New scientific research refutes many of Gore's climate claims..

[Jager]

well i had a lot goign on so i missed quite a bit of this, but to thread necro a bit, my point above was that we as humans do not understand nearly what we think we do, and we as humans grab onto what we are told wayy to easily. (i tender the firs radio broadcast of war of the worlds as an example of the gullibility of humans to believe anything).

 

as far as humans doing damage to the enviroment, i 100% agree with ybe, we do, do i believe the co2 is a dangerous issue, yep, do i believe the co2 is directly connected with global warming? not exactly, we haev historical records of the middle ages being warmer then this, and the little ice age that ravaged greenalnd and killed of the vikings, both extremes as far as we are currently weather wise.

 

i believe we are stewards of the earth, its our job to protect it, and to limit our impact. I firmly believe that while the american style of life is not able to be recreated and is impossible for many countries we all have a duty to come up with ways to reduce our footprint on the earth. as a nation we should be funding other countries development of pollution controls. we as americans might be ok, but what about mexico city or the entire country of india? they have to wear gas masks the smog is so bad and the rivers are heavily polluted an d overcrowded, and while we may not be doing much damage, they certainly are to their part of the world, while we might not see the effects of that for a while, their cumulative pollution footprint does effect us and the world as a whole over time. is that global warming? idk but i know its bad news overall whether the world gets cooler or warmer.

 

i dont know what the solutions are i know alot of different ways are being looked at, but i feel very strongly that the alarmism isnt helping anything. all that does is allow for pointing of fingers and blaming of teh other side, while sidetracking actual progress.

[treesprite]

any thoughts on this?

 

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/global_green_to.html

[bigJPDC]

ya, I have a thought - why does everything, including a cat-5 hurricane hitting an underwater city and a bridge falling in Minnesota, wind up with a comment like this: "Stop firing million dollar cruise missiles an put it into projects like this Oh well maybe after GWB"

 

Do freak libs just troll every single news comment board on the entire Internet and post a slam on the President, no matter what the issue is?

 

Can anybody give an example when the same thing happened before 2000? Seriously. Please show me. Please show me one act of patriotism by a democrat. Please show me the pro-US, pro-troop rally or concert or anything. Please. Show me an election when democrats lost that wasn't followed by endless investigation and recount and hand wringing about corruption and unfair ballots. Please.

 

Remember the anti-war rally a couple of months ago where the demonstrators stormed the Capitol, fought the Capitol Police and spray painted 'Cops are pigs' on the Capitol steps? Do you think there was one person there that voted for Bush? Can you name the demonstration led by people that did vote for Bush where a national landmark was defaced? Please post here with the link to the news story.

 

When you do, I will be happy to go over the recently passed extension of the Presidents' powers on the terrorist eavesdropping program you want to impeach him over. LMAO.

[Rascal]

Please show me one act of patriotism by a democrat.

 

I understand your points, but I think you may have overstated your position a bit here.

 

Though I certainly don't think "party line" on every issue, I have been a registered democrat since I could vote (1990).

 

My "one act of patriotism":

 

SSgt. Sprano. USMC

Edited August 8, 2007 by Rascal

[jason the filter freak]

 

Do freak libs just troll every single news comment board on the entire Internet and post a slam on the President, no matter what the issue is?

 

Can anybody give an example when the same thing happened before 2000? Seriously. Please show me. Please show me one act of patriotism by a democrat. Please show me the pro-US, pro-troop rally or concert or anything. Please. Show me an election when democrats lost that wasn't followed by endless investigation and recount and hand wringing about corruption and unfair ballots. Please.

 

[treesprite]

this isn't a political debate, it's a debate over the existence of man-caused global warming, which is entangled with political agenda which must be sludged through to get to the scientific truth

[bigJPDC]

hey, I only had 8 minutes while the pork chops were on the grill, so I may have seemed a little gruff. My thoughts on that article was that the 13th 'talkback' post brought up cruise missiles and the president.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...bridge-collapse

 

IMO nobody could deny that the Earth is in a warming cycle, and of course that human existence and progress are a contributing cause, as well as a ton of other environmental factors.

 

How much carbon are this year's forest fires adding to the atmosphere, and how many hybrids would we have to buy just to get back to even? Who pays Al Gore for carbon offsets caused by forest fires - Smokey the Bear? Is global warming causing the forest fires, only in the US of course, that are contributing to global warming? What if we found out that the total global warming junk produced by the Earth was only 50% caused by man? Do we even know that figure?

