Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[RickBradford]

As stated many times before, the good news is that responsible scientists and politicians are focusing on solutions (right now)

.

Simply repeating an untruth many times does not make it true.

One scienitific law that JR has just proved is Godwin's Law.

Godwin’s Law: “The longer an Internet discussion continues, the more likely a Hitler comparison becomes.”

[JR Texas]

Repeating it does not make it true. We agree! Say "conspiracy" a thousand times.......it will not make it true.

The hard data make it true.......or in scientific terms, probable.

I keep forgetting to post this link to the article on sea level rise:

http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41013003.pdf

This basically sums up his position: "In conclusion,

the sea-level in the Gulf of Thailand is found preliminarily to be falling slightly or not changing, contradicting

the belief that sea-level is rising in the Gulf of Thailand at the same rate as that in the high and middle

latitudes. This should be investigated in more detail in the near future."

Again, I never read that he said the Gulf waters will never rise under any and all conditions.

I wonder if his words were taken out of context.....maybe he was giving a speech in English (not easy for Thais) and misstated his actual position which seems a bit cautionary. Is that what started this long thread?

Yes, the good doctor does see something unusual happening in the Gulf........but I think he would agree that if both poles melt, Thailand will be in trouble.

Think about it for a moment........two continents of ice melting. These are thick.....not thin......lots of frozen water. Add to that the glaciers melting and the food problems that is creating and will create.......we are in it deep.

The solution, I think, is a decentralized energy system that BIG OIL can't control.

The current centralized system is costing us billions of dollars........trillions even. There are hidden costs to the environment; other hidden costs fighting oil wars.

There is also waste inherent in the system. Centralized systems demand long distance energy transport from energy producing plants to consumers.......often along wires that look like spaghetti in Thailand.

As the energy moves from point A to point B, a massive amount of energy is wasted........just like throwing it in the trash.

A decentralized energy system solves this problem.....much less wasteful.

In addition, the global economy will free itself from the whims of BIG OIL, who by raising oil prices through the roof managed to create a global economic meltdown, hurting billions of people worldwide.

Has everyone forgotten about that?

The human population is growing..........the only way to bring people out of poverty is to increase, not decrease energy use worldwide. The current centralized system is environmentally unsound, costly, and consumer unfriendly, in the sense that consumer has virtually no control over it.

Solution: Develop and deploy (worldwide) a decentralized energy system that is environmentally sound, cost effective and energy efficient.

Can we do it? Of course........we can do anything that we want to do providing we commit to it. I am certain of that.

[RickBradford]

The Hardy Boys, teenage detectives, meet the 21st century:

Frank: "Look! That glacier's melting!"

Joe: "Gasp! How can that have happened?"

Frank: "I bet it's BIG OIL again!"

Joe: "Golly! The scoundrels! What do they want?"

Frank: "Remember what Uncle Jack said? He says that BIG OIL is pumping out carbon dioxide to increase their profits and destroy the planet!"

Joe: "How does he know?"

Frank: "He heard it from a responsible scientist!"

Joe: "Wow! We'd better go and tell Al Gore immediately, before it's too late!"

Frank: "Good idea!"

Joe: "Where does he live?"

Frank: "Oh, in that little 9000-square-foot mansion in Nashville."

Joe: "Let's go! Mind out for that polar bear!"

. . . .

Think about it for a moment........two continents of ice melting

Oct 2009: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-year ice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting."

Hmm, maybe the Sun didn't come close enough to the Earth this year?

[JR Texas]

. . . .

Think about it for a moment........two continents of ice melting

Oct 2009: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-year ice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting."

Hmm, maybe the Sun didn't come close enough to the Earth this year?

Hi, just found this: A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 manmade global warming skeptic groups to confuse the public on global warming science.[1]

About the comment above.........did you get it here:

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-yearice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.

If so, why did you deliberately leave out critical information in bold?

Global warming is GLOBAL (and very complex). You can't disprove it by using one piece of regional data taken at one point in time.

Nobody is saying we should see uniform warming everywhere....constantly rising each year with no decline.

The fact that sea ice may be thickening during certain periods in the face of global warming is actually predictable due to increased precipitation and resulting snowfall.

You actually should be looking at the Antarctic and not the Arctic.......even stranger stuff happening down there. The ozone hole may be acting to reduce the warming (temporary, no doubyt).

Greenland is another interesting place.....ice seems to be growing in the center but declining dramatically along the periphery......it is, however, a net loss......losing massive amounts of ice annually (2 x the amount from just one decade ago).

And then there are those pesky glaciers melting........why is that? Trick photography? A conspiracy by corrupt scientists to get funding?

About the sun coming close to the earth.......read up on Milankovitch Cycles............the earth's orbit changes.........every 100,000 years the orbit has a shape where it matters a great deal how close the earth is to the sun.

When the orbit is extreme elliptical, the change in orbit accounts for changes in the seasons along with the axis tilt (itself subject to change over time). In fact, this is the main reason we go into a serious Ice Age every 100,000 years.

During this cycle, at perihelion the earth does get warmer.........and at aphelion it gets much colder. We are not in that phase now, but we will be.

The warming-cooling effect happens even today, but on a much smaller scale, having little impact on the seasons.

[RickBradford]

The warming-cooling effect happens even today, but on a much smaller scale, having little impact on the seasons.

Thanks for that "clarification" of your earlier post. I am glad that you are capable of changing your mind in the light of science.

Global warming is GLOBAL (and very complex). You can't disprove it by using one piece of regional data taken at one point in time.

It's not up to me to "disprove" it. It's up to you to prove it. You dreamt up this cataclysmic fantasy, so the burden of proof is on you.

If you state that the earth is ruled by purple lizards orbiting the planet in modified pea-pods, you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove it. That's the way science works.

Because it is often very hard to disprove something that does not exist (and I shy away from mentioning the most obvious application of this to humankind, but the same principle applies).

[RickBradford]

And here's what you have to prove:

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably

2. That this is tied to human activity

3. That this is a dangerous process

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

My answers to the above would be: Probable, Unproven, Unproven, Unlikely.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

It takes 365 days for the earth to make a complete orbit around the sun.

During that time, the earth gets close to the sun (we call that summer) and its heat increases.

It also gets distant from the earth (we call that winter) and its heat decreases.

<snip>

Summer, winter? Oh dear! JR, you are busted!

Edit:

Sorry, I see some others have pointed out this glaring error.

You are right........it is nice to know somebody reading this thread knows something about science........I left out critical information about the axis tilting.

<snip>

It is not tilting - it is tilted, apart from the several thousand year cycle during which the angle of tilt changes slightly (which I doubt you knew about and which I'll leave out as it is not "critical information".)

As stated, I left out the critical information about the earth's axis tilting........just a stupid omission.....careless writing.

Nah, sorry, not careless writing. Anyone with any concept of how the solar system works would never have written what you did.

Busted.

Interesting, though, that it took an outsider (ballpoint) to catch the mistake.

Of course, aphelion and perihelion are not primary drivers of the seasons now......they do, however, play a small role.

Before you go on and on........you might want to read about Milankovitch cycles and the earth's orbit around the sun over geological time.

Glad to see you've been doing some reading. "Google is your friend"

Still busted.

Edited November 30, 2009 by JetsetBkk

[JR Texas]

And here's what you have to prove:

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably

2. That this is tied to human activity

3. That this is a dangerous process

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

My answers to the above would be: Probable, Unproven, Unproven, Unlikely.

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Yes

The evidence has already been posted a thousand times.

Now........back to my question:

You just posted part of this, deliberately deleting the part in bold:

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-yearice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.

Why? Your side has consistently stated that scientists are manipulating the data......it looks like you just manipulated a position.

[catmac]

Now........back to my question:

You just posted part of this, deliberately deleting the part in bold:

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-yearice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.

Why? Your side has consistently stated that scientists are manipulating the data......it looks like you just manipulated a position.

Nothing manipulative about it at all, JR.

The quote re Summer ice thicknesses was FACT, the additional sentence that you love merely SPECULATION.

[RickBradford]

The evidence has already been posted a thousand times

Repeating an untruth many times does not make it true. I'm afraid you're going round in ever-decreasing circles.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-year ice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.

The first sentence contains facts, which are incontrovertible. The second contains speculation "could be a reprieve", "at least for a while", and I prefer not to lay myself open to charges of supporting "pseudo-science".

The 2009 data is clear evidence that Arctic ice melting has reversed -- or is it? Is it just a blip in an otherwise consistent series of melting? Or is it the start of a consistent trend of expansion of ice?

I don't know the answer to this, and nor does anyone else acquainted with the scientific process; but I'm betting you do, with your visionary eye unencumbered by the normal protocols of science.

[PhilHarries]

My concern is that BIG OIL will only push for centralized systems that they can control for BIG PROFITS.........note: I am calling for a decentralized system that will liberate humanity from dependency on BIG OIL.

You can call it BIG OIL or BIG MANGOS or even &lt;deleted&gt;' BIG THINGIES but any viable form of alternative energy will come about through a massive programme of international research which will require equally massive amounts of funding. Now the thing with funding that you idealists just can't quite grasp is that the folks doing the funding are spending their, or their shareholder's, money and whatever comes out of it has to repay that money (It's called investment but an explanation of that would be too much, almost like the cause of summer and winter). Thus the Holy Grail of alternative energy will still not be in the hands of the little people.

The plain fact is that there is no alternative source of energy that even comes close to supplying the future needs of the human race unless we go nuclear in a BIG way (there I've used BIG just so we are talking on the same level) but nuclear ain't what you all want is it?

The fact is if we follow the path laid out by BIG AL he and his corporation will get BIG RICH and we'll all be sitting outside our mud huts looking at each other saying "I thought you had the new free to use power system all figured out" "Not me mate, I was just in charge of collating the data into a form that supported my theory".

And all because a bunch of scientists fudged the figures to receive additional funding and international awards from their buddies.

[ArthurPewty]

ERRR! Pardon me! I don't wish to protrude, but isn't all this a bit of a moot point. We can't go on thrashing the hel_l out of the planet for our own short sighted greedy needs. Air,water and soil pollution causes many thousands of deaths per year. I welcome any movement that aims to raise awareness on the health of the planet. The idea that governemnts are using it to raise taxes is hardly a surprise.

[RickBradford]

We can't go on thrashing the hel_l out of the planet for our own short sighted greedy needs

You are exactly right.

The problems we face include: over-fishing, acid rain, the ozone layer, habitat loss and loss of biodiversity, river, sea, land, and air pollution, monoculture, increased land salinity, reduced river flows from over-irrigation, exhausted agricultural land.

These are all real problems occurring now, killing people and animals now, and most of them can be directly attributed to humanity's actions -- rising population and increasing consumerism.

The tragic problem is precisely that the global warming charlatans have sidelined all these problems with their catchy global-warming-is-all agenda, so that we ignore real and difficult problems now in favour of pouring money into a discredited science which offers vague predictions and fear-mongering about future apocalypse.

[JR Texas]

Now........back to my question:

You just posted part of this, deliberately deleting the part in bold:

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-yearice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.

Why? Your side has consistently stated that scientists are manipulating the data......it looks like you just manipulated a position.

Nothing manipulative about it at all, JR.

The quote re Summer ice thicknesses was FACT, the additional sentence that you love merely SPECULATION.

Total BS........that is an example of manipulating a position. Any unbiased person can see it for what it is: manipulation for effect.

One more link to science/reason: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications

[RickBradford]

More good news -- these charlatans are about to get their collars felt.

Investigations have begun into Hadley CRU's denial of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, and the scientific and financial fraud associated with it.

The FOI skullduggery only carries a fine, but the leaching of taxpayer funds for their fraudulent pseudo-science efforts carries significant jail time.

[plachon]

Bugger me............is this thread still going? Even riding high in the charts once more. Must be the Copenhagen effect, when the ability of BIG OIL & BUSINESS vs SCIENCE to derail or persuade BIG GOVT from making a reasonable deal that might just bring us back from the brink of climate chaos will be put to the test.

To get an inkling of what is at stake, I defer to Fred Pearce, the much published and respected author and journalist, who wrote for many years in New Scientist, the most popular and respected science magazine amongst British scientists. Here's his take on the propsects for the planet, if they don't ink a deal to radically cut carbon emissions at Copenhagen from today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...e-stability-end

It's worth repeating what he says about carbon dioxide and its link to runaway global warming by copying a critical section from his article:

"How did such changes come about? They were started by slow and subtle shifts in the orbit of the Earth that changed the amount and distribution of radiation reaching us from the sun. But this small effect was amplified by events on Earth — apparent tipping points in the climate system.

First, there were sudden movements of hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere. During warming, the gas burped into the atmosphere from natural reservoirs, or "carbon sinks", such as permafrost and the oceans. And it rapidly left again during cooling.

Second, there were rapid changes in the ocean circulation system, switching the Gulf stream on and off. Exactly how the planetary wobbles and the carbon dioxide movements and the ocean changes fitted together is far from clear. But they did so to devastating effect.

And what is unnerving today is that the key element, the trigger for the sudden change, appears to have been carbon dioxide. The very gas we are busy pumping into the air at the rate of 30bn tonnes a year, mostly by burning fossil fuels.

Even nature would find hard to match that rate. Our carbon-based fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — are the fossilised remains of swamp vegetation, buried over hundreds of millions of years. Every year we burn what nature laid down over a million years.

So when sceptics tell me not to worry about climate change, I don't buy it. We are interfering with major geological forces. Carbon dioxide is the planet's thermostat. Nature has flicked the carbon switch before. Now we are flicking the switch again. We are interfering with the planet's life support systems."

It seems some people are not only quite content to flick the carbon switch into overdrive, they actually think it will be beneficial to humankind to do so, continually repeating to themselves the mantra : "Carbon dioxide is only plant food; it's not a pollutant".

What I can't quite work out, is why think other forms of human pollution and environmental planetary despoilation should be dealt with, but not the holy grail of fossil fuel consumption and carbon reduction measures? Bizarre.

[RickBradford]

"Carbon dioxide is only plant food; it's not a pollutant"

Quite right; it's not a pollutant. It is a perfectly natural chemical which has existed on earth throughout its life. Bizarre.

Fossil fuel consumption should certainly be addressed because it generates real pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon particles, fine particulate matter and small amounts of benzene and dioxins. Lead, too, until recently.

[brahmburgers]

And here's what you have to prove:

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably

2. That this is tied to human activity

3. That this is a dangerous process

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

My answers to the above would be: Probable, Unproven, Unproven, Unlikely.

BB's answers in red

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably.

It is

2. That this is tied to human activity

Probably, though lessening pollution emitted from fossil fuels is a no-brainer. Lessening human populations is also important, regardless of the GW debate.

3. That this is a dangerous process

GW can be dangerous, not just to the planet's #1 destructive species (guess who?), but also to myriads of other species, fauna and flora. Granted some species will thrive if GW is exacerbated. Some notables: spiny weeds, mice/rats, ants, jellyfish.

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

Move to higher ground. Lessen pollution. Have less babies. Be responsible. Plant trees, die young.

[JR Texas]

And here's what you have to prove:

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably

2. That this is tied to human activity

3. That this is a dangerous process

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

My answers to the above would be: Probable, Unproven, Unproven, Unlikely.

BB's answers in red

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably.

It is

2. That this is tied to human activity

Probably, though lessening pollution emitted from fossil fuels is a no-brainer. Lessening human populations is also important, regardless of the GW debate.

3. That this is a dangerous process

GW can be dangerous, not just to the planet's #1 destructive species (guess who?), but also to myriads of other species, fauna and flora. Granted some species will thrive if GW is exacerbated. Some notables: spiny weeds, mice/rats, ants, jellyfish.

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

Move to higher ground. Lessen pollution. Have less babies. Be responsible. Plant trees, die young.

Spoken with clarity.........even in the face of an avalanche of misinformation and manipulation of viewpoints (but that is all the BOLs can do when they are unable to address the scientific information that counters their point of view).

I still can't figure our why the BOLs are so intent on creating problems for all life forms on the planet, not just humans.

Some people are just problem creators, while others are problem solvers.

Some people are guided by reason/science, while others are guided by emotion/religion.

One thing is certain..........they don't like it when you say BIG OIL, and they really get uncomfortable when you say DECENTRALIZED ENERGY.

Clearly, a nerve has been struck..........that makes me feel good.

Centralized energy = more control and profits for BIG OIL and less freedom for individuals

Decentralized energy = less control and profits for BIG OIL and more freedom for individuals

As an aside, we humans spend roughly 1.1 trillion dollars per year on the military? The bulk of that is from one country: USA.

And we are fighting OIL WARS. That is a major, not so hidden cost of embracing the centralized Stone Age energy system that BIG OIL controls.

The other not so hidden cost is the cost to the environment from using an environmentally unsound energy system.

We can see the results almost everywhere..........but Bangkok is a perfect example of the problem.

The air pollution is horrendous. But I am sure the BOLs will tell you the air pollution has nothing to do with human activities.

I am curious if they think the ozone hole is the result of human activities or is a natural phenomenon.

The good news is that what the BOLs think no longer matters. They lost the real debate a long time ago.

Next week new agreements on climate change will be signed.....it will be interesting to see how firm those agreements will be or if the will be watered down.

I hope there will be serious attention given to moving us away from centralized to decentralized energy platforms.

And I hope somebody talks about population reduction...........the rate of growth has declined, but the global population continues to grow.

[plachon]

And for the skepos and those a bit confused about the science alike, here are each of your concerns and objections to climate change and AGW addressed point-by-point, all in one nice easy to access source. You could save JRT and Brahmburgers and inordinate amount of time, if every time you get a case of the climate change doubtitis creeping in, you just open this link:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Have a nice, cool, low carbon consumption day folks!

[RickBradford]

Interesting indeed, that the climate change scammers feel the need to put out a detailed "guide" on "how to talk to" climate change skeptics.

Skeptics don't need to resort to such psycho-political agit-prop since we are on the right side of history, although it has to be said that some shrill right-wing commentators come uncomfortably close.

The Grist website reads like an introductory course in class struggle at Lenin University.

Edited December 1, 2009 by RickBradford

[JR Texas]

And for the skepos and those a bit confused about the science alike, here are each of your concerns and objections to climate change and AGW addressed point-by-point, all in one nice easy to access source. You could save JRT and Brahmburgers and inordinate amount of time, if every time you get a case of the climate change doubtitis creeping in, you just open this link:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Have a nice, cool, low carbon consumption day folks!

Excellent advice and thanks for dropping by. That was, in fact, the best post yet.......people need to follow your advice.

Here are other links.

Links to research on on global warming and climate change, many with viewpoints of both BOLs (BIG OIL LOBBYISTS/skeptics) and scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...ic_evidence.htm

http://co2now.org/index.php?option=com_content

Link to investigate the backgrounds/qualifications of spokespersons on both sides:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

Make up your own mind, but remember:

Centralized energy = more control and profits for BIG OIL and less freedom for individuals

Decentralized energy = less control and profits for BIG OIL and more freedom for individuals

[RickBradford]

people need to follow your advice

Yes, indeed. Dissent will not be tolerated. All must bow to the BIG AL. Any tenets of rugged individualism, personal determinism, self-will, imagination, and personal creativeness are alike in the masses antipathetic to the good of the Greater State. These willful and unaligned forces are no more than illnesses which will bring about disaffection, disunity, and at length the collapse of the group to which the individual is attached.

So, read the repetitive and shrill agit-prop until your eyeballs melt with boredom.

I know humour is anathema to the climate change scammers, but I'll post this anyway, to counter their monotonous droning.

ClimateGate song

Edited December 1, 2009 by RickBradford

[nisakiman]

And here's what you have to prove:

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably

2. That this is tied to human activity

3. That this is a dangerous process

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

My answers to the above would be: Probable, Unproven, Unproven, Unlikely.

BB's answers in red

1. That the earth is warming gradually but unmistakably.

It is

2. That this is tied to human activity

Probably, though lessening pollution emitted from fossil fuels is a no-brainer. Lessening human populations is also important, regardless of the GW debate.

3. That this is a dangerous process

GW can be dangerous, not just to the planet's #1 destructive species (guess who?), but also to myriads of other species, fauna and flora. Granted some species will thrive if GW is exacerbated. Some notables: spiny weeds, mice/rats, ants, jellyfish.

4. That there is something humanity can do about it.

Move to higher ground. Lessen pollution. Have less babies. Be responsible. Plant trees, die young.

Sorry. Fail.

RB asked for proof - you provided opinion. There's a world of difference, I'm afraid.

There is not, nor has there ever been any proof that CO2 drives climate change.

You are asking that the world spend trillions of dollars and compel the world's population to make fundamental life changes (the heaviest burden of which will fall on those poor souls who are trying to escape a life of grinding poverty) based on the precautionary principle.

That is utter madness.

As pointed out already, all that money would be better spent addressing the real problems of the world, not pursuing some half-baked quasi-religion.

(By the way RB, I already posted the link to the "Hide the Decline" ditty. JR didn't get the joke...)

[nisakiman]

This link puts the situation more in perspective.

[JR Texas]

This link puts the situation more in perspective.

What is causing this?

Now on to something that might be interesting. Global warming is real and so is climate change. No amount of email theft, science assassination attempts, and manipulation of viewpoints will make those two facts go away.

The question is what to do about it. I think we should focus on shifting from centralized (very big and controlled by BIG OIL) to decentralized (very small and not controlled by BIG OIL) energy systems. Why? A thousand reasons......but basically decentralized energy will put power back into the hands of the people.

If such a system is clean and inexpensive, our problems will be solved.........wars/ethnic conflicts will decline, global warming will be a thing of the past, population levels will decline dramatically, etc.

Can we do it? Yes............think about this.

Look at this picture:

That is the first computer ever developed. It had name: ENIAC. It was very big (big as a small house_).........not for personal use. It was very expensive. And you could not put it in your pocket. Because we decided to do so, we now have this:

That is a Blackberry........unlike old ENIAC, you can put it in your pocked, access the internet with it, take pictures, record your voice, make phone calls, and some models even have an optional dental floss function

How did we go from the ENIAC (in the late 40s) to the Blackberry now? Research and Development! Competition! Free enterprise in action. And we decided to do it and nobody thought we could not do it (beliefs matter).

Now, look at this:

That is an old coal fired power station........very big, can't put it in your pocket......very expensive....not good for the environment.

Now, look at this:

That is a new coal fired power station.......look how different it looks from the old one.........can you see it? Uh.....wait a minute.........I don't think I can see it. It is still very big, can't put it in your pocket.......very expensive.....not good for the environment but admittedly more efficient and energy friendly than the old one.

Why are we stuck in the past when it comes to energy? We managed to make major improvements in computer technology, but we are still using Stone Age Energy technology, basically in the same way.

What energy system would be have today if we had put the same effort into changing our energy system that we did into changing our computer system?

Think about it. I think that if we had put the same effort into changing our energy system, we might have our own personal energy system today.......maybe not the equivalent of a Blackberry Energy Device, but something small, decentralized, inexpensive, environmentally friendly........that you control.......not BIG OIL.

Can we still do it? Yes.......it just takes a change in beliefs.........the public has to demand it.

[plachon]

Some stimulating thoughts there JR. Trouble is, I suspect a personal "Blackberry Energy Device" might end up being a mini-nuclear energy plant in your back garden, if not your backpocket, if some people had their way. This might be fine, if we can collectively solve the problem of safe disposal of nuke waste without leaving it as a burden for future generations to solve (or outer space glow-junk). Mini-nukes in your pockets would certainly solve the problem of over-population mind you, so maybe there's something to be said for them. On the other hand, mini-solar devices can't be so far off, surely. hel_l, solar calculators and other solar -powered remote electronic devices have been around for years, so why can't they be upscaled and refined to give off-grid household power solutions? They can? Well, why aren't they being rolled out across the land? Oh yes, I forgot - BIG OIL and BIG SEMs (state energy monopolies eg. EGAT) blocking them and obstructing power decentralisation.

By the way, news today is that Phil Jones has taken responsibility for his indiscreet emails and resigned as Director of University of East Anglia's CRU. Commenting on his decision, Nicholas Stern had this to say in an article in the Guardian:

The economist Nick Stern said the views of those who doubted the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming were "muddled and unscientific". He admitted that all views should be heard, but said the degree of scepticism among "real scientists" was very small. The evidence for global warming stretches back more than 800,000 years, he said. "This is evidence that is overwhelming, from all sources, that's the kind of climate science we're talking about. I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say - that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight."

He added: "If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused."

Rest of report found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/01/c...tist-steps-down

Muddled.........confused........unscientific................in the face of overwhelming evidence.........sound familiar?

[JR Texas]

Some stimulating thoughts there JR. Trouble is, I suspect a personal "Blackberry Energy Device" might end up being a mini-nuclear energy plant........"

Anything is possible, but I don't think that would be developed for public use

One thing I forgot to add: It must be safe.

There is no longer any point going around and around in circles about whether the scientists and or skeptics are right or wrong........totally unproductive at this point. The links we have been using to gather information on both sides are there for all to see.

And what we think does not really matter.........I don't think any of us are climate scientists or politicians making laws. It does, however,matter in the sense that we live (at least some of us live) in democratic societies where (in theory) our vote matters.

Forget global warming/climate change for a moment. Grand conspiracy........no conspiracy..........reason/science vs emotion/religion, etc.

Why are we still using essentially the same Stone Age Fossil Fuel Energy systems?

Even if the scientists are wrong, we still have an incentive to push for the development of an energy system that is decentralized and more in tune with the needs of the 21st century.........especially one that empowers individuals.

You have your own toaster, computer, oven, refrigerator, etc. Why not have your own portable energy device?

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from pursuing this.

[chuckd]

It seems the Aussies are in the forefront of ending the madness....

Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill

By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 26 mins ago

SYDNEY – Australia's Parliament defeated legislation to set up a greenhouse gas emissions trading system on Wednesday, throwing a central plank of the government's plans to combat global warming into disarray.

The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.

Rudd had wanted the legislation passed before he attends next week's U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen so he could portray Australia as a world leader on the issue.

The government's next step is unclear. Rudd could use the failure of the bill to call early elections, but is unlikely to do so before next year, when elections are due anyway.

Australia is a small greenhouse gas polluter in global terms, but one of the worst per capita because it relies heavily for its electricity on its abundant reserves of coal, which also make it the world's largest exporter of the polluting fuel. As the driest continent after Antarctica, it is also considered one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change.

The European Union has a carbon trading system, as do some U.S. states. Canada and New Zealand are among countries considering or in the process of implementing them.

Under the government's plan, an annual limit would be placed on the amount of greenhouse gases allowed to be pumped into the atmosphere and permits would be issued to regulate that ceiling. The permits could be bought and sold, setting up a market system that would make reducing emissions potentially profitable for polluting companies.

Opponents of the legislation say it amounts to a huge new tax on polluting industries such as power generators, which would put a crimp on the economy and lead to higher prices for consumers. Such costs would have no effect on the level of global greenhouse gas emissions, they say.

Climate Change Minister Sen. Penny Wong accused the opposition members who voted the bill down of being climate change deniers out of step with the world.

"This is about doing our bit as part of a global agreement, this is about responding to what is a global challenge. This nation, too, has to act," Wong told the Senate. "You have to make polluters pay. If you do not make polluters pay you will not tackle climate change."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_...imate_australia

[RickBradford]

Climate Change Minister Sen. Penny Wong accused the opposition members who voted the bill down of being climate change deniers out of step with the world.

Well, she would, wouldn't she, given that's all her job exists for.

Global warming is a proven fraud, sustained only by smug groupthink among its proponents, and swelled by a vast army of sycophants with discount brains who all want to feel important.