BS: Palin v. Gore...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:21 PM

"
For general purposes, the energy output of the sun can be considered constant. This of course is not entirely true. Scientists have shown that the output of the sun is temporally variable (Figure 4). Some researchers have also suggested that the increase in the average global temperature over the last century may have been solar in origin. This statement, however, is difficult to prove because accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978. "
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation



I was NOT talking about sunspots ( 11 year cycle), but the longer cycles that many here seem to be ignorant of.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So how can ANYONE tell me that they know there is NO long-term variation, when other indicators ( Earth's past climate amoung them) have shown there to be?


Don Firth,

As I have a BS degree in physics and astronomy, and have 30 years experience working in the field of satellite data collection (EO-1 Data Manager as well as other positions) and interpretation, perhaps you might tell me YOUR credentials in the field of solar flux determination?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM

Here are some ideas that seem to be proposed by serious people...

                                                 10 Ways To Slow Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:21 AM

Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

Mr Laut's analysis of the flaws is accepted by ... Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer. "There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and its quite irritating," Professor Crutzen said.

Professor Stefan Rahsmstorf, of Potsdam University, agreed: "I've looked into this quite closely and I'm on Laut's side in terms of his analysis of the data."


"Their controversial papers must be retracted or at least that there will be an official statement by them acknowledging their mistake," said Andre Berger, honorary president of the European Geosciences Union.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:26 AM

Frankly, I think if they wanted to do something constructive, they'd engage in a program to contain human popultion growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:15 AM

Well, from a purely politican point of view, BB and I are on the same page... Og course we have arrived there from different directions, so to speak...

That doesn't mean that, unlike LH, that I don't believe that human's are the cause of glabal warming because I do... I does, however, mean that the "proof positive" is lacking...

The problem, as I see it, is that the same measures are called for be it "global warming" or "water, soil and air pollution"...

Now I'll be the first to admit that the science may have the "proof positive" but if it does then the story has not been told convincingly enough because too many folks just ain't on board... And then again, maybe the reason folks aren't on baord is that for the last 8 years we've had flat-earth scientists hired by the Bush administartion to tell us that it's all baloney... Or maybe it the cumulative results of the subtle ad campaigns by Big Oil... Doesn't really mater that much... Like I said, the measures that are called for are very similar be it GW or pollution we are trying to curb...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM

The sun just rose in the West!

"Now to my progressive friends here... Get real and get political... If ya' want an planet-friendly energy policy then get off the Global Warming Express to Nowhere and get talkin' clean air and toxic waste and renewable rersources... "


I agree with this statement by Bobert. I have NO problem with many of the GW "solution" as being good and worthwhile- BUT I do not think they will PREVENT GW as Gore et al claim.

We need to adapt to change, not try to keep a dynamic system static.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 10:23 PM

Bruce,

While you are correct that water vapor is a constant value as part of the totality, you are incorrect about vapor's position as a global warming factor. It is commonly accepted as the #3 factor.

Part of the problem is that the oceans are becoming fresher. Another part of the problem is that we, by development, are interfering with
the water cycle, in that we are paving over land and not allowing the water to seep into ground to replenish aquifers. By the same token, we are paving wetlands and interfering with purification. All of this means that we are wasting a replenishable resource.

We are working on establishing Atmospheric Water Generation [AWG] as the technology of choice. Unlike other technologies, AWG only needs the ambient temperature to be greater than 40 degrees F in order to extract usable amounts of water. The technology can be used for disaster relief as the largest "portable" machines can produce 60,000 gallons per day at 90 F and 90% relative humidity.

A secondary advantage of AWG [primary in terms of this discussion] is that, as you remove water from the atmosphere, more evaporates from the oceans, seas and large lakes. This allows a rise in salinity as the fresh water is applied to various human uses, such as providing water where there is insufficient clean water for consumption and agriculture. It also has the potential to ease uncomfortable high humidity during the warm months.

One of our goals is to produce sufficient high quality equipment to relieve droughts, refill aquifers and, eventually, push deserts back. In the case of Florida, for example, the aquifer has been so depleted that the limestone beneath a large part of the state has become dehydrated and lost strength. This allows sink holes to form. The best way to resolve this problem is to replace the missing clean water with clean water. The rate of natural replenishment is too low and, in many coastal areas or areas unserved by sewers, there is a good chance of toxic infiltration because of a lack of relative pressure from the aquifer.   

It is impossible to do only one thing. By improving quality of life we can also relieve Global Warming and relieve a source of political conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:45 PM

The "UK Independent" is a 'news' medium; nothing peer-reviewed and not reliable.
Quoting or linking these media serves no purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM

Hey, if ya' believe the full pages ads in the Washington Post, BP is some kinda benevolent corporation that rivals Jesus, Ghandi and God hisself in being so pro-human... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM

Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists
Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Monday, 14 December 2009SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
PHOTO BY UNIMEDIA INTERNATIONAL/REX FEATURES
Leading experts say solar cycles cannot account for current global warming



Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week.

UK Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM

McGrath, what is that remark in aid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM

BP, Shell, Chevron and other have research programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions

Well, they would wouldn't they? Remember Sarah Palin reprieving that turkey while a bloke in the background was carrying on with the slaughter?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:33 PM

I was referring to the petroleum companies who drill the subsurface, but yes, you are right about the coal companies active in the Appalachians. A sad story.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:23 PM

Q, I wonder if pointing at what the coal companies have done in the southern mountains (Kentucky and environs), leveling whole mountains because it's easier to get all the coal that way, but resulting in devastating small communities, poisoning the ground water and clogging streams, and generally leaving a disgusting mess in their wake.

Two songs at least that I know of—Jean Ritchie's Blackwaters and John Prine's Paradise (cover ~ the YouTube audio on all of John Prine's renditions were so bad you couldn't make out the words)—give pretty graphic descriptions of the widespread devastation that the coal companies left behind. There are undoubtedly more songs.

Pretty good example of the kind of "concern" for the land and the people that the big energy companies characteristic exhibit.   (PTUI!!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:46 PM

Please list some of these Big Energy advertisers who oppose change.
BP, Shell, Chevron and other have research programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions (OK, not those who have big tar sand leases).

But Bobert, I agree that the approach emphasizing clean air, reduction of toxic waste and safe environment might be best at present.
Even here in Alberta, where people are drunk with money from the oil sands (what downturn?), some are uneasy about the biggest open pit mine in the world, destruction of forest and doubtful reclamation, overuse and contamination of water in its extraction, injection of solvents into the subsurface, quadrupling the area being dug, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:12 PM

The probolem here isn't who would win a live Gore v. Plain debate on claimate change and global warming... He would kill her in the eyes of everyone that isn't part of her fringe extreme... But if this is allowed to be fought out in the media with Palin's team of Big Energy lobbiests then she can go toe-to-oe with ol' Al... This isn't necessary realted to, ahhhhhhh, actual facts but the perceptions that folks have of global warming...

The Big Energy lobby has plastered the media with ads that have created ***doubt***... Might of fact, Big Energy even advertises on Keith Olberman??? But then again, so does the health insurance lobby...

Face it, these are the same folks who wrote the ***mystery*** energy policy with Dick Cheney back in '02... We know who they are even thought the Bush administration invoked executive priveledge and exective order to protect the American people from knowing who these folks are... But nevermind that... They have set up shop in Palin's camp and are makin' her the spokesperson of doubt...

Now to my progressive friends here... Get real and get political... If ya' want an planet-friendly energy policy then get off the Global Warming Express to Nowhere and get talkin' clean air and toxic waste and renewable rersources... Folks can beleive that stuff...

Just my observations...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

Guess I won't...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM

Okay... I'll take it...

100!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM

The New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed periodical; as its editor states (pdq post) it is an "ideas magazine" (and sort of a science news brief magazine)that often has stories that are not firmly based on scientific fact but are meant to catch the interest of people who are not professional scientists. Pdq's posted description is accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:40 PM

PDQ:

The article I linked to was actually a compendium of facts, none of which you seem to want to address. There is nothing hypothetical about it, which makes your snarky rebuttal kind of pointless in the context.

Furthermore it says nothing about the laws of thermodynamics, so I wonder what your point really is?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM

Yeah, Q, I'm always amazed at how someone will post something absolutely bogus in an attempt to support their untenable position, someone else comes along with more than enough authoritative and accurate information to absolutely bury them—and then, like one of those inflatable punching-bag dolls, they (or someone else) will bounce right back and post the same crap again!

Astounding!

Makes for long and tedious threads.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM

In answer to the statements found in the New Scientist article linked above:

"In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that 'a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers' was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable 'to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science'. In particular, Egan found himself 'gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy' in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic drive', where New Scientist allowed the publication of 'meaningless double-talk' designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of 'squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides'.

The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying that it is 'an ideas magazine—that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories'."

{note: real science does not sell enough magazine copies to make publishers rich}

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:44 PM

Don, sometimes I am amused by the peculiar juxtaposition of unrelated material posted by beardedbruce, but perhaps it is best to ignore him. Your concise post on the nature of our sun, however, does cover one of bb's queer injections into this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM

Two pages of counterpoint to "Deniergate" from New Scietist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:21 PM

Little Hawk was drawing a very long shaggy metaphor for the relationship between Sarah's semi-mindless assertions and Gore's analytical ones. While the metaphor is somewhat apt, it took an awful long time getting htere. In the final analysis, LH spent a LONG time explaining that he agreed with what I said earlier!! :D He just had to change the words around so it wouldn't look like he agreed with something I said!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:05 PM

"The sun is known ( except to Al Gore) as a variable star- NO ARGUEMENT ALLOWED!"

REALLY!???

The sun is a G2V-spectral class main-sequence star, approximately 20% more massive than the average main-sequence star. Other than quite healthy and husky, it is exactly like the vast majority of stars in the universe.

Like all stars, different latitudes rotate at different rates (like Jupiter, which was on it's way to being a star, but fell way short in accumulating enough mass), which, over a few years, mis-aligns its magnetic field. Every eleven years, the magnetic field re-aligns itself, and this is the cause of sun-spots and solar flares. It also goes through longer term cycles, such as a minimum periodic sunspot activity in the 17th century, decreasing luminosity over a few of the 11-year cycles, which lowered the earth's temperature by a few degrees, causing what has been referred to as "the Little Ice Age" in Europe.

There is no indication that such an increase or diminution of luminosity is occurring at the present time, save for the normal, expected 11-year sunspot cycle, which is due to reach its peak in 2012, then wan again.

And no indication of a longer term increase in luminosity occurring at the present time.

In fact:

1. It is currently in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008, predictions of an imminent rise in activity have been regularly made and as regularly debunked by the astronomical community.
2. It is measurably dimming; its output has dropped 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths in comparison with the levels at the last solar minimum.
3. Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed had dropped 3%, its temperature 13%, and it's density 20%

Although it has not lasted long enough to indicate a trend, if anything, the sun is cooling, which would tend to point to a repetition of the 17th century's "little ice age." Yet, the mean temperature of the earth has gone UP within the past century, accelerating within the past few decades.

This "The sun is growing warmer" is a favorite dodge of opponents of warnings about human-caused global warming, but it is a) not true, and b) bad science.

Astronomers do not generally regard the sun to be a "variable" star in the sense that opponents of human-caused global warming intend. There are many variable stars in the universe, referred to as "Cepheid variables," and their periodicity is usually short-term, waxing and waning within a few days or weeks, and their spectral characteristics in combination with their clocklike regularity has proven useful to astronomers in determining stellar distances.

If regarded as a "variable" star at all, the sun would fall under the category of an "eruptive" variable, a star that experiences regular eruptions on their surfaces, like flares or mass ejections, as a result of the star's adjusting its periodic rotational misalignments of its magnetic field. This includes our sun, which I have dealt with above. All main sequence stars like our sun do this.

And astronomers do not generally put them into the class of "variables."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 02:49 PM

Gore's two books on climate change are useful for the data he presents, and the citations. One can use these to find original references, and evaluate the information for oneself. Both are available in cheap paperback.
Titles are "An Inconvenient Truth," and "Our Choice."

Simplified versions for children are published under the same titles, so check closely if you are ordering from a site rather than getting them at your bookshop.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM

You seem to have contradicted people on this thread then ignored well stated arguments to yours while repeating your original point. It seems like SOME sort of game. I thought you were playing with Amos. If you were just having fun reminiscing with no other purpose, then please forgive me.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:36 PM

No, Jack, I'm just having fun reminiscing about old times in the early 70s. My guess is that Amos would be an excellent chess player. I eventually gave up on chess, because I find it uses up too much energy if you play it seriously. That's okay when you're young and you've got a ton of energy, but I just began to find it exhausting after I hit about 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:32 PM

Little Hawk,

Are you "playing chess" with Amos right now? :-)
You haven't "taken his queen" any more than Palin has taken Gore's.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM

There are three major drawbacks to adjusting to GW or just letting it taking its course.

Uncertainty,
The overall climate of the Earth is well suited to man as it is. Any dramatic change is likely to be for the worse.

Expense.
On a global scale it would be cheaper to decrease the effects than deal with them. Conservation now is way cheaper than dealing with drought, storms and displacement.

Conflict,

As disparity and desperation increase war becomes inevitable. Even the US military, not known for its left leanings predicts conflict if the GW trend continues.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

Perhaps it would be more fun to compare Palin's and Gore's wardrobes and hairstyles, Amos? ;-)

I don't think her comments on Global Warming being a result of natural cycles indicate much (if any) knowlege on her part, I think she just got lucky because she would naturally oppose anything Al Gore says, and Al Gore's not infallible (at least I doubt that he is...whaddya think?) so he might be mistaken about something now and then...in which case, if Sarah opposes him on THAT particular thing...which she naturally will and with no hesitation at all...then she gets to be right by default on that particular thing whether she knows much about it or not.

After all, even a non-functional watch is right twice a day.

Think about it. You could pick anyone at all...just contradict everything they ever say...and sooner or later you'd be right about something and they'd be wrong...even if you were a complete moron.

It might take a long time........but imagine the thrill of triumph when you finally end up catching them in an error. ;-)

I knew a guy who couldn't win a chess game against me (or anyone else we knew) but he kept on trying. He was a pretty lousy chess player, but he was determined to persevere till he beat me. Well, it must have been our fiftieth game, and my own overconfidence or just plain lack of attention betrayed me and I got so busy thinking about a trap I was laying for him that I completely forgot that his bishop was aiming at my queen (after I moved this other piece to set the trap).

He saw it, but he could hardly believe it, so he spent about five minutes sweating bullets, thinking that I wanted him to take my queen for some reason that would prove fatal to him. I wondered what the hell he was thinking about so hard...then I saw it. OUCH! Would he do the obvious? Well, he finally did, and there went my queen. At this point I had to start playing REALLY HARD! Yessir. I put up a fine defence, and it took a long time, but he finally managed to wear me down and got the checkmate...........

And he went absolutely berserk.

He leaped up, and started yelling things like: "WHO IS THE CHAMP? I AM THE CHAMP! YOU STINK! YOU ARE USELESS! I'M NEVER F**KIN' PLAYING YOU AGAIN! YOU STINK, MAN! YOU ARE THE WORST F**KIN' CHESS PLAYER I EVER PLAYED AND I AM NEVER PLAYIN' YOU AGAIN!" He danced all around the room in a frenzy yelling stuff like that for the next couple of minutes. Yes, this is the joy that comes over someone who has never won a game before, and if he's just a tad...um shall we say...immature...then he may react somewhat as my friend did.

It was pretty amusing, and probably one of the greatest moments Jim ever had. As it turned out, he refused to play me for about 3 weeks after that so he could preserve his "winner's" lustre for awhile and tell everyone how badly I "stink" at chess. ;-D

Then things got back to normal.

I betcha Al Gore gets caught now and then just the way I did. If so, Sarah Palin can dance around the room and yell "WHO IS THE CHAMP?" or something to that effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

It is my understanding that Mammoths and other mega fauna are not running around due to hunting by man. I don't see where "GW" enters into it.

The rise of mammals and ultimately humans, came about after the fall of the dinosaurs. Are you saying we should make way for the next species?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM

"The natural heating of the planet due to cyclical factors, minus the exaggeration caused by anthropogenic additives, is not a major issue."

And the fact thet we do not have mammoths and giant sloths still running around? I fear your statement is not valid.

Oh, seen any dinosaurs, lately??

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:49 PM

They don't claim any such thing, Bruce, and you are being disingenuous. They claim we can reverse the greatest exacerbating factor. Your assertion that "it is a natural thing" is ignoring the orders of magnitude. The natural heating of the planet due to cyclical factors, minus the exaggeration caused by anthropogenic additives, is not a major issue. Add the carbon problem, which is demonstrably a human contribution, and it breaks out of the ordinary variations by an order of magnitude.

That said, it is possible that mankind will be able to redistribute itself all over the globe, flee from new deserts and encroach on melted permafrosts and rebuild without causing major catastrophic conflicts. What's a few polar bears between friends, right? But it is not likely.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM

"Follow the MONEY- HOW MUCH money and power has Gore ( and the GW "hotheads") gotten that they would not have if GW was shown to be a natural thing?

"And what have ANY of them done to help prepare for LIVING WITH GW, as opposed to claiming that they could stop it, if it wasn't for all those people who don't have "true religion" and believe blindly that Saint Gore can make everything right, if we just give him money and power? "

Could not the reverse be asked as easily? How much money are the naysayers getting from the powers that stand to lose bundles if the nation/world starts cutting back?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:01 PM

Amos,

"Gore is forwarding research results and fact-based analyses."

THAT is what is in doubt-


Follow the MONEY- HOW MUCH money and power has Gore ( and the GW "hotheads") gotten that they would not have if GW was shown to be a natural thing?

And what have ANY of them done to help prepare for LIVING WITH GW, as opposed to claiming that they could stop it, if it wasn't for all those people who don't have "true religion" and believe blindly that Saint Gore can make everything right, if we just give him money and power?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM

I thought that Palin was forwarding a distillation of the arguments that billions of dollars in energy company money can buy.

The thing about climate change is that though most would suffer enormously, some stand to make out much better with the status quo. In fact, right now, denying is where the money is.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM

This is kinda silly, really. Gore is forwarding research results and fact-based analyses. Palin is forwarding knee-jerk politically-driven reactions and overheated rhetorical soundbites. Comparing them is an exercise in absurdity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 10:47 AM

Water vapor is self regulating as compared to co2.
More water vapor means more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space.

also substantial increases of energy of the sun would make green house effects moot wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:12 AM

Well, Q, I've read that the fundamentalism preachers are all over the "pollution" arguments but not so many on the "global warming" arguements...

Political expediency, I would think, would trump...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:58 AM

I agree that we should reduce pollution.

But why do you think we can STOP GW by those efforts??? IMO we are wasting the time that we should be using to ADJUST TO GW, since it will occur regardless of what man does- the MOST we can do is speed it up a little ( at higher levels of CO2 than we are presently at- compare yearly CO2 to a single volcanic eruption).


"If you look at the temperatures of Venus, Jupiter and Mars, they are all higher than can be accounted for by direct solar radiation,"

Melting Martian icecaps, and major climactic change to Jupiter-

And how much CO2 have we put into the atmosphere of Mars or Jupiter? The sun is known ( except to Al Gore) as a variable star- NO ARGUEMENT ALLOWED! So how will reducing the CO2 help, when the increased solar flux alone will increase the water vapor ( a more effective greenjouse gas than CO2) by a greater amount than the CO2 in the atmosphere???

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:36 PM

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:35 PM

I agree that "burning things" pollutes the environment and the pollution is very heavy. Much can be done to limit pollution by proper technology, however, without seriously lowering the standard of living.

I don't know that pushing this argument rather than global warming would do any good- the Republicans are interested only in defeating Obama's efforts and making him appear ineffectual so that they can win seats in the next congressional balloting and, in 2012, regain the White House.

I am afraid that they will succeed. My politics tend to be conservative, but the core membership of the Republican Party seems to be 'plain dumb'.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:33 PM

Al Gore and I agree, however, on the wisdom of reducing our harmful industrial emissions and helping to clean up the air and the rest of the environment, regardless of whether we caused Global Warming or not.

I just don't buy his specific theory about it, that's all, but I do agree on cleaning up our act. Given that I want to do the same thing that he wants to do (in a general sense)...what's the problem with my disagreeing about his theory? What difference will it make to what happens?

True enough Little Hawk - the puzzle is how all this speculation about the causes of Global Warming can be used by the likes of Palin as grounds for trying to block moves to stop humans continuing to make things worse.

It's like arguing about the causes of a fire rather than doing what we can to stop it burning us all up. Orvrather, it's like actively sabotaging the efforts of the firefighters, and setting new fires. There are people who do precisely that, and they are not very nice people.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:03 PM

Well, Q, some very logical arguments... The problem is that alot of folks, including LH, don't hear in these arguments "proof positive"... Some, like LH, think we should not be burning so many things because the burning pollutes the air and the environoment... That's okay wth me and maybe that is the argument that needs to be pushed ahead of the global warming argument... I mean, until the scientists can prove that this burning is causing global warming, especially since you still have so many flat-earther so-called scientists that are employed by the polluters then maybe we need to change our arguments to ones that are less vulnerable...

BTW, for the right wing the global warming argument is alot like their demands that Saddam didn't have WMD's... It's unfair but it palys well to folks who really are clueless...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:37 PM

Come on, one cant be naive for ever....Being Capitalist-phobic doesn't always mean one is a communist.
I was a party member for a number of years, but long since realised that if there is an answer it will be a personal one and not to be found in any political ideology.
What's all that to do with global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM

Oh?

Of course communists believe in something that is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:38 PM

"Unlike akenaten, however, I see that capitalism has benefited our lives; its direction, however, must be governed, and too many people subscribe to the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy"

That statement Q, is plumb full of contradictions!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM

China is the biggest producer, and user, of solar panels.

Their big problem is coal-fired industry and energy. They have made a promise and a target to reduce emissions- will they fulfill on their promises?

China, in some ways, is reminiscent of early days in the expansion of Western industry. Like the U. S. in the early 20th century, they have an industrial, fast-moving citified east, and a large rural area to the west.
Their modernization only started with the the end of Mao populism some 30-40 years ago; their pace is amazing.
I wouldn't give up on China, they have a hard-headed but practical leadership.

India seems to lack direction; they have a developing industry, but only a small part of the population seems to be involved. I haven't seen any real movement towards protection of their water supplies which are already depleting because of melting in the Himalayas and improper or uncontrolled use. A few talkers but no action.
Like akenaten, I can't find any committment on their part.

Unlike akenaten, however, I see that capitalism has benefited our lives; its direction, however, must be governed, and too many people subscribe to the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy.