EPA Supresses Global Warming Report

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:

Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it’s pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can’t be changed and the data simply doesn’t back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.

Not true. Global warming is, at this moment, a fact. The only question is whether humans affect it and how long it will last.

At the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was much, much warmer than it was now. [/quote]

It’s been cooling for the last 11 but that doesn’t fit the model which predicts it should be rising based on carbon emissions. Since it doesn’t fit the model which was flawed from the start it is discarded. Only data that fits the model is included. That’s why it is a belief not a theory. It can’t be proven so in order to convince people the party in power simply says the matter has been settled and nothing is left to discuss. Kind of like saying the earth is flat and that’s it. Matter settled. By the way the peers who review this for the politicians are carefully selected from a narrow segment. It’s self policing. If you disagree you are considered out of the mainstream and funding is limited.

The solution is not a pre-industrial economy in the US while the rest of the world moves on. We shouldn’t be buying foreign oil and gas while our own sits undisturbed off our coast for some naive misguided reason supported by special industry groups.

22

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:

Pretty damaging if you read the parts that are the focus of the executive summary:

  1. Global temeratures have been declining for 11 years while CO2 has increased.

  2. The sun is the most important determinant of temperature and the sun goes in cycles
    which we can’t control, even Obama.

  3. The changes in temperature are not significant enough to matter.

  4. The model ignores water vapor (clouds) which greatly influence temperature.

Umm… Did you ever read what I wrote? I addressed exactly these issues, and how they aren’t damaging. All of these things could be true, and yet it could still be true–and does seem to be true–that human emission of GHG has a significant effect on the environment, and hence that we should be more responsible in controlling GHG emissions.

Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it’s pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can’t be changed and the data simply doesn’t back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.

Of course there are “moonbats” who will believe in global warming no matter what, just like there are moonbats who will believe in a Judeo-Christian god no matter no. Nevertheless, just because there are some idiots who hold a belief out of irrational ideology does not mean that the belief is necessarily false. “Global warming” as you describe it is indeed a politicized issue with moonbat followers, but there is certainly sufficient theory and data to make human caused climate change a real issue, worthy of the title “science” if you like.

It’s a perfect issue for the Republicans to hammer the Democrats with in 2010 and beyond.

Don’t you mean another good issue for anti-intellectuals like Palin to make themselves look like fools?

Bottom line why suppress it if it isn’t true? If the “believers” were confident in their argument why not debate it in the open and actually back up the belief with facts. The EPA scientists who wrote it aren’t naive fools, they have looked at the data and come to a different conclusion. Would you want your doctor making a diagnosis on you with test results that are three plus years old and based on a flawed process?

This is just conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Why “suppress” it? No one “suppressed” it… it just wasn’t used or reported because it’s a silly report that offers no original research and builds fallacious claims off credible science.

“Believers” do debate this in the open, among their peers. That’s what things like conferences and peer reviewed journals are for. Further, EPA “scientists” didn’t write this report, some economist working for the EPA did, and after skimming this thing I would say he IS a naive fool. [/quote]

Anti-intellectuals…you mean anyone who disagrees with your belief don’t you. Like a heretic who said the earth was round despite the fact the intellectuals said the earth was flat.

The majority of Americans rate global warming far down on the list of issues of importance. The rest of the world couldn’t give a flying fuck, preferring to let the naive Americans commit economic suicide first. Ask the Chines what they are doing to save the planet. The Europeans barely give it lip service if that.

Unfortunately ignoring fact and data that doesn’t fit the outcome that has been foretold by the oracle of Gore is not science, it’s belief. Ask yourself why the Global warming model doesn’t work when programmed with real data from actual measurements?

The question is why move the economy in the wrong direction based on speculation? It’s foolish and naive.

23

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
streamline wrote:
Maybe we are the cause of climate change and maybe we’re not. What we are doing is polluting this planet and there will be consequences. Personally I would like to breath clean fresh air and drink chemical free water. Fertile soil would be a good idea as well. Unfortunately greed will continue to prevail over common sense.

It’s not that we don’t know what to do, we’re just to lazy to do it. Even where curbside recycling is available there are those who are simply to lazy to do it. To me it’s simple, think globally and act locally. One doesn’t have to be a tree hugger, just do their part.

Hi Five! Yes, that felt good to hear! And even better you live in… oh. Well at least the Canucks are smart!

Nobody today wants to hear about sustainable living or environmentally sound practices. At least as a culture those ideas fall on deaf ears. We say that we want a better future so we buy hybrids and eat organic corn, but the reality is we just consume too much for our nation or this world to survive. As an example, Americans consume many times the volume of fuel, food, and worthless crap like ipods and big screen t.v.'s than any other nation. If the whole world consumed like America, this planet would run out of resources within fifty years.

So, we eat tons of food, buy lot’s of clothes, and ride everywhere in our inefficient vehicles that guzzle gas and we have a nation of overweight, self indulgent people that destroy the environment. Big surprise…

The conservative movement is trying to come up with anything and everything to debunk global warming because it’s connected with our nations economy, lifestlye, and even spiritual nature. Because these things are so hard to change, most of us would rather not see how all of our problems are connected. If we localize food, decrease fuel consumption, decrease consumer indulgence and eat greener food we will be healthier, have a better environment and be more self aware.

So in short, global warming might not be caused by CO2 emissions, but then again it might be too. At least it gives us an excuse to adjust our lifestyles and become more aware of what’s happening to us.

Hi Five! Yes! lol…

Anyway, I basically agree. I would only add this: this is a no-win, can’t make everyone happy, situation. There are two choices here, either keep the cost of goods low in the short term, or enact the changes needed for an environmentally sustainable economy. As far as I can tell you cannot have both. Will cap and trade and all these other environmentally based laws increase prices? yup. Will cap and trade or other current environmental laws have an effect? Who knows. I’m not for cap and trade or any of the other current environmental laws simply because I honestly don’t know what difference they will make. I do know though that the sort of laws we need in order to sustain our economy environmentally will had the same sort of advise prices that cap and trade will.

On a side note, this is general problem with our economy as a whole… it’s not sustainable. What is funny is that the same republicans and conservatives that cry about spending more then we earn see no problem spending more environmental capital then can be sustained. [/quote]

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

24

[quote]hedo wrote:

It’s been cooling for the last 11 but that doesn’t fit the model which predicts it should be rising based on carbon emissions. Since it doesn’t fit the model which was flawed from the start it is discarded. Only data that fits the model is included. That’s why it is a belief not a theory. It can’t be proven so in order to convince people the party in power simply says the matter has been settled and nothing is left to discuss. Kind of like saying the earth is flat and that’s it. Matter settled. By the way the peers who review this for the politicians are carefully selected from a narrow segment. It’s self policing. If you disagree you are considered out of the mainstream and funding is limited.
[/quote]

So wait a minute, that’s what you think modern climatology is about? Some single model? You think the entire human-caused climate change issue is about some single model that predicts the Earth should be heating up, and now that we have evidence that it’s not the model is bunk and we can all stop worrying about it? If this is what you think you are vastly more ignorant then I thought.

As for your comments about peer review, please. Do you even know how peer-reviewed journals work? Politicians have nothing to do with peer reviewed journals. Of course the peer-review system we have isn’t perfect (Hell, I’ve been fucked by peer reviewers myself), but it’s the best option we have for sorting through research. Who should I trust, some random guy possibly with a PhD that says he thinks this, or something that has been reviewed by known experts in the field? Of course in an ideal world I’d read the literature myself and come to my own conclusion, but given that I’m not a climatologist this is impossible. I neither have the expertise nor the background required to look at original climate research and make informed decisions.

Another clear straw man… You talk as if our only options are either to indiscriminately tear down all of our industry or burn in a hellfire of global warming. The real answer as always lies somewhere in between. We must make a shift from depending on unsustainable fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources. I’ve argued elsewhere that in the short-term this means raising efficiency standards on cars/appliances/homes, in the mid-term this amounts to building far more nuclear plants. As as been pointed out in this thread though, a fundamental change in our perception of ourselves as consumers needs to happen.

25

Good to see we’ve moved from rational discussion about why this report is junk to name calling. Let that all begin.

[quote]hedo wrote:

Anti-intellectuals…you mean anyone who disagrees with your belief don’t you. Like a heretic who said the earth was round despite the fact the intellectuals said the earth was flat.
[/quote]

First of all, people like Palin and the new crop of republicans call themselves anti-intellectuals… Anyone who publicly scorns all that “higher learning stuff” while accusing those with it of being out of touch is an anti-intellectual. So I haven’t given them that title, they gave it to yourself.

Second, do you purposefully pick bad examples? Do you really think that whether the earth was round or flat was an issue someone could be called a heretic over? I’ve got news for you, that fairy tale they tell you about people thinking Columbus would fall off the earth is just that, a fairy tale. As far as we can tell people have known the earth was round since at least ancient Greece, and probably farther back too… I can point to the references in Aristotle too.

So when did matters of truth and science become decided by public opinion? Besides, economic suicide? How would switching over to sustainable energy sources like nuclear or solar–the sort of stuff I’ve advocated–by economic suicide? “Oh no, we no longer have to import billions of gallons of crude from the middle east, oh no, we no longer have to strip mine our own land for coal! They sky is falling! Economic suicide! oh no!”

Unfortunately you continuing to ignore the real facts and argue against the pseudo-science, politicized version of “global warming” doesn’t change them.

You keep talking like there’s some single all powerful model that all of climatology rides on, and that once it’s falisified we all have to go home and start over. Whatever.

[quote]
The question is why move the economy in the wrong direction based on speculation? It’s foolish and naive.[/quote]

Again, I’m against things like cap and trade. That doesn’t mean though that I think the notion of man-made climate change is just some sham… Your ideas about science and climatology are foolish and naive. Further your failure to see that moving our economy in more sustainable and environmentally friendly directions is worth the short term economy downside (higher prices) is foolish and naive.

26

[quote]orion wrote:

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

[/quote]

By “sustainable” I don’t just mean in the sense that we never run out. Clearly in that sense no resource is truly sustainable. The problem isn’t just that sooner or later we will run out of oil and coal, the problem is that our level of consumption of these resources is both economically and environmentally unsustainable. By that I mean that our level of consumption of oil depends on the rest of the world not using as much oil as we do–for if they did demand would FAR outstrip supply–while if our consumption of coal was mirrored by the world, as China is starting to do, climate change issues would only get worse.

If we don’t use them what good will they be? I never said we shouldn’t use them at all. But if we continue to use them like we have been what will the earth be like in 1000 years? On the environmental issue your guess is as good as mine, but we do know that burning all the coal on the planet and emitting all that CO2 isn’t a good idea. I also can assure you that at at current rate of usage no oil will be left in 1000 years.

As for either “innovate or die”, this is true. Why then not innovate and develop better more sustainable sources of energy? I fail to see how working on non-fossil fuel based energy sources constitutes death–it seems like needed innovation to me.

27

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Good to see we’ve moved from rational discussion about why this report is junk to name calling. Let that all begin.

hedo wrote:

Anti-intellectuals…you mean anyone who disagrees with your belief don’t you. Like a heretic who said the earth was round despite the fact the intellectuals said the earth was flat.

First of all, people like Palin and the new crop of republicans call themselves anti-intellectuals… Anyone who publicly scorns all that “higher learning stuff” while accusing those with it of being out of touch is an anti-intellectual. So I haven’t given them that title, they gave it to yourself.

Second, do you purposefully pick bad examples? Do you really think that whether the earth was round or flat was an issue someone could be called a heretic over? I’ve got news for you, that fairy tale they tell you about people thinking Columbus would fall off the earth is just that, a fairy tale. As far as we can tell people have known the earth was round since at least ancient Greece, and probably farther back too… I can point to the references in Aristotle too.

The majority of Americans rate global warming far down on the list of issues of importance. The rest of the world couldn’t give a flying fuck, preferring to let the naive Americans commit economic suicide first. Ask the Chines what they are doing to save the planet. The Europeans barely give it lip service if that.

So when did matters of truth and science become decided by public opinion? Besides, economic suicide? How would switching over to sustainable energy sources like nuclear or solar–the sort of stuff I’ve advocated–by economic suicide? “Oh no, we no longer have to import billions of gallons of crude from the middle east, oh no, we no longer have to strip mine our own land for coal! They sky is falling! Economic suicide! oh no!”

Unfortunately ignoring fact and data that doesn’t fit the outcome that has been foretold by the oracle of Gore is not science, it’s belief. Ask yourself why the Global warming model doesn’t work when programmed with real data from actual measurements?

Unfortunately you continuing to ignore the real facts and argue against the pseudo-science, politicized version of “global warming” doesn’t change them.

You keep talking like there’s some single all powerful model that all of climatology rides on, and that once it’s falisified we all have to go home and start over. Whatever.

The question is why move the economy in the wrong direction based on speculation? It’s foolish and naive.

Again, I’m against things like cap and trade. That doesn’t mean though that I think the notion of man-made climate change is just some sham… Your ideas about science and climatology are foolish and naive. Further your failure to see that moving our economy in more sustainable and environmentally friendly directions is worth the short term economy downside (higher prices) is foolish and naive.
[/quote]

You introduced Palin and began the name calling. I merely pointed out the fact and the weakeness of your argument. She correctly points out the obvious to the oblivious. I imagine that would be frustrating to those with an agenda.

Whatever…is that your peer reviewed response. Perhaps for the 7th grade.

No need to argue points I haven’t made. The point I did make is the cornerstone of global warming rests on a model. All other beliefs stem from the “model”. The model doesn’t work with real data only selected data that is filtered and fits the desired outcome. I’m sorry if others outside the GW fraternity have seen thru this. Perhaps it’s time to switch back to the next ice age theory. That ought to provide plenty of work for another decade or two.

28

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
orion wrote:

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

By “sustainable” I don’t just mean in the sense that we never run out. Clearly in that sense no resource is truly sustainable. The problem isn’t just that sooner or later we will run out of oil and coal, the problem is that our level of consumption of these resources is both economically and environmentally unsustainable. By that I mean that our level of consumption of oil depends on the rest of the world not using as much oil as we do–for if they did demand would FAR outstrip supply–while if our consumption of coal was mirrored by the world, as China is starting to do, climate change issues would only get worse.

If we don’t use them what good will they be? I never said we shouldn’t use them at all. But if we continue to use them like we have been what will the earth be like in 1000 years? On the environmental issue your guess is as good as mine, but we do know that burning all the coal on the planet and emitting all that CO2 isn’t a good idea. I also can assure you that at at current rate of usage no oil will be left in 1000 years.

As for either “innovate or die”, this is true. Why then not innovate and develop better more sustainable sources of energy? I fail to see how working on non-fossil fuel based energy sources constitutes death–it seems like needed innovation to me. [/quote]

Well then there is the question how we go about such a thing.

Already rising oil prices have led to innovations like filtering oil out of sand, artificial oil, the liquification of coal (actually invented by the IG Farben, pre WWII) etc.

But in a foreseeable future that will not amke economical sense either and someone will make a killing figuring out how do replace “fossile” energies.

Since we all do not know what these alternatives will be, why hinder the creative forces of the market to find solutions by controlling every step of the way?

I do noit think that governments should have a horse in this race, this just leads to corn subsidy desasters.

29

[quote]hedo wrote:
The point I did make is the cornerstone of global warming rests on a model. [/quote]

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. I mean NONE, at all.

30

[quote]orion wrote:

Well then there is the question how we go about such a thing.
[/quote]

Of course, I never claimed to have the answers.

We already know how to replace fossil fuel based engines–electric.

While in general I’m a fan of the free market, I don’t think it’s the miracle of innovation some of you guys do. It seems that we already have evidence that companies left to themselves will not necessarily develop the best alternative energy sources, but will in fact develop the most readily profitable energy sources (these are surely not the same). A great example of this is Pickens. The guy is ready to jump on the alternative energy market, but he certainly is only looking to exploit whatever resources are readily available and can turn a profit.

31

[quote]h
It’s been cooling for the last 11 but that doesn’t fit the model which predicts it should be rising based on carbon emissions. Since it doesn’t fit the model which was flawed from the start it is discarded. Only data that fits the model is included. That’s why it is a belief not a theory. It can’t be proven so in order to convince people the party in power simply says the matter has been settled and nothing is left to discuss. Kind of like saying the earth is flat and that’s it. Matter settled. By the way the peers who review this for the politicians are carefully selected from a narrow segment. It’s self policing. If you disagree you are considered out of the mainstream and funding is limited.

The solution is not a pre-industrial economy in the US while the rest of the world moves on. We shouldn’t be buying foreign oil and gas while our own sits undisturbed off our coast for some naive misguided reason supported by special industry groups.

[/quote]

Dude, that’s just not true. It seems like part of the problem with global warming is that people don’t get their facts straight.

I’ll say it again, every self respecting scientist on the planet can see that our planet keeps heating up. Their have been scientists in Bush’s “cabinet” that said otherwise, but they were not respected by the scientific community. 1998, 2005, 2008 were all very hot years.

32

[quote]orion wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
streamline wrote:

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

[/quote]

Oh but it is as simple as that, we can take many immediate small steps towards sustainable living without even the average American lifting a finger. Cities can start with local farms that produce fruits and vegetables inside of green towers, and their could be a farm for grass fed animals also. Sure it would take some money, but it honestly would be worth it.

You’re right, sooner or later we will run out of the materials that keep this planet running. However, simply finding more materials doesn’t solve the problem. It’s kind of like if you have an alcoholic man that runs out of beer. His friend says, " geeze man, you’re problem is that you drink to much and you’re totally unaware of it", while the alcoholic says, “I just need another beer man”.

Materials don’t need to be used in order to be “useful” either. The oldest religions on this planet say that we need to stop acting like we are the most important thing on our planet and start living with the planet (i.e. buddhism, indiginous religions). It’s remarkably identical to sustainable practices.

33

[quote]orion wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
orion wrote:

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

By “sustainable” I don’t just mean in the sense that we never run out. Clearly in that sense no resource is truly sustainable. The problem isn’t just that sooner or later we will run out of oil and coal, the problem is that our level of consumption of these resources is both economically and environmentally unsustainable. By that I mean that our level of consumption of oil depends on the rest of the world not using as much oil as we do–for if they did demand would FAR outstrip supply–while if our consumption of coal was mirrored by the world, as China is starting to do, climate change issues would only get worse.

If we don’t use them what good will they be? I never said we shouldn’t use them at all. But if we continue to use them like we have been what will the earth be like in 1000 years? On the environmental issue your guess is as good as mine, but we do know that burning all the coal on the planet and emitting all that CO2 isn’t a good idea. I also can assure you that at at current rate of usage no oil will be left in 1000 years.

As for either “innovate or die”, this is true. Why then not innovate and develop better more sustainable sources of energy? I fail to see how working on non-fossil fuel based energy sources constitutes death–it seems like needed innovation to me.

Well then there is the question how we go about such a thing.

Already rising oil prices have led to innovations like filtering oil out of sand, artificial oil, the liquification of coal (actually invented by the IG Farben, pre WWII) etc.

But in a foreseeable future that will not amke economical sense either and someone will make a killing figuring out how do replace “fossile” energies.

Since we all do not know what these alternatives will be, why hinder the creative forces of the market to find solutions by controlling every step of the way?

I do noit think that governments should have a horse in this race, this just leads to corn subsidy desasters.

[/quote]

You are talking about the “Human Predicament”. This Has been written and debated for hundreds of years. A time when the population growth exceeds our ability to sustain it. Since we need sustenance to exist and the population has never diminished. The human race was in the past and is predicted to in the future, lack the means the sustain it’s population.

Obviously we have been able to over come those of the past. I believe we will also over come these predicaments in the future. I am not as worried about our ability to survive as I am about the quality of the life. Presently those of us living in developed parts of the world are enjoying a standard on living that surpasses that of Kings in the past. As in the past there is a period of time the human race suffers greatly from it inability to sustain it’s self. Before the problem of sustainability it solved.

I would hope that as an educated population we will get our heads out of our collective asses and solve the problem before it occurs. We have the knowledge to do this. What we don’t have is the collective desire to accomplish the task before it becomes a problem. This I believe is the bases of the “Human Predicament”. We are not doomed to extinction, but we will create massive problems that we will need to overcome to prevent it. Suffering appears to be in our nature. It makes for good bedtime stories.

34

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

While in general I’m a fan of the free market, I don’t think it’s the miracle of innovation some of you guys do. It seems that we already have evidence that companies left to themselves will not necessarily develop the best alternative energy sources, but will in fact develop the most readily profitable energy sources (these are surely not the same). A great example of this is Pickens. The guy is ready to jump on the alternative energy market, but he certainly is only looking to exploit whatever resources are readily available and can turn a profit.

[/quote]

What is the “best” energy source if not, all other things held equal, the cheapest?

35

[quote]streamline wrote:
orion wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
orion wrote:

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

By “sustainable” I don’t just mean in the sense that we never run out. Clearly in that sense no resource is truly sustainable. The problem isn’t just that sooner or later we will run out of oil and coal, the problem is that our level of consumption of these resources is both economically and environmentally unsustainable. By that I mean that our level of consumption of oil depends on the rest of the world not using as much oil as we do–for if they did demand would FAR outstrip supply–while if our consumption of coal was mirrored by the world, as China is starting to do, climate change issues would only get worse.

If we don’t use them what good will they be? I never said we shouldn’t use them at all. But if we continue to use them like we have been what will the earth be like in 1000 years? On the environmental issue your guess is as good as mine, but we do know that burning all the coal on the planet and emitting all that CO2 isn’t a good idea. I also can assure you that at at current rate of usage no oil will be left in 1000 years.

As for either “innovate or die”, this is true. Why then not innovate and develop better more sustainable sources of energy? I fail to see how working on non-fossil fuel based energy sources constitutes death–it seems like needed innovation to me.

Well then there is the question how we go about such a thing.

Already rising oil prices have led to innovations like filtering oil out of sand, artificial oil, the liquification of coal (actually invented by the IG Farben, pre WWII) etc.

But in a foreseeable future that will not amke economical sense either and someone will make a killing figuring out how do replace “fossile” energies.

Since we all do not know what these alternatives will be, why hinder the creative forces of the market to find solutions by controlling every step of the way?

I do noit think that governments should have a horse in this race, this just leads to corn subsidy desasters.

You are talking about the “Human Predicament”. This Has been written and debated for hundreds of years. A time when the population growth exceeds our ability to sustain it. Since we need sustenance to exist and the population has never diminished. The human race was in the past and is predicted to in the future, lack the means the sustain it’s population.

Obviously we have been able to over come those of the past. I believe we will also over come these predicaments in the future. I am not as worried about our ability to survive as I am about the quality of the life. Presently those of us living in developed parts of the world are enjoying a standard on living that surpasses that of Kings in the past. As in the past there is a period of time the human race suffers greatly from it inability to sustain it’s self. Before the problem of sustainability it solved.

I would hope that as an educated population we will get our heads out of our collective asses and solve the problem before it occurs. We have the knowledge to do this. What we don’t have is the collective desire to accomplish the task before it becomes a problem. This I believe is the bases of the “Human Predicament”. We are not doomed to extinction, but we will create massive problems that we will need to overcome to prevent it. Suffering appears to be in our nature. It makes for good bedtime stories.

[/quote]

Why would we want to solve a problem before it becomes a problem?

The world is full of problems right now that need solving-

Also, by damaging the economy we are actually crippling our problem solving ability.

Plus, and this really pisses me off, there seem to be people out there who just KNOW that solar power or wind power are is the answer and are willing to spend billings of other people´s money on the development of such energies.

What if tomorrow some smart kid discovers cold fusion and all that money was wasted?

There is a big difference whether some entrepreneur risks his own money or whether bureaucrats who just KNOW coerce it out of an unwilling populace.

36

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The point I did make is the cornerstone of global warming rests on a model.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. I mean NONE, at all.

[/quote]

Unfortunately typical for a believer of Global Warming. Actually observation is the basis of the scientific method. Should have been in the first chapter of your textbook. If the experiment cannot be replicated then the theory is a belief not a legitimate theory.

Clearly based on this thread it is you who don’t seem to have a grasp on the basics of the argument. Your point is that you are the only one “smart” enough to understand, unfortunately you have been able to prove your case by anything you posted.

Try this on for size: The total percentage of carbon right now in the atmosphere is about 370/1000000. The increase in the last 100 years, or so of the industrial age has added about 10 - 20 parts per million. A HIGH estimate of the effect of mans effort would put it at 0.000025% added. This small increase according to the believers affects the other 99.999975%. It affects it so much that we must cripple our economy based on the speculation that it does and that this minute increase in temperature is a bad thing, despite the evidence throughout history that it has been a benefit to mankind.

37

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
h
It’s been cooling for the last 11 but that doesn’t fit the model which predicts it should be rising based on carbon emissions. Since it doesn’t fit the model which was flawed from the start it is discarded. Only data that fits the model is included. That’s why it is a belief not a theory. It can’t be proven so in order to convince people the party in power simply says the matter has been settled and nothing is left to discuss. Kind of like saying the earth is flat and that’s it. Matter settled. By the way the peers who review this for the politicians are carefully selected from a narrow segment. It’s self policing. If you disagree you are considered out of the mainstream and funding is limited.

The solution is not a pre-industrial economy in the US while the rest of the world moves on. We shouldn’t be buying foreign oil and gas while our own sits undisturbed off our coast for some naive misguided reason supported by special industry groups.

Dude, that’s just not true. It seems like part of the problem with global warming is that people don’t get their facts straight.

I’ll say it again, every self respecting scientist on the planet can see that our planet keeps heating up. Their have been scientists in Bush’s “cabinet” that said otherwise, but they were not respected by the scientific community. 1998, 2005, 2008 were all very hot years.[/quote]

So only the really smart scientists who aren’t Republican can understand the problem and the 100’s that don’t agree with the belief are not respected…kind of like heretics right. OK now I get it. Thanks.

If you statement is true why try to minimize data to the contrary.

Simply look at it with a skeptical eye, rather then a conclusion, and you will see that simply stating they were “hot” years is not a fact.

38

[quote]orion wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

What is the “best” energy source if not, all other things held equal, the cheapest?

[/quote]

All other things are hardly ever equal. This is slightly different than what you’re talking about, but did you know the meat we eat in this country comes from sick cows? It’s true, almost 100% of the meat comes from cows that are near there own death from eating grain instead of grass. Of course we also mix in there former family members and feces with this grain to add more volume and protein. We then torture them with poor living conditions and give them growth hormones that make their udders so fat they can’t even walk! Disgusting and immoral isn’t it?

We do all this because as we see it all things are equal except the price of grain and grass.

Sky

39

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
orion wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
streamline wrote:

It is not as simple as that.

We can have no “sustainable economy”. Yes, we are using “fossile” fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.

This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.

Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.

Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?

A “sustainable” economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.

That is not an option.

We either grow and innovate or die.

Oh but it is as simple as that, we can take many immediate small steps towards sustainable living without even the average American lifting a finger. Cities can start with local farms that produce fruits and vegetables inside of green towers, and their could be a farm for grass fed animals also. Sure it would take some money, but it honestly would be worth it.

You’re right, sooner or later we will run out of the materials that keep this planet running. However, simply finding more materials doesn’t solve the problem. It’s kind of like if you have an alcoholic man that runs out of beer. His friend says, " geeze man, you’re problem is that you drink to much and you’re totally unaware of it", while the alcoholic says, “I just need another beer man”.

Materials don’t need to be used in order to be “useful” either. The oldest religions on this planet say that we need to stop acting like we are the most important thing on our planet and start living with the planet (i.e. buddhism, indiginous religions). It’s remarkably identical to sustainable practices.[/quote]

These are all noble lifestyle choices that you should have the option of making. They are also choices a man in a wealthy developed country gets to make. Why tie those choices to global warming. Lift all men up the point they can make those choices, don’t tear people down to the lowest level for reasons that have nothing to do with the problem.

40

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The point I did make is the cornerstone of global warming rests on a model.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. I mean NONE, at all.

[/quote]

Really, how so?