Global Cooling - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 05-09-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So will what effects do you think the pacific decadal oscillation has on global climate?

Considering it's decadal, it's probably a pretty regular effect. While it has minor fluctuations, it's been fairly regular over the past 100 years or so:

It's important to separate regularly occurring phenomena like the PDO from irregular events like those which are assisted by human effects on the environment (like sulfur and nitrogen from creating electricity and that come from cars can and have been demonstrated to cause unusually acidic rain).

Ustwo · 05-09-2008, 10:42 AM

Do you see the pattern in these two graphs?

I'd add the PDO isn't really a 'regular' cycle, its not completely predictable.

Willravel · 05-09-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Do you see the pattern in these two graphs?

I rescaled the graphs so that they match up chronologically, and there is no pattern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'd add the PDO isn't really a 'regular' cycle, its not completely predictable.

Not completely predictable, but predictable within reason.

Seaver · 05-09-2008, 04:45 PM

When people can give a reason for the Medieval Warm Period, or the Mini-Ice age and why it can't be occuring now I'd be amazed.

Seriously, Greenland was green. The French were complaining about the British growing better wine then them. The world was MUCH warmer than it is now, with barely any human CO2 imprint. Nothing to see here folks.

Then not too long after, the Year Without a Summer. New York Harbor froze solid, people walked across. The coldest winter on record, again almost no human CO2 imprint. Nothing to see here folks.

A hurricane hits a city below sea level, and Gore makes a movie. THE WORLD IS AT STAKE!

dc_dux · 05-09-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

. Nothing to see here folks.

Yep...we get where you're coming from, seaver.

The hundreds (if not thousands) of climate scientists (and other scientists) who contribute to the IPCC reports are wrong.....the 11 largest national academies of sciences around the world are wrong.

The dentist and the handful (or two) of scientists, most of whom are not climate scientists and many of whom are funded by industry interests, are right.

Nothing new to see here folks.

ottopilot · 05-09-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The dentist and the handful (or two) of scientists, most of whom are not climate scientists and many of whom are funded by industry interests, are right.

Nothing new to see here folks.

Specifically, which handful or two are you referring to, and which of these are not climate scientists, and which industry interests are funding them?

dc_dux · 05-09-2008, 08:20 PM

otto....start with the many "scientists" that Ustwo has linked to in the past at junkscience.com or Steven Milloy, the "scientist" who administers that site.....or from scientists cited by Mark Morano, the chief denier on the minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Or most (not all) of the speakers at the recent deniers conference.....sponsored by the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute - two of the many organizations receiving major funding from Exxon/Mobil.

I dont doubt that there are serious climatologists that dont share the views of the majority.....in fact, there is a small minority of dissenting views within the IPCC community. I think thats a good thing.

But, the ones that are often linked or posted in discussions here generally are from the Morano/Milloy/Exxon crowd and IMO, and with a little digging, casts serious doubts on their credibility and objectivity.

as opposed to these scientific bodies:

National Academies of Sciences of G8 (+5) Nations
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Academy for Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Association
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
Geological Society of America
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences

With the July 2007 release of a revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate

host · 05-09-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Specifically, which handful or two are you referring to, and which of these are not climate scientists, and which industry interests are funding them?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/po...gewanted=print
June 8, 2005
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader"
<h3>and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training....</h3>

Marc Morano? Did someone mention <a href="http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/morano.html">Marc Morano?</a>

<h3>Marc Morano attempted this SMEAR:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20060417a.html
Media Darling on 'Global Warming' Assailed by Colleagues
<h3>By Marc Morano</h3>
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 17, 2006

...George Deutsch, a former NASA public relations employee who resigned his job in February, told Cybercast News Service that he was warned about Hansen shortly after joining the space agency. "The only thing I was ever told -- more so from civil servants and non political people -- is, 'You gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates,'" Deutsch said....

<h3>...Two months after George Deutsch's credibility disappeared and the white house agenda was revealed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</h3> <h2>:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html

February 8, 2006
A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation.

"Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss.

The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming.

"As we have stated in the past, NASA is in the process of revising our public affairs policies across the agency to ensure our commitment to open and full communications," the statement from Mr. Acosta said.

The statement said the resignation of Mr. Deutsch was "a separate matter."

Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year <h3>after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé. No one has disputed those parts of the document.</h3>

According to his résumé, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case.

"George Carlton Deutsch III did attend Texas A&M University but has not completed the requirements for a degree," said an e-mail message from Rita Presley, assistant to the registrar at the university, responding to a query from The Times.

Repeated calls and e-mail messages to Mr. Deutsch on Tuesday were not answered.....

dc_dux, it's all been laid out in front of them before, they don't "get it", because they don't want to get it. It's not about the legitimacy of sources, or anything that you and I can hope to ujnderstand....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You mean you don't know the history of John Edwards as a lawyer, where he made his millions and what it did to the medical profession, and the number of increased c-sections despite you voting for him for vp in the last election?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=40

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This wasn't covered in truthout.org?

Oh my. I covered this before.

Edwards is a disgusting human being of the worst kind, I'd vote for Kusinich before I'd vote for him, without regret. I'd rather a left wing loon than a stereotypical shyster.

Have you considered that the only place where the partisan garbage you are spouting is coming from is from ridiculously prejudiced and compromised sites like cnsnews, authored by exposed, unethical partisan shills, like this guy?

Quote:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20040120a.html
Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?
<h2>By Marc Morano</h2>
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 20, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John Edwards, which allowed this former millworker to amass a personal fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult himself into the 2004 race for president, may have been partially built on "junk science," according to legal and medical experts who spoke with CNSNews.com .

Edwards, who with a late surge finished second in Monday's Iowa Caucuses, continues to cite one of his most lucrative legal victories as an example of how he would stand up for "the little guy" if elected president.

Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor function impairment and lifelong disability.

Although he was involved in other types of personal injury litigation, Edwards specialized in infant cerebral palsy and brain damage cases during his early days as a trial lawyer and with the Raleigh, N.C., firm of Edwards & Kirby....

If requested, we can discuss Marc Morano's reputation, and the reputation, origin, and funding of CNSnews....IMO, it is as pathetic a source as worldnetdaily is.

Here is a balanced decription of Edward's litigation from a findlaw contritbutor, published on a mainstream news network website:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/se...rds/index.html

The attack the trial lawyers strategy is part of along term, republican party Op intended to defund democratic party candidates, by eliminating the revenue that it's traditional contributors have access to. The other large prong of this attack is to eliminated dues from union workers and unions themselves.

This is a class war, also intended to remove the right to initiate lawsuits by most of us....people who cannot pay a lawyer in advance to conduct a lawsuit.

You are manipulated Ustwo, more and more of us recognize it....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host you don't have a fucking clue what my sources are, and quit worrying about it, really, is there nothing you won't try to blame the source to cover up?

<h3>dc_dux, I couldn't even get an admission that Marc Morano was the soiurce of the vicious propaganda aimed at John Edwards, when Morano actually was the source...as the following post clearly shows:</h3>

10-26-2004, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Can someone eduated me on the c-section thing?

Thanks,

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

<h3>Marc Morano</h3> of CNSNews.com had done an exposé last January of how Edwards used "junk science" in his cases. Stossel added to this, noting that "In a report released last year by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, scientists now say the disease is seldom caused by anything a doctor does in the delivery room." But the result of Edwards-type lawsuits has been a radical increase in the number of caesarean deliveries, in order to avoid lawsuits. Since 1970 C-sections have gone from 6 percent of all births to 26 percent. Obstetrics professor Dr. Edgar Mandeville told Stossel, "And there has not been one small decrease in the cerebral palsy rate across the board."

google edwards + c section

09-26-2006 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108927

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Finaly ONE senator understands global warming (long, scroll button)
I have to put this full speech in as I didn't think any senator really had a clue about global warming beyond a few factoids. I don't know anything about this guy, but he even had stuff in there I didn't know and I was a kid in the early 80's and it came into vogue.

Being that you are mostly liberals and want 'all the facts' according the ratbastid I'm sure you will all read the whole thing. I've highlighted the important bits for conservatives. I will put it in italics and bold for neo-cons.

The speech

Quote:
Speeches & Statements

“Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”
HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

<h3>Contact: Marc Morano</h3> (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) Matt Dempsey (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov)

Click here for highlights of the speech and to watch

SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006....

11-17-2006 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=10

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I won't be sorry to say goodbye to Joe Barton and James Inhofe, as committee chairmen of anything that has any impact on the environment or on anything that will affect my future or the future of my friends and family....IMO, they have contributed to further fouling of the environment and to setting back scientific research and the international reputation of the US as a leading edge nation, to an "on the fringe" country, in just a few years that seemed to last forever.....

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002010.php
Update: Inhofe Tipped to UN "Brainwashing" by Former Limbaugh Producer
By Justin Rood - November 17, 2006, 12:35 PM

The U.N. conference on global warming in Nairobi was nothing more than a "brainwashing session," Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) declared yesterday. As we noted then, Inhofe -- a man of science -- wasn't basing that on firsthand knowledge, but on the word of his staff who attended the event.

Who was this expert staffer? <h3>Press accounts identify him as Marc Morano</h3>, who isn't a scientist but is Inhofe's press flack. Morano is also a former reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh show, according to an online biography of the gentleman.

TPMmuckraker editorial guidelines strictly prohibit the writing of completely obvious punch lines. So I will only point out the building blocks -- Inhofe, "brainwashing," expert, Rush Limbaugh Show -- and let readers construct their own.

<h2>ottopilot....</h2> can you understand how we cannot take Sen. Inhofe or anyone who quotes him or his "man", the former Limbaugh show producer and extreme partisan hack, Marc Morano, seriously when they are quoted to support an argument against a global warming crisis ? It isn't one post that creates an impression, it is a track record, compiled over time, here at this TFP forum that does it:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._warmer_world/
DANIEL P. SCHRAG
On a swift boat to a warmer world

By Daniel P. Schrag | December 17, 2006

I AM A climate scientist and an optimist. This may seem like a contradiction, with all the talk of scorching heat waves and bigger, deadlier hurricanes. But it's not.

...I later learned that Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, was a key figure in publicizing the swift boat veterans' attack on John Kerry in 2004. Morano, it seems, is still up to his old tricks, twisting the facts to support his boss's outrageous claims.....

Daniel P. Schrag is professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.

There are two side here, ottopilot, either you recognize Marc Morano for what he is, or you drink the following kool-ade:

(I never ever visit drudgereport.com and I know that cnsnews.com and newsbusters.org are creations of propagandist Brent Bozell III....)

<center><img src="http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0706/tmw-big.jpg"></center>

Quote:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...rds-story.html
.....For the last 15 years or so -- since the early years of the Clinton administration -- our public political discourse has been centrally driven by an ever-growing network of scandal-mongers and filth-peddling purveyors of baseless, petty innuendo churned out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, various right-wing operatives and, more recently, the right-wing press led by Fox News. Every issue of significance is either shaped and wildly distorted by that process, or the public is distracted from important issues by contrived and unbelievably vapid, petty scandals. Our political discourse has long been infected by this potent toxin, one which has grown in strength and degraded most of our political and media institutions.

For anyone who thinks that that is overstated, the definitive refutation is provided by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin and The Washington Post's former National Politics Editor John Harris, who provided this description in their recent book about how their national media world operates:

<a href="http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:hH7sI9sAo7oJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/15/rs.01.html+Matt+Drudge+is+the+gatekeeper...+he+is+the+Walter+Cronkite+of+his+era.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us">Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era.

In the fragmented, remote-control, click-on-this, did you hear? political media world in which we live, revered Uncle Walter has been replaced by odd nephew Matt. . . .

Matt Drudge rules our world . . . With the exception of the Associated Press, there is no outlet other than the Drudge Report whose dispatches instantly can command the attention and energies of the most established newspapers and television newscasts.

So many media elites check the Drudge Report consistently that a reporter is aware his bosses, his competitors, his sources, his friends on Wall Street, lobbyists, White House officials, congressional aides, cousins, and everyone who is anyone has seen it, too.</a>

This is why our political process has been so broken and corrupt. The worst elements of what has become the pro-Bush right wing have been shaping and driving how national journalists view events, the stories they cover, and the narratives they disseminate.

What kind of government and political system -- what kind of country -- is going to arise from a political landscape shaped by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, and their similar right-wing appendages in talk radio, print and the blogosphere? Allowing those elements to dominate our political debates and drive media coverage guarantees a decrepit, rotted, and deeply corrupt country. That is just a basic matter of cause and effect.....

Nimetic · 05-10-2008, 01:45 AM

Ustwo... you asked about predictions. I've got an old Scientific American article on CO2 and greenhouse, which I believe dates from the late 80s. It's work - so I can't check the date right now.

It's in an old "Energy and Environment" special. I'll fetch up the reference details. I'd not call it a prediction. But it does show that this was discussed some time ago.

Amazon gives the copyright date as 1980, but doesn't show the cover. I'm fairly sure that it'd be the same book.

Ustwo · 05-10-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Ustwo... you asked about predictions. I've got an old Scientific American article on CO2 and greenhouse, which I believe dates from the late 80s. It's work - so I can't check the date right now.

It's in an old "Energy and Environment" special. I'll fetch up the reference details. I'd not call it a prediction. But it does show that this was discussed some time ago.

Amazon gives the copyright date as 1980, but doesn't show the cover. I'm fairly sure that it'd be the same book.

The first time global warming hit the popular press was in relation to the planet Venus being so hot. The theory isn't something new from the 1990's. But by prediction I mean predictive value, as in 'if this happens X this other thing will react with Y'.

Tully Mars · 05-10-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Seriously, Greenland was green.

Most sources I've seen and read seem to disagree. In fact most say Greenland was never green, least not during recorded history.

http://lighterfootstep.com/urban-myt...nce-green.html

host · 05-10-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Most sources I've seen and read seem to disagree. In fact most say Greenland was never green, least not during recorded history.

http://lighterfootstep.com/urban-myt...nce-green.html

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705153019.htm
Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable

ScienceDaily (Jul. 5, 2007)

..Climate theories over-turned

The research results are the first direct proof that there was forest in southern Greenland. Furthermore Willerslev found genetic traces of insects such as butterflies, moths, flies and beetles. But when was that? According to most scientific theories to date, all of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.

This theory however, was not confirmed by Willerslev and co-workers subsequent datings. He analysed the insects' mitochondria, which are special genomes that change with time and like a clock can be used to date the DNA. He also analysed their amino acids which also change over time. Both datings showed that the insects were at least 450,000 years old....

...The dating of dust particles also showed that it has been at least 450,000 years ago since the area of the DYE-3 drilling, in the southern part of Greenland, was ice-free.

Sea Level Rise?

That signifies that there was ice there during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago. It means that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt.

Please note: The scientists do not want to put into question the rise in sea level predicted to occur due to global warming. During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today. However, since the new scientific results show that the ice sheet also covered southern Greenland, the melting of the Greenlandic ice cap can only have caused a sea level rise of about 2 meters. Therefore some of the melting ice contributing to the sea level rise must have come from other sources, for instance the Antarctic. Furthermore, thermal warming of the oceans will cause expansion of the sea water and result in a sea level rise of half a meter, and the melting of small glaciers around the globe will likely result in an additional half meter rise.

The results have just been published in the journal Science.

Willravel · 05-10-2008, 09:48 AM

Greenland also used to be a lot closer to the equator.

Ustwo · 05-10-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Greenland also used to be a lot closer to the equator.

will, hes talking Viking time, not cretaceous.

Willravel · 05-10-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

will, hes talking Viking time, not cretaceous.

I think you mean the eocene (40m years ago), not the cretaceous (100m years ago).

Ustwo · 05-10-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think you mean the eocene (40m years ago), not the cretaceous (100m years ago).

Very nicely googled, but it does make your post seem a bit silly.

And actually Greenland hasn't moved that much in the last 100million years.

Seaver · 05-10-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

http://lighterfootstep.com/urban-myt...nce-green.html

Wow, that looks like a reliable non-biased report.

Sorry, 5-6,000 people can not live on an ice shelf. Vikings relied on cattle, sheep, and fish for their primary survival in winter. We KNOW there were cattle and sheep, so obviously it was green. Nice little pretend "historian" you have vouching for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_19560107

Quote:

"At least one of the farms we've examined shows evidence of a tough winter," McGovern says. "We find the bones of a number of cows--about the same number that lived in the barn--and mixed in with them are a bunch of ptarmigan feet, also famine food. Mixed in with that are the bones of one of the big hunting dogs." Cut marks on the bones suggest the dogs were butchered; even the cow hooves were eaten. "It looks as though they ate the cows and then ate the dogs. It looks like hard times."

Hmm... so cows require grass. Grass is Green. Nope, no way Greenland could have ever been green.

Ustwo · 05-10-2008, 11:15 AM

Remember when history doesn't agree with your theory its best to change history!

I knew it was bad but I didn't know the global warmers were trying to change what was already known and proven archaeologically.

No one is claiming that all of greenland was open to farming, but it was in parts. 'Climate change' undoubtedly due to the English mead factories, resulted in cooling which made agrarian life impossible.

Tully Mars · 05-10-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Wow, that looks like a reliable non-biased report.

Sorry, 5-6,000 people can not live on an ice shelf. Vikings relied on cattle, sheep, and fish for their primary survival in winter. We KNOW there were cattle and sheep, so obviously it was green. Nice little pretend "historian" you have vouching for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_19560107

Hmm... so cows require grass. Grass is Green. Nope, no way Greenland could have ever been green.

It's something I've heard and read for several years now. I could be wrong, or I could make snide comments regarding your sources. That seems pointless and rather immature.

As for people not being able to live on an ice self... tell that to the Inuit's.

Martian · 05-10-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No one is claiming that all of greenland was open to farming, but it was in parts. 'Climate change' undoubtedly due to the English mead factories, resulted in cooling which made agrarian life impossible.

The perils of mead...

Willravel · 05-10-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Very nicely googled

You're just mad because you were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And actually Greenland hasn't moved that much in the last 100million years.

Wrong again. You should try googling these things.

Ustwo · 05-10-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You're just mad because you were wrong.

Wrong again. You should try googling these things.

You know when I posted that I figured I'd be giving someone something to swallow, and you did. Saying Cretaceous is fine as it was closer to the equator, there was nothing 'wrong' about it.

You said a completely asinine thing about Greenland being closer to the equator in relation to the topic, and then your saving grace is I said cretaceous?

Why did you even mention Greenland being closer to the equator at one time? It speaks volumes of your knowledge of the subject.

host · 05-10-2008, 12:25 PM

Ustwo, as I took pains to detail in my last post, your smugness is incompatible with your reputation here for quoting Marc Morano...here is yet another example. If you could come up with decent, instead of rabidly partisan source to support your opinions, most of us believe that you would....but instead:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=147

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The courage to do nothing.....

Quote:

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
December 11, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 7:45 AM ET

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c

The courage to do nothing....

You know, now that I hear this slogan of sorts, I think that is what is the core of the matter with global warming alarm and alarmists.

As humans we are wired to see cause and effect. If a rock rolls off cliff and narrowly misses you, your first reaction is to see what pushed it. Its a survival instinct, its far better to assume some sort of direct, dangerous cause and be wrong, than not be on your guard.

Global warming fits that nicely. We are so assured that something we are doing must be to blame that we feel its better to act on it than ignore it, even when ignoring it is really the best course of action.

<h3>Marc Morano is not coincidentally an "expert" on climate change. It is one thing to have similar opinions to those projected by Morano, it is another to cite him in support of opinions you post. Sen. Inhofe hired Morano to be a propagandist. Why not simply quote Limbaugh, instead of Morano? </h3>

Quote:

http://www.changingworldviews.com/aboutus.htm
Marc Morano, "Inside Washington Report"

<img src="http://www.changingworldviews.com/images/MarcMorano.jpg">

Marc Morano, is the Communications Director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works dealing with environmental issues ranging from climate change to endangered species legislation. Former Senior Staff Writer for CNSNews, and is previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington” as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine, Marc's reporting has made national news with appearances and coverage on The O'Reilly Factor, Special Report w/ Brit Hume, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator and Human Events, as well as online with National Review, Newsmax.com, WorldnetDaily, and the Drudge Report. He has also appeared on Politically Incorrect, NBC and ABC News and the McLaughlin Group. He has also reported for a wide variety of radio programs, including the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Oliver North Shows. Mr. Morano has both White House and Capitol Hill press credentials. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...WelcomeMessage

Quote:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/002818.html
Meeting Marc Morano

Posted by jennifer, at 08:29 PM

A highlight of <a href="http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm">The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change</a> for me was meeting Marc Morano.

He is a former journalist with CNS, reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show and also American Investigator. Now communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in Washinton amongst his many activities and responsibilities he also finds time to run <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=C9554887-802A-23AD-4303-68F67EBD151C">an award winning blog</a>.

Mr Morano gave two papers at the conference. I sat in on Wednesday morning's session on politics and science which also included presentations from Marlo Lewis and Michael Fox.

Marc Morano chatting with a delegate before the session.

Mr Morano began with an overview of the history of the politics of climate change including a quote from Newsweek magazine of April 28, 1975, ““The longer the planners delay the more difficult they will find it to deal with climate change once the results become grim reality.”

<img src="http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/New%20York%20034_Marc%204%20points.jpg">
Marc Morano speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

He went on to talk about carbon based economies as the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of the planet facilitating the “20th Century Miracle” including the lowering of infant mortality and increasingly life expectancy.

Following the presentations Mr Morano answered a question about the value of focus groups in understanding public opinion on global warming and helping to formulate appropriate public responses. He said that what was most needed from politicians was simply "political courage" including the courage to tell it as it is.

After the session I was privileged to meet not only Marc but also his mother and nephew who were also at the conference.

Marc Morano with his mother at The Marriott Marquis, New York.

---------------------------
You can read my perspective on day 1 of the conference here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/002809.html , day 2 here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/002813.html and breakfast with Hon Vaclav Klaus on day 3 here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/002816.html.

Thanks again to conference sponsor’s The Heartland Institute

Posted by jennifer at March 5, 2008 08:29 PM
Comments

Thanks Jen,

Nice having a face to a name at last.

Willravel · 05-10-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Why did you even mention Greenland being closer to the equator at one time? It speaks volumes of your knowledge of the subject.

The comment about Greenland was funny and... wait for it... asinine! So I pointed out how asinine it was by posting something asinine. Then, in typical form, you tried to correct me. With the wrong information. And you're essentially calling me ignorant?

Hehehe...

loquitur · 05-10-2008, 08:16 PM

depends how it's cut, dc_dux. surely you know that. to take an outrageous example, we could cut emissions hugely by prohibiting everyone east of cleveland from driving. would you do that?

dc_dux · 05-10-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

depends how it's cut, dc_dux. surely you know that. to take an outrageous example, we could cut emissions hugely by prohibiting everyone east of cleveland from driving. would you do that?

huh?

In other news, the Senate will be voting on the Lieberman/Warner global warming response bill next month.

The bipartisan America's Climate Security Act of 2007, which is based on the California global warming bill enacted in 06, is not a bad first start....and much better than the Bush proposal of voluntary reductions.

The bill would cap CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities, transportation and manufacturing (which account for about 75 percent of U.S emissions) GHG emissions would be capped at the 2005 emission level starting in 2012 and then gradually reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, with deeper cuts over the long term - to reach a 65 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

It will be interesting to see if McCain will support his good friends (Lieberman and Warner) after saying recently that the US has an obligation to address the issue of global warming in a meaningful way....or if he will pander to the Republican base. Obama and Clinton (not that she matters as a candidate anymore) are on board. Will McCain Back Warming Bill?

edit: Otto..did I answer your questions in #86 to your satisfaction?

Nimetic · 05-10-2008, 11:49 PM

I'm not sure I understand your wording? Are you saying that it was not mentioned in relation to Earth? I'm fairly sure that this article was specifically about CO2, Earth, and fossil fuels.

I'll check it tomorrow anyways.

flstf · 05-11-2008, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In other news, the Senate will be voting on the Lieberman/Warner global warming response bill next month.

The bipartisan [URL="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02191:"

America's Climate Security Act of 2007[/URL], which is based on the California global warming bill enacted in 06, is not a bad first start....and much better than the Bush proposal of voluntary reductions.

The bill would cap CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities, transportation and manufacturing (which account for about 75 percent of U.S emissions) GHG emissions would be capped at the 2005 emission level starting in 2012 and then gradually reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, with deeper cuts over the long term - to reach a 65 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

Won't these industries just add the cost of retrofitting etc.. to the prices charged to consumers which will hit the poor and middle class the hardest?

dc_dux · 05-11-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Won't these industries just add the cost of retrofitting etc.. to the prices charged to consumers which will hit the poor and middle class the hardest?

Probably so, to some extent....but it should also stimulate the development of new technologies and solutions to meeting the regulatory standards in the same manner as the environmental legislation of the 70s.

I am open to a better proposal. I just dont believe we should do nothing when it comes to the growing emission of GHGs from utilities, vehicles and heavy industries.

flstf · 05-11-2008, 07:54 AM

I agree that polution control is a good goal to have. I just wish that more people realized that corporate taxes and regulation costs are paid by them and the less you make the higher the percentage of your income you pay. I think many people think that it's OK to add taxes and costs to the big corporations because thay believe they are sticking it to the rich guys when they are the ones shouldering these costs.

I wonder how far this bill or any corporate tax would go if the authors said "It's only going to cost a family of four making $25000 a year an additional $1000 or so a year?"

Seaver · 05-11-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

As for people not being able to live on an ice self... tell that to the Inuit's.

Um... can you name a single Inuit city of 6,000? Can you name a single Inuit city?

No, they live in VERY small bands and are very nomadic. That's not exactly the Norse tradition.

Tully Mars · 05-11-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Um... can you name a single Inuit city of 6,000? Can you name a single Inuit city?

No, they live in VERY small bands and are very nomadic. That's not exactly the Norse tradition.

I'm sorry when you said "Sorry, 5-6,000 people can not live on an ice shelf."

I didn't realize you meant they had to live in towns, cities or villages to count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Ustwo · 05-11-2008, 04:11 PM

Rewriting the archeologic record makes me a sadddddd panda.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

Quote:

The disappearance of the Greenlanders has intrigued students of history for centuries. One old source held that Skraelings, or Inuit, who had crossed over from Ellesmere Island in the far north around A.D. 1000, migrated down the west coast and overran the settlement. Ivar Bardarson, steward of the Church's property in Greenland, and a member of a sister settlement 300 miles to the southeast, was said to have gathered a force and sailed northwest to drive the interlopers out, but "when they came hither, behold they found no man, neither Christian nor heathen, naught but some wild cattle and sheep, and they killed as many of the wild cattle and sheep as they could carry and with them returned to their houses." The death of the Western Settlement portended the demise of the larger eastern one a century later.

Of the first 24 boatloads of land-hungry settlers who set out from Iceland in the summer of 986 to colonize new territory explored several years earlier by the vagabond and outlaw, Erik the Red, only 14 made it, the others having been forced back to port or lost at sea. Yet more brave souls, drawn by the promise of a better life for themselves, soon followed. Under the leadership of the red-faced, red-bearded Erik (who had given the island its attractive name, the better to lure settlers there), the colonists developed a little Europe of their own just a few hundred miles from North America, a full 500 years before Columbus set foot on the continent. They established dairy and sheep farms throughout the unglaciated areas of the south and built churches, a monastery, a nunnery, and a cathedral boasting an imported bronze bell and greenish tinted glass windows.

The Greenlanders prospered. From the number of farms in both colonies, whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about 5,000. Trading with Norway, under whose rule they eventually came, the Greenlanders exchanged live falcons, polar bear skins, narwahl tusks, and walrus ivory and hides for timber, iron, tools, and other essentials, as well luxuries such as raisins, nuts, and wine.

Excavations of Erik's farm, Brattahlid ("Steep Slope"), in 1932 by Danish archaeologists (Greenland, which became Danish in 1814, is today a self-governing possession of Denmark), revealed the remains of a church, originally surrounded by a turf wall to keep farm animals out, and a great hall where settlers cooked in fire pits, ate their meals, recited sagas, and played board games. Behind the church they found ruins of a cow barn, with partitions between the stalls still in place, one of them the shoulder blade of a whale--a sign of Viking practicality in a treeless land where wood was always in short supply.

....

Although the presence of the Church had originally uplifted the Greenlanders, it now became their burden. By the middle of the fourteenth century, it owned two-thirds of the island's finest pastures, and tithes remained as onerous as ever, some of the proceeds going to the support of the Crusades half way around the world and even to fight heretics in Italy. Church authorities, however, found it increasingly difficult to get bishops to come to the distant island. Several clerics took the title, but never actually went there, preferring to bestow their blessings from afar.

....
Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.
....
hey ignored the toggle harpoon, which would have allowed them to catch seals through holes in the ice in winter when food was scarce, and they seem not even to have bothered with fishhooks, which they could have fashioned easily from bone, as did the Inuit. Instead, the Norsemen remained wedded to their farms and to the raising of sheep, goats, and cattle in the face of ever worsening conditions that must have made maintaining their herds next to impossible.
....
Whoever killed the animals was used to living in squalid conditions. The bone-littered earthen floors had been spread with an insulating layer of twigs that attracted mice and a variety of insect pests. Study of the farms' ancient insect fauna revealed the remains of flies. Brought inadvertently from Europe, the flies were dependent for their survival on the warm environment of the Norse houses and on the less than sanitary state of the interiors. Radiocarbon dating of their remains revealed that they died out suddenly when these conditions ceased to prevail around 1350, presumably when the structures were no longer inhabited. Some of the rooms had been used as latrines, possibly out of habit or because the occupants were reluctant to venture out into the searing cold. An ice core drilled from the island's massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.

Please, this is all documented from various sources, there is no questioning, no one lived on a ice shelf or on the perma frost. At least be creative and claim it was 'local conditions' and not a global cooling at the time instead of trying to change known history.

host · 05-11-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree that polution control is a good goal to have. I just wish that more people realized that corporate taxes and regulation costs are paid by them and the less you make the higher the percentage of your income you pay. I think many people think that it's OK to add taxes and costs to the big corporations because thay believe they are sticking it to the rich guys when they are the ones shouldering these costs.

I wonder how far this bill or any corporate tax would go if the authors said "It's only going to cost a family of four making $25000 a year an additional $1000 or so a year?"

flstf, unless big business successfully manipulates it's primary markets to support prices via non-compete and scarcity of product tactics, it is not a given that costs of doing business, such as regulatory compliance costs and taxes paid, can be passed along for customers to pay in the form of higher prices than would otherwise be charged.

Walmart has an influence on the market for consumer goods that chokes off the pricing power of nearly all of it's competitiors. Kroger/Ralph's, Safeway, Target, and Kohl's stores cannot pass along increased costs by raising prices unless Walmart decides to raise prices. Walmart engages in predatory pricing to negatively impact the profits of it's competitors by squeezing it's suppliers and by selling popular items at or below cost, as "loss leaders". Kroger is doing the same thing in this geographical area to gasoline/convenience store outlets by selling gasoline in it's store parking lot stations at or below cost. It brings customers to Kroger to buy fuel and to form a habit of not shopping at the gasoline/convenience outlets....putting some of them out of business and forcing the rest to charge more for gasoline to attempt to make up for profits lost in both gasoline and convenience items sales.

Walmart's suppliers must eat increased regulatory costs and cost of taxes paid, and so must all of Walmart's competitors.

Integerated oil companies' retail outlets cannot raise gasoline prices at the pump if gas pumps in Walmart and Kroger parking lots are selling fuel at or below cost.

Foreign competition is also a huge drag on profits, especially since almost all foreign competitors either pay third world level wages and benefits, or in the instances of Canada and western Europe, US businesses face competition not burdened by the seperate expense of paying for employee health plans.

The greater public pays much more from the impact of corporate lobbying, (literally being permitted to write the legislation affecting their industries) partisan anit-consumer political activities (K Street project), appointments of industry executives to manage federal and state regulatory agencies intended to protect the public interest, than it ever will pay from attempts to pass along tax and regulatory compliance expenses.

The public does not bear the costs of earnings shrinking to zero or less, as in the cases of Ford, GM, and KB Homes. The stockholders should, and do. All any of it about is shuffling the deck that is the pie containing all assets in the US. The share owned by the bottom 90 percent shrank more during the years of "smaller government", "tax cutting" republicans controlling part of congress and all of the executive branch.... 20 out of the last 28 years....than at any other period since the 1929 era.

All during the periods of republican controll since 1981, corporate tax rates and regulatory enforcement and oversight have been cut, yet the bottom 90 percent own a smaller piece of the pie than when the cutting began. It is a much more complex dynamic than direct costs of taxes and regulation being passed to the consumer. Along the way, 5 members of the Walton family, Bull Gates, and Warren Buffett became five of the 15th wealthiest people in the country, concentrating wealth transfered from most of us, to those few.

Taxes on individuals and corporations and regulations and sound oversight are the only public powers demonstrated in the past 95 years, to slow or even reverse wealth inequity.

dc_dux · 05-11-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree that polution control is a good goal to have. I just wish that more people realized that corporate taxes and regulation costs are paid by them and the less you make the higher the percentage of your income you pay. I think many people think that it's OK to add taxes and costs to the big corporations because thay believe they are sticking it to the rich guys when they are the ones shouldering these costs.

I wonder how far this bill or any corporate tax would go if the authors said "It's only going to cost a family of four making $25000 a year an additional $1000 or so a year?"

flstf...the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions are utilities and they cant simply pass on the cost of regulatory compliance and/or taxes. The PUC in each of the states ultimately set the rates you and I pay for electricity and how much of the cost of compliance may be passed on to consumers.

The cost to heavy industries to meet new regulatory emission standards could very well be met with new manufacturing processes...given the number of years before compliance is mandated.

The most costly would probably be vehicle emissions and consumers will have choices...adapt by changing consumption habits.

flstf · 05-11-2008, 05:42 PM

host, I agree that it is more complicated than a direct pass through of corporate costs to corporate prices to consumers and sometimes there will be a Walmart to buck the trend to gain market share. However I do think that higher corporate costs on any given product sector (as long as their costs go up together) will eventually result in higher prices for consumers. Perhaps a given market sector will be willing to squeeze their profit margins down for a while but eventually they will pass these costs on to consumers.

I have taken the position in other tax discussions on this board that I believe this results in the poor and middle class paying a much higher percentage of their income to support our government because of these taxes and regulation costs being passed down to them via higher prices. The less you make, the higher percentage of your income it takes. I have little doubt that if we passed legislation to make it more expensive to generate electricity for example then electric bills are going to go up accordingly as well as the cost of food, clothing etc.. and goods from any industry that uses electricity.

I heat my house with propane. The cost has gone up from about $125 a month to about $300 per month in the last 4 years. I do not believe that putting an excess profit tax on these suppliers would lower my cost and most likely cause them to rise.

Seaver · 05-11-2008, 06:30 PM

Look, what angers me is this whole change-or-we-all-will-die bs.

I absolutely support natural energy sources, wind/tidal/geothermal/solar/etc. I absolutely want to lower pollution which damages water/etc. I absolutely support government support for energy efficiency and opening new research in how to more efficiently generate/use energy.

What I hate is how the environmental movement has turned black and white, either you believe the world is doomed or you hate nature.

Willravel · 05-11-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Look, what angers me is this whole change-or-we-all-will-die bs.

Do you plan on ever having kids? In Chicago? One word: asthma. I doubt you'll call the dangers of pollution bullshit the first time your son or daughter becomes short of breath. My asthma, which is directly related to the pollution in San Jose in the 80s, has on several occasions threatened my life.

So let's not pretend that it's not dangerous. I'm living proof that it is.

dc_dux · 05-11-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Look, what angers me is this whole change-or-we-all-will-die bs.

I absolutely support natural energy sources, wind/tidal/geothermal/solar/etc. I absolutely want to lower pollution which damages water/etc. I absolutely support government support for energy efficiency and opening new research in how to more efficiently generate/use energy.

What I hate is how the environmental movement has turned black and white, either you believe the world is doomed or you hate nature.

seaver...both sides are guilty of politicizing the climate change debate, GHG emissions, and related energy/environment issues.

And the industry side has spent a hell of alot more to get out their message and influence both the public and national legislatures around the world than Gore, the IPCC, NRDC, WWF, Earthwatch, Greenpeace, Worldwatch Institute and the entire environmental movement combined.

Seaver · 05-11-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Do you plan on ever having kids? In Chicago? One word: asthma. I doubt you'll call the dangers of pollution bullshit the first time your son or daughter becomes short of breath. My asthma, which is directly related to the pollution in San Jose in the 80s, has on several occasions threatened my life.

So let's not pretend that it's not dangerous. I'm living proof that it is.

CO2 doesn't cause asthma.

05-09-2008, 10:42 AM	#82 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Do you see the pattern in these two graphs? I'd add the PDO isn't really a 'regular' cycle, its not completely predictable. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-09-2008, 04:45 PM	#84 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	When people can give a reason for the Medieval Warm Period, or the Mini-Ice age and why it can't be occuring now I'd be amazed. Seriously, Greenland was green. The French were complaining about the British growing better wine then them. The world was MUCH warmer than it is now, with barely any human CO2 imprint. Nothing to see here folks. Then not too long after, the Year Without a Summer. New York Harbor froze solid, people walked across. The coldest winter on record, again almost no human CO2 imprint. Nothing to see here folks. A hurricane hits a city below sea level, and Gore makes a movie. THE WORLD IS AT STAKE! __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

05-09-2008, 08:20 PM	#87 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	otto....start with the many "scientists" that Ustwo has linked to in the past at junkscience.com or Steven Milloy, the "scientist" who administers that site.....or from scientists cited by Mark Morano, the chief denier on the minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Or most (not all) of the speakers at the recent deniers conference.....sponsored by the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute - two of the many organizations receiving major funding from Exxon/Mobil. I dont doubt that there are serious climatologists that dont share the views of the majority.....in fact, there is a small minority of dissenting views within the IPCC community. I think thats a good thing. But, the ones that are often linked or posted in discussions here generally are from the Morano/Milloy/Exxon crowd and IMO, and with a little digging, casts serious doubts on their credibility and objectivity. as opposed to these scientific bodies: National Academies of Sciences of G8 (+5) Nations Network of African Science Academies International Council for Science European Science Foundation American Academy for Advancement of Science Federation of American Scientists World Meteorological Organization American Meteorological Association Royal Meteorological Society (UK) Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics Federal Climate Change Science Program (US) Geological Society of America European Geosciences Union International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics International Union of Geological Sciences With the July 2007 release of a revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-09-2008 at 09:08 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-10-2008, 11:15 AM	#98 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Remember when history doesn't agree with your theory its best to change history! I knew it was bad but I didn't know the global warmers were trying to change what was already known and proven archaeologically. No one is claiming that all of greenland was open to farming, but it was in parts. 'Climate change' undoubtedly due to the English mead factories, resulted in cooling which made agrarian life impossible. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-11-2008, 06:30 PM	#117 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Look, what angers me is this whole change-or-we-all-will-die bs. I absolutely support natural energy sources, wind/tidal/geothermal/solar/etc. I absolutely want to lower pollution which damages water/etc. I absolutely support government support for energy efficiency and opening new research in how to more efficiently generate/use energy. What I hate is how the environmental movement has turned black and white, either you believe the world is doomed or you hate nature. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

05-10-2008, 01:45 AM	#89 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Ustwo... you asked about predictions. I've got an old Scientific American article on CO2 and greenhouse, which I believe dates from the late 80s. It's work - so I can't check the date right now. It's in an old "Energy and Environment" special. I'll fetch up the reference details. I'd not call it a prediction. But it does show that this was discussed some time ago. Amazon gives the copyright date as 1980, but doesn't show the cover. I'm fairly sure that it'd be the same book.

05-10-2008, 09:48 AM	#93 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Greenland also used to be a lot closer to the equator.

05-10-2008, 08:16 PM	#105 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	depends how it's cut, dc_dux. surely you know that. to take an outrageous example, we could cut emissions hugely by prohibiting everyone east of cleveland from driving. would you do that?

05-10-2008, 11:49 PM	#107 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I'm not sure I understand your wording? Are you saying that it was not mentioned in relation to Earth? I'm fairly sure that this article was specifically about CO2, Earth, and fossil fuels. I'll check it tomorrow anyways.

05-11-2008, 07:54 AM	#110 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I agree that polution control is a good goal to have. I just wish that more people realized that corporate taxes and regulation costs are paid by them and the less you make the higher the percentage of your income you pay. I think many people think that it's OK to add taxes and costs to the big corporations because thay believe they are sticking it to the rich guys when they are the ones shouldering these costs. I wonder how far this bill or any corporate tax would go if the authors said "It's only going to cost a family of four making $25000 a year an additional $1000 or so a year?"

05-11-2008, 05:42 PM	#116 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	host, I agree that it is more complicated than a direct pass through of corporate costs to corporate prices to consumers and sometimes there will be a Walmart to buck the trend to gain market share. However I do think that higher corporate costs on any given product sector (as long as their costs go up together) will eventually result in higher prices for consumers. Perhaps a given market sector will be willing to squeeze their profit margins down for a while but eventually they will pass these costs on to consumers. I have taken the position in other tax discussions on this board that I believe this results in the poor and middle class paying a much higher percentage of their income to support our government because of these taxes and regulation costs being passed down to them via higher prices. The less you make, the higher percentage of your income it takes. I have little doubt that if we passed legislation to make it more expensive to generate electricity for example then electric bills are going to go up accordingly as well as the cost of food, clothing etc.. and goods from any industry that uses electricity. I heat my house with propane. The cost has gone up from about $125 a month to about $300 per month in the last 4 years. I do not believe that putting an excess profit tax on these suppliers would lower my cost and most likely cause them to rise.