Thread: Global Warming yes or no, Gas is from Saudi Arabia & Venezuela so what should we do?

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Renewable and domestic energy created already about 300.000 Jobs in my country... number is skyrocketing every year and growth outnumbers the predictions almost every year.....

This is the part of the math that the drill baby drill types neglect to see. Developing green and renewable energy sources, and the machines that will run on those sources is an industry that will represent a huge number of jobs. Furthermore, most 3rd world countries won't be able to produce the 'cheap labor' needed to work those industries, making solar panels isn't like making shoes where you can pay an 8 year old 30 cents a day to do a simple task.

However, China has focused on doing this, and overall has the low wages and educated population necessary to give them an edge. So while the USA spins its wheels on "drill baby drill", the chinese have already begun positioning themselves to be the main supplier of cheap solar energy.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

I know that for some reason there are alot of people who doubt that the actions of several Billion humans have any impact on the world climate.

But is clean & domestic energy bad?

The US doesn't have enough Oil to supply itself... actually it imports how much ? 70% of it's oil?

So why the heck would anyone in the US be against renewable energy?
There are 2 Billion people who want to start using Cars in China and India alone...
At the same time there are fewer and fewer new oil fields discovered and most are at stupid chaotic places....

If "doing the right thing" for the planet is such a sucker for you?
Why don't you push for doing the right thing for the domestic energy supply?

Renewable and domestic energy created already about 300.000 Jobs in my country... number is skyrocketing every year and growth outnumbers the predictions almost every year....

We got no oil, that's why we tax gas with 60%...
Clean and domestic energy is a logical and sound choice, why go all buhu about global warming and do nothing concerning the energy supply issue in the meantime?

If you believe in GW, you solve 2 problems at once... if you don't belive in GW, you solve 1 big problem.

Since fossil fuels are finite and peak oil is imminent, there is no requirement to even believe in GW or AGW. Reducing and eventually eliminating dependence on fossil fuels is critical no matter which way you slice it.

Andrew

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

If you believe in GW, you solve 2 problems at once... if you don't belive in GW, you solve 1 big problem.

I mostly stay out of GW threads, and to be honest, I don't know if I believe any of the crap on GW, from either side.

In the meantime, I've never stopped believing that we need to get off the oil tit. Forget about global warming, oil still pollutes, and we need better domestic sources of energy.

Originally Posted by Jefe

I mostly stay out of GW threads, and to be honest, I don't know if I believe any of the crap on GW, from either side.

In the meantime, I've never stopped believing that we need to get off the oil tit. Forget about global warming, oil still pollutes, and we need better domestic sources of energy.

Completely concur.

Originally Posted by Jefe

I mostly stay out of GW threads, and to be honest, I don't know if I believe any of the crap on GW, from either side.

In the meantime, I've never stopped believing that we need to get off the oil tit. Forget about global warming, oil still pollutes, and we need better domestic sources of energy.

Why would you consider basic physics and chemistry to be crap?

Andrew

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

There are 2 Billion people who want to start using Cars in China and India alone...

This is what's really behind AGW, the global equitable per-capita use of energy. They don't think we'd go for a significant reduction in our lifestyle by rationing our oil use so they exaggerated the warming power of CO2 and the consequences of AGW in order to scare us into accepting their leftist political solutions.

And I'm sure the communist Chinese government was aware of their need for oil back in the '90's when they gave Clinton and the DNC illegal contributions and he paid them back with Kyoto which would have rationed our oil use leaving more for them to develop with. Luckily for us, the Chinese didn't give our senators illegal contributions...

Kramer

**sigh** ^^^

You see Zoido, i don't understand why you consider hard science to be the same "crap" as what is offered above. It's a sad day when people equate actual science with conspiracy theories about global communist takeovers.

Andrew

Originally Posted by kramer

....so they exaggerated the warming power of CO2.....

So Kramer, the latest research keeps piling up - the uncertainty about CO2's role in past climate is narrowing, and the evidence is squarely on the side of CO2 being the "control knob" of the earths climate.

http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dstevens/...ner_ngeo10.pdf

Andrew

If "doing the right thing" for the planet is such a sucker for you?
Why don't you push for doing the right thing for the domestic energy supply?

'cause if Daddsy's oil stocks go down they might have to drive last year's Ferrari
And Daddsy himself hopes the country goes to hell. He's been pushing it that way since 2006. He's got a place up in the mountains stocked with food and ammo. He's gonna be a warlord once the "lower orders" are all gone

There is no point or reason for stampeding toward "alternative energy" sources, which are much more expensive, when there is still an abundance of coal, nat gas, and oil available at much cheaper cost.
We are not about to run out of fossil fuels. In fact, the US is poised to become an exporter of nat gas!
There is absolutely no reason to panic over the fossil fuel supply. Thats why the anti industrial/anti oil Luddites had to invent the CO2 scare.

