Is global warming alarmism overdone?

[crb]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

This is the speech, with graphics, of a recent speech given by one of the top atmospheric physicists in the world, a professor at MIT.

Really, pretty good, he explains alarmism as science in the service of politics.



The claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a
greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have contributed
to warming, are trivially true and essentially meaningless in
terms of alarm.

Think of this next time you're tempted to buy carbon credits from Al Gore.


Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’
Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition.
Current global warming alarm hardly represents a
plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and
escalation of claims does not make it more plausible.
Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over
20 years makes the case even less plausible as does
the evidence from climategate and other instances of
overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for
tenths of a degree change in globally averaged
temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that
unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the
horizon though in several thousand years we may
return to an ice age.

[azim17]

I understand that both sides have experts, but I have always wondered why people in general arent willing to err on the side of caution on this one. It seems like if the side of global warming turns out to be correct...we are all fucked. If it turns out not to be true...are we any worse off in the big picture? It just seems like in life the safe play is to cover your ass on the worst case scenario. Before anyone gets too snarky, I am really wondering and have wanted to know the answer to this for a long time.

[Parkbandit]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

This is the speech, with graphics, of a recent speech given by one of the top atmospheric physicists in the world, a professor at MIT.

Really, pretty good, he explains alarmism as science in the service of politics.

Think of this next time you're tempted to buy carbon credits from Al Gore.

BUT IT'S SO WARM THIS WINTER!!!

[Parkbandit]

I understand that both sides have experts, but I have always wondered why people in general arent willing to err on the side of caution on this one. It seems like if the side of global warming turns out to be correct...we are all fucked. If it turns out not to be true...are we any worse off in the big picture? It just seems like in life the safe play is to cover your ass on the worst case scenario. Before anyone gets too snarky, I am really wondering and have wanted to know the answer to this for a long time.

How much wealth do you think will be required to stop global warming?

[azim17]

Yeah, I mean i understand there is opportunity costs with any large spending decision. On top of it, if it happens to be real (which I honestly have no fucking idea) it is a global issue, certainly not a local/US one. But lets be honest, government wastes insane amount of money each decade on old/unused military bases, star wars type projects that eventually end up in the scrap heap, etc. Im certainly not advocating stopping manufacturing or some nonsense, Im more curious why everyone cant agree that this could be a mother fucker or an issue if it turns out to be real. And lets face it, none of us are experts...10 guys say it is, 10 guys say it isnt. And for what its worth, dont turn this into a left/right issue. I think the fact that the environment is politicized at all is odd and not in the spirit of benefiting the US as a whole...which really is the end goal here.

[azim17]

and for the record, when people say...wow its a warm winter, global warming must be real...I want to punch them in the face.

[poloneus]

I understand that both sides have experts, but I have always wondered why people in general arent willing to err on the side of caution on this one. It seems like if the side of global warming turns out to be correct...we are all fucked.

We're not fucked. Our grandchildren maybe. Or for some of you old bastards, your great-grandchildren. Kinda wish they'd speed it up. I'd like my home to become beachfront. Might be the only thing to save my property value.

[4a6c1]

Hello welcome to 6th grade Biology class, week 2. Today we will be discussing the carbon cycle. Cut to the chase the bell's about to ring. Well okay. Human beings release an additional 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year via industrialized fossil fuels consumption. This will not ruin the planet tomorrow but it will have permanent effects if we do not change our behavior. Okay next week we will discuss photosynthesis. Which luckily has not yet been declared a myth because AS FAR AS WE KNOW plants stealing sunlight from the air does not harm big business. Yet.

[Jarvan]

I understand that both sides have experts, but I have always wondered why people in general arent willing to err on the side of caution on this one. It seems like if the side of global warming turns out to be correct...we are all fucked. If it turns out not to be true...are we any worse off in the big picture? It just seems like in life the safe play is to cover your ass on the worst case scenario. Before anyone gets too snarky, I am really wondering and have wanted to know the answer to this for a long time.



It's pretty simple. The only -Fix- As it were, would be to permanently and immediately return to pre-industrial civilization. Not to mention a global agency with the authority to stamp out any "inventions" using fossil fuels.

Les look at it this way.. The USA mandates that all NEW cars have to get 50 MPG to a gallon by 2030, Ok, thats helpful. But thats new cars only. Also, it slows the issue, not stops it. Lets say they Mandate Only Electric cars made after 2030. Ok, that eliminates All future gas consumption, IF people all bought the cars. Unless they were free, I would say 50-75% of the country would not buy them till their car broke.

Now, they could simply make the price of gas 25$ a gallon, allot of people would switch then.

Now.. we also need to stop burning natural gas, oil, and coal to produce the electricity for homes AND cars now.

This is a great explanation of the following btw..

http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

But basically...

Energy Comparison
1 ton of coal = 6,182 KWH
1 barrel of oil = 1,699 KWH
1 cubic foot of gas = 0.3 KWH

Energy Costs
1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH
1 barrel of oil costs $70 = $0.05 per KWH
1 cubic foot of gas $0.008 = $0.03 per KWH

or our 5-KW solar energy system costing $45,000, the conversion to KWH is as follows:

5 KW times 90% = 4.5 KW – (Conversion of DC to AC power)
4.5 KW times 3.63 hours = 16 KWH per Day
16 KWH x 365 = 5,962 KWH – (Average Annual Output)
5,962 KWH x 20 years = 119,246 KWH – (Total output over 20 year lifespan)

So a $45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH. ($45,000 divided by 119,246 KWH)

So roughly.. you will pay 38x your current energy bills if we immediately eliminate fossil fuels. And thats if the Sun was out at night. Granted, almost all of that cost is upfront. But lets just do a rough estimate on that upfront cost..

Electricity consumption totaled nearly 3,884 billion Kilowatthours (kWh) in 2010.

That equates to roughly 776.8 Billion 5 KWH units ( I know the bigger the KWH or MWH the better cost effectiveness, but this is just an rough example )

That Equates to aprox 34,956,000,000,000,000 $ to build.

Granted, we spend money like it doesnt matter, but I don't think even We could spend 35 QUADRILLION dollars and not notice. Granted, this is just Solar example, we would be using wind, and nuclear, and hydro, etc etc..

None of them, other then Nuclear is cheap enough. And nuclear is NOT self sustainable.

Sadly.. until we have NEW technology ( as solar wind and hydro will never supply what we need, cheaper tech or not, we would have to cover the entire state of NM with solar panels to generate just what the US needs, then we would run into power transfer issues ) we can't STOP using fossil fuels.

We can be more responsible with the fuels we have, but do you think China, or India will? And the less fossil fuels we use, the more they will.

Also, I would like to mention, if I had the cash, I'd buy a Tesla in a heart beat. One smallish solar panel, and fuel is essentially free.


on a rather sinister note tho.. People arn't causing the Earth to warm, it's the Freaking SUN! I say we block it out, or blow it up.

[Ceyrin]

How much wealth do you think will be required to stop global warming?

Can you put a dollar figure on the planet?

The short answer to your question is: All of it.

[Fallen]

I just love the argument of, "We can't fix the problem entirely so any attempts to do so are pointless."

[Liagala]

It's pretty simple. The only -Fix- As it were, would be to permanently and immediately return to pre-industrial civilization. Not to mention a global agency with the authority to stamp out any "inventions" using fossil fuels.
Or to find an alternative source of energy to power all these "inventions." Like, I don't know, solar. Geothermal. Wind. Water. Magnets (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lutec). (how do they work?) Whatever else will do the trick. Even if you don't buy into global warming, you have to admit that we're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later. It may be your grandchildren's grandchildren dealing with it, but someone's going to have to.


Les look at it this way.. The USA mandates that all NEW cars have to get 50 MPG to a gallon by 2030, Ok, thats helpful. But thats new cars only. Also, it slows the issue, not stops it. Lets say they Mandate Only Electric cars made after 2030. Ok, that eliminates All future gas consumption, IF people all bought the cars. Unless they were free, I would say 50-75% of the country would not buy them till their car broke.
The point of a mandate making all new cars 50 MPG by 2030 isn't to have all cars at that level by 2030. It's to have them all at that level by 2050. They know full well people are going to keep their old car until it breaks, then sell it to a used car lot who will in turn sell it to some other dude who jury-rigs the thing and gets another 7 years out of it, etc.

[Warriorbird]

Only as much as anti "global warming" alarmism is.

[Jarvan]

Or to find an alternative source of energy to power all these "inventions." Like, I don't know, solar. Geothermal. Wind. Water. Magnets (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lutec). (how do they work?) Whatever else will do the trick. Even if you don't buy into global warming, you have to admit that we're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later. It may be your grandchildren's grandchildren dealing with it, but someone's going to have to.


The point of a mandate making all new cars 50 MPG by 2030 isn't to have all cars at that level by 2030. It's to have them all at that level by 2050. They know full well people are going to keep their old car until it breaks, then sell it to a used car lot who will in turn sell it to some other dude who jury-rigs the thing and gets another 7 years out of it, etc.

If you bothered to read any of my post you will see that using current alternatives to replace fossil fuels is impossible. We could replace more of it, it's true, but not economically we couldn't. Talk about a deficit, the government would have to pay for it all, since the companies wouldn't as they would lose money.

And I understand the point of a Mandate, the problem is it doesnt really do anything to fix the problem. After all, the Mandate is only for the US, it's not for the World.

[Drew]

I understand that both sides have experts, but I have always wondered why people in general arent willing to err on the side of caution on this one. It seems like if the side of global warming turns out to be correct...we are all fucked. If it turns out not to be true...are we any worse off in the big picture? It just seems like in life the safe play is to cover your ass on the worst case scenario. Before anyone gets too snarky, I am really wondering and have wanted to know the answer to this for a long time.


Here's an interesting article that shows why trying to force the market to do what you want it to with green energy probably won't work (emphasis mine).



Germany's solar experiment collapses


By Bjørn Lomborg, Financial Post February 22, 2012



Germany once prided itself on being the "photovoltaic world champion," doling out generous subsidies - totalling more than US$130-billion, according to research from Germany's Ruhr University - to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany's Minister of Economics and Technology, has called the spiralling solar subsidies a "threat to the economy."

Germany's enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world's energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun's energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe's energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometres, about 2.6% of the Sahara Desert.

Unfortunately, Germany - like most of the world - is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.

In the words of the German Association of Physicists, "solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants." On short, overcast winter days, Germany's 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import con-siderable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. When the sun failed to shine last winter, one emergency backup plan powered up an Austrian oilfired plant to fill the supply gap.

Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3% of Germany's total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the "world wind-energy champion").

Germany's experiment with subsidizing inefficient solar technology has failed. As even many German officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat the same mistake.

http://www.canada.com/technology/Germany+solar+experiment+collapses/6189117/story.html

[Androidpk]

Who cares, within 20 years the US will be the largest energy producer in the world. :)

[Warriorbird]

If you bothered to read any of my post you will see that using current alternatives to replace fossil fuels is impossible. We could replace more of it, it's true, but not economically we couldn't. Talk about a deficit, the government would have to pay for it all, since the companies wouldn't as they would lose money.

And I understand the point of a Mandate, the problem is it doesnt really do anything to fix the problem. After all, the Mandate is only for the US, it's not for the World.

I believe in American exceptionalism. I also believe in Americans who "believe in American exceptionalism" but will decide that things just can't be done because it's easier.

[Jarvan]

I just love the argument of, "We can't fix the problem entirely so any attempts to do so are pointless."

I take it you use no Fossil Fuels in your life what so ever?

You walk to work barefoot, only eat foods you grow without chemicals, and Don't use Electricity at all, right?

After all, every little bit helps, so I am sure you are doing all you can.

[Warriorbird]

I take it you use no Fossil Fuels in your life what so ever?

You walk to work barefoot, only eat foods you grow without chemicals, and Don't use Electricity at all, right?

After all, every little bit helps, so I am sure you are doing all you can.

Way to slippery slope. In here pretending that Fallen is some wacko liberal, all Rocktar style.

[Drew]

I just love the argument of, "We can't fix the problem entirely so any attempts to do so are pointless."

Your argument presumes we aren't doing quite a bit to combat global warming right now. Our economy spends billions combating global warming every year, the question is should we have to do even more? How do you balance that?

[Jarvan]

I believe in American exceptionalism. I also believe in Americans who "believe in American exceptionalism" but will decide that things just can't be done because it's easier.

I also believe in it, and I believe that some day we will find the answer.

The problem is, we haven't found it yet, and claiming to have found the answer, only to be shown time and again that said answer is NOT the answer, doesn't work.

If all the alternative energies we have available were to solve our issue, we wouldn't HAVE an issue.

Infact, I firmly believe it will be an oil company that will discover the answer. They have the most at stake.

[Androidpk]

Infact, I firmly believe it will be an oil company that will discover the answer. They have the most at stake.

Only if peak oil is a reality.

[Jarvan]

Way to slippery slope. In here pretending that Fallen is some wacko liberal, all Rocktar style.

To me, his comment read just like a PETA person hating animal cruelty, while getting into their car with Real leather interior, wearing leather shoes, a leather belt, and a leather purse.

Or maybe like Al Gore flying in a private jet and a home that uses almost as much energy as a small school.

[Stanley Burrell]

Step 1) Start out with F1 batch of blue-green algae.

Everything else) Ridiculous manipulation, FU genetics. Just find some anomally where CO2 is being eaten up like a mofo. And growth is ridiculous.

III. Release into swimming pool, have flesh-eating hemmorhagic pneumonic eco-friendly plague consume the planet in a day and solve possible global whatever problems.

[Warriorbird]

Your argument presumes we aren't doing quite a bit to combat global warming right now. Our economy spends billions combating global warming every year, the question is should we have to do even more? How do you balance that?

The terrible irony here is this. Your party went to the edge just to try to stop an idea that actually reduces emissions and boosts the economy that was invented by your party, solely because of "Must not let Obama achieve anything evar."

[Jarvan]

Only if peak oil is a reality.

Even if it is not a reality, they still have the most at stake.

If Joe Schmoe finds an alternate source of power, thats clean and abundant, and replaces oil.. they are screwed.

Hence, Oil companies prob spend more then the US government trying to find it themselves, so they can continue to bilk us.

[Jarvan]

Step 1) Start out with F1 batch of blue-green algae.

Everything else) Ridiculous manipulation, FU genetics. Just find some anomally where CO2 is being eaten up like a mofo. And growth is ridiculous.

III. Release into swimming pool, have flesh-eating hemmorhagic pneumonic eco-friendly plague consume the planet in a day and solve possible global whatever problems.

it's Climate Change now. That way they can be right if the temp goes Up, or Down.

[ClydeR]

Deep thought. Is it possible to overdo alarmism?

[Stanley Burrell]

it's Climate Change now. That way they can be right if the temp goes Up, or Down.

Good, good. High-powered thermal charges on the lowest level of intel for a possible funnel cloud activity to create preventative tornado convection is also one of my cost-efficient ideas.

[Stanley Burrell]

Deep thought. Is it possible to overdo alarmism?

That depends on dispatch and the alarm code.

[Parkbandit]

I believe in American exceptionalism. I also believe in Americans who "believe in American exceptionalism" but will decide that things just can't be done because it's easier.

You know what.. I don't.

I do not believe that people born in the US are somehow smarter or more productive or better inventers than other people. I do believe that our government in the past has made it easier for us to produce/manufacture/invent things in the past.. but that time has long since passed.

I was at a gas station yesterday and talking to a guy who was pumping gas. We talked about the insulation industry (he works for a company that makes glass furnaces) and he was saying that more and more companies like his are simply picking up and moving to other countries that have far less red tape and far less taxation. He worked 20 years in Toledo (I guess that used to be the Glass Capital of the World?) but now he's moving to someplace in Russia to help open up a new plant.

We are making it harder and harder for companies to make things in this country. The days of "American Exceptionalism" is an idea that has long since passed.

[Parkbandit]

Even if it is not a reality, they still have the most at stake.

If Joe Schmoe finds an alternate source of power, thats clean and abundant, and replaces oil.. they are screwed.

Hence, Oil companies prob spend more then the US government trying to find it themselves, so they can continue to bilk us.

Exactly. Oil companies spend a shitton of R&D to find alternative energy sources.. because if they don't, someone else will.

[Parkbandit]

Way to slippery slope. In here pretending that Fallen is some wacko liberal, all Rocktar style.

I don't necessarily believe that if you believe in man made global warming, you are a liberal wacko. I think Jarvan is simply pointing out the hypocrisy in Fallen's statement... that unless Fallen is walking the talk, he's the problem as much as anything is.

[Warriorbird]

You know what.. I don't.

I do not believe that people born in the US are somehow smarter or more productive or better inventers than other people. I do believe that our government in the past has made it easier for us to produce/manufacture/invent things in the past.. but that time has long since passed.

I was at a gas station yesterday and talking to a guy who was pumping gas. We talked about the insulation industry (he works for a company that makes glass furnaces) and he was saying that more and more companies like his are simply picking up and moving to other countries that have far less red tape and far less taxation. He worked 20 years in Toledo (I guess that used to be the Glass Capital of the World?) but now he's moving to someplace in Russia to help open up a new plant.

We are making it harder and harder for companies to make things in this country. The days of "American Exceptionalism" is an idea that has long since passed.

Are you sure it's not just because they want to pay workers less?

[Parkbandit]

Are you sure it's not just because they want to pay workers less?

All companies want to save money.. but he was saying that it had nothing to do with paying employees.. it was about the government and all the red tape/taxes/expenses. OSHA compliance, EPA compliance, etc...

But then again. .this was a guy at a gas station making this claim.. so take it for what it's worth. He was looking forward to returning to Russia though.

[Warriorbird]

All companies want to save money.. but he was saying that it had nothing to do with paying employees.. it was about the government and all the red tape/taxes/expenses. OSHA compliance, EPA compliance, etc...

But then again. .this was a guy at a gas station making this claim.. so take it for what it's worth. He was looking forward to returning to Russia though.

I think globalization has ups as well as downs. It blows my mind that right now we can get juice to make wine cheaper shipping it in from overseas than from producers here.

[Parkbandit]

I think globalization has ups as well as downs. It blows my mind that right now we can get juice to make wine cheaper shipping it in from overseas than from producers here.

It's fucking nuts to be honest. Be it because of labor or taxation or regulation.. we're fucked in the long run.

[Ceyrin]

Only if peak oil is a reality.

No less a reality than peak bees.

[Ceyrin]

It's fucking nuts to be honest. Be it because of labor or taxation or regulation.. we're fucked in the long run.

I'm willing to lay the blame squarely on both of these things.

It's a little like the ouroboros.

[Buckwheet]

Everyone just needs a couple of these on their back porch.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Algae-Home-CO2-Scrubber-Part-1/

[4a6c1]

Hah! I've seen those! And an aquarium full of cyanobacteria can't hurt either.

[Stanley Burrell]

Everyone just needs a couple of these on their back porch.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Algae-Home-CO2-Scrubber-Part-1/

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit.

It's not as scientifically ruthless as my protocol. And about as diabolical as saltwater irrigation. Needs more ram's blood and barbed wire. Good effort though.

[Latrinsorm]

Here's an interesting article that shows why trying to force the market to do what you want it to with green energy probably won't work (emphasis mine).




http://www.canada.com/technology/Germany+solar+experiment+collapses/6189117/story.htmlI think you bring up a very interesting point, although perhaps a very obvious one at the same time. Can we expect to sustain our standard of living at its current price? If not, is it a legitimate concern that X alternative energy is more expensive? I'm not sure legitimate is the right word, but what I'm getting at is one of the hard realities we may have to come to terms with is that the astounding, incredible wealth we enjoy in the developed world is inherently temporary. Sort of like economics bubbles, except on a much larger scale.

[Fallen]

I take it you use no Fossil Fuels in your life what so ever?

You walk to work barefoot, only eat foods you grow without chemicals, and Don't use Electricity at all, right?

After all, every little bit helps, so I am sure you are doing all you can.

What? That's retarded. Almost as retarded as saying the attempt to use and promote the use of non-fossil fuels because it cannot completely replace it isn't worth the effort. You don't need to be a tree hugging hippy to favor the promotion of green energy initiatives.

[crb]

I understand that both sides have experts, but I have always wondered why people in general arent willing to err on the side of caution on this one. It seems like if the side of global warming turns out to be correct...we are all fucked. If it turns out not to be true...are we any worse off in the big picture? It just seems like in life the safe play is to cover your ass on the worst case scenario. Before anyone gets too snarky, I am really wondering and have wanted to know the answer to this for a long time.
Science isn't a matter of consensus, it isn't a matter of compromise. Science is the search for the truth (it has this in common with the X-Files). Truth, fact, are not open to debate. There is a right answer out there.

You have to remember that most of the people at the top of the environmental movement are lawyers, not scientists. You have to remember environmentalism is big business, I dare say a trillion dollar industry. There are millions of people with vested financial interest in making people scared of something in the environment, it is about fear. It has always been about fear, fear sells, but what we're afraid of changes every 10 or 15 years, but it will always be something.

Even researchers who are not doing anything in a blind or doubleblind manner to ensure accuracy, have a vested financial interest in making sure their results come out a certain way, and it has been scientifically proven that a hypothesis bias exists in most research that is not conducted in a doubleblind fashion. If you're being paid to study climate change, and you find that it isn't happening, you aren't helping your job security.

So it is easy to point to oil companies like some Wizards behind the curtain as vested money interests (which is somewhat doubtful, considering oil is a global commodity and I fucking guarantee you people will always pay top dollar for it, plus they're all diversifying into alternatives). But remember the huge mountain of money on the other side as well.

I probably have one of the lowest carbon footprints here. I recycle probably a hundred pounds of stuff a week. I like to garden and try to grow as much of my own food as possible, in the summer we regularly walk places instead of drive. I compost most organic waste. When I build my next home I hope to make it netzero with superinsulated walls and a large solar array. I don't drive a prius, but only because I need the cargo room to haul my garden stuff and recyclables. One of the few places I donate to yearly is Sea Shepherd to save the whales.

But global warming is a sham.



Hello welcome to 6th grade Biology class, week 2. Today we will be discussing the carbon cycle. Cut to the chase the bell's about to ring. Well okay. Human beings release an additional 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year via industrialized fossil fuels consumption. This will not ruin the planet tomorrow but it will have permanent effects if we do not change our behavior. Okay next week we will discuss photosynthesis. Which luckily has not yet been declared a myth because AS FAR AS WE KNOW plants stealing sunlight from the air does not harm big business. Yet.

Read the original link Rojo, the alarmism results in assumptions of very large positive feedback loops (which I'm sure you were referring to in your carbon cycle comment) but included in the link is that evidence points to small negative feedback instead.

So the guy at MIT not a good enough source for some of you, how about the largest scientific organization in Europe?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

Series upon series of experiment from CERN's recent one (you'll find tons of articles if you just Google) to Nasa's ARGO have shown results counter to the CAGW hypothesis.

The fact is the earth is a couple billion years old, and for all of that time it has been changing. Taking a 15 year graph of temperature data and playing it during your documentary/commerce for carbon credits doesn't really prove anything statistically significant. It'd be like running a mile and stepping on a pebble and calculating the slope of the sidewalk to the pebble top and claiming you ran on that degree of an incline.

The fact is hundreds of years ago the earth was warmer than it is now, significantly so. Britain used to be prime wine country.

Now we know many pollutants (like mercury) are bad, and controlling pollution is a good thing, but carbon dioxide is not going to ruin the earth. Human's probably have as much affect on earth's climate as we do on earth's mass. Global warming zealots are like the people at DARE, they blow marijuana out of proportion and lose credibility on actually bad drugs like heroine.

[crb]

You know what.. I don't.

I do not believe that people born in the US are somehow smarter or more productive or better inventers than other people. I do believe that our government in the past has made it easier for us to produce/manufacture/invent things in the past.. but that time has long since passed.

I was at a gas station yesterday and talking to a guy who was pumping gas. We talked about the insulation industry (he works for a company that makes glass furnaces) and he was saying that more and more companies like his are simply picking up and moving to other countries that have far less red tape and far less taxation. He worked 20 years in Toledo (I guess that used to be the Glass Capital of the World?) but now he's moving to someplace in Russia to help open up a new plant.

We are making it harder and harder for companies to make things in this country. The days of "American Exceptionalism" is an idea that has long since passed.
This is off topic, but I think you'll find this interesting as per your story.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/16/the-intangible-wealth-of-natio
http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/05/the-secrets-of-intangible-weal

[Drew]

Global warming zealots are like the people at DARE, they blow marijuana out of proportion and lose credibility on actually bad drugs like heroine.

Good point, if the world had more heroines there would be no room for any heroes.


http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/45/96/drugs,funny,michael,scott,screencap,screenshot,the ,office-459619aad509c44569cdddab500108b4_i.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Crb you go about your investigation like you believe in intelligent design. She has no point in even engaging with you.

[Parkbandit]

Crb you go about your investigation like you believe in intelligent design. She has no point in even engaging with you.

Sort of off topic.. but intelligent design reminded me of the news this morning and how this lady was in the bathroom when the tornado hit and when she got out, the rest of the house was gone. She was thanking God and Jesus for sparing her....

Why do people praise aliens that are essentially fucking with them on a daily basis? "I'm going to send a tornado around and kill this person and this person.. but I'm going to spare this one because she is in the bathroom"?

[Warriorbird]

Sort of off topic.. but intelligent design reminded me of the news this morning and how this lady was in the bathroom when the tornado hit and when she got out, the rest of the house was gone. She was thanking God and Jesus for sparing her....

Why do people praise aliens that are essentially fucking with them on a daily basis? "I'm going to send a tornado around and kill this person and this person.. but I'm going to spare this one because she is in the bathroom"?

It really breaks down. I like church better as a morality teacher and social organizer than as a pusher of the supernatural.

[~Rocktar~]

It really breaks down. I like church better as a morality teacher and social organizer than as a pusher of the supernatural.

Morality is better taught in the home. Sending kids to church to learn morality is no better than sending them to school to learn how to behave in society. Letting a 3rd party person have the responsibility for raising your kids is stupid and lazy. And if you are Catholic, there might be a future Bishop waiting for them at church so be careful.

[~Rocktar~]

To the person that posted this neg rep

"lol Rocktar. Morality is best taught at Wal-mart."

You are a lazy fuck and haven't been paying attention. I don't work at Walmart and haven't for over a year. In fact, 2 promotions later and now being a member of salaried management I had previously disclosed that I work for Convergys, one of the largest customer contact management companies in the world with over 75K employees in over 35 countries. So please, do work harder, keep up with the times and stop being a lazy waste of protoplasm in your trolling attempts.

K'ay thanks bai.

[~Rocktar~]

In addition to the previous, in response to more neg rep from the lazy asshole:

"So it was secret because you didn't want people to know you worked in the call center FOR Walmart."

Walmart doesn't have call centers or even a substantive phone presence. They want you to complain in person at your nearest store. Please step up your game, this is far too lazy. Gods above the retard is strong in this one.