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

anton bonnier wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I read not all that long ago that the entire population of the world would fit into the State of Texas with a population density no higher than that of San Francisco.

I can understand what you are saying and it's most likely is quite true.. what you say. But, I would much prefer, in the future, to see science.. able to speed up the evolution of humanity, until we have a human race that is minimal in quantity and the highest of quality, well able to fit into the world with the minimal intrusion and enable all of earth to evolve without fear of extinction.

\

And a noble ambition that will be too. Considering the 'insurmountable' problems the world has thus overcome, and the unimaginable progress we have made in the last 100 years, I have no worries that the human will and the human mind, perhaps even with a bit of help from their Creator, will conceive ways to deal with the problems of the future as they have solved problems of the past even as our own evolution is accelerated in the decades, centuries, millenia.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Therefore much better to focus on improving quality of life rather than fret about preventing it.

So simply because people don't want to stop ******* without condoms, that a pretty stupid reason for all the pollution and crime and overcrowding and over-fishing and over-logging and destruction of forests and destruction of oceans and destruction of lakes and killing off of wild animals and too much car exhaust and too many traffic jams and over-whaling........

Just 'cause people like to **** without condoms, that's your best reason, how lame-ass.

0 Replies

And this just in from Bali. . . .

Quote:

Do the Rich Owe the Poor Climate Change Reparations?HERE

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Therefore much better to focus on improving quality of life rather than fret about preventing it.
So simply because people don't want to stop **** without condoms, that a pretty stupid reason for all the pollution and crime and overcrowding and over-fishing and over-logging and destruction of forests and destruction of oceans and destruction of lakes and killing off of wild animals and too much car exhaust and too many traffic jams and over-whaling........

Just 'cause people like to **** without condoms, that's your best reason, how lame-ass.

It isn't my 'reason'. It is the reality. And if you want to talk about pollution and crime and overcrowding and over fishing and over logging and yadda yadda yadda, I bet you get get a whole lot of activity if you start a thread addressing that. This one I believe is targeted at global warming.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It is the reality.

Bullshit it's only your opinion. If you had half a whit you'd recognize that global warming is a metaphor for stupid environmental risk.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It is the reality.
Bullshit it's only your opinion. If you had half a whit you'd recognize that global warming is a metaphor for stupid environmental risk.

Whatever Chumly. Merry Christmas to you too. Smile

0 Replies

Merry global warming metaphor Christmas!

0 Replies

Foxfire said..
And a noble ambition that will be too. Considering the 'insurmountable' problems the world has thus overcome, and the unimaginable progress we have made in the last 100 years, I have no worries that the human will and the human mind, perhaps even with a bit of help from their Creator, will conceive ways to deal with the problems of the future as they have solved problems of the past even as our own evolution is accelerated in the decades, centuries, millennia.

Actually I feel the things that have been "done" since my father was born in 1892 till he died in 1967 (75 years) were amazing (humans had landed on the moon for one) But if you look at the last 40 years, mankind has "done" a bloody site more (even supplied a heating satem for earth perhaps Embarrassed

) nope! don't think science will go any slower solving the human problem.

Stole this from the local paper...
I wanted to say merry Xmas and a happy new year. I ran it past my legal adviser.
This is what came back...

From us ('the wisher') to you the ('wishee')

Please accept without obligation,implied or implicit, my best wishes for an envviromenyally conscious, socially responsible,politically correc, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the summer/winter solstice holiday, pracctisedwithin the most enjoyable traditions of the religiose/ pusuation of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religiose/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religiose or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religions or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a financially successful personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated reconiton of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008 but with due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures and religions sects, and having regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religiose faith, choice of computer platform or sexual preference of the wishee.

Anton Bonnier

0 Replies

anton bonnier wrote:

Foxfire said..
And a noble ambition that will be too. Considering the 'insurmountable' problems the world has thus overcome, and the unimaginable progress we have made in the last 100 years, I have no worries that the human will and the human mind, perhaps even with a bit of help from their Creator, will conceive ways to deal with the problems of the future as they have solved problems of the past even as our own evolution is accelerated in the decades, centuries, millennia.

Actually I feel the things that have been "done" since my father was born in 1892 till he died in 1967 (75 years) were amazing (humans had landed on the moon for one) But if you look at the last 40 years, mankind has "done" a bloody site more (even supplied a heating satem for earth perhaps ) nope! don't think science will go any slower solving the human problem.

Stole this from the local paper...
I wanted to say merry Xmas and a happy new year. I ran it past my legal adviser.
This is what came back...

From us ('the wisher') to you the ('wishee')

Please accept without obligation,implied or implicit, my best wishes for an envviromenyally conscious, socially responsible,politically correc, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the summer/winter solstice holiday, pracctisedwithin the most enjoyable traditions of the religiose/ pusuation of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religiose/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religiose or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religions or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a financially successful personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated reconiton of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008 but with due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures and religions sects, and having regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religiose faith, choice of computer platform or sexual preference of the wishee.

And if you father passed away in 1967, you have since seen scientific advancements of which he had never dreamed.

The word goes too fast for my tastes any more, but they are exciting times nevertheless.

0 Replies

Carbon myths

Quote:

Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions

0 Replies

or even better leave the sequested carbon where it is. But of course that is far too painful. Like telling the addict he's going to get an ever reducing supply of heroin. Are we willing to face up to this? Of course not. Happy Christmas.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:

...
The point, again and obviously, is that greater credibility lies with someone who speaks against his personal interests rather than in alignment with his personal interests.
...

Who "speaks against his personal interests rather than in alignment with his personal interests"? How do you know?

We are faced with the "go along to get along" crowds and the "do not want to starve" crowds.

This is a great point, Ican. Who has the greater credibility? The one who stays on message backed up with reasonable and rational data to support it no matter who is paying him? Or the one who dutifully reports the message of whomever is paying (or extolling) him at the time?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:

...
The point, again and obviously, is that greater credibility lies with someone who speaks against his personal interests rather than in alignment with his personal interests.
...

Who "speaks against his personal interests rather than in alignment with his personal interests"? How do you know?

We are faced with the "go along to get along" crowds and the "do not want to starve" crowds.

This is a great point, Ican. Who has the greater credibility? The one who stays on message backed up with reasonable and rational data to support it no matter who is paying him? Or the one who dutifully reports the message of whomever is paying (or extolling) him at the time?

I suppose you chaps really have to be purposefully dull on corporate funding of these guys. You don't have any alternative. It really doesn't look good, does it?

Though not absolutely so, there is a high probability, which I continue to draw your attention to, that where we see groups, and scientists aligned with those groups, who forward the "we need more study" or "the science is unclear" (precisely what tobacco "argued", of course) we see funding by the oil, gas and energy industries. It is nearly a 1 to 1 relationship, isn't it? This group - 1.8 million from Exxon. That scientist - two hundred thousand from BP.

Of course, all of that is irrelevant to a certain sort of conservative (your sort, I suppose) because that sort of conservative holds that financial incentives do not influence behavior. That's why, your sort of conservative always argues, capitalism is foolish and misguided.

Sure, they get all that money but it moves them not and certainly is no measure of anything, certainly not credibility, even if they are saying all the same things that the corporations paying them are saying. That's just by chance.

The proper measure of their credibility is that - and this is important - they are in the tiny minority of scientific opinion. Imagine how emotionally tough this must be for them! Heroic. There's no other word.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, do you know how to access that which correctly lists the alleged pro and alleged con human-caused-GW scientists?" Until you do, I'll base my opinion on these facts:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
(1) From 1909 to 1998 average global temperature increased less than 8%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
(2) Solar activity increased 57% from 1900 to 2000.
(3) Solar sunspots have increased by a factor of 2.29 over the same time period.
(4) "The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago."

Just a question here about the 8%, ican, if that is based on temperature above freezing? ----I think it would be more accurate to calculate it as a percentage increase from the temperature above absolute zero.
Also, the solar activity, how does that calculate in terms of total solar output, I think it is more like a small fraction of 1% increase, but as has been posted here before, there are questions in regard to how different wavelengths affect cloud cover, etc. It has already been recognized that the sun by itself probably accounts for close to 0.3 degrees C, and it could easily be more depending on other unknown factors in play, as part of the solar cycle.

So, I agree with your conclusion, but just wondering about the numbers used.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:

...
The point, again and obviously, is that greater credibility lies with someone who speaks against his personal interests rather than in alignment with his personal interests.
...

Who "speaks against his personal interests rather than in alignment with his personal interests"? How do you know?

We are faced with the "go along to get along" crowds and the "do not want to starve" crowds.

This is a great point, Ican. Who has the greater credibility? The one who stays on message backed up with reasonable and rational data to support it no matter who is paying him? Or the one who dutifully reports the message of whomever is paying (or extolling) him at the time?

I suppose you chaps really have to be purposefully dull on corporate funding of these guys. You don't have any alternative. It really doesn't look good, does it?

Though not absolutely so, there is a high probability, which I continue to draw your attention to, that where we see groups, and scientists aligned with those groups, who forward the "we need more study" or "the science is unclear" (precisely what tobacco "argued", of course) we see funding by the oil, gas and energy industries. It is nearly a 1 to 1 relationship, isn't it? This group - 1.8 million from Exxon. That scientist - two hundred thousand from BP.

