The Great Global Warming Swindle

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 It would just look like a little black dot on the sun.

or they could use some kind of a huge stencil and sell advertising.

[Running_Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence I think the political will is lacking because GW won't cause drastic negative effects for people in 1st world countries. Waterworld is NOT going to happen! Where people will be most effected is places like Africa through famine when rainfall patterns change. A million dead in Africa doesn't do more than get Bono and the GAP to start a charity.

Please does anyone think Al Gore really believes his own hype? It is just an easy method to score political points. Noone who truly believed mankind was going to use fossil fuels to cause the destruction of mankind would fly private jets to give speeches and live in a house consuming more electricity per year than the average American uses in a decade while exhorting the use of sweaters in your personal life to be able to turn down the thermostat.

What is the politcal solution you seek? Ceasation of cattle farming and use of cars? Required flourescent bulbs. Banning of all fires in the world? How would anyone who believed this be able to invest in stocks as the implementation of a global warming policy would be a huge drag on the economy, corporations and their spending. Basically the world would be implementing a socialist planned economy for the controll of GW.

[MasterBlaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee That may be true. It's just as true that you shouldn't blame tobacco companies for people smoking. Still, if they spend money and produce psuedo science to prevent society from improving, we can blame them for that.

To rephrase what I posted before. The problem is not so much with the oil companies as with us. The solution is not with the oil companies but with us.

Your irritation and anger at the oil companies is misplaced. So if you want to roll back global warming and oil company transgretions then fight for smaller houses and smaller cars and a more green lifestyle.

To do otherwise is to be a hypocrite.

Or to put it another way, if you want to drive a big SUV then you need the likes of Exxon and should act accordingly. To complain about how Exxon serves you is just not well thought out.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I see, its all a vast left wing conspiracy. Nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about. Just a bunch of eggheads with political aspirations unnecessarily waving their arms around while...hmm...only people with good reason to not want this made into an issue say that its not an issue.

[JohnEyles]

Grasshopper, what is the sound of one moron posting ?

[MasterBlaster]

Well when you have nothing intelligent to say or to add you can start with the name calling.

That will really get the intelligent dialog going.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masterblaster . . .Your irritation and anger at the oil companies is misplaced. So if you want to roll back global warming and oil company transgretions then fight for smaller houses and smaller cars and a more green lifestyle. . . .

I'm not irritated with the oil companies and I never said one word indicating that I thought global warming was their fault. That is entirely your own creation. :P

I pointed out where the ad revenue on the orignial url was coming from and asked if that could affect the message. Regardless of who is or is not responsible for global warming, the advertisers might have a bias.

Sheeeesh.

[unclemick]

Algae - that's the ticket - algae plus soluble iron in the south Pacific - they eat the heck outta CO2 molecules - photosynthesis and all that rot. Another memory failure - can't remember where I read that 40 or so years ago - Popular Science, Scientific American - somewhere.

Back when Cosby was young and used smoke, and fire and jello to vanquish the giant Chickenheart in Cleveland.

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh - name calling , name calling :, who me

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclemick2 Algae - that's the ticket - algae plus soluble iron in the south Pacific - they eat the heck outta CO2 molecules - photosynthesis and all that rot. Another memory failure - can't remember where I read that 40 or so years ago - Popular Science, Scientific American - somewhere.

good call unclemick2. I had heard about this recently (Science Friday on NPR?), but forgot until you mentioned it.

Here's a link - not super complete, but there are a list of refs at the end.

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

-ERD50

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclemick2 Algae - that's the ticket - algae plus soluble iron in the south Pacific - they eat the heck outta CO2 molecules - photosynthesis and all that rot. Another memory failure - can't remember where I read that 40 or so years ago - Popular Science, Scientific American - somewhere. Back when Cosby was young and used smoke, and fire and jello to vanquish the giant Chickenheart in Cleveland. heh heh heh heh heh heh heh - name calling , name calling :, who me

I recall hearing about this in the 80s back in grad school.

I don't think it is a good solution.

Seems like trying to fix one science experiment (the huge increase in burning fossil fuels over the last 150 years) with another (a huge experiment on changing the biochemistry of the oceans).

MB

[ERD50]

RE: iron fertilization

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb Seems like trying to fix one science experiment (the huge increase in burning fossil fuels over the last 150 years) with another (a huge experiment on changing the biochemistry of the oceans). MB

Yes, it is. But unless we can develop a time machine and undo what was done for the past 150 years, it may be the kind of solution we need.

-ERD50

[mb]

I don't think that there is much doubt that the earth is experiencing a warming trend. I think that there is still uncertainty how much is caused by man but not having studied the original research I have to accept that the majority of climate scientists think that man's contribution is significant and that we should be doing something about it.

I think that the single most significant thing that can be done world-wide is a European-type tax on gasoline in the US. I would strongly support such a tax.

350 million Europeans are living comfortable lives without the right to "cheap gasoline." There is no reason why 300 million americans can't adjust their life styles similiarly.

MB

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb 350 million Europeans are living comfortable lives without the right to "cheap gasoline." There is no reason why 300 million americans can't adjust their life styles similiarly. MB

Except they have a MUCH better public transportation system than we do.. and are not as spread out as we are... very high density living..

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Well when you have nothing intelligent to say or to add you can start with the name calling.

Good point, but name-calling is also good when those listening aren't capable of hearing the
intelligent things said, to wit ...

Quote:

... the majority of climate scientists think that man's contribution is significant and that we should be doing something about it.

Exactly. If you don't think Al Gore is sincere, fine. But listen to what the scientists
say. They are smarter than normal people, seriously, at least when they're talking
about the physical world.

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Except they have a MUCH better public transportation system than we do.. and are not as spread out as we are... very high density living..

I would argue that we have crappy public transportation and a low housing density BECAUSE gasoline prices have always been cheap.

Put a $3/gal tax on it and watch how things adjust to a new equilibrium. My suggestion would be to phase it in over say a five year period. I'm not saying that I will not be painfull but I think that the long term positives will out weigh the short term negatives.

MB

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb I would argue that we have crappy public transportation and a low housing density BECAUSE gasoline prices have always been cheap. Put a $3/gal tax on it and watch how things adjust to a new equilibrium. My suggestion would be to phase it in over say a five year period. .... MB

I agree, I'd suggest a slightly different approach. Set $3 as the *minimum* price for a gallon of gas, add taxes if it were to drop below this. Increase that price floor in phases as you suggest.

This would help to get people thinking long term and making good decisions as time goes on. Now, gas goes up , everyone screams and says they are going to sell their SUVs, etc - and then 6 months later gas prices drop and they all forget about it. Keep a floor on prices, and the next time someone buys a car, they will think about the long term prices of gas. When they move, or change jobs, the commute distance might be a bigger factor. etc, etc

Communities might even see the benefit of investing in good public transportation.

Hah! as if a politician would try to push a gas tax like that! What a dream!

-ERD50

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Hah! as if a politician would try to push a gas tax like that! What a dream! -ERD50

You are correct on this however I have been surprised at the number of people that I have talked to that think that a gas tax would be a good idea.

[Running_Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny I see, its all a vast left wing conspiracy. Nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about. Just a bunch of eggheads with political aspirations unnecessarily waving their arms around while...hmm...only people with good reason to not want this made into an issue say that its not an issue.

mmm in the '70's one of the suggestions to offset the imminent "global cooling" that was coming was to pour black dirt over the polar ice cap in an attempt to absorb more of the sun's rays and help warm the earth. Fortunate that was not implemented I suppose.

I remember this summer it was a guarantee that we would have very bad hurricane season because global warming was causing a measurable increase in the sea temperatures providing fuel for hurricanes. The destruction of '05 was going to be just a prelude to the horrors of '06. Instead there were fewest hurricanes in history. Had we implemented a car ban or a ban on incandescent light bulbs worldwide , that would have been credited with success. December was warm and attributed to global warming. That was followed by one of the coldest February months in history - which of course is proof of nothing. The hubris that mankind can control the weather on earth is comical to me.

When the politicians implementing the ban are willing to move to 1500 square foot homes in an effort to lessen their use of fossil fuels and use the internet for long range presentations and ride bicycles to award shows instead of jets to pick up speaking engagements and awards for their "humanitarian" efforts then I will give more credence to the issue. In the meantime yes it is a grab for political power.

[lets-retire]

I read recently that there are trees startign to grow in areas that were tundra. The article was of course all gloom and doom. It seemed to me that was a good thing. More trees mean more carbon dioxide is converted and a slowing of the CO2 increase.

[Zathras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man mmm in the '70's one of the suggestions to offset the imminent "global cooling" that was coming was to pour black dirt over the polar ice cap in an attempt to absorb more of the sun's rays and help warm the earth.

This was not suggested by any scientific paper or community, although it may have been by your poker friends. That doesn't disprove what we are currently seeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man I remember this summer it was a guarantee that we would have very bad hurricane season because global warming was causing a measurable increase in the sea temperatures providing fuel for hurricanes.

Unfortunately you have a very poor memory as no such guarantee was offered. Yes, there were predictions made, however they were never guaranteed. Also unfortunately, while the USA had very few hurricanes, the pacific had quite a few, some extreme. As mentioned in last years prediction, if an El Nino formed (which it did) the numbers would be less than the prediction. There was the addition of large dust clouds from Africa which also appears to have cut down on the number of hurricanes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man Had we implemented a car ban or a ban on incandescent light bulbs worldwide , that would have been credited with success.

No, the dust storms and El Nino which WERE credited with the decrease would have been credited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man December was warm and attributed to global warming. That was followed by one of the coldest February months in history - which of course is proof of nothing. The hubris that mankind can control the weather on earth is comical to me.

I saw a dozen reports where the media attempted this. In every report in which they asked a climatologist or even their own meteroligist the response was that the warm temperature could not be blamed on global warming as it is a short term irregularity. Many mentioned it could be part of a larger trend, but not as a sole cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man When the politicians implementing the ban are willing to move to 1500 square foot homes in an effort to lessen their use of fossil fuels and use the internet for long range presentations and ride bicycles to award shows instead of jets to pick up speaking engagements and awards for their "humanitarian" efforts then I will give more credence to the issue. In the meantime yes it is a grab for political power.

Why? None of the above is necessary. There is no need to cut into your 'quality' of life one bit. Use CFBs instead of incandescents. Stop giving subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies and invest that money in renewable resources. Take some of that money and invest it in creating an automobile engine that gets more than 25% efficiency.

I understand, and agree that there are some people/politicians that use this topic as a launching point. Some are sincere while some are not. But just because some people are insincere doesn't mean the crisis isn't real. There are thousands of scientists across the world that agree that this is a critical issue.