Save the Planet. Eat your Pet.

[Greg Peterson]

Blindly wrecking the economy as we know it in hasty stabs toward the unknown to please the those who've positioned themselves to gain financially may not be the answer either.

The global economy is such a massive piece of machinery that change is not something it can do well or quickly. No one is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water, although it seems like it at times.

Ken - I'm more skeptical of reports underplaying or outright denying global warming isn't real when you look at who has financed the reports and 'scientific studies'.

As for peer reviewed reports, sure some of them turn out to be false. They eventually get caught or weeded out. The process works. Same for medical reports. The process isn't perfect, but it pits one scientist against another to prove which one is right.

Imagine the name one could make for themselves by proving James Hansen as a fraud. I read accusations from some pretty smart people, but they have as yet to prove any of his work as fraudulent, inaccurate or misleading.

Heck, the physicists can't explain gravity or time, yet we know it exists. Climate change is a theory, supported by facts. I'll let the guys that study this stuff day in and day out and can synthesize all the facts into a proper theory.

I can cite facts out of context as well as any denier.

[Neal Clayton]

People EatingTastyAnimals

yea, that's me .

survive without prime steaks? not likely...

[Bob Smalser]

The global economy is such a massive piece of machinery that change is not something it can do well or quickly. No one is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water.

No, but to paraphrase Carville, don't forget the economy, stupid.

You pay the extra two or three grand a year for electricity. Or even more if you live in coal country. Then talk to me about it. Raising those costs during an economic recession is the height of stupidity. This didn't happen overnight, and higher taxation can wait til we get some jobs back. You are imposing those costs on every electricity user, not just those who have the ability to pay. Which means the rest of us still working pick up the slack with even higher subsidies, charity and rates.

[Bob Smalser]

I notice that you have not addressed my post in this thread, please take the hour and a half to watch the links that I have posted. Also here in the Chicago area they have condemed thousands of acres to build a third airport south of Chicago proper, many families have lost their homes and farms, it has been accessed as a prime wind farm site (much better than another airport).

As to the issue of endangered migratory birds and bats, how many creatures are endangered due to mans stupidity and the global economy.

In the early 80's a cargo ship emptied it's ballast tanks in the Great Lakes and gifted us with the Zebra Mussel and most recently the Quagga Mussel, commercial fishing of yellow pearch was banned shortly after. The Zebra Mussel has consumed the food that fry perch eat and the population has dropped by 80%, in the Eastern US damages are accessed at 5 billion dollars per year. The Zebra Mussel has recently made a cross country trip to Lake

Mead, Hoover Dam is in trouble due to the cooling system to the turbines. If you do not know, one Zebra Mussel produces 1 million off-spring in a single season, do the math. George Carlin did a comedy about this, he stated that the world will always be here, it is just man that is going away, I have a son and hopefully grand kids some day, I want them to have a world to enjoy.

I didn't respond to Post #52? You were addressing Ken directly.

Nor do I intend to address Zebra Mussels, the impacts of DDT on bats, fish kills in turbines or George Carlin.

[Curt Harms]

........
- What ever happened to that wind farm planned offshore from the Kennedy estate in Massachussets?

NIMBYism at its finest. Similar to what happened to offshore oil drilling? If you must, but at least 50 miles offshore so it doesn't impact my (greedy, selfish) self or my beachfront property values. Meanwhile I'll give (some of the taxpayers- aka you suckers- $) to some high profile environmental causes.

"We live in a time when the methodology of science is suspended. Reactions to human-induced global warming based on incomplete science can only be extraordinary costly, will distort energy policy, and will make the poor poorer...in the case of the effect of CO2 on climate, is to have the courage to thoughtfully do nothing."

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Adelaide, 2009.

[Bob Smalser]

Here's another example of the bad science happening every day......Man-Induced Global Warming being the answer and evidence being unconsciously tailored to fit rather than the other way around.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

....The UB researchers and their international colleagues were able to pinpoint that dramatic changes (in artic ice sediments) began occurring in unprecedented ways after the midpoint of the twentieth century.

"The sediments from the mid-20th century were not all that different from previous warming intervals," said Jason P. Briner, PhD, assistant professor of geology in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. "But after that things really changed. And the change is unprecedented."

Hmmm. What happened to all that dirty coal burned during the Industrial Revolution commencing the midpoint of the 19th Century?

I happened to be around during the midpoint of the 20th Century, and the late 1950's was the point when we began serious efforts to clean up the pollution mess beginning in 1850 which reached its high point during WWII. Cleaner fuels were used, environmental laws were passed, smokestacks were scrubbed, forests replanted (until their current acreage exceeds that of 1750, let alone 1850), car emissions were regulated, etc et al.

Surely the massive spike in post-1950 world population provides the answer? Oops. Looks like a big "nope" there, too. The traditional polluters are in decline and their replacement by China and India a much later phenomenon than 1950.



http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/show...=1#post2363815

As I've said, when premise development begins with the conclusion, you have religion, not science.

[Bob Smalser]

Meanwhile I'll give (some of the taxpayers- aka you suckers- $) to some high profile environmental causes. [/COLOR]

As I borrow some fat cat's Lear Jet to fly me to speaking engagements, with severalfold the environmental impact of a coach ticket.

But it's for such a good cause, eh? Namely, me.

[Greg Peterson]

You[/I] pay the extra two or three grand a year for electricity.

Bob, I can tell exactly where that $2k-$3k tax you cited came from and I can also tell you that not only is that figure absolutely false, it is so absurdly false that I'm surprised that one of your intellect would buy that line.

That figure was offered by politicians and then repeated, and continues to be repeated, via the politicians media outlets and personalities.

Simply put, that figure is a political tool, and not a very subtle one at that.

[Bob Smalser]

Bob, I can tell exactly where that $2k-$3k tax you cited came from and I can also tell you that not only is that figure absolutely false, it is so absurdly false that I'm surprised that one of your intellect would buy that line.

That figure was offered by politicians and then repeated, and continues to be repeated, via the politicians media outlets and personalities.

Simply put, that figure is a political tool, and not a very subtle one at that.

Perhaps.

But show me exactly how my local electricity rates won't increase dramatically when all the hydroelectric plants are knocked down on behalf of salmon and replaced with something like wind farms that must be developed from scratch.

Or all the thousands coal-fired power plants throughout mid-America are replaced with something else.

How are all those new facilities gonna be paid for? Creative accounting? More deficit spending?

When premise development begins with the conclusion, you have religion, not science.

[Greg Peterson]

Go talk to California about the soil surrounding all their highways in the LA area. In short, it is polluted beyond any safe standard with lead.

Who would have thought that a few million cars could cause so much of a problem? You can't see see it, so it must not be real.

Lead, mussels, Pacific Gyre, China's completely unregulated coal plants and high tech equipment dumping grounds, and on and on and on. No one of these is a concern, but the accumulative effect over time is bound to push the planets ability to absorb and negate the effects beyond its limits.

I could ask rhetorical questions about ocean acidity levels, the salination engine in the Atlantic ocean and so on, but I would be taking facts and evidence out of context to support a bias.

As for myself, I am merely a laymen and have no standing in the science community. Therefore, nothing I say will be taken with any more certainty than anything said by anyone else in this forum.

[Heather Thompson]

Bob,

I took the time to read the entire article that you posted in Post #66, it seems that if you take the time to read the entire article it will debunk your claim of bad science. The very opening to the article states, "ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2009) — The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published October 19."

It never fails to amaze me how people that are set in stone on a position will cherry pick particular lines from an article to support their opinion. There were comments earlier in this thread that until both sides come to the table to discuss the topic open mindedly there will be no chance for change. I try to be very open minded in all things that I discuss, it frustrates me when open dialogue is hindered by such actions.

Heather

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm#

[Eric Larsen]

That population graph you're touting shows population as a percentage of each world region.

So you're proving that Asia and Latin America have been getting slightly denser. And Europe less populous -- compared with the rest of the world.

The same site shows that there were about 2.6 billion people in 1950, and a little less than 7 billion today. The yearly growth rate -- same site as your graph, mind you -- was around 1.5% in 1950, shot up to more than 2% in the early 1960s, and has been leveling down to 1.2% ever since.

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

Are you suggesting there has not been a gigantic increase in population in the last 60 years? How do you explain those 4-point-something billion people who showed up since the 1950s?

Are you suggesting that average temperatures are decreasing? Just pull the data out of the newspapers of the world and you'll see that they're rising.

Are you suggesting that sea levels are not rising? Taken a trip to Tuvalu lately?

Glaciers not receding? Lakes not drying up? Storm intensity not increasing? Crops not failing?

The warning signs are all around you -- and you choose to wear blinders.

It is becoming apparent to me that the Silent Generation (aka Greatest Generation) and Baby Boomers are going to have to die out as a political force before we can get anything done.

[Heather Thompson]

Perhaps.

But show me exactly how my local electricity rates won't increase dramatically when all the hydroelectric plants are knocked down on behalf of salmon and replaced with something like wind farms that must be developed from scratch.

Or all the thousands coal-fired power plants throughout mid-America are replaced with something else.

How are all those new facilities gonna be paid for? Creative accounting? More deficit spending?

When premise development begins with the conclusion, you have religion, not science.

Bob,

In your Post#64 where you quoted from my PM to you about the Zebra Mussel problem you were confused when I referenced Hoover Dam, it is not a problem with fish kills in turbines, the mussels clog the cooling lines which cause the systems to be shut down. I did mention that in the Eastern US it is costing 5 billion per year in damages. There is fear that the mussel population will make it to Oregan shortly. I wonder what that will do to your electric rates. It is time for the world to sit down and address the issues that affect us all, Zebra Mussels are only on invasive problem.

Heather

[Dan Friedrichs]

Here's another example of the bad science happening every day......

I just want to point one thing out: The climate scientists who do this research are generally people who are EXTREMELY well-educated, and most of us have NO place questioning them. Not to say we can't critically evaluate their positions, but these people have 8+ years of postsecondary education, followed by decades of doing nothing more than studying these issues. To read a summary or two of their work, then believe you have the capacity to declare it invalid, is the height of vanity, IMHO.

Would you walk into an operating room and say, "Hey Doc, what you're doing doesn't seem right to me, let me give it a try..."?

We can be skeptical, but should still be respectful. These people are experts. You trust the scientific establishment to provide you with safe drugs, effective medicine, flightworthy airplanes, etc - so why does anyone feel that they can just ignore the scientific results that they don't find convienient?

[Don C Peterson]

I tend to listen to what the scientists at NASA have to say. They're apolitical.

ROTFLOL Apolitical? Are you serious? These guys make their living on TAX PAYER MONEY, don't you think they have a vested interest in creating the illusion of a looming disaster? Wake up, for heaven's sake.

The problem for them is that their "science" is provably wrong. There's been no warming for the past decade. Their models all predicted that there would be warming in the Troposphere and in the oceans, it isn't happening. And most importantly the vaunted CO2/warming connection is backwards. Increased CO2 FOLLOWS historic warming trends so it CANNOT be the cause.