Global Warming Debate

[sailaway21]

and mind you, we're doing all of this not because energy is currently so expensive but for a problem that likely doesn't exist! (there, back on topic!)

[camaraderie]

Speaking of on topic... there's a nice article today from a guy in Australia detailing how ALL of the rise in the USA surface temperature since 1900 is due to the adjustments that have been made to the actual temperatures recorded rather than the data itself... making one wonder about the agenda at work within Mr. Hansens fiefdom.
The article is not peer reviewed science but relies entirely on data on the NASA/GISS website so it appears to be quite credible. Mr. Hammer is a spectroscopic engineer and has written on warming before from that discipline's perspective. Here's the article:

Jennifer Marohasy » How the US Temperature Record is Adjusted

[poopdeckpappy]

Osmond, google ocean co2 sequestration, they say that if you were to take all co2 that's in atmosphere and injected it in the worlds oceans, the co2 levels in the worlds ocean would rise < 2%,

So, with that in mind the DOCS (Department of Energy's Center for Research on Ocean Carbon Sequestration) has been doing studies for some time on off Hawaii, their idea is to capture CO2 then pump liquefied carbon dioxide directly from shore stations or from tankers trailing long pipes at sea.

CO2 is denser in deep ocean than sea water is and it may be possible to store it on the bottom as liquid or deposits of icy hydrates; Now heres the fun part, we have paid some dillweed from Berkley millions to studythe possiblity of what nature does naturally............go figure

[ssneade]

Co2 a pollutant? someone please explain this to me. if Co2 is a pollutant, then are we and almost every living thing that doesn't rely on photosynthesis to sustain life polluting the atmosphere? c'mon ya gotta have a better reason than that if you would have my government rob me at gun point. and how in the hell is automobile Co2 different than the Co2 we exhale? socialists: find a country that is weak enough to buy into this nonsense and use your strong arm tactics there . i'm not buyin' it ......

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

Osmond, google ocean co2 sequestration, they say that if you were to take all co2 that's in atmosphere and injected it in the worlds oceans, the co2 levels in the worlds ocean would rise < 2%

Quite so, but this is the problem with stats. Only about 0.1% reaches the seafloor to be buried in the sediments. It is the other 99,9% that concern us because it affects the top layer where our food resources live.

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by ssneade

Co2 a pollutant? someone please explain this to me. if Co2 is a pollutant, then are we and almost every living thing that doesn't rely on photosynthesis to sustain life polluting the atmosphere?

Ssneade, we are engineered to breathe CO2 out - get it? Mammals expel it by breathing, farting, burping, any means to get it out of the body. Tell you something? And yes, "every living thing" is polluting in that sense, but it's only bad when the balance is disturbed. Hence population levels, cattle farming, cars, all these things need to keep within limits.

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Last month was a particularly heavy month for US consumption of Norwegian crude oil. We imported just over 12,000 tons of Norwegian crude.

I was being facetious. 86% goes to EU; we export 2,5 million barrels per day. My point was that US imports – some 14 mill bbl/day – and every country producing that oil pays a penalty in terms of Kyoto/ CO2 levels.

Sailaway, you truly misread me. I am almost certainly a firmer believer in the market than you. A pure, hard-core market economist if you like; almost everything we do is market-driven, and it matters not one hoot what governments claim to be driven by. The old communist bloc was a captive of the market as much as anyone else, and they got it wrong. Getting the market wrong is part of the whole cycle, agree?

The difference lies in ability to recognize market forces. When an input is artificially underpriced or overpriced it distorts market behaviour. You point to one such effect with your “Government choosing arbitrary mandates has always produced a loss of productivity greater than any monies saved.”
But then you continue

“The unwillingness of the US government to do what is real and achievable in today's terms to reduce our dependence on foreign, especially petroleum based, energy is unconscionable.”

Precisely, and why hasn’t the government acted before? Because it had willing suppliers at good prices, a cartel to boot, famous for its inability to drive a bargain, putty in US hands. The government followed market logic – why develop when there was no need? Shortsighted but plausible accounting.

The problem is that we’re not dealing in fruit stalls. The lead times for developing energy resources and adapting an economy are long, and a blindfolded pursuit of the cheapest solution today can leave you high and dry by the time you realise times have changed.

If there were no explosive growth and consumption in China, the issue of fuel supplies may have crept up on us unnoticed. The trouble isn’t that global scale issues lack market mechanisms, but that the horizon is too long for politicians who deal in 4-year horizons. It is also too long for individuals who look at the gas pump price. It is also too long for companies and share traders who cowtow to quarterly P/L statements. Quarterly reporting is a massive impediment to free market behaviour: executives on a short leash optimise short-term profit for bonus and tenure, in companies that ought to have 5-10 year horizons.

The market punishes them eventually, but they have been so naively preoccupied with yesterday’s price that they didn’t see it coming.

American cars today are vastly more efficient than 10 and 20 years ago, but did the market drive the manufacturers or were they dragged screaming by the hair? Governments turned the screw slowly, from leaded to unleaded, with new emission controls and so forth, and we’re better off for it.

You believe less in markets than you make out. “The unwillingness of the US government” - Say what? Wasn’t this the kind of thing the free market solves perfectly? Why would a government need to be involved? Perhaps you really meant that there should be no constraints, i.e. governments should not have pollution restraints, wildlife or environmental concerns, social goals. Well they do, and this too forms part of the framework within which markets form – it doesn’t make the market less “free.” Visit the ship graveyards on Indian beaches where apparently no human or environmental right needs to be observed, and then explain how sweetly an unfettered market serves us.

We have every reason to be concerned with the environment, because there are no potent mechanisms in the market to keep us from destroying it. In a perfect world, rational choice would drive us to nurture it for pure economic reasons, but when no economic entity has that horizon, it needs help. The market is perfectly capable of reaching balance, the issue is how much devastation we have to suffer while waiting.

You’re wrong about those girls, but only because you’re so eager to make a point. It is summer, the one time when the girls are in Oslofjord and not in Spain. And they are hot when topless!

[ssneade]

so we are to eat only things that produce oxygen? if the u.s. didn't have to feed the whole world and supply it with with quality goods, we probably wouldn't be producing anywhere near as much of this so called pollutant Co2 that all plant life needs to sustain life. if i didn't have to worry about having to give my hard earned money to third world countries, so the can raise the level of their pollution, i'd probably breathe a little easier, and in so doing, producing less Co2. do me a favor; leave us alone......

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by ssneade

so we are to eat only things that produce oxygen? if the u.s. didn't have to feed the whole world and supply it with with quality goods, we probably wouldn't be producing anywhere near as much of this so called pollutant Co2 that all plant life needs to sustain life. if i didn't have to worry about having to give my hard earned money to third world countries, so the can raise the level of their pollution, i'd probably breathe a little easier, and in so doing, producing less Co2. do me a favor; leave us alone......

Ssneade, if you could point to any part of your statement being factual, it would be worth responding. Get real.

[ssneade]

This “green” crap is really getting on my nerves. I have read more info on this nonsense than many people. Everything I read from the warmers basically comes down to their belief CO2 is the driver of this warming. It’s all about the CO2. Let’s not even get to the folly of someone declaring a vital element that provides life to plants and animals as a pollutant. Nor let’s not even bring up the fact that the “hockey stick” (which I would love to use over Gore’s head) has been discredited and that CO2 actually increases many years AFTER temperatures have already increased (so much for CO2 driving temps.) It all comes down to this. NOTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO KNOW - A SIMPLE MATH QUIZ for you: Of the greenhouse gas emissions (GGE): - 95% of the GGE comes water vapor of which nearly ALL is NATURAL, i.e. we have no impact on. - 1.5% comes from methane and other gases - the remaining 3.5% comes from that evil CO2. That alone gives you perspective on CO2 impact. But, let’s look a little deeper, of this CO2, 97% of the CO2 is NATURAL!!! I repeat, 97% of the CO2 is natural and we have no control over. That leaves a whopping 3% of CO2 that man has an impact on. In other words, manmade CO2 represents 3% of 3.5%, or for the govt educated out there – a whopping 0.105% of greenhouse gas emissions. QUIZ: How does 0.105% of anything have an impact, you mindless warming twits? Hell, if everyone’s goal was to increase their carbon footprint tenfold, it would still be a trace component. To top it off, this all assumes that CO2 is even a pollutant!
By Club-a-Liberal
that's real!