Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Since you throw a lot of exrement at the wall at one time to see if any will stick , Mr. Kuvasz, I will take your statements one at a time. Please be so good as to rebut them, if you can, ONE AT A TIME!!!

First of all,
And none of these have been done to any extent by your hero George Bush. He has stagnated or actually reduced in real dollars the US government's efforts to bring these things about. yes indeed, and an oil man.
wrong( and you do know -falsus in unum, falsus in omnia)

According to the Chicago Tribune--July 26, 2006, the world's first virtually pollution-free coal fired electric power plant will be built( perhaps in Illinois) and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL CONTRIBUTE 730 MILLION OF THE MONEY(TOTAL-930 MILLION-THE RESOT FROM ENERGY COMPANIES)

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:( and I am sorry to take things one at a time but your agrument is so rammbling and disconnected that it must be done that way)

I assume from your distortions you are willfully ignorant of the English language and common word usage. The "enormous uncertainties" I remarked and delineated upon included both manmade actions as well as the climate. As I said in May, we might be saved by massive volcanic activity screening the sunlight too, but it is not the kind of uncertainty anyone wants to count upon.

However, there is less uncertainty that if nothing is done now to reduce greenhouse gases, bad things will come upon us shortly. One can declare that little will be helped by grenhouse gas reductions over the next few decades, but no legitimate climatologist is uncertain that doing nothing helps the solve the problem for the next several generations. You are, of course, one who appears willing to gamble with the species and help murder tens of millions so you can drive your SUV. I am not.


An "enormous uncertainty" is clear. In fact the IPCC echoed your words. They said, IN THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE IPCC STUDY--

quote
Because there is TREMENDOUS UNCERTAINTY in current understanding of how the climate system varies natgurally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments

end of quote

THAT IS THE IPCC'S STATEMENT!!!



When my mother put me to bed when I was a child she told me about "bad things" in the night. I am now old enough that I do not believe in "bad things" unless they are explained thoroughly.

You say, Mr. Kuvasz( see above) that "bad things" will come upon us shortly. Can you tell us precisely what those "bad things" are and exactly what the circumstances will be that will cause those bad things?

I am not a scientist but I do think if I could change some of the parameters that go into some of the MODELS, I could really make things look bad.

I am taking things one at a time so that you can answer them one at a time. I am sorry but I find your writing style so convoluted and disorganized that I cannot follow your argument. Please answer one question at a time. Thank You.

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

However, there is less uncertainty that if nothing is done now to reduce greenhouse gases, bad things will come upon us shortly. One can declare that little will be helped by grenhouse gas reductions over the next few decades, but no legitimate climatologist is uncertain that doing nothing helps the solve the problem for the next several generations. You are, of course, one who appears willing to gamble with the species and help murder tens of millions so you can drive your SUV. I am not.

end of quote:

You may have convinced me, Mr. Kuvasz. I would not under and circumstances want to gamble with the species. That is why I favor sharpt reduction of Nuclear Arms, However, I do not( and perhaps you can give specific evidence and focused proof) that I would be gambling with the species and murder TENS OF MILLIONS.

PS- I drive a BMW to help Germany get out of its horrible Unemployment mess.

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Then you agree to push for and advocate a "Manhattan Project-like" effort for new, renewable, non-greenhouse energy sources, conservation, tax credits for wind, solar and fusion, tuition tax credits for the education of American scientists and engineers, loans to citizens to remodel their homes and businesses their facilities to reduce the usage of greenhouse energies. Doing this kick-starts entire industries that can produce new jobs, and increase domestic exports as the new technologies spread world-wide.

For Christ's sake, the United States of America sent men to the moon 37 years ago. We are the strongest, wealthiest nation ever to arise on Earth. We have the collective might and strength to do this. All we require is the will to do it. It is time for this nation to be great once more.

end of quote


I already referenced the clean power plant project. That is one step. I think that wind power may help if we can get lardo Ted Kennedy to agree tto put wind power in his precious Nantucket sound( you do know about that, I hope).

You say you are pro-nuclear power. SO AM I. And there are articles that describe safer Nuclear plants which will produce a great deal of electricity.

But, Mr. Kuvasz, can you reference Right Wing Groups who have adamantly opposed Nuclear Power? I am quite sure that you can't. Do you dare me to find many references which show that left wing environmentalist greenie organizations have fought Nuclear Power over and over?

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head. The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.
end of quote:

I read the book Utopia but dismissed it as fanciful. Would you please describe the "Collective, international actions" that you think can be put into place.

Do you think Kofi Annan could take a strong hand?( if we could persuade him and his son to keep their hands off the graft, of course).

You do not appear to have any idea concerning the effect that China and India( developing countries that were left out of the Kyoto Agreement) would have on the dreaded rise in CO2.

www.net.org/warming.docs/technology_and_emissions.pdf


The chart from the NEt clearly shows that by 2025, the CO2 emissions from China and India added together will be approximately 90% of US emissions.

Now, my question, Mr. Kuvasz is, If China and India continue to increase their emissions( You do know, of course that their emissions are growing rapidly) even if we put the best anti Co2 technology into play( which we should do) our efforts will be for naught>

Perhaps we could Nuke them into submission? I don't think the Chinese will sit still for anything which will slow down their development.

Do you have a solution?

PERHAPS, AS YOU MENTION--COLLECTIVE INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS( snicker)

Mr; Kuvasz wrote:

All I ever hear from you Republican and Conservative types is "Its too hard, it will cost us too much money, we can't do it" You jerks are just a bunch of fukking whiney-ass tittie babies. That is not the spirit that built this nation out of the wilderness. Where the hell is that can-do attitude Americans are known for? Fricking pussies.

**********************************************************

I agree., That is what I said when the Congress gave President Bush the authority to send troops to Iraq. My cousin was killed in theWTC and I am eagar for revenge on the Islamo Fascist Extremists who, like the crazy man in Iran, believe that first there will be an apolocalptic event and then the twelfth Imam will return and establish the Caliphate.

Somehow, the Islamo Fascist Extremists worry me more than the questionabl Models of the European left wing Sceintists.

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Most certainly the polar ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are melting faster than predicted even five years ago, so is that a sign making the models so erroneous that we should abandon them when they say the temperature will go up 0.33C per decade, or should we by more highly concerned? You method would be not to care at all and let your grandchildren worry about it.
end of quote

Wow! 0.33 per decade!! That must be some real good scenario.

But since Mr. Kuvasz is the master Enviromentalist, perhaps he can tell us why temperature went UP .10C per decade from 1910 to 1950 when the Co2 emissions only increased by One billion tons per year as compared to an increase in emissions of FIVE billion tons per year from 1950 to 2000.

A simple answer will do, Mr. Kuvasz. No need to obfuscate!!

Since Mr. Kuvasz has taken the high ground as Master Environmentalist, I ask him the following question.

If, the horrendous scenario of .33C per decade is possible, as you said, Mr. Kuvasz, DOES ALL OF THE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE GIVEN BY THE MODELS COME FROM ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES?

Is any of the increase, even one tenth of a percent, caused by NATURAL causes, such as Solar Activity?


If not, how is it PROVEN that other causes are not complicit and if they are complicit HOW ARE THE EFFECTS OF SOLAR ENERGY AS OPPOSED TO CO2 DISENTANGLED?

Please answer in 200 words or less..No obuscation, if you please>

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

You are not so dense as to consider this a problem that is like fixing a flat tire; you do it once its flat then drive on. In this case we have no spare tire. We have one planet, once its fukked up we are done.

end of quote

I agree and that is why it is necessary to spend more money to assure that a more immediate and deadly threat will not "fukk" up the world-The possession of Nuclear Weapons by the insane North Koreans and the religiously fanatic Iranians among others!

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head. The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.

end of quote.

I am suprised, I always heard that the Countries in the EU were very green and willing to sacrifice for the good of the world.

Are you telling me that they are as greedy and as materialistic as the USA? I don't believe it. I know if I asked Mr. Walter Hinteler whether he would agree to let the German Unemployment Rate go up from 11% to 13" when the heavy pollution of the coal fired power plants in Germany are closed down, HE WOULD AGREE--BECAUSE ALTHOUGH HE IS A GERMAN, HE IS ALSO A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD!!!

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Please, don't be stupid around me. Any scientific prediction of the future is based upon a model. What other method do you have in mind, reading sheep entrails?

end of quote

And because you are the enviromental genius, Mr. Kuvasz, you can clearly show us all what the problem is in the following paragraph about computer models. You can educate all of us who have read material you may consider to be nonsense..But if you think so, tell us why-Specifically please.

quote:

"An ideal computer model, however, would have to track five million parameters over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere,and incorporate all relevant interactions among land, sea, air, ice and vegitation. According to one researcher, such a model would demand ten million million degrees of freedom to solve, a computational impossibility on even the most advanced supercomputer>"

Kuvasz;

Keep in mind the principle or law of diminishing returns.

More illustrating the continually changing face of scientific opinion:

Global warming's effect on hurricane strength disputed in new report
The Associated Press
Posted July 28 2006, 4:09 PM EDT

MIAMI -- Scientists linking the increased strength of hurricanes over recent years to global warming have not accounted for outdated technology that may have underestimated storms' power decades ago, researchers said in a report published Friday.

The research by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center challenges two studies published last year by other respected climatologists.

One of the studies, by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was considered the first major research to challenge the belief that global warming's affect on hurricanes was too slight to accurately measure and that climate change likely won't substantially change tropical storms for decades.
MORE HERE. . . . .

Hurricane 'spike' debated
Early data spotty at best
BY CHRIS KRIDLER
FLORIDA TODAY

CAPE CANAVERAL - Studies that link a spike in hurricane intensity with global warming are spotting "artificial upward trends" because they rely on bad historical data, a paper suggested today in the journal Science.
MORE HERE. . . . .

From the related report - Global Warming Link to Hurricane Intensity Questioned
- in National Geographic:

I also wonder about the destructive force of tsunamis. That's about as scary as one can imagine from planet earth.

Words to live by there Bernard. Do you live by them?

You are pretty consistent in your misrepresentations.

right indeed, dear sumac.

btw massegetto, since you posted the following and its like repeatedly over the past several days and upon each reply I have kindly asked you to prove it, I will ask you one final time to prove where I stated such. you deserve no respect nor further replies from me to any of your obnoxious and stupid questions until you can prove with evidence you are not a goddamned liar.

As a matter of fact, I would like to see Bernie/massagatto show evidence where anybody on a2k wants the economy of the US destroyed.

These are the kind of ridiculous projections I often see from righties that are so moronic, it's a wonder more people don't challenge them on it.

Mr. Kuvasz. You are correct. You did not claim such a thing. Perhaps it was Parados or some one else but I must post a statement which I think is very pertinent. You may not believe it, but I DO.


**********************************************************

US denies lobbying against Kyoto

WASHINGTON (AFP) Dec 03, 2003
The White House on Wednesday denied trying to influence "in any way" other nations' decisions on whether to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.
US opposition to the pact remains unchanged, but "each nation will reach their own conclusions independently," spokesman Scott McClellan said, after Russia said it would not ratify the accord in its current form.

Asked about Moscow's decision, which dealt a severe blow to hopes for the agreement's ratification, McClellan replied: "It's not something that we have attempted to influence in any way in terms of other nations' decision-making."

President Vladimir Putin's top adviser on economic issues, Andrei Illarionov, said in Moscow Tuesday that "in its current form, the Kyoto Protocol places significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia."

His comments came as delegates from 180 countries met in Milan, Italy, to examine the future of the Kyoto accord, regarded by environmental protection groups as a key instrument in curbing global warming.

"Of course, in its present form, this protocol cannot be ratified," Illarionov said after Putin spoke to a gathering of Russian and European businessmen.

Asked whether Washington felt validated by the announcement, McClellan said US President George W. Bush had scrapped the protocol because it would cost the US economy millions of jobs billions of dollars.

"And as our economy is gathering steam, that's not the kind of approach we need to be taking for the American people," he said.

************************************************************


I don't know if millions of jobs billions of dollars mean wrecking the US economy to you. IT DOES TO ME!!

I did not find anyone on these threads who excoriated Vladmir Putin or Russia for their supposed "intransigence". I find that curious ---almost as if the "principled" opposition to the alleged "global warming" was based on vicious political partisanship instead of objective scientific concern.

************************************************************

Now, Please be so good as to respond to my posts.

They were made on Friday July 28, 2006 and are numbered

2175959

2175964

2175966
'
2175968

2175970

2175972

2175977

2175980

2175981

2175185

2175990


Please respond to each of my rebuttals of your post. In almost every case I quoted part of your post. I want to avoid the obfuscation and confusion that you created by lumping all of the complex questions together. If you choose not to do so, I do understand but then I must insist that my rebuttals remain unanswered and then they STAND.

Thank you, sir!!!

They are indeed scary. But humanity cannot influence the frequency of tsunamis through emissions and pollution, because they are caused by earthquakes under sea. Hence, tsunamis are irrelevant to discussions of global warming -- destructive as they are.