Global Warming: Signed, Sealed and delivered

I'm not surprised.

The Bush I administration hired an independent think tank to evaluate public schools. They found, contrary to GOP opinion, public schools were doing fine. So the study was surpressed and the GOP continued to shout about the failing public school system.

Then they inacted "No Child Left Behind"....to make sure they could eventually "prove" public schools were failing. (If only CAFE was treated like No Child Left Behind....eventually all cars would fail. They'd even find a way to fail EVs.)

The Bush II administration has said that there is no Global Warming. And whatever is happening now has nothing to do with any human acts.

So we'll just have to wait two years and PRAY. (Yes, liberals pray too. We just don't force other people to pray exactly the same way we do to exactly the same God.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 26 2006, 01:40 PM) [snapback]292650[/snapback]</div>

Not quite sure of your source but even according to the BBC, not true. Goto

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

The conservative position is not to join the Kyoto scheme which would cripple our economy as we know it. You can self implement Kyoto upon yourself. Don't go into work for 3 out of 10 days. Same with your electricity in your house. Off for 3 out of 10 days. Eliminate most manufacturing in the US and let other countries who choose not to join Kyoto to gain an infinite competitive advantage. Do you really believe rapidly developing countries such as China and India would realistically abide by the Kyoto treaty? How can you enforce such a treaty? War, blockades, starve the populations of offending countries??

And even if every country in the world was to abide fully by the Kyoto treaty (which would never happen) even Kyoto supporters agree the Earth's temperature would be reduced by 1/20 of one degree C by 2050.

The chicken little mentality of Global Warming has made many people a lot of money. Global Warming is politics, pure and simple. And it's not just the libs profiting from Global Warming, BOTH sides of the aisle are using this to their full advantage.

Rick
2006 CO2 spewing (with special anti Global Warming A/C) #4 Prius

 

Do you really think we can't reduce our consumption by 30%? America isn't up to that challenge?

We were all going to starve when they outlawed DDT too.

When it comes to leadership in this regard, Bush is an utter failure.

And I don't believe "Kyoto" passed my lips...er...fingers.

We don't need to join Kyoto to implement it. And we aren't. We don't even recognize there is a problem. And when it's suggested....there's fingerpointing and "they're doing it too". Anyone with a teenager knows the drill.

"Just because Johnny does it doesn't make it right."

Time for the U.S. to GROW UP. Of course....we'd actually need a responsible adult at the helm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 26 2006, 04:05 PM) [snapback]292729[/snapback]</div>

Well, yes, we could reduce our energy consumption by 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, or even 90%. It would be easy. Just declare martial law and impose draconian penalties for any violators. Rationing would be perhaps the most realistic method to implement such an energy policy. The government will tell me as a manufacturer when I can be open. The government will tell every one of us how much fuel we can purchase each month. Politicians and "important" people will get more, poor people and "insignificants" will get less. Easy. Well, easy if we shut ourselves off from the rest of the world. But that simply is not possible. The minute, and I mean minute, another country (read China or India) sees our weakness with reduced output, they will quickly fill the void. Soon our spending power will decrease proportionately along with our standard of living. While you and few other Americans may be willing to make the sacrifice, I can assure you this will not win an election. Politicians, barring total anarchy, guide and make our future. Promises of lower standards of living will not win an election.

Imagine this campaign platform:

"I promise a XX% reduction in our carbon footprint. We will have to make sacrifices and significantly change your way of life as you know it...although only the US will implement such policies and the impact on the Earth will be negligible..." Not even Hillary would make such a statement.

And with regards to the banning of DDT, no we in the US did not starve but there are many arguments stating perhaps millions of Africans and others in developing nations have perished needlessly over the years from mosquito related malaria deaths which could have been prevented by use of DDT.

A change in leadership? Do you really believe Hillary, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer if elected would/could reverse this so called "Global Warming" trend? Please tell me how they/or you would do it (and win over our the hearts and minds of our nation).

