We’ve all read about the hysteria surrounding claims of “global warming”, most noteably coming from Al “Inconvenient Truth” Gore (read about his latest global warming rant here).
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is a well-known critic of the theory of global warming and its alarmists, and made a speech on Monday on the Senate floor to discuss the myths surrounding global warming. Yesterday, CNN ran a piece criticizing Inhofe’s speech and falsely claimed that Inhofe was “alone” on Capitol Hill with respect to his feelings on the hyped up claims of global warming.
Inhofe fought back yesterday at length with another speech, which took to task the claims made by CNN, while criticizing the MSM for ignoring any facts that call global warming claims into question. Here’s part of it:
I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.
Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”
The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook — warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.
But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.
(LINK )
You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” (LINK)
On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.
I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes — is increasing.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.
Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.
Read it all.
Challenging the geniuses at CNN?? How DARE he?!??!
Comment by NC Cop @ 9/29/2006 - 9:28 am
Now we all know the left would be praising him to the hilt had he been sitting in the CNN studios, and starting getting into the faces of reporters, redfaced and angrily declaring “you did a nice little liberal hit piece on me.”
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/29/2006 - 9:32 am
if you want a good eye opening about science’s use of mistruth including global warming, darwinism and aids, read James Hogan’s Kicking the Sacred Cow.
Comment by Karl @ 9/29/2006 - 9:52 am
Talk about election year scare tactics. LOL
LOL Whenever this debate springs up I always go back to my old Biology Teacher telling the class that in 50,000 years we will be going thru another Ice Age. At the time I thought “do I really care about what is going to happen in 50,000 years”.
Talk about chicken little discussions. Al Gore since 1994 and maybe before then, has been saying we only have 10 more years. I am thinking that he has longer years than the rest of us. My Uncle when he was working for Exxon in Alaska said almost everytime they took a geological sample of a new drill site they found petrified palm trees. Seems to me that a tropical paradise in Alaska could be alot of fun. I doubt Global warming on so many different levels that it really has become a tired and pointless disscusion. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/29/2006 - 10:18 am
I just laugh at Algore and his VirginAir buddy burning fossil fuels by the tons to get the message out all over the world; “Don’t do as we do, do as we say!”.
Comment by Tom TB @ 9/29/2006 - 11:50 am
LOL Tom! And Arianna “I drive an SUV” Huffington
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/29/2006 - 12:10 pm
When the Liberal elite give up their private jets, I will…. Ohhh I already gave up my SUV. I am much more of a Sports Sedan, I love my 300M. I sooooo want a new Dodge Charger….purrs.
- Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/29/2006 - 1:09 pm
I read his piece yesterday and cheered as I’ve studied this issue at length since 1991. Somebody in Congress standing up to the drive by legacy media. I love it. Who says only the blogs stand up to the 5th column?
Comment by Baklava @ 9/29/2006 - 1:42 pm
algore, global warming, better not get any warmer cuz if algore sweats anymore we’ll all need lifejackets.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 9/29/2006 - 5:00 pm
Is Gore planning on banning smoking now?
Link
Just on a side note…Gore is looking well fed these days I have noticed….
Comment by sanity @ 9/29/2006 - 5:08 pm
sanity, read more on that at the newsmax link in my post. The scare tactics continue!
I personally think Al Gore is a “significant contributor” to global warming -LOL.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/29/2006 - 5:50 pm
Not to mention Teddy Kennedy…..
Comment by sanity @ 9/29/2006 - 6:00 pm
Remember that Algore speech in front of tobacco farmers when he said he grew it, cut it, stacked it, cured it, something to that effect; then his sister died of lung cancer, and he blamed the the whole tobacco industry that he had claimed to be a proud member of, for his sister’s death! I will believe in Algore’s global warming theories the day I can grow oranges in Vermont!
Comment by Tom TB @ 9/29/2006 - 7:24 pm
60 Scientists vs. thousands of others… gee…
Funny how this thread is all about trashing Al Gore, wiht zero substantive remarks regarding the issue at hand. I know you don’t realize it. but you’re arguing that the world is flat, that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, etc… (or at least the arguments are the same: ad hominems flung with glee while clutching an antiquated ideology)
The right ignores scientific consensus on global warming and evolution, because it challenges their wolrdview. It’s no different from Catholics in the middle ages who refused to accept the heliocentric theory becasue it challenged theirs.
I remember a right-wing friend of mine who proclaimed that global warming scientists were in it for the money. Talk about a conspiracy theory! It’s obviously far more profitable to work for oil companies, who have been shown to fund scientists who are willing to deny global warming. Not general research…just the specific scientists who deny global warming. That’s not an opinon, it’s an assertion.
Take a step back and consider the possiblity…oh my…the possiblity that burning millions of barrels of hydrocarbons that have been locked in the earth for millions of years, and releasing all that carbon directly into our atmosphere might just…oh my…. affect the earth and the incredibly complex ecosystem it supports and that we depend on.
It might actually be worth looking into before declaring that you don’t like Al Gore and therefore don’t have to consider the problem.
Comment by Aghast @ 10/2/2006 - 1:02 am
Gee, I just love it when scientifically ignorant ideologs like Aghast come in and once again get self righteous and chastise everyone for not believing in the same “god” that they do. And who, once again, pull out the “everyone agrees” canard. Gee, go back to your example of the flat earth, everyone agreed with that one too.
Atmospheric CO2 is not going to lead to runaway global warming, the effects are logarithmic, tripling atmospheric CO2 will not triple temperature rises, the atmosphere is already almost opaque in that region. Adding more doesn’t make it more opaque. Man accounts for a minority of the existing atmospheric CO2, and CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming observed that’s occuring since the last mini-ice age. The suns radiation has been increasing, particularly since the 40s. I knew this in my undergrad days in the 70’s as I was helping my professor measure it. Anyone who thinks that what people can do can in any way compare with the suns effect on the earth are drinking kool aid by the gallon. The sun should start cooling in another few years, and you’ll see the trends reverse. The oceans are already cooling, have been for the past 3 years, not that the MSM or our buddy “Manbearpig” Gore seems to want to acknowledge it.
More “sky is falling because of the evil oil companies and their evil conservative Republican henchmen” BS. Can’t you guys on the left ever get a different story? It’s always the same, no matter what the details. It’s either globalization, or pollution, or global warming, or yada yada yada, and it’s always all the fault of the Republicans and corporations and yada yada yada. God’s blood, can’t you pull an original idea out of your butts just once?
Correlation is not the same thing as causality. Liberal ideology has spread rapidly since the end of WWII, coinciding with the increase in global temperatures. I say, it’s all the liberals fault, and until they are all exterminated global warming will increase. Makes as much sense, and killing off liberals will have about as much effect, as Kyoto and global warming does.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 10:11 am
Aghast, people teach by example, therefore if Al Gore truly believed that the consumption of fossil fuels was going to cause an evironmental disaster, he would travel by bicycle and sailboat, not rack-up frequent flyer milages with airlines!
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/2/2006 - 10:12 am
Tom TB,
Al Gore purchases carbon credits to replace the carbon that his activities release to the atmosphere.
It’s not perfect, but it’s something. It’s actually quite cheap to offset your carbon footprint. Companies like TerraPass (terrapass.com) provide some very affordable options.
They not only purchase carbon credits, but run a program designed to improve industrial efficiency, thereby significantly reducing the amount of carbon going into the air. I certainly would prefer to actually remove carbon from the air through sequestration techniques, but the methods listed above remove the same net carbon from the atmosphere.
Finally, Severian, what exactly are the motives behind the Evil Conspiracy to get us all to believe in Global Warming? It just doesn’t make any sense to lie about it, unless you run a billion dollar corporation whose profits depend on people thinking global warming is BS. The burden of proof is on you now, regarding the great conspiracy, because it just doesn’t make any sense (like Chewbacca living on Endor, since we’re referencing south park). We’ve never had a scientist say, “they paid me to say global warming was coming!”, but we’ve had a few come out and say “Exxonmobile paid us to lie about global warming”.
Global Warming Conspiracy Checklist:
1. Convince everyone Global Warming is real
2. ???
3. Profit!
Please fill in #2.
Inhofe’s largest campaign contributors are oil, gas and electric (coal-burning) companies. I guessed that was the case (liberal cynicism i guess), but I checked and was correct! Surprise, Surpise!
Your story about measuring the power of the sun is nice (and anecdotal), and it’s true that some scientists thought the globe was cooling in the seventies, but never was there a CONSENSUS as exists today.
Look, there are some things that liberals have their heads stuck up their asses about. Missle defense, for example. I don’t think it would work logistically (meaning I think the russians would just throw many missles at us instead of one, or float a nuke in on a boat instead of using a missle, etc…), but when my liberal friends say it CAN’T work, they are full of it. I’m an engineer, and I know it’s absolutely possible to get it to work, and work well. Just because I don’t like the idea for logistical or political reasons doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore the science behind it.
Comment by Aghast @ 10/2/2006 - 11:50 am
Doesn’t make sense to lie about it Aghast? Man, are you ever naive…did you just fall off the banana boat or something?
Government funded scientists live or die by their grants, global warming is popular, pro global warming papers get mega funding. Global warming is a convenient prop for the Democrats, including Gore, to once again paint the evil conservatives as guilty of something to once again try and weasel their way into office on lies and innuendo rather than on actually fighting terror or something the left might find repulsive, like being in favor of the US. Greenies, who should be called watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside, are pushing this because it falls in line with their major ideology, punish the West in general and the US in particular for being successful and profitable.
Just because you are too blinkered to see how the pro global warming crowd has an agenda that profits by this crap, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. You are so fast to assume that everyone on the conservative side is evil and greedy, what makes you think your side isn’t worse?
Not to mention, you have not made one single comment relating to the science involved, just idiotic impugning of other peoples motiviations and obnoxious claims of dishonesty and greed against those who don’t agree. Very nice, if you’re too stupid to understand the science just sling some more mud. Consensus is a lie, there is no consensus. Back in the day, the consensus was that black people were too stupid to not be kept as slaves, too dumb to set free. Gee, everyone believed it, it must be true!
You claim to be an engineer, but are remarkably ignorant about the facts of global warming, and swallow the lies of Gore and his cronies hook, line, and sinker, and all you can come up with for supporting arguments are the lame rants above?
Here’s a shocker for you, I’m a physicist, and global warming alarmists are either dishonest, mistaken, or just chicken little extremists. If you are this much of a believer and this is the best you can come up with for technical argument remind me to never us a product you had anything to do with the design of.
The world was cooling in the 70’s, then it heated a bit, now it’s starting to cool again. When you can tell me how a 3rd or 4th order term is going to guarantee a 1st order catastrophe, maybe you’ll get my attention, but your whining and leftist drivel above is just that, useless non-factual bullshit.
Go get yourself an education from some sourch other than Gore and the environmental watermelons. I mean, for Pete’s sake, Gore’s idiotic rants don’t even acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, they were erased from his temperature graphs! And the infameous “hockey stick” that Gore holds up as the gospel truth has been shown to be either a completely incompetent analysis or worse yet, deliberately dishonest in an attempt to get data to prove a point. The entire global warming argument is based on bad science and lies. If that’s how you want your science you must have been a real follower of Lysenko.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 12:32 pm
Aghast, I would fill in #2 on your checklist: get attention! I think Al Gore has had the withdrawl symptoms that anyone would if they had so much media attention, and came so close to the presidency. Attention for him is profit, as publicity is profit for VirginAir. There are paleo-geologists that make the case that CO2 levels were higher long before the advent of the internal combustion engine, and the global climate was much colder. Over 70 percent of the earth’s surface is water, we have volcanoes that can erupt anytime, and you try telling the combined populations of India and China that they have to comply with California emission standards!
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/2/2006 - 12:40 pm
Don’t even bother Tom TB, Aghast has no facts, if he did he would have blessed us with them by now. It’s apparent that, other than as something to get hysterical about and bash Repubicans and conservatives about (the main goal anyway), he has no understanding of even the most basic of the science involved. Expect him to now hit the usual shallow, anti-Republican web sites and parrot an alleged fact or two, and they will be the same idiotic, disproven facts they constantly trot out to “prove” their argument. Compared to them, chicken little was an optimist.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 12:52 pm
aghast wrote, “Inhofe’s largest campaign contributors are oil, gas and electric (coal-burning) companies. I guessed that was the case (liberal cynicism i guess), but I checked and was correct! Surprise, Surpise!”
So instead of addressing what Inhofe says/writes you attack him due to companies who sell a legal product contributing to him. I’ll happily address anything that Inhofe has written about if you’d like to venture down that high road as I’ve studied this issue since 1991.
Sev wrote, “Not to mention, you have not made one single comment relating to the science involved, just idiotic impugning of other peoples motiviations and obnoxious claims of dishonesty and greed against those who don’t agree.”
I noticed. I’m sure others notice also.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/2/2006 - 1:09 pm
I know I am no scientist, but what always sorta gets me is when my local weather man says something to the effect that today’s high temp was set in 1930 something. I always think to myself our scientists are 70 years behind. Global warming has come and gone. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 10/2/2006 - 1:21 pm
OK, cool, some answers
So far I’ve heard:
1. They want to demonize conservatives
2. They want to “punish the west for being profitable”
3. China and India won’t, so why should we?
4. Global warming provides good government grant money
5. Consensus is a lie
6. “The world was cooling in the 70’s, then it heated a bit, now it’s starting to cool again.”
Numbers 1 and 2 are laughable… It all about YOU conservatives isn’t it? You’re SO the victim.
#3 - petulant and childish..take responsiblity for yourself before worrying about others
#4 - true, but grant money isn’t dependent on your results (pro or con warming), it’s dependent on the research itself. There’s no reason to falsify results here. Furthermore, if you are in science for the money and are willing to be dishonest, there’s a LOT more money to be made working for Exxon…can you really deny this? cause THAT would be naive.
