UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (48) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: tngirl74 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 734579  
Subject: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 3:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
An excellent article on global warming........

http://objectivescience.com/articles/hl_singer.htm

"I believe we have learned how to master the problem of environmental quality. Both air and water pollution have been virtually eliminated in developed nations. The main problem now is poverty in the rest of the world; once that is solved, environmental problems will be taken care of."--Fred Singer

<snip>

Finally, my publication in Nature in 1971 is the first one to point to and calculate the growth in human production of methane, an important greenhouse gas. I also pointed out that these same human activities (cattle raising and rice growing) would lead to a depletion of stratospheric ozone. I believe it was the first publication that showed how human activities on the surface were depleting ozone in the stratosphere.

We all believe in the reality of the greenhouse effect. The question is really: Is the impact of human emissions on the greenhouse effect significant? The current data seem to show it is not significant in relation to natural variations in the climate. We do not see a signal that can be associated with or attributed to human activities. The climate models used for predicting future temperatures have not been validated against observations, and therefore should not be relied on.


The consequences of moderate warming are generally beneficial: less severe storms, more rain, better growth of agricultural crops. Economists now believe that global warming is good for the economy and the people. Download the SEPP reports, press releases, and articles and pass them on to newspaper editors, journalists, educators, civic leaders, and others. Help stop fear-mongering and the distortion of science.

tngirl


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37120 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 3:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 44
There are three issues at work here:

1. Is the world warming?

2. If yes to #1, how much of it is man-made?

3. What are the likely effects of such warming?

There's junk science all over the place, and anyone can carefully construct a study which leads to the conclusion they want the audience to draw.

Alarmists can make it sound like the internal combustion engine will make the entire planet a wasteland. Those who insist there is NO problem can point to other factors and say there is no issue at all, allowing them to continue to pollute our air and water at will without incurring *any* costs for reducing their emissions.

The answer to #1 above is clearly, "yes." Scientists are all but unamimous that the average global temperature is up about 0.5 degrees Celsius over the last fifty years or so. (Or something like that. But there is general agreement that there IS warming.)

But how much, if any, of this is man-made or because of greenhouse gases? This is where junk science enters the picture; this is where "researchers" with an agenda first determine the desired conclusion and then construct a study which will lead them to that conclusion.

Maybe some of it is greenhouse gases. Maybe some of it is due to increased amount of pavement on the planet, which causes more of the sun's heat radiation to reflect back into the atmosphere rather than be absorbed deeply into the ground. Maybe some of it is because we're still emerging out of an ice age.

The only honest answer to Question 2 is "I don't know." Having said that, I don't believe we should assume there is no problem, but also without evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't assume the sky is falling either. We can undertake reasonable efforts to get rid of most of the problem -- sort of an 80/20 rule in some sense, in that we can probably improve things 80% with just a 20% effort. That would be prudent, but neither assuming NO problem nor acting as though the wheels of commerce MUST be stopped completely are practical or rational solutions.

And finally, question #3. Again, there is some "I don't know" here, but at least here some inferences can be drawn with science. Again, there are junk scientists who will determine what they want the answer to be (coastal cities are flooded, for example, or 90% of all species on Earth will be made extinct) and then work backward to construct a study which leads them there.

The entire environmental issue, for the most part, needs to be kept away from the demagogues and ideologues. If they can be made irrelevant, we can conduct responsible research, both in terms of finding out how much of a problem there is, and how to best make reasonable, non-draconian changes in human lifestyle which still improve things considerably.

Just say "no" to junk science and researchers with an agenda.

#29


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37121 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I would love to find a decent, global, reasonably comprehensive comparison of three things:

(1) What the global-warming theorists say the consequences of global warming will be

(2) What is actually happening

(3) What the historic and natural record says the consequences of higher temperatures is.

I haven't seen anything even remotely global or comprehensive, but I've seen a few fragmentary comparisons. Here are a couple samples:

(1) Sea levels will rise
versus
(2) In Australia, mean sea level is LOWER than it was 100 years ago

(1) Famine and massive storms
versus
(3) In a relatively recent era when mean global temperature (best estimates based on plant growth patterns) was a couple degrees higher than currently, the Vikings were sailing all over the place - exploring the North Atlantic, colonizing Iceland, Greenland, and North America, and conquering big chunks of England and France - because they were overcrowded, able to raise and feed more children than they had room for. The ships they did this in would barely qualify as lifeboats for a modern ocean liner. It appears that at least in that area, food production was UP and the weather was CALMER.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tngirl74 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37122 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm confused by your post. Are you putting Fred Singer in the category of junk scientist?

tngirl

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37124 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> Are you putting Fred Singer in the category of junk scientist? <<

No -- I'm generically describing how the doommongering junk scientists who say the sky is falling can't be trusted because they have an agenda behind their "research".

I wasn't addressing Singer at all.

#29


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37128 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
tngirl74: "An excellent article on global warming........

http://objectivescience.com/articles/hl_singer.htm "


Best as I can tell, objective science is not peer reviewed before publication and is published by Mr. Da Cunha, who is web designer with a B.A. in marketing and an M.B.A.. The site itself gives very little in the way of information. He also was active in a Keep Elián Gonzalez Free website, which leads me to suspect that the key criteria for getting published is to have an article with which he agrees.

I cannot take the time today to research the various authors/contributors, but accepting the articles publised in Objective Science appears to be dependent soley upon accepting the credentials of the authors.

Just my $0.02. Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37129 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 5:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The consequences of moderate warming are generally beneficial: less severe storms, more rain, better growth of agricultural crops. Economists now believe that global warming is good for the economy and the people. Download the SEPP reports, press releases, and articles and pass them on to newspaper editors, journalists, educators, civic leaders, and others. Help stop fear-mongering and the distortion of science.

tngirl


I've been saying for years that I like Global Warming. When I can grow mangoes, papaya, guava, and pineapple on my property here in East Tennessee then it will be warm enough. We haven't had a really bad winter in several years and I haven't missed it at all. I despise cold weather! - Art




Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37131 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 5:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just say "no" to junk science and researchers with an agenda.

#29


Yes, but I do have an agenda. I want to grow mangoes on my land here in East TN. Until we don't have any frosts here it is just too cold for me. - Art


Print the post Back To Top
Author: intercst Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37132 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JAFO31 informs,

<<<<<tngirl74: "An excellent article on global warming........

http://objectivescience.com/articles/hl_singer.htm ">>>>>>>

Best as I can tell, objective science is not peer reviewed before publication and is published by Mr. Da Cunha, who is web designer with a B.A. in marketing and an M.B.A.. The site itself gives very little in the way of information. He also was active in a Keep Elián Gonzalez Free website, which leads me to suspect that the key criteria for getting published is to have an article with which he agrees.


I wonder if Mr. Da Cunha is any relation to the surfer dude "The Big Kahuna"?

intercst


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37133 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 6:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
From our "For what it's worth department."

My brother is a commercial beekeeper near Waycross, Georgia. He has been keeping bees for over 30 years. He has around three thousand hives of bees and sells hundreds of 55 gallon drums of honey every year. He lives near the Okefenokee Swamp and said this is the best honey year he has ever seen. He said they had just the right amount of wet cool weather and then it turned off hot and dry and honey plants are really pouring it on making nectar. - Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: aquila66 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37135 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 6:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 37
No -- I'm generically describing how the doommongering junk scientists who say the sky is falling can't be trusted because they have an agenda behind their "research".

Don't forget all of the "everything-is-just-peachy mongering" from junk scientists who conduct research paid for by polluting corporations. They can't can't be trusted either, and they also have a pretty strong agenda.

Mankind has had an impact on the environment. Due to the rise in temperature, and all of the green houses gases pumped into the atmosphere, something will probably change. It is usually better to assume the worst and be wrong than to assume everytrhing will be fine and be unprepared.

The consequences of moderate warming are generally beneficial: less severe storms, more rain, better growth of agricultural crops.

This statement generally inclines me to believe this is a bunch of hooey. It is generally accepted that increased warming will lead to larger and more severe storms. Higher temperatures mean more available energy in the atmosphere. More available energy means stronger storms can develop. I think the reason you think this is such a great article is because you agree with it. But that doesn't make it true.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: golfwaymore Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37136 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 7:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
JAFO wrote: I cannot take the time today to research the various authors/contributors, but accepting the articles publised in Objective Science appears to be dependent soley upon accepting the credentials of the authors.

As I've oft stated before, "A man who walks in darkness, need not open his eyes."



Print the post Back To Top
Author: tngirl74 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37140 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 8:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
This statement generally inclines me to believe this is a bunch of hooey. It is generally accepted that increased warming will lead to larger and more severe storms. Higher temperatures mean more available energy in the atmosphere. More available energy means stronger storms can develop. I think the reason you think this is such a great article is because you agree with it. But that doesn't make it true.

Just curious, did you read the entire article? There are numerious scientists who agree with his findings.

Here's another www.numberwatch.co.uk

I think it's easier to be prepared when you have the correct information to start with.

tngirl

Print the post Back To Top
Author: raddr Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37141 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 8:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
The entire environmental issue, for the most part, needs to be kept away from the demagogues and ideologues.


Well said. How many of you out there remember back in the early 70's when there was a global *cooling* scare? Yes, that's right, the environmental know-it-alls back then were telling us that a large ice cap would cap would engulf N. America within a relatively short period of time. This was "mainstream" thinking at the time and was even talked about in my college classes.

As far as I am concerned, this global warming rhetoric is not to be taken seriously since it is pedaled mainly by leftist politicians and their lap-dog press accomplices. The global warming hysteria will morph into some other environmental scare within a few years.

raddr

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37150 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 11:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
As I've oft stated before, "A man who walks in darkness, need not open his eyes."

"A wise man doesn't know how it feels to be thick as a brick."
- Jethro Tull



Print the post Back To Top
Author: aquila66 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37151 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 11:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Just curious, did you read the entire article? There are numerious scientists who agree with his findings.<i/>

Yes I did. There are numerous scientists who do disagree with him. Some are probably left wing cranks, some aren't. Science Magazine did a large report on global warming a couple of months ago, maybe longer. Did you read that? I tend to think that peer reviewed publications carry a bit more weight than a one sided "interview" on a web site.

From the article:
Since retiring from government and the University of Virginia, Singer founded a think tank, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), in Fairfax, Virginia.

So, who is funding this "Think Tank"? Philip Morris has a Think Tank too. I don't believe a thing they say.

I think it's easier to be prepared when you have the correct information to start with.

How ironic, me too. To bad we are wasting all this energy debating what is correct as opposed to going out and finding it. This way we all get caught up in a frenzy of special interest finger pointing, and the truth is lost.

Aquila


Print the post Back To Top
Author: aquila66 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37152 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 11:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Just curious, did you read the entire article? There are numerious scientists who agree with his findings.

Yes I did. There are numerous scientists who do disagree with him. Some are probably left wing cranks, some aren't. Science Magazine did a large report on global warming a couple of months ago, maybe longer. Did you read that? I tend to think that peer reviewed publications carry a bit more weight than a one sided "interview" on a web site.

From the article:
Since retiring from government and the University of Virginia, Singer founded a think tank, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), in Fairfax, Virginia.

So, who is funding this "Think Tank"? Philip Morris has a Think Tank too. I don't believe a thing they say.

I think it's easier to be prepared when you have the correct information to start with.

How ironic, me too. To bad we are wasting all this energy debating what is correct as opposed to going out and finding it. This way we all get caught up in a frenzy of special interest finger pointing, and the truth is lost.

Aquila

Print the post Back To Top
Author: aquila66 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37154 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 4/30/2001 11:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sheesh, I am having some trouble with formatting and hitting the wrong darn button. Sorry for wasting your bandwidth everyone. Anyway, the correctly formatted version is below.

Regarding www.numberwatch.co.uk. It just seems like a right wing web site blasting numbers that the left wing would find favorable, without a whole lot of backup either. So, I can't really place a whole lot of faith in this web site either. The great/sad thing about the World Wide Web is that any cockamamie thing can be put up there for all to read. . . (Yes, like this post).

There are lies, damn lies and statistics . . .I forgot who said this.

...Just curious, did you read the entire article? There are numerious scientists who agree with his findings.

Yes I did. There are numerous scientists who do disagree with him. Some are probably left wing cranks, some aren't. Science Magazine did a large report on global warming a couple of months ago, maybe longer. Did you read that? I tend to think that peer reviewed publications carry a bit more weight than a one sided "interview" on a web site.

From the article:
Since retiring from government and the University of Virginia, Singer founded a think tank, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), in Fairfax, Virginia.

So, who is funding this "Think Tank"? Philip Morris has a Think Tank too. I don't believe a thing they say.

I think it's easier to be prepared when you have the correct information to start with.

How ironic, me too. To bad we are wasting all this energy debating what is correct as opposed to going out and finding it. This way we all get caught up in a frenzy of special interest finger pointing, and the truth is lost.

Aquila



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37157 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 1:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
How ironic, me too. To bad we are wasting all this energy debating what is correct as opposed to going out and finding it. This way we all get caught up in a frenzy of special interest finger pointing, and the truth is lost.

Aquila



"Why waste the truth when a lie will do?" - Heard spoken by a Ferengi on Star Trek Deep Space Nine - Art


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37158 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 2:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
aquila66: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" . . .I forgot who said this."

Benjamin Disraeli, although it is often attribted to Mark Twain because he quoted it.

Regards, JAFO



Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37161 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 2:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well said. How many of you out there remember back in the early 70's when there was a global *cooling* scare? Yes, that's right, the environmental know-it-alls back then were telling us that a large ice cap would cap would engulf N. America within a relatively short period of time. This was "mainstream" thinking at the time and was even talked about in my college classes.


You're just a bit older than I am; I was in high school. And yes, I remember how there was such a panic about the coming ice age, and much of the evidence cited for it is now being cited as proof of human-caused global warming.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: tngirl74 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37168 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 9:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
How ironic, me too. To bad we are wasting all this energy debating what is correct as opposed to going out and finding it. This way we all get caught up in a frenzy of special interest finger pointing, and the truth is lost.

Aquila:

FWIW, I didn't start the debate. You did. I posted an article, based on what I have read and studied, that I agree with. You have the right to disagree, but you don't have the right to call it hooey and not expect me to question your judgement.

I don't want to return to the Dark Ages, or even have to endure what's going on in California. I like my AC, having electricity and fuel to power my SUV. Life is a balancing act and I want to balance it in my favor. Obviously you feel the same way.

Cheers!

tngirl


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cmorford Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37169 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Here's a link to the Junkscience Website.

http://www.junkscience.com

Definitly biased, but has lots of links to real science references.


Chuck


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37170 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 9:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This statement generally inclines me to believe this is a bunch of hooey. It is generally accepted that increased warming will lead to larger and more severe storms. Higher temperatures mean more available energy in the atmosphere. More available energy means stronger storms can develop. I think the reason you think this is such a great article is because you agree with it. But that doesn't make it true.

Don't forget some lovely tropical diseases (West Lile virus, encephalitis, dengue fever,cholera) moving north along with fire ants, Formosan termites, and other tropical delights.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37173 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Don't forget some lovely tropical diseases (West Lile virus, encephalitis, dengue fever,cholera) moving north along with fire ants, Formosan termites, and other tropical delights.

KILLER BEES! - Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: UncaMikey Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37174 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 11:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
Economics is, essentially, the tension between supply and demand.

In their personal lives, many here are ardently LBYM. In the supply/demand equation of their lives, they have chosen to reduce 'demand' to ensure greater 'supply.' For example, buy a thrifty used car that has good mileage.

In national and international energy policy, many of the same LBYMers seem to be arguing that the correct approach is to increase supply, not reduce demand (usage). If the SUVs need more gas, let's drill for oil rather than insist upon more efficient cars.

Why the difference?

Whatever one's views on the role of human activity in global warming, there is no doubt that we waste and pollute.

In our private lives, we see waste and pollution as uneconomic and inefficient: we don't buy a whole chicken to eat a single drumstick, we don't leave on every light in the house, we try to moderate our need for heating and cooling.

Shouldn't we view society's waste and pollution as the same sort of economic inefficiency? Aren't all the gases coming out of the smokestack indicative of wasteful processes? Why should two ton vehicles that get 12 MPG be used to transport one person to and from work? The difference, until now, has been that at home, we have to pay for our own waste, while in the larger society the company or person creating the waste has been able to pass the cost of their inefficiency on to someone else. If we stink up the air inside our homes, we have to figure out (and pay for) a way to make it livable again. But if we collectively spoil the air outside, we assume someone else will handle it. As a nation, we will do whatever is necessary, including going to war, to keep gas prices down -- we'll worry about side-effects like smog later.

If someone told you that there was a very good chance that something you did inside your home would endanger your health, would you wait until the evidence was overwhelming and you began to feel the symptoms? Or would you take precautions? Would you opt for preventive health care, or hope for emergency room treatment?

LBYM/FIRE types have struck me as strict, analytical observers of their own lives, ready to find and correct problems before they become serious. Why shouldn't the same attitude apply to our national and global actions?

*>UncaMikey

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Platinumnat One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37175 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Aquila:

You asked So, who is funding this "Think Tank"?

I don't know about all of their contributors, but Exxon Mobil gave them $10000.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html


Science and Environmental Policy, Fairfax, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000

But then again, XOM also funds Masterpiece Theater, so they can't be all bad.

-Platinum Nat


Print the post Back To Top
Author: smushi One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37178 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yea, but who was funding the other studys that have been going on?

A NSF researcher who gets funding based on the current political agenda?



Print the post Back To Top
Author: golfwaymore Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37186 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
In national and international energy policy, many of the same LBYMers seem to be arguing that the correct approach is to increase supply, not reduce demand (usage). If the SUVs need more gas, let's drill for oil rather than insist upon more efficient cars.

I'm not necessarily taking a side here...

However, I think the other side to your statement would argue that in reality, conservation efforts have been massive and successful. I saw a statistic last night on Fox News that showed on a per capita basis, a U.S. citizen uses 39% less oil than than they did in the 1970's.

Of course, conservation and efficiency can be carried to infinity, but in reality, great progress has been made, though seldom reported. Even if conservation efforts continue, the sum/total of a growing market will always equal more demand.





Print the post Back To Top
Author: hoovermatic One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37194 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 12:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I like warm weather.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Platinumnat One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37203 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Yea, but who was funding the other studys that have been going on?

A NSF researcher who gets funding based on the current political agenda?


No, no, no. The other studies are funded by the Fictional Liberal Environmental Coalition (NASDAQ: FLEP). They're notorious conservationists who cross international boundaries to plant trees, put up solar panels, install higher efficiency engines in SUVs, and harness geothermal energy. Their activities are well documented by a number of conservative watchdog organizations who have accused them of having policies which will negatively impact corporate profits and therefore the entire American economic system. Their desire to clean up our environment and preserve our resources will bankrupt us all!

-Platinum Nat



Print the post Back To Top
Author: pasheplee 10+ Year Anniversary! Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37206 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 2:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The earth was here long before Homo Sapiens and it will be here long after. It is very egocentric to suggest that we have the ability to destroy something of the Earth's mass.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37207 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
LBYM/FIRE types have struck me as strict, analytical observers of their own lives, ready to find and correct problems before they become serious. Why shouldn't the same attitude apply to our national and global actions?

*>UncaMikey


Because we believe in freedom and keeping the goverment out of our lives as much as possible.! It's none of their business what I drive.
- Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37227 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 5:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
UncaMikey asked:
LBYM/FIRE types have struck me as strict, analytical observers of their own lives, ready to find and correct problems before they become serious. Why shouldn't the same attitude apply to our national and global actions?

The attitude should apply, but the problem is the abuse and misuse of goverment power. Government power is not a precision instrument. If government power is directed by the emotions of people who haven't got an accurate picture, it is just as likely to do harm as good. If people play on the emotions of the voters in an effort to grab political power and don't really care whether they are doing good or harm, then opposing those people may appear to be wrong when it may actually be the best policy.

At one time, the EPA vehemently opposed "free market" trading in pollution credits. They saw this as a "big business" attempt to neuter them. They didn't want to be in the business of brokering trades. They wanted to be the meanest baddest cop on the street. They didn't want to believe that pollution could be reduced by sound business decisions. They were wrong. Not just wrong, but seriously wrong. They were an example of what happens when we the voters give too much power without accountability to people who have an agenda that is different than their supposed mission.

Excuse me for taking this right down where the rubber meets the runway, but by allowing businesses to sell or recoup two thirds of their pollution allotment for an old inefficient system (e.g. a steam boiler), a company could opt to build a larger but more efficient one or build an equivalent but more efficient one and then sell any remaining allotment to another company that had a need to add a new system that pollutes. The EPA approach was to deny all permits for new construction until a certain reduction target was already met. The "pro business" model was to grant permits so long as they resulted in a 33% reduction from some old inefficient system that could legally have been operated forever. The pro business model was adopted and has helped take many old stinkpots offline in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (the LA basin). The resulting decrease in pollution has been tremendous.

The point of this is that all too often, basing policy on feelgood sentiment can lead to a zero-tolerance, poorly executed bureaucratic regulatory approach that only serves to feed the beast. When it comes to wielding the power of the federal government, acting quick instead of acting smart can be like using nuclear bombs to mow your lawn. Sure, the grass will get cut, but don't ignore the craters and the fallout.

1HappyFool


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dvdguruisme Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37230 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 6:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The consequences of moderate warming are generally beneficial: less severe storms, more rain, better growth of agricultural crops.

Where are you getting this? OK - lets go the junior high school science class.

1) Water evaporates into the air as it just sits there if it is over 32 degrees (we'll leave out the complexity of the drying effect of wind on ice out of this discussion) - would you agree that is not junk science?

2) The warmer it gets and the more thermal energy available, the rate of water converting to vapor increases - would you also agree this is not junk science?

So on a global scale where do you think that water vapor is going? Outerspace? The water vapor is going into the atmosphere.

Now if we fast forward to high school we know that the stored thermal energy in the evaporated water is POTENTIAL energy - would you agree that is not junk science (if you don't turn of the lights in your room).

We also know that the store potential energy can turn into kinetic energy through a number of forces. I can take the stored energy in steam vapor and turn a turbine to make electricity. This is really basic physics 101 stuff.

More water vapor from moderate warming means more POTENTIAL energy when released means more violent storms. Also the increased rate of evaporation means that somewhere more water is being removed than replaced, where some areas will benefit others will suffer - the water vapor is coming from some where. When two air masses collide warm moist air rising up through cold dry air creates storms. The great the variance between the two the more violent the rotation - there are other factors (jet stream, centers of pressure, fronts) but more water, more energy, more violent storms.

I think you need to go back to drawing board on the sales pitch on this one.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tngirl74 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37235 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I think you need to go back to drawing board on the sales pitch on this one.

Tell that to the guy who said it. He has a PH.D. in physics. Why do you think he said there would be more rain. Duh.

When two air masses collide warm moist air rising up through cold dry air creates storms.

Where's the cold dry air coming from? You already stated it was warm and moist. There are no contradictions in nature, only unknowns.

tngirl

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dvdguruisme Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37241 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 6:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Where's the cold dry air coming from? You already stated it was warm and moist. There are no contradictions in nature, only unknowns.

Hmmm, without warm moist air from the tropics cooling and moving toward the poles and dry arctic air from the poles warming and moving toward the equator and the sun churning it up we would have no wind or weather on this planet. It is thermal dynamics and basic ones at that.

By the very fact that you didn't answer any of my questions that I asked you must have doubts on this stance. Unless you're going to tell me that water doesn't evaporate, that the warmer it gets the more evaporates, and that water vapor holds potential energy, and that the vapor can be released as kinetic energy. I don't need a Phd to understand that. Hell I know plenty of Harvard MBA's who will go outside to study the rain, and don't have the common sense to wear a rain coat.

Or are you suggesting that global warming will make every square inch of the earth 80 degrees eliminating polar air masses? Your counter debate is pointless...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dvdguruisme Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37243 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 6:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why do you think he said there would be more rain. Duh.

Hmmm, and more rain means a "moderation," in the strength of storms? Tell that to the folks in New England that just saw the worst winter in 30 years. Tell that to the folks in the Midwest battling the highest river crests in history (or close to it in many places). Ya, we're seeing great examples of the moderate weather producing, "more rain."

And don't even go down the path of, "well why did it snow in New England?" It snows there because it's in the northern latitudes and the White Mountains in New Hampshire in particular have some of the worst weather on the planet. Overall the winter wasn't unusually "COLD" but they were hammered by precipitation. You know, from all that extra water vapor, that was caused by...oh never mind you don't get it all.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37260 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 9:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
<<LBYM/FIRE types have struck me as strict, analytical observers of their own lives, ready to find and correct problems before they become serious. Why shouldn't the same attitude apply to our national and global actions?
>>


They also tend to be advocates of personal freedom and liberty. The problem with your approach is that you want to dictate to people how they will lead their lives.

I see a lot enviro types that HATE SUVs, but enviros seem never to question flying thither and yon around the world for their vacation travels. Why don't enviros begin with a 50% tax on jet fuel as a token of their earnestness?


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: golfwaymore Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37265 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 10:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Hmmm, and more rain means a "moderation," in the strength of storms? Tell that to the folks in New England that just saw the worst winter in 30 years. Tell that to the folks in the Midwest battling the highest river crests in history (or close to it in many places). Ya, we're seeing great examples of the moderate weather producing, "more rain."

This is all very interesting. But I'm curious, assuming that dinosaurs could communicate, I wonder who they blamed the sudden climate shifts and lousy weather on?

I'm imagining a hilarious "Far Side" cartoon just now! <grin>

Golfwaymore





Print the post Back To Top
Author: dvdguruisme Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37273 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/1/2001 11:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This is all very interesting. But I'm curious, assuming that dinosaurs could communicate, I wonder who they blamed the sudden climate shifts and lousy weather on?

I'm imagining a hilarious "Far Side" cartoon just now! <grin>


Agreed - it would be a funny cartoon. Personally I think a bloody big hunk of space rock hurtling toward the earth would do our globe a whole lot of good (assuming it wouldn't destroy everything). I sincerely believe it would make the entire world pull together and cement our country as the global leader. Of course the idea of Dubya handling such a crisis - wow, never mind, bad idea.

I see a whole bunch of cartoons now...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: whd23 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37277 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/2/2001 6:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Hmmm, and more rain means a "moderation," in the strength of storms? Tell that to the folks in New England that just saw the worst winter in 30 years. Tell that to the folks in the Midwest battling the highest river crests in history (or close to it in many places). Ya, we're seeing great examples of the moderate weather producing, "more rain."

Just reporting in from New Hampshire, and I've got to say that this winter wasn't all the meteorologists made it out to be.* Remember, the Weather Channel needs their ratings so they tend to way over-hype the "storm." Almost every dusting of snow is labeled "Storm of the Century!"

* Not that I regret missing one of the major storms by being on a cruise ship in the Southern Carribean. :)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: whd23 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37278 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/2/2001 7:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
I sincerely believe it would make the entire world pull together and cement our country as the global leader.

Until the next time something goes wrong in a cesspool of a country somewhere. Then the USA will take the heat for: doing the wrong thing, not doing anything, or supposedly causing the problem in the first place.

Of course the idea of Dubya handling such a crisis - wow, never mind, bad idea.

I know! Can you picture a president actually assembling a group of people to solve the problem rather than trying to micro-manage the whole process? Of course, The Loser of the last election would state that the meteor was a part of nature and "Who are we to argue with Mother Nature?"


Print the post Back To Top
Author: aquila66 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37284 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/2/2001 9:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
, but enviros seem never to question flying thither and yon around the world for their vacation travels

The average 747 gets 22 passenger miles per gallon of jet fuel. A 777 or a 767 does a bit better. This is quite a bit better than the average yahoo driving around by themselves in a suburban. Where do you live? I've yet to see a plane full of "enviros" flying thither and yon, and I fly a lot. Usually planes seem to be full of grumpy sales types.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: markr33 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37311 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/2/2001 1:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
LBYM/FIRE types have struck me as strict, analytical observers of their own lives, ready to find and correct problems before they become serious. Why shouldn't the same attitude apply to our national and global actions?

We do. We think globally and we act locally. We reduce our expenditures which reduces our energy consumption and out waste products.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: markr33 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37313 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/2/2001 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Personally I think a bloody big hunk of space rock hurtling toward the earth would do our globe a whole lot of good (assuming it wouldn't destroy everything). I sincerely believe it would make the entire world pull together and cement our country as the global leader.

Unless it fell directly on our country :-)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: markr33 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37314 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/2/2001 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The average 747 gets 22 passenger miles per gallon of jet fuel. A 777 or a 767 does a bit better. This is quite a bit better than the average yahoo driving around by themselves in a suburban. Where do you live? I've yet to see a plane full of "enviros" flying thither and yon, and I fly a lot. Usually planes seem to be full of grumpy sales types.

I am an environmentalist and I fly a lot.

I fly a lot because my job demands it and there is no better way to travel long distances at the moment.

My car on the other hand gets about 30 miles per gallon and my wifes car gets about 25 miles per gallon, but we don't drive very much anyway.

How one travels depends on the type of travel, not on their environmental political opinions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: daoffer Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 37995 of 734579
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Please read & rec Date: 5/8/2001 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've been saying for years that I like Global Warming. When I can grow mangoes, papaya, guava, and pineapple on my property here in East Tennessee then it will be warm enough. We haven't had a really bad winter in several years and I haven't missed it at all. I despise cold weather! - Art

Pineapple Guava is supposedly well adapted to the Central Texas area. I'll let you know in a few years if my plant bears! I am definitely looking forward to my loquats producing on a consistent basis.

Debora


Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (48) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement