Environmental Issues

[Iceberg]

Solar activity has little to do with the current increase in temperature. The current rate of increase has been in effect since the late 1970s and it has been consistent, though it is beginning to accelerate now. This would completely reject the notion that sunspots are the cause of this current warming, because the cycle is 11 years. There has not been a decrease in temperature which would reflect sunspot activity ebbs-and-flows.

As for Texan's point, we are a lot warmer today than the MWP. You are looking at the wrong data, that of McIntyre and McKitrick, which could not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you looked at a credible record of climate like the "Hockey-Stick" study of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, you would see that the temperature today is about 1-2 F warmer than that of the MWP. This may not sound like much, but the temperatures during the last ice age (about 15,000 years ago) were only a few degrees cooler than they are today. Look what that did. It covered half of North America in ice on a year-round basis.

 

[t3sqr]

Ice,
Did I just hear you say

Solar activity has little to do with the current increase in temperature.

Yup, I guess I did. Man....... Do you really believe this????

 

[Iceberg]

Yes, I do, as well as the vast majority of climate scientists. Check out http://www.realclimate.org and search for their threads on solar activity. They will set you straight.

 

[mindido]

Yup, we can really trust what the Bush admin. is saying about climate change. It turns out that,

"NASA's top climate scientist said the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture in December calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, The New York Times said on Saturday."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060128/sc_nm/environment_nasa_dc

 

[Iceberg]

"Clinton: Climate change is the world's biggest worry":

By DAN PERRY
Associated Press Writer

January 28, 2006, 2:00 PM EST

DAVOS, Switzerland -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told corporate chieftains and political bigwigs Saturday that climate change was the world's biggest problem _ followed by global inequality and the "apparently irreconcilable" religious and cultural differences behind terrorism.

(continued...)

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/w...,2658428,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

 

[Preferred User]

"NASA's top climate scientist said the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture in December calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases..."

From this morning's NY Times:

"The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone."

 

[Iceberg]

The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

Yep. Censorship at its best (or worst).

The current administration is trying to prevent the truth from coming out, because they're worried their primary funding source, the fossil fuel industry, will lose money, which will decrease their potential campaign contributions.

In the words of the great Ross Gelbspan, the current administration is disguising corruption as conservatism.

 

[Iceberg]

"Canada has Warmest January in over a Century":

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...8/warm_weather_060128/20060128?hub=TopStories

 

[t3sqr]

Run Chicken Little...THE SKY IS FALLING.....THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

 

[mindido]

t3sqr,

My, we are displaying some real intelligence there. Great contribution to the discussion!

 

[Iceberg]

"Bush Wonders, What Has The Polar Bear Ever Done For Him?":

By D.L. McCracken
Nov 4, 2005, 12:26

At a time when 58% of Americans believe that President George W. Bush lacks integrity, one would think that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would be bending over backwards to prove to his fellow citizens that 'integrity' is really his middle name. Not so however with this president who still has three more years to spread havoc throughout the world in his perpetual and oftentimes maniacal quest for world domination in the form of the liquid gold that he believes will bring his country to nirvana. The man who once stood tall and proudly declared himself to be the "war president" can now add another title to his ever-growing list of fait accomplis - the "plundering president".

(continued...)

http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publish/wonders_041105_0016.shtml

 

[mindido]

A new report on global warming has been released by the UK government:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm

A few quotes:

"The report, published by the UK government, says there is only a small chance of greenhouse gas emissions being kept below "dangerous" levels."

" In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable.""

"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."

"It concludes that the biggest obstacles to the take up of technologies such as renewable sources of energy and "clean coal" lie in vested interests, cultural barriers to change and simple lack of awareness."

 

[t3sqr]

Mindido, in your post,

"It concludes that the biggest obstacles to the take up of technologies such as renewable sources of energy and "clean coal" lie in vested interests, cultural barriers to change and simple lack of awareness."

I guess I don't quite understand the phrase "take up", but the US and Canada are ready to run with a number of renewable sources of energy but the real problem is not cultural or lack of awareness, it's cost. Right now there are numerous technologies to use to replace the evil Black Gold. The problem is that it costs more energy to produce these alternatives than they give back. Ethanol and Biomass are renewable sources which North America can produce to remove about 40% dependency of the black stuff. But it takes 150%more energy to produce than you get out if it. The same type of thing is true with Wind and Solar, 10% to 20% efficency does not make it worth anyones investment for the return.
What it is going to take is for the leadership in (at least) this country, and I don't care what flavor your politics are, the President, Congress and the State Department need to collectively decide to end the dependency on foreign oil. If the push to be able stand on our own for energy, the way we pushed during the 60's "Space Race" we could be energy independent in 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately, it will require the whole country to get pissed off enough to make it a mandate to the goverment. That kind of reaction usually only comes after a 9/11 type of disaster, and nobody wants that again. The only sure way to get to this level independency is to proceed ahead to increase efficency in current technologies The Kyoto Protocal would greatly hamper the production of new processes to develop more efficent energy and less pollution. But you can't turn off the switch and then wonder why you stubbed your toe in the dark. Patience, is actually productive.

 

[mindido]

I guess I don't quite understand the phrase "take up"

I would agree that the term "take up" is not the best term that should have been used here, I would have used "adoption". But I didn't write the article (maybe its a British thing).

but the real problem is not cultural or lack of awareness, it's cost.

That argument is primarily only valid in the Western world. China, for one, doesn't really care about cost. They're more interested in making sure they have more than enough for their needs. Cost, in their viewpoint, is much different than in ours.

Right now there are numerous technologies to use to replace the evil Black Gold.

First off, I've never termed oil itself as "evil", it isn't. But our continued reliance on oil (especially from foreign sources) WILL effect us, shortly, in ways that none of us want (just take a look at what is happening in Iran right now if you are doubtful). If cooler heads don't prevail there soon, oil could skyrocket in price. Is there any doubt of that?

The problem is that it costs more energy to produce these alternatives than they give back. Ethanol and Biomass are renewable sources which North America can produce to remove about 40% dependency of the black stuff. But it takes 150%more energy to produce than you get out if it. The same type of thing is true with Wind and Solar, 10% to 20% efficency does not make it worth anyones investment for the return.

I'm not sure that your statistics are quite accurate but lets say they are. You are correct in that these energy sources have not been as cheap as oil and coal (as long as you don't include the external costs). But we are now seeing, because of scientists around the world in many different fields, that these costs are there (global warming).

We are also seeing that our continued reliance on foreign oil significantly contributes to international tensions and eventual war. Don't believe me? Just imagine if we no longer used oil like we do now. Just imagine if we sipped it instead of gulping it. Would we really care what happens in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the region?

What it is going to take is for the leadership in (at least) this country, and I don't care what flavor your politics are, the President, Congress and the State Department need to collectively decide to end the dependency on foreign oil.

If history is a good prognosticator, and it usually is, it will take a severe crisis for our leadership to finally learn. Although it certainly won't be this administration (two old oil men aren't about to do anything more than make cosmetic changes). And I do mean a SEVERE crisis. We've already gone through crises' in the early 70's and 80's and didn't learn a thing.

If the push to be able stand on our own for energy, the way we pushed during the 60's "Space Race" we could be energy independent in 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately, it will require the whole country to get pissed off enough to make it a mandate to the goverment. That kind of reaction usually only comes after a 9/11 type of disaster, and nobody wants that again.

I agree. And I would suggest that you keep a close eye on the situation in Iran. It has the potential of being that "severe crisis".

The only sure way to get to this level independency is to proceed ahead to increase efficency in current technologies The Kyoto Protocal would greatly hamper the production of new processes to develop more efficent energy and less pollution.

Increasing efficiencies is a necessity, we should have been doing that since the early 70's. But, getting back to the original quote "but the real problem is not cultural or lack of awareness", we do have a problem with two major industries (oil and the auto industry) that don't want the status quo to change. Oil simply because they don't want us to sip, they want us to guzzle for as long as possible. The auto industry (especially the American manufacturers) are just lazy, they don't want to spend anything more for engineering than they have to. Which could be another reason they're doing so poorly.

But you can't turn off the switch and then wonder why you stubbed your toe in the dark. Patience, is actually productive.

The problem with patience in this argument is that we may be very close to what the article referred to as a "tipping point". Nobody knows for sure where that point is, but we do know that, if we go passed it, we may not be able to recover.

 

[cableguy]

iceberg, as the epa is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution, its very existance as a federal organization is illegal... add to that the regulations, restrictions, and confiscations of PRIVATE PROPERTY, which are clearly unconstitutional, and you have an illegal government organization... sadly, most of our federal government falls under this category...

again, you have taken the point that anything whatsoever that is the slightest bit unusual is proof of global warming... logic tells me that contradictory events cannot both be used as proof of one outcome... i do believe in climate change, however, but not that we can do anything to affect, accellerate, or prevent it...

whoa!!! my views "must be suppressed"??? what the hell are you talking here?? whereas i would apply every single thing you said in that post right back to you and the "the sky is falling" people, i will NEVER tell you that your view should be suppressed, no matter how misguided... folks, i think we may have found something here... first speech, perhaps books will be next?? perhaps armbands to follow, and maybe even ovens after that... be very careful if you go down this road, ice... it is VERY slippery...

i found it very interesting that you complain about your side being "censored," while you call for the censorship of the opposition... is a contrarian viewpoint such a bad thing that it cannot be allowed to exist?? that there is such a lively debate on this, that the world didnt freeze 40 years ago, and that the oceans arent boiling now, are all wonderful reasons to continue studying this interesting phenomenon... reacting to something we really dont know much about would be wrong... change your personal life if you want, but leave mine to me...

IF there is ever irrefutable proof that we are causing climate change, i would then be open to discussion on what changes to make, if any, but only after the change was studied... most everything i have heard is that a little global warming (everything discussed in this thread would be classified as "little") would be largely beneficial to humanity... what would be the effects of an equal degree change on the cold side?? consider that before yipping about people on zero elevation islands... you might consider what caused the last global warming cycle, too, because people werent in any way to blame for that one...

President Clinton "I cannot tell the truth."

 

[t3sqr]

Cable,

Thank you!

 

[cableguy]

you are most welcome...

i almost forgot the main reason i logged in today... from this year forward, tornados can not be accurately compared to past years... the scale for severity has changed rather dramatically, which will lead to more "severe" tornados than in the past... here are the changes...

classification new wind speed old wind speed
F-0 65-85 mph 40-72 mph
F-1 86-110 mph 73-112 mph
F-2 111-135 mph 113-157 mph
F-3 136-165 mph 158-206 mph
F-4 166-200 mph 207-260 mph
F-5 201+ mph 261+ mph

this means that anything F-3 or higher will probably have had a lower f scale rating using the old system... there will be more f-3, f-4, and f-5 tornados this year, but not because of anything other than the new rating system...

 

[Preferred User]

as the epa is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution, its very existance as a federal organization is illegal...

Cable....so the obvious question is....outside of the legislative, judicial and executive branch, is any Federal Agency listed in the Con...and if not does that mean they are all illegal? Is the Defense Department illegal? Treasury? State Department? Is every cabinet official breaking the law? Is every law passed by Congress invalid because it's not mentioned in the Con? That's how it works?

 

[cableguy]

actually, you are asking the wrong question... the legislative branch consists of the senate and house of representatives, and the judicial branch is the federal court system (sadly, also grossly perverted in its present form)... the executive branch is where most of the problems are, with the blessings of the legislative and judicial branches..

agencies are, to the last one, part of the executive branch.. the defense department (formerly war department), treasury, and state department are all specifically noted in the Constitution... the departments of education, housing and urban development, agriculture, commerce, labor, and energy are all either misplaced or functions the federal government has no business in... the Constitution tells us that the powers of the federal government are few and well defined, and that powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the states...

the military is a valid part of the executive branch, and should include all foreign intelligence gathering organizations.. the departments of homeland security and veterans affairs.. the state department should be the single body that deals with all nonmilitary matters involving foreign nations.. the treasury is in charge of currency, managing money for the government, collecting taxes, duties, and other funds, and running the postal system.. the justice department is for federal law enforcement--it too, is legit..

there are valid arguments for a department to handle all non-law enforcement functions within the nation.. infrastructure is certainly a public good.. federal land, including monuments and landmarks, must be managed.. the departments of interior, commerce, energy, and transportation should be rolled into one, far leaner, department...

we are left with the departments of housing and urban development, health and human services, and education.. these should be eliminated entirely... the epa also gets a chair at cabinet meetings, and at this table of illegitimacy as well, and should be eliminated.. there is one possible exception to the above list, and that would be health... in this day and age, i believe that the ability to fight off an epidemic is necissary, and because of what that might entail, should be a federal function... there should never be any department so perverted as to lable itself "human services," though.

thats just the cabinet... there are, sadly, many, many more agencies and organizations out there that cause more harm than good.. here is the true test--does an agency serve each and every American?? if the answer is no, it is unconstitutional, and must be eliminated..

the US Constitution is an amazingly short and concise document, and has the added bonus of being widely available for not much money.. the copy i keep on my computer desk cost me about 3 bucks, and contains the Constitution, the Amendments, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence.. there are many other writings from the time of this nations founding, which make crystal clear the meaning of most, if not all nonexact wording.. the federalist papers, and the antifederalist are chief among them.. for example, you will find that "general welfare" has nothing to do whatsoever with transfer payments.. in fact, transfer payments are repeatedly attacked by our founders..

take a couple hours and read the Constitution and some other founding documents, and if you have more time, read more.. if nothing else, you will gain a better understanding of hsitory and the intended government this nation was given, and the perversion it has become...

 

[Preferred User]

the military is a valid part of the executive branch, and should include all foreign intelligence gathering organizations.. the departments of homeland security and veterans affairs..

If religion has taught us anything, it’s that you can start with a position and go to a document (Bible, Talmud, Quoran) and find evidence for that position. When you want to sweep away all sorts of Fed agencies just because they aren’t mentioned in the Con, but then talk of Homeland Security as “a valid part of the executive branch”, it has that feel to it. You set up this Bible/Constitution, then pick what you want to see in it.

I’m not saying we should ignore the Constitution. But if you have an idea how government should work, I’d rather talk about the pros and cons without going back to some document and looking for evidence. Because if I know one thing for sure, whatever you believe about America, you will find some sentence, some quote from a founding father, that will endorse your idea. Just as all religious zealots can find some sentence from “the truth” to support whatever they want to believe.