The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Amanda]

Is that any shorter a time than super strong hefty sacks take to decompose? If you used the already existent grocery bags, then you wouldn't need to buy the garbage bags, which Hefty corp. wouldn't need to produce and unnecessarily consume the crude needed to produce those bags. Reusing what you have = not having to consume more.

Huai Dan, my apologies. I knew recycling grocery bags cut down on oil use. I was just saying it also contributes to pollution immensley. Once I heard grocery bags took 300 years to decompose, I started recycling them immediately.

I am an American citizen living and working in China.

I'm just curious to know if the general population there, thinks of Americans as global hogs sitting on our fat ass, exploiting everyone else and doing nothing? Hollywood is fantasy, providing a momentary escape. Hopefully capitalism will tend to seek the middle grounds, ending the 'keep up with the Jones' mentality, but keep the compassion that Americans seem to have to help others.

There's a fair contingent of foreigners here in Shanghai and in other major cities, but we Americans are outnumbered by the Japanese, French, and Australians. What's your point about this?

As far as countries fighting over the 'water hole', I think America is a strong proponent for a one world order, which seems inevitable, so this wouldn't be a country against country issue. Maybe the faster we are intermingled and like mindedness, we can integrate the best of all cultures and expedite solutions for this problem. I'm not totally convinced it is fuel emmissions or maybe a change of the axis or something... yet there is a problem.

I'm not so sure about that. The Chinese work pretty damn hard and pretty damn efficiently too. And at 1/6 to 1/3 the salary that my English-teaching ass makes 30 hours a week, if they're white collar. And again what's the point? I'm talking about consumption and said nothing about anyone's work ethic. My comment referred to those who want to say that a global climate catastrophe either won't happen or that it's inevitable.

CNN claimed last year or so, the average American worked more hours than any other country, only to be surpassed by Japan one year. I've also heard that Asians score the highest on our national testing scores. Although I applaud their effective lifestyle to reduce pollution and oil consumption, if your comments reflects the overall Chinese opinions of American's efforts to thwart pollution and oil consumption... I personally find that unfair.

 

I'm no expert on global warming, however, I remember a theory claiming if we could put our factories and fossil fuel emissions onto Mars, we could similate closely... our environment here on earth, there in a couple of centuries or so. Anyone else hear that? If that is true, then it certainly must be doing something to our climate... even if there is a natural cycle of the ice age or shifting axis...

 

As far as energy sources, how about magnetic power in some way? Some countries have been using it for trains along with another power source. Reducing friction helps minimizing fuel consumption. Maybe there is some way of harnassing the earth's magnetic power. Any efforts along this line? Also, why not use solar, wind, ocean waves, and other natural sources? Once we got the technology down, including economy of size vs needs too, it certainly would be cheap, nonpolluting, no waste.

[Ouroboros]

Huai Dan, is it true it takes about 300 years for a grocery bag to decompose? I agree there is pollution... and lots of it. I've seen places like Jakarta and even Mexico City that the pollution in the air and on the ground was astounding... escpecially compared to the US! Florida has bins given out to residents for recycling material that gets picked up once a week.

It depends, there are more environmental "friendly" plastics that decompose in a week or two (IIRC). I don't know if the biodegradable plastics are used here in US, but I know they started to use them in Sweden 15-20 years ago pretty much everywhere. The non-degradable plastic bags take up to 1000 years to break down (unless some new form of bacteria is mutated, then we'll have a new problem instead... There are some forms of bacteria that can produce this biodegradabla plastics: link)

[HuaiDan]

Wind and solar power depend heavily on existing petro-based technology to make component and control parts. They too also depend heavily on the heavy metals industries (major polluters in mining, refining and milling) for energy storage devices and transmission lines.

 

True that, but wouldn't that be a one time investment on the manufacturing of the component + maintenance vs. the constant supply of fossil fuels required to power a diesel or coal powered generator?

 

The amount of fossil fuels required to build a wind or hydroelectric generator + a car that would run off its power would be far less than the amount of fossil fuels required to power an internal combustion engine over its 5 or 10 year lifetime.

 

I'm also gonna go ahead here and split with the rest of the environmentalist movement and advocate nuclear power. But I think nuclear reactors should be built far, far underground, inside a mountain or somewhere far away from the water table as a safety measure in the event of a meltdown, or so they don't make such convenient targets in the event of an attack.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

The bad thing about wind power is no one wants them around thier homes. The large ones that is, not the small ones you find in an enviroconcious person's back yard. They are extremely loud and annoying. Also with the big wind technology, you just can't plop one anywhere. It requires a set criteria for optimal production, normally atop a small rise.

 

Solar power is inefficient and cost prohibitive right now.

 

One promising technology is ocean energy, either vertical axis turbines, thermal energy conversion, tidal fences, ocean current turbines, oscilationg water columns, tapchans, and pendulor devices.

 

The problems with most of these technologies is that they take longer to get back the money invested in their construction. There are no "quick buck" solutions. This just reinforces my belief that the government and private sector doesn't give a rats ass about global warming unless it helps someone get elected by helping declining economic sectors, is an immediate fix to our dependence on foreign oil, or makes a lot of money. No one is willing to make the investment.

 

I say screw it. Let's just keep going like we are and hopefully, one day, we can all become extinct together. Group hug?

[neverclear5]

The bad thing about wind power is no one wants them around thier homes. ........snip....They are extremely loud and annoying.

 

 

Have you ever been to a wind farm? They arn't actually noisy, It was a windy place (obviousely) and even when the wind was low I couldn't hear a thing. It's a side point though, as I'd just put them off the coast. You're right about the people not wanting them though, as they often try to put them all over tourism areas. Frankly I think they're beautiful but that's all in the eye of the beholder. When you ask people who've lived with them a while, they usually tell you that they forget they're even there sometimes.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

The bad thing about wind power is no one wants them around thier homes. ........snip....They are extremely loud and annoying.

 

 

Have you ever been to a wind farm? They arn't actually noisy, It was a windy place (obviousely) and even when the wind was low I couldn't hear a thing. It's a side point though, as I'd just put them off the coast. You're right about the people not wanting them though, as they often try to put them all over tourism areas. Frankly I think they're beautiful but that's all in the eye of the beholder. When you ask people who've lived with them a while, they usually tell you that they forget they're even there sometimes.

 

Yea, I have been around wind farms. All I heard was one loud assed hummmmmmmmmm.

 

Edit: though I'm sure I would get used to it. Hell, I sleep with a fan on.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Post a wee long and covers several thoughts:

 

Eastern Oregon and Washington States here in the uS are being planted in our (in)famous windy Columbia River Gorge with zillionsof windmills.

 

I have some shots taken of components being trucked through town on way to assembly sites. Will post if I can find them.

Blades for the tri-blade propeller is 65 feet long, each. Pieces of the tower go through one at a time, are 60 feet in length.

Generator and topside controller are trucked individually.

 

I figure 8 to 10 trucks, (freight trucks here in uS can carry 80k uS pounds normally. These rides with 'mill parts are rated with their trailers to 125k us pounds.) freighting the parts for what is now hundreds of windmills.

 

Assembly takes truck mounted cranes. Tying the 'mills together on their own power grid takes more specialized vehicles, more workers, more fuel.. Then all of this has to be tied again into the existing powergrid which provides transport to everywhere electricity is used. Tons of expensive hard wire and technology for "free power" expended.

 

Placement and recovery of costs is going to be measure in decades. This project is not a simple stop-gap measure to fix a sagging power grid.. Wind power simply is not consistant, it is totally dependent on a natural process that does not deliver "every day, every time" it is wanted.

 

Want the folks who may be ignorant of the costs in time, dinero and materials to think what it takes to "simply replace dino power with *X*".

 

For the good folks who insist that whatever answer they have is *the* answer, I invite them to start a thread and outlay their answers to the nagging and niggling fuel processes we are told we face.

 

 

For shits and giggles, just for the readers who think, desire, want "government to do SOMETHING!!!", read on:

 

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html

Belgium to impose tax on barbequing to fight global warming

12:27 | 03/ 04/ 2007

 

BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

 

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

 

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

 

Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.

 

Wow.. You sorrid BBQing fucking criminals! If you've got nothing to hide, why worry about helicopters flying about your residence with thermal scanners?

Don't sweat it that the Po-Po can't catch criminals because their financial assets are tied up in trying to catch backyard grillers with helos and scanners..

Fuckit, be a good little citizen and pay your geld to the State and not risk being caught with an unlicenced grill..

 

Sheeze..

 

kFL

[woodsmoke]

I'm also gonna go ahead here and split with the rest of the environmentalist movement and advocate nuclear power. But I think nuclear reactors should be built far, far underground, inside a mountain or somewhere far away from the water table as a safety measure in the event of a meltdown, or so they don't make such convenient targets in the event of an attack.

 

I didn't include nuclear energy in my last post pretty well only because it's not one of the naturally occurring clean, renewable energy sources. Having brought it up, though, I agree with you. My blood pressure is subjected to an awful lot of increase by living in central Utah near several nuclear disposal "hot spots." To hear the people who oppose having such disposal sites in the region, you'd think the government were trying to store armed, unstable and leaking atomic warheads in everyone's backyard. The truth is the levels of nuclear contamination to be found in most of this stuff is less dangerous than sitting too close to the TV.

 

Unfortunately, people hear "nuclear power" and immediately think "Chernobyl," not taking into account any of the flaws and problems involved which ultimately led up to the meltdown. I've met a positively unsettling amount of people who believe with all the conviction of the most rabid fundamentalist the nuclear plant at Chernobyl simply woke up one morning and decided to go critical. It's simple fear bred from ignorance.

 

woodster..

 

Point to ponder with "anything but petrochemicals" for fuel sources...

 

I don't disagree on any particular point. You're absolutely right that solar/wind/(insert alternative energy source here) isn't going to be the magic "cure" for fossil fuels. Probably because I'm a regular solicitor of NPR and National Geographic, I've always understood it to be rather obvious and inherent to the process that phasing out fossil fuels is going to require the cooperative use of all (clean and renewable) alternative energy sources available in a sort of "energy coalition."

 

You're also right about the costs and effort creating the infrastructure to make that renewable-generated power available is going to require. As HD pointed out, though, these wouldn't be ongoing costs and labor such as are generated by our current model; it would be a one time thing to set it all up, after which the system would power itself.

 

The main (only "good?") reason alternative energy is prohibitively expensive and not economically viable right now is the Powers That Be don't want to put their support behind it--both because (as Jeff pointed out) it wouldn't be immediately profitable (the myriad problems with focusing exclusively on maximizing short-term profits is a rant for another time) and the industry currently supplying everyone with energy is fighting tooth and nail and doing all within its power to prevent the realization of alternative energy's potential. It's not like changing where the energy comes from is going to decrease demand for it any, and once society finally gives the go-ahead and we seriously begin the transition from fossil fuels to renewables investment therein will be the surest thing the market has ever seen. Conversion to alternatives would be virtually risk-free and certain to turn out incredible profit.

 

It could happen, and it should happen. The only significant reason it's not is almost entirely attributable to the short-sighted and conservative nature of (modern) business and the fact the extremely powerful oil/gas/coal industry has equally an equally powerful lobby intentionally slowing and stopping it every step of the way.

[HuaiDan]

There's no doubt it takes a fossil fuel investment to break free from the FF dependency. Sounds absurdly ironic, I know. But this one-time investment pales in comparison , with regards to FF consumption, to a continuing supply of FF required to fuel a conventional power plant.

