Global Warming News

[Loren49]

Ken,
Didn't address your last note - I'm not sure of who is pushing for no controls on Chinas industrial production - your question has an obvious answer (Ithink) and I tried to address it earlier. How should we define pollution - by country or per capita? Is there evidence of someone or group trying to do this?

If you believe CO2 has nothing to do with it then this table is meaningless.
This is a table that compares per capita CO2 emissions by country.
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question seems to be what policies will help US production. Pollution restrictions here are part of difference but I think that labor costs is the biggest difference. Who is willing to work for almost nothing (by our standards)?

Loren

 

[IH3444]

CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary

 

[EddieWalker]

Loren,

While the graph is pretty basic, I find it significant that it includes the medieval warming period. To me, this collaborates all the history of that period of time. This is significant for a variety of reasons.

It shows that in recent times, relative to the age of the planet, that there are up and down cycles to the planets temperature.

It proves that the planet was allot warmer, for quite a long period of time.

It proves that during this warmer period of time, the catastrophes that are predicted with global warming didn't happen.

In fact, it lends allot to the argument that we would be better off if the planet was warmer.

It debunks the claims about extreme weather and oceans flooding the current shorelines. It didn't happen back then when the planet was so much warmer, it's not going to happen if and when the planet reaches those temperatures again.

The reason to fight global warming is because of how terrible life will become if the planet warms a degree or two. Ice sheets will melt, glaciers will disappear and farmland will become barren. History tells us that in the past, when this happened, life was better.

What makes anybody think that today's temperature is the best temperature? Why wouldn't 2 or even five degrees more be a bad thing? If the farmers in the Northern states had another month or two of growing season, would that be such a bad thing? If the planet was warmer, would that cause more evaporation, which would result in more rain? Who doesn't want more rain?

Because those pushing for the fight to end global warming have to rely on fantasy in their predictions of global catastrophe, and have never mentioned the possibility that warmer weather might have some benefits, they discredit themselves automatically. The same applies to those who have to lie by fabricating or omitting evidence to prove their points. They no longer have any credibility. And the third strike should be in what is the solution to a problem that they are so worried about. More taxes, carbon credits and greater regulations on a select portion of those causing the so called problem. It's like a frivolous lawsuit. You know it's all BS when they only sue those with the money, but ignore those that are actually the worst offenders because there's no chance of making a buck off of them. The total focus on global warming is in collecting trillions of dollars from the US. None of them are going after Russia, China or India. If they really wanted to stop pollution on a global scale, then that's just what they should be doing. Focusing on the easy target, the US, and ignoring the real problem, China, proves beyond all doubt that this is just a shakedown designed for both power and money.

Then to really nail it, the end result, if everything works out like they "hope" it will after all their changes are done, and everything is passed, is to reduce the temperature of the planet by one or two degrees over the next hundred years. The end goal is just as silly as the entire premise that the sun isn't responsible for the planets temperature.

The sun is going to do what it wants, and the ice caps are going to just have to deal with that.

Eddie

 

[CrownHawg]

Not trying to inflame an already volatile discussion, but after going through this entire thread, it occurs to me that the opinions here differ greatly depending on geographical location. Most "Easterners" are defending "climategate", while those of us in the west and south tend to be much more skeptical of the "official reports". Just an observation.

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

I've done over 50 years of personal research and have discovered its hot in the summer and cold in the winter...at least where I live...

 

[Ken]

A lot of reading repeating and facts.
My Question is where and why did the people of Mesa Verde Colo. go it was before the use of fossil fuels and either to cold or to hot to dry or to wet.
Also several areas of the west has these houses where the people left quickly.

another ken

 

[texbaylea]

"Don't confuse me with facts - my mind is made up"

Anthropogenic Global Warming has all the characteristics of another bubble that just burst.

Vernon

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Good morning all,

answer to FallbrookFarmer-
Excessive profit was clearly my opinion - as stated earlier I feel when a company receives tax money that its profits should be modest - especially when the profit comes from fuel costs for those tax payers. (is this a liberal or conservative view?) Since I'm on the topic, probably as important is the pay within the company (same question for non profits who are tax exempt) - example-is pay excessive (worker and management) - how much are lobbyists paid? What are the fringe benefits?
I just want to pose the question - I'm sure we won't all agree and I'm not after anyone's answer. (I can't put a solid number on it) If everyone in a company we look at is making $16 million we probably could agree that it appears excessive.
I am confident that big oil lobbyists historically have been more interested in their profits than in policies that would make us energy independent. Also all of these big oil companies do much of their business offshore and must work with many countries who aren't very friendly towards the US.

A comment for thought - Companies with profits in mind make the decision to move their manufacturing to China. (easy to criticize Government for their role - employ rights here, EPA standards, import duties (which ultimately effect our exports)


Concerning Alternative energy sources - after my 26 years with small wind and solar - I see real advantages of solar - biggest one is no moving parts - almost zero maintenance - down side is higher cost per watt to build. A combination of solar and wind over a wide area can help keep a more constant output. (Germany has significant small solar electric production and is much farther north than most of the US)

I agree with "AKfish" post. We will be a much stronger country if we become energy independent. Countries who have made this a priority are making progress. I believe this would create more jobs.


Loren

Thank you for the reply,
I agree with you wholeheartedly,that companies on the government teat should have "modest" profits, but how about a concept that government should not be in the business of rewarding or punishing companies or individuals based at all.
Sadly, that is exactly what the current tax`code has evolved into. I think that both liberals and conservatives can agree on the concept that it is not good policy to elect people to office who use their power to change tax laws to benefit their contributors.
How about we agree to take that power away from legislators,and if we need a federal tax system, base it on a flat percentage of income.
Further, in relation to "global warming" and rewarding "green" technology, The best way to change peoples behavior, is not by government mandate(tax credits etc) but by offering a market based solution(i.e. My VW Golf gets 45-50MPG, and I can make my own fuel from used french fry oil). Market based solutions will always be superior to command-control mandates. Your Thoughts?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Good morning all,

answer to FallbrookFarmer-
Excessive profit was clearly my opinion - as stated earlier I feel when a company receives tax money that its profits should be modest - especially when the profit comes from fuel costs for those tax payers. (is this a liberal or conservative view?) Since I'm on the topic, probably as important is the pay within the company (same question for non profits who are tax exempt) - example-is pay excessive (worker and management) - how much are lobbyists paid? What are the fringe benefits?
I just want to pose the question - I'm sure we won't all agree and I'm not after anyone's answer. (I can't put a solid number on it) If everyone in a company we look at is making $16 million we probably could agree that it appears excessive.
I am confident that big oil lobbyists historically have been more interested in their profits than in policies that would make us energy independent. Also all of these big oil companies do much of their business offshore and must work with many countries who aren't very friendly towards the US.

A comment for thought - Companies with profits in mind make the decision to move their manufacturing to China. (easy to criticize Government for their role - employ rights here, EPA standards, import duties (which ultimately effect our exports)


Concerning Alternative energy sources - after my 26 years with small wind and solar - I see real advantages of solar - biggest one is no moving parts - almost zero maintenance - down side is higher cost per watt to build. A combination of solar and wind over a wide area can help keep a more constant output. (Germany has significant small solar electric production and is much farther north than most of the US)

I agree with "AKfish" post. We will be a much stronger country if we become energy independent. Countries who have made this a priority are making progress. I believe this would create more jobs.


Loren

Thank you for the reply,
I agree with you wholeheartedly,that companies on the government teat should have "modest" profits, but how about a concept that government should not be in the business of rewarding or punishing companies or individuals at all.
Sadly, that is exactly what the current tax`code has evolved into. I think that both liberals and conservatives can agree on the concept that it is not good policy to elect people to office who use their power to change tax laws to benefit their contributors.
How about we agree to take that power away from legislators,and if we need a federal tax system, base it on a flat percentage of income.
Further, in relation to "global warming" and rewarding "green" technology, The best way to change peoples behavior, is not by government mandate(tax credits etc) but by offering a market based solution(i.e. My VW Golf gets 45-50MPG, and I can make my own fuel from used french fry oil). Market based solutions will always be superior to command-control mandates. Your Thoughts?

 

[20 20]

If the planet was warmer, would that cause more evaporation, which would result in more rain? Who doesn't want more rain?


Eddie

I can only speak for our little neck of the woods, but I doubt highly you'd find anyone around here that wants a repeat of the last few years. We've had bad floods and so much rain it's hard to do anything. Not saying I'm against rain, but you asked

 

[IH3444]

Global warming: A Russian study Tad Cronn

I vote for global warming

 

[keegs]

The whole world is conspiring against us!!!

 

[IH3444]

No, just the sun.

Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming' | Climate Depot

 

[Pilot]

What I don't understand is why none of the alarmists call for getting the science right and that call is only made by the skeptics.

Alarmists seem to believe Al Gore and the others who say the science is settled in spite of clear evidence of fraud and poor science on the part of the CRU researchers and others. How do they defend the hockey stick, which has been widely discredited, how do they defend the discarding of data in preference to theory in order to "hide the decline"? How do they defend the suppression of studies that don't support their viewpoints?

What is the most abundant greenhouse gas? Not CO2, but water vapor, about which science knows almost nothing. Ah, but they have models! Models built on assumptions since they don't have experiments. And the whole case depends on the validity of these assumptions and a whole bunch of other factors about which they don't fully understand.

Then they ask you to kick in thousands of dollars of your hard earned money to fight a problem that may or may not exist, but their models say it does.

We should all be demanding that they get the science right. At this point and with the evidence of fraud, deception and suppression of opposing evidence, we should all recognize that they don't have it right yet.

 

[keegs]

What I don't understand is why none of the alarmists call for getting the science right and that call is only made by the skeptics.

Alarmists seem to believe Al Gore and the others who say the science is settled in spite of clear evidence of fraud and poor science on the part of the CRU researchers and others. How do they defend the hockey stick, which has been widely discredited, how do they defend the discarding of data in preference to theory in order to "hide the decline"? How do they defend the suppression of studies that don't support their viewpoints?

What is the most abundant greenhouse gas? Not CO2, but water vapor, about which science knows almost nothing. Ah, but they have models! Models built on assumptions since they don't have experiments. And the whole case depends on the validity of these assumptions and a whole bunch of other factors about which they don't fully understand.

Then they ask you to kick in thousands of dollars of your hard earned money to fight a problem that may or may not exist, but their models say it does.

We should all be demanding that they get the science right.

Pilot,

Is it all a conspiracy then? That must be the case. And if it is, who's behind it? What's their goal?

 

[IH3444]

No conspiracy. There was no conspiracy on wall street, or by home lenders. Just greed, and egos to feed. look where that got us.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE by Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. - Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory | Climate Realists

Little Ice Age II, The Sequel? by Doug L. Hoffman | Climate Realists

 

[charlz]

Sure, the climate is going to change. We know that the Sahara Desert was once green and lush. Mankind didn't change that.

Actually I just watched the "How the Earth was Made" episode on the Sahara. IIRC they said the Sahara has been a green, lush area with monster lakes at least 6 times. Whale bones, fossil beaches, limestone etc. are all present in the Sahara. Using deep ocean core samples they determined how often and the frequency that this occurs (wind blows sand out to sea in the dry periods)..... lasts for a few thousand years every 15,000 years. The last time was 5,000 years ago. Turns out there is a 'wobble' in the Earth's rotation that it perfectly coincides with.

Seems to be a well-put together show based in science.

 

[charlz]

To me, that's wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It makes no sense, those trail users probably don't want a coal fired plant around them at home either - which creates the acid rain that impacts the forest they love to walk through.

Like the greens that want us to build more solar power plants..... but not if something else lives there? Always going to be 'something' in the way.

Solar showdown in Calif. tortoises' desert home - Yahoo! News

 

[keegs]

No conspiracy. There was no conspiracy on wall street, or by home lenders. Just greed, and egos to feed. look where that got us.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE by Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. - Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory | Climate Realists

Little Ice Age II, The Sequel? by Doug L. Hoffman | Climate Realists

IH...The vast majority of the world's climate scientists are greedy and have big egos? That's what this is all about?

 

[IH3444]

IH...The vast majority of the world's climate scientists are greedy and have big egos? That's what this is all about?

That's not what I said. You stated that.