For the AGW Faithers

[saveliberty]

Generally, the measures proposed as a response to global warming are measures that make sense and have merit even if there were no such thing as global warming,

so the point is moot.

It may be a good thing that the earth is warming (if it indeed is). Longer growing seasons and greater range to grow certain crops may increase the food supply and create plants that can correct the cardon dioxide levels. The presumption that only bad things can happen is both alarmist and incorrect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine how fucking stupid we're going to look doing everything to reduce CO2 during a cooling trend? When it was cooler 18,000 years ago, most of New York State was under 20 feet of ice...is that what we're hoping for?

 

[midcan5]

The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.

Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.

Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?

Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.

If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.

Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.

If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.

Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.

The 400,000 year view global warming

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

 

[The T]

The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.

Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.

Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?

Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.

If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.

Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.

If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.

Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.

The 400,000 year view global warming

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

What 'majority' was that again?

 

[The T]

The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.

Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.

Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?

Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.

If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.

Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.

If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.

Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.

The 400,000 year view global warming

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

Since *YOU* Seem to want to tackle this issue...(With misguided horsepuckey links)...

Maybe YOU can take a stab at EACH Question in Post #1?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.

Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.

Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?

Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.

If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.

Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.

If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.

Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.

The 400,000 year view global warming

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

Pay closer attention to current event and you save yourself further embarrassment.

The point is that there is no evidence of any recent warming, none! So the idea that we're supposed to control release of a trace element that has no effect on anything is beyond stupid.

In any event, are we never supposed to gain or lose so much as an ice cubes worth of ice anywhere? What could we possibly do about it in any event?

 

[The T]

The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.

Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.

Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?

Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.

If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.

Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.

If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.

Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.

The 400,000 year view global warming

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

Pay closer attention to current event and you save yourself further embarrassment.

The point is that there is no evidence of any recent warming, none! So the idea that we're supposed to control release of a trace element that has no effect on anything is beyond stupid.

In any event, are we never supposed to gain or lose so much as an ice cubes worth of ice anywhere? What could we possibly do about it in any event?

I'll take a SWAG at it...Nothing. The EARTH is subject to larger forces than MAN could ever be. We are but parasites on an elephant's back with ZERO control.

If we were to disappear from the Face of the Earth tomorrow? The Earth would never know that we left.

-That, is the IMPACT- of man. Too many confuse pollution with Weather. And YES we have the propensity to destroy ourselves, but in grand fashion? The Earth would recover none the less, as she has LONG before we ever were here, and I think REAL Science has shown that too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Generally, the measures proposed as a response to global warming are measures that make sense and have merit even if there were no such thing as global warming,

so the point is moot.

It may be a good thing that the earth is warming (if it indeed is). Longer growing seasons and greater range to grow certain crops may increase the food supply and create plants that can correct the cardon dioxide levels. The presumption that only bad things can happen is both alarmist and incorrect.

Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.

What are the motives of the global warming deniers? To promote disinterest in environmentally responsible, energy-wise initiatives? Apparently. What else could be their motives.

Environmentalism was around long before global warming was even a topic. And our country is better for its successes. Conservatives only want to stand in the way of further successes.

 

[The T]

Generally, the measures proposed as a response to global warming are measures that make sense and have merit even if there were no such thing as global warming,

so the point is moot.

It may be a good thing that the earth is warming (if it indeed is). Longer growing seasons and greater range to grow certain crops may increase the food supply and create plants that can correct the cardon dioxide levels. The presumption that only bad things can happen is both alarmist and incorrect.

Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.

What are the motives of the global warming deniers? To promote disinterest in environmentally responsible, energy-wise initiatives? Apparently. What else could be their motives.

Environmentalism was around long before global warming was even a topic. And our country is better for its successes. Conservatives only want to stand in the way of further successes.

But the work of the "Enviromentalists" was militant before it became fashionable...

They're NUTJOB Out of work Communists with nothing on their MINDS but Control of the masses. THAT constant hasn't changed.

And NO. WE Conservatives will NOT give up our liberties to save some dumbass bird or FISH that hasn't the ability to adapt.

But then We Conservatives KNOW that we have to be good stewards as well. Your post here portends that we just want to destroy the ecosystem willy-nilly which is FAR from the truth, carbonated. *ADMIT IT*

But you keep on LYING, and NOT addressing the fuckin' OP...

YOU haven't the GUTS to address it line item, by Line item, because quite frankly? Go to post #1 if you have the GUTS...

*You Cannot*

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.

Just for the record...

I am ALL FOR alternatives to foreign oil. In fact I believe we should get serious about it, and simply start NOW by NOT BUYING any oil at all from countries who don't like us very much. Like Venezuela for starters. The other thing we should do immediately is STOP EXPORTING our own domestic crude!!!

Would it surprise anyone to know we are the #17 exporter of crude in the world? Hell yes, we EXPORT 1,143,000 barrels a DAY!! What? WHY are we selling ANY of our oil to foreign countries? (Source)

Now, it's true enough that if we do what I suggest oil prices likely will skyrocket. But that's fine, I would rather take that short term bullet than the LONG term one of cap and trade and the other idiotic shit we're doing and are about to do.

Because cap and trade, and everything else related to the "green" movement is designed to artificially inflate energy costs to make the alternatives appear to be almost economically feasible. Well, let's don't artificially inflate them, let's REALLY inflate them for real by not buying any enemy oil right now!

Consumption will be greatly reduced, immediately, and alternatives will get serious looks by everyone, big and small.

The market will respond as it always has, with innovation and invention, and in ten years we'll make oil a near worthless commodity!

I am FOR the alternatives, I am FOR cleaner air, but I want to have us do it the right way for the right reasons! Oil comes from dinosaurs, but let's not have it make US one! Let's get this shit moving forward NOW by stopping imports of enemy oil, completely stopping ALL exports we do, and the resulting spike in the price of oil we can live with as it spurs innovation and invention.

Let's DO it! Let's get SERIOUS about it! President Obama, do it NOW!

 

[saveliberty]

We have capped wells all over the place in this county. I thought we were just trying to run the Arab States out of oil first.

 

[The T]

We have capped wells all over the place in this county. I thought we were just trying to run the Arab States out of oil first.

But here's the rub? The Wells have been re-filling. Why is that? I haven't seen any dinosaurs around...have you?

Fact is/ it's a natural process that happens in the mantle of the Earth due to heat pressure processes that involve hydrocarbons.

All those capped wells thought to be empty have refilled, or are on their way to refilling. The oceans even emit oil naturally from the bottoms of the depths.

 

[potter 58]

wow , we now have geologists one the board, yo brainiacks ask the oil companies that hold the leases , why they are not drilling, some of them are over 75 years old

 

[Midnight Marauder]

wow , we now have geologists one the board, yo brainiacks ask the oil companies that hold the leases , why they are not drilling, some of them are over 75 years old

The capping of wells has zero to do with drilling.

Drilling is prohibitively expensive due to punitive taxation and over-regulation. See: The Clean Air Act.

I spent several years managing large oil leases. Most all of them have many capped wells. Capped wells that aren't dry holes. The capping of wells started in the early 80s and most don't get un-capped until you see the price of crude hovering around $80-100 a barrel.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

wow , we now have geologists one the board, yo brainiacks ask the oil companies that hold the leases , why they are not drilling, some of them are over 75 years old

Also in reply to this regurgitated ignorant nonsensical talking point, one of the beautiful things about oil leases is the massive salt domes. Vast underground sources of sodium chloride, which is extracted with brine wells. Brine wells are just water wells, drilled for the specific purpose of injecting the water into the salt domes to pump out a 100% saturated sodium chloride solution, then selling it and making a killing.

There's MUCH more to the oil business than you realize. You REALLY think anyone's going to hold and pay a lease for decades without ANY return?

 

[saveliberty]

We have capped wells all over the place in this county. I thought we were just trying to run the Arab States out of oil first.

But here's the rub? The Wells have been re-filling. Why is that? I haven't seen any dinosaurs around...have you?

Fact is/ it's a natural process that happens in the mantle of the Earth due to heat pressure processes that involve hydrocarbons.

All those capped wells thought to be empty have refilled, or are on their way to refilling. The oceans even emit oil naturally from the bottoms of the depths.

Our capped wells were never dry. Just cheaper to get oil somewhere else. MM is right, if crude hits $90/barrel and stays there, the caps come off.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

We have capped wells all over the place in this county. I thought we were just trying to run the Arab States out of oil first.

But here's the rub? The Wells have been re-filling. Why is that? I haven't seen any dinosaurs around...have you?

Fact is/ it's a natural process that happens in the mantle of the Earth due to heat pressure processes that involve hydrocarbons.

All those capped wells thought to be empty have refilled, or are on their way to refilling. The oceans even emit oil naturally from the bottoms of the depths.

Our capped wells were never dry. Just cheaper to get oil somewhere else. MM is right, if crude hits $90/barrel and stays there, the caps come off.

It's much, much cheaper to import oil than bring it up domestically, that is for sure.

 

[Oddball]

wow , we now have geologists one the board, yo brainiacks ask the oil companies that hold the leases , why they are not drilling, some of them are over 75 years old

The capping of wells has zero to do with drilling.

Drilling is prohibitively expensive due to punitive taxation and over-regulation. See: The Clean Air Act.

I spent several years managing large oil leases. Most all of them have many capped wells. Capped wells that aren't dry holes. The capping of wells started in the early 80s and most don't get un-capped until you see the price of crude hovering around $80-100 a barrel.

Which also means that the claim that it'll take ten years to get those supplies on line is a bald faced lie.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

wow , we now have geologists one the board, yo brainiacks ask the oil companies that hold the leases , why they are not drilling, some of them are over 75 years old

The capping of wells has zero to do with drilling.

Drilling is prohibitively expensive due to punitive taxation and over-regulation. See: The Clean Air Act.

I spent several years managing large oil leases. Most all of them have many capped wells. Capped wells that aren't dry holes. The capping of wells started in the early 80s and most don't get un-capped until you see the price of crude hovering around $80-100 a barrel.

Which also means that the claim that it'll take ten years to get those supplies on line is a bald faced lie.

Of course.

But, the ten year claim on getting any meaningful oil out of ANWR, I haven't studied. We don't need to drill in ANWR, we need to STOP exporting and STOP importing from countries we don't like and don't like us.

 

[Toronado3800]

Can you imagine how fucking stupid we're going to look doing everything to reduce CO2 during a cooling trend? When it was cooler 18,000 years ago, most of New York State was under 20 feet of ice...is that what we're hoping for?

I will take this as admitting CO2 emissions are our best hope for warming the planet. We know this thanks to my oft quoted example of "little experiments", the CO2 rich atmosphere in the fish tank holding heat better than the "normal mix" atmosphere in an adjacent tank.

For the AGW Faithers
If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

I'm waiting myself to see. I am utterly amazed by the idea there is only one source of temperature data, right, wrong, or edited to lose.

Question:

Why?
Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Are these a series of trick questions? I really don't even KNOW the sun is 90 million or however many miles from earth. I just read similar information from seemingly different sources and start to trust it.

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

By contrary data you mean data from sources which disagree with a conclusion? I firmly believe Exxon-Mobil or BP have a financial incentive to spread information which supports their bottom lines so we will get that information. A bunch of tree hugging hippies have a faith or concern based incentive to spread information which supports their cause and we get theirs.

Global Warming concerns predate this crazy capitalist carbon credit idea so while someone in government may wish to support their job collecting carbon credits that person can not be the initial cause of the Global Warming theories. When did this credit idea come up? After Kyoto in 2002?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

[QUOTE}
In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?

Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....
[/QUOTE]
I will agree, as against capitalist ideals as it is, data should be shared. If its to be used for public policy it should be shared. Now if no one at Shell Oil thinks its worth their trouble to round up temperature data from world wide sources and publicize it something fishy has to be up. I have no idea why they would just lie down unless they the data doesn't support them.

Once again, don't think I'm an eco-nut out to take away your light bulbs and gas powered automobile. I'm just for conservatively tweaking the system since I'm conservative when it comes to things like messing up the environment.

OMG, would your new car have 20 fewer HP if xxx auto company had a .1 mpg increase in their CAFE standard! Heck, that 09 Camaro it might have the same power and just come with skinnier tires.

So, do you agree with that quote I lifted that CO2 is our best guess of what to release tons of if we do ever feel a need to raise global temperature?