Rick
2006 #4 Prius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 26 2006, 03:56 PM) [snapback]292755[/snapback]</div>

None of this should be necessary. The government could increase or implement tax credits for those individuals or businesses that are progressive enough to consider alternative energy (serious credits - not the crappy $2,000 or so that is the current benefit for solar panels on an individual level and by the way, the admnistration is set to decrease this). The offset would be a much heavier taxation on those that continue to use convential energy sources. That would get people's attention quickly enough. Instead, the administration is offering business many advantages for continuing to contaminate this earth. The administration could phase all of this in so that supply can keep up with demand.




and No, but I believe McCain will sure try.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 26 2006, 03:56 PM) [snapback]292755[/snapback]</div>

The Prius has proven you can halve your energy usage without sacrifice. No draconian steps required. U.S. car companies complained bitterly about being forced to raise CAFE rates, add catalytic converters, go off leaded gas, in the 70's and 80's but they were better off by the 90's then ever before. They weren't forced to do this in the 90's and 00's, and now they're in trouble because Japan had better foresight.

You could turn off computers and other company equipment on the weekends and save 30% of the electrical usage and extend their useful lives by 30% at the same time. We can build better public transportation and here's an idea, bike paths, so people don't need to drive a car to get across the street to the super-walmart-grocery-department store.

This "so-called Global Warming trend" will seriously affect the economy of the United States for thousands of years (as well as things like global food production, but that's not as important to the conservatives). It is not a little blip somewhere off in the distance. What's scary is that a couple nights ago switching channels instead of going to bed, I found a show on PBS about global warming that was made in 1986, and they talked about all the issues the contrarians are still bringing up as "unaddressed issues" today, like solar output and limits of modeling. But the consensus among scientists in the field at that time was that global warming was a real concern that needs to be addressed before it becomes a big problem. They predicted rising temperatures in the 90's would clinch their argument and prove their models correct. Well, the models were largely correct, and the temperatures have risen, but somehow this didn't end the argument.

(Ever see Soylent Green? Some people apparenty think it's about over-population, but if you pay attention, it's really about global warming - everybody was forced into the cities to make room for less-productive farms. That was made in 1973, so the concept of global warming has been a real one for quite awhile.)

I'm not saying there aren't competent Republicans who can lead our country on this, but our current leader certainly isn't competent on this task. I would've voted for McCain over Kerry, but I could not ever vote for Bush. He barely squeaked into office, needed a lawsuit to do so, and then belatedly took advantage of a national crisis to generate an image and consolidate powers to his office, sometimes illegally. A change in leadership would include a competent and ethical Republican.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jul 26 2006, 06:46 PM) [snapback]292812[/snapback]</div>

Now there's an idea right up my alley. You would not believe how frustrating it can be to secure funding for transportation other than cars, and to solve the turf wars over who's bridge is whom's. I've proposed at city council the apparently radical idea that we fund modes of transportation according to their use. Say 2% of the population commutes by bicycle, then 2% of the total transportation funding should go to bike paths. Oh no, they say, we can't afford that, all the while approving multi-million dollar projects to upgrade one intersection. The other wild and crazy idea is to fund infrastructure for cars entirely from taxes on cars. Not from income taxes and not from property taxes, but from gas taxes, distance-based insurance, bridge tolls, vehicle surcharges, and parking taxes. The drivers are still howling. Sigh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jul 26 2006, 06:46 PM) [snapback]292812[/snapback]</div>

And you're telling me if we did those steps you mentioned above that "Global Warming" would stop and or reverse? And Americans would ride their bike to Wal-Mart to do their grocery shopping??? Have you lived in America very long???

I am a business owner myself and I could not even imagine leaving my computers, A/C, lights, and such on all weekend. Even an evil business owner such as myself still has to pay the electric company. Do you think when a business is shut down for the weekend it consumes as or nearly much energy as a normal weekday? And how would you enforce such a law? Have the energy police go to businesses on the weekends and check????

