Amercan's divide over global warming getting deeper

[ivanm]

• Tweet

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44654935

I think it is very foolish to deny that global wariming is taking place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite onslaught of science, resistance to the idea seems to be hardening

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

NEW YORK — Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.

"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.
 
But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.
 
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.
 
What's going on?
 
"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.
 
He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.
 
...

[dustup]

Its all a ploy to sell Carbon Credits....talk about snake oil salesmen! 

Carbon Credits for sale - How do they Work?

[ivanm]

I was wondering what a carbon credit is worth, and how its value is determined.  This article sheds some light on the process of carbon trading. So a carbon credit  has nothing of value backing up its price and is determined by pure assed speculation that the buyer will profit from the deal.
 
http://www.carbon-futures.org/index.php/carbon-credits-explained.html

It was interesting to see who would want to buy a carbon credit, and the article's example of Japan wanting to buy some was helpful.

So who really gains with this scheme, the speculators do?  Does it really help to reduce emissions, or is it simply a way to buy one's way out of the responsibility to reduce emissions?  In other words, if you have the bucks you can pollute until Hell freezes over by buying carbon credits.

Some people just don't get it.  If a big corp buys its way out of controlling emissions by buying carbon credits, guess who gets it in the ass, the consumer?

One saving grace for this scheme is that the friggin' Obamaites won't get their hands on the money to fund their political debt repayment program.  That part of cap and trade pissed me off, and darn few others were fool enough to buy into it either.  Obama did not give a rat's ass about controlling emissons, all he wanted was more bucks to hand out to losers.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Until we can figure out a way to put a thermostat on the Sun, until we can control the gravitational effect of the moon upon our oceans, until we can mandate every person on Earth to get on board with destroying our planet by not using incandescent light bulbs and not separating our cans from vegetation in our trash, I seriously doubt 300 Million Assholes in the United States will have any results when the other 6 Billion people are polluting their balls off every day.

Global Warming is a fraud.  We're simply experiencing a Climate Change which is what this planet does every single day of every single month of every single year of every single decade of every single century from the dawn of time until the end of time.

The end.

[johnhp]

i love it the way you qualitatively develop know-nothingism.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Oh, and while we're at it, we should improve the flotation devices for Polar Bears to prevent them from perishing at sea!!  LOL.

It's been scientifically proven, peer-reviewed, that it would take approximately 500 pounds of cinder blocks to sink a Polar Bear, ergo rendering them impossible to drown.

[johnhp]

It's been scientifically proven, peer-reviewed, that it would take approximately 500 pounds of cinder blocks to sink a Polar Bear, ergo rendering them impossible to drown.

You should try that one out yourself.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

You should try that one out yourself.

Your mom!

In the butt!

Twice last night.

In your bed.

Wiped off on your pillow case.

ha ha ha!!

[ivanm]

Until we can figure out a way to put a thermostat on the Sun, until we can control the gravitational effect of the moon upon our oceans, until we can mandate every person on Earth to get on board with destroying our planet by not using incandescent light bulbs and not separating our cans from vegetation in our trash, I seriously doubt 300 Million Assholes in the United States will have any results when the other 6 Billion people are polluting their balls off every day.

Global Warming is a fraud.  We're simply experiencing a Climate Change which is what this planet does every single day of every single month of every single year of every single decade of every single century from the dawn of time until the end of time.

The end.

Global Warming is a fraud?  Please explain what you mean?  In my mind the evidence shows that the earth is gradually warming and I don't think that is much in dispute.  The bone of contention is that human activity such as using fossil fuels contributes to emissions that increase global warming.

I have been rapidly changing to flurescient bulbs, and it is paying off IMO, at least in the sense that the curlies last much longer than the old incandescent ones do. However, one must be practical about it.  For example, there are incandescent bulbs on my property that are seldom used, and when they are they are on for a brief time.   I cannot justify the replacement of these bulbs with the curlies because the payback period is terribly long.  

You have a good point about 300 million up against the other 6 billion as it seems rather futile to become enviro conscious.  But consider this, Euro countries have been
thrifty for decades if not longer beause energy has never been cheap for them. I once met a British lady who told me how the Brits would save little scraps of paper or bits of wooden food cartons, and would use this stuff to  start a small fire so they could heat water for tea.  Yep, burning this stuff does create emissions, but the feedstock came from plants that consumed CO2 while thehy were growing ,so in theory the system stayed in balance.

I don't mean to be testy or obstinate, but tell me this. Why can Americans do wonders like sending a man into space or inventing so many marvels, and yet we cannot get our act together on a way to utilize renewable resources for our energy needs?   I read where the Euro states had something like seventy thousand wind machines and are steadily building more.

There are ways to utilize fossil fuels such as natural gas without producing emissions, and it is simple in principle. All you have to do is to avoid combustion and the byproducts of it like CO2. Fuel cells reportedly can use hydrogen or methane to produce electrical power without producing any byproducts other than heat and water.

Methanol can be used in a fuel cell, and at one time the internet had an article by the DOE that stated there was enough biomass feedstock to produce more than enough methanol to power our cars and light trucks.  And the feedstocks is renewable, which means the growing plant life will aborb CO2 as a natural part of what it needs to live.

I hope you can see how dumb or short sighted it is to reject global warming out of hand, and I think we are missing a golden opportunity for new products, new fuels, and new jobs by not pursuing these proven ideas.  Nope, they aren't as cost efficient as fossil fuels, but they are domestic in origin, which means we don't have to be spilling blood in the sandpiles of the ME to satisfy our lust for petroleum fuels.  

There are a number of ways one can overcome the relative inefficiency of alternate energies, and it does not take rocket science to do it. The bottom line is that you learn to expend less energy to get the same end result. I had published a little paper back book that deals with such a premise.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Ivan, there is a HUGE disparity between "Global Warming" and "Climate Change."

Earth is constantly going through "Climate Change," and the models the "scientists" have been using to show us that it's "Global Warming" brought on by mankind have been tainted, at the very least, by the makers of those models stripping thousands of years from them to make the end results indicate wrong conclusions.

Mankind could no more "cause Global Warming" than a single flea could consume every ounce of blood in an elephant.

[ivanm]

Ivan, there is a HUGE disparity between "Global Warming" and "Climate Change."

Earth is constantly going through "Climate Change," and the models the "scientists" have been using to show us that it's "Global Warming" brought on by mankind have been tainted, at the very least, by the makers of those models stripping thousands of years from them to make the end results indicate wrong conclusions.

Mankind could no more "cause Global Warming" than a single flea could consume every ounce of blood in an elephant.

Why not err on the side of caution? If an excess of CO2 contributes to temp. increases then it follows that our emissions contribute to that excess.

I am not wanting to work a hardship on anyone.  Quite to the contrary,  I think there is  money to be made in the alterantive energy fields.  Huge tractor trailers can be seen on I70 and I35 each day hauling what appears to be a part of the pedestal that the wind machines sit on.  There is also a steady stream of trucks hauling the huge propellor blades. To me this means profits and jobs for a lot of people who need them badly.

If I had a choice of pissing away billions of dollars in the mideast protecting big oil and of spending it on alternative energy projects here at home then there would be no contest as to what I would opt for.

At one time it was estimated that only 20% or so of viable hydroelectric sites in the US have  been developed. So which has priority, thje spotted owl or our human  needs of affordable clean energy? The beauty of hydroelectric, and even wind powered electric, is  that hydrogen gas can be made with the excess capacity and pipelined to the customer just like NG is.  Hydrogen makes a very clean feedstock for fuel cells.  


Each year the government spends mega bucks to repair and even replace the interstate roadbeds, and the process is continued until the road way is amass of patches. Then the whole thing is stripped away, right down to the dirt, and a new roadway is constructed.  The two main stresses on road beds are temperature extremes and the heavy trucks.  We cannot control the temperature changes, but we can avoid this problem plus the damage due to heavy trucks by  using the rail system again.  Here in Kansas the rails and the roads invariiably run side by side even if separated by a few miles, because the cities were built up along the railroads years ago.  The interstate services these cities now and therefore follows about the same route as the rails do.  

Rail freight has been estimated to be 9 times more efficient than hiwa freight, so why not put the rails back to work?  A rail line does require maintenance and repair, but a good rail will last perhaps 40 years before being replaced, and then it is usually because of a heavy up being needed to handle the increased load.

If the railroad and its rolling stock are owned by a privage sector corp such as Union Pacific then the taxpayer is off the hook for the expense of maintaining and repairing the system. If  that doesn't appeal  to a conservative then I question his standard of values.  Right now there are huge trains of coal passing thru my town dahy and night, and each  train is one mile long with three thirsty engines. That goes to show you the power of a rail system because there is no way in Hell the job cojuld be done with trucks.

I have no love for railroads and they shit in their mess kit when the socialist unions drove them out of the passenger business, but maybe it is time to time we took another look at the power and the potential of rail traffic for passengers and freight.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Ivan, the total combined solar and wind sources account for 1% of the energy consumption in this country.

Do you know what accounts for twice that total, 2% of the energy source?
Are you ready for it?  Are you sitting down?  Here it comes.








Wood.

For us to upgrade to wind and solar would cost us literally trillions of dollars and to retrofit literally trillions of dollars.
There is already evidence indicating to us that there is fraud in this type of energy production.  Before we can even compete in this market, we are going to have to remedy our trade agreements with every nation we do business with so that we can manufacture this type of equipment.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

[ivanm]

Ivan, the total combined solar and wind sources account for 1% of the energy consumption in this country.

Do you know what accounts for twice that total, 2% of the energy source?
Are you ready for it?  Are you sitting down?  Here it comes.








Wood.

For us to upgrade to wind and solar would cost us literally trillions of dollars and to retrofit literally trillions of dollars.
There is already evidence indicating to us that there is fraud in this type of energy production.  Before we can even compete in this market, we are going to have to remedy our trade agreements with every nation we do business with so that we can manufacture this type of equipment.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

We can no longer afford the George Bush syndrome which was one size fits all.    I am saying we need toutilize what we have where we have it, to the extent that is practical.
We are already using wind power, and the farms are coming on line.  Yes there is a initial investment, but once that is done the wind if free for the catching. Think long term guy.

I don't see much potential for solar except as a low grade source of power like that used in photovoltaics, and the hiways are dotted with solar photo panels that power road signs and power data gathering stations, so your argument doesn't hold water for me.  Once again, we cannot go ape on the conversion or transitin, but we are foolish not to take adantge of clean free energy.

I  use a pellet stove that burns wood, but it is not competitive with NG and is not the cleanest burning thing around. But for those who do not have ready access to NG it is a way to keep warm. Frankly I think that cordwood may be cheaper if you can work up your own wood pile.

If wood can be used for home heat then it can be used for other purposes such as low level power generation, and it is being done elsewhere, but no, we are too damned spoiled and short sighted to see down the road. We would rather kill off some 10,000 good people fighting  for oil and other resources in the ME. I read a Legion article that leaves me to think that the hidden reason for our staying in Afghanistan is for the REEs.   I got a kid in Iraq and I would just as soon he were at home working on an energy project where people are not lobbing RPGs at him.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

And what of "refueling stations" for our vehicles?

Have you ever seen one?  I haven't.

That ain't gonna be cheap to retrofit, nor is it going to be convenient for long-distance travel.

[Sassy]

I'm not so certain this whole "global warming" issue is totally bullshit, however, I'm not certain it isn't either.

One thing that's for sure...The U.S. is not the biggest polluter.  Just take a gander at China, as well as other developing nations.  If they do not get their pollution under control, there is going to be very little effect by what the US does. In the meantime...Placing unrealistic expectations/costs on what industries are left here will only serve to give them an incentive to relocate elsewhere...At a time when we need the jobs.

SMTJ is right on the cost of retrofitting.