Global Warming: The New Religion

[Njaco]

Got no problems with it in AC! You could put a casino next to the reactor.

[<simon>]

I saw some program on TV a while ago now that was talking about how far nuclear technology has come.

According to this show, the water cooling tanks can spring a leak and ALL the cooling water can leak out, but the reactor won't 'melt down'

Is this true??

[javlin]

Sorry boys and girls(I think some of you guys are girls )I am on a tirade tonight but do not fret.......

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
...
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. ...

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
...
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
...
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
...
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. Emphasis added.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. ...
No smoking hot spot | The Australian

[javlin]

Seems our GW boys may have brought this on themselves hahaha..

GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.

Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period.

Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming - earth - 09 July 2008 - New Scientist Environment

no good without sources is it

[tpikdave]

[Learstang]

Sorry to interrupt this mainly right-wing love fest, but as a left-winger (and as a recovering Republican, it’s part of my therapy), I feel I have to respond (although Danielmellbin has done an exemplary job). Renrich (I think you implied this earlier, if you did not, accept [or not] my apologies), leftist does NOT mean communist as you seem to think (although it may mean socialist – see the definition of socialist, democratic). In terms of the media generally agreeing with the left-wing point of view, did it ever occur to you that they mainly agree, as you assert, because the left-wing view is correct, and they’re just reporting the truth? No, it probably didn’t. But think about it – when have right-wingers been proven correct over the long haul? Were they right about the Sun revolving around the Earth? Were they right about witchcraft? Were they correct about slavery? The women’s vote? Child labour? Civil rights for non-whites? The GI Bill, for God’s sake (which was opposed by many Republicans as costing too much money – sound familiar?) As for Javlin, so it's just natural and we can do nothing about the fact that the North Polar ice cap is melting at an alarming rate, and the Greenland ice cap is melting at an alarming rate, and the hurricanes and cyclones are getting stronger, and island countries like the Maldives and Tuvalu are not so slowly slipping under the rising ocean water and not to mention the GLOBE IS ****ING WARMING UP! I suppose the thousands of scientists who contributed to the 2007 IPCC Report that clearly indicated that anthropogenic causes are to a large extent to blame for the continuing global warming are all conspiratorial, tofu-eating, left-wing, card carrying members of the "democrat party" (by the way, to all you right-wing, gun-worshipping, slope-headed, mouth-breathing poor-white trash out there, it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!). I find this particular conspiracy hard to believe as I am a conspiratorial, tofu-eating, left-wing, card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and these scientists have never once invited me to one of their secret conclaves. You global-warming skeptics are at the point where you're approaching the same intellectual level as the flat-earthers and the creationists. Oh, then again, many of you probably also believe in Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or whatever it's called today by you brain-impaired Luddites. Put your money where your mouth is (if not your brain) and start buying up that seafront property! Excuse my bluntness, ladies and gentleman, but I’m getting too old to put up with bullshit or to mince words denouncing it. I consider it my particular cross to (gladly) bear. Have an absolutely scrumptious day!

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Learstang

But think about it – when have right-wingers been proven correct over the long haul? Were they right about the Sun revolving around the Earth? Were they right about witchcraft? Were they correct about slavery?

Welcome to the forum Lear. With a post like that you are bound to start some fireworks. On the whole I am not opposed to your assertion that something should be done about pollution, however I would have to take exception to some of your wilder examples. The flat-earth and whichcraft references make little sense, there was no Democratic or Republican party back in the 15th century. Was it not the Republicans who advocated the abolition of slavery and the democratic party that opposed it???

I don't hold you as a Democrat responsible for Jim Crow any more than you should be trying to peg witchcraft on the Republicans. Let's stick to a debate on the facts and leave the insults & hyperbole out of it.

Originally Posted by Learstang

I find this particular conspiracy hard to believe as I am a conspiratorial, tofu-eating, left-wing, card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and these scientists have never once invited me to one of their secret conclaves. You global-warming skeptics are at the point where you're approaching the same intellectual level as the flat-earthers and the creationists.

Lear, scientists do not have a consensus of opinion, some believe that "climate change" is a normal cyclical occurance, while others believe that even if it is true there is nothing we can do about it now.

Personally I don't see why better measures to reduce pollution can't be taken as long as it does not destroy US/Canadian productivity.

Instead of the vitriol and retorts, since you are advancing the Democratic positions, can you explain what those plans are? What are your own views on what should be done?

{This was posted on another thread, you may want to comment on it as well.}

Originally Posted by Haztoys

If I may ask ..What is McCain environment veiws ..And what do you not like about them

Originally Posted by freebird

He voted against drilling in ANWAR, a position he has now changed, with oil hitting $150 / barrel.

He also supports making policies to combat climate control.

I think Ren is opposed. I would support those policies if they get to the biggest part of the problem

There is little point in "going green" unless the worst world polluters are forced to take measures. If US industry is forced to "go green" while India & China can build the dirtiest possible coal plants, it will not help the environment but kill US productivity.

I would hope that McCain will demand improvement by China & India {or face tariffs}

[Learstang]

Freebird, thank you for the welcome and the reasonable response to my posting. It is indeed my intention to start fireworks, and unfortunately, vitriol and retorts are as natural to me as breathing, but I’ll try and play nice and keep the insults and hyperbole to a minimum. You are indeed correct about the two main American political parties not being around during Mediaeval times, and that the original Republican Party opposed slavery. I am not indicting the Republican Party for slavery or witchcraft, I am simply making a point about right-wingers, or reactionaries, or conservatives or whatever you wish to call them. My point is that history seems to show that they are usually fighting a losing, rearguard battle against reason and science, hence my references to witchcraft, the Earth being the centre of the solar system, etc. Using the term Republican is simply a shorthand for conservatives, just as many on this site seem to use Democrat (or dimocrat – talk about vitriolic) as a comprehensive term for “leftists”. I must disagree with your view on the scientific consensus about the importance of anthropogenic emissions in influencing climate change; although it is not as overwhelming as the near-universal acceptance of Evolution, it appears to be getting there. The doubters in the non-polluting industry funded scientific community, despite claims to the contrary on this forum, are disappearing as more data become available.
In terms of what Sen. Obama plans to do, it’s explained below in great detail (perhaps too great detail, but you asked for it). This was copied directly from his site. I agree with Sen. Obama’s plan. Of course it’s ambitious, and the skeptics will say it’s impractical and unnecessary pie in the sky, but I believe it’s a necessary start, especially after 7 years of the present administration doing next to nothing.

Barack Obama's Plan

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
• Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
• Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
• Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
• Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
• Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
• Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
• Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
• Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
Support Next Generation Biofuels
• Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
• Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
• Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.
• Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
• Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
• Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
• Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
• Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
• Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

Instead of waiting for other countries to come up with new green technology, this country should be at the forefront. Maybe we can’t do anything about India and China at the moment, but the United States can do something about its own emissions and contribution to greenhouse gasses. Since America is the single greatest producer of greenhouse gasses, and the greatest technological power in the world, we should lead by example, not follow other nations. I’m not saying this will be easy, cheap, or without risks, but nothing worthwhile really ever is, and the possible costs if we do nothing are difficult to imagine – island nations destroyed, hundreds of millions displaced, people fighting for resources, many of the world’s major cities threatened by inundation, severer weather of all kinds – the list goes on. Maybe we can’t stop global warming or climate change – but we can, we must at least try. I have no children, but if I did, I wouldn’t want to have to try and explain to them 20 or 30 years from now why we did nothing.

[Njaco]

did it ever occur to you that they mainly agree, as you assert, because the left-wing view is correct

Like George Wallace shouting on the steps, huh?

Put your money where your mouth is (if not your brain) and start buying up that seafront property

Prove it. 100%, without a doubt, no questions asked - prove it.

You can't.

And you're not going to use my money to do so.

[Aussie1001]

Global warming it makes sense guys, turn your car on it the garage with the door down and windows shut, in about 3 minutes your gonna be dead or close to it from the C01 and C02, Co1 for thoes not as scientifically minded as some means Carbon Monoxde one of the main gasses expelled from the internal combustion engine. I'm not saying the world is a garage but i do believe the principle is the same you cannot keep pumping crap into the atmosphere without result.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Learstang

Freebird, thank you for the welcome and the reasonable response to my posting. It is indeed my intention to start fireworks, and unfortunately, vitriol and retorts are as natural to me as breathing, but I’ll try and play nice and keep the insults and hyperbole to a minimum.

You will find that works best! The Mods come down rather hard on insults & such, especially from new posters. Name calling & insults will just an interesting thread locked down, if you stick to arguments using the facts you will get your point across much better.

Originally Posted by Learstang

You are indeed correct about the two main American political parties not being around during Mediaeval times, and that the original Republican Party opposed slavery. I am not indicting the Republican Party for slavery or witchcraft, I am simply making a point about right-wingers, or reactionaries, or conservatives or whatever you wish to call them. My point is that history seems to show that they are usually fighting a losing, rearguard battle against reason and science, hence my references to witchcraft, the Earth being the centre of the solar system, etc. Using the term Republican is simply a shorthand for conservatives, just as many on this site seem to use Democrat (or dimocrat – talk about vitriolic) as a comprehensive term for “leftists”.

I don't agree with "conservative" being always reactionary and opposed to science. There is the "Teddy Roosevelt" model of conservatism, pro-environment, and for keeping thye big corporations honest & from abusing their power.

Originally Posted by Learstang

I must disagree with your view on the scientific consensus about the importance of anthropogenic emissions in influencing climate change; although it is not as overwhelming as the near-universal acceptance of Evolution, it appears to be getting there. The doubters in the non-polluting industry funded scientific community, despite claims to the contrary on this forum, are disappearing as more data become available.

I would agree with you that there is a problem that needs to be changed. The question is how to do it?

In terms of what Sen. Obama plans to do, it’s explained below in great detail (perhaps too great detail, but you asked for it). This was copied directly from his site. I agree with Sen. Obama’s plan. Of course it’s ambitious, and the skeptics will say it’s impractical and unnecessary pie in the sky, but I believe it’s a necessary start, especially after 7 years of the present administration doing next to nothing. [/quote]

Good synopsis, thanks.

Originally Posted by Learstang

Instead of waiting for other countries to come up with new green technology, this country should be at the forefront. Maybe we can’t do anything about India and China at the moment, but the United States can do something about its own emissions and contribution to greenhouse gasses. Since America is the single greatest producer of greenhouse gasses, and the greatest technological power in the world, we should lead by example, not follow other nations.

This is where I have a problem. I think that we have to do something about them, as it seems their pollution is already affecting the western US by changing the climate patterns. Since the US is China's largest customer {making all the crap we buy in Wal-Mart!} I think we do have the leverage to get them to change. If they were threatened with an "environmental tariff" if they don't start cleaning up, I bet they would come aroun quick! As I said before to Ren, we can find other countries to make cheap products, but they can't find another customer base like the USA.

[renrich]

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. The majority of the media is left wing so they must be right in what they say. We should let the media lead us, most of which have never done anything concrete. All they do is talk about what other people do. They don't produce anything except BS. They don't create jobs for other people. They don't build anything. They exaggerate, they mislead, they sensationalise, they obfuscate, lie and you think they should be listened to. The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures. In most cases the majority is always wrong. The only thing that saves this country from people like you is that you can't get everyone to vote!

[Learstang]

Freebird, that's a good point about the Chinese. I agree we have to get a handle on their pollution also, and quickly, and using their economic ties to the U.S. might just be the way to do it. Affecting people's purses is a surefire way to get their attention. You’re also right about conservative not being necessarily synonymous with anti-science, indeed, until George “W”, even Republican Presidents have been pro-science. As far as the "moderators" go, I haven't exactly noticed them being particularly moderate themselves or cracking down on all the anti-leftwing drivel that's being posted here. All I expect is a "fair and balanced" approach to posts. If anti-rightwing screeds are improper, then anti-leftwing screeds should be also. I’m realistic enough to realise that any military themed forum is likely to attract many more conservative posters than progressive posters, but let’s have a little balance in how the posters are treated, new poster or not. It’s not that I don’t expect negative responses from the conservatives (there, I’ll use that term instead of rightwingers, just to be nice), in fact I welcome them. As “W” said, “Bring ‘em on!”.
Njaco, I can’t “prove” 100% that people are responsible for what’s happening with the climate, any more than you can “prove” 100% the existence of God. That’s not the point of science; scientific hypotheses are tested by observation and if the observations support the hypothesis then a consensus is reached about certain hypotheses, which then become “theories”, like gravity, for example. When there is a general consensus (it doesn’t have to be a complete consensus – that’s probably impossible to attain), then the “theory” becomes accepted. I can’t prove the existence of gravity to you either, 100%, but I can pretty well guarantee you that if you step off that 20-storey building, it’s going to be a long way to the bottom. As far as your money is concerned, when the insurance companies start going under because of the effects of climate change (stronger hurricanes, more tornadoes, coastal flooding), guess who’s going to have to bail them out – you and me. It’s like the old repair shop commercial, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. I’ll admit the George Wallace reference went over my head, you may have to explain it to me, being the ignorant lefty I am.
Renrich – ouch, looks like I touched a nerve. My “observation” about the media was somewhat sarcastic, which you didn’t seem to catch. Your observation that “The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.” is rather fatuous and once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism (Revolutionary Marxism) and socialism (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree. The one thing that’s going to save this country from people like you is that this time we progressives are going to get enough people to vote. I find your comment interesting, "In most cases the majority is always wrong." - doesn't show much faith in democracy - you know, democracy - the reason we supposedly went to war in Iraq. Surely you must have read about democracy, it's been in all the papers. One question for you – where have you been for the last 7 years? We’ve had 7 years of “your” way and look at the results – gas at an all time high (I know, it’s because of the pinkos not allowing drilling in ANWR), Iraq is still a mess (despite the so-called success of the “surge”), our economy is in shambles, the dollar keeps sinking to new lows, mortgage failures skyrocketing, enormous deficits that may take decades to bring down – you get the point (or not). I don’t know about you, but this working-stiff hasn’t exactly prospered while people like you have been in control of this country.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by renrich

The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.

So explain to me please how Canada, England, Germany, France, hell pretty much all of Europe are failures or have failed?

Seriously...

[renrich]

The simple answer to the question about socialism versus whatever you want to call our form of government is that the less socialism the more freedom and the more dynamic the economy is. The US has the most dynamic economy in the world and also the largest. In the meantime we are also supporting the largest and most effective military in the world. Chris, in the countries you mentioned, what would their budgets and or tax code look like if they continued to spend on social programs but spent as much on defense as we do. This takes place in spite of the US becoming more socialistic every year. I have been right here for the last seven years enjoying not another attack by terrorists and enjoying 52 months of GDP growth which was a record along with low inflation rates. However I don't give a lot of credit to the Bush administration for the economy but rather it is our system, which the liberals will continue to nibble at and dismantle. If one thinks the economy is in shambles that person has not been around long. Go back and look at the housing sector, banking and S&L situation in the 80s and then you will know real problems. For your information, the "recession" we are in is still not a recession. If you blame high oil and gasoline prices on the Bush Admin. we have nothing left to discuss.