If Al Gore Is Right And Temps Increase By 5 Degrees

[canuckamuck]

Actually I think big oil is in on it too.

[JR Texas]

Actually I think big oil is in on it too.

OK........In on what? Please explain your position on global warming........short and to the point if possible. Thanks.

[canuckamuck]

For JR

ACC ( The theory of Climate changed by humans) is attractive to different groups for different reasons.

-Governments like the tax potential. It also represents an opportunity for sweeping changes that would not be allowed without crisis. (This is very dangerous)

-Environmentalists like it because they like anything that claims to be able clean up the earth (I agree with their intentions, I am sorry they are misled)

-Socialists like it because it is an opportunity to attack capitalism. (Socialists have co-opted the environmentalist agenda so it is hard to distinguish between the two) Antiglobilazation fanatics fit in here.

-Media likes it because it is their job to keep us in fear. Fear makes big sales/ratings. Media for the most part is owned by Big money.

-Those who control governments like it because it is leverage to change independent states into a new world goverment based on the global threat.

-Big Oil is not really big oil, but big money. Big money likes it because they have hedged their bets and will continue to be profitable no matter which way the cookie crumbles. They all have invested in alternative energy, green products, and other things.

-ACC is attractive to scientists because it is an unprecedented cash cow and job security. There is no end to grants to people who find data in favor of ACC. The end of the ACC scam would be financially devestating to the scientific community.

There it is, the only loser is truth and independence.

My position is that: ACC is tempting a lot of people with influence to manipulate the masses into believing they are protecting the Earth. Greed and ambition is the real problem.

Edited May 20, 2009 by canuckamuck

[JR Texas]

For JR

ACC ( The theory of Climate changed by humans) is attractive to different groups for different reasons.

-Governments like the tax potential. It also represents an opportunity for sweeping changes that would not be allowed without crisis. (This is very dangerous)

-Environmentalists like it because they like anything that claims to be able clean up the earth (I agree with their intentions, I am sorry they are misled)

-Socialists like it because it is an opportunity to attack capitalism. (Socialists have co-opted the environmentalist agenda so it is hard to distinguish between the two) Antiglobilazation fanatics fit in here.

-Media likes it because it is their job to keep us in fear. Fear makes big sales/ratings. Media for the most part is owned by Big money.

-Those who control governments like it because it is leverage to change independent states into a new world goverment based on the global threat.

-Big Oil is not really big oil, but big money. Big money likes it because they have hedged their bets and will continue to be profitable no matter which way the cookie crumbles. They all have invested in alternative energy, green products, and other things.

-ACC is attractive to scientists because it is an unprecedented cash cow and job security. There is no end to grants to people who find data in favor of ACC. The end of the ACC scam would be financially devestating to the scientific community.

There it is, the only loser is truth and independence.

My position is that: ACC is tempting a lot of people with influence to manipulate the masses into believing they are protecting the Earth. Greed and ambition is the real problem.

Thanks.......some of what you said I agree with.........will get back to you after thinking more about what you said.......also have to go to the dentists, so will not be in a good mood to respond.

[Jingthing]

TEXPAT: I don't see this as a partisan issue.

Not sure why you're trying to pit GOP and DEM against each other on climate change.

It shouldn't be, but that is exactly how it is turning out to be in Washington D.C. The right wing loser republicans are on the STUPID side of all issues concerning science. It is truly PATHETIC. BTW, are you American? Here you are commenting on American politics, do you actually know anything about it? Gore may be as you say a "retard" but he is a correct one. Personalities don't matter. SCIENCE does.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Jingthing

[canuckamuck]

To call Al Gore a retard is an insult to those were originally labeled with that offensive term. Those people are often wonderful characters with unselfish attitudes and no agenda. Al Gore on the other hand is a man with no soul. He was also the guy quickest to the post in capitalizing on the greatest scam ever, increasing his net worth more than a hundredfold. So I think he is not an idiot.

[Jingthing]

To call Al Gore a retard is an insult to those were originally labeled with that offensive term. Those people are often wonderful characters with unselfish attitudes and no agenda. Al Gore on the other hand is a man with no soul. He was also the guy quickest to the post in capitalizing on the greatest scam ever, increasing his net worth more than a hundredfold. So I think he is not an idiot.

Point well made. I agree retarded is a rude word for both Al Gore and also the people afflicted with limitations. On Al Gore, again, the science is the science. Whether or not these grand conspiracy theories are true about Al Gore's plans to build a green money empire, the science doesn't care. This is bigger than any person, any person's morality or greed. Are you saying the NOAA agency is similarly afflicted with corruption? I think not.

Global warming: Unequivocal

If you don't know that word. Look it up.

Not Al Gore. NOAA. Not the UN. NOAA.

Unequivocal

Unequivocal

Unequivocal

Unequivocal

Unequivocal

BTW, the other side, the right wing global warming skeptic side, most of them don't even believe in the theory of evolution. Which side is right, do you think?

Edited May 20, 2009 by Jingthing

[bonobo]

For JR

ACC ( The theory of Climate changed by humans) is attractive to different groups for different reasons.

-Governments like the tax potential. It also represents an opportunity for sweeping changes that would not be allowed without crisis. (This is very dangerous)

-Environmentalists like it because they like anything that claims to be able clean up the earth (I agree with their intentions, I am sorry they are misled)

-Socialists like it because it is an opportunity to attack capitalism. (Socialists have co-opted the environmentalist agenda so it is hard to distinguish between the two) Antiglobilazation fanatics fit in here.

-Media likes it because it is their job to keep us in fear. Fear makes big sales/ratings. Media for the most part is owned by Big money.

-Those who control governments like it because it is leverage to change independent states into a new world goverment based on the global threat.

-Big Oil is not really big oil, but big money. Big money likes it because they have hedged their bets and will continue to be profitable no matter which way the cookie crumbles. They all have invested in alternative energy, green products, and other things.

-ACC is attractive to scientists because it is an unprecedented cash cow and job security. There is no end to grants to people who find data in favor of ACC. The end of the ACC scam would be financially devestating to the scientific community.

There it is, the only loser is truth and independence.

My position is that: ACC is tempting a lot of people with influence to manipulate the masses into believing they are protecting the Earth. Greed and ambition is the real problem.

Thanks.......some of what you said I agree with.........will get back to you after thinking more about what you said.......also have to go to the dentists, so will not be in a good mood to respond.

I have to agree with JR here. For once, someone who is decrying global warming has posted something logical and rational. I don't agree 100% with all you have written here, Canuckamuk, but there is probably some validity to what you have written, and at least it makes some amount of sense.  I would say, though, that by Occams Razor, if nothing else, some of what you contend is probably not accurate.

I would say you have your weakest arguements with Big Oil and those who control your governments, but your arguements about media and socialists seem to ring more true.

Regardless of motive though, I still see no harm in going with the current concensus while I do see harm in ignoring it.  And trying to fight global warming, even if that turns out to have been unnecessary, can have many other positive effects.

Lets assume Big Oil is in back of all of this as they are now heavily invested in green technology, as you contend.  If they are able to make some significant breakthroughs and reduce the amount of oil we burn, even if that has zero impact on global warming, then what do we have as a result?  Less dependance on dwindling foreign oil and cleaner air.  I don't see the downside, frankly.  

[canuckamuck]

In regards to Occam's razor, I felt obliged to fill in the whole picture to answer JR's request. If we are honest we can admit we all operate one some facts and some assumptions. I assume there are forces behind the scenes that hold great power globally. I also assume Big oil has their irons in many fires and the big boys can afford to play both sides.

But I will push my luck here and attempt to make even more sense. My contention with the ACC machinery is that if CO2 is innocent, why should we devote our energy against it's production, when there are known environmental issues that can be addressed today:The pollution of the ocean, the emission of Carbon monoxide et all, over fishing, rain forest depletion, garbage, Thai soap operas.

Yes I admit the focus on CO2 emissions will have technological benefits. But why can't we be honest and go after those benefits directly.

The answer lies in who gains the most from the ACC theory.

[bonobo]

... when there are known environmental issues that can be addressed today:The pollution of the ocean, the emission of Carbon monoxide et all, ... Thai soap operas.

OK, there you are suddenly making much more sense!

Edited May 20, 2009 by bonobo

[teatree]

For JR

ACC ( The theory of Climate changed by humans) is attractive to different groups for different reasons.

