BS: Global warming - the myth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:00 PM

Ah yes, bobad. It can still be explained by the simple scientific formula we all learned in college:

The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat as long as the mass of the ass remains constant.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM

Positive proof of global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 10:55 PM

This is a party question, which means that there will be a good many crackpots & hired liars even among the experts, and for many, perhaps most, people the first response to any statement will not be "Is this likely to be true?" or "Is this relevant?", but "Which side is this person on?". That makes the task of a nonexpert, who must nevertheless form an opinion, difficult.

It is also clear that, politics aside, there is a lot of noise on the signal. There have been warmer & cooler days, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, eons, and so on, and most of it has nothing to do with human enterprise or folly. In particular, only 14,000 years ago (I think it was), the ice came down to New York & St Louis, and the sea was so low that there was no English Channel and the Thames flowed into the Rhine. Since then, clearly, there has been a good deal of global warming, which has made it easier for our species to propagate. If it goes on, tho, it may well make it harder, and then it will make sense to try to do something about it, without arguing a lot about how much of it is our fault.

Very likely, we have done *something* to help it along already. No question we have put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Regardless of how little or how much we are contributing to current changes, it is high time we started watching what we are doing very carefully, because we are getting to be important on the surface of this planet. In that effort, neither the idolization of business nor the idolization of nature will be helpful. More actual evidence may be.

In that connection, I see some plausibility in Freeman Dyson's complaint that we are putting too much effort into necessarily crude computer modeling and too little into gathering data. Some of what we don't know yet may be good news (negative feedback loops that stabilize things), and some may be bad (positive feedback loops that may lead to runaway). Dyson says, for example, that no-one has modeled the release of methane due to the melting of permafrost, because we don't know enough about it. But if it turns out to be important, it may be catastrophic. We might have to do something about it right away -- I can't imagine what, but maybe someone can.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:39 AM

Gore's climate film has scientific errors

An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film....
Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]."

The title the GUARDIAN used for the article focuses upon the errors. "Gore's film basically right" could also have been a correct title line.
I am pleased that the judge agrees with me that Gore's information about hurricanes is erroneous.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 01:41 PM

Nevermind increased mileage. That will only slow down the rate of growth in our energy consumption. We ultimately need fewer people driving fewer miles. That means population control--too late for that, probably--and a whole new approach to "getting there." We need to go fewer places, stay closer to home, and we need to put more people in larger capacity vehicles, like buses and trains. Oh, and there are two more ways to get around: YOUR LEGS! Walking is a good start, and maybe the final stop for many people. But cycling is pretty effective. In fact, a person on a bicycle is the most efficient traveler of all vehicles and animals.

Of course, with the American process of building residences further and further out from centers of commerce, all of this will be pretty problematic, especially with the minimal political support it currently enjoys. For example, we are (locally, in Maryland, USA) about to build a multi-billion road that will suck up virtually all of our transportation dollars for the next few decades. And by the time it is done, people will have finally woken up to the fact that we need to drive less. At least I HOPE they will. We are fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 01:10 PM

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

Sara Goudarzi
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Thu Jul 26, 8:35 AM ET


Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.

Building enough wind farms, damming adequate number of rivers and growing sufficient biomass to produce ample kilowatts to make a difference in meeting global energy demands would involve a huge invasion of nature, according to Jesse Ausubel, a researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York.

Ausubel came to this conclusion by calculating the amount of energy that each renewable source can produce in terms of area of land disturbed.

"We looked at the different major alternatives for renewable energies and we measured [the power output] for each of them and how much land it will rape," Ausubel told LiveScience.

Land grab for energy

The results, published in the current issue of International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, paint a grim picture for the environment. For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the United States, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running round the clock to extract, store and transport the energy.

New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.

You can convert every kilowatt generated directly into land area disturbed, Ausubel said. "The biomass or wind will produce one or two watts per square meter. So every watt or kilowatt you want for light bulbs in your house can be translated into your hand reaching out into nature taking land."

Small dent in landmass

Other scientists are not on board with Ausubel's analysis and say that his use of energy density—the amount of energy produced per each area of land—as the only metric may not be the correct way to calculate the impact of energy from renewable resources on the environment.

"In general, I would say his use of energy density just does not capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources," said John A. Turner, a principal scientist at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the study.

Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.

"Now there's 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S." Turner told LiveScience. "This represents a very, very tiny area. And that's just one technology."

"If you look at how much land area we've covered with roads, it's more than double that. So yeah, it's a large area, 100 miles by 100 miles, if you pack it into one thing, but if you scatter it across the country and compare it to all the other things we've already covered, it's not an egregious area."

Double use of land

Ausubel's analysis concludes that other renewable sources such as solar power and biomass are "un-green". According to his findings, to obtain power for a large proportion of the country from biomass would require 965 square miles of prime Iowa land. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about 58 square miles, plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1,000-megawatt electric nuclear plant, a more environmentally friendly choice, Ausubel wrote.

However, new land doesn't have to be put into use just for a solar plant. Some scientists say already existing infrastructures could be doubled up for use to cover such an area.

"We could do with just rooftops of buildings and homes, land area we've already covered," Turner said. "We could meet 25 percent of our annual electrical demand by just putting solar panels on already existing rooftops of homes and businesses."

"Similarly, wind farms use up a lot of land area but they only really take up 5 percent of the land they cover," he explained. "The rest of it can be used for farming so it doesn't really impact the land area that much."

Going nuclear

Ausubel thinks that a better alternative to renewable energy resources would be nuclear power, which would leave behind far less waste than other alternatives

"There are three legs to the stool of environmentally sound energy policy—one is improved efficiency, second is increased reliance on natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration and the third is nuclear power," he explained.

"Nuclear power has the proliferation issues, which are serious but the environmental issues are small. With nuclear energy the issue is to contain radioactivity, which has been successfully done."

Turner agrees that nuclear power leaves a smaller carbon footprint, but he thinks that the waste issue associated with this technology is very serious.

"It's unconscionable to dismiss the issue of nuclear waste," Turner said, "because you have to store that waste for hundreds of thousands of years and nuclear wastes are particularly damaging to the environment and have social impacts also."

Similarly, Gregory A. Keoleian, co-Director for the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan, thinks more in-depth analyses are needed before dismissing renewables and considering nuclear power as a viable option.

"I think the characterizations made that 'renewables are not green' and 'nuclear is green' sound provocative, but they do not accurately represent these technologies with respect to a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and analysis," Keoleian told LiveScience. "The treatment of renewable technologies [in this study] is shallow and the coverage of the nuclear fuel cycle is incomplete."

To capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources, scientists believe there need to be more studies and discussions.

"We have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of money and a finite amount of energy, and we need to be very careful about the choices we make as we build this new energy infrastructure," Turner said. "I'd like to see something that will last for millennia and certainly solar, wind and biomass will last as long as the sun shines. "

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 03:03 PM

"Prius politics." That sounds to me like another of these bumper-sticker type of generalizations that replace the necessity of thinking. "Let's all sneer at people who buy hybrid cars, especially Priuses!"

My friend who owns a Prius bought it (he's had it for a couple of years now—it was one of the first ones out) for a combination of reasons. First, he liked small cars because they are peppy, maneuverable, and easy to park. Second, the fuel economy appealed to him. It was the most fuel-economical car on the market that was available to him at the time, and that he could afford. And third, he is very environmentally conscious, and he liked the idea of an electrically powered car, and the Prius looked like a good compromise until someone made a fully electrical car that a) had some range to it, and b) he could afford.

He doesn't give diddly-squat about his "image," or trying to make some sort of statement to other people.

People get on Arnold Schwarzenegger's case for advocating environmental responsibility when he owns two Hummers. But—in an interview with him that I heard a week or so ago, he said that he'd had the Hummers modified. One runs on hydrogen and the other runs on bio-diesel. He considers it an experiment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:47 PM

Prius Politics

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A15

My younger son calls the Toyota Prius a "hippie car," and he has a point. Not that Prius drivers are hippies. Toyota says that typical buyers are 54 and have incomes of $99,800; 81 percent are college graduates. But, like hippies, they're making a loud lifestyle statement: We're saving the planet; what are you doing?

This helps explain why the Prius so outsells the rival Honda Civic Hybrid. Both have similar base prices, about $22,000, and fuel economy (Prius, 60 miles per gallon city/51 highway; Civic, 49 mpg city/51 highway). But Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. The Prius's advantage is its distinct design, which announces its owners as environmentally virtuous. It's a fashion statement. Meanwhile, the Civic hybrid can't be distinguished by appearance from the polluting, gas-guzzling mob.


Syndicate/Subscribe
Select Method (may require registration) XML (raw feed)BloglinesGoogle Homepage/Google ReaderMy AOLMy MSNMy YahooNetvibesNewsburstNewsGatorPluckRojo



Michael Gerson:
The Price Of Peace In Uganda

Robert J. Samuelson:
Prius Politics

Ruth Marcus:
Pretty Formidable in Pink

Suki Kim:
Asia's Apostles

Regina E. Herzlinger:
Who Killed U.S. Medicine?


Today's Editorials



Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Grasping Reality with Both Hands: Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal
Brad DeLong--Economics Only
Dyspepsia Generation


Full List of Blogs (4 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook




The Prius is, I think, a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Prius politics is mostly about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians pander to "green" constituents who want to feel good about themselves. Grandiose goals are declared. But measures to achieve them are deferred -- or don't exist.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the champ of Prius politics, having declared that his state will cut greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (about 25 percent below today's levels) and is aiming for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. However, the policies to reach these goals haven't yet been formulated; that task has been left to the California Air Resources Board. Many mandates wouldn't take effect until 2012, presumably after Schwarzenegger has left office. As for the 2050 goal, it's like his movies: make-believe. Barring big technological breakthroughs, the chances of reaching it are zero.

But it's respectable make-believe. Schwarzenegger made the covers of Time and Newsweek. The press laps this up; "green" is the new "yellow journalism," says media critic Jack Shafer. Naturally, there's a bandwagon effect. At least 35 states have "climate action plans." None of this will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions from present levels.

Even if California achieved its 2020 goal (dubious) and the United States followed (more dubious), population and economic growth elsewhere would overwhelm any emission cuts. In 2050, global population is expected to hit 9.4 billion, up about 40 percent from today. At modest growth rates, the world economy will triple by mid-century.

Just to hold greenhouse gas emissions steady will require massive gains in efficiency or shifts to non-fossil fuels. The McKinsey Global Institute predicts that, under present trends, worldwide energy use will have risen 45 percent from 2003 to 2020. China will have accounted for a third of the increase, all developing countries for four-fifths. Even after assuming huge improvements in energy efficiency (better light bulbs, etc.), McKinsey still projects an increase of 13 percent in global energy demand.

But we've got to start somewhere, right? Okay, here's what Congress should do: (a) gradually increase fuel economy standards for new vehicles by at least 15 miles per gallon; (b) raise the gasoline tax over the same period by $1 to $2 a gallon to strengthen the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles and curb driving; (c) eliminate tax subsidies (mainly the mortgage interest rate deduction) for housing, which push Americans toward ever-bigger homes. (Note: If you move to a home 25 percent larger and then increase energy efficiency 25 percent, you don't save energy.)

I support these measures, because we should implement them anyway. We should limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. Tax subsidies cause Americans to overinvest in oversized homes. But practical politicians won't enact these policies, except perhaps for higher fuel economy standards. They'd be too unpopular.

Prius politics promises to conquer global warming without public displeasure. Gains will occur invisibly through business mandates, regulations and subsidies. That's why higher fuel economy standards are acceptable. They seem painless. It sounds too good to be true -- and it is. Costs are disguised. Mandates and subsidies will give rise to protected markets. Companies (utilities, auto companies, investment banks) will manipulate rules for competitive advantage. There will be more opportunity for private profit than public gain.

The government's support for ethanol is instructive. In 2006, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop went for ethanol; the share is rising. Driven by demand for feed and fuel, corn prices have soared. With food costs increasing, inflation has worsened. The program is mostly an income transfer from consumers to producers and ethanol refiners. Americans' oil use and greenhouse gas output haven't declined.

Deep reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases might someday occur if both plug-in hybrid vehicles and underground storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants become commercially viable. Meanwhile, Prius politics is a delusional exercise in public relations that, while not helping the environment, might hurt the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 09:30 AM

Here ya go, 157 MPG with no batteries.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 09:04 AM

While looking up info in the old Rabbit I found out that VW made a "Lupo" that had 61 hp compared to the 49 hp of the rabbit, yet it got 99 MPG.

It was not built to pass American crash tests so they were never imported.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 02:27 AM

Dickey, some friends of mine have a VW diesel station wagon. They get 52-54 mpg. And it seems that one no longer has to wait for the diesel plug to warm.

I used to have a 1981 Mitsobishi-made Plymouth Champ hatchback- I routinely got 42 mpg. The lowest I ever got with it was 36 but it was when I had four people in it and we crossed the Cascade range.

I really liked that car - it had the usual four gears and then another three or four *lower*- I used to say that I could climb a wall with that car.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 01:44 AM

We have a Prius & I've been getting 45 -53 mpg on the highway, it's supposed to do better in city driving but I hardly do any city driving so I don't know how it does with that.

Amos, that bill might as well be written on toliet paper for all it's worth & you're right! The hoax is that we're doing something about it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 11:03 PM

I saw a blurb about how great a Prius is. It gets 45 MPG!!!

In the 70's I had a Volkswagen Rabbit diesel hatchback company car. It never got less that 45 MPG no matter how you drove it. It usuallly got around 50 MPG and sometimes 54 on a trip.

If gas keeps going up I am getting one of those new VW bugs with a diesel engine.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 12:04 AM

The other day they told us that our northern Pacific ocean up here in southeast Alaska has warmed an official four degrees. Doesn't sound like much - but we're getting all kinds of new critters in our waters.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 09:16 PM

My excitement at scoring 300 made me forget my " 's "

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 09:15 PM

That's the story, anyway. I'm still waiting for that disclaimer to come out when we're in the midst of a heat wave and everyone is saying "See? ...I told you we were having global warming!"

Just once. That all. Just once.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 08:04 PM

"Global warming" doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere. What it means is more disturbed and extreme weather patterns - crazy weather even. And our current weather certainly fits into that.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Leadfingers
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:47 PM

If we are having Global Warming , how come South London had INCHES of
ICE on the ground yesterday ? And its not exactly warm tonight !

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 05:20 PM

either change your behavior or the end of the world is coming.

The point is, it seems pretty certain that something not too far short of that is actually true. An inconvenient truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: MaineDog
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 03:17 PM

Re: the Prius

In 1992 I bought a Honda Civic VX which got about 60 mpg commuting. No electric motors, no big battery, just a clever engine design with 3 valves per cylinder, and a pre-combustion chamber that burned rich, with a main charge that was able to burn lean via this arrangement. It also would shut down one cylinder when coasting. This was better mileage than the Prius, with not nearly so much to go wrong, and you didn't need an instrument to tell you how to drive it. I lived in Massachusetts then.
In 2002, the state effectively outlawed these cars by defining them to be uninspectable. The 3-cylinder ploy crashed their inspection computers, so they could neither pass nor fail this car, and there was no way except via bribery to get the required inspection sticker. So much for progress. Just one of may reasons why I now live in Maine.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Kipp
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 12:10 PM

Wolfgang
   I agree with that point if you listen to Al Gore his message is very similar to that of the fundimental christains, either change your behavior or the end of the world is coming. Although his idea of what is bad behavior is different yet he has taken from their favorite book of the bible the book of revelation.
Kipp

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 05:33 PM

From some standpoints, anything that might cause some corporations to *gasp* alter their "full speed ahead" business practices is to be denied and rejected.

As several have noted, even IF it's not quite as bad as the worst case projections, people with a finite planet need to err on the side of caution! We need some wiggle room...we do NOT need to climb out as far on various limbs as we 'think' we can get away with.

Doesn't anyone remember DDT and how it was supposed to be a boon?

Whether it gets a lot warmer, OR a lot colder, we need to be careful what we commit to.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 01:14 PM

Environmentalism: the new death cult? (comment in THE GUARDIAN)

Environmentalism is by far the most influential death cult in existence today. It is inculcating in the masses the idea that the end of the world is nigh; that we shall we punished for our sins; that penance is our earthly duty; and that anyone who says or thinks otherwise is a "heretic" or a "denier" who should be held up to public ridicule.

I agree with nearly nothing in that comment, but I find the idea amusing.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 02:26 PM

We should remember that despite all the Kyoto rhetoric, European CO2 emissions have increased, and USA has been cutting CO2 emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 01:06 PM

If global warming was a myth, the top scientists of the world would not be getting together to solve the problem.

The myth is the propaganda offered by the corporate entities who profit financially from their disinformation.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 05:52 PM

Ah, yes! Good old "Yankee Ingenuity!"

Where, oh, where has it gone?

There are a few entrepreneurs out there with a brain—who do not write off the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, and that global warming is primarily caused by human beings using the eco-sphere as a garbage dump and septic tank—who are going to be the real money-makers in the near future by accepting what is and coming up with eco-friendly, energy-efficient, non-polluting products. There are fortunes to be made by facing reality and adapting to it.

For example:   the tip of the only iceberg on the planet that is increasing in size instead of melting is the success Toyota has had with the Prius. They can't make them fast enough to meet the demand. In the meantime, look at the sad condition of the American automobile industry.

A little foresight and the willingness to be flexible and innovative.

Species tend to become extinct when they haven't the intelligence, ability, or willingness to adapt to new conditions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:02 PM

Rather belatedly, I'd like to point out to beardedbruce that Al Gore (Saint Al, to some.:) is not implying what bb says. The one crucial element to countering someone's argument is to become familiar with the argument. Ergo, as many have suggested in the past, go see the film, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. You'll note that at the end Gore lists a number of things that can be done *now* at fairly low cost and inconvenience to start mitigating the early effects of global change.

In Juneau Alaska, in addition to the rapid changing of our landscape - in a few years our largest glacier will have GONE out of sight- but anomalies in flora, fauna and fish are being increasingly reported.

For some years now I have been exhorting my Juneau neighbors: Buy land! Plant bananas!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:29 PM

From Sunday's NY Times:

When you watch a baby being born, after a difficult pregnancy, it is so painful and bloody for the mother it is always hard to tell the truth and say, "Gosh, that baby is really ugly." But that's how I feel about the energy legislation passed (and not passed) by the Senate last week.


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas Friedman.
Related
Q. & A. With Thomas L. Friedman
The columnist answered readers' questions.
Columnist Page »
Podcasts
Audio Versions of Op-Ed Columns
TimesSelect subscribers can listen to a reading of the day's Op-Ed columns.

The whole Senate energy effort only reinforced my feelings that we're in a green bubble — a festival of hot air by the news media, corporate America and presidential candidates about green this and green that, but, when it comes to actually doing something hard to bring about a green revolution at scale — and if you don't have scale on this you have nothing — we wimp out. Climate change is not a hoax. The hoax is that we are really doing something about it.

No question, it's great news that the Democrat-led Senate finally stood up to the automakers, and to the Michigan senators, and said, "No more — no more assisted suicide of the U.S. auto industry by the U.S. Congress. We're passing the first bill since 1975 that mandates an increase in fuel economy." If the Senate bill, which now has to go through the House, becomes law, automakers will have to boost the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, compared with about 25 miles per gallon today.

But before you celebrate, pay attention to some fine print in the Senate bill. If the Transportation Department determines that the fuel economy goal for any given year is not "cost-effective" — that is, too expensive for the car companies to meet — it can ease the standard. That loophole has to be tightened by the House, which takes up this legislation next week.

But even this new mileage standard is not exactly world leading. The European Union is today where we want to be in 2020, around 35 miles per gallon, and it is committed to going well over 40 m.p.g. by 2012. Ditto Japan.

There are other things that make the Senate energy effort ugly. Senate Republicans killed a proposed national renewable electricity mandate that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020. Twenty-three states already have such mandates. No matter. Making it national was too much for the Republicans.

And the Senate, thanks again to the Republicans, also squashed a Democratic proposal to boost taxes on oil and gas companies that would have raised some $32 billion for alternative fuel projects.

Despite all the new research on climate change, the Senate didn't even touch the idea of either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax to limit carbon dioxide emissions. An effort by Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to legislate a national reporting ("carbon counter") system to simply measure all sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which would enable a cap-and-trade system to work if we ever passed one, also got killed by Republicans. We can't cap and trade something we can't measure.

Here is the truth: the core of our energy crisis is in Washington. We have all the technology we need right now to make huge inroads in becoming more energy efficient and energy independent, with drastically lower emissions. We have all the capital we need as well. But because of the unique nature of the energy and climate-change issues — which require incentives and regulations to build alternatives to dirty, but cheap, fossil fuels — you need public policy to connect the energy and capital the right way. That is what has been missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: TIA
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:49 PM

Yes. I agree. In terms of acute (as opposed to chronic) environmental threats, global warming probably does not even crack the top ten. But I get very suspicious of people who claim that it is NOT a threat. And just because it may not be in the top ten, does this mean we should not do what we can to alleviate the threat? (While working on the other ten as well of course).

It's like the guy who punches you and breaks your jaw and says "hey, just be glad I didn't shoot you between the eyes."

A person who claims that it is not the worst thing we face gets my attention.

A person who claims it is a "hoax" or "myth", and not a problem at all loses all credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:35 AM

Interview with a German biologist about the impact of global warming on biodiversity

Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats, such as the rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical forests. Particularly as a conservationist, I believe that focusing on the greenhouse effect is very dangerous. The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:13 AM

GLOBAL WARMING: It's Not the End of the World as We Know It (Four part article in DER SPIEGEL)

An in my mind very level headed article based on interviews with German climate scientists. This is not the there's-nothing-to-worry-about crop of scientists. For them, global warming is real and (largely) man made. But they argue that newer and better simulations show that the consequences are not as bad as the repent-or-die alarmists of the 90s wanted to make us believe.

The newer models show an increase of antarctic ice, rather a decrease of both severity and frequancy of tropical storm (has someone told Al Gore yet?), a smaller increase of sea level than the old models, more rain in the Sahel zone, less rain in the south of the USA, Australia and the Mediterranean Europe, and the Greenland ice sheet melting in millenia if at all.

I also recommend reading about the problems of modeling the future. All models predict more clouds, but whether that leads to cooling or warming is far from sure.

German climate researcher von Storch: "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:12 AM

I see no objection to Bush's actions here:
Subject: RE: BS: Admirable Qualities of GWBush
From: Amos - PM
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 10:39 PM

Yes, that's true -- by tracking down and arresting the troublesome parts. It is important that Iraq be unified, and force works as well as anything else he's got.


What have you done to fight global warming other than rebroadcast the background noise?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:26 PM

Seems to me, Good Dick, that you have your head coming up on your tonsils from below.

The "norm". when I started marshaling rebuttals to Bush's fascism, was strongly in support of him. Insanity was at an all time high in the country buying into his arguments for war.

You are so far off base on your assertions that I can only assume you are resorting to personal assault out of cognitive desperation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:16 PM

Amos:

Do you have any ideas other than yeah, what that guy said?

Are you capble of indepenant thinking or just a robot programmed to echo whetever you percieve as the most popular ideas at any given time?

It seems to me you have no heart and soul and are afraid to go out on a limb and differ from wht you believe is the norm because you may be wrong.

What have you done to fight global warming other than rebroadcast the background noise?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:22 AM

The Warming Challenge


Published: May 5, 2007   Full article here

Yesterday's report on global warming from the world's most authoritative voice on climate change asserts that significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing global warming emissions can be achieved at a relatively low cost using known technologies. This is a hugely important message to policy makers everywhere, not least those in the United States Congress. Many of them have been paralyzed by fears — assiduously cultivated by the Bush administration — that a full-scale attack on climate change could cripple the economy.

The report was the third this year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The first report, in February, blamed humans for rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A second report last month warned of famine, floods and other ecological disasters unless emissions were brought under control.

The new report deals with remedies. It warns that over the course of this century, major investments in new and essentially carbon-free energy sources will be required. But it stresses that we can and must begin to address the problem now, using off-the-shelf technologies to make our cars, buildings and appliances far more efficient, while investing in alternative fuels, like cellulosic ethanol, that show near-term promise.

The report also made clear the risks of delay, noting that emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70 percent since 1970 and could nearly double from current levels by 2030 if nothing is done. For that reason, it said, it is vital for policy makers to discourage older technologies — coal-fired power plants with no capacity to store carbon emissions, for instance — so as not to lock in further increases in emissions, which would make the task much harder and more expensive down the road. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 07 - 11:29 AM

thanks Jim, I'm an aussie (sydney).

Bee, I know academics can be a vague lot, ivory towers and all. but we have an international trend of decisions being made for financial reasons only. and managers without specific skills are popped into positions of power specifically because they don't understand what the hell is going on in their particular area - and so won't rock the boat and oppose blatantly poor decisions with appalling consequences.

there, enough said, soapbox has been tucked away & I'm off to sleep. 'night all.

freda zz

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 03 May 07 - 11:16 AM

Well said, Freda!

Are you UK ,cos the same applies here in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bee
Date: 03 May 07 - 11:09 AM

I would not put my faith in the 'intelligentsia' - very few of those politicians and moguls and CEOs who are intent on leading us further into destruction are stupid.

It's more important to make sure the ordinary person is well informed and able to distinguish between propaganda and reality, and you needn't hold a doctorate for that.

I did hear a few Canadian premiers make some sane statements this week, and one admitted that his children are so concerned about the future that he feels he must be proactive. 'Won't someone think of the children' has been a mocked buzzphrase, but I fear for the future my neices and nephews might face, and a majority of Canadians must have similar fears, since even the Harper government is starting to pay attention, albeit not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:56 AM

The Zugspitze glacier (the largest one in Germany) is melting. it was 80 metres thick in 1910, now it is 45 metres thick .

we live in an era when politicians and business moguls deride scientists and academics. their decisions are all about getting back in in the next election and appeasing interest groups.

maybe global warming will force the world to listen to scientists - and maybe the intelligensia might have to rise up and move into positions of political power.

because if they don't, we are going down the gurgler like that German glacier, led by a bunch of bumbling politicians with their heads in the sand and their hands in the till.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:32 AM

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster, a Study Finds
               
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: May 1, 2007

Climate scientists may have significantly underestimated the power of global warming from human-generated heat-trapping gases to shrink the cap of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, according to a new study of polar trends.

The study, published online today in Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that an open-water Arctic in summers could be more likely in this century than had been estimated in the latest international review of climate research released in February by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"There are huge changes going on," said Julienne Stroeve, a lead author of the new study and a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "Just with warm waters entering the Arctic, combined with warming air temperatures, this is wreaking havoc on the sea ice, really."

The intergovernmental panel concluded that if emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide were not significantly reduced, the region could end up bereft of floating ice in summers sometime between 2050 and the early decades of the next century.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:59 AM

EMOTIONALIZING CLIMATE CHANGE

(a four part article)

Part I: Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science? (roughly: how politicians try to influence what the IPCC report should tell and scientists don't know how to fight back)
Part II: Like a Major Terrorist Attack    (roughly: the consequences of climate change; outlines the majority opinion)
Part III: The Leading Critic of Climate Change Theories   (roughly: the minority position in person of Lindzen)
Part IV: Al Gore, Scaremongerer?    (roughly: arguments for and against emotionalisation of a scientific debate)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 09:44 PM

I am not thoughly convinced that it is man made but never say never. I would not invest in any tidal waterfront.

I have noticed the weather is getting more extreme and unpredictable. It seems we have had a drought every summer since 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 07 - 08:04 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: tarheel
Date: 02 May 07 - 04:46 PM

Its the biggest HOAX ever pulled on the whole WORLD!
Tar...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:04 AM

Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast?

the models still underestimate observed ice loss...the Arctic could be seasonally free of sea ice earlier than the IPCC projections

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:42 PM

Yeah, Amos. Unfortunately, that's about the level of thinking that determines our leaders these days.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM

Obviously som efolks will be mor eintelligent about the data on global warming than others.

This lady, for example, seems to have noticed something the others have overlooked.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: TIA
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

With all due respect, I must add follow-on quotations from one of the authors of the study that Wolfgang cites above. wolfgang's article truncates before getting to these important statements (by the author remember)...

"On the other hand, warm water provides the energy that drives hurricanes, so warmer conditions should make the storms stronger.

"We don't know whether the change in shear will cancel out the increased potential from warming oceans, but the shear increase would tend to make the Atlantic and East Pacific less favorable to hurricanes," said Vecchi, of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

"Which one of the two — warming oceans or increasing shear — will be the dominant factor? Will they cancel out? We and others are currently exploring those very questions, and we hope to have a better grasp on that answer in the near future," Vecchi said.

"What we can say is that the magnitude of the shear change is large enough that it cannot be ignored," he added.

********Any decrease in strength or frequency of storms caused by shear would apply only if all else was equal******, Vecchi said..."

(emphasis by TIA)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: MMario
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

wow - I don't know who this George F. Will is - but have to seriously consider what qualifications if any he has when his article contains such items as:

"Ben & Jerry's ice cream . . .: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk"

Ice cream yields are normally significantly larger then the fluid input.

"most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates"

most implies more then half. Not true in a lot of areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:09 PM

Warming May Keep Hurricanes From Forming

Wolfgang