For the global warming denial crowd

[Sea Demon]

2007 cools.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm

This goes against the grain......doesn't it.

Originally Posted by moose1am

It's about the money.

But I think we are looking at it from the wrong angle. We can save a lot of money by going away from fossil fuels in the future.

The real problem as I see it is who's going to pay or loose money when we start to eliminate carbon based fuels from our economy.

The big looser will be the oil companies and the coal companies who stand to loose Trillions of dollars. They are the ones that have more to loose than anyone else.!

Who do think makeup those oil and coal companies? People, ordinary folks who are trying to make a living and support their families. Whenever I hear or read about the big companies being evil I get a shiver. What will we do with all those displaced workers when we dump the oil and coal industries? If you think the ME is unstable now how chaotic do you think it will become without the sale of their only natural resource.

The cost will be far more than the downfall of 'the great satan'.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Ah. There you are. Of course, you're twisting the argument again. And not very skillfully either. This ain't about fighting pollution. That's something we can all agree on. Less pollution and cleaner energy is good. But the drastric changes in kyoto, the exemptions for some in climate agreements, the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm. And the total remanufacturing of entire sectors of the economies of the world to effect new changes could be drastic and harmful if done incorrectly and poorly planned. If you can't see how, that's your problem.

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted you verbatim, twice in fact, and took what you said at face value. The countries exempted (China, India)is until 2012 because they are concidered third world in industry. It's better to exempt for some years than them say they aren't going to adhere at all. We can't threaten to invade if they don't comply. For us to use country exemption as a reason to ignore greenhouse gases is absurd to the Nth degree. We don't agree so we aren't going to do anything? Thats uttter BS. To say let industry regulate themselves is absurd. They won't spend a penny unless they have to and they haven't. If the protocol is deemed too expensive, fine make your own plan with realistic goals. We have done nothing whatsoever since Bush to cut greenhouse gases. Political stupidity. Johnny won't play right now so we won't either at all! Yeah, thats beginning to fix the problem.

2007 cools.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm
This goes against the grain......doesn't it.

No, it doesn't. Read past the first two words of the title.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm.

I don't see how filtering greenhouse gases can harm and nobody has said we should drop all petroleum products within such and such years. Filter, clean up and research would be the way to go. We aren't doing squat.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I don't see how filtering greenhouse gases can harm and nobody has said we should drop all petroleum products within such and such years. Filter, clean up and research would be the way to go. We aren't doing squat.

Since we aren't doing squat we might as well abolish the EPA.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted you verbatim, twice in fact, and took what you said at face value. The countries exempted (China, India)is until 2012 because they are concidered third world in industry. It's better to exempt for some years than them say they aren't going to adhere at all. We can't threaten to invade if they don't comply. For us to use country exemption as a reason to ignore greenhouse gases is absurd to the Nth degree. We don't agree so we aren't going to do anything? Thats uttter BS. To say let industry regulate themselves is absurd. They won't spend a penny unless they have to and they haven't. If the protocol is deemed too expensive, fine make your own plan with realistic goals. We have done nothing whatsoever since Bush to cut greenhouse gases. Political stupidity. Johnny won't play right now so we won't either at all! Yeah, thats beginning to fix the problem.

No, it doesn't. Read past the first two words of the title.

You haven't taken anything verbatim. You have taken things I've said, and assigned your own meaning to it, to try and make a weak case. That you've done successfully. I really don't think you understand the article as presented. Nor does it look like you understand what trends are, and how forecasts are made. And the significance of a reversal of a trend. Especially where one was not expected. It doesn't bode well for you if you're trying to sell man-made global warming. We are not getting the warming that was expected. In fact, it is cooler. And these people that do the presenting of this data, can't figure out where we are. And it's no surprise.

And yes, the exemptions are ridiculous. China is building more and more coal burning and other pollution heavy manufacturing plants. Why not start them from scratch. This is why I say, you don't understand the associated costs, and seem to have the mindset for poor planning. Many in the man-made global warming movement have the same one dimensional thinking and myopic viewpoints regarding the impacts of what they want. India does not do any better. So, according to you, we let them build their dirty industries then destroy them over time. How much time? What impacts to the pollution totals will that add to. Your explanation is ardently ludicrous, and completely illogical if you believe the things you do. But this is not the only reason we ignore Kyoto. Kyoto and other climate agreements are ridiculous for other reasons as well. Cleaner and better technologies are on the way. We are doing something. But it's not the radical and draconian "burn down the barn" way that you warming cultists want. I am glad to see you coming around though. At least you seem to admit in your last post here that we cannot get by without fossil fuel consumption. And we won't for a long time to come. Maybe you realized from the other thread that you burn it, you use it, you need groceries, you want a computer, you drive a car, and you're willing to face facts somewhat. I don't see any harm in reducing pollutants either. But you need to give the alarmism a rest. It just ain't catchin' on.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Since we aren't doing squat we might as well abolish the EPA.

Amen to that!

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You haven't taken anything verbatim. You have taken things
I've said, and assigned your own meaning to it, to try and make a weak case.

Statement 1: The actions they want us to take may actually cause many
unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account.
Statement 2: And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions"
would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix.
How can I assign a meaning to make a case on these? It's you making these
odd comments. If thats not what you are saying then why say it? Just to hear
yourself?

I really don't think you understand the article as presented. Nor
does it look like you understand what trends are, and how forecasts are
made. And the significance of a reversal of a trend. Especially where one
was not expected.

You don't understand past the first two words of the title. Forget about
presentation. I'll settle for you reading the first sentence.

This year is set to be the sixth warmest since records began 150
years ago, cooler than earlier predicted which means a slight respite for
European ski resorts or bears trying to hibernate. "2007 will likely be near
equal with 2006, so joint sixth warmest year," .......................
Jones predicted that 2007 would be beaten by 1998, warmest ahead of 2005,
2003, 2002 and 2004. The U.S. space agency NASA says that 2005 was
fractionally warmer than 1998.............................Eleven of the 12
years from 1995 to 2006 were among the 12 warmest years on record, it says.

Where do you get a reversal in trend from that? What, if each consecutive
year isn't hotter then the last it is a reversal in trend? How many millions
of years old is Earth? That one year can mark a reversal? Please try to
think a little harder.

And yes, the exemptions are ridiculous. China is building more and
more coal burning and other pollution heavy manufacturing plants. Why not
start them from scratch. This is why I say, you don't understand the
associated costs, and seem to have the mindset for poor planning.

And how would we force them? Lets hear a solution. I'm not idiotic enough to
think we can force them. Associated costs? Go to Beijing, talk to them about associated costs, planning and what, threaten to invade? Get a grip on reality.

So, according to you, we let them build their dirty industries then
destroy them over time. How much time? What impacts to the pollution totals will that add to. Your explanation is ardently ludicrous, and completely illogical if you believe the things you do.

No. It's according to the UN, China and India. Again, how are you going to
make them? I gave no explanation I gave you the facts as they are. I have
zip power over the U.N., China nor India. I'm flattered that you think I do.
So according to you simple logic that gives the U.S. reason to disregard
controlling our own emissions? Sounds like the logic of a K grader.

But this is not the only reason we ignore Kyoto. Kyoto and other
climate agreements are ridiculous for other reasons as well. Cleaner and
better technologies are on the way.

What other reasons? OK this is your chance to teach me something. What cleaner and better technologies are on the way? That gives us the excuse to disregard our responsibilities until these technologies hit the street? I think not. Thats a juvenile line of thought.

I am glad to see you coming around though. At least you seem to admit in your last post here that we cannot get by without fossil fuel
consumption.

I haven't read anything where anybody says we can get by without fossil
fuels on this list or the news networks. Thats your imagination overworking
again. What I have written is that alternatives have to be found. I don't think I attached a complete by 2008 date or anything.

Maybe you realized from the other thread that you burn it, you use
it, you need groceries, you want a computer, you drive a car, and you're
willing to face facts somewhat.

One of the main problems with your kind of logic is that you can't see past
"You are all black or you are all white" Your simple reasoning can't get past if you are green you should drive a mule and generate power by squirrels on treadmills or something stupid like that. I can only shake my head.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Since we aren't doing squat we might as well abolish the EPA.

They enforce the laws. The EPA doesn't have the power for those decisions. That power comes from the capital.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

You don't understand past the first two words of the title. Forget about
presentation. I'll settle for you reading the first sentence....
Where do you get a reversal in trend from that? What, if each consecutive
year isn't hotter then the last it is a reversal in trend? How many millions
of years old is Earth? That one year can mark a reversal? Please try to
think a little harder.

Where do you get that it means thermal runaway. If anything, it shows that there is variation in temperature that is seemingly impossible to predict. And yes, it is a reversal of what many in that movement say. In that global temperature rise is directly related in magnitude to C02 emissions, and is cumulative. This article goes against that grain. You still do not understand the implications of what they reported. And just because there have been recent warmer years, doesn't mean it will increase that way to infinitum. Year 2007 shows that. Unfortunately, you are too dense to see it. You want to be told we're going to die, and nobody's going to get in your way of creating a mindset of doom for yourself or give you hope in anyway. Facts be damned. That is crazy. The article doesn't say anything that supports your "man-made global warming...we're all going to die" positions...although I admit, you can twist it that way as you seem to do. But it clearly shows that these people cannot trend, track, forecast what things will be like in 20 years or more out. And the people of 35 years ago who thought we were all going to freeze to death made all the same mistakes. If you wish to be gullible and accept their gloom and doom without question or reason...feel free.

No. It's according to the UN, China and India. Again, how are you going to
make them? I gave no explanation I gave you the facts as they are. I have
zip power over the U.N., China nor India. I'm flattered that you think I do.
So according to you simple logic that gives the U.S. reason to disregard
controlling our own emissions? Sounds like the logic of a K grader.

That's the rub isn't it. The UN and climate agreements in general basically say that they're exempt from the get go. They do not even address the point. And that makes me wonder why it's necessary in the first place. If they won't participate fully, then screw the agreements. We should go about our own business in this matter, which is what we're doing now. We did the right thing by ignoring Kyoto. It wasn't my logic to say we should control or not control our emissions based on what China does. But if they build agreements which punish us, while at the same time letting other nations with huge pollution problems and a large manufacturing capacity get away with murder, then yes, we should not enter into that harmful agreement. Seems you don't care much about the USA and it's own interests when entering into agreements. And you have absolutely no power over the unelected, unaccountable UN. It's a shame that too many people put so much faith in that corrupt organization and their agreements to begin with.

I haven't read anything where anybody says we can get by without fossil
fuels on this list or the news networks. Thats your imagination overworking
again. What I have written is that alternatives have to be found. I don't think I attached a complete by 2008 date or anything.

Well I'm glad to see you say that. Congratulations. Finally. I've been trying to get you to admit this for two threads and you finally got here.

One of the main problems with your kind of logic is that you can't see past
"You are all black or you are all white" Your simple reasoning can't get past if you are green you should drive a mule and generate power by squirrels on treadmills or something stupid like that. I can only shake my head.

OK. Then one must ask why all the noise by those in the man-made global warming movement? I mean, if cars are the problem, do you advocate that we stop driving? If not, why? They pollute, right? And there are millions on the road, right? So not driving so much maybe? Who would enforce that and how? What about jet aircraft? Shall we mandate that people travel less? Give everybody a Soviet style travel voucher of sorts? Should everyone be forced to dump their current automobiles and buy hybrids? What logic do you have? Other than your generic "we need to seek alternatives"? What alternatives? Nuclear plants? Geothermal? Solar cells across every major city? Who will pay for all this stuff? What if there are problems implementing the stuff? How will we scrap the old stuff? Won't the manufacture of all this new alternative technology create tons of more emissions? If done as quick as many in the warming movement want, it's quite obvious it will. You talk of timeframes. Are you looking at 50 - 100 years to change and transition to a fully renewable society? 20 years? 10 years? 5? The problem is, you can't see some of the progress that has been made, because you are one of these alarmists. It's all or nothing for you. And you simply cannot see it.

[Sea Demon]

post deleted

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You still do not understand the implications of what they reported. And just because there have been recent warmer years, doesn't mean it will increase that way to infinitum.

The only thing I can tell you is reread the article and at least try to comprehend what it says. You have a bad habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignore everything else. If it's too hard for you I'll try and make it simple enough for even you to hopefully understand.

If they won't participate fully, then screw the agreements. We should go about our own business in this matter, which is what we're doing now.

Oh thats a real adult way of dealing with it.

But if they build agreements which punish us, while at the same time letting other nations with huge pollution problems and a large manufacturing capacity get away with murder, then yes, we should not enter into that harmful agreement.

We don't have to go by that agreement. Their is absoulutely nothing that stops us from using a formula that suits the U.S.. We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?

Seems you don't care much about the USA and it's own interests when entering into agreements.

Let me say this for what the fourth time? Nothing stops the U.S. from designing its own program and implementing it. Stupidly putting our head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. Get over your Johnny won't play mentality and at least attempt to think like an adult. Because I'm not as ignorant as you I don't care for the U.S.? I don't think so. I believe in doing our bit.

OK. Then one must ask why all the noise by those in the man-made global warming movement? I mean, if cars are the problem, do you advocate that we stop driving? If not, why? They pollute, right? And there are millions on the road, right? So not driving so much maybe? Who would enforce that and how? What about jet aircraft? Shall we mandate that people travel less? Give everybody a Soviet style travel voucher of sorts? Should everyone be forced to dump their current automobiles and buy hybrids? What logic do you have? Other than your generic "we need to seek alternatives"? What alternatives? Nuclear plants? Geothermal? Solar cells across every major city? Who will pay for all this stuff?

When at a loss revert to stupid comments huh.

[August]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?

Wait a second Brad. Maybe we haven't done much in the last seven years but in the 40 years prior to that we did an awful lot. We've instituted hundreds of anti pollution schemes from catalytic convertors to restricting industrial smokestack emissions and wastewater and we did it long before anyone even heard of global warming.

So saying we've done "zip, nothing and nada" is a bit misleading dontcha think?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

The only thing I can tell you is reread the article and at least try to comprehend what it says. You have a bad habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignore everything else. If it's too hard for you I'll try and make it simple enough for even you to hopefully understand.

Don't need to. You obviously misunderstand why I posted the article. And what the significance is. The man-made warming cult is shown to be completely wrong in it when they have been saying for years now that warming is directly increasing with the magnitude of C02 emissions and the cumulative aspects of it. And 2007 proved that wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if 2008 has another surprise for them. This is a cooler year and it wasn't supposed to be. Kind of like the "hurricanes increase with global warming" nonsense that was proven erroneous for the past two years. The funny thing is you only like the parsed parts that say what you like, but those ignore the main point. These other parts of the article of course try to explain it away without trying to lose credibility. And it doesn't work. Unless you're gullible that is. At some point even you have to open your eyes and put everything in focus.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Oh thats a real adult way of dealing with it.

No. That's the realistic way of dealing with it. We should not allow an unelected body design an agreement which punishes us, while at the same time allowing a free for all for those who are major polluters on the other end of the spectrum. That's just common sense and looking out for one's own interests. It's not my fault if you have no love, patriotism, common sense, or feeling of national survival in your heart.

We don't have to go by that agreement. Their is absoulutely nothing that stops us from using a formula that suits the U.S.. We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?

I got news for you brad. China isn't going to play even after 2012. Nor is India or Russia for that matter. You are foolish if you think they will. And we are already going by our own agreement. And have blown Kyoto out of the water. And that's the good news. But, we have done much as August pointed out. You refuse to see any of it. You completely cover your eyes to it like a small child throwing a temper tantrum because nobody listens to you. The only juvenile here is you.

Let me say this for what the fourth time? Nothing stops the U.S. from designing its own program and implementing it. Stupidly putting our head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. Get over your Johnny won't play mentality and at least attempt to think like an adult. Because I'm not as ignorant as you I don't care for the U.S.? I don't think so. I believe in doing our bit.

We are doing as much as we can. But we are not going to destroy ourselves implementing a rash series of things that if poorly planned or implemented too quickly could have adverse consequences. This is why I'm glad you have zero power here. And nobody is really listening to you. As we go into the future, there will be more hybrid automobiles on the road, there will be cleaner ways to produce energy in our homes, and we will find better ways to renew our raw materials. Those things are happening now. But we are doing it at a pace that will not be harmful. We need to test these methods. What are they're drawbacks? Over time, do we see breakdowns? How are we going to fund it? Are there other adverse aspects that may come about by using these methods? etc. etc. etc. Anybody with any credentialing of any kind should know better. That's why I question the motives of many in the warming movement that claim to be experts.

When at a loss revert to stupid comments huh.

Uh. No. Those are questions. And you are afraid of questions, obviously. And you always run away from such questions. And it's no surprise. Like when I asked about you directly in the other thread. And what you do other than sit around here and complain all day. What do you do for the movement? Directly? Do you drive less? Have you abandoned unecessary driving altogether? Have you bought a hybrid? Do you try to grow some of your own food? Do you take the bus? Have you abandoned air travel unless absolutely necessary? Do you avoid completely Target and Walmart? Do you limit your computer usage? Really easy stuff here. If you believe so much in this stuff, these actions would seem quite necessary. Are you nothing but "doom and gloom" around your kids/grandkids? Or do you provide them any hope? Do you even let them know there is a future? Or do you just push doomsday on them? How miserable for them if you do. You defaulted on many other questions I had in the other thread that shows your total inconsistencies. Like I said before, questions are not stupid. Of course you say they are, because you don't want to answer them. Yet, they are very relevant in scope here. And the fact that you seem to have such an irrational fear of them says alot.

[Jimbuna]