See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world
Source:
Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html
Published: Aug 19, 2005
Author: David Adam
Post Date: 2005-08-19 14:32:39 by Mr Nuke Buzzcut
Keywords: sceptics, Climate, $10,000
Views: 642
Comments: 68
David Adam, science correspondent Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade. The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan. The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures. Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension." To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017. If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way. The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash. Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms. In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks. Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century. Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate. Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk. "Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid." Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.
Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world
Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming
Friday August 19, 2005
The Guardian
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: siagiah, rack42 (#0)
LOL! The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures. These Russians cannot want the temperature to drop, and if it does they'll need that $10K to beat it towards the equator.
The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle lenght has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. Even the finer structures in the two curves have similar appearances. (Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).
Thanks for the "heads-up." Just love the "put you money where your mouth is" challange. For those that believe that CO2 and Freon-12 is the cause of "Global Warming," you might want to visit here. It is most interesting that solar output is discounted given that Mars polar icecaps have been observed to have melted beyond previous observations. Must be Martians "spewing" CO2 into their atmosphere. Sadly, I doubt that 1 in 100 have any science background. That said, there is a "bunch" of methane being released from the melting Terran icecaps. I've see some "talk" about capturing the methane, but nothing practical. I've not searched for a "mechanism" reguarding atmospheric methane. Is it converted via ultraviolet light? Some bacteria convert it into something else? Something happen, or the planet would be dead. At any rate, I'm in the Russian camp on this :).
I wonder why siagiah chooses to evade this factual information regarding a subject that he/she finds so very important? Perhaps the issue truly is political control, rather than scientific truth.
Buzz, certainly you understand that it is YOU I am ignoring? (smile) My position on the subject has NEVER mentioned anything about politics, enacting laws, or blaming any particular cause. Everything I've posted has only documented the EXISTENCE of global warming as a truth we simply cannot ignore forever. Nothing more, nothing less. YOU and yours have already agreed that it exists (smirk) simply by presenting what you see as contrary causes so I saw no reason to respond to your sophmoric attempts to bait me when I believe that your SOLE PURPOSE is pigtail dipping. (I'm a she) Luckily for you, I happened across this today on my infrequent visits here so I figured I'd give you a thrill by answering you. (LOL) Since YOU insist on interpreting my words as something OTHER than what I've clearly stated, I really have nothing of consequence to say to you or those LIKE you who simply want to muddy the waters. I don't care WHY we have global warming as much as I care that it's ACKNOWLEDGED as existing in the scientific world.... so do yourself a favor? Waste your time on other pups who might bark on command more readily. (smile) As soon as I figure out how to activate the (rumored to exist) bozo button, I won't see your pesky pings anymore. (hint to Zip & Christine) Nothing "personal", I simply don't want to waste my time on someone whose only goal is to be a pest to others. Ping that, Pavlov wannabe... but DO have a most wonderful day anyway.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Go to 'setup' and then to 'filters' and you will see where to add names etc for the bozo list. Also you can add taglines etc under 'setup'.
THANKS L... I will do that right now... ~!!!
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I fully understand your desire to evade having to see and respond to opposing viewpoints. It makes it much easier to maintain your "true believer" mentality in the face of contradictory evidence. Sinch those blinkers down tight, lest they let in some light.
I discovered that ya have to type a name PERFECTLY for the bozo button to work... NOW it works... (-: I shall be eternally grateful g.f. now that a certain pest's remarks never appear on my screen again. What a clever idea~!!
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this article. It would challenge your faith.
I took you off the bozo thing this morning and therefore, just saw this post. Not one to shrink from a "challenge", so I took some time to look at your article to see if there was anything worthwhile there. You are totally mistaken about me, I'm not afraid of facts or opposing views in any way. I just object to nasty, inflamatory, or downright insulting methods of introducing them. I object to posters taunting me or trying to make others dance to their silly tunes. That would by most of what you have done. It's clear from what you had written to me that you weren't interested in an EXCHANGE of ideas but only in forcing yours down my throat and belittling me. You have refused to recognize what I have actually said and insisted on putting words in my mouth. THAT is why I wanted to ignore you. Certainly NOT because I'm afraid to see what you have to say about global warming. So get that straight. Now, on to your article..... Fact one directly from the web site you sent me to: His critics-who include some of his colleagues at OSU-suggest that Taylor is a member of the Flat Earth Society who has taken a leap over the edge. "There is a valued and much-needed role for skeptics to question the prevailing view," says Philip Mote, Taylor's counterpart in Washington state and a professor at the University of Washington. "Once in a while, the skeptics are right. But there is no debate in the scientific community over whether human-caused global warming is possible or observed. The only way one could come up with that opinion is not being familiar with the scientific literature. "Officially, Taylor's job description is to collect, manage and maintain Oregon weather and climate data and to educate the people of Oregon on current and emerging climate issues. He has a staff of six full-time assistants and three undergraduate assistants. He has written more than 200 research papers, plus several articles for industry-funded websites Tech Central Station and CO2 Science. He also has written two books, The Climate of Oregon and The Oregon Weather Book, both published by Oregon State University Press in 1999. The former disputes the notion that climate change is happening. Taylor manages the state Climate Service website (www.ocs.oregonstate.edu), ..." My comment: Certainly you UNDERSTAND the concept of paid shills? Paid research that supports the ideas of those who fund it? Note: INDUSTRY FUNDED. That automatically puts everything he writes into the category of PAID SHILL. He *could* be right, but it simply doesn't matter once it's established that he's being paid by those who dispute global warming to research it and to publish papers which dispute it. Second: My position is only that global warming EXISTS. It is not fully established whether it is fully caused by man, partly, or not at all. In fact, my position is that it doesn't even MATTER why. What matters is that it EXISTS and therefore, what does it mean to us and what, if anything, are we gonna do about it. Even your guy acknowledges that the environmental changes EXIST. He simply doesn't believe it's unnatural. SO WHAT? If a flood is caused by excessive rain or by a dam breaking, are those who drown any less dead? If a fire is caused by a lightening strike or a careless match, will it burn any hotter? THAT is my point. I don't care to argue the CAUSES of the environmental changes. I'm interested in what it might mean to us, if it's something we CAN or even SHOULD do something about. Now stop your nonsense. If you wanna discuss the subject, discuss it with the objective of both of us learning something, not one or both pounding the other over the head. Can you do that or should I just go back to ignoring you again? I'm confident also that you did not READ the article because the article SUPPORTS my views and casts SERIOUS credibility questions about him for the entire article: Even George W. Bush now recognizes that humans are causing global warming. State climatologist George Taylor doesn't COVER STORY HOT OR NOT Oregon's official weatherman has good news about global warming-it doesn't exist. BY PAUL KOBERSTEIN 503 243-2122 George Taylor shouldn't scare anybody. He has been a vegetarian since the 1970s. He commutes to work by bicycle. He's an ex-hippie and an ex-surfer. He recycles. He likes trees and salmon. He's also, according to his critics, one of the most dangerous men in Oregon. Nestled comfortably in a state that boasts of its environmental cred the way California touts its sunshine, Taylor is one of the leading circuit riders for the church of Global Warming Ain't Happening. From his third-floor office in the Strand Agriculture building at Oregon State University, Taylor, 58, a state employee who runs an agency with a half- million-dollar annual budget, is often at work discrediting the well- established scientific facts about global warming. His views have been read on the floor of the U.S. Senate and, most recently, influenced global-warming bills in Salem. In the past, he also has tried to undermine global-warming legislation in Canada. "Look, it's not that complicated," says Taylor, who, as head of the Oregon Climate Service at OSU, is known as the state climatologist. "It's not clear that we are seeing unprecedented warming, and it's definitely untrue that any warming trend can be assigned to human activities. Natural variations in climate are much more significant than any human activities." His critics-who include some of his colleagues at OSU-suggest that Taylor is a member of the Flat Earth Society who has taken a leap over the edge. "There is a valued and much-needed role for skeptics to question the prevailing view," says Philip Mote, Taylor's counterpart in Washington state and a professor at the University of Washington. "Once in a while, the skeptics are right. But there is no debate in the scientific community over whether human-caused global warming is possible or observed. The only way one could come up with that opinion is not being familiar with the scientific literature." Taylor becomes especially dangerous when policy-makers accept his views, says Jeremiah Baumann of the environmental group OSPIRG. "You've got George Taylor fiddling while Rome burns, and the problem is that the Legislature is listening to the concert instead of doing something about the fire." In April, George Taylor sat patiently in front of the Oregon House Environment Committee, whose chairman, Grants Pass Republican Gordon Anderson, is likewise skeptical of global-warming theories. Taylor testified on a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. Taylor poohpoohed the need for the bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. "I believe the effect of greenhouse gas is a relatively minor one," Taylor told the committee. "I really believe natural variation and natural factors are a bigger cause of climate change than you and I." The bill died. If it had been approved, new emissions standards would be in place in the three Pacific states. Washington has a similar law, but it takes effect only after Oregon enacts its own. But Taylor's message gave cover to Anderson, who says, "I am not going to take the position that everything is going to hell. We're not going to wrap up our country and tie a noose around our neck." In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes. Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who considers the amendment both unconstitutional and bad policy, promises a line-item veto by Labor Day, says Dave Van't Hof, his sustainability policy advisor. Officially, Taylor's job description is to collect, manage and maintain Oregon weather and climate data and to educate the people of Oregon on current and emerging climate issues. He has a staff of six full-time assistants and three undergraduate assistants. He has written more than 200 research papers, plus several articles for industry-funded websites Tech Central Station and CO2 Science. He also has written two books, The Climate of Oregon and The Oregon Weather Book, both published by Oregon State University Press in 1999. The former disputes the notion that climate change is happening. Taylor manages the state Climate Service website (www.ocs.oregonstate.edu), which runs on a state-funded OSU server. It's peppered with criticism of global-warming theories with little rebuttal from the theories' supporters. Taylor's position as the leading climate expert in Oregon, a state with a national environmental reputation, has given ammo to those who are hostile to the idea that the earth is warming up. On Jan. 4 of this year, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Senate floor speech, "As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative." Inhofe was wrong on two counts. First, Taylor is not a doctor; he has no Ph.D. (he received his master's in meteorology at the University of Utah in 1975). And second, Taylor is flat-out mistaken. Temperatures in the Arctic have, in fact, reached unprecedented levels, according to an exhaustive study by two international Arctic science organizations published last November that confirmed previous, similar results. Mote, whose Ph.D. is from the University of Washington, surmises that Taylor is guilty of looking only at data that support his views, while discarding the rest. "You can only come to that conclusion if you handpick the climate records," Mote says. "You can say whatever you want about a subject, but to defy expert opinion- it's just hard for me to understand approaching a complex subject like this and say, 'I know better than the experts,'" Mote says. Accuracy about global warming matters, Mote says. By spreading misinformation about the world's most important environmental issue, Taylor can encourage people not only to have doubts about proven science, but to become complacent. "People will conclude it's still uncertain," Mote says, "so we don't have to do anything." The subject of global warming is indeed complicated. In order to determine if the Earth is heating up as never before, scientists have had to reconstruct historical temperatures. That's not easy, given that thermometers have been in general use only for the past 150 years or so. Scientists have had to find a different source for their climate data. They turned to tree rings, coral, and boreholes dug deep into ice and soil for information. They added some Fortran code and produced a series of results. Since the year 1000, global temperatures were essentially flat until around 1900. In the past 30 years they have been rocketing skyward. When plotted on a graph, the result looks like a hockey stick lying on the ice, its blade pointing toward the sky. The facts of global warming have been confirmed by hundreds of climate scientists around the world, most of whom participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization. The panel issued its last report in 2001 and will update it in 2007. The IPCC says that global average surface temperatures have increased over the 20th century by about 0.6 degrees Celsius, or about 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit. Globally, it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year. But the record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000. Satellite data confirm the results recorded by thermometers on the Earth's surface. They also show that the area of Earth covered by snow has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s. Scientists have documented widespread retreats of glaciers and sea ice, and a serious thinning of the polar ice cap in the Arctic. The oceans are warmer since the 1950s, and sea levels have risen several inches in the past century. If these trends continue, as most climate scientists predict, major changes will ensue for the weather, sea levels, growing seasons and living conditions everywhere. The combined effects of ice melting and seawater expansion from ocean warming are projected to cause the global mean sea-level to rise as much as 3 feet between 1990 and 2100. In Bangladesh alone, a sea-level rise of slightly more than half that projection would place about 6 million people at risk from flooding. The prevailing view among scientists is that humans are fouling their own nest. "It is pretty clear that there are limits to the ability of natural variation to explain what's happened over the last 50 years," Mote says. "The last 50 years is a period when the human influence over climate has emerged above natural variability." The National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all agree that humans are forcing global temperatures upward. It is hard to find a single peer-reviewed journal article that agrees with Taylor's views. A report last December in the journal Science found that of 928 major peer-reviewed academic papers on the subject of climate change, all supported the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Mote says the Earth's biggest challenge will be to reverse the trend of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without damaging the economy. In the past 15 years, the city of Portland's output of global warming gases like carbon dioxide has risen only slightly. In June, it announced greenhouse gas emissions in the city had gone down, but in July the city's Office of Sustainability said it had miscalculated. Even so, the city shows that fighting global warming may be possible without hurting the economy. The Bush administration and its allies have always claimed otherwise. One of its more powerful friends on this issue is ExxonMobil, the oil giant which has invested millions to stop laws that regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. The oil company, now feeding on the high price of gasoline and extra goodies in the new federal energy bill, stands to lose like the tobacco industry has if the government imposes taxes to offset environmental damage and if consumers turn to other energy sources. ExxonMobil is in league with automakers and dozens of other energy companies in the coal, electricity and transportation industries who burn greenhouse gas-spewing fossil fuels for a living. Now they've turned up the heat. ExxonMobil has been funneling cash and media attention toward a cadre of self- styled experts who say not to worry about climate change, according to research posted on the website ExxonSecrets.org. It's just a natural cycle. Or El Niño. Or something. Things will get back to normal in no time. Some of these experts possess impressive credentials. One is Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the co-author of a 2003 paper that said the climate isn't so hot after all. Baliunas also has the title of "senior scientist" with the George C. Marshall Institute. ExxonMobil has given the Institute $405,000 for its climate change programs since 2001, according tothe institute's annual reports. Another expert is Patrick Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute. In a statement posted on a State of Oregon website run by Taylor, Michaels claims he doesn't see global warming as a problem; what worries him more is a global conspiracy to shut down skeptics like himself. Taylor himself has supplemented his government salary with oil money. On Nov. 22, 2004, the ExxonMobil-funded website Tech Central Station (techcentralstation.com-"Where Free Markets Meet Technology") published the 2,300-word article by Taylor that Inhofe had read on the Senate floor. Taylor's article was a review of a report that had shown significant warming in the Arctic. Taylor, who has written seven articles on climate change for Tech Central Station, says he was paid $500 for the review. The Arctic report said the North Pole is losing its permafrost, and frozen bogs are melting in Alaska and Siberia, spewing vast amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas. Sea ice and glaciers are retreating, temperatures are rising, the growing season is extending and robins are now living above the Arctic Circle for the first time in history. Taylor's review said the authors of the Arctic study looked at only the last 35 years, ignoring data from the 1930s that show conditions were comparable to those of today. "Why not start the trend there?" he wrote. "Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?" It's not clear what report Taylor was reading. In fact, the Arctic study takes into account an entire thousand years and places the Arctic in the context of the entire globe. Taylor acknowledges he reviewed only 55 pages of a 140-page summary of the full 1,200-page report, yet still found fault with its sourcing. "Oddly, the [report] does a very poor job of documenting its sources of information," Taylor writes. "For such an ambitious document its science consists primarily of blanket statements without any sort of reference or citation." If Taylor had waited to review the full report (preliminary versions of chapters are posted on the Web; the final version is due in September), he would have noticed the report's detailed documentation and lengthy list of references. Taylor also complains that the "doom-and-gloom report" failed to consult several studies that he contends disprove Arctic warming. Were any of his favored sources considered by the authors of the report? he asks. "It's hard to say-one can only guess 'no.'" In fact, the report does list most of Taylor's references-among hundreds of others. Taylor concludes his article with a snarky little dig: "Nice graphics, but bad science." Some people would be happier if George Taylor would roll up his own charts and graphs and just go do something else. "Mr. Taylor has a right to speak his mind, but he does not have the right to use his position as state climatologist to spread disinformation," says Chris Hagerbaumer, a program director at the Oregon Environmental Council. "Like other global-warming deniers, Taylor has never submitted his opinion for peer review by actual climate scientists because those scientists would reject his ideas out of hand." The state climatologist does not speak for the governor on global warming, says Van't Hof, Kulongoski's sustainability policy advisor. "George Taylor doesn't represent the governor's office, and he doesn't represent the state of Oregon," the aide says. "The governor consistently is in favor of addressing global warming. Global warming is real and is greatly accelerated by human activity." Taylor's colleagues at Oregon State's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences have grown frustrated over the years with what they consider his misunderstanding of climate-change facts. On multiple occasions, faculty members found it necessary to correct statements in Taylor's regular "Weather Matters" column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times. In 2004, a letter to the editor of the Gazette-Times signed by Prof. James Coakley "and all professors of the College of Atmospheric Sciences" said Taylor's statements in the newspaper "misrepresent the widely accepted scientific knowledge concerning the Earth's climate and global warming." In 1999, another letter to the Corvallis newspaper, signed by six of the college's faculty members, took Taylor to task for dismissing the depletion of the ozone layer as "a rather small problem." Another letter written by a faculty member, the late Jack Dymond, observed, "First with ozone depletion and now with global warming, George Taylor continues to misinterpret the science of some of the most important environmental issues facing the planet." "He missed his calling as a used-car salesman," Coakley, an expert on clouds, said in an interview with WW. "George is a nice guy, runs his shop pretty well. We're not happy with his pronouncements. They drive us bonkers." "The best explanation I can come up with is, George is very tied into the conservative bent," Coakley added. "He gets all his information from the conservative-type think tanks. George picks it up and regurgitates it. Some of the stuff is half-baked at best, but sometimes it's so bad we have to call him on it and write letters to the editor. It's just not right; it just counters all the evidence." No one, however, says Taylor is wrong about everything. Every August, he makes a prediction about the upcoming winter weather. Sometimes he's remarkably prescient. In 1995, he told The Oregonian that we were in for a wet, rainy year, and that the salmon would be coming back strong. And they did. "I'm like a historian," Taylor says. "I look at occurrences in a historical context; I look at the larger trends." The highly charged global warming controversy is getting to Taylor, especially the criticism that's coming his way. 'It bothers the heck out of me, it really does," he says. "I believe in civil discourse. I have colleagues who have been very public, who strongly disagree with me, but they have been nice about it. I really upset some people, and I still upset some people. I think they are upset because I am in an influential position. I am the state climatologist." "A lot of people wish I'd shut up," he says. "I have an opinion on this issue. I'd rather go ahead and express that opinion than shut up because I might offend somebody." He says he's never been asked by his superiors at the university to keep his opinions to himself. And, when asked whether he would ever shut up, he paused for a moment. "Probably not." Winner of the 2004 John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, Paul Koberstein is editor of Cascadia Times. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Originally published 8/24/2005 Find this story at www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6655 Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
The whole "Human Induced" global warming scam has been thoroughly discredited and shown for the political agenda that it really is. If you've been taken in by it, I'm sorry. Here's something you might be interested in checking... Mt. Saint Helens has been exhibiting some low level eruptions of late. Care to guess how much "greenhouse gas" it has released as compared to the amount released due to human activity in the Pacific Northwest?
If one implicitly accepts global warming because of the support of X academicians lobby for it, then one would have to be inclined to take at face a large swath of other collectivist theory and ideas that those same folks tend to support. Global warming theory is a rage amongst politicians because it offers the appearance to most of a credible threat which would allow the ruling class vast power over movement and resource allocation amongst the subjects. That same ruling class is the one which disburses the research money grants to the people doing "global warming research. Several easy observations strike me as offering evidence which, at the least, would put on hold any effort to modify public policy in response to global warming. 1) At current levels, we would need to see a greater than 4X rise from current CO2 levels to match levels attained in the last few million years, and during which, I might add, the globe was a virtual riot of plant and animal life. 2) Travelling to the White-Inyo range and observing the Bristlecone Pine Forest, it's easily observable that within the past ~20,000 years climate was significantly warmer and wetter. Dead trees extend approximately 1000-1500 feet above the current tree line. The trees live long enough to discount this as being any continentally localized phenominon. 3) Why, if global warming itself is the problem to be solved, does the solutions proposed specifically hamstring the United States from pursuing solutions such as offsetting via forestation? Currently, in China, there are underground coal fires emitting CO2 equivalent to more than the entire annual passenger vehicle fleet emissions of the United States. It would stand to reason that under a "global warming is a terrible world threatening disaster in the making" scenario that we could go over there and pay them to allow us to extinguish those fires and bank the credits of the tonnage emmitted for future economic growth. Ya think that would ever happen? Hell no, because global warming is a means to an end and the "end" is bringing the United States down to the economic level of the rest of the world. Misery loves company and 2/3 of this planet wants us to join them for a misery party...
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
Your analysis is quite accurate. Here's an interesting site: Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System Great site, definitely bookmarked into the Earth Sciences subdirectory!
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
Says who ??????
Me among others. Do you need a widely read source to believe that lots of politicians have orgasms over global warming? Do you need a widely read source to be convinced that multi year reductions of US energy consumption to levels below 199... (1 was it?) would not give legislative bodys vast powers over movement and resources???
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
The two of you are unbelievable. You both parrot the paid shills who claim there is NO global warming and who are laughed at by the ENTIRE scientific community. You simply refuse to acknowledge the enormous body of evidence that exists that proves that Earth's unusual climactic changes are happening. You'd do well to notice that NO ONE in the scientific community disputes that global warming exists. The dispute amongst scholars and scientists who KNOW what they are talking about is whether it is manmade or natural, and what, if anything, it will mean to us. Therefore, I'm done discussing this subject with you. It's plain to see WHO has been taken in by an agenda vs who is simply listening, learning, and concerned about the possibilities and how they will affect the world at large. Wanna discuss something else, feel free. Discussing THIS subject with you is no longer an option from my perch. End of story.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Certain people have failed to recognize that the very articles that THEY present are written by psuedo scientists (paid shills) who are on the payroll of companies who BENEFIT by having no pollution controls on cars, etc. They accuse US of wanting legislation to force laws on the rest of us but what they really mean is that THEY support those whose only purpose is to discredit legitimate concerns over air pollution. This way they can insist that it's ALL political instead of a scientific reality. If the poster actually READ the article he presented to dispute my views, he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars... ROFLMAO... too funny. Supporters of paid shills yelling that other folks are foolish and following some POLITICAL agenda... WRONG...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Dude, I didn't parrot shit. As far as answers go, you can launch into the "paid shills" bullshit all you want but "parroting paid shills" is a stock answer for you either not having shit for a reply or being to fucking lazy to look one up and cogently present it. BTW, I'll buy a near insignificant and unmeasurable (with any consistency) warming but the anthropogensis of same is bullshit. It's more likely than not solar in origin. It means not JACK to the state of the world now or in the future. Therefore, I'm done discussing this subject with you. Wanna discuss something else, feel free. Discussing THIS subject with you is no longer an option from my perch. End of story. You fucking pussy... Will you run off and declare the next subject where you have no decent counterpoint to be "off limits"?
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
Hey idiot, catalytic converters don't have shit to do with eliminating CO2, they eliminate unburned Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide... A car with or without one isn't germane to a global warming debate...
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
fuck off...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
The article that Buzz presented was all about a "scientist" who "proved" that global warming doesn't exist. He works for the guys who don't want catalytic converters etc and other pollution reducers on cars... You ALSO have proven my statement that the posters didn't READ the article offered supposedly disproving my statement that global warming DOES exist. That neither of you read it: he before submitting it or you before answering about me says volumes about both of your REAL concerns about this subject. I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person, NOT because I can't offer evidence to dispute your remarks. I simply don't give a shit what you think and will not entertain your idiocy in expressing your displeasure. Clearly, you NEED vulgarity and derision to express yourself. Don't you know that that is a sign of ignorance and the inability to articulate? In my previous answer to you where I said FUCK OFF, I was stooping to your inarticulate level assuming you'd UNDERSTAND that message. So there it is... FUCK OFF...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Second: My position is only that global warming EXISTS. It is not fully established whether it is fully caused by man, partly, or not at all. In fact, my position is that it doesn't even MATTER why. What matters is that it EXISTS and therefore, what does it mean to us and what, if anything, are we gonna do about it. Even your guy acknowledges that the environmental changes EXIST. He simply doesn't believe it's unnatural. SO WHAT? The lunatics response: The whole "Human Induced" global warming scam has been thoroughly discredited and shown for the political agenda that it really is. If you've been taken in by it, I'm sorry. Does this lunatic even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.
Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.
I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person, NOT because I can't offer evidence to dispute your remarks. I simply don't give a shit what you think and will not entertain your idiocy in expressing your displeasure. Clearly, you NEED vulgarity and derision to express yourself. Don't you know that that is a sign of ignorance and the inability to articulate? In my previous answer to you where I said FUCK OFF, I was stooping to your inarticulate level assuming you'd UNDERSTAND that message. So there it is... FUCK OFF.. Whining Loser. I had nothing to do with the site he posted, though I liked the mathematical breakdown of the data and so posted a comment to him on it. You, in your canopy sized wrap of self righteous indignation, seem to forget that YOU first launched into the insult fest with the "paid shills" shit to me. And you had NOTHING to counter what I offered. And now you want to run off and take your ball home because your wittle feewings are hurt.. You pussy...
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
You never did "discuss" the subject. You just whined and cried about personal attacks when we posted actual hard evidence refuting the global warming political propaganda whose only goal is to inflate research grants and provide leverage for additional state control of economies.
Rather than cast insults, you might want to read siagaih's history of posts on the subject which make it quite clear where she stands with respect to global warming. ;-)
Paid Shills eh???, Obviously ALL global warming research oriented toward proving the existence of it, or the anthropogenic genesis thereof, is BS because 80 or 90 some odd percent of it is funded by research grants from collectivist globalist organizations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundations or government entities with an interest in regulating us, right? I mean, you do understand the concept of PAID SHILLS right???
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
What was that about rude and vulgar?
Now name somebody who really matters....LOL
Yes ,I found that humorous too...I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.
All Siagiah was saying was that there are paid shills for the oil companies and there are paid shills for the auto manufacturers.Her point was that that they take their positions for the money they are paid.It seems the same people who are against reducing pollution are also opponents of the scientific theory which says the burning of hydrocarbons contributes to global warming .
Stepp, don't waste your time on either of them. I won't ever again. I'm gonna bozo both of them and go on my merry way. Too bad, so sad... their loss, not mine. (-:
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Especially when she cogently decends into profanity when faced with evidence contrary to her line of propaganda.
Hey dude, California registered Professional Geologist and 16 years in the environmental and emergency response field...
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
But believes that in the year 2005 their are car manufacturers that want catalytic converters out of cars and that catalytic converters have something to do with greenhouse emissions... LMAO
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
And my response is that, regardless of who pays the guy what, hydrocarbon burning by humans is an insignificant contributor to any variation in climate within the time frame we're looking at. Even if I take devils advocate and assume it is, the treaties and proposed solutions are totally one sided attempts to undermine the economic strength of the United States. It is a fact that out of control subterranean coal fires in China exceed vehicular outputs in the US for CO2. If there was any seiousness to curbing some postulated human induced warming trend, the solutions would logically allow for the United States to offset emissions via either forestation or activities like remediating large problematic sources, but they don't. That they don't says to me there is a hidden agenda in the hype...
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
I formally apologize for inserting unseemly ad hominems in my response to Siagiah. Please do understand though, that it is inflammatory to assert in a post to a dissenting reply that the responder is a "paid shill" for someone when there is no evidence supporting such other than, in this case, my dissenting opinion. I will endevour to a greater degree of civility. FTR, I have no connection whatsoever to any manufacturer of automobiles or other industries which produce equipment designed to burn carbon or hydrocarbon products. I am a long term small shareholder of one oil facility emergency response provider with whom I have no ongoing personal relationship.
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
I have never seen a post from Siagiah where she called the POSTER a paid shill...But what she HAS said is, the fossil fuel interests have as a corporate policy "scientists" on their payroll to present their point of view which is ,SELL MORE OIL AND COAL ! But I appreciate your apology and I'm sure when I tell her,she will too. Thank you...
Apology accepted... and please accept mine for my vulgar return fire. Now that we've cleared that hurdle, here is my explanation for mentioning catalytic converters. (I am NOT an expert on these matters, particularly on vehicle emission equipment so I used catalytic converters to describe them) THIS paragraph comes directly from the article Buzz posted as proof that my view that global warming existed was wrong based on his "presumed expert, George Taylor"... "FROM BUZZ'S ARTICLE: In April, George Taylor sat patiently in front of the Oregon House Environment Committee, whose chairman, Grants Pass Republican Gordon Anderson, is likewise skeptical of global-warming theories. Taylor testified on a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. Taylor poohpoohed the need for the bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. "I believe the effect of greenhouse gas is a relatively minor one," Taylor told the committee. "I really believe natural variation and natural factors are a bigger cause of climate change than you and I." The bill died. If it had been approved, new emissions standards would be in place in the three Pacific states. Washington has a similar law, but it takes effect only after Oregon enacts its own. But Taylor's message gave cover to Anderson, who says, "I am not going to take the position that everything is going to hell. We're not going to wrap up our country and tie a noose around our neck." In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so- called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes." My comment: I'm sure you can see from this exerpt that the so~called expert Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL. I did not intend for any POSTER to be referred to as a paid shill, only the apparently paid experts presented. If you peruse the entire article, you'll note that the guy is considered to be a crackpot amongst his peers and as ignorant by most scientists. I was flabbergasted that Buzz presented this piece as something that would "shake up my beliefs"... I am presuming that he DID NOT READ IT before posting it....??? Nearly every remark I made came from that position. I am not sure if Buzz INTENDED that error to see if I'd actually read it & notice or if he simply didn't care either way because he just wanted to be an itch... it's impossible to tell.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I can't read that font. Perhaps you'll downsize it for the stupids among us?
Mr Nuke Buzzcut said: Rather than cast insults, you (timetobuildaboat) might want to read siagaih's history of posts on the subject which make it quite clear where she (siagiah) stands with respect to global warming. ;-) Actually Buzz, it is YOU who might want to read my history of posts. You are definitely NOT COMPREHENDING my words. If it wasn't just you who keeps insisting I said something I didn't, I'd say I wasn't presenting it well, but it IS just you who insists that I'm saying things I never said. That signals to me that you simply don't want to understand, you just want to dip pigtails and make noise.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I'm sorry, but your assessment as to Buzz as a shill is, well, mistaken, in my opinion. You'll need to provide more evidence to support your accusations.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about???
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I didn't call Buzz anything. I called the scientist he introduced as proof of his point a paid shill.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
The article Buzz introduced IS THE PROOF. I pasted it after the giant font for anyone who wants to read it... or you can follow HIS link for a better read. My got all jumbled together in the copy/paste. If you read it, you'll see WHO I called a paid shill. (hint: NO ONE HERE...)
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Comment made to me by Axenolith: Hey XXXXX, catalytic converters don't have shit to do with eliminating CO2, they eliminate unburned Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide... A car with or without one isn't germane to a global warming debate... NOW I am confused... Unless I am just misunderstanding your remark made in anger, it appears that the article states/implies that scientists include carbon dioxide in the greenhouse gases equation which is why car emissions are considered part of the problem by some.... But that is exactly the opposite to your angry remark to me... Can you explain? I honestly don't know which is correct? Are carbon dioxide emissions part of the global warming debate or not??? (I'm not asking if they do or do not contribute to global warming, only if they are on the table as a disputable PART of global warming)
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I can certainly grant your point that Taylor looks like a paid shill. The problem is that so does everybody else on every side of the issue. None of them are without sponsors and/or employers. Everybody from researchers to journalists draws sustenance from some interested party or another. Consequently, we are back to square one of ignoring the source, disregarding their conclusions and actually evaluating the data and methods, then coming to what we consider a rational conclusion on our own. Yes, I acknowledge that in doing so, I bring my own bias to the table. That's why I'm (believe it or not) willing to adjust my position in the event that I am confronted with evidence that I'm in the wrong. At this point, I'm still firmly convinced that the climate change we are presently experiencing has extremely little to do with human induced causes. Does that mean there aren't things we should do better? Of course not. We absolutely need to make improvements in some areas. However, Kyoto is not one of the changes that we should even consider.
okay... I can accept that and I agree with you.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Clarification: I agree with you on the statement that Kyoto is something to be considered CAREFULLY before hopping on board and that there are things humans can do better. Personally, I'm leaning somewhat towards a significant, measurable PART of global warming being traced back to recent human activities. I don't know how big a part we play or if our actual part has been only a trigger action that has stimulated nature to react. My biggest concern is to learn HOW they will manifest themselves (ice age, flooding, increase in insects, affecting food supplies, ocean temperatures, air quality, etc and then WHAT these changes will mean to us if they continue on the present path. IF they will mean serious threats to Earth, THEN it matters WHY.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
For me, the "why" is very important, because that determines what, if anything, we need to do differently. The worst case scenario, in my book, is running around blindly passing laws (I'm not accusing you of advocating that) just because we have to do something. Politicians like to do that. They like to be seen as "owning" an issue and pointing to their "accomplishments" at election time.
my furrowed brows are now smoothed and i'm smiling. ;)
Freedom4um: a Todd free zone!
For the record, I am totally AGAINST passing laws for or against anything if the law is not absolutely ESSENTIAL to preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. IMHO, with global warming, the most important factor isn't "why", it's WHAT DOES IT MEAN. The reason for that is simple. What difference does it make WHY if it's not an important issue in the first place? If it doesn't matter that the average temperature has risen a degree in the last century and nothing of consequence will result because of it, then there is no NEED to pass any laws in the first place. Global warming isn't as clear cut an issue as pollution problems directly related to human activity. Certainly, no one believes that air or water pollution is a GOOD thing? Curbing both of them can only result in a healthier environment. HOW to enforce it is the issue because laws passed hastily often create more problems than they fix. At the same time, refusing to do anything because the issue is mired in endless dispute only makes it harder to clean up the damage when we finally acknowledge it exists. I am against hasty laws because laws that unnecessarily tie the hands of businesses can result in lost jobs. That isn't a good thing either. However, the almighty dollar ISN'T the defining issue when it comes to irreversibly destroying the environment. We cannot buy back what we sometimes destroy in our greed a/o ignorance. Tainting it is inevitable and probably quite natural, willfully causing irreversible damage entirely another. So first, we have to know WHAT we are dealing with and HOW it will harm us. Our "leaders" focus on worrying about WHY and WHOSE FAULT it is only allows us all to lose sight of the question of IF IT EVEN MATTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Obfuscation is the name of this game. Divide and conquer. Some for passing laws for material gain/political power... some muddying the water to prevent anyone from examining business practices etc etc
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
me too... me too... good evening Christine~!
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is emitted by automobiles, and anything that burns. Catalytic converters initially (the "2 way" catalytic converter) worked on Hydrocarbons (unburnt gasoline components) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). From the onset, this created an automotive industry crisis, because the destruction of the two components in the early catalytic converters running on the standard high compression internal combustion engines generated a LOT of heat and the high compression engines were already pumping out a high temperature mix into the converter. Since air is already composed of ~78% nitrogen, this caused the Nitrous Oxides (NOX, X representing variable Oxygen quantities) to form in the converter. The initial solution was a drastic reduction in the compression ratio of automotive engines which resulted in a phenominal decline in power and economy. For example, I used to own a 1970 1/2 RS Camaro. It ran on regular leaded (which, btw, never was seriously important to engine health with the advent of stellite valve seats, I never had any problem with unleaded), had a 2 barrel carburator and generated 245 horsepower stock (with a slight cam upgrade and free flow exhaust I was at about 285-90). This vehicle would get 27.5 mpg at 75 miles per hour on the freeway. Around 1974 the early catalytic converter was mandated. For comparison, I had a friend who owned a 1976 Camaro with the same engine and a 4 barrel carburator and the stock vehicle only put out about 165 horsepower while getting worse fuel economy. Finally, the 3-way converter was perfected. The 3-way also eliminates the NOX emissions and that's what allows us to have all these cars today that crank out huge horsepower but easily meet emissions standards. The current converter destroys HCs, CO, and NOX only. The optimum efficiency is the production of nothing but CO2 and Water Vapor. BTW, did you know the Excursion SUV is considered an ultra low emission vehicle? It's because it approaches that optimum efficiency. Obviously, it's one expensive mother to feed right now, and it does emit some CO2 but heck, if someone feels bad about it they can plant 25 trees to cover it :-) Now, when Oregon is talking about "cleaner cars" legislation, the ONLY type of cars they can be referring to is hybrid or electric or hydrogen (NOT produced from oil too, which is the cheapest means and is a dirty little secret you don't hear much about) with respect to CO2 emissions. The only means of not producing, or reducing, CO2 is via increased efficiency or alternative motive power sources. Theoretically, you could also sequester it from the exhaust stream, but you'd end up utilizing an enourmous quantity of the energy being generated to power the sequestering method, and you'd need an entire new infrastructure to get rid of it. That being said, Oregons barring of state agencies from spending money to specifically reduce greenhouse emissions makes good sense. The agencies who do so on a whim, without respect to the relative costs, are robbing the taxpayers for their own self gratification. Obviously, under the gasoline price scenario today, those agencies will probably be able to buy cars like the Prius without controversy because they'll save money, and incidentally reduce CO2 by ~50% over a standard sedan or SUV. As to CO2 its self, anything we do will not contribute meaningfully to altering the planets climate, it's in a geologically long term warming trend that's going to happen regardless. Heck, thank god we didn't evolve up to industrialization at the peak of the most recent glaciation, because then we'd have all of our port cities about 200 feet lower in elevation than now! The "problem" is arcane enough and involves manipulation of such huge numbers and variables that it makes the perfect "threat" to pose to the people and have have them willingly cede sovereignty and freedom over vast aspects of their daily lives. What always kills me, and red flags the issue as such to me, is that any logical solution to the generated threat is disallowed to the United States and nations like India and China are exempt from the "solutions". That's GOT to tell you something's fishy here! BTW, anyone concerned about this who wishes to take action on the subject (or who just wants to make a few extra dollars) can offset emissions via returning metals "lost to the economic stream". I am currently up to having my Saturn VUE achieve over 40 miles to the gallon net energy equivalent because I collect all of the aluminum (and other metals) I find while sampling the freeway right of way. ~60 aluminum cans consume the net energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. If you return 60 cans (or roughly a kilogram) of aluminum that for all intents and purposes was lost to the economy you have just eliminated the equivalent of one gallon of gasolines CO2 emissions because that much would have been produced creating the aluminum from the raw ore (assuming the electricity is produced by gas or coal, which it is in most places).
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
Ah HA!... Herin lies the confusion. What CARB has essentially done is create an end run around Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by defining the issue as one of CO2 emissions. All of the solutions they mention are efficiency solutions, i.e. all they are doing is increasing gas mileage. This is interesting. California was BADLY slapped down in court a few years back for charging people who moved to the state a DMV fee for importing an "out of state" vehicle (even though, while the cars weren't California "compliant", per regulations, they still tested at the same levels). They had to refund an enourmous amount of illegally collected fees. The case was Commerce Clause based. Based upon this ruling, California, by their 2009 "standard" will literally destroy their car sales because nothing exists to keep purchasers from buying vehicles from out of state and bringing them in and unless the manufacturers cede to meeting the standards for all vehicles manufactured. Ironically, $3.00+ a gallon gasoline is going to do more to increase efficiency than the politicos will ever accomplish. An aside, we tend to consider the CARB to be a bunch of politicized idiots. They like to pass lots of feel good legislation without much thought to what it will do to people and business (other government included). The major current fiasco they've initiated was their CARB 435 standard for testing for naturally occuring asbestos (NOA). Serpentine is the state rock of CA and Serpentine generally has some to a crapload of asbestos in it. It's generally the green rock you'll in the foothills or bay area. Well, theres asbestos everywhere here, but the clincher is the only county it's found in the friable (easily released as fibers) form is El Dorado County. The CARB 435 method though, involves a process of sample preparation (grinding) that turns all non-friable asbestos into friable! This is currently driving Caltrans and anyone else wishing to do earthwork nuts, because you now have to sample for NOA, it alwys turns up, and you have to treat it like its friable. It is currently blowing the cost of one job I'm on out of the water, about 8 million bucks extra will probably be the tab. In a sane world, you'd hose it down with water for general dust suppression and get on with work, and the state would have 8 mil from one project alone that could be wasted on something else useless (like they'd give it back!? NOT!)
Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...
Thank you for the detailed lesson. I believe that I can see where you are coming from now. Useless CA legislation is affecting you personally and you know enough to KNOW it's useless. On the flip side, I am affected by GWB's relaxing of EPA legislation, specifically midwestern factories emission standards. He effectively negated all the GOOD legislation passed 25+ years ago that allowed factories to gradually update their equipment to meet reasonable air/water quality standards. The factories IGNORED the 25 year time frame and simply did not update themselves whatsoever. NOW they face today's requirements to meet those standards and they complained to the powers that be that they'd have to close plants, lose jobs, etc. if they complied with the long ago agreed to standards. Lo and behold, GWB & Co. find LOOPHOLES so that they don't have to comply now. Consequently, the East Coast that I call home SUFFERS. We trusted that the long range plan the EPA implemented would be enforced so that OUR air/water would no longer be subject to the midwest's air pollution coming our way on the wind. Acid rain reeks havoc on our water, air, and dirt. We are paying a high price for someone else's refusal to be responsible. OUR legislators are suing over it. N.E. does everything we can to reduce OUR pollution and we don't dump OUR pollution on the rest of the country. Clearly there are winners and losers in this problem and it affects each of us PROFOUNDLY. My health and your business are directly affected by the unscrupulous players in this game. I also believe that we can agree that there IS something going on with the Earth's warming trend although it's not totally clear if it's entirely natural or not. Somehow we need to learn if it matters at all. IMHO, the problem boils down to this... We need INDEPENDENT STUDY to determine the causes and potential effects before we can decide what we should or SHOULDN'T do. The collective WE must halt the politicians and businesses in their self~absorbed tracks. How to do that? Gawd, the proverbial problem of how to make humans work together for the common good? First, we must stop politicians from passing useless, hasty laws to make themselves LOOK good. Second, we must attempt to form ONE HUGE worldwide (or at least U.S.) scientific group to study not only the global environmental issues but also the global impact on economic issues. Don't allow for outside, partisan studies to be included in any potential legislation. If they want in, they must JOIN the group to be heard. The only way to minimize partisan results is for them ALL to be paid for with a POOL of money contributed by all the present sources combined into ONE FUND so that no one interest is represented above another. Since we spend a bloody fortunes of our taxes already on this, divert them to this fund to get it going. Business would follow suit to ensure that they had some input too. (- : Eventually, every country in the world needs to contribute because the U.S. will do whatever is best for the U.S. if they don't. There is no reason why we can't accomplish something along these lines except that each "side" doesn't WANT that to happen. Then their PERSONAL issues would have to take a backseat. Other poster suggestions on how to get some real, RELIABLE studies done? BTW, an aside to Axenolith's first post: I recycle everything and my state, NH, provides breaks & funds for state of the art recycling programs that not only pay for themselves, decrease landfills, but show a PROFIT for the towns that implement them. How's that for doing something of value? You'd be surprised how little of our daily rubbish/garbage actually ISN'T easily recyclable. I don't know how easy it would be for cities to implement but it's not impossible if folks embrace the idea. Instead of rubbish barrels everywhere on rubbish day, trucks that pick up recyclables can make the rounds. They do that in the medium city I used to live in and it WORKS. That alone might make more difference in N.E. than all the useless legislation in CA that has been passed thus far.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
In my area we have mandatory curbside recycling. Most people diligently sort their trash and set it out pickup. A while back a study was done that claimed the increase in pollutants generated by having the extra trucks on the route exceeded the reductions in pollution due to increased recycling. Then, recently there was an article in the local paper where it was admitted that the vast majority of our sorted recycle goods gets baled and landfilled anyway because there is no market for it. What's worse is that the aluminum, which is valuable as a recycled commodity no longer gets processed at any of the many local smelters - because they were all shut down due to the cost of power at the dams thanks to environmental policy. Instead, the aluminum goes on ships for transport to China.
Read it again...the so~called expert is the paid shill.
that's really sad... The folks who implemented it obviously weren't CONSULTED when the folks who legislated it designed it. Recycling does work when it's designed properly. My town shows a profit every year and it's painless. There IS a market for all the stuff, if one knows where to look. Presumably, the folks running your project don't know OR don't care?
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Do you presort your garbage and do they fine you for things like including glossy paper in with the newsprint or pizza boxes in with the cardboard, or brown glass in with the clear glass?
We presort it at home and no, no fines. Glass is glass. Cardboard has its own bin as does newspaper but all other paper, including magazines, bills, glossy, etc all goes in the same bin. Some folks sort some of it when they get there. The only time the staff gets cranky is if you put glass, cans, or plastic through the general rubbish. They can hear it clunking. The used motor oil is burned in a special furnace to heat the buildings used for sorting. If you don't want to sort the papers and garbage, you don't have to. However, those who do sort it (and they know who you are) can have all the compost they want free, and can bring tires, appliances, or toxics like paint, etc on special 4 x a year collection days for those. They can also dispose of construction wastes. Those items cost you $$$ otherwise... They are are reasonable and EASY TO PLEASE as they can be because they WANT US TO RECYCLE. The recycling efforts pay the salaries of 2 employees who are hired to sort the icky stuff that citizens don't want to bother with like unwashed plastics/glass, mixed paper... those two people's jobs depend on folks recycling. If folks want recycling to work, it does. Even on a smaller scale like just plastic or glass. AND OUR TAXES ARE DOWN A BIT BECAUSE IT MAKES A PROFIT. We don't have to budget for our waste disposal anymore...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
My elderly mother enjoys spending time with recycling. She's a pro. When I visit and throw away a plastic bottle w/o thinking, she finds it, asks someone to read the # if it is not easy to see and then happily puts it into the proper colored barrel.
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." – General Smedley Butler
I cringe when I see folks toss obviously recyclables into the trash. It's just wrong to add to the landfill waste problem unnecessarily. Even when I lived where it wasn't mandatory, (MA) but where soda/beer bottles were cash deposits to encourage recycling, I still recycled as much paper,plastic,glass as I could. They had recycling trucks that surfed the neighborhoods for the "green buckets" that had all the recyclables in them. I sorted all the cash deposit bottles separately so I could leave 'em out for the wandering bums or for kids looking for candy money. They are both always willing to take it. The trucks turned 'em in for their own profit. NH doesn't have cash deposits on bottles but all the bottles collected are sent to MA where they DO have 'em and NH takes home some of MA's money... tee hee...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
In case anyone's wondering why I didn't turn my bottles in myself, it was just too damned much WORK to stuff 'em one by one into the recycle machines at the grocery stores. I wouldn't have minded it so much except that my kids were with me and kids DON'T behave well in grocery stores to begin with, nevermind boring the heck outa them stuffin' bottles and cans into tiny slots. I tried making it a game for them and letting them keep the $$ on their own slips but that wore off fast. MA needed to make a FRIENDLY recycling center to encourage it more.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
It sounds like the same regimen they use here for the most part, but they must be doing some darn creative book keeping to claim that it is turning a profit. It would be interesting to see an independent agency pull an audit and see what the real income and expense numbers are. Don't get me wrong, I think recycling is important. I just don't like when it is done as a feel-good measure and the hidden truth is that it is counter- productive.
No fancy bookkeeping. The fact is that the books are open to any citizen who wants to see 'em. It turns a profit in my town. Surrounding towns are following suit now.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
*** ping ***
#2. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)
Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#3. To: robin, siagiah (#2)
Solar Activity and Climate
Space weather may also in the long term affect the Earth's climate. Solar ultra-violet, visible and heat radiation are the primary factors for the Earth's climate, including global average temperatures, and these energy sources appear to be quite constant. However, many scientists have observed corrrelations between the solar magnetic activity, which is reflected in the sunspot frequency, and climate parameters at the Earth. Sunspots has been recorded through several hundreds of years which makes it possible to compare their variable frequency to climate variations to the extent that reliable climatological records exists. One of the most striking comparisons was published by E. Friis-Christensen og K. Lassen, DMI, in "Science" in 1991. In their work they compared the average temperature at the northern hemisphere with the average solar activity defined through the interval between successive sunspot maxima. The more active the sun - the shorter the interval: the solar cycle runs more intense. Their results are displayed in the figure below:
#4. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)
Another Mogambo Day
#5. To: rack42, siagiah (#4)
#6. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Zipporah, Christine (#5)
To: rack42, siagiah I wonder why siagiah chooses to evade this factual information regarding a subject that he/she finds so very important? Perhaps the issue truly is political control, rather than scientific truth.
#7. To: siagiah (#6)
#8. To: Zipporah (#7)
#9. To: siagiah (#6)
#10. To: Zipporah (#8)
#11. To: siagiah (#10)
#12. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#11)
To: siagiah Whatever you do, DO NOT read this article. It would challenge your faith.
#13. To: siagiah (#12)
#14. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, siagiah (#13)
#15. To: Axenolith (#14)
#16. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#15)
#17. To: Axenolith (#14)
Global warming theory is a rage amongst politicians because it offers the appearance to most of a credible threat which would allow the ruling class vast power over movement and resource allocation amongst the subjects. That same ruling class is the one which disburses the research money grants to the people doing "global warming research.
#18. To: Steppenwolf (#17)
What do you mean "says who"?
#19. To: Axenolith, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#18)
#20. To: Steppenwolf (#17)
#21. To: siagiah (#19)
#22. To: siagiah (#20)
If the poster actually READ the article he presented to dispute my views, he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars...
#23. To: Axenolith (#21)
#24. To: Axenolith (#22)
#25. To: siagiah (#12)
siagaih said:
#26. To: siagiah (#24)
MEOOOWW goes the Siagiah
#27. To: siagiah (#19)
Therefore, I'm done discussing this subject with you.
#28. To: timetobuildaboat (#25)
Does this lunatic even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.
#29. To: siagiah, All (#12)
Certainly you UNDERSTAND the concept of paid shills? Paid research that supports the ideas of those who fund it?
#30. To: siagiah (#24)
I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person... So there it is... FUCK OFF...
#31. To: Axenolith (#18)
Me among others.
#32. To: siagiah (#20)
he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars... ROFLMAO
#33. To: Axenolith (#22)
he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars...
#34. To: Steppenwolf (#33)
#35. To: Steppenwolf (#32)
I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.
#36. To: Steppenwolf (#31)
Now name somebody who really matters....LOL
#37. To: Steppenwolf (#32)
I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.
#38. To: Steppenwolf (#33)
All Siagiah was saying was that there are paid shills for the oil companies and there are paid shills for the auto manufacturers.Her point was that that they take their positions for the money they are paid.It seems the same people who are against reducing pollution are also opponents of the scientific theory which says the burning of hydrocarbons contributes to global warming .
#39. To: Steppenwolf (#33)
Additionally, your reply to this will allow Siagiah an opportunity to view it...
#40. To: Axenolith (#39)
Please do understand though, that it is inflammatory to assert in a post to a dissenting reply that the responder is a "paid shill"
#41. To: Axenolith, Steppenwolf, All (#39)
Axenolith: I formally apologize for inserting unseemly ad hominems in my response to Siagiah
#42. To: siagiah (#12)
Another Mogambo Day
#43. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#28)
timetobuildaboat said: Does this lunatic (referring to Buzz) even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.
#44. To: siagiah (#41)
Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL.
Another Mogambo Day
#45. To: rack42 (#42)
I can't read that font. Perhaps you'll downsize it for the stupids among us?
#46. To: rack42 (#44)
Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL. I'm sorry, but your assessment as to Buzz as a shill is, well, mistaken, in my opinion. You'll need to provide more evidence to support your accusations.
#47. To: All (#46)
#48. To: Axenolith, All (#47)
Quote from article Buzz presented: " In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so- called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes."
#49. To: siagiah (#48)
#50. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#49)
#51. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, all (#50)
#52. To: siagiah (#51)
#53. To: siagiah, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Axenolith (#51)
#54. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#52)
#55. To: christine (#53)
To: siagiah, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Axenolith my furrowed brows are now smoothed and i'm smiling. ;)
#56. To: siagiah (#48)
#57. To: siagiah (#41)
Note to self... Reply to posts in order... ;-)
Taylor testified on a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. Taylor poohpoohed the need for the bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes.
#58. To: Axenolith (#57)
#59. To: siagiah (#58)
BTW, an aside to Axenolith's first post: I recycle everything and my state, NH, provides breaks & funds for state of the art recycling programs that not only pay for themselves, decrease landfills, but show a PROFIT for the towns that implement them.
#60. To: rack42 (#44)
the so~called expert, Buzz introduced, IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL.
#61. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#59)
#62. To: siagiah (#61)
#63. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#62)
#64. To: siagiah (#63)
#65. To: robin (#64)
#66. To: Robin (#65)
#67. To: siagiah (#63)
#68. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#67)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest