global warmongering

[CharlestonChad]

If my ideas won't stop global warming, what will?

Complete dependence on renewable resources.

 

[glockmail]

Complete dependence on renewable resources.

Like what? Ever figger out how many windmills you'd need for that?

 

[flaja]

Complete dependence on renewable resources.

Perhaps, but what would such dependence do to our standard of living?

 

[red states rule]

On Tonight Show, Dennis Miller Displays Newsweek's 1975 'Cooling World' Article
Posted by Brent Baker on December 6, 2006 - 00:58.
Cued up by Jay Leno on Tuesday's Tonight Show to deliver some quips about global warming, Dennis Miller did some show and tell as he reached behind his chair for a hard copy of the April 28, 1975 Newsweek. That's the edition often cited by doubters of dire global warming predictions because its story, “The Cooling World,” illustrates the fickle nature of media-fueled hysteria. Miller explained that “I had heard about this on the Internet, Jay, and I went back and got a copy of it. It's a Newsweek magazine” with “The Cooling World” as “the big story in the 'Science' section.” Miller pointed to a chart on the page showing “the temperature of the planet is dropping off” and he marveled at how “it says the solution to the global cooling problem is to deliberately melt the polar ice caps” -- the very phenomenon now cited as proof of global warming.

Miller's rundown, on the December 5 Tonight Show with Jay Leno on NBC, of what the 1975 Newsweek contended:


“Now this whole article is about the cooling world and you can see over here where they've got a chart where the temperature of the planet is dropping off and down here at the bottom is my favorite part. I've starred it. It says the solution to the global cooling problem is to deliberately melt the polar ice caps. Now this is like 30 years ago, this what we believed. Now we've changed -- and I'm not saying that maybe in the year 2036 it doesn't go back in the other way -- I just don't think we control it like we think we do.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/9473

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, so I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. It applies to global warming, and I make the same argument with those who consider macroeconomics a true "hard" science. You hear someone say "well country X just passed law Y and Z, and they aren't impoverished!" Well yeah, but in science you're supposed to control one variable at a time, and when studying entire nations, there are thousands of variables which change in any given year. Not that looking at historical examples and case studies is bad, it's just not real science per se.

Getting back to global warming, I think we might very well be seeing a warming trend. And it is a scientific fact that CO2 is higher, we can measure that. But then they assume that because A and B go together when looking at ice cores, A must cause B. But perhaps B is causing A? Perhaps warming/cooling cycles are caused by some unidentified source--Malinkovich cycles perhaps--and the CO2 is the effect, not the cause. ie, the earth warms up because of cyclical deviations in it's orbit, and the rise in CO2 is caused by increased volcanic activity, or melting permafrost, or increased forest fires.

Anyway, back on topic:

1) It is my understanding that crop yields would fall tremendously without modern farming techniques, I think Penn and Teller covered this, but I don't remember any specifics.

2) I don't think we should be encouraging biodiesel, period. It's expensive for a reason, it uses more resources than regular fuel. What we should be doing is encouraging CNG-powered vehicles. It's relatively practical compared to batteries or hydrogen, clean, and plentiful.

3 & 5) I am actually a big fan of the architectural and town layout goals of NU, but I think they are making some mistakes. I definitely support some of their goals which involve removing stupid, stupid government regulations which either mandate sprawl or strongly favor it.

* Zoning laws which forbid residential/retail/commercial segregation. Why is it illegal to build apartments on top of retail, almost everywhere? Let's get rid of those restrictions.

* Property taxes based on property value. Ugh. If you build a nice dignified building, it gets taxed more than the shitty strip mall. If you absolutely must have property taxes, base them on square footage.

* Setbacks: it's usually mandatory to set your house or business back from the street a certain distance, which makes for a pedestrian-unfriendly environment, and wastes land.

* Parking lot minimums: businesses have to have a minimum amount of parking. What a stupid, land-wasting regulation. Most modern businesses I see have their parking lots half empty 99% of the year. Let them fill the lots in somewhat with other buildings.

* Trees cannot be planted along roads, due to 1950's era notions of safety. Unfortunately, this never reduced traffic deaths since people speed up when given extra-wide lanes and no side barriers. It's the same story for other formerly-popular traffic-calming devices. While these devices do not work to reduce traffic or traffic deaths, they do a fine job of making cities unfriendly to pedestrians.

But the biggest subsidy to sprawl is our government-owned highway system, and the way it's financed. I think the only way NU is going to be re-implemented on a mass scale is to switch to a toll-based road system, with rates based on time of day and location. Charge higher rates during rush hour and areas that are prone to traffic jams, just like movie theaters and phone companies charge higher rates at certain times. This is what a private road company would do, and it will create a demand for mass transit and smaller/decentralized retail. I may elaborate on this more later, but I think I've probably typed out too much already.

 

[red states rule]

First it was global cooling - then global warming - now again with the global cooling.

Can't these kooks keep their lies straight?


Small Nuclear War Could Lead to Cooldown
By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer
Mon Dec 11, 6:55 PM

SAN FRANCISCO - Some of the scientists who first advanced the controversial "nuclear winter" theory more than two decades ago have come up with another bleak forecast: Even a regional nuclear war would devastate the environment.

Using modern climate and population models, researchers estimated that a small-scale nuclear conflict between two warring nations would cause 3 million to 17 million immediate casualties and lead to a marked cooldown of the planet that could lead to crop failures and further misery.

As dire as the predictions seem, they fall short of nuclear winter. That theory says that smoke and dust from an atomic war between the superpowers would blot out the sun, plunge the Earth into the deep freeze and cause mass starvation, wiping out 90 percent of the Earth's population, or billions of people.

The new scenario offers no estimate of the number of deaths from the environmental effects of a regional nuclear war.

Still, scientists said the scenario points to the danger of small nuclear states obtaining atomic warheads.

The study, presented Monday at an American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, was described as the first to document in detail the climatic effects of a nuclear war on a regional scale.

Some climate experts not connected with the research questioned some of the assumptions made in the studies.

For example, the studies assume that smoke is mostly made up of soot. But other organic particles could cause smoke to scatter and not stay aloft in the atmosphere as long, lessening the impact, said scientist Steve Ghan of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

"I think the effects of the smoke are exaggerated, but it does give people pause to think about," Ghan said. "It suggests that anyone who is contemplating attacking another country is not going to be immune to the impacts on their own countries."

The late astronomer Carl Sagan and four colleagues developed the nuclear winter theory, calculating in 1983 the possible effects of an all-out nuclear attack between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Other scientists have disputed the degree of damage to the Earth.

The superpowers' nuclear stockpiles have shrunk considerably since the end of the Cold War. But some of the scientists behind the nuclear winter theory _ including Brian Toon of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles _ decided to revisit the topic in light of more recent world tensions.

In October, North Korea announced that it had tested a nuclear bomb. Iran is also pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Other members or presumed members of the nuclear club include India, Pakistan and Israel.

The new studies looked at the consequences if two nations dropped 50 Hiroshima-size bombs on each other's big cities. By analyzing population data and distance from blast, scientists predicted a regional nuclear war would kill 3 million people in Israel and up to 17 million in China. The U.S. would see 4 million blast deaths.

But the researchers say black soot from the fires would linger in the atmosphere, blocking the sun's rays and causing average global surface temperatures to drop about 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the first three years. Although the planet would see a gradual warming within a decade, it would still be colder than it was before the war, the scientists said.

The cooldown would shorten the growing season by about a month in parts of North America, Europe and Asia. Normal rainfall patterns such as summer monsoons in Africa and Southeast Asia would be disrupted, possibly causing huge crop failures.

In addition, the ozone layer, which keeps out harmful ultraviolet radiation, would shrink more than 20 percent, with the poles seeing a 70 percent reduction.

___http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2006/12/11/539470.html&cvqh=itn_nukewar

 

[glockmail]

First it was global cooling - then global warming - now again with the global cooling.

Can't these kooks keep their lies straight?

....

Do you really think they are lying, or do they just despise advanced civilization and human impact on their religion of Mother Earth?

 

[red states rule]

BOTH!!!!


It's Not About the Oceans or the Planet.
It's About Taking Capitalist America Down

You know what else amazes me about all this? I mean, just putting it point-blank. You cannot go anywhere, commune with nature and not be in awe of the majesty and the beauty, the complexity, the genius behind it all. It certainly isn't us. I'm basically describing nature, and yet isn't it fascinating that those on the left look at this and see destruction. They look, on the left, and they see no beauty. They hide their motives behind wanting to preserve beauty, but all they see is destruction, from natural forces. Methane, from cow gas. I've seldom encountered an entire group of people so obsessed with doom and gloom and apocalyptic thought. It runs the gamut from politics to nature to wherever.

These people are obsessed with everything being destroyed, while there's no evidence of it in the history of the world. It always rejuvenates and recycles. How you can look at this creation and this planet and see destruction of natural forces and not be awed by its beauty is beyond me. Now, try this. This is from the Associated Press. This is how it works. By the way, I want to stress, folks, I'm not obsessed with the environment. I am obsessed with capitalism and its preservation, and this is an attack on capitalism and the systems here that have made this the richest and greatest country in the history of human civilization, with more opportunity and prosperity each and every day than the day before. It is under assault and the environment and all these other causes and isms are simply the means by which the people are trying to get to that destruction of the exceptionalism of this country.

Here's how it happens. Dateline San Francisco: "Jill Cody used to feel guilty whenever she drove her car or flew on an airplane." Now, why? Because she has been pummeled her whole life by how she is creating a crime against nature! She's polluting. She's wasting. There are people starving around the world! She's enjoying her life. She is helping to create the destruction of the climate to keep us all alive. Why shouldn't she feel guilty? "She worried about pumping heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. But the San Jose professor found a way to ease her conscience. She paid a San Francisco company called TerraPass to offset emissions from her car and air travel by investing in wind power and reducing farm pollution. 'I'm part of the solution, not the problem,' said Cody, who sports a TerraPass decal on the decade-old Lexus she drives about 6,000 miles a year.

"'Now I don't feel guilty when I drive my car.' As anxiety over global climate change rises, a growing number of companies and nonprofit groups are offering eco-conscious consumers a chance to compensate the planet for the carbon emissions they generate when they drive, fly, use electricity or heat their homes. So-called 'carbon offsets' are becoming increasingly popular, but critics say they are just a way to assuage consumer guilt and do little to combat climate change. At worst, they can encourage consumption and prevent people from making carbon-cutting lifestyle changes..." This is so patently absurd. The woman has been made guilty by her own biases, liberalism no doubt. She's been pummeled by the media all these years. Now she's convinced that putting a decal on her car is helping cut emissions and so she's driving with less guilt and probably more, thinking somebody else is making up for her unfair overuse of resources.

This is how this stuff works. This is how you make people hate your own country.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ home...ue_.member.html

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Do you really think they are lying, or do they just despise advanced civilization and human impact on their religion of Mother Earth?

I think it's the latter. I'll make a prediction, too.

The price of wind power is coming down. The price per kilowatt goes down tremendously with increasing blade size, and as materials/manufacturing science improves, we'll see mass scale wind farms being adopted by profit-seeking capitalists, massive offshore things and so forth. Once this happens, we'll start hearing theories about how the acres and acres of windfarms disrupt normal airflow patterns. Some grant-seeking university professor will produce studies showing how temperature extremes have been exacerbated since 2030--colder at the poles, warmer at the equator--and deduce that since wind farms really hit their stride in the 2020's, they are slowing the air currents that work to equalize temperatures. Other grant-seeking profs will jump on the bandwagon, while other scientists (who think it's just a coincidence) will not get grant money.

Meanwhile, the same phenomenon will be observed on Mars (like global warming is now). Instead of admitting that there is something huge going on that we don't completely understand, this knowledge will be brushed aside.

 

[glockmail]

I think it's the latter. I'll make a prediction, too.

The price of wind power is coming down. The price per kilowatt goes down tremendously with increasing blade size, and as materials/manufacturing science improves, we'll see mass scale wind farms being adopted by profit-seeking capitalists, massive offshore things and so forth. Once this happens, we'll start hearing theories about how the acres and acres of windfarms disrupt normal airflow patterns. Some grant-seeking university professor will produce studies showing how temperature extremes have been exacerbated since 2030--colder at the poles, warmer at the equator--and deduce that since wind farms really hit their stride in the 2020's, they are slowing the air currents that work to equalize temperatures. Other grant-seeking profs will jump on the bandwagon, while other scientists (who think it's just a coincidence) will not get grant money.

Meanwhile, the same phenomenon will be observed on Mars (like global warming is now). Instead of admitting that there is something huge going on that we don't completely understand, this knowledge will be brushed aside.

I don't doubt that you are right, which is my primary reason against them. we could put vertical turbines in the Gulf Stream of the coast of North Carolina (water is much denser than air, and thus ocean currents would provide much more electrictity), but it would be at the detriment of Europe, which is warmed by this current.

That's why I like nukes.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Once this happens, we'll start hearing theories about how the acres and acres of windfarms disrupt normal airflow patterns. Some grant-seeking university professor will produce studies showing how temperature extremes have been exacerbated since 2030--colder at the poles, warmer at the equator--and deduce that since wind farms really hit their stride in the 2020's, they are slowing the air currents that work to equalize temperatures.

ahahahahha it looks like I was right!

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/11/0056217

"The Globe and Mail is currently running an article on a recent wind power study. A group of Canadian and American scientists has modelled the effects of introducing massive amounts of wind farms into North America and have come up with surprising results. While still having only 1/5th the impact of fossil fuels, wind power will still adjust the earth's climate with the equatorial regions warmed while the arctic grows colder. Could this be a boon for the nuclear lobby, or is this just further evidence for a diversified power-generating system?"

 

[glockmail]

ahahahahha it looks like I was right!

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/11/0056217

To continue reading this article, you will need to purchase this article.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, so I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

Yeah, actually there is an earth without manmade greenhouse gasses, the Earth of the past, before man starting producing more than his biological share of greenhouse gasses. Your evaluation of the scientific validity of global warming completely ignores this fact, and the fact that global warming science is in fact rooted in records of past temperatures and greenhouse gasses.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the earth is truly getting any warmer as a whole. It is true that the air over urban centers has gotten warmer over the past 20 years or so, but there is some indication that the air over non-urban centers has shown no change in temperature over the past 50 years or so. Any increase in temperature measurements likely is due to the fact over the past 40, and especially the past 20, years, land-based weather monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban sprawl. Since urban surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) trap more heat than woodland or farmland or water does, it is only natural that recorded temperatures have gone up. But, since this stored heat has not traveled to non-urban areas, it does not add up to global warming.

You're ignoring the fact that the conclusion that there is a warming trend is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, such as glacial melt measurements, satellite photos of the ice-caps, as well as the measurement of ocean temperatures.

The urban heat island effect is nothing new and you haven't pointed out anything that global warming scientists are unaware of. And, much like global warming, its nothing that's in much controversy within the scientific community.

I support the 5 options I have outlined here, but I do so to achieve goals other than combating global warming. I support these things in order to promote national security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from hostile countries, save money by harnessing nature to do what we now have petroleum and manmade chemicals do, promote local economic self-reliance and improve societal cohesion by promoting neighborhoods and communities rather than suburbs. But, because I don’t accept the left’s global warming dogma, I get nothing but hostility from left-leaning environmentalists.

Like, which left leaning-environmentalists? What are their names, do they post here? I think your ideas for the most part are good except that some of them seem like excessive government intrusion.

It's good that we can realize the goals who warn of global warming and those who wish to reduce dependence on foreign oil are similar. It would be great if those in Congress felt the same, but the Republicans there seem to think the only good way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to drill for more here and the Democrats fail to realize they may have shared goals with the Republicans, even though those shared goals have different motivations.

This tells me that the true goal of left-leaning environmentalists is not the saving of the environment, but rather the destruction of America through the worshipping of nature.

? OK? That doesn't really make much sense.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

5. We have trains and busses now: Amtrak and Greyhound. They suck because of the unions that control them.

I was under the impression that Greyhound was free to enter into contracts of its choosing within the free market they are a part of.

I don’t see any advocating of nuclear power here. 500 nuke plants would take the place off all imported oil, and reduce CO2 emissions drastically.

Nuclear power sounds great to me. We need to spend more researching thermonuclear power - if we had that we'd have virtually an unlimited supply of clean, wasteless power.

Problem with nuclear power in the present is that it costs about the same as other forms of power to produce - there is no profit motive to produce nuclear power as opposed to fossil fuel power - and the right generally doesn't believe in the government interefering with anything (except personal liberty and other countries, of course) - so I don't see how you guys expect it to get done.

 

[glockmail]

I was under the impression that Greyhound was free to enter into contracts of its choosing within the free market they are a part of.



Nuclear power sounds great to me. We need to spend more researching thermonuclear power - if we had that we'd have virtually an unlimited supply of clean, wasteless power.

Problem with nuclear power in the present is that it costs about the same as other forms of power to produce - there is no profit motive to produce nuclear power as opposed to fossil fuel power - and the right generally doesn't believe in the government interefering with anything (except personal liberty and other countries, of course) - so I don't see how you guys expect it to get done.

1. You may be right, but the still suck. Amtrak is never on time, more often thna not misses connections, so an 8 hour trip takes a day longer.

2. Fusion power would be great, but we don't have that technology yet. we have great nuclear technology right now, and it is cheaper than oil or coal, especially when you figger the environmental costs.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1. You may be right, but the still suck. Amtrak is never on time, more often thna not misses connections, so an 8 hour trip takes a day longer.

2. Fusion power would be great, but we don't have that technology yet. we have great nuclear technology right now, and it is cheaper than oil or coal, especially when you figger the environmental costs.

1. Greyhound is proof that the free market can't solve everything

2. The "environmental costs" aren't anything that corporations and private companies are concerned about, because they don't have to pay for them. There is clearly no economic motive for an energy company to make a big move to nuclear power - or else they'd be doing it already. The only way to clean up power is with government inteference.

a) yes thermo is still a long way off but long term I think its the only thing that's going to save us. We are dependent on producing large amounts of energy, and thermo could provide this. I'm not one of those nuclear waste alarmists - but even that will eventually pile up over time. The sole byprofuct of fusion would be helium, an inert gas.
b) given that - yes we should aim our efforts at using present day technology. We should get as much energy as possible from sources like solar, wind, and hydro (though we should be very careful about building new hydro sources because they can obviously have other negative environmental effects) - and then make up the difference between what we can get with those sources and what we need with nuclear power.

Unfortunately many in the environmental movement are afraid of nuclear power. Its understandable, given that nuclear wase is the most toxic substance one can think of. But the fact is, its small, and easy to contain, compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gasses produced with fossil fuel energy.

 

[glockmail]

1. Greyhound is proof that the free market can't solve everything

2. The "environmental costs" aren't anything that corporations and private companies are concerned about, because they don't have to pay for them. There is clearly no economic motive for an energy company to make a big move to nuclear power - or else they'd be doing it already. The only way to clean up power is with government inteference.

a) yes thermo is still a long way off but long term I think its the only thing that's going to save us. We are dependent on producing large amounts of energy, and thermo could provide this. I'm not one of those nuclear waste alarmists - but even that will eventually pile up over time. The sole byprofuct of fusion would be helium, an inert gas.
b) given that - yes we should aim our efforts at using present day technology. We should get as much energy as possible from sources like solar, wind, and hydro (though we should be very careful about building new hydro sources because they can obviously have other negative environmental effects) - and then make up the difference between what we can get with those sources and what we need with nuclear power.

Unfortunately many in the environmental movement are afraid of nuclear power. Its understandable, given that nuclear wase is the most toxic substance one can think of. But the fact is, its small, and easy to contain, compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gasses produced with fossil fuel energy.

1. Greyhound is much better than Amtrak, yet the latter is heavily financed by government and runs on its own dedicated right of way. This is a perfect example of how government screws things up.
2. Industry has not built a new nuclear plant in 20 years because of excessive government regulation and an army of liberal nay-sayers. Get rid of both and private industry will be building 20 plants per year. This will clean up the air as well as deny revenues to mid-east terrorist countries.
3. Solar power is the highest per unit cost. Windmills are fought off by environmentalists and would kill birds and cause climate change if enough were built. Ocean mills would kill fish and change the climate as well. Cost effective river hydo sources have all been exploited, and the environmentalists want those all dismantled for fish habitat.
4. Nukes are available now. The waste can be safely stored for centuries, until the technology exists to recycle that as well. Fusion has been promised for 40 years now and the technology has only gotten further away.