Of course, all of that is irrelevant to a certain sort of conservative (your sort, I suppose) because that sort of conservative holds that financial incentives do not influence behavior. That's why, your sort of conservative always argues, capitalism is foolish and misguided.

Sure, they get all that money but it moves them not and certainly is no measure of anything, certainly not credibility, even if they are saying all the same things that the corporations paying them are saying. That's just by chance.

The proper measure of their credibility is that - and this is important - they are in the tiny minority of scientific opinion. Imagine how emotionally tough this must be for them! Heroic. There's no other word.

I maintain that it is more suspect for a scientist to move from forum to forum changing his/her tune in each one than it is for somebody who has maintained a consistent message receiving funding from politically incorrect groups. It would seem that one might receive funding BECAUSE of their message while the other amends his/her message in order to receive funding.

I freely acknowledge you dislike the term (PC) and that you disagree with my point of view. So we might as well let it go at that rather than dissolve into an all too common 'did too, did not' circular argument.

0 Replies

Here's an interesting graph and attending commentary...

Quote:

Regulation Breeds Innovation

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/patents.JPG

Quote:

Brad Plumer takes a look at this chart of patents for sulfur dioxide-control technologies for electric power plants. Basically, despite years of R&D funding, what it took to really get the innovation train rolling was congressional regulations. Point being that, yes, it will require technological innovation to reduce carbon emissions enough to keep climate change under control, but you get that innovation by imposing the regulatory mandate. In short, cap and trade it and they will come.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/

0 Replies

My son is an engineering manager and designer at a large Texas oil refinery. Because of our existing energy policy requiring a dramatic shift to 'renewable' fuels, he recently designed and supervised the building of a 'beef and chicken fat refining' facility at their refinery that is going on line this week. Tyson Foods will be shipping their chicken fat to this facility as well as several beef packing plants that once sent their fat to be converted into things like soap. The process will not be particularly profitable for the oil company if it turns a profit at all and is being implemented strictly to meet the regulatory standards imposed.

So, much to the consternation of the humane society, PETA, and assorted other groups who are certain that birds and animals will now be raised specifically to slaughter for fuel, and the industries who will no longer be getting that fat to convert into other products, you may soon be burning beef and chicken fat in your automobile. It definitely is renewable; it will also be quite costly. I probably don't need to mention it won't significantly reduce the carbon footprint, however.

The regulations now in place will require much more of this kind of thing plus much more farmland now producing food will need to be converted to producing raw materials for ethanol.

And we can most likely see our fuel costs rise considerably if the oil companies are required to meet the standards currently in place.

Somewhere in here, it seems there is a point of diminishing returns.

0 Replies

I base my opinion that humans are not causing earth warming, and the sun is the primarily cause of earth warming, on the following facts:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
Similarly, carbon dioxide from a carbonated drink escapes much faster when the drink is not cooled because of the increased partial pressure of CO2 in higher temperatures. Partial pressure of CO2 in seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
(2) From 1909 to 1998 average global temperature increased less than 8%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
(3) Solar activity increased 57% from 1900 to 2000.
(4) Solar sunspots have increased by a factor of 2.29 over the same time period.
(5) "The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago."

On what facts do those who opine that the cause of earth warming is not primarily the sun, but is primarily human released CO2 and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere?

0 Replies

http://www.lmsal.com

0 Replies

I realize everyone has been wondering "Why hasn't McG chimed in yet?" so I will keep you waiting no longer...

Are people destroying the Earth? Yep.
Are we doing enough to help curb the destruction? Nope.
Will the Earth go on long after man has left? Yep.

There is no doubt at all that man is helping to destroy the environment. Polluted water, destruction of nature resources, wasteing what we have, etc...

But, man has the intelligence (well, some men) to use the resources provided and to make a more comfortable life for himself. Goes with being the top level predator, but with great power, comes great responsibility. Man has the responsibility to use the resources wisely, which we aren't doing.

I fully support the advancement of renewable power generation and more efficient transportation, etc. We should, and we owe it to our children, be doing more to conserve what we have.

Now, the GW alarmists out there take this to an extreme and any extremist, no matter the cause, is just asking for trouble. Global warming is not a bad thing. I think that's something most people don't understand. What exactly is so bad about global warming? Some ice melts and people have to move from their current beach homes? C'est la vie.

Plants are more efficient at higher CO2 levels. More plants means more food for animals. More plants make more O2. It's a good cycle. Life on Earth has been through much worse and we will survive this warming phase as we go through the normal terrestrial cycles. Someday, we will have another ice age. Alarmists will be talking about that then just as they do know.

So, in conclusion... Is global warming real? Sure is. Is a part of it man made? Yep. Can we do something about it? To an extent. Everything we do has an effect on it, but ruining our lives over something that has a global effect is not a good idea. All things in moderation.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know