 

I can't even begin to think of where I would find those numbers, but given construction + 10 years of operation, the amount of FFs consumed for a conventional power plant per kilowatt would vastely outweigh that consumed for a wind farm. It just stands to reason.

[Lightbearer]

I was going to ask if anyone who supports the idea of man-made global warming on here actually watched if before they posted. I don't think most of you even did, seeing as how no one refuted any of the factual information and theories presented in the video yet.

 

Very timely that you posted this, LB. I'm not entirely convinced about the human aspect of global warming. Oh yeah, it's become an overnight mantra for some, and has elevated Al Gore almost to the status of a saint in the eyes of some, but I'm inclined to think we're seeing the cycles of nature at work. The most plausible explanation I've heard yet for the evidence of global warming is that global warming here is related to the cyclical activity of the sun. It's not a constant...solar radiation oscillates, which in turn causes the climate of the earth to cycle through periods of global warming and global cooling. And global cooling is far more dangerous for us than warming. (Can you say "Ice Age?") I've also heard that the period of global warming experienced in the middle ages led to the age of exploration and an unprecedented period of trade and prosperity culminating in the Renaissance. Prior to that, the preceding warming period led to the peak of the Roman Empire.

 

So it may not be so bad as the gloom crowd would have us believe, unless we allow the fanatics currently occupying the center stage to get the best of us and impose needless social and economic shackles on us. Doomsday has not arrived yet. For those who are worried about it, look before you leap. There's a lot of information out there that isn't making it to the evening news.

 

 

I'm glad you spoke up about it! It does seem to have instant over night appeal and put a failing politician back in the spot light, some are even calling for him to try and run again in 2008. seems kind of suscipious that someone who is going across country and speaking so passionately about saving the planet and asking us to do our part is not even doing their own!

 

The reason i'm bringing the political aspect of it up first is because of this:

 

Have you ever tried to have discussion with a creationist? It's no different than talking to the anti-global warming crowd. It's no use. I've given up trying. I've given up recycling because someone that doesn't know what they're talking about convinces ten others not to. I'm going to go out and get a gas guzzler to replace my high mpg car. I try to save gas and some fool goes out and buys a fleet of HumVees. The really bad stuff will happen in about 25 years. I'll be dead by then so the hell with it. Why bother?

 

[...]

 

There are far too many people out there that actually believe that this whole global warming fiasco is purely political. They absolutely cannot understand. Anything anyone says that might be slightly perceived as "environmental" is automatically seen by them as absolutely wrong. Like I said, it's like arguing with a creationist. They have the same mental blocks and complete ignorance of science. I'm not going to waste my time trying to do good for the future generations when it is just being undone by these people.

 

[...]

 

I am no expert. Those that deny climate change seem to be the experts. I suggest you address your questions to them. I've given up.

 

There you have it Piprus, you and I (Nivek and Burnedout too it seems) are like Creationists, with mental blocks and ignorant of science. But! Behold Al Gore! Not a scientist, yet apparently able to actually speak about global and daming us for our sins against the earth! Do people like Gore ever deal with crictism? No of course not!

 

Scientists who do speak out against man-made global warming receive death threats.

 

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

 

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

 

A few proponent scientists managed to speak up about it too.

 

This is from a transcript taking from Glenn Beck's show on CNN back in March.

 

EASTERBROOK: It`s disturbing as a scientist, because there`s definitely a move today in the direction that anybody who doesn`t sign on to CO2 as the cause of global warming is somehow either stupid or has some political reason or just some financial reason for saying that.

 

And it is true that scientists are being discouraged from putting out anything which is contrary to the CO2 version of global warming.

 

DOBBS: You say that CO2 doesn`t cause it?

 

EASTERBROOK: That`s correct. If you look at the last century, the warming is about one degree. But for the first 45 years, there was no rise in CO2, so you can`t blame half of it on CO2.

 

The big rise in CO2 was in 1945 to the present and during that time, during the first 30 years, the global climate actually got colder, when it should have been getting warmer. And it`s only in the last 30 years where global climates have warmed in concert with rise of CO2. Otherwise, CO2 is totally out of phase.

 

BECK: Patrick, what needs to happen for the hype to balance this out? I mean, how do you balance this from where we are right now?

 

MICHAEL: You have to stop the incentive for the hype. And unfortunately, my profession doesn`t seem to have any inclination to do this.

 

BECK: What`s the incentive for that?

 

MICHAEL: The incentive is $6.2 billion in funding a year. That`s a heck of a lot.

 

Think about the way things work here in Washington, D.C. Issues compete for each other for our money, which means they have to be presented in extremely shrill terms. If you don`t say, you know, if you don`t give us this money for global warming, your children are never going to grow up, you`re not going to get the money.

 

And guess what? Then the political process says, "Your children grew up. See, I saved you. Vote for me."

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/13/gb.01.html

 

It raises a different opinion about Global warming and it's causes as well as points out the people behind all this pro-man-made-global-warming rhetoric are more politicized then anything.

 

Alot of politics, emotional appeals, flat-out lies and death threats? Sounds more like the creationists to me.

 

It's funny that Dave and a few others just throw the "OMG YOUR IGNORANT OF SCIENCE AND LIKE A CREATIONIST!!!" bomb without actually giving any kind of intellectual response or refuting any arguments made be the anti-athroprogenic global warming crowd. When I hear creationists make a point I can usually see this someone either refute it (because they know they can) or I can find a source myself to check it out and see someone esle already refuting.

 

This isn't the case with environmentalism. They call you ignorant and run away if you question what they are saying, much more similiar to the creationists.

 

 

So I guess that's what it comes down too. The fact that man, even with all the industrial output is not even contributing more CO2 to the atmosphere then all the termites in the world combined. Not too mention the plant life, the animal life, the dead plant and animal life, the volcanoes, and the entire surface of the sea, all which produce more CO2 and pollutants alone then anything man puts out combined.

 

Nature itself is the biggest polluter. Plus, the science shows that the CO2/warming connection is the direct opposite, the earth gets warmer and more CO2 is produced, the earth doesn't get warmer when more CO2 is produced. There is a 800 year lag when the earth warms up and the larger amounts of CO2 appear. So CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

 

That's one of the issues brought up in the video -- no one has said anything about it and I guess everyone in this video is completely "ignorant of science."

 

So it may not be so bad as the gloom crowd would have us believe, unless we allow the fanatics currently occupying the center stage to get the best of us and impose needless social and economic shackles on us. Doomsday has not arrived yet. For those who are worried about it, look before you leap. There's a lot of information out there that isn't making it to the evening news.

 

The real problem is people allowing themselves to be place in social and economic shackles, wouldn't you agree?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Alot of politics, emotional appeals, flat-out lies and death threats? Sounds more like the creationists to me.

 

I think this shows that even without religion will still cling to an idea and defend it by any means necessary. Which begs the question, is religion the problem (sectarian violence, history of human rights abuses, etc.) or is it really just fanaticism? Is fanaticism really just a feeling of inadequacy where you must force others to believe what you want so that you don't feel 'outside' every one else? It probably all started on the playground.

 

The big rise in CO2 was in 1945 to the present and during that time, during the first 30 years, the global climate actually got colder, when it should have been getting warmer. And it`s only in the last 30 years where global climates have warmed in concert with rise of CO2. Otherwise, CO2 is totally out of phase.

 

So maybe they have it bass ackward and it is global cooling we should 'fear.' Regardless, he admits that the biggest rise is from 1945 to present and that is representative of the large growth and increase in the number of industrialized nations. So perhaps CO2 is having some effect. Regardless, there is still our dependency on foreign oil which, at least for the meantime, doesn't seem replaceable. That's all that Bush cares about anyway and honestly, that is all I care about too. I'm getting sick of the oil importers spiking my gas prices everytime someone in the Middle East farts, or some international situation gets out of had, or it freaking rains on a processing facility. Honestly, I think those big record profits the oil companies got last year and Bush coming out of his environmental closet this year are directly related. I think he told them to grab the money while you can and their will be no Federal investigation so you can keep supporting your greedy Republican bastards while next year we begin the long process of cutting your throats.

[Guest skeptic griggsy]

Most climate scientists support Gore, with some quibbling.The IPCC speaks for the scientific consensus.Others have accused the swindle documentary of taking words out of context,thereby distorting what a scientist states. This is akin to creationists chicanery.

[Lightbearer]

Most climate scientists support Gore, with some quibbling.The IPCC speaks for the scientific consensus.Others have accused the swindle documentary of taking words out of context,thereby distorting what a scientist states. This is akin to creationists chicanery.

 

 

Are you most climate scientists support Gore? The New York Times ran a story about scientists questioning Gore's facts and statements.

 

One particular Oceanographer was quoted saying his words were taken out of context. There are rumors circulating around the Internet that he was threatend with losing his job over this so he gave in and retracted his statements, however I think that's rather baseless and unprovable but not entirely far-fetched. Nothing was taken "out-of-context" because he was only talking about how the sea levels rose, no one said "he said this" or "he supports that" either.

 

Now the IPCC was purposely rewritten over and over to support the policy-makers agendas, and only with 700 scientists on staff. However, there is a petition signed by 17,000 scientists in fields ranging from climatology to geology to biology with related work to climate change stating skepticism on human effects on global warming.

[Lightbearer]

Allow me to point out some contradictions in your thinking Antlerman.

 

 

I almost hate to get into this discussion because it is nearly identical to the issues of "controversy" the Creationists exploit in showing the science of Evolution has flaws - so therefore the whole theory is "questionable". Bullshit! This exploitation of little "controversies" in the science does not negate it at all.

 

I'll say it once again the difference between skeptics and opponents of man-made global warming and the Creationst-type is the actually science behind it.

 

They've published in peer-reviewed studies, which Creationists have not. They've actually used factual information to back up there claim, which Creationists have not.

 

Still evolution is a natural thing, Creationists have a problem with this and don't attempt to debunk the natural occuring elements of evolution via natural selection.

 

These scientists say global warming and overall climate change is just as natural, their opponents haven't debunked that it's more natural and still insist with blind vigor that something else (Mankind; like Creationists insist on God) is behind this and is used to back up claims that force mankind to adhere to their perferred behavior.

 

Of course this is just religious scientists saying all this, so why bother? Rush Limbaugh is right, buy a Humvee and do nothing. Shit in the water you drink, it's only science that says it will make you sick, and they used to believe all sorts of nonsense, so why listen? Smoking, that's safe too. Science has been wrong before.

 

Here you make an assumption that only religious scientists are saying this without showing any kind of proof of it. Religious scientists may also saying global warming is man-made so what makes the difference? It's about the actualy data and information behind the theories, not the men and women.

 

Why are you bringing up Rush Limbaugh? I know he's against the idea of global warming but what relevancy does that have to the actual science and facts behind the theory that man is not responsible or soley to blame for the changing climate? Plus, whoever said shitting in your water is a good thing?! Again, what does this happen to do with the science saying man is not responsible or soley to blame for the changing climate?

 

You're babbling alot and drifting off the subject, again, witout refuting or showing any sources showing these people are actually wrong.

 

How many voices are enough for us to get past our emotional reaction against what's being said? Death? That's always a good motivator. How many people die from smoking? (Unless that's still a controversy in some people's mind). Seat belts? That's disputable too. On and on and on the examples of our natures is endless. We will bring about our own end by refusing to get a divorce from our marriage with denial.

 

One note, I don't agree with a fatalist attitude that my little efforts mean nothing when Limbaugh and idiots seem to negate everything I do. Everything counts, and setting an example of moderation and respect to the world we all live in is far more powerful in the long term that being a big fat, sloppy hog. It matters.

 

Dude what the hell are you talking about? Global warming fanatics sit here and scream about how everyone is going to die from their activities and this is not an appeal to emotion? Environmentalist use appeals to emotion in everything. They got everyone to be scared shitless of DDT and it's effects which were proven to be harmless and when it was banned 3 billion people died! Yet that number of death doesn't seem to phase the environmentalists one bit! Even with your own talk about impending death and bringing about our own doom is yet another great example of appeal to the emotional reaction!

 

 

Edit: I'm going to add these thoughts. There are 169 nations that have signed on the Kyoto treaty to reduce Carbon Emmissions, with the U.S. being one of the few who haven't, and amogst the top users of fossil fuel in the world (correlation anyone?). My point is are all those scientists and leaders of those 169 nations, idiots? Has some small fringe group with a web site or two really unraveled what's wrong with science and have The Truth , where all these world leaders are just "over-reacting"? How likely is that scenario?

 

Here's a quote from the National Science Academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America:

Climate change is real

 

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is

occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements

of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean

temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in

average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes

to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that

most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed

to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already

led to changes in the Earth's climate.

 

See whole statement here: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

 

Once again, scientists or politicians/priests know more about what's going on in the natural world? Whose voices carry more weight on these things? Who has a history of exploiting and distorting controversies for political ends?

 

Once again you blantaly contradict yourself and this one takes the cake. Your asking why certian nations have not inacted Kyoto and then talking about people exploiting and distorting controversies for political ends.

 

Do you realize that global warming hysteria is the biggest case of exploiting controversies for political ends?! Come on! Who's a major figure you can think of behind this global warming rhetoric? Al Gore! A politician!

 

Seriously, this gives leeway and consent for huge amounts of government invasion and regulatory power into our lives. Just recently the Supreme Court has made a decision that gives such power to the EPA.

 

Consider the implications of the court's ruling that the EPA can be sued in the courts to require it to regulate carbon dioxide as a "pollutant." Carbon dioxide is not an incidental byproduct of the generation of power. It is the unavoidable product of our most widely used fuels, fuels for which there is no practical alternative: oil, coal, natural gas. So to cap or reduce carbon dioxide emissions would require a vast regime of government controls on all levels, from giant factories down to backyard barbecues. To cap or reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to cap or reduce American prosperity.

 

This is one of the most sweeping and intrusive demands for government controls that I can recall. But the court is establishing a mechanism by which all of this can be imposed without legislation--sidestepping the need to convince the American people and secure their consent.

 

Seeing the popularity of Al Gore's traveling tent revival act, many of us have been preparing for a long and bruising public debate on global warming and a political battle royal over whether to impose a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. We weren't happy that we would have to fight this battle, but we could at least hope that an extended public debate would give us a chance to cool the global warming hysteria and point out the disastrous consequences of a "carbon tax" or the fuel-rationing scheme of "cap and trade."

 

 

 

Now, who do you, and everyone else here, think is using this controversy to further their own political agendas? Think hard about this one.

[Piprus]

Now, who do you, and everyone else here, think is using this controversy to further their own political agendas? Think hard about this one.

 

One doesn't need to think very hard, LB, but I think you already knew that. Mr. Gore has unearthed (pun intended) a real money maker for himself. I wish I could find a way to rake in six figures for a 30 minute speech. A $1300 a month electric bill for my mansion would seem insignificant indeed. Mr. Gore wanted to be President. He may just have found his avenue of entry into the White House. Did anyone really give a thought to Al Gore before his "Inconvenient Truth?"

 

Just yesterday I heard a professor of one of these climate related fields talk about global warming. It is real, no doubt about it. But global warming is also occurring on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and everywhere else in the solar system, because the sun is heating up. It does that. It doesn't emit its radiations at a constant rate. When it burns hotter, so do we. And see if you can pass laws outlawing that.

 

Bottom line for the common man, as always, is...beware. Governments love to become tyrannies, and people are more inclined to accept tyranny if they can be convinced that "it's for our own good".

[Dave]

I'll say it once again the difference between skeptics and opponents of man-made global warming and the Creationst-type is the actually science behind it.

That's also the same argument the Creationists use.

[qadeshet]

Now, who do you, and everyone else here, think is using this controversy to further their own political agendas? Think hard about this one.

 

One doesn't need to think very hard, LB, but I think you already knew that. Mr. Gore has unearthed (pun intended) a real money maker for himself. I wish I could find a way to rake in six figures for a 30 minute speech. A $1300 a month electric bill for my mansion would seem insignificant indeed. Mr. Gore wanted to be President. He may just have found his avenue of entry into the White House. Did anyone really give a thought to Al Gore before his "Inconvenient Truth?"

 

Al Gore became a multi millioniare thanks to his involvement with Google. He doesn't need the paltry sum he gets for speaking engagements. Attack the Science, if you can, not the messenger. Gore has been deeply commited to environmental issues for many years-long before he became VP. I will side with the 90% of the world's scientists who agree that climate change is a dangerous threat to mankind-until proven otherwise.

[Asimov]

I don't think it's conducive to any counter-argument to appeal to ridicule.

[Lightbearer]

I don't think it's conducive to any counter-argument to appeal to ridicule.

 

 

What?

[Amanda]

They worship nature, refuse to question anything that runs counter to what their own belief of man and nature.

 

Hey Burned Out, perhaps we could consider it in a way that man is part of nature, and relies on nature to live, and hopefully we can have a symbiotic relationship with nature?

[Dave]

Hey Burned Out, perhaps we could consider it in a way that man is part of nature, and relies on nature to live, and hopefully we can have a symbiotic relationship with nature?

That wold take humans, and humanity, out of a special center of attention and put us on par with the rest of nature. We would lose our special status.

[crazy-tiger]

seems kind of suscipious that someone who is going across country and speaking so passionately about saving the planet and asking us to do our part is not even doing their own!

A bit late coming into this, but that is a load of bull...

 

That property is historic so starts by costing a ton to run, is in the process of renovations making it a lot more energy-efficient, was banned by law until a week ago from putting Solar Panels on the roof, uses 100% "green" energy, contains offices for Gore's businesses and areas for bodyguards... something to do with him being a former VP. When you add up all the differences, it's a different story.

 

 

It's a familiar event around this site... one side, not agreeing with what someone says, takes a few facts and figures, leaves out all context, compares apples to oranges, and ends up being a smear campaign based on half-truths and omissions.

 

Anyone around here falling for that, or are we checking the facts first?

 

 

 

 

And before anyone says anything, I know it's gonna be hard to find other sources of power... I also know that being more efficient is a bloody good idea. (KWH/£ doubled over here last year... I do not like having to pay £100 a month just for electricity )

[Asimov]

I don't think it's conducive to any counter-argument to appeal to ridicule.

 

 

What?

 

 

Whether or not some arguments sound like creationism is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what you're presenting.

 

Personally, I don't care if Global Warming is man-made or natural. That doesn't mean we can't be more efficient, use better energy renewable sources and try to prevent as much damage as possible.

 

Reducing carbon emissions in all industrial countries is a good idea on its own.

[woodsmoke]

Exactly.

 

HauiDan's going to kiss you when he reads that.

[Guest skeptic griggsy]

That is for sure! Entrepreneurs can figure out how to overcome global warmomg and provide new energy sources , thereby not only helping in those ways but also in creating new jobs. These are opprtunites!