There is nothing we can do to stop global warming. Global temperatures go in trends... just look at some of the photos of glaciers from the early 1900's... many were smaller then than they are now! Those who cry "the sky is falling" are just looking at pictures from a different era, after the glaciers grew again. Just because they got big in the mid twentieth century doesn't mean we caused them to melt in the late twentieth century. Heck, a scientist in the late 1800's theorized about global warming, long before industry got huge. He even showed the glaciers in Greenland were melting, and this was well over 100 years ago.

As far as our contribution goes, it's negligible. One volcano eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses in one day than all of the automobiles combined, for the whole year. And that happens thousands of times every year. Anybody that thinks the tiny amount of polution we put out is the cause of global warming has one thing in mind, and real data isn't it.

Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate – and, yes, there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al Gore and the mainstream media.

This is hilarious... I just heard this on Discovery Channel yesterday--a liberal, evolution preaching, global warming subscribing tv network:

Ephesus (yes, where the Biblical Ephesians lived) was a "thriving seaport," back in the first century.

Ephesus--yes, the same one--is now 5 miles from the ocean.

Even IF there is global warming now, then it's just restoring the global cooling that caused the glaciers to build up in the first place, which caused Ephesus to lose its "seaport" status. Who's to say the so-called global warming that we are supposedly causing it's actually restoring the climate???

Just something to make you go "hmmm."

I watched two shows, almost back-to-back, one on the Formerly Credible National Geographic channel and the other on the Miscovery channel about the impending doom of AGW.

The Discovery presentation had some awesome graphics, and showed where the sea level used to be 20ft higher about 130k yrs ago.....but oddly never mentioned how it got to that point back then...

Oh, the poor eskymohs, "....this is the only home they've ever known." The land they're on is being continuously eroded......But, where were they when the ocean's levels were higher??? You build your house in a river bed and are surprised when things get wet?

It reminds me of the people in Malibu who's houses get trashed in the storms. What the hell did you expect? Or the houses in the Hollyweird Hills that slide down the side of the hill after a good soaking.

Throughout history animals and man migrated in response to climate change. Just like gooses, and butterflies, and elk herds do today.

The classic line in one was this Inuit sitting on his ATV saying 'the pollution isn't here, it's in the big cities.' ..... You mean like where they built the ATV you're sitting on???

How have they coped with the warming and cooling over thousands of years?

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing
the temp to rise.

regarding ephesus. same thing happened to all of the aegean penninsula.

back in homer's day (the original homer that is) many wars were fought.
wars back then required trees. trees held down dirt. no trees=loose dirt.
loose dirt blows from the ground into the ocean filling it up and increasing
the size of the coastline.
the area was once well endowed with forests. anybody that lives in the
area now can tell you thats not the case.

btw, a "liberal", is literally, a person who enjoys freedom.
and literally speaking a "republican" is some one whose form
of government is having other people decide things for them.

......Ephesus--yes, the same one--is now 5 miles from the ocean....Just something to make you go "hmmm."


"hmmm"? No not really; Ephesus is in the Eastern Mediterranean which is a region that is getting squished between the European continent and the African continent. Volcanoes, earthquakes and vertical ground shifts are not unusual around the Mediterranean. It is not a good region to use as a baseline for judging what global ocean levels are doing because it is a shifting baseline.

btw, a "liberal", is literally, a person who enjoys freedom.
and literally speaking a "republican" is some one whose form of government is having other people decide things for them.
Actually, you have that exactly backwards. A "liberal" is someone who wants to steal my money and give it to someone else. Yes, it's stealing; I, personally, did not give them permission. A liberal is someone who says the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, therefore, the government needs to be making these decisions. Examples of decisions that liberals think I'm too stupid to make are decisions such as if I want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet; how I choose to save for retirement; how to budget my money so I can purchase health insurance [or find a job that provides it], etc....extreme liberals want to take these choices away from me, take my money away from me, and give me a fraction of the leftovers.)

An extreme "Conservative" is someone who believes the only job of the government is to protect the citizens, and nothing more.

And yes, most conservatives put "unborn babies" in the "citizen" category. (You can be charged with murder for killing an unborn on the street, in your home or in a bathroom, but not in an "operating room"??? What difference does it make to the baby how its killed?

Edit Added: And if an unborn baby is just "fetal tissue" then why is the murder of an unborn baby even possible? Why is it not just assault? To the mother, if it's just tissue, and a criminal kills her unborn baby (i.e. by assaulting her), it should be no different than having a wart or a mole removed involuntarily. But I digress...

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing
the temp to rise.

btw, a "liberal", is literally, a person who enjoys freedom.
and literally speaking a "republican" is some one whose form
of government is having other people decide things for them.

But only "liberal" climatologists, right?

But only "liberal" climatologists, right?

:cheers:

You know, Dan Rather was SHOCKED that Bush won... he was quoted as saying he didn't even know one person who voted for him. Yet those news-types claim they aren't biased... when in reality, they are so far out of touch with the real US Citizens.

Put your head in the sand, and you'll stay in the dark.

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing the temp to rise.

AlGore isn't a climatologist, and he's decided. In fact, he's deciding for you. He wants to impose legislation (evidence his behaviour as VP during Kyoto) that will force you to comply with what one side of the scientific isle wants.

On the other side of the isle are the "skeptics". Presumably funded by BigOil, or other Evil interests, they're more conservative on the issue, and most maintain that human influence on global climate is minimal.

Either way, each side will ONLY present it's side, and select which piece of the other side's argument to present in order to discredit the opposition.

What we have here is the opportunity to read, review, and discuss BOTH sides, so we can make our own informed decisions.

Now, isn't that really what a true "liberal" would want???

------------------------------
The transcript from the Larry King show, with Dick Lindzen kicking Bill Nye's butt....You get to hear EVERYBODY'S view!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/lkl.01.html

wow, i wasnt really expecting to get quite as much mileage over that.

if i'm not mistaken the aegean is between greece and turkey which qualifies
as the eastern med. although my geography is a bit shakey as is my climatology. and i imagine the same thing happened to ephesus that
happened to thermopyle. lots of dust into the ocean that is.
wasn't "big oil" that did it, it was "big internessine war"

point being. not a single person here actually knows, on their own, whether
global warming is real or a myth. it depends on their political leaning and
where they get their news.

just a thought. the ozone layer is only about a foot thick in most places.
this is its normal size. its not much actually and is a measurable thing
of a measurable thickness and of a measurable density. and in lab
tests it is possible to destroy and/or reduce it in density.

but, you know, i'm gonna be dead long before anything that matters happens
to this planet and i'm not planning on having kids. so i guess yours will just
have to deal with it.

liberal is not a dirty word even if some liberals are.

....."The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution...."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

..Of course, there's a rebuttal by the RealClimate team....see Comments #s 37 and 49
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/thank-you-for-emitting/

....."The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant....blah blah blah.....

fizzissist you are amusing, maybe unintentionally so. In a different thread I suggested you look into things like solar activity and cosmic rays and also hydroxyle radicals and atmospheric methane levels. Your response was to jump down my throat with a whole bunch of urls and questions. Now you present one side of a potential discussion that could have a significant amount of relevance to the warming question; in particular the apparently increased rate of warming during the last two or three decades.

But I still think you are bluffing; you don't really understand all the stuff you dig up and you are just trying to come across as more informed than other people who don't have the free time to roam looking for urls. However, before consigning you permanently to the class of people I don't waste time with I will give you another chance. You have found the solar activity/cosmic ray stuff...how about the other two; hydroxyl radicals and atmospheric methane. Also why not do a little bit of looking into historic wheat prices and observed (or not observed) sunspot activity. And one that is very obscure; the Seven Sisters and Peruvian mythology.

Almost forgot; also boron isotopes and dendrochronogy.

its funny to think that everyone believes that there is a raging debate
among climatologists as to whether or not human beings contribute
to global warming. its not like a 50/50 split here. its more like a
98/2 split and half that 2 is financed by people who have a direct
interest in global warming not being caused by humans.

personally i dont care, i like warm winters and have never had
a particular affection for penguins.

however, i cant see the stars in the sky cause there is so much
friggin pollution that i can only make out venus and the brighter
planets. i can go out to the desert and see what it was like before
man put his two cents worth in. and this is in tulsa, well away from
the light infested eastern seaboard.

in the end i think pollution will be done away with the "free economy" way.
free electric from the sun is cheaper in the long run. i predict in the
next ten years a full solar power setup will cost less than one years
worth of coal powered electric.

gas is only going to get more expensive. so people will use less.
things on a macro scale generally have a way of working themselves out.

and hey, if the planet gets really tired of it, she'll just kill us off and
start over. no loss in the cosmic scale of things to her. just
an itchy flea that got scratched.

Follow the Money, you may just end up in china which happens to be one of the only industrialized nations to BENIFIT from the Kyoto Protocol. Under this treaty that we thankfully will not sign,(Clinton or Bush 2), China is allowed to increase their greenhouse gas emmisions. WTF!!!!!!

BTW, CO2 is plant food. Now what was that argument about the Rainforest?

Here today it was only 44 degrees celcius (111 F) whereas yesterday it was 45c (113 F) so clearly in my part of the world it's getting cooler. I'm worried that the ice is melting, so we're going to move the esky into the shade and buy a new bag :)

its funny to think that everyone believes that there is a raging debate
among climatologists as to whether or not human beings contribute
to global warming. its not like a 50/50 split here. its more like a
98/2 split and half that 2 is financed by people who have a direct
interest in global warming not being caused by humans...

You missed 17,198 folks when you did your "don't agree" count:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I think it's a lot closer to 50/50 or maybe even 40/60 than the greens and the fear mongers would like you to believe.

CO2 is a plant "food". they can only consume so much though. and
at the rate that the rainforests are coming down they will only be able
to take so much out of the air. anybody wanna argue that the rainforests
aren't coming down? wouldn't want you to lose your fox news merit badge.

17,000 of them against global warming? come on, do you really think there
are 17,000 climatoligists in this world. more likely they just polled people
at a monster truck rally.

you're being spoon fed what you want to hear.

CO2 is a plant "food". they can only consume so much though. and
at the rate that the rainforests are coming down they will only be able
to take so much out of the air. anybody wanna argue that the rainforests
aren't coming down? wouldn't want you to lose your fox news merit badge.

17,000 of them against global warming? come on, do you really think there
are 17,000 climatoligists in this world. more likely they just polled people
at a monster truck rally.

you're being spoon fed what you want to hear.


I love how it's OK to totally disregard the other side's proof because "it's obviously a lie", but your information, most of it of dubious origin to begin with, is the gospel, not to be questioned under any circumstances.

IF your theory can't stand up to rigorous questioning by skeptical people, it's not a theory at all, it's a fantasy. ;)

rigorous questioning by skeptical people? i think they have a word for
that.....let's see.....starts with an s.......um, oh yeah, science. thats
the word.

people in this field tend to have a degee of education and work in the
field in which they call themselves "scientists". another branch of
employment is the "right-wing talk show host." generally speaking
they go to different colleges and study different things than scientists
but for some reason seem to ignore everything scientists say and come up
with whatever nonsense their editors/handlers make up for them.

let me restate my position and then i think i'm gonna go back to looking
at pretty cnc machines and y'all can just debate this to yer hearts content.

the world is getting warmer.
its caused at least partially by humans, even its just an infintessimal amount.
i dont think it will ever amount to anything.
and i think tom cruise is gay.

According to the website http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ we've done burnt up half of our heritage of hydrocarbons already. Now our production of CO2 from burning hydrocarbons has to start decreasing if the web site is at all correct. You will know when we have reached peak oil when the price of oil takes off on an exponential increase curve. Goodness, I think that is what it must be doing now.:)
Anyhow in addition to warmer temperatures, melting polar ice caps, changed ocean currents, we will also have to figure out how to maintain our energy hog of a civilization? without letting half the population on earth starve. Which problem has worse consequences?
Now I don't believe all the Al Gore stuff on the link that I mentioned, but I know for darned certain that if you squeeze the toothpaste tube enough times, eventually you are going to get to a point where you can't get any more. I suppose we'll know in 5 years or so whether the Hubbertpeak site is correct, that is if you don't already know.:rolleyes:

Coolhand,

I won't profess the relevancy of this point but, you may want to note that the site you've pointed to originated in 2001 and was last edited in 2004.

I suppose it's possible nothing has change in the last 3-6 years.

But I also suspect that the earth is really flat and conservatives really do have my best interests at heart.

Mike

. . . . the world is getting warmer.
its caused at least partially by humans, even its just an infintessimal amount.
i dont think it will ever amount to anything.
and i think tom cruise is gay.

Now that is an opinion I can respect. Clearly stated as opinion and well articulated to boot.

The Tom Cruise reference was just icing on the cake. (nuts)

I think that human CO2 output is not the crux of the pollution problem, and that it is certainly not responsible for a temperature rise worldwide. I think there are far worse things out there that deserve some of the attention and money wasted on global warming.

I do not think that a 0.65 deg C rise in temperature over a century's time will lead to catastrophic shifts in weather, growing seasons, or even tree frog populations. I do not think that the sea is going to rise 60 ft and drown everyone in Indonesia. It might rise 2ft and inconvenience people who built houses right on the beach, but that was a stupid idea to start with.

I also do not think that halting all human activity around the entire world will stop the world from warming, so it is pointless to cripple our economies by taking useless actions (such as mandating the cap and trade policy that we seem headed for regardless of its uselessness).

. . . . But I also suspect that the earth is really flat and conservatives really do have my best interests at heart.

Mike

Don't feel bad, I realize the world is round, I suspect that the conservatives don't support the ideas that they used to, and I KNOW that liberals don't have my best interests in mind.

Did anyone mention that our wonderful leader here in the U.S. (the one with the approval rating below 30%) repealed President Clintons EPA regulations during his first few months in office to help out Big Business. And don’t forget about the 1000000+ acres of forest land (AKA Pubic Land) that he gave to the timber industry.

To help slow down global-warming we need leaders to see past their pocketbooks, and truly care about their fellow man!

Everyone ( ie the IPCC ) says CO2 causes temperature rises and Global Warming. Well, since I am a simple minded individual and not a scientist I thought I might as well look at an area were it would make the biggest impact, right? So I thought Antartica! Lots of Ice there to melt, right? Amundsen-Scott Base, South Pole, Antarctica. Right smack in the middle. Now I am even more confused when looking at this graph...

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif

Hmmm. CO2 on the rise and temps falling? Now I know it only goes to 2000, but they have for sure shown a rise in CO2 since 1973. I don't get it!! So I thought must be because its a US base. So I looked up a Russian base...

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/vostok.gif

What??? Looked up another Russian base...

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/casey.gif

Maybe an Australian Base would be more accurate.

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/mawson.gif

Please, could someone explain this global warming to me because I just don't understand. I know I'm not as smart as 17000 scientists with their theories but the actual temperatures just don't seem to Jive... catch my drift?

. . . . .Please, could someone explain this global warming to me because I just don't understand. I know I'm not as smart as 17000 scientists with their theories but the actual temperatures just don't seem to Jive... catch my drift?

Actually, the 17k scientists are with you on this one (IE they think it's bull**** too).

The paper that was released on Friday was created by 13 scientists and a whole slew of politicians. It's called the "Summary for Policymakers". The actual research will not be released until May as it's not done being compiled, but they're gonna go ahead and release the "what we're gonna do about it" before they actually have any answers. I mean why wait, right? :rolleyes:

The really scary part is this, quoted directly from IPCC procedures: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15)"
IE, the research will be edited to suit the outcome mandated by the summary for policymakers.

They've already made up their minds, and if the research data doesn't support it, then their procedures clearly state that they must then edit the data and the report so that it does.

Billions of dollars and decades of research so they can decide to do whatever they feel like and then doctor the data so that it reads how they want it to.

That's just brilliant.

It's enough to make a man want to dig a hole and pull it in after himself.

But only "liberal" climatologists, right?


they're probably friends with the scientists that decided that carbon dating can't be accurate because it conflicts with the "young earth" theory.. ..fundamentalist christian scientists that is... :P

actually the south pole is probably the worst place to take a measurement
like that. it has 2000 miles of land insulation all around it.

a more sensible place to test would be the fringes of antarctica. thats the
part that going to melt the soonest. and if i had to guess i'd say whichever
website that you got that from probably knows that which is why they
what they did.

i'd be curious to know what the average qualification is for those 17,000
scientists and to see who paid for the poll. probably "Big Hair". the consortium of texan women who, in turn, control the oil capital of the world. none of us is safe from "Big Hair". the CFC's alone from that hairspray is,
i'm sure, the leading cause of deforestation in the amazon.

let us pray that our good "Brother Liberal" comes to save us. he
knows whats best for us. he has a college degree, after all.
from Hollywood Upstairs University of Climatology. that premier
institution of learning just over the new sandwich shop on 3rd.

Casey Station is right on the coast of Antarctica....

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/ant-map.gif

Besides this phenomenon is "Global Warming" so shouldn't a temperature graph of about 49 years show a gradual temperature change wherever you measure?

..Please, could someone explain this global warming to me because I just don't understand. I know I'm not as smart as 17000 scientists with their theories but the actual temperatures just don't seem to Jive... catch my drift?

You live in Ohio. If global warming was not real, to the North of you would be one helluva lot of ice; it was there approximately 20,000 years ago.

i stand corrected. please allow me to remove my foot from
my mouth so that i can place my head up my butt.

however.....i have A.D.D. and cant focus on too many things
at.....oh hey look at those cute little smiley faces. hah, he
just kicked him and he fell over. thats a hoot.

i'm sorry what were we talking about?

ah yes, the effect of flatulence on pantal warming. very important
this time of year.

so what i'm hearing everybody say then is that world is going to
end very soon and it will all be the fault of fox news?

good, we're agreed then. lets have toast and jam!

I'm sorry Geof...

Let me rephrase the question... How does CO2 raise the temperature Globally when an increase in atmospheric CO2 measured for the past years in Amundsen-Scott Base, and 4 other bases in Antarctica, not show the dramatic temperature rise predicted by the Mann papers or the IPCC. And by the way, I am aware that there was an Ice Age. But then the Earth has been heating and cooling for billions of years hasn't it? Somewhat like a Circadian rhythm.

I'm sorry Geof...

Let me rephrase the question... How does CO2 raise the temperature Globally when an increase in atmospheric CO2 measured for the past years in Amundsen-Scott Base, and 4 other bases in Antarctica, not show the dramatic temperature rise predicted by the Mann papers or the IPCC. And by the way, I am aware that there was an Ice Age. But then the Earth has been heating and cooling for billions of years hasn't it? Somewhat like a Circadian rhythm.

Where or when did I make any mention of CO2 levels changing global temperatures?

I did...
that was my original thread and thats what the graphs were for to illustrate that I didn't understand the connection between Global warming and CO2.

I did...
that was my original thread and thats what the graphs were for to illustrate that I didn't understand the connection between Global warming and CO2.

It is tenuous at best. I had garnered the impression from your posts that you rejected the whole idea of global warming; my apologies.

If the current group of people that are pushing this "human caused" global warming deal down all of our throats are really serious about their beliefs then why do so many of them have private jets that burn thousands of gallons of fuel to go cross country 1 way? what kinds of cars do they drive? Do they recycle anything? And as for the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS that they spend pushing their agenda, have they invested any amount into the real solution, an alternative energy source that does not involve co2 at all. I am talking about real money of millions or billions of dollars that it will actually take to get a new energy source and not some showy hundred thousand dollar donation BS to some foundation that they own. I am also talking about their personal money and not our money that they so proudly steal in the form of tax dollars. The energy sources that we use today,(coal, gas, oil, nuclear, ect...), all took BILLIONS of private dollars to get and perfect, none of which came from the feds who are going to save everyone from themselves. All of this combined looks like a group effort in the quest for power, nothing more. Control the worlds CO2 output, control the worlds energy. Sounds like a cheesy James Bond villian plot but stranger things have happened in history. I find it funny that these people have everyone arguing on how to stop a climatic event that we may not have caused at all, may not be able to do a damn thing about, and if we can magically stop this phenominon, then what is the result? No one is stopping to consider that this may be natural and if it IS stopped an reversed then what? Cleveland under 5000ft of ice? This is a real possibility that is not on the table. The world was MUCH warmer than it is now 1000 years ago but that also is not on the table. There were laws made in France in the that peroid restricting the import of british wine due to it hurting the local wine market. Now we all know of the lush mediteranian climate that the UK has. Great for wine. Finally, as for the national forest, we need to pick a path here in the US and live with the results. If you do not timber the national forest, you also cannot put out any of the forest fires. This is their natural way of cleaning house. Let the trash pile up long enough and now you have a real problem. The other option is to log the forest in check with good forest management practices. I am from a lumber family and believe me, it is in the interest of the lumber company to PROPERLY log a patch of timber. You do not want land owners pissed, and you want to have trees in the future or your doors close. you can only truck logs so far until it becomes economically unfeseable. The type of logging depends on the type of land, trees, and climate. Often, in the northeast, clear cutting is the best method because the forest tends to come back the fastest with the most diversity. In other places that will not work at all. My familys business employed as many degreed professional foresters as men with chainsaws. They also own a large amount of the property that they cut. Annual production is in the 10's of millions of board feet per year of lumber products so this is no small operation either. Land that was cut 20 years ago with good practices now has healthier forest on it than it did before the logging. BTW, a tree grown in a managed forest can consume up to 4 times as much CO2 as one in an unmanaged, read (un logged), forest. This information comes via Penn State University from the educated scientist that Nine6 suggest we listen to. I say if we are going to listen to scientist then we need to listen to ALL that they have to say and not just what gives political power plays at our expense. If your doctor gives you a prescription you also listen on when and how much to take. This is because your life depends on it. Maybe it does here too.

Hello, late to the party.
I find the recent global warming mania to be fascinating. I have the luxury of having a close friend who is a climate scientist, with a background in meterology. He makes his living doing environmental studies. This is for a private company, but much of his work is mandated by EPA standards, so he has his finger in both pies, so to speak. We debate and talk a lot on it.
The bottom line is that man-related global warming is possible, and a connection is probable. We just don't know, and the conclusions being drawn by the UN panels are based on hoped-for outcome rather than fact. The gloom and doom scenarios that are cranked out in the press and through different media types, are scientifically irresponsible at best. Al Gore's flick, while well intentioned from an anti-pollution aspect, plays fast and loose with much of the information that he uses and more importantly ignores.
The US has actually pioneered cleaner-alternative environmental practices well beyond the rest of the industrial world. We use more, but we use more in a much more efficient and clean way, and without govt mandates to initiate much of it. Sometimes the feds did prod, and that is not a bad thing either.
So, what is going on? A lot of public opinion is centered around the greater belief in fighting pollution and protecting our environment, which is great. As old Al Franken says, most Americans are liberal. BUT, most of us (for now) are not socialist in our view of government. And that is where worlds collide. There has been a big muddying of the concept of role of government over the last 50 years, with liberal minded people gravitating to a more European Socialist view. The global warming craze is, I believe, being used as a route to power. There is a great wealth of potential political power running through this movement. And the greater issue at stake, the greater threat is politically motivated people using a legitimate environmental concern and distorting it. My observation, for what it is, is that conservative minded Americans are as environmentally responsible as liberal minded Americans. Maybe more so. This is a weird phenomenon in the interesting times we live in. Good luck.

Among other such interesting articles as the one about toothpick fish on this site, is this one;

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=297

It is fascinating what these people went through to locate and recover this plane. Note how deep the planes were buried in ice. It's anecdotal, but fascinating.

And nine6, your flippant dismissal of all those real scientists who were willing to publicly put their name to that document informs that not only did you not read the material therein, but you didn't even read the cover page.

The effort was paid for by a few individuals against a tidal wave of public funding for the orthodoxy. It is not a PR campaign by well funded sources. There may be more information out there since, but the information contained in the document still stands on its own.

--97T--

We are arguing over the cause when the effect is still NOT PROVEN!!

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L07305, doi:10.1029/2004GL019626, 2004

Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s

S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Bidston, UK

P. L. Woodworth
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Bidston, UK

Abstract
Sea level rise over the last 55 years is estimated to have been 1.7 ± 0.2 mm yr−1, based upon 177 tide gauges divided into 13 regions with near global coverage and using a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model to correct for land movements. We present evidence from altimeter data that the rate of sea level rise around the global coastline was significantly in excess of the global average over the period 1993–2002. We also show that the globally-averaged rate of coastal sea level rise for the decade centered on 1955 was significantly larger than any other decade during the past 55 years. In some models of sea level rise, enhanced coastal rise is a pre-cursor of global average rise. It remains to be seen whether the models are correct and whether global-average rates in the future reflect the high rates of coastal rise observed during the 1990s.


Then, 3 years later..........

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.


Curious???

Anyone have the full text so I don't have to pay $18??? Would like to see the full context to see what's going on.

.... Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.


Curious???

Anyone have the full text so I don't have to pay $18??? Would like to see the full context to see what's going on.

To answer your questions backwards;

Isn't that what libraries are for?

Let's see: Maximum increase 1.9 mm/yr., make it 2 for simplicity. Height of dyke above maximum high tide when designed, around 300 mm. 300/2 = 150. Oh good I can relax.

Have you seen any of the stuff from the GRACE satellites? Antarctica has lost an average of 36 cubic miles of ice per year between 2002 and 2005 and Greenland between 38 and 57 cubic miles per year over the same period.

But considering this is somewhat less than 400 cubic kilometers and the volume of grounded ice in these two ice caps is around 29,000,000 cubic kilometers I think I can stay relaxed.

Cause........................................and effect!

Conflicting input!

Gee Geof, I never woulda thunk to look inna libary. Was hoping I didn't have to pander to some AGU or IEEE member at work, especially since it's Sunday.

You might notice that GRACE was launched in '02 (with an expected life of 5 years), where ERS-1 was launched in 1991 (retired in 2000) and ERS-2 in '95.

GRACE series data in it's first 3 1/2 years seems to show a net gain of ice mass in antarctica, as shown by Chen and Wilson in 2006.

ERS-2 data seems to show a net gain (losses in the west, but more gains in the east) in antarctic ice, according to Davis and Ferguson in 2004

East antarctica comprises about 75% of the total mass, and has been increasing in ice depth approx. .07"/yr., according to ERS-2 satellite data. I also note that the net Greenland loss way overshadows what appears to be the antarctic's gain. What might be interesting to see is if the rates change, and if they track each other.

Yes, I've seen GRACE pictures. They're really pretty.
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb1/media/champ/eigen-cg01c/anim_web_EIGEN-CHGR01C.gif

Stop taking away my excuses for being scared.

So, should we be scared? Honestly, I do worry about it and do what I can. The truth is that we may never live to see the effects. Maybe 4 or 5 more generations will start to see it, but there are lots of things being done to help prevent Global Warming.

I have to say that this is a very interesting Thread.

However is it not true that we are entering into an other Ice Age, or is that a Crock the the Weather Channel put out a few years ago?

Any thoughts?:)

To be honest, I'm more afraid of AlGore & Friends than I am of the whole climate issue!

Bush may be big oil, but Burkle is big food....and Gore & Burkle have teamed up to tap into California employees pension funds to start a cable TV channel. Stay tuned!

To be honest, I'm more afraid of AlGore & Friends than I am of the whole climate issue!

Bush may be big oil, but Burkle is big food....and Gore & Burkle have teamed up to tap into California employees pension funds to start a cable TV channel. Stay tuned!

Well, what did you expect from Politicians? The aren't Robin Hood, "Steel from the Rich, give to the Poor ". They "Steel from the Poor and give to Themselves".

So, should we be scared? ....Any thoughts?:)

Simple answer in my opinion no. To some extent the Man Made Global Warming Threat is the scare of the week or year or until something else comes along.

Surely you can remember back to the advent of computers when everyone was going to get cancer from cathode ray tubes. Or everyone is going to get cancer from high voltage transmission lines. Or everyone is going to get cancer from cellphone radiation.

Global warming comes and goes and has come and gone by varying amounts over varying periods of time. Fortunately since around 25,000 years ago the overall trend has been upwards with a few jiggles down every now and then. You would have to do one h*** of a lot of digging in ice to find Central Park if it hadn't.

Anthropogenic Global Warming, or at least the Man Made Anthropogenic part is probably 98% myth. Real Global Warming since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago certainly has happened. However it has not been a steady rise but has bobbed around a bit. If you carefully select which 'bobs' you look at, up or down, you can prove almost anything. Well you can't prove it but if you shout loud enough you can drown out the moderate voices pointing out that you have selected things to favor your conclusion. And once you have a lot of people with a vested interest in supporting your conclusions you become difficult to stop.

........it has not been a steady rise but has bobbed around a bit. If you carefully select which 'bobs' you look at, up or down, you can prove almost anything. Well you can't prove it but if you shout loud enough you can drown out the moderate voices pointing out that you have selected things to favor your conclusion. And once you have a lot of people with a vested interest in supporting your conclusions you become difficult to stop.

Well, FINALLY someone has spoken the absolute truth! Thanks Geof!!

Figures don't lie, but liars DO figure!

Simple answer in my opinion no.

Thanks Geof. I wonder what the subject will be next week? Maybe Oil Prices again? Oh that's right, that Thread grows by the week too, LOL.

The Cause, Welcome to the Next "ICE AGE" Everyone!!!!!

BTW: "The Day After Tomorrow" was a good Movie!!!!!!
Speaking of which, maybe now is a good time to watch it again, LOL.

Global warming may or may not be a real phenomenon, and that will be argued about for some time before we know the truth. However, we (in the Western World at least) live a very decadent lifestyle. We consume resources like they will last forever, even when we know very well that they will not. We burn fossil fuels with impunity and without too much thought for the consequences (if indeed there are any). Our economies after all are built on them, due to thier cheapness, although most don't understand how cheap they actually are.

What we have to do is a hard thing. We have to at least consider that what we do now may have grave consequences for those that come after us, measure what we can, and decide that we should do something about it even if we identify the slightest indication of a problem. When an addiction runs as deep as ours however, this is going to be very difficult. And I am as bad as everyone else.

.....I wonder what the subject will be next week? Maybe Oil Prices again? ...

Oil prices are down at the moment aren't they, crude that is not what you pay at the pump, below $60 a barrel I thought. And natural gas stores are well stocked because contrary to what people might think consumption this winter has not been as high as expected. And all the people who were suckered into signing long term fixed price gas contracts a year ago are probably cursing.

Global warming may or may not be a real phenomenon, and that will be argued about for some time before we know the truth. However, we (in the Western World at least) live a very decadent lifestyle. We consume resources like they will last forever, even when we know very well that they will not. We burn fossil fuels with impunity and without too much thought for the consequences (if indeed there are any). Our economies after all are built on them, due to thier cheapness, although most don't understand how cheap they actually are.

What we have to do is a hard thing. We have to at least consider that what we do now may have grave consequences for those that come after us, measure what we can, and decide that we should do something about it even if we identify the slightest indication of a problem. When an addiction runs as deep as ours however, this is going to be very difficult. And I am as bad as everyone else.

DUDE, it's a HOAX!!
If Kyoto was implemented...the total decrease in temp increase (?) .07 of one degree. Temp last year (the warmest year on record!) was average 7 degrees LESS than the average over the last thousand years!
No, won't quote sources, tired of the hype and CONVINCED that it's a ripoff of our tax dollars which aren't enough....(gotta increase that)!

The guilt you obviously feel is EXACTLY what the hype is designed to do.

The name for all this? "Chicken Little"! (The SKY is falling!)

I think you missed my point. Quoting sources is an intrinsically pointless exercise. There are an equal number of sources that both support and refute the possibility - thus, we are free to take one stance or the other and readily justify our decision from the literature.

What I am saying is that we have to carefully consider what we are doing and accept the possibility, at least, that we have adversely affected our environment. Global warming is one issue, but there are others - global dimming, ozone depletion and so on. It may be that these things are happening anyway and we as human beings have had no effect whatsoever. It may not. Most objections to the very possibility that they are arise as a result of the fact that if these things are indeed real, a serious lifestyle change is going to be necessary.

However, this change will be forced upon us anyway as we are approaching a serious energy crisis - regardless of all of these issues. I'm not a 'doom merchant' by the way, I believe that such a crisis will be overcome but that we (well, maybe not myself as I am probably too old now at 46) will all be living different lives afterwards. One might say better!

Each generation has found a way to improve it's lot above the last. Let's give our grandkids the option to find their answers rather than religate them to the "solutions" concocted by Algore, Big Govt., Enviro-whacos et al which ALWAYS will cost thousands % more than worth. Their answer would enslave all of mankind and lead to a blood letting that will make the Cambodian killing fields look like kindergarten sandbox.

ie: FREEDOM or DEATH! NEVER give in to the TYRANT!

WOW, that was quick! From Global Warming to Politics!

Hey, can we get a BEER Post in here too, LOL.:)

Seriously though, wether we know it or not we are all taking the necessary steps to a cleaner environment. Those new cars have cleaner running engines, simple Lawn Mowers have changed too, Freon is being used less, and Appliences are more energy conservative.

Have one of these :cheers: , Tomorrow is Monday Morning. Too much to do and not enough time.

Cheers!!!!!:rainfro:

Hey, global climate change IS a political power play and has been from the word go!
Don;t believe it? Look at Earth in a Lerch by Algore!

And therein lies the crux of the irrational social agenda argument I have heard when they have no further science to persuade their point.

"So what if the science doesn't prove Global Warming is true. Lets make laws to force everyone to do as we few say, so we never have to prove it may never be true."

Unbelievably the same mentality that jumps on this hyped band wagon ties the hands of the current government on nearly every other issue that they cannot dominate the discussion or control the direction to shut down opposition.

They are attempting to use the Fairness Doctrine as one way to shut down the people, opinion or influence to discuss the public views of character and desires of those being elected pushing these fringe issues into law. That is pure power without responsibility, when they decline to discuss it with their opponents, so their opponents are barred from dissenting against these actions publicly via the air waves at all.

As if stopping global warming is a hotter earthling topic than stopping global jihad. This GW mentality seems to have mirrored ambitions to dominate and minimize all freedom to one doctrine of thought.

The only reason we still drop bombs on vicious people is to disrupt totalitarianisms toward the hopes of a more moderate leadership of all. It is no surprise that the proponents of Global Warming don't want any war, but chose to do nothing about ethnic cleansing, unless it is of a totalitarian nature in their own country. Most countries of the UN are just that!

The USA isn't perfect, but the enemy within is pushing us to be just like the majority of the UN. Irresponsible, disconnected and most of all moved toward INSIGNIFICANT power of the people!

DC

Hey, global climate change IS a political power play and has been from the word go!
Don;t believe it? Look at Earth in a Lerch by Algore!

I wouldn't trust a Politician.
3 things to be sure of in life:
Death
Taxes
Politicians Lie

DC
You are very erudite, and quite well spoken too!

If those of us that can see these facts make enough noise maybe, just maybe, the rest will gain enough fortitude to stop this. Non the less, I will not go quietly into the darkness but will to the end shout "HUMBUG"!

Until the advent of Ronald Regan, they thought they had us beat, and then with the coming of the internet and talk radio the cats fairly leaped from the bag and now they can't figure out how to put them back!! Teach your children and talk to every one you can. It is much easier to say something once you know that you are not alone. every one you touch may touch another and so on.
THUS we shall overcome! By not allowing the "intelectual elite" to silence us.

Thanks.....I think?

That was a compliment, I'm sure. But, of the "erudite" etymology, I'd prefer not being maligned as the defined portion of rude or ignorant.:confused: :rainfro: But, I have been called worse!

Specifically being labeled a bigot for my Right Wing conservative values. Hmmmm, I say.......being called a name for taking my chosen politics seriously, yet trod upon by someone whom diabolically dislikes my views.

For the left supposedly being PC. This particular person has at least 30 some odd bumper stickers plastered all over the sides and back of her car with all sorts of anti-right wing insults you can think of.......including the infamous rainbow, which had me temporarily confused of why she was so anti-bush......Oh, those must be referring to George W. :p, so I take it that the other sticker that said "Impeach Bush", had nothing to do with shav.....uh, never mind?.......:D :D Please keep in mind this resembles Elmer Fudd with hair!

I found it shocking that it was fine to offend from the left, but not to ask if she cared if the extreme from the opposite view offended her openly. Of course only a bigot would ask her a question like that. From the looks of her car, there seems to be plenty of bigotry to go around. I just don't display mine as a public nuisance.

The point of this story being. The oral majority invariably over blows almost every social issue with contempt and utter disdain for any alternative view. On these terms, I think they can better relate to the extremist position of change by violent or coercive force rather than the political process. The down fall of our political process has been small pressure groups, special interests and party line followers. The people elected to Washington do the voting on bigger issues for us.

Using the story above as cannon fodder, if the elected official I didn't vote for does not vote to support my best interests, wouldn't that be a display of careless bigotry toward my views? Nope, it's called Democracy and even if your are rude and ignorant, you get to vote. All we can hope for is that the moderates are well informed to pick the elected few without hidden agendas that undermine the moral dignity of our future, the strength of our Country, and the noble fight to set others free from tyranny.

If the media manipulates and distributes that information, we may very well be doomed! Global warming should at least be put in context of importance compared to all other threats that are obviously human generated against his/her own neighbors.

DC

The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

Henrik Svensmark
Center for Sun Climate Research, Danish National Space Center,
Juliane Marie Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
(Received)
It has been proposed that galactic cosmic rays may influence the Earth’s climate by affecting
cloud formation. If changes in cloudiness play a part in climate change, their effect changes sign
in Antarctica. Satellite data from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) are here used
to calculate the changes in surface temperatures at all latitudes, due to small percentage changes
in cloudiness. The results match the observed contrasts in temperature changes, globally and in
Antarctica. Evidently clouds do not just respond passively to climate changes but take an active
part in the forcing, in accordance with changes in the solar magnetic field that vary the cosmic-ray
flux.

"Evidence has accumulated in recent years that the
influx of galactic cosmic rays, as modulated by solar
magnetic activity, influences the Earth’s temperature by
varying the cloudiness at low altitudes[1, 2, 3]. Electrons
liberated by muons help to make the cloud condensation
nuclei on which water droplets form[4]. There is now no
reason to doubt that the Earth’s atmosphere acts like a
natural cloud chamber that registers the passing muons.
What remains to be demonstrated is that the resulting
clouds affect the climate, and that is the purpose of this
paper...."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612145.pdf

The IPCC is gonna have to shoot this guy...

In as much as some one has seen fit to censor my remarks, stifling communication, there is no point to further posts.
Gee, I thought the purpose of this thread was to clear the air.
Well. I guess only as long as "the authority" in charge agrees with what is said. (one side is free to insult but the other can't respond) So much for the usefulness of this exchange!
Sic simper tyranus!

In as much as some one has seen fit to censor my remarks, stifling communication, there is no point to further posts.

Who censored what????
Feel free to private message me if something you posted didn't make it....we ALL want to know!!!

Are you sure you responded here or in the other thread?

I have done that before, grrrrrrrr, until I find it was my fault for looking in the wrong spot or wondering if I forgot to actually post it after a preview.

I have yet to see any censoring, so far.

DC

eru·diteness n.
Word History: One might like to be erudite but hesitate to be rude. This preference is supported by the etymological relationship between erudite and rude. Erudite comes from the Latin adjective rudtus, "well-instructed, learned," from the past participle of the verb rudre, "to educate, train." The verb is in turn formed from the prefix ex-, "out, out of," and the adjective rudis, "untaught, untrained," the source of our word rude. The English word erudite is first recorded in a work possibly written before 1425 with the senses "instructed, learned." Erudite meaning "learned" is supposed to have become rare except in sarcastic use during the latter part of the 19th century, but the word now seems to have been restored to favor.

This is not an insult and doesn't deserve one in return, Yet the BIGGEST insult is having my response deleted

I fought physically in combat and bleed much red American blood in the company of those who died and had their names emblazoned on black granite. I would have thought I'd earned the right to speak without censorship.

While what I said was indeed an insult returned for one given, it was not within the realm of the indecent.

If I can't speak my mind, then speech in this environment is moot, pointless and without weight. The left makes this mistake constantly and render themselves irrelevant. Is the same to be so here? Disconnected from the real world?
So be it!!

In as much as some one has seen fit to censor my remarks, stifling communication, there is no point to further posts.
Gee, I thought the purpose of this thread was to clear the air.
Well. I guess only as long as "the authority" in charge agrees with what is said. (one side is free to insult but the other can't respond) So much for the usefulness of this exchange!
Sic simper tyranus!

If your opinion of communication with purpose means calling people names, including anatomical parts of animals, then you're at the wrong forum. There was no useful information in that post at all so I deleted it.

You will treat others with respect, as per the rules of this site, or you will be censored.

:edit: If I missed another insult, please feel free to point it out. I don't always have time to go thru each post line by line. Thanks.

His response:

[quote/]You have just proven that even a fellow right winger can be ignorant. rude and a horses patootie![quote/]

Etymology: Middle English erudit, from Latin eruditus, from past participle of erudire to instruct, from e- + rudis rude, ignorant
: possessing or displaying erudition : LEARNED

Rekd,

C'mon.....this was a total mis-understanding and mis-communication.

I wasn't trying prove anything or display disrespect. But trying not to have dual meaning to the same compliment while some might turning it into an insult. Not by the Jhowelb, but by other readers. I certainly did not take it as an insult from him, nor respond with any insult intentionally. And, yes I suppose if I were wound too tight, I might just jump to the same conclusion.

Being called a horses patootie is nothing! No harm, no foul!

Salute the man and be done with it!

DC

Once again, calling names and being disrespectful of other members is against the rules, even if the intended recipient was not offended.

I deleted the post because it is a violation of the rules and I will not un-delete it because there is no value to it otherwise. So lets drop it and move on making sure we are respectful to other members and to the rules of this site.

I'm sorry if you feel that fighting and bleeding red American blood gives you special treatment in regard to the rules here, but it does not. I greatly appreciate your actions in combat giving me the right to speak freely, but I too must abide by the rules here, and will appreciate you personally and professionally if you abide by them as well.

Thanks.

Them pesky symantics......

Dictionary of American Slang:

ENTRY FOR PATOOTIE: 1. A sweetheart. 1948: "New Yorkers . . . tell their patooties how pretty they are. . . . " . . . From "hot patootie." 2. A girl, usu. a pretty one.

ENTRY FOR HOT PATOOTIE: A man's sweetheart; a sexually attractive, passionate girl or woman. . . . Fairly common c1930 use.

and:
patootie

[U.S. slang] /pa-too'-tee/ a sweetheart, girl-friend; a pretty girl
suggested by sweetheart and sweet potato(?)

..............is nothing! No harm, no foul!

Salute the man and be done with it!

.....................I'm sorry if you feel that fighting and bleeding red American blood gives you special treatment

No special treatment wanted, just FAIR and the same treatment.

All the above just shows to go ya that the censor always does more harm than what he tries to avoid.

In just what anatomy book do you find that forbidden word?
..........because there is no value to it otherwise.
What value do you attach to those Constitutional Amendments? I would submit, Sir, that any value that you would attach to the statement is irrelevant as the only intended value was to the speaker and the one to whom it was directed. In this case it was extended in the spirit of a verbal elbow to the ribs delivered with a wry grin and apearantly was eventually received in the same spirit.

Don't take your self so seriously, you'll strain a brain cell.

I think the issue here is simply no name calling. That's fair enough.

Censor: Someone who thinks they know more than you should.
--Ambrose Bierce

Raise your hand if you're Danielynn's father!!:wave:

Hey, now that was coming from one guy to another guy........taken out of context, that is getting personal! Leave that sweetheart and sexy attractive stuff out of it!:D

Is it getting warm in here, or is it still Global?:o

DC

Who censored what????


I am a Moderator on a different Board and would have done the same thing Rekd did. You have to consider other peoples perception of what is being said.

Then again my post could be viewed as offensive as well.


Cheers!!!!!:)

No special treatment wanted, just FAIR and the same treatment.


Good, then we're in agreement on how I handled the post you made. (Same as I would for anyone else).

Now, again, lets drop it before I close this thread for going too far off topic. :drowning:

Good, then we're in agreement on how I handled the post you made. (Same as I would for anyone else).

Now, again, lets drop it before I close this thread for going too far off topic. :drowning:


You congratulate yourself too soon, I definitely do not agree with you!
Do what you will with the thread, I won't return to it, it's useless at this point!

Rekd,
I'd be disappointed in this administration for deleted or locking up this thread for being too far off topic because of one little spat. If jhowelb, or anyone else for that matter, wants to boycott then let 'em.

Block 'em even, but please don't make threats like that unless things have gotten way out of hand with the vast majority of posters. Believe it or not, there is actually some productive discussion here.

Does this discussion impact each and every one of us directly as it relates to CNC? Here's one example of why it does:

"Tracey C. Rembert, the coordinator of corporate governance and engagement for the Service Employees International Union, acknowledges that Wells Fargo is the country’s largest purchaser of renewable energy offsets and has specialists on staff studying all of the implications of climate change on its businesses.

Still, Ms. Rembert’s union has filed a shareholder’s resolution asking Wells Fargo to specify how it is addressing both the risks and market opportunities presented by global warming.

She wants to know if Wells Fargo is lending money to companies that could be forced into bankruptcy because of greenhouse gas regulations, if the bank is financing new technologies for alternate energy or if it is offering consulting services to clients on climate issues.

“We want them to rethink their business, and set themselves up to take strategic advantage of climate change,” Ms. Rembert said." (New York Times)

Does this discussion impact each and every one of us directly as it relates to CNC? Here's one example of why it does:

"Tracey C. Rembert, the coordinator of corporate governance and engagement for the Service Employees International Union, acknowledges that Wells Fargo is the country’s largest purchaser of renewable energy offsets and has specialists on staff studying all of the implications of climate change on its businesses.

Still, Ms. Rembert’s union has filed a shareholder’s resolution asking Wells Fargo to specify how it is addressing both the risks and market opportunities presented by global warming.

She wants to know if Wells Fargo is lending money to companies that could be forced into bankruptcy because of greenhouse gas regulations, if the bank is financing new technologies for alternate energy or if it is offering consulting services to clients on climate issues.

“We want them to rethink their business, and set themselves up to take strategic advantage of climate change,” Ms. Rembert said." (New York Times)

It absolutely WILL affect us in the CNC industry. It's amazing how a few alarmists can electrify so many people. They have (what seems to me to be) way too much influence on what is portrayed as fact, when in reality it is NOT fact. It is speculaton at best, and some of the FACTS that pertain to that speculation have been altered or completely removed to make the impact of that speculation seem more important. (Hockey Stick (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml) theory leaving out crucial data, and growing grapes in England (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html), etc)



Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.

Unfortunately, those few individuals have influence over millions and they know it, and use it to further their adjenda.

Well said Matt.;)

I think we should be more concerned with how legislation put into place by those who stand on the GW platform is going to affect us...It's not GW itself that is the real threat...it's all the junk that is going to come out of the GW crisis mentality that is going to hurt us all. 'All of us' being the 'we' that make a living with both our hands and our brains...more legislation, rules, licenses, certifications yada yada...It would be easier to just hang your head out the front door each morning and get choked all in one shot. This is just another example of problem-reaction-solution. The solution already exists ~ more legislation (which means money)...they have presented the 'problem' and are waiting for enough to rally together with their fear-full reactions to present the solution...which is the intended agenda anyway. (how many times can we fall for this?)

Most people can't think for themselves, and adopt the herd mentality because they don't want to be on the 'unpopular team' regardless of what is factually correct. "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down." It is unplausible to believe that more than a handful of people could come up with such a 'crisis' on their own without it being spoon fed to them via the media to get us to react or be fearful so they can step in and be the benevolent hero.

GW is the new 'empire approved' crisis of the moment...funny how totally screwed up everything else is and they choose to focus on events (real, perceived or concocted) that are totally out of our control. How convenient. What many fail to realize is that the masses are never going to evolve to the point that you hope they will in your lifetime. You have to evolve on your terms at your pace...doing what you know is right, without needed to 'check in' with status quo when the street lights come on...

-B

The fact is that the more countries like China continue to develop and use fossil fuels the worse the problem will get.

So the first order of business would be to tax China and other countries' imports to pay for the problems they are causing. Or maybe we should just stop sending the American jobs over to third word countries and keep them here in the US. (What about that for sanctions.) Then we could have more people here working to help pay taxes and company costs to cover the expense.

The world is looking at the US to stop global warming but there is little that can be done as long as the other countries do nothing. Some countries are making great efforts and have cleaned up pollution. These countries also tax imports to help govern the costs. Why can't we do the same? Ask the politicians that have those off shore bank accounts and are funded by big business. I guess I should stop ranting but it's hard to find work that pays enough to cover the taxes on a middle class individual when the good work keeps leaving for another country.

Nobody can stop global warming or cooling.

What the U.S. government is doing when it backs the global warming agenda, 'alternative energy', and CAFE rules, is to effectively ship the productive capacity wholesale out of this country and into countries that do not suffer from these restrictions.

I mean this literally. Scrapped machines are no longer melted down -- they are shipped to China, where they are being refitted and put back to work. Same thing with a lot of electrical motors. Just talk to the industrial srap yards. Ask them why the price of scrap copper and steel is at historic levels.

As the domestic automotive industry coughs out its last gasps, having almost completely walked away from its domestic supplier base, you bet this affects the CNC machining community. In Michigan, over 200,000 manufacturing jobs are permanently gone -- this is a conservative estimate, because numbers don't get counted on all of them. (And multiples more jobs gone from the ripple effect.) Worst hit are the small employers, who are going bankrupt or closing up and retiring. There is a lot of commercial real estate for sale around here. Probably around 30% of the 2000 to 15000 square ft buildings around here are up for sale right now.

And what strategy do we get from government? Increased taxes. Increased regulations. CAFE rules aiming to torpedo pickup trucks, the last refuge of customer preference for vehicles and the last dying hope of the teetering, clueless bureaucracies of the big 2.5. Increased health care costs, due directly to government intervention in the market. Increased environmental compliance costs at all levels. Energy policy that guarantees increased cost of energy. And promises of more, more, more of the same.

And always the blame will be placed on overseas workers who make a few cents per hour. Just ask any businessman who owns a manufacturing operation what percentage of the cost of his product actually makes it into the pocket of his employees, who are an order of magnitude more productive than anyone in a third world country. The answer is very little. The costs are dwarfed by the taxes he must pay for the employees, the cost of complying with tax policy (90% of bookkeeping and accounting expense), complying with environmental regulations, fire regulations, OSHA regulations, disability regulations, family leave act, local building codes, and so on forever. The huge productivity value of our ability to gain economies of scale is being sucked out of every enterprise at every level, to the point where it is cheaper to make something overseas under appalling conditions and ship it halfway around the world, where it gets purchased with ever fewer locally generated dollars. "Globalization" is not just a buzzword, it's a keyword -- it means get your assets out of the U.S. if you want your company to survive.

The ultimate perversion is that there is now more freedom to create wealth in COMMUNIST countries than there is in the United States of America. All of this can be laid at the feet of the nanny state and those who support it or don't loudly oppose it.

And this movement will continue, because we have passed the tipping point where politicians can promise more unearned loot to more people than can oppose it. And of the remainder, they are intellectually unarmed, powerless to argue against the majority opinions put out in the popular press in such Orwellian fashion. It will continue while we eat our assets (seed corn), until the assets are no longer ours.

More than just an economic crime, the wholesale destruction of our productive capacity is also a huge strategic national security blunder. As we overextend ourselves in the international intrigues our founding fathers warned us about, our ability to withstand calamity and overcome any mechanized force is being demolished.

Everything we are squandering was built out of the surpluses made possible by the freedom of a man to keep what he earned, and the ability of individuals to trade with one another on mutually agreeable terms without interference by any agent of force. As we whittled away at these basic tenets of our civilization, we likewise erased the huge productivity gains that came from it and briefly gave mankind the best standard of living in human history.

Now we have come to take the benefits for granted, while joining the intellectuals in sneering at such outmoded concepts as property ownership. We have a society that would probably lose up to 50% of its population to starvation, exposure, and disease within months of losing power, whose members are openly antagonistic to the energy supply that allows them to be so helpless about basic survival skills that they don't even know how vulnerable they are. They have been brainwashed into thinking that everything including their energy supply would be better off run by government Al-Gore types than by greedy capitalists, having been deprived of the mental capacity to judge what kind of inventions, what standard of living ever came out of the governmental systems they pine for. They fall for the envy ploy, putting themselves at the mercy of those who would (will) control them. The man who has a gun and controls your heat, your electricity, your employment, your children's education, and your food supply, controls YOU.

A little more about this squandering of seed corn business. The average high school graduate here gets his head stuffed full of popular nonsense about economics. The fundamentals are never discussed, just outcomes and 'progressive' policies to supposedly affect them. Implicitly, they are taught that economics is a zero-sum game. That is, there is a pie, and the question is who is going to 'finally get my piece of the pie". What they are never taught is that in fact, wealth is created and consumed. It is material -- supplied by nature and acted upon by the mind and effort of man, to make it valuable to human beings. Basically, this means food, fuel, and manufactured goods. It is the surpluses from our ability to produce the most basic forms of wealth that allows trading and a division of labor to make possible a service sector of the economy. When you destroy the basic wealth-producing sectors of an economy, any talk about a 'service economy' is just piffle, because there must be some wealth-generating capacity to create demand for it and pay for it. Otherwise, everyone will be trying to get rich by taking in each other's washing. Once manufacturing is effectively dead, the parasites will concentrate even more on the fuel and farming sectors. By then, it will be a basic survival issue for us all.

Where are we at now? It was over ten years ago that it was announced that the 'public sector' (essentially meaning those who get their paychecks out of taxes) outnumbered the manufacturing and farming sectors combined. The trend is not being reversed, and it will not be reversed. It can only accelerate.

That's how it affects the CNC community. What are you going to machine, and who are you going to machine it for? Will we be a nation of garage-tinkerers?

Proponents of governmental control over energy usage (and this includes any 'carbon tax' scheme) or any other broad restriction on industry in general, cannot be given the benefit of the doubt as to their motives. Their aims cannot be realized without putting the man of productive ability under the gun of a man with no productive ability whatsoever.

That's my U.S.-centric, manufacturer-capitalist, totally biased view of the situation.

--97T--

I hope not, it will cripple the North American Continent along with so many others. More Gray Hair.................. Crap!!!!!!!!!!:(

Nobody can stop global warming or cooling........
.....Proponents of governmental control over energy usage (and this includes any 'carbon tax' scheme) or any other broad restriction on industry in general, cannot be given the benefit of the doubt as to their motives. Their aims cannot be realized without putting the man of productive ability under the gun of a man with no productive ability whatsoever.

That's my U.S.-centric, manufacturer-capitalist, totally biased view of the situation.

--97T--

Niner,
Here's an EXCELLENT article for you (and everyone else) to read:

"........The European plans would, however, make airlines part of the virtuous “cap and trade” system that is supposed to reward industries that can reduce their CO2 output. Each carrier on a route departing from Europe would be given a CO2 allowance. Airlines could buy additional quotas needed to sustain their growth, with no net addition to global-warming gases. But enforcement might be difficult, especially with airlines from America—which does not recognise the Kyoto treaty. If American carriers were excluded, however, they would enjoy an unfair advantage over European competitors....."

http://www.sea-user.org/news-detail.php?news_id=1620

They put flouride (an industrial waste) in our drinking water for crying out loud...we can control that, but choose not to, since flouride makes people docile...and it's a good deal for industry to dump their junk. There has never been a study that proves flouride prevents cavities, BTW. Good luck buying a toothpaste without it...

Here's an idea...plant more trees & leafy plants that absorb the CO2 and give off O2...Oh yeah...there's no money in that. I'm being much too practical...There will NEVER be a solution to GW...even IF it was a real thing. The ONLY thing that there will ever be are more tactics to separate YOU from your hard earned cash.

-Brady

They put flouride (an industrial waste) in our drinking water for crying out loud...we can control that, but choose not to, since flouride makes people docile...and it's a good deal for industry to dump their junk. There has never been a study that proves flouride prevents cavities, BTW. Good luck buying a toothpaste without it...

-Brady

Tom's of Maine makes a non-fluoridated toothpaste.

There's some countries that might agree that you don't need to shower in it, water your lawn with it, or make your soup with it....even if you wear false teeth.....countries like, uh, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, Northern Ireland, Austria, Czech Republic, Scotland, Switzerland, Hungary, China, Japan......In some areas there are efforts to remove excessive naturally occuring fluoride from drinking water.

But, with increased levels of CO2 being pumped into the air by man, as temperatures skyrocket and sea levels kill billions of people, only fluoride in our water will save us.

Na2SiF6 + Na2SiF6 + CO2 -> $

Tom's of Maine makes a non-fluoridated toothpaste.


Yes I know...the places that stock it near me rarely have the non-flouridated versions...Forget 'Tom'...he's a sellout for even offering a flouride version.

I was watching TV last night (a rarity)...and flipping the channels around, CNN had some doom & gloom story about global warming...I flip to Leno & Dennis Miller was asked about GW (and basically said it was a political stunt), flip to Letterman and same thing...asking Peyton Manning what he thought of GW...It's freakin' ridiculous!

-Brady

It must be a state of mind it's below 0 hear this morning and a high of 9 maybe if the weather man is right I'm waiting for it to kick in. I'm With 97T let's worey about U.S. quit sending the industerial complex overseas and start to become selfsuffecent again and I don't just mean enegry start with let's not let the airforce but airbuss planes to replace the KC135's and displace more boing employs or give a beter deperation rate to american airlines that use U.S. built planes How much does it help to have the tax revenue from the sales at a walmart when most everthing is made overseas ane the shopper's just lost there job making the same product stateside An example near me a town was caught up in the suprestore crase and let an eaton plant that emplyed 150 people close while they were courting walmart and homedepot howmany greater's at walmart does it take to equal one job in a manufacturing plant ? does anyone care? Let's start with a fence.

Frusterated and cold GW bring it on Kevin

I vote for NinerSevenTango for president;)

Well said NinerSevenTango.

Nice of you to say so .... Of course you know I would be slaughtered in an instant in politics. I just can't play those kind of games. I can't even work at a large company because of it.

--97T--

Edit: More accurately, could do it, I have done it, but I won't any more.

.... Of course you know I would be slaughtered in an instant in politics. I just can't play those kind of games. I can't even work at a large company because of it. --97T--

Word to that!

Many things scare me more than global warming. This is one of them:

Al Gore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrOrZPNUoWY)

I vote for NinerSevenTango for president;)

Well said NinerSevenTango.

I'll second that vote :)

The fact is that the more countries like China continue to develop and use fossil fuels the worse the problem will get.
........

Umm, North Americans are using about 10 times the energy per capita of china! and they use about 40% of the energy consumption of all the combined OECD countries. About 20% of all energy used on our planet is by 4.6% of the population, they being North Americans! Can't blame China until they catch up :)


OECD = Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Umm, North Americans are using about 10 times the energy per capita of china! and they use about 40% of the energy consumption of all the combined OECD countries. About 20% of all energy used on our planet is by 4.6% of the population, they being North Americans! Can't blame China until they catch up :)


Uh......

When it comes to per capita, China's 2003 ranking was about 3.2 metric tonnes/capita, up from 2.1 in 1990, about a 50% increase.

During the same period, Australia's (# 12) went from 16.2 to 18.2. Canada (#13) went from 15.0 to 17.9, and the US (#11) went from .....18.9 to 19.8.

What's interesting is that the US is ranked #11 in per capital emissions of CO2, with with Luxembourg, Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba, Netherlands Antiles, Guam, Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emerates, Qatar, and ...the US Virgin Islands ( at 121 !!!!) topping the list.

Going back to 1980, Australia was contributed 13.8, the US 20.4, and China....1.5 See a trend here??

China went from 1.5 in '80, 2.1 in '90, and 3.2 in 2003.....They're going to blow past us in the not-to-distant future. Current estimates of China's surpassing the US in total CO2 emissions is currently around 2009-2010, based partly on their 13%/yr increase in coal use since 2003.

On top of that, as of late 2004 China had ontrack plans for 562 additional coal power plants.

From the NYTimes in 2006:

"....Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego.

To make matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants — and has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030....."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss

Ok, so we are all DOOMED!!!!!!! So what do we do about it????

Ok, so we are all DOOMED!!!!!!! So what do we do about it????

Live your life...and get in the pine box like the rest of us. There's no shortage of things to worry about, that's for sure!

Live your life...and get in the pine box like the rest of us. There's no shortage of things to worry about, that's for sure!

I think I would be in Utopia if global warming was one of the things I worried about......WAIT!!!......that would make me a DEMOCRAT!

Now THERE is something for people to really worry about.

The very end........ Human generated global warming could be due to all those nasty cremations and littering the country side with pine boxes and, and, and, all those gases emitting from our useless carcasses into the soil from 6' under.

I'd donate my body to Science, but now we can't even trust those Bas%&rds selling to the highest bidder, while those left behind must pay taxes on their inheritance!


Swine, they are! If I end up buried, maybe it better be in Washington D.C., so my embalming fluids end up in their water system some day!

For now, I'm just DC LIVING in Washington. State that is!:banana:

P.S. Is my banana burning too much unnecessary energy?

:banana:

P.S. Is my banana burning too much unnecessary energy?

3 baby penguins died to make this banana's dance possible.

Are they any good with BBQ sauce?

I'd expect they should keep for long periods of time in the cold, until I get around up there to fetch'm for rotisserie mounting.

I suppose by then there might be some moratorium on out door BBQ's too, eh?

DC

Penguins????? BBQ?????? That is What's for Dinner!!!!!!!!!!:)

Well this thread has most deffinetly taken some rollercoster curves, and i would have to say been pretty fun to read, Now back to this Bar-BQ penguin "im hungry:D

Ok, we're all gonna die, but there's a silver lining to every cloud!

Since summer BBQs are right around the corner...coming earlier and earlier every year, here's your new favorite BBQ sauce recipe to slather on those tender little penguins on the barbie!!

2Tbs Veggie oil
1/2 Cup fine chopped onion
4 cloves minced garlic
1 1/2 cup ketchup (or catsup for right-wingers)
1/4-1/3 cup cider vinegar
1/4 cup Worchestershire sauce
1/2 cup packed brown sugar
1/4 cup molasses
1/2 teasp pepper
1/2 Tbs salt
1/4 cup tomato paste (ideally made from Greenland tomatos)
1/2 teasp Tobasco or equivalent....to taste (I prefer Crystal)
1 cup Jack Daniels whiskey

Heat oil and saute onions, and then the garlic until translucent. Add whiskey and heat. Flame off the alcohol.. DO THIS OUTSIDE!!! ....unless you've got a good sized stove hood and a good fire extinguisher, and your tight with the fire department...