-Governments like the tax potential. It also represents an opportunity for sweeping changes that would not be allowed without crisis. (This is very dangerous)

-Environmentalists like it because they like anything that claims to be able clean up the earth (I agree with their intentions, I am sorry they are misled)

-Socialists like it because it is an opportunity to attack capitalism. (Socialists have co-opted the environmentalist agenda so it is hard to distinguish between the two) Antiglobilazation fanatics fit in here.

-Media likes it because it is their job to keep us in fear. Fear makes big sales/ratings. Media for the most part is owned by Big money.

-Those who control governments like it because it is leverage to change independent states into a new world goverment based on the global threat.

-Big Oil is not really big oil, but big money. Big money likes it because they have hedged their bets and will continue to be profitable no matter which way the cookie crumbles. They all have invested in alternative energy, green products, and other things.

-ACC is attractive to scientists because it is an unprecedented cash cow and job security. There is no end to grants to people who find data in favor of ACC. The end of the ACC scam would be financially devestating to the scientific community.

There it is, the only loser is truth and independence.

My position is that: ACC is tempting a lot of people with influence to manipulate the masses into believing they are protecting the Earth. Greed and ambition is the real problem.

One thing I would add is the potential for governments to micro manage everyone's life.

Carbon quotas anyone? 'Taxi' meters in all private cars? Governments limiting how much you heat or cool your house or how far you can travel? ETC ETC ETC. All in the name of saving the environment against that evil, toxic gas - CO2.

[himachal]

Assuming that Al Gore's warnings and predictions of global warming are correct, there are more and more respected scientists saying that IT is true and that IT IS too late already...... even if we could stop emitting those nasties into the atmosphere immediately, IT IS COMMING and some say as soon as 15 yrs!!

So, when it comes and LOS heats up 4 or 5 more degrees to 45 degrees, could/would you stay and endure it or head for the hills?? or North??

I guess the tourist industry would finally crumble to this blow.....who would want to fly all the way here, just to stay in an aircon hotel or get heat stroke??

Real-estate along with it...who would buy here??

How would it affect the agriculture industry?? Rice maybe could survive if LOS doesn't become a dustbowl [as some are predicting].

I, for one would head for the hills or north, as I am finding temps in the high 30's too much to feel comfortable.

I don't want to be accused of spreading gloom and doom, so spare me the accusations and please constructively share your thoughts on this matter.

Now More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - US SENATE

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...F0-274616DB87E6

A few quotes from the report:

"I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

700 scientists have spoken out against the idea that the world is warming up? That's a lot......... then again; how many people voted for Reagan, Bush, Thatcher and Thaksin?

[bonobo]

All in the name of saving the environment against that evil, toxic gas - CO2.

Why is it that some people who don't beleive global warming is a problem joke about how CO2 is castigated as a culprit of global warming?  Just becaus esoemthign is natural does not mean that oo much of it is good.  Try holding plastic bag over your mouth and nose and keep breathing that.  Is the CO2 buildup harmless to you?

Too much of most anything can be detrimental to your health.  So why should it be different with CO2?

I am not a big fan of carbon credits.  But that does not mean I don't think there exists the core problem.

[Jingthing]

There are lots of different KINDS of scientists. Not all of the disciplines would really be in a position to even have an informed view on global warming. Might as well say 10,000 dentists Dissent ...

[JetsetBkk]

I would like to add some more fuel to the fire to refute the ridiculous reactionary arguments that global warming is not real.

Consider this from today's Washington Post:

... She said the proof is in data on shrinking sea ice, higher surface temperatures and rising sea levels....

I suppose that the National Snow and Ice Data Center are part of the "ridiculous reactionary" group, eh JT?

Ice data for South pole . . . . . . . Ice data for North pole

So there's been an increase of 1,500,000 sq. km. in the sea ice extent in the Antarctic and a decrease of 900,000 sq. km. in the Arctic.

Overall, a gain of 600,000 sq. km.

... She said the proof is in data on shrinking sea ice......

So when things get bigger, it's called "shrinking"?

[Jingthing]

So there's been an increase of 1,500,000 sq. km. in the sea ice extent in the Antarctic and a decrease of 900,000 sq. km. in the Arctic.

REPLY

Global temperatures had broken from their warming trend in the past few years but that data do not disprove the consensus behind long-term warming.

N.O.A.A.

[JR Texas]

For JR

ACC ( The theory of Climate changed by humans) is attractive to different groups for different reasons.

-Governments like the tax potential. It also represents an opportunity for sweeping changes that would not be allowed without crisis. (This is very dangerous)

-Environmentalists like it because they like anything that claims to be able clean up the earth (I agree with their intentions, I am sorry they are misled)

-Socialists like it because it is an opportunity to attack capitalism. (Socialists have co-opted the environmentalist agenda so it is hard to distinguish between the two) Antiglobilazation fanatics fit in here.

-Media likes it because it is their job to keep us in fear. Fear makes big sales/ratings. Media for the most part is owned by Big money.

-Those who control governments like it because it is leverage to change independent states into a new world goverment based on the global threat.

-Big Oil is not really big oil, but big money. Big money likes it because they have hedged their bets and will continue to be profitable no matter which way the cookie crumbles. They all have invested in alternative energy, green products, and other things.

-ACC is attractive to scientists because it is an unprecedented cash cow and job security. There is no end to grants to people who find data in favor of ACC. The end of the ACC scam would be financially devestating to the scientific community.

There it is, the only loser is truth and independence.

My position is that: ACC is tempting a lot of people with influence to manipulate the masses into believing they are protecting the Earth. Greed and ambition is the real problem.

Thanks again for revealing, in some detail, your mindset. I think I understand you better and actually do not blame you for being skeptical. I am a semi-retired professor. The first thing I used to tell my students was this: "Do not believe a word that I am about to tell you. Ask questions, keep an open mind, and discover for yourself what is true."

After that, they always looked at me like I was crazy or something....... It is not easy for me to respond in a few sentences, but I am going to try.

Beliefs underpin decision making. My set of beliefs with regard to science and climate change are different from yours. The end result is that it becomes almost impossible for us to agree on anything. But I think it is critical that we agree and wonder how that can happen.

You can post quote after quote and article after article in support of your position, and I can do the same. But because of our different beliefs on which group of scientists is "responsible," we will not accomplish much.

There are people who believe that all science is corrupt. Some are simply caught in the science/reason vs religion/emotion trap. Not all scientists are corrupt. Science is, in general, a cautious enterprise. Truth is elusive. Responsible scientists normally leave the door open on truth. Why? Because new discoveries change established truths/paradigms.

Is there a way to prevent outright lies in science? Yes. The peer review process (of which I am extremely familiar) maintains the integrity of published data; it normally ferrets out personal bias and outright lies.

Of course, you can find and post exceptions but exceptions do not make rules. I think the opposition should pay more attention to peer reviewed articles. It seems to me that most of what the opposition relies on is material that has not been through the peer review process.

About greed and self-interest and manipulation of the masses. I take it for granted that we are all selfish pig-dogs from hel_l. The evidence surrounding me has forged that belief. And I have lived all over the world and reached the same conclusion. What did Hamlet say......."smile and smile and be a villain." Something like that..........

So, do not be surprised if the people that you think are "responsible" are just as big pig dogs from hel_l as the other people. Of course, some people rise above this......some truly seem to be more altruistic than others. But we are human. And that means we are all flawed. It also means we can lie and manipulate other people. Why? Because we learn via language and those that use it best often manipulate others to their advantage.

Now, globally, we have a ruling elite (the men and women of all ethnic background who stand at the top of the corporate, political, military triangle of power). They have managed to gain control over the flow of cultural information. In other words, they are controlling the learning process. And, from where I am sitting, they don't want to see fundamental change.

BIG OIL is certainly a major player. And, I agree, they have been buying up patents on existing and new energy technologies. Why? They want to control the process because they are pig dogs from hel_l. They also buy politicians who make the laws. I just read that Obama has decided it is time to introduce more energy efficiency in American cars......but the figure was so small and by 2015 I thinki......needless to say, his decision making process was just impacted by big oil.

Stand back for a moment..........is it really true that all science is bad and all scientists are corrupt to the core? What does big oil have to gain by maintaining the status quo? Do scientists have more to gain by trying to alert the masses to global warming? Personally, I think big oil has a lot to gain....and I think that scientists who manipulate their findings in a way that puts a smile on big oils face end up making far more money than those who are, in my view, acting responsibly to both present and future generations.

But, again, I think I have just created an unresolvable conflict. How can we agree to do something that might improve the quality of life on this planet. Here is an idea. Bear with me....I know this is too long already.

During my lifetime, computers went from the size of a room in a house to something that can fit inside a small wristwatch. Money was poured into computers.......massive changes took place..........progress took place.

Compare that will the internal combustion engine..........why is it that we are still using the same old technology? It is like we have been stuck in some time warp. We both know the reason........MONEY. Had we focused on moving beyond the energy system of the past, we would have something totally new today. But we didn't. The media never encouraged it. Who controls the media?

What is at the bottom of every economic system on the planet: ENERGY. Global warming aside, is it possible for us to agree that what the human species needs now to move us beyond the dysfunctional and dangerous present is a totally new energy system? I think so. By, new, I mean NEW. It does not now exist. What we need is something that is environmentally sound (global warming, true or false, solved). It must be small-scaled, portable (ooppppsss....big oil can't control it.....similar to a personal toaster or oven or fax machine, etc.......your personal energy system). And it must be powerful and inexpensive.

If we developed that.....the entire world would change. No more global warming (again, true or false), poverty basically eradicated (everything would become less expensive).........so many benefits to list them all here.

Politicians do not talk about this. They only talk about new systems that are centralized.......systems that big oil can control. The media does not talk about this. Big oil does not talk about this.

Maybe it is time to talk about it. How about a Mahattan Style project to develop and entirely new energy system for the 21st century. Are you for that? Can we all agree on that?

[bonobo]

Good post, JR.

[canuckamuck]

It is good to see the civilized debate continue. (rare for this subject)

I think JR it is good to acknowledge we are far apart on this topic. Your preoccupation with oil is keeping you from seeing the big picture. I am not sure if I want to spend time chasing that topic. My opinion was posted earlier about Big Oil.

The point I have been trying to make is that: global warming is clearly a convenient obsession that power brokers have adopted to bring about global change. But not the global change the world is dreaming about with clean energy and peace among men with equality for all. The change that is coming is massive restrictions on citizen activity, including travel, property rights, commerce, and even reproduction. Yes I know the lunatic siren just went off in your head, and now I am a conspiracist. But clearly so are you when it comes to Big oil. I just take it a level higher.

As far as peer review as a check and balance for science. I believe that system has been compromised by the sheer amount of people who currently benefit from ACC hype and spending. Although the world seems to regard scientists as saints with unflinching moral codes, the history of manipulated statistics shows little white lies do abound in scientific circles. Especially when the world of climate modeling is more video game than reality. As I have said before, they can't even predict the weather for the week. Massaging the numbers is a ticket to the grant money and a brillliant career, so who would resist.

Your point about a clean energy Manhattan project is certainly a good one. I hope it happens.

By the way The internal combustion engine of today is hardly archaic. It is absolutley the fine edge of technology. Billions are spent every year to get the most out of this ingenius device, (check out F1 racing fro example) and there are a variety of fuel atlernatives available, some burn clean. It is just that they don't compare to Star Trek yet.

Edited May 21, 2009 by canuckamuck

[JR Texas]

It is good to see the civilized debate continue. (rare for this subject)

I think JR it is good to acknowledge we are far apart on this topic. Your preoccupation with oil is keeping you from seeing the big picture. I am not sure if I want to spend time chasing that topic. My opinion was posted earlier about Big Oil.

The point I have been trying to make is that: global warming is clearly a convenient obsession that power brokers have adopted to bring about global change. But not the global change the world is dreaming about with clean energy and peace among men with equality for all. The change that is coming is massive restrictions on citizen activity, including travel, property rights, commerce, and even reproduction. Yes I know the lunatic siren just went off in your head, and now I am a conspiracist. But clearly so are you when it comes to Big oil. I just take it a level higher.

As far as peer review as a check and balance for science. I believe that system has been compromised by the sheer amount of people who currently benefit from ACC hype and spending. Although the world seems to regard scientists as saints with unflinching moral codes, the history of manipulated statistics shows little white lies do abound in scientific circles. Especially when the world of climate modeling is more video game than reality. As I have said before, they can't even predict the weather for the week. Massaging the numbers is a ticket to the grant money and a brillliant career, so who would resist.

Your point about a clean energy Manhattan project is certainly a good one. I hope it happens.

By the way The internal combustion engine of today is hardly archaic. It is absolutley the fine edge of technology. Billions are spent every year to get the most out of this ingenius device, (check out F1 racing fro example) and there are a variety of fuel atlernatives available, some burn clean. It is just that they don't compare to Star Trek yet.

So, you are a skeptic who supports freedom of thought and expression. I am too. I am simply far less skeptical about global warming than you are....to me, it is real and not a conspiracy........to you, well, you have presented your case clearly already.

But, again, we need to move beyond that conflict........the wheels just keep spinning.......no action takes place that can benefit both sides.

You said: The change that is coming is massive restrictions on citizen activity, including travel, property rights, commerce, and even reproduction.

That has already taken place in my view. We are already controlled......how many free thinkers do you know? How many free thinkers are in positions of political power? What is "coming" is simply more control.

We agree on the need for a Manhattan Project to develop something entirely new in terms of energy. Good! It is a win-win scenario. Maybe both sides are being manipulated to prevent us from coming together in away that threatens to status quo.

This sort of reminds me of the conflict between the "yellow shirts" and "red shirts." They are both being manipulated to go at each other........when no matter which side wins, the ruling elite wins and the status quo is maintained.

It is time to think out of the box. I hope you consider again that might point about the outdated nature of the internal combustion engine is real. We need a new energy system for the 21st century that big oil cannot control.

Big oil can control the internal combustion engine, large scale solar power, hydroelectric power, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. We need a decentralized, small scale energy solution.

That is terrifying, not only to big oil, but to MNCs that have, in effect, created a global supply of cheap labor. A new energy system like I am describing would create economic independence........self-sufficiency.........it would be like a catalyst that would shift power from MNCs to the individual.

Be skeptical when some pundit tells you that we already have the energy solutions we need. He/she is partially right.....but almost totally wrong if we are trying to improve the quality of life on this planet for the majority and not simply the minority.

End of diatribe.

[bonobo]

Within acceptable statistical analysis, global warming is a fact.  Whether it is man-made, whether the trend has begun to reverse itself, whether CO2 is the culprit--these can argued ad infinitum.

And I can accept the current eco-trendy fight to combat global warming.  Quite frankly, I see no downside to it and a possible huge upside.

I do understand that we have other environmental problems.  But this is sort of like bellweather species like the spotted owl.  It is ahrd to get the public to rally around a complex problem such as the loss of forests in the Pacific Northwest.  But by focussing on one aspect, that of the spotted owl, by putting theh owl on television, by sending out stuffed spooted owl toys, by teaching kids that we need to save the spotted owl, we are creating a message which is easy to understand and grasp.  Is the spotted owl really that vital to the environment in the big picture?  Probably not.  But by saving spotted owl habitat, we save numerous other species which live there as well, we reduce run-off (which reduces flooding) we keep the streams from getting too warm and from silting up (which allows the salmon to keep running and keeps commercial fisheries alive)--all good things in the grand scheme of things.

So for me, if we can use the global warming bandwagon to address many environmental issues, all the better.  So even if global warming is a total farce, the peripheral effects of a campaign against global warming will have positive effect on the world.  And if global warming is a fact, then whatever we can do to mitigate it  will be vital.

Edited May 21, 2009 by bonobo

[JR Texas]

Within acceptable statistical analysis, global warming is a fact.  Whether it is man-made, whether the trend has begun to reverse itself, whether CO2 is the culprit--these can argued ad infinitum.

And I can accept the current eco-trendy fight to combat global warming.  Quite frankly, I see no downside to it and a possible huge upside.

I do understand that we have other environmental problems.  But this is sort of like bellweather species like the spotted owl.  It is ahrd to get the public to rally around a complex problem such as the loss of forests in the Pacific Northwest.  But by focussing on one aspect, that of the spotted owl, by putting theh owl on television, by sending out stuffed spooted owl toys, by teaching kids that we need to save the spotted owl, we are creating a message which is easy to understand and grasp.  Is the spotted owl really that vital to the environment in the big picture?  Probably not.  But by saving spotted owl habitat, we save numerous other species which live there as well, we reduce run-off (which reduces flooding) we keep the streams from getting too warm and from silting up (which allows the salmon to keep running and keeps commercial fisheries alive)--all good things in the grand scheme of things.

So for me, if we can use the global warming bandwagon to address many environmental issues, all the better.  So even if global warming is a total farce, the peripheral effects of a campaign against global warming will have positive effect on the world.  And if global warming is a fact, then whatever we can do to mitigate it  will be vital.

Thanks for your kind comment in an earlier post.

You have pointed, out several times, that there is no downside to fighting global warming. I agree. I think the benefits would be huge, especially in terms of economic benefits (e.g., quality job creation).

The opponents seem to take the position that the downside is "more control by a world government." I disagree. As stated, I think we are already under a massive amount of control (most people are oblivious to it).

Finally, I would like to point out that people on both sides of this issue can and should reach an agreement on an energy solution that will move us beyond the status quo.....one that will liberate us and cause us to evolve as a species.

The "global warming skeptics/critics" can agree to embrace a new energy system because it will benefit them economically and socially.

The "global warmers" can agree to embrace a new energy system because it will benefit them economically, socially and environmentally.

Conspiracies and truth and manipulation and corruption and greed aside........it is a win-win situation for us.

[canuckamuck]

You two guys are both talking like this because you believe global warming is man made. Although you often claim it doesn't matter.

If you thought the other way you would be as frustrated as me at the current effort to control something that is the byproduct of life itself. And you would not say it doesn't matter. It does matter because it is a waste and it is wrong and we will all suffer from the effort.

I understand your angle. You feel that the effort to reduce carbon emissions will also reduce other harmful emissions and we will be better at the end of the day. But take a look at the solutions being proposed, basically they are either taxes, trade limitations, or spending on alternative energies that currently are vastly incapable of meeting the worlds needs. Soon to come will be the personal restrictions. JR says he doesn't mind that though.

The reason oil based energy is the default for almost every situation is because it is cheap and it works. Take away that component and you will create mass starvation in third world nations. Because they simply will no longer be able to afford to live. This will be a world of haves and have nots on a much greater scale then we see today. The move from oil based energy is still generations away. We can't change that fact just because it is popular to say we can.

In the mean time I don't want to pay a tax that is aimed at fighting mythical crises. I don't want to live under a new regime of Orwellian government. I don't want to see the numbers of the poor increase when we should be fighting to get them fed. What I want to see is what naturally occurs in the right environment. And that is the development of technology to advance us to the next age. We can't tax our way to this goal, we can't legislate our way to this goal, but we can encourage great thinkers to pursue truthful problems and come up with real solutions, just like we always have, in industry, medicine, and technology.

It might surprise you that I am just as against oil dependence as you are. The sooner we are free of it, the sooner we can tell the mid-east to go back to their tents and camels. But I believe in the power of creativity over the useless, interfering, and greedy arm of government. Lets open the door to innovation not socialistic dreams of utopia that always end in failure. But lets do it in truth, not under this bogey man of ACC.

[bonobo]

Canuckamuk, I don't particularly think that global warming is man-made.  I rather think it is cyclic and that man's actions have nerely added to the trend.  How little or how much, I am not sure.

Where I totally disagree with you is that just because something is "natural," we shouild let it happen.  I don't live in the jungle here in Thialand, nor in the snow back in the US.  I have homes with aircon and heating.  I have lived where dams control flooding (which is a very natural occurence).  Snowball Earth was a natural occurence, but if we were heading that way and we had the ability to change that, I certainly would.

Nowhere have I written that carbon credits or taxes are the way out of thei sproblem.  In fact, I have taken a stand against carbon credits here.  But I do believe that reduction of CO2 and methane by better technologies not only help fight global warming, but they help other areas as well.

Methane is natural, but it is one of the prime contributers to greenhouse gasses. If we can capture methane from dumps, stockyards, and other places of high concetrations, then use that methane to power electrical generation, not only do we reduce the methane component of greenhouse gases, but we reduce the consumption of fossil fuels that would have been needed to generate that same electricity.

You keep talking about how we need cheap energy to live and grow food. Granted.  But to rely on fossil fuels for that is foolish.  The spigot will run dry. And those fossil fuels, namely oil, can much better be used for fertilizing the crops need for the world to eat, for making the plastics we need as part of our daily lives. 

 

[canuckamuck]

Bonobo, I think we are pretty close on this, although if if the 200 year cycle for solar activity holds true, global warming might become something we miss as we head into two centuries of cooling. However we have survived it before and we will again.

Anyhow, I have nothing more to add as I could go with what you said just as easy.

Cheers

[bonobo]

Anyhow, I have nothing more to add as I could go with what you said just as easy.

Cheers

(This is totally tongue-in-cheek, or course), but the two nations which are generally thought as the ones will benefit from global warming are Russia and Canada.  So, Canuckamuck, could you be part of some super-secret Canuck-Ruskie conspiracy to make global warming accelerate?  Feeding all those Alberta cattle extra to make them fart more methane?  Convincing other people to look the other way?

J'Accuse!  

Edited May 21, 2009 by bonobo

[canuckamuck]

You don't know how many times I have heard Canadians say"Global Warming! Lord let it be true." Especially in January

I live in LOS though, so no benefit to me.

[JR Texas]

You two guys are both talking like this because you believe global warming is man made. Although you often claim it doesn't matter.

If you thought the other way you would be as frustrated as me at the current effort to control something that is the byproduct of life itself. And you would not say it doesn't matter. It does matter because it is a waste and it is wrong and we will all suffer from the effort.

I understand your angle. You feel that the effort to reduce carbon emissions will also reduce other harmful emissions and we will be better at the end of the day. But take a look at the solutions being proposed, basically they are either taxes, trade limitations, or spending on alternative energies that currently are vastly incapable of meeting the worlds needs. Soon to come will be the personal restrictions. JR says he doesn't mind that though.

The reason oil based energy is the default for almost every situation is because it is cheap and it works. Take away that component and you will create mass starvation in third world nations. Because they simply will no longer be able to afford to live. This will be a world of haves and have nots on a much greater scale then we see today. The move from oil based energy is still generations away. We can't change that fact just because it is popular to say we can.

In the mean time I don't want to pay a tax that is aimed at fighting mythical crises. I don't want to live under a new regime of Orwellian government. I don't want to see the numbers of the poor increase when we should be fighting to get them fed. What I want to see is what naturally occurs in the right environment. And that is the development of technology to advance us to the next age. We can't tax our way to this goal, we can't legislate our way to this goal, but we can encourage great thinkers to pursue truthful problems and come up with real solutions, just like we always have, in industry, medicine, and technology.

It might surprise you that I am just as against oil dependence as you are. The sooner we are free of it, the sooner we can tell the mid-east to go back to their tents and camels. But I believe in the power of creativity over the useless, interfering, and greedy arm of government. Lets open the door to innovation not socialistic dreams of utopia that always end in failure. But lets do it in truth, not under this bogey man of ACC.

There is not one scientists on the planet that believes that warming/climate change has nothing to do with the sun's energy. The problem is that we are adding CO2 and other climate changing gases into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

The sun's energy has been measured for some time now. Scientists do not see anything in the data that makes them believe the current warming trend is the result of the sun.

There is not one scientists on the planet who does not understand that CO2 is natural. Human waste is also natural. And it is regulated. Any plumber or waste-water management specialist or employee of EPA will tell you this. The swine flu is also "natural." Should we ignore it because it is natural?

I never said that I am not opposed to personal restrictions on freedom. Individual freedom is something none of us should take for granted. I am totally opposed to what has transpired, especially over the last decade. It is outrageous that a few corporations now control the mainstream mass media.

The reason we use oil is because big oil wants us to use oil. Why? Because it is hugely profitable. If the public demands that politicians take action on energy........action will be taken. If they continue to sit back and allow themselves to be manipulated, the status quo will be maintained.

Democracy without an informed public is democracy without a foundation.

Our stubborn reliance on big oil has contributed to massive social, economic and environmental problems worldwide. Yes, energy does produce benefits, but the cost to society resulting from our reliance on fossil fuels is huge.

Consider how high the price of oil was last year and how it negatively impacted the global economy. Actually, the true cost of oil is not calculated by governments when they assess their economies.......the environmental cost is almost always left out of the equation.

And there is the now obvious connection to big oil and war.......multiples of billions of dollars down the drain.

Again........if we can make massive changes to computers over the span of a couple of decades, it stands to reason that we could have made massive changes to the energy system that is fueling economies worldwide. We didn't. The reason is obvious.

If we use our taxes wisely, we can get ourselves out of this problem. Now we spend taxes on "smart bombs." Are you for that? Do you think that is productive?

Would you rather spend your tax dollars on smart bombs or on the development of a new energy system? We do have choices.

I am convinced that a global effort to develop a totally new energy system is what is needed and all countries must share the financial burden. But it will not happen unless we insist on it.

The ruling elites who want to maintain the status quo are laughing at us; they have us right where they want us, fighting each other instead of cooperating for positive change.