An Inconvenient Truth...

[Fitswimmer]

I've asked the same questions on this and other threads on the same topic, and rarely to I get anyone to answer.

Even if you take global climate change out of the equation, clean air, clean water, and less dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) are all good things in and of themselves. Why some people still feel the need to kick and scream about this issue is beyond me. "But you're making me change the way I do things" they whine. Grow the hell up. You don't get to turn the Earth into a garbage dump just because you're too lazy to make some changes. It would be great if everyone in the world would take it upon themselves to change. But as history (and this very thread!) have shown, it almost always takes government action to make broad changes in how companies and the public do things.

I agree, but I think a lot of the resistence comes from a "do as I say, not as I do" image from some of the proponents. Most middle income Americans can't afford to live the way they want to AND buy carbon offsets to reduce their impact like Al Gore or folks in Hollywood. So, the middle American is told to adjust their lifestyle and buy smaller cars, buy more expensive lightbulbs, keep their houses warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter while the people telling them to do those things are not making similar sacrifices.

I buy the lightbulbs, I recycle, I keep my truck in the garage 2-3 days a week, I keep my house cool in the winter-but that's about it for me. I'm not giving up on sleeping from June-October to keep my house at 78 degrees.

 

[Christopher Robin]

There is a huge difference between 'You should' and 'You must'. I think that's the rub.

 

[Chicago526]

I agree, but I think a lot of the resistence comes from a "do as I say, not as I do" image from some of the proponents. Most middle income Americans can't afford to live the way they want to AND buy carbon offsets to reduce their impact like Al Gore or folks in Hollywood. So, the middle American is told to adjust their lifestyle and buy smaller cars, buy more expensive lightbulbs, keep their houses warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter while the people telling them to do those things are not making similar sacrifices.

I buy the lightbulbs, I recycle, I keep my truck in the garage 2-3 days a week, I keep my house cool in the winter-but that's about it for me. I'm not giving up on sleeping from June-October to keep my house at 78 degrees.

I don't think anyone is advocating going out and spending $10,000 on a new more energy efficiant heating/AC unit when there is nothing wrong with the one they have already, they are just encouraging people that when it IS time to replace them, pick the energy efficiant ones. And certainly, no one should set the AC at 85 in the middle of August, just don't have it set at 68, either When your out of light bulbs, go buy a pack of the florecent ones (which have come way down in price, BTW). You don't have to turn "green" overnight, just stop and think a bit, and try whenever possible to make better choices, that's all. If you can afford a carbon offset, great, if you can't, you can't. Just do what you can do, whenever you can do it. If we all wait for the other guy to do it first, it will never happen!

 

[User Name]

There is a huge difference between 'You should' and 'You must'. I think that's the rub.

And, another issue is the exaggeration and misleading "data" they use to sell global "warming". There is still no conclusive evidence that the current trend is in anyway (1) caused by man (2) outside of the normal swings that have been occurring for millions of years. Furthermore, thinking that mankind can do anything that negligably alters the global temperature (good or bad) is both egotistic and futile. It's like peeing in the ocean and expecting to affect the tides. Fact is: We don't matter that much.

 

[Chicago526]

And, another issue is the exaggeration and misleading "data" they use to sell global "warming". There is still no conclusive evidence that the current trend is in anyway (1) caused by man (2) outside of the normal swings that have been occurring for millions of years. Furthermore, thinking that mankind can do anything that negligably alters the global temperature (good or bad) is both egotistic and futile. It's like peeing in the ocean and expecting to affect the tides. Fact is: We don't matter that much.

As I an several other posters just stated, even if you're right (and you're not! ) and humans have nothing to do with global climate change, again, cleaning up the enviroment is a GOOD thing all by itself. If you don't want to buy into global climate change, then don't. I won't hold it against you, I promise! But don't sit there and tell me that just because humans don't cause climate change, it's okay to dump tons of pollutants into the air. There are a lot of other reasons why clean air, water and soil are important. There are excellent geo-politcal reasons why using less oil is important (and short term, possiblely more important than enviromental concerns). I mean, can anyone here tell me why it's a great idea to depend on a fuel source from a region in the world as unstable and unpredictable as the middle east?

 

[Mugg Mann]

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...inter-on-record/20070316061809990001?cid=2194

World's Warmest Winter on Record
Reuters
WASHINGTON (March 16) - This has been the world's warmest winter since record-keeping began more than a century ago, the U.S. government agency that tracks weather reported on Thursday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since records began in 1880.
A record-warm January was responsible for pushing up the combined winter temperature, according to the agency's Web site, http://www.noaa.gov.

"Contributing factors were the long-term trend toward warmer temperatures as well as a moderate El Nino in the Pacific," Jay Lawrimore of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said in a telephone interview from Asheville, North Carolina.

The next-warmest winter on record was in 2004, and the third warmest winter was in 1998, Lawrimore said.

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

"We don't say this winter is evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases," Lawrimore said.

However, he noted that his center's work is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change process, which released a report on global warming last month that found climate change is occurring and that human activities quite likely play a role in the change.

"So we know as a part of that, the conclusions have been reached and the warming trend is due in part to rises in greenhouse gas emissions," Lawrimore said. "By looking at long-term trends and long-term changes, we are able to better understand natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change."

The combined temperature for the December-February period was 1.3 degrees F above the 20th century mean, the agency said. Lawrimore did not give an absolute temperature for the three-month period, and said the deviation from the mean was what was important. He did not provide the 20th century mean temperature.

Temperatures were above average for these months in Europe, Asia, western Africa, southeastern Brazil and the northeast half of the United States, with cooler-than-average conditions in parts of Saudi Arabia and the central United States.

Global temperature on land surface during the northern hemisphere winter was also the warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest after the winter of 1997-98.

Over the past century, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.11 degree F per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976 -- around 0.32 degree F per decade, with some of the biggest temperature rises in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[User Name]

As I an several other posters just stated, even if you're right (and you're not! ) and humans have nothing to do with global climate change, again, cleaning up the enviroment is a GOOD thing all by itself. If you don't want to buy into global climate change, then don't. I won't hold it against you, I promise! But don't sit there and tell me that just because humans don't cause climate change, it's okay to dump tons of pollutants into the air. There are a lot of other reasons why clean air, water and soil are important. There are excellent geo-politcal reasons why using less oil is important (and short term, possiblely more important than enviromental concerns). I mean, can anyone here tell me why it's a great idea to depend on a fuel source from a region in the world as unstable and unpredictable as the middle east?

I'm all for alternative energy sources.

But...
The Kennedy Klan continues to forbid wind farms which would greatly benefit the region, but ruin their view.
The environmentalists don't want us to burn coal.
The environmentalists don't want us to drill in Anwar.
The environmentalists and Cailfornia elite don't want us to drill of the Pacific coast.
Many on the left don't want to expand nuclear energy.
The liberals in Congress want to take oil profits as a punishment, so the oil companies can't invest in new technologies and/or new refineries.
The UAW reps are fighting to stop US auto manufacturers from making more efficient cars, because they say it would hurt the workers.
The liberal left doesn't want us to go in and make the middle east more democratic, safe, and predictable.
Al Gore wants to sell us "carbon credits" so he can profit.

 

[Charade]

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...inter-on-record/20070316061809990001?cid=2194

World's Warmest Winter on Record
Reuters
WASHINGTON (March 16) - This has been the world's warmest winter since record-keeping began more than a century ago, the U.S. government agency that tracks weather reported on Thursday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since records began in 1880.
A record-warm January was responsible for pushing up the combined winter temperature, according to the agency's Web site, http://www.noaa.gov.

"Contributing factors were the long-term trend toward warmer temperatures as well as a moderate El Nino in the Pacific," Jay Lawrimore of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said in a telephone interview from Asheville, North Carolina.

The next-warmest winter on record was in 2004, and the third warmest winter was in 1998, Lawrimore said.

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

"We don't say this winter is evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases," Lawrimore said.

However, he noted that his center's work is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change process, which released a report on global warming last month that found climate change is occurring and that human activities quite likely play a role in the change.

"So we know as a part of that, the conclusions have been reached and the warming trend is due in part to rises in greenhouse gas emissions," Lawrimore said. "By looking at long-term trends and long-term changes, we are able to better understand natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change."

The combined temperature for the December-February period was 1.3 degrees F above the 20th century mean, the agency said. Lawrimore did not give an absolute temperature for the three-month period, and said the deviation from the mean was what was important. He did not provide the 20th century mean temperature.

Temperatures were above average for these months in Europe, Asia, western Africa, southeastern Brazil and the northeast half of the United States, with cooler-than-average conditions in parts of Saudi Arabia and the central United States.

Global temperature on land surface during the northern hemisphere winter was also the warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest after the winter of 1997-98.

Over the past century, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.11 degree F per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976 -- around 0.32 degree F per decade, with some of the biggest temperature rises in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

It must be all those Walmart parking lots soaking up the sun.

 

[Charade]

Great minds think alike!

I do think we have a responsibility to the envinronment. It is in everyone's best interest support clean air and water, and as you said decrease our dependence on non-renewable power.

We should then build more nuclear power plants.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

We should then build more nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power does have some major advantages;

the environmental impact is minimal, and it does not contribute to air pollution.
The cost of producing the power is relatively cheap compared to other energy types such as natural gas, oil, coal.

Nuclear energy power plants produce a consistently large amount of power.

It's the radioactivity that's the problem with Nuclear Power, and the disposing/storage of the nuclear waste. The "spent" rods remain radioactive and that is the major problem, and it would be a disaster if the radiation was released.

Nuclear Fusion is interesting, but I don't think it will ever be viable.

 

[User Name]

It is in everyone's best interest support clean air and water, and as you said decrease our dependence on non-renewable power.

It's the radioactivity that's the problem with Nuclear Power, and the disposing/storage of the nuclear waste.

So, which is it?

Solar panels are much less than reliable for most of the counrty. There is not enough land for wind farms (plus, Ted Kennedy doesn't want them in his back yard).

The last "new" refinery in the U.S. was built over 25 years ago because the oil companies took a loss on them and the government is not only unwilling to offer assistance, but they want to take away any profits that could be used for new refineries. And, you also have the NIMBY factor.

The environmentalists don't want to drill in Anwar.

So, it seems as though, conveniently, all other options are unacceptable.

"We have to do something!"

The "something" they want to do is limit your freedoms and tell you what to drive, where to set you thermostat, how to live.

It's all about politics. It has NOTHING to do with solutions or the environment or dependence on foreign oil. Those are just buzzwords they use to tug at your heartstrings. They want control.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

So, which is it?

Solar panels are much less than reliable for most of the counrty. There is not enough land for wind farms (plus, Ted Kennedy doesn't want them in his back yard).

The last "new" refinery in the U.S. was built over 25 years ago because the oil companies took a loss on them and the government is not only unwilling to offer assistance, but they want to take away any profits that could be used for new refineries. And, you also have the NIMBY factor.

The environmentalists don't want to drill in Anwar.

So, it seems as though, conveniently, all other options are unacceptable.

"We have to do something!"

The "something" they want to do is limit your freedoms and tell you what to drive, where to set you thermostat, how to live.

It's all about politics. It has NOTHING to do with solutions or the environment or dependence on foreign oil. Those are just buzzwords they use to tug at your heartstrings. They want control.

I think you may have mis-interpreted my post. I'm not against Nuclear Power, and I do see all the benefits associated with Nuclear Power. I do have a concern, and it is legit, about the radioactivity and disposal of the spent rods.

The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10',00 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.

 

[NELSON]

Just days after global climatologists announced that this winter has been the warmest on record based on the average surface temperature around the world, a report released today by global dermatologists further alarmed scientists and policy makers.

Due to the increase in obesity in the developed world, the global average surface area of the human body is at an all-time high, according to the new study, and it continues to climb with “no end in sight.”

Although few in the scientific community question that the average skin area is on the rise, a debate rages over the consequences of ever-expanding epidermis.

Some believe that by the year 2075, if the average square footage of skin per human continues to increase at the current rate, coastal areas, especially public beaches in the developed world, will become “barely visible beneath the tide of flesh.”

Skeptics, however, point to the cyclical nature of the phenomenon, noting that the term Rubenesque, which refers to women of abundant surface area, derives from the 16th century Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens.

While there is no consensus about the forecast consequences, virtually all global dermatologists and politicians agree that the escalating average epidermal surface area is attributable to human causes.

However, as one unnamed skeptical scientist said, “You have to be careful with averages, because the global distribution of skin per person is quite inequitable, with the United States enjoying an abundance and areas like India and Africa stretched thin.”

These so-called “non-catastropharians” note that densely-populated regions in the third world have more people per square mile, but less skin per person. The inverse is true in suburban and rural regions of the developed world. So, when viewed in the aggregate, they claim, the distribution of skin per acre has been relatively stable worldwide throughout recorded history.”

Meanwhile, former Vice President Al Gore released a statement today encouraging all Americans to emulate him and reduce their “flesh footprint” by purchasing so-called “dermal credits” from a Darfur-based company that he recently started.

“Eat all you want,” said Mr. Gore, “but buy these credits and keep your conscience clear.”

 

[Mugg Mann]

And, another issue is the exaggeration and misleading "data" they use to sell global "warming". There is still no conclusive evidence that the current trend is in anyway (1) caused by man (2) outside of the normal swings that have been occurring for millions of years. Furthermore, thinking that mankind can do anything that negligably alters the global temperature (good or bad) is both egotistic and futile. It's like peeing in the ocean and expecting to affect the tides. Fact is: We don't matter that much.

Your posts would seem to indicate that you view Global Warming as a Republican vs. Democrat issue when in fact it is not. In addition to the Bush Administration, "noted leftists" John McCain and Joe Lieberman (who just recently left the Democratic party) completely disagree with you.

The turning point on global warming
By John McCain and Joe Lieberman | February 13, 2007

THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.

To confront this challenge, we have reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.

Wall Street analysts and industry executives have predicted the eventual enactment of a bill such as this for some time. Late last month, a group of prominent industrial leaders, including two executives of coal-intensive electric power companies and a major oil company, urged Congress and the president to enact measures that align with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. Perhaps the inevitable is now imminent. We must seize the initiative.

How can Congress close the deal to prevent catastrophic global warming while it still has the chance? In the same way it has enacted every other major environmental law in the past 30 years.

Congress must listen to the companies that will be governed by the new climate law. After all, they are the ones who will develop and deploy the advanced energy technologies that will solve this problem. While intransigent firms should not be allowed to weaken the legislation, lawmakers must be open to a good-faith business perspective that can help solve this urgent global problem. As the bill reflects, lawmakers must also have the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy.

Finally, Congress must move forward in a bipartisan fashion. Democrats will not enact a strong new climate law without the help and support of their Republican colleagues. Working in a bi-partisan fashion, Congress will enact a law that curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy.

The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.

John McCain is a Republican senator of Arizona. Joe Lieberman is an independent senator of Connecticut.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...07/02/13/the_turning_point_on_global_warming/

 

[sha_lyn]

The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.

I'll believe scientist over McCain and Lieberman
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

[TimeforMe]

So I guess you'd have to believe this article then, huh?

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html

 

[Charade]

Your posts would seem to indicate that you view Global Warming as a Republican vs. Democrat issue when in fact it is not. In addition to the Bush Administration, "noted leftists" John McCain and Joe Lieberman (who just recently left the Democratic party) completely disagree with you.

The turning point on global warming
By John McCain and Joe Lieberman | February 13, 2007

THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.

To confront this challenge, we have reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.

Wall Street analysts and industry executives have predicted the eventual enactment of a bill such as this for some time. Late last month, a group of prominent industrial leaders, including two executives of coal-intensive electric power companies and a major oil company, urged Congress and the president to enact measures that align with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. Perhaps the inevitable is now imminent. We must seize the initiative.

How can Congress close the deal to prevent catastrophic global warming while it still has the chance? In the same way it has enacted every other major environmental law in the past 30 years.

Congress must listen to the companies that will be governed by the new climate law. After all, they are the ones who will develop and deploy the advanced energy technologies that will solve this problem. While intransigent firms should not be allowed to weaken the legislation, lawmakers must be open to a good-faith business perspective that can help solve this urgent global problem. As the bill reflects, lawmakers must also have the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy.

Finally, Congress must move forward in a bipartisan fashion. Democrats will not enact a strong new climate law without the help and support of their Republican colleagues. Working in a bi-partisan fashion, Congress will enact a law that curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy.

The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.

John McCain is a Republican senator of Arizona. Joe Lieberman is an independent senator of Connecticut.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...07/02/13/the_turning_point_on_global_warming/

That's the problem. They think the debate is over, I don't. There is too much conflicting and contradicting evidence out there for me to draw a firm conclusion.

Personally, I think we're being force fed this. The economic impact to try and stop it will have a huge negative impact.

As I stated in a previous post, if the "man made" proponents are correct, I don't think we can do anything about it because the global population in 50 years will be half again what it is now. IMO, short of banning automobiles/trucks and heavy industry, we're doomed.

 

[Charade]

And then there's this.

Meat and the Environment:

http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp

 

[Corwin12]

Charade, I've read a lot of your posts and have made the same points you do a long time ago on this thread ... some were downright sarcastic. I have abandoned posting on this thread because of the hatred it causes people to feel towards you if you do not buy into the human caused global warming theory. In fact, I cannot remember when an issue caused feelings of such venom and hatred towards dissenters. I believe this is purely an economics issue. As an economist, this is nothing more than an attempt to cripple the United States. These elite will not be happy until we abandon our way of live, eat twigs, and live in tents. For my part, my energy is spent towards trying to change things that I believe are fact: this country's tolerance of crimes against children. Another child was kidnapped and murdered by a CONVICTED sex offender, yet there is no outrage by our elected officials. If the environmentalists joined my cause with only 10% of they effort they put forth in their current campaign, I am positive we could change our government's apparent liaise faire attitude about crimes against children.

 

[sha_lyn]

So I guess you'd have to believe this article then, huh?

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html

Do you actually read the article, instead of just the headline


It said that manmade greenhouse gasses have likely contributed to rising temperatures. It did not say that man is the cause of global warming.