Al Gore another idiot, global warming myth

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I would not state that wind and solar will never be viable on a large scale. But not possibly anytime soon. Plenty of confident statements have been made about how we would never figure out how to do this or that technologically and then it gets figured out.

I agree, but you are talking existing technology. Perhaps solar panels will become a lot more efficient in the future, where they can gather sufficient energy even on cloudy days. Perhaps windmills will be similar, able to generate more electricity even in weak winds. But also it could turn out that only one (such as solar power) is viable and another does not become viable.

No matter how efficient they are, you still get no power from solar at night. Windmills will still produce no power on windless days.

Would you like to change to a lifestyle without electricity for 12 hours or more on a good day?

TR

[Go Devil]

The use of reason was once a dominating factor in science. Since the politicization of science has become valuable, a person has to dig much deeper than the grandiose front pages of entertainment news.

Ice Age events were of great concern until the 1980's when liberal ideologies began to surmount reason and study.

http://www.teslasociety.com/milankovic.htm

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/...os/Ice_age.pdf

Hopefully, reason will once again take the stage before a profit driven die-off takes place.

There is a sickening pride within people who hold the ability to manipulate large organizations and masses of people. They seem to fall to an arrogance that reminds one of the "church" when they killed their opposition for countering a "flat earth" mentality or a "Sun revolves around the Earth" belief.

Headlines like "Paleolithic hunters killed off the megafauna!" and
"Big Mac foam containers are making a hole in the ozone." Are akin to the idea that "If everyone in America were to jump at the same time, an earthquake would occur."

When people make money off of using government to regulate how and where they can spend their money I become highly suspect of the reasoning behind the legislation.

When long recorded data is manipulated, anything is possible: Global Warming, Iron River of Guns from The United States, Unaccompanied minors traveling on foot from South America to North America, email is unrecoverable, .....

The climate has been warming over the past 16,000 years, but recorded data shows that that is a common cycle. Recorded data also shows that the climate goes through a cycle of cooling as well, and those cool periods generally have a much, much more dire effect, especially when "bread basket" regions are under a mile of blue ice. Ice ages start with a number of cool summers in a row, followed by progressively colder winters until a collective tipping point occurs. After the tipping point, you can look forward to periods of glaciation that far outlive any warm periods of happiness.

[Box]

...I'm just going to buy a few carbon credits.

If I give algore my money he will use it to patch up the ozone layer.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Climate change is real. It is happening now and it has been happening long before man was here and it will continue to happen forever because that is what nature does. Al Gore and his band of merry idiots are just building a political carrear off of it by spreading fear and getting rich in the mean time.

Here is a link that talks about the little ice age and its impact on Europe. This guy states he believes in global warming yet here is his triade on pr industrial climate change.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...e_ice_age.html

This I agree with, the earth's climate is always in a state of change and over thousands of years it does change. Just like the reversal of the magnetic fields every few hundred years. I'm sure al gore and his idiots would say man has an impact on that too.

[Paslode]

Broadsword you touch on it, the goal is to generate income through taxes and fines on the private sector for the Green Agenda agencies like the EPA, NOAA, NASA and the NSIDC...and in the EPAs case they also get control of the masses through restrictions.

The rewards for general population are like a smaller serving size, I am getting or using much less than in years prior and I am paying more for it. Like that High Efficiency washer that cut my water and gas usage and bill in half......now 4-5 years later I am paying way more, my usage has not changed.......BUT the State Owned Waster Utility has grown leaps and bouds because they charge more for less.

The local Sherwin Williams guys told me that in Kali oil based paint is not sold in anything larger than a quart because of the regulations on evil VOC's, this creates a problem with color consistency. The work around is to purchase enough quarts to make the quantity you need and mix them together.....but that too is against EPA regulations and it garners a fine if caught. So the painters just figure the fine into the job!

In the case of Oil based paint the goal of the EPA isn't to save the public from the evils of VOC's, if it was they would totally ban such products, the goal is to create a revenue stream by instituting unreasonable restrictions which will lead to the collection of fines from the private sector.

Talk about increasing global temperatures, how would mass expanses of solar farms affect the temperature?

Birds Bursting Into Flames Above Solar Farm Stirs Calls To Slow Expansion

The Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Warming Alarmists are nothing more than than modern day Professor Harold Hills who wish to profit through the hamstringing of the private sector with a outlandish rules and regulations. It becomes even more outlandish when you consider that pollution in the US pales in comparison to larger populations such as China and India.


It's probably 10 degrees cooler on the grass than it is on a asphalt or concrete road. It is probably 15-20 degrees cooler under a tree than on the road. If you cut out huge swaths of trees and vegetation and replace it with pavement my unscientific theory say the temperature is going to increase, there will be less moisture in the area and if the area is large enough it will change the weather pattern.

Few doubt the climate changes or that man can affect the climate. The climate has been ebbing and flowing since the dawn of time and man can affect the climate.......the problem in this day and age is we have evil shamans trying to control the masses and profit from it.

[dennisw]

My son works for the fish and wildlife. They are often looking for grants to fund studies. The federal government is continuously offering grant money to study global warming, but most accredited organizations will have nothing to do with these grants as the believe the subject is bogus.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

...I'm just going to buy a few carbon credits.

If I give algore my money he will use it to patch up the ozone layer.

What's wrong with duct tape?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well my thinking is that this is where more advanced batteries would come into play. You'd have batteries that build up charge during the day which you then use while operating at night (or windless days for wind power).

Look at the gigawatts (if not terawatts) required to provide even 90% battery back-up power to the current grid-based system and tell me where those megatons of resources are going to come from?

BTW, average life expectancy of a decent battery in a back-up system might be five years, so 20% of the batteries will have to be replaced every year.

TR

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well my thinking is that this is where more advanced batteries would come into play. You'd have batteries that build up charge during the day which you then use while operating at night (or windless days for wind power).

What generation of batteries do you think I'm using here? Twenty-first century? Twentieth century? No. Nineteenth century flooded lead-acid batteries. How quickly do you think that technology is going to leap over a century of proven dependability.

Besides, how much energy is going to go into developing that technology? What new mining techniques will need to be developed and what environmental regulations will need to be satisfied? How many palms will have to be greased?

We need to get past the childish "I want" stage and realize that, as parents know, our wants are not cheap or, often, necessary. If there is a magical energy revolution in our future, it will not be government funded. Well, except for nuclear. How's that turned out?

Pat

[Pechorin]

Okay I don't have a ton of time to explain what I've learned about climate change so far but I will later this week or this weekend once my exams come to a close. I was a biology major for undergrad and took an ecology class and a climate change class. Here is some general information I can recall that I will reference later on when I can dig out my papers later.

Global Warming is a misnomer used to cause panic and news headlines. Scientists prefer climate change. The average global temperature is expected to change but not every local region will get warmer. Climate is a long period of time as well. Over a year at minimum, generally over years. This will make life a lot harder for people. I'm from Indiana so I did my research paper on the predicted outlook for the next 50-100 years and I'll explain a few of the predicted issues with climate change for us people.

Climate change in Indiana is not just going to affect our temperature. More importantly, and especially to farmers our precipitation is changing too. We are getting more rain. This is usually good. But unfortunately most of this rain will be in very short time periods. When rain comes down hard it runs off. It doesn't penetrate deep into the ground to nourish the soil. For farmers this means they need to explore more ways to utilize water more efficiently. This means adaptive farming techniques and biotechnology for plants to be more drought resistant and more water efficient. It also means more flooding. When we get our precipitation is going to change as well. Water tables in Indiana usually get filled from a seasonal precipitation cycle. The cycle changing means that the tables will not effectively be filled.

It's also getting warmer sooner and staying warmer longer. Our winters are getting shorter and we are having less days under 32 degrees. And the overall trend is for more days of over 90 degree heat. This means several things. More pests, both ones that bite animals and humans and those that attack crops are expected to come to Indiana than previously. The combination of less cold days and more warm days allows new species to expand to Indiana that previously were unable but more importantly for more reproduction and growth of pests due to the less cold temp days from killing off as many as in the past and the more warm temp days allowing more reproduction of pests we do have. (A lot more ticks, mosquito, etc.) This also means that pollen is expected to increase and that people with allergies to pollen are expected to be more exasperated than before.

Our precipitation is also expected to change from more frequent light rains, to less frequent hard rains. The combination of less frequent rain and high temps is expected to make our pollution levels for our cities to increase. I know that most people don't think pollution when they think of Indiana but our city currently isn't the greatest in air quality especially on the humid, no wind, hot days. This means people with breathing difficulties such as asthma, emphysema, COPD, etc are going to have a harder time in the summers.

As far as the ocean is concerned there is some debate. The ocean, especially the ocean circulation is not completely understood. There are some understandings though. Increased temperature for the ocean is bad for humans. Why? Fish. A large ratio of the oceans fish live in part of coral ecosystems. Coral is one of the most fragile ecosystems around. Especially to temperature. If I remember correctly, a 4 degree change in ocean temperature will kill off coral ecosystems due to a couple things. When water temps rise coral is unable to fix and produce calcium carbonate, the main mineral needed to build coral. So they die. Secondly, as temperatures rise "bleaching" is seen. This is already occurring in coral ecosystems around the globe. It's basically a fungus or disease that sticks to the coral and kills it from what I can recall. This turns all the coral white, hence "bleaching". Less coral means less of those ecosystems which means less fish. Overfishing coupled with this is expected to have drastic effects on the fish population sizes of the world.

This is all just recall from what I can remember a few years ago. I list a response with sources later as I said.


The main thing I can remember is this: Developed nations like the U.S. will be fine. We'll have some adapting to do, life may be a little tougher for some, but we will be fine. Economies are expected to take hits due to climate related issues and world hunger is expected to increase. Undeveloped nations however will really struggle with the changes that are expected to come. Especially populations that rely on fragile ecosystems or weather conditions.

Hope this provides some clarification. Just what I can recall.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pechorin

Okay I don't have a ton of time to explain what I've learned about climate change so far but I will later this week or this weekend once my exams come to a close. I was a biology major for undergrad and took an ecology class and a climate change class. Here is some general information I can recall that I will reference later on when I can dig out my papers later.

Looking back on your education, do you believe that in your classes, you were presented with all of the facts, even those opposing your educator's viewpoints, or were you merely given one side of the issues and expected to parrot those back to the instructor?

TR

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pechorin

Okay I don't have a ton of time to explain what I've learned about climate change so far but I will later this week or this weekend once my exams come to a close.........

Is man the cause of climate change?

If so, did man cause the medieval warm period or the Roman Warm period?

How about the Little Ice Age? How did man fit into that one?

Are we just returning to the warm normal?

So, would it be better for man if the planet warmed 2 degrees or cooled 2 degrees?

[Pechorin]

Reaper,

It would vary from class to class. In some classes like cell biology there really wasn't too much debate until a new discovery was made. My ecology lecture and climate change professor was the same and he was a good one though for that type of subject where there is a lot of contention. An oddball but a good one. He would provide lectures on specific aspects of climate change based on the data provided by a series of sources as well as data he himself had collected. He showed us differing viewpoints but his main emphasis really pushed us to look into who the source was. Where was it published? Was it a peer reviewed article? Who are the authors? Are they from an university or from a lab? Did they work for a company? Who funded the research? What was their research? What methods did they use? Were these methods sufficient for gathering solid data on the topic? What was left out or should have also been done? Have other articles collected similar data and come to similar conclusions?

He did provide lecturers as well, as in the last third of the class he was hospitalized with some illness. I believe he contracted some serious infection during one of our breaks when he went on a trip to do some research.

Some lecturers were from biotech firms like Dow and Monsanto. Others were other professors. We did have a scientist that came in and he worked for a subsidiary of an oil firm.

We got a pretty broad view on what was thought. The scientist from the oil firm for instance stated that the increased carbon predictions were too high, but that carbon in the atmosphere was expected and that the increase in carbon coupled with higher temperature meant greater yields of some plants. True, but not for Indiana where heat damage, water, and pests will most likely be the limiting factors of growth of our crops. Water being the strongest limiting factor of the three.

From what I could tell these were the general consensus on what a majority of the scientific community stated:

Most of the scientific community agreed that climate is changing.
Most believe that human actions are altering how and how quickly climate is changing.

The real questions to be asked were:
How is it changing?
Will these changes be good or bad?
How will these changes affect the ecological systems of the globe?
How can people react to them?
Can people benefit?
Will people be harmed?
What predictions can be made?
What assumptions are made when making these predictions?
What are the best and worst case scenarios?
What can be done to alter the predictions?



I'm by no means claiming to be an expert in the field. I simply was adding in my brief knowledge on what I had learned.

[Pechorin]

Reaper,

Another note, in that class we were graded on papers on differing subjects that we researched. He usually graded us based on our analysis, analysis of sources, and the veracity of our sources. I was lucky enough that very few of my classes have involved me being a parrot. At least since high school.

Pete,

I'll have to answer back on those questions once I dig out my papers. If I remember correctly scientists believe that climate change has mainly sped up since the industrial revolution. And the average temperature cooling or warming 2 degrees is interesting. I never considered the effects of cooling. I'll look into that.

I'll be honest and say that during those classes they were near the bottom of my priority list. I was taking Organic and organic lab and physics and focusing mainly on those. I usually dialed it back mentally in Eco. and Climate Change and I didn't consider them to be personally important to me. I did like ecology lab though. A lot of outside labs in the field and learned a bit on how to identify trees and what some of the uses of local fauna in Indiana are - edible or not, etc.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pechorin

..... If I remember correctly scientists believe that climate change has mainly sped up since the industrial revolution....

But has it? Has it increased?

Are we getting warmer or are we just returning to a "warm" normal?

If you look at the last link's chart it looks like we are returning to "normal".

I think the problem the Anti AGW crowd have with global warming is with the Hubris the left claims it's caused by man.

So if man could cool the planet - should he?

I think the earth is a big critter and we're along for the ride.