An inconvenient truth

[Corth]

The funny thing is, the whole debate over carbon energy will be rendered moot sooner than you all think due to the principle of 'peak oil' which will over time make oil prices prohibitively expensive, and thus create an incentive for alternative forms of energy. Hopefully private enterprise finds something that is viable. Try and think through what life would be like if energy prices were 5, 10, or 15 times their current cost in inflation adjusted dollars. Not pretty.

[Sarvis]

You need to take more land and grow crops on it to be used for the diesel.

Once AGAIN you didn't look at a link I posted! I LOVE this. I get criticized for not citing things, but you never look at what I cite.

There is a company RIGHT NOW which has developed a method to get biodiesel from algae, which uses a tiny fraction of the land that corn based biodiesel would come from, and wouldn't need fertilizer. There are also other companies working on algae based flue stack systems to reduce CO2 emissions while creating biodiesel and other podentially profitable byproducts.

As for pollution I'm going to call bullshit. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000316070132.htm">They found that this emitted significantly less carbon monoxide and moderately less hydrocarbons and particulate matter, compared to 100 percent petroleum diesel.</a> That mix in particular is also apparently as efficient as oil based diesel.

Got any actual FACTS to use against biodiesel, or just more propaganda?

Funny you mention talking points, since I don't think you've said one single thing that wasn't out of the oil baron playbook!

[Sarvis]

The funny thing is, the whole debate over carbon energy will be rendered moot sooner than you all think due to the principle of 'peak oil' which will over time make oil prices prohibitively expensive, and thus create an incentive for alternative forms of energy. Hopefully private enterprise finds something that is viable. Try and think through what life would be like if energy prices were 5, 10, or 15 times their current cost in inflation adjusted dollars. Not pretty.

You make a good point. I think the fundamental difference in the stance of people like Ash and I is that we'd like to prevent problems like that from becoming a problem by expending effort now, while people like Lathander will never believe in the problem until it hits them in the face repeatedly. It's ironic that Lathander tries to portray us as wanting to cause poverty when we're the ones clamoring for research to avoid the situation you just described!

[Corth]

I think the article linked below sums up pretty well Lathander's arguments from this thread.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

[Llaaldara]

I think the article linked below sums up pretty well Lathander's arguments from this thread.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

Oooo! I like links!


Here's one of my favorite Links!


If they are basing their decision on mph, isn't that kinda silly? You'd think they'd base it on emissions or CO2 or something, or even EPA as well. I dunno.

[avak]

Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners.

Pure free marketers ignore a basic point. People have a very difficult time accounting for the abstract implications of their actions.

What a ridiculous argument. Do you really think people factor in the potential effects of climate change when they buy an air conditioner or a Hummer? If this free market works so well then why exactly do we need laws? It will just all work itself out, right?

It's all well and good to go spouting off nonsense about how when gas gets to $5 or $6 a gallon we'll just magically switch to something more affordable, but have you really thought that through? There's a lag time! And in that lag time people are going to get screwed. In fact, the lag time (and consequential side effects) will be determined in large part by how proactive we are in developing new technologies.

I think my position is clear. Thank god I'm among a growing majority. I do respect the free market philosophy; I am president of a corporation and own a sole proprietorship. Ironic, don't you think? I just can't stand the idealogue position that the free market alone can save us.

[Sarvis]

If this free market works so well then why exactly do we need laws? It will just all work itself out, right?

The problem is if you're talking to a Libertarian like Corth they will say we don't need laws and it will work itself out.

Well, not Corth specifically... he's kind of a Libertarian Light.

[Lathander]

Thanks Corth.

Yea, liberals seem to believe that people do not make good decisions, so the state or government should force it on them. So much for believing in freedom and liberty.

Here is a great discussion on the largest proposed solar farm in the world. You folks that really are trumpeting this stuff that is not ready for primetime should really read through it.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7983

[Kifle]

Yea, liberals seem to believe that people do not make good decisions, so the state or government should force it on them. So much for believing in freedom and liberty.

Sorry, I just had to rofl at this statement. WTF? I mean, you do believe in laws, right? Last time I checked it was the government who secures your liberties and adjusted freedoms by creating laws. The fact is, most people don't make good decisions. Hell, look at all the idiots that drive drunk. Do you think the mortality rate would be even higher if there were no law against drunk driving? Statements like the one I quoted are what makes libertarians look like idiots.

[Corth]

There is a difference between laws which protect innocent people, such as DWI statutes, and paternalistic laws which try to force people to make decisions that are preferable to the powers that be. For instance, your typical libertarian would be very much in favor of criminal statutes outlawing driving under the influence of marijuana, but on the other hand, would argue vehemently that marijuana possession and use by adults should be allowed in the privacy of their own home.

[Sarvis]

Thanks Corth.

Yea, liberals seem to believe that people do not make good decisions, so the state or government should force it on them. So much for believing in freedom and liberty.

You don't seem to be comprehending what Corth is saying. He is pointing out that we will eventually have to deal with peak oil, and there will be a lot of economic turmoil when it happens. He is pointing out that people are too shortsighted to deal with the problem ahead of time.

He's right, people DON'T make good decisions. They choose to, for example, buy unsafe, gas guzzling SUVs rather than conserve our resources to prevent oil from running out and ruining our economy. They choose to disbelieve every study they read which disagrees with their own beliefs as their health and the world around them suffers.

Here is a great discussion on the largest proposed solar farm in the world. You folks that really are trumpeting this stuff that is not ready for primetime should really read through it.

And see what? The article is 100% positive about using solar panels, with the only mentioned negative being the 640 acres used. (See, I can mention info from the article because I actually READ it, you should try that some time.) Of course, it's a press release from a <i>corporation</i> with profit motive, so of course they wouldn't mention the negatives... something you only accuse the "Green Lobby" of doing.

Seriously, it's like a witch hunt with you...

[Kifle]

There is a difference between laws which protect innocent people, such as DWI statutes, and paternalistic laws which try to force people to make decisions that are preferable to the powers that be. For instance, your typical libertarian would be very much in favor of criminal statutes outlawing driving under the influence of marijuana, but on the other hand, would argue vehemently that marijuana possession and use by adults should be allowed in the privacy of their own home.

Which is why I didn't say libertarians were idiots... just statements like those that make them look like idiots. Generalizing that freedom and liberties are everything and prohibitive laws are evil is just retarded.

But, even paternalistic laws like seatbelts and what not are enacted for the saftey of society... take weed for instance. Yeah, adults should be able to choose, but most are too stupid to understand when the time and place for smoking should be. What about the ones that will spend their grocery money on a sack instead feeding their kids? Or their parents get too high to teach them basic moral principals etc... The list could go on. Take enforced schooling for example. Why punish the parents for not sending their children to shcool? You could say that the children are victims because they are underage, but education is not something one needs to survive nor to prosper...

[Corth]

Kifle,

Your the one that characterized libertarians as being against drunk driving laws. I haven't seen any actual libertarians make that argument. I believe the phalacy at issue is the "straw man".

Sarvis,

With regard to peak oil, I was stating that in my opinion alternative forms of energy will become more viable as oil becomes more expensive. I was not arguing in favor of a proactive approach, such as subsidizing alternative energy research. I believe that as oil becomes more expensive, individuals and corporations will work hard to find solutions to our energy problems, in order to enrich themselves.

[Sarvis]

Actually, Kifle, your the one that characterized libertarians as being against drunk driving laws. I haven't seen any actual libertarians make that argument.

<a href="http://www.mises.org/story/2343">Here you go.</a>

[Corth]

Thank you for demonstrating that every movement has ideologues and idiots amongst them. Just like the environmentalists in a previously linked article decrying the greedy use of the sun, here we have a moronic attempt to make a quasi academic argument in favor of legalizing drunk driving.

[Kifle]

Kifle,

Your the one that characterized libertarians as being against drunk driving laws. I haven't seen any actual libertarians make that argument. I believe the phalacy at issue is the "straw man".

No, Corth, I was replying to a generalizing statement -- this statement, "Yea, liberals seem to believe that people do not make good decisions, so the state or government should force it on them. So much for believing in freedom and liberty."

Which, as I said, makes libertarians LOOK like idiots. That's all I said. People don't make bad decisions... like drunk driving -- or, if they do, there still shouldn't be laws prohibiting them from being allowed to make the decision themselves. Drunk driving is an example... one of a million I could think of, so don't try the strawman crap with me, buddy.

[Sarvis]

Thank you for demonstrating that every movement has ideologues and idiots amongst them. Just like the environmentalists in a previously linked article decrying the greedy use of the sun, here we have a moronic attempt to make a quasi academic argument in favor of legalizing drunk driving.

The thing is that is pretty much how most Libertarian arguments go, at least on the internet. (Remember I did say you were something of an exception to the rule.) You could almost apply that article as a template to cover whatever Libertarian X feels like he should be allowed to do regardless of it's potential for harm to others.

Remember that the heart of libertarianism is that the government only has two roles:

1) Military Defense
2) Enforcement of contracts

Anything else, such as police protection, taxes, highways, anti-trust laws or social programs are seen as infringements on their freedom.

[Lathander]

I understand the concept of Peak Oil quite well. Some folks say we have passed it, others say it is near while others say it is off on the horizon. If and when we hit peak oil, you will see movement shortly thereafter to other energy resources because it will be necessary. Contrast this with environmentalists trying to force their agenda down people's throats.

Sarvis, you have clearly said you don't believe people are capable of making good choices and have to be forced into things for their own good. Who the hell are you or the other environmentalists to assume you have the moral high ground to talk down to people that disagree with you, drive SUV's and do other things they choose to do.

If that was all you got from that discussion, read more. How do solar panels effect the environment? What is the environmental costs to their creation? How long do they last? How about the effects of having to clean them every week? Did you see the comparison of coal to nuclear? Coal releases more radiation than nuclear does?

Corth is exactly right. I can prove that a drunk driver is a danger to innocents. It is impossible to prove that human activity CAUSES global warming. At best, the environmentalists change it to CONTRIBUTE which is very hard to disprove. There is a significant difference in those two words.

As Corth said, energy production will naturally evolve as the supply vs prodution of oil crosses. Personally, I think that is farther out than Corth, but either way, nuclear is clearly the way to go along with wind and tidal. Some solar makes sense, but your energy output per the size of the facility is a terrible ratio. Maybe someday when the technology is better it will be ready, but that is certainly not today. Before you say more research over and over, there is lots of research and it will continue because it is profitable. People, corporations and countries do things because it is in their best interest. Show a tangible cost to how things are going now, and you'll convince me. Unfortunately for you, that proof that humans cause global warming does not exist. Show that there is global warming first, then show that if there is global warming, that it is not natural.

I'll finish up with a link to an MSNBC story about Greenland, and how it was once much warmer and lush 450K to 800K years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/from/RS.4/

[Sarvis]

I understand the concept of Peak Oil quite well. Some folks say we have passed it, others say it is near while others say it is off on the horizon. If and when we hit peak oil, you will see movement shortly thereafter to other energy resources because it will be necessary. Contrast this with environmentalists trying to force their agenda down people's throats.

So you would advocate the poverty and unrest which will occur with peak oil eh? Sounds like what you accuse the "Green Lobby" of.

It's a problem that we can see coming, yet you advocate waiting for it to occur before trying to fix it. When you play football do you wait for head to get broken before starting to wear a helmet?

The sad part is I'm not forcing anything down anyone's throat, I'm simply trying to convince you there is a problem so that you might decide to take appropriate action. But it's much easier for you to set up a straw man, isn't it? Especially since carrying a bag to the store would be so very, very difficult.

Sarvis, you have clearly said you don't believe people are capable of making good choices and have to be forced into things for their own good.

Where did I say the second part?

Who the hell are you or the other environmentalists to assume you have the moral high ground to talk down to people that disagree with you, drive SUV's and do other things they choose to do.

The big difference here is that we have a lot of evidence on our side, while you have a couple people paid off by the oil industry and a bunch of "facts" which are "too obvious" to cite.

I don't know where you're from, but around here rational people listen to evidence.

Oh and hey, if you ever bother to provide decent evidence I'll listen to it. So far you haven't provided anything which couldn't be shot down in short order.

If that was all you got from that discussion, read more. How do solar panels effect the environment? What is the environmental costs to their creation? How long do they last? How about the effects of having to clean them every week? Did you see the comparison of coal to nuclear? Coal releases more radiation than nuclear does?

Here is the article in it's entirety:

<i>Portugal announced in April that it was home to one of the world's largest solar arrays. The 150 acre, 11-megawatt (MW) solar plant was built by Catavento and PowerLight Corporation and is capable of powering 8,000 homes in Serpa.

Cleantech America LLC., a San Francisco-based company, plans to build a solar farm that would far eclipse the one built in Portugal. The new 80 MW farm, known as the Kings River Conservation District Community Choice Solar Farm, will be situated on 640 acres of land and is scheduled to be completed by 2011.

"We're pretty confident that solar farms on this scale are going to have an industry-changing impact," said Cleantech CEO Bill Barnes. "We think it's the wave of the future. This scale of project, I think, creates a tipping point for renewable energy."

"We think the impact for it will be similar to the impact of the computer chip," Barnes continued. "So too will economies of scale like the Community Choice farm drive down the cost of solar."

Cleantech estimates that the energy generated by the solar array will be enough to power 20,000 homes.</i>

No where does it discuss environmental effects, environmental costs of construction, lifetime, or cleaning... let alone coal/nuclear comparisons. If all that crap is in the comments section, I'd ask why I should believe them any more than you or Teflor? If you have actual sources then present them. You may even notice I didn't talk about how wonderful solar would be, I simply pointed out that the CORPORATION pushing the technology did not present all possible negatives, which is what you accuse the "Green Lobby" of doing.

Corth is exactly right. I can prove that a drunk driver is a danger to innocents. It is impossible to prove that human activity CAUSES global warming. At best, the environmentalists change it to CONTRIBUTE which is very hard to disprove. There is a significant difference in those two words.

You cannot prove a drunk driver is a danger to innocents. You can show his reaction time is slowed, but that can be compensated for by driving more slowly. It is a lot like how we can show that the temperature is rising, and that this has correlated with increased carbon levels but we can't "prove" carbon is responsible. We just have evidence. Evidence you choose to ignore because it's more "convenient" and because oil companies have pumped as much FUD into the debate as they can to confuse the issue.

Where's your actual evidence that global warming is not being contributed to by humans? Or even caused by humans? So far you've cited thickening ice sheets and temperature increases in ice cores. The problem is that the ice sheets are losing mass despite thickening in the center, and the ice cores show a CO2 increase every time there is a temperature increase.

I think you need more evidence.

As Corth said, energy production will naturally evolve as the supply vs prodution of oil crosses. Personally, I think that is farther out than Corth, but either way, nuclear is clearly the way to go along with wind and tidal. Some solar makes sense, but your energy output per the size of the facility is a terrible ratio. Maybe someday when the technology is better it will be ready, but that is certainly not today. Before you say more research over and over, there is lots of research and it will continue because it is profitable.

Research is not profitable, products are. One of the companies I linked to earlier, which is attempting to convert flue exhausts into various energy products through algae, got their start based on research from the Department of Energy. This is exactly the kind of government based research I advocate, and which I don't think companies would start off. It's one thing to pick up on research done by the government and turn it into a profitable product, it's quite another to spend billions yourself on something you can't project profits for.

People, corporations and countries do things because it is in their best interest. Show a tangible cost to how things are going now, and you'll convince me.

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_50/b3963401.htm">One new twist in the whole discussion of global warming is the arrival of a corps of sharp-penciled financiers. Bankers, insurers, and institutional investors have begun to tally the trillions of dollars in financial risks that climate change poses. They are now demanding that companies in which they hold stakes (or insure) add up risks related to climate change and alter their business plans accordingly. For utilities like Cinergy that could mean switching billions in planned investments from the usual coal-fired power plants to new, cleaner facilities.</a>

How's that for a cost? Trillions of dollars of risk due to climate change.

Unfortunately for you, that proof that humans cause global warming does not exist.

Unprovable != untrue.

Especially in cases where we just don't know enough, but can see the effects occurring.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/from/RS.4/

Going back to the <a href="http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/co2problem.htm">Vostok Ice Core</a> it looks like we may have been coming off a CO2 high at the time. Unfortunately it only goes back to 400K years ago...


By the way, way back at the beginning I asked you guys to prove that adding gases to a system would have no effect on the system. Any luck with that?

[Ashiwi]

Sarvis, you have clearly said you don't believe people are capable of making good choices and have to be forced into things for their own good. Who the hell are you or the other environmentalists to assume you have the moral high ground to talk down to people that disagree with you, drive SUV's and do other things they choose to do.

Sorry, I'm working overtime all week long and next week, too, but I just HAD to say something about this.

I don't know about Sarvis, but I'M the person who knows oil is a limited resource. All hype aside, I can add and subtract, and I know that the more you use now, the less there is later.

I know that some of my ideas are silly, and that I'm no business genius, but I never attempted to convince anybody I was. I've gotten into these debates with you people before, and I know that no matter how many relevant links I post (in one debate I remember posting more than a dozen in one post), that they will be totally ignored, or that out of a twenty page document only one paragraph will ever count and all other points will be swept under the rug.

I've said previously that I have no intention of forcing anybody to do anything... I just hope that people will think twice in the future about the consequences of their actions today. If I could force people to conserve, I might... but I can't, so it's a moot point. We all already know that in our capitalist economy what's going to matter is convenience and status until we're forced to change our methods.

If you want to drive a gas-guzzling vehicle, go right ahead. Dude... I already mentioned that I'm gonna die before this is a bad issue. The only one you'll be hurting in the long run by wasting resources today is... hrmmm... oh, right, children who have to grow up into the world of tomorrow. When I'm dead I want my children and grandchildren to know that I cared enough about the legacy I was passing on to them to do more than leave them a tidy bankroll. I want them to know that I cared enough about them to think about the air that they breath and the water they drink.

Now... alternative resources. Jiminy... I refuse to get into a big-dick-logic contest with you people. If you can't see sense that's not my fault.

Twenty years ago what was the state of the cellular phone? I know we've made very little progress in the last two decades in communications, what with the tiny dribble of funding trickling into the field, but some day we might wise up and invest in research so we can even connect a telephone in our cars! Wouldn't that be supercool?

::sigh::

I know the field of alternative resources isn't running over with profit at the moment, which is the only reason we don't have viable solar technology. Damn, point that out a little more, why don't you? While you're at it feel free to point out all the money that's gone into drilling for oil overseas and here at home in the last decade as we scrabble for new wells while the ones that have served us for so many years have started to dwindle. Don't forget to include all the areas that were in the not-too-distant past off limits for oil drilling as natural preservation sites. What a shame, wasting all that good property on nature.

Oh, whoops, I wasn't going to stay on here more than a minute. Long day tomorrow, too.

But one last thing... low blow Lath, playing the "You must be jealous" card. That's an overplayed record if I've ever heard one. If you told me you were bringing home a Lexus RX 400h I would have wolfwhistled and asked for a ride. It's a shame our nation isn't ready for hybrids and the technology's not quite there yet. I heard the 400h rides a little heavy, but the mileage on it is impressive for an SUV, not to mention the emissions standards; Lexus isn't my vehicle of choice, but some like it. And no, that's not an end-all be-all vehicle, so don't leap on the selection of vehicle like Heaven's wrath. I just chose Lexus because it's more of a status vehicle than Toyota or Honda is. Now myself, if you'd said "I drive a Mini-Cooper" I would have been jealous.

And say what you will... the people who pull the "you must be jealous" card the most often are the ones that are definitely compensating.

[Lathander]

Wow, you really don't get economics. No, once we hit peak oil, things are not going to just fall about. No one is gonna run around in circles and cry other than the gloom and doom folks. What will happen is people will simply use other sources of energy. There are lots that actually work quite well for the US.

We have just an enormous amount of coal which is the lowest cost source of energy that there is. This is one of our huge advantages over the rest of the world, other than China which has alot as well. Getting rid of coal will hurt the US.

The bag to a store thing is an example of the greater war that environmentalists have on convienence. That why I really dislike how you cut up a well thought out post and dissect select sentences which by themselves may not make sense but do as part of the whole. It is called taking things out of context, look it up.

You advocate the government forcing environmental regulations. I don't know if you realize that is what you are doing, but it is.

Spare me the unbiased scientist thing. Those unbiased scientists are getting paid by the environmentalists, liberals and anti-business folks. Everyone has a bias. I asked before what specific programs would you advocate. So far you have not stated anything. You ask for evidence to prove that global warming is not happening. Proving a negative is tougher. I think those wanting change have to prove their side, not the other way around.

Read the comments on that article, maybe you'll learn something. See, what people that are intellectually curious do is they actually read what the people's opinions are. Then they go and see if they have any truth to them.

Wrong on the drunk driver thing. Driving slower simply lowers their speed; they can still easily hit others. Temperature is a leading indicator to carbon. See warmer temperatures allow more things to live and grow on the planet. I agree that temperatures short term trend from the little ice age is up, but we have absolutely no idea what the true average is because our data set of actual temperatures is fairly short lived.

As I said, those putting an argument forth like we need to make changes because the earth is warming because of humans need to prove it. Those opposed do not actually have to prove anything because the global warming supporters can not prove their case.

As I said before, you don't understand business. Research and development costs are factored into the profit margin a company needs to recoup those expenses. Now yes, most conceptual research is funded by the government with the military being the prime example of this. After that, the practical research that actually takes the concept and creates a realistic use for it. Most research is the practical type which applies to actually creating a viable product, and this is done by companies.

On the "interests" topic, everyone is looking to make money. See financial firms like insurance companies seize on the idea of global warming and say, "Hey, is this a risk we can charge them for?" The goal is charge more for the insurance without necessarily taking on actual risk. Same thing for some utilities that are more nuclear and natural gas than coal. They tend to be in the global warming camp because they know the price of energy will go up if things like Kyoto is implemented. They make a profit margin which is a percentage. Higher prices equal higher profits if you don't have coal. It is not real risk; it is simply coming up with reasons to charge more.

To you, it is proven that humans cause global warming. Fine, why exactly do you believe this? No, spare us the "well everyone says it's true". Why do YOU believe it? Explain how it works and how humans are responsible for global warming. Explain how you KNOW that it is not occurring naturally. Explain why prior periods have been far warmer than we are now.

In the end, you mention coming off a CO2 high in the past. Why was CO2 high 400K or more years ago? It clearly wasn't humans. Is it possible that, as I and many believe, CO2 accompanies temperature rises, not causes them?

On the gas issue, I did post a link about that.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossi ... _data.html

Read the damn thing. You will see that if global warming is happening, it most likely is NOT from man made sources. Read about the role of water vapor. Also, on your biodiesel, the pollution from biodiesel is nitrous oxide. This gas is in some ways more of a global warming element than carbon is. As I said, if you believe in global warming, then you really have to dislike biodiesel.

[Sarvis]

Wow, you really don't get economics. No, once we hit peak oil, things are not going to just fall about. No one is gonna run around in circles and cry other than the gloom and doom folks. What will happen is people will simply use other sources of energy. There are lots that actually work quite well for the US.

So far you yourself have cried that every alternate energy source is ineffective and/or harmful yet suddenly they can step in when oil runs out?

I'm sure a sudden shift will have no economic repercussions whatsoever. :roll:

We have just an enormous amount of coal which is the lowest cost source of energy that there is. This is one of our huge advantages over the rest of the world, other than China which has alot as well. Getting rid of coal will hurt the US.

No, getting rid of any energy source suddenly will hurt the US. Unless we have alernatives developed ahead of time, and work to integrate them into our energy policy.

The bag to a store thing is an example of the greater war that environmentalists have on convienence.

Now we have a war on convenience? You're really reaching now. Wouldn't want you to strain a muscle carrying a virtually weightless bag and then setting it in a cart now!

That why I really dislike how you cut up a well thought out post and dissect select sentences which by themselves may not make sense but do as part of the whole. It is called taking things out of context, look it up.

Since when are your posts well thought out? That's also not what taking something out of context means. Taking something out of context means misrepresenting someone's argument by selecting part of the sentence. quoting in and of itself is not taking something out of context, and especially not when your entire argument is still there. I separate things on relevance too, in case you hadn't noticed. Generally stopping at whatever sentence is the conclusion or the most important/representative of what you just said.

You advocate the government forcing environmental regulations. I don't know if you realize that is what you are doing, but it is.

Show me ONE place where I advocated any law.

Go on.

Oh yeah, I didn't.

You accuse me of taking something out of context while you lie outright in the next sentence. Nice.

Spare me the unbiased scientist thing. Those unbiased scientists are getting paid by the environmentalists, liberals and anti-business folks. Everyone has a bias. I asked before what specific programs would you advocate. So far you have not stated anything. You ask for evidence to prove that global warming is not happening. Proving a negative is tougher. I think those wanting change have to prove their side, not the other way around.

Yeah, environmentalists, liberals and anti-business folks have TONS of money to fund studies. Much, much more than Exxon-Mobil. :roll: Yep, this whole thing is just some conspiracy where a few of us environmental nuts bribed scientists in every country on earth to do a study and come up with a conclusion that doesn't benefit any of us financially.

I thought profit motive was the only motive?

Read the comments on that article, maybe you'll learn something. See, what people that are intellectually curious do is they actually read what the people's opinions are. Then they go and see if they have any truth to them.

I ask again, why are comments from bloggers any more reliable than you or Teflor? Cite real sources, not more forum posters. If you're at all right, there should be some sources out there.

Oh right, I have to do your research for you... :groan:

Wrong on the drunk driver thing. Driving slower simply lowers their speed; they can still easily hit others.

Slowing down = more reaction time. Try getting into an accident at 5mph. Ever see Undercover Brother? I thought that scene was kind of ridiculous myself...

Besides which, how do you prove that the alchohol caused the accident? Maybe the people who got hit cut off the other driver and the accident was unavoidable anyway.

You can't PROVE alchohol causes accidents, you can only show a correlation.

Temperature is a leading indicator to carbon. See warmer temperatures allow more things to live and grow on the planet. I agree that temperatures short term trend from the little ice age is up, but we have absolutely no idea what the true average is because our data set of actual temperatures is fairly short lived.

We have at least 400K worth in those ice core records.

As for more things living on the planet, now you get to show that more things were actually alive 400K years ago than are alive now.

As I said, those putting an argument forth like we need to make changes because the earth is warming because of humans need to prove it. Those opposed do not actually have to prove anything because the global warming supporters can not prove their case.

Of course you don't have to prove anything, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and shout. Doesn't change what's happening, doesn't change the evidence we have which shows we're having an effect, doesn't change the basic logic that adding something to a system changes the system.

As I said before, you don't understand business. Research and development costs are factored into the profit margin a company needs to recoup those expenses. Now yes, most conceptual research is funded by the government with the military being the prime example of this. After that, the practical research that actually takes the concept and creates a realistic use for it. Most research is the practical type which applies to actually creating a viable product, and this is done by companies.

Yes, I'm sure the next version of the iPhone will cure global warming single handedly. Now for a more realistic approach, maybe the government can create incentives and/or fund research into more efficient alternative energies?

Craziness.

On the "interests" topic, everyone is looking to make money. See financial firms like insurance companies seize on the idea of global warming and say, "Hey, is this a risk we can charge them for?" The goal is charge more for the insurance without necessarily taking on actual risk. Same thing for some utilities that are more nuclear and natural gas than coal. They tend to be in the global warming camp because they know the price of energy will go up if things like Kyoto is implemented. They make a profit margin which is a percentage. Higher prices equal higher profits if you don't have coal. It is not real risk; it is simply coming up with reasons to charge more.

I thought profit motive could only be used for good? Now it's leading everyone astray?

Tsk tsk tsk.

But you're right, I'm sure the people running billion dollar industries would easily be taken in by flim-flammers trying to run insurance scams.

By the way, they, unlike you, realize that the price of energy will go up just because oil keeps going up. Have you not looked at the gas prices lately? Actually I can understand why you wouldn't, driving that big 'ole SUV it would probably make you cry.

It's funny, you asked about the costs of keeping our current path while you personally drive a vehicle that uses more gas in an economy with constantly rising gas prices. There's your costs right there.

Driving a hybrid may be more expensive right now, but even an efficient gas based car would be a better choice and more environmentally friendly. But go on, enjoy your gas guzzler and spending twice what I do on gas.

To you, it is proven that humans cause global warming. Fine, why exactly do you believe this? No, spare us the "well everyone says it's true". Why do YOU believe it? Explain how it works and how humans are responsible for global warming. Explain how you KNOW that it is not occurring naturally. Explain why prior periods have been far warmer than we are now.

I didn't ever say it was proven. What the hell is it with conservatives and putting words in my mouth? I said we have a lot of evidence for it.

Again: I said we have a lot of evidence for it.

As for why I believe it, we've been arguing about it for 5 pages... if you haven't figured out what I think by now you just haven't been reading. I've already presented all of my reasons, and a few new reasons I discovered along the way.

In the end, you mention coming off a CO2 high in the past. Why was CO2 high 400K or more years ago? It clearly wasn't humans. Is it possible that, as I and many believe, CO2 accompanies temperature rises, not causes them?

Who knows. You're making a pretty big assumption, at least as big of one as I'd be making by answering your loaded question.

So instead I'll just ask for the third time: Why do you believe that adding something to a system will not change it?


On the gas issue, I did post a link about that.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossi ... _data.html

Read the damn thing.

Ok, I just skimmed it (which is probably more consideration than you've given to any of my links) but I need sleep now so I'll try to rip it apart in the next couple days.

Oh, and look at the bottom of his website... see those? Those are citations. He uses them to make a convincing argument. Interesting, isn't it?

You will see that if global warming is happening, it most likely is NOT from man made sources. Read about the role of water vapor. Also, on your biodiesel, the pollution from biodiesel is nitrous oxide. This gas is in some ways more of a global warming element than carbon is. As I said, if you believe in global warming, then you really have to dislike biodiesel.

Yeah, you're wrong on the NOx thing:

<a href="http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_nox.html">Adjustment of injection timing and engine operating temperature will result in these levels [of nitrogen oxides with biodiesel] being reduced below mineral diesel levels." -- Dr Kerr Walker, Scottish Agricultural College, 1994, in "Biodiesel from Rapeseed", Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Volume 155, p. 43-4.</a>

[avak]

Monte Hieb, the author of the water vapor website that Lathander cited has no scientific climatology training and used to work for the West Virginia coal industry. Wow, are you fn kidding me???

Here's a scientific analysis of the role of water vapor. Seriously. I am starting to think you are a gd talking head moron.


Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

I mean really.

Why we think it's happening and why we think it is directly linked to human activity in the form of a massive peer-reviewed document condoned and accepted by the majority of the governments of the free world:

IPCC

Just one example (for the third time now) about what we can do about it and in the meantime, increase our economy:

The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence

And finally, yes it has been warmer in the past. No one is debating that. It is the same scientists that are proving anthropogenic climate change that are working on the analysis of the Vostok ice cores showing your lame point about previous warming trends.

Plants grow better with warmer temps? WTF are you talking about!!!!??? Let's just ignore the fact that places all over the world and in the United States will turn into deserts that won't grow a gd thing.

Anyway, whatever. This is ridiculous.

[Lathander]

Avak, I appreciate the post although I'll say you might also be falling for the press out there on global warming. It helps to be skeptical.

I'll tackle the end of your post first.

The "Hockey Stick" global warming chart.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

The "Hockey Stick" theory is rapidly coming into greater and greater doubt. The methods that Michael Mann used to put that together are a complete wreck so it is certainly not proof of anything even if Al Gore had it in a movie. One guy put it out there and it was a great marketing piece like the technology performance mountain charts of the late 90's.

I intend this weekend to write up a detailed reponse to that 10 point plan. I intend to examine the true implications of it and what it would really do.

The IPCC report is largely based on Mann's Hockey Stick theory so many believe it is flawed by a lack of foundation. Spare me the Mann is unbiased thing; he's created a speaking career out of that chart.

Finally, the water vapor report is going to take some looking at. Although honestly, I need to crunch some numbers, this section in the comments where Gavin, author of the paper, agrees that his computer program does not prove anything. Read the following paste from the site of message 44:



Congratulations Gavin, on demonstrating the commonest failure of the beliefs of pro-global warmers on this weblog and elsewhere: that climate models and their program inputs are themselves scientific data and can prove or disprove anything at all. They are parameters for a computer program, not experimental data.

The distinction, I know, is lost on you. But for the rest of us, the fact that you claim to simulate a climatic event in a simplistic model of a non-linear system like the Earth's climate does not lead to the conclusion that the model simulates reality or has diagnostic value. For example we do not know the "publication bias" of exactly how many computer runs, twiddles, tweaks, "flux adjustments", and other parameterizations were done before you got the "right" answer.

If you'd have actually referred to real experimental data, then I might have been impressed. More impressed if someone else could replicate your work. Really, really impressed if it could so much as predict the next El Nino.

You even start with a classic straw man argument: that "contrarians ... will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists". If you'd care to actually read the IPCC TAR you'll see that the IPCC does exactly that. On its listing of forcings and feedbacks it stacks up the tiny contributions of the other greenhouse gases into a scary mountain and does not even bother to quantify either the role of water vapor or any estimate of the uncertainties in those contributions. (see the IPCC SPM fig.3)

The IPCC also ignores in that diagram the greatest climate forcing of all: the variation of the solar flux because of intrinsic variation as well as changes in the orbital geometry of the solar system. The IPCC simply implies that the solar contribution (without a scintilla of scientific justification) is more than three times smaller than that from carbon dioxide alone even though such a parameterization is characterized to be on a "very low" level of scientific understanding. How the IPCC got to this conclusion when the clear imprint of solar variation on climate has been described by multiple teams over many years (dear me, and they were peer-reviewed and published in quality scientific journals as well), is simply beyond me. I think the IPCC should get out more from its deterministic, politicized ghetto and smell the scientific air.

I doubt very much you'll allow this to be posted, since censorship of opposing views is what realclimate is famous for, but I'm an incorrigable optimist (or just a fool wasting his time).

[Response: This kind of tiresome posting is exactly the kind of thing we try to avoid on this site. Mainly because it adds nothing but noise to the debate. However, as an exercise in reasoned discussion, I will take the time to point out the numerous problems with your point of view.
- I have not claimed to 'prove' anything. Given a system like the Earth's climate, the best one can hope for is a reasonable match to observations. Radiation models (such as I used here) have matches to line-by-line observations good to about 10%. All I did was demonstrate in those models the importance of various terms. That the results are similar to those from a completely different model (RC78) written over 20 years ago should indicate that they are reasonably robust.
- Climate models cannot be "used to prove anything at all". The proof of that is that no-one has ever made a model that cools when greenhouse gases increase.
- Given that you clearly don't believe a word I say, I don't know why I'll bother to point this out, but no tweaks, adjustments, twiddles or other runs were done to get these results. None. Not one. The proof is that the source code for the model and the input data I used are all available on the GISS model website. Anyone is perfectly at liberty to demonstrate for themselves that the answers are what the model gives. Given your penchant for audits, I would have thought that you would have already started...
- A straw man eh? How about this particular gathering only a day after my article? (William Kininmonth paragraph 11). I would also point out that it is bad debating style to claim that an argument is a straw man, and then go ahead and use it.
- This may surprise you, but I have actually read the whole of IPCC WG1, not just the Summary for policy makers. More to the point I actually understand what is being shown in the figure you highlight. These are the estimated forcings on climate - things which change the radiative transfer through the atmosphere, and to which the climate responds. Water vapour, since it responds so fast (as illustrated above) acts as feedback and not a forcing, and so quite sensibly does not appear on the diagram of forcings. Why you think there are no error bars on the figure is a little more mysterious, since they are quite plain in my view. For the well-mixed GHGs the error is the total error for all the gases and it's small because we actually know quite a lot about GHGs...
- Orbital forcing over the period 1850 to 2000 is neglected in the figure for the obvious reason that it is small, and in particularly in the global mean, very close to zero (and with very little uncertainty).
- Long term solar forcing estimates by contrast are indeed rather uncertain, and so your confidence that they must be must larger than accepted by IPCC is curious. Uncertainty works both ways remember. The numbers used by IPCC come from reasonable extrapolations of the measured values of solar irradiance during the satellite era - and there's much more than a scintilla of scientific evidence there (Lean et al, 1995, Lean 2000, Foukal 2004 etc.). I have actually written a number of papers on the solar forcing of climate, and your claim that the observations imply a much larger recent solar forcing is simply not supported by evidence. Cooling during the Little Ice Age for instance is completely consistent with the 'IPCC' forcing (solar and volcanic), canonical climate sensitivity and the historical temperature data (within the uncertainties of each) (see here). If you have a direct line to someone who has demonstrated otherwise, let me know.
- I cannot comment on your optimism. But I have formed an opinion on your foolishness....
-gavin]

[Sarvis]

I intend this weekend to write up a detailed reponse to that 10 point plan. I intend to examine the true implications of it and what it would really do.

Which will, of course, change magically the moment we hit peak oil and need those things to work. Right?

[Lathander]

Sarvis, this is from the article you posted:

4. "As the concentration of biodiesel increased, the oxides of nitrogen [NOx] emissions increased. The B20A20 fuel blend effectively reduced the oxides of nitrogen emissions below that of baseline diesel fuel. Retarding the timing was an effective way of reducing NOx emissions when fueling with the biodiesel blends. Oxides of nitrogen emissions ... can be successfully reduced below that of baseline diesel fuel by either retarding injection timing or replacing 20 percent of the baseline diesel fuel of the B20 blend with heavy alkylate." -- "Engine Exhaust Emissions Evaluation of a Cummins L10E When Fueled with a Biodiesel Blend", William Marshall, Leon G. Schumacher, Steve Howell (1995), Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper # 952363
[B20 = a blend of 20% biodiesel with 80% conventional low sulfur petroleum diesel fuel
B20A20 = a blend of 20% biodiesel and 20% heavy alkylate with 60% conventional low-sulfur petroleum diesel fuel]

[Lathander]

Sarvis, are you claiming that the world ends when we hit peak oil production?

I'd claim when we hit peak oil, the price will encourage people to use other energy sources. The energy source largely depends on the application. For electricity, folks like the French have moved to nuclear. For transportation, a different medium for energy transfer like hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, liquefied coal, ethanol, solar, or batteries would gain prominence.

Shifts create winners and losers. I bet when cars were invented, alot of horse carriage manufacturers got hurt particularly if they did not diversify their product mix.

See, you want to know what the greatest natural resource is? Human Ingenuity! I do not believe in limited resources because we will always find new ways of doing things. Even though many renewables are not ready yet, does not mean they will not be in the future.

In terms of economics, there will be lots of areas to speculate and profit. Just because one may doubt global warming does not mean you can't go with the momentum and make money. I'll leave it to Corth to tackle the specifics, but panic and doomsday can be good for business too.

[Lathander]

take out of context
From Wiktionary
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] English

[edit] Transitive verb
to take (something) out of context

To interpret something in a manner in which it was not intended to be understood, often deliberately

Sarvis, this is what you do by concentrating on the example of the shopping bag when it was discussing the anti consumerism war on convenience.

[Sarvis]

First Post: Read that a few times, until you understand that the increased nitrous oxide production is an easily solvable problem. In fact, it is essentially just timing the engine for the type of fuel it burns.

Second Post: No, I'm saying every time the "Green Lobby" advocates alternative energies you claim the "Green Lobby" is advocating poverty and an end to human industry. Yet once peak oil gets here, you think those same energy sources will magically save us.

Pick one and stick with it.

Third post: No, sorry. You could get me on taking you out of context with the last post I made. With the shopping bag incident, it's just focusing on a specific example of what you are saying. Who really cares if it's carrying a bag into the store or riding your bike to work? I used it to point out the silliness of your "convenience" argument, nothing about it misrepresents what your point was.

By the way, is the "anti-consumerism war on convenience" related to the war on Christmas? I just want to keep track of what wars I'm supposedly fighting...

[Sarvis]

You asked earlier why I believed humans are contributing to global warming. I'm going to reverse that question, because really you haven't presented much of a case so far. At this point it mostly seems like you're a nutjob conspiracy theorist, with all the references you make to the "green lobby" or "environmentalists" wanting to cause poverty and end human progress.

Do you have anything beyond that?

Ok, there's the water thing which Avak has shot down and which I will add a logical query to: If water vapor increases temperatures so much why are the hottest places on earth bone dry deserts? I suspect you and your source forgot that water vapor converts into cloud cover in the upper atmosphere, which reflects sunlight and keeps the area cooler.

Or is it just that you love your conveniences so much you don't care or want to think about the future?

[avak]

The "Hockey Stick" global warming chart.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

The "Hockey Stick" theory is rapidly coming into greater and greater doubt. The methods that Michael Mann used to put that together are a complete wreck so it is certainly not proof of anything even if Al Gore had it in a movie. One guy put it out there and it was a great marketing piece like the technology performance mountain charts of the late 90's.

Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate

"WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body."

The IPCC report is largely based on Mann's Hockey Stick theory so many believe it is flawed by a lack of foundation.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

Okay, next conspiratorial kook article? I've apparently got all day. Speaking of which, I read that entire 'article' by those two Canadians. I want my 15 mins back.

[Lathander]

Could deserts be so hot because they occur in some of the hottest places with little rainfall? Also, at night, deserts become much cooler, probably because of the lack of water in the air. Quite honestly, I read Avak's link to the water thread. Water vapor may be a feedback loop to global warming, although carbon dioxide could also be a feedback to global warming as well. Avak's article seems to argue though that water vapor is constant and does not add to global warming. I am reading up on things about this. Also, his methodology on thermal radiation and the total water content tests needs to be looked at. It is a very dense paper which takes time to really examine.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. Really when you get to this debate, it is about energy in the atmosphere. It seems to me that energy in the short wave infared is coming down. This strikes the land and goes up as a longer wave version of itself from striking the surface. I'm not a scientist, but this seems to imply that some energy has been taken away (short wave energy is stronger than long wave). These long waves go up and hit the atmosphere again, but as this different energy. This long wave infared can cause a few things. The biggest is that it creates some heat and then is converted again to an even longer wave which leaves the atmosphere for space. That extra heat created in the atmosphere, what happens to that? Is it stuck there forever? How does the system get rid of that heat.

Your article on the panel basically says that, "Yes, there are flaws in the hockey stick theory, but it's probably right." You know, CBS and Dan Rather tried that same tactic on Bush and his time in the Guard, and it did not work so well then either. You are either right or you are wrong. You are not wrong, but probably right. Personally, I'd look at the social connections of the panelists to Mann to see what bias they had.

See all of this is based on the use of proxies and saying that different ones are probably equal. Then you take this probably good data and plug it into a computer model that probably matches the climate model maybe. Finally, you get some output that maybe, could be, somewhere maybe near what reality is. Or it could just be wrong. These models are not real life. Most of the time, they are using huge feedback loops to increase CO2, Methane, and water vapor to create big numbers. The problem is, is this really additive? What I mean is that greenhouse gases are not like a blanket which gets thicker and thicker. If that first long wave coming from the surface is going to hit something, at some point, it is always going to hit something. Adding more greenhouse gas does not actually do anything at that point although in models, it does. Also, if one had the code to the model, I would also look for their accounting for negative feedbacks.

This is some really challenging science when even the scientists disagree among themsleves not just on the climate, but on other factors that might affect the climate. Below is a BBC article about the sun and solar influence on the weather.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm


The link below really warms my heart because even though there maybe those who need this global warming thing to be true, alot of people either do not believe it or believe we are not the cause of global warming.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/12/ ... invest.php

[Lathander]

Actually Sarvis, clouds do not only act as a cooling effect during the day. At night, they act in the opposite manner which is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights generally.

Also, there is a significant difference between water vapor and clouds.

[Sarvis]

Actually Sarvis, clouds do not only act as a cooling effect during the day. At night, they act in the opposite manner which is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights generally.

So find or do the math and find out which effect is greater. Find out of the heat trapped by vapor minus the light/heat reflected by clouds is greater than the heat trapped by CO2.

Also, there is a significant difference between water vapor and clouds.

Yes, altitude.

[Sarvis]

Yes, I will be taking a couple things "out of context" here... too tired to deal with the whole thing. Sue me.

The biggest is that it creates some heat and then is converted again to an even longer wave which leaves the atmosphere for space. That extra heat created in the atmosphere, what happens to that? Is it stuck there forever? How does the system get rid of that heat.

Why would the wave necessarily leave? The point here is kind of that the wave should be leaving but is getting trapped. My guess as to "heat management" is that the planet sits in the cold vacuum of space and energy is slowly bled off into it.

That is a guess though, and remember that I'm tired.

Personally, I'd look at the social connections of the panelists to Mann to see what bias they had.

I'd just like to take a moment and point out that Avak has shown every source you've posted to have links to the oil or coal industry. It's fine to ask about bias, but don't be blind to your own.

The problem is, is this really additive? What I mean is that greenhouse gases are not like a blanket which gets thicker and thicker. If that first long wave coming from the surface is going to hit something, at some point, it is always going to hit something. Adding more greenhouse gas does not actually do anything at that point although in models, it does. Also, if one had the code to the model, I would also look for their accounting for negative feedbacks.

You said you had to drive in snow a lot, so you probably live in a colder climate right? I'm guessing you dress in layers, right? Use multiple blankets?

Some heat escapes from one blanket but is caught by the next, and heat which escapes that is caught by the next layer. Granted the atmosphere isn't like a blanket, but adding more stuff in the atmosphere means more stuff for that energy to hit and get trapped by. Yeah, the first wave isn't going to get trapped twice... but the second wave might have made it through.

The atmosphere is supposed to trap SOME heat, it kind of keeps us alive. It isn't supposed to trap it ALL though and increasing the amount will lead to changes we may be unable to predict.

The link below really warms my heart because even though there maybe those who need this global warming thing to be true, alot of people either do not believe it or believe we are not the cause of global warming.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/12/ ... invest.php

There are people who believed Bush when he said there were WMD in Iraq too. There are others who still believe Bush actually arranged 9/11 too. Argument Ad Populum is definately on the list of logical fallacies you know.

[Sarvis]

Citing is important, but you gotta try to cite a reputable source too. Case in point, the article about water vapor Lathander posted has a source claiming the <a href="http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm">EPA tried to have water vapor classified as a pollutant.</a> Looking at this source, I note two things: The top stories are Area 51 Weather Wars, and Floating Islands. Already I lose confidence... but the second thing is that Ray Donaldson is supposed to be the EPA director of the "Department of Pollutant Decrees" which is possibly the most made up department name I've ever heard! (It also doesn't come up in google, nor does a Ray Donaldson from the EPA.)


Just a side note...

[Lathander]

Sarvis, you finally did it. I'm completely confused by the ecoenquirer thing. That has got to be a joke site or something. Most of the stuff on there looks to be wacky stories about global warming things. What link was it that was involved with ecoenquirer?


After Hurricane Katrina:
Vatican Sued for 'Acts of God'

I laughed pretty hard at that one.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Two articles I just finished reading, seemed interesting.

Global Warming and Solar Radiation

Man-made Global Warming

The second one had some interesting things to say about the IPCC.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, you finally did it. I'm completely confused by the ecoenquirer thing. That has got to be a joke site or something. Most of the stuff on there looks to be wacky stories about global warming things. What link was it that was involved with ecoenquirer?


After Hurricane Katrina:
Vatican Sued for 'Acts of God'

I laughed pretty hard at that one.

It was one of the sources for the article you posted about water vapor being the biggest greenhouse gas: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossi ... _data.html


EDIT: And yes, the suing the vatican thing was pretty hilarious!

[Lathander]

Well, seems to me, the author took a legitimate concern that comes out of the Supreme Court ruling on carbon dioxide regulation as a pollutant. If carbon dioxide, which every animal creates is a pollutant based on the supposed climate impact, then by that same logic, somewhat of a stretch since the environazi's aren't that crazy yet, you could say that water vapor should be regulated. The author is probably guilty of going looking for the headline of regulating of water vapor and just used this one.

Here are some better links about GHG's.

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/428.html

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/ ... emissions/

For the last link, the most interesting part is the comments which I think are good.

[Lathander]

Good links adriorn.

[Lathander]

Response to the first 5 on the 10 point list

1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars: Begin today to provide incentives for converting domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient cars, transitioning the fleet to American made advanced technology vehicles, increasing consumer choice and strengthening the US auto industry.


First, not many folks are against “promoting advanced technologyâ€

[Sarvis]

Also, electric cars powered by batteries do not change the fact that energy is used. Instead of energy being generated in an engine, it is generated at the local power plant.

You're reaching here. First do you think an internal combustion engine is more efficient than a power plant? Second, if we adopt more renewable energy sources the production of that energy is less harmful. Definately helps around here, since we've got Niagara Falls...

[quote]
If that is the case, then this group is advocating higher taxes on higher income people to pay for benefits for the lower end. This will hurt the economy through reduced economic activity already hurt by “dirtyâ€

[Ambar]

I bought a hybrid camry for the looks and for the hybrid technology .. it was rated at 40 mpg in the city

the EPA lowered it to 30-32 recently .. since that is what I was getting all along, I feel better knowing that I am not driving it wrong

But 32 mpg isnt bad for the car it is .. it is bigger than mid size but smaller than luxury size

But it is SOMETHING .. if we all did SOMETHING, we'd be doing SOMETHING to improve the Earth, to hell with economics, to HELL with politics , to hell with industry ..

The electric motor in my hybrid does not make noise .. it is virtuallyy SILENT.. it does not emit noxious gasses, and the electricity is generated by such things as braking, turning corners, etc .. and under 35 mph it runs solely on the electric motor

The battery is rated at 8-10 years .. much better than the 3-4 of regular gas powered engines, so for disposal, much better for the environment .. can most likely be recycled too .. which is a plus

[avak]

Call me crazy, but it sounds like you are mostly accepting the points made, but pointing out potential difficulties. Well, the link to that particular ten point plan is just a very brief overview of their over-arching agenda. The details, including 3rd party analysis, are all available on their website.

Here is a quote from the executive summary of the third party analysis:

- The effects of the proposed Apollo plan investments over a 10-year
period include the addition of $1.35 trillion in Gross Domestic Product
and 19,463,949 Person-Years of Employment.

- The ongoing stream of stimulus surfacing as a direct result of this
significant investment program includes $79.7 billion in annual Gross
Domestic Product and 1,392,415 Permanent Jobs.

- The total return to the federal government over ten years is $306.8
billion relative to an overall investment of $300.6 billion, with sizable
ongoing fiscal benefits thereafter.

Keep in mind that the 3rd point is to show how the ambitious initial investment is essentially self-funded. Beyond that 10 year period the investment still pays massive dividends, but the costs go way down.

I'll just say it again because I feel like it is that important. America became great through innovation and now that we have a wealthy old guard we coddle the economy and the NYSE to the point of severe counter-productivity. In my mind, this 10-point plan is as much about making our country wealthy and great as it is protecting the environment.

[Ashiwi]

Thank you Ambar. There are those of us who understand the concept of "any little bit helps," and we appreciate it.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand why taking even one step to use less than you normally would have is a step in the right direction. Or the concept of buying responsibly, and keeping in mind that you share this planet and these finite resources with everybody else here.

Those who waste today should stand in front of their children and say "I don't care about what the state of the world will be when you grow up, because it will be your problem then. I am overindulging on non-renewing resources, contributing heavily to the problem of pollution, and encouraging the degredation and destruction of the environment you will have to live in without considering the potential consequences because I have no concern for how it will affect your life as long as I am comfortable, my life is filled with conveniences, and my sense of self-worth is artificially inflated with how I perceive my buying power and choose to display it. I know what the potential risks are for you, but the impact they could have on you doesn't matter enough to me for me to even consider giving up a single plastic bag, five miles of driving in one week, one single-serving size cup of green beans. You are not worth the effort of recycling, or worth taking the time to portion out food myself, or worth the trouble of practicing energy conservation within my home. I will childproof my home, read you bedtime stories, and provide you with a great education, but do not ask me to teach you good stewardship of the world around you, because I prefer to continue my way of life without any consideration as to how it will impact your life in the future."

Count me as a naysayer, but I'm sticking with the common sense approach. If there is any possibility at all that our actions are causing these problems, then it would be sheer stupidity on our part to continue the way we are without any consideration for the consequences. Wait for concrete evidence before instituting massive overhauls in how we deal with the problem? That's not really a problem for me. We have a raging debate over "Yes" and "No." If the answer is "Yes" there are potentially devastating consequences for us and for our children. If the answer is "No" then life goes on as it always did. We do not have "concrete" answers yet, but the cost of taking the potential of the "Yes" side is nothing our country can't deal with. We refuse, however, and prefer to continue potentially making the problem worse, because we don't want to have to deal with the short-term impact on our pocketbooks.

It takes a mindset that I am completely incapable of comprehending to see the potential consequences and still refuse to let them have any effect on behavior while the results of the debate are pending. Are we more or less damned if we take action now? Common sense dictates that if we continue as we are we will just make the problem worse, and if we make just a few small changes our society will adapt and move on. If the "Yes" side comes out on top, then we damn ourselves by our own actions. Why continue potentially self-destructive behavior like this when we already know what the consequences could be? Is it worth it to continue the behavior if "Yes" is the final answer?

[Lathander]

Avak,

I seriously doubt this is a growth opportunity. We are talking about raising the costs of doing business and living our lives. That's bad for growth. Those statements you put up are a fantasy of static analysis. Implementing the first five points I talked about would result in jobs going overseas. Also, you mention "stimulus". That means goverment spending. Calling it an "investment program" is like saying a dog is a cat. If you are going to vastly increase government spending, which this does, you either have to run up the debt by a huge amount or increase taxes by a large amount.

The points are marketing nonsense. It's like saying everyone is for clean water and there should be no contaminates in it. I think 99% of folks would agree with that. The issue comes in defining how to do it and what is the definition of "clean". Also, what is the cost and marginal rate of return in each of those decisions. Unless you advocate a command economy, this 10 point plan is a recipe for disaster.

Ashiwi,

Stewardship of the land is good thing. The question is what is the definition. As Corth posted an article where an environmentalist says that humans use too much of the world's resources compared to other species. We have a right to use the planet. The planet has served as our place of birth as a species, and the resources here are our birthright. I do not know how you would restrict people's choice for single serving containers and the like. Can you explain how you would achieve that? Remember, people CHOOSE to use throwaway paper plates, paper towels, and the rest of it.

Ambar,

I have looked at hybrids myself. I'm still debating what I want my next car to be, but hybrids are on the list. The key thing is you choose to buy a hybrid. No one forced it on you. No one was threatening you with higher taxes unless you conformed to some hysterical ideal. The Camry and Highlander are the first hybrids I would consider buying. In another ten years, they might actually have hybrids that are fun to drive. Hybrids currently are severly underpowered.

[Lathander]

Sarvis,

Yes, I believe I would argue that poverty causes pollution. Poor people can not buy the expensive, cleaner technology. Also, poor areas need jobs and industry allowing those that pollute more to come into their area.

Personally, I thought this was just common sense. Since you brought it up, I googled it and found lots of left wing radicals that agree with the idea that poverty does indeed cause areas of higher pollution. The only assumption you have to make is that this poverty is not taking the form of some ancient tribe in the bush.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis,

Yes, I believe I would argue that poverty causes pollution.

That pretty much says it all right there. We're wasting our time here. He'd rather pay more money for the privilege of driving a vehicle more likely to roll over, he's too lazy to carry an extra 5 ounces of material to a store, and he thinks the act of not having money causes CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere because wealthy people can buy nicer homes.

The simple truth here is that poor people do not build factories.

This is a complete waste of time.

[Lathander]

Here are just some articles on the relationship between poverty and pollution. Maybe I'll even take a page out of the global warming book and change "cause" to "contributes", hahahah.

http://www.ring-alliance.org/ring_pdf/b ... v_ftxt.pdf

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/58/1/5.pdf

http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/briefings ... 95350.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27580.html