Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.

alaskaguy

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
10,203
220
63
According to the film, it was Gore who held the first Congressional hearings on global warming; Gore who wrote a book to highlight the danger of global warming; Gore who sought while vice president to raise the issue of global warming to national consciousness; and Gore who now is seeking, “one person, one family at a time,” to shift public consciousness and save the world.

Regarding Gore’s own record, certain basic points need to be made. During the eight-year period in which he served as US vice president, no measures were put in place to deal seriously with the problem of global warming. Nowhere in the various alarming graphs Gore presents in his documentary—showing a steady rise in temperature, the melting of the polar ice caps and an increase in carbon dioxide emissions—is there any indication of an improvement between 1993 and 2001.

For all Gore’s attempts to present himself as a fierce advocate of the environment, it is remarkable that during the time when he would have had the greatest political influence, he had no impact.
 

cyclonenum1

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2006
7,191
330
83
He invented the Internet, so that means he must know Science.

So if you were to extend that out, Al Gore also invented Cyclone Fanatic. Indirectly. But he didn't design the smiley 'emoticons'. Or gifs/jpegs.

Thanks Al.

How did I forget that?! Thanks for refreshing my memory! I believe every word out of the man's mouth now!
 

Clone9

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2006
3,203
968
113
Boston, MA
Partially true. Nuclear winter would do a lot the survivors in, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. While we and the former USSR have enough nukes to wipe out all major cities in Eurasia and North America ten times over, there still isn't near enough to "Nuke" the entire landmass. An example, Des Moines likely is not a target, but we wouldn't survive long between Omaha (former SAC base) and Cedar Rapids (Rockwell Collins) Both cities would likely be primary targets. There would likely be survivors, I think the models that they used during the cold war was something like 20-30% of the worlds population would survive. I would rather not be one of the survivors.

However, the Southern Hemisphere would be relatively unchanged because the climates (wind patterns) don't interchange hardly at all.

In reality, all this is moot because the cold war ended. There is not a near or likely threat anymore of a large scale nuclear exchange.

I am not worried about nuclear war at the moment either.....but the point is that if we wanted to, we could rapidly and dramatically change the environmental status of the earth. This was simply brought up as an example. Thus, even if there are a few survivors who don't get cancer from the radioactive rain we would be experiencing for years, we would have major problems inflicted by humans.
 

Kyle

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2006
4,074
119
63
As I said previously...nothing more than the government defining any area where it rains as a "wetlands"...actually it's not quite that bad yet but they are working to that point.
Oh, for crying out loud. :angry6wn: I can drive less than two miles from my house and see wetland areas that were actively farmed only last year. They took the tile out and now there is standing water all over the place.
 

Kyle

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2006
4,074
119
63
Yes, I am quite certain that gravity will exist tomorrow and no I am not dreaming it.
It's logically possible that you are wrong.

Have you ever read about desalination of sea water on wikipedia?
Because clearly we have a shortage of see water if the sea level doesn't go up. Desalination is also not a very efficient process.

Have you done any research anywhere you would like to point to in support of your positions? If so, please share it with the rest of us.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,875
58,186
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
It's logically possible that you are wrong.

Because clearly we have a shortage of see water if the sea level doesn't go up. Desalination is also not a very efficient process.

Have you done any research anywhere you would like to point to in support of your positions? If so, please share it with the rest of us.
I somehow should have known, with your position on global warming, that eventually you might question the future of gravity. That's kind of like expounding on the certainty that the loch ness monster is real, then denying the existence of cows:rofl8yi::laugh8kb::rofl8yi:
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
59,532
21,048
113
Macomb, MI
Partially true. Nuclear winter would do a lot the survivors in, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. While we and the former USSR have enough nukes to wipe out all major cities in Eurasia and North America ten times over, there still isn't near enough to "Nuke" the entire landmass. An example, Des Moines likely is not a target, but we wouldn't survive long between Omaha (former SAC base) and Cedar Rapids (Rockwell Collins) Both cities would likely be primary targets. There would likely be survivors, I think the models that they used during the cold war was something like 20-30% of the worlds population would survive. I would rather not be one of the survivors.

However, the Southern Hemisphere would be relatively unchanged because the climates (wind patterns) don't interchange hardly at all.

In reality, all this is moot because the cold war ended. There is not a near or likely threat anymore of a large scale nuclear exchange.

Actually, it's quite possible that Des Moines does have a nuke pointed at it just for its size alone (I was told once that the population threshold for that was something like 100,000 people), but possibly also being that it holds significant governmental offices and because of Camp Dodge.

I base this on the fact that it's likely the Quad Cities has/had at least one if not two nukes pointed at it, due to size, but also because of Rock Island Arsenal (that one's definitely the kicker, because during the Cold War the Arsenal was rated as the 11th most important military base in the nation)
 

cyclonenum1

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2006
7,191
330
83
It's logically possible that you are wrong.

I'd say the chances of me being wrong on gravity are incredibly small but the chances you are wrong on global warming is quite large!

But somehow you fail to see that it is "logically possible that you are wrong" about global warming.

By the way, I would not call culling wikipedia "research".
 

herbicide

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
10,857
2,297
113
Ankeny, IA
It's logically possible that you are wrong.

No, gravity actually it is one of the few things that in the scientific world is considered a scientific LAW.

Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation (part of classical mechanics) states the following:
Every single point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line combining the two. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses:

b65000f8f887a68545ce63eb1cada232.png
F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses
G
is the gravitational constant
m
1 is the mass of the first point mass
m
2 is the mass of the second point mass
r is the distance between the two point masses

Man's actions causing Global warming is a THEORY.
 
Last edited:

Kyle

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2006
4,074
119
63
I'd say the chances of me being wrong on gravity are incredibly small but the chances you are wrong on global warming is quite large!
Relatively speaking, yes. My point though is that there are levels of certainty where it makes sense to believe. You kept saying no one knows anything about global warming for certain as if that meant that we should disregard what virtually all people who study the climate for a living are telling us. Similarly, no one knows for "certain" that gravity will exist tomorrow. But, the only reasonable conclusion is that it will.

But somehow you fail to see that it is "logically possible that you are wrong" about global warming.
Wrong. The realm of logical probability is quite large. I would even admit there is a very real possibility that we are having next to no impact on the climate. But, this possibility is small enough that the reasonable conclusion is that we are.

By the way, I would not call culling wikipedia "research".
Again, I welcome any sources you have. I have also cited a few non-wikipedia sources.
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Pelosi: Climate Change Is a Reality[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] [FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif]Email this Story[/FONT]May 28, 7:36 PM (ET)

By GEIR MOULSON [/FONT]



BERLIN (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality," and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue.
After meeting with German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Pelosi praised Berlin for its leadership on the issue.
Her trip comes ahead of next week's Group of Eight summit and a climate change meeting next month involving the leading industrialized nations and during a time of increased debate over what should succeed the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in industrialized countries. It expires in 2012.
President Bush rejected that accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfair excludes developing countries like China and India from its obligations. Pelosi, who strongly disagrees with that decision and many other of Bush's environmental policies, said Friday she said she wants to work with the administration rather than provoke it.
Pelosi said she hoped Bush would be open to considering a "different way" in the future.
The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it."
"It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland - it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.
Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005.
"We hope that we can all assume our responsibilities with great respect and that our administration will be open to listening to why it is important to go forward perhaps in a different way than we have proceeded in the past," she told reporters.
Gabriel and Chancellor Angela Merkel have made the fight against global warming a key point of Germany's presidencies of the G-8 and European Union. Still, Merkel has said that progress at the June 6-8 summit in Heiligendamm is not assured.
According to comments on a document released by the environmental group Greenpeace, the Bush administration is preparing to reject new targets on climate change at the summit. The White House declined to confirm the comments were from U.S. officials.
"We regret very much that we must so far have the impression that it is difficult to reach concrete results with the American administration," Gabriel said after meeting Pelosi.
Gabriel said industrial nations must take joint responsibility for the global warming that has occurred thus far.
"For the climate change of the future ... we need readiness on the part of China, India and today's other developing countries to take responsibility themselves," he added. "We can and will only achieve that if industrial nations do justice to their responsibility."
Pelosi, who is to meet with Merkel on Tuesday, said she wanted to "salute Germany's leadership on this very important issue," and said she hoped for a diplomatic debate within the United States.
Gabriel welcomed increasing interest in climate change at state and city level in the U.S. and hailed Pelosi's decision to set up a select committee on energy and global warming.
"This shows that there is a great deal of movement in the United States, too, and we naturally hope that we will achieve progress in Heiligendamm," he said. The G-8 meeting has already drawn protests from antiglobalization activists; 21 demonstrators were arrested Monday during unrest that broke out after a march in Hamburg.


 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
Freak snow storm hits Nepal
May 29 2007 at 03:15PM Dozens of people were feared killed in remote parts of north-western Nepal after the areas were hit by a freak snow storm, officials said on Tuesday.

The casualties were reported in the remote north-western mountainous district of Dolpa, about 450 kilometres north-west of the Nepalese capital, on Monday.

"We have reports that at least 16 people died and about a hundred others were blinded by a freak snow storm and blizzard," Home Ministry spokesperson Baman Prasad Neupane told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

The snow storm is said to have hit a mountainous area where hundreds of people had gathered to collect an herb locally known as Yarshagumba, which is thought to increase sex drive.
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
Argentina Rations Gas to Companies, Chile Amid Cold (Update1)

By Bill Faries and Eliana Raszewski
May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Argentina rationed electricity to companies and severed natural gas supplies to Chile as a cold wave prompted record demand for electricity in South America's second-largest economy.
The temperature in many parts of Argentina fell below freezing yesterday, pushing electricity demand to a record 18,300 megawatts, according to the country's energy regulator. Argentina cut shipments of gas to Chile to meet the surge in demand, forcing their neighbor to rely on residual gas in the pipeline.
Rolling blackouts and gas shortages in Argentina threaten more than four years of economic growth of over 8.5 percent per year. The ban on gas deliveries to Chile jeopardizes supply for an estimated 1.2 million residential users in eastern Santiago and may lead to increased energy costs for mining companies as power generators switch to more expensive diesel fuel.
``There's no short-term solution to the shortage of gas,'' energy consultant Francisco Mezzadri, the former head of natural gas operations at CMS Energy Corp., said in a phone interview. ``Electricity prices have been frozen since 2002, a new pipeline from Bolivia has yet to be built and domestic gas reserves are declining. It's a critical situation.''
`Contingency Plan'
Chile's mining companies may face rising energy costs as generators try to pass on higher costs related to running power plants with diesel fuel, Senator Ricardo Nunez, chairman of the senate energy committee, said in a phone interview. Chile supplies 34 percent of the copper from mines worldwide.
``This could affect mining companies' earnings significantly,'' Nunez said.
Chilean Energy Minister Marcelo Tokman said the country has a backup plan to secure enough natural gas for homes should supply from neighboring Argentina run out.
``There would be normal gas supply for the bathroom and the kitchen,'' Tokman said today in comments broadcast by Television Nacional. ``We're talking about a contingency plan for an eventuality that we don't think is going to happen at this point.''
Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said she expects Argentina to follow through on commitments to deliver gas.
``Argentina is passing through an exceptional moment,'' Bachelet said in a news conference during a visit to Helsinki. ``But there is an agreement that this will be resolved tomorrow.''
Schools Closed
About 100 schools in Buenos Aires province are closed today for lack of sufficient heating, newspaper Clarin reported. The national weather service predicted the below-freezing temperatures will continue tomorrow before rising later in the week.
Cristian Folgar, Argentina's undersecretary for fuels, said in an interview with state-run Telam news agency that the country won't have problems meeting demand.
``We're calm,'' Folgar said. ``Our two systems of gas and electricity are functioning at full capacity and this will be sufficient to meet the demand we have.''
Norberto Garcia, president of the Argentine Chamber of Toy Manufacturers, said his industry plans to shift production times in July, the peak production period and the middle of winter, to avoid blackouts.
``In July we'll probably have to work two shifts and we may need to work at night, when energy demand falls,'' he said by phone from Buenos Aires. ``When a businessman invests in a company, he counts on being able to at least get basic services.''
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
U.S. Rejects EU-Asia Emissions Reduction
dot.gif
May 29 12:23 PM US/Eastern
By CONSTANT BRAND
Associated Press Writer
dot.gif
dot.gif
try { insert_digg_btn('world_news'); } catch(e){}
dot.gif
dot.gif
D8PE57FG2_preview.jpg

dot.gif

View larger image
dot.gif

BERLIN (AP) - The United States rejects the European Union's all-encompassing target on reduction of carbon emissions, President Bush's environmental adviser said Tuesday.
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the United States is not against setting goals but prefers to focus them on specific sectors, such as reducing dependence on gasoline and cleaner coal. "The U.S. has different sets of targets," he said.
Germany, which holds the European Union and G-8 presidencies, is proposing a so-called "two-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius—the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit—before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Connaughton, who is on a one-week bipartisan trip to Europe with members of the House of Representatives, said the U.S. favors "setting targets in the context of national circumstances."
European and Asian foreign ministers agreed to set a 2009 deadline to complete negotiations on a new international climate change pact to limit greenhouse gases, diplomats said Tuesday.
Under the agreement, which came during two-day talks here, Asian nations—including China and India—will not have to adhere to binding targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Instead, ministers outlined the responsibilities of richer and poorer nations in combatting climate change, the diplomats said on condition of anonymity.
The meeting of the 40-some ministers, chaired by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, also agreed to coordinate the promotion of more sustainable energy use, the diplomats said.
China and India balked at carbon dioxide emissions cuts after the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.
Diplomats said setting the 2009 deadline goal to reach a new emissions agreement was necessary to avoid a lapse when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said the EU should not expect developing countries like China or India to share the same burden of cuts as richer nations. He said China "was not to blame for the problem" of climate change, but said his country had taken measures to reduce its emissions.
The 27-nation EU bloc is eager to get China and other major polluters on board a new climate change pact and negotiations are scheduled to begin in December in Bali, Indonesia.
Japanese officials have also expressed reservations about setting specific targets in the early stages of negotiations for fear of discouraging major emitters—such as the United States, China and India—from participating.
Tokyo has said the new pact should be flexible, strike a balance between environmental protection and economic growth, and promote new green technologies.
China has called on the EU to share more green technologies with developing nations to speed up moves for economies to become more environmentally friendly. European nations have been reluctant to allow more technology transfers to China unless Beijing moves to give more market access for European goods and services.
A U.S. government report issued Tuesday said Asian nations could reduce a quarter of their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if they increase renewable energy use, improve coal-fired power plant efficiency and switch to biofuels.
However, the report from the U.S. Agency for International Development did not mention setting mandatory greenhouse gas emission cuts, which European countries and many environmentalists say should be part of the solution.
Failing to implement cleaner technologies will result in heat-trapping greenhouse gases more than tripling by 2030 for much of Asia, said the USAID report, the latest dire warning that inaction could be catastrophic for the planet.
With Asia's energy demand soaring Europe remains eager to promote renewable energies and energy efficient technologies to cut overall consumption and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Europeans also need carbon credits from investments in clean energy projects in developing countries to meet their commitments under the Kyoto treaty.
The Hamburg talks were seen as an attempt by the EU ally itself with Asian countries as a means of persuading the United States to come on board. The U.S. refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol limiting emissions because developing countries were not included. Rising economic giants, China and India, are exempt, and the treaty says nothing about post-2012 cuts. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is hoping to make progress on persuading the U.S. and others at the June 6-8 G-8 summit in Heiligendamm, but preliminary meetings including an EU-US summit in Washington have not offered promising results.
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
Get Rich over Global warming.

Recently, UBS Investment Bank took advantage of the furor over this testy subject by introducing the Global Warming Index (GWI ). The GWI is an index like any other and trades on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Simply speaking, if you are a global warming flag bearer and believe the temperature will rise in the coming years, you can buy the index. Conversely, if you are of the inclination that Al Gore is a fool and the weather will cool, you can sell it.
At present, the GWI is a little like "World" Series baseball in that only U.S. cities are invited to play. In its initial incarnation, the index tracks 15 major U.S. cities but there are plans to include European and Asian cities in the near future, making the GWI truly "global." There is certainly the demand for it, too. Between the periods 2004-05 and 2005-06, weather derivatives trading on the CME rose from $9.7bn to $45bn.
As one Rude reader casually observed in our climate change mailbag last week, "The weathermen get paid whether they are right or wrong, so why not you? Take advantage of trends that create money in the short run. Who cares if it's bogus?"