OT - What do you think of Golbal Warming?

Submitted by briansd1 on October 22, 2009 - 10:39pm
Global warming is of significant concern to me.
44% (23 votes)
Global warming does not bother me. I like the heat.
12% (6 votes)
Global warming has not been scientifically proven. I'm not worried.
29% (15 votes)
Drill baby drill.
15% (8 votes)
Total votes: 52
Submitted by briansd1 on October 22, 2009 - 10:45pm.

Global warming is of concern to me.

I'm not a tree hugger but I drive a small car and try not be be wasteful of resources, such as energy and water.

Submitted by briansd1 on October 22, 2009 - 11:04pm.

Interesting story.

I think that the deniers are wrong. But hey, if people don't want to contribute to solving the problem, then I have no reason to feel guilty about using my air-conditioner.

*

WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.

Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.

In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5692...

Submitted by Eugene on October 23, 2009 - 12:11am.

I'm fully convinced that global warming is real. I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing.

Submitted by Rt.66 on November 20, 2009 - 11:17am.
Submitted by all on November 20, 2009 - 12:08pm.

The Arctic ice cap is thinning and shrinking, for whatever reason:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature...

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 20, 2009 - 3:00pm.

I'm all for Mangos in Minnesota.
Plus, if enough polar ice melts, my Clairemont canyon home will be beach-front.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on November 20, 2009 - 4:24pm.

I am humming Aenima as I read this.

Submitted by OwnerOfCalifornia on November 20, 2009 - 5:01pm.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied: learn to swim.

Submitted by Arraya on November 20, 2009 - 5:08pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
I am humming Aenima as I read this.

Yup...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 20, 2009 - 5:33pm.

Arraya][quote=urbanrealtor wrote:
I am humming Aenima as I read this.

Yup...[/quote

Arraya: As my favorite (thinking/intellectual) conspiracy theorist, what do you think of this:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...

*Note: Delingpole is a righty and it ain't like The Telegraph is The Guardian, so keep that in mind.

However, if true, I'd think this should be big news. Also, note the part about global warming adherents seeking to marginalize their opponents through ostracism and boycott. Interesting stuff. Of course, I also believe most of the hot air in the atmosphere happens to be coming out of Al Gore's mouth...

Submitted by Jim Jones on November 20, 2009 - 7:51pm.

I myself am not sure what is true and what is not but this article regarding stolen emails is just the beginning of a larger effort to level the playing field on public scrutiny of the theory.

I think everyone should repeat that three times "It's only a theory".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

Submitted by mike92104 on November 20, 2009 - 7:59pm.

It's a concern for me, but I don't feel like it's the impending doom some others feel. I do believe we should strive to live cleaner, but there's no reason to bankrupt ourselves to do so. Give it a couple generations for technology to solve the problem rather than trying to move backward through time and all move into huts with no electricity.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 20, 2009 - 8:32pm.

mike92104 wrote:
It's a concern for me, but I don't feel like it's the impending doom some others feel. I do believe we should strive to live cleaner, but there's no reason to bankrupt ourselves to do so. Give it a couple generations for technology to solve the problem rather than trying to move backward through time and all move into huts with no electricity.

Mike: Excellent points. The problem is that any attempt to question the "settled science" (using Katie Couric's words) is treated as heresy or blasphemy.

Skeptics such as Ross McKitrick (who debunked the "hockey stick" theorem of warming) and Bjorn Lomborg ("The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It"), have been treated as near criminals for their temerity.

Moreover, when one considers the costs inherent to the "solutions", versus spending those same dollars on more logical and level headed programs, it becomes painfully apparent that this is a boondoggle of epic proportions. Then you do a little digging into Al Gore's affairs, for instance, and find out he happens to own a company making a fortune off this very boondoggle.

Submitted by mike92104 on November 20, 2009 - 9:00pm.

Who can I sell my carbon credits to anyway? I'm pretty sure I use less than Al Gore.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on November 20, 2009 - 10:04pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
I am humming Aenima as I read this.

Damn I didn't think you hardcore libs could be cool. ... I noticed Maynard was born in the same place I was (Ravenna, OH.)

Funny some of these bands I like are polar opposites of me on the spectrum (SOAD, Rage, etc.). Loves me some Tool.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 20, 2009 - 10:58pm.

CardiffBaseball wrote:
urbanrealtor wrote:
I am humming Aenima as I read this.

Damn I didn't think you hardcore libs could be cool. ... I noticed Maynard was born in the same place I was (Ravenna, OH.)

Funny some of these bands I like are polar opposites of me on the spectrum (SOAD, Rage, etc.). Loves me some Tool.

Cardiff: If you're a RATM (Rage) fan, you probably know about Audioslave. If not, give them a listen.

I saw Zack de la Rocha (former Rage frontman) being interviewed and just about fell out laughing. He's a Noam Chomsky devotee, but his hero worship of 'ol Noam doesn't translate too well in terms of his own politics.

Like most American Leftists, he's incoherent and his rants about corporations (especially whilst pushing his CDs for the corporation that sponsors him) are hilarious, but unintentionally so.

If you want some truly insane metal, listen to All Shall Perish. Good, head banging Bay Area metal.

Submitted by Arraya on November 21, 2009 - 8:13am.

Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya wrote:
urbanrealtor wrote:
I am humming Aenima as I read this.

Yup...[/quote

Arraya: As my favorite (thinking/intellectual) conspiracy theorist, what do you think of this:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...

*Note: Delingpole is a righty and it ain't like The Telegraph is The Guardian, so keep that in mind.

However, if true, I'd think this should be big news. Also, note the part about global warming adherents seeking to marginalize their opponents through ostracism and boycott. Interesting stuff. Of course, I also believe most of the hot air in the atmosphere happens to be coming out of Al Gore's mouth...

Yeah, CC is real and irrelevant, IMO. Those emails don't amount to much. The science itself has been studied for about 5 decades now. Al Gore did not just invent it. My sister is an actual Duke educated environmental scientist, not climatology but ocean. Sure Al Gore and GS are positioned to make billions if cap and trade passes and really it is nothing more than another betting scheme and way to make up tax receipt shortfalls. The thing that always killed me about the CC debate was juxtaposing the IPCC recommendations for carbon decreases with what is going in the fossil fuel world.

Which leads to the real scandal which is what has been reveled at the IEA(international energy administration). Google IEA whistle blower.

Here is the reply from the scientists on the leaked emails. Good write up and commentary.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

Submitted by KSMountain on November 21, 2009 - 1:56pm.

Tangentially-related:

What do the piggs think about Nuclear? Seems in a lot of commercials recently that list our energy options, Nuclearn isn't even listed as an option. It's an unmentionable energy pariah. I think that's unfortunate.

I dunno, seems like a good way to go to me if we're concerned about global warming due to greenhouse gases.

Build 20 really big, really safe, really expensive, quadruple-containment reactors. (I'm talking $20B each, as an example). Generate a boatload of electricity and use that for heating, transportation, whatever can be driven electrically (which seems like a lot).

Heck, even if there were one meltdown per century say (which I doubt), would that be better than the global warming scenarios that are being bandied about?

As far as the generated waste, it seems like we're actually dealing with that ok so far. And we probably could have used Yucca Mountain except it's in Harry Reid's state.

I dunno, aren't the waste products and env damage associated with oil worse than anything that's happened so far with nuclear waste? (e.g. Exxon Valdez, big coal mines, etc).

Submitted by garysears on November 21, 2009 - 2:25pm.

The proponents of global warming and climate change science seem pretty anxious to jump straight to legislation. This leads me to believe the "problem" is mostly a standard political agenda that uses fear to control people.

The debate doesn't seem to be over whether our efforts would best be spent trying to 1) adapt to climate change or 2) prevent it.

This seems to be because man is the assumed culprit.

Whether or not that is true, can anyone show 1) why past climate change on earth has been so extreme or 2) that man caused warming will be as extreme.

Despite our human preference for the status quo and fear and inconvenience caused by change, is it not possible that the earth is a harsh and varying place with or without man?

My vote would be to spend our efforts adapting to change rather than attempting to keep constant our current preferred global climate.

Submitted by EconProf on November 21, 2009 - 6:32pm.

Most measurements of global temperatures peaked in about 1999 and have since leveled off or declined. Al Gore wrote his book at about mid-decade and based it on data from previous years. Maybe that's why he won't debate the subject with those who take a contrary stand. And perhaps that is why there is an effort to hurry up and get cap and trade legislation before more contrary data show up.

Submitted by Eugene on November 21, 2009 - 8:25pm.

EconProf wrote:
Most measurements of global temperatures peaked in about 1999 and have since leveled off or declined. Al Gore wrote his book at about mid-decade and based it on data from previous years. Maybe that's why he won't debate the subject with those who take a contrary stand. And perhaps that is why there is an effort to hurry up and get cap and trade legislation before more contrary data show up.

1999 was an abnormally warm year, a fluctuation. Temperatures are generally below the 1999 peak, but nevertheless most measures of global temperatures show that 2000's are on track to be the warmest decade on record.

There's no doubt that the Antarctic polar cap has been shrinking at a remarkable rate. 2007 was very warm in the Arctic, lowest sea ice minimum on record was observed, and 2008 and 2009 sea ice minima were both well below 1980-2000 averages.

Submitted by EconProf on November 21, 2009 - 8:59pm.

Global water temperatures did indeed peak in 1999, and generally rose sharply through the 1990's. That is why the global alarmists typically use that year as the end-date of their studies.
Yes, this decade will be the warmest decade on record, simply because the runup to 1999 included some early years of lower temperatures. My point is that since the temperature trend is now generally lower for the past decade, shouldn't we be skeptical before we slam our economy with the new burden of cap and trade? China will happily take up the production slack when our costs skyrocket and employment falls.

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 21, 2009 - 9:11pm.

flinger wrote:
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied: learn to swim.

I love Tool too. Did you know Maynard just played here a few weeks ago with some new group called Pucifer or something like that? It's been a few years since I've seen him.

Even if the so called devastating of effects climate change isn't for real, i think it wouldn't hurt to do as much as possible to slow it down. We can do it without hurting companies. Anyways, why should it be okay for a company to pollute? I'm sure many people said acid rain was fake, but rust belt cities benefited from the changes to stop it.

With this bad economy (and no, my pending short sale isn't the reason for it :) ), it seems like a good idea to make as many as "green" jobs as possible. Better than "dirty" jobs, whatever that may be.

Submitted by air_ogi on November 21, 2009 - 10:11pm.

EconProf wrote:
China will happily take up the production slack when our costs skyrocket and employment falls.

Yes, the job migration will occur as it did from EU to US, when EU enacted (much stronger) carbon limits. Honestly, the complete destruction of EU manufacturing is the primary reason for Dollar strength against Euro in the last decade. /s

China industrial rate is around 15c/kwh, which is significantly higher than average industrial rate in US. Are you saying that Chinese will out-compete us on a level playing field?

Submitted by patb on November 21, 2009 - 10:38pm.

Rt.66 wrote:
This is big:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html

denninger is a right wing tool.

Submitted by mike92104 on November 21, 2009 - 11:17pm.

patb wrote:
Rt.66 wrote:
This is big:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html

denninger is a right wing tool.

Did you have any valid arguments to share, or do you just call anybody with a differing opinion a "right wing tool"?

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 22, 2009 - 5:30pm.

New article from the AP wire regarding global warming. Man, I find it hard to argue against the data.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_0...

Submitted by Arraya on November 22, 2009 - 5:58pm.
Submitted by DWCAP on November 22, 2009 - 6:05pm.

I am always suprised that people seem to think that because this is called 'global warming' it only means that temeratures have to go straight up like housing prices from 1998-2005, except never ending. Or that we are going to live some lame hollywood bastardization of the issue like 'day after tomorrow'.

Look, the levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere are rising, and that is undoubadly because humans are releasing large amounts of it that use to be captured below ground. What the effects of this will be is still not fully understood. Globally we are getting warmer than we were, so it is called global warming. Polar ice packs, and most non polar glaciers, are melting at accelerating rates. In a personal anacadote, farms are moving farther and farther north in Minnesota, because they can.

Who knows what the overall repercussions of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be. Shouldnt we try to A) find out, and B) minimize the negative effects? And considering we have no idea what the final effects are, shouldnt we try to slowdown the driver of the changes, increasing levels of CO2?

There, that wasnt so scarry was it?

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 22, 2009 - 6:10pm.

I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don't believe the conservative argument otherwise.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 6:32pm.

SellingMyHome wrote:
I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don't believe the conservative argument otherwise.

Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.

Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called "green" policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you're at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.

Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn't succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.

Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.

Submitted by NotCranky on November 22, 2009 - 6:35pm.

Futbol=Soccer
Golbal=Golf?

Why would anyone heat their golbals?

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 22, 2009 - 6:50pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
SellingMyHome wrote:
I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don't believe the conservative argument otherwise.

Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.

Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called "green" policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you're at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.

Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn't succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.

Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.

Allen, Allen, Allen, calm down now. Are you saying green policies are good or not?

Even Clinton wouldn't sign Kyoto, but it was the feckless idiot conservatives that helped to keep it down. They probably threatened to disclose another one of his affairs!

I'm not happy with the Democrat's answers to this either, but they are just as beholden to big business as the other side.

Friggin China is going to be producing less CO2 sooner than we will. Why? Because even they figured out their long term success depends on it.

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 22, 2009 - 6:55pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies

Bjorn might have some good ideas, but he needs to be better at getting them out:

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results

OUCH.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 8:38pm.

SellingMyHome wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies

Bjorn might have some good ideas, but he needs to be better at getting them out:

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results

OUCH.

Uh, yeah. You might want to include the rest of that citation, but, in true Leftist fashion, you left out the important part:

MSTI review

On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:

* The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed]
* The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
* The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
* The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and ... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[4]

The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[5][6] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
[edit] DCSD response

On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.[5]
[edit] Response of the scientific community

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[7] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[8] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[9] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures (primarily from the medical and natural sciences community) in support of the DCSD and presented their petition to the Danish Research Agency.[8]

The DCSD is a joke, as evidenced by the above. Lomborg has been subjected to numerous similar hit and hatchet jobs, and all for having sufficient integrity to pursue a scientifically centered and informed approach to environmentalism. Can't have that. Just ask Al Gore. Don't question the "settled science" or bad things will happen.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 8:44pm.

SellingMyHome wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
SellingMyHome wrote:
I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don't believe the conservative argument otherwise.

Which conservative argument would that be, exactly? Dear God, more unfathomably witless stupidity and mendacity at work.

Have you spent any time reading up on these so-called "green" policies and what they will cost versus what they will accomplish? While you're at it, check out the number of liberal politicians or center-left politicians throughout the world who oppose not only Kyoto, but the majority of these policies.

Finally, read some Bjorn Lomborg, who remains one of the most rational proponents of intelligent green policies and doesn't succumb to the pressure of feckless idiots like Al Gore, who is simply in this for the money.

Do your homework and get your facts straight before making utterly vapid and wholly unsupported pronouncements.

Allen, Allen, Allen, calm down now. Are you saying green policies are good or not?

Even Clinton wouldn't sign Kyoto, but it was the feckless idiot conservatives that helped to keep it down. They probably threatened to disclose another one of his affairs!

I'm not happy with the Democrat's answers to this either, but they are just as beholden to big business as the other side.

Friggin China is going to be producing less CO2 sooner than we will. Why? Because even they figured out their long term success depends on it.

Clinton not signing Kyoto had nothing to do with fear of being outed for another affair. It had everything to do with listening to wise counsel about the financially ruinous costs inherent to the Protocols, all for negligible gains.

Tell me, what do you think "green" policies entail? You throw a strawman up and imply that somehow I'm against green policies. I'm not. What I'm against are ill thought out, politically motivated, scientifically unsupported money wasters that make people feel good, but fail to accomplish anything of value.

Again, which feckless conservatives helped "keep it (Kyoto) down" again? You also didn't respond to my assertion regarding liberals and center-left politicians opposing Kyoto, either.

As far as China becoming "green", give me a minute. I fell down on the floor after laughing my ass off. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 22, 2009 - 8:48pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Uh, yeah. You might want to include the rest of that citation, but, in true Leftist fashion, you left out the important part:

The DCSD is a joke, as evidenced by the above. Lomborg has been subjected to numerous similar hit and hatchet jobs, and all for having sufficient integrity to pursue a scientifically centered and informed approach to environmentalism. Can't have that. Just ask Al Gore. Don't question the "settled science" or bad things will happen.

I left out the rest, because it went both ways. The DCSD lost the decision to the MSTI, decided not to try it again knowing it would just have the same results. Over 600 scientists supported the DCSD.

I think he has some decent ideas, just got a bad rap due to some questionable acts. Funny though, like Al Gore, he got a lot of publicity, good and bad, all of it helping his cause.

Submitted by SellingMyHome on November 22, 2009 - 8:54pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
As far as China becoming "green", give me a minute. I fell down on the floor after laughing my ass off. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

I've been hearing about their efforts to find alternative energy. They will do it, trust me. If they can save a buck and buy another dollar of our hides, they will do it.

I did admit to the liberal opposition to Kyoto, it's sad.

Submitted by moneymaker on November 22, 2009 - 9:25pm.

I think airplane exhausts at 30,000 feet (you know the kind Al Gore flies around in) are what are causing the ozone to thin. I'm with KUSI' weather man(John Coleman) in denying that global warming exists. And why would that be? Because of something I learned in high school physics class,"black body radiation", the hotter something is the more heat it radiates,i.e. the Earth will maintain equilibrium with it's surroundings,i.e. space. I know there is a lot more to black body radiation as far as peak wavelenths and all that. Rich is there any correlation between the lengths of these topics and unemployment?

Submitted by urbanrealtor on November 22, 2009 - 9:59pm.

SellingMyHome wrote:
I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don't believe the conservative argument otherwise.

I think you raise a good point and I think the vitriolic...
(section discussing Allan's emotional stability deleted)....

Anyway back on the subject matter:
What I find interesting is that many make the argument that global warming is often due to natural processes. I believe this to be true.
However, I don't think this changes anything.
If the temperature rises even a little, it would have a pretty serious impact.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on November 22, 2009 - 10:00pm.

Also:
Learn to swim.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 10:45pm.

SellingMyHome wrote:
I did admit to the liberal opposition to Kyoto, it's sad.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/nov...

Article from the American on the upcoming expiration of Kyoto.

Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 - 0 against and included Barack Obama's vote in opposition. Al Gore was also against it and did not push for amendment or ratification.

One might infer, incorrectly, from your comment above, that liberals, for the most part, supported Kyoto. However, the facts tell a different story.

You declined to answer when I asked you what you thought about green policies (after you implied that I was somehow anti-green) and declined further to opine about the opposition from liberal and center-left governments, especially those in the OECD.

So, could it be that it wasn't the "feckless conservatives" at all? Might it be that, after careful study and reviewing the facts, politicians of all stripes correctly conclude that ill-advised, overly expensive and ultimately pointless pieces of legislation like Kyoto are nothing more than window dressing for hand wringing do-gooders with more emotion than sense?

Of course, it might just be me.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 10:53pm.

SellingMyHome wrote:

I've been hearing about their efforts to find alternative energy. They will do it, trust me. If they can save a buck and buy another dollar of our hides, they will do it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

Guardian article on China as world's worst polluter. As far as the Chinese government's "commitment" to "work" on "improvements", its a joke. If you haven't been to China, go. Visit the industrialized areas and spend a few days. Check out your clothes and hair after leaving and it will absolutely amaze you.

The Chinese government could give a shit about air quality, or safety, or health. Last week's mine explosion is proof of that. If you actually buy in to what the Chinese government is telling you, well...

Submitted by LuckyInOC on November 22, 2009 - 10:57pm.

For sale: Wooden Boat...

Slightly used, only a total of 40 days on water.
Large enough to house several pairs of animals.
May need some repairs due to lack of use.
May need cleaning in cargo holds.

Noah
555-RAIN
Noah@Heaven.org

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 10:58pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
SellingMyHome wrote:
I think the earth would go through global warming on its own, just not at the pace it has in the last 50 years. We should try and slow it down. The long-run economy will be fine with green policies, don't believe the conservative argument otherwise.

I think you raise a good point and I think the vitriolic...
(section discussing Allan's emotional stability deleted)....

Anyway back on the subject matter:
What I find interesting is that many make the argument that global warming is often due to natural processes. I believe this to be true.
However, I don't think this changes anything.
If the temperature rises even a little, it would have a pretty serious impact.

Dan: You're sort of missing the point here, too. Selling's strawman is apparently very effective. I'm not denying climate change, nor am I denying the need for solutions. What I am arguing for are meaningful solutions that deliver results, not clever window dressing designed to enrich the few that are shilling their fix as the one and only answer.

Cui bono?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 11:01pm.

LuckyInOC wrote:
For sale: Wooden Boat...

Slightly used, only a total of 40 days on water.
Large enough to house several pairs of animals.
May need some repairs due to lack of use.
May need cleaning in cargo holds.

Noah
555-RAIN
Noah@Heaven.org

OC: Yeah, but you're gonna have to go to the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey to pick the damn thing up!

Submitted by ucodegen on November 22, 2009 - 11:11pm.

@Allan from Fallbrook
The Chinese government could give a shit about air quality, or safety, or health. Last week's mine explosion is proof of that. If you actually buy in to what the Chinese government is telling you, well...

China has a large solar initiative.. but it is not for 'eco' reasons. It is because recently they went from a net exporter to a net importer of oil. The Chinese realize that being a net importer of oil is equivalent to money dripping out of their pocket.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/B...

a quote:
"Despite the economic slowdown in exports and domestic demand in the past year, China’s demand for energy remains high. China has emerged from being a net oil exporter in the early 1990s to become the world’s third-largest net importer of oil in 2006."

Submitted by urbanrealtor on November 22, 2009 - 11:14pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 - 0 against and included Barack Obama's vote in opposition.

He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?

He truly is magic.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 11:28pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Interesting to note that, unlike your assessment of strong conservative opposition, the Senate vote back in 1997 (Clinton Administration) was 95 - 0 against and included Barack Obama's vote in opposition.

He voted against Kyoto 8 years before he was in the senate?

He truly is magic.

Dan: From the article: The story, at least on the international side, is complicated by our actual history with Kyoto, which is not as simple as some greens would portray it today. Rejection of Kyoto—in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. (Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)

Whoops. I misread that and, as a result, misquoted. See above.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on November 22, 2009 - 11:29pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:

He truly is magic.

Dan: You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, haven't you?