The Autobahn-"Global Warming hysteria's next casualty!

[Brucelee]

"But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue."

Of course, I never said that and I am not the one creating hyserical arguments, that is up to the Gore folks. I simply pointed out that the costs of doing something are very very signficant and will not be borne by Al Gore or his type.

The point is that money spent on one problem cannot be spent on another, another that is very real and very impactful every day. There is no contesting the fact that thousands die of starvation across the glove everyday.

Where is the media's attention to THAT little problem.

I guess those Malibu beach houses at risk are more interesting that dying children.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

"But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue."

Of course, I never said that and I am not the one creating hyserical arguments, that is up to the Gore folks. I simply pointed out that the costs of doing something are very very signficant and will not be borne by Al Gore or his type.

The point is that money spent on one problem cannot be spent on another, another that is very real and very impactful every day. There is no contesting the fact that thousands die of starvation across the glove everyday.

Where is the media's attention to THAT little problem.

I guess those Malibu beach houses at risk are more interesting that dying children.

Hi,

Famine, Drought, HIV-Aids, Alzheimers Disease, Cancer, the Elderly, Inadequate Housing, the list goes on and on. Of course our resources are Finite and devoting some to one problem naturally means they are not available for others. So, it's one of prioritizing how we allocate these resources.

But a very proper debate on Global Warming gets stifled when Gut-wrenching arguments like these are made. It side-tracks an issue which if correct has Global Implications, not regional or demographic ones. I'm not picking at you so much as trying to point out the need to stay on-point.

I'm not convinced that Global Warming phenomena do exist (no Chicken-Little syndrome), but neither do I believe that the continued unrestrained release of Industrialized Carbon, measured annually as approx. 6,400 Million Metric Tons Worldwide, with about 30% of that amount being stored in Carbon Sinks such as Forests, Oceans, etc. resulting in a Net release of approx. 4,480 Million Metric Tons of Carbon annually is without any effect whatever.

And, if that effect is negative, impacting all of us rather than some small portion of the World's population, then I believe that some allocation of resources is prudent to acsertaining it's implications and any possible corrective measures which may be available.

GHGs, CFCs, Aerosols, Free Carbon, Organic Carbons etc. each have their own implications and make the issue extremely complex - there is no one simple answer, or a simple debate. If interested, a good source of pertinent information (but certainly not the only one) can be found in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States - http://www.pnas.org/

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

Life is full of tradeoffs!




Only Moonlight for Vermont?
By GEOFFREY NORMAN
March 9, 2007; Page W11

It probably came as no big surprise to the citizens of Burlington, Vt., this week that their city finished first among 379 metropolitan areas in a "Best Green Places" survey conducted by Country Home magazine. If Burlington hadn't won the contest, it might have led to an emergency session of the state legislature, investigations and, who knows, even special prosecutors. The Green Mountain State is seriously green.

It is also seriously small. Its population of some 600,000 is about equal to that of Charlotte, N.C. Its signature export is maple syrup. None would mistake it for a player on the world stage. Still, the Vermont legislature has lately been engaged -- to the exclusion of just about all other matters -- in a discussion of how it might lead the world in the mortally serious fight against global warming.

The president pro tem of the state Senate, Peter Shumlin, was emphatic on this point. "Historically, when we do bold things in Vermont, others follow," Mr. Shumlin was quoted as saying in January. "It is our moral imperative to lead again . . . and if we succeed in being part of the solution, we can help regain America's moral leadership and trust in the eyes of the rest of the world."

A charming vision. Millions and millions of people in China and India, waiting on orders from little Vermont before they fall-in and march. Las Vegas turning off unnecessary lights to conserve electricity and reduce greenhouse gases because Vermont has shown the way. Movie stars flying coach because they crave approval from the citizens of Bethel, Brattleboro and Bennington.

It's a pretty good bet that whatever the Vermont legislature does about global warming and greenhouse gases, nobody in India or China or anywhere else outside of the state will notice. If every living creature in Vermont disappeared tomorrow, their lack of activity wouldn't compensate for the carbon dioxide produced by one of the coal-fired generating plants that China brings online every 10 days.

So the concern over global warming in Montpelier (the country's only state capital without a McDonald's) seems quixotic on the face of it. And besides, Vermont is already a relative good guy -- its "carbon footprint" is fairly small. Why? Because the state's electricity comes largely from dams and a nuclear plant, called Vermont Yankee, located in the southeastern corner of the state. And here is where the discussion gets really interesting.

