Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

Val...
I guess I wasn't very clear. I am against POLLUTION that hurts our health and support responsible measures to eliminate it. I do not view CO2 as pollution...coal dust yes...sulfuric acid sure!

The global warming arguments are based on CO2...but the sub-agenda is to get rid of evil coal plants and SUV republican drivers. Sorry...find another argument to make that case.

Wanna build nuke plants instead of coal? I'm all for it. Wanna cut off my air conditioner instead?? I'll take advantage of my second amendment rights when they come for it!! (G)

Did not see the NOVA special. What was interesting?

[Valiente]

CO2 rises are part and parcel of burning carbon fuels, like coal and gas. Even ethanol isn't exempt.

The global warming arguments are based partly on CO2 rises, but "greenhouse gases", which have been understood for nearly 200 years now, include methane, nitrous oxide, certain hydrofluorocarbons and plain old water vapour plus CO2. The gas has to able to capture re-radiated solar energy from the Earth, which is a function of wavelength meeting an intrinsic aspect of the molecules in question, just like an "R" value in insulation.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no objection to nuke plants (Toronto is run on two of them, plus Niagara Falls, plus coal plants in peak summer A/C season...and you can smell that), but we need better designs and far better confinement or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels.

Yes, it was fairly basic stuff, but it's interesting to see how political will can earn the backing of the people in order to "change the paradigm", even with an essentially partial solution like solar.

Here's Part 1 of the doc: YouTube - Saved By The Sun Nova
It's already on YouTube in five parts. Just use "NOVA: Saved by the Sun" in the search box.

Obviously, I watched it to see where panel technology was going, as I intend to buy my panels as late in the outfitting process as possible to lock in technical advances and price discounts due to volume wherever possible.

[Dewey Benson]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Mr. Benson would apparently have us believe that the global climate change debate is all about politics. And I would agree with him. The last thing he really wants to talk about is the science behind global warming, or lack thereof.

Quite correct Sir! I dont want to talk about "the science behind global warming" Garnering the billion items from various spots around the net to see what the current consensus is would take more time than I currently have.

My interest in posting was to remind folks that science should not be politisized. Science is about method and concensus from various scientific disiplines.

The Ann coulter thingy (now There's a scientific comment!). Was a gentle cajolment to not utilise the "Can you say" followed by irrevelent possible libels to obfuscate and mislead. This comment could just as well have said Karl Rove and could be prefaced by "some say" as well.

You can have no idea of what my personal opinions are in reguard to this matter other that what I have said. And I have taken no position on the debate whatsoever that I have posted.

Try not to assume.

Dewey

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[Dewey Benson]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

As for the coal issue raised in a post that followed my latest "book" on this thread: I'm with Cam, on this 101%.

I see no reason to go looking for other sources of energy when a cheap one is available, and there's no proof that using it in modern powerplants is a danger.

Further, I remind those reading this that known US coal reserves hold 10 times more BTUs than all known oil reserves combined.

This obsession with ending coal use isn't about pollution. It's about not mining Gaia.

Some time ago as a VP for a fossil fuels corporation who's interests were primarily oil and gas drilling and coal mining, I had first hand knowledge of the problematic nature of the effects on the environment.

Coal is good stuff, and I remember vivdly making many times more money on a one foot seam of hard blue (almost a no sulpher low sulpher) in Georgia, as opposed to eight foot seams of soft coal we mined in Ohio. Both areas produced significant tailings that require expensive work to alleviate it's damage to the environment. Processes are also available to alieviate the sulpher emmissions when energy is produced. This will somewhat offset the perception of "cheep'. It is certainly possible, and economicly feasable (as energy prices rise even more so).

With current tech able to allieviate the bad environmental effects, we need to make sure that controls are in place to keep corporations from taking to many liberties in order to boost short term gains. These controls MUST be written sensibly and with serious forthought. Lobbying effects from both corporations and radical environment movements must be minimalised.

I recall in the 80's an EPA edict that limited the discharge of copper into the waterways. Great idea! However the amounts stipulated were so low it would be illegal to discharge tap water from our drinking supply into San Diego Bay. Not only is this stupid, it is counterproductive.

We need to act sensibly, without polarising retoric to alliviate our environmental problems.

Dewey

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[Dewey Benson]

it would seem.... you sir have missed the point....again.

Hyperbole, is cute and glib and serves no purpose in science.

Laters
Dewey

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Dewey Benson:



In case it wasn't clear:

“Curcial info” referred to your foundless assumption that I consider that Auto Show story as containing a solid, stand-alone argument against GW.

I don't.



Because drive-by shots like yours are criminally boring – to say nothing of completely devoid of merit.



I have made up my mind that there is no argument behind Green positions that seem more interested in legislating than substantiating their claims – GW, especially.

Further, why is that declaring GW unfounded is a problem, and how do you propose to resolve differences without thorough discourse?

BTW: If you are as skeptical on this issue as you imply, that too is a concrete position on this issue. Why then is your locked mindset any better than anyone else's?



But I have – if one uses the proper definition of the term “scientist.”

A 300lbs, 65-year old male with one leg may squeeze into a custom-made tootoo. He may sneak his way onto the Met's stage with Swan Lake's glorious theme playing on his ipod, and start to move about. He may, after a lifetime of espousing a detached from reality mindset, declare himself to be ABT's leading ballerina.

Is he?

He hasn't met the objective criteria of his self-bestowed title, and therefore isn't what he says -- no matter how many definition-equivocators with power cheer him on.

Same goes for the unreasoning lot of minds that dare call themselves scientists these days.

Why would you accept their consensus as valid? Further, what consensus are you referring to?

As an aside: I found self-flatters distasteful. Please don't assume that you're important enough to me for me to try to affect your mind.

All I ask of anyone interested in this pseudo-debate is to look at the arguments presented by the Greens. In doing so I show far more respect towards your mind's autonomy than you do when all you ask for is consensus amongst the brats in todays academia. (The Left talks of separation of Church and State. Crucial no doubt. We, however, need separation of Education and State far more at this point.)

Surrender your Reason, “Sir,” and wave upon wave of controll-freak will rise on the exact terms of your surrender.



Allow me to clarify, since writing carefully/thoroughly doesn't seem to do it for you:

I am saying that GW arguments are categorically, unequivocally unfounded. Further, if it wasn't for the perversion of the US Founding Principles in the 20th Century, these parasites wouldn't even have jobs in academia, much less any power, and this issue would have never reached the mass it currently has.

Clear enough?



Who said otherwise?



Care to define the circumstances where arguing without reasoned argument is valid?

I say when dealing with people with obvious interest in an issue, one explains one's position (that, of course, presumes one has backing for one's view(s).)



Three simple points, then:

1)

There's no proof of out of norm climate warming or fluctuation.

2)

Given the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how much of it is man-made, GW is, at best, a 101-Level hypothesis which, about two or three generations ago, would've disqualified its proponents from ever attending a graduate program of note – much less teach in or run one.

3)

Since you seem so interested in ice core samples in Greenland, look up why Greenland was named Greenland.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz