Global Warming: The New Religion

[Njaco]

I think you're right Pb, They know all too well.

Simple Human Nature Test:
You get $5 more in change than you should have. Do you :
A) Keep it and don't tell the clerk
B)Let the clerk know and give it back

I think too many people nowadays keep it.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You see that is relatively speaking. The people over here flourish and are just as successful as in the United States.

Here you can own your own business, you can live as you want, you can do as you want. It is no different as is the United States (except that the gun laws are more strict). Sure you pay higher taxes, but you get something in return for it.

I think that when you talk about the life in Europe, you need to address unemployment and national defense budget. I believe the unemployment in Germany is around 7.5% (I understand that this is a very low level there). Can you imagine what the Democrats would say about the Republicans if the US unemployment rate was 7.5%.

I have a real problem with European defense expenditure. They seem completely happy with US power dominance by keeping low defense expenditures all the while lambasting the US.

[Matt308]

I have to question the constant "defense" expenditure claim of some. I fully believe that defense spending (%GDP) between the US and Western Europe is a false argument.

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Oman: $1.12 per $10 of GDP
#2 Eritrea: $1.04 per $10 of GDP
#3 Ethiopia: $0.99 per $10 of GDP
#4 Afghanistan: $0.91 per $10 of GDP
#5 Mali: $0.86 per $10 of GDP
#6 Israel: $0.76 per $10 of GDP
#7 Saudi Arabia: $0.73 per $10 of GDP
#8 Jordan: $0.68 per $10 of GDP
#9 Burundi: $0.64 per $10 of GDP
#10 Iran: $0.60 per $10 of GDP
#11 Bahrain: $0.55 per $10 of GDP
#12 Egypt: $0.54 per $10 of GDP
#13 Kuwait: $0.47 per $10 of GDP
#14 Maldives: $0.46 per $10 of GDP
#15 Libya: $0.45 per $10 of GDP
#16 Guinea: $0.44 per $10 of GDP
#17 Singapore: $0.42 per $10 of GDP
#18 Djibouti: $0.40 per $10 of GDP
#19 Macedonia, Republic of: $0.38 per $10 of GDP
#20 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: $0.38 per $10 of GDP
#21 Armenia: $0.38 per $10 of GDP
#22 Yemen: $0.38 per $10 of GDP
#23 Syria: $0.37 per $10 of GDP
#24 Sri Lanka: $0.36 per $10 of GDP
#25 Qatar: $0.35 per $10 of GDP
#26 Zimbabwe: $0.35 per $10 of GDP
#27 China: $0.34 per $10 of GDP
#28 Colombia: $0.34 per $10 of GDP
#29 Rwanda: $0.32 per $10 of GDP
#30 Pakistan: $0.31 per $10 of GDP
#31 Greece: $0.30 per $10 of GDP
#32 Sudan: $0.30 per $10 of GDP
#33 Bosnia and Herzegovina: $0.29 per $10 of GDP
#34 Argentina: $0.28 per $10 of GDP
#35 Morocco: $0.28 per $10 of GDP
#36 Serbia and Montenegro: $0.27 per $10 of GDP
#37 Mauritania: $0.27 per $10 of GDP
#38 Turkey: $0.27 per $10 of GDP
#39 Chile: $0.27 per $10 of GDP
#40 Lebanon: $0.25 per $10 of GDP
#41 Cyprus: $0.25 per $10 of GDP
#42 Lesotho: $0.25 per $10 of GDP
#43 Cambodia: $0.24 per $10 of GDP
#44 Botswana: $0.24 per $10 of GDP
#45 Ecuador: $0.24 per $10 of GDP
#46 United States: $0.24 per $10 of GDP
#47 France: $0.23 per $10 of GDP
#48 Laos: $0.23 per $10 of GDP
#49 United Arab Emirates: $0.23 per $10 of GDP
#50 Brazil: $0.22 per $10 of GDP
#51 Algeria: $0.22 per $10 of GDP
#52 Guinea-Bissau: $0.20 per $10 of GDP
#53 Benin: $0.20 per $10 of GDP
#54 Korea, South: $0.19 per $10 of GDP
#55 Congo, Republic of the: $0.19 per $10 of GDP
#56 Uruguay: $0.19 per $10 of GDP
#57 Seychelles: $0.18 per $10 of GDP
#58 Uganda: $0.18 per $10 of GDP
#59 Australia: $0.18 per $10 of GDP
#60 Paraguay: $0.18 per $10 of GDP
#61 Liberia: $0.17 per $10 of GDP
#62 Tajikistan: $0.17 per $10 of GDP
#63 Bolivia: $0.17 per $10 of GDP
#64 India: $0.17 per $10 of GDP
#65 Uzbekistan: $0.17 per $10 of GDP
#66 Comoros: $0.16 per $10 of GDP
#67 Croatia: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#68 Mongolia: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#69 Fiji: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#70 Bulgaria: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#71 United Kingdom: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#72 Peru: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#73 Turkmenistan: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#74 Poland: $0.15 per $10 of GDP
#75 Vietnam: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#76 Malaysia: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#77 Germany: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#78 Estonia: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#79 Azerbaijan: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#80 Haiti: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#81 Bhutan: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#82 Romania: $0.14 per $10 of GDP
#83 Namibia: $0.13 per $10 of GDP
#84 East Timor: $0.13 per $10 of GDP
#85 Sweden: $0.13 per $10 of GDP
#86 Tunisia: $0.13 per $10 of GDP
#87 Norway: $0.12 per $10 of GDP
#88 Italy: $0.12 per $10 of GDP

[renrich]

I am not sure that proves much. I question the accuracy of the numbers because for one thing the amount that China spends is a closely held secret and I think I noticed that Russia and Ukraine were not on the list. For instance, how can we be sure that the numbers from Zimbabwe are accurate. I doubt that their government even knows what their GDP is. Even if the figures are accurate, it would be more meaningful if the total amounts spent, adjusted for buying power, were known. The US economy is so big and, relatively, so efficient that 24 cents for every ten dollars of GDP is a huge number. On the other hand, if the US decides to become more socialistic and initiate socialised medicine and our defense expenditures drop to 20 cents for every 10 dollars of GDP and GDP growth levels out because of higher taxes and more government regulation, that becomes a major cut in the military.

[Matt308]

I didn't post all of the figures. Would per capita figures hold any weight with you?

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I think that when you talk about the life in Europe, you need to address unemployment and national defense budget. I believe the unemployment in Germany is around 7.5% (I understand that this is a very low level there). Can you imagine what the Democrats would say about the Republicans if the US unemployment rate was 7.5%.

I have a real problem with European defense expenditure. They seem completely happy with US power dominance by keeping low defense expenditures all the while lambasting the US.

Unemployment point doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny:

OECD 2008 second quarter stats
(%)

Western Europe:

Austria 4.1
Belgium 6.7
Czech Republic 4.4
Denmark 2.7
Finland 6.1
France 7.4 (Ancient and outdated labour legislation)
Germany 7.4 (a huge part of the country is the former East Germany which continues to suffer from the aftermath of communism.)
Ireland 6.0
Luxembourg 4.2
Netherlands 2.9
Norway 2.5
Sweden 5.2
Switzerland 3.5
United Kingdom 5.2

United States 5.5


And neither does the military spending:

2008 (projected) United States 583,283,000,000

2007 European Union 311,920,000,000

2000 United States 342,172,000,000

We just don't agree with you on how to deal with international politics currently. Which is the reason for the current budget of the US military.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I think that when you talk about the life in Europe, you need to address unemployment and national defense budget. I believe the unemployment in Germany is around 7.5% (I understand that this is a very low level there). Can you imagine what the Democrats would say about the Republicans if the US unemployment rate was 7.5%.

In that aspect you are correct.

I believe the reason for such a high number however is because of all the Eastern Europeans who come in and freeload. That is where the system fails over here. It allows these people to freeload.

The system is being revised though. They will find you a job, and if you turn it down you loose your welfare.

Originally Posted by davparlr

I have a real problem with European defense expenditure. They seem completely happy with US power dominance by keeping low defense expenditures all the while lambasting the US.

I will agree with you on that.

I think the reason for it (here in Germany that is) is because WW2 is so fresh in their minds. The people would never allow the government to raise defense spending.

[renrich]

I think spending per capita would have some meaning but I wonder about the statistics. For example, it is said that the underground economy may be as much as 20-25% of the economy in the US. In other words, the GDP could be 20-25% larger than reported. I have heard that non reporting of income in the European countries is endemic, even worse than the US. If those things are true, it would throw off the statistics big time. Another point is on military spending and how reported versus domestic spending. A for instance would be spending on R and D. I see your point however. The fact is that the US spends a large amount on the military and could not spend as much if big social programs are implemented. Implementing socialised medicine when we have not addressed the land mine of Social Security is IMO madness.

[JugBR]

its good to separate global warming and pollution issues:

people can disagree about global warming but people cant disagree about the pollution of air in great metropolis.

[Njaco]

Jug, I don't think there is an argument so much as whether its real but exactly what the causes are. I disagree with much of the "theories".

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Jug, I don't think there is an argument so much as whether its real but exactly what the causes are. I disagree with much of the "theories".

Exactly. Is it real? Appears to be. Most people are going on the side of yes. Now, the questions are:

1. How much is man induced?
2. How much is natural cycles?
3. How much data do we have one way or the other?

I have serious doubts as to the validity of man's affect. Most of the data is only a 100 to 150 years in length. And that data is questionable in how it was obtained (checks on the accuracy of instruments), how it is interpeted (very political in this real) and what anyone can do about it.

There is way to much room for political mechinations and general bull to put any great validity to this thing. Worth study? Sure. But take it out of the hands of the knucklehead politicians (both in and out of academia).

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Exactly. Is it real? Appears to be. Most people are going on the side of yes. Now, the questions are:

1. How much is man induced?
2. How much is natural cycles?
3. How much data do we have one way or the other?

I have serious doubts as to the validity of man's affect. Most of the data is only a 100 to 150 years in length. And that data is questionable in how it was obtained (checks on the accuracy of instruments), how it is interpeted (very political in this real) and what anyone can do about it.

There is way to much room for political mechinations and general bull to put any great validity to this thing. Worth study? Sure. But take it out of the hands of the knucklehead politicians (both in and out of academia).

I too have many questions about the human contributions to Global Warming, similar to yours. As far as the models are concerned, I would like to know what the assumptions were for the values that were filled in. What kind of verification was performed on the models? Were past actual performance used as verifications? How reliable are the past measurements. Does the composition of air trapped in ice degrade over ten thousand years? How do we know such answers?

As for extended time temperature readings, I have attached a picture covering about 425,000 years (of unknown accuracy, see above). There are a couple of points of interest here.

1. Note that the rises seem to be cyclic, occurring about every 150,000 years. All the cyclic things I know of in nature are based on astronomical events. It is very apparent that the warming period presently occurring is something that is not created by man, none of the others were and the present one started about 20,000 years ago. So the question is not that man created Global Warming but how much, if any, has he added to the present one.

2. Note that the temperature peak of the present cycle is slightly over two degrees above whatever zero is. This is only slightly above the lowest highs on the chart and nearly a degree below the highest highs. So far global warming has not exceeded normal natural behavior.

Now, I am not necessarily an anti-global warming guy, but I do think there are a lot questions warranting answers before pulling ones hair out and shouting the sky is falling like Gore does. It is obvious global warming is occurring, but I am not sold on the amount that humans have contributed to it. I also do not think we should be dumping all kinds of crud into it.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Exactly. Is it real? Appears to be. Most people are going on the side of yes. Now, the questions are:

1. How much is man induced?
2. How much is natural cycles?
3. How much data do we have one way or the other?

I have serious doubts as to the validity of man's affect. Most of the data is only a 100 to 150 years in length. And that data is questionable in how it was obtained (checks on the accuracy of instruments), how it is interpeted (very political in this real) and what anyone can do about it.

There is way to much room for political mechinations and general bull to put any great validity to this thing. Worth study? Sure. But take it out of the hands of the knucklehead politicians (both in and out of academia).

1. what is the industries that would be damaged by hypotetical "global warming restraint laws" ?
2. whos the politicians that this industries are lobbing ?
3. how many media veichles this industries have close relations ?
4. what is the industries that would be benefit by hypotetical "global warming restraint laws" ?
5. whos the politicians that this industries are lobbing ?
6. how many media veichles this industries have close relations ?

in the end of the day, the verdict will be more political as scientific. both sides does have your media to convince the average joe about your point. wich cause have more popularity, will be the winner cause.

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

the earth have a very complex climate system, its very true we had warming and cooling eras before. and we could be passing by an natural warming era. and i believe the "global-hoax-warming" defenders are right to use this as justification to their point. but we have to take care, because not all environmental problems could be justified by erath´s climate natural changes. we should have conscience we are the bigger "changer agent" on earth now. we shall not close our eyes for that.

the green industries, green fuel, green policies are not just hippies stuff. since the 80´s the world had opened their eyes for the great benefits that brings green policies: on eco-systems and also in human health.

i read too many people talking about health systems in the political thread, i dont know if someone realized that the best health system is the one based on prevention. if you have quality of live youll have less chances to been sick. a cleaner air in great world metropolis is also quality of life for most part of mankind.

but for the quality of life, also depends the labour occupation. an unemployed person have no quality of life, or quite low. because we have families, we have to buy food, pay water, eletricity, etc...

a drastic change of industry sometimes could make massive unemployment. a country like usa for example, have their industry strongly based on oil. so its not from a day to another, to converts a significant part of the industry to alternative fueled.

1. because theres too many jobs that depends of oil.
2. because the corn-based ethanol is not a quite eficient solution for americans.
3. because usa government are not thinking in the possibility to invest in ethanol from sugar cane, witch is more eficient way to get ethanol than corn.
4. because other alternative ways like hidrogen and eletric cars are too expensice or less eficient than gasoline.

so, we also have to open our eyes for the real possibilities of industrial changes in a small piece of time. wich is very dificult and could make many unemployment in all world.

[pbfoot]

Its not realistic for a guy from Brazil to knock the US on global warming as your country is cutting down the rainforest at ever increasing rates .Not that my country is any more innocent but you should look in the mirror first

[javlin]

I will agree with you Jug the US does rely on oil an so does everybody ELSE!But let's take it here in the US the great idea of solar energy and how it is being helped by nano-technolgy?We have a solar field NV/OK?that is ready to be tested 2sq/miles who opposes,the enviros go figure,some bird's habitat needs to be looked at,backs it up 2 yrs min.The enviro's would like us to live in the stone age as long as it does not involve them,trust me I had a brother-in-law like that and I have not talked to in yrs. after I called him a fatalist in "wishing the world should be devoid of humans" and he does scientific researcher.His view as you can tel man does more harm than good and anyone who really feels that way should just go and off themselves now.Yea I will take living a good life were we rule.