We have all become accustomed to political anomalies. Democrats for balanced budgets, Republicans for Wilsonian foreign policies, etc. etc. Now we have, among other odd spectacles, global-warming zealots relentlessly bashing the best available alternative to burning fossil fuels to make electricity. Meanwhile, some serious environmentalists who once opposed nuclear power as a threat to the environment now support it as the most environmentally friendly means of producing large amounts of base-load power (i.e. that is available even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining). Patrick Moore, among the founders of Greenpeace, is one of these converts, and he visited Vermont recently to make the nuclear case. Which, in Vermont, is not about building new plants but about extending the life of the one that is operating now.

The Vermont Yankee plant is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to operate until 2012. The plant's owners -- the Entergy Corp. -- have made an application to extend the license for another 20 years. The state can block the extension by denying permission to store additional spent fuel on site. If this happens, then Vermont's utility companies will be compelled to buy power that is produced by burning fossil fuels. Unless, that is, Vermonters are willing to cut their power consumption by a third -- not likely, since even Ben and Jerry need electricity to make their ice cream -- or find a way to provide the power through renewables.

Wind is the current favorite in that category. But Vermonters have been reluctant to allow the construction of 450-foot-tall towers on their ridgelines, and many of their objections are based on green arguments. Last year, three wind projects were either voted down by referendum or denied permits by regulators who cited -- among other things -- the potential threat to birds and bats from whirling turbine blades. Resistance to wind is, if anything, increasing in Vermont, where uncluttered views are an essential part of the environmental agenda. In other words, it seems unlikely that Vermont will, in five years, find a way to generate a third of the electricity it currently uses through renewable sources.

Still , for more than 20 years now, the Greens of Vermont have wanted to shut down Yankee nuclear plant in the way that Frenchmen of the late 19th century lusted for the liberation of Alsace-Lorraine. Their ardor allows no compromise, no retreat. Shut it down.

Yet if Vermont is truly "bold," as state Sen. Shumlin claims, it could accept the risk of storing spent nuclear fuel or construct bird-chewing wind farms -- or both. In short, it could step up and take a hit for the sake of the environment. If the planet has 10 years to get its act together -- as some of the more messianic prophets of doom-by-global-warming are saying -- then it seems almost suicidal to close down a source of electricity that produces virtually no greenhouse gases, just for the sake of false piety.

A truly "bold," environmentally conscious state would go nuclear even more. Burlington will only really be the "best of" Green Places when local postcards show its charming leafy streets, with a view of Lake Champlain -- and a nuclear power plant looming in the background.

Mr. Norman writes frequently for the Journal and is editor of the Web site vermonttiger.com.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

To the followers of this thread, I find it amusing when after the most hysterical presentation that the planet has 10 years at best etc. When finally an opposing view is presented with back up info. and examples showing the absurdity of real (starvation) as opposed to theoretical calamity, those critics that are not buying into the theory are now labeled as hysterical? Why wasnt the group pushing the global warming theory tagged as hysterical? This is one of the reasons I do not buy it. This name calling is like when one defends the original meaning of the constitution and is therefore labeled a right wing extremist. Sure we must find out what damage is being done, if any and act on it but that is not what is being proposed by the truly hysterical. The adaucity to show Algores movie in public schools without an opposing view is more than hysterical, it is outr ageous!

986geezer

[YellowJacket]

Originally Posted by Jump

Quote:

"The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?"


I really wish people would quit trying to use this argument against the possibility of Global Warming. It was the '70s!!!! That was 30 years ago. Our family got their first color TV in the 70s. There was no such thing as a personal computer or cell phone. Technology, research methods/techniques have improved tenfold+. General and scientific knowledge has grown tremendously in all areas. I truly doubt that if the scientists in the 70s had access to the same equipment, techniques and knowledge as exists today, that they would have come to the same conclusion. This argument point is akin to stating that these same people once told us the world was flat. Now they try to tell us it is round. Why should we believe them?

Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.

But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology. Sure, we have better ways to measure climate, and we have better models for analyzing those data, but we have not fundamentally improved our accuracy in intepreting ambiguous data in the last 30 years, and that's what people are doing over and over.

