What global warming?

[Non_Comformist]

I look at global warming from two different perspectives.

Polictically there is no question in my mind that global warming is being overplayed and used for polictical gain.

However even as a conservative I cannot ignore the impartial scientific evidence that suggests at the very least there is a potential problem that we should be concerned about. Of course no one can have 100% certainty but this is one of those things where I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I would like the see the GOP get tougher but fair on environmental policy over the next 12 years.

[Il_Mostro]

I have not read the article in full, but:
[ QUOTE ]
The report, entitled “Impacts of a Warming Arctic,” pretty much debunks itself on page 23 in the graph labeled, “Observed Arctic Temperature, 1900 to Present.”

The graph shows that Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles that are roughly 40 years long. The Arctic seems currently to be undergoing a warming phase — similar to one experienced between 1920-1950 — which will likely be followed by a cooling phase — similar to the one experienced between 1950-1990.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's reading the graph very very creatively. Look at it again. The last time we had an increase it went on from ca 1915 to ca 1935.
This time it has been on the rise since 1965. Hardly "debunks itself"

[wacki]

You completely ignored the graph.

I have severe reservations about that www.globalwarming.org. I will have to look at it longer, but I know people who are in this field. I have friends that work for NOAA, I have attended lectures, ate lunch, and drank wine with J.M. Melillo who is the director the Ecosystems at the MBL, professor at Harvard University, researched at Yale, and was the environmental, science and technology advisor to President Clinton. None of his research or articles appear on www.globalwarming.org. I have personally met a significant number of the leading scientists and Nobel Prize winners in this field. What bothers me about www.globalwarming.org is that none of their names appear on the webites search engine either. That is a huge red flag. How can you leave out all of the worlds leading scientists?


I think you should check out this website:

Richard E. Smalley (University Professor, Gene and Norman Hackerman Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Physics & Astronomy, 1996 Nobel Prize Winner.)[ Also not listed on www.globalwarming.org.]

Watch this movie, if you don't agree with what he says then I think our discussion will have to come to an end.

http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_O...31101_300k.wmv

http://smalley.rice.edu/


BTW, everyone I have met who works for NOAA, ecosystems, or is doing research on this stuff all have the same very worrisome attitude! I have a friend who is literally sacrificing 6 months to a year of his life to run experiments in the artic circle. He doesn't even really want to go, he wants to teach, but he knows how important solving the carbon sink problem is. He is the best man for the job, so he is going. The fact there are articles in globalwarming.org that say scientists have conflict of interests simply disgusts me. Scientists do not get grants for bogus research, it is a cut throat industry. Also, academic scientists do not spend long hours working their life away for little or no money when the research is bogus anyway! What would be the point? Conflict of interest my ass. I know there are some professors that do bogus research (even those are in the vast minority), but grant researchers do not. They wouldn't be awarded the grants in the first place, and they work long hard hours for little or no money.

Again, you completely ignored my graph. Please look at it and try to come up with an arguement against it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Polictically there is no question in my mind that global warming is being overplayed and used for polictical gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree. Politcally the global warming issue is being ignored by the right and only slightly payed attention to by the left. Little to nothing is being done. What makes me angry is that the direction we are going is the wrong one. The Kyotto cords are a sham and is more of a way to redistribute the US's wealth around the world than to control the carbon output.

What we need is a program similar to the Apollo program to develope new technologies and find a new oil. We need another Kennedy to give another "We will go to the moon" speach, but this time it will be for energy. Watch smalley's video. The US is giving away the worlds largest industry and destroying the earth at the same time.


If you think global warming is being overplayed, you need to read the national geographic on global warming.

[wacki]

www.globalwarming.org does not even mention this man. I do not trust that website at all.

http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu...s/melillo.html

APPOINTMENTS

* The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 1976-Present
o Co-Director, 1989-Present
o Acting Director, 1988-1989
o Senior Scientist, 1987-Present
(on leave to National Science Foundation, Washington, DC 1986-1988)
o Associate Scientist, 1982-1987
o Assistant Scientist, 1976-1982
* Associate Director for Environment, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of the President of the United States, Washington, DC, 1996-1997
* Director, Ecosystems Studies Program, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1986-1988
* Associate in Research, The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1975-1976

[bholdr]

i totally aggree that we need some kind of 'manhattan project' to address the future of the worlds energy needs, and global warming is only one reason:
1- such government programs have been terriffic successes in the past, the original manhattan project helped to win world war two, and the appollo program unlocked all kinds of technology, from the microprossor to microwaves.
2- america has an economic intrest in leading what is sure to be the next energy revolution
3- incresing our use of alternitive energies reduces our dependance on foreign oil
4- using those energy sources reduces pollution
5- well, ok, global warming's a pretty good reason too.

there are problems with/ arguments against such a program, though,
1- some would say that the private sector should handle such responsibilities, and that the free market is capable of developing those technologies on its own
2- others claim that global warming isn't proven, yet
3- there are problems within those new energy sources, (windmills in migration routes killing thousands of birds, for example)
4- fossil fuel technologies are getting cleaner and cleaner.
5- the cost would be prohibitive, where will we find the money, with so much nessacarily being spent elsewhere?

Personally, I am disappointed in the lack of attention paid to this subject during the recent election.


I think:
Such a project would be extremly expensive, but worth it. the reason that new energy technologies are not (effectivly)created in the private sector is because of the long time and massive investment nessacary before profitability. the government could also use more tax incentives and subsities to hit a middle ground here.

Of all of the potential new energy sources some are clearly more desirable than others; wind power has a lot of problems but is already becoming economically feasable in a lot of places; solar power is expensive and complicated; geothermal and tidal power are not available everywhere.

Hydrogen seems like a good fit to solve most energy problems, it's accessable, compact, transportable, perfectly clean, and over twice as powerful as the same weight in gasoline. they've just gotta figure out how to keep it from exploding (fuel cells show promise).

What do you all think about a potential national energy effort? and not just as a response to global warming?

*disclaimer *I am not an expert on this* I am just presenting the debate as i understand it*

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you all think about a potential national energy effort? and not just as a response to global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch Smalley's video. I honestly think that 1.5 hour video is the most important video in existance today. Play the video while playing poker if you have to. Global warming, our economic problems, and our energy crisis can be solved in one swoop. If you listed the top ten problems facing the US and humanity in general, most of them can be solved with Smalley's solution. There is no other route IMO.

BTW clean fossil fuels don't stop global warming, they stop acid rain. You burn fossil fuels you are putting C02 in the air. You can't change that.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
1- some would say that the private sector should handle such responsibilities, and that the free market is capable of developing those technologies on its own

[/ QUOTE ]
As you say, I have a hard time seeing the private sector doing anything about the problems until it's too late. If we don't start until the problems are here in full force it will (very likely) be too late.

[ QUOTE ]
4- fossil fuel technologies are getting cleaner and cleaner.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are also running out, day by day.

[ QUOTE ]
5- the cost would be prohibitive, where will we find the money, with so much nessacarily being spent elsewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]
The alternative is a lot worse

[ QUOTE ]
Hydrogen seems like a good fit to solve most energy problems, it's accessable, compact, transportable, perfectly clean, and over twice as powerful as the same weight in gasoline. they've just gotta figure out how to keep it from exploding (fuel cells show promise).

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, keeping it from exploding is not the problem. The problem is that the whole idea is basically a sham. See my posts in ThaSaltCracka:s thread "The more I think the more right i become" to read some more on hydrogen. Suffice it to say that hydrogen shows very litle promise to take over from oil, we simply cannot produce enough of it. Along with other problems.

And you forget the most important problem of them all, the fact that our economic system relies on growth. If it stops growing it implodes. And having the economy grow while we have less and less energy available and transportation becomes more and more expensive (along with everything else) is probably not possible.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch Smalley's video. I honestly think that 1.5 hour video is the most important video in existance today. Play the video while playing poker if you have to. Global warming, our economic problems, and our energy crisis can be solved in one swoop. If you listed the top ten problems facing the US and humanity in general, most of them can be solved with Smalley's solution. There is no other route IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, to an extent at least. I'm not sure about our ability to solve all the problems we face, but we have to try, if we are to have any chance.
As I read somewhere:
Maybe nature is just playing the biggest joke of all times on us. What if oil is the best we'll ever find?

[wacki]

Don't forget, as far as cost, Smalley says a nickel donation per gallon of gasoline would be enough, a dime would be a whole lot better, but a nickel per gallon would be enough.

As for the private sector, forget it. Nothing brings around innovation like federal funding. Nothing attracts the brightest minds like federal funding. Nothing is better suited for this than federal funding.