See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics
Source:
SMH.com
URL Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit ... ng-fanatics-20100131-n6fr.html
Published: Feb 1, 2010
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-01-31 12:23:41 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 2952
Comments: 115
Here are 10 anti-commandments, 10 selected facts about global warming which have been largely ignored amid the orthodoxies to which we are subjected every day. All these anti-commandments are either true or backed by scientific opinion. All can also be hotly contested. 1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing. 2. The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants. Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' 3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce. The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues. 4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data. 5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists. 6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries. After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children. 7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger. Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations. 8. The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless. Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. 9. The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage. 10. Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed. The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted. None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species which has done enormous damage to the world's environment. Nor do they question the warming of the planet. What they do question is the morphing of science with ideology, the most pernicious byproduct of the global warming debate. All these anti-commandments were brought into focus this past week by the visit of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, better known as Lord Christopher Monckton, journalist by trade, mathematician by training, provocateur by inclination. Last Wednesday a conference room at the Sheraton on the Park was filled to overflowing, all 800 seats sold with a standing-room only crowd at the back, to see the Sydney public appearance of Monckton, a former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. At the end of his presentation he received a sustained standing ovation. Monckton is the embodiment of English aristocratic eccentricity. His presentations are a combination of stand-up comedy, evangelical preaching and fierce debating. Almost every argument he makes can be contested, but given the enormity of the multi-trillion-dollars that governments expect taxpayers to expend on combating global warming, the process needs to be subject to brutal interrogation, scrutiny and scepticism. And Monckton was brutal, especially about the media, referring to ''all this bed-wetting stuff on the ABC and the BBC''. There has also been a monumental political failure surrounding the global warming debate. Those who would have to pay for most of the massive government expenditures proposed, the taxpayers of the West, are beginning to go into open revolt at the prospect. Last week the Herald reported that Monckton told a large lie while in Sydney. On Tuesday it reported: ''He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.'' The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday's Herald. In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ''Through the IPCC … thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.'' Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process. So what lie did Monckton tell about the prize? Despite the gravity of the accusation, the Herald never published the offending remark. Here, for the record, is what he actually said: Monckton: ''I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they'd multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, 'You will correct this.' And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they'd got wrong.'' Alan Jones: ''But this report won a Nobel Prize!'' Monckton: ''Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I'm part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.'' Poster Comment: Still global warming phenomena is an undeniable FACT!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: Deasy (#48)
Thank you for your clarity, your comment directly reflects the increasing diminished natural resources we ALL have or shall be capable to share.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
When corporations (and most farms are today) use water from diminishing water tables, or have water piped in, and then sell their products overseas, we all lose. We should be using our water for Americans and Americans only. Even when product goes to the benefit of Americans, farm concerns should be paying for the use of water tables and river sources that are diverted. Agribusiness is really banker farming anyway. The land was eaten up by small farms going out of business during the Dust Bowl years and corporatist land transfers.
I don't make fun of serious issues. Like yourself, some threads need to be viewed with a sense of respect about the world around us and maybe ... and by golly or good luck, we can find solutions; but leaving our lives to government for solutions? Please give me a sense of respect.... I do have a sense of dignity about myself, you know......
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
Insects True, winter kills them and they generally like the warm weather, but adaptability is in our favor, not theirs. Your mention of the pine bark beetles means we have some work to do (harvest the pine and plant alternatives). A good analogy is the storm of 1962 which took down 15 billion board feet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962) The pine bark beetle kills a few billion board feet at most. In 1962 we didn't throw up our hands, we did something: built roads and harvested the wood. spindly plants You are going to have to be more specific. There are numerous commercial greenhouses with double the normal CO2 getting thicker growth and 30-40% greater yields. the natural environment is jam-packed with humans Not a warming issue at all and not an argument against more fish and game. With less winter kill and more vegetation there will be more game. tundra is eroding Permafrost is melting, but tundra is not eroding more since the surface always thaws regardless of GW. If you are talking about along the Arctic Ocean, that's a small area and is manageable. Everyone's quality of life is diminished How? reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano) Something like the supervolcano Toba 70k years ago would wipe out most of humanity. Our puny global warming would not help. But there are much more likely eruptions that would cool the planet a degree or two C for a few years. Those would wipe out crops with summer frosts. GW would help blunt the impact of such an event. Note that there are not similar catastrophes on the warm side, there is no such thing as "volcanic summer" or "nuclear summer". Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world Not really. Where glaciers have melted the same precipitation (or more) falls and can be dammed. The Great Lakes dropped for a while, but now they are rising again since 2008. Increased warming means increased precipitation, plain and simple. Where it falls might chance, but that's what dams and pipelines are for. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Less dense since we can spread out more easily. Do you want to live in Minnesota? I didn't think so, for one thing your solar electric would stink there As for your solar projects, you have spent considerable more money (including my tax money) than I have, but I have some solar electric. I also have two new passive solar heating boxes and am making plans for a third for upstairs. I also painted my foundation black. I have done many things to save energy (and stay warm) and I have not spent one dime of taxpayer's money doing it. Edit: I should also add that I don't believe I should have the right to sell my solar power back to the power company. It doesn't save money because the peak use is later than peak solar. Now if you actually maintain batteries, use them to supply your own peak power and sell back peak power to the electric company, then I applaud that. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone else's money.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
You already stated that there are NO solutions Buck. Read your posts on this thread. I don't share your doom and gloom outlook on the Global Warming scam. I simply view it as a scam. Your graphs do not alter this view one iota. BTW, you have never really offered any viable solutions, if, in fact, your theory is correct. The government thinks it has some solutions, but you aren't for government intervention. So, please share your solutions. You worry about over population. Again what is your solution? How can I give you the sense of respect you are seeking when you refuse to offer any solutions that do not require government intervention? You like to agree with what you deem to be the problem with a serious, even pious, position and interpretention of cherry picked data.....but I have yet to hear of any viable solution from you. Yet, I am to take you seriously regarding your concern and evaluation of the problem? You won't even consider the SUN in this argument........frankly, I have a hard time accepting that your argument is serious at all when you opt for this blatent omission. Seriously, are you looking for solutions? What about the SUN? You have ignored every question I've presented regarding that big ball of fire in the sky.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
He's using Global Warming and Resource Competition as arguments against open immigration. Also, he (dubiously) claims to be using our opinions as a financial bellwether.
I'll be very clear about this. If you never use power from the power company, then congratulations. But if you do, are you using peak power (cold and cloudy or cold and nighttime)? If yes, then your system is draining money from the economy by your receipt of a subsidy for power that is not really needed by the system. If no, then congratulations, we can share tips on battery charging and maintenance. I have spent far more of my spare hours on batteries than on panels. If you don't know, then the answer is probably yes, you are just wasting everyone's money with all the unneeded power you are selling at nonpeak times.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
Didn't you just say your were joking about government intervention? Which is it Buck? You can't have your global warming cake and eat it without the government regulating the oven that it was cooked in and the units of carbon produced in the baking process.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Oh Carry_Okie answered that question quite nicely: The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations. So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such. "The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
So far I'm reading here that you're unhappy because the environmentalists aren't as effective as they should be with regard to protecting the environment. Are you saying we should be protecting more natural habitat, or less? Are you saying more farmers should be able to guzzle water resources, or less? Which is it? How to get there from here? I do not happen to believe that the free market will solve this problem. If we hadn't nationalized our parks and our national forests, things would be a lot worse.
Would they? You haven't read Carry's book. Or the stuff on his web site. Even reading that one post in its entirety would open some eyes. Remember the polluting of our water by MTBE? Brought to you by the NRDC. Even the beetle problem buck brings up was caused by the environmental movement.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
You bring up MTBE. What about leaded fuel? Just when were we going to stop using lead without the EPA? These are not reasons to privatize our natural resources.
Not true. In Canada the Bark Beetle has created even more CO2, felling the forests as the tree stubs rot on the ground. Please read your own comment, commercial greenhouses as though these resources feed 6.7Bn people around the world. An incredible analogy with backyard watering hoses and constant human manicure operations within a contained greenhouse of exquisite academic quality. I disagree with you. Are you arguing that sustainability is achievable with increasing human population growth? How is, "management" going to ensure sustainability concepts towards your world-wonder? You claim that the Canadian/Alaskan perma-frost line is diminishing what about in Norway, Russia, Finland? Too many people with too little resources while government extracts my tax dollars to fill the differences. Catastrophes are one thing. Mother nature calls on all of us. Yet, the changes around the world must be addressed with responsive understanding that each and everyone of us is capable to modify the environment. Wrong! Fresh water supplies are falling precipitously. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Less dense since we can spread out more easily. Do you want to live in Minnesota? I didn't think so, for one thing your solar electric would stink there. I don't know what you mean by this question. Are you saying I should read a book by Ted Nugent?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You're not really reading what I post are you?
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Not your links. Put your arguments in line. You haven't answered my question about water for agribusiness yet, either.
The REAL problem is not addressing a rebuttal of and about some off-the road poster's comment concerning further restrictions about laizzez-faire or capitalism. It is about our very survival. The world is dying.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You don't really think that the world owes us a living, do you? It'll do just fine without the human race. If we can't survive what's ahead, then we weren't flexible enough.
Not from a C02 O'd. The planetary ecosystem is severely out of equilibrium and we may even have passed the point of no return, but CO2 is the least of our worries. Neither is Glowbull Warming. Toxic pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere and the water table are lardering the system with toxins.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The greatest prosperity of men and women has been without government of any kind. You can read this same point on just about any chit-chat website. Today, the advertised government slogan is "carbon units" to make you free. What makes you think that the slogan, tomorrow won't be "your blue-eyes"? What will happen to you when the government has ultimately claimed you are a carbon deficit?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
As I looked around the Internet from China, India and even America ... all I see are vibrant idiots showing their hands on and towards a "fix" global warming phenomena through government control. Can it be fixed?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
They can only accomplish this feat with the rally cry of folks like you spewing the government mantra that CO2 is the culprit. I agree with the 31,000 plus scientists who have signed on to the petition claiming this entire global warming is a farce, a scam, a blatent attempt to implement global control over the people. 31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions. When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him. A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence. The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy. Purpose of Petition The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency. It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not “skeptics.” These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth. How Petition is Circulated This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail. Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project. A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way. Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list. Here's the link to the petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php Al Gore is crying big crocodile tears. You can now dispute the petition and the 31,000 plus scientists Buck. You worry about carbon deficits.......I won't.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
I didn't.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
That is your choice. However, you often comment that the factual basis of the hypothesis has been determined and that there is no debate. This is not true. There is plenty of debate. Some scientists are even debating the effects of the SUN on the climate. Imagine that--the sun having a correlation with temperatures. Some scientists are returning to previously held views regarding global cooling, which was the big fear spewed in the '70's. Many find the notion that CO2 is to blame ridiculous. Do the views of these scientists within this field of expertise have any merit Buck? Do they have no say in the debate that was supposedly settled?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Yeah ... Kepler's epicycles are convincing the world and finally demonstrating the world towards methods of energy conservation.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You're used to foruming with people who are sympathetic to your cause, aren't you?
Not at all but I see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who isn't going to even look at the material provided.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
You're expecting me to take an off-site link as your argument? You've got to be kidding.
My answer was in the links.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
So this "farmfriend" moniker of yours. You're still lobbying for agribusiness, right?
No but I can't explain to you in a short post what it took him a whole book to explain. The post of his at FR I linked to is a good start even though it is about energy not water. Same arguments apply but you won't even go read that. So again, what is the point in even having a conversation with you?
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
I never lobbied for agribusiness. I lobbied for the Grange. Founded in 1867, the Grange is the oldest general farm and public policy organization in the United States. They are grass roots, not agribusiness. And no, I'm not even a member of the Grange now.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
You want me to visit Free Republic?
Painful as it may be, yes, just that one post. It is worth it. OR you can go here and read a synopsis of the book: "The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Don't goe to FreeRepubulick..... I swear, the power there is to persuade you into a fascist agenda. I tried it once ..... I am considered a bad, bad boy.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
Why wouldn't privatization be just as corrupt as what we have is today? If the government is corrupt, private control could be just as well.
Furthermore, if natural resources were privatized, where would public policy come into play? If there's public input, then how is it truly privatized? This doesn't make sense. It sounds like a method for getting the corporations back into control over the resources they've always wanted.
Third party verification and liability insurance.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
It's not.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
So you just want us to trust you. That's not very reassuring.
How would third party verification and insurance be better than congressional oversight and executive authority? Who appoints the third parties? Who keeps them from profiteering from collusion with the corporations? This is corporatism.
Comments (92 - 115) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHow much of the water Californian agribusinesses used came from their own aqua firs? I think when California's valleys were the bread baskets of the world, they were importing a lot of their water, and pulling it out of water tables that were being depleted by those actions.
#52. To: buckeroo, abraxas, farmfriend (#51)
#53. To: abraxas (#50)
Maybe a little smiley face would help?
#54. To: buckeroo (#36)
(Edited)
#55. To: buckeroo (#53)
some threads need to be viewed with a sense of respect about the world around us and maybe ... and by golly or good luck, we can find solutions;
#56. To: abraxas (#55)
#57. To: buckeroo (#36)
I generate about 35KWhours a day on a South facing roof on 2300 foot home with no known carbon emissions. In California, I am now being paid for the excess abundance I accumulate; we have ample solar capability as the sunlight shines more than many other areas of the nation.
#58. To: buckeroo (#53)
I don't make fun of serious issues
#59. To: buckeroo, abraxas, Original_Intent, Deasy (#46)
(Edited)
But, beyond the FACTS, why is government limiting natural resources?
The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.
#60. To: farmfriend (#59)
#61. To: Deasy (#60)
I do not happen to believe that the free market will solve this problem. If we hadn't nationalized our parks and our national forests, things would be a lot worse.
#62. To: farmfriend (#61)
#63. To: purpleman (#54)
Insects True, winter kills them and they generally like the warm weather, but adaptability is in our favor, not theirs. Your mention of the pine bark beetles means we have some work to do (harvest the pine and plant alternatives). A good analogy is the storm of 1962 which took down 15 billion board feet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962) The pine bark beetle kills a few billion board feet at most. In 1962 we didn't throw up our hands, we did something: built roads and harvested the wood.
spindly plants You are going to have to be more specific. There are numerous commercial greenhouses with double the normal CO2 getting thicker growth and 30-40% greater yields.
the natural environment is jam-packed with humans Not a warming issue at all and not an argument against more fish and game. With less winter kill and more vegetation there will be more game.
tundra is eroding Permafrost is melting, but tundra is not eroding more since the surface always thaws regardless of GW. If you are talking about along the Arctic Ocean, that's a small area and is manageable.
Everyone's quality of life is diminished How?
reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano) Something like the supervolcano Toba 70k years ago would wipe out most of humanity. Our puny global warming would not help. But there are much more likely eruptions that would cool the planet a degree or two C for a few years. Those would wipe out crops with summer frosts. GW would help blunt the impact of such an event. Note that there are not similar catastrophes on the warm side, there is no such thing as "volcanic summer" or "nuclear summer".
Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world Not really. Where glaciers have melted the same precipitation (or more) falls and can be dammed. The Great Lakes dropped for a while, but now they are rising again since 2008. Increased warming means increased precipitation, plain and simple. Where it falls might chance, but that's what dams and pipelines are for.
#64. To: Deasy (#62)
These are not reasons to privatize our natural resources.
#65. To: farmfriend (#64)
(Edited)
#66. To: farmfriend (#59)
#67. To: buckeroo (#66)
#68. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#66)
The world is dying.
#69. To: abraxas (#58)
You can't have your global warming cake and eat it [too] without the government regulating the oven that it was cooked in and the units of carbon produced in the baking process.
#70. To: Original_Intent (#68)
... but CO2 is the least of our worries.
Dear Heavenly Father .. please take the nitrous-oxide, down-town brown bag off of O_I's snout. It just isn't becoming of an otherwise fine poster.
#71. To: Original_Intent (#12)
A show of hands please.
#72. To: buckeroo (#69)
What will happen to you when the government has ultimately claimed you are a carbon deficit?
#73. To: abraxas (#72)
31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
I didn't.
#75. To: abraxas (#74)
Some scientists are even debating the effects of the SUN on the climate. Imagine that--the sun having a correlation with temperatures.
#76. To: farmfriend (#64)
You're not really reading what I post are you?
#77. To: Deasy (#76)
You're used to foruming with people who are sympathetic to your cause, aren't you?
#78. To: farmfriend (#77)
#79. To: Deasy (#65)
Not your links. Put your arguments in line. You haven't answered my question about water for agribusiness yet, either.
#80. To: farmfriend (#79)
#81. To: Deasy (#78)
You're expecting me to take an off-site link as your argument? You've got to be kidding.
#82. To: Deasy (#80)
So this "farmfriend" moniker of yours. You're still lobbying for agribusiness, right?
#83. To: farmfriend (#81)
#84. To: Deasy (#83)
You want me to visit Free Republic?
This book proposes a free-market environmental management system designed to deliver a product that is superior to government oversight, at lower cost. It provides examples illustrating how the system might work and proposes an implementing legal strategy. Though environmental in origin, the principles this book describes are applicable toward privatizing nearly any form of government regulation.
#85. To: Deasy (#83)
#86. To: farmfriend (#84)
#87. To: farmfriend (#84)
#88. To: Deasy (#86)
Why wouldn't privatization be just as corrupt as what we have is today?
#89. To: Deasy (#87)
It sounds like a method for getting the corporations back into control over the resources they've always wanted.
#90. To: farmfriend (#89)
#91. To: farmfriend (#88)
Third party verification and liability insurance.
.
.
.