Reply With Quote
First off, 90% of the population doesn't drive diesel engines.
Second, once again, what part of, the EPA's gross restrictions on the engines is strapping businesses don't you understand?
come on...carbon taxs...coal power stations not being built...all for 300 ppm gas taht has gone up a few %
First off, 90% of the population doesn't drive diesel engines.
Second, once again, what part of, the EPA's gross restrictions on the engines is strapping businesses don't you understand?
Hopefully this country will soon realize we need nuclear power.
Wow, what an insightful repudiation!
I'll just say this - people trust their accountant to do their taxes, their mechanic to fix their car, etc. - every day every one of us trusts myriad people to do their jobs properly.
However, when it comes to thousands of the brightest minds on the planet, from the world's best universities and scientific ins utions, who have compiled tens of thousands of open-source peer-reviewed scientific papers do enting the changing climate, nah, they must be wrong.
OPEN YOUR ING EYES.
You just don't get it - if we continue to behave as we are, the damage to "our way of life and hurts businesses" will be catastrophic. Civilisation as we know it will come to an end.
Modern civilisation is balanced on a knife-edge, particularly when it comes to food and water resources. A shift in the climate on the scale and speed we are currently witnessing will change the areas in which we can grow food, and is already running down the planet's fresh-water supplies (due to both melting glaciers and lower rainfall in catchment areas - California is a great example, as is Eastern India/Bangladesh, as is much of South America on the Andean side). I could go on, but if you can't even grasp the fact that a rapidly changing climate (and yes, we caused it - we have fundamentally changed the composition of the atmosphere, a FACT beyond disputation) spells disaster for a finite planet overpopulated by 7 billion people, what is the point?
On a related point, the oil will be gone in 40 years, and how exactly is an economic system increasing dependent on the stuff going to survive that? Without oil you have no modern agricultural system (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides are all OIL-derived), no modern transport system, no plastic/paints/pharmaceuticals, etc.
We have to change the way we live if this civilisation wants to continue. The entire system by which we interact with the natural world has to change, or this civilisation will fall.
When ANY of you alarmist wads actually shows me any credentials that prove to me you have the brains to read and understand what goes into climate research, I'll listen to you.
Until then, take your Stalinist dreams and shove them straight up your ass. None of you have shown me you have the slightest scientific or mathematical education to be able to sort truth from fiction concerning these reports.
Well, I am just finishing up my Masters in Human Ecology, and have an undergrad degree in ecology. I read the IPCC reports from last year, not to mention hundreds of individual papers and reports on all manner of global change issues (not just climate but resource consumption, waste, pollution, fisheries, etc) over the last decade. So stick that up your arse.
Stalinist claims? So someone who believes the scientists must be a Communist? Uh-hu.
Who asked you to listen to me? Listen to the SCIENTISTS. That was the point in my first post in this thread about accountants and mechanics... listen to the SCIENTISTS. They wrote the reports, they did the work. Don't listen to me, read the reports yourself. Talk to scientists at your local universities, or at government agencies. Read the debates between climatologists from all over the world and skeptics on realclimate.org And then tell me how the theory is flawed. Also explain to me how changes in local climates (affecting rainfall patterns, temperature regimes, etc.) observed across the globe are occurring 10-100x faster than at any time in the geological record, how that's all a big conspiracy. Please, let me know why the world's best scientists are wrong about climate change, how their observations are invalid.
Until you can do that,
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 06-02-2008 at 08:00 AM.
1. Explain the term "global average temperature" and its relevance to global climate.
2. Explain how climate modeling works. Include the models used, their mathematical basis, any assumptions/simplifications used.
3. Explain how temperature data is calibrated. Include how uncertainty bounds are expressed.
4. Explain how historical CO2 data shows causality between CO2 level and temperature.
5. Explain how the peer-review process works when dealing with "climate change" journal papers.
6. Explain why there is NO NET TEMPERATURE CHANGE over the last 10 years.
That should do for a start.
Citing the IPCC as your "authority" does nothing to increase your credibility in my eyes. In fact, it decreases it.
Oh, BTW...my MS is in Electrical Engineering, as is my PhD-in-progress (specifically in statistical signal processing). Further, I have spent the last 15 years of my professional career concentrating on measurement technology, measurement processes, and measurement uncertainty. Trust me...I can follow the math, and I can follow the physics. And what the IPCC is doing is criminal, the way they have perverted the scientific process for their own personal gain.
Shaddup
This is a guy who is convinced there is a supreme being who lives up in the clouds who gives a about his soul....
Non sequitur noted.
I just had to pipe in on this oil point as it is complete bull . Do you realize that the USA has oil reserves that are nearly the equivalent of the middle east's? We just aren't drilling it.
we can thank the enviromentals for this. along with all the Inconvenient Truth dvd owners, but someone is drilling.......................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rep talks possible gas price solutions
By CHRISTINE RAPPLEYE, The Enterprise
05/30/2008
Updated 05/29/2008 11:52:58 PM CDT
PORT ARTHUR - Pain and strain on the budget when paying for gas could eased if there weren't such tight regulations on permitting refineries and oil rigs, U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, told members of the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce Thursday.
"The permitting process takes years," Poe said. "It needs to be cut down."
Once that's done, domestic refining capabilities can be increased.
"That's just part of the answer," he said, adding that there is oil in more places than where there is drilling. Drilling and exploration primarily is in the Gulf of Mexico, he said, and there is oil off the Alaskan coast.
Drilling can be done safely, as shown in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita when none of the hundreds of rigs in the Gulf leaked or had spills because of their safety equipment, he said.
And while Florida has resisted offshore wells, Cuba is delivering a Chinese-financed rig to a spot about 55 miles off the coast of Florida, he added.
Other alternative fuels, like ethanol, aren't the catch-all answer, either.
"It's not going to save us," he said, adding that he doesn't like using things people consume for fuel. Another drawback is the additional fertilizers used to increase corn production will only add to the runoff fueling the Gulf's dead zone.
"We ought to do other things," he said, noting that China is building several nuclear power plants, but that U.S. isn't moving forward at that rate because of regulations.
Poe also updated the group on his trip to Iraq during Easter, his concerns about border security and other issues.
Updated 05/29/2008 11:52:58 PM CDT
http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/si...d=512588&rfi=6
We all need to do our part to control global warming and stop eating Mexican food.
Anyone who has knows that you contribute a lot of gas to the atmosphere the day after
Put the pipe down....where exactly are all these untapped reserves?I just had to pipe in on this oil point as it is complete bull . Do you realize that the USA has oil reserves that are nearly the equivalent of the middle east's? We just aren't drilling it.
The DOE estimates that if we drilled in ANWAR gas prices would decrease a total of $.01 by 2012....YipeEEEEEEEEE!That's just part of the answer," he said, adding that there is oil in more places than where there is drilling. Drilling and exploration primarily is in the Gulf of Mexico, he said, and there is oil off the Alaskan coast
Are you sure it was the DOE and not Chucky Schumer?
As the oil executives hearings on Capitol Hill received great media attention given soaring gasoline prices, supposedly impartial press members missed a classic gaffe by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as it pertains to the benefits of OPEC raising production quotas versus America drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
On Wednesday, Schumer once again claimed "if [Saudi Arabia] did a million barrels of oil a day increase from today, it would go down about -- the translation to gasoline would be about $.50 a gallon, maybe $.62."
Yet, on May 7, Schumer felt a likely similar increase from drilling in ANWR would "reduce the price of oil by a penny."
As Marc Sheppard over at the American Thinker cleverly pointed out Thursday, in Schumer's odd calculus, only increases in foreign oil production will bring down the price.
Most of them are off-shore. Go ahead and Google it. Then you may wish to put your pipe down.
The U.N. wants us to start eating insects now, instead of cows and pigs. Full of protein, and it doesn't cause methane emissions like cow farts.We all need to do our part to control global warming and stop eating Mexican food.
Anyone who has knows that you contribute a lot of gas to the atmosphere the day after
Hey ... if enviros want to eat bugs -- they can.
Yup, got great reserves off of the coast of Florida, not allowed to drill for it.
But Mexico is selling all the areas of the gulf off to China. I believe Venezuela is building a bunch of drilling rigs about 100 or so miles off of Miami.
they can have the oil, but we can't get it ourselves.
Genius moves guys
Now its 40 years.
Before it was a hundred, then it was whatever.
The "facts" keep changing for the enviros
I mentioned along those lines a while back that alot of the scientists in the corner of GW, were doing it just for the money grants and the bucks.
I was laughed at.
hmmmm
DOE
Department of Energy
government en y
nah....i really don't trust the government on that
sorry
The U.S. currently consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. About 70 percent of that consumption is used for transportation. We consume about 45 percent of the world’s production of gasoline. This is the demand side of the oil problem. Current U.S. crude oil production is 5.1 million barrels a day and declining. (U.S. production peaked in 1970 at 11.4 million barrels a day.) We import nearly 15 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products a day. This is the supply side of the oil problem.
Domestic oil exploration and development takes time. During this time currently producing fields, such as the Northern Slope, decline as new ones are brought on line. There is no credible scenario where domestic oil production from conventional sources will significantly affect our dependence on foreign crude oil and petroleum products. Conservation, technological changes and production of fuels from unconventional sources will all be part of the long run solution.
Cheap energy was a major factor in our country’s economic success. Our continued success will result from creative solutions to energy problems. After all, it was Saudi Oil Minister Zaki Yamani who observed that the Stone Age didn’t end because the world ran out of stones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
