A Credible Global warming Scientist!

[kevindsingleton]

Have you ever lied?

About my position on global warming? No.

About public policy matters? No.

To the press? No.

How about you?

 

[Loren49]

1)A few emails have almost nothing to do with the Climate Change science. There are some very vocal deniers who disagree with most of the world's scientists.

2)Here is a little information on US Steel that you may have missed. I don't believe that they are a good example - they may have image issues that they are trying to change.

U.S. Steel agrees to clean up air pollution at coke plant - USATODAY.com

PITTSBURGH United States Steel (X) will make $76 million worth of repairs and pay nearly $400,000 in fines to address air pollution at the largest coke plant in the United States.
U.S. Steel will clean up its Clairton Coke Works under a consent decree announced Friday by the Allegheny County (Pa.) Health Department.

The deal stems from smoke and particulate pollution from the largest of the mill's 12 coke oven batteries. It contains 75 of the plant's 816 coke ovens.

Coke, which is made by baking coal in large brick ovens for hours to remove impurities, is a fuel used in steelmaking.

U.S. Steel must replace the walls in the ovens by June 30, 2010. The company could also be fined by the hour for visible pollution emissions detected by a smoke monitor, and must pay a $50,000 fine if that monitor is not working 90% of the time, said Roger Westman, the health department's air quality manager

U.S. Steel Gets Pollution Fine Of $4 Million

The U.S. Steel Corp., the nations largest steel-maker, agreed yesterday to pay a $4 million fine in settlement of a long-standing water pollution suit brought by the federal government and the state of Indiana.

The steel company, in a consent decree signed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Hammond, Ind., also agreed to pay additional $250,000 fine to end a criminal contempt case in which it was accused of violating the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Sprol U.S. Steel Corp Pollution at Gary Works

Gary Works is an extensive steelmaking complex that sits on approximately 3,000 acres along the south shore of Lake Michigan just 15 miles southeast of Chicago. It is known as the number one polluter in the Lake Michigan basin and the third largest throughout all of the Great Lakes. In fact, U.S. Steel reported dumping more than 1.7 million pounds of pollution into the Grand Calumet in 2005, the last year for which figures are available.

3)What makes you think that BP is not just selling to the highest bidder? It is not a US company and sells to the world market. US energy policy which hides much of the true cost of fuel in taxes and national debt encourages waste.
Loren

 

[kevindsingleton]

1)A few emails have almost nothing to do with the Climate Change science. There are some very vocal deniers who disagree with most of the world's scientists.

A few emails have almost nothing to do with atomic particle science, either. What does that prove?

The particular emails in question are those that do relate to global warming "science", and they indicate that global warming "scientists" were lying to produce numbers that would cover up the fact that their measurements indicate that the Earth is cooling. That's the very definition of "relevant".

"Most" of the world's scientists have yet to weigh in on the subject, but there are hundreds who practice in relevant fields that have said they don't see the correllation between mankind's activities and any significant change in the global climate. Indeed, since the Earth is actually cooling, it's a moot point.

2)Here is a little information on US Steel that you may have missed. I don't believe that they are a good example - they may have image issues that they are trying to change.

I'm almost positive that the example was provided to prove that some corporations are doing something to reduce pollution that is not the result of leftist legislation. Note that this is the result of a consent decree, not a judgment, and involves one of twelve coke oven batteries, and an expenditure of $76 million over and above the fines assessed. I'd say that's doing something.

3)What makes you think that BP is not just selling to the highest bidder? It is not a US company and sells to the world market. US energy policy which hides much of the true cost of fuel in taxes and national debt encourages waste.
Loren

Who would be the highest bidder? Europe, with their $12/gallon gasoline, or the US, with our $2.53/gallon gasoline? Let's do the math, shall we? We're a big consumer, and we buy lots of fuel. BP can make up their losses in volume, right? I don't care if they're selling to the highest bidder. The fact is, if they refused to sell to the US market, they wouldn't be likely to produce enough cash flow to keep operating. Besides, there is at least one other energy company in the world, so who cares what BP does (besides those among us who are shareholders)?

By the way, it was 45 degrees, in my little town outside of Pittsburgh, this morning. How's that for global warming?

 

[dave1949]

Who produced the materials? A large corporation?



Sustainably, I presume? :thumbsup:



A Japanese car and an SUV? And, you call yourself a liberal?



So, you're all for the environment, until it bites back, eh? :thumbsup:



I don't know if that's good, or bad. I have three refrigerators, and four freezers.



I've read about that. Something to do with ConAgra and feeding the world, I think.




I do. Five gallon plastic bottles.



Me, too. I reuse the plastic bags they give you, too. :thumbsup:



Well, that's what it's all about: how you feel!



Actually, you could more rightly thank a large corporation and its employees. They're the ones who actually did the work. :thumbsup:



So? You hate game animals? :confused2:



I don't believe that, for a second!



If wild animals were interested in native plants, we wouldn't need food plots to attract them, would we? "Native" doesn't equal "ideal".



That seems like a generalization, and not an accurate one. Most food plots begin with a plow, or a tiller, in my experience. Why would I want to create a fire hazard? :confused2:



But, we do. It's mostly because liberals refuse to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, and they keep reproducing, to the detriment of all involved.



You're right. Mine continues to advance the cause of mankind. Yours would prefer to eradicate what you percieve to be the blight that is mankind.



You're the only one that's even mentioned "cheap energy at any price". I've always, and only, advanced the position that global warming is a lie, and we have the e-mails to prove it.



And, revenue. You seem to always leave out the money.



Yet, bashing conservative positions, particularly G.W. Bush, is the main thrust of any discussion regarding global warming, and denying the fact that the Earth has actually cooled, that pollution has been reduced (apparently to no avail), that the only people pushing the global warming stance are those who stand to profit from grinding the US into a third world economy, and ignoring that the global warming "scientists" have to resort to outright lying to sustain their position is all that seems to come from the liberal leftists on the subject. It would seem "bashing" is all you have.



And, all I'm pointing out is that destroying the energy industry, and the global economy, along with it, is not the answer, particularly when the entire platform is constructed on fallacies and outright lies. If global warming were true, then I'd be on board in an instant. It's not, and we have the e-mails to prove that it's not.



When we don't have to make up lies to produce the requisite numbers. :thumbsup:

Well, I see you are not really serious about the topic - or sponge worthy
Dave.

 

[kevindsingleton]

Well, I see you are not really serious about the topic - or sponge worthy
Dave.

Have a great one, Dave. Life's too good to worry about little things like a 1.2 degree temperature increase.

Did I mention it was 45, when I got up, this morning? Brrrr!

 

[dave1949]

Well, when you take a few million acres and close off all access except by foot and horse back (which they are also trying to prohibit) you are effectively making it zero access. Who does that benefit?

It's not who, it's what. It's possible to believe in the primacy of humans and still want to protect other species. We have the power of life and death over just about anything living on the planet - with the exception of some insects .

The funny thing is locking up the land and throwing away the key won't stop those people.

True. It will remove a lot of the traffic though. Think about the bus only access to Denali in Alaska. I don't wish to deny local ATV riders access to my space, I want them to appreciate what they see. I guess it's more about education and less about control.

I disagree I think people are challenging peoples right to exist. When a local environmental activist told me the only way to save nature is to "remove man's influence from the land" I read that one way and one way only.

I don't. I read it as, for some areas, the best thing we can do is keep out. Too many people have no sense of what impact really is. They want to visit nature in a 40' RV.


It is still habitat even if I drive into it and take my kids fishing. The land is not being devalued nor is wildlife being displaced by my presence.

It could be if everyone respected it. You know there will be yahoos taking shots at anything that moves, leaving ruts and trash behind and whatever else people who just don't care decide to do.


We are not talking about damaging the land. We are talking about hunting, fishing, camping etc.

Aren't there national parks and national forest service parks for those activities? Fishing and hunting are fine when done in a limited way. That isn't what will happen however. The pressure people put on land, due to the number of people and relatively easy access, is more than any area can sustain. Don't they have a rotation system where areas are closed and given time to heal?

Public lands are supposed to be managed FOR the people, not FROM the people. Simply closing land and not allowing access is NOT management.

I know public land is an issue, it covers a lot of your local space. Closing it is a form of management. It is allowing it to become natural, whether that meets our concept of useful or not. It's not always about us the human species, although in the long term, this is about us.

It's not an easy issue, I agree. I can see how it would be an aggravation. As I mentioned earlier about forestry practices, everybody does it responsibly and yet, there are zero mature private forests here. It doesn't add up unless we are just going to write-off a segment of species that depend on ecologically mature woodlands. I am all for using wood products, but I think we need to find a place and time for everything.
Dave.

 

[brin]

I have held off but no longer can contain myself...It is time for the Federal government to butt out of our business and begin to follow the US Constituion.. I am a proponent of States Rights ! Period ! Each state should allow it's citizens through the ballot box to make most ot the decisions the Federal Government is making.

Unless we want to go the way of the former Soviet Union and break apart, we had better begin to realize there are huge cultural and moral differences between states and regions within this country which in my humble opinion can only be resolved in each state. I'm done.

 

[Patriotic Stabilist]

Then get ready for Texas and Arizona to become a part of Mexico and maybe New Mexico, that's what I see from down here.

 

[Loren49]

Just by telling me your local temperature today indicates your lack of understanding of the concept of Global.

To state that a few emails negate all the science again indicates your narrow understanding.


Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com
CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"

Top 10 Global Warming Denier Arguments Debunked: Part 2 | EcoSalon

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

Loren

 

[brin]

Patriotic...Get ready for a merger with Mexico for the whole country...is more like it ..check the current demographics..It won't be long...that's why I say there are cultural differences and moral ones...so if those states want to join Mexico let them and California as well, otherwise the Federal Government is going to throw the borders open even wider and the whole country will be lost.

 

[charlz]

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Top 10 Global Warming Denier Arguments Debunked: Part 2 | EcoSalon

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

So your evidence is a couple of articles and a blog posting? Where is your science? This isn't presenting evidence in support of your cause, it is simply deferring to 'authority'.

BTW The blog posting basically just said 'things are warm' they didn't even try to link it to man-made causes which is the core of the debate (anthropogenic warming).

 

[rekees4300]

So your evidence is a couple of articles and a blog posting? Where is your science? This isn't presenting evidence in support of your cause, it is simply deferring to 'authority'.

BTW The blog posting basically just said 'things are warm' they didn't even try to link it to man-made causes which is the core of the debate (anthropogenic warming).

What is your definition of "evidence" re anthropogenic warming?

 

[sld]

What is your definition of "evidence" re anthropogenic warming?

That is just it right there! Neither side can accumulate enough subjective evidence to prove anything. It is far too complex of an issue.

So why would we harm our country and ourselves with all the global warming "fixes"?

Heck, even the so called credible scientists can't even come to consensus.

 

[Loren49]

I believe you meant "objective" evidence. Your argument would lead to nothing being done (goal of the deniers) until it was obvious to all that there was a serious problem. Then it would likely be too late. I do have reasonable confidence in the international scientific community to produce useful results through observation. (science) Also if you read articles you would see that 80 to 90% are in agreement. Just because it is complex is not a reason to do nothing.

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that being energy responsible would harm our country. Ex:If there were only small fuel efficient vehicles on the highways we would save lots of fuel and contribute to safety. I have not observed that people in large vehicles are happier than others. If gas price was at $10/gallon at the pump (instead of hiding the real cost) the transition to more fuel efficient vehicles would be the result.

A liitle info on true gas cost
True Cost of Gasoline artificial subsidies
Pay at the Pump: Uncovering the True Cost of Gasoline

Loren

 

[tallyho8]

Ex:If there were only small fuel efficient vehicles on the highways we would save lots of fuel and contribute to safety. Loren

Do you really believe that we would all be safer if we were driving smaller vehicles? Motorcycles? Ultra compact cars? I know I would feel safer in a larger car if I were to hit a tree or telephone pole at 50 mph or get hit by a dump truck.

 

[rekees4300]

Do you really believe that we would all be safer if we were driving smaller vehicles? Motorcycles? Ultra compact cars? I know I would feel safer in a larger car if I were to hit a tree or telephone pole at 50 mph or get hit by a dump truck.

There would be no dump trucks "If there were only small fuel efficient vehicles". Actually less safety would be a good thing, that way we could get rid of more humans, thus less fossil fuel burning, thus less greenhouse gases, thus less global warming, thus less climate change ... it's all connected.

 

[charlz]

I believe you meant "objective" evidence. Your argument would lead to nothing being done (goal of the deniers) until it was obvious to all that there was a serious problem. Then it would likely be too late. I do have reasonable confidence in the international scientific community to produce useful results through observation. (science) Also if you read articles you would see that 80 to 90% are in agreement. Just because it is complex is not a reason to do nothing.

Again, that whole paragraph is deferring to authority. You refuse to do any basic research of your own, reading research papers, reviewing charts and graphs etc. To quote you back: "Just because it is complex is not a reason to do nothing." It would appear you are going with what you were told to think simply because it fits your world view. "If the majority agrees it must be so."

I find it very telling that a very obvious, very huge misnomer on the whole 'hide the decline' was posted a few pages back yet none of the AGW supporters actually know enough to point it out.

Personally I am a skeptical person. I agree the climate is changing/has changed to some degree but I skeptical that natural cycles that have gone on for millions of years have suddenly stopped and man is the only cause of climate change.

 

[charlz]

There would be no dump trucks "If there were only small fuel efficient vehicles".

And that prospect doesn't scare you to some point? No dump trucks... meaning nothing is being built, nothing being torn down, i.e. no economic activity. Is that the ideal environment AGW supporters dream of?

 

[dave1949]

Do you really believe that we would all be safer if we were driving smaller vehicles? Motorcycles? Ultra compact cars? I know I would feel safer in a larger car if I were to hit a tree or telephone pole at 50 mph or get hit by a dump truck.

An Indy 500 car weighs a max. 1600 lbs, minus fuel and driver. I didn't see any dump trucks on the track

Force = Mass X Acceleration

A heavier car has more energy to dissipate in a crash. I think smaller cars could be AS safe as larger cars when colliding with each other. And they could be AS safe when hitting a stationary object. Obviously the dump trucks present a problem.
Dave.

 

[charlz]

What is your definition of "evidence" re anthropogenic warming?

How about some graphs that show the massive amounts of CO2 and other gasses humans are dumping into the atmosphere? Something that shows how obvious the connection is?

Like maybe this one?

See how stunning the blue is? That massive .28% contribution isn't just CO2 though, it is everything we pump into the atmosphere. Man made CO2 by itself is more like .1 to .2%.