 

Is there a way that we can cause global warming to only harm France? I think chardonnay grapes grow best in extreme heat, and that's my wife's favorite.

 

jp

[Rascal]

hey, I only had 8 minutes while the pork chops were on the grill, so I may have seemed a little gruff.

 

No hard feelings. I always appreciate a good rant. I just had to call you out on that one line.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...bridge-collapse

 

That IS ridiculous. For those on the humans-are-causing-global-warming side of the debate, whack-o statements like that do much more harm than good.

 

How much carbon are this year's forest fires adding to the atmosphere, and how many hybrids would we have to buy just to get back to even?

 

Do you think buying hybrids actually reduces total emissions. If anything, I think it may even increases them. The electricity to charge those batteries still has to come from somewhere. In this country, it primarily comes from burning fossil fuels doesn't it? I think the benefit of hybrids is that instead of the emissions adding to the local air pollution / smog problem in congested areas, they are concentrated more at a "point source" - usually in a more rural area. Globally I don't think it makes a difference. The reason I say it may even increase emissions is because there will be some efficiency losses along the way. Internal combustion engine to power a car = conversion of chemical energy (by burning fuel) --> mechanical energy. Using batteries to power a car = chemical energy --> mechanical energy (turbines) --> electrical energy. That electrical energy then must be moved against resistance through power lines over great distances and then used to charge the battery, and finally the electrical energy stored in the battery --> mechanical energy to move the car. Given that each of those conversions is less than 100% efficient, it seems to me it would take more fossil fuel per unit of mechanical energy to power a car on rechargeable batteries than it would to use a regular engine. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Of course, if we were generating electricity from nuclear power, the only atmospheric emission would be H20 . . .

 

IMO nobody could deny that the Earth is in a warming cycle, and of course that human existence and progress are a contributing cause, as well as a ton of other environmental factors.

 

I agree that nobody should be able to deny those things, but some still do. Extremists on both sides of this debate seem to pay very little attention to the objective data. I also agree that we don't really know how much of it is a result of human influence versus something that would be happening even if we were still living in caves and hadn't even discovered fire yet, but don't you think it makes sense to make at least some efforts to reduce the amount of human impact? Even if it is just one of many other factors, it is the only one we have any control over.

 

 

Is there a way that we can cause global warming to only harm France? I think chardonnay grapes grow best in extreme heat, and that's my wife's favorite.

 

Just as long as we don't do anything to harm the barley, malt and hops.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Rascal

[rsarvis]

Wow is all I have to say to some of these posts on here. It really scares me when some people take such a short-sighted approach. I also don't understand how you can say you are against pollution, but not against CO2 emissions. That is like saying you are against smoking, but love tobacco. I do not support any one figurehead on either side. In fact, I find it impossible to understand why their can be no middle ground. People on the extremes are at fault, and making this division so sharp only makes beneficial changes more difficult. I am not talking about global warming in specifics, but of the environment in general. There is such a disregard to the state of the natural world it is alarming. The thing that really annoys me is the simple things people to do that would help immensely, but they are too lazy to do. For example, every day I take the metro I walk out behind someone that throws their newspaper in the garbage. Nevermind they could walk 5 feet the other way to get to the recycling bin. Or the garbage bags I see filled with cans in the dumpsters. Is it really that hard to seperate recyclables. NYC discontinued their city's recycling program because it cost too much. Sometimes you have to prioritize what money is spent on. People fail to realize that we will run out of landfill space, then what are we going to do?

 

matt

I don't understand who is doing the pollution but us? Are the ducks and geese doing it somehow?

 

There is a middle ground, but part of the reason why there *appears* to be none is because many people assume, like you apparently do, that those who don't agree with them are "short-sighted" or "lazy," or in other discussions, stupid, corrupt, owned by the oil companies, etc., etc. So the rhetoric gets dumbed down pretty quickly.

 

People sometimes just disagree about what the problem is, what the best solution is, etc. Saying that they are short-sighted or lazy doesn't help much. And the middle ground is often something to the effect of, I don't know whom to believe, or it's hard to know what to think, so let's not rush into anything (especially not really poorly thought-out international treaties).

 

Some people rationally think some of the solutions can be worse than the cure, or at least create very bad problems of their own. E.g., recycling newspapers (at least back when I was in college) requires the use of highly toxic chemicals that then have to be disposed of. Maybe that is worth it, or maybe that has changed, but it at least shows that there are significant trade-offs that most people don't really state upfront, if at all; fuel efficiency standards lead to lighter cars which might lead to less safe cars (other things being equal). There was an initiative a while back in some community to reduce the use of disposable diapers (which create a substantial amount of garbage), but economists showed the program likely created worse pollution effects from the automobiles driving around to pick up the reuseable diapers for laundering. There are a thousand examples of the unintended consequences of well-meaning economic and environmental planners, in environmental policy and elsewhere. Which isn't to say nothing should be done; obviously the environment is underprotected generally. But the question is how to correct that. Some people just think that people like Al Gore are too precipitous and lacking in circumspection in their calls to action.

 

And then there's the whole set of folks who suggest that everyone who's skeptical of global warming claims are corrupted by oil money. It's kind of pathetic.

 

I really don't have much of an opinion on the whole matter, but I admittedly lean towards skepticism simply because of the hysterics and sanctimony involved in the whole movement.

 

 

Given that each of those conversions is less than 100% efficient, it seems to me it would take more fossil fuel per unit of mechanical energy to power a car on rechargeable batteries than it would to use a regular engine. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

I think you're right that one major aspect is where the pollution occurs (you can place a factory in "underpolluted" areas), but my guess is that you're wrong about this last part. My guess is that a million small car engines are going to be far less efficient than a factory producing an equivalent amount of energy (even with the additional amount needed to correct for the additional inefficiencies you mention). But let's hear from the experts.

 

this isn't a political debate, it's a debate over the existence of man-caused global warming, which is entangled with political agenda which must be sludged through to get to the scientific truth

 

Well, the part about what to do about global warming (assuming it exists and needs to be dealt with) is very political.

Edited August 8, 2007 by rsarvis

[bigJPDC]

No hard feelings. I always appreciate a good rant. I just had to call you out on that one line.

 

Of course, if we were generating electricity from nuclear power, the only atmospheric emission would be H20 . . .

 

but don't you think it makes sense to make at least some efforts to reduce the amount of human impact? Even if it is just one of many other factors, it is the only one we have any control over.

 

I agree 100% - excellent post Rascal!

[treesprite]

Well, the part about what to do about global warming (assuming it exists and needs to be dealt with) is very political.

 

Politics isn't what solves that type of a problem, it just happens to be the barrier or gateway for potential solutions to problems to be put into practice.

[rsarvis]

When government action is required, because there are negative externalities to people's behavior or because collective action problems make private action insufficient or unlikely, it's inherently political. If you can come up with a workable and effective solution that relies solely on private enterprise, that enough people will go along with, and that doesn't involve any rearrangement of our laws, regulations, rights, duties, etc., you will be a hero to all.

 

Maybe you and I have different definitions of what "politics" means; yours sounds entirely negative, but to me, politics includes the decision-making process on how best to, say, reduce and eventually eliminate the use of lead in gasoline.

 

Politics isn't what solves that type of a problem, it just happens to be the barrier or gateway for potential solutions to problems to be put into practice.

[treesprite]

When government action is required, because there are negative externalities to people's behavior or because collective action problems make private action insufficient or unlikely, it's inherently political. If you can come up with a workable and effective solution that relies solely on private enterprise, that enough people will go along with, and that doesn't involve any rearrangement of our laws, regulations, rights, duties, etc., you will be a hero to all.

 

Maybe you and I have different definitions of what "politics" means; yours sounds entirely negative, but to me, politics includes the decision-making process on how best to, say, reduce and eventually eliminate the use of lead in gasoline.

 

Getting legislation passed is a tough job, and doesn't work smoothly because politicians get in the way of real legislative process which has to be carried out by legislators, as opposed to people on strings who do basically nothing but squawk and say yes or no, and yet have the power to overrule everyone who makes sense be it one person or a whole nation.

 

I used to have bad opinions about Bush until my son reminded me that Bush isn't acting of his own volition.... I still have bad opinions of his commands and decisions, but they haven't been fully his. It's a real shame that these people can be bought, bribed, seduced, traded, and sold.

[bigJPDC]

what a terrible world you live in tree - do you really believe that?

