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

I responded giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to make sense and would surely have rewritten what you said if you had thought about it a little bit

He at least does not routinely misrepresent or rewrite what was said or add adjectives or unstated thoughts or motives when he comments. And that is why I tend to believe he is likely to be more honest in his presentation

Foxfyre wrote:

I responded giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to make sense and would surely have rewritten what you said if you had thought about it a little bit

Quote:

He at least does not routinely misrepresent or rewrite what was said or add adjectives or unstated thoughts or motives when he comments. And that is why I tend to believe he is likely to be more honest in his presentation

Your words certainly put your own honesty into question Foxfyre.

To say that the information Ican has been posting from that list is not 'science' is to stretch limits of credibility.

So why pray tell are you posting Inhofe's list? It isn't science.

Well if the guys on Inhofe's list are not scientists speaking from a scientific point of view, please define for us what would qualify as science in your eyes.

Having reading comprehension problems today Fox?

Read what I said. Now read what you said. See the difference?

Yes, but what you said made no sense. What I answered does make sense. I responded giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to make sense and would surely have rewritten what you said if you had thought about it a little bit.

No Parados. I didn't misrepresent what you said. I explained why I didn't respond to what you said. I explained why I responded to a statement that a normal person would have made instead of the statement you made.

Apparently not though. I guess you meant it exactly as you said it, and I accept that you meant it exactly as you said it. My bad. And my apologies for giving you benefit of the doubt. Believe me, you have convinced me how stupid it would be of me to make that mistake again.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
298
Biologist and Biophysicist Dr. Paulo N. Correa, who has published extensively in scientific journals, co-authored a recent paper entitled "Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience." Correa wrote about "mass-hysterias as the pseudoscientific fad of 'global warming.'" "In the 70s, in the wake of the atmospheric cooling experienced between 1945-1947 and 1972, there was a passing fad of 'global' cooling, supposedly buttressed by study of the fossil record and ice samples, which had 'established' the existence of cycles of minor ice-ages (see reference to the Milankovitch model below). At that time, the fear was that the earth was just turning the corner into a new ice-age," Correa wrote. "Just like seawater shows oscillations in temperature or content of sensible heat, the atmosphere, too, is subject to long-term oscillations in energy content, including sensible heat and its measure by temperature. In fact, the evidence indicates that the atmosphere undergoes regular periods of cooling and heating, both near the ground and all the way up, through the troposphere, to the tropopause and the stratosphere. The scientific evidence collected over the past 50 years suggests that there are periods of cooling and warming superimposed on cycles of various scales, and that these variations are connected, in ways not yet understood, to solar periodicities, geothermal energy, varying atmospheric electricity and latent heat, and varying cloud cover and cloud composition," he added. (LINK)

This Fox is precisely why you are treated the way you are. Rather than simply apologizing for YOUR mistake you attempt to turn it around on me. You just had to add the part I highlighted in red. Now you will accuse me of not being nice after you are the one that simply couldn't be civil and leave it at that.

Inhofe's list isn't science because it is nothing more than a list of scientists with quotes pulled out of context. The list isn't science. The use of quotes from them isn't science. That doesn't mean the people on that list don't do science. It only means what it says. Inhofe's list isn't science. Ican said something to the effect that science is what should be presented. I pointed out the thing he posts the most about is not science and no thinking person would mistake it for science.

Inhofe's list isn't science because it is nothing more than a list of scientists with quotes pulled out of context.

... a list of scientists with quotes pulled out of context

Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast
Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Monday, 3 August 2009

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.

In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years " at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.

But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html

To test the resource exhaustion thesis, Simon and Ehrlich bet in 1980 on what the 1990 price would be of any five metals Ehrlich picked would be. Ehrlich chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was to see if the 1990 value, adjusted for inflation, exceeded the metal's value in 1980. Ehrlich bet that the metals would become scarcer in the decade and the prices would go up. Simon predictably bet that despite anticipations that the use of each metal would increase in the decade, each metal would be cheaper in 1990 than it had been 10 years earlier. Simon won the bet. All five metals cost relatively less in 1990 than they had in 1980.

Julian Simon argued the same case for oil and natural gas. He documented that as early as 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey was saying we would run out of oil soon. Even 120 years ago, "peak-oil" Malthusians held center stage, just as they do today. This year, in 2005, oil-industry investment banker Matt Simmons published his best-seller, "Twilight in the Desert," claiming that Saudi oil production has "peaked." In 2005, Kenneth Deffeyes published "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak," claiming that world oil production would peak on Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 24, 2005.

The Saudis dismiss Simmons' pessimism, claiming they will increase production to over 13 million barrels a day, stating that their reserves properly measured are over 1 trillion barrels. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that world reserves of oil equal 1.28 trillion barrels, more than ever in recorded human history, despite world oil consumption nearly doubling since the 1970s. While these responses do not sound like we are running out of oil, the press attention will remain strongly on these Ehrlich-like "oil experts" who continue to proclaim energy "doom-and-gloom."

The economic evidence, however, differs. As of Thanksgiving Day 2005, the refineries damaged by Hurricane Katrina are coming back to full production, and world oil prices have dropped, not increased. Again, the Malthusians have lost the debate on the price of resources. The truth is that world oil markets are awash in oil, not depleting, as the "peak-oil" experts would have you believe. Can anyone name any resource the world has ever exhausted? Why should oil and natural gas be any different?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47687

JULY 11, 2005
Is There Plenty Of Oil?

First came Holstein, then Mad Dog, and soon, Thunder Horse. Atlantis will join them next year. The four giant oil fields, operated by BP PLC (BP ) and located under thousands of feet of water off the coast of Louisiana, are just beginning to pump their first barrels. At their peak rates later in the decade, they'll produce some 500,000 bbl. per day, an amount akin to floating a small Middle Eastern country such as Syria or Yemen into the Gulf of Mexico. "Add them together, and it's a massive step change," says David Eyton, BP's vice-president for deepwater in the Gulf. "The investment we're making will more than offset declines we're seeing in Alaska and the Continental Shelf."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_28/b3942038_mz011.htm

There is plenty of Oil
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, drive the oil market.

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day. No need for the Government to destroy electric cars, there is plenty of oil.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/1032/49/

Friday, July 31, 2009
House Falls for Cap and Trade Con
By Barbara Brazil
Leadership consultant

Ever wonder what the heck “cap and trade” is?

If you have not read or heard about cap and trade, you will " and you should be very concerned about how it will affect your pocketbook, and the national economy. Let's ignore whether you believe there is global warming or if it is human-caused. There are plenty of reasons why cap and trade is an awful solution even if you want to help stop global warming.

Here in New Mexico cap and trade has been in the news lately. Former congressman Steve Pearce said that a vote for cap and trade was a main reason he decided to run against Rep. Harry Teague. In the Albuquerque metro area district, Rep. Martin Heinrich got “free” advertising in the form of a large newspaper ad and Heinrich's photograph " from various environmental, liberal, labor union and solar organizations " saying the cap-and-trade bill will “create clean energy jobs” " a wrong assumption. The other U.S. House member from New Mexico, Rep. Ben Ray Luján of the northern district, also voted for the bill.

First, a brief description of cap and trade is that it (supposedly) puts a limit, or cap, on greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming, benefiting those industries that emit less than others by providing them with credits to sell or trade. There are many serious problems with the notion which, sadly, neither Teague, Heinrich nor Luján seem to get:

â�� Congressman Heinrich's allies and others put forth the far-from-proven theory that cap and trade will “create jobs.” Here is what the highly respected international publication, The Economist, said on that: “Obama rejoiced that (cap and trade) would create millions of new green jobs. … As usual, he gave the impression that planet-cooling will require no sacrifice from voters. This is drivel. The shift to a lower-carbon economy will destroy jobs as well as create them, and hit growth. …”

â�� Creating “free emissions credits” already led to a giveaway of 85 percent of the permits to industries favored by the most powerful members of Congress. Lobbyists for the powerful coal-burning electric power industry got most of these credits. By favoring coal burning, it deflates the opportunity to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

â�� The emerging market in “emissions credits” is going to be handled by many of the same Wall Street “derivatives” traders that helped bring about the severe worldwide economic recession.

â�� Companies will be able to say they are “under” the cap because they report investing in a “green” project " somewhere in the world! Who is going to keep track of a jurisdiction as big as the world, much less enforce it? No one will, or can.

� What army of tax-supported bureaucrats is going to measure the desired levels of emissions and then the actual emissions all throughout this big land? Even the creators of cap and trade, which was originally used for a much narrower emissions category, say they have serious doubts it will work throughout the world's biggest economy.

â�� Cap and trade has not worked where it has been in place the longest " the largest economy being the European Union. The EU also gave away many “free credits,” plus the EU market has been dysfunctional and in some cases outright corrupt. Nor has the EU system reduced greenhouse-gas emissions after having been in place for several years.

Even if, against all odds, cap and trade did overcome the array of problems listed in the points above and actually did begin to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, emissions globally will continue to rise. Why? Because the large emitters in the large and growing economies such as India and China refuse to go along.

In view of all the problems mentioned above (plus others), it just does not make sense to assume that the foolish cap and trade plan is the only way to go to address climate change. Let us hope that New Mexico's U.S. senators, Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, analyze the issue more carefully than did congressmen Teague, Heinrich and Luján.

Barbara Brazil has held many leadership positions in New Mexico, among them government relations manager for Intel, member of the University of New Mexico Board of Regents and president of New Mexico First town hall forums.

Barbara Brazil in an unknown source wrote:

â�� Cap and trade has not worked where it has been in place the longest " the largest economy being the European Union. The EU also gave away many “free credits,” plus the EU market has been dysfunctional and in some cases outright corrupt. Nor has the EU system reduced greenhouse-gas emissions after having been in place for several years.

31 Jul 2009
Albuquerque Journal

Dr. John Fogarty
New Energy Economy

Give Pollution Fees to Citizens

First, the good news. This session Congress for the first time took up serious debate about how to solve global warming. The downside is that Congress may give away hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to get “buy-in” from utilities and energy companies.

The House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a 900-plus-page energy package that would limit carbon pollution, increase energy efficiency and expand renewable energy. The Senate is expected to take up climate change starting in September.

During his campaign and in his budget, President Obama advocated for a plan that would charge companies money, in the form of permits, for all of the carbon pollution they emit. Under Obama’s plan, the majority of the proceeds from the auctions would be returned to taxpayers for help with rising energy costs.

But during recent Congressional hearings, representatives from giant utilities, power generators, oil refiners, automakers and other industries made the case that they should be given the carbon pollution permits for free " permits worth as much as $150 billion a year.

According to CEOs from the energy corporations who testif ied this year before Congress " including PNM’s Jeff Sterba " the companies would “pass along the savings” to their customers.

That’s right. The energy companies want Congress to give them more than a hundred billion dollars a year " and then we are supposed to trust them to give the money back to us. PNM made $95 million dollars in profits just last quarter.

I’ve got a better idea. What if Congress were to trust the American people and give the money back to us " instead of to the wealthiest
corporations?

Studies done by the Congressional Budget Office, the University of Massachusetts and others have shown that returning the revenue directly to low-and moderate-income households will do far more to help people than by giving permits to corporations.

In fact, if revenue were returned equally to all Americans, more than half the nation’s households would come out ahead or break even f inancially. The money could be paid through direct payments, a tax credit, or through existing federal programs like Social Security.

Doesn’t this make more sense than handing over billions of dollars to big corporations?

During a recent congressional hearing, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag was blunt in saying that free allowances “would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.”

Ensuring that polluting companies pay for their pollution and returning those revenues to citizens would create a national market for new technologies, drive private investment towards clean energy and jump-start the economy.

Ask Congress not to listen to the big utilities and energy companies. Ask them to approve a 100 percent auction of carbon pollution permits and return the proceeds to consumers instead.

When we f inal ly get Obama’s clean energy refund, let’s make sure the money goes to New Mexico citizens, not the big utility companies like PNM.

John Fogarty is executive director of New Energy Economy, a New Mexico nonprofit pushing for greenhouse gas reductions.

Inhofe's list isn't science because it is nothing more than a list of scientists with quotes pulled out of context.

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-710#post-3718930
I posted a link to where you can find Gary Novak's statements and their context. They are in context with a claim that ice ages are caused by changing temperature in the core of the earth which heats the oceans. The guy is completely nutty in his beliefs. Do you really want to present him as a "scientist" with some credentials?

If the temperature in the core of the earth actually heats the oceans, then it is logical to conclude:
(1) the lower the temperature of the core of the earth, the lower will be the temperature of the oceans;
(2) the higher the temperature of the core of the earth, the higher will be the temperature of the oceans.

Nothing nutty about that.

Most (if not all) the heat from the Earth's interior is converted into the mechanical energy of plate motion

The answer to this question of yours is of course, YES, if the heat of the earth's core fluctuates enough to cause the temperature of the oceans to cool enough to cause an ice age, and warm enough to cause an ice age melt.

So the oceans are picking up a lot of heat from the earth's core. Any increase, and an ice age would surely be the result.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/gnovak.htm
Model of Ice Age: As oceans are heated due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, precipitation increases, air temperatures increase slightly, and atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. This state continues for a few centuries, until a trigger mechanism reverses the temperatures. The trigger is probably a large volcanoe, which cools the earth's surface. This results in much winter snow, which does not melt during the summer. The snow reflects much radiation during the summer creating a precipitous decline in temperatures. The cold temperatures and snow then continue for eighty thousand years, until the oceans get so low that they expose a large amount of land mass, which causes heat-up to occur.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
299
Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the "majority of TV meteorologists" are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in a March 30, 2007 article in The Jewish Times, "I truly believe that global warming is more political than anything else. It's a hot topic. It grabs people's interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire puzzle." Berk continued: "There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now it's happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it's been distorted and exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty years later, they're saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we've had warming and cooling throughout history. It's a natural cycle. We haven't created it and it's not something we can stop." (LINK)

However, I do not have any evidence that core temperaures can decrease enough to cause ice ages.

The snow reflects much radiation during the summer creating a precipitous decline in temperatures. The cold temperatures and snow then continue for eighty thousand years, until the oceans get so low that they expose a large amount of land mass, which causes heat-up to occur.