Add all remaining ingredients and simmer for 20 minutes. Puree with handheld blender or small outboard motor.

Makes 4 cups.

(honest guys...this is one of my favorite BBQ sauce recipes!!)

It takes TWO cups of whiskey, the other one is for the cook while lighting the charcoal.

--97T--

Ok, we're all gonna die, but there's a silver lining to every cloud!

Since summer BBQs are right around the corner...coming earlier and earlier every year, here's your new favorite BBQ sauce recipe to slather on those tender little penguins on the barbie!!

2Tbs Veggie oil
1/2 Cup fine chopped onion
4 cloves minced garlic
1 1/2 cup ketchup (or catsup for right-wingers)
1/4-1/3 cup cider vinegar
1/4 cup Worchestershire sauce
1/2 cup packed brown sugar
1/4 cup molasses
1/2 teasp pepper
1/2 Tbs salt
1/4 cup tomato paste (ideally made from Greenland tomatos)
1/2 teasp Tobasco or equivalent....to taste (I prefer Crystal)
1 cup Jack Daniels whiskey

Heat oil and saute onions, and then the garlic until translucent. Add whiskey and heat. Flame off the alcohol.. DO THIS OUTSIDE!!! ....unless you've got a good sized stove hood and a good fire extinguisher, and your tight with the fire department...

Add all remaining ingredients and simmer for 20 minutes. Puree with handheld blender or small outboard motor.

Makes 4 cups.

(honest guys...this is one of my favorite BBQ sauce recipes!!)

Are we allowed to substitute JD with Crown Royal? I don't want to waste perfect Penguin Meat. It costs too much and the Animal Rights People have a hard time watching me eat good food LOL:D ;)

It works real good with George Dickel....haven't tried Crown Royal!!

But seriously, I'm thinkin' that penguin is gonna be greasy....so a long slow cook might be best. Like you'd do duck.

Haven't found any polar bear recipes...other than the drink...might be that the Inuit are rather protective....

So it's Greasy, all the best stuff isn't good for you, it just GOOD!!!:D

Crown Royal is Canadian Whisky. To smooth it out a bit add a little Coka Cola or Ginger Ale. SWEEEEEET!!!!!!!:D

Stop with the recipe posts. They belong at the Food Channel or somewhere like that.

97T

BRAVO, take a bow. Yours was an elegant explanation of the complex state of affairs.

I feel I must add one thing to your discussion.

Historically the overheads of health, governements, worker benefits etc have been similar within your "global community". The US, Canada (I'm Canadian), Japan and Europe had similar cost structures for businesses. There were differences, but, everyone compalined equally about how they were high.

Remembering back to the seventies and eighties it was thought that we were going to run of resources by the year 2000. There wasn't going to be any more copper for example. Recycling and conservation became accepted values. We haven't run out of coppper and actual total reserves have actually increased, BUT, all the countries in our trading world were on the same bandwagon. There was an equal playing field.

After the Love Canal we all realised that we have to clean up the way that individual businesses operate for the greater good. There was another group of good environmental regulations.

With the fall of "evil Communism", we have all invited the Chinese to come and do business with us. They do not have these tremendous overheads, rules, regualtions, values, attitudes etc.

To add to the problem Kyoto gives them special status.They can build and operate CO2 monsters just like the "good old days". China and India are excluded from the Kyoto targets. They are "developing" countries. T

I think there must be a tax or surcharge on all goods from China. It's purpose is to make China realise that their customers (America) wants responsible suppliers (China).There needs to be an awareness with consumers who buy the cheap clothing at Walmart or the tools at Grizzly that they are not paying there fair share environmental or socail cost for this offshore merchandise. China has to be forced by governments and consumers to adapt international standards of business conduct.

So it's Greasy, all the best stuff isn't good for you, it just GOOD!!!:D

Crown Royal is Canadian Whisky. To smooth it out a bit add a little Coka Cola or Ginger Ale. SWEEEEEET!!!!!!!:D

If you like C.R. try Jack Daniels Green Lable, but i'm dedicated to Jack Daniels since its my name and since we went too th distillery when i was about 8 and they deeded over a hole square foot to me LOL

Rancherbill,

Thank you for the kind words.

The problem with import tariffs is that the money goes to the government. Besides punishing the producer, which is the aim, it is the consumer who must pay the tax. So in trying to punish the producer, the standard of living of the consumer is lowered, while the regulators with the guns rake in the free money and use it to further expand their power. And the parasites then have a perverse incentive -- if the tariff brings in good money, they will act to protect the flow of income producing imports, not to lessen it. Then, the domestic producers get a perverse incentive, too -- as the auto companies did when they got a breather, they lose the imperative to become competitive or die, and they use their advantage to do all kinds of counterproductive things (like pay off the parasites to lock in their advantages). All of this inefficiency happens at the expense of the consumer, and eventually the decrease in spending power of the consumer gets reflected in decreased business for everybody all around. And the uncompetitive domestic product just sells less anyway, as happened in the automotive business.

Seems to me, a more rational approach would be to get the governments off the backs of the people. The productivity of labor in Western nations has been steadily improving, but the governments have been expanding their expropriations in kind, so that these constant improvements get consumed fast enough to erase any economic gain to be had from it. Third world economies stayed that way because of the restrictions on property ownership and trade that exist under authoritarian governments. Now that Western nations are becoming authoritarian governments in the economic realm, they have erased their own economic advantage over production in third world countries. It is now more economical to produce products under conditions of inconvenience that are unimaginable here and ship them halfway around the world then it is to produce them here, where we have dependable power, extremely inexpensive technology, and all the supplies we need to build anything very close at hand.

So what are they (we) going to do? After shooting ourselves in the foot, are we going to point the gun at China and India and try to force them to do the same? What if they say, "NO!"? (And they should. We cannot try to force them to put their own people out of work, even if we are inclined to be suicidal ourselves.)

The rational path is not the path that will be taken. The parasites have the guns, and they will not give up their livelihood willingly.

The environmental ploy is used because no matter what wild claim is used, the environment cannot answer back. Therefore, if the drums are beat wildly enough, the guns will be turned not just on the producers, but against whole nations as well. I wonder how many nukes will be set off to save the environment?

--97T--

I told this story before...but it looks like it's worth repeating....!!

Went to Tesco-Lotus (like a combo of Home Dump & Wally Mart) in Thailand and saw a Krupps coffee grinder just like the one I had at home.

It was 1950baht....or about $50 there...I paid about $20 for mine. But here's the issue....

The grinder in Thailand was made, now get this, in Mexico. The grinder I bought in Nevada was made in Hong Kong.

It's hard for me to believe this has anything to do with anything BUT tariffs and trade issues, not that Krupps was finding their manufacturing AND shipping costs cheaper in Mexico.
------
As far as recipes are concerned, the CNCZONE is the ONLY place you'll find a BBQ sauce recipe for penguins, and that makes it a pretty exclusive haunt for sure. While it may well be off the CNC-beaten path, so are an awful lot of other topics I've seen here. But so as not to dismay any other kind readers, I'll dispense with my posting of recipes...unless requested. Honest. I won't even post my recipe for a killer Avocado Corn Salsa.

I won't even post my recipe for a killer Avocado Corn Salsa.

You may send me a PM with that RECIPE Sir!!!!!!:D

Geezlaweez!

The user agreement policy here used to be no political or religious discussions allowed. Which seem to cover and excuse just about everything for at least this little Global warming thread. Now we cannot digress and banter about fictitious recipes for a short snippet? Who woulda knew?

It seems like no matter what, someone is going to attempt to control the actions of others to suit their own fantasy. Which in effect is what the Global Warming touting folks I have read are all about. You either conform or you become the problem, regardless if there ever was one in the first place.

I guess this serious issue deserves serious attention without frivolous sidetracking. I'll set up straight now and type like I know what I'm talking about!:D (Don't, for a minute take me seriuosly:p )

Back on topic, I see a recipe for another taxation disaster:

Carbon credits? These are the new "Lucky charm" to generate funding out of thin air. Keeping the feel good image up as devout GW Disciples get their message out . How much do they cost? I dunno, but apparently Gore can buys them when he is flying in a Private Jet spewing 30,000lbs of CO2 in the air. What does it buy? From what I understand, they plant trees........How many trees will it take to consume 30,000lbs of CO2 in a reasonable period of time, from a Jet flying at 25-30,000 ft? The misplaced question is, How much does Gore make on each Jet speed appearance and what tax deductions by him or his corporate supporters are taken for the cost of flying? Who ultimately pays for it is painfully obvious, as I am sure the motive is to attach this surcharge to every gallon of gas destined for the road.

Yet they expect us to believe one or two or even 1000 tree seedlings, can suck that crap out of the air tomorrow. They must be delirious to think that this will cover them fast enough(according to the current rate of climate change they espouse) to do one tiny iota of good now or in the immediate future. I don't find that hypocrisy much different to a Bank robber investing funds into a Bank today, just so he can rob it tomorrow, and not have any guilt for his crime. Of course life long Politicians have become so accustom to such activities they can no longer see the difference as long as they do the minimum to clear their concience. Not even Gore as the GW Prophet had a concience until he was called on several oversights in areas of transportation, business and living arrangments.

I can just imagine Gore having his security people in a caravan following him and/or his family members around while in the Eco-friendly car. Just to say he is doing his part.....and the occasional photo-op's are a big plus to keep his mug in the do-gooder news. The attention is more important than the subjective principles that attract it.

The will of the elite, powerful and corrupt, will be your command. We haven't had a revolt against the powers that be, succeed in how long?

DC

You may send me a PM with that RECIPE Sir!!!!!!:D

Consider it done!!:D

(Btw....the BBQ sauce recipe is REAL, and it is probably even better on slow roasted polar bear brisket.)

Consider it done!!:D

(Btw....the BBQ sauce recipe is REAL, and it is probably even better on slow roasted polar bear brisket.)

How is it with baby seal?

Seriously! If you substitute cayenne powder for the tabasco and beer for the whiskey, you get close to the way I make it.

Geezlaweez!

The user agreement policy here used to be no political or religious discussions allowed. Which seem to cover and excuse just about everything for at least this little Global warming thread. Now we cannot digress and banter about fictitious recipes for a short snippet? Who woulda knew?
DC

Good Food and Drink are great reasons to take a break. :rainfro:

Here is a Chaser Buddy :cheers: :D

I'm watching NOVA right now,,,,,and the quest for the first americans...

The focus is the "Clovis First" theory, based on a spear point found in Clovis, New Mexico. What's catching my attention is how scientists who were skeptical of the Clovis first theory because of evidence they found that was contradictory.

Many scientists squelched their findings, and opinions, for fear of professional castigation.....for being skeptics. Clovis first was, at the time, the theory of 'consensus'.

Sound familiar???

I'm watching NOVA right now,,,,,and the quest for the first americans...

The focus is the "Clovis First" theory, based on a spear point found in Clovis, New Mexico. What's catching my attention is how scientists who were skeptical of the Clovis first theory because of evidence they found that was contradictory.

Many scientists squelched their findings, and opinions, for fear of professional castigation.....for being skeptics. Clovis first was, at the time, the theory of 'consensus'.

Sound familiar???

Yup!!:)

Global warming causes terrorism:

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2007/01/25/is-bin-laden-an-environmentalist-global-warming-causes-terrorism/

http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2007/6021

A man I admire talks about Cargo Cult Science:

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

I hope you enjoy it. All of his writings make delightful reading.

--97T--

Ah, Feynman....another whacky physicist!

"Orange juice, orange juice....gimme little bit of that orange juice!"
--Richard Feynman

(a free recipe to anyone who can tell me where that comes from!)

--------------------------
97T,
I didn't read that piece until just after posting this, so needed to come back and mention what a GREAT link that is! Feynman really hits it dead on when it comes to the way things really are in science....then and now.

You can't get time on a major system unless you're in the political loop. Doesn't matter how much money you've got, your credentials or good looks. I can cite as examples that I know of first hand the Advanced Light Source in Berserkley and the Nevada Terawatt Facility. The politics are obscene. Understandably, if you're given beam time, it's going to be precious, and a finite window, and you'd better be ready to fly. But getting that window can make you feel like Don Quixote.

i'll take " i have no idea" for 500 Alex

97T

You again eloquently make your case, however, our differences are becoming more apparent.

Your first paragraph is a clear statement of why tariffs don't work at the purely philsophical economics level. I'm a free trader myself. Canada and the US have the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA. In Canada, we went through this free trade discussion extensively when it was being proposed. For the most part, free trade has worked well. Free trade with other countries is a good thing. At the Practical econimics level duties and tariffs are very very effective in implementing policies.

It is in the second paragraph about getting government off everyones back that I really have a problem accepting your background premise.

You sound like you yearn for the days of the wild wild west, where men could come and live off the land and be totally free. Well John Wayne was usually the Sherriff enforcing federal laws about rustling and robbing, municipal laws about spitting on the side walk. He also resolved boundary problems with the sheep farmers and the cattle ranchers which is a civil dispute. He dated the school marm, an employee of the department of Education, and he also acted as the truant office. His salary was paid for by taxes and he worked out of a building funded by tax dollars. When he was shot or got old there was workers compo or pension for him to fall back on. The town was usually located near a rail line which had been federally subsidized through cash or land grants.

You're complaining about all these overheads that shackle business. Well workers compensation is a good example. If you lost your hand in an industrial accident what are your alternatives - accept your injury and realise you'll have a lower income for the rest of your life, or sue the company. Consider, you're a twenty year old machinist making $20/hr, losing $10/hr * 2000 hrs/yr * 45 yrs = $900,000 over your working life. On this simple example $900,000 is big money, I'd take the SUE THE COMPANY option. A $900,000 settlement would kill most small businesses. Workers compo legislation addresses both sides of this question. The business pays an amount for compo that ensures that the worker is taken care of, and that the business will not have to declare bankruptcy in case on an accident. It is best for all involved and creates a level playing field for all businesses and individuals.

It is the role of government to govern for the common good. To do this they make laws for the common good. They do not make laws to take away your rights. In the course of making laws for the common good your rights as an individual may be changed or lost.

As I was driving home today I was listening to the radio. Health Canada has issued warnings about Albacore Tuna having high levels of Mercury. The USDA, California etc have also issued warnings and are requiring label changes. The dangers of Mercury have been known since the problem in the Japaneese fishing village. It has been restricted / banned for quite some time. Well who's been "peeing in my swimming pool"? Why are we still they warning about Mercury TODAY when we've been working on the problem for decades? There are two explanations, either it takes time to finally accumulate in the top level predators or somebody is continuing to polute. Either explanantion supports the need for action today on global warming. We have to act today to have stop it and be vigilant in the future.

I know there are skeptics who still believe the Earth is flat, that NASA never landed on the moon, etc. However, i believe scientists who tell me the fact that the Earth is a sphere. I get on planes and don't worry about falling of the edge of the Earth.

Science is alway right! Scienitists may get new theories wrong. Global Warming has gone from theory to fact. The plan to slow global warming may still be a theory, but, I think vast majority of scientists believe it is the science based plan to combat the fact that there is global warming.

The plan to do somehting about it is the Kyoto Protocol. It's the only plan right now. There are loopholes in the Kyoto plan are giving China and India a "free spin card". The concept behind it is that they are developing. My objection is that because they are developing, that they should be developing to the new higher standard. Not just going along with the old practices and procedures.

The only way to impose the "will" of North America / Europe to slow global warming is to do it economically. The way to get the attention of the Chinees Govt, Chineese businesses and the Chineese citizen is to get them in their wallet. They will soon get the message that North America / Europe doesn't want to deal with dirty countries. They will have act address global warming to have the duties removed.

Your flying nukes plan probably won't happen today. It might happen 50 years from now over drinking water.

___________

My objection to the Penguin recipes was that I didn't want to have to post my bar-b-q sauce recipe that is based on Southern Comfort.

Ah, Feynman....another whacky physicist!

"Orange juice, orange juice....gimme little bit of that orange juice!"
--Richard Feynman

(a free recipe to anyone who can tell me where that comes from!)

Are you referring to Asian throat singing? :)

-Brady

Bingo!!

He was chanting in the background of Ondar's 'Back Tuva Future'!! ....great album, btw.


News Flash!!....this just in.....

At the February Board of Regents meeting of the University of Minnesota, President Bob Bruininks made mention that they wanted to grant AlGore an honorary doctorate for his work in climate study.....EGADS!!

http://newsbusters.org/node/10947

Bingo!!

He was chanting in the background of Ondar's 'Back Tuva Future'!! ....great album, btw.


News Flash!!....this just in.....

At the February Board of Regents meeting of the University of Minnesota, President Bob Bruininks made mention that they wanted to grant AlGore an honorary doctorate for his work in climate study.....EGADS!!

http://newsbusters.org/node/10947

The US is being Punished:confused: :confused: :confused:

Geezlaweez!

Yet they expect us to believe one or two or even 1000 tree seedlings, can suck that crap out of the air tomorrow. They must be delirious to think that this will cover them fast enough(according to the current rate of climate change they espouse) to do one tiny iota of good now or in the immediate future. DC

How do you eat an elephant? One byte at a time.

:)

If you don't start you'll never finish.

I don't like carbon credits either, but, until there is another plan it's the only alternative.

Who's this Louise Chick?

...Bob Bruininks made mention that they wanted to grant AlGore an honorary doctorate for his work in climate study.....EGADS!!

And there you have it...can't you people SEE that they are all in the same self-promoting club? Like...DUH!!!

Carbon credits...doggie diamonds...Who do you think is going to ultimately PAY for these carbon credits?...More like, WE are the carbon credits...(there's more truth to what I just wrote than you can imagine...)

-Brady

I don't like carbon credits either, but, until there is another plan it's the only alternative.


Sorry, but I just can't swallow the idea that carbon credits are anything but a great new scheme for a great new tax base. It doesn't reduce CO2, it just costs more. An incentive maybe, but not a solution.

All that on the presumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the REAL problem in the first place, a theory YET to be proven.

Algore's movie produced CO2, and to be politically correct, they bought "carbon credits".....buying those credits didn't reduce by a single mole the CO2 emissions generated in the production, distribution, or promotion (which itself has spawned TENS of THOUSANDS of miles of CO2 spewing air travel by ALGore hisself!!). No, not a single mole reduction of CO2!!

Planting trees isn't necessarily a good viable solution either, and that's a whole 'nuther discussion in itself!!

It seems to me that you guys are member of the "Titanic Passengers Club".

"This is the captain speaking, the bump you just felt could be:

1) nothing at all - we're all too drunk from the partying,
2) an iceberg
3) a UFO just hit the deck.
4) we could have hit another ship.
5) ...... and so on

We are not going to investigate further until the ship is listing 10 degrees. Until we have made the official determination do not worry, please party on and don't worry about lifejackets or ...."



If there is something that can be done, it should be done.

People can sit around with their contrarian views discussing whether we are in trouble or not, others have the strength of their convictions to do something.

Please leave poor Al alone. Fifty years from now, Al Gore will either be a big fool or he will be a GOD. History will make that deterrmination. Just imagine the Church of AL, Al Gore National Holiday, the statues........

:)

It seems to me that you guys are member of the "Titanic Passengers Club"....

People can sit around with their contrarian views discussing whether we are in trouble or not, others have the strength of their convictions to do something....

Please leave poor Al alone.....


These statements singly, or together, put those of us not willing to be Gore's mindless lemmings into a clearly negative light.

Words like "...contrarian views.." followed with "...strength of their convictions..." leave little doubt as to what you think of those of us who don't blindly swallow this swill of lopsided science being bandied about.

I suppose you saw An Inconvenient Truth and wiped a tear away at the image of the dying glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro?? But I'll bet you've never actually READ any scientific publications...and no, I don't mean an article in Time or People magazine....but a real peer reviewed publication? The truth behind the glaciers on Kilimanjaro is quite different than that portrayed in Gore's EXCELLENT product of writing, cinematography, and editing.

What that movie ISN'T is a documentary. It is NOT science. It's a beautiful and moving movie, but it is false (because it contains half-truths) and misleading.

We need to stop polluting, and we need to change our land use, yes. But to ascribe 'global warming' to a single trace gas that amounts to POINT zero three eight PERCENT of the atmosphere.....and of THAT we contribute less than 5%....??????? Are you serious???

There are NO OTHER FACTORS?????? That's absolutely stupid.

Pardon me while I return to my deck chair. My, isn't that a lovely iceberg??

It seems to me that you guys are member of the "Titanic Passengers Club"

Have YOU personally done any research to prove GW? I mean out in the field with all of the latest tools and techniques for this sort of research? I bet that you haven't...therefore, everything you say is hearsay, and more correctly propoganda. It's not your fault, and I'm not making you wrong for having an opinion...but realize, that opinion did not originate in your own brain. It came from somewhere else, and at the time, you thought it made sense. You didn't just wake up somewhere in the wilderness with no TV, internet or paper and decide for yourself that GW A) was an issue B) was your/our fault. You're being played....

Personally, I don't care if the ship is going down. I have no fear of death, and my kids & their kids came to experience WHATEVER there is here for them to experience...just as I did. It's just a ride man...Just a ride. Society as a whole has to get a grip on death and the fact that nothing physical goes on forever...species become extinct and die all on their own, when the species is 'done' and it's time to move on...to something else. When you are afraid of dying, you're sunk...because everybody from the gov't to global warming wackos will play on your fears and then your done.

-Brady

Have YOU personally done any research to prove GW? I mean out in the field with all of the latest tools and techniques for this sort of research? I bet that you haven't...therefore, everything you say is hearsay, and more correctly propoganda. It's not your fault, and I'm not making you wrong for having an opinion...but realize, that opinion did not originate in your own brain. It came from somewhere else, and at the time, you thought it made sense. You didn't just wake up somewhere in the wilderness with no TV, internet or paper and decide for yourself that GW A) was an issue B) was your/our fault. You're being played....

Personally, I don't care if the ship is going down. I have no fear of death, and my kids & their kids came to experience WHATEVER there is here for them to experience...just as I did. It's just a ride man...Just a ride. Society as a whole has to get a grip on death and the fact that nothing physical goes on forever...species become extinct and die all on their own, when the species is 'done' and it's time to move on...to something else. When you are afraid of dying, you're sunk...because everybody from the gov't to global warming wackos will play on your fears and then your done.

-Brady


I quit, y'all have too much larning for me.

NO, I haven't read any technical research papers.

NO I don't do any of my medical doctoring either.

NO, I haven't read any peer reviewd journals. (Peer review???? I would have guessed you were of the school of thought that "they're all conspiring" to make up this global warming)

YES, I care if the ship is going down.

YES, I care if my kids are going down. What's your wife's thoughts on this?

YES, I care if the humans species goes extinct.



I'm not with the government, so I must be a wacko.

There are things that I can change, and there are others that I can't. It seems to me that I am the only voice that wants to do something about the situation.

I'm serious I quit. I'm not going to monitor this thread. I don't want to be a member of the Titanic Club. aka the "Head in the Sand Club".

It seems to me that you guys are member of the "Titanic Passengers Club".

The same rhetoric can be applied as in:

"This is the captain speaking, the bump you just felt could be:

1) A rise in the water line is a clear indication we are sinking
2) Nothing but panic since a few paranoid numbskulls are crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
3) The ship is haunted just like Hollywierd B films and the Outer limits.
4) 2 taxes for the same product passing in the night.....1 slipped through the sweaty politicians palm, he thought was in the bag!
5) ...... and so on

Investigating further will show up on your bill upon departure. This could take the rest of eon's of time, so keep these accounts open indefinitely. If there is something that can be done, it should be done...... on your dime to cover any future bumps unforeseen.

People can sit around with their contrarian views discussing whether we are in trouble or not, others have the strength of their convictions to do something.

Please leave poor Al alone. Fifty years from now, Al Gore will either be a big fool or he will be a GOD. History will make that deterrmination. Just imagine the Church of AL, Al Gore National Holiday, the statues........

:)

Now there is an odd parity for a major Global problem. The same convictions should be applied to the greater war on terror as a much more immediate threat to free thinking peoples. You are either with us or you are contributing to the problem can be used by either side. Strange concept that saving lives in the here and now doesn't bring as much attention as some half baked theory to resolve issues far into the next millennium. But, then free thinking does implicate "one of many" stating objectivity within a consortium of like minded beings for fear of being outcast among ones peers.

Where can we draw a consensus on how far is far enough if there is no benchmark to please everyone from the extreme to the meek? As in both current issues, one side wants to dominate all and they want it now!

DC

WHAT?????
Quitting without attacking my character or credentials first????

...(shakes head in confused manner).... Not used to that at all!!

I've got my head in the sand because I DO READ BOTH side's 'scientific' arguments????? (yes, I do read Hansen, and Schneider, and Mann, and Alley, Schmidt...)

'Scuse me, but who is it with their head in the sand that only looks at one side of the argument??

Hmmmmm.............. Just a pinch more salt and it will be done.:)

97T

You again eloquently make your case, however, our differences are becoming more apparent.

Thanks for the kind words, you express yourself very well also.

Your first paragraph is a clear statement of why tariffs don't work at the purely philsophical economics level. I'm a free trader myself. Canada and the US have the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA. In Canada, we went through this free trade discussion extensively when it was being proposed. For the most part, free trade has worked well. Free trade with other countries is a good thing. At the Practical econimics level duties and tariffs are very very effective in implementing policies.I think you are trying to say that my points were purely academic; I disagree. My point was, trying to fix a problem caused by taxes and regulations by adding taxes and regulations only worsens the problem. Usually, the problem that is being attacked by these tactics gets worse.

On NAFTA, I've done quite a lot of cross-border business. This is not free trade. This is managed trade. With mountains of paperwork, tariffs, and favored brokers skimming a percentage. It's not capitalism, it's fascism. It consists of men with guns getting between myself and the people I wanted to buy from and sell to. It consists of policies intended to try to stop me from stealing jobs when I was selling machines to put people there to work, or to repair them. Machines that made parts for sale in the U.S. By companies operating off government subsidized loans, no less.

It is in the second paragraph about getting government off everyones back that I really have a problem accepting your background premise.

You sound like you yearn for the days of the wild wild west, where men could come and live off the land and be totally free. Well John Wayne was usually the Sherriff enforcing federal laws about rustling and robbing, municipal laws about spitting on the side walk. He also resolved boundary problems with the sheep farmers and the cattle ranchers which is a civil dispute. He dated the school marm, an employee of the department of Education, and he also acted as the truant office. His salary was paid for by taxes and he worked out of a building funded by tax dollars. When he was shot or got old there was workers compo or pension for him to fall back on. The town was usually located near a rail line which had been federally subsidized through cash or land grants.This is called the 'straw man' argument. It consists of setting up an argument I didn't make, then demolishing it nicely. But I didn't make that argument. If you want to demolish something, here is my background premise: inviolate individual rights, stemming from the right of an individual to his own life, therefore his time of life, and therefore the right to keep the fruits of his labor. All other rights are corollaries of these.

You're complaining about all these overheads that shackle business. Well workers compensation is a good example. If you lost your hand in an industrial accident what are your alternatives - accept your injury and realise you'll have a lower income for the rest of your life, or sue the company. Consider, you're a twenty year old machinist making $20/hr, losing $10/hr * 2000 hrs/yr * 45 yrs = $900,000 over your working life. On this simple example $900,000 is big money, I'd take the SUE THE COMPANY option. A $900,000 settlement would kill most small businesses. Workers compo legislation addresses both sides of this question. The business pays an amount for compo that ensures that the worker is taken care of, and that the business will not have to declare bankruptcy in case on an accident. It is best for all involved and creates a level playing field for all businesses and individuals.I didn't complain about workman's comp insurance. But if you'd like to discuss it, I'll offer the following: Whenever government steps in and dictates a minimum service, it always becomes the maximum. And so it is with workman's compensation insurance. The insurance companies know it is a tax, and they have no incentive to hold the line on cost. If their claims go up, they can apply for and receive a rate increase. No need to get into stories, but I've paid those premiums, had bogus claims paid out for injuries not sustained on the job, etc. But the criminal part of it is the flip side -- it limits the benefits for legitimate claimants. Those who really need it get the minimum, same as all the scammers. And the ploy is this; the insurance company just stops paying. Eventually the claimant gets a lawyer. The lawyer calls the insurance company lawyer. They have a good laugh and figure what will sound like a lot of money to the claimant. After about a year of delay, with no payments going to the claimant, the insurance company offers a buyout, a lump sum of cash, in exchange for dropping the claim. His lawyer gets 1/3. Most of them take the cash. And blow it. Those who really need it get caught up in this cynical game, and get tossed in the ditch when the payments stop. The scammers see it as another form of welfare. As a businessman, I would welcome the choice to offer better insurance than this, same as with health insurance, while we still have a little choice left in that realm.

It is the role of government to govern for the common good. To do this they make laws for the common good. They do not make laws to take away your rights. In the course of making laws for the common good your rights as an individual may be changed or lost.Here is where we differ. It is not for any group of individuals in government to decide what is the 'common good', and therefore my 'individual good'. The only reason a group of free, rational men would get together and form a government is to provide protection for the individual rights of the members. The collective cannot have any rights that the individuals in it do not have. If a group of rulers decides that 'common good' requires the abrogation of individual rights, then it is operating contrary to the purpose of its existence. Governments are instituted for the purpose of having a monopoly on the legal use of force. When that force is used against the individual rights of its citizenry, then the government is no longer legitimate. That is why the more successful forms of government, as measured by the freedom and wealth of their citizens, have been those with the most restrictions on government power.

As I was driving home today I was listening to the radio. Health Canada has issued warnings about Albacore Tuna having high levels of Mercury. The USDA, California etc have also issued warnings and are requiring label changes. The dangers of Mercury have been known since the problem in the Japaneese fishing village. It has been restricted / banned for quite some time. Well who's been "peeing in my swimming pool"? Why are we still they warning about Mercury TODAY when we've been working on the problem for decades? There are two explanations, either it takes time to finally accumulate in the top level predators or somebody is continuing to polute. Either explanantion supports the need for action today on global warming. We have to act today to have stop it and be vigilant in the future.Why are there only two explanations? Are we absolutely sure that mercury levels weren't there before we started measuring? As to who is peeing in the pool, it is the wackos who prevent nuclear power plants from being built. The result of that is a reliance on coal for electricity, and most of the mercury in the freshwater fish at least, comes from the use of coal.

The above does not say anything about global warming, or any need for action on it. And if by action, you mean cutting CO2, well, you can't do that without cutting energy use. Let the squabbling begin over who gets to decide who will be deprived of energy. (Hint; nobody will be deprived of energy completely, usage will not go down, but costs will go up, money will flow from producers to parasites, because that's the game. It's not really about putting us back in grass huts, it's really about the payola and power game.)

I know there are skeptics who still believe the Earth is flat, that NASA never landed on the moon, etc. However, i believe scientists who tell me the fact that the Earth is a sphere. I get on planes and don't worry about falling of the edge of the Earth.Is this another straw man, or ad hominem? The evidence is there to see. If you are trying to use this to bolster the human generated global warming hypothesis, it doesn't stack up. Those who aren't shamed by the religious arguments, and dare to look for themselves, see what a giant leap of logic it is to decide that we have to destroy our economy to stop a warming trend that is not only inevitable, but beneficial to virtually all forms of life.

Science is alway right! Scienitists may get new theories wrong. Global Warming has gone from theory to fact. The plan to slow global warming may still be a theory, but, I think vast majority of scientists believe it is the science based plan to combat the fact that there is global warming. I would say that Mother Nature is always right. And any human can make mistakes in interpretation of reality. It takes a great deal of effort to make a careful judgement on any interpretation of reality. It demands that we check our premises, right down to the most fundamental ones, always mindful of our fallibility, and careful to delineate what we know from what we think we know. Part of this care involves the very careful use of terminology. So, while it appears that we are still recovering from the previous ice age, generally a good thing, I suppose it could be said that Global Warming Is A Fact (until it decides to start cooling). On the other hand, I confidently predict that any Plan To Slow Global Warming is doomed to fail. Not enough is known about weather, nothing is known about how to control the weather, there is every probability that the weather is determined by huge outside forces far beyond our control, and there is no proof that destroying the way of life of a civilization will change the weather one iota. But if they take away YOUR access to energy, you will be very glad for any warming, or you might have to move south.

And I will agree with you insofar as to say that the vast majority of scientists who are paid to do so believe whatever it is you say they believe. On the other hand, there are quite a few who don't, both on the government handouts and not. And the evidence is there to see for yourself. When I look at the evidence, I see contradictions and evidence of lies. So, I'm not convinced.

The plan to do somehting about it is the Kyoto Protocol. It's the only plan right now. There are loopholes in the Kyoto plan are giving China and India a "free spin card". The concept behind it is that they are developing. My objection is that because they are developing, that they should be developing to the new higher standard. Not just going along with the old practices and procedures.If you check out the link I provided in the thread, "Recent History Of Climate Change", you will see a glimpse of what the whole enterprise is all about. It is about millions of dollars expropriated from productive businesses, going into the pockets of bureaucrats, politicians, crooked brokers, and unscrupulous businessmen. This isn't a side effect, it IS THE GAME. It's about power, and turning power into money. I hope the warm feeling anyone gets over supporting this stuff is enough to heat their home when they can't afford it any more.

Today's paper talked of a pledge by the EU to cut CO2 by 20% by some year in the future. Nowhere was it mentioned how this could be done. I'll tell you. It can be done by a 20% reduction in total energy usage. I'll leave it to you to decide which economy will be willing to voluntarily cut energy by 20%. It can only come at the expense of productivity. If it were actually to be accomplished, it would be accompanied by a huge depression, unemployment, possibly starvation. At the least, people will be standing in bread lines, totally dependent on the government that put them there. The cynical politicians behind this know it is impossible -- but, there will be fees, and fines, and trading credits instead. Sure, the CO2 (energy usage) will stay the same or increase, but guilt payments will be made, it will be business as usual with another tax layer added on.

The only way to impose the "will" of North America / Europe to slow global warming is to do it economically. The way to get the attention of the Chinees Govt, Chineese businesses and the Chineese citizen is to get them in their wallet. They will soon get the message that North America / Europe doesn't want to deal with dirty countries. They will have act address global warming to have the duties removed.

Your flying nukes plan probably won't happen today. It might happen 50 years from now over drinking water.North America and Europe will not be successful at getting China and India to put their own people out of work. If they attempt to impose their will through tariffs and restrictions, then a) it is an outside force causing the trouble, something much more palatable to any government, b) an outcry will go up from exporters to those countries, while the consumers either pay the punitive taxes or do without, and c) economic pressures will make the victimized countries more likely to resist economic suicide, not less. In fact, your plan might work to bring yet more economic freedom to those regions, making them ever more desirable places to live and work.

You said you are in favor of free trade, but what you are proposing is attempting to use draconian restrictions on trade to impose economic suicide on fragile expanding economies. If this is going to be done, it had better be done pretty quickly -- manufacturing jobs are permanently draining out of the Western economies on an unprecedented scale. When we get to the point where the only Thing of value we produce comes from farming (and that regulated to low productivity by the anti-everything fascists), there will be no economic club to wield. The Western economies are selling off their assets and consuming the cash from them, while bankrupting and destroying their productive ability -- and they haven't even really gotten rolling on the CO2 plan yet. So any economic bullying better be started now, because it won't be long before we are third world, and they are the major players.

On the drinking water, I live in the Great Lakes region. The boneheaded politicians of all the bordering states would like to use environmental fears to stop anyone from getting drinking water from them. In fact, Michigan put a punitive tax on a water bottling facility that gets water from Lake Michigan! I bet politicians on either side would love to start a war over these huge, huge lakes. Hey -- I won't shoot if you won't! And I won't worry about your drinking water draining the lakes, either. Sheesh.
___________

My objection to the Penguin recipes was that I didn't want to have to post my bar-b-q sauce recipe that is based on Southern Comfort.I love BBQ. I laugh when we have 'ozone action days' and they ask people not to cook with charcoal. Next, it'll be a fine if you get caught cooking out on hot days. What next?

And you are welcome to join me for a barbeque here any time, less often in the winter, more often in the summer, but we do it year 'round!


--97T--

Fizz,

I'm glad you liked that link I posted earlier.

If you remember in an earlier conversation here, there was some argument over scientific method versus 'truth by authority' and orthodoxy in the scientific community.

Where I was going with that, if my adversary had felt like arguing it, is in the direction beautifully illustrated in another delightful essay by Mr. Feynman, where he describes the concepts many, many times better than I could.

If you get time to read it, I hope you enjoy this one as much as I did:

http://www.fotuva.org/online/science.htm

What a brilliant, talented man he was. When we can use knowledge passed on by someone such as he, we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Even in 1966, intellectual tryanny was spoken of by a true pioneer in the intellectual realm.

--97T--

*delete*

How do you eat an elephant? One byte at a time.

:)

If you don't start you'll never finish.

I don't like carbon credits either, but, until there is another plan it's the only alternative.

Who's this Louise Chick?


Maybe Leweez is an 8 bit Binary Elephant? That would make her a byte sized chick!:D

If Carbon Credits and the like are ever made into a law, there will be no alternatives, except law makers to alter it in additional taxes and fees to satisfy more theories and control every function that involves converting one form of energy into another, concluding toward only then if it generates income that is taxable.

I don't mind it being a voluntary option. Once it crosses over to a Socialist agenda for the greater good, it etches away at freedoms dissenters don't have a say in, yet most will be forced to pay into on the whim of the elites that dictate where our hard earned money will go. As it is, I work nearly 6 months for the Federal and local Government enterprises and I get what is left over. Anything Governments do to subjectively solve a problem involves taxation. Be that on the individual or business. That makes the leftovers not go as far. There has been no end to this addiction for the last 50 years.

I guess if we can't beat'm, join'm? Maybe I can sit on my butt and collect a Social Services check so I become exempt of certain so called luxury taxes, yet I might be allowed to vote into law forcing others whom WILL foot the bill.

Freedoms are for the self sufficient. Free Dumbs are beneficiaries that use the laws to rob from the self sufficient. That just about fits all Politicians and the self inflicted indigents alike! Neither would separate their needs from their wants since their lifestyles depend on it. Environmentalists have now eyed and might just lock onto the same exact Socialism loop holes to fund their wants on our backs.

DC

Have a read: Gorey Truth (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc)

fizz, you've done your homework haven't you?

Have a read: Gorey Truth (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc)

fizz, you've done your homework haven't you?

A little too much LOL. And people poke fun at me because I'm a CNC Programming and CAD/CAM Freak. It is well deserved though.

A little too much LOL.

The Gorey Truth or fizz's homework? :)

The Gorey Truth or fizz's homework? :)

Both Buddy.........:D Both

Is there a law against having too much free time????? Nope, because I still haven't been Arrested, LOL. Now where did that CNC Manual Go?????:D

BTW: This is what I call a days FUN!!!!!!!!!

http://www.remsales.com/pages_blocks_v3_exp/index.cgi?Key=131&Field=key_field&catg=tsugami_swiss_auto&Exact=Yes&this_sect=Swiss%20Automatics%20&thisroot=/machines/pages

http://www.remsales.com/pages_blocks_v3_exp/index.cgi?Key=8&Field=key_field&catg=tsugami_swiss_auto&Exact=Yes&this_sect=Swiss%20Automatics%20&thisroot=/machines/pages

http://www.remsales.com/pages_blocks_v3_exp/index.cgi?Key=25&Field=key_field&catg=tsugami_swiss_auto&Exact=Yes&this_sect=Swiss%20Automatics%20&thisroot=/machines/pages

http://www.remsales.com/pages_blocks_v3_exp/index.cgi?Key=38&Field=key_field&catg=tsugami_swiss_auto&Exact=Yes&this_sect=Swiss%20Automatics%20&thisroot=/machines/pages

And the Best for Last:rainfro:

http://www.remsales.com/pages_blocks_v3_exp/index.cgi?Key=156&Field=key_field&catg=tsugami_swiss_auto&Exact=Yes&this_sect=Swiss%20Automatics%20&thisroot=/machines/pages


We all have to get our KICKS!!!!!!!

Glad you guys at least find me somewhat amusing!!! That makes it worthwile.....

...Manual??? Who reads manuals???

------------------------------------------------------
meanwhile, back in the ditches....

Gore is making the mainstream now with his heating bill!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

.....and back on my land use kick, we find an AGU paper from 2005:
"...Anthropogenic land-cover changes, such as urbanization and changes of natural vegetation to plantation forests, can also have substantial impacts on isoprene emissions (i.e., up to 717 Tg yr−1, a 37% increase, when land-cover changes but temperature remains at current-day values). The Model for Ozone and Related Tracers, version 2 (MOZART-2) was run with the different isoprene emission scenarios to simulate the potential changes in global atmospheric chemical composition. The simulated regional surface ozone concentrations changed as much as −9 to 55 ppbv under certain emission and climate scenarios. These results were used to evaluate changes in the ozone production chemistry under different emission scenarios. As expected, the impacts of changing isoprene emissions are regionally dependent, with large changes in China, the Amazon, and the United States."
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FEI174.1

The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity

"....Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897


....Whoa...hold on a minute....did I just read that the 100,000-year cycle causes CHANGES in atmospheric CO2????

HEY!!!! I thought that was MY job!!

Many people in this trhead are so blind because their life in their pretty houses that cant see that they will fry themselfs and i bet they will be still blind when that happen. comodity=blind people

My house is not so pretty, my vision's somewhat blurry

You want to see me fry myself, to shut up in a hurry

But frying would make me deader, not better

Is that what you want, Scramjetter?

--97T--

Many people in this trhead are so blind because their life in their pretty houses that cant see that they will fry themselfs and i bet they will be still blind when that happen. comodity=blind people

Well, there you have it. I wish I'd said that.

$$$$ = The Worst of All Evils;)

$$$$ = The Worst of All Evils;)

I like being evil :) .

I like being evil :) .


Well Buddy, until your an Evil Machinist I have one on you LOL:)

I like being evil :) .

And all this time, I though you said you were just being a greedy capitalist pig. Now we gotta give you credit for being evil on top of that?:D



Well apparently.....so do 10-20 million illegal's or the new kinder/gentler term is undocumented workers in the US!

True evil would be to send these people back to live in shantytowns unsupported by their own corrupt government, unwilling to generate trade to employ them at home and grow their own economy.

What kind of ignorance allows one to claim comprehensive knowledge to a global climate phenomena, while ones nation is raped before everyone’s eyes by the elites that have no interest towards internal support of its own population? Exporting their little social problems brings income, regardless if it breaks the laws of the nation where that income is generated, in order to buy "commodities" both here and for those left back at home without even a chance for a better income. As a fair trade in exporting social problems, we could offer up 10-20 million of our able bodied citizens that refuse to work, but expect a check each month.:confused:

Open boarders create a vocal power bloc in order to influence lawmakers. Mexico knows that and precisely why they confiscated all property ownership of foreign citizens.

Daily life has its blinders.

We are constantly manipulated into viewpoints on the way someone else sees a particular circumstance and reports on it. More so, to invoke an emotion than inform. The Pied piper syndrome?

Luxuries, status, privilege and power isolates classes, which blinds the elites to poverty or the struggle to survive daily. The lack of open dialog, keeps the classes status quo including every level of ignorance in the universe. I consider it a worm, in a bad apple, on a tree of very questionable knowledge.

Either Scramjet's comments do not translate well, or there are plenty of blinders to go around. Not to mention, quite a difference between global warming and global frying(flame2) .......:eek: What kind of :bs: is that?

DC

The desire for the unearned is the root of all evil.

--97T--

I hope the link works; you can buy absolution.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=89c7f41a-8626-4706-9146-e6efd1764176

I been buyin' absolution for years. One of the better vodkas, IMHO.....

Excellent link, btw. But did I post here somewhere a link on the same anthropogenic CO2 output vs. CO2 levels? I know I posted it somewhere...maybe while I was being a PITA on some other forum.... :) (under the possible heading of 'where's my glasses?..oh. I'm wearing 'em..)

The article I had posted said essentially the same thing, so I'm glad you're finding 'confirmation', if that's an appropriate term.

You might find interesting Smith et al. (2006), mentioned here in the Idso Bros. CO2 Headquarters...
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/p/summaries/precipglobal.jsp

an excerpt:
"..Globally, Smith et al. report that "the mode 3 variations average to near zero, so this mode does not represent any net change in the amount of precipitation over the analysis period." Consequently, over the period 1979-2004, when climate alarmists claim the world warmed at a rate and to a degree that was unprecedented over the past two millennia, Smith et al. found that most of the precipitation variations in their global data set were "associated with ENSO and have no trend." As for the variations that were not associated with ENSO and that did exhibit trends, they say that the trends were associated "with increased tropical precipitation over the Pacific and Indian Oceans associated with local warming of the sea." However, they note that this increased precipitation was "balanced by decreased precipitation in other regions," so that "the global average change [was] near zero.".....

Nasa predicts 110 degree F. temperatures in Chicago

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/nsfc-nss050907.php

From the impartial scientists who found an ozone hole over Kennebunkport, and brought you new risk analysis methods to declare leaking O-rings safe for rocket flight.

And we pay them for this?

--97T--

Funny thing is, I don't mind paying for it, the scientific research that is, because in the long run, it'll be dissected, subjected, and rejected if it isn't valid. Empiricalists love to prove the theorists wrong. That's their job.
And let me tell, ya, they do it with vigor!!

Just stumbled onto this paper, which doesn't paint a rosy picture of the IPCC, and regardless of the possible bias (in reading it you'll see evidence of bias from both sides) there are some VERY interesting graphs.

One graph in particular shows the temp history for 93 stations in Kalifornia from 1947-1993, by population. It's on page 305 of the document (page 9 of the pdf?), fig. 9.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

Would Chicago be subject to that same effect? Is it a heat island?

...But oh no...you wouldn't want to pay any attention to anything this paper has to say....just look at where it was found! BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327

Never mind that the guy works for the University of Auckland in New Zealand....

... how the heck would they know? NASA's GISS modelE, their state-of-the-art virtual world, already overstates western US summer temps by that much:

2.4 Principal Model Deficiencies

ModelE (2006) compares the atmospheric model climatology with observations. Model shortcomings include ~25% regional deficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m-2, deficiency in absorbed solar radiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m-2, sea level pressure too high by 4-8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2-4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics, ~20% deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin, ~25% deficiency in summer cloud cover in the western United States and central Asia with a corresponding ~5 °C excessive summer warmth in these regions...

.... there are some VERY interesting graphs.....

Yes, and to climb on my favorite hobby horse, look at the methane graph, Fig 25 on page 19 of the pdf. I want to see the top graph contrasted with a graph of sunspot activity over the same period. Methane is removed from the atmosphere mainly by reaction with the hydroxyl radical. The primary, maybe only, source of the hydroxyl radical are cosmic rays. If hydroxyl radical production declines then methane levels will increase but there should be a delay; the radicals are generated up high, the methane enters down low. I have no idea what the rate of vertical mixing is in the atmosphere but the delay in the methane response to a reduction in radical production should be related to the vertical mixing rate.

But I suppose there would be enough variability in any measurements that I couild select 'valid' data to support whatever conclusion I want to support. That is how it seems to be done in this area.

. The primary, maybe only, source of the hydroxyl radical are cosmic rays. If hydroxyl radical production declines then methane levels will increase but there should be a delay; the radicals are generated up high, the methane enters down low. ....

Here's what someone at Leeds has to say on that..
It has been known for over 30 years that the hydroxyl radical is the main driving force behind the daytime reactions of hydrocarbons in the troposphere. The main source of hydroxyl in both clean and polluted air is the photolysis of ozone. Relatively small concentrations (15-30 ppb) of ozone occur in the remote troposphere and it is these that provide the source. The photolysis of ozone (wavelengths below 310 nm) produce a singlet oxygen atom, which may react with a water molecule to yield hydroxyl radicals; or is collisionally quenched to a triplet oxygen atom (O(3P)). The reaction between a triplet oxygen atom and an oxygen molecule will regenerate ozone. It is worth noting that in polluted air, photodissociation of nitrous acid is a significant source of hydroxyl radicals.

http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/Atmospheric/Field/oh.html

Given that it's an old study, and we're getting more and more data that supports your statement, the effect of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) is getting to be real interesting to me!

....It is worth noting that in polluted air, photodissociation of nitrous acid is a significant source of hydroxyl radicals...

I didn't read the link (I actually have to be productive sometime during the day and can't spend all my time playing :) ) but what you excerpted is interesting. I will have to do another search some time becasue I am sure I found something that said direct cleavage of an O-H bond in water by cosmic ray interaction was the primary OH radical producer. I do not recall anything mentioned about ozone.

The piece about nitrous acid is interesting; perhaps we need to throw away all the catalytic converters and/or focus on diesels to help get rid of atmospheric methane.

More seriously, I read somewhere many years ago that lightening was the main source of atmospheric NOx although these days that never seems to be mentioned in favor of blaiming us horrible humans. However, in recent years there has been work done that suggests cosmic rays can act as a trigger for lightening. I believe it was a case that someone realised that it was simply impossible to get a high enough potential difference in clouds to break down air, something had to be providing the leader path. Again I am going from memeory so I may be missing something. But if cosmic rays cause lightening and this can indirectly generate hydroxyl radicals there is another mechanism that could run slow with reduced cosmic ray flux. Need to find something about records of lightening intensity over the past several decades.

Hi Everybody,

Junk Science.............??

Two prominent, but relatively unknown scientists have come to conclude, through thier studies, that it is the Sun, that is the ultimate and the absolute cause for global warming! Not to be cute or anything like that, but they discovered, and I'm sure that most of you who are reading this, are well aware that just about everything runs in cycles. It just so happens that the Sun is putting out a little more energy nowadays. Now I don't advocate polluting and conservation is a good thing (I drive a diesel that runs on recycled vegetable oil). I would recommend, ride the wave and invest in some quality "green" companies.
Choose wisely and let the mass hysteria feed your investment account.
Just recently a scientific expedition, way up there inside the Arctic Circle did some sample core drilling and much to their surprise, they found ancient turtle bones in their sample. Hmmm, turtles don't live in the Arctic?

Improvise and adapt!

I thank the gods for monotheism!

caitolly

PS: For all you braincases out there who try to impress the rest of us with all your figures, formulas and your high flouting academia, :stickpoke just remember what this guy once said:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
-Albert Einstein-

....Two prominent, but relatively unknown scientists...

How can one be prominent and at the same time unknown.

Also Einstein was predated by Occam by a few years.

How can one be prominent and at the same time unknown.

Also Einstein was predated by Occam by a few years.

That razor is gonna prove to be kinda rusty for Algore one of these days...

....Prominent and unknown? I work with a bunch of guys who are prominent in their own minds!

I
The piece about nitrous acid is interesting; perhaps we need to throw away all the catalytic converters and/or focus on diesels to help get rid of atmospheric methane.

More seriously, I read somewhere many years ago that lightening was the main source of atmospheric NOx although these days that never seems to be mentioned in favor of blaiming us horrible humans. However, in recent years there has been work done that suggests cosmic rays can act as a trigger for lightening. I.

See Rakov & Uman's recent book on lightning for NOx estimates...they estimate that lightning isn't the major source for NOx...but lightning's contribution is in question because there are anomolously high levels measured near thunderstorms at times.....so....pause.....NOT...(from Borat)

Seriously, methane is lighter than molecular O and N, so it floats up and diffuse better....but needs to get up into the stratosphere to get whacked by UV .....

One can be prominent (important) in ones field, without appearing on American Idol! :cheers:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

I live in New England, and often times I must remind many of my fellow citizens when they complain about a little snow, that "hey we used to have glaciers here, deal with it!"

caitolly

.....Seriously, methane is lighter than molecular O and N, so it floats up and diffuse better....but needs to get up into the stratosphere to get whacked by UV .....

Methane doesn't get whacked by UV it gets whacked by an oxidation reaction with the OH radical.

UV will dissociate methane, but it looks like you win.. :)

UV will dissociate methane, but it looks like you win.. :)

Earth's atmosphere does not quite qualify as a vacuum.

I would recommend, ride the wave and invest in some quality "green" companies

Choose wisely and let the mass hysteria feed your investment account.


So, you are saying "If you can't beat them, join them"? They and their pals are trying to get rich by mandating new "pollution standards", so why don't the rest of us join in on the feeding frenzy? After all, this will help offset the new taxes and costs they are about to slap on us.

Isn't this like overhearing someone giving his pal a stock tip and following the investment advice despite insider trading laws?

Fooling the masses to make a buck is wrong. Just because these harebrained schemes generate investment opportunities doesn't make them right or any more acceptable.

We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them at the equator & the poles... We will never surrender our thermometers.

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
-Thomas Jefferson

I have been "green" long before it has become fashionable. Investing in "quality" companies that give a damn about more than the bottomline, who look forward to promoting sound scientific goals and principles to better the enviroment for my children, and make a buck or two in the process, sign me up!

:cheers:

caitolly

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing
the temp to rise.

.

So do you want to ignore the climatoligists that do not agree with the ones that speak for the agenda? Because there are plenty that will say its a huge lie. The Key here is there is not a problem, its an agenda. And if we don't see a problem they will help make one. Again look to the skys and see the massive Jet engine smog trails, that blanket the earth. So if this problem really exists have these Al Gorebals rid this planet of Jet and Turbine engines first to prove to us how we have to give up something for mother earth.

Those are condensation trails, and they are made by the wing, not the engine.

http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/gallery/conden/shlandb.htm

--97T--

Those are condensation trails, and they are made by the wing, not the engine.

http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/gallery/conden/shlandb.htm

--97T--

Umm.... both are involved. It is condensation from the engines exhaust but it becomes entrained in the wing-tip vortices a short distance behind the aircraft. Get a good pair of binoculars and watch a high flying four engine plane and you can see the contrails form a short distance behind the engine and then merge into the vortices.

At low altitudes under the correct conditions of humidity it is possible to see the vortices outlined by condensing water vapor from the atmosphere. The interior of the vortex is slightly below ambient pressure and this minute change pushes the humidity above 100% and condensation occurs. You can also see these trails circulate in a corkscrew motion.

If you are riding in the aircraft under these conditions you will often see the votices peeling off the engine cowling make little condensation trails over the top of the wings. Also during take off when the aircraft rotates and the wings start lifting the sudden drop in pressure above the wings can create a great sheet of condensation that peels off behind.

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
-Thomas Jefferson

I have been "green" long before it has become fashionable. Investing in "quality" companies that give a damn about more than the bottomline, who look forward to promoting sound scientific goals and principles to better the enviroment for my children, and make a buck or two in the process, sign me up!

:cheers:

caitolly

Love that Jefferson quote.

Companies that ignore the bottom line will soon perish. On the other hand, there are those which play the green game, which are just swindle schemes for taxpayers and stock buyers.

Take Energy Conversion Devices, for instance. Their website is at http://www.ovonic.com/.

William Stempel, formerly of GM, is the figurehead. He uses his prestige to promote the company. He gets his letters printed in the newspapers about the 'hydrogen economy'. He is a Damned Liar.

The company exists to bilk taxpayers and to promote feel-good projects for politicians. And they have been successful at that. They have also been successful at losing money.

If you look at their Site Index, you will find PR and investor information, but no place with information to buy anything.

You might make out if you speculate on their stock, buying low and selling high. But the company on the whole is a net waste of resources and by the parasitic nature of its relationship with government, it is an enemy of the people.

I'd rather see companies that produce something and sell it. If there are buyers, they are doing a service to humanity.


--97T--

Umm.... both are involved. It is condensation from the engines exhaust but it becomes entrained in the wing-tip vortices a short distance behind the aircraft. Get a good pair of binoculars and watch a high flying four engine plane and you can see the contrails form a short distance behind the engine and then merge into the vortices.

At low altitudes under the correct conditions of humidity it is possible to see the vortices outlined by condensing water vapor from the atmosphere. The interior of the vortex is slightly below ambient pressure and this minute change pushes the humidity above 100% and condensation occurs. You can also see these trails circulate in a corkscrew motion.

If you are riding in the aircraft under these conditions you will often see the votices peeling off the engine cowling make little condensation trails over the top of the wings. Also during take off when the aircraft rotates and the wings start lifting the sudden drop in pressure above the wings can create a great sheet of condensation that peels off behind.

OK, to get a little deeper, and round out your points;

The engine's exhaust is mostly water vapor. So the exhaust water vapor adds to the contrail. But most contrails you see at high altitude are formed by supercooled water vapor (the temp up there is quite low), which needs a trigger to condense. Which turns instantly into long-lasting ice crystals. Most of the water vapor in contrails comes from the ambient atmosphere, according to the best information I could find. And you can see this in photos that show them forming in areas where exhaust mixing could not occur. Anyway, that's why I picked a picture of the space shuttle coming in for a deadstick landing. Yes, it's cheating because the shot was taken in a low - altitude, high temperature environment. But the shuttle leaves a nice contrail coming from up high, too.

Also, a minor quibble about the lower pressure. In above - freezing temperature conditions (low altitiude), the lower pressure causes a drop in temperature below the dewpoint of the air, and it's the lower temperature that allows the condensation to form. I know you knew that, but anyone not familiar with the subject might be interested to know.

--97T--

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

Well fella's these new industrial strength "smog trails" are not your dads contrails of the past, you know in the days the old DC-7's droned by with
blazing turbo-cyclones only burning about 400 gallons or so an hour, as compaired to burning 2000 to 3000 gallons an hour like nowadays. But don't fear, those airlines don't have to pay too much for that Kerosene that you have to pay as much as $7 per gallon for your kerosene heater. I know for a fact that in 1973, yes the days the gas lines started and the price shot up around $.70 or so per gallon of gas, the airlines were getting their "gas" for

.03 a gallon.
How's that???? We are paying for it. That is why we now get to pay close to $4. a gallon of gas. Oh and if those nice jets have too much fuel at landing time. It gets dumped outa those wing tips. So that is why some may think the wings cause the smog trails. And guess where all that nice fuel ends up, you guessed right where they tell us not to dump such things, down the storm drains and then a mystery oil slick appears on the local lake, and no one knows where it came from, and you never get told what they found out about it. These new crap trails are not condensation, as that will disperse quickly. These are deliberatly sprayed and the proof is the aircraft doing it are not even flying the victor airways, so that is proof they are not commercial planes, yes some do fly the airways, but as many don't.

.....Which turns instantly into long-lasting ice crystals...

Not always, sometimes everything re-evaporates either down to a particle size too small to scatter white light or completely to vapor within a few hundred plane lengths.

I think if you looked into the aerodynamics of the shuttle it flys with a very high angle of attack and all the way down has the very low top-of-the-wing pressure which I said can cause condensation in the air flow.

And seeing that you are giving Gas Law details about the low altitude effect yes an adiabatic drop in pressure also causes a drop in temperature. :)

I see now we are onto *****CHEMTRAILS***** Tah Dah.

Not always, sometimes everything re-evaporates either down to a particle size too small to scatter white light or completely to vapor within a few hundred plane lengths.

I think if you looked into the aerodynamics of the shuttle it flys with a very high angle of attack and all the way down has the very low top-of-the-wing pressure which I said can cause condensation in the air flow.

And seeing that you are giving Gas Law details about the low altitude effect yes an adiabatic drop in pressure also causes a drop in temperature. :)

Yes, it all depends on the conditions. But visible contrails up high generally last relatively long because the ice has to sublimate.

--97T--

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

Well fella's these new industrial strength "smog trails" are not your dads contrails of the past, you know in the days the old DC-7's droned by with
blazing turbo-cyclones only burning about 400 gallons or so an hour, as compaired to burning 2000 to 3000 gallons an hour like nowadays. But don't fear, those airlines don't have to pay too much for that Kerosene that you have to pay as much as $7 per gallon for your kerosene heater. I know for a fact that in 1973, yes the days the gas lines started and the price shot up around $.70 or so per gallon of gas, the airlines were getting their "gas" for

.03 a gallon.
How's that???? We are paying for it. That is why we now get to pay close to $4. a gallon of gas. Oh and if those nice jets have too much fuel at landing time. It gets dumped outa those wing tips. So that is why some may think the wings cause the smog trails. And guess where all that nice fuel ends up, you guessed right where they tell us not to dump such things, down the storm drains and then a mystery oil slick appears on the local lake, and no one knows where it came from, and you never get told what they found out about it. These new crap trails are not condensation, as that will disperse quickly. These are deliberatly sprayed and the proof is the aircraft doing it are not even flying the victor airways, so that is proof they are not commercial planes, yes some do fly the airways, but as many don't.

Ah, yes, the Illuminati depopulation campaign. Or, the top secret project to combat global warming. Or, the seeding project to turn the air into a plasma so HAARP can control the weather. Fascinating.

What makes you think commercial flights have to fly victor airways? And why is it, when three or more contrails cross at a common point, nobody questions whether they are using the old technology and nobody checks an aero chart to see if there is a VOR underneath? And why is it that nobody seems to catch on that those parallel tracks would be made by a succession of planes following the same path in a river of moving air? Anyway, it was good reading. I especially like the fact that every ice rainbow is proof of ethylene dibromide. Tasty!

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm
100 miles per gallon per passenger when fully loaded. Much more efficient than older planes. And no, they don't dump fuel unless it's an emergency. Requiring a lot of paperwork.

--97T--

The 747 deal, your missing the whole point. With IC recip that milage will more than double.
Just observe those smog trails, they expand to cover the whole sky.
Just watch.

Not in my IC recip it won't. If I have to go more than a few hundred miles, a jet is the way to go. Besides, time is money.

Jets wouldn't be in use if they weren't economically superior (efficient). And they are. Huge, lumbering piston powered monsters are a weakness of mine (gotta love that sound), but it just costs too much to keep them in the air.

--97T--

Jets wouldn't be in use if they weren't economically superior (efficient). And they are. Huge, lumbering piston powered monsters are a weakness of mine (gotta love that sound), but it just costs too much to keep them in the air.

--97T--
Probably the same thing as with Harleys....not efficient, but who cares? Chicks love that V-Twin Throb between their legs....We love that round-motor thunder!

And I'm sure the nannies would like to get rid of my personal aircraft and my 450 HP car, too. They'll tell us what we NEED, and confiscate everything else.

--97T--

And I'm sure the nannies would like to get rid of my personal aircraft and my 450 HP car, too. They'll tell us what we NEED, and confiscate everything else.

--97T--

All the environmentalists want you to get rid of your personal CO2 spewing aircraft. Guys like John Travolta, John Kerry, Sting,......no, they're not special, they need theirs for work. We just don't understand.