Global Warming:The Politics and Science of Fear

[dexter]

I do not pretend to have a view on Global warming. Yes, I believe that it is political propaganda to an extent. I believe the masses are convinced, not really understanding what they are convinced of, by what people have told them.

What I am sure of, though, is that switching to biofuels, corn oils, and other alternative energy sources of this nature in order to reduce CO2 emissions doesnt make sense to me. Is'nt it somewhat common knowledge that the burning of all these hydrocarbons result in CO2 emissions? I dont know the emissions coupled with the new corn oils and such, but I know that the standard 89 octane gasoline puts about 3 moles of CO2 into the atmosphere per gallon.

It seems more like a push against foreign oil than a push for a cleaner tomarrow.

I do agree with solar power, and wind energy to power our homes and cities, but it is not logical to power transportation.


Overall, I am skeptical about global warming. Largley because everyone believes it blindly. Nobody is really questioning it openly, much like nobody is questioning the anti-iraq war openly. maybe the reason the war isnt doing so well is because it has gotten nothing but negative support from the beginning? I don't know.

 

[Nickelodeon]

What I am sure of, though, is that switching to biofuels, corn oils, and other alternative energy sources of this nature in order to reduce CO2 emissions doesnt make sense to me. Is'nt it somewhat common knowledge that the burning of all these hydrocarbons result in CO2 emissions?

My understanding is that plants that are grown to produce the fuel, absorb C02 from the atmosphere in the first place.

 

[dexter]

Well then plant more plants. or better yet, grow a lot of cyanobacteria. Its what oxygenated the atmosphere before we got here, so why not do what works?

 

[URI]

Human spin, totally unimportant... spin guys spin.. and wait while your world burns

The end of the world is neigh and y'all are still debating whether global climate change is happening or not !

LOL

Typical, obviously y'all have no idea on the REAL science that is directing the future of humanity.

Personally I think WW111 will happen before anyone begins to care about the climate change.

The book "The Death of Clouds" projects the coming world situation.
I am sure no one here has any real idea what is going on... just rehash of spoon-fed info y'all "MUST KNOW", LOL

The real situation is far far worse that y'all could even imagine, and it is being actively hidden.

I return you to you date with fate

 

[iceaura]

We have a combination of cuases out there ranging from the sun's overactive cycle to our record breaking closness to the sun. However all these have been denied by so called "climatologists". They weren't even simulated in their models, just discounted entirely.
- - -
Oh and they do factor the sun in, but their model has it as a constant not a variable. It also does not include methane emission from fuana.

That is not so.

Some of the models included varying distance from the sun, and solar cycles (sunspots, etc),rather than average values.

Solar flux variance was the very first proposed factor for explaining climate change. Solar activity and the various orbital variances in tilt and distance were the very first explanations, the standard and orthodox explanations for ice ages etc. It was only when these factors failed to account for observed data (they predicted global cooling, for one thing) that other factors had to be considered and included in the models. And computers got faster, so more factors could be thrown in.

The idea that professional climatologists ignore solar flux is bizarre.

The current models also include methane, some of them - not only from fauna (and the Republican fucksticks have sure had a good time making jokes about liberal foolishness studying cow farts, btw) but also from thawing permafrost, rotting floodplain, heated swamps and paddies, and (the doomsday scenario) thawing methane clathrates on the ocean floor.

I was helping on methane studies in 1994, in the peat bogs of northern Minnesota, for input into climate change models.

The models have large uncertainties and many problems (nobody knows what to do with clouds, really) but they are not set up by idiots, and they are not set up to support a particular political agenda.

 

[madanthonywayne]

... Except Gore had been going on about climate change long before he ran for President.

When Al Gore was vice president, he said the United States should not sign the Kyoto treaty unless there is meaningful participation by the major developing nations. AL GORE HIMSELF was against the Kyoto treaty. Now all the sudden he needs an issue and he's Mr. Enviromentalist. Of course he's Mr. Hypocritical Enviromentalist who uses twenty times the energy the average American uses in just one of his mansions. Meanwhile the evil George Bush is "off the grid" and even recycling his rainwater!!!! If Al Gore actually believed any of this bullshit, he'd be doing more than talking. He'd take action, at least at his own damned house!!!!

