Follow the money [Archive] - CNCzone.com-The Ultimate Machinist Community

keitholivier

09-10-2007, 10:19 PM

I'm afraid that since I'm already working on engine technology for 2010 and beyond (2012 in some cases), I can assure you that the world is still a long way from fuel cells or all electric vehicles.

It is possible with todays technology to have functional electric vehicles, but there is no doubt that they lose a lot of utility compare to an even more available option, which is simply SMALLER vehicles (Civic, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, VW Lupo/Fox, and a dozen other small vehicles readily available outside the USA).

There is simply NO reason for anyone to need a Hummer, Yukon, Navigator or any of the other big 4x4 vehicles to drop the kids off at school or pick up the groceries. For a while big oil and the big 3 car makers were incestuous bedfellows, both feeding off the insatiable EGO of the american public.

I think since 911 the reality of politics surrounding oil, the power that oil revenues put in the hands of those who have it and the growing realization that a second USA (China - at least in terms of energy consumption) is going to blow the bank on oil supplies in short order has seen the dramatic increase in the price of crude world wide.

Without considering the environmental impact of the development that is presently going on in china, in a situation where the US presently consumes the majority of the worlds oil reserves, clearly staying on track with present consumption is going to result in an eventual conflict with china. This may possibly be at least partially responsible for the US politically taking a harder look at that part of the energy equation that can be changed in a relatively short time - cars. Energy consumption on HVAC is at record levels in homes and office buildings too, but these capital intensive locations will take much longer to change than the vehicle fleets.

The impact of higher fuel prices on sales of bigger vehicles has been significant. Few people do not think of the cost of fuel when thinking about their choice of new vehicle the next time around. In 3 years time, one will have a much better picture of the direction public opinion is going. Unfortunately, as always, Detroit has procrastinated and tried to skirt around the need for smaller vehicles and the impact of this bad strategic planning is going to be seen more clearly in the future than ever before. I personally find it hard to believe that consumers will be buying Chinese made cars that are Chevy badged instead of Japanese. The koreans are not quite in the China league but their sales are climbing.

If you really love your chevy, ou might want to buy one sometime soon, because these american Icons may not make it too much longer.

[quote=handlewanker;332717]In the latest issue of the RACV car magazine, top of page 8, in OZ, General Motors director for advanced technology, Christopher Boroni-Bird, stated that by 2010, just round the corner, they will not be making any more internal combustion engines at all, but investing in electric car technology via the fuel cell for their customers,
This will solve the problem of flagging car sales, bravo we need a few more cars on the roads.

This may well be, but untill we reduce the world's population and the insatiable desire for raw materials, nothing will change, oh and recycling is just a bandaid, paying lip service to the real issues, same as carbon credit trading, shifting the sh#t around with nowhere to go, like sweeping dirt under the carpet./quote]

RRRoamer

09-11-2007, 04:30 PM

It always amazes me when I see posts that just seem to believe that the free market doesn't work.

Neither GM, nor Ford, nor Chrysler, nor Toyota, nor BMW, nor Honda, nor ANY car manufacture gets to dictate what people buy! It's not all one company and they definitely do NOT have some kind of lock on it.

These companies build what they THINK people want to buy. When they get it right, they sell a lot of vehicles and make a lot of money on them. When they don't, they don't sell many cars and they lose money. If they do it poorly enough long enough, they either get bought out or they go out of business.

It really is that simple.

People where driving large, heavy, poor mpg vehicles because they WANTED to! Gas was dirt cheap so they could afford to fill up a 35 gallon tank and deal with only getting 12 mpg. When gas prices went up (supply and demand once more), some folks couldn't afford (or justify) that fill up, so people started either buying more fuel efficient vehicles or they changed the way the used their existing vehicle to decrease the amount of fuel they were using.

Right now, more fuel efficient vehicles make more sense than a lot of the alternatives (mass transit, hybrids, electric vehicles, bicycling, etc.) do for MOST people. If fuel prices keep going up, more and more people will change how they live to decrease the amount of fuel they need. But right now, things like hybrids, electrics, fuel cells, hydrogen fuel, etc are NOT economically sound purchases for most people.

Hybrids get better fuel economy, but they have this little issue with battery life. Anyone that has owned a power tool for any length of time knows what happens to batteries as they get older. Eventually, they have to be replaced and the old batteries disposed of. And have you seen the kind of chemicals that are in modern batteries??? Have you PRICED a battery pack for a hybrid car? You can buy a LOT of fuel for that much money.

The car companies will keep doing what they think is right to sell the most cars. Some times they will get it right, some times they will get it wrong. At some point, with the improvements in technology and a ongoing increase in fuel prices, I have no doubt that alternative vehicles will become not only competitive, but actually desirable. What that happens, the IC engine as we know it today will quickly fade away much as the horse and buggy did early last century.

handlewanker

09-11-2007, 10:05 PM

Hi Keith, I drive a Mercedes "tank", 1980 280E, and as I'm a one passenger car driver, (me only) I reckon the whole world could point the finger at me and say "burn it, for gawds sake".

I use to drive a Morris Minor and later a Hillman Imp, some 30 years ago, so can say that given the choice I'd stick with the Merc, just a much more comfortable drive, hardly prestige nowadays, but still has the aura of when it was made.

Apart from fuel consumption, there are no comparisons like a big car drive.
The small cars today are tin boxes on wheels, and manufacturers would make them of plastic if they could get the legislation to allow it.

I personally don't care about the environmental impact the car has made on society.
I'd rather drive a car to destruction than work a horse to death.
As a member of the human race I want whatever I can get and to hell with the consequences.
Just because the natural resources are drying up doesn't mean I must give up my pleasure.
My solution to the drive the "kids to school" situation, make them walk, I used to back in the '50's, we never had a car then, only bikes, pedal types.

When the oil has gone we are going to use vegy oil or alcohol or something else that can be burned.
Long after the human race has ceased to exist there will still be an environment, not as we know it, but more to the liking of the then resident species, be it microbial organisms clinging to a volcanic rock or just some other life form we haven't had the chance to exploit or subdue.

I weep for the environmentalists driving around beating their gums about the pollution, when they ignore natural occurances and marvel at volcanoes spewing out poisonous fumes far more deadly than any man made muck.

Electric cars make sense if you value the environment you live in.
No wastage sitting at traffic lights, no poisonous fumes, no warm up wastage, hardly any moving parts and very condusive to making smaller cars to get better power to weight ratio.

This is of course if you haven't got money tied up in investments that are related to the present car industry of piston engines, gearboxes and oil related products such as synthetic rubber tyres to name a few.

In the end, as we don't live forever, we won't see the results of our indulgence and lip service payments to safe living.
We will go the way of all flesh and some of us are planning on coming back again.

As a matter of interest, are you saying that General Motors have got it all wrong,and the supply of oil is endless?
Ian.

handlewanker

09-12-2007, 07:55 PM

Hallo all you concerned humans, one thing we all foget and that is we are ALL our own worst enemy!

When the fuel prices rise it makes the wage earners jumpy and the next wage rise for them is geared to getting more money to not only cover the inflation rate but to ensure that all you people with vested interests in the car industry will get more money to run your big cars.

Never in the entire history of human endeavour has the price of consumer commodities exceeded the ability of the average worker to pay for it.

If commodity prices did outstrip that infinately renewable resource called "income source", whether it be earned income or extended credit, then the brakes of poverty would automatically come on, and lack of sales would lead to more and more bankruptcy auctions untill the market stabilised and so we stagger on from one crisis to another.

Never underestimate the ability of the population to aquire what it wants by any means whatsoever.

If you go to the birth of the horseless buggy industry and look at the offerings available then as compared to now, it is apparent that no matter how the damm thing performs, as long as it gets you from A to B without walking then it'll sell.

The same can be said for any newly emerging technology, without boring you, have a look at the first commercial TV offerings, but they sold and made a lot of money for some, not the original inventor by the way.

The theme is follow the money, which broadly interpreted means, If you want something done, pay someone, but not yourself.
The moment the economy expands beyond the capacity for it's self regeneration, then the only resource left to balance the books is plastic, and that's where the economists foresight fails to penetrate, in other words the ability for some to beg borrow or steal their way to solvency, even for a short while.

It has been said that work is a poor return for needs, and needs are a poor return for desire, which translates to "some have it good and some have it better", but on the whole when you put your future in the hands of a chosen few, then the steering wheel of your urban dream boat is turning whether you want it or not.

I can only dream of the heights the electric car would have attained had it had 1% of the resources expended on it as it's piston engined rival.
Ian.

dynosor

09-12-2007, 10:55 PM

I can only dream of the heights the electric car would have attained had it had 1% of the resources expended on it as it's piston engined rival.
Ian.

You make it sound like the electric car has suffered under some sort of discrimination and now it is time to fix things by means of affirmative action. If something is worth having, capitalists will invest in it and the market will flock to it - no conspiracy here.

I also get the impression that you think electric cars are clean with respect to "greenhouse gasses". Unless all your power comes from sources such as nuclear reactors, the electric car simply pollutes elsewhere from the general area it is used in. Aren't most power stations coal fired? That is certainly true of the new ones sprouting up all over China.

Be careful of unintended consequences: The electric car may yet become the worst real polluter know to mankind.

handlewanker

09-13-2007, 05:30 AM

Dynosor, by capitalists do you mean one of those money grubbing ex commie ba##stads that have finally seen the light and are now shovelling the loot in all directions to get a slice of the pie we've been eating all these years because we're not so bl##dy stupid with our ideology?

I don't see the Chinese turning their noses up at my dollars now, when I buy on the China Ebay websites, not a hair out of place on their heads when I buy their exported goods.
That is the kind of common sense I like to relate to, not some pontificating do gooders thinking they're going to make things right by cutting their noses off.

Incidently, I have a number of investments in the eastern bloc, and they're very considerate and courteous over there when you play the game and admit to fair play, not petty Western pseudo politics that just cloud the real meaning of cross border trade preferences.

I have a very great liking for electric cars, as you no doubt have observed, and the situation you pose of smoke belching chimneys from the dark Satanic mills that would be present when the oil runs out and the coal starts to increase in volume "aint never gonna happen".

Why? because it's the capitalists that have to pay the bl##dy miners to go down the pits to dig the stuff out, not at the present rate but in vastly increasing quantities, and as the coal mine owners are finding it more and more difficult to find any worthwhile seams of coal, I leave it to your imagination.

You could of course have a Nuclear power plant next door to you, that would certainly increase the property values. I hear land packages are going dirt cheap in the Chernobyl area now that facility has shut down.

In my very humble opinion, and for what it's worth, the world has bust the bank on human production, and as there is a glut of human raw material, wouldn't it be a sane idea to just harness this valuable resource, it is infinately sustainable you know, and get a bit back for all the resources squandered by it?

If we go back to square one and forget the oil, coal, atomic energy, space research and any other fancifull ideas that consume vast amounts of resources but leave little to advance the progress of all life forms, then you have a formular to progress into the 21st cent without repeating the mistakes of the last several thousand years.

It's only when the chips are down that the sleepers raise their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about.
Of all the most memorable endeavours by man, the most notable is the car.
It has allowed somone who lives in one place to travel miles or kilometers back and forth to a work place without any gain, but certain in the knowledge that they'd rather be somewhere else.

I was walking down the road the other day when I was passed by a motor cycle, so what? It was electric, doing about 30 Kmh, it went by like a puff of wind and as quiet as the grave.
I couldn't care less if it took a couple of kilos of dirty coal to make the electricity to run the thing, one thing is for sure, that is the way to go, the electricity can be produced in viable quantities by many other clean means, and sufficient for all our needs when we get rid of the excess population and concentrate on having a better standard of living.

I'm not advocating mass suicide or genocide or any other cide that comes to mind, just stop doing IT for a while and let the population level subside for a bit.
Meanwhile I'll have a look at the Tesla electric car and see how that is turning out. Might be able to get one second hand on Ebay soon.
Ian.

Wade

09-26-2007, 12:38 AM

I'm confused: Here's what I think I know.

You like electric vehicles.
You hate Nuclear Power.
You don't care about pollution.

Is this about right?

Here in the states, coal is everywhere. The entire state of Montana is one big coal field.

The Tesla's batteries have to be replaced after 500 full recharges. The car costs $100,000 new. A replacement battery pack will be at least $20,000 USD. There are 7000 Li-Ion batteries in it, each a little bigger than a AA. They must be getting a heck of a bulk rate discount on batteries. Good luck finding your dream car.

Later.

PoppaBear10

09-26-2007, 07:31 AM

The reason why this government and other governments have jumped on the GW band wagon, is it is a way for them to Tax YOU and Buizness. It is a perfect vehical for them, since No one can or will Prove or Disprove this BS therory. You will note that stuff that disproves this crap never gets any Media play. Look at the Greenland findings which show that the world used to be alot warmer than today, and the earth goes through natrally occuring warming and cooling cycles.

I wish BIG Buizness would get together and step on this stupid way for al gore who is worthless to start with, to make more money.

Scott

dynosor

09-27-2007, 12:14 PM

The reason why this government and other governments have jumped on the GW band wagon, is it is a way for them to Tax YOU and Buizness.
Scott

Hence, "follow the money".

The other reason for the "popularity" of global warming, other than global taxes is global control...

JROM

09-27-2007, 12:29 PM

JUST A FEW THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS
Electric cars? Where does the power come from when you charge up your little electric car? Answer...Carbon burning power generating plants! So How did you save the world when all you did was let someone else burn the carbon based fuel you needed? And while we are on the subject the batterys in your sweet little electric car will wear out in about 3 0r 4 years and will have to be replaced. That will cost you about 30 to 40 percent of the original cost of the car. And where by the way are we going to dispose of the 1000lb of dead batteries you will be throwing away every 3-4 years? Electric cars are not the answer, they will just make things worse in the long run. As for hydrogen fuel cell cars.......that's all we need is all those YAHOOs out there driving around in little hydrogen bombs!!

JROM

09-27-2007, 12:32 PM

P.S.

Check out a book by Mike Criton called (State of Fear)
It will really open your eyes about "global warming"

handlewanker

09-27-2007, 09:51 PM

To all the scaremongers and perfectionists that can only see problems and disregard all solutions as being annexes to existing problems, I say to you now, you will not get out of this life alive and if you don't start doing something to solve YOUR own immediate problem then you will just sink deeper into the bog of your own despair.

I personally like electric cars, they are the way of the future.
The present technology, if compared to the birth of the automobile and it's present day shape and form and development, will solve all the problems of electric car production and so the battery situation will no longer be an issue.
If you can't see this as happening then you have tunnel vision and should just take up walking as a contribution to the environmental problem.

Just because the world has 20% of its surface volume still available to be populated does not mean that we should go to bed and start trying to fill up that space with useless resource users that come and go like the proverbial bad dream.
My proposal is that we all hang fire on the human production for a while until the natural occurances have got rid of the excess resource users, by that time we will all be a bit more wiser and will realise that like a child in a one child family when the pocket money is handed out there will be just that more to go around to make it really worth while.

Just because there is a vast amount of coal in the USA somewhere, doesn't mean that it can't be used.
When the chips are down and the pollution is going to kill you, you will find a way to prevent the waste products from coal burning to freely vent into the airspace, untill that time it would be suicide to continue doing, on an ever increasing scale, what you are doing now.
Ian.

handlewanker

09-27-2007, 09:58 PM

Hi Jrom, I personally am not too keen on Hydrogen as a viable fuel source either.
It's just another fuel that takes a lot of complex technology to put money into the pockets of the top end producers as opposed to harnessing the present technology and making it available to the end user economically.
Ian.

dynosor

09-28-2007, 01:02 AM

handlewanker

09-28-2007, 10:09 AM

Nuh!, you missed the point.

I love electric cars, they are the future, clean, quiet, non polluting etc.
I couldn't give a tinker's for the technology that produces them or the people that get rich making them as long as I get what I want and now.
Given the present demand, they will only get better and better rather than die out for lack of demand, if you haven't noticed this fact then you've got your head buried in the sand and it won't make a bit of difference to you whether or not we go nuclear or wind power.

If you designed a better battery, and made a million bucks out of it, would you turn it aside and say that you refuse to exploit the needs of the human race and so donate all the profits to a fund that catered for the needs of third world country expansionism? By that I mean cutting out the premature death rate so that the population could proliferate at a far greater rate than is now possible?

One fact you overlook, and that is technology comes at a price.
Whether or not you are prepared to pay that price is academic, as long as it benefits the general well being of all and does not cause a cataclysmic event when technology goes pearshaped.

If it were not for the money invested in battery technology, especially NiMh and Lithium batteries, we would not have the gadgets we have today.
I cannot read the future, but I can create an industry simply by recognising the fact that I have the buying power to make it viable as long as it satisfies my needs.

If you don't agree with my point of view, perhaps you could enlighten us as to which direction you would consider is best to profit the whole environment, be it animal, vegetable or mineral.
Ian.

JROM

09-28-2007, 12:39 PM

Just so you know, all and I mean ALL of the big transportation companys have large R&D departments. And ALL of them are flat out on the battery problem and have been for the last decade. Just because you want something does not mean you will get it. The design may come next week or not at all, it's a crap shoot. And still 85% of the electricity that will go into your batterys whatever they are is generated by plants burning coal. So what did we fix?

handlewanker

09-28-2007, 08:55 PM

Jrom, one unpalatable fact escapes most thinkers, and that is no matter how obnoxious your desires are, if enough of you want it then someone will make sure you get it.

My desire for a quiet clean electric powered car, even if I have to change the batteries occasionally, is a desire shared by many I have the experience to ascociate with, and they are all of the same opinion, which is, it is better to have a driving force that works when you want it to than just idling away for 50% of it's time due to the overcrowding on the roads.

I like to breath clean air and the knowledge that there are too many air burning conveyances trundling up and down the roads of the world does not give me a warm glow.

We pay lip service to environmental needs, by agreeing with anyone and everyone that points out the growing environmental impact of the population sprawl, but we do not do anything about it.

I am at the end of my life cycle, and when my forbears were at the end of theirs, they had not even seen a computer or TV set, and most of the rural areas surrounding them were not even connected to an electric supply source.

We need a war to clear the cobwebs out, not just any war, but a war that will reduce the population by at least half, and render the other half, who would be the non productives and partly senile anyway, to a state of tranquility safe in the knowledge that it will take many years of endeavour before anyone could make any environmental impact again.

Over the centuries this has been a way of regulating the population expansion.

So if you are running out of resources and are not too keen on sharing with your fellow miserables, the only alternative you have is to have a showdown and make a bit of room for the lucky few survivors.

If you think this is a bit drastic, know this then, ALL the current planners and thinkers will agree with this proposal, otherwise why do we have weapons of mass destruction being produced to regulate the undesirables.

Correct me if I am wrong, 20 million Japanese can't be wrong or 30 million Germans, neither can we overlook the 30 or 40 million Russians it took to achieve the body count, and this is not counting the countless millions of Chinese the Japs "got rid of" to achieve their needs.

Do we have to include the Vietnamese millions or the koreans? Why not have a thought for the Africans regulating their own people.

At the rate you are reducing your population, someone somewhere is going to get a medal, and we haven't even started counting the middle East conflagration.
This is how the world order is maintained, certainly not by asking someone to comply with your way of thinking.

The spoils of war will always be shared out with the winners, the losers will not be around to figure in the equation much anyway.

As for me I will continue recharging my rechargeable batteries secure in the knowledge that I have fostered further battery R&D for an improved product, and have prevented all the waste carbon/zinc/alkaline throw away types from polluting my part of the environment, which as I see it is putting my money where my mouth is.

Give a thought to the next idealogy you support with your vote, you just might get a mass destruction scenario that would make Spielburg envious.
Democracy is after all, the power of one to decide how and when you will think no matter what you think.
Ian.

dynosor

09-28-2007, 09:47 PM

We need a war to clear the cobwebs out, not just any war, but a war that will reduce the population by at least half, and render the other half, who would be the non productives and partly senile anyway, to a state of tranquility safe in the knowledge that it will take many years of endeavour before anyone could make any environmental impact again.

You may wish for a war that snips a little off the top and ends up with nuclear fallout all around the globe. Such pollution will make CO2 look like plant food.

You worry about global warming because of the perceived need to protect the environment for the continued survival of the human race and yet advocate exterminatation?? War is not a controlled event. Who's to stop "them" from bombing "us" back into the stone-age; accidentally taking out the greatest minds in battery development.

I think your cure is worse than the disease, but don't worry about the use of nukes; it's a dry heat.

handlewanker

09-29-2007, 01:59 AM

Hi, Never said I wished for war, just that it has been the ultimate solution of world leaders for so many years, who said medicine was supposed to taste good anyway?
Maybe going back to the stone age is the answer to the problem, starting all over again but getting it right this time? You wish.

As for now, technology has advanced us to where we stand, and if we thought it was bad we'd have done something about it.

You have to admit, and I don't expect you to be openly applauding a general war on all fronts, but for the record, practically all our problems are the over population that is now at crisis proportions.

Those that are most affected are the people who cannot do anything about it, due mainly to ignorance, church teachings and general peer pressure.
Everyone and his dog will admit that overpopulation is the prime cause of land shortage, overcrowding, exploitation of unskilled labour and poor health.

Now we want to go to Mars. I ask you with tears in my eyes, what the hell do you think you are playing at?
Do they think that carrying their brand of irresonsibility to the far reaches of the universe is going to further the cause of human endeavour and so create a brave new world?

Pull the other one, if I remember history, didn't the Mayflower mob set out to do just that in 16.. something, and look what that did for the human race, created a dumping ground for a mongrel mix of all the dregs of the old world and practically wiped out the indigenous species of the New World.

So the wheel is going to go full circle, and we are going to commit the same mistakes that have been recorded historically in bloody graphic detail without even batting an eyelid.

It has been said that if you were an astronaut marooned on a barren piece of rock in space, the only thought that would be foremost in your mind was how much you loved that bit of soil you called home, be it ever so humble.

I still think that when the oil, coal, nuclear crap etc has run out we still will not be satisfied until we have invented another dangerous mix to start the ball rolling again.

As for me, I'll hope that the rechargeable battery will become even better so that I can wizz down the road without leaving a vapour trail of poisonous gasses that someone is going to breathe in at some time.

I hope you're not a church goer, otherwise you would be an enthusiastic member of the biggest war mongering money laundering organization with a killing machine the like of which the world has ever known.
Ian.

totally_screwed

09-29-2007, 05:57 AM

P.S.

Check out a book by Mike Criton called (State of Fear)
It will really open your eyes about "global warming"

I'm sorry JROM, but you really should try to get your facts [and spelling] right!
Summary of Crichton's statements
Of the statements in Crichton's State of Fear examined, every one was found to be factually incorrect in some significant way. Some were merely untrue and repeated by Crichton with or without material changes. His failure to correct the errors indicates that either he is incompetent because he failed to check his facts were correct, or that he is biased and deliberately set-out to deceive his readers. Since Dr. Crichton is intelligent and well educated, . It seems that the former is unlikely. One can only conclude that the numerous manipulations, distortions, fallacies and other tricks were deliberate and included intentionally.

The fact that the “State of Fear”, is full of errors, distortions and deceptions, renders it absolutely useless scientifically, despite Crichton's bold claims that his ''footnotes are real'', maybe they are, BUT THEY ARE NOT TRUE AND CORRECT!
No evidence was identified to support the view that Crichton is reliable as a witness or source of information. It appears that reports of Crichton's scientific accuracy are a work of fiction.

Crichton's 'science' has been widely debunked:
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Checking Crichton's footnotes
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

Quote
Michael Crichton’s latest fictional novel, “State of Fear”, designed to '''discredit concerns about global warming''', purports to use the scientific method. The '''book is sprinkled with references to scientific papers''', and Crichton intones in the introduction that his '“footnotes are real”'. But does Crichton really use the scientific method? '''Or is it something closer to scientific fraud?'''
End quote
Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Method” - Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

Have you ever thought of reading the science?

dynosor

09-29-2007, 12:10 PM

Never said I wished for war...

We need a war to clear the cobwebs out...

I need a Haas CNC machine. I wish I had a Haas CNC machine. Same thing.

No disrespect mate, but just because you are a prolific poster and type a lot of words doesn't mean you make sense.

To persuade others you need to take facts and weave them together with logic; word count doesn’t count. Until then, your opinion is only as valid as anyone else’s.

We pay lip service to environmental needs, by agreeing with anyone and everyone that points out the growing environmental impact of the population sprawl, but we do not do anything about it.

Give a thought to the next idealogy you support with your vote, you just might get a mass destruction scenario that would make Spielburg envious.
Democracy is after all, the power of one to decide how and when you will think no matter what you think.
Ian.

Global warming results not so much from too many people as from too many politicians.

totally_screwed

09-29-2007, 03:36 PM

dynosor

09-29-2007, 03:44 PM

dynosor,

I don't think my post was that difficult to understand! It should be easily understood by any high school student.

Science is science, Crichton did not reflect the scientific truth in his book, despite his claims. Just look at the references.

Sorry it spoils the story, but peer-reviewed science is the gold standard, and the myths being spread about global warming are just that - myths!

I wasn't giving Crichton any credence was I?

I agree that peer reviewed science is the gold standard, but don't agree that the science on GW is settled. Any time "all scientist" suddenly agree on something I smell a rat.

totally_screwed

09-30-2007, 01:20 AM

I wasn't giving Crichton any credence was I?

I agree that peer reviewed science is the gold standard, but don't agree that the science on GW is settled. Any time "all scientist" suddenly agree on something I smell a rat.

If such sudden scientific agreement had indeed occurred as you suggest, I would agree, but of course this is far from what actually happened! The transformation of GW from idea and possibility, through growing theory, accumulation of evidence to acceptance by the scientific consensus has taken a very long time, almost a century, which could hardly be described as 'sudden'. Genuinely objective scientists are naturally sceptical and are only persuaded by theory supported by evidence and this takes time.
There is no problem with scientists being sceptical of science, that is normal and to be expected.

However, scepticism unjustified by science, but resulting solely from being paid to dispute solid science is despised rightly-so by the scientific community. Even the usual suspects no-longer dispute the truth of GW. They just offer crack-pot science, lies and confusion, typically published in NewsWeek, the Wall Street Journal (known for spreading scientific inaccuracy) and Energy and Environment - not a serious ISI peer-reviewed [p/r] journal. Their target audience is not the scientists because that would fail, but the scientifically ignorant general public.

Quote - Upton Sinclair
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
End quote

Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming", with links to p/r science.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

You have the consensus argument back-to-front!

The reason for the overwhelming scientific consensus is not that there is some utterly ridiculous worldwide scientific conspiracy that involves every major scientific institution! This is not how science works!
If anybody has GENUINE PROOF of such a conspiracy, it must be reported immediately.

The reason there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists, is that the evidence for GW is unequivocal.

The evidence for anthropogenic GW is ~90%.

The greenhouse effect means that the Earth is rather warmer than it would otherwise be.

It is known that the current rate of anomalous recent warming has not been seen in the palaeoclimatic record.

From the ice-core data, it is known that warming normally stimulates enhanced releases of CO2 from natural sources. This excess CO2 stimulates additional warming. By spewing annual emissions of circa 7Gt of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, humans have stimulated an enhanced greenhouse effect, resulting in accelerated warming.

Fossil carbon has a different isotopic signature from biological carbon.

The warming seen is consistent with the levels of GHGs, of which the most important is CO2. There was a post WW2 (1940s to 1970s) cooling caused by emissions of large quantities of sulphate and other aerosols, but this was predominantly confined to the Northern hemisphere.

Levels of CO2 are increasing annually. Current levels have increased above those seen in the pre-industrial period and similar levels have not been seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

The isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon is changing in-line with increasing CO2 concentrations, confirming that the excess CO2 is anthropogenic and originates from fossil sources.

A substantial amount of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which are acidifying as a result.

Water vapour is a GHG, it is in all the models, it's a feedback not a forcing.

All this is confirmed by climate models.

There is virtually no p/r scientific evidence that might contradict this. The solar hypothesis is far from proven, and at most is unlikely to contribute as much warming as CO2. It is hard to see how solar effects alone could account for the current warming, since the solar output has been at a minimum during this warming and has either has no trend or been decreasing slightly for some time.
References
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate - P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit & T. M. L. Wigley
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming - N. Scafetta & B. J. West
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Phenomenological%20solar%20contribution%20to%20the%201900-2000%20global%20surface%20warming.pdf
But see:
“In essence, this work [Scafetta & West] analyses the total solar irradiance (TSI) estimates by Willson & Mordvinov (2003) which is known to exhibit an increase in the TSI at solar minimum between solar cycles 21–22 and 22–23 (the most recent solar cycles, with minima at around 1986 and 1996 respectively). Their conclusion is therefore given by this choice. Had they used another TSI record eg by Frolich & Lean (1998), they would have got a very different result...,”
From:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/#more-192
See also:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/#more-277

handlewanker

09-30-2007, 12:46 PM

Evening all & dynosor, less words will not nullify the fact that we've got too much useless meat walking about on two legs that has, like the proverbial inflation spiral, got totally out of control, correct me if I'm wrong.

No matter what facts and figures you collect and correlate, the end result is:- there are just too many mouths to feed, and THAT is the problem you lot are going to have to face long after I'm gone, why? because the food supply will change along with the climatic changes.

So my solution is to reduce the population levels by 50%, this will give everyone twice as much land and more resources, all within one generation.
Totally unscientific you say? Well It might not blind you with science, but it's the gob smacking truth that NO ONE will admit to, but everyone needs, and it won't take a war to achieve it.

I love this rave on about global warming, similar to a running commentary by the captain of a river steamer about to go over the Niagara falls.
By the time it all happens it'll be a bit late to worry about it.

I offer a challenge to all the high minded highly intelligent members of the species that caused the problem in the first place, to offer a single solution or even a single first step in the right direction to alleviate the problem, and don't say that steps are already being taken to achieve this, otherwise why have we got so many environmental issues?

Then, to put your super intelligent plan into reality, vote for a group of like minded people that will do something about it.
How simple can it get?
Now does that require a degree in rocket science to just put a cross on the voting paper?
Nope, even an illiterate moron can sign his name with a cross.

The next time you vote for the faces that promised all, achieved nothing and don't consider the general population to be worth more than a vote, remember it's YOUR life they are affecting by their sheer ineptitude.

It seems that all the formulars for current climatic trends are formulated long after the event and only give rise to speculation that there could be worse to come.

By the way, did you know that the Amazon rain forest is the result of man's losing battle with nature to keep the land cleared?
Geological records prove it to be a fact from way back in Neolithic times.
Ian.

dynosor

10-01-2007, 12:39 AM

Greetings Handlewanker,

Considering what you have said about the problem of over-population I would like to challenge all environmentalist that think like you, to do the following:

Take charge of the situation yourself by not producing any more consumer/polluters in the form of progeny. If you already have children, persuade them not to have any kids. Ditto for your grandkids.

My single largest contribution to your cause is the fact that I have no kids, and at 45 am unlikely to renege on this.

With regard to the coming food shortage due to global warming: Edible plants thrive in warm environments rich in CO2; hence the invention of the greenhouse. As the higher temperatures you predict should melt more polar ice, the water required to grow the food will be conveniently available in liquid form.

dynosor

10-01-2007, 12:43 AM

JROM

10-01-2007, 05:11 PM

As for Handlewanker, I think he has gone round the bend. Hey Handle if you really believe all that cr-p why don't you do your part to fix the (too much meat) problem and eat your gun. As for GW being real or not. If it's true then in about 10 years I will have the boat dock I always wanted right in my back yard! The point I was trying to make is that electric cars are NOT the way to go. They won't save us anything and the scrap batterys will be a major problem for my grand kids to deal with. To be honest about it I don't know what the right moves are at this point. I've quit using plastic bags from the market, switched out all my lightbulbs to floresents and drive a Honda Civic.
My 5.0 Mustang just sits in the garage now and I only play with it on the weekends. Next is the bottled water. We don't use air conditioners and we turn off everything we can all the time. What else should we do?

Wade

10-01-2007, 11:33 PM

Watch the money. That's were lies begin and end. All data is suspect as long as someone can make a profit off it. I learned that working for the military, contractor's scientist will promise anything and say anything for R&D money. Global warming is the new Evangelism, the cash cow, social welfare for lazy scientist that want a paid vacation to a really cool location. I don't care what BS you bring up, I can't believe that Carbon Dioxide is responsible to the degree that you suggest. Or, that humans are responsible for all the carbon dioxide. You can't tell me the weather in two weeks, you can't predict the energy output of the sun in the next decade, you can't predict the future gamma ray levels in a 100 years. How many times do we have to pay for conflict of interest science? PJ jumping mouse, spotted owl, Kudzu, multi-floral rose, electro-thermal artillery, you name it, some group of science will say anything for money.

Was watching TV, the Greenie Greenpeace boy was teaching the islanders (who's island is slowly sinking into the sea) to demand "compensation!". That's what it's all about. Who has the money, the US. What do they have, coal. What should we do, ban coal and tax the US for burning it. Just get the US to admit global warming exists, then sue them and demand money. No one else in the world ever did anything wrong, it's all the US's fault. Heck, the greenies won't even take responsibility for the mess the national forests are in 10 Million acres burns every year, bad science and policy is to blame. And, they won't take responsibility for the destruction of the rain forest, that they promoted with their idiotic harvesting policies. If we can't cut it, well breathe it during the summer.

Looking at the historical climate record, I notice one thing. It is always moving, up or down. So, where headed for Global Warming, or Global Cooling, 50-50 chances, this decade it's global warming. Three decades ago, it was global cooling. In 20 years it will be global cooling again. And, global cooling scares me more than global warming. Besides a little ocean elevation, no one has told me any thing wrong with global warming. Oh yha, this fertile plain may become dry, but the desert over there will get rain. The forests will move north, the animals will move north. People will occupy higher ground. The land opened up in northern Russia and Canda will be many times the land lost.

We can only fix the problem if we all hand over all rights and liberty to the all-mighty Al Gore, who knows best, for his children.

God help us, come yourself, don't send Jesus, this aint no place for children.

totally_screwed

10-03-2007, 01:16 AM

Greetings totally_screwed,

Before we can discuss the general scientific consensus on GW we need to define what is being agreed on.

If the consensus is that the earth's climate has changed, is changing and will change, then sign me up as a believer. It is common knowledge that the earth has been both hotter and colder than it is now and that the polar bears have survived just fine through this alongside humans.

If the consensus is that humans have caused significant global warming by means of CO2 emissions, that this will result in a catastrophe, and that humans have the power to reverse GW then I have to be listed as a skeptic.

There is no need to find an actual conspiracy of "scientists" to reach any consensus view you care to list. The simple fact that they are paid huge amounts of money to study certain phenomena with the goal of proving pre-defined outcomes predisposes them to reach the conclusions that are most likely to keep the grant money coming.

Why do we need pay these above mentioned scientists to model the climate when even a child can read a thermometer? You can find your own sources of historical weather station data if you don't like mine.

In case you don't make it to the bottom of the list; I see NOTHING SCARY in this data. No reason to take any special action.

You can browse for yourself at
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

For example:

Canada:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/frobishr.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/yukon1.gif

Alaska:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/fairbnk1.gif

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

Greenland, Iceland, northern Norway:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/akureyri.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/greenl-2.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/janmayen.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/vardo.gif

Russia:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/murmansk.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/nikolaev.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/salehard.gif

Europe:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/haparand.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/wlodawa.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/england.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/plymouth.gif

USA:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/WestPoint-NY.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/tennesse.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st-cloud.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/tombston.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/sta-cruz.gif

Antarctic:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/scott.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/syowa.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/gough-i.gif

Pardon me, but since when has John-Daly.com [with its connections to JunkScience [a prime example of nominative determinism], the CEI & Cooler Heads Coalition and ExxonMobil et al.] been a reliable source of peer-reviewed science?
The answer is of course – NEVER!

I like to refer to the source data where possible, I naturally distrust any source that smells of fossil-fuel, be it oil, coal, gas or anyone who might possess a hidden agenda. The best thing that the opinionated and mendacious John Daly ever did was die [2004]! I hope that he is the main course at an eternal infernal barbecue.
[just smell that freshly roasted long-pig, basted in crude-oil]

Shame his website is still live.
As a lasting tribute to John [Daly], we…are endeavouring to keep this web site not only active, but also up to date. http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,03867.cfm
[just smell that oil money]

I can't see why you included the graphs for Antarctica, as the models predict cooling, which is what is seen, so I didn't even bother to look.

I noticed that the few graphs I looked-at were conveniently truncated in the 1990s, LOOKS VERY SUSPICIOUS to me! Perhaps a whiff of presenting the convenient portion of the graph to suit one's argument. I wonder what the graphs look like now?

Annual Mean temperature Frobisher Bay Baffin Island

Just compare your graph from John-Daly.com
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/frobishr.gif

With my graph from GISS.NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719090000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
Now the two graphs appear to be broadly similar, except the John-Daly graph excludes the recent increasing temperature data [It looks like 2004 is the latest NASA.GISS graphed reading]. If one ignores the El Niño perturbations, it shows temperatures certainly not falling, whereas the John-Daly.com graph [minus the recent 2000-2004 inconvenient data] gives the clear impression of falling temperatures, especially since it ends in a downward direction [how convenient, hardly accidental!]. Seems like John-Daly.com are being economical with the truth! Now there's a surprise!

POLAR BEARS, SEA ICE AND ALBEDO
Quote
.., and that the polar bears have survived just fine through this alongside humans.
End quote
Clearly, since Polar bears remain extant this is self evident but deliberately misleading, since the dramatic effects of humans on the climate are a recent phenomenon. But given that the Arctic sea-ice - crucial to the bears' survival, is retreating year-on-year at an accelerating rate.
The important question is: For how long can Polar bears survive?

Future Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice Will Lower Polar Bear Populations and Limit Their Distribution
Released: 9/7/2007 2:48:28 PM
Quote
Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Last December, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was proposing to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. ..,

Specifically the USGS has improved knowledge on the status of three polar bear sub-populations, projected numbers of polar bears into the future in relation to sea ice and integrated the information into a range-wide assessment of polar bear status under scenarios of future climate change...,
Endquote
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1773

National Snow and Ice Data Center - Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
Northern Hemisphere Ice Anomaly
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
Arctic sea-ice is one of the climate positive feedbacks: Albedo of hard frozen ice & snow>wet ice albedo>ocean albedo.

Central England Temperatures
Just compare http://www.john-daly.com/stations/england.gif

with http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html

Clearly these two graphs aren't the same, in-fact, John-Daly graph includes early unreliable data 1720-1770, which are excluded from the Hadley Centre graph and data. See Parker_etal (1992) quotation below about early CET data. Curiously, the J-D graph ends at 1998.
I should think anyone can see the main difference! For those that haven't spotted it, look at those rising temperatures after 1982! Note that John-Daly.com effectively SUPPRESSED the RAPID POST-1982 RISE in the mean curve and omitted those last extremely inconvenient twenty-five years and decided to introduce a 3-year smoothing instead of the 21 point binomial filter, which is equivalent to a 10 year running mean as used in the original? Could it be that the genuine un-doctored graph might completely undermine the point they-you were trying to make?
Oh I forgot – the smell of oil! Duh!

Quote
Between 1723 and the 1760s there are no gaps in the composite instrumental record, but the observations were taken in unheated rooms rather than with a truly outdoor exposure..., Daily temperatures in unheated rooms are, however not reliably convertible to daily outdoor values, because of the slow thermal response of the rooms. For this reason, NO DAILY SERIES TRULY REPRESENTATIVE of CET can begin before about 1770.
End quote
Parker, D.E., T.P. Legg, and C.K. Folland. 1992. A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772-1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, p317-342
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf

The John-Daly graphs are the same type of flawed science as recently featured in “The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS). deliberately dishonest, misleading, distorted and almost completely fraudulent.
Note: TGGWS featured many of the usual suspects and only one worthwhile scientist – Carl Wunsch, a respected oceanographer who was deceived by the programme maker and whose views were misrepresented by selectively editing and false context.

What a cheap trick! You'll have to try harder than that!

totally_screwed

10-03-2007, 01:29 AM

Greetings totally_screwed,

Before we can discuss the general scientific consensus on GW we need to define what is being agreed on.

If the consensus is that the earth's climate has changed, is changing and will change, then sign me up as a believer. It is common knowledge that the earth has been both hotter and colder than it is now and that the polar bears have survived just fine through this alongside humans.

If the consensus is that humans have caused significant global warming by means of CO2 emissions, that this will result in a catastrophe, and that humans have the power to reverse GW then I have to be listed as a skeptic.

There is no need to find an actual conspiracy of "scientists" to reach any consensus view you care to list. The simple fact that they are paid huge amounts of money to study certain phenomena with the goal of proving pre-defined outcomes predisposes them to reach the conclusions that are most likely to keep the grant money coming.

Why do we need pay these above mentioned scientists to model the climate when even a child can read a thermometer? You can find your own sources of historical weather station data if you don't like mine.

In case you don't make it to the bottom of the list; I see NOTHING SCARY in this data. No reason to take any special action.

Disclosure
I am a following the path in the quest for knowledge, which can only be satisfied by a continual search for the plain unvarnished, SCIENTIFIC TRUTH!

If the best science available indicated unequivocally that it's OK to carry-on polluting and pumping fossil C into the atmosphere on an indefinite basis, I'm OK with that! It's easy, convenient and my conscience is clear.

However, the best, most up-to-date synthesis of climate science available indicates [>90% confidence] that it's NOT OK to carry-on polluting and pumping circa 125 Gt C = 500 Gt CO2 at a current rate of ~ 7 Gt per year of fossil C = 28 Gt CO2 into the atmosphere, the emissions are warming the planet, acidifying the oceans and bad things are likely to happen sooner or later. Unfortunately, science as it currently stands cannot answer how bad it is likely to get or when, but it could be very bad [potential for HTM / PETM repeat scenario].

There is good and growing evidence that the climate has changed abruptly in the past and it seems more than likely that it could again.
References
Abrupt Climate Change - R. B. Alley, J. Marotzke, W. D. Nordhaus, J. T. Overpeck, D. M. Peteet, R. A. Pielke Jr., R. T. Pierrehumbert, P. B. Rhines, T. F. Stocker, L. D. Talley, J. M. Wallace
http://cas.umkc.edu/geo/GlobalClimateChange/WeeklyActivities/Jan-17/Alley05.pdf

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Academy Press, 2002.
Full book can be read online
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R1

Holocene climate variability
http://courses.washington.edu/holocene/Mayewski_HolocenVar_QR04.pdf

The common-sense policy would be to ignore those with a vested interest to disseminate disinformation to the public about the science [ExxonMobil and others funding the fossil-fools and their ilk] and take heed of the peer-reviewed science and take urgent steps to reduce rapidly our emissions by energy efficiency, investigate and promote new technologies and promote renewable energies and strategies to initially limit the world population, with a view to reducing and stabilising it at sustainable levels.
References
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf

World population is a particular problem, since the world population is still growing and there is every likelihood that everyone will demand a similar lifestyle to those in the US and that isn't possible, even at current population levels! The US has until recently consumed 1/3 of the world's resources, while constituting only ~5% [4.6] of the population, it follows that if everyone had the same lifestyle as the US would require the resources of around 7 [6.7] Earths – clearly unsustainable!

It is anticipated that the growth of Chinese per capita incomes have slowed from 10% and will continue to grow at 8%, matching those in the US by 2031 and China's population is anticipated to have reached 1.45 billion people by then. Assuming they spend the money in the same way as the US does, their three cars per four persons will consume 99 million barrels of oil per day, more oil than the 84 million barrels of oil per day currently being produced. China, in 2031 is expected to consume twice the quantity of paper currently produced. This fact ignores India, which is likely to be even larger than China. It also overlooks the rest of the world.

It is a FLAWED ECONOMIC MODEL that cannot work.

The discovery rate of new oil reserves is tailing-off rapidly, while existing reserves are being depleted. There are genuine reasons to believe that oil reserves are systematically overstated for political and financial reasons, [e.g. OPEC production quotas, cheaper loans (from apparently increased assets & lower risk)]. This suggests that we are likely to reach peak oil soon, perhaps in five years or a decade, certainly it seems likely that it will be reached sooner rather than later. Some have even suggested that peak oil has already been passed. Exxon and other oil companies are naturally bullish about reserves, but that's hardly surprising.

Interview: World oil production is at its peak and set to fall 32% by 2020 as discoveries wane, said Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a former executive of Iran’s state oil company. ..,Bakhtiari, who publishes papers and lectures on the theory that global oil production is on the verge of imminent decline.
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=96728&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28

Living in a world of a declining oil output with increasing demand and spiralling oil prices is clearly going to be dramatically different from living in a time where oil output was increasing, abundant and cheap.
Reference
Lester Brown Plan B 2.0

Since we are going to be forced anyway at some stage to change our consumption patterns and technology, we might as well do it while oil is available to cushion and facilitate the transition, before we are forced to, and encounter the aggravating problems of lengthy development of new technology during declining output.

There can be no doubt that the the earth's climate has changed and will continue to do so. However, this must not be taken as evidence that it cannot be perturbed by human activity.

It has taken a long time to prove that global warming is a fact:
Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming", complete with links to p/r science.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Here is a must-listen interview with Dr Chris Rapley, former Director of the British Antarctic Survey, now Director of the Science Museum in London. Chris Rapley gives an overview of the science and evidence of climate change and the dangers it poses.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/mp3/EP2007.08.31.mp3

The Dangers of Climate Change, Chris Rapley (Part 2 of 6), TUC Radio (transcript)
http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/457

totally_screwed

10-03-2007, 01:43 AM

Greetings totally_screwed,

There is no need to find an actual conspiracy of "scientists" to reach any consensus view you care to list. The simple fact that they are paid huge amounts of money to study certain phenomena with the goal of proving pre-defined outcomes predisposes them to reach the conclusions that are most likely to keep the grant money coming.

Why do we need pay these above mentioned scientists to model the climate when even a child can read a thermometer?

Let's look at the facts! Many of these scientists are funded by the US government. It is a patently absurd claim to suggest that they are paid huge amounts of money to prove climate change. Have you noticed that the Bush Administration has been doing its utmost to censor documents and prevent scientists from speaking to journalists! To suggest what you have is completely untrue as indeed anyone remotely acquainted with the facts would know. If anything, the Bush Administration would like NASA and GISS to announce that “global warming is all over, it's just gone away!”
References
Committee Examines Political Interference with Climate Science
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214

UCS exposes climate science censorship
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/restoring/scientific-integrity-update-05-2007.html#UCS_Exposes_Climate_Science_Censorship

Atmosphere of Pressure (PDF)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf

Written Testimony of Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientific Integrity Program
Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on “Allegations of Political Interference with the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists”
UCS's Written Testimony (PDF)
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/atmosphere-of-pressure.html
javascript:openPDFWindow('jump.jsp?itemID=31653998')

SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE that any scientist is receiving “huge amounts of money to study certain phenomena WITH THE GOAL OF PROVING PRE-DEFINED OUTCOMES..,” [as you stated], excepting those being paid by industry to lie about the science! This is another widely circulated and baseless falsehood.

Any scientist producing unsound or faked science would surely be discovered and exposed by the anonymous peer-review process, pre-publication. Even assuming faked work manages to evade the intense scrutiny of the peer-review process undetected and unscathed, extensive and prolonged post publication scrutiny would then follow. The truth would surely out and the scientist's reputation for objectivity would be ruined! Which is of course precisely what has happened to scientists who have faked their work! There are a number of examples.
No serious scientist who treasured their hard-fought reputation would consider it for a moment.
Your assertion of widespread skewing of science for grant money is wrong, unjustified and untrue. EVIDENCE REQUIRED!

Let's explore your claim further, since the anthropogenic origin of GW is accepted by all the major scientific bodies, you are in-effect suggesting that this conspiracy extends to all the many thousands of scientists in these bodies! Well, that's a rather hard one to swallow! Of course, it's a completely false and a outrageously fatuous claim.
It fails the test of Occams razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely – which is of course that the warming is man-made.

Most of the usual suspects don't risk it, they only publish their work in the non peer-reviewed popular press instead.

I can't be sure why you really don't like climatologists, unless you are blaming them for the climate [some people do really strange things], or they are likely to do you out of a job! IYKWIM! Your bizarre comment about climate modelling, children and thermometers beggars belief unless you are either extremely stupid [which I don't believe], or have an ahem agenda, which, from your previously expressed anti-science sentiments I am more inclined to believe.

Genuine science is a search for the truth and the consequences of the public learning the truth about climate change is clearly feared and dreaded by the fossil-fuel lobby and big industry [documented], which is why they spend millions of dollars on spreading lies [documented]. The tobacco industry did the exact same in earlier times. Some of the people in the tobacco disinformation campaign left to join ExxonMobil's campaign to undermine and raise spurious challenges and malicious accusations against the scientists, the Kyoto protocol, climate science, and the IPCC.

References
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Now, I have better things to do with my time than tease-out all the deceptions hidden in ExxonMobil's junk science!

Can we have some ISI peer-reviewed science that proves unequivocally that man-made global warming is a myth? BTW, you have a problem because you'll need a lot of it! There isn't anything like enough!

totally_screwed

10-03-2007, 02:05 AM

Dynosor,
As revealed by your post, your scepticism is based upon deliberately biased, faulty and out-of-date misinformation, such as is disseminated by ExxonMobil et al.'s propaganda machine.

In the world of peer-reviewed climate science, fresh data and studies are accumulating all the time, and thus far, it almost all points in the same direction, even the cooling of Antarctica does. However, since science is science, it will lead where it will! It is the wealth of data from numerous different sources that shows the earth is warming [on average]. The warming seen is anomalous and AFAIK unique in its great rapidity, never before seen at ANY time [apparently thousands of times faster than any other global event - barring impacts of astronomical objects]. The most likely cause is the hugely excessive amounts of anthropogenic GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere and in particular the burgeoning levels of CO2 that are responsible. The excess atmospheric CO2 is known to originate from fossil carbon because of its isotopic ratio which differs from biological carbon, which is progressively altering the isotopic ratio of carbon in the atmosphere.

There is precious little evidence for anything else being the cause, despite what the fossil-fuel funded contrarians say. If these scientists: - the self-proclaimed sceptics were 'worth their salt', they would be publishing their research findings in ISI peer-reviewed journals like Nature, except they aren't. The solar connection is obvious, but the potential mechanisms are either currently unknown or not well understood and far from proven. Numerous previous studies of the solar hypothesis have come to grief for one reason or another. Scafetta and West (2006) looks increasingly as if it will because of significant flaws, including some basic inherent assumptions. One thing is certain, which is that the solar connection remains debatable and certainly requires more research. There are numerous good reasons to believe that the maximum possible effect for a solar component is considerably less than that of CO2, especially when one considers the fact that the TSI has shown either no trend since 1978, or a declining trend for decades and the TSI is at a minimum.

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich2, H. Spruit3 and T. M. L. Wigley4
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
by mike Lockwood, and Claus Frohlich
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

There are certainly some aspects of the science that remain insufficiently understood, in particular the mechanisms of melting ice-sheets and glaciers and the aforementioned solar connection. Of these, the predictions of ice-melt are under estimates of actual melting, predicting only about 1/3 of the observed rate. Consequently, SEA-LEVEL RISE estimates and predictions are considered to be underestimates and somewhat over-optimistic.

What is unhelpful is ExxonMobil et al. Continuously pumping-out disinformation and propaganda at the same rate it pumps out pollution.

handlewanker

10-03-2007, 02:09 AM

Jrom, 'eat your own gun'? now there's a nice thing to say to someone.
I bet if you were a contortionist you'd have a whale of a time with your suggestion, and never have to leave home for a furtive bit on the side.
The problem with you is you're over sensitive when it strikes home.

My solution for a very small and minor planet in the solar system that thinks it is the only thing that has "intelligent" life forms is to shed some of the excess two legged meat that is causing all the problems and the rest will just be a bad dream.

While I applaud your efforts at personal frugality, you have to admit you are only paying lip service to the environmental issues that really count.
If you REALLY, and I mean REALLY were concerned about the state of the environment, then do something that will have a long lasting effect instead of just talking about it.

Would you go out and campaign for a reduction in the population? No, You would consider that being either a eunuch, a poofde, a celibate religious fanatic or someone who didn't cut it with the other sex was good enough to cure the problem, probably would if we were all like that.

When it comes to issues that really count, you have to be prepared to get out and do something concrete, like the civil rights activists, they were really pissed off at being put on by the red necks, so they did something about it.

You can fob anybody off for the short term with a weak attempt at appearing to be concerned, but you don't gain any browning points when all your efforts were innefectual.

By the time you get your boat into the water in your backyard, you'll be fighting off the crowd that have moved inland to get away from it.

I still say the electric car is the future, and just because present battery types are not the best, given time and some finance then maybe we'll get there.
Ian.

dynosor

10-03-2007, 03:04 AM

.

You'll have to try harder than that!

And I think you are trying way too hard to convince us of anything. I would however like to see much more raw weather station data all the way to 2007, if you can find it.

Have you actually read all the links you provide as references? For instance:

http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf

from page 7 onward supports my point of view:

1. That the GW message is exaggerated:

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." Al Gore

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. Climate change provides the chance to bring about justice and equalities in the world." Christine Stewart - Minister of the environment Canada.

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding, have to find a way to scare the public, and you can only do this by making things more scary and dangerous than they really are." Petr Chylek - Professor of physics and atmospheric science Dalhousie university, Halifax Nova Scotia.

There are more, but the document is an image and I am tired of typing.

2. That cutting CO2 according to Kyoto will be both ineffective and hugely expensive:

"There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures - 1/20 degree by 2050" Dr Fred Singer atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of environmental sciences at the university of Virginia.

"Implementing Kyoto will cost $150 billion to $300 billion globally every year, merely to postpone the temperature rise six years 2100 to 2106. That's a very expensive way to achieve very little" Economist Bjorn Lamborg.

The bottom line is, what the hell do you want us to do about "the problem". I say do nothing for 10 years and see what happens.

Notice they are starting to replace global "warming" with "climate change"? That is because the temperature will start coming down again soon due its natural cycle and they want to blame CO2 for that too. That is, unless the UN gets to implement its controlling schemes before the cooling starts. In which case they will claim their efforts are working, but that we need more of "it".

You are indeed totally screwed trying to persuade me of anything that is promoted by politicians and celebrities. I am supposed to accept your peer reviewed science, but any scientist that doesn't agree with your lot works for big oil?

Then there are people like Handlewanker seriously promoting war as cure for warming... I am much more afraid of the risk of global war than of global warming.

handlewanker

10-03-2007, 03:11 AM

Hi all, just went back to see what it was we're all being inundated with and it appears that the title "follow the money" relates to the various lobbies trying to get the money out before the market collapses from lack of raw material.

Someone suggested that the oil production should be scaled down to make it go further, like increase the coal mining you mean? I don't think anyone with a bit of oil around will want to stop pumping for dear life, knowing that when the oil supply dwindles and becomes too expensive to use, we'll just move onto something else, and that will make their investment worth peanuts.
Can you imagine oil so scarce that it costs $50 for a litre of petrol when you refine it?

I'll stay with electric power, no matter how it's derived, at least there are umpteen ways to produce it and even more uses for it.
Ian.

handlewanker

10-03-2007, 03:50 AM

Hi dynosor, don't get me wrong, you sound like a female in a male dominated world? Either that or you are reluctant to grasp the nettle.
I don't think promoting war will solve the problem, that it WILL solve the problem is undeniable, but having gone through a war that didn't impress me much then, I still say "it would take a war" to cure our problems.

We are not likely to "grasp the nettle" ourselves due to the delicate disposition of the human make-up when it comes to seeing people as living entities, but as a cure for a problem, so huge , it dwarfs the looming crisis of global warming, global cooling, global hunger, global over population, global lack of money, global want this and that, the list goes on.

To sum up the situation, we have too much population, dear souls though they are, and dearly loved by other dear souls when they arrive, and very deeply missed when they depart for regions promoted by the various religions, but nevertheless they are in actual fact a burden on the whole of the human race.

Why do we produce so much excess mouths to feed?
We don't farm excess livestock to make more livestock on an exponential scale, otherwise we'd be having a huge oversupply of manure products.

I would prefer the gentle way of population reduction by not doing it for a while till things had settled down a bit, then only on alternate weekends if necessary.

If you think this is absurb, wait for a bit longer until the breathing space has really become noticably reduced and then wonder if I was right, they're not going to go away you know, in fact thy're just going to get more and more.
What does it take to make you people wake up? A war?
This is a wake up call.
Ian.

dynosor

10-03-2007, 04:40 AM

In all fairness, Handlewanker, while I disagree with you on the need for war, I predict a war between China and the USA. This will be over who controls dwindling resources, including energy.

The global warming crowd are just another faction trying to control world energy before either the US or China dominate exclusively.

handlewanker

10-03-2007, 09:18 PM

Hi all, on a global scale, anyone who needs war to cure their problems is totally inept at solving their problems and seriously needs to get professional advice, I quote from history, which is undeniable, the Japanese solution to THEIR problem of raw material supply when they embarked on a systematic invasion of China BEFORE WW2 was anticipated.

One thing is for sure, NO-ONE is regretting the dropping of the A bomb when it was decided to CURE that problem, certainly not the USA or Britain Or China, in fact if it were to be known, even the Japs themselves breathed a sigh of relief, having been subjected to a repressive feudalistic barbaric society for so long.

War is an ugly panacea for problem solving, but the end product is the same as if the population that was used up were never produced in the first place.
While there will be many shocked and bitter opponents of the world wide cull that has been going on since the dawn of history, taken to it's ultimate conclusion, we would be knee deep in people droppings and bone fragments without it.

I note the QUALMS that nobody expresses when their PETS are sexually interferred with to enforce birth control, and that is on their "best friends".

Imagine if a law was passed that prohibited free sexual habits on all unattached male and female humanoids, and to make it workable all males had their naughty bits cut short or bypassed to encourage abstinance, and all females also unnattached were encouraged to wear a steel mesh chastity belt so preserving the purity of the breeding stock of the species, and ensuring that no excess hanky panky would be engaged in with the resident attached horny males.

Unthinkable? It happened in India when transistor radios were given to VOLUNTEERS who unknowingly surrendered their right to produce without self control.
The sum result was a huge increase in VD that occured when the shagging rate went by the board since the conceievability problem had been taken care of.

So if we're to follow the money, who benefits by over population? I leave that question to the imaginative, but one thing is for sure, you can't have a war of acquisition or policy control if you don't have the manpower to enforce it.

To the winner goes the spoils of war, an unescapeable fact of life, and to all the war weary wimps that would rather serve than be free, I give you this bit of advice, you are where you are today because of the cull that took place during the 1939-1945 conflict, and to say otherwise would brand you as naieve and blind to the truth, and there are "none so blind as they who will not see".
Ian.

dynosor

10-04-2007, 01:02 AM

I still say the electric car is the future...

I see the blind have declared electrical cars a hazard because they are too quiet.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=952695&cl=4354828&src=news

(Article is about hybrids running in full electrical mode)

dynosor

10-04-2007, 01:17 AM

Handlewanker, if it seems that we are in disagreement, all your talk of heavy-handed governance fits in directly with those of us who consider global warming an excuse to institute global control. It would seem natural that once the first type of control has been instituted and accepted, that other types of "save the planet" control would follow. First carbon credits then breeding credits...

Imagine if a law was passed that prohibited free sexual habits on all unattached male and female humanoids, and to make it workable all males had their naughty bits cut short or bypassed to encourage abstinance, and all females also unnattached were encouraged to wear a steel mesh chastity belt so preserving the purity of the breeding stock of the species, and ensuring that no excess hanky panky would be engaged in with the resident attached horny males.

Why not just equip living units with the time saving doorless microwave oven?

handlewanker

10-04-2007, 09:30 AM

Geof

10-04-2007, 09:51 AM

I see the blind have declared electrical cars a hazard because they are too quiet.....

Things never change. Electric (Trolley) buses where introduced in Auckland, New Zealand back in the early 1950's and this same argument was brought up against them.

handlewanker

10-04-2007, 10:49 AM

Re post #45, so you don't like chastity belts?

The moment you have a reduction of control, you get all those "protest for the sake of protest" types coming out of the woodwork and that would never do.
Give me control any day, I love law and order.

Humanoids can't control themselves at the best of time, that is why a weak government without the intestinal fortitude to clamp down on unrest just fades into obscurity, due to the lack of public credibility.

No one respects a weak ruler, and when you create equal opportunity, and the inept and incompetent are hoisted into positions of power and held there by the pseudo democratic observance of minority groups, you will have unrest and a power struggle at a lower level, leading to the need for control measures to contain it, so fermenting the desire for revolution and the strong ruler just rises and assumes their rightfull place.

You have to read your history thoroughly, to ignore it is to repeat the mistakes again.
In the days of Imperial Rome, they didn't piss about with a few dissidents causing trouble, massacre on a big scale soon tamed the mob.

Nowadays the world has gone soft, that is why you need control.
Don't tell me you haven't seen armed police in London's Heathrow airport with machine guns at the ready, and able to use them? You must be blind.

If you don't like the idea of control, try living in a Central African newly formed republic and you'll soon appreciate the measures it takes to keep the mob under control.

BTW, the advent of global warming, or to be more correct, the varied and unpredictable occurence of normal varied climatic conditions, has nothing to do with gov'ment control, quite the opposite.

Unless you are insinuating that the oil companies won't be blamed for supplying the petroleum products that are ultimately in one way or another polluting the environment, because the said oil companies are paying their tame scientists to draft up huge amounts of data that impress the average reader, and only tell you what you can already experiance if you go out on a summer day and it's raining.

It's a sad thing to have a huge file of data, accumulated at great expense and effort, that portrays events past but is unable to even hazard a guess of events in the future.

One thing is very certain and you can bet your pension on it, the coming winter, (Northern Hemisphere) is going to be cool, quite chilly at times, with a few icy winds, and snow showers on the high ground, but this will not last for too long, and soon the weather will improve and the sun will shine, and all your fears of global warming will vanish as soon as you realise that a bit of warmth now and again is good for the soul and the tourist industry, (see Dubai tourist industry explosion, gearing up for the anticipated oil run out).

I don't have a degree in meteorology or a diploma in astro physics, but I can tell you now, without fear of contradiction, enjoy the warm weather while you have it, because if the Gulf stream takes a bit of a turn you will all freeze your bollocks off big time, and that is a foregone conclusion.
Ian.

dynosor

10-04-2007, 05:18 PM

Post # 44, ahem, it has been decided to recommend to the road traffic authority that a man with a red flag must walk in front of the electric cars ringing a bell and shouting warnings so that anyone stupid enough to be wandering up and down the middle of the road can lie down in the road and get suitably run over so enabling them to sue the manufacturers for making dangerous vehicles.
People who are vision and hearing impaired will be assisted to lie down in the road.
Ian.

While I posted about the reaction of the blind to electric cars, I don't have much sympathy for pedestrians of any sort. The road is for cars, not pedestrians. When a pedestrian wishes to walk across the road they better yield to the automobile or accept being crushed.

The legislation of car designs in Europe required to hurt pedestrians less in the event of contact at speed is almost funny - the correct solution is to keep people off the roads when cars are anywhere nearby. What is next; trains designed not to crush cars that shouldn't be on the track?

dynosor

10-04-2007, 05:43 PM

Give me control any day, I love law and order.

Humanoids can't control themselves at the best of time, that is why a weak government without the intestinal fortitude to clamp down on unrest just fades into obscurity, due to the lack of public credibility.

No one respects a weak ruler, Nowadays the world has gone soft, that is why you need control. Don't tell me you haven't seen armed police in London's Heathrow airport with machine guns at the ready, and able to use them? You must be blind.

Unless you are insinuating that the oil companies won't be blamed for supplying the petroleum products that are ultimately in one way or another polluting the environment,

Perhaps in England and its colonies the dumb masses are "ruled" by the government. In the US, the government works for the people. Remember when the US forced out the Brits because they didn’t want to be ruled by them?

Now, if the average citizen is too dumb to control themselves, what makes you think the average person in government is any better?

As for blaming the petroleum industry for any side-effects of the products we have gladly been using for decades. This is just as silly as blaming Mc Donald’s for making us fat.

I agree that before fuel injection and catalytic converters there was real pollution. Today's cars are only unclean for a minute after start-up. What about all that CO2? Feed it to the plants. Fossil fuel comes from dead plants. These plants grew off CO2 in the air. When we burn fossil fuels, we put that CO2 back where it came from.

handlewanker

10-05-2007, 11:28 AM

Dynosor, Colonies? what colonies? you are a few years behind the times sport.
Any reference to control USA wise, is like sailing in shark infested waters without a boat.

BTW, the dumb masses are the brains that decide who will rule them, without a ruling body the dumb masses turn on themselves and eat each other, the strongest dog wins.

I give you the Communist take over of Russia and others as a prime example.
When the dumb masses deposed the resident ruler they went on a rampage that only ended when Uncle Joe slipped off the mortal coil.
I don't suppose you've heard of the French Revolution, after Napoleon sorted the mob out he became Ruler.

The dumb masses are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so they just run riot and eventually someone takes charge and a few get put down for the public good, nobody mourns them or remembers them, and there are no battle honours or medals for dissidents, how stupid can you possibly get.

Everything you have today was achieved by control from a governing body, not by individuals, and if you think otherwise you are just one of the dumb masses that need controlling.

I challenge you to give one example of uncontrolled mass behaviour that went down in history as an achievment.

Your statement about the petrol industry is the same as if you sexually assualted a minor and it grew up to be a sexual predator, in which case you would be blamed for causing the problem.

I have to admit that this is a provocative statement, but I would not like to have millions of dollars invested in oil shares and then be told that oil is being phased out in favour of nice clean electric powered cars.

I think I would be spreading a few bob around, to interested parties, to delay the advent of the electric revoluton untill the oil had dried up, after that guess where my money would be invested in?

I personally don't give a rat's a##s whether the petrol industry makes mega bucks from the black gold, just as long as I can roll up to a petrol pump and squirt a few litres into my petrol tank and do it again tomorrow, so that my gas guzzling car gets me from A to B without a problem.

After that when the electric car becomes a reality, I want recharge depots all over the place, so that I can roll up with my electric car and get a squiz of juice just when I want It.

I want, I want, that's what it's all about, and the customer is always right.
The first rule of selling is:- Find out what the customer wants and make sure he gets it, or your competitor will.
The second rule is:- The customer is always right.

We have controlling bodies and environmental watchdogs in government that make sure that safety standards are as practical as are affordable.
The moment when restrictions prevent you from enjoying what would otherwise be an ordinary day, that's when I froth at the gills and get ropeable.

For my personal preferences I would welcome the arrival of the electric car as the prime people mover, I don't have petroleum investments, but I do have preferences.
Ian.

dynosor

10-05-2007, 10:21 PM

I challenge you to give one example of uncontrolled mass behaviour that went down in history as an achievment.

Everything you have today was achieved by control from a governing body, not by individuals, and if you think otherwise you are just one of the dumb masses that need controlling.

I certainly don't champion uncontrolled masses. Rather, I believe in the capabilitiy of the individual; in individual freedom and idividual responsibility. Do you think the battries for your electric car will be developed as a result of a decree by a governing body, or as a result of the combined efforts of a few motivated individuals?

dynosor, who cares? we'll all be dead when it's time to worry, so why worry about issues that really cloud the real issues?
Carbon credits, now there is a cloudy issue if there ever was one, there is more CO2 being put in the air by the normal effects of acid rain on the chalk deposits laid down millions of years ago.
Plants love C02, what have you got against plants?
Ian.

This early post of your's pretty much sums it up for me. I rest my case.

handlewanker

10-06-2007, 12:12 AM

Hi Dyno, you had better believe it, nowhere on this mudball we call Earth, has individual effort been rewarded by satisfaction, it takes two to tango you know.

The whole aspect of living is a team effort.
Going it alone for personal gain, agrandisment and self satisfaction just shows the trait that is present in all humanoid species, be they all powerfull chairman of the board or grave diggers, you all want something for nothing.
Humanoids are the only species that work for gain that exceeds their capacity to consume.

They would rather deny sustenance to someone who needs it rather than wants it.
It has been said that all human endeavour is for the good of mankind, well that was a joke, it is more true that all mankind will bend over backwards if the rewards are great enough.

Which brings me back to the oil crisis, nothing will be done until the oil is not worth retrieving, then the boot will be on the other foot, and the drive will be not to provide a sustainable energy source but to replace the lost profits caused by the environmentalist drive for a cleaner healthier planet.

If you don't think that what I say is true, answer this one, why do the Greenpeace activists do their thing when nobody gives a rats whether they live or die, and only pay lip service to the endeavours of that group by standing by and marveling at how much effort is being expended for so little gain.

I personally admire their endeavours at self sacrifice, even if it means that they are appearing to do something when there are no visible results.

They do not even have the blessing of their government, who are very concious of the need to be appearing to sympathise with their efforts while distancing themselves from the results.

When the whole humanoid group get together and decide to do what it takes for the bettement of the whole community, I will personally eat my hat.

Until that day, I hope no misintentioned do gooder rocks the boat and causes the petrol stations to premertually close, so denying me raw material for my gas guzzling car, and access to the country side, what's left of it from the effects of the urban sprawl.

BTW, there's a lot more than CO2 coming out of exhaust pipes of cars, if you don't believe me add a bit of o2 to the exhaust gas and breathe deeply, it will take your breath away, ever hear of nitrous oxide?

You will have noticed that the oil producers spend, in a round about way, billions of dollars to promote their products, but very little if any, to ensure the end product is safe.

I won't even mention the tobacco industries tenacious grip on their market or the multiple billions they spend to fob you off with lies about the dangers of inhaling the by products of their production, it is sufficient to say that they are typical humanoids and as such display all the humanoid traits of deception, avarice and greed.

Now that you have rested your case, I hope you have fun spending your carbon credits.
Ian.

Wade

10-18-2007, 12:06 AM

The US may get short on energy, but when our MTV won't come on, we'll put up so many windmills, geothermals, solarcells, corn fields, Nuclear plant, and coal fired power plants, you'll think we've started a new space race. China is the one that needs to worry, but the US will be just fine.

handlewanker

10-20-2007, 11:31 AM

Nah Wade, they'll just trim the wicks, relight the burners and when the needle hits danger, all hell will break loose.
Now that's what I call MOTOR TELEVISION.
Ian.

dynosor

11-03-2007, 03:50 AM

We have controlling bodies and environmental watchdogs in government that make sure that safety standards are as practical as are affordable.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the California state government:

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=361362#post361362

handlewanker

11-04-2007, 04:33 AM

Hi Dyno, the state of Califonee is just a tin pot corner of the USA, when compared to the rest of the world, and anything they do will not even be measureable if you sampled the air till kingdom come, and even the catastrophic events of Chernobyl cannot be measured if you sampled the air around you.

All this talk about CO2 is just an emotive outburst that makes you feel good when it's out, but like peeing in a dark suit, nobody notices.
We're not going to live forever, and as the dinosaurs ruled for 260 millinon years with all the volcanic activity going on, we haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to creating a living record.

In one million years, if we all snuffed it today, there would be not a single trace to even suggest that another species had managed to scramble up the dung heap to view the world, achieved a dubious supremacy for a while, and dissapeared without a trace.

In the meantime, there are a lot of people who pay a lot of people to keep a lot of people filled with awe and wonder about matters that they never could envisage if it wasn't for the said "lot of people" conjuring up fantastic theories that will never be proved or disproved in their lifetime.

In the end, whether you like it or not, the rest of the world will do what it wants to do despite the dire warnings of the gifted few, and the best you can hope for is to die in your sleep.

Meanwhile, have a good day, you may not live long enough to enjoy them if you just worry about the consequences of someone else's doings, and you must have realised by now that you ain't gonna make a bit of difference talking about it anyway.

For me, as long as the rain rains and the sun shines, that's enough, what the Chinese or Californians do is beyond my control, so I don't worry.
Ian.