Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Ok, ignore all that for a second.

So you're saying, basically, that what we've done to the environment - the burning of fossil fuels from the 1800s till today - in the myriad different ways we do it - has essentially had no effect on the ecosystem?

Keep in mind that slight changes in atmospheric levels of lead, for example, leads to fairly big changes in the health of organisms.

This is important Horus. Can you please give me your views - without talking about agenda 21 - on what you think human burning of fossil fuels does to the environment?

Be mindful, also, that if you resist answering this question, then perhaps you're really caught in a state of pronounced cognitive dissonance. If you can't address this question - it means you can't make sense of this issue without losing cognitive coherency.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: beezzer


Well Beez there are alternatives if you care to look.

This is what gets me there seems to be this holler about cost and taxes when we are talking about cleaning up things yet many of those same people(I am not saying you are one this is just in general) are more than willing to fight for a pipeline through the country to create 50 to 100 permanent jobs which will cost us 7 billion dollars. Where is the outrage over that.

So it really is the co2 you are worried about. Why didn't you say that on the Keystone Pipeline thread then instead of pretending it was more about whether or not it will be financially helpful to the country? Never mind, I think I know the answer. You have just proved to me how right I am with your post here.
By the way, did you know that more jobs equals higher tax revenues? Who would have thunk it. But it is outrageous to expect people to pay taxes for supposedly fighting Climate Change. I'm guessing the money would be spent on campaigns to sack the coal and natural gas industry.

lol. Either you have the worst case of confirmation bias I have ever seen or you are somehow vested in giving 7 billion dollars to oil companies.

Lets talk about tax revenue in comparison for a sec. There are reports which say the keystone pipeline will create at most 50 to 100 permanent jobs. So yeah ok there are 50 to 100 people which will generate more tax revenue for the US. Even if we go by the larger number of 100 that equals a cost of 70 million dollars per job. You said you have a business degree can you say we will ever reclaim a tenth of that in tax revenue?

Hey even if it creates 1000 permanent jobs that would only cost us 7 million each. I hardly ever use the word shill, but man I am tempted.

Climate change. I despise the term, because it's inaccurate at the very least.

We are experiencing record COLD. Even the 'climate change scientists' that were sent to the pole to study the ice levels got stuck in what? Heat? No RECORD ICE. Subsequently, the ice breaker sent to get them had troubles.

Ironically Al Gore who's one of the biggest horn blowers on 'climate change' (who also ironically stated over 5 years ago, that we'd have no ice on the poles if we didn't buy his tripe then) owns a company who wants to do what? Clean up the pollution? Nope, they want to sell magical pokemon cards called 'carbon credits'.

These carbon credits do nothing to improve pollution and will only cause prices of goods to go up.

Do I personally believe in 'climate change' like they are touting? Absolutely not. However, I do personally believe that we are polluting our environment and solution to it needs to be found. Carbon credits won't make the pollution less, no more than the money will go to find actual solutions to clean up and prevent it.

Want to help stop pollution? Stop buying things that are DISPOSABLE. Most of those things are what litter the planet, contaminate our air and waterways. Maybe we should go back to using GLASS bottles instead of cans, maybe start building cars like they used to - to last. This way in the very least, you'd not need to get a new plastic-laden car every 2-3 years. Sure it's convenient, but look at the impact everyone says they are (and rightfully should be) that disposable items are causing.

Having the Gov't get involved in this WON'T help find the solution, it will only introduce more bull crap red tape, rising prices and more lost jobs. When did thinking through a problem get so f-ing hard people?

Want to find more of what solutions need to be found on pollution? Look at our landfills, air and waterways....the solutions for fighting air and water pollution (and water purification) are already found in nature, all we have to do is follow suit. One method? OZONE. It's not a 'shield' that protects the earth, it's natures way of cleaning the air, which is why it's found in such dense quantities in the air around heavily polluted areas. Ozone can also be man created and is a great way to clean water...some cities already use this tech, like the Los Angeles county water treatment plant.

Fuel economy on cars? Decrease dependence on gasoline? That's easy too, and can be readily found in the patent.gov site.
We don't need to make these 'feel good' hybrid cars that pollute our landfills and waterways with the added pollutants needed to make them and their batteries (that ironically need replaced every 5 years or so, more landfill and chemical waste) - the gasoline engines we have currently are pretty damned efficient. What we need to work on is the fuel delivery system, and with people who are like us digging around in the patent office, can see that there are several ways in which it's ALREADY been done. (One example for the fuel delivery is by using fuel vapor. In simplistic terms the two delivery systems were/are a carburetor, which basically sloshes a measured amount of fuel out of it and into the chamber for ignition. Fuel injector is like a finer squirt of measure fuel into the chamber for ignition (like a garden hose down a drain). What I was impressed with is FUEL VAPOR. It would be explained best like a perfume mister. Stand at a gas pump next time you get gas...it says to stay back how many FEET with an open flame or spark? Ever been around FUEL VAPOR? How many YARDS does it tel you to stay back with open flame or spark? Check the patent site out and you'll start to raise a brow at how many methods there are) Many people will ask, 'then why aren't we doing it?' - a few different scenarios could be at hand:

1. The patent is indeed bought up and shelved by an interested party (usually protecting their investment/interests.)

2. The patent lays dormant because it's creator thinks he/she can be a one man show and wants to license it, but doesn't have the know how or marketing connections or finances to bring it to market.

3. The patent was basically 'seized' and though we are able to see it, view it, as citizens bound by law we cannot use it. Why? Because it's been classified for Gov't use only.

There's so much available, most of focus of our energy however needs to be put on a solution, not the problem. Restating the obvious over and over does nothing to find a solution.

Am I the only "liberal" who suspects that the "conservative" position regarding climate change revolves around their fear for their wallet?

a reply to: Astrocyte

Our fossil fuel burning has very little effect when compared with the volcanic activity of nature. C02 isn't warming the globe or the temperature here would not be 42 In May. The AGW people know it and that is why they had to change it from GLobal Warming to Climate Change. Cmon, be logical here.

a reply to: lostbook

There probably is a fear element added by politicians to sway things in their favor, but there is no excuse to ignore what's going on; at least in my opinion. Man needs to reset certain things or it looks like nature will do it for him..

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Grimpachi
Pollution is a problem. I like clean water and air.
Alternative power sources are wonderful. Lets make an electric car that is affordable.
I like the idea of solar power, wind power.

I enjoy the idea of being self-sufficient with my power requirements.
I like to hunt and fish. I want healthy food for me and mine.

But what we are talking about is taxing people to "off-set" existing "carbon expenditures" or some other such clap-trap!


Make an affordable electric car!

I'll be first in line to buy one! I'm in the process of building a home. Geo-thermal heating and cooling and am looking at wind power for energy.

But what I won't have. . . is a politician pissing on my leg and tell me it's raining!

Cool I can agree with you on a lot with what you said but as I said before there are viable alternatives, but it is my belief that many alternatives are short changed due to the current paradigm of energy powers. Believe it or not I am not optimistic about battery powered cars at least not with the current technology. When advances happen and they will especially in graphene development they will become more viable but for now they are more of a distraction.

I mentioned the 7 billion that corporate America well actually corporate China now because that is who owns the company wants us to fork up in tax dollars to build them a pipeline. Projections say that will create anywhere between 50 to maybe a 1,000 jobs(actually it said 100 but I am leaving 10 fold leeway here) well I think if we are going to spend that type f money it should go to something that would actually be beneficial to this country.(does that make me unamerican?)

I have done a bit of research into alternate forms of power and I think I have come up with a viable solution for our fuel needs with our current fuel systems which would eventually branch to a sustainable clean energy source for the entire nation. The main reason we do not tap this vast resource as it is now is because our power grids are outdated and wired in such a fashion they couldn't handle the load.

Rebuilding the power grid infrastructure would be immediate shovel ready jobs but we don't even have to go full bore into that to start we could start with replacing our fuel source for vehicles. There may be some holes in my idea but I think its worth exploring and filling in those holes.

So here is the thread I started outlining the plan. It didn't get much attention or debate but until someone gives me a good reason why it cant work I will say we do have viable options.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: BlueMule
Am I the only "liberal" who suspects that the "conservative" position regarding climate change revolves around their fear for their wallet?

LOL

And perhaps rightly so.

The Liberals are cleaning people out with tax after tax after tax.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BlueMule
Am I the only "liberal" who suspects that the "conservative" position regarding climate change revolves around their fear for their wallet?

LOL

And perhaps rightly so.

And perhaps not. Perhaps, leftly so.

It just seems like a knee-jerk groupthink fear-based greed response. Mr tough guy can't work on his gun collection with all these darn taxes. Meanwhile, screw the world.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Astrocyte

Our fossil fuel burning has very little effect when compared with the volcanic activity of nature. C02 isn't warming the globe or the temperature here would not be 42 In May. The AGW people know it and that is why they had to change it from GLobal Warming to Climate Change. Cmon, be logical here.

You are demonstrably wrong about a great many things. You crow about Agenda 21 constantly in threads that have nothing at all to do with it, and it's annoying. Climate change is not a political issue, you and those like you make it one. I'm going to do something you don't - and back this post up with evidence.

Evidence you are wrong about the sun greatly impacting climate change, posted just a few posts ago if you could be bothered to read:
data.giss.nasa.gov...
lasp.colorado.edu...

Evidence you are wrong about volcanoes:
hvo.wr.usgs.gov...
Humans produced 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003, while volcanoes average 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

a reply to: lostbook

If our government in the US wanted to stop global CO2 emissions, they could do it right now. BUt they aren't. Which tells me to revert to scenario #2: this is all just a new way to screw us out of more money.

I say that Ill make changes when I see people in power making change. Lead by example. Otherwise, looks like we are all going to hell together.

a reply to: Greven

if obama, et al, are worried about this, then why aren't they doing something about it? The US Military is exempt from all these environmental regulations. If "they" want me to believe "them", then it starts with the US military, who is among the worst polluters in the world.

Ill make all the changes needed to do my part. But them first.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: lostbook

If our government in the US wanted to stop global CO2 emissions, they could do it right now. BUt they aren't. Which tells me to revert to scenario #2: this is all just a new way to screw us out of more money.

I say that Ill make changes when I see people in power making change. Lead by example. Otherwise, looks like we are all going to hell together.

That is a very short-sighted opinion. The U.S. government as it currently exists is essentially beholden to the rich and powerful - the corporate owners - and by proxy beholden to corporate interests.

Cutting emissions would hurt their profits. This is one reason the U.S. government didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocols. It's as simple as that.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
if obama, et al, are worried about this, then why aren't they doing something about it? The US Military is exempt from all these environmental regulations. If "they" want me to believe "them", then it starts with the US military, who is among the worst polluters in the world.

Ill make all the changes needed to do my part. But them first.

If making the U.S. military 'more green' came at the price of its effectiveness, would you support it?

There have been some attempts to 'go green' from a cost benefit standpoint.

a reply to: Greven

my point is, i am a molecule of water in a wave that is mostly made up of government entities and corporations. To ask me to bend over is asking me to take a sacrifice that will have no meaning other than to increase my level of discomfort.

If Obama wants my support, he damned well better come prepared with more than, "You need to cut carbon". He best clean his own yard before complaining about my weeds.

I should add: further, there is no credibility in an argument made by people not willing to heed their own argument. This feels like a tax grab, plain and simple.

Wow, there is a lot of ignorance in this thread. LOL

I quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson here.

We just can’t seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we’d be home free climate wise. Instead, we’re dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn’t seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can’t seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves. All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can’t we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What’s our excuse?

I'll also use my latest argument. What is more likely? A. The earth is warming and there is Scientific consensus (meaning not only climate scientists but among all scientist that it is man made and we are in for dire consequences. or B. Every single Climate Scientist in the world and all of their millions of support staff many of them with Doctorates and PHDs themselves and Every single other scientist in the world is in on the biggest conspiracy of all time and or totally inept and not understanding basic principles of science?

Occam's Razor and common sense would tell me that A is the correct answer.

Taken a step further, many of the ignorant people on this thread who are denying science and want to take us back to the stone age aren't really arguing against Man Made Global Warming, but deep down in their hearts if they are really honest it's our responses to this problem that they are afraid of. So let's be honest and if you are really that against science then you should throw your computers away. Holy Cow!

Editing to add that...do you really think that Climate Scientists don't take into consideration out entire climate history going back billions of years ago and through all of the ice ages with ice core samples and all kinds of other data and research? Do you also think that they forgot about the Sun? The other planets and all of the other crap you guys keep spewing forth about..well what about the ice ages..explain that! LOL

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
my point is, i am a molecule of water in a wave that is mostly made up of government entities and corporations. To ask me to bend over is asking me to take a sacrifice that will have no meaning other than to increase my level of discomfort.

If Obama wants my support, he damned well better come prepared with more than, "You need to cut carbon". He best clean his own yard before complaining about my weeds.

I should add: further, there is no credibility in an argument made by people not willing to heed their own argument. This feels like a tax grab, plain and simple.

I'm not sure that he is asking any average American to do, specifically?

Anyway, what would you have him do - issue executive orders to get around the constant crap from the Republican majority House and just-enough-Republicans-for-a-filibuster Senate? How do you think that would go over amongst people who are already crying about the *laugh* "excessive" number of executive orders that President Obama has issued?

Government - and especially bureaucracy - is slow to respond to emergent crises; just look at the response to Hurricane Katrina - an event that was forecast well enough in advance. If that's any case study in responsiveness, a theoretical asteroid coming in 10 years to destroy Earth wouldn't be responded to in time.

Edit:
Things that you could do personally, rather easily, is recycle aluminum and weatherize your home. Aluminum refining is extraordinarily energy-intensive; so much so that around 5% of the entire U.S. energy consumption is devoted to this one task. Recycling aluminum is immensely more efficient: about 5% of the energy cost of refining an equivalent weight of aluminum. Not that it matters too much, since we're already going to see at least +2 degrees Celsius global temperature mean by 2100 if we manage to halt emissions at their present rates globally.

originally posted by: beezzer
So this will be a justification in raising taxes without any actual concrete alternatives?

How much is this "doom" going to cost me?

Less than you have in total but more than you can afford to spare.

Just enought to make ya hurt...but not enough to make ya fight.

We can just call these the Goldilocks taxes for their efforts.

a reply to: amazing

A climate scientist can postulate a theory that excess carbon dioxide discharges from the burning of fossil fuels is a) a harmless variation in a millenia of such variations OR b) armegeddon and the doom of all mankind

Theory A - does not provide further grant and research money
Theory B - generates millions in grant and research money

What does Occam' Razor tell you about which theory the scientist is more likely to want to explore?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

A climate scientist can postulate a theory that excess carbon dioxide discharges from the burning of fossil fuels is a) a harmless variation in a millenia of such variations OR b) armegeddon and the doom of all mankind

Theory A - does not provide further grant and research money
Theory B - generates millions in grant and research money

What does Occam' Razor tell you about which theory the scientist is more likely to want to explore?

Tired of Control Freaks

So you're saying that all of those scientists and support personnel and researchers and universities are in on the conspiracy and are somehow keeping it under wraps and secret. How do millions of people keep a secret like that? Occam's Razor would tell us that that probability is highly unlikely.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greven

if obama, et al, are worried about this, then why aren't they doing something about it? The US Military is exempt from all these environmental regulations. If "they" want me to believe "them", then it starts with the US military, who is among the worst polluters in the world.

Ill make all the changes needed to do my part. But them first.

Please don't get mad at me you are the one who set the goal post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.rawstory.com...

Which happens to be a carbon neutral fuel and the process could be used to make gas for our cars.