Raise the CAFE rates by a significant amount, hmm will that reverse Global Warming? By how much??

All I see on these posts is advocates for more and more government intervention. You can have it. That's why I choose to live in America.



Rick

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 26 2006, 06:26 PM) [snapback]292840[/snapback]</div>

So what you're saying is that if the steps we take don't show immediate reversal of global warming it's not worth doing anything....not even to slow it down?

In what way is "oh, the economy will collapse if we change, blah blah" any less alarmist than the warnings of global warming? It's just different. The difference being if we do nothing, it will eventually be too late. Since it does take SO LONG to reverse CO2 levels, gee, maybe we should start doing something NOW before it *is* too late and will take too long.

I believe that home owners pay more per watt, therm or whatever than businesses do. At least in my city I believe they do. So homeowners subsidize businesses and businesses have no incentive to conserve beyond their own G&E bills. And they all scream they'll go bankrupt if the status quo is changed in any way. They also don't have the tiered useage rates that homeowners do, where anything above the base useage costs more. Maybe if they had to pay the same as everyone else they'd look to more conservation. More compact flourescents, solar on roofs, insulation, etc. I actually think Walmart's new "green" policy is a good thing, if they actually follow through with their promises. If they can do it and still show a profit, other businesses can too. And gee, it didn't a mandate from the Government to force them.

I don't think conserving energy has to collapse the U.S. economy. We are a resilient and resourceful nation. We are also EXTREMELY WASTEFUL. There will simply be a shift. And I'm sure there are companies out their that can find a way to profit from a "green" economy. It's an opportunity. When and how it's implemented will be a matter of leadership. It can be an all out cooperative effort or it can be forced through legislation. (insert commercial on catalytic converters, seat belts, et al here.)

Our policy makers are too consumed with the short term and status quo. They are lazy, allowing corporations to write the laws that govern them. I think letting the solar and wind companies write our energy policy for a change will be more beneficial to us in the long run than allowing the oil, gas and big three to continue to write it as they have. Profits will be made. There will just be a shift in WHO is making the money. I think this will be a good thing in the long run.

 

Really, by how much? I just am not convinced that human CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is contributing significantly to Global Warming.

I'm all for any technology that will help cut down our use of oil. But is has to be cost effective. I would rather spend my hard earned money on items I desire rather than the government dictating to whom and where I spend it.

Sure it is. But, again, is it cost effective? Will it work when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining? One recent poster on this group spent $18,000 on solar panels for his house. He was able to cut his electric bill down to $9/month. That's great but very few of us could afford such an outlay to save $50 or $100 bucks a month. How about the millions of people living in apartments, cities, etc. Where do they put solar panels and wind generators?

Why is this a right and left issue? Please tell us how Clinton in his eight years in office has decreased our usage of oil? I agree Bush most likely has ties to the oil industry, but it was Bush who signed our hybrid tax credit and credits for various home improvement items which can save energy.

I have little faith in the Republicans (and much less in the Democrats) to solve our energy issues.

The government will not solve our problems. Inventors and investors such as Felix Kramer of Calcars are the people we need to look to to advance our energy independence. Not the likes of Hillary, Boxer, Pelosi, and Schumer.

I did. Interesting, but if this is available on a cost effective and reliable basis, why isn't everyone taking advantage of alternative forms of power? If it isn't cheaper and more reliable than standard utility company electricity, it just will not gain wide acceptance.

Like it or not, politics and money. That's what makes the world turn.

Rick

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 26 2006, 05:54 PM) [snapback]292888[/snapback]</div>

Respectfully, can I say who are you and what your professional specialization is that makes your doubt weigh evenly or more than the peer-reviewed scientific consensus? Are you saying these triple-digit temperatures of late is normal weather? Taking no action is not acceptable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 26 2006, 05:54 PM) [snapback]292888[/snapback]</div>

There are some things that can be accomplished by a large entity than individuals through economies of scale, such as Apollo and the space shuttle. Did you know there's studies out there that show if we just reserve a few acres of unused land out there for solar-collectors (whether they be Stirling based or conventional), enough power can be collected to power cities? Translate that into building code for sky scrapers, buildings, and even small residential, and make the entire city a power-generator.

We've had many public-works projects that accomplished great things, so it's somewhat perplexing to me why being proactive is now difficult. Maybe we need another great crisis to spur action. Of course, Iraq is our latest great "public-works" project when you count the amount thrown into that money pit.

The rule seems to be the most polluting and wasteful (SUV/luxury cars) can certainly afford installing panels, and the like, and the result is better for all of us since panels DO feed back into the grid.

 

That's exactly what I am saying. Our nations security and future depends on a vibrant and healthy economy. Do you wish to play second fiddle to China, India, Russia, or even Iran? Russia actually bankrupted itself not too long ago and was very vulnerable. It's military was in disarray and I for one would not have been comfortable with my assets or my family living in Russia. Bankrupt our economy and we ourselves could be in that situation.

Global Warming is not a proven fact and neither is whether or not man does contribute a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere to change the climate. The Earth has gone through many dramatic shifts well before man had any presence here on Earth.

And how long should we endure double digit decreases in our economy? 20 years, 40 years, 100 years?

Again, the world (and our nation) runs on politics and money. Please find me a politician (whose job is to attract businesses to his district so his/her constituents can be gainfully employed) run on a platform advocating no tax breaks or utility subsidies for future business. The board of the business will simply move on to another location, which is more "business friendly". Good luck. You'll never get elected or remain in office on that platform. I personally do not agree to giving business tax breaks and such but it's a fact of life.

I agree. But the other alternative is a dictatorship. Corporations give the most to campaign financing needed for reelection. So you have to cater to the corporations. Politicians aren't dumb. They know how to follow the money; left or right. It works this way in every true democracy.

Sounds good on paper, but solar and wind companies are not elected officials and would line their pockets in a big way. In a democratic society only elected officials should make policy. I am a business owner myself and would love to write my own laws, but it would not be right and they would only serve my own interests.

You still have an interest in the health and well being of oil companies (which are in the business to make a profit as with any other business); after all you bought a Prius, which uses gas. Or we could have our government run the oil businesses. Mexico's quasi governmental PEMEX is such an example and brings corruption to a new level.

Rick

 

Your replies tire me and don't make much sense. I see you are of the camp that believes 1) Bush has caused Global Warming and his doing his best to ensure the world's temperature rise at the maximum rate possible, and 2) all the world's problems (de-desertification; which desert, where???, even the Iraq war???) are a direct result of Bush (because of Global Warming).

So it really is pointless to further carry on a discussion with you. You really should vote for Hillary, Schumer, Boxer or whoever wins the Democratic nomination (yes let's man up America). They will solve all our problems and stop Global Warming once and for all. And that will be good for me since I live in FL and we will not have any more hurricanes.

Rick

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Jul 26 2006, 09:10 PM) [snapback]292899[/snapback]</div>

 

FACT: Carbon Dioxide over last few decades.


FACT: Temperature / CO2 correllation last 600k years.


Exactly where does the CO2 increase from the last 50 years appear on the last 600,000 year plot? I don't think it's a pixel width on my monitor!

Geologically speaking, 100, 200, or 300 years is a glitch and nothing to base any trending upon. The alarmists are making the claims. The burden of proof is on them. Sadly, there's no way to scientifically prove the GW argument based on the small sample size of directly collected data. The are inherent problems when basing arguments on the extrapolation of temps from tree rings, ice core samples, etc. The direct temp readings don't exist, and that's the alarmists' problem.

We should cut back, invest in alternate forms of energy, do all we can to make the world better. If you want to mandate it, prove how much we're responsible for as a first step. What percentage of GW is directly attributable to evil mankind? Please check the 600,000 year plot again before responding.

Lastly, as far as the whole issue being politiczed ... I give you ManBearPig.