#5 - the consensus is among scientists, not lay people. Look at the IPCC’s statements. (or is this now an international conspiracy among scientists worldwide?) Look at the study that actually looked at every peer-reviewed paper containing the words “climate change”. You need to decide whether you believe there is no consensus (laughable) or that they are all wrong (at least possible). It’s one or the other, not both.
#6 - There was no consensus that the world was cooling in the 70’s. none. Climatology has come a long way since then, when there was a debate over which forces would win out (the cooling forces or the warming forces)… some scientists claimed we were cooling, but it wasn’t peer-reviewed time-tested consensus (as a physicist you should understand that). That debate is now over, the Warming forces have won.
Look, you can complain that I’m not using science in my arguments, but every scientific point I make will be refuted by some quack somewhere, and that will always be good enough for those who want to deny warming.
My point here is that to believe in an international conspiracy of scientists to make people believe in global warming, to demonize conservatives and punish the west for being profitable is just paranoid and stupid on its face. Seriously, think about it. How does one plan such a grand conspiracy without getting caught? Where is the evidence for the conspiracy? not scientific evidence about global warming…but of the conspiracy to convince everyone of it? There is no evidence, because no such conspiracy exists.
If sea levels actually do rise ten feet in the next 30 years or so, will any of you admit you were wrong? Or will it be explained by another conspiracy?
Comment by Aghast @ 10/2/2006 - 1:33 pm
Oh yeah, Aghast, that’s real good. “I’d give you facts but you’d just rebut them” is a very very convincing argument. Thanks for admitting that you are a complete dyed in the wool fool and lemming to boot. So, it’s all about “feelings” and not science or facts. I doubt you’re an engineer, unless the term “sanitation” is in front of it in your title, you certainly are quite knowledgeable about excrement.
Come up with something real, otherwise you’re just the common, garden variety whiny liberal. Facts don’t matter we should just believe morons like yourself and Gore because you obviously “care” so much.
Geez, you can’t make stuff like this up. You should exercise some more judgement in what you believe, it seems like you are a person who’s mind is so “open” your brains have fallen out.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 2:05 pm
Oh, you want evidence of lies and conspiracy, start with the Hockey Stick and Mann’s lies and deliberate distortions and his attempts to slander people who were showing the faults with it. Start with the IPCC who still refuse to admit that they were caught with their pants down. Now as to Gore, either he knows he’s lying thru his teeth about it, or he’s too dense to know the difference, and either would be deadly dangerous in an elected leader.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 2:07 pm
So instead of addressing what Inhofe says/writes you attack him due to companies who sell a legal product contributing to him.
That’s the typical Marxist leftist approach. And you see it continued in his follow on posts. More of the same, imply, inuendo, insult, and then expect you to believe. Facts are to liberals like garlic is to vampires.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 2:11 pm
I think you know I’m not trying to convince you of global warming. That’s not my point. You obviously aren’t going to change your mind about that, and I never expected that you would. Hence no “facts” about global warming. Besides, getting into the specifics of the hockey-stick graph and eigenvalues and y-axis scales is a bit technical and something better left to climatologists (and when they form an overwhelming global consensus, I humbly accept it).
My point is that you aren’t saying “we don’t really know, lets figure out the science”… you’re saying “they are lying to you when they tell you they really know”. That’s a big difference. You are alledging the largest conspiracy in the history of science. Hence, there is no need to argue with you over “facts”, because you don’t believe the “facts” because according to you, the “facts” are just part of the grand conspiracy against profit.
Cold Fusion did’t get consensus, because although a couple of scientists were willing to fudge their numbers, the community as a whole would never sacrifice their reputations like that. The scientific process has worked for hundreds of years…but now, all of a sudden, for the first time, a vast majority of scientists are not just wrong, but LYING.
The following paper:
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)
analyzed over 900 scientific papers (found by searching their abstracts for “climate change”) and found that 75% agreed that climate change was real. 25% dealt with scientific methods regarding how to study climate change and held no position. And, not remarkably, not a single paper, 0, nilch, nada, held that climate change was not happenning.
That’s a big conspiracy. That’s not just al gore. It’s not just the hockey-stick graph. Those things do not a conspiracy make.
Occam’s razor is all you need to cut this one down.
Oh, and spare me the sanctimonious BS about Inhofe… the guy introduces bills written by lobbyists, and uses his denial of science to justify the damage to our environment that those laws will result in. They can prove statistically that x many people will get sick and die if an additional y tons of z is put into the environment (mercury, particulates, CFCs, etc…). Inhofe plays a butchers game, bringing profit to business while sending thousands to the hospital to get sick and die.
Oh, that’s not fair, because…we don’t know exactly how those people will die and who they are, so he’s not killing anyone in particular. Yeah…sure. it’s ok to kill hundreds or thousands or give tens of thousands of kids asthma, as long as we don’t know for sure which ones are our fault.
So, whether Inhofe is a true believer or not, as Upton Sinclair wrote: ‘It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.’
Also, if he is a true beleiver then it’s just incompetence, not malice, but sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. I suppose that applies to Bush too.
OK, I’m done playing for now, I gotta get some work done.
Comment by Aghast @ 10/2/2006 - 3:50 pm
What a complete waste of bandwidth you are Aghast. Still flogging that dead horse until you get horse tartar aren’t you? Your “You’ll never change your mind therefore I won’t give you facts” mantra must be really effective, bet you get lots of converts with that approach. You just want yet another excuse to wander thru and tell everyone why conservatives and Republicans are all so evil and why we are all wrong and to generally whine and moan, and it’s just a pointless effort to allow you to hear yourself “speak.”
You won’t discuss/debate science because you are incapable of doing so without being embarassed. So why are you wasting your time and irritating your betters?
If you go and read, actually read rather than take the regurgitated ramblings of the Gore crowd, you’d know that that “paper” you referenced has already been proven to be wrong. The articles it alleges to have studied do not say what the author leads you to believe. This is one of the many, and I mean many many, lies your side puts forth on this issue and refuses to acknowledge even after you’ve been proven wrong. Dishonest and disgusting. And once again, no science from you, just your weak “everybody thinks this way!” lemming-like behavior.
Well, look at it this way. The majority of people voted for Bush in 04, that didn’t shut you up, why should it matter here?
Besides, getting into the specifics of the hockey-stick graph and eigenvalues and y-axis scales is a bit technical and something better left to climatologists (and when they form an overwhelming global consensus, I humbly accept it).
In other words, “It’s haaaarrrrrdd, and I’m laaazzzy and stuuuupid!”
If you’d try, I think you’d be able to pull your head out of these peoples buttocks, it’d be tough, but possible. Yield to the “experts” or rather to those experts that support what you want to believe, your mama must be sooo proud of her little sheep. In other words, I was right, you have absolutely no scientific ability, education, or skill. And you’re damned proud of it too.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 4:04 pm
Lorica, you may not be a scientist, but you sure have common sense. They are more than 70 years behind; when were the first reliable weather stations set up at the north and south poles, or New York City’s Central Park for that matter? How long had humans been on this planet, without thermometers? How many years of technological developement did it take so I can watch Al Gore on television show videos of polar bears swimming where he says they used to walk on ice floes? How can he know with any certainty what the earth’s climate was like even a thousand years ago? We are the most adaptable critter on the planet; we can chill the place with a cold beer, and discuss whether the lost city of Atlantis ever existed.
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/2/2006 - 4:24 pm
I’m glad someone is looking into this global warming thing as it may or may not be important. I got bills to pay and don’t have time to look into it. Maybe we should have Al Gore take a serious look into it. He’s got time, there’s no way he will politicize it, and he did invent the internet after all.
Comment by G Monster @ 10/2/2006 - 4:47 pm
Nasty, Nasty stuff Severian. I have no scientific ability, education or skill; you are my “better” and I’m lazy and stupid. And a lemming/sheep, who thinks all republicans are evil. (And I’m the one wasting bandwidth).
I haven’t used a single ad hominem against you (so far), Severian.
You sound so angry… one wonders if you might not be able to think rationally about such things with so many negative emotions running through your head.
Once again, I wasn’t debating the science itself, but your belief in a conspiracy. Which, by the way, you haven’t really responded too.
I said you wouldn’t accept any “facts”, as you would include them as part of the conspiracy; you proceeded to prove me right in your reponse claiming the Climate Change Paper was part of the conspiracy!
Your right that the essay “Consensus About Climate Change?” was countered by a variety of think-tank scientists who claimed that some of the papers included showed higher middle age average global temperatures than today (among other irrelevant findings such as the effect of solar variation).
But that is not a refutation of climate change, as climatologists don’t debate those issues. It’s absolutely true, for example, that the earth has warmed before as much as it has today. The differences are the cause (solar output vs. greenhouse effect) and severity (previous warming trends were up to 2 degrees C, but global warming will result in more drastic changes where “all bets are off”).
Average daylight on earth is 10% less bright than 50 years ago, they believe due to particulates in the atmosphere. This should result in cooler temperatures…except that the greenhouse effect counters it.
If what they are saying is true, what would we see? We would see the earth warm slowly. At first (at least until we warm more than 2 degrees), you can say “Well, we’ve seen this before, no big deal”. But it’s not the same. The warming is MUCH faster this time, and solar energy hitting the planet isn’t going up. CO2 is. The fact the the earth was once as warm as it is today doesn’t do ANYTHING to refute global warming.
The fact that scientists (paid to provide a certain point of view) refute this paper becomes, for you, evidence of the conspiracy. Even when it is an open secret that these scientists are paid to refute this stuff. I mean, we KNOW one side is being paid for their point of view, and yet you alledge conspiracy on the OTHER side.
We’ve got a $100 billion+ oil industry with a serious incentive to convince you that climate change is BS. Do you deny that? Don’t you think that they could convince people it was BS if scientists would go along with them and say so? How is it possible that the motivation to conspire unethically “against profit” is greater that the motivation to conspire ethically to gain profit? Can you answer that question?
Comment by Aghast @ 10/2/2006 - 5:13 pm
You’re a laugh a minute Aghast. You want to claim I am a conspiracy monger, when you go on and on and on claiming a big oil conspiracy. You were the one who started the conspiracy claims, implying that there could be no honest reason anyone would disagree with global warming or no profit reason engage in deception to support it. After being pointed out reasons that contradict that, then you change your tune to claiming that everyone else is claiming a conspiracy and only you have the facts about the REAL conspricy which involves big oil. You’d be humorous if you weren’t such a pathetic example of the kind of fuzzy headed thinking that characterizes the left. If you want a serious discussion, and to be treated as something other than a troll, stick with the facts, not your paranoid conspiracy theories.
Solar input to the earth is increasing, or rather has been for decades. Your claim about it being “dimmer” has to do with the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground, not the amount that’s absorbed by the entire geosphere. The facts of the matter are that sunlight is increasing, the total amount of global warming that has been observed is less than many would have you believe, CO2 forcing accounts for, maybe, a quarter to a third of all warming observed to date, and the fact is that of all the CO2 present humans are responsible for a small percentage of (about a third max), when compared with natural sources, and further additions of CO2 will not drastically increase warming as we are already near the saturation level where the effect tapers off. The oceans are already cooling. The ONLY things that show rampant warming due to CO2 are computer models that postulate one positive feedback loop or another, none of which have ever been observed, and the proponents of these models have gotten to the point where they are drinking their own bathwater, they believe their own ideas too easly. You made numerous other false statements, how do you know global warming is happening so fast now compared to the past? Considering we only have about a few decades of accurate temperature measurements. Oh, I know, you trust Mann, who derrived the entire temperature profile for the entire 15th century based on ONE TREE! There’s ample record of rapid warming, where’s your proof we are even up as far as you say? And where do you get 2 deg, try more like .6 + or - .2 degree K since the end of the 19th century, now take that .6 deg. 2/3rds of it comes from solar irradience, now you’re down to .2 deg. Out of that, even if all of it is due to CO2, you’re facing the fact that at most about a third of the CO2 is man made, so you’re down to .07 deg or less of manmade global warming. Yup, that’s a great reason to decimate the West’s economies and infrastructures, all to possibly prevent another .07 deg rise in temp over the next century, but wait! It’s less than that, as the amount of CO2 present is close to making the atmosphere opaque in the IR bands of interest, meaning the effect from CO2 is about as pronounced as it’s going to be. Yup, sure sounds like a reason to believe the sky is falling…
But you’re still hung up on the if Big Oil is involved, it’s an evil conspriacy. Grow up. If I seem upset, it’s because I have to deal with idiocy like this on a nearly daily basis and it gets old. And if there is one thing that will PO me more than anything it’s lies in science.
So, I’d suggest you take your conspiracy mongering back where it came from. You are intellectually dishonest at best. A more important question is why are you so eager to believe this hogwash? Just because the “experts” tell you to? Way to speak truth to power there…
Your entire argument is based on a “money is evil” meme, which puts you squarely in the moonbat marxist/socialist camp. Big Oil is not the boogyman.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 6:11 pm
Actually if you must know, I don’t believe in the Ice Age. I think it is all evolutionary drival. Since I brought up evolution, I am going to comment on it. Aghast says “there is no world wide scientific conspiracy”. I disagree. I think when you put like minded people in the same room they will all stand in ageement with each other. Evolution, a theory that billions of dollars and over 150 years of “scientific reseach” has been wasted on. How many countless jobs have been created for “scientists” just to explore this theory, yet there is no money in science.
And what exactly has all this waste brought mankind?? There is also no missing link, man didn’t evolve from a ape like bi-ped. I believe that man was created and there is no proof against that. Sneer, laugh, do whatever, but you have no way to disprove creation.
I believe that the earth and the sun go thru warming and cooling periods and I don’t believe it is due to man’s pollution. I bet that if you added up all the volcanic erruptions in the last 200 years you would have so much more ash and pollution more than any amount of man made pollution, and the earth deals with that.
Lastly, Al Gore is a Hypocrite. I don’t care how many “carbon credits” he buys. He still owns Occidental Oil stock, which has made him very wealthy. It is the family business so there is no way he will depart with it. I don’t know what you all call a man who says one thing, but does another, but I call it hypocritical. And I don’t tend to listen to this sort of BS. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 10/2/2006 - 7:19 pm
Aghast wrote, “the consensus is among scientists, not lay people.”
The lie is from you. You and others acting or reporting it as a consensus. Look up the word. THEN do the due diligence of seeing there isn’t a consensus. Then stop lying. We’ve reported to you. You refuse to hear.
Aghast wrote, “Look, you can complain that I’m not using science in my arguments, but every scientific point I make will be refuted by some quack somewhere, and that will always be good enough for those who want to deny warming.”
Which scientific argument did you make? All I’ve seen is attack and accuse from you. Keeping up the pattern will not help anyone resolve the issue.
Aghast wrote, “I haven’t used a single ad hominem against you (so far), Severian.”
Not in my interest whether you did or not. But you didn’t get into the science that Inhofe wrote and said nor anybody else.
Aghast in your 5:13 post finally started making some assertions with what you think is scientific fact. Thank you. Don’t take so long next time…. Please. The point is that CO2 has been higher than now and the earth was cooler then. All the issues are intermixed. The data against the climatoligists who “claim” global warming is against them. They can’t ignore the other issues and say they have the problem defined. Why? Because of the CONTRADICTING evidence of the past. One of the facts that you presented is contradicted by the data. There is LESS pollution (particulates) in the air now by FAR than a decade or two ago. We (conservatives and liberals) ALL care about the environment. Unfortunately, liberals like to ACT like they care about the environment more and about race more yet when it comes down to the facts all that is left is attacks from leftists on the right. It’s great for politics but does NOTHING for your cause. If you are interested in the cause then do the due diligence. Learn. I’ve been studying this issue for 15 years because I care. I’ve read the research because I care. The politics involved uses such scare mongering and crisis mentality and it does NOTHING but bash people and get people to want to give more money to the scientists asking for it and drives politicians to implement HAIR BRAINED BAD ideas as “solutions”.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/2/2006 - 7:25 pm
So your contention is that global warming will not be a disaster, that we’re being alarmist, and that it’s only .07 C rise in temperature. So:
1. All the run-away scenarios (siberian bog methane, etc…) will turn out to be false
2. YOUR numbers are correct, and everyone else’s aren’t (cause they are being paid to fight “profit”)
3. CO2 will reach Saturation levels, or the effect will “taper-off”
You believe all of that, yet these’s no consensus on those claims. Where are the reputable climate scientists independently replicating and confirming these findings? You advance these theories as fact to refute peer-reviewed claims. It’s one thing to say that the majority of climate scientists don’t really know what’s goin to happen. It’s quite another to say you know exactly whats going to happen.
Furthermore, we can see the short term trend (since 1910) is significantly faster warming than we have seen in the past, not from ONE tree, but from hundreds of samples of gas trapped in arctic ice, which can be reliably dated.
Here’s the memo where oil executives outline the plan to spread doubt over global warming:
Click Here
You might argue that they believe they are spreading the truth, that they are correct, etc… but you can’t deny that they are actively spending a lot of cash to get people to doubt global warming.
Hence, a conspiracy to create doubt and muddy the consensus. In plain view. It’s not intentionally “evil” … I just don’t think the oil executives want to believe in climate change, so they don’t; subsequently they feel the need to spend money to counter it.
And for the record, money isn’t evil. It’s what people will do to hold on to it, sometimes, that is evil. Big oil isn’t the boogeyman, its just an industry that would spread disinformation at a significant cost to humanity for its own gain. I don’t think the boogeyman was a propagandist, and there’s no reason to smear him like that.
Grand international conspiracy against science and profit = boogeyman.
Big oil = not boogeyman.
Right.
Finally, your contention that responding to climate change will necessarilly “decimate the West’s economies and infrastructures” is specious at best.
BP implemented kyoto internally (an oil company can do the right thing if they want!) and claims that it is saving them millions of dollars through increased efficiency. Furthermore, I’ve seen an estimate that said it would have cost us less than the Iraq war to implement… and I mention this for a very specific reason:
my liberal friends complain about the cost of the war, claiming it’s to expensive. It’s not. The cost is ~1% of GDP. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s totally affordable for a nation such as ours. we are so wealthy as a country, we can afford to do a LOT before our economy is “decimated”. Saying we can’t is fear-mongering and alarmism.
If Iraq, with it’s dubios outcome, was worth it, then taking action on carbon emmisions will be worth it.
The added benefits of increased efficiency, less dependence of foreign energy, and the possibility to create a new American industry, combined with the fact that if we do nothing, and you are wrong, the costs are SO high… it only makes sense to respond with action before it may be too late.
If you turn out to be right, I’ll be very happy. But I just can’t see how it would in any way be responsible to just wait to find out.
If you see a storm coming, you reef the sails, put on your harness and batten down the hatches. You don’t sit there and debate, “well maybe it won’t hit us”. Maybe the storm will move in a different direction and you will be spared, but the consequences of not preparing are too large to ignore.
Comment by Aghast @ 10/2/2006 - 8:04 pm
Oh great, we’ve got another person who believes that diarrea of the keyboard equates to wit and knowledge. We can go around and around on this, but it’s clear that you have no ability to see the numerous climate scientists who disagree, who point out problems, who have shown that the peer review on many of the things you bring up are either non-existant or are the result of an echo chamber, who have shown problems with these papers in peer review. What, you think all of this stuff is magically peer reviewed by honest brokers? You haven’t been paying attention at all, in fact the global warming alarmist scientists went out of their way to prevent decent peer review of the IPCC findings and the hockey stick. Mann himself said that he wasn’t going to cooperate as they only wanted to find fault. Hello, that’s what peer review is, and his work failed it markedly, despite what others said about it having been peer reviewed, so sell that fairy story somewhere else.
It is unreasonable to damage entire economies for something that will not matter one whit. You conveniently continue to ignore the facts of the issue, you ignore the failures of the global warming alarmists to adequately explain these issues, fail to acknowledge the deliberate lies and distortions your fellows promote daily, but you sure gotta get that “big oil” boogeyman in again and again and again. It’s a symptom of your irrationality and paranoia, and it’s not compelling.
We’re in a lifeboat, and you are staring at a tiny cloud on the horizon and saying that a storm is coming we’d better throw all the surplus people out or we’ll be swamped. You are exactly of the same ilk as the people who have kept DDT out of use regardless of the tens of millions of deaths that result. And you still are naive and idiotic enough to not realize that the very scientists and agencies you quote are just as prone and vunerable to the kind of bias you accuse everyone else of. People will act this way, whether for money, ideology, power, prestige, the reasons are endless, which is why peer review was invented, but you need to get peer review from people other than your supporters, something which the global warming crowd has been remiss in.
If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine, just don’t expect the rest of us to join you in your lunacy and screw ourselves just because it makes you feel good about things. If you have any SCIENTIFIC info that disproves what I say, for example, that CO2 is approaching saturation, etc. provide it. Wet dreams about conspiracy theories don’t cut it.
And this doesn’t even get to the question of whether or not a warmer earth is a bad thing. Here’s a hint, people do a lot better in a warm earth than during an ice age. Suppose you do manage to reduce the CO2 levels and that actually does have a measurable effect, and I’m right and the sun is diming…you’ve just precipitated a little ice age, which will result in more starvation and privation than another 2 degrees of temp rise will ever accomplish.
When you are capable of actually discussing facts in detail, maybe you’ll convince people, but not with your conspiracy theories and all oil people are evil and money isn’t to be trusted and everyone who supports you is just the salt of the earth trust me. Bah.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 8:26 pm
Oh, and once again you show yourself to be a typical moonbat leftist, you just had to get Iraq into the argument despite the fact it has nothing to do with the subject. Predictable.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 8:27 pm
Furthermore, we can see the short term trend (since 1910) is significantly faster warming than we have seen in the past
And you conveniently ignore the mid-century cooling period, you remember it, the one that had everyone in the 70’s predicting an ice age. Yeah, it’s been all increasing temps. You lie, or are incompetent, pick one.
Comment by Severian @ 10/2/2006 - 8:31 pm
Well lorica thinks that evolution is a conspiracy. I think thats about the end of the scientific discussion.
And severian didn’t notice the positive reference to the Iraq war. His mind shut off after reading iraq.
This is great!
Comment by brad @ 10/2/2006 - 8:41 pm
As for Kyoto aghast… 95 Senators voted against and ZERO (0 for thosee named aghast) voted for it.
If you think or BP think Kyoto is the ‘right’ thing it doesn’t mean those who don’t think Kyoto is the right thing are ‘bad’ people. You didn’t call them bad but your contention and contempt comes through.
Aghast wrote, “If you turn out to be right, I’ll be very happy. But I just can’t see how it would in any way be responsible to just wait to find out.”
Nobody’s talking about “waiting” to find out. We’re are talking about contradicting evidence #1 and #2 we are talking about the “solution” that leftists want to implement being the wrong solutions.
Let’s just take a for example:
1) Let’s say one side is asking for changes that will allow energy producing companies to modernize, pollute less, produce more energy with less pollution, and therefore increase energy supply therefore lessening the effect of demand on the energy markets
2) The other side calls that plan atrocious, gives the plan an “F”, labels it a plan in ‘favor’ of energy companies, harmful for the environment, etc.., and the legacy drive by media propogates these criticisms and continues the theme of bad for the environment ideology and marks the plan an “F” also and calls it a consensus among environmental groups.
Our (my) challenge to you then Aghast is to get out of the politics of it and review the plan and make some common sense analysis on your own examining both sides of the argument. Most energy producing companies for over 2 decades have been disallowed to modernize, steeped in lawsuits and environmental crisis mongering, and it has HURT the economy (in degrees), hurt consumers and has done NOTHING for the environment as the companies have not been given greenlights to modernize and pollute less. The plan was a Bush plan in his energy Bill. You can call it all sorts of names. It’s name I believe was New Source Review (or something similar).
Just labeling one side as anti-environment and people with their heads in the sand does NOTHING for resolutions of the problems that we Americans face. Raising the rhetoric to your degree does not debate the science or the policy or the solutions being asked for. If you recognize that 99% of people do care about the “environment” or “race”, you’ll start to see that the difference between the camps lies behind the facts, solutions being asked for, and the the leftism (big government ideas and solutions) or conservativism (less government ideas and solutions) in the agendas. I don’t honestly believe that rank and file leftists are against the environment and you shouldn’t believe it about conservatives.
What you need to do is look at both sides of the argument (I have) and see which policy and solutions you think address the factual problem.
Step 1: Define the problem adequately. Taken into all factors. Climate change. Sun intensity and cosmology. Historical data. etc. The climatologists that you site fail to recognize other data that make contradicting points of reference.
Step 2: Once the problem is defined adquately (which is moving target even today), pick an idea for a solution which you think represents a good solution that will address the problem. Kyoto is agreed to by most economists as a BAD idea and that is why 95-0 it was voted against. Environuts and drive by media types like to hammer only ONE person (Bush) for being against Kyoto but that does nothing for advancing Kyoto merits. Tell us WHAT you Aghast are for or against doing to solve the identified problem that you think exists. Please.
There are ideas… The one in the example above would’ve been beneficial in many people’s minds but was called an “F” by those entrenched with their agendas.
You have a lot to do. Take your time and come back with clear headed conciseness….
Thanks.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/2/2006 - 8:50 pm
Obviously I don’t think Al Gore is impartial. That was a joke. My opinion is there probably isn’t anything there, but it wouldn’t hurt to have someone look into it. Is there anyway we can look into it without making it a political football?
I also don’t like to see taxpayer dollars wasted, but as it seems with any government project, even if started with good intentions, typically gets taken advantage of somewhere down the line.
I like the new tesla (teslamotors.com) as you all know. (No, I don’t own any stock yet, I am still busy paying off my wife’s Macy’s card.) Wouldn’t hurt to cut back on our fuel consumption here. And this was a project funded privately I believe.
Comment by G Monster @ 10/2/2006 - 11:25 pm
What science Brad??? So much of the “science” that has been used here is reacting to climate information from the last 25 years.
Instead of just throwing out a cute comment answer my question. What good has the science of evolution brought to mankind?? We are desended from apes?? Ohh boy!!! So lets waste a couple 100 billion dollars and 150 years…… Good job. I was simply refuting the claim that there is no money in science, that is a flat out lie. Science will track down any stupid theory they want and there will be tons of money following it. I am not against science either, hell I am not against evolution research, but don’t claim a theory as fact and then try to convice the rest of the world cuz you know so much more than the rest of us knuckle draggers. This is what they have done with evolution and this is what is trying to be done with climate research. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 10/2/2006 - 11:27 pm
And Al Gore isn’t an impartial observer, not at all, but so many think that he knows so much, bull. His family made a fortune from owning big oil, and now he runs around and says it is evil…. and that oil should be 5.00 a gallon. Geee wiz Batman….. no profit there for the Gore family, but people fall over themselves to quote good ole Al. Get real, why would I listen to 1 thing that man says. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 10/2/2006 - 11:34 pm
Evolution has gotten us basically all of the organization of modern biology. For you, more immediately, this cartoon may explain it.
I dont think the argument is that there is no money in science. PhARMA profit counters that. I think the argument is that there aren’t scientists with a profit motive in the global warming debate. But there are oil companies.
Its a fact that evolution happens. Its also a theory that comports with the facts and quite nicely explains things.
Comment by brad @ 10/3/2006 - 12:22 am
“And you conveniently ignore the mid-century cooling period”
That is clearly due to the offset of a different, moderate periodic trend that is clearly visible on temperature graphs of that scale. Go take a look.
I’m oversimplifying here, but if you have a graph of y = x (global warming trend), and you add a graph of y = sin(x) (the moderate cycle) to it, you will see an uptrend followed by a leveling-off followed by an uptrend.
The upward bias is clearly visible on the graph, and the midcentury cool period doesn’t change that.
If your contention is that the sun is putting out more light, A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming. But there has clearly been a warming trend since the late 1970s!
As for what to do about it, Baklava, there are so many things that could be done.
More Rail (anyone who has travelled in europe - both in subways and on major railways - knows that americans got screwed on this one) rail is very efficient.
Nuclear Energy - modern designs are very safe and its the best we’ve got
Manhattan Project-style effort to research and develop industrial efficiency, CO2 sequestration, renewable energy, and clean transportation technologies. (we CAN afford it)
Plug-in hybrids. It’s so simple it hurts. A plug-in hybrid allows you to drive 60 miles or so at a time on battery power alone. The engine kicks in when the battery is low, but ONLY when the battery is low. You don’t need to burn any oil or give any more money to foreign states unless you go on a road trip. Most people drive less than 60 miles a day, so we can eliminate a significant source of CO2, while simultaneously enhancing our economic security. The more we get on the road, the cheaper they’ll be. They can be powerful, they can be large (you can keep your SUV). They will save you money at the gas pump. And yes, it will cost a bit more at first, though tax rebates on ultra-low-emission vehicles (instead of on hummers) is good policy.
When I drive on the highway, I see new cars everywhere…most cars don’t seem more than a few years old. It wouldn’t take long to seriously reduce our dependence on oil.
Of course, such a change would threaten existing industries. For such a change to occur, one would have to remove the stranglhold that those industries have on our elected officials. Because an idea like that takes nurturing. It needs champions in government to develop support, to drive things forward.
And Gore’s carbon tax idea is actually genius. It might shift the tax burden onto polluters…but in the end it would be very effective in creating a significant incentive to reduce carbon output, while forcing the market to price in the environmental costs of a product. Thus creating competition to increase efficiency. It would also create a new industry geared towards carbon reduction, thus creating jobs and wealth. I know you conservatives have a political philosophy (tax cuts) that couldn’t accept that. Well… cutting taxes is a campaign gimmick, not a political philosophy, so get over it. You were lied to, your money belongs to the government, and we liberals will decide what to do with it come november. (I’m kidding here guys)
It used to be that we had leaders with vision. JFK took us to the moon. Eisenhower built the interstate system. Huge achievements from strong leaders with vision. Today we have a leader who says we’re addicted to oil, and then does nothing.
Forget about global warming for a second. oil is not going to be around forever. There is not an infinite supply of the stuff, and even if it takes 500 years to run out, it will get more and more expensive until it does.
To become much less dependent on oil now will help further generations out big-time in the future.
Any real solutions involve shaking things up. If one is to scared to shake things up, one is paralyzed from doing anything meaningful about the problem.
Comment by Aghast @ 10/3/2006 - 1:57 am
Cute, when data doesn’t support your views,it’s a normal data flucuation that doesn’t speak to the underlying truth of your beliefs. I got it, glad we got that straight.
That “upward” trend you talk about does not fit in well with your CO2 warming theory, particularly because of the cooling trend, one which is occurring again at present. During the period when the cooling was occurring atmospheric CO2 was rising fairly rapidly, which fails to demonstrate the kind of correlation you seem to believe exists between CO2 and climate. And, the entire trend you believe is happening is based once again on Mann’s infameous hockey stick, which splices disparate data together. The same tree ring data he manipulated to show no temp rise over the past millenia also does not show any significant rise in temperature in this past century, which is why he spliced on the measured data. Which itself is suspect as it does nothing to mitigate urban heat island effect. Your entire proposition that atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver in global warming, let alone anthropogenic CO2, is built on sand.
You seem to be fond of quoting “studies” or summaries of other papers, after they have been digested by a suitably docile, ideologically correct reviewer, you should try reading the real research. For Example Estimated increases since the 1600’s are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near-IR and far IR bands respectively. The total irradiance increase over this period is ~0.2%. Curiously enough, the amount of temperature rise of the earth in that same time frame is about 0.2%, which, while I doubt the entire amount of warming is due to solar radiation, correlates far more precisely than atmospheric CO2 and planatery temperature.
Your problem is that you don’t view this as science, you obviously view it the way many do religion. People who disagree are not honorable scientists who are doing their part, they are apostates. You view this as a grand excuse to practice the liberal’s favorite pastime, social engineering using other people’s money. You can tell this by the simple fact that your posts are about 1% dealing with the science and 99% in favor of massive societal and cultural and technological changes to address a problem that does not exist. It’s an excuse for social engineering.
That’s the entire gist of your rants, you want to use a science that is not accurate but which you can use the media to creat a panic with to force the kind of social changes you can’t enact thru conventional means, and this is part and parcel of the totalitarianism that flows form the socialist left. You’ve demonstrated no compelling evidence you really understand the science underlying all of this. I seriously doubt you’ve seen any of the real data that hasn’t already been prechewed for you.
As I said before, you’re either dishonest or incompetent, which is it. Are you honestly incapable of realizing that your theories are deeply flawed, or do you realize it and cynically push flawed science in order to try and effect your social agenda.
Comment by Severian @ 10/3/2006 - 8:09 am
Aghast wrote, “knows that americans got screwed on this one)”
Only the Americans that want rail for free making other Americans pay for it and guess what…. that is a LESS amount of people in America that WANT it. Given the other priorities that are voted for and here in CA those priorities are voted against more often than not. I’d say the American people WON!!!!
This is from an American and Californian that rides the bus every day into downtown Sacramento to work. I’m not screwed. I’m doing great!!!
Aghast wrote, “Nuclear Energy” Please tell this to your eviro-nut friends. OK. That was uncalled for.
But the crisis mongerers exist there also and you must understand that we can’t MOVE FORWARD because of these people… They are keeping energy companies locked up in a non-modernized way. New Source Review is sneered at and called an “F” even though it would allow energy companies to spend much less on modernization, pollute less, make more energy , etc. Nuclear Energy plants have been decomissioned (as in one near me in CA) but not built. In fact, besides the 3 new energy plants just built, CA hasn’t seen new energy plants in the last 2 decades which caused the 20% out of state electricity needs and problem for Gray Davis as the other states needed their own energy. Gray Davis liked to call it a Big Energy problem screwing CA’nians. He blamed it on de-regulation but it was actually extra-regulation by the state prohibiting energy companies from buying energy in long term contracts (exactly what Gray did) and because of that prohibition energy had to be purchased on the spot and peak periods had ridiculous prices. Thanks you extra-regulators in Sacramento. Liars all of them that did it.
Aghast wrote, “Plug in Hybrids” I’m reminded that your problem doesn’t seem to be anything except for the American people themselves. We don’t want what you are selling. Maybe a few. For sure. I see a few people who talk about modified Prius’s that have a switch just like the ones in Japan that only run on battery until almost all is drained. What’s funny is that BIG GOVERNMENT (read leftism) is what caused the Prius not to be sold that way here (it was in a Yahoo story that I’m not going to find and link here) and the American people LIKE the way the Prius is now anyway due to the longer distances on average they drive. It does all the thinking for them and automatically doesn’t drain the batteries (which is hard on batteries) all the way down.
I see you going again on the industry strangehold topic and your references to the evil oil industry is laughable. You need to grow up.
As for the manhattan project that you refered to. I saved it for last. There is BIG business in figuring out ways to tap into alternative energy sources for home, transportation (cars), electricity, etc. The fact that liberals like yourself deride the effort going on is not helpful. What would be helpful is to recognize how we do things in America as compared to other countries. For instance: America found more uses for stem cells via private companies doing stem cell research by FAR. There was no reason economically or productively for the federal government to have to or for CA (we voted for a proposition for 3 billion in new spending for it) to spend money for it. Also, all of the research by private companies have found zero uses for embryonic stem cells (not for the lack of trying) and over 40 uses for umbilical cord stems cells. Unfortunately, liberals and the drive by media do not want to talk about these facts they reduce it to we good, conservatives bad and we are for science and you are religious nut speak. THanks for being so political /end sarcasm. You don’t forward the debate.
Back to energy. More is researched and explored here in America by far in all the energy areas but Universities, car companies, companies of all types here in America. Our innovative ways with return on investments and good ideas fuels breakthroughs. We have had major advancements in the last few decades but you are correct that we are still dependant on oil for our cars. Why? Because it is a more economical way of moving us around than any of the alternative ways. That is not evil. It isn’t a “strangehold by oil companies”. It is fact. It is very economical comparatively. We do have alternative ways of getting us around and when the American public buy into those ways in big ways then we will. Again your problem is with everyone and reality.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/3/2006 - 9:52 am
“Your problem is that you don’t view this as science, you obviously view it the way many do religion. People who disagree are not honorable scientists who are doing their part, they are apostates.”
I’m not the one claiming a grand international conspiracy of scientists to convince people of global warming in an effort to damage capitalist profit and make republicans look evil.
You are. You are claiming that thousands of scientists are not honorable. I am claiming that 60 or so are not.
The projection is enlightening though.
And you didn’t seem to understand what I said regarding temperatures and combining effects. You mentioned a timeframe of 1600 years…completely irrelevant to what I was saying!
You just had to look at the temperature of the last 300 years or so to see what I was talking about, but you didn’t, and you went on some irrelevant rant. I thought you were a physicist. I made it clear that the graph was similar to y=sin(x) + x, and broke down the components (regular moderate cycle combined with warming trend), yet you responded to that with nonsense. At this point I don’t really expect you to understand or internalize what I’m saying, because you have a clear agenda against understanding this. It threatens your worldview, why would you accept it?
Baklava, Yes, the market will solve all problems… until the solution requires a shakeup that would threaten existing industries.
And yes, many California cities have great public transportation systems… but I’m more concerned with inner-city travel (in places where it’s sorely needed, like Atlanta). The atlanta public rail transportation system is two perpendicular lines. No outer loop, no lines go all the way to the suburbs. Mostly useless for 90% of the population. Compare that to Paris’ metro, that can take you to within a few blocks of almost anywhere in the city. Freight trains are MUCH more efficient than trucks, and are currently taking up more cargo everyday that used to go on trucks.
Freight and subways are not money losing propositions. And let’s not pretend that our friends in the auto and gas industries lobbied against public transportation for a long time. The people were never against it. That’s fantasy.
As for regular rail travel (between cities), the interstate system is the real reason we don’t use rail more…as gas gets more expensive, you’ll see rail become more popular.
Furthermore, you really display some ignorance regarding what america wants, what it will take, etc…
“people LIKE the way the Prius is now anyway due to the longer distances on average they drive. It does all the thinking for them and automatically doesn’t drain the batteries (which is hard on batteries) all the way down.”
You don’t even understand what a plug-in hybrid is!
“the longer distances they drive” would be powered by the engine, so there’s no problem there.
And batteries getting run down? are you serious? deep cycle batteries have had no problem running all the way down for decades. Newer battery technologies make battery memory a thing of the past (li-poly specifically).
Furthermore, you don’t have to have a switch that people have to think about…the car computer can turn the engine on and switch the drivetrain to use it when batteries get low.
And it wasn’t BIG GOVERNMENT that stopped the pliug-in hybrid… Toyota claims they are readying the technology and will make them available soon. The only issue left is the high cost of batteries (and a way to dispose of them safely). As with any new technologies, the cost will come down significantly once mass-production gets underway.
The challenges are not technical, they are political.
But at the end of your post you really go off your rails Baklava…
“all of the research by private companies have found zero uses for embryonic stem cells ” - that’s categorically untrue. You show yourself to be completely susceptible to absorbing and re-emmitting propaganda. They have not introduced approved medical treatments using them, but there are absolutely trials that show incredible promise for these cells beyond what adult or umbilical stem cells can do.
And really, Stem cells? You’re just going on a government spending rant here… but as I said above, we can totally afford it, and the war in Iraq proves that we can. Plus the dollars we spend on a Manhattan-style project never have to leave the country, so there will be no net loss to our economy. (but, yes, there will be a shakeup).
You can have your SUV. You can have your sports car. It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run. Your blanket proclamations that americans don’t want it is unfounded and obviously heavily biased toward a political agenda.
Comment by Aghast @ 10/3/2006 - 11:50 am
I do like the fact that Aghast is debating in a civil manner. He may or may not be right, but I am willing to listen to his arguments. He’s the only leftie I’ve seen that is willing to debate and listen to opposing arguments. I must agree with Baklava, that it will be private companies that bring us the new technology.
My opinion is that there are too many politicians out there, willing to stick their hand in the cookie jar, and assign jobs or contracts to friends or relatives. Please notice I didn’t specify whether the dems were republicans or democrats.
Comment by G Monster @ 10/3/2006 - 12:20 pm
FYI, Al Gore is going for the “grandpa munster” look, to compete with John Kerry’s “lurch” look.
Please note, if these 2 weren’t so mean, I wouldn’t be mean back.
Comment by G Monster @ 10/3/2006 - 12:23 pm
I’m not a believer in global warming as of yet, mainly because Al Gore is pushing it. I know Al Gore is out to make himself rich with no concern for his country, as he has displayed by going to Saudi Arabia, and speaking against the United States.
I’m just saying we need to cut way back on our consumption of foreign oil. I think the electric car is the future. I hope this country gets the