# John Kerry Says That Climate Change Is Just As Dangerous As Iran's Nukes.



## secdrl (Aug 3, 2012)

Just is becoming more and more unstable by the day. These dems are really losin' it.

Kerry: 'Climate Change' As Much Of A Threat As Iran's Nukes


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 3, 2012)

Lmao. Another ridiculous politician getting paid for sensationalizing nothingness, the reality these guys live in is so far from anywhere people call home, it is truly tiring to listen to them speak...


----------



## jay_steel (Aug 3, 2012)

John Kerry can lick my balls


----------



## oufinny (Aug 3, 2012)

He just wants to be relevant again that's all. I doubt he even believes that.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 3, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Just is becoming more and more unstable by the day. These dems are really losin' it.
> 
> Kerry: 'Climate Change' As Much Of A Threat As Iran's Nukes



The Pentagon has been studying climate change and stating this for at least 15 years.  One report ending up being released to the public about 12 years ago or so.

The Earth is getting warmer.  That's a fact.

The debate is: _are humans/human behavior causing it?_

I suspect only the top scientist can attempt to answer and even then they may have their own biases (if they are American).

In the US, it's a political issue more than a scientific issue.  For the rest of the world it's a scientific issue and only a scientific issue.

The CIA is moving/has moved its domestic operation headquarters from DC to Denver, 5,000 miles above sea level.  

The new focus by the US embassy and other US agencies is Phnom Penh because Saigon is at sea level and if you often dig a few feet deep with a shovel you often will hit water. 

Contingency plan are already being made.

Another theory about they Earth is entering what we think is a warming cycle is that the Milky Way Galaxy does move and bring the Earth along with it.  This warming may be because of the Earth and Galaxy pattern cycle.  (Obviously, I'm not an astronomer, but some have written about this.)

In the end we may not know the exact reasons or agree, but we do know the Earth is getting warmer at the moment. 

Our lives are insignificant; our lives are but a mere glimpse in geological terms.


----------



## hoyle21 (Aug 3, 2012)

Global warming is s huge threat.   Lack of fresh water changes the playing field.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 3, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Global warming is s huge threat.   Lack of fresh water changes the playing field.



Yup.

Salinization of the fresh water resources.

As we've discussed in the past in Open Chat, future wars may likely be over water.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 3, 2012)

lol


----------



## LAM (Aug 4, 2012)

Big Smoothy said:


> Yup.
> 
> Salinization of the fresh water resources.
> 
> As we've discussed in the past in Open Chat, future wars may likely be over water.



it's crazy when you think about the earths surface is roughly 70% water but only 1% of that is fresh.  the heavily industrialized country's have done much damage to their "fresh" water supplies.  I worked on some desalinization systems in the Navy, they are very slow and break down frequently.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 4, 2012)

Jesus Christ you are idiots.  You guys are truly retards if you don't think climate change is as threatening as Iran's Nukes.  I'm not saying whether or not we are accelerating it (We are, and again, you are a retard if you don't understand this), but the power mother nature can unleash is far more devastating than anything Iran could ever come up with.  The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs unleashed 10x more power than the total number of nukes worldwide during the peak of the cold war, released in 1 spot.  I understand this was not climate change related, but it shows you how truly small we are in comparison to everything else.  When climate change reaches the tipping pint, whether we are pushing it to the brink or not, it's going to accelerate exponentially at a very rapid rate.  If it happens in our lifetime you'll probably get to see some pretty gnarly mass destruction.  I understand we are probably not going to stop doing what we do and neither are other countries, but we should be researching not only how to mitigate our damage, but also how we can slow down the natural process as well.


----------



## ctr10 (Aug 4, 2012)

The only thing john kerry know's is how to write himself war fake war citations and marry money


----------



## LAM (Aug 4, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Jesus Christ you are idiots.  You guys are truly retards if you don't think climate change is as threatening as Iran's Nukes.  I'm not saying whether or not we are accelerating it (We are, and again, you are a retard if you don't understand this), but the power mother nature can unleash is far more devastating than anything Iran could ever come up with.  The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs unleashed 10x more power than the total number of nukes worldwide during the peak of the cold war, released in 1 spot.  I understand this was not climate change related, but it shows you how truly small we are in comparison to everything else.  When climate change reaches the tipping pint, whether we are pushing it to the brink or not, it's going to accelerate exponentially at a very rapid rate.  If it happens in our lifetime you'll probably get to see some pretty gnarly mass destruction.  I understand we are probably not going to stop doing what we do and neither are other countries, but we should be researching not only how to mitigate our damage, but also how we can slow down the natural process as well.



the flying spaghetti monster will save us...


----------



## troubador (Aug 4, 2012)

I agree. I think both pose a small threat.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 4, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Jesus Christ you are idiots.  You guys are truly retards if you don't think climate change is as threatening as Iran's Nukes.



I do not recall anyone on this forum saying that, Dale.

This is just another politician who's dumb and looking for press.

The topic has gone into 'climate change.'

Iran's nukes?

Who cares?


----------



## LAM (Aug 4, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree. I think both pose a small threat.



small problems when left unattended turn into very large problems.  80% of US states have drinking water that is contaminated with various chemicals, drugs, carcinogens, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03water.html?pagewanted=all

https://www.google.com/search?q=US+...cp.r_qf.&fp=9ca5e7b839d7ba51&biw=1024&bih=574


----------



## troubador (Aug 4, 2012)

LAM said:


> small problems when left unattended turn into very large problems.  80% of US states have drinking water that is contaminated with various chemicals, drugs, carcinogens, etc.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03water.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=US+...cp.r_qf.&fp=9ca5e7b839d7ba51&biw=1024&bih=574



Nothing to do with global warming but as always, thanks for the knowledge vomit. 

Drinking water has a lower pH (~5.5) because carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the water to form carbonic acid.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 4, 2012)

> knowledge vomit.




lmao!!


----------



## LAM (Aug 4, 2012)

troubador said:


> Nothing to do with global warming but as always, thanks for the knowledge vomit.
> 
> Drinking water has a lower pH (~5.5) because carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the water to form carbonic acid.



it sure does...global warming causes the glaciers to melt along with groundwater extraction to water crops, etc. which ends as water vapor and then rainfall which further contributes to sea levels rising.  eventually leeching into the coastal fresh water aquifers then further inland.

nope...no problem there


----------



## maniclion (Aug 4, 2012)

Didn't one of the skeptical scientists who wrote Physics for Future Presidents just change his mind on global warming?  I heard part of an interview with him and he had some very compelling revelations.  He also warned that if China continues on it's course they are going to expedite even worse problems.  So yeah we probably should be just ad concerned about global warming, or at least getting off of fossil fuels as fast as we can if not for climate change, then at least so we don't end up battling developing nations with billions of human resources to throw at us for the precious few fossil fuels in the future...


----------



## troubador (Aug 4, 2012)

LAM said:


> eventually leeching into the coastal fresh water aquifers then further inland.



Rivers flow to the sea so explain this one.


----------



## LAM (Aug 5, 2012)

troubador said:


> Rivers flow to the sea so explain this one.



and what about them.  most of the major US rivers been altered via dams for hydroelectric power, there are over 80,000  dams in the US and about 7,500 major ones.  and a good number of them were built 50+ years ago.

Renewable Energy Sources in the United States

* This USGS report details how ground and surface waters are used in each state and in what quantities 

Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf

Association of State Dam Safety Officials
Association of State Dam Safety Officials

* there is not much left in this country that we haven't fucked up


----------



## Bowden (Aug 5, 2012)

This is not a "dem issue", this is an issue that is going to impact everyone regardless of their political alliances.
The earth is heating up, the resulting weather impacts to food production and fresh water supplies is potentially catastrophic and labeling it as a "dem issue"  is not going to make it go away.*

New study links current events to climate change*

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

 WASHINGTON.  The  relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the  United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare  that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, says a new  statistical analysis from a top government scientist.
 The research by a man often called the "godfather of global warming"  says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s  through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1  in 10, according to the study by NASA scientist James Hansen. He says  that statistically what's happening is not random or normal, but pure  and simple climate change.
 "This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview.

 Hansen is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies  in New York and a professor at Columbia University. But he is also a  strident activist who has called for government action to curb  greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online  Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is  unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate change skeptics.

 However, several climate scientists praised the new work.
 In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen's study based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling , blames  these three heat waves purely on global warming:



Last year's devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought. 
The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths. 
The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France. 
 
 The analysis was written before the current drought and  record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States  this year. But Hansen believes this too is another prime example of  global warming at its worst.
 The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in  a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple math  instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of  atmospheric physics. It also doesn't bother with the usual caveats about  individual weather events having numerous causes.
 The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy  downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop  hemming and hawing, Hansen said. "This is happening often enough, over a  big enough area that people can see it happening," he said.

 Scientists have generally responded that it's impossible to say  whether single events are caused by global warming, because of the  influence of natural weather variability.
 However, that position has been shifting in recent months, as other  studies too have concluded climate change is happening right before our  eyes.
 Hansen hopes his new study will shift people's thinking about climate  change and goad governments into action. He wrote an op-ed piece that  appeared online Friday in the Washington Post.
 "There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time," he wrote.

 The science in Hansen's study is excellent "and reframes the  question," said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of  Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning  international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of  reports on global warming.
 "Rather than say, 'Is this because of climate change?' That's the  wrong question. What you can say is, 'How likely is this to have  occurred with the absence of global warming?' It's so extraordinarily  unlikely that it has to be due to global warming," Weaver said.

 For years scientists have run complex computer models using  combinations of various factors to see how likely a weather event would  happen without global warming and with it. About 25 different aspects of  climate change have been formally attributed to man-made greenhouse  gases in dozens of formal studies. But these are generally broad and  non-specific, such as more heat waves in some regions and heavy rainfall  in others.
 Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at  the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian  heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that  caused the heat wave. He called Hansen's paper an important one that  helps communicate the problem.
 But there is bound to be continued disagreement. Previous studies had  been unable to link the two, and one by the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which  also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.

 White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper's findings  in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can't blame  single events on global warming: "This work, which finds that extremely  hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be,  reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is  occurring and that it is harmful."
 Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at  Huntsville said Hansen shouldn't have compared recent years to the  1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for  extremes.
But Derek Arndt, director of climate monitoring for the federal  government's National Climatic Data Center, said that range is a fair  one and often used because it is the "golden era" for good statistics.

Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie  Mellon University, called Hansen's study "an important next step in what  I expect will be a growing set of statistically-based arguments."
 In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas  emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about  nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s.  So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had  23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.
 Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.
 And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the  burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse  gas, others doubt it.

 Science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado  said Hansen clearly doesn't understand social science, thinking a study  like his could spur action. Just because people understand a fact that  doesn't mean people will act on it, he said.
 In an email, he wrote: "Hansen is pursuing a deeply flawed model of  policy change, one that will prove ineffectual and with its most lasting  consequence a further politicization of climate science (if that is  possible!)."


----------



## Bowden (Aug 5, 2012)

NASA GISS: Research News: 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year


----------



## secdrl (Aug 5, 2012)

Romney/Rubio 2012


----------



## Muscle_Girl (Aug 5, 2012)

Damn, came across this too late, a lot has already been said about how I view the statement.

I agree with a lot of people who said underestimating climate change is dumb, people are dying all the time from massive storms and occurances that haven't happened in the past or as frequently as they seem to be happening now. I also agree that its not a matter of whether we are creating the climate change, that is just a political ploy really, the earth is known for entering both hot and cold extremes in its history. Nuke deaths vs. mother nature, mother nature will win every time.

Being Canadian scares the shit out of me when it comes to fresh water supplies. I really hope that it wont get too messy when it becomes an issue, but greed is uncontrollable in this world.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 5, 2012)

130 years of data is not enough to claim global warming, the earth has been aroun a long time, people are paranoid for oneeason, IMO.


----------



## LAM (Aug 5, 2012)

doesn't really change the facts that the increase in the global population from 1B in the 1800's to 7B now is destroying much of the environment and that the current growth is most certainly unsustainable, similar to recent events in the US economy.  

more of everything isn't always better


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 6, 2012)

maniclion said:


> Didn't one of the skeptical scientists who wrote Physics for Future Presidents just change his mind on global warming?  I heard part of an interview with him and he had some very compelling revelations.  He also warned that if China continues on it's course they are going to expedite even worse problems.  So yeah we probably should be just ad concerned about global warming, or at least getting off of fossil fuels as fast as we can if not for climate change, then at least so we don't end up battling developing nations with billions of human resources to throw at us for the precious few fossil fuels in the future...



The only people debating it are politicians and morons.  I believe the number of scientists (All scientists, not just climate scientists) who believe climate change is real and we are one of the leading causes of it is over 85%.  If 85% of financial guys told you to pull your money out of a stock because it was a shitty investment, not a single person would ignore that advice, yet when it has to do with climate change for some reason people seem to turn a blind eye.  We should be trying to stop or reverse it, not speed it up.  Oh, and John Kerry and Al Gore are fucking dickbags by the way.  Their carbon footprint is probably larger than about 50 average people.


----------



## LAM (Aug 6, 2012)

political ideology causes people to believe or refute scientific theory or even empirical evidence simply because of party affiliation of the presenter.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Aug 6, 2012)

Would the politicians of either party be discussing global warming if money wasn't involved?


----------



## DetMuscle (Aug 6, 2012)




----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 6, 2012)

^^^ lol, because cow farts cause more carbon dioxide than burnt fossil fuels...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 6, 2012)

Big Pimpin said:


> Would the politicians of either party be discussing global warming if money wasn't involved?



Nope.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 6, 2012)

DBowden said:


>



I wasn't aware that the earth is only 132 years old. That's good to know that it's not billions of years old or prone to vacillating between ice ages and a jungle covered planet.


----------



## troubador (Aug 6, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> ^^^ lol, because cow farts cause more carbon dioxide than burnt fossil fuels...



You're probably thinking of methane.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 6, 2012)

troubador said:


> You're probably thinking of methane.



yes, yes, I am.


----------



## DetMuscle (Aug 6, 2012)

troubador said:


> You're probably thinking of methane.



Not if you light the farts


----------



## LAM (Aug 6, 2012)

Pastafarians believe this is the cause of global warming.

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg


----------



## oufinny (Aug 6, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> 130 years of data is not enough to claim global warming, the earth has been aroun a long time, people are paranoid for oneeason, IMO.



This.  I don't make claims about evolution after 130 years of data so how are people CERTAIN this is not a natural change?  I am sure that carbon emissions are not helping anything but it could just be speeding things up that are naturally occurring.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 6, 2012)

LAM said:


> Pastafarians believe this is the cause of global warming.
> 
> http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg



and children believe in the easter bunny, neither are relevant.


----------



## LAM (Aug 6, 2012)

oufinny said:


> This.  I don't make claims about evolution after 130 years of data so how are people CERTAIN this is not a natural change?  I am sure that carbon emissions are not helping anything but it could just be speeding things up that are naturally occurring.



how does water naturally extract itself from the ground?


----------



## troubador (Aug 6, 2012)

DetMuscle said:


> Not if you light the farts



True.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 6, 2012)

LAM said:


> how does water naturally extract itself from the ground?



What the fuck does that have to do with my statement at all?  And notice how I didn't make a statement as if I am an expert from reading some articles even though I have no knowledge of the immensely complex modeling that goes into climate change and the study of it. Yes, you sir are not an expert, neither am I, I simply posed a question that you chose to ignore because it brings question to the sources you stake your argument against.  This is how science works, even my public school education was enough for me to learn the scientific method.  You are a smart guy, I respect the work you put into a lot of what you post/say here, it is posts like this that make you lose credibility (not that you may care I am simply pointing out a fact many share).


----------



## troubador (Aug 6, 2012)

oufinny said:


> This.  I don't make claims about evolution after 130 years of data so how are people CERTAIN this is not a natural change?  I am sure that carbon emissions are not helping anything but it could just be speeding things up that are naturally occurring.



We are in the early stages of recognizing global warming. I think this has caused a polarization on the issue. One side exaggerates the effects to get their point across and persuade people to action while the other denies the existence.  The real issue isn't whether it's man made or not but rather how bad is it and what rational steps can we take to improve our world?


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 6, 2012)

What about a hoax?  Fish in on it, too?

Thousands of fish die as Midwest streams heat up - Yahoo! News


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 6, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> and children believe in the easter bunny, neither are relevant.



Some adults believe in magical sky daddies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Pimpin (Aug 7, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Some adults believe in magical sky daddies.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I believe in the Gears Fairy.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 7, 2012)

troubador said:


> We are in the early stages of recognizing global warming.



You'd think that the end of the last ice age would've been the "early stages."


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 7, 2012)

troubador said:


> The real issue isn't whether it's man made or not but rather how bad is it and what rational steps can we take to improve our world?



That's the rational step, but that's not what is going to ever happen.  I think at this point the science is pretty well set on this thing.  Even if it's not, the naysayers' primary objection was never that it isn't happening or that we are making it worse, it's that they don't want to pay for it regardless.  If it is shown without a shadow of a doubt that we are making it worse, do you really think the companies accelerating it are going to put their money where their mouth is and start paying for it?  Hell no, they're going to make .gov step in and pay for it to protect their profits.  In other words, the money we pay in taxes will be funneled to them so that they don't take a hit.  You know, the way free markets around here work.


----------



## LAM (Aug 7, 2012)

oufinny said:


> What the fuck does that have to do with my statement at all?  And notice how I didn't make a statement as if I am an expert from reading some articles even though I have no knowledge of the immensely complex modeling that goes into climate change and the study of it. Yes, you sir are not an expert, neither am I, I simply posed a question that you chose to ignore because it brings question to the sources you stake your argument against.  This is how science works, even my public school education was enough for me to learn the scientific method.  You are a smart guy, I respect the work you put into a lot of what you post/say here, it is posts like this that make you lose credibility (not that you may care I am simply pointing out a fact many share).



most major problems in anything (science, economics, health, relationships, etc.) have multiple-parts and identifying all of them is part of the problem solving process.  you fix the parts that you have direct control over and that's really all that can be done.  

not many can debate that man has had a positive effect on the planet in any way shape or form.  and it's blatantly obvious that the present consumption patterns of natural resources are unsustainable, with the global population having increased 6B people in only the past 300 years.  so we have to think of ways that we have directly harmed the planet and try to undo what we have done as a collective as best we can or the planet will solve this problem for us.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 7, 2012)

troubador said:


> We are in the early stages of recognizing global warming. I think this has caused a polarization on the issue. One side exaggerates the effects to get their point across and persuade people to action while the other denies the existence.  The real issue isn't whether it's man made or not but rather how bad is it and what rational steps can we take to improve our world?



Yes, I agree with this completely.  A more rational approach is needed, once politics got involved it all went to shit.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 8, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I wasn't aware that the earth is only 132 years old. That's good to know that it's not billions of years old or prone to vacillating between ice ages and a jungle covered planet.



I agree, since we only have 132 years of data we should completely ignore it.  That's what a smart person would do.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 8, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree, since we only have 132 years of data we should completely ignore it.  That's what a smart person would do.



Hell, that's way too many data points as it is. I'm just going to use today's temperature information. When I woke up this morning, at 6AM, it was 73F. Now, at 4PM, it's 95F. That's an average increase of 2.2F per hour. Based on my calculations, by this time tomorrow it'll be 148F.

Hurrdurr...


----------



## troubador (Aug 8, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Hell, that's way too many data points as it is. I'm just going to use today's temperature information. When I woke up this morning, at 6AM, it was 73F. Now, at 4PM, it's 95F. That's an average increase of 2.2F per hour. Based on my calculations, by this time tomorrow it'll be 148F.
> 
> Hurrdurr...



We need to start buying labor votes now!.. oops, I mean, subsidize jobs marketed as 'green jobs'. I mean, save the planet!








*Sent from private jet*


----------



## LAM (Aug 8, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree, since we only have 132 years of data we should completely ignore it.  That's what a smart person would do.



the right doesn't believe 30 years of economic data collected by the OECD backed by every nobel winning economists alive. why in the world would 132 years of environmental data backed again by scientists worldwide change their minds about global warming.  the level of ignorance out of the far right knows no limits.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Hell, that's way too many data points as it is. I'm just going to use today's temperature information. When I woke up this morning, at 6AM, it was 73F. Now, at 4PM, it's 95F. That's an average increase of 2.2F per hour. Based on my calculations, by this time tomorrow it'll be 148F.
> 
> Hurrdurr...



As I said, completely ignore it.  I mean, there's all of this data showing trickle-down economics works, which is why I assume you support it. Then again, actually thinking about problems isn't really a GOP thing.  Although, it's not much of a Dem thing either.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 9, 2012)

LAM said:


> the right doesn't believe 30 years of economic data collected by the OECD backed by every nobel winning economists alive. why in the world would 132 years of environmental data backed again by scientists worldwide change their minds about global warming.  the level of ignorance out of the far right knows no limits.



which is only surpassed by the lefts foolish arrogance, greed, desire for socialism and stupidity


130 years of data?! from an earth, that even the most stringent of believers agree has been here upwards of 6000 years is not evidence enough to prove the "global warming religion" is anything but that, (organized  fear driven money maker). 

Let me clarify, I do not deny the earths weather patterns are seriously changing, mass increase in earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, wild fires, to name just a few.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> which is only surpassed by the lefts foolish arrogance, greed, desire for socialism and stupidity
> 
> 
> 130 years of data?! from an earth, that even the most stringent of believers agree has been here upwards of 6000 years is not evidence enough to prove the "global warming religion" is anything but that, (organized  fear driven money maker).
> ...



Please tell me you don't think the planet is only 6000 years old.  From all of the data on genetics and evolution that we have, man being created in God's image really isn't all that likely.  Given the sheer number of genes all living things share, common ancestry is pretty much proven.  Saying you don't believe in evolution by natural selection is essentially saying you don't believe we breathe air, that genes either don't exist or do anything, and that all of biology is basically bullshit.  Biology is dependent on evolution by natural selection, without one you cannot have the other.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> which is only surpassed by the lefts foolish arrogance, greed, desire for socialism and stupidity
> 
> 
> 130 years of data?! from an earth, that even the most stringent of believers agree has been here upwards of 6000 years is not evidence enough to prove the "global warming religion" is anything but that, (organized  fear driven money maker).
> ...



6000 years?  Lmao, try 4 billion years.  

Do you also not believe that matter is made up of atoms and that the periodic table of elements is a lie, since it's just a "theory?"

Despite what retarded young earth creationists say, radioactive dating is very accurate.  Carbon dating is one of many types of radioactive dating and each different type confirms each others  dates when compared.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Please tell me you don't think the planet is only 6000 years old.  From all of the data on genetics and evolution that we have, man being created in God's image really isn't all that likely.  Given the sheer number of genes all living things share, common ancestry is pretty much proven.  Saying you don't believe in evolution by natural selection is essentially saying you don't believe we breathe air, that genes either don't exist or do anything, and that all of biology is basically bullshit.  Biology is dependent on evolution by natural selection, without one you cannot have the other.



Evolution is the unifying theory of biology, anthropology, zoology, botany, and paleontology.  Every scientist from each one of these fields in every civilized nation is in agreement about evolution.  Creationists do not deserve to be debated with. It's like debating w someone that believes the earth is flat; it's a waste of time and energy.


----------



## NVRBDR (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> 6000 years?  Lmao, try 4 billion years.
> 
> Do you also not believe that matter is made up of atoms and that the periodic table of elements is a lie, since it's just a "theory?"
> 
> Despite what retarded young earth creationists say, radioactive dating is very accurate.  Carbon dating is one of many types of radioactive dating and each different type confirms each others  dates when compared.




entering thread!!  the big bang bafoon lets try to stay on point, this isn't about your fav topic "creation VS evolution" I get it, most everyone gets it. You think we came from the explosion of gases over millions of years. I believe in God the Creator who gave man life.  
There are some "believers" that have agreed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is where your 4 billion years occurred. Personally, it makes no difference how old the earth is, it's not going to add even one millisecond to anyones life. It changes nothing.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> entering thread!!  the big bang bafoon lets try to stay on point, this isn't about your fav topic "creation VS evolution" I get it, most everyone gets it. You think we came from the explosion of gases over millions of years. I believe in God the Creator who gave man life.
> There are some "believers" that have agreed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is where your 4 billion years occurred. Personally, it makes no difference how old the earth is, it's not going to add even one millisecond to anyones life. It changes nothing.



So...132 years of climate data isn't sufficient, but having faith in a book that runs contrary to what scientific evidence over hundred of years has shown is cool...Makes perfect sense...You're irrational.  This isn't to say that there is or isn't a God, it's just to point out the hypocrisy in the fact you think we should pay no mind to 132 years of fairly conclusive evidence (At least in the minds of intelligent, educated people) about climate change while you live your life according to a book that has zero data supporting it and is highly unlikely to contain a single fact.  Whenever science comes up with something that disproves that book, you either change the book or say it isn't the literal word of God.  When he said years he meant millenia, 1 year amillion years, same difference, right?  You probably think there is no evidence the big bang happened, and I'm not saying it did.  But you believe the world is 6000 years old and that a chick ate an apple with a talking snake and it's the climate change believers who are the crazy ones?  It must be fun to live in your reality...if you really want to call it that.

I have been fairly diplomatic over the decade I've been on this board, but at this point I might as well come out and say it.  If you believe in any sort of religious text...You are stupid.  Really, really stupid.  In fact, since you can't seem to grasp scientific concepts and any that run counter to your belief system you completely ignore, I beg you to refuse any medical treatment since it is all based on science.  You will be doing the world a favor, trust me, you're holding us all back.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

I guess that's a little harsh, you could just be ignorant or misinformed.  That is the primary problem, you have the right to believe that, but if you are dumb enough to believe it you really have no place in scientific discussion.  Again, that's not to say you shouldn't believe in a God, you just shouldn't follow the book because it's bullshit.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> entering thread!!  the big bang bafoon lets try to stay on point, this isn't about your fav topic "creation VS evolution" I get it, most everyone gets it. You think we came from the explosion of gases over millions of years. I believe in God the Creator who gave man life.
> There are some "believers" that have agreed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is where your 4 billion years occurred. Personally, it makes no difference how old the earth is, it's not going to add even one millisecond to anyones life. It changes nothing.



You were the one that mentioned the earth being 6000 years old.  Btw, the big bang and evolution are different theories.  Germ theory and atomic theory are just theories too, so I assume you don't believe in viruses, bacteria or atoms.  Or do you just question the theories that contradict your myth about virgin births and resurrections?


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> As I said, completely ignore it.  I mean, there's all of this data showing trickle-down economics works, which is why I assume you support it. Then again, actually thinking about problems isn't really a GOP thing.  Although, it's not much of a Dem thing either.



Oh, you can't refute my statement about global warming, so you're going to bring in economics? That's awesome.

Also, I think the rich should get the shit taxed out of them. So yeah, you're wrong there, too.

I can't believe that people are so retarded as to believe that a few hundred years of data can tell us anything definitive about trends that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I can't believe that people are so retarded as to believe that a few hundred years of data can tell us anything definitive about trends that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years.



The interesting part to me is that by far, the majority of scientists who are considered experts in meteorology are in agreement about global warming, and I wouldn't consider them retards.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm completely ignorant on the topic, but when a majority of the folks that are the most trained in an area of research agree on something, I tend to accept their ideas as the most plausible.

"97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[106] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[107]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The interesting part to me is that by far, the majority of scientists who are considered experts in meteorology are in agreement about global warming, and I wouldn't consider them retards.
> 
> I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm completely ignorant on the topic, but when a majority of the folks that are the most trained in an area of research agree on something, I tend to accept their ideas as the most plausible.
> 
> ...



In the beginning of the stupidity that is AGW, many scientists said it was wrong, or simply said the data was inconclusive. Those people lost their funding and were banned from various institutions. Feel free to look it up. There is a lot of money behind the AGW movement. Hell, AWG Jesus, Al Gore, owns interest in companies that stand to make a lot of money if they can get the idiotic bills that want to get passed. Not to mention the leaked documents about the AWG "fixing" the numbers on their experiments because they're weren't returning the "right" output.

Also, I've never seen any facts that counter these:

1. The current warming trend stated at the end of the last ice age. About 10,000 year before the industrial age that's supposedly causing global warming.
2. This is not the hottest the world has been.
3. The warming that we've seen in the last 200 years in inline with the trend that started at the end of the last ice age.

So let me ask you this: if mankind is causing global warming, what should the temperature be doing if it wasn't? Going down? Going up? Staying the same?


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> In the beginning of the stupidity that is AGW, many scientists said it was wrong, or simply said the data was inconclusive. Those people lost their funding and were banned from various institutions. Feel free to look it up. There is a lot of money behind the AGW movement. Hell, AWG Jesus, Al Gore, owns interest in companies that stand to make a lot of money if they can get the idiotic bills that want to get passed. Not to mention the leaked documents about the AWG "fixing" the numbers on their experiments because they're weren't returning the "right" output.
> 
> Also, I've never seen any facts that counter these:
> 
> ...



Like I said, I have no opinion on the matter except that it seems that the only folks that refute the science are not scientists.  I have personally not reviewed any of the science nor am I qualified to make an assessment of it either.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Like I said, I have no opinion on the matter except that it seems that the only folks that refute the science are not scientists.  I have personally not reviewed any of the science nor am I qualified to make an assessment of it either.



They aren't many that can afford to not tow the line. There are few that do anyway. Also, I've seen interviews where scientists said their names were put on documents supporting AGW without their permission or knowledge.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> They aren't many that can afford to not tow the line. There are few that do anyway. Also, I've seen interviews where scientists said their names were put on documents supporting AGW without their permission or knowledge.



2-3% is a very small few.  It would have to be a pretty large conspiracy to encompass that large of a majority.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Oh, you can't refute my statement about global warming, so you're going to bring in economics? That's awesome.
> 
> Also, I think the rich should get the shit taxed out of them. So yeah, you're wrong there, too.
> 
> I can't believe that people are so retarded as to believe that a few hundred years of data can tell us anything definitive about trends that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years.



I agree with you that a few hundred years can't show conclusively something is happening, I disagree with the fact that you should ignore it because there isn't more data, which is obviously your stance.  The fact that we are pumping that shit in to the atmosphere is obviously causing problems.  I'm not saying it's causing 100% of the problems, but it's causing problems.  We should be slowing it down, not speeding it up.  Even if we are only speeding it up by 5-10%.  



exphys88 said:


> The interesting part to me is that by far, the majority of scientists who are considered experts in meteorology are in agreement about global warming, and I wouldn't consider them retards.
> 
> I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm completely ignorant on the topic, but when a majority of the folks that are the most trained in an area of research agree on something, I tend to accept their ideas as the most plausible.
> 
> ...



Not only that, but 86% of all scientists who have ever published in any scientific journal.  On 1 side you have thousands and thousands of the smartest people on the planet and on the other you have a handful of politicians who are driven by money and greed.  How is that a tough choice to make?  Politicians obviously don't even understand the problem.  I lump John Kerry AND Al Gore in to that group.




DOMS said:


> In the beginning of the stupidity that is AGW, many scientists said it was wrong, or simply said the data was inconclusive. Those people lost their funding and were banned from various institutions. Feel free to look it up. There is a lot of money behind the AGW movement. Hell, AWG Jesus, Al Gore, owns interest in companies that stand to make a lot of money if they can get the idiotic bills that want to get passed. Not to mention the leaked documents about the AWG "fixing" the numbers on their experiments because they're weren't returning the "right" output.
> 
> Also, I've never seen any facts that counter these:
> 
> ...



1)I didn't know they had data going back to the last ice age, sweet!  Nobody on the planet is saying that Climate change was driven by the industrial age, only that it is accelerating it.

2)Obviously not.  It's also no the wettest, what's your point?  It's quite possible that it's been billions of degrees warmer here before, but that has no bearing on the problem.  The problem is we are here and at some point the climate is going to make the planet unlivable.  I would like that to not happen any time soon.

I agree cow farts and other things are driving this trend as well.  I wouldn't even say the problem is fossil fuels, it's that there are too many of us and fossil fuels are only a small part of that.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> 2-3% is a very small few.  It would have to be a pretty large conspiracy to encompass that large of a majority.



Believe what you want. I've seen the interviews regarding people that have lost jobs because they didn't tow the line or had their names used with permission.

What's kind of hilarious is going to be that, no matter what happens, global warming is going to continue. Living in a large country, I'll be in a place where I can laugh about it.

Fun fact: if not for global warming there wouldn't be a Great Barrier Reef (it's only 8000 years old).


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

I don't even know why we're arguing. Even if it were proven to be 100% fact, anything the government could do would either get fucked up or driven by special interests anyway.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree with you that a few hundred years can't show conclusively something is happening, I disagree with the fact that you should ignore it because there isn't more data, which is obviously your stance.  The fact that we are pumping that shit in to the atmosphere is obviously causing problems.  I'm not saying it's causing 100% of the problems, but it's causing problems.  We should be slowing it down, not speeding it up.  Even if we are only speeding it up by 5-10%.



And herein lies the problem: mixing up the issues. It's people like you that bundle AGW with pollution. Pollution is real, so AGW must be, too? Right? Right? 



Dale Mabry said:


> 1)I didn't know they had data going back to the last ice age, sweet!  Nobody on the planet is saying that Climate change was driven by the industrial age, only that it is accelerating it.



They have temperature data going back millions of years. If we're accelerating the warming, why is it still inline with the rate of change that started at the end of the last ice age?



Dale Mabry said:


> 2)Obviously not.  It's also no the wettest, what's your point?  It's quite possible that it's been billions of degrees warmer here before, but that has no bearing on the problem.  The problem is we are here and at some point the climate is going to make the planet unlivable.  I would like that to not happen.



What's my point? Are you fucking serious? What's the point that the Earth has, when no human's were present, gotten warming that it is now? What's the point that the Earth has gone though cyclical changes that included warming trends just like we're seeing now? The planet isn't going to be unlivable. Total sensationalist, mindless, bullshit. The only danger is to small countries if their farming belt moves to another country.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Believe what you want. I've seen the interviews regarding people that have lost jobs because they didn't tow the line or had their names used with permission.
> 
> What's kind of hilarious is going to be that, no matter what happens, global warming is going to continue. Living in a large country, I'll be in a place where I can laugh about it.
> 
> Fun fact: if not for global warming there wouldn't be a Great Barrier Reef (it's only 8000 years old).



It's not really a belief that nearly all scientists are in agreement, the studies on their opinions are very consistent.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I don't even know why we're arguing. Even if it were proven to be 100% fact, anything the government could do would either get fucked up or driven by special interests anyway.



Many things have been proven. Scientist and environmentalists have said that there is a floating mass of plastic in the oceans. 100% proven.

The problem with AGW is that there is a natural global warming, it's mixed up with pollution, and people want to help "save the world" so they jump on the bandwagon without actually doing any though. Plus, like you alluded to, there's a lot of money behind the AGW movement.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It's not really a belief that nearly all scientists are in agreement, the studies on their opinions are very consistent.



It's a belief when the facts don't exist or the proposed idea is contrary to reality. AGW is a faith just as much as any religion.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> It's a belief when the facts don't exist or the proposed idea is contrary to reality. AGW is a faith just as much as any religion.



You misunderstood me, I'm not arguing for or against global warming, just pointing out that nearly all scientists are in agreement and the only people opposed are non scientists and politicians.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You misunderstood me, I'm not arguing for or against global warming, just pointing out that nearly all scientists are in agreement and the only people opposed are non scientists and politicians.



Fair enough, but not all scientists are in agreement and that they, and their work, has been compromised. I'm also pointing out that the facts are contrary to what they're stating.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS; said:
			
		

> What's my point? Are you fucking serious? What's the point that the Earth has, when no human's were present, gotten warming that it is now? What's the point that the Earth has gone though cyclical changes that included warming trends just like we're seeing now? The planet isn't going to be unlivable. Total sensationalist, mindless, bullshit. The only danger is to small countries if their farming belt moves to another country.



I think you misunderstand. Who cares if the planet had been a billion degrees Celsius, that has no impact on us now. We are here, if it ever got that hot before and there was life, it died. And it's certainly not sensationalist. Look at what's happening to the corn in the Midwest. I'm not saying that's from man made global warming, I'm saying it can easily spiral in to a problem and we are only talking a couple of percentage points of a degree. Nature is in a fine balance, look at what would happen if colony collapse disorder hit bees on a larger scale. They pollinate 30% of our crops. Of course, other insects could take up the slack, but everything in nature serves a purpose. Not trying to sound all alarmist, but the planet doesn't need to be made directly unlivable to us, it merely needs to become unlivable for something we depend on significantly.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I think you misunderstand. Who cares if the planet had been a billion degrees Celsius, that has no impact on us now. We are here, if it ever got that hot before and there was life, it died. And it's certainly not sensationalist. Look at what's happening to the corn in the Midwest. I'm not saying that's from man made global warming, I'm saying it can easily spiral in to a problem and we are only talking a couple of percentage points of a degree. Nature is in a fine balance, look at what would happen if colony collapse disorder hit bees on a larger scale. They pollinate 30% of our crops. Of course, other insects could take up the slack, but everything in nature serves a purpose. Not trying to sound all alarmist, but the planet doesn't need to be made directly unlivable to us, it merely needs to become unlivable for something we depend on significantly.



Just for clarification: you do realize that the warming _cannot _be stopped, right?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Just for clarification: you do realize that the warming _cannot _be stopped, right?



Yes, I just feel we need to stop doing anything to speed it up or at the very least mitigate as much of our impact as possible. We don't know if we are affecting it by 1% or 90%. We have no option B right now so the further we can kick that can down the road the better. If it was certain that our impact was negligible I would say fuck it too. We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach. All it will cost is a few people at the top of the socioeconomic food chain will have to be responsible for their impact and spend money on that rather than buy a whole bunch of shit they don't need anyway.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Yes, I just feel we need to stop doing anything to speed it up or at the very least mitigate as much of our impact as possible. We don't know if we are affecting it by 1% or 90%. We have no option B right now so the further we can kick that can down the road the better. If it was certain that our impact was negligible I would say fuck it too. We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach. All it will cost is a few people at the top of the socioeconomic food chain will have to be responsible for their impact and spend money on that rather than buy a whole bunch of shit they don't need anyway.



I'm 100% for cleaning carbon emissions for real reasons like pollution, but trying to fix problems that may or may not be real is wrong. You end up with crap like the Kyoto protocol. Even worse, as you pointed out before, any effort to "fix" things get worked over by governments and corporations.


----------



## troubador (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach.



Pascal's wager! Not sure about the smart or sane part unless religion is too.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

troubador said:


> Pascal's wager! Not sure about the smart or sane part unless religion is too.



I don't think that falls under pascals wager.

reducing pollution is a win if agw is real and if it isn't real.  Not reducing pollution is surely a loss either way, as well.


----------



## secdrl (Aug 9, 2012)




----------



## troubador (Aug 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't think that falls under pascals wager.
> 
> reducing pollution is a win if agw is real and if it isn't real.  Not reducing pollution is surely a loss either way, as well.



He said we have no idea what our impact is. I was responding only to his comment which was analogous to Pascal's wager. The reality of pollution is irrelevant to my specific comment. 

btw, clearly certain types of pollution pose an undeniable danger. (sorry for the abundant alliteration... or would that be consonance?)


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 9, 2012)

troubador said:


> He said we have no idea what our impact is. I was responding only to his comment which was analogous to Pascal's wager. The reality of pollution is irrelevant to my specific comment.
> 
> btw, clearly certain types of pollution pose an undeniable danger. (sorry for the abundant alliteration... or would that be consonance?)



Lol, I need to look up consonance.  Smarty pants.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2012)

troubador said:


> He said we have no idea what our impact is. I was responding only to his comment which was analogous to Pascal's wager. The reality of pollution is irrelevant to my specific comment.
> 
> btw, clearly certain types of pollution pose an undeniable danger. (sorry for the abundant alliteration... or would that be consonance?)



Yes, we have no idea of our impact, but we know there is one.  97% of climate scientists as well as 85% of all scientists believe it is significant or primarily driven by us.  Both of those groups are smarter than you or I so I defer to them.  Pascal's wager is in no way logical.  It assumes the risk of going to hell is worse than the benefit of doing whatever you want during this lifetime.  CC is different, we know we are speeding it up via carbon emissions and overpopulation.  There is no if in this situation, the world is going to eventually end as it pertains to us, and we are speeding up the process.  Besides, Pascal's Wager relies on so many assumptions it's ridiculous.  It assumes that if there is a God he gives a fuck.  Why does he have to give a fuck?  Why can't God just be a simple experimenter performing a giant experiment?  It assumes that if you don't believe you are going to hell.  Why?  What evidence is there that this will happen?  Has a precedent been set to where we know without a shadow of a doubt that if you don't believe in God you will rot in hell?  Given that one of the primary greenhouse gases is CO2 and we are pumping a ton of it in to the atmosphere we are certainly accelerating CC.  Granted, both are based off a simple cost to benefit analysis, but CC is based on fairly established fact (We have an impact) while Pascal's wager is based on myth (Religion).  Certainly you don't believe every cost to benefit analysis is the same as Pascal's wager.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 9, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Just for clarification: you do realize that the warming _cannot _be stopped, right?



We can stop promoting it's rapid onset.

But I stopped arguing Global Warming a long time ago, most of the changes proposed serve more than to just stop AGW.  We need to stop polluting the planet period.  We need to start curbing our addiction to fossil fuels, especially foreign oil for the sake of national security.  There is practically a continent of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean.  Other countries are way ahead of us on this and if we don't get with the program we will find ourselves in a world of hurt. In Japan they can't turn on the Air Con until the temp hits 83F, in the US places have the AC cranking full blast when its 70F.  We are wasteful simply put and it makes us look stupid.


----------



## troubador (Aug 9, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Certainly you don't believe every cost to benefit analysis is the same as Pascal's wager.



No, just yours(and Pascal's).

The Dale Mabry cost to benefit analysis of climate change:

Benefit: No idea.

Cost: A few people at the top of the socioeconomic food chain will have to be responsible ($214,569,562,421.13).





> Besides, Pascal's Wager relies on so many assumptions it's ridiculous. It assumes that if there is a God he gives a fuck. Why does he have to give a fuck? Why can't God just be a simple experimenter performing a giant experiment? It assumes that if you don't believe you are going to hell. Why? What evidence is there that this will happen? Has a precedent been set to where we know without a shadow of a doubt that if you don't believe in God you will rot in hell?




Instead of answering these one by one it's better to just explain the logic of Pascal's wager. The substantive argument in Pascal's wager is alluded to in the name(wager). It's a gamble where the payoff is so high and the investment is so relatively low that the odds of winning the hand are greatly superseded. 

The best example is 'pot odds' in a poker game: Let's say you're in a poker hand, the river comes and all you have is Ace high and you think the other guy has a 'straight'. There is already $15,000 in the pot. The other guy bets $5 and that's all you have to call to complete the hand. At this point the payoff relative to the investment is so high that it is logical to call no matter what hand you have. 

This is why I stated your statement was analogous to Pascal's because of the type of reasoning involved; the stuff about God, the fucks he gives, hell,etc is irrelevant. The assumptions that are problems with Pascal's wager are similar to the problems with Mabry's wager; you have 'no idea' what the payoff actually is or even what you are betting. 




P.S. It's a fucking simile.


----------



## troubador (Aug 9, 2012)

maniclion said:


> We need to start curbing our addiction to fossil fuels, especially foreign oil for the sake of national security.



I agree, this is why the government should be funding research rather than the environmental industrial complex. We simply cannot supply enough energy with 'green energy' to run the country. If we subsidize solar panel companies, we increase the demand for polycrystalline silicon which will increase the usage of fossil fuels because solar panels don't produce enough energy to make solar panels.

I wish someone would calculate the energy usage it takes to make a solar panel all the way from raw ore to finished panel and compare that with the energy that panel will produce over its lifespan. Then the same calculations and comparisons could be made to coal or other energy sources. It would be really interesting to see those figures. Hell, I might have to stick my foot in my mouth but I do know that no polysilicon plant operates on only solar panels but rather use extreme(literally extreme) amounts of electricity from coal, nuclear,etc.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> No, just yours(and Pascal's).
> 
> The Dale Mabry cost to benefit analysis of climate change:
> 
> ...



I get there are similarities, my objection was with this part of your statement...



troubador said:


> Not sure about the smart or sane part unless religion is too.



You are saying they are analogous in that if I believe doing something about CC is the smart, sane approach, religion would also be a smart, sane approach.  The problem is, religion is not based in fact and all of the data we have on it was invented by man.  WRT CC, we know we are impacting it and we know there is a finite end that involves CC (Unless we blow the planet up first).  The only unknown is the magnitude.  There is at least some certainty wrt CC as we have data on it.  Religion is just mythical bullshit which is why it is neither smart nor sane.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 10, 2012)

maniclion said:


> We can stop promoting it's rapid onset.



Really? And how much of the warming is man-made?


----------



## troubador (Aug 10, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are saying they are analogous in that if I believe doing something about CC is the smart, sane approach, religion would also be a smart, sane approach.



No, that's not what you said. You said "_We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach.". 

_That's pretty close to Pascal's reasoning. Now if you want to argue my statement doesn't apply to everything you think and believe well that's fine but I don't have time or the interest to argue everything. 

I'm done.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> No, that's not what you said. You said "_We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach.".
> 
> _That's pretty close to Pascal's reasoning. Now if you want to argue my statement doesn't apply to everything you think and believe well that's fine but I don't have time or the interest to argue everything.
> 
> I'm done.



That is what I said...



Dale Mabry said:


> We don't know if we are affecting it by 1% or 90%... If it was certain that our impact was negligible I would say fuck it too. We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach.



I thought you were libertarian, it's a republican trait to just quote the parts that fit your narrative. 

There are obviously similarities, but not much of one outside of a cost benefit analysis,


----------



## cshea2 (Aug 10, 2012)

U.S. leads the world in cutting CO2 emissions — so why aren’t we talking about it? | Grist

I'm not a climate scientist and it don't think anyone else in here is, but reducing carbon emissions over the long-term would likely reduce economic growth by a couple of percentage points (not each year though). It's a tough sell to the public because your trading uncertain benefits for very real benefits. It's a trade of between economic growth (job creation) and economic development (standard of living).


----------



## LAM (Aug 10, 2012)

cshea2 said:


> U.S. leads the world in cutting CO2 emissions ? so why aren?t we talking about it? | Grist
> 
> I'm not a climate scientist and it don't think anyone else in here is, but reducing carbon emissions over the long-term would likely reduce economic growth by a couple of percentage points (not each year though). It's a tough sell to the public because your trading uncertain benefits for very real benefits. It's a trade of between economic growth (job creation) and economic development (standard of living).



the majority of the economic growth in the US over the past 30 years has not been productive hence the anemic pace of real GDP growth (equal to that of the high tax, high social spending, less open economies of the EU) and the falling educational status of the US and the crumbling infrastructure.

GDP growth is meaningless if all or at least the majority of the workforce does not benefit


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree, this is why the government should be funding research rather than the environmental industrial complex. We simply cannot supply enough energy with 'green energy' to run the country. If we subsidize solar panel companies, we increase the demand for polycrystalline silicon which will increase the usage of fossil fuels because solar panels don't produce enough energy to make solar panels.
> 
> I wish someone would calculate the energy usage it takes to make a solar panel all the way from raw ore to finished panel and compare that with the energy that panel will produce over its lifespan. Then the same calculations and comparisons could be made to coal or other energy sources. It would be really interesting to see those figures. Hell, I might have to stick my foot in my mouth but I do know that no polysilicon plant operates on only solar panels but rather use extreme(literally extreme) amounts of electricity from coal, nuclear,etc.



That is a myth that solar panels use more energy than it consumes in manufacturing.  Even if it did it is still a great way to get power from a place with cheap hydropower/nuclear energy to places like Hawaii where we have to ship in tankers of oil per month to supply our energy needs.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree, this is why the government should be funding research rather than the environmental industrial complex. We simply cannot supply enough energy with 'green energy' to run the country. If we subsidize solar panel companies, we increase the demand for polycrystalline silicon which will increase the usage of fossil fuels because solar panels don't produce enough energy to make solar panels.
> 
> I wish someone would calculate the energy usage it takes to make a solar panel all the way from raw ore to finished panel and compare that with the energy that panel will produce over its lifespan. Then the same calculations and comparisons could be made to coal or other energy sources. It would be really interesting to see those figures. Hell, I might have to stick my foot in my mouth but I do know that no polysilicon plant operates on only solar panels but rather use extreme(literally extreme) amounts of electricity from coal, nuclear,etc.



That is a myth that solar panels use more energy than it consumes in manufacturing.  Even if it did it is still a great way to get power from a place with cheap hydropower/nuclear energy to places like Hawaii where we have to ship in tankers of oil per month to supply our energy needs.


----------



## troubador (Aug 10, 2012)

maniclion said:


> That is a myth that solar panels use more energy than it consumes in manufacturing.



Probably not in manufacturing the panel but producing the polysilicon. In my state the largest single site electricity user is a polysilicon plant.


----------



## LAM (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree, this is why the government should be funding research rather than the environmental industrial complex. We simply cannot supply enough energy with 'green energy' to run the country. If we subsidize solar panel companies, we increase the demand for polycrystalline silicon which will increase the usage of fossil fuels because solar panels don't produce enough energy to make solar panels.
> 
> I wish someone would calculate the energy usage it takes to make a solar panel all the way from raw ore to finished panel and compare that with the energy that panel will produce over its lifespan. Then the same calculations and comparisons could be made to coal or other energy sources. It would be really interesting to see those figures. Hell, I might have to stick my foot in my mouth but I do know that no polysilicon plant operates on only solar panels but rather use extreme(literally extreme) amounts of electricity from coal, nuclear,etc.



US subsidy to fossil fuel based energy is 60% greater than that of renewable, $72B to $29B.  According to the report below much of the subsidy to fossil fuel was written as a permanent part of the US Tax Code with renewable energy subsidies being time limited, with almost half of those going to corn-derived ethanol. there are 3 company's that control 90% of the global corn trade (Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill) and 4 that control 85% of the HFCS industry (Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill ,Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International).

Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies
to Energy Sources: 2002-2008
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

http://www.eli.org/images/d19_07graphic_map.jpg

below is a pretty cool article about some advances being made in solar cell technology.
Polycrystalline Silicon Thin-film Solar cells with Plasmonic-enhanced Light-trapping... | JoVE Video

* I'm not to familiar with solar cell manufacturing but I do tinker with fabricating a variety of solar powered devices and battery chargers for all my gizmos.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> Probably not in manufacturing the panel but producing the polysilicon. In my state the largest single site electricity user is a polysilicon plant.



Many of those places have moved to states with hydropower to lessen the carbon footprint.  The 3 module manufacturers we use refine their ingots on hydropower.  It does take extreme heat to melt down the batch of polysilicon, but they make quite a few modules from one ingot.  These modules will make power for 30+ years. Figure a 250 watt module will make 1000 to 1500 watts per day depending on the sunzone and worst case it rains 100 days a year(solar panels still produce energy on cloudy days but lets so none is produced). 1000w x 265 days a year = 265,000 watts year one.  2.65 megawatts in ten years. Its well known that silicon degrades over time so in 10 years it may only produce 900 watts per day for the next ten years and 800 watts for year 20-30.  That comes to 2.38MW from year 10-20 and 2.12MW for years 20-30.  7 million watts for it's expected lifetime.  There is just no way it takes 7 million watts to produce a solar panel. 

Now we also have other PV technologies like poly-crystalline and thin film that are half to 5 times less energy intensive.  Many poly-crystalline makers use scraps from semi-conductor manufacturing because it doesn't have to be as finely refined.

I have a 3.2kw Grid-Tied Battery Backup solar electric system on my home that paid itself off last year, now I am getting 15-20kWs per day free from the sun that shines on roof from 8:30am-4:00pm.  If the utility goes down I don't even know it unless I look outside thanks to my 8 gel cell batteries.   I also have free hot water from my solar water heating system. Looking to add about 10-15 more panels with Enphase micro-inverters now that PV prices have dropped to 4 times less than what they were when I started in the Photovoltaics industry 10 years ago.


----------



## Garenius (Aug 10, 2012)

I somewhat believe that while climate change is a serious subject and that we should all take care of the environment, politicians everywhere have been using it as some sort of a leverage tool to help their campaign. 

I do try my best to make my house eco-friendly, but I can't help but feel that for most people, they see it as a gimmick more than anything else. 

__________________________________________________ __________________________


South Pacific Health Club
Melbourne Personal Training, Personal Trainer Melbourne, Yoga Elwood
http://www.southpacifichc.com.au


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2012)

LAM said:


> US subsidy to fossil fuel based energy is 60% greater than that of renewable, $72B to $29B.  According to the report below much of the subsidy to fossil fuel was written as a permanent part of the US Tax Code with renewable energy subsidies being time limited, with almost half of those going to corn-derived ethanol. there are 3 company's that control 90% of the global corn trade (Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill) and 4 that control 85% of the HFCS industry (Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill ,Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International).
> 
> Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies
> to Energy Sources: 2002-2008
> ...



I have been designing systems from 200 watts per day up to 500,000 watts per day for 10 years.

If fossil fuels weren't so heavily subsidized renewables could reach grid parity in no time.  They could reallocate the subsidies to financing research and we could tackle the battery / kinetic flywheel / pumped water storage problems very fast.  

If I lived by a tall hill or mountain I'd use solar/wind power during the day to pump water to a reservoir way up high and then use hydro-generators to power my house at night.  If it rains my reservoir would be set up to channel rainwater for extra storage.


----------



## troubador (Aug 10, 2012)

Yeah but how much energy does it take to get from quartz to solar panel?


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2012)

troubador said:


> Yeah but how much energy does it take to get from quartz to solar panel?



I know it's not 7,000,000 watts, they wouldn't be able to pay their electric bills because they sell the module for $300.  They couldn't stay in business with no profits.


----------



## LAM (Aug 10, 2012)

maniclion said:


> If fossil fuels weren't so heavily subsidized renewable could reach grid parity in no time.  They could reallocate the subsidies to financing research and we could tackle the battery / kinetic flywheel / pumped water storage problems very fast.



technically a subsidy is supposed to go away once the industry is self-sustaining, etc.  that's the way it is done in several other OECD country's with German being the best example with what they have done in their solar sector.  oil subsidy in the US along with the low gas tax are two of the main reasons why US consumption is so high. it also helps to fuel urban sprawl which fuels growth of various sectors of the economy in real-estate, construction, finance, etc.   in terms of corn subsidy provides 60% of the income to corp farm industry.

the report below from the OECD with data supplied by the World Bank shows that when subsidy is reduced in a variety of G20 country's the cost is passed on to the customer in higher prices.  

http://www.oecd.org/env/49090716.pdf

* I saw more homes with solar where I lived in PA then out here in Vegas, it's fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Decker (Aug 11, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Just is becoming more and more unstable by the day. These dems are really losin' it.
> 
> Kerry: 'Climate Change' As Much Of A Threat As Iran's Nukes


Global warming is much more dangerous.  Global warming is a natural phenomenon (see Venus) which is exacerbated by industrial pursuits on this planet.  

It's a choice of hitting the wall at full speed or applying the brake to avoid the inevitable for a while.  I know which side of the argument I support.

The same goes for living life.  We all die....we just try to put off that date for a while.


----------



## cshea2 (Aug 11, 2012)

LAM said:


> the majority of the economic growth in the US over the past 30 years has not been productive hence the anemic pace of real GDP growth (equal to that of the high tax, high social spending, less open economies of the EU) and the falling educational status of the US and the crumbling infrastructure.
> 
> GDP growth is meaningless if all or at least the majority of the workforce does not benefit




That has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that protecting the environment is obviously very important, but comes at a cost. Reducing carbon emissions means less growth, and less jobs. The costs are very clear, while the benefits are not certain. Global warming is here, and here to stay.


----------



## LAM (Aug 11, 2012)

cshea2 said:


> That has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that protecting the environment is obviously very important, but comes at a cost. Reducing carbon emissions means less growth, and less jobs. The costs are very clear, while the benefits are not certain. Global warming is here, and here to stay.



everything comes with a price, causality is the name of the game and perfection is not only an illusion it's a function of magical thinking.  my comment eludes to the fact that the lack of forward thinking is how we ended up with the current economy which is plagued with systemic problems dating back 4-5 decades.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Aug 12, 2012)

If you want see lack of forward thinking, try living in Beijing.  The air quality there has got to be the worst on earth.  You can smell horrible thick smog as soon as you walk outside.  They have environmental regulations, but like all other laws in China, if you can pay off the right people, you can ignore them.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I have been fairly diplomatic over the decade I've been on this board, but at this point I might as well come out and say it.  If you believe in any sort of religious text...You are stupid.  Really, really stupid.  In fact, since you can't seem to grasp scientific concepts and any that run counter to your belief system you completely ignore, I beg you to refuse any medical treatment since it is all based on science.  You will be doing the world a favor, trust me, you're holding us all back.



You speak of science, yet you peddle the Global warming religion??  The globe has been cooling since 1998.   human caused global warming is based on faith, on far less that a bible, koran, or torah.  I guess you missed that Mars, Juipiter, and Saturn also warmed up after 1970?  Must be alien SUV's.  Or maybe, just maybe...  that big yellow thing in the sky was burning hotter and now it's cooler??!!  OMG, that's just too crazy!!

From National Geographic:
_?Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of *the St. Petersburg?s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia**, says the **Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.*?_
 From MIT on Pluto
_?the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than *2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.?*_
 Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to  warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn?t fit into  ?Solar Constant? dismissal theories.
 From Space.com on Jupiter:
_?The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the  midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10  degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.?_
 From MIT on Triton: 
_?At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of  global warming. Percentage-wise, it?s a very large increase,? said  Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and  director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The *5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale*  from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees  Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22  degrees Fahrenheit.?_



Global Cooling Is Coming -- and Beware the Big Chill, Scientist Warns | Fox News

Global Cooling is Here

30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says | Fox News

Latest Data Confirms a Global Cooling Trend ? Thetruthpeddler's Blog

*Figure 1*. A. IPCC prediction of global warming early in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. B. IPCC prediction of global warming to 2100. (Sources: IPCC website) However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21[SUP]st[/SUP]  century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ? C (1? F)  per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global  cooling for the first several decades of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century to  about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060,  and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005,  2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001).  Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30  year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising  trend from the Little Ice Age.
* PREDICTIONS BASED ON PAST CLIMATE PATTERNS
* Global climate changes have been  far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the  global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as  20?100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8? C) is virtually  insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global  climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global  climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO[SUB]2[/SUB] input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO[SUB]2[/SUB]  emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ?natural? climate changes  was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to  1998.


Please hold your breath until your unable to produce that EVIL CO2!!  The same CO2 that did raise with the last ice age warmup.  800 and 1200 years AFTER the warmup.... 

Facts are a motherfucker aren't they??  

Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It's not really a belief that nearly all scientists are in agreement, the studies on their opinions are very consistent.



Actually it's only the "scientists" getting grants to study it are in agreement.  The real ones think human caused warming is a scam.  

Why Meteorologists Are Skeptical of Global Warming

Nearly all climate scientists (97 percent) who are active in research  believe that global warming is occurring and that human activity is  playing a role, according to a separate University of Chicago survey released in 2009. 

Those who participated in the TV weather forecaster survey, on the other  hand, held a wide range of beliefs related to global warming.  Fifty-four percent of the TV meteorologists surveyed believe that global  warming is happening, and 63 percent believe that it's mostly caused by  natural changes in the environment. Over a quarter surveyed (27  percent) believe that global warming is a "scam."


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

The really amazing thing is all the true believers in Man made global warming are all die hard socialists like LAM, Al Gore, the democrats.

Let's apply a little science to Progressive/socialism/communism.  If something is tried repeated for 100 years and it's only result is 1 billion dead bodies wouldn't "science" conclude DONT FUCKING DO THAT!  Yet despite Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol/Castro and all the aborted children left wingers still think "it can work!!"


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> Actually it's only the "scientists" getting grants to study it are in agreement.  The real ones think human caused warming is a scam.
> 
> Why Meteorologists Are Skeptical of Global Warming
> 
> ...



Lol, you're comparing climate scientists who are researchers w tv weather men?


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> The really amazing thing is all the true believers in Man made global warming are all die hard socialists like LAM, Al Gore, the democrats.
> 
> Let's apply a little science to Progressive/socialism/communism.  If something is tried repeated for 100 years and it's only result is 1 billion dead bodies wouldn't "science" conclude DONT FUCKING DO THAT!  Yet despite Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol/Castro and all the aborted children left wingers still think "it can work!!"



Can you quote your source that says that 97% of climate scientists are socialists?

I also think you should research the definition of socialist.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, you're comparing climate scientists who are researchers w tv weather men?



Global Warming Petition Project  And 32,000 others that are bold enough to face repercussion and discrimination by telling the through.  
I'll take degree holding meteorologists over "climate scientists" whose entire livelihood rests on scaring the world into giving them grant money.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> Global Warming Petition Project  And 32,000 others that are bold enough to face repercussion and discrimination by telling the through.
> I'll take degree holding meteorologists over "climate scientists" whose entire livelihood rests on scaring the world into giving them grant money.



I get it.  When the science doesn't agree w your preconceived notions, you attack the scientists and science even though you're not anywhere near qualified to do so.

I have no idea of whether it's true or not, I'm not educated nor motivated enough to decipher the research that the climate scientists refer to.  This is the problem, politicians and folks like you seem to think that they're smart enough, when you're not.

The same shit happens w evolution.  Every retarded creationist tries to refute the science behind evolution, yet they've never taken a biology class past high school


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I get it.  When the science doesn't agree w your preconceived notions, you attack the scientists and science even though you're not anywhere near qualified to do so.
> 
> I have no idea of whether it's true or not, I'm not educated nor motivated enough to decipher the research that the climate scientists refer to.  This is the problem, politicians and folks like you seem to think that they're smart enough, when you're not.
> 
> The same shit happens w evolution.  Every retarded creationist tries to refute the science behind evolution, yet they've never taken a biology class past high school



Weren't you talking about the scientists who disagree with human global warming being shouted down, fired, and called puppets of big oil by the adherents of the global warming religion?

You claim to be uneducated enough to decide yet you still claim 97% of them have a consensus.  Let's examine that reality shall we?

From that 97% poll.

As with all polls, the answers you get depend on the questions you ask.  We found that almost all climate scientists believe that the world has  been warming: 97% agree that "global average temperatures have  increased" during the past century. But not everyone attributes that  rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was  human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature  fluctuations and the rest are unsure. 
Helps if you read the whole thing.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#section_3

"In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[114][115]"

US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

Position statements:

The geological society of America:

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhousegas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

The weather channel:

"The Weather Channel Position Statement
on Global Warming
November 2007
Introduction
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?

Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring in the past three decades. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist

Impacts can already be seen, especially in the Arctic, with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rapid retreat and thinning of sea ice, all of which are affecting human populations as well as animals and vegetation. There and elsewhere, rising sea level is increasing coastal vulnerability.

Odds are now leaning toward increased frequency and intensity of heat waves in the warm season and warm spells in the cold season in parts of the world, as well as reduced frequency of low temperature extremes. There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and short-term weather events such as heat waves.

In some regions there has been a tendency for an increase in precipitation extremes, both wet (including floods) and dry (droughts). These observations over the past several decades are consistent with what theory and global climate models would suggest.

The jury is out on exactly what effect(s) global warming is having or will have in the future upon tropical cyclones.

Human Influence
To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet's history -- most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean "climate system" is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.

However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

Humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level. The replacement of vegetation by buildings and roads is causing temperature increases through what's known as the urban heat island effect. In addition, land use changes are affecting impacts from weather phenomena. For example, urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain. Deforestation also produces a climate change "feedback" by depleting a source which absorbs carbon dioxide.

The Future
The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.

Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer "winners" and the more "losers" there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a "tipping point," if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur."


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

 [FONT=times new roman,times]*MIT  Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and  Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching  various scientific*, linked warming and cooling cycles to the  ?orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth's spin.? Rose  also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating,  ?Clearly, these are not ?facts.? They are computer models. They may be  correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest  model appears to be incorrect,? Rose wrote. ?Cooler heads [are] needed  in global warming debate,? Rose wrote. ?Global warming is occurring as  it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years  before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they  have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer  simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the  warming, and the going has been difficult. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]These models can't be tested  experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct  our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior,  pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races.[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times])    [/FONT]


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

It seems that your weather men at the weather channel have joined the dark side.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

I bet I can find a "scientist" who believes in astrology too.

My only point is that by far ,nearly every scientist who studies climate and nearly every scientific organization involved in climate, weather etc are all in agreement.  That includes the weather channel which you refer to as "degree holding scientists," as if climate researchers don't have degrees. Lol

It's absurd to suggest that scientists are not in agreement.  I challenge you to find any evidence that they are not.  First look at the wiki link I provided, it lists many studies done on the consensus of scientists.  You'll save yourself some wasted time by starting there.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

*2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report: ?More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims?:  (Updated December 22, 2008) * *Professor of  Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the  University of Arizona - Tucson, past member of the American Association  for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific  publications and authored the paper ?Human Population and Carbon  Dioxide,?* dissented in 2008. ?My principal objections to the  theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows: 1) I am mistrustful of  ?all but the kitchen sink? models that, by virtue of their complexity,  cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such  models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood  physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly  opaque,? Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008. ?2) I am troubled by  the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the ?mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems?  - i.e., the climate. 3) I believe it likely that "natural climate  cycles" are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently  unpredictable in the long-term. 


*Biologist and  Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific  publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American  Association for the Advancement of Science, *dissented in 2008.  ?There is currently no satisfactory answer to the central question:  ?What is the actual proof that humans are causing catastrophic global  warming?? All of the climate computer models in the world do not provide  the proof,? Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008. ?It boils down  to a matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between  man-made CO2 and global temperature provides the proof.  But  correlations are not proof of cause-and-effect. Blaming global warming  on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation designed to  curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on  the available evidence. Since there has not been any significant  increase in global temperatures in the last decade, it is not even clear  where temperatures are going to go from here,? Pettibone explained. (LINK)


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

You're still providing writings from single scientists?  You don't understand science that well.

Would you like to see some scientists try to argue that vaccines cause autism when we know it isn't true?


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

Look at this!  This forensic expert believes in Bigfoot.  He's a scientist so it must be true!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I bet I can find a "scientist" who believes in astrology too.
> 
> My only point is that by far ,nearly every scientist who studies climate and nearly every scientific organization involved in climate, weather etc are all in agreement.  That includes the weather channel which you refer to as "degree holding scientists," as if climate researchers don't have degrees. Lol
> 
> It's absurd to suggest that scientists are not in agreement.  I challenge you to find any evidence that they are not.  First look at the wiki link I provided, it lists many studies done on the consensus of scientists.  You'll save yourself some wasted time by starting there.



Just like the "doctors" that mocked and imprisoned the doctor who told them they needed to wash their hands.  It only took 60 years for them to find out they were wrong.  You go ahead and believe in people making a living off scare tactics, I'll stick to facts.  
People that think they know everything tend to know the least.

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis*[SUP][Note 1][/SUP]  (July 1, 1818 ? August 13, 1865) was a Hungarian physician now known as  an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "savior of  mothers",[SUP][1][/SUP] Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.[SUP][1][/SUP]  Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often  fatal, with mortality at 10%?35%. Semmelweis postulated the theory of  washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847[SUP][1][/SUP] while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in _Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever_.
 Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality  to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established  scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected  by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion  that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no  acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's  practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister practised and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died, ironically, of septicemia at age 47.



The great ego's had a "consensus" then too an without competing for billions in government grants to support their opinions.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

There really is no correlation there.

We have nearly every expert and scientific organization in the field in agreement based off of scientific studies w 2-3% disagreeing.  

If you want to argue that it's all a huge conspiracy encompassing every climate scientist, that's fine, I won't argue w craziness.  But, you are flat out wrong to suggest that there isn't a consensus among scientists.  The only ones disagreeing are politicians and conservatives, both of which are not qualified to make any statements about the science.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You're still providing writings from single scientists?  You don't understand science that well.
> 
> Would you like to see some scientists try to argue that vaccines cause autism when we know it isn't true?



Oh your one of those people that believes anything and everything the government tells you to believe.  The government already admits brain damage from vaccinations yet you flat earthers are still saying they are safe.

Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new  scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed,  published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and  autism.   
 The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review."  The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior  scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else  apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published  science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory  suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury  preservative thimerosal; but all of them. 

 Ratajczak's  article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include  genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis  [brain damage] *following vaccination* [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."

 The  article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits,  including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of  time. "What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity,  Ratajczak told us in an interview, "the body's immune system being  thrown out of balance." 

 University of Pennsylvania's  Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising  the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is  that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain  damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak's  review, he told us he doesn't find it remarkable. "This is a review of  theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of  an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do  not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about  an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant."






 Helen Ratajczak, author "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review."


 Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been  widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human  DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most  thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which  still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using  human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23  vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding  with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two  could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in  autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human  fetal tissue.
  Why could human DNA potentially cause brain  damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA  and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker.  That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered  self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the  brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing  inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that  individual."

 Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human  DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if  human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause  autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but  argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is  still open. 

 A number of independent scientists have  said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them  when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it  veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to  research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while  working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what  she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can  write what I want." 

 We wanted to see if the CDC wished  to challenge Ratajczak's review, since many government officials and  scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have  been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC  officials told us that "comprehensive review by CDC...would take quite a  bit of time." In the meantime, CDC provided these links:



Let me guess, you think the internet spying only happens on non US citizens too?


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

Lol, another opinion from 1 scientist.

Did you see my article about Bigfoot?  He's a forensic expert and a scientist and had proof of Bigfoot.

The autism vaccine link discussion was over a long time ago.

Btw, nobody argues that vaccines are completely safe, they're like every other piece of medicine.  It's a benefit vs risk scenario and the benefits far outweigh the risks.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> There really is no correlation there.
> 
> We have nearly every expert and scientific organization in the field in agreement based off of scientific studies w 2-3% disagreeing.
> 
> If you want to argue that it's all a huge conspiracy encompassing every climate scientist, that's fine, I won't argue w craziness.  But, you are flat out wrong to suggest that there isn't a consensus among scientists.  The only ones disagreeing are politicians and conservatives, both of which are not qualified to make any statements about the science.



Maybe you should attempt your math skills then.  with 31,000 scientists publicly stating with their own names disbelief in the religion of global warming your attempting to call that 2-3% of scientists??  Work that that math.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 12, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> Maybe you should attempt your math skills then.  with 31,000 scientists publicly stating with their own names disbelief in the religion of global warming your attempting to call that 2-3% of scientists??  Work that that math.



I'm referring to legit studies done on climate scientists.  Check the link I provided, there is universal agreement from the ones that matter... Even the weather channel lol


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, another opinion from 1 scientist.
> 
> Did you see my article about Bigfoot?  He's a forensic expert and a scientist and had proof of Bigfoot.
> 
> The autism vaccine link discussion was over a long time ago.



You mean like that one scientist Galileo?  Except now it's the thousands of scientists world wide facing prosecution by the types like you who think in their arrogance they know what they are talking about.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 12, 2012)

Oh and lets not forget the "consensus" of climate scientists in the 70's tell us about the coming ice age...


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 13, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> You mean like that one scientist Galileo?  Except now it's the thousands of scientists world wide facing prosecution by the types like you who think in their arrogance they know what they are talking about.



Galileo was persecuted by the church.

 I don't claim to know anything about global warming, and I know you dont either.  The only people who do know (climate scientists) are all in agreement.

Your excerpts of random scientists as proof of anything illustrates your lack of science education.  I can find an expert scientist to argue all sorts of crazy ideas, but that would be stupid and very unscientific.

The fact that you are arguing about autism and vaccines also makes this discussion boring because I have realized that I'm arguing w a complete retard w no understanding of science, who is a conspiracy theorist.

You really should look at my Bigfoot story...


----------



## huahuamick (Aug 13, 2012)

John Kerry can lick my balls


----------



## troubador (Aug 13, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> My only point is that by far ,nearly every scientist who studies climate and nearly every scientific organization involved in climate, weather etc are all in agreement.  That includes the weather channel which you refer to as "degree holding scientists," as if climate researchers don't have degrees.



I'm not sure who brought up this point of contention but I have to say that making claims based on a consensus is in opposition to the scientific method. 

I want to see a field like that where its professionals aren't calling for action. That's like saying most social workers are liberal. I want to see a preacher who's like "fuck it, you don't need Jesus". So the consensus thing doesn't work for me.


----------



## exphys88 (Aug 13, 2012)

troubador said:


> I'm not sure who brought up this point of contention but I have to say that making claims based on a consensus is in opposition to the scientific method.
> 
> I want to see a field like that where its professionals aren't calling for action. That's like saying most social workers are liberal. I want to see a preacher who's like "fuck it, you don't need Jesus". So the consensus thing doesn't work for me.



My point is that the majority of those opposed to global warming have never studied the science behind it and are not qualified to discern it even if they did.  The ones that are considered experts in the field of climate science are all in agreement-97%.  I know nothing about global warming, and even though I have a masters of science which emphasized research design and interpretation, I'm still not comfortable making claims about the science in a field that I know nothing about.  So, I defer to the experts, much like I would do if I needed heart surgery.  If I needed heart surgery, I wouldn't read a couple articles about it and then expect to be able to tell my doc the best plan of action.  I'd let him decide because he's far more likely to be correct.

I understand this isn't proof of anything, I'm just pointing out that the ones that disagree w the science are not scientists.

I'm an odds kind of guy, and it seems most likely that scientists are going to be correct about scientific issues.  Not always, but most of the time.

I'd like to see some of the anti global warmers here present the scientific studies that they disagree with and specifically point out the data that they think has been doctored or has been analyzed incorrectly.  

Additionally, they should provide the evidence that they have that convinced them that 97% of climate scientists are being dishonest in their scientific work.  

Surely, they have a strong understanding of scientific research and are privy to the financial info of all climate researchers to be able to make such claims about bad science and dishonesty.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 13, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Galileo was persecuted by the church.
> 
> I don't claim to know anything about global warming, and I know you dont either.  The only people who do know (climate scientists) are all in agreement.
> 
> ...



If your seeking a retard find a mirror bubba.  

Italian court reignites MMR vaccine debate after award over child with autism - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Let me guess, you don't believe the US government tested nuclear blasts and experimental vaccinations on troops for the last 50 years?  Just a good little lap dog that believes whatever he's told.

Good boy, go find your kennel!!


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 13, 2012)

TV Weathermen: Agree to Global Warming or Else

Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist

Stifling Decent

For  some years now, governments, industry, and private citizens have been regularly  chastised by environmental activists for not doing more to limit greenhouse  gases, the presumed cause of global warming. But lately a far more serious  charge has been made. In June, the oft-quoted NASA climate scientist James  Hansen appeared before a United States congressional committee. He said that the  directors of fossil-fuel companies ?should be tried for high crimes against  humanity and nature? (1).  It?s a common type of argument,  familiar to anyone acquainted with totalitarian regimes: the nation (or  revolution, race, class, etc) is in grave peril from (fill in the blank). But  there are traitors among us who spread lies, seeking to weaken our resolve. They  must be restrained (temporarily, of course) for the good of us all. 
 But there?s no reason this policy  should only be applied to peddlers of coal and oil. Anyone who casts doubt on  the reality of global warming would be equally guilty of imperilling the entire  Earth. In the face of the imminent and overwhelming threat of catastrophic  climate change, strict measures would (regrettably) have to be taken.    Link
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate  Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was ?criminally irresponsible? to  ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem  Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate ?over? and added ?it?s  completely immoral, even, to question? the U.N.?s scientific ?consensus.?    Link​*  Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics? Homes* *by Paul Joseph Watson* April 19, 2012    Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate  change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be  tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another  shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist  lobby.
Comparing climate change  skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in  firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that  anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same  treatment.​ ?We know who the active  denialists are ? not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who  create the lies. Let?s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines  come, let?s make them pay. Let?s let their houses burn. Let?s swap their safe  land for submerged islands. Let?s force them to bear the cost of rising food  prices,?   writes Zwick,  adding, ?They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it??​  As we have profusely documented,  as polls show that   fewer and fewer Americans are convinced  by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming,  promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and  power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly  authoritarian in their pronouncements. * ...*​  Earlier month we highlighted  Professor Kari Norgaard?s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and  ?treated? for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama,   Norgaard also called on the President  to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce  draconian ecological mandates. * ...  


"consensus by death threats, joblessness and withholding grant money"  Now that's science!!
*


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 13, 2012)

* Global Warming Views Drew Criticism* by Jackie Spinner   September 29, 2007 The University of Virginia's  climatology data center is seeking a lower profile after its former top  official, the state climatologist, resigned this past summer amid questions over  whether he should use the position to promote his doubts about theories on  global warming. 	[FONT=&quot]*...  	*  [/FONT]"I resigned as Virginia state  climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of  expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement  this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow  since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech  restriction."  	[FONT=&quot] Link[/FONT]
* Climate  	orthodoxy perpetrates a hoax*  by  	Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D  at CFP  February 25, 2008   	Gov. Ted Kulongoski?s successful  	purge of George Taylor?Oregon?s former state climatologist and soon-to-be  	former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University?has  	a clear message for scientists: agree with the governor or you too will  	disappear. Don?t hint that man-made global warming is the greatest  	scientific hoax of our time. It offends the governor Link  	Link 2
*Global  	Warming Skepticism Bites Another State Climatologist* by  	Noel Sheppard February 23, 2007    	Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed  	Delaware's state climatologist to * 	stop using his title in public  	statements on climate change*,  	citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's  	ties to the administration. Minner, who made the directive in a letter,  	described the move as a way to "clarify" the role of David R. Legates, a  	prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and  	triggering climate shifts.   	 Link


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 13, 2012)

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
Furthermore,  a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even  more evidence that the alleged ?consensus? is non-existent. A canvass of  more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional  Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of  them disagree with the statement that ?the debate on the scientific  causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the  survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to ?human  activity like burning fossil fuels.? APEGGA?s executive director Neil  Windsor said, ?We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus  of scientists that we know of." (LINK)

You can lead people to information, you just can't make them think for themselves..


----------



## LAM (Aug 13, 2012)

as a whole research from the west specifically the US is the least trusted in the world.  the US produces the largest majority of fraudulent scientific study.  extreme inequality in a society promotes selfish behavior since money itself is not value neutral.

the climate debate will rage for a long time.  one thing that is not debatable and that is the current global consumption rate of non-renewable resources is unsustainable.  and that is why the economy's of the west (but specifically the US) are being hollowed out to decrease the standard of living and consumption while bringing up that level in developing country's.  having a large population like the US and being an extremely wasteful society have placed us at the top of the list.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 13, 2012)

I still don't get it, who cares if our fossil fuel and other bad habits are causing global warming or not.  They still pollute the shit out of our fishbowl and if we don't ween ourselves from them it's gonna be Mad Max up in this bitch...


----------



## LAM (Aug 13, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I still don't get it, who cares if our fossil fuel and other bad habits are causing global warming or not.  They still pollute the shit out of our fishbowl and if we don't ween ourselves from them it's gonna be Mad Max up in this bitch...



those that believe in magical thinking are counting on the problem resolving itself.  if you have ever read any of the crap that spews out of people like Ayn Rand and the whole laissez-faire capitalist ideologues they could care less about the future.  for them it's all about the here and now


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 14, 2012)

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing - Washington Times
A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years | Ice Age Now

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

More than half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himalayas, are in fact advancing, a new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found.This challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.Although Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at ?a rapid rate?, threatening floods throughout north India.

Mt Everest region​​But when Dr Bodo Bookhagen, Dirk Scherler and Manfred Strecker studied 286 glaciers between the Hindu Kush on the Afghan-Pakistan border to Bhutan, they saw a different story.Contrary to popular belief, global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts, the researcher?s found.Instead, the key factor affecting a glacier?s advance or retreat is the amount of debris ? rocks and mud ? strewn on its surface,The study was published in the journal _Nature Geoscience_.Actually facts are a bitch for the global warming religion aren't they...Maybe you should move on to Bigfoot there exphys..


----------



## troubador (Aug 14, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I still don't get it, who cares if our fossil fuel and other bad habits are causing global warming or not.  They still pollute the shit out of our fishbowl and if we don't ween ourselves from them it's gonna be Mad Max up in this bitch...



I doubt it. There are more trees now than a hundred years ago. I know the alarmists like to paint the future as a barren waste land but that's not what the trend is, at least not in the US. If anything global warming should increase the overall amount of vegetation due to higher CO2 levels.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I doubt it. There are more trees now than a hundred years ago. I know the alarmists like to paint the future as a barren waste land but that's not what the trend is, at least not in the US. If anything global warming should increase the overall amount of vegetation due to higher CO2 levels.



Fun fact: there are twice as many trees in the USA than there were when the pilgrims landed.

However...

Another fun fact: 90% of Madagascar's jungles have been clear-cut.

Whenever you hear about how someone is cutting down forests and you/we need to do something about it, it's someone actually trying to say that we need to stop third-world people from fucking things up.


----------



## LAM (Aug 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I doubt it. There are more trees now than a hundred years ago.



according to whom?  the rate may have slowed but surely hasn't been reversed in any way shape or form.  Europe alone has lost almost 95% of it's forests in the past couple hundred years.  and what's going on the the rain forests in Africa those trees are not being replaced.   you need to get off the continent and actually see the world for yourself.


----------



## LAM (Aug 14, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Whenever you hear about how someone is cutting down forests and you/we need to do something about it, it's someone actually trying to say that we need to stop third-world people from fucking things up.



the 3rd World country's are in debt to the IMF and World bank who demand their natural resources for debts owed.  this is the price payed when you get "help" from the US and other wealthy country's in the west.  there's only about a hundred reports on this topic from economists all over the globe.


----------



## troubador (Aug 14, 2012)

LAM said:


> according to whom? the rate may have slowed but surely hasn't been reversed in any way shape or form. Europe alone has lost almost 95% of it's forests in the past couple hundred years. and what's going on the the rain forests in Africa those trees are not being replaced. you need to get off the continent and actually see the world for yourself.



That's in the US according to the FAO. European forests have been growing too. 
EUROPEAN FOREST SECTOR OUTLOOK STUDY 1960-2000-2020 - MAIN REPORT

http://www.kagirahsap.com/06-kuresel-climate/climate-change/2 Europe's_Forest.pdf

Also, the discussion was about pollution and climate change, so my point is related to that topic. That point is that global warming will/is causing increased forest growth. Cutting down trees would be a different cause of deforestation. Was that not obvious? You consistently bring up irrelevant counterpoints and knowledge vomit and I can't figure out if you think we don't realize it's irrelevant or if you don't realize it's irrelevant. It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't such an asshole while doing so. Do you have some sort of condition?


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

LAM said:


> the 3rd World country's are in debt to the IMF and World bank who demand their natural resources for debts owed.  this is the price payed when you get "help" from the US and other wealthy country's in the west.  there's only about a hundred reports on this topic from economists all over the globe.



Yeah, yeah, yeah...nothing is ever the fault of anyone but the USA. 

It's the USA's fault that Madagascar's people have overpopulated their country and have destroyed most of the their jungle in order to plant crops. Never mind that the soil was only good because of the jungle, resulting in the soil becoming barren after just a few years of the jungle being cut down. Yeah, totally the fault of the USA. 

As is China's rampant pollution and overpopulation resulting the extinction of the river dolphin, making the Yangtze river undrinkable, and spoiling the East China Sea.

The killing of a lot of the wildlife in the Congo amidst the wars and for food: USA's fault. 

India's destruction of their environment because of gross overpopulation: USA's fault.

Oh, and just about everyone's overfishing of the world: USA's fault.

The problem is some financial cabal, it's overpopulation, mismanagement of natural resources, and pollution by third-world countries.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

Correction to my last post: The problem *isn't* some financial cabal, it's overpopulation, mismanagement  of natural resources, and pollution by third-world countries.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 14, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Fun fact: there are twice as many trees in the USA than there were when the pilgrims landed.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...


I believe in leading by example, those nations are going to have to go through the same growth cycle of industrial revolution, labor movements, etc to get where we are now.  If we can prove to them that they can have industry without ravaging the land, air and water we'll all be the better off for it.

Say what ever you cynics want but renewable are here to stay, you can't stop this juggernaut now and I am glad that I got in over 10 years ago and have amassed the knowledge I have...


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I believe in leading by example, those nations are going to have to go through the same growth cycle of industrial revolution, labor movements, etc to get where we are now.  If we can prove to them that they can have industry without ravaging the land, air and water we'll all be the better off for it.



The USA does well for a nation that's responsible for 20% of the world's output, we do alright. We've also considerably cleaned up our act over the last 30 years. Is our performance as good as it can be? No, but the USA is a great example. Most of the countries that "do better" than the use are fraction the size and/or industrial production. The country that, in my eyes, is doing the best is France. The top of the EPI, such as it is, is Iceland.  A country with 300,000 native people and a dot on the world map. 

There is a world of difference between first and third-world countries when it comes to environmental management. The USA and the other Western countries are already good examples.



maniclion said:


> Say what ever you cynics want but renewable are here to stay, you can't stop this juggernaut now and I am glad that I got in over 10 years ago and have amassed the knowledge I have...



Is this directed specifically at me?


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 14, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I believe in leading by example, those nations are going to have to go through the same growth cycle of industrial revolution, labor movements, etc to get where we are now.  If we can prove to them that they can have industry without ravaging the land, air and water we'll all be the better off for it.
> 
> Say what ever you cynics want but renewable are here to stay, you can't stop this juggernaut now and I am glad that I got in over 10 years ago and have amassed the knowledge I have...



There is no juggernaut of renewable energy, they are inefficient and far too costly both in human life and resources.  Ethanol is responsible for killing millions already taking away food from starving people.  WHO estimates 600k kids alone additional are dying from the food wasted as a piss poor fuel.  

Iceland, Spain and others doubled down on 'green' energy and it's bankrupted them.  France is 80% nuclear.  China is putting up coal plants(2 per week) with 50's technology because they could care less about air quality, only money and power.  

The best thing for the 3rd world would have been absorption by the colonizing nations.  Look at how Zimbabwe self destructed when the kicked out all the whites.   They went from a food exporter to begging for food and killing off endangered animals in reserves to avoid starving.  Though better if absorbed by the US or the Brits.  Everything the french touched turned to shit.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> The best thing for the 3rd world would have been absorption by the colonizing nations.  Look at how Zimbabwe self destructed when the kicked out all the whites.



As far as I know, they all went to shit after they kicked out the Europeans.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 14, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> There is no juggernaut of renewable energy, they are inefficient and far too costly both in human life and resources.  Ethanol is responsible for killing millions already taking away food from starving people.  WHO estimates 600k kids alone additional are dying from the food wasted as a piss poor fuel.
> 
> Iceland, Spain and others doubled down on 'green' energy and it's bankrupted them.  France is 80% nuclear.  China is putting up coal plants(2 per week) with 50's technology because they could care less about air quality, only money and power.
> 
> The best thing for the 3rd world would have been absorption by the colonizing nations.  Look at how Zimbabwe self destructed when the kicked out all the whites.   They went from a food exporter to begging for food and killing off endangered animals in reserves to avoid starving.  Though better if absorbed by the US or the Brits.  Everything the french touched turned to shit.



Ethanol isn't a renewable, its just a fossil fuel wanna be.  It takes way too much energy to convert ethanol and wouldn't stand its ground without subsidies.  I'm talking pv, wind, solar thermal heating and cooling, geothermal, hydropower, wave energy, etc.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 14, 2012)

According to the US Energy Information Administartion ( Electricity - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)), solar energy production grew from 611.793 Million Kilowatt hours in 2007 to 1813.994 Million Kilowatt hours in 2011.  195% growth must be nothing...


Strength of the Industry | Energy Fact Check


----------



## LAM (Aug 14, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah...nothing is ever the fault of anyone but the USA.
> 
> It's the USA's fault that Madagascar's people have overpopulated their country and have destroyed most of the their jungle in order to plant crops. Never mind that the soil was only good because of the jungle, resulting in the soil becoming barren after just a few years of the jungle being cut down. Yeah, totally the fault of the USA.
> 
> ...



your completely daft DOMS and can't remember or don't know world history for shit...it's the same exact pattern of expansion that happened with England and WHY the colonies were established in the America's to begin with, because they ran out of room.  hate to break the news to you but YOU are not the USA, you are not a capitalist and don't run or control jack squat.  it kills me when you get personally offended by historical facts.  the 3rd world country's are in hock to the international money lenders and have to pay with their natural resources JUST LIKE the US is in hock to the international money lenders and has been doing their bidding for the past 100+ years. every country that is in debt to the international money lenders pays with natural resources, blood and the wealth of that country.   this is the way the world works.  country's that are in debt to the international money lenders are not sovereign.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

LAM said:


> your completely daft DOMS and can't remember or don't know world history for shit...it's the same exact pattern of expansion that happened with England and WHY the colonies were established in the America's to begin with, because they ran out of room. hate to break the news to you but YOU are not the USA, you are not a capitalist and don't run or control jack squat.  it kills me when you get personally offended by historical facts.  the 3rd world country's are in hock to the international money lenders and have to pay with their natural resources JUST LIKE the US is in hock to the international money lenders and has been doing their bidding for the past 100+ years. every country that is in debt to the international money lenders pays with natural resources, blood and the wealth of that country.   this is the way the world works.  country's that are in debt to the international money lenders are not sovereign.



Blah, blah, blah. Another bout of pseudo-intellectual, conspiracy-infused,  vomiting that ignores what I actually said, and reality in general. The primary strain on polluting countries are their populations and lack of self-regulation. 

But I'm sure that China's problem is their debt to Western countries.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 14, 2012)

maniclion said:


> According to the US Energy Information Administartion ( Electricity - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)), solar energy production grew from 611.793 Million Kilowatt hours in 2007 to 1813.994 Million Kilowatt hours in 2011.  195% growth must be nothing...
> 
> 
> Strength of the Industry | Energy Fact Check



I'm pro green energy, but it's time for a few facts.

Source.


*Power Source**Total U.S. Subsidy 
(millions)*Coal$1,358Oil and gas$2,820Nuclear$2,499Biomass / biofuels$7,761Geothermal$273Hydro$216Solar$1,134Wind$4,986



*Power Source**2010 U.S. Power Consumption 
(million bbl. oil equivalent)**Subsidy Cost per Energy Equivalent Barrel of Oil Consumed*Coal3,439$0.39Oil and gas10,012$0.28Nuclear1,394$1.79Biomass / biofuels381$20.37Geothermal35$7.80Hydro414$0.52Solar18$63.00Wind153$32.59




> On the other hand, renewable energy's costs to the government are in  some cases so high, and the actual energy returns so low, that it hardly  seems worth the investment. Solar's pitiful slice of American power use  -- less than a single day's worth of oil consumption -- is underwritten  by enough taxpayer money to simply buy most of the power outright and  provide it to taxpayers for free.



Add to that the pollution created in the manufacturing of solar panels and the multitudes of birds killed by windmills.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 14, 2012)

maniclion said:


> Ethanol isn't a renewable, its just a fossil fuel wanna be.  It takes way too much energy to convert ethanol and wouldn't stand its ground without subsidies.  I'm talking pv, wind, solar thermal heating and cooling, geothermal, hydropower, wave energy, etc.



Only two worth a fuck, hydropower and geothermal.  The rest are so far from viable on a massive scale.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 14, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I'm pro green energy, but it's time for a few facts.
> 
> Source.
> 
> ...



Look LAM, facts.  Please, I am getting popcorn waiting for you and Mancilon to somehow show how these are wrong and cannot be trusted.  I've sat in on investor conferences where green companies begged for money with barely viable technologies only to be torn apart because they had no clue how to actually bring it to market and scale it up.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 14, 2012)

oufinny said:


> Look LAM, facts.  Please, I am getting popcorn waiting for you and Mancilon to somehow show how these are wrong and cannot be trusted.  I've sat in on investor conferences where green companies begged for money with barely viable technologies only to be torn apart because they had no clue how to actually bring it to market and scale it up.



If they aren't viable why are they succeeding in so many different places?  Right now we are in the process home computing went through in the 80's with companies popping up all over the place until the best rose to the top and absorbed the lessers, or they died.  There is almost 500 pv module manufacturers in the world, 100's of inverter manufacturers.  When I started 10 years ago I knew of about 10-15 module makers.  We just took on a new brand by a very large and reputable Korean company that isn't known for throwing money away into non-viable markets.

Get off the republican renewable bashing bandwagon...thats all I have to say.  Up until last year I never heard so many nay-sayers until it became a target by the republicans.


----------



## LAM (Aug 14, 2012)

oufinny said:


> Only two worth a fuck, hydropower and geothermal.  The rest are so far from viable on a massive scale.



and hydro-power has all sorts of negative consequences on water flows downstream from dams.  

the underlying problem is that the world can not sustain the current population and the energy requirements needed to support it.

and in regards to DOMS post #164 energy will NEVER by cheap to the end users.  costs of good and services never decrease they only increase with time.  when technology produces increases in productivity savings are NEVER passed onto the end user.

and to #163 the only joke is your ignorance.  China has triple the US population in a land mass roughly the same size of the US with a completely different geography, you simply don't know as much about global economics and world history as you think you do DOMS.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 15, 2012)

LAM said:


> and to #163 the only joke is your ignorance.  China has triple the US population in a land mass roughly the same size of the US with a completely different geography, you simply don't know as much about global economics and world history as you think you do DOMS.



So you're saying what? That China is overpopulated? Which is interesting, because I think I've heard someone else say that exact same thing. 

It's hilarious watching you squirm trying to say that financial consparies do more harm to the environment than overpopulation and lack of environmental self-regulation.


----------



## troubador (Aug 15, 2012)

maniclion said:


> If they aren't viable why are they succeeding in so many different places?



U.S., UK, China, Germany, Spain, South Korea all have subsidized solar panels. China even provided illegal export subsidies. Where are they succeeding without such relatively high subsidies? 

Solar panel demand down nearly 90% following subsidy cut | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## maniclion (Aug 15, 2012)

troubador said:


> U.S., UK, China, Germany, Spain, South Korea all have subsidized solar panels. China even provided illegal export subsidies. Where are they succeeding without such relatively high subsidies?
> 
> Solar panel demand down nearly 90% following subsidy cut | Environment | guardian.co.uk



It's only fair they be subsidized just as coal, oil and natural gas are.  As doms conveniently pointed out above solar electric has a similar amount of subsidizing as the fossil fuels and less than nuclear.

Your article is about the UK cutting back on the feed in tariff, of course installs will drop.  It's up 110% here in Hawaii.  UK cut a fair deal out for their people, instead of the utility paying for distributed energy as they should now they won't and will expect any new solar power feeding the grid as free energy for them to sell.  With any grid-tied solar or wind power system if there is an abundance of energy beyond what the system makes for its owner it goes out into the utility grid and can be used by any other load.  With a feed-in tariff the utility is at least made to pay for that power at prices a little less than what they charge per kWh.  So it's not really a subsidy rather it's a fair way of the utility not having to run their plants at full bore during peak business demand hours when office buildings and manufacturing is guzzling electricity.

Explain the recent accomplishment of PV power reaching grid-parity in India?


----------



## DOMS (Aug 15, 2012)

maniclion said:


> It's only fair they be subsidized just as coal, oil and natural gas are.  As doms conveniently pointed out above solar electric has a similar amount of subsidizing as the fossil fuels and less than nuclear.



The ROI is crap, though.


*Power Source*
*2010 U.S. Power Consumption 
(million bbl. oil equivalent)**Subsidy Cost per Energy Equivalent Barrel of Oil Consumed*Coal3,439*$0.39*
Oil and gas10,012$0.28Nuclear1,394*$1.79*
Biomass / biofuels381$20.37Geothermal35$7.80Hydro414$0.52Solar18*$63.00*
Wind153$32.59


----------



## maniclion (Aug 15, 2012)

DOMS said:


> The ROI is crap, though.
> 
> 
> *Power Source*
> ...



That's because of the low percentage of solar power in use.  They just divided the amount of solar power being made by the amount of subsidy.  The actual ROI is very good, most systems will pay themselves off in 8-12 years and they will produce power from the sun for at least 30 years or more.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 15, 2012)

maniclion said:


> That's because of the low percentage of solar power in use.  They just divided the amount of solar power being made by the amount of subsidy.  The actual ROI is very good, most systems will pay themselves off in 8-12 years and they will produce power from the sun for at least 30 years or more.



Good point. I looked into the longevity of the panels, which looks great. 



> Recent evidence from  Japan suggests that life expectancy is longer than expected.[1] A  company that reuses old panels reports that it has *tested 330 panels  made in 1984. 90% of these units can still generate 80% or more of their  initial output*. The industry expects that products made today will be  even more durable than those made in the 1980s. The backing materials  used to create the solar panels should be less susceptible to  discolouration. So typical lives of thirty or more years can probably be  assumed.



And that's with tech that's almost 30 years old. I have to imagine that the newer panels are even better.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm 100% for green tech, including nuclear. When the USA ditches the majority of its oil use, it'll be a great time. Cleaner air for Americans, loss of wealth for the Middle East. It's a win-win.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 15, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Good point. I looked into the longevity of the panels, which looks great.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think todays top brands could last at least 45+ years now that they are using better tevlar backing, higher quality glass and IP65 water resistant junction boxes with silicon encapsulation of the diodes and busbars.

I know that we have a way to go before solar and wind will be able to stand fully against fossil fuels, but it's inevitable that those won't last forever and nuclear isn't the only other option and I am against using it in densely populated areas and coastal regions with Japan being the most recent example of why.

People are also not aware of solar thermal and also concentrated PV which are both excellent ways to use the Nuclear Plant in the sky.  Fusion over fission.  I get my water heated for free by the sun everyday and I love it.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 15, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I think todays top brands could last at least 45+ years now that they are using better tevlar backing, higher quality glass and IP65 water resistant junction boxes with silicon encapsulation of the diodes and busbars.
> 
> I know that we have a way to go before solar and wind will be able to stand fully against fossil fuels, but it's inevitable that those won't last forever and nuclear isn't the only other option and I am against using it in densely populated areas and coastal regions with Japan being the most recent example of why.
> 
> People are also not aware of solar thermal and also concentrated PV which are both excellent ways to use the Nuclear Plant in the sky.  Fusion over fission.  I get my water heated for free by the sun everyday and I love it.



I think that a balance of hydro (which I don't like), solar, wind, and nuclear could do it. We have the space.


----------



## NoviceAAS (Aug 15, 2012)

Couldnt agree more, food resources and water resources will make us wish for an oil crisis. Climate change will alter a whole lot more than anything Iran could do.


----------



## LAM (Aug 15, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I know that we have a way to go before solar and wind will be able to stand fully against fossil fuels, but it's inevitable that those won't last forever and nuclear isn't the only other option and I am against using it in densely populated areas and coastal regions with Japan being the most recent example of why.



nuclear power isn't even cheap to the end-user.  we had 4 nuke power plants with in an hour from where we lived in PA and we paid some of the highest kWh rates in the country.  that's what many just don't understand, there is and will never be a cheap source of energy not when it's being supplied by large greedy firms.


----------



## troubador (Aug 15, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I think that a balance of hydro (which I don't like), solar, wind, and nuclear could do it. We have the space.



 I would never want to live near a wind turbine. I'll support wind as long as the turbines are in some hippy's back yard.





I like nuclear. The cost per kWh already compares favorably to fossil fuels(a bit more expensive). It has zero carbon emissions. 

Also an inherent issue with silicon is that it comes from silicon dioxide in a single displacement reaction with carbon to produce elemental silicon and carbon dioxide. There's one mole of CO2 to every mole of Si. Although I imagine its use in a solar panel offsets the amount that would have been, had the same amount of energy came from fossil fuels.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 16, 2012)

troubador said:


> I would never want to live near a wind turbine. I'll support wind as long as the turbines are in some hippy's back yard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It funny how no one in Europe or who gets paid to have wind gennies on their property has been stricken with this dreaded Wind Turbine Syndrome, not even the Dutch who had them for a few hundred years.

Nuke is fine in places with sparce population and no chance of contaminating an ocean or river.  They should build them deep under ground and have ejection chambers with walls of lead and concrete several feet thick to dump the rods in for emergencies.  What happens a few thousand years from now when some archeologist is uncapping what they thought was Fukushima's Tomb and the radiation curse is released upon the nearby town.

Silicon is so abundant on earth it only makes sense to utilize it.  Then given that so much sunlight hits the Earth in one minute to power the whole globe for a year.  If it's good enough for dumb plants to use for energy then we might as well use it too.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 16, 2012)




----------



## troubador (Aug 16, 2012)

maniclion said:


> It funny how no one in Europe or who gets paid to have wind gennies on their property has been stricken with this dreaded Wind Turbine Syndrome, not even the Dutch who had them for a few hundred years.



I don't want to live near one, I don't care about the unsubstantiated health claims. I don't want to hear or feel it all the time or have a repetitious shadow cast over the house.



> Nuke is fine in places with sparce population and no chance of contaminating an ocean or river. They should build them deep under ground and have ejection chambers with walls of lead and concrete several feet thick to dump the rods in for emergencies.



That's worse than what we have now.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 16, 2012)

The most useful and the thing I encourage over everything else when people come to see me about pv is to put solar water heating on their homes.  40-50% of most homes electric bill goes to keeping the water hot.  Now they can also use solar thermal with Absorption chillers and really efficient heat exchangers to run air conditioning.  Even in northern climates they can use it to heat the home using a glycol closed loop system.  Of course the greatest changes have been CFL and LED lighting.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 16, 2012)

*John Kerry Says That Climate Change Is Just A*



LAM said:


> nuclear power isn't even cheap to the end-user.  we had 4 nuke power plants with in an hour from where we lived in PA and we paid some of the highest kWh rates in the country.  that's what many just don't understand, there is and will never be a cheap source of energy not when it's being supplied by large greedy firms.



So the government should provide it? Or deregulate it like in TX where rates are very competitive and choice is abundant. Please explain how somehow that is all wrong and not true capitalism...


----------



## oufinny (Aug 16, 2012)

*John Kerry Says That Climate Change Is Just A*



maniclion said:


> It funny how no one in Europe or who gets paid to have wind gennies on their property has been stricken with this dreaded Wind Turbine Syndrome, not even the Dutch who had them for a few hundred years.
> 
> Nuke is fine in places with sparce population and no chance of contaminating an ocean or river.  They should build them deep under ground and have ejection chambers with walls of lead and concrete several feet thick to dump the rods in for emergencies.  What happens a few thousand years from now when some archeologist is uncapping what they thought was Fukushima's Tomb and the radiation curse is released upon the nearby town.
> 
> Silicon is so abundant on earth it only makes sense to utilize it.  Then given that so much sunlight hits the Earth in one minute to power the whole globe for a year.  If it's good enough for dumb plants to use for energy then we might as well use it too.



They should be put in old missile silos from the cold war, they already basically are what you described and in safe places inland.


----------



## Decker (Aug 19, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> Oh and lets not forget the "consensus" of climate scientists in the 70's tell us about the coming ice age...


Is that what happened?  And from that incredible observation you conclude what?  Science should be discarded for your observations?  After all, climate scientists, with their scientific methodology and peer reviewed work really want to milk the gravy train of grants and stipends to its very end.

This is the MO of the subhuman. Do not join that group willingly.


----------



## BFHammer (Aug 19, 2012)

Decker said:


> Is that what happened?  And from that incredible observation you conclude what?  Science should be discarded for your observations?  After all, climate scientists, with their scientific methodology and peer reviewed work really want to milk the gravy train of grants and stipends to its very end.
> 
> This is the MO of the subhuman. Do not join that group willingly.



Pointing out they are full of shit and only looking out for their own pockets and positions?  Jason hanson take 500k a year in "speaking fees" just from George Soros.

http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/wind-economy.html
Oops.  turbines fucking up the earth...

We are overcrowded??  2.6% is in use for housing...

This publication presents the results of the latest (2002) inventory of  U.S. major land uses, drawing on data from the Census, public land  management and conservation agencies, and other sources. The data are  synthesized by State to calculate the use of several broad classes and  subclasses of agricultural and nonagricultural land over time. The  United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres. Major  uses in 2002 were forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent);  grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent);  cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent); special uses (primarily  parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent);  miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent); and urban  land, 60 million acres (2.6 percent). National and regional trends in  land use are discussed in comparison with earlier major land-use  estimates.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 20, 2012)

So BFHammer posts an article showing that large scale windfarms to replace only 10% of global needs will effect climate change, but our massive use of fossil fuels doesn't?


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> Pointing out they are full of shit and only looking out for their own pockets and positions?  Jason hanson take 500k a year in "speaking fees" just from George Soros.



and the roughly 1T a year that is transferred from the bottom to the top from 3 decades of various de-regulation....who's to blame for that?  who's pockets are being lined with the income that the wage worker or middle class worker no longer gets to keep?  

Consumer Rates Climb After Deregulation Goldman Sachs Funded - Bloomberg


----------



## Decker (Aug 25, 2012)

I don't know what you are talking about.  Why would a former Detroit Lions kicker take money for environmental gigs?  The rest of your post is non-related crap.

The vast majority of climatologists in the '70s were concerned primarily with global warming b/c it's a natural phenomenon exacerbated by heavy industry.

The Right Wing nonsense you seem to support that climatologists were all worried about global cooling in the 1970s shows you'll believe just about anything that will support your prejudices.


----------



## irish_2003 (Aug 25, 2012)

everyone can pretend to be a copy and paste genius in retrospect...LAM


----------



## Decker (Aug 25, 2012)

Decker said:


> I don't know what you are talking about.  Why would a former Detroit Lions kicker take money for environmental gigs?  The rest of your post is non-related crap.
> 
> The vast majority of climatologists in the '70s were concerned primarily with global warming b/c it's a natural phenomenon exacerbated by heavy industry.
> 
> The Right Wing nonsense you seem to support that climatologists were all worried about global cooling in the 1970s shows you'll believe just about anything that will support your prejudices.



I should have quoted the guy I was referencing.  Damn scotch whiskey won't let me.  Where's Albob?


----------



## LAM (Aug 26, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> everyone can pretend to be a copy and paste genius in retrospect...LAM



it's called siting your source...haven't you ever written a formal research paper?  it's much easier than paraphrasing everything.  but you don't read because your a lazy thinker, much easier to listen to politicians and tv and have the tell you how to think and what your opinions should be.

my opinions are formed from reading economic data and evidence from the real world not from ideology and bullshit facts that i make up in my head like you.  you form opinions first then disregard all data and evidence that goes against them.


----------



## LAM (Aug 26, 2012)

I meant citing your source...it illustrates proof or evidence of where the information came from


----------



## irish_2003 (Aug 27, 2012)

LAM said:


> I meant citing your source...it illustrates proof or evidence of where the information came from



this phrase is obama

"promise everything...deliver nothing...blame someone else"


----------



## LAM (Aug 27, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> this phrase is obama
> 
> "promise everything...deliver nothing...blame someone else"



and how exactly does Obama fix this:
Map: U.S. Ranks Near Bottom on Income Inequality - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


----------

