India widens climate rift with west
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11de-9713-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote

India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions.

Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

“We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said.

“Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.”

Mr Ramesh was also clear that India would not take on targets to cut its emissions, even though developed countries are asking only for curbs in the growth of emissions, rather than absolute cuts.
...

And China is right there with them.

Well you certainly have some important allies in this issue now. Geeezz...China and India who hope to pollute the earth as much as the US has dont believe in global warming! You are really desperate arent you!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2009 11:41AM by Vince(1).

What is desperate about that Vince?

Are you SUCH a loser that all you can do is jump in and post stupid, asinine comments on any post I make? Seriously.

Do you understand why this is bad for the US, other than your spoon fed mantra from the brainwashing gurus you listen to? If India and China won't sign on to emission reductions, it makes anything we do, in the long term, laughable. Right now we produce most of the CO2 emissions, but with 1.1Bil and 1.3Bil populations in India and China, how long do you think it will be before our piddly 300Mil matter anymore?

We should just build a plexiglass bubble around China and India to keep in the pollution. I guess that wouldn't work since that would also cut-off their air supply.

Oh well, I tried.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We should just build a plexiglass bubble around
> China and India to keep in the pollution. I guess
> that wouldn't work since that would also cut-off
> their air supply.
>
> Oh well, I tried.

Proud of you, and you didn't even mention... well, you know. :)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is desperate about that Vince?
>
> Are you SUCH a loser that all you can do is jump
> in and post stupid, asinine comments on any post I
> make? Seriously.
>
> Do you understand why this is bad for the US,
> other than your spoon fed mantra from the
> brainwashing gurus you listen to? If India and
> China won't sign on to emission reductions, it
> makes anything we do, in the long term, laughable.
> Right now we produce most of the CO2 emissions,
> but with 1.1Bil and 1.3Bil populations in India
> and China, how long do you think it will be before
> our piddly 300Mil matter anymore?


Lets see...despite China and India refusing to go along we will 1. have a cleaner environemnt...2. be less dependent on foreign and domestic fossil fuels... 3. develop new technologies and perhaps even manufacturing capabilities (since China and India are obviously not interested in reducing carbon emissions).

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:

>
> Lets see...despite China and India refusing to go
> along we will 1. have a cleaner environemnt

Not exactly. CO2 in and of itself is required for the normal function of our environment. Trees and other plants use CO2 and create oxygen as part of the regular cycles. CO2 is not pollution per se - it has only become an issue in recent years due to the observation that it has increased in recent years and is "possibly" tied to global warming. In the past there was even MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. (in the last 5 to 8 years CO2 has gone up but global temperatures have leveled off or cooled in many instances)

> 2. be less dependent on foreign and domestic fossil
> fuels

How does putting cap and trade in place have any effect at all on fossil fuel dependence? It doesn't. It penalizes folks that are already using fossil fuels, but all they will do is pass that cost along to consumers. Those plants will not go out of business since we still need those generation facilities in place just to meet our current demand.

> 3. develop new technologies and perhaps
> even manufacturing capabilities (since China and
> India are obviously not interested in reducing
> carbon emissions).

Since the ultimate goal of all these laws was supposed to be to REDUCE worldwide CO2 emissions, and the 2 largest countries in the world are currently building MORE coal-fired plants in their countries, what then will our piddly attempts at cutting our emissions do? Not much. In addition, poor and developing countries will be at a significant disadvantage since they will not be able to afford more expensive generating facilities. Their option at that point will most likely be to ALSO ignore these strictures and continue to build cheaper generating plants since it will be more important for them to just get power online. China and India will sell these folks their capability to build generating plants since all the US based companies will have been taxed out of business.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2009 04:40PM by Registered Voter.

they bathe in the ganges river
ENOUGH SAID

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
>
> >
> > Lets see...despite China and India refusing to
> go
> > along we will 1. have a cleaner environemnt
>
> Not exactly. CO2 in and of itself is required for
> the normal function of our environment. Trees and
> other plants use CO2 and create oxygen as part of
> the regular cycles. CO2 is not pollution per se -
> it has only become an issue in recent years due to
> the observation that it has increased in recent
> years and is "possibly" tied to global warming. In
> the past there was even MORE CO2 in the atmosphere
> than there is today. (in the last 5 to 8 years CO2
> has gone up but global temperatures have leveled
> off or cooled in many instances)

The possibly benifitng technologies will be solar..hydrogen...wind...natural gass...maybe even nuclear..all are less pollting technologies.


>
> > 2. be less dependent on foreign and domestic
> fossil
> > fuels
>
> How does putting cap and trade in place have any
> effect at all on fossil fuel dependence? It
> doesn't. It penalizes folks that are already using
> fossil fuels, but all they will do is pass that
> cost along to consumers. Those plants will not go
> out of business since we still need those
> generation facilities in place just to meet our
> current demand.

A penalty to one person...a benifit to another. A higher cost of fossil dependent fuels will stimulate the demand for less fossil fuel dependent sources. The "fact" that we may need all current energy is besides the point. We will be generating less pollution then we would have otherwise. Its like the stimulus package...unemployment may be up...but its up less then if we had no stimulus package at all. And thats a good thing regarding energy sources and jobs.
>
> > 3. develop new technologies and perhaps
> > even manufacturing capabilities (since China
> and
> > India are obviously not interested in reducing
> > carbon emissions).
>
> Since the ultimate goal of all these laws was
> supposed to be to REDUCE worldwide CO2 emissions,

There were many "ultimate goals"not just Co2 emissions..Ive tried to describe them to you.

And any action taken to reduce emissions will reduce what otherwise would have been produced..and thats a good thing. Doing nothing is not a substitute for doing something.


> and the 2 largest countries in the world are
> currently building MORE coal-fired plants in their
> countries, what then will our piddly attempts at
> cutting our emissions do?

If you want to defend China and India go right ahead. Their day of reckoning in forthcoming if they do not reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. Yes, other countries will be impacted by their actions....but none more then China and India themselves. They are on the typical industrial development cycle...sooner or later they will pay for not taking action today. So will we,
Not much.

In addition,> poor and developing countries will be at a
> significant disadvantage since they will not be
> able to afford more expensive generating
> facilities. Their option at that point will most
> likely be to ALSO ignore these strictures and
> continue to build cheaper generating plants since
> it will be more important for them to just get
> power online. China and India will sell these
> folks their capability to build generating plants
> since all the US based companies will have been
> taxed out of business.

Yours is a doomsday phrophecy....with the never ending mantra of taxes kill everything. The fact is taxes never killed anyone...pollution has.

It is interesting to hear you once again spout the republican mantra. It seems the only solution to republicans is to drill for more oil...a 19th century technolgy on it's last dying breath.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2009 05:43PM by Vince(1).

Vince.

I have made it clear in other posts that we need to develop other energy sources. My argument is we need to make energy cheaper, NOT more expensive. And not cheaper so there is no incentive to develop new technologies. No - keep the current plants in place, allow for build out of new Nuclear plants and natural gas plants in the interim. INVEST in geo-thermal, photosynthetic and new clean technologies - but in the meantime you still need to push for some drilling expansion and such to continue to operate the older facilities. Once you have the new technologies that can be scaled up to large facilities, or even local technologies such as these new photosynthetic based solar panels and higher efficiency batteries for the home, then roll those out. As they reduce consumption on the grid, you can start taking down older plants. Right now though it makes no sense at all to significantly increase the price of energy to battle CO2 emissions, when anything we do in reduction will be offset many times over by what China, India and the rest of the developing world will put out. I would say that we put in place a standard that says any NEW building of plants can produce limited emissions. In the meantime as new technology comes out that helps capture CO2 emissions, put that in place at older plants where it makes sense to retrofit them.

If we can lower the cost of energy it will help spur spending, not reduce it. Look at the last cycles of gas price increases - each time we had large spikes on energy prices (1999-2000), last year, 1970s oil embargo - we had recessions.

The folks that want to drive up the cost of energy are not doing this for our best interests. When you come to realize that maybe you will get it. Logic should tell you that lower cost energy will help everyone - at this point in time making energy more expensive will only help the folks invested in cap and trade commissions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2009 06:04PM by Registered Voter.

Lower fossil fuel costs has not...will not result in the investment in new technologies. Tax credits have in fits and starts...we need a long term target price for fossil based fuel sources that justify the development of alternatives. As far as your recession and price of energy comment...of course that is true...with such a large dependence on fossil fuel sources of which we only have a large long term reserve of one commodity (coal) that is true. And when those resources are controlled by foreign sources we are captive to our enemies...and us drilling more oil is only a short term blip on the screen. Cap and trade will generate the money needed to invest in research..in a market based environment.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2009 07:19PM by Vince(1).

as i first read the title i thought uh oh, but as i read i think vince is winning..yet both of you make good points. hmmmm.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> INVEST in geo-thermal, photosynthetic and
> new clean technologies - but in the meantime you
> still need to push for some drilling expansion and
> such to continue to operate the older facilities.

geo-thermal energy causes earthquakes.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > INVEST in geo-thermal, photosynthetic and
> > new clean technologies - but in the meantime
> you
> > still need to push for some drilling expansion
> and
> > such to continue to operate the older
> facilities.
>
> geo-thermal energy causes earthquakes.


site your source or STFUAGO

why wouldnt india object to this information... they are one of the biggest if not the biggest developing nations... they have to pollute if they want to grow/develope, and they obviously dont want to follow these new green laws that are coming out. china too.

duface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > geo-thermal energy causes earthquakes.
>
>
> site your source or STFUAGO

Quote
Earthquakes rly
In other parts of the world, like Australia, Japan and Nevada, geo-engineers are generating their own tiny earthquakes to make hot dry rock amenable to geothermal energy.

"The way ahead is engineered, or enhanced, geothermal systems," Baria said. Often referred to as EGS, these projects require drilling a well a few miles down and pumping water in at high pressure. This induces small seismic events that fracture the rock and provide a route for water to flow. A second well is then drilled to bring the boiled water to the surface.

During the fracturing process, the typical size of the seismic events would not even register on the Richter scale, according to Baria.

"Normally it's peanuts," he said. "You notice it as a nuisance, but it's no threat to structures."

However, high-pressure water pumping at a Swiss EGS site last December induced four earthquakes in Basel ranging from 3.1 to 3.4 on the Richter scale.

"That project should not have been started there," Baria said, because Basel has a history of earthquakes including one that destroyed the city in 1356. "We advised that it was not a good place."

Local authorities in Basel have postponed the project while a review is being performed.

btw, they have more recently found that the itty bitty earthquakes cause damage to structures over time.

you can also read stuff at lamerpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Environmental_Impact


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: July 25, 2009 01:30AM

duface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > geo-thermal energy causes earthquakes.
>
>
> site your source or STFUAGO


Quote
Earthquakes rly
In other parts of the world, like Australia, Japan and Nevada, geo-engineers are generating their own tiny earthquakes to make hot dry rock amenable to geothermal energy.

"The way ahead is engineered, or enhanced, geothermal systems," Baria said. Often referred to as EGS, these projects require drilling a well a few miles down and pumping water in at high pressure. This induces small seismic events that fracture the rock and provide a route for water to flow. A second well is then drilled to bring the boiled water to the surface.

During the fracturing process, the typical size of the seismic events would not even register on the Richter scale, according to Baria.

"Normally it's peanuts," he said. "You notice it as a nuisance, but it's no threat to structures."

However, high-pressure water pumping at a Swiss EGS site last December induced four earthquakes in Basel ranging from 3.1 to 3.4 on the Richter scale.

"That project should not have been started there," Baria said, because Basel has a history of earthquakes including one that destroyed the city in 1356. "We advised that it was not a good place."

Local authorities in Basel have postponed the project while a review is being performed.

btw, they have more recently found that the itty bitty earthquakes cause damage to structures over time.

you can also read stuff at lamerpedia: [en.wikipedia.org]


This forum is Sofa King great!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey thank you sir!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is desperate about that Vince?
>
> Are you SUCH a loser that all you can do is jump
> in and post stupid, asinine comments on any post I
> make? Seriously.
>
> Do you understand why this is bad for the US,
> other than your spoon fed mantra from the
> brainwashing gurus you listen to? If India and
> China won't sign on to emission reductions, it
> makes anything we do, in the long term, laughable.
> Right now we produce most of the CO2 emissions,
> but with 1.1Bil and 1.3Bil populations in India
> and China, how long do you think it will be before
> our piddly 300Mil matter anymore?


