ImWithStupid
New member
Allegedly.
Al Gore's Tennessee Home Wasting Electricity
- Thread starter ImWithStupid
- Start date
Anna Perenna
New member
By leading scientists and other climate change experts.Allegedly.
Denied predominantly by armchair pundits in Yokeltown, USA.
ImWithStupid
New member
Keep drinking the Kool-aid if you think anything we do will make a significant difference.
Look at this closely...
View attachment 1984
What Al Gore wants the ignorant not to notice is that it appears that temperatures peak and then CO2 rises as a result.
Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland 600 years ago. Must have been those high carbon emitting SUV's they were driving around.
Also, the whole claim that "leading scientist agree" and "all the science is in" is also a bunch of ****. There are many credible climatologists that don't agree, and strangely enough, they keep getting uninvited to the major media conferences on the climate.
Remember these days?
Newsweek’s 1975 Article About Coming Ice Age | Sweetness & Light
I do.
I remember reading all about the coming "ice age" in magazines and seeing it on the news in the 70's so pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of the rise of temperatures of 1 degreee over the last 100 years and no rise and even a bit of a drop in the past 10 years. These supposed "leading scientists" that predict this catastrophic global warming also said that we have done so much damage that the Earth won't be able to adjust on it's own, but when temps were down the past few years they say that the Earth is making a minor adjustment.
Then again either I'm just a dumb *** from Yokeltown USA or I'm not a mindless leming who can read more than one side of an issue and formulate my own opinion.
Anna Perenna
New member
You keep mentioning Al Gore like I'm some kind of mindless fan of his, but not once have I mentioned him.
I'm taking my lead from climate change experts in Australia like Professors Andy Pitman and Matthew England who are actually out there, doing the research, much like they have been for years.
Why are you so desperate to discount climate change severity anyway - wouldn't it be wiser to err on the side of caution?
I'm taking my lead from climate change experts in Australia like Professors Andy Pitman and Matthew England who are actually out there, doing the research, much like they have been for years.
Why are you so desperate to discount climate change severity anyway - wouldn't it be wiser to err on the side of caution?
Anna Perenna
New member
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5CHtYR_Sik&feature=user]YouTube - Climate Change, Migration and Environmental Refugees[/ame]
snafu
New member
You got to be kidding me right? That flick is an hour long. Snoze.........
I think there is global warming. We see it right here in Alaska. They say in about 4 years Newtok AK will be gone. It's on a course that no one can stop. It's called evolution. We can' t win a battle with mother nature. And Al Gore (who's name is in the title of the thread, thats why IWS was bringing him up) can kiss my oil burning ***.
Eroding Alaska towns get financial help - Climate Change - MSNBC.com
Anna Perenna
New member
But you seem so interested in the issue, Snafu. Don't you want to learn some more about it?
Besides, Professor Andy Pitman is the first speaker and he doesn't talk for too long.
Yes, but I'm not interested in Al Gore the man. His movie merely served as the catalyst for climate change becoming an important topical subject - which is great.
As for your stand on global warming/climate change - what if you're wrong? What if the severity of climate change is reversible - don't you want to try and do something?
Some experts think it is somewhat reversible, and I'm glad to hear it:
Timeline for Irreversible Climate Change
.... if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its present 385 ppm (parts per million) to, at most, 350 ppm. We find that peak CO2 can be kept to about 425 ppm, with large estimates for oil and gas reserves, if coal use is phased out by 2030 (except where CO2 is captured and sequestered) and unconventional fossil fuels are not tapped substantially. Peak CO2 can be kept close to 400 ppm, if actual reserves are closer to those estimated by "peakists," who believe that the globe is already at peak global oil production, having extracted about half of readily extractable oil resources.
This lower 400 ppm peak can be ensured, assuming phase-out of coal emissions by 2030, if a practical limit on reserves is achieved by means of actions that prevent fossil-fuel extraction from public lands, off-shore regions under government control, environmentally pristine regions and extreme environments. The concerned public can influence this matter, but time is short, the industry voice is strong and climate effects have not yet become so obvious to the public as to overwhelm the disinformation from industry moguls.
A near-term moratorium on coal-fired power plants and constraints on oil extraction in extreme environments are essential, because once CO2 is emitted to the air much of it will remain there for centuries. Improved agricultural and forestry practices, mostly reforestation, could draw down atmospheric CO2 about 50 ppm by the end of the century. But a greater drawdown by such more-or-less natural methods seems impractical, making a long-term overshoot of the 350 ppm target level, with potentially disastrous consequences, a near certainty if the world stays on its business-as-usual course.
If we choose a different path, which permits the possibility of achieving 350 ppm CO2 or lower this century, we can minimize the chance of passing tipping points that spiral out of control, such as disintegration of ice sheets, rapid sea level rise and extermination of countless species. At the same time, we could solve problems that seem intractable, such as acidification of the ocean with consequent loss of coral reefs.
In any event, we must move beyond fossil fuels soon, because a large fraction of CO2 emissions will linger in the atmosphere for many centuries.
The world must move to zero fossil-fuel emissions. This is a fact, a certainty. So why not do it sooner, in time to avert climate crises? At the same time, we halt other pollution that comes from fossil fuels, including mercury pollution, conventional air pollution, problems stemming from mountain-top removal and more.
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000049Timeline for Irreversible Climate Change
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000049
And others don't think it's quite so reversible, but still don't recommend NOT DOING ANYTHING:
Assume climate change is not reversible, says weather expert
The country should assume climate change is not reversible and prepare to live with its consequences, John Houghton, the former director general of UK Meteorological Office has warned.
However, this does not excuse inaction to tackle the phenomenon, but should instead, prompt us to adapt our energy uses to minimise its increase.
Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference, Sir John explained its future impact on weather patterns and low-lying regions such as Bangladesh.
?The effects of climate change, such as warming seas and rising sea levels, represent a serious threat to countries such as Bangladesh and other poor countries in the Pacific rim where, potentially, millions of people could be displaced,? said Sir John.
But he warned that areas such as East Anglia, much of which is below sea level, is also at risk from rising tides and more extreme weather patterns.
He also put in to context just how significant a two to three degree Celsius rise in the average temperature is in historical terms.
?It normally takes half an ice age for the earth?s temperature to increase by this much.? This rapid acceleration in global warming will lead to more droughts, increased flooding and the further desertification of already arid areas, he added.
But even if we were able to cease emitting greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere today we are already committed to climate change for the next 40 years due to the time lag associated with warming the seas and rising sea levels. Consequently, he estimated sea levels will increase by half a metre this century and a further half metre next century.
And it is reducing carbon dioxide emissions that is the key to addressing climate.
?Methane, although far more potent, does not remain in the atmosphere for as long and is in far less quantity than carbon disxide,? said Sir John.
He also used his speech to criticise the leading energy companies for peddling a campaign of misinformation intent on smearing the work and reputation of the scientists warning of climate change. This has not helped the debate he said, and may have hindered progress towards securing agreement on how it could be tackled.
But there are measures that could be taken now to help tackle its effects. Energy use by businesses and individuals could be reduced by half without any negative effects, new housing developments should use current technologies to greater affect in improving energy efficiency and government should make significant investment in researching renewable energy technologies such as tidal power, he said.
And farming can make a valuable contribution too, he said. If Britain to grow a million hectares of miscanthus, equivalent to 9% of its land mass, then enough energy could be produced to meet 3% of our domestic energy needs.
Energy produced from waste could also make a small, but important, contribution, and both have the benefit of being local sources of energy, he said.
However, he considered the most important contribution Britain could make to the debate would be to lead the international community, in particular the developing nations, on the overriding need to tackle climate change.
?The action needed is urgent. We need to lead on climate change. China has already stated that it will not take the lead, but it is well aware of the impact climate change will have on its environment,? he said.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/...te-change-is-not-reversible-says-weather.htmlAssume climate change is not reversible, says weather expert - 04/01/2007 - FarmersWeekly
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/...te-change-is-not-reversible-says-weather.html
So basically both sides recommend reducing our carbon emissions. This isn't about me siding with Al Gore, it's about being logical and precautionary.
RoyalOrleans
New member
David Evans used to be a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. He spent six years with the Australian government building models about the influence of carbon emissions on our atmosphere. This was the Aussie who wrote the carbon accounting model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Well .. guess what Dr. Evans is saying today? Since he started working in the office in 1999, "new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming." By the year 2007, the evidence is conclusive: carbon played only a minor role in recent global warming and was not the main cause.
Dr. Evans put together some basic facts for the public and government officials in regards to global warming. Here is just a taste.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Keeping that last point in mind, Al Gore still preaches in his movie that the ice cores are the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. Dr. Evans says, "In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion."
So instead, what do we get? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990 and yet there is no evidence that carbon emissions are actually causing global warming! It's a fraud. A fraud to enrich Gore, and a fraud designed to form the basis for repeated attacks on capitalism and free market economies.
Would someone out there please wake up?
Confessions of a former greenhouse scientist
Well .. guess what Dr. Evans is saying today? Since he started working in the office in 1999, "new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming." By the year 2007, the evidence is conclusive: carbon played only a minor role in recent global warming and was not the main cause.
Dr. Evans put together some basic facts for the public and government officials in regards to global warming. Here is just a taste.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Keeping that last point in mind, Al Gore still preaches in his movie that the ice cores are the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. Dr. Evans says, "In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion."
So instead, what do we get? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990 and yet there is no evidence that carbon emissions are actually causing global warming! It's a fraud. A fraud to enrich Gore, and a fraud designed to form the basis for repeated attacks on capitalism and free market economies.
Would someone out there please wake up?
Confessions of a former greenhouse scientist
Anna Perenna
New member
Dr David Evans is primarily a mathematician and a computer scientist. He's not currently working on climate forecasting models nor is he currently associated with any reputable climate research body.
Not that I'm completely discounting him - but he's only one voice and he doesn't share any conclusive evidence to support his statement.
Nor does he refute that the natural carbon cycle (aka the age-old phenomenon of alternate global warming and cooling) has been accelerated due to 'anthropological influence'.
Besides, like I've said twice now - isn't it wiser to be cautious rather than reckless, just in case?
I don't understand why most people here seem to want to believe that it isn't happening, or that it isn't our fault.
Not that I'm completely discounting him - but he's only one voice and he doesn't share any conclusive evidence to support his statement.
Nor does he refute that the natural carbon cycle (aka the age-old phenomenon of alternate global warming and cooling) has been accelerated due to 'anthropological influence'.
Besides, like I've said twice now - isn't it wiser to be cautious rather than reckless, just in case?
I don't understand why most people here seem to want to believe that it isn't happening, or that it isn't our fault.
Anna Perenna
New member
This is David's company:
GoldNerds
So, he has mining associations. Gee, now, do I detect a reason for him to be biased?
And for the record, Excel has an in-built Australian Stock Exchange tool where you can input all the data "goldnerds" provides yourself - easily and for free.
The guy is a total ****.
GoldNerds
So, he has mining associations. Gee, now, do I detect a reason for him to be biased?
And for the record, Excel has an in-built Australian Stock Exchange tool where you can input all the data "goldnerds" provides yourself - easily and for free.
The guy is a total ****.
RoyalOrleans
New member
Most of us seem to have a finely tuned bullsh!t detector.
Anna Perenna
New member
Royal, do you really think that scientists who work for Universities and other not for profit research organisations are trying to 'fool' the whole world as part of a nefarious plan to get us to plant trees and maintain cleaner water systems?
And how exactly is 'going green' going to ruin the economy?
RoyalOrleans
New member
Yes, I do.
With all the "green" and "going green" labels put on everything these days, this will be a temporary jolting ripple to the economy.
To me, it's a waste of money. To others dumb enough to buy **** they don't need, bully for them.
snafu
New member
I think going green is a tremendously good idea. We're using up the earths resources at a phenomenal rate. With the waste that can be converted to energy and just pure waste in general is atrocious. We buy products dolled up with **** packaging just to sell the product. That's a big problem in itself. I for one want to go green for the energy stability (national security) as well as the clean air we need to breath. But global warming is just a scare tactic to get the same results. Global warming will happen no matter what man does.
Old Salt
New member
First, let me say that I do believe the earth is getting warmer and planting trees and cleaning up water supplies are not bad things. I just believe that the warming is occuring in the normal scheme of things, that man may be contributing to that warming but is not the primary cause.
However, scientists, a lot of them ideologues, working for universities and not for profits (
) depend on grants, either from governments, or other entities. In order to get those grants, they will focus on whatever the cause du jour is. They may not knowingly falsify data, but they will read that data in a way which will keep the money coming in.
phreakwars
New member
I like going green because it saves money. My light bulbs are all florescent twisty bulbs, my house well insulated with an economical heat pump. My average light bill per month: $60. My Hyundai gets 37 to the gallon highway, my Saturn gets 40mpg. Cost of fuel this month so far... well I just filled up my Saturn today, last time I put gas in it was 3 weeks ago. I was at almost 1/4 a tank, cost to fill up: $23, my wife uses $12-14 a week in her hyundai going back and forth to work. Total cost for both cars in one moonth... say about $60-65. Not once have I complained about high fuel prices, going green just makes sense. If I had my way, I'd convert my house to SOLAR/WIND power and feed electricity back into the grid. The setups aren't too expensive I suppose, but not something the average person can just cut a check for to have installed. So if I was ever going to make a home improvement loan on equity, that would be what it would be for.
Lucky for me, here in Nebraska, specifically Columbus, we have some of the best rates for our power because we generate our own power here in town. Even still, I'd rather go green. As for global warming. I don't wanna say it's not happening or that it is happening in any sort of scale, but how can you ignore something like this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080729.wice29/BNStory/National/home
Don't know and can't say if we humans are the cause of it, but then, like snafu said, I don't think there is anything we can do about it either.
.
.
Anna Perenna
New member
Firstly, yay for being green. Trees are lovely and clean water is even lovelier.
Do you mean global warming as in the natural earthly carbon cycle where the planet cools and warms over long periods of time? Because the 'global warming' phenomenon everyone is calling climate change is actually a rapidly accelerated version of that natural cycle, due to a massive increase in human carbon emissions over the last 100 years.
Natural global warming will happen, but this unnatural global warming we've caused doesn't have to have such severe effects, if we act to ameliorate it.
Yet I'm supposedly the gullible one.
Please elaborate
Um, can you please prove your point here? A lot of the university research in Australia is funded internally, by PhD and international students who pay huge amounts for the privilege of studying there.First, let me say that I do believe the earth is getting warmer and planting trees and cleaning up water supplies are not bad things. I just believe that the warming is occuring in the normal scheme of things, that man may be contributing to that warming but is not the primary cause.
However, scientists, a lot of them ideologues, working for universities and not for profits (
And government grants are awarded on the strength of principal investigators CV's, the methodology outlined in the application, etc. Do you want to see some examples of standard grant application forms?
As for them picking the cause du jour and only studying what they believe will attract funding - you don't have any way of substantiating your claim.
ImWithStupid
New member
another issue with environmentalists and Al Gore. Let's look at these bulbs...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv59PJ30WeM]YouTube - Important information about energy saver light bulbs[/ame]
OK. I agree this is extreme but why is it OK for enviornmentalists to promote these, but not let us build hydroelectric power plants even though all practicable efforts are now taken to make the inpact to the wildlife negligible, why are new refineries fought against even though there isn't any evidence, under epa guidelines that they contaminate, why are they against off shore drilling even though it is safer environmentally than shipping oil from overseas, why do they fight nuclear power even though world wide it is one of the most efficient and clean sources given the fact that if the government got out of the way of technology that would allow for reprocessing of the used fuel to be reused, why do environmentalists get in the way of renewables such as solar and wind because they may impact he imediate area of the power farms wildlife?
Why is it that just because the environmentallists "like" this hazardous item, we should embrace it, when they say we should denouce other, "unpopular" resources?
OK. We can't use wind, water, solar, nuclear, and definitely not fossil sources like oil, shale oil, natural gas, clean coal or coal to oil, what's left?
In all I have stated I want to make one thing clear about my position. I too, agree that we need to me more responsible on energy, reduce dependancy, be more efficient in consumption, etc... That means world wide, but we also have to be practical about what is technologically available, now.
We need to open up options, use all the above resources in as environmentally friendly ways as possible, but the politicians need to stop cow towing to these environmentalists that are just all, "No men".
Anna Perenna
New member
I'm not sure what you mean by all environmentalists being "no men"
What about all the environmental scientists making breakthroughs in photovoltaics?
Old Salt
New member
IN THE US (I know, it's not Australia) the students are not paying exhorbitant amounts for their studies in order to help fund research. My wife's nephew, who is a Turk, came to the US for his Masters and PhD as an international student. While he was doing his studies, he worked on projects for outside entities.
The University of Nebraska is creating a zone near campus to (their words paraphrased) attract more research projects and funding.
I only know what is familiar to me. I apologize for not being conversant with procedures at Australian universities.