Green Nonsense

[BobDiaz]

The Sun heats the earth....we learned that a long time ago - and it is the provider of light and energy that in the end becomes trapped in the atmosphere.

It has been disproved that the variances in the sun have caused this problem. Repeatedly. On a quick search I found:...

Your "proof" is the opinion of some scientists that have a different view; that's NOT proof.

On the flip side:Sunspots, Solar activity, and Arctic Ice
Sampling of scientists and scientific studies predicting global COOLING

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4503

If you take the time to read the studies on the solar effect, it's not just the change in the sun's output, but the changes in gamma rays that has an impact in cloud cover, and excessive cloud cover will cause cooling.


As for loss of freedom:

The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.

"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... wance.html

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax ...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... arbon-tax/

Nancy Pelosi pushes global financial fee
Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her strongest endorsement yet of a global financial transaction fee Thursday after raising the issue directly with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a conversation this week. ...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30200.html



I could post more, but it's just not worth my time. You hold very strong views and just reject anything that might be different from your views. Besides, at the current rate, this thread should be locked soon...



Bob Diaz

[stevekaden]

We can discuss forever - as for each submission I see, when I research I find the "experts" are almost always funded by the oil, gas, or right wing propoganda industries. For example, David Archibald from your CFP reference...a compendium of what appears to be mostly opinions. But back to David:

2. David Archibald, Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia's Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... sier_Group
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/arti ... hibald.pdf

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... z0Zxeg9mQh

So I read more....

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked
List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... z0ZxeNJ9Kf

The CFP's claims are mostly specious at best...all about how cold it is getting - while the HARD physical evidence is in contrast. Ocean, Ice, permafrost melt, etc. Let alone ALL the other science. Little of the CFP's claims appear to be based on fully bodied research.

The CFP describes itself as: "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which contain love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership."

Hardly unbiased - of course God and love has a big part in all this - for the most part when the religious factor is thrown in to science and politics, the rational is thrown out.

Others I found:

Sen. James M. Inhofe's list of 400+ supposedly prominent climate scientists who doubt global warming is full of names that should raise big question marks, including economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs. Also included are these 84 names of scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... z0ZxeatjQO
---------
Your comments on sun effect seem to deny that the two source I noted, did the research at least one on the subject of cloud cover.

Taxes and subsidies to encourge renewables will be needed, I will concede that - because of the vast momentum of the fossil fuel industry. I personally do not see this as a bad thing as the results will be a transformation from the polluting, politically dangerous present systems - that will eventually run out, or at least causes more and more environmental damage to produce. (And then there is greenhouse gases). Witness Germany's significant progress in Solar power.

Finally, the last quote about Pelosi and fees has nothing to do with any of this discussion at all.

And as Roger has stated, we are far from the point - I intend to let this go with this. A minor limitation in TV power for all it's goods and bad in some minds, will only have a win win result. Pushing better designs, and save energy. And possibly lead to a step wise improvement in lots of areas.

[BobDiaz]

Whatever, I tire of this whole thing...

It's clear to me that there's no shortage of people groups that will say anything you want to hear. It would take me a lot of time to search and show that they are being driven by some group with an agenda. However, even if I went through the trouble of doing the research, you'd just throw out labels, like "Right wing.... nut job... " or write off the argument in some other way and in your mind the argument is null and void. So rather than burn up my time on this useless argument where nothing changes, I'll go off and do something more productive.

There is one little tidbit I'll leave everyone....

According to the solar theory of climate change, the longer the time for between each sunspot cycle, the greater the increase in gamma radiation. Increased gamma radiation results in more cloud cover, which results in global cooling. We are currently way overdue for the next sunspot cycle. The scientists that support the solar theory are projecting that the next 10 --> 30 years will result in a strong cooling trend. So, debate all you want, but time will tell...

I do find it funny that "Global Warming" is now being called "Climate Change". Nice, because if the coin lands up heads, they can say, "See it worked!" On the other hand, if it lands tails, they can also say, "See it worked!"


That's all I'm going to say for this thread,

Bob Diaz

[Roger Halstead]

Look up Milankovitch cycles which are the driving forces.

[stevekaden]

Bob, my appologies for my hard descriptions. But, I no longer see a moral equivalence between peer reviewed science and paid liars and lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.

The term Climate Change is somewhat interchangable with warming, as the chief effects on the shorter term will be Climate change. Water level changes will take longer as the great glaciers of Greenland and Antartica begin to slide into the Ocean at accelerating rates. You know, like snails on steroids.

That Ice Shelves the size of France are quickly breaking up, after having existed for nearly as far back as we can detect...is somewhat concerning, wouldn't you think? (ref Wilkins shelf, fears of the Ross shelf breaking up). Especially in that they hold the ground based sheets back and out of the water. And warming now has rivers pouring through the glaciers, melting them from top and bottom and inbetween, and lubricating their slide.


I can see that like much of the right, you throw up your hands, declare the opposition wrong...or the last ditch is "nothing can be done". I too tire of it, but for this context and environment, I prefer to persue the truth.

Not that this counts coming from a politician, but I had to like it anyway:

"I think there are people that just don't believe in fixing and working on the environment. They don't believe there is such a thing as global warming. They're still living in the Stone Age." -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, responding Tuesday to a "Good Morning America" question about Sarah Palin's position on global warming

-------
About the solar theory (apparently there are a number of cases where scientists have disproved the solar radation theory):

From Wikipedia: Cosmic rays and their role in climate change:

A recent study concluded that the influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover is about a factor of 100 lower than needed to explain the observed changes in clouds or to be a significant contributor to present-day climate change.[48]

^ Pierce, J.R. and P.J. Adams (2009). "Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?". Geophysical Research Letters 36: L09820. doi:10.1029/2009GL037946

"according [to] a BBC report a 2008 Lancaster University study produced "further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity".

Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
Key quote: "Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

-----
Don't call me a fool and this will be the last of this from me!

[mbowman63]

We have definitely hit rock bottom - quotes from wikipedia? Really?

The GREATEST problem our planet faces is population growth. Look at the two most populace countries on the planet - China and India. Where is pollution (in all forms) the greatest problem? Where are natural resources taken at rates that do not allow sustainability? Where is lack of clean, fresh water a chronic concern? Where is consumption of energy growing at the fastest rates? These issues have taken a back seat to the great debate in which we are engaged in this forum.

Climate Change is a diversion on behalf of developed countries to attempt to keep lesser developed countries from becoming self reliant. This racist movement continues to cost lives throughout many nations. Most nations on the continent of Africa lack the ability to produce sufficient electricity to build the necessary infrastructure to bolster their economies and move into the 21st century.

Coal is abundant throughout most of Africa, yet these predominantly black nations are told they should not build coal fired plants due to emissions. Monetary support is withheld by developed countries because the lesser developed nations do not want to play by OUR rules. What are they supposed to do? Most burn dung, destroy forests, or simply do without. Want a reality check? Google mortality rates for Niger, Chad, Sudan or Ethiopia. Check out mortality rates (infant and adult). Then check birth rates for these same countries. You will see that both of theses measures are among the highest on the planet. The correlation between birth rates and development of infrastructure are joined at the hip. That is, the more developed a country becomes, the lower the birth rate. Check any of the dozens of sources and you will quickly see what is already known. The way to keep the black masses in line is to keep them dependent upon wealthier nations. All of Western, Far East and Middle Eastern Society is guilty. It is racist, immoral and ultimately responsible for thousands of deaths.

Take a few moments to listen to all of the banter at Copenhagen - it doesn't sound like even those on the "same side" can agree what course to pursue. Why is that? Because as with most things in this world it all comes down to $$$$$. And which countries have the most to give? The Western, Far East and Middle Eastern nations. What are the lesser developed countries asking for at this conference? More money and fewer restrictions so they can begin to lift themselves up. What are they told? Sorry, your survival and that of your children is not a priority.

PLEASE wake up and realize the entire Climate Change issue is a racist ruse designed maintain and increase the power of those at the top. Everyone else is expendable for the "sake of the planet."

[stevekaden]

mbowman, I would have hoped the references on Wikipedia were legitimate and valid. I guess I have to dig deeper.

I agree with everything else you say, till the very end. I am not thought out on the sociological aspects as much as you are, but I suggest that while there is everything you say, there is also a Global Warming issue.

It would be nice if the world could find a way to balance economics with humanity, but given we have no intention of doing that for our (American) selves, I doubt we can achive that externally.

The concept of suggesting birth control worldwide certainly garners hysteria at a biblical level, but I have heard it said that simply as women become more empowered, and given access to family planning support, the birth rate falls dramatically.

So in essense, the population bomb issue might just be fundamentalist power plays against women.

[ragnars]

I feel that this whole thread is pursuing the wrong premise. I do believe that global warming is real. as to what of it is directly attributable to human activity, I think the jury is still out. That global warming could bring vast changes to climate and the environment is beyond dispute. But that we should fight it or somehow stop it is preposterous. geologival and human history should and will proceed on its inevitable course, regardless of what influences it. If it means the eventual extinction of the human population, like the dinosaurs, so be it.

Do not get me wrong, I have children and grandchildren for whom I wish the best. But fighting their ultimate destiny is both futile and useless. What will be, will be, enjoy the present. We individually have been granted a limited time on this earth and likewise the human race has a limited existance. Let us use it to the fullest.

If this sounds hedonistic and selfish, so be it, that is how we all have been created. And those that say that they are better and nobler, and less selfish are only deluding themselves. I for one watch the selfrightous fools in Copenhagen with an amused detachment. I will have no nostalgia if my present way of life changes due to global warming even in my lifetime. I came from war and poverty in Europe to this selfindulgent country, and I can go back to poverty and starvation, if that is the destiny that is for me and eventually the human race as well. I am not going to be scared into foolish actions that are to my detriment, especially if such actions may have no or only minimal effect on the problems thay intend to tackle.

[stevekaden]

reginars....you sound like the typically hypnotized rightwinger. In the face of challenge that might bother the money interests, roll over and claim it is all just futile. I hear this constantly from the right people I talk to, as soon as their argument falls apart, it always falls to "it's futile, so why bother".

I do not think we will turn manmade global warming around to a sufficient degree, but that does not mean there are not other win-win decisions and actions that can be made. A big part of the whine of it will be expensive - flys right in the face of the fact we need jobs. An economy is the flow of money, not just the possession of it. And if population control is too hard to deal with, then we need jobs, and lots of them - else sooner or later we will see some form of revolution, or societal breakdown.

As for the jury being out. Try actually reading source and not story. You are being lied to by professionals, all day, every day. As their backers think feudalism and castlations are the only way to live a full and completely life. As in all science there is debate, but virtually no one who is really in the trenches of peer reviewed research is denying man-made global warming.

I wonder if you have told your children and grandchildren what you have told us? And how did it sit?

[Roger Halstead]

A local Chemical company (Dow) had a press release a couple weeks back, that said they have reduced emissions by 20% and increased profits, so apparently it wasn't too expensive for them. What each of us does may be little, but taken together we can change the course of rivers and move mountains. If we have the power screw up the climate, it stands to reason we should also have the power to fix it. <:-))

Those "always on" TV and Computer switching supplies may only draw 10 or 15 watts each, but between TVs and Computers we draw well over a hundred watts here. Each CFL saves us about 50 watts per hour. So between those power supplies and CFLs we save over 200 watts per hour, or 2.4 KWh per day. Now that's only about 30 cents a day, but it's 72 KWh and about $7.00 a month. When you start adding homes the total builds to some pretty big numbers that are good for the planet and good for us in saving money.