You're woefully out of touch with the real world. I assume you live in one of the "fly over" states.

Really? Lots of people say they're for "the enviroment, but don't do shit about it (number one on that list, Al Gore). How many people have replaced all their incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents? A simple thing that actually saves you money while helping the enviroment (hint, I have.). How many people bitch every time gas goes up 10 cents a gallon? If you really support the enviroment, you should be asking for $10/gallon gas. That would cut down on emisions. But no one wants that. How many people car pool? Or ride bikes? How many walk to work? How many have gardens to grow their own food? How about supporting nuclear power? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!!!!! How about hydroelectric? IT KILLS FISH!!!!!!! How about windmills? IT RUINS THE VIEW OFF MY NANTUCKET MANSION!!!!!!

It's cool to say you're "for the enviroment" or maybe wear a tie died shirt on earth day, but when push comes to shove, nobody really gives a shit.

 

[iceaura]

If Al Gore actually believed any of this bullshit, he'd be doing more than talking. He'd take action, at least at his own damned house!!!!

Gore's house is, apparently (by claim), carbon neutral. He has walked the walk, pretty much.

And talking is action, if you're a politician.

I know maybe fifty people who have done all that you mention, there. Every one of them is a lefty. The righties all use the failures of others to excuse their own - and besides, if they didn't have fourwheelers they'd have no way to get out into the woods !

 

[madanthonywayne]

Gore's house is, apparently (by claim), carbon neutral. He has walked the walk, pretty much.

And talking is action, if you're a politician.

His claim is based on the fact that he buys "carbon offsets" from his own company. So Gore takes money from his left pocket and puts it in his right, then claims he's "carbon neutral".

What's the motto of enviromentalists? Reduce, reuse, recycle. Correct. Where does financial shenanigins come into play?

And talking isn't action, even for politicians. I'll agree they think it is as it is just about all they do. But that doesn't make it so.

 

[spidergoat]

None of us are really carbon neutral, I think that's Al Gore's whole point. He's the rock star that's getting us all to pay attention. He can't turn the battleship around with a wooden oar, it takes power.

 

[TW Scott]

That is not so.

Some of the models included varying distance from the sun, and solar cycles (sunspots, etc),rather than average values.

I've reviewed more than a score myself and NONE of them have. So either you are working on a progressive one, or more likely you are trying to cover your ass.

Solar flux variance was the very first proposed factor for explaining climate change. Solar activity and the various orbital variances in tilt and distance were the very first explanations, the standard and orthodox explanations for ice ages etc. It was only when these factors failed to account for observed data (they predicted global cooling, for one thing) that other factors had to be considered and included in the models. And computers got faster, so more factors could be thrown in.

I know about the models that came up with global cooling. Hell everyone does, they were touted as truth by some of the same experts today that are yelling "It's human beings fualt." We have been measuring temperature for loess than two hundred years. Using growth rings to try to determine temperate is a crap shoot as too many variables affect that.

The truth is that we don't have the data we need to make any sort of informed hypothesis. Hell, the Mars situation alone should tell us this. Anyone who says they know for 100% certain what is the cause, is flat out lying.

The idea that professional climatologists ignore solar flux is bizarre.

Comes straight from their mouths.

The models have large uncertainties and many problems (nobody knows what to do with clouds, really) but they are not set up by idiots, and they are not set up to support a particular political agenda.

I agree they are not idiots, but I aslo will state that it is voodoo science. they wanted a particular answer and got it. It takes damn smart people to make the dumbest mistakes.

 

[TW Scott]

My understanding is that plants that are grown to produce the fuel, absorb C02 from the atmosphere in the first place.

Corn is not the best CO2 absorber to tell the truth.

Besides with so many people in the world starving is it ethical to waste valuable crop land on making fuel.

 

[iceaura]

We have been measuring temperature for loess than two hundred years. [/quute] But we have weveral ways of determining temperature that go back much further, right?

Are you claiming that the whole temperature record is voodoo science?

So either you are working on a progressive one, or more likely you are trying to cover your ass.

The models taht the methane data were to be plugged into were just good for the last couple hundred years, and had some kind of provision for the eleven year sunspot cycle. But I didn't work on them, myself - secondhand info, you caught me.

The random science stuff I run into had an article a few months ago about incorporating global dimming (the recent discovery) into a climate model - I assumed from that changing solar flux could be incorporated into such models. Wrong?

The truth is that we don't have the data we need to make any sort of informed hypothesis.

Oh baloney. We've got data up the wazoo, especially biological, for a hypothesis. It's jsut a complex situation, is all. Illustration:

I know about the models that came up with global cooling. Hell everyone does, they were touted as truth by some of the same experts today that are yelling "It's human beings fualt."

And those models were pretty good, as far as they went, which was just solar flux considerations tuned to match the glaciations,and not checked by actual temp measurements. So we see why they started "yelling" when the temps came in ( Even Al Gore is a pretty quiet spoken, reasonable toned, non-hysterical kind of guy, and most scientific researchers even more so). The current measured warming is apparently fighting a solar flux cooling - it's bigger and faster than it appears, even, by all the evidence. And if this global dimming business checks out, bigger yet.

So we see that back when they wanted a different answer, they didn't get it - and adjusted accordingly. They seem willing to take whatever answers they get, and fit them - that's not voodoo, eh?

 

[guthrie]

I know about the models that came up with global cooling. Hell everyone does, they were touted as truth by some of the same experts today that are yelling "It's human beings fualt."

I'm not sure I've heard that one before. There was a guy who was claiming we were all going to freeze in the 70's, now he is saying global warming is lies. So, got any cites?

 

[madanthonywayne]

None of us are really carbon neutral, I think that's Al Gore's whole point. He's the rock star that's getting us all to pay attention. He can't turn the battleship around with a wooden oar, it takes power.

President Bush's ranch is off the grid, Gore's house uses twenty times the norm. He has no moral authority to ask anyone else to sacrifice when he can't even live within an order of magnitude of the norm. That's not even including all his travel by private jet.

Sounds like Orwells, "some animals are more equal than others". Gore deserves to live in a giant mansion sucking up enough power in a month to run most people's houses for a year. He's an enviromentalist!!!!! We must all bow and scrape before him and live in abject poverty so that he can show us the way!!!! All hail the great gore, king of do as I say, not as I do.

 

[spidergoat]

Bush made us spend billions on war and destruction for oil, so whatever the state of his ranch, it's not enough to make up for that.

Gore is using all his resources to fight global warming, so in the end he is doing far more than Bush or probably any one of us about the problem. (If he sold his mansion, someone else would still be operating it, so it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the environment)


Forget for a minute what Gore is consuming. Consider instead the ratio of consumption to activity.

Seriously, he's probably running the activities of a good-sized office out of his house.

If you consider what that office would consume if it was stand-alone, his personal footprint might be far more reasonable than raw figures suggest.

 

[James R]

President Bush's ranch is off the grid, Gore's house uses twenty times the norm. He has no moral authority to ask anyone else to sacrifice when he can't even live within an order of magnitude of the norm. That's not even including all his travel by private jet.

How silly. You're willing to sacrifice the planet's future because "I won't act until Al Gore acts!"

Convenient and easy for you. Maybe not so much for your children. I'm sure they'll thank you.

 

[madanthonywayne]

How silly. You're willing to sacrifice the planet's future because "I won't act until Al Gore acts!"

Convenient and easy for you. Maybe not so much for your children. I'm sure they'll thank you.

My children will be fine, so long as we don't destroy the economy with needless global warming remediation schemes.

The tide is turning. More and more scientists are changing their minds as more facts come in.
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

 

[URI]

>>> My children will be fine, >>>

Sorry to inform you, they most definitely will not be spared, and that goes for all of you, deniers and protagonists alike.

Y'all fail to look at the facts, it is just that simple.

Well go ahead and bury your heads, y'all still going to get frozen solid, if y'all can't pull together.

See "The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com

 

[crazykiare]

This is a problem to which all of us are going to be mere spectators and nothing can be done to prevent the problem. There are many who are not even aware of this problem and think this to be some kind of fad. Well I am in my late sixties and am on prescription drugs such as fosamax and others, but what about the young generation they are going to suffer badly.

 

[spidergoat]

Doing something about global warming is a win-win. Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution.