Do you think Global Cooling means that EVERY single location on Earth (sorry about your speech impediment) will be cooler this year than last year, and that EVERY year after this one will be cooler than the last one?
P.S. The main reason I don't believe that is because of the lack of existence of a phenomenon called/named "Global Cooling."
It's kind of like asking me if I believe Batman can solve all the crime in NYC - the answer would be "No, because Batman is a created fantasy with ZERO basis in reality - just like something called "Global Cooling."
And I can already hear you saying "just as GW is a fantasy."
OK thanks. Since FINALLY someone answered, I can finally finish my point.
Since GW does not mean that every location on Earf every year will be hotter than the last, having a "cool summer in Anchorage" or a "cool summer in San Diego" means ZIP ZILCH NADA in determining if GW is a real phenomenon or not.
Those things are "regional CLIMATE events" and have nothing to do with the overall trends of global weather patterns.
In every year, there are always some regions and locales in the world which set hot or cold records for a season, regardless of the global weather trends and patterns.
Even if we end up having 500 years in a row with cooling or heating global weather trends, there will be SOME AREAS which defy the trendline every year.
So enough posts already about trying to poo-poo GW just because Location X or Location Y is having a "cool season." It has no correlation.
Thank you all for your patience in allowing me time to develop this conclusion in the most dramatic fashion.
I think every one anticipated what you were going to say and that is why I asked you my question. Since you agreed, just substitute global cooling for global warming in your last post and I will dramatically close with the following:
So enough posts already about trying to poo-poo GC just because Location X or Location Y is having a "warm season." It has no correlation.
Houdini1 says, "So enough posts already about trying to poo-poo GC just because Location X or Location Y is having a "warm season." It has no correlation. "
Nice effort but still a failed attempt to turn the tables.
There ARE NO POSTS saying "just because Location X is having a warm season that means GW is true."
On the contrary, there are several of them saying the same thing from the perspective opposite of mine. Would you like me to post links to them so you can see for yourself?
Yes, if you don't mind, please do some research and post a few of those.
I believe that I will forgo going back thru all these posts to prove my point. Just suffice it to say that IMO I have seen plenty of what I would call anecdotal references here that attempt to prove GW. If you think otherwise then so be it.
You cannot prove man made global warming and you never will be able to no matter how much more research you call for. Waste of time and resources.
houdini1 says, "You cannot prove man made global warming and you never will be able to no matter how much more research you call for."
I'm not AlGore. I'm not trying to do that first part. I do disagree that further study cannot "better define" man's role in global climate. I think it most certainly can, as our computers get more powerful and more data can be crunched.
My main personal objective is to help people understand that even if Man has very MINIMAL impact on the current warming trend, reducing each of our own carbon footprints does not hurt anything or anyone, and that doing so has far greater potential to be helpful that it might have to be harmful.
Rather than wasting time and effort chasing the dog's tail on global cooling/warming that's not related to CO2 generation..., I'm more concerned about the trash accumulating in the oceans in "plastic patches." The plastic and other trash collecting in certain areas of the ocean are a major problem and we can show it's related to mankind.
Also sunblocks are being washed off humans and are affecting the reefs and sea life. See recent issues of Discover.
These we can show are the result of humans. Where are you when we need you, Al Gore?
My main personal objective is to help people understand that even if Man has very MINIMAL impact on the current warming trend, reducing each of our own carbon footprints does not hurt anything or anyone, and that doing so has far greater potential to be helpful that it might have to be harmful.
Then you are preaching to the choir. How many people here do you think are wasteful just to be wasteful? How many of us do you think are not concerned with the environment? If nothing else, you should realize how cheap we are.
From looking at the posts you listed, you seriously need to develop a sense of humor so that you can tell when someone has their tongue firmly in their cheek.
Too bad, you would have gotten rich off of your passion for the environment. Problem is Al Gore has an agenda. It took him a few years to build his model for making money. Being that Bill Clinton did not want him around DC, he sent him all over the World spreading his alarmist theory. When the leaders of the World realized there was big money to be made they jumped on the GW bandwagon. Of course all the little minds would follow any Chicken Little idea.
If, man has anything to do with the earth getting warmer or cooler, there is little we can do to avoid it. Probably the biggest cause are the gigantic concrete and asphalt jungles we build and call cities. So the first thing would be to get everyone out of those gigantic heat generators and onto their own little plot of land out in the middle of Kansas or Oklahoma. Get up with the sun and go to bed with the sun. Grow what you like to eat and put a very small carbon footprint on the earth. Be sure and scoop up the horse poop.
If you liked Kyoto the thing you would do is raise everyone's utility bills to the point they cannot pay and they will be shut off. Shut down any electric generation system that uses carbon fuel for generation or manufacturing of additional generation equipment. Will the solar cell recoup in its lifetime the pollution caused in mfg?
Or you can do as the Chief Priest of the Global Warming Cult, and get a 100 foot house boat for the coming flood. Make your carbon footprint as large as the leader would be my advice.
My view is Al Gore has set back legitimate environmental concerns by about 50 years with his made up GW scam. We were just getting over all the hype from the media and whackos like Carl Sagan about a cooling trend. Later to be called "Global Cooling" to differentiate between it and the later scam.
Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference. However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.
My question. Following the war was the biggest boom in history from an industrial standpoint. Everyone wanted a new car, the coal fired generators were spewing massive amounts of GHG into the atmosphere. Yet it was cooling down the planet. Maybe you can explain that????
Agenda - A list or program of things to be done or considered.
Sounds like Al is goal oriented - I don't see the problem. It's not like he's hiding his agenda after all.
Per Jerry Brown, California has kept its per capita electrical consumption flat for the past 25 years. Interesting stat, and much of it accomplished through energy efficiency standards. (link).
Per capita is simple to explain. The AC and refrigerators are many times more efficient than 25 years ago. All as a result of manufacturers R&D. No tax money needed.
I thought Newt had some good ideas to stimulate our inventiveness. Recent example is the space plane that was awarded $10 million as first commercial plane to go into space and return. Prizes for inventions makes much more sense than giving money to people and companies to come up with a better mouse trap. Too easy to become complacent collecting a pay check with little or nothing to show for the money spent.
Newt one point Moonbeam Zero
Nothing wrong with Al Gore making money on books, movies and speaking engagements. It is scamming the public into believing a lie, that I despise him for. A lie he himself does not believe. If I believe that running into a bridge will kill me I will avoid doing that. If I believe my carbon footprint is going to be the demise of civilization, I will decrease it not keep adding to it.
Gary says, "Everyone wanted a new car, the coal fired generators were spewing massive amounts of GHG into the atmosphere. Yet it was cooling down the planet. Maybe you can explain that????"
To clarify: Are you saying the GHG was playing a part in "cooling" the planet?
"...The plastic and other trash collecting in certain areas of the ocean are a major problem..."
Don't worry somebody will figure a way to build condos on those floating piles and call it 360 degree ocean view property.
I have lost some respect for Discover recently. They have taken a decidedly left leaning/"Bush is evil" slant. While I still enjoy reading the magazine I take some of their doom and gloom stories with a grain of salt.
As for the sun tan lotion problem, I suspect it is run-off from Al Gore's boat.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"Federal efficiency standards took effect in 1993, requiring new refrigerators to be more efficient than ever before." Before the feds started regulating them, the only manufacturer paying attention to energy expenses was Sun Frost. Tougher regs kicked in in '01. Your tax dollars at work, 'cause the manufacturers aren't going to do it voluntarily.
Wiki says that residential home ACs weren't regulated before '06 and most of the older units use 30% more power than the new SEER 13 rated ones. If the manufacturers R&D was so hot, how come they have to be dragged screaming and kicking into making efficient use of the power their gizmos use?
"...Are you saying the GHG was playing a part in "cooling" the planet?"..."
I was watching a part of a PBS show on GW recently. Part of what they were talking about was the effect of fine particulates on climate.
It seems that when these fine particles float around water vapor attaches to them and forms more clouds and haze. This in turn reflects more sun light away from earth and counteracts at least in part any increased tempreture from GHG.
So reving up your SUV may be BOTH heating and cooling the planet.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
To clarify: Are you saying the GHG was playing a part in "cooling" the planet?
Absolutely not. I was making the point that all that GHG being spewed and no Man Made Global warming. Why the turn around. We are polluting less now than we were in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s. Yet the temperature was not rising. What changed the trend from cooling to warming? I believe types like Carl Sagan were saying that man was the cause of the cooling. It has to be one or the other. If cleaning up the air has caused GW. We should switch back to what we were doing prior to 1970. More coal heat and electric generation. Without all the scrubbers that cleaned the cooling emissions from the process.
Gary says, "We are polluting less now than we were in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s."
Maybe WE in the USA are polluting less, thanks to the EPA and clean air technology which has been "forced" upon us, but worldwide "we" have DEFINITELY increased GHG output since those days. Have you noticed the air problems in Bejing this week? ( Tell ME the EPA is not doing it's job now after seeing the competition. )
I know many of you here don't think rising CO2 levels have anything to do with the warming, and that is an issue which has not yet been settled to everyone's satisfaction. Scientists can't agree on that yet, although there are huge groups in each camp.
Regardless, I don't think anyone doubts that the total amount of worldwide pollution today exceeds anything in any previous decade due to sheer numbers.
Have you noticed the air problems in Bejing this week?
That is "old-school" air pollution - particulates in the air. CO2 is not a particulate, and is not what you are seeing in the air in China. What you are seeing in China is from coal (electricity), wood and charcoal (what millions and millions of Chinese cook on), and autos/trucks/buses/trains with little or no emissions equipment. The EPA has worked in this country on removing particulate pollution.
I agree that the total amount of GHG is greater today. However GHG has steadily gone up. While the climate has gone down and up and down and up. If GW is man made it should follow our GHG output. It does not.
The biggest obstacle is the emerging societies that have NO plan to slow down their GHG output. So why would we think we can make much difference. Last I read China has passed US as number one producer of GHG. Selling carbon credits is such a scam. All it says is we transfer our clean air to your column and you can go ahead and pollute as much as you can afford.
Gary says, "If GW is man made it should follow our GHG output. It does not"
As usual, it cannot be simplified to those terms, however much you would like it to be. That statement I quoted from you above would be true in only ONE SCENARIO: if GHG were the ONLY factor in GW. But it's not. It can be a contributing factor. And if it IS, then lowering the amount produced by mankind can have an effect.
And I see "carbon credit" sales as less of a "scam" and more of just a stupid idea. Can't be a "scam" unless people are being unknowingly ripped off.
As long as they are paying willingly, it's just them being STUPID.
And if it IS, then lowering the amount produced by mankind can have an effect.
But the reality is there is no way short of a miracle solution of free non-polluting energy that will bring that about. The amount of CO2 produced by man is going to continue to climb. There is no viable current alternative for all the people of the Earth. Only when the last of the coal, gas and oil are used will you get people to stop burning fuels and producing CO2 from it.
Whether you cut back on your production of CO2 matters little, as there are hundreds of people willing to hack open a pipeline and burn the fuel in crude pots and pans. And other 3rd world people will work in coal-fired plants, 7-days a week to keep from starving. Many people will desperately do whatever to keep alive and some sort of increased living standard.
You are absolutely correct. When the Olympics are over the Chinese will be back to building coal fired generators full time. The ones they converted to oil during the Olympics will be back on the much cheaper coal.
Now that the Oil bubble has burst, the investors will look for another way to make a quick buck. The dollar has gained ground faster than anyone thought possible. The Chinese have lifted their subsidy on gas so that was a wakeup call for those with a car. That cut the usage by 7%. SUV and PU sales are making up a little ground. Hybrid sales have fallen off.
And the latest poll says less people are concerned about GW than a year ago.
Back to business as usual. I made my first trip to Costco after 10 days. Seems there was more traffic. :sick: About 200 miles total for 3 vehicles in July. So about $50 for gas last month. I think it has cooled off with me driving less :shades:
kernick says, "Whether you cut back on your production of CO2 matters little, as there are hundreds of people willing to hack open a pipeline and burn the fuel in crude pots and pans."
Actually, that's a "cop out" that people have used for a while to downplay ANY type of conservation. And it's completely UNTRUE to say that, regardless of how logical and common-sensical you might think it to be.
Why? Because every ounce of fossil fuel I DON'T burn does not get burned. I could have used it, but did not. Therefore it technically does not get burned. Any CO2 that YOU burn was YOUR piece of the pie. Just because you ate your pie didn't mean MY pie suddenly ate itself, does it?
Someone else might waste an equal amount to the amount I saved, but that does not "cancel me out" because I did my part in reducing the demand already. Which is better: having TWO people wasting electricity, or having one conserving and one wasting?
Looking at it from a direct electricity example: If I use 1500 less kilowatt hours this year, that's 1500 less that the electric company had to generate. That savings is real. They ACTUALLY DID NOT BURN the coal for that 1500 kw because the demand was not there for it. Regardless if someone in China wasted 1500 kwh - his use had no relationship to my lack of use.
I can hear you now saying: "In the END GAME, it will all get burned anyway." And that is true, it will. But the longer we can POSTPONE the burning, the more time we give technology and smart people to come up with ways to dissipate and eliminate the waste exhaust.
The benefits of energy conservation are countless and concrete.
Reducing our demand means fewer future power plants can be built, saving a lot of energy and resources right there.
Conservation reduces the effect that foreign powers can have on our political decisions regarding foreign resources. ( You think we would put up with the Saudis high oil prices and their oppressive society and their human rights abuses unless they had us by the cajones regarding oil ??? )
If cities and towns use less fuel, less of our tax dollars go to wasted electricity. Fuel price spikes are felt far less in city fleets if their usage is way down. I like my taxes to be spent on important stuff, not wasted stuff.
Companies which use less electricity have more money to put back into the company and the employees, which strengthens the economy and helps keep inflation and unemployment lower.
Saying "anything I conserve will just be wasted by someone else" is a poor excuse and just shows someone is being too lazy to do it themselves so they try to come up with a cute retort.
Someone else might waste an equal amount to the amount I saved, but that does not "cancel me out" because I did my part in reducing the demand already.
Oh yes it does. That is the basis for carbon credits. You want to spew a ton less CO2 and Kernick wants to spew a ton more CO2. Kernick gives you money for your carbon credit and spews to his hearts content.
You think we would put up with the Saudis high oil prices and their oppressive society and their human rights abuses unless they had us by the cajones regarding oil ???
Again, yes we would. We do not stop buying trinkets from China that has a horrible human rights record. We set up huge centers in India for tech support, a country that may be one of the worst for human rights. After all they sell their 12 year old daughters into the rich Saudi harems. We have a history of looking the other way when we are making money or want something a country wants. We are associated with the UN that allows dozens of countries with human rights violations to sit next to us and make vital decisions about human rights. We have ex presidents traveling the world over making deals for big time entrepreneurs with countries that have atrocious human rights violations. Saudi is no Prince of a country. It is one of many that we deal with that could clean up their act. I would not hold my breath. Expect things to get worse along the lines of human rights. Especially if these 3rd world countries are forced into some kind of Kyoto type plan.
Gary says, "You want to spew a ton less CO2 and Kernick wants to spew a ton more CO2. Kernick gives you money for your carbon credit and spews to his hearts content. "
That applies only in a world where Carbon Credits have validity. I don't live in that world.
( And it still does not cancel me out, because the act of conserving has already been done by me. )
Let's carry this one step further. We have a homeless guy that has a carbon footprint the size of a candy wrapper. Never even rides the bus. Lives near the dumpster he feeds from. All of a sudden he has carbon credits to sell. You on the other hand feel you have to keep your home at 85 degrees when it is 110 in the shade. You are a carbon glutton compared to our homeless fellow. So you get to pay. How do you justify to the carbon police your need for AC? Or a refrigerator, washer, dryer, stove and lord forbid you have a dishwasher. The carbon spewer at the top.
You by comparison are the wealthy one they will target. Why, because you are middle class. Look at how taxes are determined. They always make them so the middle class gets dinged. This whole GW scam from its inception is a plan to extract more tax from you and I. No doubt in my mind.
Why? Because every ounce of fossil fuel I DON'T burn does not get burned. I could have used it, but did not. Therefore it technically does not get burned. Any CO2 that YOU burn was YOUR piece of the pie. Just because you ate your pie didn't mean MY pie suddenly ate itself, does it?
Here try and look at it this way. The Earth is your 1 family car, and all the carbon fuel is represented by the gas in your car's tank. Now there's 4 of you in the family who drive and use the car. You decide you want to conserve your gas and drive less and barely touch the gas when you do. Your other 3 members of your family may or may not conserve. So what have you effectively done?
What you've done is stretch the gas in your tank that may have lasted 10 days to 11 days, or maybe 12 or 13. But it is the same situation in the end - the gas has all been burned.
In the infinite future ahead it is a pittance to discuss whether it was important that fossil fuels lasted until 2150, 2160, or 2200. For example - do any of us really care what century bronze or iron were used, what century the Egyptian empire collapsed. No. The future is not really going to care that larsb or gagrice or kernick, or the entire world in 2008 saved a little gasoline. It is so minutely insignificant in the scheme of things.
I'm not going to discuss the fantasy land of carbon credits. The whole idea is ludicrous and ridiculous.
I'll go JAIL before I pay any taxes or fees related to Guvmint Carbon Credits. The difference between you and me, Gary? You seem to REALLY think it might come to that, and I know that it won't.
See post 3615 for my response. I stand by that post as one of my best ever and it explains my feelings, beliefs and sentiments better than anything I could say now.
kernick says, "Let's all hug, hold our breathe so we don't emit CO2, and hum Kumbaya. "
Your post, however "tongue-in-cheek" it was, reminds me of another problem on the GW/green movement front.
There are a certain group of people who see ALL "green types" as "left-over hippies trying in vain to change the world with green extremism." The hatred that the people in the 1950s and 1960s had for anyone trying to "buck the system" still exists in certain people and shows up on this board on occasion.
That kind of stereotyping is a causing a problem for people like me who are in the "center" when it comes to the green movement - not too radical, not going overboard, but still wanting to push people to do better and SMARTER things with their resources.
People like me get pigeonholed into the same mentality as the extremists and in turn find it hard to be taken seriously. I struggle here just to have a simple point or two accepted. Sometimes it takes me 10 posts just to get a point made because of all the challenges that have NOTHING to do with ME but much to do with how the "extreme greenies" are perceived.
That's just not the way things ought to be. I should not have to deal with false perceptions of who I am just because I want people to think about their excessive waste and the ways they can improve the future by taking a few easy steps toward reducing their use of fossil fuels.
Think about that for a while, folks, and tell me I'm not right. I know some of you will try to.
People like me get pigeonholed into the same mentality as the extremists and in turn find it hard to be taken seriously
Being guilty by association is very common. Al Gore has little credibility with the anti GW group. T. Boone Pickins being an oil man has little credibility with the greenies. Yet T. Boone will probably accomplish more toward conservation of our fossil fuel than Al Gore and all his Hollywood green cronies. Just as Rev Wright will haunt Obama during this upcoming election. How do we know if he shares the same racist views the Rev Wright has? You hang out with drug dealers and you are guilty of being a druggie by association.
Gary says, "You hang out with drug dealers and you are guilty of being a druggie by association."
Which is wrong too. Don't judge the cover, judge the person.
There is a big difference between a meth dealer who sells to kids and a pot dealer who sells to his friends.
That differentiation is sometimes ignored by society and the courts. It should not be ignored by responsible, thinking persons.
Just as thinking people should recognize that difference, the difference between middle-of-the-road greenies and AlGore-types should also be recognized.
"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists." Salon
Now, extrapolate that to potshots about people on all sides of the issue and you further cloud the debate. Even in here. As the link puts it - "There's well-tested science and real-world observations. ... What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions."
A lot of corporations are getting guilty by association it seems.
"About 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies now have a board committee overseeing the environment"
..."According to the International Energy Agency, world oil demand in 2008 is expected to average 86.9 million barrels per day (b/d), an increase of 1%, or 900,000 b/d, above 2007. Demand growth is forecast to increase by 1.1% during both the third and fourth quarters of 2008 relative to the comparable 2007 periods. "...
This is really no secret but year over year growth of DEMAND continues to increase. Instead of 3-4% year over year, this years' oil prices did NOT cut back overall demand, but only has slowed demand GROWTH. The Kyoto Accord absolutely allows for higher than 1.1% year over year growth in demand. Anyone for $ 200. per barrel oil? :lemon:
Comments
Do you think Global Cooling means that EVERY single location on Earth (sorry about your speech impediment) will be cooler this year than last year, and that EVERY year after this one will be cooler than the last one?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
P.S. The main reason I don't believe that is because of the lack of existence of a phenomenon called/named "Global Cooling."
It's kind of like asking me if I believe Batman can solve all the crime in NYC - the answer would be "No, because Batman is a created fantasy with ZERO basis in reality - just like something called "Global Cooling."
And I can already hear you saying "just as GW is a fantasy."
The difference? GC really IS a fantasy.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Since GW does not mean that every location on Earf every year will be hotter than the last, having a "cool summer in Anchorage" or a "cool summer in San Diego" means ZIP ZILCH NADA in determining if GW is a real phenomenon or not.
Those things are "regional CLIMATE events" and have nothing to do with the overall trends of global weather patterns.
In every year, there are always some regions and locales in the world which set hot or cold records for a season, regardless of the global weather trends and patterns.
Even if we end up having 500 years in a row with cooling or heating global weather trends, there will be SOME AREAS which defy the trendline every year.
So enough posts already about trying to poo-poo GW just because Location X or Location Y is having a "cool season." It has no correlation.
Thank you all for your patience in allowing me time to develop this conclusion in the most dramatic fashion.
So enough posts already about trying to poo-poo GC just because Location X or Location Y is having a "warm season." It has no correlation.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Nice effort but still a failed attempt to turn the tables.
There ARE NO POSTS saying "just because Location X is having a warm season that means GW is true."
On the contrary, there are several of them saying the same thing from the perspective opposite of mine. Would you like me to post links to them so you can see for yourself?
I believe that I will forgo going back thru all these posts to prove my point. Just suffice it to say that IMO I have seen plenty of what I would call anecdotal references here that attempt to prove GW. If you think otherwise then so be it.
You cannot prove man made global warming and you never will be able to no matter how much more research you call for. Waste of time and resources.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm not AlGore. I'm not trying to do that first part. I do disagree that further study cannot "better define" man's role in global climate. I think it most certainly can, as our computers get more powerful and more data can be crunched.
My main personal objective is to help people understand that even if Man has very MINIMAL impact on the current warming trend, reducing each of our own carbon footprints does not hurt anything or anyone, and that doing so has far greater potential to be helpful that it might have to be harmful.
Also sunblocks are being washed off humans and are affecting the reefs and sea life. See recent issues of Discover.
These we can show are the result of humans. Where are you when we need you, Al Gore?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Then you are preaching to the choir. How many people here do you think are wasteful just to be wasteful? How many of us do you think are not concerned with the environment? If nothing else, you should realize how cheap we are.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I went back only to July 16th 2008 and found this many:
3180
3182
3398
3493
3540
3554
3563
3564
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Too bad, you would have gotten rich off of your passion for the environment. Problem is Al Gore has an agenda. It took him a few years to build his model for making money. Being that Bill Clinton did not want him around DC, he sent him all over the World spreading his alarmist theory. When the leaders of the World realized there was big money to be made they jumped on the GW bandwagon. Of course all the little minds would follow any Chicken Little idea.
If, man has anything to do with the earth getting warmer or cooler, there is little we can do to avoid it. Probably the biggest cause are the gigantic concrete and asphalt jungles we build and call cities. So the first thing would be to get everyone out of those gigantic heat generators and onto their own little plot of land out in the middle of Kansas or Oklahoma. Get up with the sun and go to bed with the sun. Grow what you like to eat and put a very small carbon footprint on the earth. Be sure and scoop up the horse poop.
If you liked Kyoto the thing you would do is raise everyone's utility bills to the point they cannot pay and they will be shut off. Shut down any electric generation system that uses carbon fuel for generation or manufacturing of additional generation equipment. Will the solar cell recoup in its lifetime the pollution caused in mfg?
Or you can do as the Chief Priest of the Global Warming Cult, and get a 100 foot house boat for the coming flood. Make your carbon footprint as large as the leader would be my advice.
My view is Al Gore has set back legitimate environmental concerns by about 50 years with his made up GW scam. We were just getting over all the hype from the media and whackos like Carl Sagan about a cooling trend. Later to be called "Global Cooling" to differentiate between it and the later scam.
Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference. However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.
My question. Following the war was the biggest boom in history from an industrial standpoint. Everyone wanted a new car, the coal fired generators were spewing massive amounts of GHG into the atmosphere. Yet it was cooling down the planet. Maybe you can explain that????
Sounds like Al is goal oriented - I don't see the problem. It's not like he's hiding his agenda after all.
Per Jerry Brown, California has kept its per capita electrical consumption flat for the past 25 years. Interesting stat, and much of it accomplished through energy efficiency standards. (link).
I thought Newt had some good ideas to stimulate our inventiveness. Recent example is the space plane that was awarded $10 million as first commercial plane to go into space and return. Prizes for inventions makes much more sense than giving money to people and companies to come up with a better mouse trap. Too easy to become complacent collecting a pay check with little or nothing to show for the money spent.
Newt one point
Moonbeam Zero
Nothing wrong with Al Gore making money on books, movies and speaking engagements. It is scamming the public into believing a lie, that I despise him for. A lie he himself does not believe. If I believe that running into a bridge will kill me I will avoid doing that. If I believe my carbon footprint is going to be the demise of civilization, I will decrease it not keep adding to it.
To clarify: Are you saying the GHG was playing a part in "cooling" the planet?
Don't worry somebody will figure a way to build condos on those floating piles and call it 360 degree ocean view property.
I have lost some respect for Discover recently. They have taken a decidedly left leaning/"Bush is evil" slant. While I still enjoy reading the magazine I take some of their doom and gloom stories with a grain of salt.
As for the sun tan lotion problem, I suspect it is run-off from Al Gore's boat.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"Federal efficiency standards took effect in 1993, requiring new refrigerators to be more efficient than ever before." Before the feds started regulating them, the only manufacturer paying attention to energy expenses was Sun Frost. Tougher regs kicked in in '01. Your tax dollars at work, 'cause the manufacturers aren't going to do it voluntarily.
Why Buy An Energy Efficient Refrigerator?
Wiki says that residential home ACs weren't regulated before '06 and most of the older units use 30% more power than the new SEER 13 rated ones. If the manufacturers R&D was so hot, how come they have to be dragged screaming and kicking into making efficient use of the power their gizmos use?
I was watching a part of a PBS show on GW recently. Part of what they were talking about was the effect of fine particulates on climate.
It seems that when these fine particles float around water vapor attaches to them and forms more clouds and haze. This in turn reflects more sun light away from earth and counteracts at least in part any increased tempreture from GHG.
So reving up your SUV may be BOTH heating and cooling the planet.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Absolutely not. I was making the point that all that GHG being spewed and no Man Made Global warming. Why the turn around. We are polluting less now than we were in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s. Yet the temperature was not rising. What changed the trend from cooling to warming? I believe types like Carl Sagan were saying that man was the cause of the cooling. It has to be one or the other. If cleaning up the air has caused GW. We should switch back to what we were doing prior to 1970. More coal heat and electric generation. Without all the scrubbers that cleaned the cooling emissions from the process.
Maybe WE in the USA are polluting less, thanks to the EPA and clean air technology which has been "forced" upon us, but worldwide "we" have DEFINITELY increased GHG output since those days. Have you noticed the air problems in Bejing this week? ( Tell ME the EPA is not doing it's job now after seeing the competition. )
I know many of you here don't think rising CO2 levels have anything to do with the warming, and that is an issue which has not yet been settled to everyone's satisfaction. Scientists can't agree on that yet, although there are huge groups in each camp.
Regardless, I don't think anyone doubts that the total amount of worldwide pollution today exceeds anything in any previous decade due to sheer numbers.
That is "old-school" air pollution - particulates in the air. CO2 is not a particulate, and is not what you are seeing in the air in China. What you are seeing in China is from coal (electricity), wood and charcoal (what millions and millions of Chinese cook on), and autos/trucks/buses/trains with little or no emissions equipment. The EPA has worked in this country on removing particulate pollution.
The biggest obstacle is the emerging societies that have NO plan to slow down their GHG output. So why would we think we can make much difference. Last I read China has passed US as number one producer of GHG. Selling carbon credits is such a scam. All it says is we transfer our clean air to your column and you can go ahead and pollute as much as you can afford.
As usual, it cannot be simplified to those terms, however much you would like it to be. That statement I quoted from you above would be true in only ONE SCENARIO: if GHG were the ONLY factor in GW. But it's not. It can be a contributing factor. And if it IS, then lowering the amount produced by mankind can have an effect.
And I see "carbon credit" sales as less of a "scam" and more of just a stupid idea. Can't be a "scam" unless people are being unknowingly ripped off.
As long as they are paying willingly, it's just them being STUPID.
But the reality is there is no way short of a miracle solution of free non-polluting energy that will bring that about. The amount of CO2 produced by man is going to continue to climb. There is no viable current alternative for all the people of the Earth. Only when the last of the coal, gas and oil are used will you get people to stop burning fuels and producing CO2 from it.
Whether you cut back on your production of CO2 matters little, as there are hundreds of people willing to hack open a pipeline and burn the fuel in crude pots and pans. And other 3rd world people will work in coal-fired plants, 7-days a week to keep from starving. Many people will desperately do whatever to keep alive and some sort of increased living standard.
Now that the Oil bubble has burst, the investors will look for another way to make a quick buck. The dollar has gained ground faster than anyone thought possible. The Chinese have lifted their subsidy on gas so that was a wakeup call for those with a car. That cut the usage by 7%. SUV and PU sales are making up a little ground. Hybrid sales have fallen off.
And the latest poll says less people are concerned about GW than a year ago.
Back to business as usual. I made my first trip to Costco after 10 days. Seems there was more traffic. :sick: About 200 miles total for 3 vehicles in July. So about $50 for gas last month. I think it has cooled off with me driving less :shades:
So you alone are doing more to save the planet than Nancy Pelosi and her whole Congress. Way to go.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Actually, that's a "cop out" that people have used for a while to downplay ANY type of conservation. And it's completely UNTRUE to say that, regardless of how logical and common-sensical you might think it to be.
Why? Because every ounce of fossil fuel I DON'T burn does not get burned. I could have used it, but did not. Therefore it technically does not get burned. Any CO2 that YOU burn was YOUR piece of the pie. Just because you ate your pie didn't mean MY pie suddenly ate itself, does it?
Someone else might waste an equal amount to the amount I saved, but that does not "cancel me out" because I did my part in reducing the demand already. Which is better: having TWO people wasting electricity, or having one conserving and one wasting?
Looking at it from a direct electricity example: If I use 1500 less kilowatt hours this year, that's 1500 less that the electric company had to generate. That savings is real. They ACTUALLY DID NOT BURN the coal for that 1500 kw because the demand was not there for it. Regardless if someone in China wasted 1500 kwh - his use had no relationship to my lack of use.
I can hear you now saying: "In the END GAME, it will all get burned anyway." And that is true, it will. But the longer we can POSTPONE the burning, the more time we give technology and smart people to come up with ways to dissipate and eliminate the waste exhaust.
The benefits of energy conservation are countless and concrete.
Reducing our demand means fewer future power plants can be built, saving a lot of energy and resources right there.
Conservation reduces the effect that foreign powers can have on our political decisions regarding foreign resources. ( You think we would put up with the Saudis high oil prices and their oppressive society and their human rights abuses unless they had us by the cajones regarding oil ??? )
If cities and towns use less fuel, less of our tax dollars go to wasted electricity. Fuel price spikes are felt far less in city fleets if their usage is way down. I like my taxes to be spent on important stuff, not wasted stuff.
Companies which use less electricity have more money to put back into the company and the employees, which strengthens the economy and helps keep inflation and unemployment lower.
Saying "anything I conserve will just be wasted by someone else" is a poor excuse and just shows someone is being too lazy to do it themselves so they try to come up with a cute retort.
Waste is not cute.
Oh yes it does. That is the basis for carbon credits. You want to spew a ton less CO2 and Kernick wants to spew a ton more CO2. Kernick gives you money for your carbon credit and spews to his hearts content.
You think we would put up with the Saudis high oil prices and their oppressive society and their human rights abuses unless they had us by the cajones regarding oil ???
Again, yes we would. We do not stop buying trinkets from China that has a horrible human rights record. We set up huge centers in India for tech support, a country that may be one of the worst for human rights. After all they sell their 12 year old daughters into the rich Saudi harems. We have a history of looking the other way when we are making money or want something a country wants. We are associated with the UN that allows dozens of countries with human rights violations to sit next to us and make vital decisions about human rights. We have ex presidents traveling the world over making deals for big time entrepreneurs with countries that have atrocious human rights violations. Saudi is no Prince of a country. It is one of many that we deal with that could clean up their act. I would not hold my breath. Expect things to get worse along the lines of human rights. Especially if these 3rd world countries are forced into some kind of Kyoto type plan.
That applies only in a world where Carbon Credits have validity. I don't live in that world.
( And it still does not cancel me out, because the act of conserving has already been done by me. )
You by comparison are the wealthy one they will target. Why, because you are middle class. Look at how taxes are determined. They always make them so the middle class gets dinged. This whole GW scam from its inception is a plan to extract more tax from you and I. No doubt in my mind.
Here try and look at it this way. The Earth is your 1 family car, and all the carbon fuel is represented by the gas in your car's tank. Now there's 4 of you in the family who drive and use the car. You decide you want to conserve your gas and drive less and barely touch the gas when you do. Your other 3 members of your family may or may not conserve. So what have you effectively done?
What you've done is stretch the gas in your tank that may have lasted 10 days to 11 days, or maybe 12 or 13. But it is the same situation in the end - the gas has all been burned.
In the infinite future ahead it is a pittance to discuss whether it was important that fossil fuels lasted until 2150, 2160, or 2200. For example - do any of us really care what century bronze or iron were used, what century the Egyptian empire collapsed. No. The future is not really going to care that larsb or gagrice or kernick, or the entire world in 2008 saved a little gasoline. It is so minutely insignificant in the scheme of things.
I'll go JAIL before I pay any taxes or fees related to Guvmint Carbon Credits. The difference between you and me, Gary? You seem to REALLY think it might come to that, and I know that it won't.
How about we get back to the weather now, eh?
Not entirely my fault after all.........
Otherwise people will raise H - E - double hockey sticks.
Your post, however "tongue-in-cheek" it was, reminds me of another problem on the GW/green movement front.
There are a certain group of people who see ALL "green types" as "left-over hippies trying in vain to change the world with green extremism." The hatred that the people in the 1950s and 1960s had for anyone trying to "buck the system" still exists in certain people and shows up on this board on occasion.
That kind of stereotyping is a causing a problem for people like me who are in the "center" when it comes to the green movement - not too radical, not going overboard, but still wanting to push people to do better and SMARTER things with their resources.
People like me get pigeonholed into the same mentality as the extremists and in turn find it hard to be taken seriously. I struggle here just to have a simple point or two accepted. Sometimes it takes me 10 posts just to get a point made because of all the challenges that have NOTHING to do with ME but much to do with how the "extreme greenies" are perceived.
That's just not the way things ought to be. I should not have to deal with false perceptions of who I am just because I want people to think about their excessive waste and the ways they can improve the future by taking a few easy steps toward reducing their use of fossil fuels.
Think about that for a while, folks, and tell me I'm not right. I know some of you will try to.
Being guilty by association is very common. Al Gore has little credibility with the anti GW group. T. Boone Pickins being an oil man has little credibility with the greenies. Yet T. Boone will probably accomplish more toward conservation of our fossil fuel than Al Gore and all his Hollywood green cronies. Just as Rev Wright will haunt Obama during this upcoming election. How do we know if he shares the same racist views the Rev Wright has? You hang out with drug dealers and you are guilty of being a druggie by association.
Which is wrong too. Don't judge the cover, judge the person.
There is a big difference between a meth dealer who sells to kids and a pot dealer who sells to his friends.
That differentiation is sometimes ignored by society and the courts. It should not be ignored by responsible, thinking persons.
Just as thinking people should recognize that difference, the difference between middle-of-the-road greenies and AlGore-types should also be recognized.
Now, extrapolate that to potshots about people on all sides of the issue and you further cloud the debate. Even in here. As the link puts it - "There's well-tested science and real-world observations. ... What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions."
A lot of corporations are getting guilty by association it seems.
"About 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies now have a board committee overseeing the environment"
Environmentalism sprouts up on corporate boards
link title
This is really no secret but year over year growth of DEMAND continues to increase. Instead of 3-4% year over year, this years' oil prices did NOT cut back overall demand, but only has slowed demand GROWTH. The Kyoto Accord absolutely allows for higher than 1.1% year over year growth in demand. Anyone for $ 200. per barrel oil? :lemon:
...and for an awful long term!!! :-)
I prefer "When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas."
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible