More evidence

[centexfisher]

I read today that some top gun scientists who have been studying the glaciers for years have noted that glacier movement and melting has accelerated markedly. They say that they will have to revise their estimates of global oceanic water rises because of the data. They point out that this is happening in different glazial regions, so it is not simply a fluke accurance. They also point to the increase in glacial movements and melting increases over the last decade as evidence that this is a long trend development and not a cyclic one (the current naturally occuring cyclic trend started later than a decade ago).

It's scary really. The evidence for global warming continues to grow while resistance to even consider the possibilty remains high.

Sorry-I don't have the link handy to the story, but I'm sure it's readily available via a google search. Suffice it to say that I am not making it up.

[bluefin]

I don't think anyone is questioning that it is happening but rather what is the cause and ramifications and can we get back what has been lost? I don't see the oceans refreezing themselves to make new icebergs and history shows that the ice covering our planet has been decreasing since day one. Pollution from huge uncontrolled forest fires have lessened as man has been able to limit their burn areas. The pollution from these potential fires have been offset by auto and factory emissions. People have to be able to get to work, heat and cool themselves where they live. So, what do you do?

[Snagged]

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor


A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

'Little Ice Age'

Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity.

The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes.

In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.

This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it.


It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.

Over the past few thousand years there is evidence of earlier Maunder-like coolings in the Earth's climate - indicated by tree-ring measurements that show slow growth due to prolonged cold.

In an attempt to determine what happened to sunspots during these other cold periods, Dr Sami Solanki and colleagues have looked at concentrations of a form, or isotope, of beryllium in ice cores from Greenland.

The isotope is created by cosmic rays - high-energy particles from the depths of the galaxy.

The flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface is modulated by the strength of the solar wind, the charged particles that stream away from the Sun's surface.

And since the strength of the solar wind varies over the sunspot cycle, the amount of beryllium in the ice at a time in the past can therefore be used to infer the state of the Sun and, roughly, the number of sunspots.

Latest warming

Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg, Germany.

He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

Published: 2004/07/06 16:07:14 GMT

© BBC MMVI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

[Super Dave]

The same sunspot theory also results in a prediction of another little ice age in the near future to coincide with a period of greatly reduced sun spots. The reference is a Russian scientist whose name escapes me right now.

[gatorbait]

More water for us to fish in! LOL I dont doubt the findings but I believe its a cyclical thing and will go the other way at some point. Ive just never fell into the Chicken Little theory of all this stuff. I cant wait to see all the articles when we're ice skating on Galveston Bay. LOL

Z

[GUNnROD]

Here is a link to the article at JPL that has everyone running for high ground. :)
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-023

But here's a link to other scientist that say while the ice sheet is shrinking in size. It is also accumulating thickness.
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/greenland_icesheet_growing.html?4112005

[boomgoon]

News flash.... a lot of scientist are clueless!

[Makoman1]

News flash.... a lot of scientist are clueless!

As are doctors. Thats why they call it practicing medicine. But you still trust them with your life!!

[Oldeman]

News flash.... a lot of scientist are clueless!

That is so true. Show me just one scientist that has CREATED dirt or CREATED anything, for that matter. All they have been able to do is to change matter from one form to another form.

[timbo]

I've always thought scientists were just lonely, wannabe rednecks. Who else would want to clone sheep!

[gatorbait]

I've always thought scientists were just lonely, wannabe rednecks. Who else would want to clone sheep!
GATOR BOMB!

[dirtracer1]

i can't wait for the global warming high tide. when my house gets to be waterfront i'm cashing out......oh yeah. what real estate bubble?

[Farmer Jim]

More water for us to fish in!
Dang, Zac. I don't think that's so neat at all. When I go fishing I always have the distinct feeling that there is already too much water and too few fish.:(

[gatorbait]

Dang, Zac. I don't think that's so neat at all. When I go fishing I always have the distinct feeling that there is already too much water and too few fish.:(
Jim, I need to get you out in the bay with the tides we're having lately. lol Get Miss Goldie running 10k's and Ill get ya out in some action.

Z

[wet dreams]

What gets me is this is a problem with the WORLD and your pres. of the greatest nation made NO mention of it in his last State of the Union speach. But I guess this is the norm for Republicans protecting big bussiness. WW

[centexfisher]

What gets me is this is a problem with the WORLD and your pres. of the greatest nation made NO mention of it in his last State of the Union speach. But I guess this is the norm for Republicans protecting big bussiness. WWThe debate over whether or not to take proactive steps to reduce man's influence on global warming is about averting potential harm to our grandchildren vs. money. I posted this comment before and someone came back and said that since global warming has not been proven to be affected by man, it would cost too much money to take proactive steps to avert man's influence.

Money always wins in this country.

[boomgoon]

"Money always wins in this country."

Are any other countries different?

[centexfisher]

"Money always wins in this country."

Are any other countries different?I have no idea...not relevant.

[FishinChick©]

How can this not be relevant? Are we the only ones you guys want to blame for global warming? Talk about blaming everything on our government. Now we are solely responsible for the greenhouse effect. Absurd.

I have no idea...not relevant.

[FishinChick©]

buddy, if you live where you say you live, this is YOUR president too. You guys (sorry for lumping you in without knowing more about your views but the shoe seems to fit) are long on accusations and short on well-founded arguments. The last time we discussed this subject (or maybe it was 10 times ago) the arguments became so obtuse, it wasn't worth even trying to explain again.

Blaming global warming on OUR president is ABSURD. Man the whole world hates us. Let's at least support our own man until he's not "the" man anymore. :confused:

What gets me is this is a problem with the WORLD and your pres. of the greatest nation made NO mention of it in his last State of the Union speach. But I guess this is the norm for Republicans protecting big bussiness. WW

[centexfisher]

How can this not be relevant? Are we the only ones you guys want to blame for global warming? Talk about blaming everything on our government. Now we are solely responsible for the greenhouse effect. Absurd.The question was, are any other countries different in regard to maoney wns. It isn't relevant what other countries do in that respect.

Every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare. Is that relevant?

Now, the question of whether or not what other countries are doing about greehouse gasses is relevant. It was this country that refused to get on board the green gas emissions treaty (or whatever it was called). Other major players chose to try and take pro active steps. This country refused. Why? Because,since the theory is in question, it would cost too much money.

[FishinChick©]

Sorry but that was not the question. That was a statement that you made well into the thread. When you throw out comments like that while talking about a GLOBAL issue, it just reeks of "let's blame it on the administration."



The question was, are any other countries different in regard to maoney wns. It isn't relevant what other countries do in that respect.

Every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare. Is that relevant?

Now, the question of whether or not what other countries are doing about greehouse gasses is relevant. It was this country that refused to get on board the green gas emissions treaty (or whatever it was called). Other major players chose to try and take pro active steps. This country refused. Why? Because,since the theory is in question, it would cost too much money.

[centexfisher]

buddy, if you live where you say you live, this is YOUR president too. You guys (sorry for lumping you in without knowing more about your views but the shoe seems to fit) are long on accusations and short on well-founded arguments. The last time we discussed this subject (or maybe it was 10 times ago) the arguments became so obtuse, it wasn't worth even trying to explain again.

Blaming global warming on OUR president is ABSURD. Man the whole world hates us. Let's at least support our own man until he's not "the" man anymore. :confused:I don't see where he wrote that it is the presidents fault. He just took issue with global warming not being included in his speech. Our refusal to get involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a larger problem that just President Bush-as is the issue of greenouse gasses in general. The point that Bush apparently doesn't support proactive step to these reductions is certainly a valid point and not an attack on Bush, but rather taking issue with his apparent policy (or lack thereof)

I've got a great idea-why don't you Bush lovers stop turning every attack on policy into an attack on Bush? To me-that is absurd.

[centexfisher]

This was Boom's question:
""Money always wins in this country."

Are any other countries different?"

My answer is: that is not relevant. If he had asked whether it was relevant what other countries are doing about global warming, I would have expressed what I expressed later in response to you.

[FishinChick©]

I guess John, my basic message is this - I don't think you get to decide for all what is relevant and not relevant. You made a statement, boom called bs, and you said his comment was not relevant. I think it is extremely relevant when a global issue is being discussed to include other countries across the globe. Feel free to clarify if you still think I am off base.

Last comment in this post for me is that it is pretty weak to sling around monickers like "Bush lovers." I love my country and I support our leadership. When our leadership changes, I will support them too. That is what I was taught and what I am teaching my children. It is possible to question without tearing down what has taken hundreds of years to build.

This was Boom's question:
""Money always wins in this country."

Are any other countries different?"

My answer is: that is not relevant. If he had asked whether it was relevant what other countries are doing about global warming, I would have expressed what I expressed later in response to you.

[centexfisher]

I guess John, my basic message is this - I don't think you get to decide for all what is relevant and not relevant. You made a statement, boom called bs, and you said his comment was not relevant. I think it is extremely relevant when a global issue is being discussed to include other countries across the globe. Feel free to clarify if you still think I am off base.

Last comment in this post for me is that it is pretty weak to sling around monickers like "Bush lovers." I love my country and I support our leadership. When our leadership changes, I will support them too. That is what I was taught and what I am teaching my children. It is possible to question without tearing down what has taken hundreds of years to build.I did NOT say his statement is not relevant. I said (or at least meant to say) that how other countries balance money and environmental issues or whatever is not relevant to what we do in this country.

You don't mind throwing around monickers like "if you live where you say you do, support the president" or "you guys always blame everything on the president" (I realize it isn't your exact quote). I've read others (I don't recall if you were one of them) refer to anyone that attacks a Bush policy as a Bush hater. If we that attack policies are Bush Haters, then, you that try to turn every attack on Bush policies into an attack on Bush, are Bush lovers.

I already responded to you that if Boom had asked the question pertaining to what other countries are doing about global warming, it would be relevant what they are doing. Other countries are taking proactive steps. Those that don't believe we should do anything about global warming in our country don't care what they are doing in other countries or we would be moving towards taking some proactive steps.

You have taken what I have written out of context, not only ignored what the question to me by Boom was in your first post directed towards me, but ignored it when I posted the question for you to clarify.

So let me be clear:
I do NOT think Boom's question was irrelevant-I think what other countries do regarding money over anything else is not relevant to how this country behaves.

I am not a Bush hater and do NOT blame him for everything that goes bad in the world.

I take issue with some of the Bush policies and attack those policies-I never attack my president.

I take issue with being called a Bush hater just because I disagree with his policies and say so.


I don't know how to be more clear except to point out that what I originally stated was that the argument for not taking proactive steps in this country in respect to man's impact on global warming ultimately comes down to money.

BTW: Although I have never made any attempt to hide who I am to administration or to some others, I would appreciate it if my screen name were used. In my view, it is appropriate bulletin board etiquette not to use real names. Thankyou.

[Savage Rods]

All I know is that places that used to get rain, aren't. Places of past drought, are getting rain. Oceans are warmer and building more and more dangerous hurricanes. Something certainly is going on.


Don

[bluefin]

How about we announce to all the countries demanding us to join them in reducing green house gases that we will comply. However, this is going to require a large investment to get our factories up to standards. Therefore, in order to save the earth we will redirect all our foreign money giveaways and instead put them into updating our factories. Now that should make everyone happy!

[centexfisher]

How about we announce to all the countries demanding us to join them in reducing green house gases that we will comply. However, this is going to require a large investment to get our factories up to standards. Therefore, in order to save the earth we will redirect all our foreign money giveaways and instead put them into updating our factories. Now that should make everyone happy!Actually, that isn't an all together bad idea! Why spend money in countries that hate us when we could spend it right here?

[boomgoon]

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


IOU bluefin

[centexfisher]

All I know is that places that used to get rain, aren't. Places of past drought, are getting rain. Oceans are warmer and building more and more dangerous hurricanes. Something certainly is going on.


DonThat's for sure! I believe the debate has not been about the reality of global warming so much as it is a question of whether it is man made or influenced and whether it is part of a naturally occuring warming cycle. The article I posted added some new evidence that it is not cyclic, but doesn't address the man influenced issue. Personally, I think the jury is still out, but, in light of the growing evidence that it is not a part of a naturally occurring cyclic warming period, I am a proponent of taking some pro-active steps. However, in order to do this, we would have to spend money and the opponents to us taking action nearly always (if not always) eventually point to the cost of taking the steps required.

[FishinChick©]

John, you put up the second post with the clarification about boom's comment while I was typing my response to the first one. Don't assume I am ignoring you because I don't hit refresh while I am responding to your last post.

The rest is in a private message because to post it here would just further infame this discussion.

[centexfisher]

Okay. I've had that happen too, so point taken and my apologies for my part of the misunderstanding.

[Snagged]

December 06, 2003

Why the Kyoto Treaty was a Fraud

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000358.html

[centexfisher]

First, he obviosuly doesn't believe the global warming theory: "The global warming alarmists look to the UN's IPCC report". The word alarmist is strongly suggestive of his perception and attitude.

"Kyoto does not end anthropogenic warming, but only slows it down by 6 years out of 100...If you pin down a knowledgeable Kyoto advocate and ask them about this, they will (if they are honest) admit that this is true. You will then learn that the purpose of Kyoto is "to get a climate control regime started." Translated, this means "to stop anthropogenic global warming, we must make drastic cuts in CO2 usage in the future. But those will be enormously economically damaging... " Clearly, this is taken out of contect somewhat (but not much). He does not accept that we should start somewhere and, as is usual for opponents of taking proative steps, argues that it would cost too much. I also point out that while this says here that the treaty would slow down warming by 6% (6 years out of 100=6%), at the end of his rambling, he claims that the Kyoto treaty would have zero effect. He can't keep his numbers straight in one post!

"Additionally, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It is only 375 (or so) parts per million in the atmosphere. A far more significant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a much higher concentration. So be sure not to run your hydrogen powered cars... they produce water vapor!" He ignors the question of what greenhouse gasses damage the ozone in laboratory tests or how have greenhouse gasses changed over the years: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

I could go on, but my point is that this guy is squarely an opponent to taking steps to curb man's influence on global warming to the degree that he does not accept starting anywhere or taking any action partly, at least, because it cost too much money.

He also assumes that the growing trend towards redcing man's influence in global warming is by people that get their information from the media and don't read scientific literature.

So, we circle back to my original premise that even though there is a growing complex of scientific evidence that the global warming we are experiencing is NOT cyclic, is NOT part of the naturally occuring warming cycle, and that greenhouse gasses can be demonstrated to damage the ozone in the laboratory, and, that, if proven to be true, will impact our grand children's quality of lives, opponents to doing anything proactively always point to the idea that it cost too much money.

[Snagged]

Yep, and the UE has increased the amount of "greenhouse" gases they produce since Kyoto was signed.

[centexfisher]

Yes-they did in 2003-but over the years since the base year of Kyoto,1990, they still had a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Once Bush pulled out of the accord, the net effects of the accord were largely diminished, btw.

"In March 2001 President George W. Bush announced that his administration
considered the Kyoto Protocol to be fundamentally flawed and that the United
States was therefore not going to ratify the treaty. The most important objections
were that the science of climate change is uncertain, that the protocol does
not impose obligations on developing countries, and that it would be costly to
the American economy.1"...

"While the US accounts for 36% of greenhouse gas emissions
from Annex I countries, the EU accounts for 24%"...In essence, the US pulling out of the accord virtually renders the effects of the Kyoto accord minimal at best. However, the EU has continued to establish policies and act as a leader in the move towards reduction of greenhouse emissions, although some of their policies became restrictive.

http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/saetal-GEP-2003-4.pdf

[GUNnROD]

If I remember correctly. The main reason we baulked at signing was because, the U.S. would bare the brunt of the impact.

If the world wants to be serious about reducing emissions of any kind. Then it should be across the globe equal. Anything less just costs us tax dollars, but doesn't solve our grandchildrens problem.

[centexfisher]

Gun-I was wondering when you were going to jump in! :)
According to the White House Council of economic advisors, in 1998, the costs would be a few 1-th of 1% by 2010:

"Q. Would the Kyoto Protocol seriously harm the U.S. economy?
A. No. The Bush administration has done absolutely no analysis to substantiate its claim that the Kyoto Protocol or domestic policies to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants would seriously harm the U.S. economy. While industry trade associations have published many misleading claims of economic harm, two comprehensive government analyses have shown that it is possible to reduce greenhouse pollution to levels called for in the Kyoto agreement without harming the U.S. economy.
In 1998, the White House Council of Economic Advisors concluded that the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be "modest" -- no more than a few tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, equivalent to adding no more than a month or two to a ten-year forecast for achieving a vastly increased level of wealth in this country. A subsequent and more detailed study by five Department of Energy national laboratories found that policies to promote increases in energy efficiency would allow the United States to make most of the emission reductions required to comply with the Kyoto Protocol through domestic measures that have the potential to improve economic performance over the long run.[3] The only study that President Bush cited in announcing his reversal on CO2 reductions, a report by the Energy Information Administration, failed to consider the inexpensive greenhouse pollution reductions that can be achieved through energy efficiency. The study also ignored the Kyoto Protocol's flexible market mechanisms, which the United States has spent the last three years negotiating with other signatories.
While the Bush administration may assert that previous government cost studies are inaccurate, there is no basis for such a view. The current administration has not conducted its own analysis of the costs of the Kyoto agreement."

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

As for your thought that all shoudl share equally in the cost-I agree-as compared to the emissions they produce. Each should pay an equal amount per percentage of emissions that they account for. For instance-the U.S. accounts for 36% of emissions, and should pay 36% of the costs. This would be a great incentive for us to reduce our emissions, because as our share of the emissions decrease, so would our costs.

[GUNnROD]

As for your thought that all shoudl share equally in the cost-I agree-as compared to the emissions they produce. Each should pay an equal amount per percentage of emissions that they account for. For instance-the U.S. accounts for 36% of emissions, and should pay 36% of the costs. This would be a great incentive for us to reduce our emissions, because as our share of the emissions decrease, so would our costs.

No, it broke down countries into social status. And then gave the lower ranked countries a handicap that allowed them to pollute at a high rate without being penalized. I find this unacceptable. The rate of pollution should be based on population regardless of the location on the globe. Everyone is equal, or no go.

P.S. let me just say, **** on the U.N.

[centexfisher]

No, it broke down countries into social status. And then gave the lower ranked countries a handicap that allowed them to pollute at a high rate without being penalized. I find this unacceptable. The rate of pollution should be based on population regardless of the location on the globe. Everyone is equal, or no go.

P.S. let me just say, **** on the U.N.
If the U.S. is responsibel for between 36% and 75% of the greenhouse emissions (depending on which study you read-Ileand towards accpting the 36% figure), then the U.S. should take the lead as explained below from the latter link posted:

"The Kyoto agreement is consistent with the 1992 treaty principle that developed countries should provide leadership in addressing global warming. Singling out China and India, as the president has done, demonstrates the inequity in his claim of unfairness. Nearly half the population of India lives on less than $1 per day; the death rate of Indian children under 5 years is 13 times higher than in the United States; the average person in Indian uses less electricity in a year than the average American uses every two weeks. Given that developed countries have put 75 percent of accumulated greenhouse pollution in the atmosphere and the disparity in living conditions between the United States and such countries as China and India, it is morally bankrupt to argue that the United States should refuse to take additional action until the world's poor countries take the same action."

[GUNnROD]

Sorry, I'm not going to bare a burden because others didn't have enough brain cells to join the industrial revolution 100 years ago.

That's taxing me for past activity. No thank you!

But it doesn't surprise me that you support it. It's just like penalizing someone for working hard and accumulating wealth. Then taxing them at a higher rate so you can support all the idiots that won't support themselves.

[centexfisher]

Sorry, I'm not going to bare a burden because others didn't have enough brain cells to join the industrial revolution 100 years ago.

That's taxing me for past activity. No thank you!

But it doesn't surprise me that you support it. It's just like penalizing someone for working hard and accumulating wealth. Then taxing them at a higher rate so you can support all the idiots that won't support themselves.LOL! That's all I can do, Gun-just laugh! The idea that someone in a third world country has the same opportunities as you and I and should be penalized for their poor fortune is just laughable! The idea that our responsibility as the world's strongest nation and the world's greatest producer of greenhouse gasses is somehow negated by the poor slobs that had the misfortune to be born in a country that emits maybe 1% of the world's greenhouse gasses who must share the health insues involved-let alone the global warming issues is laughable.

Your suggestion that America's responsibility is negated in some wierd way is, to use your logic pattern, like saying it was okay for America to not take any responsibility for the children that our soldiers fathered in Vietnam. Personally, I think it is pretty weak logic, but since you used that type of logic I just figured I would too just for the heck of it.

I love my country and have served my country and would again if I could, but my country is not always right in the actions (or lack thereof) it takes. I think Kyoto was one of those times.

Ogf course, it all comes around to money again doesn't it-what you are saying, in essense, is that improving the air is fine and good-so long as noone takes a piece of your pie to do it. I'm curious-does this attitude extend to our waters too? How about to our drinking water? I'm just curious where the reasoning stops.

I almost forgot my disclaimer: I am not saying that Gun's opinions are not valid-just that I personally find that attitude laughable. No other meaning is implied. No insults are meant. I am only expressing my take on his statement. The opinions I type are my opinions and only my opinions and not of any other person, company or corporation and are not meant to imply that I am more right than anyone else. :)

[GUNnROD]

I'm not going to accept your 1% pollution figure.

While I agree that third world countries may not have as many industrial complexes belching toxins into the air as we do. But they have their share and that's not to say they don't make any pollution.

The U.S. did most of the environmental damage back at the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we operated back then even close to todays standards we wouldn't have a problem.

This treaty is giving these other nations the opportunity to do the same thing we did 70 years ago. We didn't know any better when we did it. But they do now.

I'm glad the President sent them packing because the deal wasn't fair for everyone.

[centexfisher]

The figures vary, but I posted three (I think 3) links, some of which bear some pretty good figures. The most notable thing for me, in terms of cost, is what our agencies reported, as posted earlier. Although the figure vary, in every estimation, America is the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses, EU is 2nd, Japan is third. If we are responsible for 36% of the world's greenhouse emissions, it is reasonable that we pick up a larger part of the tab because of our larger part in creating the problem. I can't see saying, "well, we are the biggest producers, but you little guy that is putting out 1% of the emissions have to pay as much as we do".

[centexfisher]

Here's something we might agree on-how come the common man has to pay an added tax to check our cars for emissions and then drive by industry pouring out emissions?

[GUNnROD]

Here's something we might agree on-how come the common man has to pay an added tax to check our cars for emissions and then drive by industry pouring out emissions?

Because of people like you buying into the story that the sky is falling.

I'll just say I can't come to terms with your view on most topics. This one is not an exception either. :)

[centexfisher]

That's okay, Gun-I don't get your views either-but I like arguing with you. You are, indeed, a worthy verbal sparring opponent-even if you are wrong all the time! :)

And, denial of the growing mass of evidence supporting the global warming theory won't stop or slow the warming. I'll repeat: I think the jury is still out, but ignoring the volumes of scientific work suggesting that the theory is accurate is just plain unwise.

[Bobby]

Anybody see that fence post???????:smile::smile:

[Snagged]

Centex,
If you are so worried about it liquidate your resources and donate them to your cause.
I don't want or need anybody telling me what to do with my resources.
If you want to do some real good figure a way to eliminate one and a half billion muslims and think of the amount of CO2 this would stop being produced. At the same time the world would become much more peaceful.

[centexfisher]

I can't decide which is funnier-Bobby's or Snagg's! :) You gotta love it-screw the air, leave my money alone and kill the muslims! Now, that's a campaign slogan! :)

[GUNnROD]

I can't decide which is funnier-Bobby's or Snagg's! :) You gotta love it-screw the air, leave my money alone and kill the muslims! Now, that's a campaign slogan! :)


I like it. Let's make some bumper stickers.

How about we put it up in lights.

[centexfisher]

I like it. Let's make some bumper stickers.

How about we put it up in lights.Oh, man-this is getting funnier and funnier! Where did you get that pic, Gun?

[bluefin]

Once again I see that I'm going to have to solve all the problems! First we nuke Iran. Then nuke Syria and Yemen (and maybe Nicaragua - just because). That will take care of most of our little terrorists. The rest will just have to get the message. Now, the dust and smoke will go into the atmosphere causing a miny atomic winter. This will get the rest of the world colder so we can have ice bergs again. Now, there will be no foreign oil to produce and demand will be such that a new international agreement will be forged by the remaining countries to produce better alternative power. The Christians are happy, the libs are happy and the polar bears are happy. Problem solved!!!

[Snagged]

Once again I see that I'm going to have to solve all the problems! First we nuke Iran. Then nuke Syria and Yemen (and maybe Nicaragua - just because). That will take care of most of our little terrorists. The rest will just have to get the message. Now, the dust and smoke will go into the atmosphere causing a miny atomic winter. This will get the rest of the world colder so we can have ice bergs again. Now, there will be no foreign oil to produce and demand will be such that a new international agreement will be forged by the remaining countries to produce better alternative power. The Christians are happy, the libs are happy and the polar bears are happy. Problem solved!!!
You forgot Centex and friends will sell all they own and work for free to pay for this.

[GUNnROD]

You forgot Centex and friends will sell all they own and work for free to pay for this.

Well now I'm happy for sure. :cheers:

[centexfisher]

You forgot Centex and friends will sell all they own and work for free to pay for this.Nope-but I'm willing to pay my share of the one or two percent of the GDP that it would cost-but that's just me.

Look, I'm gonna get serious for just a moment...I am a little sensitive about the "Why should I pay anything to help someone who is too dumb, too uneducated or unlucky enough to be born into poverty or some other bad situation" mentality right now. When I read posts about how someone doesn't think they should have to give up a piece of their pie to aid not only the less fortunate, but society and the world as a whole, I think of those people that could give a rat's behind about the less fortunate in this country. I am busy right now helping to put together a fund raiser for abused and neglected kids. I can't help but get a little sensitive towards the notion that that these unfortunates aren't worth a few bucks or a little of someone's time. I mean, where do you draw the line? If giving up a modest amount to make the air cleaner and healthier for everyone on the planet is too costly then why would giving up any hard earned cash be any more beneficial for a few kids that should have known better than to be born by abusive and neglectful parents? I really do apologize if my current sensitivities offend anyone. I organize fund raisers several times a year and it is amazingly hard to get folks to help where help is needed, so, as I begin this uphill struggle to do some small thing to help my community and to help some kids that are in need, I am particularly sensitive to the "not a piece of my pie" mentality. I work a day job, write professionally, publish a website, and build websites. I go fishing and I play golf. Although I only sleep 4 hours or so a night, I could not sleep at all if I did not do something to help my community. By extension, we are all living on one Earth-if I am not willing to make a modest sacrifice of a few dollars per week to make the world healthier, cleaner and safer for my kids and grand kids, who will?

If that makes me a bleeding heart, then I am guilty as charged and damned proud of it!

[boomgoon]

Man now I feel bad, Let me cancel my checks to the Shriners, the make a wish foundation, the soldier suport programs, and the other tangible charities that I believe in and just write these scientist one big check. NOT

[Bobby]

Nope-but I'm willing to pay my share of the one or two percent of the GDP that it would cost-but that's just me.

Look, I'm gonna get serious for just a moment...I am a little sensitive about the "Why should I pay anything to help someone who is too dumb, too uneducated or unlucky enough to be born into poverty or some other bad situation" mentality right now. When I read posts about how someone doesn't think they should have to give up a piece of their pie to aid not only the less fortunate, but society and the world as a whole, I think of those people that could give a rat's behind about the less fortunate in this country. I am busy right now helping to put together a fund raiser for abused and neglected kids. I can't help but get a little sensitive towards the notion that that these unfortunates aren't worth a few bucks or a little of someone's time. I mean, where do you draw the line? If giving up a modest amount to make the air cleaner and healthier for everyone on the planet is too costly then why would giving up any hard earned cash be any more beneficial for a few kids that should have known better than to be born by abusive and neglectful parents? I really do apologize if my current sensitivities offend anyone. I organize fund raisers several times a year and it is amazingly hard to get folks to help where help is needed, so, as I begin this uphill struggle to do some small thing to help my community and to help some kids that are in need, I am particularly sensitive to the "not a piece of my pie" mentality. I work a day job, write professionally, publish a website, and build websites. I go fishing and I play golf. Although I only sleep 4 hours or so a night, I could not sleep at all if I did not do something to help my community. By extension, we are all living on one Earth-if I am not willing to make a modest sacrifice of a few dollars per week to make the world healthier, cleaner and safer for my kids and grand kids, who will?

If that makes me a bleeding heart, then I am guilty as charged and damned proud of it!When do you have time to do this ? You are on here all day and night. I am retired and don't do much of anything and I spend a lot of time on here but not as much as you.

[WT427]

Sorry, I'm not going to bare a burden because others didn't have enough brain cells to join the industrial revolution 100 years ago.

That's taxing me for past activity. No thank you!

But it doesn't surprise me that you support it. It's just like penalizing someone for working hard and accumulating wealth. Then taxing them at a higher rate so you can support all the idiots that won't support themselves.LOL! That's all I can do, Gun-just laugh! The idea that someone in a third world country has the same opportunities as you and I and should be penalized for their poor fortune is just laughable! The idea that our responsibility as the world's strongest nation and the world's greatest producer of greenhouse gasses is somehow negated by the poor slobs that had the misfortune to be born in a country that emits maybe 1% of the world's greenhouse gasses who must share the health insues involved-let alone the global warming issues is laughable.:)OUR country has only been in existence for a little over 500 years. We grasped and excelled at new technology. There is no reason we should be taxed on that, while countries like India have been around for a thousand or more years and have only started to get off their butts in the last 20 years. There is no reason to punish economic prosperity. That's akin to the Democrats wanting to tax US into prosperity. It's absurd and illogical. IMO, India should be far ahead of us in techology and industry.






I find it funny that you refer to them as poor slobs. :wink:

[WT427]

I dig your new avatar Gunrod.

For all of those that don't know that's the icon of the Chinese internet police. When anyone starts talking Chinese politics on a messageboard based in China they will post that icon to let everyone know that he/she is being watched.

Man, i'm glad that we are all free still.

[centexfisher]

When do you have time to do this ? You are on here all day and night. I am retired and don't do much of anything and I spend a lot of time on here but not as much as you.Alot of my work is on the computer, so I'll take a break and check in, then go back to work. Actually, I was just looking at that post I made last night and thinking about removing it-I think I was getting cabin fever!

[Snagged]

Nope-but I'm willing to pay my share of the one or two percent of the GDP that it would cost-but that's just me.

Look, I'm gonna get serious for just a moment...I am a little sensitive about the "Why should I pay anything to help someone who is too dumb, too uneducated or unlucky enough to be born into poverty or some other bad situation" mentality right now. When I read posts about how someone doesn't think they should have to give up a piece of their pie to aid not only the less fortunate, but society and the world as a whole, I think of those people that could give a rat's behind about the less fortunate in this country. I am busy right now helping to put together a fund raiser for abused and neglected kids. I can't help but get a little sensitive towards the notion that that these unfortunates aren't worth a few bucks or a little of someone's time. I mean, where do you draw the line? If giving up a modest amount to make the air cleaner and healthier for everyone on the planet is too costly then why would giving up any hard earned cash be any more beneficial for a few kids that should have known better than to be born by abusive and neglectful parents? I really do apologize if my current sensitivities offend anyone. I organize fund raisers several times a year and it is amazingly hard to get folks to help where help is needed, so, as I begin this uphill struggle to do some small thing to help my community and to help some kids that are in need, I am particularly sensitive to the "not a piece of my pie" mentality. I work a day job, write professionally, publish a website, and build websites. I go fishing and I play golf. Although I only sleep 4 hours or so a night, I could not sleep at all if I did not do something to help my community. By extension, we are all living on one Earth-if I am not willing to make a modest sacrifice of a few dollars per week to make the world healthier, cleaner and safer for my kids and grand kids, who will?

If that makes me a bleeding heart, then I am guilty as charged and damned proud of it!
Centex,
This should be a seperate thread.
The power to tax, is the power to enslave.
As usual you have it wrong. We are willing to give a helping hand to those who need it. But as soon as you get government involved you get massive waste, entitlements and fraud.
Under the curent do-gooder system people who work are sick and tired of being FORCED to support those who won't work or attempt to pay their own way.
What we don't want is to support those who are un-willing to work or those who's personal greed is milking the system.
What we don't want or need is government paying for (tax payers paying for) greater incomes for industry managers. This is all you get when the governent gives tax breaks, tax credits, or incentives to industry.
I want a new 50 foot sportfisher, are you going to have the government pay for it? Perhaps I should be allowed to take a percentage of YOUR income to pay for it? If I really want it, I'll pay for it. If you want something you pay for it. It's just that simple.

[centexangler]

Centex,
This should be a seperate thread.
The power to tax, is the power to enslave.
As usual you have it wrong. We are willing to give a helping hand to those who need it. But as soon as you get government involved you get massive waste, entitlements and fraud.
Under the curent do-gooder system people who work are sick and tired of being FORCED to support those who won't work or attempt to pay their own way.
What we don't want is to support those who are un-willing to work or those who's personal greed is milking the system.
What we don't want or need is government paying for (tax payers paying for) greater incomes for industry managers. This is all you get when the governent gives tax breaks, tax credits, or incentives to industry.
I want a new 50 foot sportfisher, are you going to have the government pay for it? Perhaps I should be allowed to take a percentage of YOUR income to pay for it? If I really want it, I'll pay for it. If you want something you pay for it. It's just that simple.
Actually, I agree with you on each point. The operative word is "won't", as opposed to "can't", in my view though...anyway,that is a different topic...I am suggesting that since America is the greatest producer, it should take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess. We have all complained at one time or another about individuals not taking responsibility for their actions-I'm complaining now about our government not taking respopnsibility for it's actions-but I guess that's okay, so long as it doesn't cost of any money.

I've grown tired of this discussion. Those that pooh-pooh the issue will continue to do so and those of us that think we need to take a good long look at it and take some proactive steps will continue to think so. The truth of the matter will become evident in about a decade or so. Until then, I hope those that disbelieve the idea and are willing to do nothing are right. If global warming is real and if it is contributed to by man, it might be too late to reverse the effects a decade or more from now. But that's just me-I'm a "Plan for the worst and hope for the best" kind of guy. But then, that would cost some money, wouldn't it?

[Aggiedan]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/headers/fnc_logo05.gif (http://www.foxnews.com/index.html)


Kyoto's Quiet Anniversary

Thursday, February 16, 2006

By Steven Milloy

Global warming alarmists marked the Kyoto Protocol’s first anniversary in subdued fashion this week. The treaty so far has been a failure and its future doesn’t appear much brighter.

As tallied up at JunkScience.com courtesy of the global warmers’ own data, Kyoto is estimated (http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm) to have cost about $150 billion so far, while only hypothetically reducing the average global temperature by 0.0015 degrees Centigrade.

At that rate, it would take 667 years and cost $100 trillion to hypothetically avert just 1 degree Centigrade of global warming.

But such infinitesimal estimates of averted global warming would only apply, of course, if Kyoto’s signatories actually complied with its provisions. They are finding it virtually impossible to even do that.

Kyoto obligates the European Union to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent from 1990-levels by 2012. But the European Environmental Agency projects that EU greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 will be 7 percent above the 1990 levels.

The Russian news agency Novosti took a charitably long-term view of Kyoto noting, “Many people question the effect of the measures outlined by the Kyoto Protocol on the climate. Today, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approximately 370 PPM (units of these gases per million units of the air).

"In 2012, as compared with the base year of 1990, their concentration will increase by 18 PPM, if the Kyoto measures are not carried out, or by 16-17 PPM, if they are implemented. It transpires that the effect of these measures on the climate is a mere 1-2 PPM. This fact allows the critics of the Kyoto Protocol to describe it as ineffective. But experts maintain that a reduction by even 1 PPM is quite good, considering that the task of stabilizing greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere has been set for a hundred years, not for five.”

I doubt that world leaders, however, will perpetually sacrifice 2 percent or more of their nations’ annual economic growth, year after year, for no tangible benefits.

While Kyoto’s failure may be news to the public, it’s not to former vice president and global-warmer-in-chief Al Gore, who smugly admitted on Jan. 4 at a political gathering that included yours truly, “Did we think Kyoto would work when we signed it ?... Hell no!”

Gore explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on the environment – quite an expensive political exercise.

A year into Kyoto, global warmers seem to be focusing more on melodrama than science.

There’s NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s claim, first reported in the [i]New York Times, that the agency is trying to “silence” him by asking to preview his lectures, papers and Internet postings before he goes public. To Hansen, this “seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States.”

Hyperbole aside, Hansen cannot credibly claim to have been censored on global warming. He first sounded the climate alarm in 1988 congressional testimony and has since been quite outspoken on the topic. He gives more speeches than the agency’s head, according to NASA.

Hansen’s problem isn’t that anyone is trying to silence him; it’s that he has a track record of being wrong – for example, overestimating 1990s warming by 200 percent (http://www.sepp.org/reality/michreviews.html).

Then there’s the new Al Gore movie – a documentary production of his global warming lecture and slide show – that was recently screened at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie’s promotional material features penguins trekking as in the hit documentary “March of the Penguins” – but across a desert rather than Antarctic ice.

To those unfamiliar with the global warming controversy, Gore’s one-sided movie may appear compelling. Pictures of melting glaciers, ominous temperature graphs and cartoons for the science-impaired – one features Mister Sunbeam trapped by the Greenhouse Gas bullies – give the impression that the planet is doomed unless we cede control to global warming alarmists.

“We are recklessly, mindlessly destroying the Earth. As Lincoln said, ‘We must disenthrall ourselves. And then we will save our country.’ And our planet,” Gore said in a statement.

“Reckless” and “mindless” are certainly some of the terms that occurred to me after watching Gore’s slide show. Some glaciers are receding, but others (omitted from his slides) are advancing. No one knows what causes glaciers to advance and retreat – the physics are complex and much more is involved than simply air temperature.

University of Virginia climatologist Pat Michaels points out, for example, that, “Glaciers have been receding ever since John Muir first publicized them in the 19th century” – well before the advent of significant manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Gore’s graphs imply that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide historically have preceded increases in global temperature. But a 2005 study in the journal [i]Science reported that higher temperatures may actually have preceded increased carbon dioxide levels in the past – the opposite of the global warming hypothesis (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp).

Were that fact mentioned in Al Gore’s movie, the Kyoto Protocol might not survive its second anniversary.

[GUNnROD]

I dig your new avatar Gunrod.

For all of those that don't know that's the icon of the Chinese internet police. When anyone starts talking Chinese politics on a messageboard based in China they will post that icon to let everyone know that he/she is being watched.

Man, i'm glad that we are all free still.

Yup I saw it on Drudge and it caught my eye. And I found it very fitting after I read the story behind it.

[GUNnROD]

Aggiedan, here's a pic that I think is fitting for Al Gore and is Global Warming views.

http://home.att.net/~alanj.hall/AlGoreAndGlowingOrb.JPG

[Snagged]

Aggiedan,
Thank you. I saw that and couldn't remember where it was.

[Aggiedan]

Good pic GUNnROD :)
No problem Snagged.

[timbo]

That pic looks like Gore spit up a flamin' hairball LOL

[kenny]

I believe global warming is the latest invention of the "me generation" us baby boomers.
It's all part of what I call the arrogance of the present. We are so self-focused that it's impossible to imagine a world without us. It's our collective fear of death and our ego that drives us to decide that if we are going to die the earth has to also end. Wa-la global warming.

[capn]

Money is definitely more important than chicken little theories. We won't know if global warming is cyclical or not for another 100 years or so, and evidence suggests that the earth just goes through these cycles. Making judgments about earthwide outcomes based on a few decades of evidence, when the earth is supposedly millions of years old, is just ridiculous.

I for one am glad that we didn't cave to world political pressures and throw our money away. You can call it 1% of GDP all you want - who do you think will pay for it? Not the 2% of the people that make 95% of the money in this country. The cost would have gotten passed on to the little people.

Work to prevent polution and create cleaner air, sure. But don't spend ridiculous amounts of money on some far fetched theory when there are much more pressing problems that we're sure about.