The Great Global Warming Swindle

[chopnhack]

All for thinking and acting Green - conservation is important - however, stupidty is not lacking on our planet - every time a volcano burbs it puts out more pollution than all of mankind can muster for a year, same with sun spots they can raise the planets temp. alot faster than we ever can. We should not pollute and learn to work with the planet and protect the creatures of the world, it truly is a remarkable place like no other. And yes I eat meat and drive a car so please no debates

[OpaDC]

Here in Illinois as well. And in Canada, Siberia, Mongolia and China - all who are experiencing below average temperatures determined during the 20th century. You likely won't hear much about this on CNN. (Now if it were above average, they would be trumpeting how man has induced global warming).

AHA!!! I think I figured it out. I'm in the Florida panhandle and if I'm not mistaken we have had an above average temp Feb as has much of the south. So I'm thinking, if you're north of the Mason Dixon Line you are headed into an early ice age, south of it and you're in global warming.
Oh, and please don't mention hurricanes. Rather not think about it when I don't have to.

[cwithboat]

The cause is unimportant. There is sufficient evidence that the icecaps and glaciers are receding. Given the immense database and super computers is anyone rerunning Hapgood's equations?
I have got to:
Move to Pike's Peak.
Invest in Antarctican waterfront property.
Gather up 2 of each animal.
What's a cubit?

[Slik Geek]

"Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces...."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

What the writer of this article fails to explore is the reason "why" the 1975 NAS/NRC report was concerned about the effectiveness of making climate predictions: Severe winters and other weather events in the preceding decade had raised concerns about climate change.

Sadly, the writer of the article seems to subscribe to the "say it enough and people will start to believe you" club, so he calls the concern about global cooling in the 1970s to be a myth, hoping that we will believe it too.

There was concern about the effects of global cooling in the 1960s and 1970s, including at the NOAA, and contrary to the claims in the article, there were scientists that had expressed concern about the cooling of the climate. They appealed to the President of the United States to establish an entity to develop tools to improve the study of climate change. The concerns they expressed about cooling trends included "killing frosts" and "snowstorms" and the resulting widespread crop failures.

If the author of that article hasn't found evidence of concern about global cooling during that era, it is because he doesn't want to find it. He fits in well with many in the global warming community.

[Slik Geek]

So I'm thinking, if you're north of the Mason Dixon Line you are headed into an early ice age, south of it and you're in global warming.

Looks like I should take advantage of the housing glut in Florida right away and escape south!!

[DonHo]

The cause is unimportant. There is sufficient evidence that the icecaps and glaciers are receding. Given the immense database and super computers is anyone rerunning Hapgood's equations?
I have got to:
Move to Pike's Peak.
Invest in Antarctican waterfront property.
Gather up 2 of each animal.
What's a cubit?

The real problem is there's a gopher wood shortage, it's even higher per bd ft than cocobolo

DonHo

[jackellis]

I work in the energy industry and have to deal with some of the implications of the whole global warming issue. On the one hand, if carbon trading takes off I'd probably be able to buy all the toys...er woodworking tools and materials I'd ever want. On the other hand, I have a tough time believing humans have much impact on climate change. Like others who have commented, I think we could do a better job of minimizing pollution and wasting natural resources, and I limit my driving (but fly a gas-guzzling four seat airplane).

I spent a large portion of my career working with computer models. Different from the long-term climate prediction variety but all computer models either have to be based on well-defined mathematical calculations or on well understood natural processes. In the case of long-term climatological models, I'm convinced we don't understand the natural processes well enough to create computer models...yet. Especially given how tough it is to create models when the processes are reasonably well understood, and the relative magnitude and rate of change long-term climate models are attempting to assess.

'Nother thing I've learned working with government agencies that make and set important policies. When the government bureaucrats and the so-called public or consumer advocates are wrangling with one another to protect the public interest, hold tight onto your wallet. In California, a whole cottage industry has developed around the idea that folks who contribute to a debate by intervening are somehow entitled to compensation at the public's expense. As a result, we have a lot of people in the advocacy business here. IOW, I'm having a hard time figuring out the bright line between Al Gore's convictions and Al Gore, Inc.

[gjat]

Like everything that the Government and News Media gets involved in, there is one basic truism:

The more of a "crisis" it seems to be, the more taxes and advertising dollars you can get.

This is a free-market economy. Of course there is money to be made, just as there was money to be made on Y2K, the population explosion, new ice-age, global warming, ozone holes, no more oil, DDT ban, alar on apples, trans fats, margerine, etc., etc., etc.

Sadly, the fact that the current "crisis" generates hysterical opinions on both sides of the issue, reasonable discussion and thought is almost always squeezed out.

[BrazosJake]

Speaking of Wiki (and this is farily accurate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Short version: Just after the Civil War, a self-taught American mathmetician named James Croll took the equations that were used to prove the existence of the planet Pluto, and determined that the earth's orbit around the sun changes approximately every 100,000 years.

His theory was later proven and expanded on by the Serbian mathmetician whom the theory is now named for. Geologic evidence supports the theory of natural heating and cooling cycles due to orbital cycles, with some anomolies (due to volcanic eruptions, etc.)

[RyFitz13]

What the writer of this article fails to explore is the reason "why" the 1975 NAS/NRC report was concerned about the effectiveness of making climate predictions: Severe winters and other weather events in the preceding decade had raised concerns about climate change.

...

If the author of that article hasn't found evidence of concern about global cooling during that era, it is because he doesn't want to find it. He fits in well with many in the global warming community.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here, but here's how I read it:

The writer of that article comparing the "global cooling" scare to "global warming" didn't do sufficient research and see that there was scientific evidence suggesting a "global cooling" trend, exactly as there is now scientific evidence suggesting a "global warming" trend.

Now, had he done that research and found that evidence, would it have changed the conclusion of his article? Seriously - there was scientific evidence that we might be heading into an ice age. We didn't, I think everyone will agree. Now there's scientific evidence that the planet's going to warm up (arguably because of us) and kill off lots and lots of species. There's also scientific evidence (mentioned in another post here) that the planet has run through many warming/cooling cycles.

And somehow people are wrong to consider any of that evidence - much of it contradictory - with at least a little skepticism?

[rnelson0]

I simply agree with my wife's idea. If there are two possible results, that it is happening and we can curb it, or that it's not happening so it doesn't matter, why not err on the side of caution?

If nothing else, oil is a non-renewable resource. Aside from global warming concerns, oil is rare, hard to get at, and working an oil rig is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. Who wants to perpetuate that?

[BigguyZ]

I don't think that there's much refute about some global warming issues. However, the source of the warming is far from determined. Some say it's the natural cyclic process from the orbit of the earth around the sun.


If people are so concerned about global warming, then why not invest in more nuclear energy plants with breeder reactors, which can create clean engergy without the amounts of nuclear waste that our current plants produce??


I'm all for being "green", but I say let's do it in a sensical manner where we don't follow an inefficient process to try to produce less emissions. The whole ethanol thing is great in terms of weening off of foreign oil- but the energy required to make it is greater than the energy required to refine oil. And where does that energy come from? Probably a coal-burning plant. Or another energy source that they poo poo because it diverts a river or some other concern.

We can't use incandescant light bulbs anymore- but what about the toxic heavy metals in flourescent bulbs? What happens when the every-day consumer throws them away in the trash and the mercury leaches into the groundwater?!

And now there's this whole thing about energy credits. How silly is that. Farmers are making more money from doing nothing than producing food for people. Not only does that drive up food prices, I think the whole carbon credit thing is just another way to tax companies for their production. Can we drive more business out of the country with higher taxes? Please? That'd be great.

I went to school for engineering, and I love science, but I think that some people think that just because you have a PHD you're infallible, without your own self-serving agenda, and are some sooth-sayer that speaks nothing but truth. Remember that scientists are as much a special interest as tobacco, oil, or any other maligned entity (not saying they don't deserve criticism, I'm just saying let's not leave anyone out). If they don't get people concerned/ interested in their cause, they don't get funding (AKA they don't get paid/ profits).

I could go on, but why bother...

[jonmulzer]

If people are so concerned about global warming, then why not invest in more nuclear energy plants with breeder reactors, which can create clean engergy without the amounts of nuclear waste that our current plants produce??

Because citizens of these states have the NIMBY attitude. Not in my backyard. They are all for nuclear energy, building more oil refineries and prisons, etc. But as soon as you start planning one by them, they say "Not in my backyard". Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have ruined our collective attitude about nuclear energy for a generation. You could build all of them you want in the wasteland deserts of the Southwest, but the power production is not needed there.

I'm all for being "green", but I say let's do it in a sensical manner where we don't follow an inefficient process to try to produce less emissions. The whole ethanol thing is great in terms of weening off of foreign oil- but the energy required to make it is greater than the energy required to refine oil. And where does that energy come from? Probably a coal-burning plant. Or another energy source that they poo poo because it diverts a river or some other concern.

Not entirely true. There are bio-organic solutions on the table that are very promising. They are showing a massive decrease in the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol and may offer a solution. I will agree though that current manufacturing of ethanol is problematic in areas.

We can't use incandescant light bulbs anymore- but what about the toxic heavy metals in flourescent bulbs? What happens when the every-day consumer throws them away in the trash and the mercury leaches into the groundwater?!

I worked in Landfill construction for 4 years. There are so many safeguards in place that heavy metal toxicity in the groundwater is not a concern. It is not as though they are just dumping trash into a hole in the ground. There are non-permeable soil barriers, HDPE liners, subsurface geotextile drainage and multitudes of other precautions. They could stand to be recycled though and not just thrown in the trash though, but really we should look for ways to recycle EVERYTHING instead of locking away those raw materials in landfill cells for a millennium. The Earth is full of finite resources and we should do what we can do recycle what we can. That said, I don't, because I agree it is a hassle.

And now there's this whole thing about energy credits. How silly is that. Farmers are making more money from doing nothing than producing food for people. Not only does that drive up food prices, I think the whole carbon credit thing is just another way to tax companies for their production. Can we drive more business out of the country with higher taxes? Please? That'd be great.

I agree 100%. Taxation is not to be considered a solution to anything. America existed without personal income taxes for a century. I would love to see those days return.

[germdoc]

Just a few quick thoughts to add to the fray:

We should not ignore the effect of our increasing hydrocarbon consumption on the environment. Look at the pollution in China, if you want a concrete example. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html)

The people happiest to see us in denial are the energy companies (no offense, Jack) and the petrogarchies of the Middle East, Russia, etc. Think about that for awhile--who benefits the most from failing to address global warming...

Finally, I have long felt that it is demeaning to underestimate the ability of US technology to find a solution to aspects of this problem. Why can't we design cars that get 40-50 mpg? We are talking about sending men to Mars, but we can't build innovative car batteries and engines, or really fuel-efficient buildings?

[gjat]

Just a few quick thoughts to add to the fray:

We should not ignore the effect of our increasing hydrocarbon consumption on the environment. Look at the pollution in China, if you want a concrete example. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html)

The people happiest to see us in denial are the energy companies (no offense, Jack) and the petrogarchies of the Middle East, Russia, etc. Think about that for awhile--who benefits the most from failing to address global warming...

Finally, I have long felt that it is demeaning to underestimate the ability of US technology to find a solution to aspects of this problem. Why can't we design cars that get 40-50 mpg? We are talking about sending men to Mars, but we can't build innovative car batteries and engines, or really fuel-efficient buildings?

Your point about China polluting is very relative. The problem with the Kyoto Treaty is the lack of restrictions on the developing economies that are seriously polluting now, and is getting worse. The US has gotten much better compared with what we were doing in the 70's and 80's.

The 'petrogarchies' aren't worried. Even if the US were to switch off oil for other energies, the other emerging nations will take up the slack. Oil will always be valuable until it's gone.

I salute you and agree 110% with your observation about the US technology and economy. One of their biggest stumbling blocks is Government and media/public perception. Why are companies promoting the short-term goal of flourscent lights with the attendant mercury problem, instead of higher efficiency LED's, improved reflectors and refractors, etc.? Because of media and government hysteria. I do traffic signals and have seen first hand the spectacular advances in LED's over the last 3 years. A red indication used to have 40 LED's and cost $150. Now, they have 12, are brighter, last longer, and cost $60. (They replace a $6 135watt incandescent lamp). They are cheaper to operate because of reduced energy demands and maintenace costs.

Pursuit of ethonal is not only presently inefficient, but it is driving the cost of corn, farming, and meat upwards. Already India and Africa are having a hard time purchasing supplemental food. But here in the US, we think it's "green" and can afford the extra for food and 10 cents a gallon. We think it's no big deal, no harm, no foul, worth the little bit of sacrifice.