The people of China alone produce more CO2 than all of the automobiles in the United States combined.

Besides, AGW is full of bunk science, and the computer models are continuously being proven wrong through actual field observations. It's nothing but a giant scam to steal more of our taxpayer money, and to create a platform upon which politicians will run.

Durng the civil war..almost as many soldiers died of typhoid as in battle. Pictures from those days would show shit holes within spitting distance of drinking water supplies. How much do you want to bet that they debated on the source of typhoid as long and as passionately as we are discussing global warming. It is human nature to stick our heads in the ground hoping a problem will just go away. When the few voices in the wilderness express concern and a solution they are usually hounded into silence. In the future people will wonder why did nothing...why we debated the obvious...global warming is here...it is a reality...and regardless of its source taking action to reduce pollution is the thing to do.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

If China and India refuse to sign on to carbon-limiting schemes then said schemes are utterly useless. There is no irrefutable evidence that human activity is the cause of global warming anyway. For the US to bankrupt itself to chase a chimera while China and India continue on as they are is suicidal. This insanity will be Obama and the Democrat's downfall.

Things can't any lower for GOP supporters, can they?

GDF Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If China and India refuse to sign on to
> carbon-limiting schemes then said schemes are
> utterly useless. There is no irrefutable evidence
> that human activity is the cause of global warming
> anyway. For the US to bankrupt itself to chase a
> chimera while China and India continue on as they
> are is suicidal. This insanity will be Obama and
> the Democrat's downfall.

Nonsense, stop chanting the republican "no, not now" mantra. Living in a cleaner environment is never a bad investment. And there will never be sufficient irrefutable evidence to convince you of anything...

Do you want to be free from foreign oil?

Do you want a cleaner environment?

Do you want to invest in the future?

Pass Cap and Trade today!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2009 12:47PM by Vince(1).

This may be a shock to an uneducated, brainwashed moron like you Vince but China and India are also on this planet. If they don't sign on then any initiative is bound to fail. Now spout off a few more tired, meaningless slogans as a response. Idiot.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GDF Vince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If China and India refuse to sign on to
> > carbon-limiting schemes then said schemes are
> > utterly useless. There is no irrefutable
> evidence
> > that human activity is the cause of global
> warming
> > anyway. For the US to bankrupt itself to chase
> a
> > chimera while China and India continue on as
> they
> > are is suicidal. This insanity will be Obama
> and
> > the Democrat's downfall.
>
> Nonsense, stop chanting the republican "no, not
> now" mantra. Living in a cleaner environment is
> never a bad investment. And there will never be
> sufficient irrefutable evidence to convince you of
> anything...
>
> Do you want to be free from foreign oil?
>
> Do you want a cleaner environment?
>
> Do you want to invest in the future?
>
> Pass Cap and Trade today!
Attachments:

GDF Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This may be a shock to an uneducated, brainwashed
> moron like you Vince but China and India are also
> on this planet. If they don't sign on then any
> initiative is bound to fail. Now spout off a few
> more tired, meaningless slogans as a response.
> Idiot.

If China and India do not participate..they fail! Sooner or later they will have to clean up their portion of the earth they have made a cespool.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2009 03:29PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GDF Vince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This may be a shock to an uneducated,
> brainwashed
> > moron like you Vince but China and India are
> also
> > on this planet. If they don't sign on then any
> > initiative is bound to fail. Now spout off a
> few
> > more tired, meaningless slogans as a response.
> > Idiot.
>
> If China and India do not participate..they fail!
> Sooner or later they will have to clean up their
> portion of the earth they have made a cespool.


That's stupid.

Fruppie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GDF Vince Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > This may be a shock to an uneducated,
> > brainwashed
> > > moron like you Vince but China and India are
> > also
> > > on this planet. If they don't sign on then
> any
> > > initiative is bound to fail. Now spout off a
> > few
> > > more tired, meaningless slogans as a
> response.
> > > Idiot.
> >
> > If China and India do not participate..they
> fail!
> > Sooner or later they will have to clean up
> their
> > portion of the earth they have made a cespool.
>
>
> That's stupid.

Whats stupid is using any excuse to do nothing! How far should this logic be used? The Ganges River is a cespool...does that mean we should stop all efforts to clean our rivers? The air pollution in China is so bad they had to close factories during the olympics....should we start using leaded gasoline again? The logic is stupid....and merely designed to stop progress....in the name of politics as usual.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2009 03:40PM by Vince(1).

CO2 is not pollution Vince.

Certain levels of CO2 are being blamed for Global Warming, that is it - but it is not a pollutant in the traditional sense. You are comparing the "cesspool" Ganges River (which is used indiscriminately as an industrial waste solution and a toilet by most of the local residents) to something which trees and other plants use and convert to oxygen as part of their natural process

Stick to assisted suicide - much easier to argue opinions than it is science tha you know nothing about.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CO2 is not pollution Vince.
>
> Certain levels of CO2 are being blamed for Global
> Warming, that is it - but it is not a pollutant in
> the traditional sense. You are comparing the
> "cesspool" Ganges River (which is used
> indiscriminately as an industrial waste solution
> and a toilet by most of the local residents) to
> something which trees and other plants use and
> convert to oxygen as part of their natural
> process
>
> Stick to assisted suicide - much easier to argue
> opinions than it is science tha you know nothing
> about.


You do not define or limit the discussion...talk CO2 all you want to twist the truth into a lie. The truth is we need greener/cleaner/non-fossil fuel based sources of energy!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

CO2 is NOT pollution.

You are talking about apples and oranges - comparing true toxic pollution that is harmful to humans and wildlife, to CO2 which naturally occurs in the environment and is used by almost every plant on the planet.

FIne..you talk all you want about the non-pollutant and I'll talk about the real issues...