Some alternatives to fossil fuels are available now, but in 200 years time when we really might need it, much better alternatives will be available.

Relax and enjoy. The chicken-little types have always been with us and they always will be. "Repent! The end is nigh!" Don't believe it.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

So Kramer, the latest research keeps piling up - the uncertainty about CO2's role in past climate is narrowing, and the evidence is squarely on the side of CO2 being the "control knob" of the earths climate.

http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dstevens/...ner_ngeo10.pdf

Andrew

It figures it's a UK organization. The UK is pretty much under the influence of these people, they have been for decades. In my view, the UK seems to be the center for global warming as well as international development, and both (by "both" I mean the environment and development) are linked.

Realclimate has a blog (been out for a while) that asks why there tends to be more skeptics among geologists than other areas. I believe the answer is obvious, they see reoccurring cycles that don't fit the green narrative such as the geological paper that says there is geological evidence that the Arctic could have been periodically ice free and may have been ice free 6 to 7 thousand years ago.

And I just read part of a peer reviewed paper that said that 65% of the recent warming isn't from CO2. Or looking at it another way, the warming power of CO2 has been reduced by about 2/3rds.

Even the ice core data doesn't work for your side. For one, the temperature changes hundreds of years before the CO2 and if you do the math using the CO2 warming equation, it results in about 2 to 3 C of warming while the ice core data shows 10 to 12 C of warming. A while ago, the argument was that once the cycle got started (by some orbital change or whatever), the CO2 kicked in and took over the rest of the warming. Well, when I do the math, I don't get the numbers to support this claim.

These and a number of other science 'holes' in AGW keep me skeptical of the science. And how can you expect me to take your side seriously especially after climategate and the following several whitewash investigations that were done? I mean, we have Phil Jones and others talking about deleting material in response to FOI requests? That's classic CYA. None of these investigations got into what was deleted and why.

Kramer

Originally Posted by kramer

It figures it's a UK organization. The UK is pretty much under the influence of these people, they have been for decades.

Oh, man. How can we take anything you say seriously after you present something like that?

Realclimate has a blog (been out for a while) that asks why there tends to be more skeptics among geologists than other areas. I believe the answer is obvious, they see reoccurring cycles that don't fit the green narrative such as the geological paper that says there is geological evidence that the Arctic could have been periodically ice free and may have been ice free 6 to 7 thousand years ago.

No, it is absolutely impossible for that to be the reason. Why? Because anyone who is knowledgeable enough about both the geological record and the scientific method to know that the Arctic could have been periodically ice free and may have been ice free 6 or 7 thousand years ago, is certainly knowledgeable enough to know that the AGW modeling is in no way dependent on the stupid idea that there have never been instances of climate change in the past, and so that the fact there have been, which has NEVER been disputed by ANYONE, proves absolutely nothing whatsoever.

So: no, if it's true that there are more climate change skeptics among geologists than in other fields, it absolutely CANNOT be for an utterly stupid reason like that.

And I just read part of a peer reviewed paper that said that 65% of the recent warming isn't from CO2. Or looking at it another way, the warming power of CO2 has been reduced by about 2/3rds.

Care to link that article?

Even the ice core data doesn't work for your side.

What's this "even" shit? Are you under the impression that ice core data have been relied upon for any significant amount of support of AGW?

Originally Posted by Brexx

There is no point or reason for stampeding toward "alternative energy" sources, which are much more expensive, when there is still an abundance of coal, nat gas, and oil available at much cheaper cost.

Relative / comparative costs of wind energy, nuclear energy, hydro power, coal power, natural gas, geothermal energy, and biomass | Claverton Group

That is not the case.

We are not about to run out of fossil fuels. In fact, the US is poised to become an exporter of nat gas!

NaturalGas.org

That is also not the case. Scroll down to the graph of world sources of natural gas.

There is absolutely no reason to panic over the fossil fuel supply. Thats why the anti industrial/anti oil Luddites had to invent the CO2 scare.

(Sigh.) Another conspiracy theory. Another one for the loony bin.

Do you have any idea how completely paranoid, irrational, and absurd you sound when you refer to people as "anti industrial Luddites"?

Some alternatives to fossil fuels are available now, but in 200 years time when we really might need it, much better alternatives will be available.

We need alternatives to oil now. For environmental reasons, it would be better if coal not be one of them. Natural gas is tolerable while it lasts, but will be used up in an even shorter time than oil and is in any case not ideal, again for environmental reasons (although it's certainly better than coal). Check the first link I provided on relative costs of generation of different energy sources. There is no economic reason whatsoever at this point in time not to pursue solar and wind energy. The only reason to avoid these technologies, and it is not a good one, is to protect the profits of the fossil-fuel industry.