Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate, Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Amazon Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
A look at global warming.
    #2363137 - 02/21/04 11:51 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

This is an excerpt from part 4, but the entire thing is interesting.


The Emperor?s New Climate: Is Global Warming Real? -- Part Four: Disaster Does Not Loom
Duncan Maxwell Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004
Read Part I - Weird Science - Click here

Read Part II - Are We Warm Yet? Click here

Read Part III The JKyoto Depression - Click here

A funny thing happened as James Hansen was fielding questions from reporters in Washington, D.C., in 1988, terrifying senators with global warming predictions: The forests of eastern North America?no doubt including the Blue Ridge Mountains 60 miles to the west of the capital?were quietly absorbing CO2.

A study by Princeton University, Columbia University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducted between 1988 and 1992 showed that the eastern forests were so efficient a ?sink? or absorber of carbon dioxide that they more than made up for all the emissions from America?s factories, power plants, campfires?even its SUVs.

Published in Science in 1998, it got comparatively little notice, but if the years covered by the study are typical, the implications for the world?s climate could be enormous. It would mean that America, rather than being a force oppressing the rest of the world with its huge economy and its greenhouse emissions, is actually picking up other countries? greenhouse ?trash.? If CO2 is a problem, it?s the rest of the world that?s causing it.

Peter Huber, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, shares the environmentalists? desire for a cleaner, wilder planet less dominated by man?but he says their solutions are all wrong. Fossil fuels are good, he says, because they take up so little space. Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.

He even says that to go a given distance, an SUV is more earth-friendly than a guy on a bicycle, because the extra food consumed by the cyclist to make the journey takes more area to grow than all the space consumed by the SUV, its gasoline, and its share of the road.

America, not the low-tech world, is earth-friendly, because our farms are so efficient that they leave more room for the wilderness that heals the world?s air and serves as wildlife habitat. America?s forests, he points out, have been expanding every year since 1920, as people have left farms to live in cities, while our agricultural production has vastly increased.

Another factor: Feeding the horses and donkeys formerly needed for transportation and farming tied up twice the acreage used today by all our roads and highways, oil pipelines, refineries, and wells. Much of that extra acreage has reverted to trees.


Link to the rest.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2363440 - 02/21/04 01:19 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

That article is crap, just look who's funding it.

Quote:

Peter Huber, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute Fossil fuels are good, he says, because they take up so little space. Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.





Quote:

THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is an extremely conservative, corporate-funded, New York-based policy group.

The Manhattan Institute was founded by former CIA director William J. Casey in 1978. It was originally called the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, renamed the Manhattan Institute in 1980.

The Manhattan Institute is funded largely by major corporations and conservative foundations. According to the group's 10-year review, published in 1990, "by 1989, total contributions had grown to $2,113,000, 41 percent of which came from conservative and/or corporate foundations. Thirty-three percent came from Fortune 500 corporations, chiefly insurance companies and pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers including $50,000-plus each from Aetna and State From Insurance and $15,000-plus each from Prudential, Exxon, RJR Nabisco, Philip Morris, Bristol-Myers and Pfizer. Total revenue has grown to about $6 million, according to the 1997 edition of The Right Guide. See, Chesebro, "Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship," 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1637 (1993).

Some Manhattan Institute research on the civil justice system has been heavily criticized in law journals. In 1993, attorney Kenneth J. Chesebro wrote a lengthy and scathing attack on Manhattan Institute fellow Peter Huber's book, Galelio's Revenge. After meticulous research, Chesebro found Huber's book to rely "almost exclusively on anecdotal information and inflated rhetoric, misrepresent[ing] numerous aspects of its subject matter, and present[ing] no considered, objective or empirically-based measure of the extent of the 'junk science' problem." He called Galelio's Revenge, "perfectly described with Huber's own words as a 'catalog of every conceivable kind of error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent, dogmatism and, now and again, outright fraud'.? Galileo would quickly become exasperated at the unsupported thesis of Huber's book, its numerous material misrepresentations and omission, and its manipulative and evasive method of argument." Chesebro, "Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship," 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1637 (1993). See also, Hager, "Civil Compensation and its Discontents: A Response to Huber," 42 Stan. L. Rev. 539 (1990)




http://www.centerjd.org/private/mythbuster/MB_manhattan.htm


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2363566 - 02/21/04 01:56 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Well we will just have to disagree. I think there are many valid points.

Perhaps you'd care to share some of the parts you find most difficult to believe?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2363634 - 02/21/04 02:18 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

That article is crap, just look who's funding it.

And the NOAA is run by the US Dept of commerce. Sound like a possible conflict of interest?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2363717 - 02/21/04 02:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

mabus said:
That article is crap, just look who's funding it.




Can you rebut the article based on the contents? Merely pointing out where funding comes from does not address any points raised. If you have something substantive to contribute, please do so.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Xlea321]
    #2363797 - 02/21/04 02:54 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
That article is crap, just look who's funding it.

And the NOAA is run by the US Dept of commerce. Sound like a possible conflict of interest?



My my, Alpo being disengenuous again? What a surprise.

I suppose Princeton and Columbia are part of the government as well?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Evolving]
    #2364066 - 02/21/04 03:55 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Can you rebut the article based on the contents?




Yes I can. Take the suv vs. man on a bike.

Quote:

He even says that to go a given distance, an SUV is more earth-friendly than a guy on a bicycle, because the extra food consumed by the cyclist to make the journey takes more area to grow than all the space consumed by the SUV, its gasoline, and its share of the road.





That statement is totally false. Makes no sense whatever. Earth-friendly has been defined as "area used", not "how the area is used". When one adds how area is utilized then the cyclist is earth-friendly. Lets say the area used to feed the cyclist is an apple tree. That apple tree can provide energy for the suv driver and the cyclist for 60+ years.

Quote:

Fossil fuels are good, he says, because they take up so little space. Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.





Once again earth-friendly is defined only as "area used". However in this case the area in the atmosphere that the fossil fuels use up when converted into enery is totally ignored. And anyway it's crazy, the solar cell is a renewable source of energy compared to one that is not. He might as well compare the sun to his gallon of gas, ending up with the gallon taking up less area thus earth-friendly.

The whole article is set-up this way. CRAP.


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364282 - 02/21/04 05:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I don't really buy into the global warming theory either, but it is a myth that forrests are carbon sinks. the only time a forrest is a carbon sink is when it is growing larger or more dense. A forrest a equallibrium produces as much CO2 from decay and/or fire as it takes in from photosynthesis.

Forrests don't even produce that much net oxygen. Decomposition in the forrest floor consumes just about as much oxygen as the trees produce.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2364293 - 02/21/04 05:25 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Not being a scientist I don't know. Perhaps someone from Princeton or Columbia would be interested in debating this with you.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364382 - 02/21/04 05:46 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The Science on Global Warming

When President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, he promised the American people that ?my Administration?s climate change policy will be science-based.?[1] In fact, however, the Bush Administration has repeatedly manipulated scientific committees and suppressed science in this area.
Chair of International Science Panel
In early 2002, the State Department successfully opposed the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the top position on the preeminent international global warming study panel.[2]

Dr. Robert Watson had been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. An internationally respected scientist and recipient of numerous awards and honors, Dr. Watson had been the Director of the Science Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and chief scientist at the World Bank. Under his leadership, the IPCC had produced a report predicting an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in average global temperatures by 2100[3] and concluding that ?[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.?[4] These conclusions were affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.[5]

After the release of the 2001 report, ExxonMobil lobbied the Bush administration for Dr. Watson?s ouster. A February 6, 2001 memo sent by ExxonMobil to John Howard of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House criticized Dr. Watson and asked, ?Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.??[6] ExxonMobil opposes the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming and gives over a million dollars a year to groups that question the existence of global warming.[7]
Subsequently, the State Department opposed Dr. Watson?s reelection to head the panel. The Department gave no scientific rationale for this decision. In April 2002, lacking the support of his home country, Dr. Watson lost his position as chair.[8]

One leading researcher, Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, commented to Science: ?It is scandalous . . . . This is an invasion of narrow political considerations into a scientific process.?[9]

the rest is here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_global_warming.htm


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364396 - 02/21/04 05:48 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Solar cells are bad, because they block out the sun over an area that can?t be a habitat for trees or animals.




That's got to be one of the most moronic things I've read this week (and I've been reading 'Have your say' on the BBC website). Does the guy not realise that the vast majority of buildings in the world have these things called walls and roofs? He might also be interested to know that sunlight does indeed shine on these structures. Maybe we might use the space we already have before we start paving the countryside and blocking all of it's light.
I'd also be interested to find out how he came to the notion that shaded areas are not habitable to plants and animals (last time I checked, trees also block light from other trees and animals). That sentence is like concentrated stupidity.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2364487 - 02/21/04 06:05 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Actually, it's not. At the current efficiency of solar cells there aren't enough walls and roofs.

Perhaps some day there may be. Of course by then perhaps appliances and what-not will be so efficient that it'll all work out.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2364517 - 02/21/04 06:08 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364537 - 02/21/04 06:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Your're just grabbing statements out of the air.


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364575 - 02/21/04 06:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Actually, it's not. At the current efficiency of solar cells there aren't enough walls and roofs.

Aren't enough for what?

His assertion has nothing to do with efficiency anyway. He seems to think that solar panels can only be placed over a surface area that is occupied by nature. Apparently when the panel is placed (presumably any distance above the ground), it creates some kind of hellish 'shadow world' beneath it that is simply uninhabitable by living things. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of damage these things could do to a desert. I'll be sleeping with the light on tonight I think.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Edited by Edame (02/21/04 07:12 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364768 - 02/21/04 07:31 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, Global warming is a scam.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2364899 - 02/21/04 07:56 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

it hasn't gotten above freezing around here in about 3 months. global warming sounds like  a great idea to me.  :wink:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2366881 - 02/22/04 05:06 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Edame asks (re solar cells):

Aren't enough for what?

Aren't enough (at their current efficiency) to replace the need for other forms of electricity generation.

I live in the Dominican Republic, where the government-owned and operated electrical generation grid is a national joke. Here, the combined capacity of the privately-owned generators (from tiny Honda generators a child could lift to 500 kilowatt stationary generators used by hotels) exceeds the entire capacity of the government grid. As a result of maintenance costs, hassles with Dominican Customs and Excise when importing replacement parts, the ever-rising cost of fuel, etc. there is intense interest in both solar and wind (trade winds here are pretty steady most of the year) generation methods.

However, even with the exceptionally high total hours of sunshine annually we enjoy, solar panels are rare. Not because of expense, but because of inefficiency. The number of square feet of panel required to run a modest single-family house (with maybe a dozen lightbulbs, a refrigerator, a TV and a stereo -- no air conditioning) is larger than you would think. And that's a single-family house. A standard three story apartment building with maybe twelve units doesn't have the square footage on its roof to support the number of solar panels required to supply electricity to all twelve units. And that's just a three story building with no elevator. The situation gets worse with highrise buildings. Remember too that here we have no need to heat our buildings.

Perhaps one day solar panels with greater efficiency will be developed and they will then become practical for electrical generation in areas other than niche applications (i.e. sailboats). That day isn't here yet.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2367333 - 02/22/04 11:31 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Aren't enough (at their current efficiency) to replace the need for other forms of electricity generation.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that solar panels will replace the need for other forms of electricity generation. What they are currently good for (and in my opinion, can only get better as technology progresses) is supplementing other forms of power. The UK has a huge interest in renewable energy at the moment, and there are already government subsidies available for people who use solar panels or small wind generators (small roof-mounted turbines will be available soon) on their homes. While it might not be enough to be able to fully supply an average house's needs, it can be stored in batteries to supplement power usage during the day or late at night when it is typically lower. Water heaters, appliances on standby, lights, these kind of things can be kept running using the stored energy, and any excess generated can be sold back to the main grid.

Regardless of this, my point was that it has nothing to do with the assertion in the article, which simply states that solar panels are bad because they take up space and block light from plants and animals. This is simply absurd.
If this is the kind of advice that the US government is taking, then the recent claim (by the 20 Nobel laureates + other scientists) that the US government deliberately distorts and misrepresents science to further it's own goals, holds even more validity in my eyes.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2367442 - 02/22/04 12:31 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

He even says that to go a given distance, an SUV is more earth-friendly than a guy on a bicycle, because the extra food consumed by the cyclist to make the journey takes more area to grow than all the space consumed by the SUV, its gasoline, and its share of the road.

:lol:

How convenient to ignore the space consumed by the oil wells, refineries, automobile factories, auto dealerships, etc.

You call the report by the UCS "crap" and then you post this approvingly as an example of sound reasoning.

Pathetic.  Too pathetic for words, in fact.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2367502 - 02/22/04 01:04 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

i agree...

luvdemshrooms you've posted many articles trying to prove that global warming doesn't exsist, but this one takes the cake as the most worthless one yet. I can't believe anyone could read that and be like "yeah ok, that makes sense"

Lets face the facts shall we? The majority of the worlds top scientists all believe global warming is real. The end.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #2367519 - 02/22/04 01:14 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Lets face the facts shall we?

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2367660 - 02/22/04 01:58 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Actually, what's pathetic is someone who doesn't understand the difference between saying "a look at global warming" and "the facts on global warming".


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2367688 - 02/22/04 02:05 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So now you're conceding that your post had no factual basis?

It was just a little "look-see" for the sake of entertainment?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2367738 - 02/22/04 02:19 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The process of making solar cells creates a significant amount of pollution and it takes nearly as much electricity to make one as it will generate in it's useful lifespan, windmill generators kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, and yes, food is the most expensive and least efficient fuel of them all.


Basically, you can't get out of bed in the morning without killing something cute and furry or oppressing someone in some third world country.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2367747 - 02/22/04 02:20 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
Basically, you can't get out of bed in the morning without killing something cute and furry or oppressing someone in some third world country.



Sometimes that's the only reason to get out of bed!


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2367765 - 02/22/04 02:24 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Has anybody tried animal powered generators? They wouldn't be difficult to make using some wire and some magnets and a gearbox.

It would work kind of like one of those things you see sometimes that they use to grind meal, or lift water out of a well where the animals are attatched to a central axis and they walk around in circles. The trick is to get the animal to walk at just the right speed, or you can engineer the generator to run at the same speed independent of what speed the animal is walking at.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2367817 - 02/22/04 02:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

A study by Princeton and Cambridge has no basis in fact?

:lol:

The article has a different outlook. Sad you're too close minded to realize it.

  Edit: Oops.... Columbia.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/22/04 02:49 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Evolving]
    #2367853 - 02/22/04 02:44 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I have bunny slippers made out of real bunnies!


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2368140 - 02/22/04 03:50 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate
Change Will Destroy Us

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: mabus]
    #2368166 - 02/22/04 03:58 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors...

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. 




pentagon officials creating rationalizations to vastly increase military spending?

simply shocking.  :smirk:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #2368175 - 02/22/04 04:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

JonnyOnTheSpot said:
i agree...

luvdemshrooms you've posted many articles trying to prove that global warming doesn't exsist, but this one takes the cake as the most worthless one yet. I can't believe anyone could read that and be like "yeah ok, that makes sense"

Lets face the facts shall we? The majority of the worlds top scientists all believe global warming is real. The end.




Really, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the worlds "top scientists" agree on this, can you provide some sort of evidence, perhaps a link to a credible source(something that isnt directly related to an extremist environmental group such as the EPA)?


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2368255 - 02/22/04 04:25 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The Kyoto Treaty may not be perfect, but the amount of countries signing to it shows you that many countries outside the US are aware of global warming, and are taking steps to do something about it.

Quote:


EU ratifies global warming pact
Friday, 31 May, 2002

All 15 European Union states have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, paving the way for a new international attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The ceremony took place at the United Nations headquarters in New York, where representatives from all 15 nations and the European Commission handed the required papers to the UN chief legal counsel.

The ratifications mean that the number of parties to the protocol is now well past the threshold of 55 needed to grant it legal status.

Now the agreement needs to be ratified by more than 55 nations who are responsible for more than 55% of greenhouse gas emissions for the law to come into force.

European commissioner for the environment, Margot Wallstrom, praised the ratification as "an historic moment for global efforts to combat climate change".

However, she warned that the pressure was now on the United States - the world's biggest polluter - to do its part.

'US should reconsider'

Conceived during the historic 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Kyoto agreement was signed in Japan in 1997.

It requires industrialised countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 8% of the 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

Austria, Britain, Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg are the five countries in the EU who must make the biggest cuts.

But the US repudiated the treaty, arguing that its economic interests would be threatened.

Instead of cutting emissions from 7% as required by the treaty, the Bush administration had initiated policy changes that could increase its emissions by up to 30%, the European Commission said.

"The European Union urges the United States to reconsider its position," Margot Wallstrom. "All countries have to act, but the industrialised world has to take the lead."

World Summit

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan also welcomed the move, saying it was "good news for the entire world", French news agency AFP reported.

"[It is] a sound and innovative response to a truly global threat affecting rich and poor countries alike."

Since the US pullout from the treaty, the EU has been on a diplomatic offensive to ensure countries such as Russia, Japan and Canada stick with Kyoto.

Green campaigners would like to see Kyoto ratified by the World Summit on Sustainable Development later this year.




--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2368335 - 02/22/04 04:45 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Instead of cutting emissions from 7% as required by the treaty, the Bush administration had initiated policy changes that could increase its emissions by up to 30%, the European Commission said.

worst environmental president in recent memory, if not ever.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154

Crimes Against Nature

Bush is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George W. Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became number one in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, he championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit, diminishing standards of living for millions of Americans.
I am angry both as a citizen and a father. Three of my sons have asthma, and I watch them struggle to breathe on bad-air days. And they're comparatively lucky: One in four African-American children in New York shares this affliction; their suffering is often unrelieved because they lack the insurance and high-quality health care that keep my sons alive. My kids are among the millions of Americans who cannot enjoy the seminal American experience of fishing locally with their dad and eating their catch. Most freshwater fish in New York and all in Connecticut are now under consumption advisories. A main source of mercury pollution in America, as well as asthma-provoking ozone and particulates, is the coal-burning power plants that President Bush recently excused from complying with the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, the deadly addiction to fossil fuels that White House policies encourage has squandered our treasury, entangled us in foreign wars, diminished our international prestige, made us a target for terrorist attacks and increased our reliance on petty Middle Eastern dictators who despise democracy and are hated by their own people.

When the Republican right managed to install George W. Bush as president in 2000, movement leaders once again set about doing what they had attempted to do since the Reagan years: eviscerate the infrastructure of laws and regulations that protect the environment. For twenty-five years it has been like the zombie that keeps coming back from the grave.

The attacks began on Inauguration Day, when President Bush's chief of staff and former General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card quietly initiated a moratorium on all recently adopted regulations. Since then, the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programs in a coordinated effort to relax rules aimed at the oil, coal, logging, mining and chemical industries as well as automakers, real estate developers, corporate agribusiness and other industries.

Bush's Environmental Protection Agency has halted work on sixty-two environmental standards, the Food and Drug Administration has stopped work on fifty-seven standards. The EPA completed just two major rules -- both under court order and both watered down at industry request -- compared to twenty-three completed by the Clinton administration and fourteen by the Bush Sr. administration in their first two years.

This onslaught is being coordinated through the White House Office of Management and Budget -- or, more precisely, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, under the direction of John Graham, the engine-room mechanic of the Bush stealth strategy. Graham's specialty is promoting changes in scientific and economic assumptions that underlie government regulations -- such as recalculating cost-benefit analyses to favor polluters. Before coming to the White House, Graham was the founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, where he received funding from America's champion corporate polluters: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors.

Under the White House's guidance, the very agencies entrusted to protect Americans from polluters are laboring to destroy environmental laws. Or they've simply stopped enforcing them. Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The EPA has proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would drop staff levels to the lowest level ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped fifteen percent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped forty percent. The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws.

The White House has masked its attacks with euphemisms that would have embarrassed George Orwell. George W. Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests. His "Clear Skies" program, which repealed key provisions of the Clean Air Act, allows more emissions. The administration uses misleading code words such as streamlining or reforming instead of weakening, and thinning instead of logging.

In a March 2003 memo to Republican leadership, pollster Frank Luntz frankly outlined the White House strategy on energy and the environment: "The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable," he wrote, cautioning that the public views Republicans as being "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit." Luntz warned, "Not only do we risk losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well." He recommended that Republicans don the sheep's clothing of environmental rhetoric while dismantling environmental laws.

I prosecute polluters on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Riverkeeper and Waterkeeper Alliance. As George W. Bush began his presidency, I was involved in litigation against the factory-pork industry, which is a large source of air and water pollution in America. Corporate pork factories cannot produce more efficiently than traditional family farmers without violating several federal environmental statutes. Industrial farms illegally dump millions of tons of untreated fecal and toxic waste onto land and into the air and water. Factory farms have contaminated hundreds of miles of waterways, put tens of thousands of family farmers and fishermen out of work, killed billions of fish, sickened consumers and subjected millions of farm animals to unspeakable cruelty.

On behalf of several farm groups and fishermen, we sued Smithfield Foods and won a decision that suggested that almost all of American factory farms were violating the Clean Water Act. The Clinton EPA had also brought its own parallel suits addressing chronic air and water violations by hog factories. But almost immediately after taking office, the Bush administration ordered the EPA to halt its Clean Air Act investigations of animal factories and weaken the water rules to allow them to continue polluting indefinitely.

Several of my other national cases were similarly derailed. Eleven years ago, I sued the EPA to stop massive fish kills at power plants. Using antiquated technology, power plants often suck up the entire fresh water volume of large rivers, killing obscene numbers of fish. Just one facility, the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey, kills more than 3 billion Delaware River fish each year, according to Martin Marietta, the plant's own consultant. These fish kills are illegal, and in 2001 we finally won our case. A federal judge ordered the EPA to issue regulations restricting power-plant fish kills. But soon after President Bush's inauguration, the administration replaced the proposed new rule with clever regulations designed to allow the slaughter to continue unabated. The new administration also trumped court decisions that would have enforced greater degrees of wetlands protection and forbidden coal moguls from blasting off whole mountaintops to get at the coal beneath.

The fishermen I represent are traditionally Republican. But, without exception, they see this administration as the largest threat not just to their livelihoods but to their values and their idea of what it means to be American. "Why," they'll ask, "is the president allowing coal, oil, power and automotive interests to fix the game?"

Back to the Dark Ages

George w. Bush seems to be trying to take us all the way back to the Dark Ages by undermining the very principles of our environmental rights, which civilized nations have always recognized. Ancient Rome's Code of Justinian guaranteed the use to all citizens of the "public trust" or commons -- those shared resources that cannot be reduced to private property -- the air, flowing water, public lands, wandering animals, fisheries, wetlands and aquifers.

When Roman law broke down in Europe during the Dark Ages, feudal kings began to privatize the commons. In the early thirteenth century, when King John also attempted to sell off England's fisheries and erect navigational tolls on the Thames, his subjects rose up and confronted him at Runnymede, forcing him to sign the Magna Carta, which includes provisions guaranteeing the rights of free access to fisheries and waters.

Clean-air laws in England, passed in the fourteenth century, made it a capital offense to burn coal in London, and violators were executed for the crime. These "public trust" rights to unspoiled air, water and wildlife descended to the people of the United States following the American Revolution. Until 1870, a factory releasing even small amounts of smoke onto public or private property was operating illegally.

But during the Gilded Age, when the corporate robber barons captured the political and judicial systems, those rights were stolen from the American people. As the Industrial Revolution morphed into the postwar industrial boom, Americans found themselves paying a high price for the resulting pollution. The wake-up call came in the late Sixties, when Lake Erie was declared dead and Cleveland's Cuyahoga River exploded in colossal infernos.

In 1970, more than 20 million Americans took to the streets protesting the state of the environment on the first Earth Day. Whether they knew it or not, they were demanding a return of ancient rights.

During the next few years, Congress passed twenty-eight major environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and it created the Environmental Protection Agency to apply and enforce these new laws. Polluters would be held accountable; those planning to use the commons would have to compile environmental-impact statements and hold public hearings; citizens were given the power to prosecute environmental crimes. Right-to-know and toxic-inventory laws made government and industry more transparent on the local level and our nation more democratic. Even the most vulnerable Americans could now participate in the dialogue that determines the destinies of their communities.

Earth Day caught polluters off guard. But in the next thirty years, they mounted an increasingly sophisticated and aggressive counterattack to undermine these laws. The Bush administration is a culmination of their three-decade campaign.

Strangling the Environment

In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan declared, "I am a Sagebrush Rebel," marking a major turning point of the modern anti-environmental movement. In the early 1980s, the Western extractive industries, led by one of Colorado's worst polluters, brewer Joseph Coors, organized the Sagebrush Rebellion, a coalition of industry money and right-wing ideologues that helped elect Reagan president.

The big polluters who started the Sagebrush Rebellion were successful because they managed to broaden their constituency with anti-regulatory, anti-labor and anti-environmental rhetoric that had great appeal both among Christian fundamentalist leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and in certain Western communities where hostility to government is deeply rooted. Big polluters found that they could organize this discontent into a potent political force that possessed the two ingredients of power in American democracy: money and intensity. Meanwhile, innovations in direct-mail and computer technologies gave this alliance of dark populists and polluters a deafening voice in American government.

Coors founded the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 1976 to bring lawsuits designed to enrich giant corporations, limit civil rights and attack unions, homosexuals and minorities. He also founded the right-wing Heritage Foundation, to provide a philosophical underpinning for the anti-environmental movement. While the foundation and its imitators -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Federalist Society, the Marshall Institute and others -- claim to advocate free markets and property rights, their agenda is more pro-pollution than anything else.

From its conception, the Heritage Foundation and its neoconservative cronies urged followers to "strangle the environmental movement," which Heritage named "the greatest single threat to the American economy." Ronald Reagan's victory gave Heritage Foundation and the Mountain States Legal Foundation immeasurable clout. Heritage became known as Reagan's "shadow government," and its 2,000-page manifesto, "Mandate for Change," became a blueprint for his administration. Coors handpicked his Colorado associates: Anne Gorsuch became the EPA administrator; her husband, Robert Burford, a cattle baron who had vowed to destroy the Bureau of Land Management, was selected to head that very agency. Most notorious, Coors chose James Watt, president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, as the secretary of the interior. Watt was a proponent of "dominion theology," an authoritarian Christian heresy that advocates man's duty to "subdue" nature. His deep faith in laissez-faire capitalism and apocalyptic Christianity led Secretary Watt to set about dismantling his department and distributing its assets rather than managing them for future generations. During a Senate hearing, he cited the approaching Apocalypse to explain why he was giving away America's sacred places at fire-sale prices: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."

Meanwhile, Anne Gorsuch enthusiastically gutted EPA's budget by sixty percent, crippling its ability to write regulations or enforce the law. She appointed lobbyists fresh from their hitches with the paper, asbestos, chemical and oil companies to run each of the principal agency departments. Her chief counsel was an Exxon lawyer; her head of enforcement was from General Motors.

These attacks on the environment precipitated a public revolt. By 1983, more than a million Americans and all 125 American-Indian tribes had signed a petition demanding Watt's removal. After being forced out of office, Watt was indicted on twenty-five felony counts of influence-pedaling. Gorsuch and twenty-three of her cronies were forced to resign following a congressional investigation of sweetheart deals with polluters, including Coors. Her first deputy, Rita Lavelle, was jailed for perjury.

The indictments and resignations put a temporary damper on the Sagebrush Rebels, but they quickly regrouped as the "Wise Use" movement. Wise Use founder, the timber-industry flack Ron Arnold, said, "Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."

By 1994, Wise Use helped propel Newt Gingrich to the speaker's chair of the U.S. House of Representatives and turn his anti-environmental manifesto, "The Contract With America," into law. Gingrich's chief of environmental policy was Rep. Tom DeLay, the one-time Houston exterminator who was determined to rid the world of pesky pesticide regulations and to promote a biblical worldview. He targeted the Endangered Species Act as the second-greatest threat to Texas after illegal aliens. He also wanted to legalize the deadly pesticide DDT, and he routinely referred to the EPA as "the Gestapo of government." In January 1995, DeLay invited a group of 350 lobbyists representing some of America's biggest polluters to collaborate in drafting legislation to dismantle federal health, safety and environmental laws.

Gingrich and DeLay had learned from the James Watt debacle that they had to conceal their radical agenda. Carefully eschewing public debates on their initiatives, they mounted a stealth attack on America's environmental laws. Rather than pursue a frontal assault against popular statutes such as the Endangered Species, Clean Water and Clean Air acts, they tried to undermine these laws by attaching silent riders to must-pass budget bills.

But the public got wise. Moderate Republicans teamed up with the Clinton administration to block the worst of it. My group, the NRDC, as well as the Sierra Club and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, generated more than 1 million letters to Congress. When President Clinton shut down the government in December 1995 rather than pass a budget bill spangled with anti-environmental riders, the tide turned against Gingrich and DeLay. By the end of that month, even conservatives disavowed the attack. "We lost the battle on the environment," DeLay conceded.

Undermining the Scientists

Today, with the presidency and both houses of Congress under the anti-environmentalists' control, they are set to eviscerate the despised laws. White House strategy is to promote its unpopular policies by lying about its agenda, cheating on the science and stealing the language and rhetoric of the environmental movement.

Even as Republican pollster Luntz acknowledged that the scientific evidence is against the Republicans on issues like global warming, he advised them to find scientists willing to hoodwink the public. "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue," he told Republicans, "by becoming even more active in recruiting experts sympathetic to your view."

In the meantime, he urged them to change their rhetoric. " 'Climate change,' " he said, "is less threatening than 'global warming.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

The EPA's inspector general received broad attention for his August 21st, 2003, finding that the White House pressured the agency to conceal the public-health risks from poisoned air following the September 11th World Trade Center attacks. But this 2001 deception is only one example of the administration's pattern of strategic distortion. Earlier this year, it suppressed an EPA report warning that millions of Americans, especially children, are being poisoned by mercury from industrial sources.

This behavior is consistent throughout the Bush government. Consider the story of James Zahn, a scientist at the Department of Agriculture who resigned after the Bush administration suppressed his taxpayer-funded study proving that billions of antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be carried daily across property lines from meat factories into neighboring homes and farms. In March 2002, Zahn accepted my invitation to present his findings to a convention of family-farm advocates in Iowa. Several weeks before the April conference, pork-industry lobbyists learned of his appearance and persuaded the Department of Agriculture to forbid him from appearing. Zahn told me he had been ordered to cancel a dozen appearances at county health departments and similar venues.

In May, the White House blocked the EPA staff from publicly discussing contamination by the chemical perchlorate -- the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel. The administration froze federal regulations on perchlorate, even as new research reveals alarmingly high levels of the chemical in the nation's drinking water and food supply, including many grocery-store lettuces. Perchlorate pollution has been linked to neurological problems, cancer and other life-threatening illnesses in some twenty states. The Pentagon and several defense contractors face billions of dollars in potential cleanup liability.

The administration's leading expert in manipulating scientific data is Interior Secretary Gale Norton. During her nomination hearings, Norton promised not to ideologically slant agency science. But as her friend Thomas Sansonetti, a coal- industry lobbyist who is now assistant attorney general, predicted, "There won't be any biologists or botanists to come in and pull the wool over her eyes."

In autumn 2001, Secretary Norton provided the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with her agency's scientific assessment that Arctic oil drilling would not harm hundreds of thousands of caribou. Not long afterward, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists contacted the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which defends scientists and other professionals working in state and federal environmental agencies. "The scientists provided us the science that they had submitted to Norton and the altered version that she had given to Congress a week later," said the group's executive director, Jeff Ruch. There were seventeen major substantive changes, all of them minimizing the reported impacts. When Norton was asked about the alterations in October 2001, she dismissed them as typographical errors.

Later, she and White House political adviser Karl Rove forced National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter findings on the amount of water required for the survival of salmon in Oregon's Klamath River, to ensure that large corporate farms got a bigger share of the river water. As a result, more than 33,000 chinook and coho salmon died -- the largest fish kill in the history of America. Mike Kelly, the biologist who drafted the original opinion (and who has since been awarded federal whistle-blower status), told me that the coho salmon is probably headed for extinction. "Morale is low among scientists here," Kelly says. "We are under pressure to get the right results. This administration is putting the species at risk for political gain -- and not just in the Klamath."

Norton has also ordered the rewriting of an exhaustive twelve-year study by federal biologists detailing the effects that Arctic drilling would have on populations of musk oxen and snow geese. She reissued the biologists' report two weeks later as a two-page paper showing no negative impact to wildlife. She also ordered suppression of two studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service concluding that the drilling would threaten polar-bear populations and violate the international treaty protecting bears. She then instructed the Fish and Wildlife Service to redo the report to "reflect the Interior Department's position." She suppressed findings that mountaintop mining would cause "tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitat" and a Park Service report that found that snowmobiles were hurting Yellowstone's air quality, wildlife and the health of its visitors and employees.

Norton's Fish and Wildlife Service is the first ever not to voluntarily list a single species as endangered or threatened. Her officials have blackballed scientists and savaged studies to avoid listing the trumpeter swan, revoke the listing of the grizzly bear and shrink the remnant habitat for the Florida panther. She disbanded the service's oldest scientific advisory committee in order to halt protection of desert fish in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that are headed for extinction. Interior career staffers and scientists say they are monitored by Norton's industry appointees to ensure that future studies do not conflict with industry profit-making.

Cooking the Books on Global Warming

There is no scientific debate in which the White House has cooked the books more than that of global warming. In the past two years the Bush administration has altered, suppressed or attempted to discredit close to a dozen major reports on the subject. These include a ten-year peer-reviewed study by the International Panel on Climate Change, commissioned by the president's father in 1993 in his own efforts to dodge what was already a virtual scientific consensus blaming industrial emissions for global warming.

After disavowing the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration commissioned the federal government's National Academy of Sciences to find holes in the IPCC analysis. But this ploy backfired. The NAS not only confirmed the existence of global warming and its connection to industrial greenhouse gases, it also predicted that the effects of climate change would be worse than previously believed, estimating that global temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees by 2100.

A May 2002 report by scientists from the EPA, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, approved by Bush appointees at the Council on Environmental Quality and submitted to the United Nations by the U.S., predicted similarly catastrophic impacts. When confronted with the findings, Bush dismissed it with his smirking condemnation: "I've read the report put out by the bureaucracy. . . ."

Afterward, the White House acknowledged that, in fact, he hadn't. Having failed to discredit the report with this untruth, George W. did what his father had done: He promised to study the problem some more. Last fall, the White House announced the creation of the Climate Research Initiative to study global warming. The earliest results are due next fall. But the White House's draft plan for CRI was derided by the NAS in February as a rehash of old studies and established science lacking "most elements of a strategic plan."

In September 2002, administration censors released the annual EPA report on air pollution without the agency's usual update on global warming, that section having been deleted by Bush appointees at the White House. On June 19th, 2003, a "State of the Environment" report commissioned by the EPA in 2001 was released after language about global warming was excised by flat-earthers in the White House. The redacted studies had included a 2001 report by the National Research Council, commissioned by the White House. In their place was a piece of propaganda financed by the American Petroleum Institute challenging these conclusions.

This past July, EPA scientists leaked a study, which the agency had ordered suppressed in May, showing that a Senate plan -- co-sponsored by Republican Sen. John McCain -- to reduce the pollution that causes global warming could achieve its goal at very small cost. Bush reacted by launching a $100 million ten-year effort to prove that global temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally, another delay tactic for the fossil-fuel barons at taxpayer expense.

Princeton geo-scientist Michael Oppenheimer told me, "This administration likes to emphasize what we don't know while ignoring or minimizing what we do know, which is a prescription for paralysis on policy. It's hard to imagine what kind of scientific evidence would suffice to convince the White House to take firm action on global warming."

Across the board, the administration yields to Big Energy. At the request of ExxonMobil, and with the help of a lobbying group working for coal-burning utility Southern Co., the Bush administration orchestrated the removal of U.S. scientist Robert Watson, the world-renowned former NASA atmospheric chemist who headed the United Nations' IPCC. He was replaced by a little-known scientist from New Delhi, India, who would be generally unavailable for congressional hearings.

The Bush administration now plans to contract out thousands of environmental-science jobs to compliant industry consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profit-taking, effectively making federal science an arm of Karl Rove's political machine. The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America's federal agencies. "At its worst," Oppenheimer says, "this approach represents a serious erosion in the way a democracy deals with science."

Inside the Cheney Task Force

There is no better example of the corporate cronyism now hijacking American democracy than the White House's cozy relationship with the energy industry. It's hard to find anyone on Bush's staff who does not have extensive corporate connections, but fossil-fuel executives rule the roost. The energy industry contributed more than $48.3 million to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle, with $3 million to Bush. Now the investment has matured. Both Bush and Cheney came out of the oil patch. Thirty-one of the Bush transition team's forty-eight members had energy-industry ties. Bush's cabinet and White House staff is an energy-industry dream team -- four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials and more than twenty high-level appointees are alumni of the industry and its allies (see "Bush's Energy-Industry All-Stars," on Page 183).

The potential for corruption is staggering. Take the case of J. Steven Griles, deputy secretary of the Interior Department. During the first Reagan administration, Griles worked directly under James Watt at Interior, where he helped the coal industry evade prohibitions against mountaintop-removal strip mining. In 1989, Griles left government to work as a mining executive and then as a lobbyist with National Environmental Strategies, a Washington, D.C., firm that represented the National Mining Association and Dominion Resources, one of the nation's largest power producers. When Griles got his new job at Interior, the National Mining Association hailed him as "an ally of the industry."

It's bad enough that a former mining lobbyist was put in charge of regulating mining on public land. But it turns out that Griles is still on the industry's payroll. In 2001, he sold his client base to his partner Marc Himmelstein for four annual payments of $284,000, making Griles, in effect, a continuing partner in the firm.

Because Griles was an oil and mining lobbyist, the Senate made him agree in writing that he would avoid contact with his former clients as a condition of his confirmation. Griles has nevertheless repeatedly met with former coal clients to discuss new rules allowing mountaintop mining in Appalachia and destructive coal-bed methane drilling in Wyoming. He also met with his former oil clients about offshore leases. These meetings prompted Sen. Joseph Lieberman to ask the Interior Department to investigate Griles. With Republicans in control of congressional committees, no subpoenas have interrupted the Griles scandals.

With its operatives in place, the Bush energy plan became an orgy of industry plunder. Days after his inauguration, Bush launched the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney. For three months, the task force held closed-door meetings with energy-industry representatives - then refused to disclose the names of the participants.

For the first time in history, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office sued the executive branch, for access to these records. NRDC put in a Freedom of Information Act request, and when Cheney did not respond, we also sued. On February 21st, 2002, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and other agency officials to turn over the records relating to their participation in the work of the energy task force. Under this court order, NRDC has obtained some 20,000 documents. Although none of the logs on the vice president's meetings have been released yet and the pages were heavily redacted to prevent disclosure of useful information, the documents still allow glimpses of the process.

The task force comprised Cabinet secretaries and other high-level administration officials with energy-industry pedigrees. The undisputed leader was Cheney, who hails from Wyoming, the nation's largest coal producer, and who, for six previous years, was CEO of Halliburton, the oil-service company. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was chairman of the Aluminum Company of America for thirteen years. Aluminum-industry profits are directly related to energy prices. O'Neill promised to immediately sell his extensive stock holdings in his former company (worth more than $100 million) to avoid conflicts of interest, but he delayed the sale until after the energy plan was released. By then, thanks partly to the administration's energy policies, Alcoa's stock had risen thirty percent. Energy Secretary Abraham, a former one-term senator from Michigan, received $700,000 from the auto industry in his losing 2000 campaign, more than any other Senate candidate. At Energy, Abraham led the administration effort to scuttle fuel-economy standards, allow SUVs to escape fuel-efficiency minimums and create obscene tax incentives for Americans to buy the largest gas guzzlers.

Joe Allbaugh, director of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, sat next to Abraham on the task force. Allbaugh's wife, Diane, is an energy-industry lobbyist and represents three firms -- Reliant Energy, Entergy and TXU, each of which paid her $20,000 in the three months of the task force's deliberation. Joe Allbaugh participated in task-force meetings on issues directly affecting those companies, including debates about environmental rules for power plants and -- his wife's specialty -- electricity deregulation.

Commerce Secretary Don Evans, an old friend of the president from their early days in the oil business, was CEO of Tom Brown Inc., a Denver oil-and-gas company, and a trustee of another drilling firm. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, a mining-industry lawyer, accepted nearly $800,000 from the energy industry during her 1996 run in Colorado for the U.S. Senate.

In the winter and spring of 2001, executives and lobbyists from the oil, coal, electric-utility and nuclear industries tramped in and out of the Cabinet room and Cheney's office. Many of the lobbyists had just left posts inside Bush's presidential campaign to work for companies that had donated lavishly to that effort. Companies that made large contributions were given special access. Executives from Enron Corp., which contributed $2.5 million to the GOP from 1999 to 2002, had contact with the task force at least ten times, including six face-to-face meetings between top officials and Cheney.

After one meeting with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, Cheney dismissed California Gov. Gray Davis' request to cap the state's energy prices. That denial would enrich Enron and nearly bankrupt California. It has since emerged that the state's energy crisis was largely engineered by Enron. According to the New York Times, the task-force staff circulated a memo that suggested "utilizing" the crisis to justify expanded oil and gas drilling. President Bush and others would cite the California crisis to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Energy companies that had not ponied up remained under pressure to give to Republicans. When Westar Energy's chief executive was indicted for fraud, investigators found an e-mail written by Westar executives describing solicitations by Republican politicians for a political action committee controlled by Tom DeLay as the price for a "seat at the table" with the task force.

Task-force members began each meeting with industry lobbyists by announcing that the session was off the record and that participants were to share no documents. A National Mining Association official told reporters that the industry managed to control the energy plan by keeping the process secret. "We've probably had as much input as anybody else in town," he said. "I have to take my hat off to them -- they've been able to keep a lid on it."

When it was suggested that access to the administration was for sale, Cheney hardly apologized. "Just because somebody makes a campaign contribution doesn't mean that they should be denied the opportunity to express their view to government officials," he said. Although they met with hundreds of industry officials, Cheney and Abraham refused to meet with any environmental groups. Cheney made one exception to the secrecy policy: On May 15th, 2001, the day before the task force sent its plan to the president, CEOs from wind-, solar- and geothermal-energy companies were granted a short meeting with Cheney. Afterward, they were led into the Rose Garden for a press conference and a photo op.

While peddling influence to energy tycoons, the White House quietly dropped criminal and civil charges against Koch Industries, America's largest privately held oil company. Koch faced a ninety-seven-count federal felony indictment and $357 million in fines for knowingly releasing ninety metric tons of carcinogenic benzene and concealing the releases from federal regulators. Koch executives contributed $800,000 to Bush's presidential campaign and to other top Republicans.

Last March, the Federal Trade Commission dropped a Clinton-era investigation of price gouging by the oil and gas industries, even as Duke Energy, a principal target of the probe, admitted to selling electricity in California for more than double the highest previously reported price. The Bush administration said that the industry deserved a "gentler approach." Administration officials also winked at a scam involving a half-dozen oil companies cheating the government out of $100 million per year in royalty payments.

Southern Co. was among the most adept advocates for its own self-interest. The company, which contributed $1.6 million to Republicans from 1999 to 2002, met with Cheney's task force seven times. Faced with a series of EPA prosecutions at power plants violating air-quality standards, the company retained Haley Barbour, former Republican National Committee chairman and now governor-elect of Mississippi, to lobby the administration to ignore Southern's violations.

The White House then forced the Justice Department to drop the prosecution. Justice lawyers were "astounded" that the administration would interfere in a law-enforcement matter that was "supposed to be out of bounds from politics." The EPA's chief enforcement officer, Eric Schaeffer, resigned. "With the Bush administration, whether or not environmental laws are enforced depends on who you know," Schaeffer told me. "If you've got a good lobbyist, you can just buy your way out of trouble."

Along with Barbour, Southern retained current Republican National Committee chairman and former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot. Barbour and Racicot repeatedly conferred with Abraham and Cheney, urging them to ease limits on carbon-dioxide pollution from power plants and to gut the Clean Air Act. On May 17th, 2001, the White House released its energy plan. Among the recommendations were exempting old power plants from Clean Air Act compliance and adopting Barbour's arguments about carbon-dioxide restrictions. Barbour repaid the favor that week by raising $250,000 at a May 21st GOP gala honoring Bush. Southern donated $150,000 to the effort.

Cheney's task force had at least nineteen contacts with officials from the nuclear-energy industry -- whose trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, donated $100,000 to the Bush inauguration gala and $437,000 to Republicans from 1999 to 2002. The report recommended loosening environmental controls on the industry, reducing public participation in the siting of nuclear plants and adding billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear industry.

Cheney wasn't embarrassed to reward his old cronies at Halliburton, either. The final draft of the task-force report praises a gas-recovery technique controlled by Halliburton -- even though an earlier draft had criticized the technology. The technique, which has been linked to the contamination of aquifers, is currently being investigated by the EPA. Somehow, that got edited out of the report.

Big Coal and the Destruction of Appalachia

Coal companies enjoyed perhaps the biggest payoff. At the West Virginia Coal Association's annual conference in May 2002, president William D. Raney assured 150 industry moguls, "You did everything you could to elect a Republican president." Now, he said, "you are already seeing in his actions the payback."

Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company and a major contributor to the Bush campaign, was one of the first to cash in. Immediately after his inauguration, Bush appointed two executives from Peabody and one from its Black Beauty subsidiary to his energy advisory team.

When the task force released its final report, it recommended accelerating coal production and spending $2 billion in federal subsidies for research to make coal-fired electricity cleaner. Five days later, Peabody issued a public-stock offering, raising $60 million more than analysts had predicted. Company vice president Fred Palmer credited the Bush administration. "I am sure it affected the valuation of the stock," he told the Los Angeles Times.

Peabody also wanted to build the largest coal-fired power plant in thirty years upwind of Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, a designated UNESCO World Heritage site and International Biosphere Reserve. With arm-twisting from Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and another $450,000 in GOP contributions, Peabody got what it wanted. A study on the air impacts was suppressed, and park scientists who feared that several endangered species might go extinct due to mercury and acid-rain deposits were silenced.

At the Senate's request, Griles had signed a "statement of disqualification" on August 1st, 2001, committing himself to avoiding issues affecting his former clients. Three days later, he nevertheless appeared before the West Virginia Coal Association and promised executives that "we will fix the federal rules very soon on water and soil placement." That was fancy language for pushing whole mountaintops into valleys, a practice worth billions to the industry. As a Reagan official, Griles helped devise the practice, which a federal court declared illegal in 2002, after 1,200 miles of streambeds had been filled and 380,000 acres of Appalachian forestlands had been rendered barren moonscapes.

Now Griles was promising his former coal clients he would fix these rules. In May 2002, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers adopted the language recommended by his former client, the National Mining Association. Had Griles not intervened, the practice of mountaintop-removal mining would have been severely restricted. Griles also pushed EPA deputy administrator Linda Fisher to overrule career personnel in the agency's Denver office who had given a devastating assessment to a proposal to produce coal-bed methane gas in the Powder River basin in Wyoming. Although Griles had recused himself from any discussion of this subject because it would directly enrich his former clients, he worked aggressively behind the scenes on behalf of a proposal to build 51,000 wells. The project will require 26,000 miles of new roads and 48,000 miles of pipeline, and will foul pristine landscapes with trillions of gallons of toxic wastewater.

Blueprint for Plunder

The energy-task-force plan is a $20 billion subsidy to the oil, coal and nuclear industries, which are already swimming in record revenues. In May 2003, as the House passed the plan and as the rest of the nation stagnated in a recession abetted by high oil prices, Exxon announced that its profits had tripled from the previous quarter's record earnings. The energy plan recommends opening protected lands and waters to oil and gas drilling and building up to 1,900 electric-power plants. National treasures such as the California and Florida coasts, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the areas around Yellowstone Park will be opened for plunder for the trivial amounts of fossil fuels that they contain. While increasing reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, the plan cuts the budget for research into energy efficiency and alternative power sources by nearly a third. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue," Cheney explained, but it should not be the basis of "comprehensive energy policy."

As if to prove that point, Republicans simultaneously eliminated the tax credit that had encouraged Americans to buy gas-saving hybrid cars, and weakened efficiency standards for everything from air conditioners to automobiles. They also created an obscene $100,000 tax break for Hummers and the thirty-eight biggest gas guzzlers. Then, adding insult to injury, the Energy Department robbed $135,615 from the anemic solar, renewables and energy-conservation budget to produce 10,000 copies of the White House's energy plan.

To lobby for the plan, more than 400 industry groups enlisted in the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, a coalition created by oil, mining and nuclear interests and guided by the White House. It cost $5,000 to join, "a very low price," according to Republican lobbyist Wayne Valis. The prerequisite for joining, he wrote in a memo, was that members "must agree to support the Bush energy proposal in its entirety and not lobby for changes." Within two months, members had contributed more than $1 million. The price for disloyalty was expulsion from the coalition and possible reprisal by the administration. "I have been advised," wrote Valis, "that this White House 'will have a long memory.' "

The plan represents a massive transfer of wealth from the public to the energy sector. Indeed, Bush views his massive tax cuts as a way of helping Americans pay for inflated energy bills. "If I had my way," he declared, "I'd have [the tax cuts] in place tomorrow so that people would have money in their pockets to deal with high energy prices."

Looting the Commons

Although congress will have its final vote on the plan in November, the White House has already devised ways to implement most of its worst provisions without congressional interference. In October 2001, the administration removed the Interior Department's power to veto mining permits, even if the mining would cause "substantial and irreparable harm" to the environment. That December, Bush and congressional Republicans passed an "economic-stimulus package" that proposed $2.4 billion worth of tax breaks, credits and loopholes for Chevron, Texaco, Enron and General Electric. The following February, the White House announced it would abandon regulations for three major pollutants -- mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

Early in the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney had solicited an industry wish list from the United States Energy Association, the lobbying arm for trade associations including the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Edison Institute. The USEA responded by providing 105 specific recommendations from its members for plundering our natural resources and polluting America's air and water. In a speech to the group in June 2002, Energy Secretary Abraham reported that the administration had already implemented three-quarters of the industry's recommendations and predicted the rest would pass through Congress shortly.

On August 27th, 2002 -- while most of America was heading off for a Labor Day weekend -- the administration announced that it would redefine carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming, so that it would no longer be considered a pollutant and would therefore not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The next day, the White House repealed the act's "new source review" provision, which requires companies to modernize pollution control when they modify their plants.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Although the regulation will probably be reversed in the courts, the damage will have been done, and power utilities such as Southern Co. will escape criminal prosecution. As soon as the new regulations were announced, John Pemberton, chief of staff to the EPA's assistant administrator for air, left the agency to work for Southern. The EPA's congressional office chief also left, to join Southern's lobbying shop, Bracewell, Patterson.

By summer 2003, the White House had become a virtual pi-ata for energy moguls. In August, the administration proposed limiting the authority of states to object to offshore-drilling decisions, and it ordered federal land managers across the West to ease environmental restrictions for oil and gas drilling in national forests. The White House also proposed removing federal protections for most American wetlands and streams. As an astounded Republican, Rep. Christopher Shays, told me, "It's almost like they want to alienate people who care about the environment, as if they believe that this will help them with their core."

EPA: From Bad to Worse

On August 30th, president bush nominated Utah's three-term Republican Gov. Mike Leavitt to replace his beleaguered EPA head, Christine Todd Whitman, who was driven from office, humiliated in even her paltry efforts to moderate the pillage. In October, Leavitt was confirmed by the Senate.

Like Gale Norton, Leavitt has a winning personality and a disastrous environmental record. Under his leadership, Utah tied for last as the state with the worst environmental enforcement record and ranked second-worst (behind Texas) for both air quality and toxic releases. As governor, Leavitt displayed the same contempt for science that has characterized the Bush administration. He fired more than seventy scientists employed by state agencies for producing studies that challenged his political agenda. He fired a state enforcement officer who penalized one of Leavitt's family fish farms for introducing whirling disease into Utah, devastating the state's wild-trout populations.

Leavitt has a penchant for backdoor deals to please corporate polluters. Last year he resurrected a frivolous and moribund Utah lawsuit against the Interior Department and then settled the suit behind closed doors without public involvement, stripping 6 million acres of wilderness protections. This track record does not reflect the independence, sense of stewardship and respect for science and law that most Americans have the right to expect in our nation's chief environmental guardian.

The Threat to Democracy

Generations of Americans will pay the Republican campaign debt to the energy industry with global instability, depleted national coffers and increased vulnerability to price shocks in the oil market.

They will also pay with reduced prosperity and quality of life at home. Pollution from power plants and traffic smog will continue to skyrocket. Carbon-dioxide emissions will aggravate global warming. Acid rain from Midwestern coal plants has already sterilized half the lakes in the Adirondacks and destroyed the forest cover in the high peaks of the Appalachian range up into Canada. The administration's attacks on science and the law have put something even greater at risk. Americans need to recognize that we are facing not just a threat to our environment but to our values, and to our democracy.

Growing up, I was taught that communism leads to dictatorship and capitalism to democracy. But as we've seen from the the Bush administration, the latter proposition does not always hold. While free markets tend to democratize a society, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to corporate control of government.

America's most visionary leaders have long warned against allowing corporate power to dominate the political landscape. In 1863, in the depths of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln lamented, "I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me, and I fear the bankers most." Franklin Roosevelt echoed that sentiment when he warned that "the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling power."

Today, more than ever, it is critical for American citizens to understand the difference between the free-market capitalism that made our country great and the corporate cronyism that is now corrupting our political process, strangling democracy and devouring our national treasures.

Corporate capitalists do not want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route is to crush competition by controlling government. The rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s offers many informative lessons on how corporate power can undermine a democracy. In Spain, Germany and Italy, industrialists allied themselves with right-wing leaders who used the provocation of terrorist attacks, continual wars, and invocations of patriotism and homeland security to tame the press, muzzle criticism by opponents and turn government over to corporate control. Those governments tapped industrial executives to run ministries and poured government money into corporate coffers with lucrative contracts to prosecute wars and build infrastructure. They encouraged friendly corporations to swallow media outlets, and they enriched the wealthiest classes, privatized the commons and pared down constitutional rights, creating short-term prosperity through pollution-based profits and constant wars. Benito Mussolini's inside view of this process led him to complain that "fascism should really be called 'corporatism.' "

While the European democracies unraveled into fascism, America confronted the same devastating Depression by reaffirming its democracy. It enacted minimum-wage and Social Security laws to foster a middle class, passed income taxes and anti-trust legislation to limit the power of corporations and the wealthy, and commissioned parks, public lands and museums to create employment and safeguard the commons.

The best way to judge the effectiveness of a democracy is to measure how it allocates the goods of the land: Does the government protect the commonwealth on behalf of all the community members, or does it allow wealth and political clout to steal the commons from the people?

Today, George W. Bush and his court are treating our country as a grab bag for the robber barons, doling out the commons to large polluters. Last year, as the calamitous rollbacks multiplied, the corporate-owned TV networks devoted less than four percent of their news minutes to environmental stories. If they knew the truth, most Americans would share my fury that this president is allowing his corporate cronies to steal America from our children.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368471 - 02/22/04 05:27 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Great, yet one more group of people who have found a way to exploit irrational global warming fears.

I need to cash in on this scam too.


BLAH BLAH BLAH "GLOBAL WARMING" GIMMIE A DOLLAR!


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2368578 - 02/22/04 06:06 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Just because other countries are signing doesnt mean its a problem, I believe they are buying into the irrational fears of certain scientists. The average temperature of the world has not increased in the past 20 years of so at all.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2368583 - 02/22/04 06:08 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Even if global warming isn't being caused by us, what harm would it do if we reduced emissions? Since we don't know for sure what's causing global warming, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368590 - 02/22/04 06:11 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

unfortunately, most corporations would
more rather be sorry than broke.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: afoaf]
    #2368602 - 02/22/04 06:17 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Can you list any corporations in the nations that abide by the Kyoto Treaty that have gone broke because of it?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368673 - 02/22/04 06:42 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)


Even if global warming isn't being caused by us, what harm would it do if we reduced emissions?


quite a bit, and that's why it isn't a good idea right now. tighter controls on energy would put a lot of people out of work and make everything more expensive. everyone would get hit pretty hard if there was any significant effort to reduce energy usage.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368693 - 02/22/04 06:47 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

everyone would get hit pretty hard if there was any significant effort to reduce energy usage.

They are gonna get hit hard for sure if they don't. Of course if you don't think that global warming has been accelerated by fossil fuel use, then disregard.


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368708 - 02/22/04 06:56 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

But if we pursued alternative energy sources, couldn't we create jobs as well?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2368721 - 02/22/04 06:59 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:
Just because other countries are signing doesnt mean its a problem, I believe they are buying into the irrational fears of certain scientists. The average temperature of the world has not increased in the past 20 years of so at all.




Right, I guess the rest of the world has been hoodwinked, and the government that's being accused of manipulation and deception in scientific policy (among other things) is one of the few who can see the real truth (just like those WMDs). I bet the UN and EU are going to be so pissed when they find they wasted all that time and money making their air cleaner for nothing, what a bunch of suckers!


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368728 - 02/22/04 07:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

how would we persue them right now?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368746 - 02/22/04 07:06 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

you could sink a tenth of the money we have spent
on this war into research.

you could create mandates or incentives for the
automobile manufacturers to get off their asses.

like kennedy's march to the moon, the next great
american endeavor should be to get off the oil
IV.

OPEC would be back to wiping their asses with
their hands if we reduced demand and dependency
on oil.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368756 - 02/22/04 07:10 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
how would we persue them right now?



Well, loosening the oil companies' stranglehold on American politics would be a start.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: afoaf]
    #2368767 - 02/22/04 07:14 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

you could sink a tenth of the money we have spent on this war into research.

unfortunately, we already spent it. if the government funds alternate energy research, it's gonna have to tax more. if it spends 10 billion on research, that's 10 billion that taxpayers now don't have to spend. that's gonna put people out of work.

you could create mandates or incentives for the automobile manufacturers to get off their asses.

that's gonna make cars more expensive, meaning that people have less to spend on other things. that's gonna put people out of work.

we're using oil right now because it's the most efficient means we have. any efforts to force people to use or develop different sources will hurt the market and people will suffer for it. there are serious costs involved in reducing our dependance on oil. cutting greenhouse emissions is not free.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368771 - 02/22/04 07:14 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)


Well, loosening the oil companies' stranglehold on American politics would be a start.


what would that accomplish?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368822 - 02/22/04 07:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:

Well, loosening the oil companies' stranglehold on American politics would be a start.


what would that accomplish?



It would free the hands of politicians to pursue research into alternative energy sources.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368828 - 02/22/04 07:31 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

if the government funds alternate energy research, it's gonna have to tax more.



Not if we stop spending tax dollars on wars for oil.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2368829 - 02/22/04 07:31 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

If you look here, www.oism.org you can see that over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that they dont feel global warming is a problem, Plus if you read into global warming you will see that only land based readings show a trend in global warming, plus projected figures show that complying with the stupid kyoto treaty will cost the US 300 billion dollars annually, plus even if global warming were a problem, it is projected that the change in temperature will only be about 0.14?C, not that significant, now lets look at why people support these lowering of emissions, liberals hate big business, you hurt big business by lowering emissions, what do these scientists have to gain that support it?? Guaranteed work from government grants, and money from writing books about how you should be scared shitless. Plus who in their right mind, thinks that the actions of the UN are in any way credible?? They have libya, who tortures people in charge of the the humanitarian section, plus many of the members of the UN are violent dictators, the UN is just a cold war relic that either shouldnt be around anymore, or needs to change its policies, and who it allows in before it is remotely credible


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368832 - 02/22/04 07:31 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

It would free the hands of politicians to pursue research into alternative energy sources.

by taxin' and spendin' i presume.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368836 - 02/22/04 07:32 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Not if we stop spending tax dollars on wars for oil.

it would still have to be funded with tax dollars.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368840 - 02/22/04 07:34 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

so, you're content then to keep things as they
are simply because of added costs and potential
employment shifts?

I'd pay 10% more for my next vehicle if it were
clearly going towards additional, progressive,
alternate fuel research.

And just like Greenspan's claim that job losses
while stressfull in the short term bring long
term benefits to the workforce, so does the
pursuit of something as revolutionary as new
fuel.

a pipe dream, maybe, but not worth nixing
based solely on market pessimism, don't you
think?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368847 - 02/22/04 07:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
Not if we stop spending tax dollars on wars for oil.

it would still have to be funded with tax dollars.



Yes, but we wouldn't necessarily have to raise taxes if we divert tax dollars from other areas of spending. I understand the whole "taxation=theft" thing, and I don't entirely disagree with it, but as long as we're spending tax dollars anyway, we might as well spend them on something useful.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: afoaf]
    #2368865 - 02/22/04 07:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

what i'm sayin' here is that there are serious costs to consider when we talk about reducing CO2 emmisions. it's not free. people are gonna suffer for it. silversoul7 said:

"Even if global warming isn't being caused by us, what harm would it do if we reduced emissions? Since we don't know for sure what's causing global warming, I think it's better to be safe than sorry."

i just wanted to point out that there are costs to reducing emissions, and it's not a great idea to go subjecting everyone to those costs when we don't even know how serious the problem is right now, if there's a problem at all.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368872 - 02/22/04 07:42 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

There is heavy alternate fuel research being done, one that looks promising is hydrogen combustion, it produces a tremendous amount of energy, plus it produces water.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368875 - 02/22/04 07:42 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Yes, but we wouldn't necessarily have to raise taxes if we divert tax dollars from other areas of spending.

that would be more acceptable to me, but the fact remains that we would still be using tax dollars to fund the research, and that would still mean that people would still be hurting because of it. this idea still wouldn't make the whole thing free of costs.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2368889 - 02/22/04 07:45 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

currently the most economically viable means of obtaining hydrogen is to strip it from hydrocarbons, which still means we need fossil fuels, and it still creates pollution.

electrolysis would be another option. that requires a lot of electricity though. maybe nuclear power could provide the energy to produce hydrogen, which could then be used to drive fuel cells in cars.

there are many other sources of energy than oil out there. the thing is that switching to any of them is going to be costly.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: ]
    #2368890 - 02/22/04 07:46 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

See, here's the thing: When we identify an environmental problem, there are some initial costs to fix it, but not many people are willing to pay them. As the problem gets worse, the costs keep going up, but so does people's willingness to pay for fixing it. Eventually the problem gets so bad that people are willing to pay the astronomical cost of fixing it. Basically, we can pay a little bit now or a lot later.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A look at global warming. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2368915 - 02/22/04 07:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

maybe we don't have to pay a lot later though. maybe global warming isn't nearly as big of a problem as people think. i must say that i'm rather poorly informed about the science of global warming, and i honestly have no real opinion here. what i did want to make clear though is that there are indeed serious costs to reducing our CO2 emissions. do the benefits outweigh the costs? i really don't know.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: afoaf]
    #2369572 - 02/22/04 10:27 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Dude, that is one longass cut and paste job. Would you do me a favor and edit your post to leave just the link? Maybe leave a few excerpts of particular significance to pique our interest.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2369588 - 02/22/04 10:32 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

edame writes:

Right, I guess the rest of the world has been hoodwinked, and the government that's being accused of manipulation and deception in scientific policy (among other things) is one of the few who can see the real truth (just like those WMDs).

I don't know if "hoodwinked" is the correct word or not, but there as many reputable scientists disputing manmade climate change as there are those claiming it is occurring. It is very far from being an established fact.

The governments of some countries appear to believe those scientists who claim manmade climate change is occurring. The governments of other countries appear to believe the other group. And doubtless the governments of still other countries don't care either way.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2370129 - 02/23/04 12:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
The process of making solar cells creates a significant amount of pollution and it takes nearly as much electricity to make one as it will generate in it's useful lifespan, windmill generators kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, and yes, food is the most expensive and least efficient fuel of them all.


Basically, you can't get out of bed in the morning without killing something cute and furry or oppressing someone in some third world country.




Where did I write anything about solar cells?

Why not try addressing something other than imaginary posts?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2370179 - 02/23/04 12:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Come now, luv, I questioned the facticity of ONE of the points made in that post--an eminently moronic bit of reasoning--and then you came back and said some absurd nonsense about how my criticism was misplaced because the title of the article was not "Facts about Global Warming." Which would imply that you believe that any article that doesn't begin with the title "Facts about such and such" doesn't have to be held to the same standards of evidence.

As for the CO2 sink theory (and the authors of the study, if you read it, make clear that it is still in the theory stage) it is certainly interesting, but even the authors of the study itself (as opposed to the author of the NewsMax article) don't necessarily believe that it renders global warming a moot point. You have to understand that real scientists don't jump from one conclusion to another that way.

Here are some quotes from the report:

"The study, which its authors said was subject to confirmation, may mean
that land-based carbon-absorbing zones could play a greater role than expected in managing greenhouse warming of the atmosphere. "

"Team members emphasized that while the North American sink may
prove important in worldwide management of atmospheric carbon absorption,
their results should not be interpreted as justification for claiming that pre-
existing carbon sinks in a given region act to offset that region's combustion-
produced carbon dioxide."

"The researchers stress that all of these mechanisms are temporary. It is
thus inevitable that this sink will eventually stop absorbing carbon dioxide at these levels."

"The researchers also caution that the size and location of the sink is
variable. Other studies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that global
sinks vary by almost a factor of five from year to year and may also vary in
location. The results in this paper may not be representative of periods outside 1988 to 1992, they added."

This is what happens when you actually go back AND READ PRIMARY SOURCES instead of just relying on the biased interpretations of ideologically motivated commentators. If you knew the first thing about research or the scientific method, you would understand that, but I guess that's too much to ask from a reader of NewsMax.com.

So you see, luv, my beef is not with the Princeton and Columbia researchers who take a cautious approach to their findings, but with nitwits like Huber and the author of the NewsMax.com article, and with the boobs who read articles like that and think that they're an accurate representation of the state of scientific knowledge.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2370189 - 02/23/04 01:00 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I don't know if "hoodwinked" is the correct word or not, but there as many reputable scientists disputing manmade climate change as there are those claiming it is occurring.

As many? I call. Prove it.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2370267 - 02/23/04 01:28 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

blacksabbathrulz,
I'm sorry man, but you don't seem to understand the science of this. At all. I'm about to finish an environmental research geology degree. The changing global temperatures is - and I can say this confidently - the most complex concept of this planet. It's chaos theory to an extreme. There is no scientist on Earth - and I can also say this confidently - that can give difinitive predictions on Global Warming. But here's what nearly all legit scientists (and by legit, I mean scientists that work for Universities, not industry) agree on: the planet is warming, rapidly. It's warmer now than it has been millions of years (though it came close to where we're currently about 100,00 years ago). There are at least a dozen major factors that contribute to this. The ones that have the biggest impact on the overall clmate of the Earth are Malankovich cycles, which are related to the eliptical orbit of the Earth and other astronomical happenings. We have no control over it. This isn't a guess. This is something nearly every researcher on Earth currently agrees on. But, like I said, these cycles are just one at least a dozen factors. I don't wanna bore everybody with them, but yes CO2 is one. A major one. In fact, the growing consensus is that we should be in an ice age right now. It should have began about 10,000 years ago. But it didn't due to human expansion. Then it almost began again about 150 years ago. But it didn't due to (this is a hypothesis) increased industry. We're continually starving off an ice age due to what we're putting into the atmosphere. It's plain and simple.
Some people may think this is a good thing. But the main thing people don't realize about global climate is how extremely fragile it is. There have been periods in the Earht's history when it's been so hot that there hasn't been any liquid water. There's also strong evidence that 100% of the world has been covered in ice more than once. THESE THINGS CAN HAPPEN AGAIN. And they come on much faster than people realize. These things are extremely delicate. You saying that 0.14 degree change (which is not accurate by the way) is not significant is horribly ignorant. I don't have time to go through all of this. I'll post again. Go read a book on ocean currents and a book on glacial geology. Ones published within the last five years. You'll understand that this is not something to fuck around with. And don't argue about money. All the money in the world isn't gonna save shit unless people start coming to terms with this SOON.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2370287 - 02/23/04 01:33 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Finally! Somebody on this forum who actually has a clue what he's talking about.

Thanks for a very informative post. I look forward to reading those in the future.

But be prepared for a lot of very angry and ignorant people to attack you. It's not easy work educating those who have no wish to learn, but your efforts will not go unnoticed or unappreciated.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2370384 - 02/23/04 02:06 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

(just like those WMDs).

Think we're seeing a pattern here Edame. Notice how the same people pushing "climate change doesn't exist" fantasy are the same who pushed the WMD in Iraq fantasy?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2370598 - 02/23/04 03:43 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

EchoVortex said:
Finally! Somebody on this forum who actually has a clue what he's talking about.

Thanks for a very informative post. I look forward to reading those in the future.

But be prepared for a lot of very angry and ignorant people to attack you. It's not easy work educating those who have no wish to learn, but your efforts will not go unnoticed or unappreciated.



hmm, I find this to be incredible hypocritical, you are assuming that every person that disagrees is ignorant, and not willing to "learn", how can you say that, when there are issues that you may seem unwilling to "learn" about. there is no reason for people to be angry or attack anyone here.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2370602 - 02/23/04 03:50 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I think You've discovered the opposite of enlightenment.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2370603 - 02/23/04 03:51 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

to quote echovortex
"This is what happens when you actually go back AND READ PRIMARY SOURCES instead of just relying on the biased interpretations of ideologically motivated commentators. If you knew the first thing about research or the scientific method, you would understand that, but I guess that's too much to ask from a reader of NewsMax.com.

So you see, luv, my beef is not with the Princeton and Columbia researchers who take a cautious approach to their findings, but with nitwits like Huber and the author of the NewsMax.com article, and with the boobs who read articles like that and think that they're an accurate representation of the state of scientific knowledge."

I have somewhat of a discrepancy with your criticism here, you act as if you are an authority on science, but I notice that your "facts" are all from study's, not actual experiments, with study's it is impossible to determine definitively causaution of problems, in general, studies are the least accurate source of information. And I think that it is wrong to attack someone on their sources, when you use studies (which cannot prove anything) to support your views.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2370738 - 02/23/04 05:41 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2370855 - 02/23/04 07:14 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
I think You've discovered the opposite of enlightenment.



Yeah, I know, that was an attack on my part  :ooo:, however I meant merely that it would be innapropriate to attack someone personally based on their understanding/beliefs about global warming, I was making an attack based on categorization of people.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2370912 - 02/23/04 08:16 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Why dont you reply to Gijith's post?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2371006 - 02/23/04 09:42 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

If somebody disagrees with my values, that doesn't mean they're ignorant, simply that they disagree with my values. I'm cool with that.

The discussion here isn't values, however, it's what exactly the current state of understanding about a particular issue is. Luvdemshrooms's post was a shambles of misrepresentation and sloppy reasoning, and I called him on it, as is my right. If you have facts to the contrary to contribute feel free to do so.

And why are you replying to me anyway when I never addressed a post to you? I believe it's Gijith you should be replying to.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2371020 - 02/23/04 09:51 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I have somewhat of a discrepancy with your criticism here, you act as if you are an authority on science, but I notice that your "facts" are all from study's, not actual experiments, with study's it is impossible to determine definitively causaution of problems, in general, studies are the least accurate source of information. And I think that it is wrong to attack someone on their sources, when you use studies (which cannot prove anything) to support your views.

You're a bit confused there, Skippy.

I was not citing the study as supporting proof of my own points--I was citing it to show how the author of the NewsMax.com article that Luvdemshrooms posted distorted the contents of that study. If you have a problem with the study, direct your criticisms at LDS since he posted it in the first place.

I'm flattered that you've taken such an inordinate interest in my posts, replying to me not once but twice before I directed a single word at you, but I suggest that before you post another one of your prematurely triumphal critiques you actually address the points raised by Gijith.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371163 - 02/23/04 11:06 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
... by legit, I mean scientists that work for Universities, not industry



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That is silly, really silly.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Evolving]
    #2371246 - 02/23/04 11:21 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

To a degree but not really that silly. Scientists in Universities are more likely to be neutrally funded but big business still finances plenty of research that is carried out by universities.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: GazzBut]
    #2371280 - 02/23/04 11:32 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

This is a good point. I should clarify that. There are two main fields open to people with geology or environmental science degrees. Those being education/research or the petrol industry (there are many more, but those ar ethe two big ones). The petrol industry doesn't usually bother to fund University work because they have deep enough pockets to fund their own science. When you compare papers from most universities to papers from most private petrol stuff, there are major differences in conclusions. I don't mean to say that all industry or private science is not legit. Many amazing things have come out of private and industry research. What I said was meant to apply to geosciences.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371304 - 02/23/04 11:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The funding of any scientific research is definitely one of, if not the most, important thing to check when evaluating research.

Have you got any links/sources to scientists who believe human intervention has been preventing an ice age? Thats an interesting theory I havent heard before.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: GazzBut]
    #2371375 - 02/23/04 12:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Have you got any links/sources to scientists who believe human intervention has been preventing an ice age? Thats an interesting theory I havent heard before.




I'll try to dig up some stuff and post it tomorrow evening. I've got a structural geo exam in the morning, so that's eating up my time. It's a real fresh idea, so there's still a lot of conjecture. People have been talking about it for a while, but the first good evidence came this past summer by researchers who I think were working in Antarctica (?). Basically if you look at global temps over the past million years, there are certain patterns. The last glaciation hit its peak around 20,000 - 18,000 years ago. From that point the Earth's temp started to rise at a pretty fast rate. Then, around 10,000 BC (sorry I said "10,000 years ago" last night) there was a drop in temp. The ocean currents in the very Northern Atlantic (they're key) began to cool. Then... it just kinda turned around and began to heat up again (I'll check on the timeframe and try to give a better sense of exactly when this was all happening). Around 10,000 BC you also have a HUGE amount of human activity. For the first time, we're spreading across the globe, coming to the Americas in big numbers. Asia, Australia, Nothern Europe. This was the biggest human expansion in world history. And its safe to say that along with this, came massive agriculture, MASSIVE change to landscpae (less trees), and a noticable bump in CO2 (which is what the aforementioned scientists found). The theory is that it was enough to turn the approaching ice age around.
The one I mentioned hapening 150 years ago (this is a rough number), is a lot less distinct and a lot more controversial. But again you see a cooling pattern. Northern Atlantic cools. Northern Quebec, where the most recent glaciations have all begun, has a sharp drop in temp. But then, once again, global temp turns around and starts to warm up. What you see in the mid 1800s is an exponential rise in coal burning (industry). A little later on, you see massive natural gas burning. All of this spiked the CO2 in the atmosphere. It was slight, but something the climate wasn't accustomed to.
But yeah, I'll try to find the few papers that have been published on this.

Ugh I can't believe I wasted my hundreth post on this!


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: GazzBut]
    #2371495 - 02/23/04 12:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
The funding of any scientific research is definitely one of, if not the most, important thing to check when evaluating research.

Have you got any links/sources to scientists who believe human intervention has been preventing an ice age? Thats an interesting theory I havent heard before.



:thumbup: :thumbup: indeed, I just read a paper on grape juice by john folts, and I noticed that it was sponsored by welch's, a simple trip to welch's showed that he was their resident expert, the point of the paper was to demonstrate that grape juice prevented platelet aggregation, I still believe that his data may have been valid regardless of bias.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371496 - 02/23/04 12:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

lol...did you have something special planned for your 100th post? :grin:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2371655 - 02/23/04 01:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Okay, let me start of by saying that there is evidence that the world's temperature is very slightly rising, however I feel that there is no evidence that it can be linked to humans. When I said it was a scam I was specifically referring to environmentalists cashing in on it. I also dont feel that it presents a significant threat(natural causes or mankind), and as Gijith pointed out, it is extremely complex, in fact to complex to predict, so here is why I am skeptical to their being any link between humans and global warming
First off all, I have yet to see anything that properly factors in water as a gas rather than a vapor as far as linking carbon dioxide to temperature change, from a physical stanpoint, if you have increasing temperatures, the equilibrium between carbon dioxide and water will shift, thereby exuding more CO2 into the atmosphere, it merely shows that temperature is rising, not the cause. If you look at the study done by Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke(quaternary research 1973-yes it is a little outdated,but that doesnt mean its invalid), you see that they determined(as far as determining can go-it was a study) that the average temperature of the earth has only risen 1 degree in the past million years, they feel that we are merely at a pinnacle of temperature oscillation. Here is an interesting article about the so called scientific consensus about global warming http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
The fact that I see tons of crap published to makes me even more skeptical, I read an article a few years ago from someone touting that the artic shelf had undergone a 36?F increase, and this was on reuters mind you, when I believe that he must have read somewhere that the temperature increased about 2.5?C and equated that to 36?F, there is no proper evidence showing that CO2 emissions are a problem, granted we produce 5-6 billion tons of CO2 a year but the earth produces that approximately 15 fold.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2372096 - 02/23/04 03:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Go to Google. Type "17,000 scientist global warming". Click on some of the many links. Read.

And these are just the scientists who feel strongly enough about it to have bothered to sign a petition. There are probably others who aren't into signing petitions.

Are there more than 17,000 who believe manmade climate change is occurring? Source, please.

The thing is, many people speak of the "reality" of manmade climate change as if it is a scientifically established fact. It isn't. When you have 17,100 (and the amount is still growing) scientists not only unconvinced it is a fact, but willing to go on public record with their opinions, it is accurate to say the jury is still out.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372202 - 02/23/04 03:43 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

It would really be helpful if they gave a little more info on these "scientists." Who do they work for? Most of them are PhDs, but in what?!? In "science" ? In quantum mechanics? In cell biology? A good number of these people are MDs!!! I have friends in med school, firends who are medical doctors. They don't know the first thing about the concept of global warming. I can guarantee you I'm in a better position to speak on this than 99 percent of MDs. But I would never sign a petition like this. And not because I don't believe it (though I don't), but because there are a very small number of scientists (scientists that devote their lives to the study of this) who would be able to honestly say whether or not "global warming is a lie." Not 17,000.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372279 - 02/23/04 03:59 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


Go to Google. Type "17,000 scientist global warming". Click on some of the many links. Read.

And these are just the scientists who feel strongly enough about it to have bothered to sign a petition. There are probably others who aren't into signing petitions.

Are there more than 17,000 who believe manmade climate change is occurring? Source, please.

The thing is, many people speak of the "reality" of manmade climate change as if it is a scientifically established fact. It isn't. When you have 17,100 (and the amount is still growing) scientists not only unconvinced it is a fact, but willing to go on public record with their opinions, it is accurate to say the jury is still out.

pinky





The study you appear to be citing has been, in my opinion, thoroughly debunked in this article from PR Watch:
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Here is a condensed version with some of the key points (emphasis mine):

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Headed by Arthur Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research, OISM describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
....
It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls.
...
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet. "As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere," the paper stated. "This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
...
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.
...
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
...
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2372295 - 02/23/04 04:02 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

As it happens, I agree with you.

In actual fact, there are very few climatologists on the earth. There are certainly nowhere near 17,000. The climatologists (and solar scientists and to an extent paleogeologists) obviously would be the ones in the best position to assess the data and try to come to a conclusion one way or the other.

The thing is, both sides love to trumpet these grandiose figures of how many agree with their position. This is of course not proof of anything. The number of adherents a particular theory has does not determine a theory's validity.

And climatologists are split on this question. I've seen arguments from climatologists on both sides of the issue. The famous "hockey stick" temperature graph has been discredited, as has the computer model simulation many were relying on, as has the "data" from satellite readings which purportedly showed a temperature increase over the last twenty years. On the other hand, CO2 readings are higher today than they were a century ago, and the increased output from the sun as it goes through its cycles and metacycles has also been established.

As well, it is established fact that the earth's climate is not static over time, and has never been static -- with huge fluctuations occurring long before the emergence of industrial society or even for that matter of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Is climate change occurring? Almost certainly. Are man's activities altering it to any significant degree in one direction or another? The jury is still out.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2372343 - 02/23/04 04:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that many (perhaps even most) of those who signed that petition are not scientifically qualified to pass unbiased scientific judgment on the issue. But there is also no doubt in my mind that the same can be said of many (perhaps even most) of those who have signed petitions on the other side of the issue.

It's not something to be decided by majority vote. The fact remains that many of the arguments advanced in favor of the theory that human activity will significantly alter the rate of global temperature variation over time have been discredited -- from faulty data or insufficient data to faulty computer models to deliberate manipulation of data and unsupportable interpretations. Does this mean that all the arguments claiming this change are false? Nope. But it doesn't lead to a lot of confidence in the remaining claims floating around out there.

My point was not that manmade climate change is not occurring. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My point was that far too many people accept it as a fact. It is not a fact. At this point in time, it is nothing more than a theory, and an extremely controversial theory at that.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372386 - 02/23/04 04:21 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You seem to have good handle on this, pinky. Are you involved with any organizations or anything?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2372392 - 02/23/04 04:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The study you appear to be citing has been, in my opinion, thoroughly debunked in this article from PR Watch:

Nice job edame  :thumbup:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2372503 - 02/23/04 04:51 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Echo called you on your claim that there were as many reputable scientists disagreeing with global warming as there were agreeing. You provided this as an answer and called on him to provide a better figure. I was just pointing out that the basis for your answer seems to rest on a completely bogus 'study' that adheres to the same kind of bizarre logic seen at the start of this thread.

To quote an analogy I found on Metafilter:
We drive our cars for most of our lives. In our life time there is a near certain chance we will be involved in some kind of collision. Whether it's tagging a pole at the gas station, or a real high speed catastrophe, the only question is how bad of a collision will you have? If you want to make the assumption that you'll never see worse than hitting something going less than 5 mph that is your choice but are you going to want a car that is only prepared for that eventuality? Will you forgo seat belts, reinforced doors, airbags, crumple zones and every other safety device they've come up with for the worst case scenario? We are faced with the same dilemma now with global climate change


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Edited by Edame (02/23/04 04:51 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Edame]
    #2372749 - 02/23/04 06:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Last year, Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond referred approvingly to a 1998 petition, supposedly signed by 17,000 scientists, which questioned the evidence for global warming. It later emerged that the petition had been circulated by an obscure organisation based in a shed in the backwoods of Oregon and had nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences. Signatories allegedly included authorities on climate change such as Ginger Spice, a British pop star, and the doctors from M.A.S.H, a TV drama series.

In his letter in the February 10 paw on your December 2 cover story "Heating Up," Jay Lehr '57 reveals himself to be among those who have perpetuated an unrelenting seven-year campaign of deception and misinformation aimed at the science of global warming. Lehr is the president of Environmental Education Enterprises, an organization listed as a useful anti-environmentalist resource by such ultraconservative groups as the Heartland Institute of Chicago, and the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. Lehr cites a petition, circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and allegedly signed by 17,000 "scientists" which urges rejection of the Kyoto treaty. But very few climate scientists were among the signatories, who included Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls, Dr. B.J. Hunnicut of Mash, Michael J. Fox and James Brown, the only apparent criterion for being counted as a "scientist" was a bachelor's degree in any sort of science. As for the Oregon Institute, it is a conservative think tank, not an institution of scientific research. (Its previous work has dealt primarily with advocacy for home schooling and civil defense.)
Recent articles in two of the most scientifically reputable journals, Nature and Science, not only confirm that global warming is a real and present danger, but suggest it may be happening faster than was ever expected.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2372894 - 02/23/04 06:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

you act as if you are an authority on science



I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2372897 - 02/23/04 06:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Luvdemshrooms's post was a shambles of misrepresentation and sloppy reasoning



So you can back that up with overwhelmingly convincing evidence or will it just be evidence that supports your beliefs?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2373289 - 02/23/04 09:01 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

you act as if you are an authority on science



I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV.



I was referring to echovortex in my post :tongue:


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2373339 - 02/23/04 09:18 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

OK, but I still stand by my claim.

:wink:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2373759 - 02/23/04 11:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I agree with your claim, 100%, even if sources may be biased, that doesnt mean that they are innacurate


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Phred]
    #2374107 - 02/24/04 01:22 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You're right that it is not a proven fact, but that said there is more evidence in favor of it than against it.

The scientists who believe that man-made climate change is highly likely do not sign petitions. They write articles for peer-reviewed journals.

The following endorse the theory that human activity is bringing about climate change:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The National Academy of Sciences
The US Environmental Protection Agency
The US NOAA
The Union of Concerned Scientists
. . . among others.

I am not aware of any similar, legitimate (unlike the petition you mentioned) scientific bodies that publicly endorse the view that man-made climate change is not a reality. Even Bjorn Lomborg, author of the controversial "The Skeptical Environmentalist" now admits that man-made climate change is a reality, although he has questions about the long-term effectiveness (cost and environmental) of various emissions control proposals.

So your contention that reputable scientific opinion about the reality of man-made climate change is somehow split down the middle or up in the air is not quite accurate. Most reputable scientific opinion accepts man-made climate change as a reality.

What is still up in the air is whether the effects of this are going to be mild, extreme, or catastrophic, whether anything but the most drastic emissions controls will have any noticable effect on outcomes, whether proposed emissions controls will be cost-effective or not, and other such questions that have a direct bearing on what policy measures should be taken in relation to the phenomenon.

Essentially the problem has less to do with the science of the issue (climate science is one of the most complex fields there is--if it is impossible to forecast the weather two days in advance, of course it will be impossible to forecast cllimate change 50 or 100 years in advance with any certainty) and more to do with risk management.

How much of a response is warranted by catastrophic outcomes that have uncertain probabalities?

Some people would argue that if the probability is uncertain, NO response is warranted, especially if the cost is high.

Other people would argue that if a tangible probability exists, a potentially catastrophic outcome demands vigorous prophylactic measures, even expensive ones, because so much is at stake and the cost will be orders of magnitude higher if that outcome becomes a reality.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2374120 - 02/24/04 01:27 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

Luvdemshrooms's post was a shambles of misrepresentation and sloppy reasoning



So you can back that up with overwhelmingly convincing evidence or will it just be evidence that supports your beliefs?




You haven't been following your own thread, have you?

I've already shown how the NewsMax article misrepresented the Princeton/Columbia/NOAA study.

I (and others) have already demolished the nonsense from Peter Huber in the article.

You, on the other hand, have been sitting on your ass calling people closed-minded because they don't unquestioningly swallow the crap you posted. Yeah, sorry, I am closed-minded when it comes to moronic garbage and lies. Just a habit I can't shake.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2374214 - 02/24/04 02:09 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I am not aware of any similar, legitimate (unlike the petition you mentioned) scientific bodies that publicly endorse the view that man-made climate change is not a reality.

Hang on Echo...the neocons have got Ginger Spice, James Brown..and a guy from MASH on their side remember...:smile2:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2374734 - 02/24/04 05:38 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

You haven't been following your own thread, have you?


I've been following.


Quote:

I (and others) have already demolished the nonsense from Peter Huber in the article.



I'm sure that as a legend in your own mind, you probably think you have. I have seen no demolishing.


Quote:

You, on the other hand, have been sitting on your ass calling people closed-minded



Strikes me as accurate when referring to someone who seems to think they have all the answers.


Quote:

because they don't unquestioningly swallow the crap you posted.



No-one asked nor claimed anyone should swallow anything. It was posted to show that not all agree with the doom and gloomers and to provoke discussion. Judging by the numbers of views and responses... it did just that.

As there is no overwhelming scientific consensus, there is still lots to talk about.

Unless of course, like yours, the minds are made up.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2374970 - 02/24/04 08:45 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Well said, Echo.
Yeah, the biggest thing I run into when talking about this are people who want some form of concrete evidence and prediction. And I try to explain to them that this is essentially impossible. The Japanese have the world's most powerful computer proccessing world climate data and, as far as I've heard, it's doing a crappy job. Because there are no assured predictions, and the weather's fine now, people assume that it's not an urgent issue. So I try to explain to them that while there isn't going to be some apocalyptic climate change in the next few decades, such change deosn't just happen over night. The entire system is based on tipping points. These tipping points can affect climate hundreds of years down the road. So that's where our concerns need to be. Everyone should educate themselves and promote further research.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2375205 - 02/24/04 10:52 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Yes, here they come again!

Content-free posts!

Ranting, raving, name-calling, unsubstantiated assertions, and mindless repetition in place of sustained argument, analysis, or evidence.

I always suspected that you were actually the beta version of an artificial intelligence program, and I see I've been proven right.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2375260 - 02/24/04 11:13 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I know what you mean.

Tipping points, discontinuities, attractor points, emergent properties--basically any kind of reasoning and analysis that strays from a purely linear model seems alien and weird to the average person. In fact people who accept non-linear models and those who only accept linear models might as well be speaking different languages. Their fundamental assumptions are completely different so of course it will be difficult to find agreement.

The problem facing educators is that so many people have trouble mastering even the foundational linear models that incorporating non-linear subjects such as chaos theory into the curriculum seems like a far-off dream.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2375355 - 02/24/04 11:38 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Ranting, raving, name-calling, unsubstantiated assertions, and mindless repetition in place of sustained argument, analysis, or evidence.

I can't think who you mean  :smile2:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2376796 - 02/25/04 07:24 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

:lol:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Xlea321]
    #2376797 - 02/25/04 07:24 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

:lol: :lol:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblethescientist
Registered: 03/10/02
Posts: 804
Loc: Dade County
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2377441 - 02/26/04 12:13 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

forests only act as a carbon sink in the early stages of growth after a massive disturbance event, such as fire or harvesting. As a forest ages a large proportion of the biomass accumulates in the upper trophic levels of the ecosystem. These sources include fungi, bacteria, and animals. All of which release CO2 from respiration.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,096
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: thescientist]
    #2377672 - 02/26/04 01:48 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The obvious answer if to cut down all the trees and shellack them to prevent decomposition.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2379663 - 02/26/04 02:44 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I find it odd that no one has considered the fact that water vapor and clouds are the primary contributors to the "greenhouse effect" take an environmental chemistry class and you will learn all about it. Water vapor and clouds account for anywhere between 92-98% of the greenhouse effect, you do the math, subtract that number from 100% and see how much of the greenhouse effect may be attributed to greenhouse gases. The primary reason for this is that the density of water vapor increases by about a factor of a thousand between the surface of the earth and about 10km above the earth, and once again the major issue with global warming is water vapor. Dont forget that, in the upper troposphere, the wator vapor increases as temperature increases. The exact physics of this is not well understood at all, and current models neglect to factor in water vapor properly, which causes gross errors and exaggerations in calculations and predictions within the modeling systems.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2379809 - 02/26/04 03:28 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Well of course--if there were no water vapor and no greenhouse effect at all the global mean temperature would be -2 degrees Fahrenheit. Nobody is saying let's get rid of the greenhouse effect altogether.

Atmospheric water vapor is also increasing, partly because of human activity (methane emissions) and partly for reasons that are apparently unclear to scientists.

I would imagine that improvements are being made all the time in terms of incorporating water vapor into climate models, although of course none of the models is perfect. What is the source of your claim that "current models neglect to factor in water vapor properly"?

Here's an interesting article on rising water vapor levels:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688.html


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2379985 - 02/26/04 04:27 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Do a search on work done by Richard S. Lindzen, he is a meteorology professor at MIT. His work explains a lot. Show me one model that incorporates water vapor into its model not using an arbitrary value, and I will shut my mouth. Every thing I have looked at has either not factored in water vapor, or set an arbitrary value for water vapor.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2380498 - 02/26/04 06:59 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I've got a hunch that some of the rising water vapor in the atmosphere may be tied to the hundreds of billions of gallons of water melting off the ice caps every year. Could be wrong though.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2380580 - 02/26/04 07:32 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

edit, added last comment
Quote:

Gijith said:
I've got a hunch that some of the rising water vapor in the atmosphere may be tied to the hundreds of billions of gallons of water melting off the ice caps every year. Could be wrong though.




Why do you think that the ice caps are melting?? THe artic ocean is currently frozen over right? right. Obviously this prevents evaporation which under normal circumstances would go off into the atmosphere and come back as snow, revitalizing the ice caps. Over time the water does not evaporate, it simply falls back onto the water and freezes there, causing a decrease in size of the ice caps. Also if the temperature was rising, the ice caps would melt and then there would be enough water from evaporation to replenish the ice caps.


--------------------
.


Edited by blacksabbathrulz (02/26/04 07:49 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2380668 - 02/26/04 08:07 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Really, man. I don't want to insult anyone in this forum, but GO READ A BOOK ON GLACIAL GEOLOGY!!!! Almost 100 percent of what you just said is complete fiction. Here, I'll reccomend one I just finished: Glacial Geomorphology and Geology, by I Peter Martini, Michael E Brookfield and Steven Sadura. It's about 350 pages and has lots of pictures. Pretty boring though.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2381003 - 02/26/04 10:05 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I have read books pertaining to the topic, however I don't mean to insult anyone, but some people just don't know how to properly interpret science. I would recommend reading Weather Machine-How our weather works and why it is changing it's by Nigel Calder.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: Gijith]
    #2381007 - 02/26/04 10:06 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Really, man. I don't want to insult anyone in this forum, but GO READ A BOOK ON GLACIAL GEOLOGY!!!! Almost 100 percent of what you just said is complete fiction. Here, I'll reccomend one I just finished: Glacial Geomorphology and Geology, by I Peter Martini, Michael E Brookfield and Steven Sadura. It's about 350 pages and has lots of pictures. Pretty boring though.




I would like you to prove that what I said is fiction. I would be amazed if you could, as you would singlehandly prove to me, that you are the smartest man alive.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: A look at global warming. [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2381784 - 02/27/04 03:07 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:
I have read books pertaining to the topic, however I don't mean to insult anyone, but some people just don't know how to properly interpret science. I would recommend reading Weather Machine-How our weather works and why it is changing it's by Nigel Calder.




Dude, I checked that book on Amazon--it's 30 years old!

Nigel Calder is not a geologist or meteorologist. He's a popular science writer and broadcaster who has written books on everything from comets to diesel boat repair.

The book that Gijith recommended is a university textbook written by specialists and published in 2001.

First rule: don't question others' ability to interpret science when your idea of science is a watered-down summary that is thirty years out of date.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate, Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Amazon Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,314 86 06/10/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 4,307 75 05/04/03 10:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,149 37 07/18/03 08:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 922 17 11/01/03 04:44 PM
by d33p
* Project for New American Century - global military dominance
( 1 2 all )
enotake2 3,396 30 02/21/04 09:07 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* Asa "globalization of drug war" Hutchinson MOoKie 2,548 6 05/13/01 06:18 AM
by MokshaMan
* Global Elite-Conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 all )
TrueBrode 4,964 62 01/17/04 05:53 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Globalization in a nutshell. GernBlanston 569 5 09/18/03 07:47 PM
by GernBlanston

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,613 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.08 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 12 queries.