1. Independence from foriegn oil
2. Cleaner environment
3. Reductions in gloabal warming
4. The development of new technologies and manufacturing of those technologies.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FIne..you talk all you want about the
> non-pollutant and I'll talk about the real
> issues...
>
> 1. Independence from foriegn oil
> 2. Cleaner environment
> 3. Reductions in gloabal warming
> 4. The development of new technologies and
> manufacturing of those technologies.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with India and China not sighing on to the emissions protocols (other than #3 - and that is the issue we are discussing). Were you always this dense? It is no wonder you are a RETIRED civil servant.

You obviously don't know the difference between CO2 and other pollutants, and what it means if they don't sign on to the protocols. Do you even understand what Global Warming is, the issues behind why Man-made Global Warming is only a "Consensus" opinion and not scientific fact? It appears that all you know how to do is spout the political soundbites spoon fed to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2009 04:18PM by Registered Voter.

I know and understand all....you are a liar!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Wait - we have Vince patented response number 2:

"You are a liar!!"

Um, what exactly did I lie about about? Lol

...
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fruppie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > GDF Vince Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >

That's stupid.
> > > -----
> > > > This may be a shock to an uneducated,
> > > brainwashed
> > > > moron like you Vince but China and India
> are
> > > also
> > > > on this planet. If they don't sign on then
> > any
> > > > initiative is bound to fail. Now spout off
> a
> > > few
> > > > more tired, meaningless slogans as a
> > response.
> > > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > If China and India do not participate..they
> > fail!
> > > Sooner or later they will have to clean up
> > their
> > > portion of the earth they have made a
> cespool.
> >
> >
> > That's stupid.
>
> Whats stupid is using any excuse to do nothing!
> How far should this logic be used? The Ganges
> River is a cespool...does that mean we should stop
> all efforts to clean our rivers? The air
> pollution in China is so bad they had to close
> factories during the olympics....should we start
> using leaded gasoline again? The logic is
> stupid....and merely designed to stop
> progress....in the name of politics as usual.

That's stupid.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait - we have Vince patented response number 2:
>
> "You are a liar!!"
>
> Um, what exactly did I lie about about? Lol
>

No response. I thought so.

...
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Durng the civil war..almost as many soldiers died
> of typhoid as in battle. Pictures from those days
> would show shit holes within spitting distance of
> drinking water supplies. How much do you want to
> bet that they debated on the source of typhoid as
> long and as passionately as we are discussing
> global warming. It is human nature to stick our
> heads in the ground hoping a problem will just go
> away. When the few voices in the wilderness
> express concern and a solution they are usually
> hounded into silence. In the future people will
> wonder why did nothing...why we debated the
> obvious...global warming is here...it is a
> reality...and regardless of its source taking
> action to reduce pollution is the thing to do.


The only people who happen to be "Sticking their heads into the sand" are the decreasingly naive numbers of individuals who still, as of yet, hardly understand the relevant science pertaining towards Climatology.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2009 09:06PM by ThePackLeader.

GDF Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This may be a shock to an uneducated, brainwashed
> moron like you Vince but China and India are also
> on this planet. If they don't sign on then any
> initiative is bound to fail. Now spout off a few
> more tired, meaningless slogans as a response.
> Idiot.


If all of the nations sign on board except for china and india, then there will atleast be a way to impose a greater amount of pressure on those countrys. Through trade penalties etc. To say that because they arent going to do what should be done so we dont need to is rediculous.

Here's a point. Nowhere in anything I posted did I say we should not try and reduce emissions. What I have said is that we need to embrace all the energy we can at this time while we get the other stuff up and running. Much like we can pass laws for many things, the problem in the past has been that oil has been so cheap that the free market has not been pushed into developing alternative energy the way it should have. We recognized energy issues almost 40 years ago and still , here we are.

Instead of this cap and trade BS, which is just going to take more money out of the US economy and give it to other undeveloped countries (that don't necessarily need our money for their junta governments), we pass a bill that gives major tax incentives and helps fund the ability to cheaply manufacture and produce durable solar and wind solutions that are easily deployable. This is not about doing NOTHING, like some folks here want to parrot back as their only defense for common sense. This is about committing to have significant investments in renewable energy for homeowners, apartment complexes, commercial buildings, etc. In the meantime develop more NG to convert surface transportation which will give significant reductions in CO2 (NG hybrids would work well), and also explore ways to make hydrogen vehicles affordable. With either electric (not hybrid) or hydrogen cars, some form of electricity generation will be needed to either support charging the cars when not in use or creating hydrogen using home generation devices. Just having everyone suddenly plug in a bunch of electric cars would be unsustainable.

No one (certainly not me) is saying we shouldn't attempt to reduce emissions as we can (just in case), and other pollutants - just China and India are going to make most of our efforts pretty futile in 20 years. At least if we don't tax our economy into oblivion, we might actually have money to invest into things like clean coal technology (which it appears the Chinese and Indians are pushing to develop - if they get the market in that, we will have to buy it from them). Cap and trade will mainly commit the US to participating in global trading of these emissions credits - the ones that stand to make the money on this is Al Gore and his friends as brokers at the moment.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:

>
> If all of the nations sign on board except for
> china and india, then there will atleast be a way
> to impose a greater amount of pressure on those
> countrys. Through trade penalties etc. To say that
> because they arent going to do what should be done
> so we dont need to is rediculous.

Explain how we would have any leverage with China. They have us by the nutsack right now, and nothing in the near future is going to change that as long as they have a cheap labor market for manufacturing. The US has such a trade imbalance with China, not to mention all the debt they hold - the thought of us exerting pressure on China is pretty laughable. What, we won't buy their goods anymore? Right. Tariffs? Not likely as this would probably make the global recession/depression even worse.

Vince is the one taking the giant leap into a shit pile when he takes what is posted and infers that folks advocate to do nothing. Cap and trade is a bad idea right now - but we should still put laws and policies in place to move in the right direction QUICKLY. Just not with new taxes - focused tax incentives, great. Grants for companies developing high efficiency batteries, charging systems and photosynthetic solar cells so we can get them to commercial production sooner, great. Do nothing, STUPID - if for no other reason that we need to make energy costs to the consumer cheaper but not at the cost of expanded fossil fuel use..

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Instead of this cap and trade BS, which is just
> going to take more money out of the US economy and
> give it to other undeveloped countries (that don't
> necessarily need our money for their junta
> governments), we pass a bill that gives major tax
> incentives and helps fund the ability to cheaply
> manufacture and produce durable solar and wind
> solutions that are easily deployable. This is not
> about doing NOTHING, like some folks here want to
> parrot back as their only defense for common
> sense. This is about committing to have
> significant investments in renewable energy for
> homeowners, apartment complexes, commercial
> buildings, etc. In the meantime develop more NG to
> convert surface transportation which will give
> significant reductions in CO2 (NG hybrids would
> work well), and also explore ways to make hydrogen
> vehicles affordable. With either electric (not
> hybrid) or hydrogen cars, some form of electricity
> generation will be needed to either support
> charging the cars when not in use or creating
> hydrogen using home generation devices. Just
> having everyone suddenly plug in a bunch of
> electric cars would be unsustainable.
>


The one extremely ironic aspect behind Hydrogen powered cars, is that their byproduct is "Water Vapor". Some people think this is absolutely wonderful, yet, they fail to realize that Water Vapor is a FAR more potent Greenhouse Gas than Carbon-Dioxide could ever pretend to be.

Have you ever noticed that Oppressive feeling you simply can't ignore on days with High Temperatures, and High Humidity? Well, that comes about due to Water Vapor.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a point. Nowhere in anything I posted did I
> say we should not try and reduce emissions. What I
> have said is that we need to embrace all the
> energy we can at this time while we get the other
> stuff up and running. Much like we can pass laws
> for many things, the problem in the past has been
> that oil has been so cheap that the free market
> has not been pushed into developing alternative
> energy the way it should have. We recognized
> energy issues almost 40 years ago and still , here
> we are.
>
> Instead of this cap and trade BS, which is just
> going to take more money out of the US economy and
> give it to other undeveloped countries (that don't
> necessarily need our money for their junta
> governments), we pass a bill that gives major tax
> incentives and helps fund the ability to cheaply
> manufacture and produce durable solar and wind
> solutions that are easily deployable. This is not
> about doing NOTHING, like some folks here want to
> parrot back as their only defense for common
> sense. This is about committing to have
> significant investments in renewable energy for
> homeowners, apartment complexes, commercial
> buildings, etc. In the meantime develop more NG to
> convert surface transportation which will give
> significant reductions in CO2 (NG hybrids would
> work well), and also explore ways to make hydrogen
> vehicles affordable. With either electric (not
> hybrid) or hydrogen cars, some form of electricity
> generation will be needed to either support
> charging the cars when not in use or creating
> hydrogen using home generation devices. Just
> having everyone suddenly plug in a bunch of
> electric cars would be unsustainable.
>
> No one (certainly not me) is saying we shouldn't
> attempt to reduce emissions as we can (just in
> case), and other pollutants - just China and India
> are going to make most of our efforts pretty
> futile in 20 years. At least if we don't tax our
> economy into oblivion, we might actually have
> money to invest into things like clean coal
> technology (which it appears the Chinese and
> Indians are pushing to develop - if they get the
> market in that, we will have to buy it from them).
> Cap and trade will mainly commit the US to
> participating in global trading of these emissions
> credits - the ones that stand to make the money on
> this is Al Gore and his friends as brokers at the
> moment.


I do believe you stated earlier that the cornerstone of your opinion is cheap energy. The drilling for domestic petroleum and that anything that resulted in more expensive energy would be calamitous to our economy.

Okay..so now it's ok for the Government use tax incentives and invest it in cleaner technologies. The problem with that is that the current price structure supporting cheap oil doesnt justify the commercial use of these new technologies. Cheap oil means more oil...not less.

Why is oil so cheap? Well one reason is that producers are not required to build into their price the entire cost of the "damage" done by their product to the environment. All they are required to pass onto the consumenr is the price of production. Cap and trade will more accuratley reflect the complete end-to-end supply chain costs for our dependence on oil.

Cap and trade is market based....the governemnt wont be deciding which technologies to invest our future in (as they would with targeted tax incentitives)...businessses will decide where to buy their carbon credits.

This country could very well influence Chinese and Indian production processes. We do it the same we enforce our food be safe....our toys not being painted with led paint. Except this time rather then take the republican position to assume businesses will comply....we actually inspect factories and processes.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2009 12:35AM by Vince(1).

Yes, cheap energy does NOT = oil. We need to (in the short term - SHORT TERM) develop more energy sources to keep energy prices low for now - otherwise you will end up with some serious global recession. China will be one of the largest recipients of cap and trade funds as they have large undeveloped areas of their country to sell as credits (NOT to themselves mind you). Like we don't already give them enough money.

Cheaper energy will help poor people get out of poverty living, as it will reduce the costs of ALL commodities. If tomorrow they came out with a Fusion reactor that could produce the same output power as 10 Nuclear plants I would be all for building them as fast as we could. The lower the costs of energy - sure, we will probably use more, but it will lower the cost of everything across the board.

In the meantime yes, develop cheap, easily deployable renewable energy for the masses. We can break the dependence on oil for energy much more quickly if we take a path to push renewable to everyone - one of the best ways to do that is major tax incentives. The more people get off the electric grid, the lower the demand on utility companies - and as long as the government doesn't step in and allow the utilities to majorly increase rates to offset demand loss, the costs for all energy will go down due to lower overall demand.

ThePackLeader Wrote:

>
> The one extremely ironic aspect behind Hydrogen
> powered cars, is that their byproduct is "Water
> Vapor". Some people think this is absolutely
> wonderful, yet, they fail to realize that Water
> Vapor is a FAR more potent Greenhouse Gas than
> Carbon-Dioxide could ever pretend to be.
>

Yeah, I thought this was funny as well. No doubt why the push for hydrogen vehicles slowed down a bit. Another interesting note there - they harp on all this glacial melt... hmm, so that means more water in the system which means more water vapor due to evaporation. Kind of an interesting feedback. That site I linked to earlier on another thread on the guy who studied clouds - since there seemed to be some serious flaws in whether they were considered positive or negative feedbacks to the warming process - would indicate that the overall system might get damped out as more water vapor is released, and more clouds form (thus causing global cooling).

In the end, if this all shakes out in the skeptics favor, I wonder what will happen to all the doomsday followers of the cult of Man-made Global Warming.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
>
> >
> > The one extremely ironic aspect behind Hydrogen
> > powered cars, is that their byproduct is "Water
> > Vapor". Some people think this is absolutely
> > wonderful, yet, they fail to realize that Water
> > Vapor is a FAR more potent Greenhouse Gas than
> > Carbon-Dioxide could ever pretend to be.
> >
>
> Yeah, I thought this was funny as well. No doubt
> why the push for hydrogen vehicles slowed down a
> bit. Another interesting note there - they harp on
> all this glacial melt... hmm, so that means more
> water in the system which means more water vapor
> due to evaporation. Kind of an interesting
> feedback. That site I linked to earlier on another
> thread on the guy who studied clouds - since there
> seemed to be some serious flaws in whether they
> were considered positive or negative feedbacks to
> the warming process - would indicate that the
> overall system might get damped out as more water
> vapor is released, and more clouds form (thus
> causing global cooling).
>
> In the end, if this all shakes out in the skeptics
> favor, I wonder what will happen to all the
> doomsday followers of the cult of Man-made Global
> Warming.


Thus it is important the governmnt not determine the means to the end...the governemnt sets goals...the market place determines the most effective way to that end. If buying credits from China is the best way..so be it.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:

>
>
> Thus it is important the governmnt not determine
> the means to the end...the governemnt sets
> goals...the market place determines the most
> effective way to that end. If buying credits from
> China is the best way..so be it.

What kind of meds are you on again? That is funny as shit. The government is not trying to "set the goals" here Vince - what exactly makes you believe that these Congressmen and Senators are smart enough to know what kind of goals should be set? Obama is a lawyer - do you believe he is a climate expert also? The "market" at the moment is dominated by Al Gore and his friends - how are they unbiased in this discussion? Didn't we all agree that greed is a large motivation for people? Well Gore stands to make a shitload of money if this legislation is passed. China signed on to Kyoto as a "developing nation" since they would make money off the deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2009 09:47AM by Registered Voter.

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Quote

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

...

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2009 10:31PM by Registered Voter.

wow... it's good to see vince gets rightfully pwn3d even when im not around.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thus it is important the governmnt not
> determine
> > the means to the end...the governemnt sets
> > goals...the market place determines the most
> > effective way to that end. If buying credits
> from
> > China is the best way..so be it.
>
> What kind of meds are you on again? That is funny
> as shit. The government is not trying to "set the
> goals" here Vince - what exactly makes you believe
> that these Congressmen and Senators are smart
> enough to know what kind of goals should be set?
> Obama is a lawyer - do you believe he is a climate
> expert also? The "market" at the moment is
> dominated by Al Gore and his friends - how are
> they unbiased in this discussion? Didn't we all
> agree that greed is a large motivation for people?
> Well Gore stands to make a shitload of money if
> this legislation is passed. China signed on to
> Kyoto as a "developing nation" since they would
> make money off the deal.


The govt has plenty of scientist to help the President. And this isnt about Al Gore! Its about being good stewards of our last resource.

By the way...read today's Washington Post editorials...it reads...Despite lingering disagreements, The US and China are making noteworthy progress on climate change.

I know you'll come back with some smart ass comment about the Post...but that well is empty....

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince, Vince... tsk tsk. Seriously, you have to stop projecting.

Your obvious inability to see reality is amazing. Also your obsession with my posts - you are definitely on a super troll roll.

.
Attachments:

Call me all the names you want...at least I havent resorrted to "cute" pictures..and you are once again on the wrong side of history and cant recognize the truth...you have swallowed the republikan mean machine pill of negativism and defeatism.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Lol

Vince, you really need to get over yourself. Maybe you should go see a play or something... oh wait, you did!

Just for you
.
Attachments:

Have a problem with gay Asians? You need to make them a part of your "humor"? Sad! Anti-gay..anti-asian! What next?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have a problem with gay Asians? You need to make
> them a part of your "humor"? Sad!
> Anti-gay..anti-asian! What next?

Maybe they are from North Korea - I am sure you could tie that into a lame defense of your inability to do anything other than act like a stalker troll.

*sniff* I am so touched that you care to post Vince...

You are pretty entertaining this morning - lamer than usual, and definitely all fired up. Might want to use that energy for something more productive than beating your head against the screen.

I brought facts to the table..you brought insulting cartoons.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Just for the record the above men in diapers with the leaves on their crotch are nips. They were (may still be) larger than life in Japan and they get tons of sideways pussy.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I brought facts to the table..you brought
> insulting cartoons.

Vince - I posted a fact, you posted an insult. I posted more facts, you posted a list of potential goals (limited "factual" value - just a list regurgitated like a bad hairball). I posted more facts, you posted more insults. You are amazingly dense in your preoccupation with me. I would have to say that your grasp of the facts is singularly unimpressive, and probably amounts to why you were forced to retire from a job you most likely sucked at. (Yes, that was an insult).

When you have something interesting to say please do, otherwise please stop killing the kittens with your incessant masturbation. Because honestly, the brevity of your posts means you must be doing something else with your other hand.
.
Attachments:

I am preocuupied by the truth..not you! So now you're killing kittens..as if you dont masturbate. Stupid..stupid...stupid!

The fact is progress is being made with China on CO2 omissions.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact is progress is being made with China on
> CO2 omissions.

LOL!!! wow... where are you getting your information because that's just hilarious.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Yeah - about the only meaningful thing they are doing is replanting some forests - which we should be doing here in the US when we are paying farmers to not plant crops.

China’s 2030 CO2 Emissions Could Equal the Entire World’s Today
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/chinas-2030-co2/

Quote

If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today. That’s just the most stunning in a series of datapoints about the Chinese economy reported in a policy brief in the latest issue of the journal Science.

Coal power has been driving the stunning, seven plus percent a year growth in China’s economy. It’s long been said said that China was adding one new coal power plant per week to its grid. But the real news is worse: China is completing two new coal plants per week.

...

What Americans can’t expect is that we’ll be able to strongarm the Chinese into anything. We’re not dealing with a small Latin American country or a former Soviet republic. As these raw economic numbers make clear: they are going to generate power to build their economy, with or without us.

China has basically said they are building whatever electrical generating capacity they need. While they have set some future goals to push more Hydro plants, they still have coal fired plants being built today, with many more still in the pipeline.

China takes great care of their environment:


.
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus it is important the governmnt not
> > determine
> > > the means to the end...the governemnt sets
> > > goals...the market place determines the most
> > > effective way to that end. If buying credits
> > from
> > > China is the best way..so be it.
> >
> > What kind of meds are you on again? That is
> funny
> > as shit. The government is not trying to "set
> the
> > goals" here Vince - what exactly makes you
> believe
> > that these Congressmen and Senators are smart
> > enough to know what kind of goals should be
> set?
> > Obama is a lawyer - do you believe he is a
> climate
> > expert also? The "market" at the moment is
> > dominated by Al Gore and his friends - how are
> > they unbiased in this discussion? Didn't we all
> > agree that greed is a large motivation for
> people?
> > Well Gore stands to make a shitload of money if
> > this legislation is passed. China signed on to
> > Kyoto as a "developing nation" since they would
> > make money off the deal.
>
>
> The govt has plenty of scientist to help the
> President. And this isnt about Al Gore! Its
> about being good stewards of our last resource.
>
> By the way...read today's Washington Post
> editorials...it reads...Despite lingering
> disagreements, The US and China are making
> noteworthy progress on climate change.
>
> I know you'll come back with some smart ass
> comment about the Post...but that well is
> empty....


Please, for the sake of arguments, stop using the term "Climate Change". I'm not picking on you for this, because there has been a massive mainstream push behind this, but the term in of itself is utterly stupid. It somehow takes into preposterous assumption the idea that the Earth's Climate is ever really static in nature, which it is most certainly not, and therefore the term represents nothing but a Normal Process. It also represents the politically motivated attempt by pseudo-scientists at covering their rears when they realized that their theory of AGW was flawed at best, and they were about to be proven wrong. By claiming a Natural Process as "Man-Made", they have now covered every angle, and thus no matter which direction or Climate now takes (Warmer or Cooler), they can always claim to be correct.

Yeah - you have to laugh. In the 1970s it was the next Ice Age. Then it became Global Warming (if you had read the Ice Age stuff, they postulated that it was going to get much hotter, then it would get very cold). Of course, since 1998 global temperatures have dropped - which is what then made them move to Climate Change.

I think the irony here is, they want us to reduce CO2 since supposedly it is the problem with Man-Made Global Warming. On the safe side, how about we just plant a lot of new trees - maybe one of the groups would research and let the rest of us know what the most CO2 efficient tree (or plant) is, and we could start planting new trees all over the place. Since they use CO2, it seems like a a good first step. That way also, if it turns out they are wrong, and it starts cooling drastically, we will have more wood to burn.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Call me all the names you want...at least I havent
> resorrted to "cute" pictures...

Like oversized pics of flowers?

You're batshit crazy. Fuck you, retard.

This was the theory, as of the 1970s, as to why there would eventually be a global cooling. It was based on the proposition that as more fresh water entered the ocean from glacial melt, it would dilute the salt concentration in the Gulf Stream. That would end up reducing the amount of warm water pushed to the waters off Greenland and Iceland by the current, thus triggering a significant cool down in the Northern Hemisphere.

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

I remember from reading some of the 1970s articles that this was part of the theory - not that the earth had experienced cooling (I noticed the Wiki article on it is not as I remember the stories)

Quote

...
There is some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Iceland, Ireland, the Nordic countries, and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift. The chances of this occurring are unclear; there is some evidence for the stability of the Gulf Stream but a possible weakening of the North Atlantic drift; and there is evidence of warming in northern Europe and nearby seas, rather than the reverse. The future is undecided, as studies of the Florida Current suggest that the Gulf Stream weakens with cooling and strengthens with warming, being weakest (by ~10%) during the Little Ice Age and strongest during 1,000-1,100 yr BP, the Medieval Warm Period (Lund, Lynch-Stieglitz,and Curry, Nature (2006) 444: 601-604).

...

Bryden measurements reported late 2005

The NewScientist.com news service[9] reported on 30 November 2005 that the National Oceanography Centre in the UK found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream from the last such measurement in 1992. The authors note that currently the observed changes are "uncomfortably close" to the uncertainties in the measurements. However, the North Atlantic is currently warmer than in the earlier measurements.[10] This suggests that either the circulation is not weakening, or that, even if it is weakening, the weakening is not having the hypothesised cooling effect, or that other factors are able to overwhelm any cooling.[11]

The New Scientist article was based on an article in Nature.[12] In News and Views in the same issue, Detlef Quadfasel reinforces the point that the uncertainty of the estimates of Bryden et al. is high, but says other factors and observations do support their results. Quadfasel continues by pointing out the significance of the possible implications, with palaeoclimate records showing drops of air temperature up to 10°C within decades, linked to abrupt switches of ocean circulation when a certain threshold is reached. He concludes that further observations and modelling are crucial for providing early warning of a possible devastating breakdown of the circulation.[13]

On 19 January 2006, a News Feature Climate change: A sea change by Quirin Schiermeier appeared in Nature, detailing reactions to the Bryden results.[14] Points made by Schiermeier include the following:

* The results are a surprise to scientists in the field.
* Modelling suggests that increase of fresh water flows large enough to shut down the thermohaline circulation would be an order of magnitude greater than currently estimated to be occurring, and such increases are unlikely to become critical within the next hundred years; this is hard to reconcile with the Bryden measurements.
* The Bryden results could be caused by natural variation, or "noise", that is, coincidence.
* If the results are correct, perhaps thermohaline circulation reductions will not have the drastic effects that have been predicted on European cooling.
* While previous shutdowns (e.g. the Younger Dryas) have caused cooling, the current overall climate is different; in particular sea-ice formation is less because of overall global warming.
* However, a thermohaline circulation shutdown could have other major consequences apart from cooling of Europe, such as an increase in major floods and storms, a collapse of plankton stocks, warming or rainfall changes in the tropics or Alaska and Antarctica (including those from intensified El Niño effect), more frequent and intense El Niño events, or an oceanic anoxic event (oxygen (O2) below surface levels of the stagnant oceans becomes completely depleted - a probable cause of past mass extinction events).

They seem to be getting more confused on this issue as time goes on - probably why they have now changed it to climate change since it is obvious they really don't know the answer. Their models don't seem to give them answers that in any way are being shown by results in the field.

I love how all the stuff in Wiki is not wrapped in global warming theory - originally this stuff had nothing to do with it, and if this "facet" of the theory was pushed, it would undermine the warming argument.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah - you have to laugh. In the 1970s it was the
> next Ice Age. Then it became Global Warming (if
> you had read the Ice Age stuff, they postulated
> that it was going to get much hotter, then it
> would get very cold). Of course, since 1998 global
> temperatures have dropped - which is what then
> made them move to Climate Change.
>
> I think the irony here is, they want us to reduce
> CO2 since supposedly it is the problem with
> Man-Made Global Warming. On the safe side, how
> about we just plant a lot of new trees - maybe one
> of the groups would research and let the rest of
> us know what the most CO2 efficient tree (or
> plant) is, and we could start planting new trees
> all over the place. Since they use CO2, it seems
> like a a good first step. That way also, if it
> turns out they are wrong, and it starts cooling
> drastically, we will have more wood to burn.


Lol, I like that idea, as it covers both angles. That is the type of thinking that we need more of to be honest.

In last Sunday's Post editorial...it reads...Despite lingering disagreements, The US and China are making noteworthy progress on climate change.

It seems that once you decide not to trivialize a topic...things can happen. Thus the strategy to trivialize global warming.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince - wow. A headline. An EDITORIAL says that? Whooeee - see, no more worries then. Thanks so much.

Go to some of the Chinese sites (they are in English also) that talk about what THEY are doing. They are building lots and lots and lots and lots of coal fired plants. They love coal because they can buy it cheap from the US too. They are not going to wait for clean coal technology because they don't have time.

I have pointed out numerous sites in these postings here and elsewhere linking ot them. The fact that you rely on an editorial... hmm. Good thing you have all these other people to think for you huh? And the Post - they are the gospel on this kind of thing I know - they would never have an EDITORIAL that was skewed or anything.

You are a riot. Please keep posting, please. LOL.

I think I'll believe the Washington Post before any Chinese web site.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Sarcasm. You're doing it wrong. You need to be cool in order to use it. You do not exude coolness.

RegisteredVoter,

Sarcasm. You're doing it wrong. You need to be cool in order to use it. You do not exude coolness.

Not with Vince. He doesn't get it anyway. I just capitalize the big words for him so he knows which ones to look up. Sometimes he doesn't know who THEY are either.

Him Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Call me all the names you want...at least I havent
> > resorrted to "cute" pictures...
>
> Like oversized pics of flowers?
>
> You're batshit crazy. Fuck you, retard.



"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

When the stupid pics get out of control....I feel the need to respond with beautiful pictures...I'm a regular babarian.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Wow - its all psychological evidently. Glad these guys had nothing better to do then "study" why people weren't acting to fight "climate change".

What a joke.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090805/tsc-environment-us-climate-psychology-011ccfa.html

Quote

...
Numerous psychological barriers are to blame, the task force found, including: uncertainty over climate change, mistrust of the messages about risk from scientists or government officials, denial that climate change is occurring or that it is related to human activity.

Other factors include undervaluing the risk. Even though an international study showed many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years, that could lead some to conclude that they don't have to make changes now.

Some people believe anything they do would make little difference and they therefore choose to do nothing.
...

Sounds like the assessment of why people choose not to vote.

And just for you Vince:

China refuses to budge on greenhouse gases
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090805/tsc-china-refuses-to-budge-on-greenhouse-f55c36c.html

Quote

China refused to budge Wednesday on its demands that rich nations commit to large greenhouse gas cuts at upcoming climate change talks, while also declining to put a ceiling on its own emissions.
...
Yu said China is seeking to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent from 2006 to 2010 as part of a plan to address global warming and will set similar targets for the period until 2020.

However, China still has not projected when it will reach its peak of greenhouse gas emissions, he added.

"When China reaches its emission peak will depend on its development stage, per capita GDP, national resources, technological level," Yu said.

"Our experts and competent authorities are studying when China will reach its emission peak."

Gotta love all the progress they are making.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2009 02:02AM by Registered Voter.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the stupid pics get out of control....I feel
> the need to respond with beautiful pictures...I'm
> a regular babarian.



"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

And from the UN comes the real story.

The goal here is to get "developed countries" to not only move businesses and buy products from developing countries, we must also give them more money outside of other developmental assistance already provided.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
Incheon (Republic of Korea)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557

Quote

...
When the leaders of the G-8 agreed in July to keep the global temperature increase within two degrees centigrade by the year 2050, that was welcomed and I welcome that statement.

But I also said again, it was not enough.

But leaders have agreed to cut green house gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. That is welcomed again. But that must be accompanied by the ambitious mid-term target by 2020 as science tells us to do. There I said, while I applaud their commitment, that is not enough.

I called for matching these long-term goals with ambitious mid-term emission reduction targets.

Let me be clear about what we need to do.

There are four points [of] very important key political issues.

First industrialized countries must lead by committing to binding mid-term reduction targets on the order of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels.

Unfortunately, the mid-term emission targets announced so far are not close enough to this range. This must change. That is why I am urging at this time, that the Korean government should take more ambitious targets.

Second, developing countries need to take nationally appropriate mitigation actions in order to reduce the growth in their emissions substantially below business as usual.

Their actions must be measurable, reportable and verifiable.

Third, developed countries must provide sufficient, measurable, reportable and verifiable financial and technological support to developing countries.

This will allow developing countries to pursue their mitigation efforts as part of their sustainable green growth strategies and to adapt to accelerating climate impacts.

Significant resources will be needed from both public and private sources.

Developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, will collectively need billions of dollars in public financing for adaptation.

I am talking here about new money – not re-packaged Official Development Assistance. This is one of the most important issues which we are going to discuss on September 22nd in New York, and this year again at the G20 Summit Meeting in Pittsburgh on September 24th.

Fourth, we need an equitable and accountable mechanism for distributing these financial and technological resources, taking into account the views of all countries in decision-making.

Accomplishing all of this requires tough decisions. It will take flexibility and hard work to negotiate the most difficult issues.
...

??? Where is all this coming from? The US printing presses?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University