Global Warming Debate

[tdw]

Where's the Wombat ? Having a read of this thread.

I saw Sheehan's column yesterday. I don't actually think I've ever agreed with anything Sheehan has ever said.

That said I am not going to comment on Pilmer's book until I have seen a bit more information and hopefully had a read.

Me, OK, I believe we are at least partially responsible if only because of size of the impact our ridiculously massive and ever growing population must be having on our poor old planet. This seeming desire by some to simply stick their heads in the sand and pretend is isn't really happening and that loading up the planet with all these billions of people can in some way have no effect on the place.

Its something I do not understand. This obsession we have as a race for producing more effing children. Why ? Why do we seem to want to be huddled together in ever decreasing spaces.

Oh well, there you go. Such it is. Supporting population control is not something that is going to win me any friends that's for sure.

ps - I'd very much like to hear what this fella has to say about Pilmer's book. The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery

[erps]

How come they don't use CO2 between the panes of double paned insulated windows? It would seem that if it can magically heat our planet, it would help keep some heat in our house at night.

[JohnRPollard]

Originally Posted by tdw

ps - I'd very much like to hear what this fella has to say about Pilmer's book. The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery

tdw,

Do you know whether Flannery ever come up with an explanation?

NANCE HAXTON: So what's the first project that you hope to get into once you move to Macquarie University?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, the first thing's a bit esoteric, but what I want to look at is the reasons there's so little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the height of the warm period, this current warm period, as compared with previous warm periods. It's a sort of a technical issue, but it's a very important one, because it'll tell us a lot about what the big inputs are into our atmosphere, and how it responds to increases in carbon dioxide.

NANCE HAXTON: So is this one of the unanswered kind of causes of climate change to some degree?

TIM FLANNERY: I think so. I think it's one of the great unanswered questions, and it will teach us a great deal.

From here: Interview with Flannery

[camaraderie]

Hey fuzzy...I'm with you on curbing the population of Wombats!

[ssneade]

why are the icecaps on mars receding at the same rate as ours? it's easy. it's those pesky martians and their co2 emitting spacecraft. if they only had a breeze in space they could put sails up and kill their flux capacitors. if you truly want something to blame, try the solar activity on the surface of the sun, which in recent years has decreased dramatically. a lot of former global warming scientists are now predicting a cooling trend that coincides with natural weather patterns causing the rise and fall of temperatures. quit trying to scam my country for more of MY hard earned dollars for yet another of your commie plots to control the world.............

[NICHOLSON58]

I hava a chart of mean annual temperatures in 1000-year average over the last 100000 years. It was way colder than it is now with abrupt and large swings for the first 90000 years. 10,000 years ago it warmed up to about exactly the way it is now without any significant swings. You need only to lood at the ice pack in Glacier Bay for the last 200 years to realize that it lost 80% of its ice between 200 and 100 years ago - before industrialization. The short of it is that we have been in a state of global warming for the last 10000 years. If humans had never existed, the glaciers would still be melting. Its not all about us. We just happen to be living through the end of the mass melting.

That said, there are pleanty of very good & valid reasons to conserve our feedstocks that are not based on false science and a myopic view of the world around us. Notice I said "feedstocks". Our petroleum is too valuable as raw material for plastic, clothing, carpet, EPOXY & POLYESTER to use a primary fuel source. This is the reason we should be finding other ways to conserve and to make our vehicles move. I also don't think mining toxic heavy metals and hauling close to a thousand pounds of hazardous materials (batteries) around is a viable long-term solution no matter what our brilliant politicians think.

Think about what would happen to the price of oil if we were driving hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This could be done with individual roof-top solar and wind generation. Your equipment could be making hydrogen all day while you were at work and the transmission losses (the grid) would be zero.

[ssneade]

i think our society has grown much too dependent on personal transportation. but, in order to change that, the whole world would have to go through a transformation unlike never seen before. agreed we need to conserve our fossil fuels, not just for plastics and such, but for the lubrication that makes the gears of progress turn. this nitrogen thing could be an answer. though not a scientist by any means, i did however experiment with a few primitive hydroxy gas generators on an automobile. that stuff is quite volatile and if harnessed correctly, would make an unlimited supply of fuel for the entire earth. there are also other alternatives; wind and solar. nuclear is efficient, but not foolproof............

[craigimass]

I've been in the energy field my whole career - but at the same time I do not buy into the GW hysteria. That is not because I deny it....but because I am somewhat of a realist and practical and I KNOW....
1. That most people will not change their behavior based on what will or may happen 50 years from now
2. That large issues like this are not foremost in the minds of most people....in any way.

Therefore, it makes a poor "reason" for people, countries and business to change their behavior. BUT, the good news is this. The same results (cleaner air, less CO2, etc.) can be achieved by getting consensus around issues which are more clear. Example:
Pollution - people who really look...can see that we cannot continue to raise pollution levels without more consequences....disease (asthma, respiratory, cancer, etc.)
National Security and Independence - The use of homegrown and renewable fuels helps this along
Environment - I think if we took most people on a tour of Appalachia - and showed them the removal of entire tops of mountains, the pollution of streams and the devastation to the economies.....they might get the idea that coal has consequences.

Asking people to do the right thing obviously does not work. But finding common ground and increasing education can help them think for themselves and see that the end goal is really the same. The hunter and the fisherman and the skier and the boater - all want a clean and healthy lifestyle. They all want kids who are not sick, etc. etc.

So, being the optimist, I say the CO will somewhat take care of itself as we progress along the path to the other goals.

Energy? Energy is unlimited. There is no energy problem or energy crisis. There is simply a small lag in our science and engineering which is being fixed as we speak. Someday - far in the future - they will read in the history books about how we fought wars for fuel - and will think it very ironic.

[camaraderie]

The tide of public opinion is really turning now...just in time to fight Cap and Trade.

"
The Public Is Catching On Power Line

In recent months, a key trend in American public opinion has emerged: voters are catching on to the global warming scam. It's hard to say why this is happening; certainly not because news coverage has gotten any more unbiased or scientifically accurate. Nevertheless, somehow the word is getting out: the alarmists are all wet.
Today's Rasmussen survey finds that public opinion is turning decisively against global warming alarmism, with 48 percent now attributing climate changes to "long-term planetary trends," with only 34 percent blaming "human activity." Only a year ago, those numbers were reversed. To be sure, there is plenty of room for more education; 62 percent say that global warming is at least a "somewhat serious" problem. But if it is driven mostly by natural cycles, it would be foolish in the extreme to hobble our economy with a pointless tax on carbon.
Members of the "political class" still buy into the alarmist theory, with 48 percent holding out for the "human activity" option. No surprise there: there is lots of money and power in it for them. But as far as the American people are concerned, the politicians and politicized scientists appear to be losing the argument."

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

The tide of public opinion is really turning now...just in time to fight Cap and Trade.

"
The Public Is Catching On Power Line

One has to wonder when the Carbon Credit lawsuits will come around...Which frankly, was and is still a bigger scam than that Murdock stock market deal...