possible contributor to the warming trend, then the contribution of the automobile to such warming cannot be eliminated.
I doesn't fit their agenda. They always talk about homeless while republicans are in charge and blame them. Then when Clinton took over the talk quieted down. When Bush was back in we started getting the sob stories and the blame game. Ideally we blame Bush for the homeless now and hope it helps elect the "change" guy or whatever he is; but with homelessness going down, how can we blame anyone?
Media sure can't say homelessness went down while a republican was in the White House!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That will never happen. There are to many variables to know for sure what affect man has on the climate. As mentioned before, a cautiuous and practical approach to protecting both business and the environment would be best for all the people on earf. I think the path we are on now: conservation, alternative fuel sources, pollution reduction is acceptable.