I don't understand why the media and warming advocates have to take such a hardline stance on Global Warming. Why isn't it acceptable to say "there is EVIDENCE to support the theory, just as much to refute it. But just to be safe, we're advocating/lobbying/whatever to reduce emissions, improve gas mileage, etc." When you start saying "it's DEFINITELY happening" I become skeptical immediately, unless you're just telling me that the world is round. Then, people like myself who would otherwise advocate a bit of green social responsibility, get offended and want nothing to do with it.

Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.

For all you guys that believe in global warming, I have a idea how you can help.

I live in an area that at one time was completely tropical jungle. I am right now doing some landscaping on my property. For only $1,000 I will plant a tree on my property in your name. I will even send you a photo of it. Imagine, your very own rainforest tree? You can show all your democrat friends just how you are stopping global warming. Imagine how warm and fuzzy you will feel knowing you own a part of the solution. And since cars are part of the problem, you can always sell you Porsche to finance your trees. PM me if interested! Save the world like an old Hippy should!

[Bavarian Motorist]

Is there any benefit to the fact that higher speed limits will cause cars to be on the roads LESS time than slower cars, in terms of co2 emissions?

[Brucelee]

You always have to examine the motives of those who would have you galvanize against a sudden and imminent calamity.

For example, in the scenario where we "have to do something drastic" about global warming, the winners are:

1-Lawmakers and regulators-We need a bill!

2-Taxing advocates and their agents-We need money!

3-Energy/carbon traders-We will make the money on the spread!

4-Climatologists-who ever heard of these guys ten years ago?

5-Candidates running for office-You need us to lead you!

6-News media-read about it here

7-Book publishers-Read more about it.

8-Alternate energy advocates-Buy from us!

9-Environmentalists-Worship at our altar!

Who are the losers?

All of us who will be taxed, regulated and rationed.

Let the good times roll!

[Jump]

Originally Posted by YellowJacket

Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.

But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology.

Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.

I have no proof that the world is round. They tell me that it is and they show me pictures but how do I know that the pictures are real? The best I've seen is a slight curve when I'm up in a jet but that doesn't prove it is round does it? Why should I believe them? OK, I'm being facetious obviously. I don't think I ever said that there was undeniable evidence. In fact, in a previous post I was pretty clear in stating that there was no definitive evidence. You seem to have completely missed the point, that what scientists thought yesterday doesn't always hold true today as our knowledge increases. Pretty plain and simple to understand I think and you seem to understand it as you then confirm it in your next point.

Doesn't your supposed hole through my point actually add credence to what I said? Wasn't the point that referencing 30 year old data can be mostly irrelevant? All that we can go on is what we have today. Does that mean we'll believe the same 30 years from now when our knowledge, technology, and research base multiplies some more? Of course not. And thirty years from now it is also possible that they will look back and say, those people in 2006 had all of the evidence right in front of them and they refused to do anything about it. Right now I'll put it at 50-50 as to which of those two viewpoints they have in 2036.

Am I totally sold on man caused Global Warming. No I'm not. Do I see a possibility that it could be true? You'd have to be clueless to at least not be willing to entertain the discussion until we know for sure either way. My statements were not a defense of anything and I really don't understand how someone could interpret them that way. What I was merely suggesting was that we consider the evidence as it stands today (for or against) and not bring silly arguments into the discussion like was done.

Can you please explain to me what you're chuckling about?

[Brucelee]

BTW-

I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring. As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring.

What I am suggesting is that:

1-The news media has decided what IT wants to write about and it is NOT a balanced discussion of the topic. There will be no airing of solid scientific discourse.

2-The conclusions about the degree of climate change, its rate, how to measure it, what it all means, are WAY off from being agreed upon. Yet, it is being presented as simply so.

3-This will NOT stop the guys I alluded to above, ALL of whom have a vested interest in having man made global warming be a reality and that it have AWFUL consequences.

4-It is not at all clear to me that ANYTHING that we do right now will make much difference in the long run. Moreover, any discussion of the positive consequences of a warmer planet are also verbotten.

5-That government actions will have an agenda that suits the government just fine. Look for LOTS of regulations and LOTS of new taxes, hidden and overt.

After all, the government has been making a living off of "sin taxes" for many years now.

Carbon is the new SIN.

[Brucelee]

A little balance!



Written By: Thomas Gale Moore Ph.D.
Published In: Environment News
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pundits, politicians, and the press have argued that global warming will bring disaster to the world. Their dire predictions aside, there are many good reasons to believe that, if global warming occurs, we will like it.

Where do retirees go when they are free to move? Certainly not to Duluth. People generally like warmth. When a television weather reporter says, “it’s going to be a great day,” he usually means the weather will be warmer than normal. The weather can, of course, be too warm, but that is unlikely to become a major problem if the Earth’s temperature warms as projected.


How Warm, When, and Where?

Even though it is far from certain that global temperatures will rise noticeably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the United Nations body that has been studying this possibility for more than a decade) has forecast that, by the end of the next century, the world’s climate will be about 3.6o Fahrenheit warmer than today. Precipitation worldwide, it is projected, will increase by about 7 percent.

IPCC scientists predict that most of the warming will occur at night and during the winter. In fact, the temperature record shows that, over this century, summer high temperatures have actually fallen, while winter lows have gone up.

Temperatures are expected to increase the most towards the poles. Thus, Minneapolis should enjoy more warming than Dallas. But even the Twin Cities should find that most of its temperature increase will occur during its coldest season, making the climate more livable.


Warmer Winters Are Good

Warmer winters will produce less ice and snow to torment drivers, facilitating commuting and making snow shoveling less of a chore. Families will have less need to invest in heavy parkas, bulky jackets, earmuffs, mittens, and snow boots.

Department of Energy studies have shown that a warmer climate would reduce heating bills more than it would boost outlays on air conditioning. If we currently enjoyed the weather predicted for the end of the next century, expenditures for heating and cooling would be cut by about $12.2 billion annually.

Most economic activities would be unaffected by climate change. Manufacturing, banking, insurance, retailing, wholesaling, medicine, education, mining, financial, and most other services are unrelated to weather. Those activities can be carried out in cold climates with central heating or in hot climates with air conditioning. Certain weather-related or outdoor-oriented services, however, would be affected.

Transportation generally would benefit from a warmer climate, since road travelers would suffer less from slippery or impassable highways. Airline passengers, who often endure weather-related delays in the winter, would gain from more reliable and on-time service.


Warmer Is Healthier, Too

The doomsayers have predicted that a warmer world would inflict tropical diseases on Americans. They neglect to mention that those diseases--such as malaria, cholera, and yellow fever--were widespread in the United States in the colder 19th century. Their absence today is attributable not to a climate unsuitable to their propagation, but to modern sanitation and the American lifestyle, which prevent the microbes from getting a foothold. It is actually warmer along the Gulf Coast, which is free of dengue fever, than on the Caribbean islands, where the disease is endemic.

My own research shows that a warmer world would be a healthier one for Americans and would cut the number of deaths in the U.S. by about 40,000 per year, roughly the number killed on the highways.


CO2 No Pollutant for Plants

According to climatologists, the villain causing a warmer world is the unprecedented amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we humans keep pumping into the atmosphere. But as high school biology students nationwide know, plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Researchers have shown that virtually all plants will do better in a CO2-rich environment than in the current atmosphere, which contains only trace amounts of their basic food.

Plants also prefer warmer winters and nights, and a warmer world would mean longer growing seasons. Combined with higher levels of CO2, plant life would become more vigorous, thus providing more food for animals and humans. Given a rising world population, longer growing seasons, greater rainfall, and an enriched atmosphere could be just the ticket to stave off famine and want.


Sea Levels Pose Little Threat

A slowly rising sea level constitutes the only significant drawback to global warming. The best guess of the international scientists is that oceans will rise about 2 inches per decade.

The cost to Americans of building dikes and constructing levees to mitigate the damage from rising seas would be less than $1 billion per year, an insignificant amount compared to the likely gain of over $100 billion for the American people as a whole.

Let’s not rush into costly programs to stave off something that we may like if it occurs. Warmer is better; richer is healthier; acting now is foolish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Thomas Gale Moore is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming recently published by the Cato Institute.

[Brucelee]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmNWI4N2Y2NTBmY2E3ZTIzZjcxM2IzM2ZjNjRkYWI=

Another one

[Peer]

Rich Belloff wrote:
> I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring.
> As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring. [...]
> Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet
> Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a
> possible problem has made him a star!



My take on this is that when it comes to science, I trust the scientists. Hence, I believe global warming is real, and therefore I agree with Jim that it would be a mistake to gamble with their findings -- especially since it could be catalytic to the future of our planet -- way beyond the current world starvation (which you used as an argument to discredit global warming).

However, the data that the scientists now agree on regarding global warming should be approached scientifically -- to think, for example, we can cure global warming by setting speed-limits on the Autobahn is almost as silly as thinking oceanic flooding can be caused by people spitting in it.

By the way, if you think I'm trivializing the current world starvation, I suggest that you read one of my articles on this matter:
http://tinyurl.com/udrqx

-- peer

[Allen K. Littlefield]

[QUOTE=Peer]Rich Belloff wrote:
> I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring.
> As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring. [...]
> Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet
> Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a
> possible problem has made him a star!



My take on this is that when it comes to science, I trust the scientists. Hence, I believe global warming is real, and therefore I agree with Jim that it would be a mistake to gamble with their findings -- especially since it could be catalytic to the future of our planet -- way beyond the current world starvation (which you used as an argument to discredit global warming).

Rich, did NOT use current starvation as an arguement to discredit global warming, he used it as an example of a real problem that was not being addressed while some are hysterical about a 'thoretical' problem. If you are an academic I give you a D- (see me), for this work.

Also do you trust ALL of the scientists, including the ones that do NOT agree that the normal temperature change is caused by the SUVs in the US? C- (see me) for this ambiguous statement.

986geezer

[porschegeorg]

When it comes to science, I trust the Creator. Actually....when it comes to anything, I trust Him.

[Boxsterund914]

Global warming? Let's see....Who is really all hot and bothered about this issue? Politicians right? Oh wait, no...not just them... there is also a lot of concern amongst actors (Hollywood elite)! OK actors and politicians are the ones who keep pushing this issue to the forefront right?

As a group...I think that maybe actors would be less than totally reliable as spokesmen for science. I mean really, the only credibility they ever have is when they are pretending to be something else...get real. Are the great minds on most college campuses found in the drama department?

Politicians, now they can be trusted for sure. And Al Gore...if he is the spokesman for global warming...don't make me laugh! He is a cardboard cutout, a caricature of a geek politician. These guys (politicians) will pick any cause, any calamity (real or imagined) in order to increase their power base. I propose that these guys will not stop at just picking any cause or calamity, they will in fact create or fabricate any cause or calamity in order to increase their power base. The more strident they are in proclaiming the truth of something, the more you can be assured it's a lie. If global warming is true....then we ARE in danger because they have poisoned the issue with their endorsement of it. And if Al Gore is the one leading the issue.....I rest my case.....what a sad-sack clown to have champion your cause.

The only time a Democrat politician tells the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Republicans. The only time a Republican politician is telling the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Democrats. History will judge our country harshly for choosing the Tweedeldee party over the Tweedeldum party or vice versa time after time....

[Brucelee]

For the record, my cite of the issue of starvation was to show that as a group, politicians and their ilk do not get in a lather to solve a problem that costs human life everday right now, that is directly addressable, and for which there is NO disagreement on, as to its existence and human costs.

No, they would rather chat about something that MIGHT be ocurring and that might have serious consequences and that we MIGHT be able to curtail a bit, if at all.

Why? Imagine Al Gore or anyone else trying to sponsor a gasoline tax that would pay for food, water, water projects, and related matters. Well, I assert, this would go nowhere fast.

However, if Al is trying to save Malibu beachfront property being to Alec Baldwin, well, that is another matter.

Oh, yes and those polar bears. BTW- I love polar bears.

I would always go back to my list of those who WIN under the global warming is real and we did it scenario. That list explains alot.

[Brucelee]

The only time a Democrat politician tells the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Republicans. The only time a Republican politician is telling the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Democrats. History will judge our country harshly

So true, so true!

[bringer666]

Originally Posted by Peer

Rich Belloff wrote:
My take on this is that when it comes to science, I trust the scientists.
-- peer

However, not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans and the emissions from our vehicles.
Most of the time, when you hear any global warming hysteria alert, the first thing they say is "Most scientists agree.." and go on from there. The truth is that most scientists (I'm not sure of the percentage) believe that we don't have enough data to make a decision as to why we are experiencing a warming trend.

[Peer]

Bringer666 wrote:
> The truth is that most scientists (I'm not sure of the percentage)
> believe that we don't have enough data to make a decision as to why
> we are experiencing a warming trend.

What you are saying here is not correct. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real and that it's the result of OUR activities and not a natural occurrence.

-- peer