Jump to content
KJP

Global Warming

Recommended Posts

I've read it. Crichton should stick to dinosaurs and andromeda strains. I lost all respect for him when I read that alleged piece of "research." Sad that you think it's "solid" and worth reading, E Rocc. I wouldn't wipe my ass with the paper it's printed on

 

Though technically that would be the "reusing" R of the Rs of recycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you thought I forgot about this!

 

Massive announcement with worldwide implications originating from right here in Columbus (yes, you read that correctly).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15carbon.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

In a Test of Capturing Carbon Dioxide, Perhaps a Way to Temper Global Warming

 

WASHINGTON, March 14 American Electric Power, a major electric utility, is planning the largest demonstration yet of capturing carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant and pumping it deep underground.

 

Various experts consider that approach, known as sequestration, essential to reining in climate change by preventing the gas from being added to the atmospheric blanket that promotes global warming.

 

The project, to be announced Thursday by American Electric Power, based in Columbus, Ohio, will use a new process so far tested only at laboratory scale that uses chilled ammonia to absorb the gas for collection. The process was developed by Alstom, a major manufacturer of generating equipment, and aims to reduce the amount of energy required to capture the carbon dioxide.

 

..........

 

 

Also...

 

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=253386

 

AEP to pump carbon dioxide emissions underground

The Columbus Dispatch

Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:10 AM

 

American Electric Power plans to capture carbon dioxide from two of its existing coal-fired plants and pump the emissions underground by early next decade.

 

It would be the first commercial use of technology that some experts say is key in cutting down on global warming. The Columbus-based utility said it will install the systems on plants in New Haven, W.Va., and in Oologah, Okla., and begin commercial operation in 2011.

 

.........

 

 

^Won't work.

Let's see if I remember my junior year geography class.

First, it's already being done... by somebody in such and such place.

Second, it doesn't stay there. It does for about 100 years, but eventually the ocean releases it.

 

So, in 100 years everyone will be driving, or will have driven for some period of time, hydrogen powered cars - which release water vapor as exhaust - which will be trapped into the atmosphere - which will be joined by the release of millions of tons of Co2 previously stored in the ocean.

I think that's what we learned.

 

^Won't work.

Let's see if I remember my junior year geography class.

First, it's already being done... by somebody in such and such place.

Second, it doesn't stay there. It does for about 100 years, but eventually the ocean releases it.

 

They're not talking about ocean sequestration. They're sequestering in saline aquifers 2 miles below ground. There are many cap rocks above the aquifers should any begin to bubble up, but much of the CO2 should dissolve into the saline water at those pressures and/or form hydrates (basically CO2 ice).

 

 

 

That's ok musky. I know what I'm talking about on this one. ;)

 

Just call him Professor *SNAP*!

 

I need to find out for my own well being.

 

When and if I am mistaken, I will admit to it and gaze upon your snapness.

 

 

 

 

Well, I ran into the old prof and this is what I found out.

 

First, I was wrong to comment about the co2 going to to the ocean when you were clearing discussing it being pumped underground. Second, I was also wrong in the time frame. The co2 that would be pumped into the ocean will remain there for about 1500 years. So were ok for a while.

Oh, and the term I was looking for is Thermohaline Circulation.

 

I won't take up more space discussing it. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

 

 

God, that's been bothering me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read it. Crichton should stick to dinosaurs and andromeda strains. I lost all respect for him when I read that alleged piece of "research." Sad that you think it's "solid" and worth reading, E Rocc. I wouldn't wipe my ass with the paper it's printed on.

 

People can live like pigs inside their homes all they want. But when they shit all over the planet that I must share with them, then I got a problem. Too bad people don't live responsibly, like they're part of a community anymore, especially in the U.S.

 

So you're saying you don't believe that the "models" have not matched up with reality, that the most reliable historical data (American) is the least supportive of the theory, and that the "urban heat island" effect is insignificant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God that Al Gore's son was driving a Prius at 100mph+!!!!!!

 

How much carbon offsets are necessary for burning 1 joint?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying you don't believe that the "models" have not matched up with reality, that the most reliable historical data (American) is the least supportive of the theory, and that the "urban heat island" effect is insignificant?

 

Depends on which models you are referring to. There are a wide variety of models using a their own equations and different source data (ice cores, plankton, carbon dating, even looking at tree rings of 1,000-year-old trees). Those who have a strong case that global warming is happening and that human activity is a major factor in it have taken the wide range of data and outputs and mashed them together to com up with compilation. Simple fact is, when you take a poison (carbon dioxide) that's been accumulating for hundreds of millions of years in rotting plants and animals. And, suddenly, we burn it all in a mere several hundred years, please tell me how that will not harm the planet?

 

The critics of global warming like to point to a few narrow models, limited to very narrow data sets from a narrow point in history, and say that's gospel. And that I think is the critics' basic problem -- their faith-based denial of the problem. They have a hard time believing that humans are capable of changing the planet, and that only God can create destinies for humans. It's as if they're saying, "If we are to dirty the planet and make it uninhabitable, then that's the way God wanted it, and thus we shouldn't do anything to change it. And if it's not the way God wanted it, then He will show us the way to avoid it by giving us divine inspiration to create new technologies and methods to address the problem. Everything will be just fine."

 

OK fine, I'll play along. What if God already gave us the ability to save ourselves and we don't even realize the answer is sitting in our laps? It's called conservation, and while it's a bitter pill for some, it's the only solution that works across the board for global warming, peak oil, urban sprawl, destruction of habitats, farmland preservation, over-population and more.

 

Instead, we act like addicts and keep looking for new ways to make an unsustainable lifestyle sustainable, like a heroin addict believing that methodone will solve his horrible finances, broken marriage and screwed-up kids. Fortunately, abstinence from cars and suburban-style growth isn't needed, but what is needed is moderation, balance and diversity of modal choices, land uses and lifestyles to counter the one-size-fits-all "American Dream" which has been promoted for 50+ years by a juggernaut of industrial giants and their powerful PR machines. All of us aren't much different than the catatonic people plugged into the Matrix to keep it going, and fed a placebic diet of shallow images of materialistic BS to make us think everything is OK.

 

Well, I've unplugged from the Matrix and can see everything is not OK. Not only am I not dining on their crap anymore, but I'm doing what I can to unplug others from it until their's so few left that it's power is too weak. I know it will take a long time, and thankfully there are other vocal people like me. But each time new record high atmospheric carbon data readings are reported, or another region's oil production goes into depletion without an emerging region's production to replace it, or another huge lake in Africa turns to dust, or another island in the Pacific Ocean goes underwater, there are more people waking up to the fact that there is something very wrong going on our planet.

 

Only we can save ourselves. God isn't going to do it for us.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A poison?  Maybe to humans, but plants require it just like sunlight and water.  You journalists are so dramatic! ;)

 

Also, for me, the most compelling anti-climate change info has been WRT the little ice age and farming on Greenland.  Not sure how to explain that one.

 

The arguements are compelling either way for me.  I'm one of the people who think that the ends justify the means.  If the end result is that we become less dependant on fossil fuels, it will be nothing but good for future generations.  And I'm ok with paying VASTLY higher amounts for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and everything that uses them in manufacturing, because that's what it'll take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I ran into the old prof and this is what I found out.

 

First, I was wrong to comment about the co2 going to to the ocean when you were clearing discussing it being pumped underground. Second, I was also wrong in the time frame. The co2 that would be pumped into the ocean will remain there for about 1500 years. So were ok for a while.

Oh, and the term I was looking for is Thermohaline Circulation.

 

I won't take up more space discussing it. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

 

 

God, that's been bothering me.

 

HAHAHA!  I did forget!  Excellent legwork though!

 

And thanks for teaching me about Thermohaline Circulation.  That's a new one for me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 6, 2007

Editorial

New York Times

Global Warming and Your Wallet

 

At long last, Congress is showing a willingness to confront global warming. The Senates recent approval of higher fuel economy standards is a constructive step and key lawmakers are promising comprehensive legislation this year that will, for the first time, limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

 

But for all the talk about warming, leading politicians have yet to educate their constituents (and their colleagues) about an unpleasant and inescapable truth: any serious effort to fight warming will require everyone to pay more for energy. According to most scientists, the long-term costs of doing nothing flooding, famine, drought would be even higher than the costs of acting now. But unless Americans understand and accept the trade-off higher prices today to avoid calamity later the requisite public support for real change is unlikely to build.

 

.........

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/opinion/06fri1.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome! speech.gif


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jul 17, 5:46 PM EDT

Business Group Calls for Climate Action

By H. JOSEF HEBERT

Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief executives of many of the country's largest corporations joined the growing chorus Tuesday calling for action to reduce the risks of global warming.

 

The Business Roundtable, which represents 160 chief executives of leading U.S. companies, said that "collective actions" should be taken now to begin reducing heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases that scientists believe are warming the earth.

 

"The consequences of global warming for society and ecosystems are potentially serious and far-reaching," the business group said. "Steps to address the risks of such warming are prudent now even while the science continues to evolve."

 

The group said that its members have varying views on how to achieve the emission reductions and that not all of the executives support mandatory carbon dioxide limits. But the group said its members agree that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere should be a top priority.

 

The policy statement "marks the first time that a broad cross-section of business leaders from every sector of the U.S. economy have reached consensus on the risks posed by climate change and the need for action," said Business Roundtable President John Castellani.

 

Chad Holliday, chairman of DuPont and head of the group's environment task force, said business executives' views on climate change are evolving significantly and that a growing number now believe cutting greenhouse gases is a major issue for their companies.

 

The Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of major corporations, representing a combined work force of more than 10 million employees and $4.5 trillion in annual revenues.

 

Its members include major energy companies including Exxon Mobil Corp., Peabody Energy Co., the country's largest coal producer, and Southern Co., the Atlanta-based electric utility that is among the largest coal users.

 

Carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, is produced from burning fossil fuel, especially coal.

 

A growing number of business leaders have in recent months called for action to combat global warming, many of them supporting legislation that would impose mandatory limits on carbon emissions.

 

"There is a freight train of momentum of action," David Yarnold, executive vice president of Environmental Defense, said in response to the Business Roundtable announcement.

 

The executives' climate statement, however, reflected continuing divisions within the business community about what specific actions should be taken as well as concern over the potential economic impact of a policy that would require dramatic shifts in how society uses its energy resources.

 

"Some companies support mandatory approaches; others do not," said the Roundtable's climate statement.

 

While the executives agreed that member companies should commit to making emission reductions, they also said "collective actions" are needed globally to deal with climate change. And they urged "a flexible stepwise approach" that provides business "a clear and stable long-term economy-wide framework for emission reductions."

 

Congress is considering a range of legislation that would impose mandatory caps on carbon dioxide with an aim of reducing emissions by 50 to as much as 80 percent by 2050. All would allow a market emissions trading system aimed at reducing the cost, and some would provide a "safety valve" that would ease limits if the reductions become too costly.

 

President Bush has acknowledged the need to address global warming, but he has argued against mandatory emission reductions and contended that industry's voluntary actions are making progress. He also has argued that countries such as China, whose carbon emissions are growing rapidly, must act to cut emissions if the United States does so.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSINESS_CLIMATE?SITE=OHCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-07-17-17-41-09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Move On organization is a tad to left my personal taste, but they do have a petition going on now some of you might be interested in participating.

 

Did you know the U.S. right now gets only 2% of our electricity from clean energy sources like solar and wind? We have the technology. We know people want it. We just haven't had the political will.

 

But Congress is voting this week on H.R. 969, a bill that will dramatically boost solar and wind energy. If it passes, it'll be like taking 37 million cars off the road.1 Along with the rest of the energy package, it'll be the biggest step in two decades toward a clean planet and affordable energy.

 

Big oil and coal are fighting the bill hard, because it would undercut their stranglehold on our economy. That's why Congress needs to hear from the public that clean energy is a priority. So, today we're launching a petition:

 

"Congress must act now to move our country toward a clean energy economy based on solar and wind power by voting yes on H.R. 969, the Federal Renewable Energy Standards Act."

 

Can you sign this petition today? Clicking here will add your name:

 

http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergyfuture/o.pl?&id=10885-6029052-u4O7wJ&t=3

 

This is the moment on energy that we've been waiting for.

 

The bill requires utilities to increase the percentage of electricity produced from wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy sources. If it passes, utilities nationwide will produce 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. This bill alone will reduce 511 million tons of global warming pollution.

 

Already, over twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar requirements. It's a tested and proven solution.

 

And because the bill allows utilities around the country to buy and sell extra renewable energy they produce, that means more competition and lower prices.

 

Investing in renewable energy sources would not only curb global warming and protect the environment—the bill is projected to create over 185,000 new jobs, save consumers over $31.8 billion on their energy bills, and provide almost $67 billion in new capital investments in the next couple decades.2

 

Here what's the San Antonio Express-News had to say about the bill:

 

Whether one believes in global warming or not, taking steps to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fuels like oil makes sense. It will result in a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations, wean the nation slowly off its dependence on oil and save consumers millions in energy costs.3

 

Congress need to hear from us now—the vote is expected to be close, and winning would be an important step forward. Can you sign this petition now?

 

"Congress must act now to move our country toward a clean energy economy based on solar and wind power by voting yes on H.R. 969, the Federal Renewable Energy Standards Act."

http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergyfuture/o.pl?&id=10885-6029052-u4O7wJ&t=4

 

Thanks for all you do,

 

–Ilyse, Carrie, Wes, Karin, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

  Monday, July 30th, 2007

 

Sources:

 

1. "Cashing in on clean energy", Union of Concerned Scientists (report), 2007,

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2853&&id=10885-6029052-u4O7wJ&t=5

 

2."Cashing in on clean energy", Union of Concerned Scientists (report), 2007,

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2853&&id=10885-6029052-u4O7wJ&t=6

 

3. "Give the thumbs up to renewable energy" San Antonio Express-News, July 20, 2007

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2844&&id=10885-6029052-u4O7wJ&t=7

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar and wind power aren't any kind of an answer for urban areas or other high-density energy users.  The problem with solar is simply physics, the atmosphere absorbs most of the energy the sun puts out before it reaches the ground.  It's also somewhat geographically limited.  Wind power is also geographically limited. 

 

The best way to use solar energy might be to collect it in space and beam it to Earth using means that aren't as strongly absorbed.  Indeed this was part of the "High Frontier" SDI project first proposed during the early 80s.

 

But right now, the only practical alternatives to combustion based energy are hydropower and nuclear.  Hydropower is also geographically limited.  Nuclear is somewhat, but less so.

 

The left's unyielding opposition to nuclear power is one of the things that makes some of us suspect they are simply using "environmentalism" as a excuse for imposing strict economic and social control.  There used to be a nickname for the environmentalist left:  "watermelons".  Green on the outside, pink on the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disingenuous to say that "we just don't have the political will" without providing even a rough estimate about the level of increase in energy prices. 

 

EDIT:  MoveOn actually did say that we would REDUCE our energy bills by $38 billion.   :lol:

 

Good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar and wind power aren't any kind of an answer for urban areas or other high-density energy users.  The problem with solar is simply physics, the atmosphere absorbs most of the energy the sun puts out before it reaches the ground.  It's also somewhat geographically limited.  Wind power is also geographically limited. 

 

The best way to use solar energy might be to collect it in space and beam it to Earth using means that aren't as strongly absorbed.  Indeed this was part of the "High Frontier" SDI project first proposed during the early 80s.

 

But right now, the only practical alternatives to combustion based energy are hydropower and nuclear.  Hydropower is also geographically limited.  Nuclear is somewhat, but less so.

 

The left's unyielding opposition to nuclear power is one of the things that makes some of us suspect they are simply using "environmentalism" as a excuse for imposing strict economic and social control.  There used to be a nickname for the environmentalist left:  "watermelons".  Green on the outside, pink on the inside.

 

I have heard the geographically-limited arguement a lot and have never really understood it.  Solar and wind are used in conjunction to power many civil buildings in cities as far north as Chicago and Toronto.  So, maybe Anchorage is out of the question for solar (at least during the dark season), but these technologies have been implemented in heavily urbanized areas in areas farther from the equator.  And, almost every month, a new way of capturing these energies is released - we are by no means done with this type of alternative energy development...we are just getting started.  Small scale localized wind and solar (i.e. vertical wind turbines and solar shingles on stand-alone buildings) can already generate enough clean energy to power cities, but the rapid advancements in these fields (just as with any technology) will allow more of us to afford a currently expensive technology.

 

As for nuclear...IMO, some people are opposed due to thoughts of what happened during the last nuclear boom.  Environmentalists probably have a qualm due to our effective storage system for nuclear waste - the Yucca mountain range in Nevada.  Nuclear production still does provide nuclear waste - and no amount of communist name-calling will change that.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pd:

 

NASA corrects error, stirring a global-warming debate

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Marc Kaufman

Washington Post

 

Washington- NASA has slightly revised its record of average annual temperatures in the United States since 2000 - modifications that researchers say are insignificant but that some conservative commentators and bloggers have seized on to say global warming has been hyped as a problem.

 

The revisions, which were first posted on the Web site of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stemmed from an error noticed by Canadian blogger and global-warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre. James Hansen, director of the institute, said McIntyre brought the error to the institute's attention, and the error was corrected.

 

........

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1187168503257600.xml&coll=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are invited to attend a free preview screening of Leonardo

DiCaprio's acclaimed Cannes Festival  documentary, The 11th Hour, on

August 16th at the Shaker Square Cleveland Cinemas or August 29th at

the Cedar Lee  Theater - both screenings will run at 7:30 pm .  Because

many of the people featured in the film about the challenge and

opportunity to respond to climate change are from Bioneers, the

Cleveland Bioneers steering committee (of which I am a part) has been

asked to issue the invitation to interested individuals and groups. If

you are interested in attending, e-mail Jen Hillman at

jenonahill@aol.com and your name will be on a list when you check in

before the show.  We hope you will be inspired to take action,

including planning to attend the Great Lakes Bioneers-Cleveland

conference October 19-21 at CSU's Levin College of Urban Affairs. More

information on Bioneers can be found at

http://www.urban.csuohio.edu/forum/bioneers/. 

 

Information on The 11th Hour can be found at

http://www.bioneers.org/11thhour


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the best place to post this:

 

At Australias Bunny Fence, Variable Cloudiness Prompts Climate Study

 

By SONAL NOTICEWALA

Published: August 14, 2007

NYT

 

A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.

 

The rabbit-proof fence or bunny fence in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear.

 

Researchers led by Tom Lyons of Murdoch University in Australia and Udaysankar S. Nair of the University of Alabama in Huntsville have come up with three possible explanations for this difference in cloudiness.

 

........

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

more

 

http://www.uah.edu/News/sciindex.php

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Mail:

 

Dramatic pictures that show how global warming is changing world maps

Last updated at 10:34am on 4th September 2007

 

The effects of global climate change are clear to see on the latest world maps.

 

In the four years since the last edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas Of The World went on sale, cartographers have been forced to redraw coastlines and reclassify types of land.

 

The main culprits are climate change and ill-conceived irrigation projects, the atlas's editors said.

 

They highlight the Aral Sea in central Asia, reduced by three-quarters in the past 40 years, and Lake Chad, which has shrunk by 95 per cent since 1963.

 

The Dead Sea is some 25 metres lower than it was 50 years ago.

 

.........

 

 

LakeChadPA_468x252.jpg

Dry spell: Lake Chad photographed in 1972 (left) and in 1987

 

YellowRiverPA_468x250.jpg

Rising waters: China's Yellow River in 1979 (left) and in 2000

 

aralL0409_468x266.jpg

Sea of change: The Aral Sea in 1973 (left) and 2004

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=479576&in_page_id=1811

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tuvalu reference brings to mind the Vanatau lawsuit in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".  Crichton and James Hogan have largely taken on the old Asimov roles as popularizers of science and both are strong global warming skeptics.

 

Lots of talk about bodies of water with allusions to urbanization and agriculture, but without quantification of both other factors can't even be credibily considered.  The Owens (sic?) Valley dried out long ago but no one blamed the global environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...I read that article yesterday and had the same reaction.  It just seemed like too big a leap to connect this with climate change when people are drawing water from these lakes tributaries at unsustainable rates for 50 years.  There are just so many variables in play with these things.

 

Here's a good article about the Dead Sea, who's water level has dropped 80 feet in the last 50 years.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802400.html

 

The main problem, experts agree, is that most of the water that once flowed into the sea -- the saltiest large body of water in the world and, at 1,371 feet below sea level, the lowest point on Earth -- is being diverted for drinking water and agriculture, so there is not enough to offset the high evaporation rate. In addition, Israeli and Jordanian industries on the south end of the sea are letting 180 million gallons of the mineral-rich water evaporate every day -- about 66 billion gallons a year -- to extract chemicals.

 

That's not to say that I don't think Climate Change is happening, it's just that I'm not sure you can make the leap and call this evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...I read that article yesterday and had the same reaction.  It just seemed like too big a leap to connect this with climate change when people are drawing water from these lakes tributaries at unsustainable rates for 50 years.  There are just so many variables in play with these things.

...snip...

That's not to say that I don't think Climate Change is happening, it's just that I'm not sure you can make the leap and call this evidence.

Yes, the Daily Mail kind of "blew it" there.  The Aral Sea has dissipated because Soviet agricultural policy was to divert the regional streams for cotton production.  Scant input + evaporation => No more Aral Sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many of these examples no one factor is the cause, but rather a combination of factors.  Take Lake Chad.  Not only has immense irrigation taken place in this area over the last 30 years, it has also been in a dangerously long and severe drought.  A drought that has been attributed to shifting weather patterns as a result of global warming. 

 

And, for Chrichton, I would consider him no friend of science.  Every respected scientific organization in the United States has said that man-made global warming is real and is a threat.  He thinks (with his professional history as a fiction writer) that the scientific results of 99% of climate scientists are wrong.  I think Asimov would backhand Chrichton for his incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many of these examples no one factor is the cause, but rather a combination of factors.  Take Lake Chad.  Not only has immense irrigation taken place in this area over the last 30 years, it has also been in a dangerously long and severe drought.  A drought that has been attributed to shifting weather patterns as a result of global warming. 

 

And, for Chrichton, I would consider him no friend of science.  Every respected scientific organization in the United States has said that man-made global warming is real and is a threat.  He thinks (with his professional history as a fiction writer) that the scientific results of 99% of climate scientists are wrong.  I think Asimov would backhand Chrichton for his incompetence.

 

There's a certain "political correctness" about global warming, and dissenters seem to be targeted than debated.  Crichton makes the point that that's not how science is done.  Getting in deeper, he points out that the least amount of data supported "warming" happens in the US, where the most reliable data has been collected (it's also of course one of the more industrial active parts of the world) and that the urban "heat island" effect is often ignored or minimized.

 

In any case, I doubt very much the number is anywhere close to "99%".  Some very big names are skeptics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's PD

 

Humberto dumps rain in Texas, Louisiana

9/13/2007, 2:09 p.m. ET

By JUAN A. LOZANO

The Associated Press   

 

BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) — Humberto, the first hurricane to hit the U.S. in two years, sneaked up on south Texas and Louisiana overnight and crashed ashore Thursday with heavy rains and 80 mph winds, killing at least one person.

 

The system rapidly became a Category 1 hurricane, then weakened to a tropical storm by midmorning and bore into central Louisiana. Roads were flooded and power was knocked out, but the greatest concern was heavy rain falling in areas already inundated by a wet summer.

 

Humberto wasn't even a tropical storm until Wednesday afternoon, strengthening from a tropical depression with 35 mph winds to a hurricane with 85 mph winds in just 18 hours, senior hurricane specialist James Franklin said at the National Hurricane Center in Miami ...

 

... More at http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-92/1189686855275180.xml&storylist=national

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arctic ice melt opens Northwest Passage By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer

Sun Sep 16, 1:53 AM ET

 

Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record, new satellite images show, raising the possibility that the Northwest Passage that eluded famous explorers will become an open shipping lane.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070916/ap_on_sc/northwest_passage_14;_ylt=ArN40nfRrFBLAB9oIS7ILKrlWMcF

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countries accelerate climate protection

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Charmaine Noronha

Associated Press

 

Toronto- Governments of almost 200 countries have agreed to speed the elimination of a major greenhouse gas that depletes ozone, U.N. and Canadian officials said Saturday, describing a deal they said was a significant step toward fighting global warming.

 

The agreement reached Friday night will accelerate a treaty to freeze and phase out hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which are used in home appliances, some refrigerators, hair sprays and air conditioners, said Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the U.N. Environment Program.

 

The treaty known as the Montreal Protocol was established in the Canadian city in 1987 to protect the ozone layer from destructive chemicals. It was negotiated by 191 countries to cut back on chemicals blamed for destroying the ozone layer.

 

........

 

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-1/1190550941229750.xml&coll=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://blog.smartgrowthamerica.org/?p=34

 

Less auto-dependent development is key to mitigating climate change

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

 

The growing demand for conveniently located housing in walkable, accessible, compact neighborhoods with a mix of uses has been well-documented, but according to research released today, meeting that demand could significantly reduce the growth in the number of miles Americans drive, shrinking the nation’s carbon footprint while giving people more housing choices.

 

A new book, pre-released this morning in Washington, D.C during a press conference, documents how key changes in land development patterns could help reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

 

In Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, a comprehensive review of dozens of studies, published by the Urban Land Institute, the researchers conclude that urban development is both a key contributor to climate change and an essential factor in combating it.

 

They warn that if sprawling development continues to fuel growth in driving, the projected 59 percent increase in the total miles driven between 2005 and 2030 will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels. Even with projected efficiency improvements, vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide would be 41 percent above today’s levels, rather than well below 1990 levels as required for climate stabilization by 2050, according to Growing Cooler.

 

“Curbing emissions from cars depends on a three-legged stool: improved vehicle efficiency, cleaner fuels, and a reduction in driving,” said lead author Reid Ewing, Research Professor at the National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland. “The research shows that one of the best ways to reduce vehicle travel is to build places where people can accomplish more with less driving.”

 

Depending on several factors, from mix of land uses to pedestrian-friendly design, compact development reduces driving from 20 to 40 percent, and more in some instances, according to the authors. Typically, Americans living in compact urban neighborhoods where cars are not the only transportation option drive a third fewer miles than those in automobile-oriented suburbs, the researchers found.

 

At the same time, the book documents market research showing a majority of future housing demand lies in smaller homes and lots, townhouses, and condominiums in neighborhoods where jobs and activities are close at hand. The researchers note that demographic changes, shrinking households, rising gas prices, lengthening commutes and cultural shifts all play a role in that demand.

 

The report cites real estate projections showing that two-thirds of development expected to be on the ground in 2050 is not yet built, meaning that the potential for change is profound. The authors calculate that shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns would save 85 million metric tons of CO2 annually by 2030. The savings over that period equate to a 28 percent increase in federal vehicle efficiency standards by 2020 (to 32 mpg), comparable to proposals now being debated in Congress.

 

“Clearly, the development industry has a key role in the search for solutions to offset the impact of climate change,” said ULI Senior Resident Fellow William H. Hudnut, III, former mayor of Indianapolis. “Whether close-in or in suburbs, well-planned communities give residents the option to walk, bike or take transit to nearby shopping, retail and entertainment. Being able to spend less time behind the wheel will benefit our health, our pocketbooks and the environment.”

 

Implementing the policies recommended in the report would reverse a decades-long trend. Since 1980, the number of miles Americans drive has grown three times faster than population, and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations. Spread-out development is the key factor in that rate of growth, the research team found.

 

The findings show that people who move into compact, “green neighborhoods” are making as big a contribution to fighting global warming as those who buy the most efficient hybrid vehicles, but remain in car-dependent areas.

 

While demand for such smart-growth development is growing, government regulations, government spending, and transportation policies still favor sprawling, automobile-dependent development. The book recommends changes in all three areas to make green neighborhoods more available and more affordable. It also calls for including smart-growth strategies as a fundamental tenet in upcoming climate change legislation.

 

The study represents a collaboration among leading urban planning researchers, including Ewing, Keith Bartholomew at the University of Utah, Jerry Walters of Fehr and Peers Associates, Steve Winkelman of the Center for Clean Air Policy and the Urban Land Institute. Smart Growth America coordinated the multi-disciplinary team that developed the recommended policy actions and is leading a broad coalition to develop those strategies further.

 

You can view and download the executive summary and the full report from Smart Growth America, and can soon order the report in book form from the Urban Land Institute.

 

Executive summary: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds' changing behavior is warning of global warming

 

Sunday, September 30, 2007

 

James F. McCarty

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The return of robins, the blooming of daffodils and the crack of the bat on Opening Day have symbolized the arrival of spring for generations in Northeast Ohio.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/119114281672830.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With support from the Battelle Endowment for Technology and Human Affairs (BETHA), the Byrd Polar Research Center at The Ohio State University is hosting the final event in our evening forum series about the implications of global climate change. 

 

This event, on October 4th from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the Fawcett Center in Columbus, features a panel of three representatives from business and industry. 

 

The panelists are:  Mr. John Meenan, who is the Air Transportation Association's Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Mr. Bruce Braine, American Electric Power's Vice President, Strategic Policy Analysis; and Mr. Bill Holtsberry, representing the manufacturing sector of our economy, from Honda of America, Marysville, OH. 

 

This event is free and open to the public.  The Fawcett Center can seat up to 500 people, so no registration is required.

 

Dr. Andy Keeler, of the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, will moderate the panel and the 45-minute question and answer session that follows the panelists' presentations.  Dr. Keeler will select and/or synthesize the questions submitted on response cards by audience members, and direct them to the appropriate panelist/s.  We are excited about this opportunity to support some of the companies and industries whose actions will help to shape our collective future.

 

For more information, contact:

 

Carol E. Landis, Ph.D.

Education Outreach Specialist

Byrd Polar Research Center

135B Scott Hall

1090 Carmack Rd.

Columbus, OH  43210

Ph.  614-688-8279

FAX:  614-292-4697

http://www.byrdpolar.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article from The Times really helps put things into perspective. It also reinforces that we need a global solution. I didn't post the whole thing...it's pretty long.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/business/worldbusiness/24power.html

Chinas Green Energy Gap

By KEITH BRADSHER

Published: October 24, 2007

 

BOXING, China By next autumn, a muddy construction site here in a rural part of eastern China will give way to a small power plant that burns corn stalks and cotton stalks to generate electricity for nearby villages and steam for a neighboring industrial complex.

 

The plant would be ready sooner, but only four companies in China make the specialized precision boilers that the biomass plant requires. And all those companies are plagued by backed-up orders and delivery delays. Similar problems bedevil the wind turbine industry in China.

 

The same big utility company building the green plant in Boxing, CLP, has just opened a coal-fired plant in southernmost China. On schedule and built for half what it would cost in the West, that plant will generate 1,200 megawatts of electricity compared with 6 megawatts from the Boxing biomass plant. CLP is so impressed that it is bidding to build coal-fired plants in India with Chinese technology.

 

........

 

KEEP READING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered if the global warming skeptics are religious extremists who believe that only God has the power to create or destroy something so big as a planet. I did a Google search on the search terms "global warming, anti-God" -- and here's a VERY SMALL sampling of what I found:

____________________

 

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eXxQa7ya5IAJ:www.boundlessline.org/2007/05/the_great_globa.html+global+warming+is+anti-god&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

 

This IS a really big deal, especially for the millions of Africans dying every year, because they can't develop economies that use their resources to their maximum potential because beaurocrats are pushing their political agenda masquerading as science to gain control over the lives of millions of people through fear and intimidation.

 

Yes, take care of the Earth and its resources and the best way to do that is through capitalism. Sadly, so many people are socialists who do not think past stage one (to barrow a phrase from Thomas Sowell). These are the people behind this global warming sham. Anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist scaremongers.

 

That is precisely why we, AS CHRISTIANS, should combat this lie that proclaims to help Earth and people, when it infact inflicts great damage and destruction!

 

I think mostly people are just sheep who need to stop and consider the source of all this eco-Nazism before they try to condemn other christians who actually use the brain God gave them!

 

____________________________

 

 

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:VseVoTcoJeYJ:www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/pig-to-global-w.php+global+warming+is+anti-god&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

 

I believe that human-caused global warming is largely nonsense and is largely driven by unbiblical, anti-God ideology. With this book review I am going on record with that belief. If I am proved wrong, feel free to laugh at me in ten or twenty years when the earth’s water levels have risen, when the air is unbreathable, when energy costs have increased exponentially and when the earth is reduced to utter ruin. Just laugh at me. I can take it. But I’ve got a feeling that twenty years from now we will have moved on to the next big problem and will have forgotten all about global warming, just like we’ve forgotten all about global cooling. And we will just keep repeating history.

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=37&showentry=254

 

Rush Limbaugh:

 

One of the monologues that I've done on global warming in recent months on this broadcast, I spent a lot of time telling you that my fundamental reason -- and it is true -- for not buying all of this leftist global warming garbage is my belief in God. I think if you don't believe in God you'll believe in anything. If you don't believe in God, you gotta have replacement. Everybody, even atheists believe in something. It's the planet or something. For the global warming people, this is their religion . . .

 

God created this magnificent planet and its climate and environment and all that. The idea that we can destroy it is just absurd.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^very good and thanks for that.  Cleveland government is going to get one more chance to reconsider their decision.  There is going to be another public forum about the Letart Falls plant with Cleveland City Council later in November.  I don't recall the date. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you come across the date of the hearing, please post it. Thanks.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hearings and workshop are broader and a bit outside of the specific subject of the plant in Letart Falls/Meigs County.  However, the Cleveland government does need to discuss and understand just what generation they are buying to serve which need. 

 

On behalf of the Public Utilities committee, I am pleased to invite you to participate in a series of hearings and workshops that will address the Division of Cleveland Public Power’s policies on energy conservation and efficiency.

 

The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that the Cleveland City Council consider whether CPP should adopt standards for fuel diversity and fossil fuel generation efficiency.  This public hearing process is an opportunity for a fuller discussion of CPP’s fuel diversity and role in the City’s sustainability and energy conservation goals.  The Public Utilities Committee has scheduled the following events:

 

Thursday, November 28, 2007

A public hearing will be held at city Hall at the Mercedes Cotner room from 9:30 AM to 12:00 noon.  We invite you to this initial hearing, at which Cleveland Public Power will present its proposals for meeting the federal standards.

 

Thursday, December 6, 2007

A workshop will be held from 9:30 AM to 12:00 noon at the Cleveland Convention Center, Rm. 211.  We urge you to participate in this workshop, which will explore:

 

-CPP’s proposed standards for fuel diversity and fossil fuel generation efficiency;

-Proposals for and Advanced Energy Portfolio for CPP; and

-Sustainability, energy conservation, and efficiency.

 

Wednesday, January 16, 2008:

A final public hearing will be held from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM at City Hall at the Mercedes Cotner Room, and will give you the opportunity to submit your comments and testimony.

 

The Public Utilities Committee values your interest and expertise, and looks forward to your participation.  Further information will be posted at the City of Cleveland Council website at: http://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's dog-kicking cold right now, but let's not forget that average temperatures and CO2 concentrations are rising. Stay tuned for thirty or forty consecutive days of above-90º spring and summer temps.

 

Good prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see...

Hold a "panel" "discussion" on global warming. Check.

Don't invite scientists for a balanced "discussion." Check.

Don't inform others of the "discussion," including the Kentucky Geological Survey, who discredited the meeting.

 

There were two scientists... but they were allowed to speak for only five minutes... and were hastily chosen. Good job.

 

Oh, and scientists weren't necessary. Why?

"Well, I mean, where are we going to get scientists?" Gooch asked. "We're limited here in Kentucky to what we can do. I don't know how we'd necessarily get scientists to come here."

 

These people were quoting the BIBLE as the reason why global warming isn't as bad as the scientists make it out to be. What the hell!

 

Favorite quote...

"Science is not where you vote on something and 100 percent of the people agree. It is based on compiling evidence and on a majority of scientists coming to a conclusion that is supported by the evidence. When you see people who deny that global warming exists, they are frequently either not scientists or they are scientists funded at least in part by corporations with a financial interest in debunking global warming."

 

Legislators hear global warming disputed

Called a myth of Gore, U.N., media

By John Cheves, Herald-Leader, November 15, 2007

 

FRANKFORT -- Global warming is a myth concocted by former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, Hollywood and the news media, Kentucky lawmakers were told yesterday.

 

The interim joint Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to dispute the idea that the Earth is warming, at least in part because of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere produced by industrial activity.

 

Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, a longtime ally of the coal industry, said he purposefully did not invite anyone who believes in global warming to testify.

 

......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slippery slope that is Science and Religon is a lot steeper than that of even Politics and Religion.

 

Albert Einstein used his belief in God in creating the cosmological constant. In fact AE used his faith as a main reason for his search of the "unified grand theory" of physics. He was shunned by many of the scientists of his day, simply for the reason that the 'popular' view was that AE conducting a "holy grail" quest that didn't tie into modern science. Turns out, he was about 50 years ahead of many of his secular partners, the religious 'kook' that he was. Today that 'holy grail' is called string theory and is the leading candidate for a grand unified theory in physics being chased by mostly 'secular' scientists. If that isn't irony, I don't know what is. Oh yeah, that cosmological constant, once seen as a hoax by Einstein to force Godlike properties into the universe (To be fair, Einstein himself pulled it off the table after Hubble had conducted experiments that proved it was in error for it's original context), actually has been reincorporated into modern physics as a verifiable formula.

 

So if the argument about CC is now to paint the majority of people opposed to that theory as 'believing in God', and then paint those that are 'God-believers' as 'non-scientific', I'd be very cautious.

 

I believe in God and science but I'm agnostic. I'm not a big fan of the climate change theory because, unlike AE's special and general relativies, this isn't verifiable science. For example, using that evil God-loving Einstein, I can prove 'spacetime' exists using mathematical formulae. The math can then be incorporated into real-time experiments that prove the formulae. A group of scientists appointed by a UN council didn't tell me that it is very likely that spacetime exists, it just does. No computers necessary for this one. Once AE proved it, there's no way to unprove it. (Well there is, but quantum mechanics would also disprove CC as well). Spacetime is everywhere. It dosen't need computer models of what xyz thought abc was. Spacetime is that type of stuff that wins you a Nobel Prize in Physics not Peace.

 

So let's just understand that while some may "live in the Matrix", using KJP's terminology, there are those that would rather live in the Matrix with AE than be in Dr. Hansen's real world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.N. report: Urgent action needed on 'severe' climate change

 

(CNN) -- Climate change is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday.

 

The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis.

 

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in Valencia, Spain, warned that some of the effects of rising levels of greenhouse gases may already be irreversible.

 

The U.N. head said the situation was already "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" could head off the crisis.

 

.........

 

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/17/spain.climate/index.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many of these examples no one factor is the cause, but rather a combination of factors.  Take Lake Chad.  Not only has immense irrigation taken place in this area over the last 30 years, it has also been in a dangerously long and severe drought.  A drought that has been attributed to shifting weather patterns as a result of global warming. 

 

You're not looking at the real problem of the article. The Aral Sea is literally evaporating into thin air due to a major shift in the flow of rivers and streams in that region for irrigation. Annual rainfall totals could be 200, 300, even 500 precent above normal for decades and it will not matter, the Aral Sea will eventually disappear. It's the greatest ecological disaster of the 20th century and it has nothing to do with climate change. That's why I'm amazed it was included in that article.

 

The problem with the Yangtse River argument is that it's a river, therefore it flows. The Yangtse banks change so often while carrying its very silty soil that it makes the Mississippi look sedentary. To photograph one section and the say 'aha, look it's climate change' is strange. Ironically, there's no mention of the Three Gorges Dam in the article, which quite honestly will is one of the Top 10 ecological disasters for this century.

 

Lake Chad is the only one of the three you could make an argument of climate change. Of course, there is a problem even with Lake Chad argument: the population that uses Lake Chad as its primary source of water has grown 500 precent in the last 40 years. Lake Chad is not in the tropics...it's in a semi-arid Savanna that is being chopped up into very unfertile cropland. As that unfertile cropland is abandoned it is being swallowed up by the Sahara. In order to prevent this disaster more water is used per person every year, taxing Lake Chad even more. As for the drought...it's not a guarantee that LC is being done in by climate change due to CO2. Simply put, poor agricultural practices can turn high plains, savanna, etc. into desert in no time. That desert, in turn, can change weather patterns for the long haul. If soil becomes sand, there's little moisture that can be drawn into the atmosphere, creating drought. American agricultural practices almost pulled off that stunt in the 1930's, coming very close to creating a new high plains desert.

 

Scaring people with incomplete facts and arguments is a very poor way to get people to support a cause. I thought there were standards to be met in a newsroom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slippery slope that is Science and Religon is a lot steeper than that of even Politics and Religion.

 

Albert Einstein used his belief in God in creating the cosmological constant. ...

 

So if the argument about CC is now to paint the majority of people opposed to that theory as 'believing in God', and then paint those that are 'God-believers' as 'non-scientific', I'd be very cautious.

 

I believe in God and science but I'm agnostic. I'm not a big fan of the climate change theory because, unlike AE's special and general relativies, this isn't verifiable science.

...

So let's just understand that while some may "live in the Matrix", using KJP's terminology, there are those that would rather live in the Matrix with AE than be in Dr. Hansen's real world.

 

I am not sure I understand your analogy between Einstein and Dr. Hansen's world view, but please consider this: we live in a world where CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere at a very fast rate.  We really don't know absolutely what all that CO2 is going to do.  There is coupling between CO2 and the temperature of the Earth.  That has been shown through geological evidence.  Many of us think that continuing to put CO2 into the atmosphere is a dangerous experiment, and it is an experiment that Man has no right to do to the planet.

 

So, we advocate to reduce carbon dioxide.

 

Please consider all the other benefits of getting off of fossil fuel ASAP:

 

1. We are running out of petroleum and the sources are controlled by Russia and Middle Eastern countries.  The Saud government is at huge risk of being overthrown by Wahabbi extremists.  I don't want Osama to be holding a Kalashnikov in one hand and our energy supply in the other.

 

2. Coal is going to run out.  It is going to run out faster with Cheney's indulgent dream of a new powerplant every week.  China and India have entered the world market for coal and are driving the depletion of that resource.

 

3. Coal mining means unacceptable degradation of habitat and communities.

 

4. Motor vehicles and coal burning means that Ohio has some of the worst air in the nation.  The South is worse.  I hope you never have a family member with asthma.  It is a fright.  Imagine trying to get a lungful of air through a straw.  The air quality in Cleveland is at the threshold of being in noncompliance with clean air regulations.  Non-compliance means that no further industry will be allowed to locate here.

 

5. Ohioans are spending billions per year for electricity.  Most of that is fuel costs and it represents money that is being sucked right out of our worker's purses and into the hands of wealthy mine owners.  It's even worse for petroleum.  Every tankful of gas you buy drives up the demand and makes the Arab oil producers richer.

 

6. Spending on new energy sources is going to create a new engine of wealth in our economy. 

 

We can have meaningful lives without the grand consumption of resources that we have right now.  Wouldn't you agree that it is your relations with people that give meaning to your life--meaning that far exceeds the pleasures of material excess?

 

Best of health.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

 

Climate scepticism: The top 10

 

Unravelling the sceptics

 

What are some of the reasons why "climate sceptics" dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate?

 

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalises its landmark report for 2007, we look at 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.

 

1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR

 

..........

 

...and nine more arguements and counter-arguements at the link at the BBC...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does our government even represent us anymore?

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,521153,00.html

 

December 03, 2007

BALI CONFERENCE

US Seeks Alliance with China and India to Block Climate Protection

By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington, D.C.

 

Officially, the US government says it wants to push in Bali for a climate protection "road map." But SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that this may not be true. US government officials are already attempting to coordinate with China and India to prevent binding emissions limits.

 

In recent official statements, Washington has indicated it might be looking for a compromise during negotiations in Bali for a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. But sources say the White House is discreetly searching for partners in Beijing and Dehli to derail the prospects for any binding agreements to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

.......


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't represent us over there kjp, they represent slavedriver!!!  :wink:

 

[youtube=425,350]Jp9bY7cvyAE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tide is finally starting to turn...


 

Eco-friendly kangaroo farts could help global warming: scientists

 

Wed Dec 5, 8:00 PM ET

 

SYDNEY (AFP) - Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, researchers say.

 

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

 

While the usual image of greenhouse gas pollution is a billowing smokestack pushing out carbon dioxide, livestock passing wind contribute a surprisingly high percentage of total emissions in some countries.

 

..........

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071206/sc_afp/australiaclimatewarmingkangaroooffbeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...