It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Global Warming Just A Hoax?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 





Normally I do not quote Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld but in this case I must: “You don’t go to war with what you’d want, but you go with what you have.” Him responding to complaints he sent US Armed Forces into Iraq without body armor or armored Humvees which accounted for 1,300 KIA out of the nearly 4,300 KIA on Bush43's watch. (Close to the DoD's dismissive jargon of collateral damage - the unintended killing of civilians). Substituting “global warming” for ”war” and we are compelled to take action based on the BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. The basic physics are well known and understood. There are too many indicators to ignore.


Well, first, I wouldn't quote Rumsfeld, because he went to war with what he had, and what he had turned out to be completely wrong- no WMDs.

Second, taking action with what we have, which is not very much, could do more harm than good. If it turns out that man-made CO2 IS causing global warming, then curtailing it might just hasten the coming ice age. The point is, you cannot make decisions based upon less than 100 years worth of data, especially since you don't even have all the data. Look, I have several degrees in science, and I can tell you, that the Global warming "theorists" are breaking the basic scientific method to pieces. There is so much politics involved, that you cannot distinguish facts from fiction. Furthermore, the GW people admitted that they fudged some data that didn't fit their theories. You want to go to war with false data?
Reread my post. If you don't understand all the points clearly, I will be glad to expound on them. We are not even at first base there.




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite


The end user pays for everything.

The question then becomes, why bother with worrying whether the new taxation will be at the source or on the end user? The same people are paying the tax either way. In actuality, since profit is normally measured as a percentage of the expenditures of a company, the taxation to the companies will result in a larger taxation rate being passed on to the consumers, since that cost of business will, by standard accounting practices, incur a need to make more profit. That was my point, in response to this earlier quote from you:

I’ve already written above that any carbon control plan must be laid on at the SOURCES of fossil fuels. Not on the end users.



But also figure this. Suppose the cost of coal is 30% of the final cost of electricity...

You lost me right there. Perhaps I could have continued had you stated 80%, but 30? The cost of producing electricity can be separated into three areas:
  • Infrastructure, which contributes to the cost of production in a very small way. The infrastructure is the initial start-up cost, typically financed in order to retrieve a profit to the shareholders who financed it via stock returns.
  • Labor is a minor cost. Compared with the cost of operation and revenue amounts, it is minuscule.
  • Energy is the single largest expense, accounting for the major bulk of the costs of producing electricity, similar to gasoline being the single largest cost to operate a vehicle.



Now, if a coal fired steam generating plant installed 50% efficient CO2 smokestack scrubbers, then that utility would get a $50 refund on its price of coal. The utility could either pay its exec’s bonuses or reduce the price of electricity to its consumers.

I have heard of nothing in the cap and trade system that allows for refunds on CO2 scrubber usage. Can you direct me to a source on this?

The fact is that a CO2 scrubber would be fairly easy for me to manufacture at this time, and if this silly taxation scheme is to go through, I would like my refund...


There is no evidence that bias has influenced the science of global warming. There is even less evidence that the concept was manufactured out of whole cloth. There may be good arguments against the causation or the best remedy, but that line is not one that will bring results. The limits on controlling CO2 will be set from time to time based on the then current urgency of the prevailing conditions.

I contend that there is plenty of evidence, albeit using 'conspiracy' thinking, that there is substantial bias in the reports. Just check out the 'Fragile Earth' forum and you can find reports on thermometers positioned next to air conditioner exhausts, purposeful rejection of CO2 scrubber techniques because "they might lead to more fuel usage by the population", questions as to whether the historical temperature/CO2 level records are being correctly interpreted, allegations of scientists being threatened with their research money if their results do not conform to 'accepted' global warming predictions, accusations of improper manipulation of raw data, and to top the list off... The two fastest growing economies in the world today, both of which are using 'dirty' technology at an alarmingly increasing rate, are excluded specifically from the much-touted Kyoto Protocol. Yes, I'm talking about India and China.

I also contend that any arguments over what is causing CO2 levels to rise and what is the best way to prevent such is certainly not moot and is the only logical way to achieve results.

I also contend that the limits will not in actuality be set on any 'urgency' of prevailing conditions, but rather on how much money is desired by those printing carbon credits (governments). Please name one era in history where a government has foregone a taxation in order to benefit its constituents only.


I have always opposed carbon credits bought and sold by end users.

I'm glad we agree on this. But as pointed out above, the question of whether the tax is on the source or the end user (which in some economic circles could be seen to be the true source) is a moot one.


I think NOT just 2. There is nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. To name just 3 others. I expect there are more. “Hydrocarbons” is layman’s talk for crude oil and its byproducts. And not to just hydrogen and carbon.

Sources notwithstanding, I am referring to pure hydrocarbons. Oil is not pure when it is pumped out of the ground, but it can be purified, to astonishing levels using present technology.

Nitrogen dioxide is not produced by hydrocarbon fuels, but by superheating the nitrogen (78% of the atmosphere) in the presence of oxygen (22% of the atmosphere). The nitrate level in diesel engine combustion, starting in 2007 and scheduled for another massive change in 2010, drastically reduces the amount of nitrates in the exhaust by tightly regulating the combustion process.

Sulfur dioxide comes from sulfur impurities in the fuel, which can be removed by the refinement process. Diesel fuel starting in 2007 is regulated as U'___' (Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel) containing no more than 15 ppm sulfur (down from the previous limit of 500 ppm). Translation: 0.0015% sulfur maximum. Impurities can be removed.

Carbon monoxide is the result of incomplete combustion, and will in short time interact with either ozone to produce CO2 and oxygen, or with itself to produce CO2 and oxygen. It is not an enormously stable molecule, and can be eliminated by slowing the combustion process and ensuring proper amounts of available oxygen during combustion. Modern engines (both gasoline and diesel) use technology to do just this.

All of the above have the potential to be eliminated through the use of technology. In contrast, there is no technology that can change the carbon and oxygen reaction into anything other than CO2. There is no technology that can cause hydrogen to combine with oxygen in any final form other than H2O (water). There is no way to remove carbon or hydrogen from hydrocarbons and have the hydrocarbons remain hydrocarbons. There is no chemical fuel available in large scale on this planet using our present technology that can produce the same energy density with the same availability as hydrocarbons. It's a lock. Energy use can be controlled directly by the use of these carbon credits, irrespective of how 'clean' the fuel is. You can't break a C-H bond without the C, and you can't stop the liberated C from becoming CO2.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 




Second, If it turns out that man-made CO2 IS causing global warming, then curtailing it might just hasten the coming ice age. The point is, you cannot make decisions based upon less than 100 years worth of data, especially since you don't even have all the data.



Believe you me, I understand what you are saying, Mr P/E. I also believe in thresholds and tipping points. While I am not able to jump from overheating to over cooling so easily or quickly, I understand that concept too. This is one case where it is much better and indeed, more prudent to err on the side of caution. While I am prepared to believe TOO much CO2 can cause overheating - reflected infrared rays - I am not nearly so quick to accept that TOO much CO2 will hasten the next ice age. This somehow triggers memories of the Gaia hypothesis. en.wikipedia.org...
For more reading on the Gaia hypothesis, see
www.bioone.org...(2005)055%5B0799%3AGOOE%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1




I have several degrees in science . . I can tell you the Global warming "theorists" are breaking the basic scientific method to pieces.



The BASIC scientific method of repeating experiments in a lab can be neither employed when we are dealing with the earth nor is it valid to assert an impossibility to support a critical thesis.





Reread my post. If you don't understand all the points clearly, I will be glad to expound on them. We are not even at first base there.



Wrong. I am running fast and I have already touched home plate. You are still at first base. I will leave you there. I am always wary of the too frequent use of the superlative. That technique can hide a multitude of sins of omission or misdirection. I have no doubt you are sincere but that gets us nowhere. I am also sincere. We are just not going to do it the way you suggest albeit MORE like the traditional scientific method that has served us so well.

[edit on 1/13/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




The question then becomes, why bother with worrying whether the new taxation will be at the source or on the end user? The same people are paying the tax either way.



Not so. This carbon tax is not a revenue raising tax. It is a means to achieve a genuine reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If you tax the source, you can expect success. If you tax the end users, you can expect obfuscation. ANY cost is ultimately borne by the last person on the chain.




You lost me there. I could have continued had you stated 80%, but 30? The cost of producing electricity can be separated into three areas:

* Infrastructure, which contributes to the cost of production in a VERY SMALL WAY. [My caps. DW]
* Labor is a minor cost.
* Energy is the single largest expense, accounting for the major bulk of the costs of producing electricity . .



Eighty percent may be correct. Then you’d use .8 X .5 = .4 or 40% rise in the retail price. 15 cents kw becomes 21 cents kw. The annual cost increase to a 24,000 kw user is $1,440 up from $540.




I have heard of nothing in the cap and trade system that allows for refunds on CO2 scrubber usage. Can you direct me to a source on this?



I think I misstated or you may have mis-read me. Scrubbers are the devices that remove CO2 from the exhaust gases before it - the exhaust - is expelled into the atmosphere. The power company where I lived began installing scrubbers 30 years ago. A scrubber is a device that “scrubs” the CO2 out of the smoke before the smoke is exhausted in the smokestacks.




I contend that there is plenty of evidence . . The two fastest growing economies in the world today, both of which are using 'dirty' technology at an alarmingly increasing rate, are excluded specifically from the much-touted Kyoto Protocol. I'm talking about India and China.



Did not your mother teach you that another person violating the rules is NO excuse for you to violate the rules? As to India and China. CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere. I’m guessing 15 to 20 years. China has explained that about 25% of the CO2 in today’s atmosphere was put there by the US of A.

China has gone on record to promise that when their contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere equals America's 25%, they will THEN sit down and talk about Kyoto. Heretofore the West has been able to PUSH the East around, but not anymore. When the West wants to face reality, the East is ready to talk. No more opium wars!




I also contend that the limits will not in actuality be set on any 'urgency' of prevailing conditions, but rather on how much money is desired by those printing carbon credits (governments).



All your points show the absolute necessity of the CO2 tax being laid on the 2,000 odd sources.




Sources notwithstanding, I am referring to pure hydrocarbons. Oil is not pure when it is pumped out of the ground, but it can be purified, to astonishing levels using present technology. There is no way to remove carbon or hydrogen from hydrocarbons and have the hydrocarbons remain hydrocarbons. TheRedneck



One question. How much energy is required to reach “ . . purity to astonishing levels . .”? What will the end product cost then? Is it something like an inverse ratio, where cost rises according to the square or cube root of the degree of purification? The less you have the more it costs?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 





While I am prepared to believe TOO much CO2 can cause overheating - reflected infrared rays - I am not nearly so quick to accept that TOO much CO2 will hasten the next ice age.


What???
I never said too much CO2 will hasten the ice age. I said :




curtailing it might just hasten the coming ice age.


In other words, if you BELIEVE that CO2 causes warming, then IF we are headed to an ice age, the excess CO2 MIGHT delay the onset of the ice age.

Your response makes absolutely no sense at all.

When I say we are not even at first base yet, I refer to step 1 that I posted on page 1:



1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.


We do not know all of the contributing factors that are involved in Global Change. To say that we do, is as arrogant, as the "scientists" of the 19th century, who said with certainty that trains would never be allowed to go faster than 60 mph, because all of the oxygen would be sucked out of them, and the passengers would suffocate. Every generation of scientists claims to finally understand causality, only to be humbled by the next generation of new discoveries. For all of the bluster of the scientific community, we have a much longer journey ahead of us, in terms of discovery.
I would also suggest that the conflict between various factions of science with regards to global change, indicates that lack of confidence in what we do "know".




This is one case where it is much better and indeed, more prudent to err on the side of caution.


I would agree with caution being the better part of valor. HOWEVER, I disagree with you as to what the cautious approach would be. You feel that the cautious approach is to slow CO2 emissions, while I believe that the cautious approach is to do NOTHING, until we truly understand all of the factors involved.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite

This carbon tax is not a revenue raising tax.

Please tell me you do not believe that. The US government alone spends money to the tune of several trillion dollars per year. Trillions. $1,000,000,000,000.00's.

We have taxes on our income, taxes on our income for Social Security, taxes on our purchases, takes on everything that could possibly be considered a luxury, taxes on real estate, taxes on 'sinful' products, taxes on automobiles, takes on phone service, taxes on fuel, takes on electricity, taxes on inheritance, takes on businesses, etc. Every aspect of our life is taxed and re-taxed and then taxed some more. Now you want to say a new revenue source is not about raising revenue?!?


Eighty percent may be correct. Then you’d use .8 X .5 = .4 or 40% rise in the retail price. 15 cents kw becomes 21 cents kw. The annual cost increase to a 24,000 kw user is $1,440 up from $540.

And according to my quick calculations, 1440/540 is 2.67, which means electricity rates would rise by 267%. Now, exactly what happens to those who are barely able to pay their electric bills now?

Can I get a show of hands here? Who wants to pay almost triple their electric bill to help humanity in the manner Al Gore requests?


Scrubbers are the devices that remove CO2 from the exhaust gases before it - the exhaust - is expelled into the atmosphere.

I am perfectly aware of what a CO2 scrubber is. The only reason most of them are set on exhaust systems is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small it has historically been too expensive to try and scrub it after the release. That is now changing, since carbon credits obtained from post-production removal of CO2 would pay for the process.

So what is the difference between removing a ton of CO2 from an exhaust stack or removing a ton of CO2 from the air? Ecologically speaking, none. politically speaking, it would negate any revenue stream the politicians and fat cats supporting them might create.


Did not your mother teach you that another person violating the rules is NO excuse for you to violate the rules?...

China has gone on record to promise that when their contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere equals America's 25%, they will THEN sit down and talk about Kyoto. Heretofore the West has been able to PUSH the East around, but not anymore. When the West wants to face reality, the East is ready to talk.

Quite a handy excuse. Exactly where did that 25-year figure come from anyway? We can't exactly track CO2 molecules like we track dolphins or polar bears.

IF the present CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a major problem, then how foolhardy is it to suggest that a promise of future negotiation with countries who are growing at exponential rates using dirty technology is akin to countries who are not growing and use clean technology doubling or tripling their energy cost? Do we not share the same atmosphere? Is there some sort of CO2 police line that prevents those molecules in China from leaving their borders?

Poor excuse, sorry. If CO2 is such a terrible problem in one section of the globe, it is just as terrible elsewhere. Physics does not observe political boundaries.


One question. How much energy is required to reach “ . . purity to astonishing levels . .”? What will the end product cost then? Is it something like an inverse ratio, where cost rises according to the square or cube root of the degree of purification? The less you have the more it costs?

Moot question, since it is already being done.

The point I was making is that IF someone wanted to control who uses energy and who does not, thereby controlling commerce, the best way is via regulation of CO2. The impurities may be removed completely without endangering their hold on energy usage, since CO2 production is absolutely inherent to any combustion of any hydrocarbon fuel, and the only chemical fuel we have in abundance is hydrocarbon fuel.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


There's also CFCs. I hope it's a hoax, not like people telling us, but themselves conned because otherwise this will get worse and worse. Personally, I take a risk averse strategy, where there's smoke there's fire, or worse still the fire of the sun not getting radiated out. I wonder, if the whole debate is about who is lieing, and the anti global warming lot are lieing, then at least when my family die, so will they.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
But also figure this. Suppose the cost of coal is 30% of the final cost of electricity which is 15 cents a kw. The cost of coal rises 50%. The new price of coal raises the cost of electricity: .3 X .5 = .15 . 15%. The price of electricity now goes to 17.25 cents per kw. If you are a 2,000 kw a month household, then your annual cost increase is $540. $45 a month.


OK, lets make this much more transparent, as it's obviously too opaque.

15cents/kw before tax. Yearly cost of 24000kw = $3600

17.25cents/kw after tax. Yearly cost of 24000kw = $4140

Increase of $540, which is obviously the 15% increase you started with.

15% rise in electricity rates.


Eighty percent may be correct. Then you’d use .8 X .5 = .4 or 40% rise in the retail price. 15 cents kw becomes 21 cents kw. The annual cost increase to a 24,000 kw user is $1,440 up from $540.


Same to start here. 24000kw before tax @ 15cents/kw = $3600

21cents/kw after tax. 24000kw = $5040 per year.

Increase of $1440. Which is obviously the 40% increase on pre-tax cost.

40% rise in electricity cost.

.....................................................................................................

Many european countries already have carbon taxes, they are doing well enough. Carbon taxes are not ideal anyway, they probably won't solve the problem. It puts no limits on output, and would be overcome in time. Cap and Trade would be more effective if we have a limit in mind (i.e., an acceptable high level of CO2).


In countries where carbon/energy taxes have been implemented, several issues are generally considered in the course of developing overall tax policies. Often, carbon/energy taxes:

are only one instrument in a package of measures aimed at reducing emissions.
are often part of a general fiscal reform; replacing other taxes on energy and reducing the distortionary impacts of traditional taxes (e.g. on labour and capital).
are usually gradually phased-in and adjusted over time to account for inflation.
include exemptions and exceptions have been granted to energy-intensive industries or to industries facing international competition.

...

Empirical studies evaluating the environmental effectiveness of implemented carbon taxes are rather limited so far. The lack of appropriate studies can be ascribed to the fact that there are several methodological difficulties and complexities in doing such evaluation studies. The few evaluation studies demonstrate that carbon taxes are an effective instrument in reducing CO2 emissions.

An evaluation study of the Swedish CO2 tax carried out by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) concludes that the CO2 tax "… has helped to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in line with Swedish environmental policy" (SEPA 1997, p.52). The Danish Ministry of Finance estimated the effect of the carbon/energy tax regime a 4.7% reduction in CO2 emissions from 1988 levels in the year 2000.

linky


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
When I say we are not even at first base yet, I refer to step 1 that I posted on page 1:



1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.


We do not know all of the contributing factors that are involved in Global Change.


In sum, you require science to be omniscient before allowing it to apply its knowledge. No science can achieve such a thing. Indeed, no science will ever reach such a level. Uncertainty is a given in science.

Well done. You killed science.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Damn, doubly post

[edit on 13-1-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Please tell me you do not believe that. The US government alone spends money to the tune of several trillion dollars per year. Trillions. $1,000,000,000,000.00's.

We have taxes on our income, taxes on our income for Social Security, taxes on our purchases, takes on everything that could possibly be considered a luxury, taxes on real estate, taxes on 'sinful' products, taxes on automobiles, takes on phone service, taxes on fuel, takes on electricity, taxes on inheritance, takes on businesses, etc. Every aspect of our life is taxed and re-taxed and then taxed some more. Now you want to say a new revenue source is not about raising revenue?!?



Every industrialized democracy in the Western world spends about 40% - 45% of its GDP though its various governmental entities. As y0u point out, the Federal government lays on taxes, the state governments lay on taxes, the local city and county governments lay on taxes, school boards lay on taxes, library districts, sanitation districts, and other special tax districts lay on taxes.

IT’S CALLED WORKING TOGETHER TO DO THINGS WE CANNOT DO INDIVIDUALLY.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





In sum, you require science to be omniscient before allowing it to apply its knowledge. No science can achieve such a thing. Indeed, no science will ever reach such a level. Uncertainty is a given in science.


No, I did no such thing, and I do not require science to be omniscient.
However, I do believe for science to be VALID, it must know what it is studying. If it doesn't even know what the parameters are, it cannot conduct a valid study to see how those parameters affect the result.

Neither you nor ronwhite seem to understand that. It is not enough to have an OPINION on cause and effect, you must know what causal agents to observe, and what the effect is.
In addition, as I stated several times, much of the data used by global warming advocates is derived based upon false conclusions. Much of the derived data is from tree ring measurements, which unfortunately are flawed.
The 2000 year temperature graph used by the GW people is a complete fraud.
In actuality, the warming of the last century, which GW's claim produces the "hockey stick graph, is based upon that seriously flawed data. In fact, the actual data based upon much sounder techniques shows that our "warming period" of the last century is minuscule compared to the period prior to the Little Ice Age. In fact, we have barely emerged from that Little Ice Age.
Here is the link that shows the actual temperature variation over the last 2000 years. The second graph is the graph which has the most valid data.
If anyone wishes to debate this, that is fine, but kindly read the entire link before jumping up and down.

www.worldclimatereport.com...

[edit on 13-1-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


OK, Mr P/E. I followed your link. It took me to the WCR - World Climate Report. Oh ***t, the Editor is Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute. A notorious Right Wing outfit that likes to be called a “think tank.” A tank yes, but THINK? No!

The editor of WCR wrote a book: “The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming” By Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.

SATANIC does not sound very scientific to me, Mr P/E. Does it to you?

MORE: Michaels has received financial support in research funding and consulting fees from the fossil-fuel energy industry. He is a fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association. en.wikipedia.org...

MY definition of a Libertarian? An anarchist in drag!

Hey, that’s not fair. You should have told us YOUR arguments are from the COAL INDUSTRY. You are NOT scientific Mr P/E. Shame on you!

Look what WCR says about ITSELF:
World Climate Report, hard-hitting
scientifically correct
definitive
unimpeachable
the nation’s leading publication in this realm,
World Climate Report is exhaustively researched,
impeccably referenced
This popular web blog
It’s the perfect antidote
the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States.
that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years.
www.exxonsecrets.org...

You sir, P/E or no, are not a scientist, but are instead a BOARD DISTRACTOR

[edit on 1/14/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Just one point, there are more than 100 years of climate related data. Tree rings, ice cores, pollen in lake sediments, etc.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 

In fact, it is you who have shown your true colors. You are basing your beliefs on partisanship and politics, not science.
Look at your remarks:




A notorious Right Wing outfit that likes to be be called a “think tank.”




Hey, that’s not fair. You should have told us YOUR arguments are from the COAL INDUSTRY.





He is a fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank


You have made yourself very clear. Anyone of a political bent other than your own cannot possibly be right, even when they use respected sources that have conducted legitimate scientific studies.

I thought we could have a legitimate scientific discussion, but now I see you really just want to present your POLITICAL views. That's fine. I won't bother to spend any more time discussing science with you. It is obvious you are not interested in science, or the scientific method. You cannot refute my scientific arguments, so instead you resort to name-calling, such as your quotes above. I think you should have your thread moved from Fragile Earth to "Political Conspiracies". I believe that is where it properly belongs.

Don't bother to respond to my post, as I'm deleting my subscription to this thread, now that I understand your real intent. Have a nice day, and enjoy your political debate on GW.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Yes... It is a hoax...

Check the list of scientists who have been noted as agreeing with the IPCC have made notice of their disagreement.
If the polar bears are suffering its because the government is spraying them with chemtrails and doing other things to them like they are doing to the rest of the worlds population, animal as well.

To supposedly do anything to save these bears would mean an effort from our governments, that would mean stop poisoning us. When they stop then we can deal with the real problems. I don't think the list will be that great once you take away the false data they spew out for control.

Remote controlling of thermostats in CA is a good example... I mean are you going to stand for that???

Rgds



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
If the planet was warming, the formation of Cyclones, Hurricanes or Typhoons would slow and they would be far weaker.
These storms form when a Low pressure area forms over warm water (a low is up high and very cold) evaporation from the warm water rises and hits the cold air forcing it down which in turn pulls up more warm moist air up only to be rapidly cooled and thrown down again.
the cycle feeds itself causing larger and larger storms.

Now if the low pressure is warmer, there is a less severe interaction between rising moist air and the low pressure causing what is known as a tropical low.
If however the low pressure is extremely cold, the warm moist air reacts violently and forms much larger and powerful storms.

now ask yourself, Have tropical storms been getting more powerfull or less powerfull, if you say more powerful, then the earth is cooling.
If you say less, it must be warming.

If you want to know what I mean by extremes, stand in a hot to warm shower and then suddely turn off the hot and stand in the cold shower.
that will give you an idea about extremes.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
No, I did no such thing, and I do not require science to be omniscient.
However, I do believe for science to be VALID, it must know what it is studying. If it doesn't even know what the parameters are, it cannot conduct a valid study to see how those parameters affect the result.


You did. The below statement expects omniscience.


1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.


We can never be sure we understand and know of all contributing factors. In no science is this achieveable. We work with what we have and accept uncertainty. When uncertainty is reduced beyond some acceptable level, we tentatively accept findings.


Neither you nor ronwhite seem to understand that. It is not enough to have an OPINION on cause and effect, you must know what causal agents to observe, and what the effect is.


And in science we aim to understand as many as possible as best as possible. Same goes for climate science.

The cause and effect of CO2 on temperature is a tad more than opinion, and has been so for over 100 years.


In addition, as I stated several times, much of the data used by global warming advocates is derived based upon false conclusions. Much of the derived data is from tree ring measurements, which unfortunately are flawed.


The false conclusions part is your opinion. The flawed data claim applies to all data. No data is perfect. All is in some way flawed. Some is just more flawed than others.


The 2000 year temperature graph used by the GW people is a complete fraud.


A nice claim of dishonesty there. Well done.

There are numerous studies which go back beyond the MWP, so which one?




In actuality, the warming of the last century, which GW's claim produces the "hockey stick graph, is based upon that seriously flawed data. In fact, the actual data based upon much sounder techniques shows that our "warming period" of the last century is minuscule compared to the period prior to the Little Ice Age. In fact, we have barely emerged from that Little Ice Age.


There are around a dozen studies which suggest otherwise.


Here is the link that shows the actual temperature variation over the last 2000 years. The second graph is the graph which has the most valid data.
If anyone wishes to debate this, that is fine, but kindly read the entire link before jumping up and down.


Energy and Environment, lol.

linky

Loehle hasn't corrected the more fatal issues. Just basic errors. Nice to see you apply fraud to Mann but not to this guy with his seriously flawed proxies and basic errors, which he published in some comic journal.

And after all that, these proxy reconstructions have little impact on the science really. Even if the MWP was somewhat warmer than today, it still wouldn't negate the potential for human impact during the current warming trend. Perseveration on the Mann 1998 study is just a good indicator of Anti-Science 'Scepticism'.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



In fact, it is you who have shown your true colors. You are basing your beliefs on partisanship and politics, not science. Look at your remarks: [CATO Institute] A notorious Right Wing outfit that likes to be called a “think tank.”



I assert NO ONE gets into the lofty status of Fellow of the Cato Institute without passing his background test! He’s well vetted. Libertarians are wacky to start with and don’t get much better over time. (Pat Buchannan excepted). You’re talking Ann Coulter types. Richard Perle. Grover Norquist. Et al. To use 'Think' and 'CATO' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
www.circa75.com...

Aside: Cato types
are much better vetted than Secretary of Treasury designate Timothy Geithner (say GYNT-ner) who we are belatedly learning had OVERLOOKED paying his SE taxes - self employed. Just how do you do that? And, Mr Geithner also neglected to keep up with the immigration status of his nanny. Sweet Jesus! Two issues poor people just do not have to face! I’m not at all sure I want a man watching over America's annual $3.3 t. budgets who can’t watch over his own $34,000. But I’m “stuck” with him. Stephen Decatur said it first. Maybe he can hire an accountant to keep his private tax returns? Or better yet, just check the block that asks the IRS to figure his taxes. End. But see my foot note below for an off topic explanation.




I thought we could have a legitimate scientific discussion, but now I see you really just want to present your POLITICAL views. That's fine. You cannot refute my scientific arguments, so you resort to name-calling, such as your quotes above.

Don't bother to respond to my post, as I'm deleting my subscription to this thread . .



You have been found out, Mr P/E. Yes, now that we see your true colors, tuck your tail and run!

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
Omar Khayyam


Foot Note. SE Tax.
Self employed. What the SE is for the rich the FICA is for the poor. At the risk of posting what you already know, let me revisit this tax. Social security tax is 6.2% of wages up to about $90,000 a year. Medicare tax is 1.45% of wages with no limit. 7.65%. Bill Gates might pay more in Medicare tax than most people earn? If you work for another entity, your employer must MATCH those withholdings from your wages. The total is 15.3% of most peoples wages. It is collected under the FICA law. Federal Insurance Contributions Act. This replaced the OASI in effect prior to Medicare (1965). Old Age and Survivors Insurance. What was popularly called the Social Security Act.

There is NO way a self-employed person can OVERLOOK or FORGET the SE tax. The IRS Form 1040 has spaces for entering the calculations made on the Form SE (and usually Schedule C for business deductions). The most common reason self employed people DO NOT PAY the SE tax when it is due is they do not have the money. I call’em HIGH ROLLERS. If Mr Geithner’s $34,000 unpaid tax bill was for one year, that shows a taxable income of over $220,000. (34000/.153 = 222,222).

And one more thing. An important thing. Social Security is the ONLY and I say again, the ONLY area where the POOR guy gets favored treatment. The benefits are SKEWED to favor the poor. For example, if your average lifetime income was $10,000, you will get $5,000 a year from SS when you retire. But, if OTOH your average income was $100,000 a year you would get only $22,500 a year from Social Security! The maximum benefit. Thank you Franklin, for loving the poor and dispossessed. You did right by us! End of Foot Note.

[edit on 1/14/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite


IT’S CALLED WORKING TOGETHER TO DO THINGS WE CANNOT DO INDIVIDUALLY.

Ah, I see where this is going... You believe that someone in government uis better able to spend the earnings I make than I am. Perhaps that is actually true (based on some of my decisions earlier in life), but it sort of ignores the principle of ownership.

Yes, taxes are necessary. There are many things which cannot be done efficiently through private enterprise. Yet, if one looks back into history, one will see that the greatest growth of the USA came not from government activity, but from the likes of Henry Ford, Eli Whitney, Westinghouse, Sam Morse, Ben Franklin, Alex Bell, and Tom Edison. They did not collect taxes; they created new and unique things to make people's lives easier and better, profiting greatly themselves while they improved the standard of living for the whole population. Now, however, it seems you would like to forget about all of that and try something totally new to us: communism. Ooooh, bad me, I used the 'c' word... but as much as you seem to like taxation, exactly what do you think 100% taxation is?

Some people look at history and want to make it better by tweaking the errors we have made. Others look at history and see nothing worth keeping. Which category do you fall into?

IF carbon dioxide levels are a problem, then I see two possible ways to confront the problem. One is as you seem to advocate: taxation of the producers of energy, which as I have pointed out will lead to nothing but control of the economy by those who create the taxation regulations (the politicians). Two is to use existing technology to remove any excessive amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Concept One will increase costs on all energy usage and will prevent new technology from being introduced which could improve efficiency or create the long-sought alternate energy solutions. It will profit politicians and wealthy, established corporate interests.

Concept Two will also require taxation, but it will allow for new industry to perform and refine the scrubbing operations. It will not benefit politicians or corporate interests, but instead will benefit those who are best able to effect solutions: scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers.

Concept One will only affect CO2 emissions produced by man, which accounts for a small percentage of the total CO2 produced in the atmosphere. Concept Two will affect the overall CO2 level, regardless of the source.

Concept One will be a bureaucratic nightmare, with no real idea of exactly how much CO2 is being curtailed. Concept Two allows the total amount of CO2 extracted to be monitored. Knowledge of how much is being removed can then be compared with weather observations to try and determine a trend and better understand the relationships involved.

Concept One will only be implemented in those countries which have deemed it necessary, and will give an economic advantage to those countries who do not deem CO2 a problem. It will not affect CO2 emissions by China or India, or by dozens of other countries. Concept Two will reduce CO2 concentrations regardless of the political origin of this 'noxious' gas.

Concept One will be fraught with abuse and non-compliance, especially by smaller operations. Concept Two will not discriminate against who is producing CO2.

I vote for Concept Two. You vote for Concept One. I will not change your mind, and you will not change mine. But perhaps I will be able to sway those who read this, not with fear-mongering about a coming meltdown or ice age or the population all freezing in a fiery flood, but with logic and an understanding of fairness and equity.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




I see where this is going. You believe that someone in government is better able to spend the earnings I make than I am. Perhaps that is actually true (based on some of my decisions earlier in life), but it sort of ignores the principle of ownership.



Not so. You are either confused or are changing the subject. You are ignoring the collective “smarts” of 304 million people who now inhabit this 3.8 million square miles of planet Earth. If Congress has 38,000 employees - it does - to help the 535 senators and representatives to make laws for all of us, then I am sure neither you nor I have either the time or resources to “ . . better able to spend . . ” your taxes than you (or I) are able to do. It’s not even apples and oranges. It is more like DAY and NIGHT. Ex: How would you or I know a bridge in St. Paul needs repairs urgently?




Yes, taxes are necessary. There are many things which cannot be done efficiently through private enterprise. Yet, if one looks back into history, one will see that the greatest growth of the USA came not from government activity . . Some people look at history and want to make it better by tweaking the errors we have made. Others look at history and see nothing worth keeping. Which category do you fall into?



I can’t accept that premise. In 1785 the government obtained title to the Northwest Territory from Great Britain. (The US and GB both ignored the NA living there). That became Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.

In 1803 T. Jefferson (who doubted his own authority) purchased the Louisiana Territory from a broke Napoleon mainly to gain legal control of New Orleans for the benefit of the rapidly growing cross-Appalachian citizens who used it to ship goods down river to sell. I will not recite all the states or parts of states made out of that land purchase.

In 1825 the US government paid Spain $7.5 million for Florida. Populated mostly by mosquitoes it was not sure then if that was not an overpayment.

In 1845 we - say the government - annexed Texas. Then in 1846 we - say the government - waged war on Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe - we tricked the more honorable Mexicans - gave us New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado. Later we - say the government - “improved” the southern boundary of our new territory buying the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico for the benefit of the Southern Pacific Railroad.

In the same time frame we - stg - had settled with Great Britain on the northern boundary of the US along the line it now runs. We had earlier claimed 100% of the habitable land in western Canada.

In 1895 we - say the government - annexed Hawaii, dumped the existing government, installed a class of planters to rule and own the state.

In 1898 we took - stg - the islands of Guam, Wake and Midway form the decrepit Spanish. We took the Philippines where we gave it the ‘Hawaii’ treatment. We took but gave back Cuba keeping only Guantanamo Bay. Too many mosquitos for white folks.

We finagled with Columbia, fomented a phony revolution in what we called Panama, and took the Canal Zone. I am not finished. We have invaded Haiti 6 times. We occupied Haiti from 1918 to 1933. Yet Haiti remains the POOREST country in the Western Hemisphere we are often told. Why is that?

OK, enough. The US Government has added 100 times as much wealth to the country as all the private entrepreneurs put together.




IF
carbon dioxide levels are a problem, then I see two possible ways to confront the problem. Concept One is as you seem to advocate: taxation of the producers of energy, which as I have pointed out will lead to nothing but control of the economy by those who create the taxation regulations (the politicians). Concept Two is to use existing technology to remove any excessive amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Concept Two will also require taxation, but it will allow for new industry to perform and refine the scrubbing operations. It will not benefit corporate interests, but instead will benefit those who are best able to effect solutions: scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers. Concept Two will affect the overall CO2 level, regardless of the source. Concept Two allows the total amount of CO2 extracted to be monitored. Concept Two will reduce CO2 concentrations regardless of the origin of this 'noxious' gas. Concept Two will not discriminate against who is producing CO2.

I vote for Concept Two. I will not change your mind, and you will not change mine. But perhaps I will be able to sway those who read this, not with fear-mongering about a coming meltdown or ice age or the population all freezing in a fiery flood, but with logic and an understanding of fairness and equity. TheRedneck



Excuse me Mr R/N, for excising the excess verbiage so we can cut to the chase and see exactly what your point is. It seems we agree on this: Once it is learned beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions are a danger to our future survival as a species, then CO2 emissions should be contained by what we once lauded as the FREE MARKET but which of late has fallen into the waste bin of history.

Perhaps better known as the Reagan Revolution. “Government is the problem, not the solution” he pronounced at every opportunity. Also called Reganomics, the discredited trickle down theory. "Get the government OFF your back" he urged! A $15 t. error of judgment (a conservative estimate - no pun intended). A mistake that will haunt all of us for the next 75 years. Thanks but NO thanks, Ronnie. You have more than any single person wrecked the country's economy and maybe the world's too!

Aside: Has it ever occurred to inquire how the US was able to raise home ownership rates from 20% in 1929 to 70% in 1979? Sixty years of sustained growth. And with nary a mortgage meltdown! No person who purchased an owner occupied federally insured home loan mortgage EVER lost a PENNY between 1933 and 1979. None!

This was the era that saw teh creation of suburbia. Of shopping malls. Of satellite office parks. Two government laws made it happen. Not private entrepreneurs. In fact, it was unrestrained private entrepreneurs who wrecked the economy it took 60 years to build and in barely 28 years!

The two laws? The FHA (1933) and the GI Bill (1943). The FHA - Federal Housing Administration - reduced the required down payment from 50% to 10% and INSURED every home mortgage. The insurance cost the taxpayers NOT one whit! It was paid for by adding 0.5% to the interest rate paid by the borrower and that money was set aside to pay any defaults to the lender. Yes, there were some defaults. But no lender or investor every lost a penny!

The GI Bill instantly made 16 million veterans of World War Two able to buy a new house for ZERO percent down! Same deal. Add 0.5% to the interest payment and pay any defaulted mortgage from that fund. Yes, again, there were some defaults but again, no investor ever lost a penny on a GI Bill house mortgage. Reaganomics destroyed the system that worked. INDEED, it was trafficking in that golden reputation earned over 60 years of bullet proof mortgages that made the anti-regulator’s FREE MARKETEER scam possible! People around the world TRUSTED the US home mortgage as being next to GOD in dependability.

We do know how to make life livable. Part of that is called the SEC, the FTC, the CPSC, the CFTC, the FDA, the USDA, the EPA, the OSHA and YES, the IRS which makes it all possible. And that's life in the fast lane.


See also the book, “George Mason: Forgotten Founder” by Jeff Broadwater, UNC Press, 2006. 352 pp. ISBN 978-0-8078-3053-6 Mr. Broadwater has a good explanation of the 2nd Amendment in Chapter 9.

[edit on 1/14/2009 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join