[treesprite]

you mean about puppet politicians or something else? There need to be more free-thinkers, people whp don't bow down to particular interest groups, take everyone and all factors into consideration, and don't ignore, fabricate, or twist data, and consult with honest unbiased experts.

 

That's the whole problem with the global warming debate. How can the public know the best person to want to see in office regarding getting the problem adequately addressed, when there's so much conflicting information that it's impossible for most people to know what exactly adequate is?

 

There should not even be debate over scientific fact. Either it is or it isn't happening. The only thing politicians should be debating over is what to do if there is proof that human behavior is contributing to a process of global warming.

[bigJPDC]

I think you just killed this thread with whatever it was that those last two posts was trying to say. I get it - you hate the president.

 

Let's play a game, shall we? Let's make a list of all the things that are blamed on 'global warming' and then see if there is anything left. It has to be documented on any web site not leaning too far to the kook left.

 

I started this a few posts ago with the bridge collapsing in MN.

Here's #2 - twister in NYC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212020/

 

this should be fun. I saw on the news where the fires in Cali were blamed on global warming, even though a couple of years ago the floods caused by El Nino were also blamed on it. So if it rains or if it's dry - global warming!

 

Did anybody notice that there wasn't a single hurricane last year? Was that ever blamed on global warming?

 

hahahahaha

 

jp

[rsarvis]

you mean about puppet politicians or something else? There need to be more free-thinkers, people whp don't bow down to particular interest groups, take everyone and all factors into consideration, and don't ignore, fabricate, or twist data, and consult with honest unbiased experts.

 

That's the whole problem with the global warming debate. How can the public know the best person to want to see in office regarding getting the problem adequately addressed, when there's so much conflicting information that it's impossible for most people to know what exactly adequate is?

 

There should not even be debate over scientific fact. Either it is or it isn't happening. The only thing politicians should be debating over is what to do if there is proof that human behavior is contributing to a process of global warming.

 

One person's "special interest group" is another person's "grass-roots movement" etc. There are a lot of diverse interests in the country, they're going to disagree, sometimes to the point of gridlock; there's nothing wrong with that. Gridlock happens because there isn't sufficient agreement for a government-imposed one-size-fits-all regulation. You should be happy it works that way. Government isn't the only solution; usually it's not the best solution.

 

The "special interests" that are against you on particular issues aren't any worse or corrupt or greedy than the ones you're a part of. The fact that the policies you like don't get enacted doesn't mean other people are bought off, stupid, biased, liars, or puppets. The fact that legislation isn't being passed, or doesn't look like you'd like it to look, doesn't mean the politicians mucked it up or are in someone's pockets.

 

The idea that the legislative process should work "smoothly" but that "politicians" get in the way of "legislators" just doesn't make any sense, unless you think that the world is split into people who are "right" and who all agree (presumably you are among them) and everyone else is just corruptly trying to muck it all up.

[bigJPDC]

excellent post rsarvis. talk about hitting the nail on the head.

 

unless you think that the world is split into people who are "right" and who all agree (presumably you are among them) and everyone else is just corruptly trying to muck it all up.

Exactly.

[bigJPDC]

Good stuff here and also on junkscience.com. I love that name.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292810,00.html

 

What if you found out that the Earth really isn't warmer now than it was in the 30's? Would there still be global warming or would you just go back a couple of years and say that it's .21 degrees warmer now than it was in 2004, even if there really isn't a way to determine what the Earth's global temperature is in the first place?

 

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths

 

jp

[VicSkimmr]

I think you just killed this thread with whatever it was that those last two posts was trying to say. I get it - you hate the president.

 

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion after reading his post?

 

Puppet politicians can be found in both parties. In fact, most politicians fall under this category. They're always looking out for number 1, and they'll do and say whatever it takes for them to get re-elected.

 

And, being a conservative, I agree with treesprite. I also dislike our president and his ilk. In fact I find it insulting that they classify themselves as conservatives.

[bigJPDC]

are you the same person posting with a different screen name? Just checking.

jp

[VicSkimmr]

are you the same person posting with a different screen name? Just checking.

jp

 

Hardly, lol. I have seen people do that, however, just not on these boards.

[BeltwayBandit]

are you the same person posting with a different screen name? Just checking.

jp

 

No. Two different people posting from different places.