Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 15872 times)

Angus · « **Reply #600 on:** March 14, 2007, 09:54:27 AM »

EagleDNY: you're the man:
"Big Trucks & Big Motors have their place - we've got a big Dodge Ram with the dual back tires setup we use for hauling hay, straw, horse feed, etc. and towing the horse trailer. There are plenty of valid uses for a big truck, and the last thing we need is the Gov't deciding who needs one and who doesn't. The market will do that just fine - if you don't have a legitimate purpose for having a big truck, you get tired of paying $60 for a fill-up pretty quickly.

Frankly, the market is doing just fine switching us to alternate fuels too - you notice that the bottom of that list has 3 E85 (flex fuel) trucks listed (and this is the '04 list).

Transportation is a straight cost per mile calculation - whether it is your commute to work, or the cost to a business to have your goods delivered. Don't worry - when oil gets up and we see $3+ gas as a norm, the cost of alternative fuels like ethanol/E85, and biodiesel become competitive on a cost per mile basis and the raw economics drives the change. Frankly, for our country, a switch to ethanol is a good thing - I'd rather see those dollars going to farmers co-ops & ADM than to OPEC."

Exactly exactly exactly!!!!!
Big machinery and big trucks belong where they are needed, - where they are econamical they will pay up.
Biodiesel is better than fossil diesel.
And there is a good opportunity in manufacturing fuel from the land.
Ooops, conspiracy reveiled, - it's a Farmer's conspiracy

lazs2 · « **Reply #601 on:** March 14, 2007, 02:26:51 PM »

as fuel gets more expensive... alternatives will be found. relax..

Quit trying to force what you think is good for people on em. You may be wrong... in fact.. it is looking more and more like you are completely wrong.. you have been duped.

So why should we pay for your being duped? What good does giving more money to the government.. any government or agency do? The free market will work it all out.

lazs

VERTEX · « **Reply #602 on:** March 14, 2007, 03:19:04 PM »

Gunston

Thanks for posting the link, Micheal Crichton spells it out very nicely.

Possibly one of the best papers I've ever read.

Thanks.

VERTEX · « **Reply #603 on:** March 14, 2007, 03:38:38 PM »

Does anyone remember the Global Cooling advocates from the 70's. The movement never got as big as the current Global Warming Movement, but the arguement was as simplistic.

Increase the particulates in the air, will increase the cloud cover, will decraese the temperature, will cause crop failures, starvation, another ice age etc etc.

What I would like to know is how come the environmentalists say we are screwed either way, warming or cooling.

Oh and watch in 10 years when global warming fails to materialize, and the natural solar cycle drops temperatures, watch the environmental movement switch gears back to global cooling doomsaying.

quintv · « **Reply #604 on:** March 14, 2007, 05:33:19 PM »

I am not convinced that the current climate change (and it is changing, it always is and will) is significantly accelerated or impacted by human industrial developments.

Nor do I believe we should follow a course of wanton and unrestricted pollution (of all sorts, not just emissions).

There is here as there is elsewhere a sensible course of measured action that can be taken to ensure we are good stewards of this planet for the future generations; without going into the hysterical shrieking and panic on one side or the complete and utter indifference of the other.

FastFwd · « **Reply #605 on:** March 14, 2007, 08:07:08 PM »

Yes, quintv - i think that's a good post.

A lot of people seem so polarized in their beliefs. They believe that warming is natural OR is caused by man. Why not both? We can't do anything about a natural warming trend, but we can moderate our own behavior to avoid the problem being a lot worse. Just because we can't do everything does not mean we should not do anything.

As for new fuels, Lazs2 probably has a point - as the world's oil supply becomes depleted, its price will rise. Then, fuels which were once considered too expensive to develop will become economically viable. I would include nuclear power for electricity generation in that category.

It's a pity we still have a few ostriches in this thread who go so far as to denounce scientists and science itself. Science has given us technology to develop cars/planes etc., and science has delivered medical miracles which have given us much longer life expectancy, and drugs to treat medical conditions from which people would have died as little as 30 years ago. Science has given us electricity and therefore TV, the internet etc. And science made it possible to predict, with complete accuracy, events such as the timing of the recent lunar eclipse. Such predictions are made years in advance of the event.

All these developments tell me two things: 1) science isn't rubbish; 2) scientists know what they're talking about.

JB88 · « **Reply #606 on:** March 14, 2007, 08:43:33 PM »

"You also act like we are using up the earths resources... using them up. We have more trees and vegetation than we had a hundred years ago... more coal has been discovered than we thought existed 100 years ago... for all we know... if the democrats were to let us explore... we might find even bigger deposits of oil than are known to exist... what are we "using up"?"

- lasz

lasz doesnt necessarily think this will happen though. at least he didnt a few days ago, as quoted above.

Angus · « **Reply #607 on:** March 15, 2007, 03:39:58 AM »

"Oh and watch in 10 years when global warming fails to materialize, and the natural solar cycle drops temperatures, watch the environmental movement switch gears back to global cooling doomsaying."

It was said 10 years ago, while warming has been materializing for some 25 years now. Of course it must be the sun that causes the warming like Lazs sais, but a short while ago he claimed there wasn't any warming so maybe I'll read my issue of the German "Geo" which is all about the climate and draw some conclusion there?

FastFwd · « **Reply #608 on:** March 15, 2007, 04:52:01 AM »

Quote

It was said 10 years ago, while warming has been materializing for some 25 years now. Of course it must be the sun that causes the warming like Lazs sais, but a short while ago he claimed there wasn't any warming so maybe I'll read my issue of the German "Geo" which is all about the climate and draw some conclusion there?

Yes Angus. I too am noticing that the global warming denialists' stance is shifting. As you yourself have observed, there was a time not long ago when they denied the very existence of global warming, and would point to other doomsday scenarios which never happened, such as a predicted ice age.

But clearly they are wrong on that because as you yourself have shown, global warming is ALREADY happening. It's no longer a case of "if and when", it's a case of "how soon and how bad" the problem will become. So now the denialists have backed down from their erstwhile stance that warming is not happening/will not happen, and are now claiming that the warming trend is natural, ie. not man made.

But their logic assumes that if any part of the warming is natural, then mankind can do nothing about it and is absolved from any and all responsibilty to make ANY changes to the way we live. So - an inconvenient truth gives way to a convenient falsehood.

john9001 · « **Reply #609 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:35:29 AM »

it's a fact that volcanos have a cooling effect on the earth, so how many volcanos do we have to blow up to stop this runaway global warming?

what do the computer models say?

lazs2 · « **Reply #610 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:42:55 AM »

no one has ever denied that the climate changes... we have denied that it WILL change because of man. No one has ever denied here that it is warmer now than in some other periods of time or that it will get cooler some day in the future.

It is the man made global warming acolytes of the religion who are changing their stance... the weak Co2 arguement is almost going away. They can't shift to methane because.. well... nature procuces it not us. They can't shift to the sun because.. well... no money in it and no scientist has an answer for it.

nope.. it is not so much that we are causing the warming now that the fanatics are on but that we might be helping it happen and.. that.. even if we can't prove it... why not just go along for the ride and do as they say? It is you that is changing not us. And rightly so... you were wrong and you were duped.

88.. I say that there is probly more oil than all the oil we have used already.. it is undiscovered.. some of it is too hard to get to... the earth is making more of it.

It is not that we will run out.. It is that we will run out of the easy to get stuff. That will drive up the price. All pretty normal stuff.

lazs

quintv · « **Reply #611 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:47:27 AM »

Would it be fair to say laz, that you think human pollution has had zero affect on our climate?

Toad · « **Reply #612 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:58:52 AM »

Quint, you wouldn't be another Beet1e shade would you?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #613 on:** March 15, 2007, 10:20:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VERTEX

What I would like to know is how come the environmentalists say we are screwed either way, warming or cooling.

Mainly because we are screwed either way. That is as long as the "Sky Is Falling " for lunch bunch can be duped into believing and fall for the setups by those whose only interest is monetary gain.
There will be warming alright........in the pocket book area.

Sabre · « **Reply #614 on:** March 15, 2007, 02:06:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

Exactly exactly exactly!!!!!
Big machinery and big trucks belong where they are needed, - where they are econamical they will pay up.
Biodiesel is better than fossil diesel.
And there is a good opportunity in manufacturing fuel from the land.
Ooops, conspiracy reveiled, - it's a Farmer's conspiracy

So long as it is the market forces that exert the influence, and not big government regulating it, I would agree. However, if I'm a single stock broker with a six-figure income, no kids, and live in a high-rise condo in Manhattan, AND I'm willing to spend the money to own and drive a Dodge Megacab pickup truck, that should be my choice. As soon as you have government stepping in and requiring me to justify my choice of privately owned vehicle, you've jumped blind folded down a cooking oil doused, teflon-coated slope. Next, they'll tell tell people how big a house you can own, how hot/cold you can keep it, how many miles you can travel every year, and on and on and on.

As for the "what can it hurt to cut CO2 emissions, just in case" argument, that's a rediculously sophmoric bit of reasoning. In real life, resources are finite. Wasted effort, even if it does no harm to the situation you mean to address, can have unintended negative consequences that could be worse than what you were hoping (emphasis on "hoping") to avoid. Plus, while you're expending those resources, other problems that you could have more concrete and measureable impacts on are left un-addressed. Bottom line, the problem must be thoroughly analyzed, and a cost-benefit analysis undertaken, to determine if a problem should be addressed, as well as how to address it.

Assuming we are in a warming period (there is some evidence for this), we must first determine if mankind's activities are driving it (evidence for this appears to be rather weaker than previously acknowledged). This is the fundemental question. If mankind is having a negligible effect, than shouldn't efforts be focused on planning for dealing with the impacts of GW, rather than wasting time on arguably ineffective measures to try and reverse it?