Cap and Trade vote on Friday

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I bolded some stuff to above to reply to the post.

But I got blinded with psuedoscience.

OMG.
I humbly submit a question to the board:
Is this how the general public (Joe the Plumber)
thinks and believes?
Im serious.
This is scary.

Which part do you disagree with? If the world (or any other object, no matter how massive) was getting progressively hotter, would there be summers or seasons where the average temp around the world was lower? The answer is no -- it would have to keep progressing to higher and higher temperatures to support the theory. I don't believe you are justified in putting somebody down because they don't blindly accept your unproven belief.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Obama is a failure.

Now that I can agree with.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, which had nothing at all to do with the previous discussion at hand, least of all the context of which I brought up Carter's name. You went off on a weird tangent. I told you if you wanted to discuss his middle east policies and successes or failures, start your own thread and enjoy.



LOL - I never said man created a drought Man's changing the environmental ecology by tilling thousands of acres of soil was indeed the sole cause of subsequently losing all that soil when that man-altered environment was subjected to normal environmental variances.

but tilling wasn't the sole cause. drought caused the seeds not to sprout, which meant no growth to hold the soil, which caused it to blow away. there was no reason, after years of farming that region, to think farming there was a bad thing. it certainly wasn't the farmers fault that the jet stream shifted, taking the rain with it.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the Chinese are polluting but the they repair the damage?

Yes they are, and they will have to continue in a major way as they become a larger economy.
You dont think we should watch closely?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are assuming that this big break through in batteries will come soon. Why i dont know. Certainly there will be trillions of dollars to be made for the company that makes the breakthrough so it is hard to believe that there isnt tons of research being done already. I prefer to not make assumptions of things that we cannot know of (like break through in technology) but rather of things that we do know of (like monetary policy) Assuming that the world can just change over to electric cars based upon a discovery that hasnt happened yet is not simplistic. You are right. It is insane.

Stunningly shortsighted again.

Basic research into storing electrical energy is in its infancy.
In our country, basic research is guided by the government and
the public sector watches and siezes upon finds that can make
money. Do you not get this? How do you think the majority of
the drugs that are on the market got started? You think some
company just picks up a basic fact out of the air
and starts from scratch without BASIC RESEARCH?
And the idea that storing electrical energy efficiently can only
be applied to cars (or this is what you attribute my thoughts to)
is again terribly simplistic or disingenous.

You basically have no idea how the free market plays a major
role in innovation. How mistakes in basic research and in R and D
within companies leads to innovation.

Does Conservative automatically disqualify one from believing in
innovation since that would not be a conservative endeavour?

Further.
Have you ever read a SCIENCE article that attempts to point out
its own shortfalls? THis is what SCIENCE does. 'Here is what we think
we know, and here is why we are skeptical about our own conclusions.'

Originally Posted by joeydb

Which part do you disagree with? If the world (or any other object, no matter how massive) was getting progressively hotter, would there be summers or seasons where the average temp around the world was lower? The answer is no -- it would have to keep progressing to higher and higher temperatures to support the theory. I don't believe you are justified in putting somebody down because they don't blindly accept your unproven belief.

Post #18.

The answer is yes.
And if it did not happen we would expect someone
is faking data or that we really dont know what the
crud is going on.

Sorry I was/am being overbearing.

There are posters on the board that never ever question
why they believe a certain way and why they are inclined
to knee jerk in a very predictable way on any issue.
I do not believe I am one of those posters. Others
may disagree. Some people actually have a desire
to know the truth, not what they want the truth to be.

If you have any articles from one of the many climate/meterology
journals that use forms that contain abstracts, please post as we
could all then read the findings and find out about the people who
actually care about being accurate.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. 1.That is not the dispute. 2.The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

1.Yes it is according to you. You do not believe we are in a warming period.

2.You read nothing I wrote before.
Sorry about all the other stuff before this.

Lastly.
A problem with basic research illustrated today.
This would be in the category of storage of electrical energy.
Except this is about grants possibly wasted on Cancer research.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.
The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.
Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.
One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.
“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental progress,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and chairman of the Board of Scientific Advisors, an independent group that makes recommendations to the cancer institute.
The institute’s reviewers choose such projects because, with too little money to finance most proposals, they are timid about taking chances on ones that might not succeed. The problem, Dr. Young and others say, is that projects that could make a major difference in cancer prevention and treatment are all too often crowded out because they are too uncertain.

I can see how if consevative means what I think it does,
it may not be compatable with significant new findings in
Science. I would hope this is not the case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. That is not the dispute. The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1078



some excerpts:


This is not to say that we don't face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

'... one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s'


the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years

For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."



What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly



http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/j...25/185606.html


Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”


CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.


The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.


Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.

Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1078



some excerpts:


This is not to say that we don't face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

'... one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s'


the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years

For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."



What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly



http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/j...25/185606.html


Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”


CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.


The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.


Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.

Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

First ref.

Fredrick Singer.

Well known scientist because of the books he has written on the great global warming swindle. A conservative favorite. A scientist that gets into policy. Just like the other side where some of these guys discredit themselves by writing these books forecasting New York going under water in 50 years when this part of the science/policy is not their speciality.

Second ref.

Look at the adds.

I have personally been through so many of these its quite sad.
People trying to make money off of our personal politics.
IN the name of science. Both groups.

My initial claim is still sound from the overall sources without political
bents that I went through about 6 months ago: The earth is
in a warming period. It is not clear what is causing it... then
conjecture from humans to the sun cycles and on and on.

The paragraph directly above has not changed.
Any other articles would be appreciated though.
I have seen a bunch of them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Stunningly shortsighted again.

Basic research into storing electrical energy is in its infancy.
In our country, basic research is guided by the government and
the public sector watches and siezes upon finds that can make
money. Do you not get this? How do you think the majority of
the drugs that are on the market got started? You think some
company just picks up a basic fact out of the air
and starts from scratch without BASIC RESEARCH?
And the idea that storing electrical energy efficiently can only
be applied to cars (or this is what you attribute my thoughts to)
is again terribly simplistic or disingenous.

You basically have no idea how the free market plays a major
role in innovation. How mistakes in basic research and in R and D
within companies leads to innovation.

Does Conservative automatically disqualify one from believing in
innovation since that would not be a conservative endeavour?

Further.
Have you ever read a SCIENCE article that attempts to point out
its own shortfalls? THis is what SCIENCE does. 'Here is what we think
we know, and here is why we are skeptical about our own conclusions.'

For innovation to actually occur the scientific breakthroughs must be real, not hypothetical. So what if these battery storage breakthroughs never come? Then what? It has nothing to do with being shortsighted. Everybody wants a better way. But some of us can wait till it is actually possible.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1.Yes it is according to you. You do not believe we are in a warming period.

2.You read nothing I wrote before.
Sorry about all the other stuff before this.

Lastly.
A problem with basic research illustrated today.
This would be in the category of storage of electrical energy.
Except this is about grants possibly wasted on Cancer research.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.
The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.
Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.
One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.
“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental progress,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and chairman of the Board of Scientific Advisors, an independent group that makes recommendations to the cancer institute.
The institute’s reviewers choose such projects because, with too little money to finance most proposals, they are timid about taking chances on ones that might not succeed. The problem, Dr. Young and others say, is that projects that could make a major difference in cancer prevention and treatment are all too often crowded out because they are too uncertain.

I can see how if consevative means what I think it does,
it may not be compatable with significant new findings in
Science. I would hope this is not the case.

You know what I love? When you begin to argue with yourself. Then try to equate being Conservative with cancer research.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by pgardn

First ref.

Fredrick Singer.

Well known scientist because of the books he has written on the great global warming swindle. A conservative favorite. A scientist that gets into policy. Just like the other side where some of these guys discredit themselves by writing these books forecasting New York going under water in 50 years when this part of the science/policy is not their speciality.

Second ref.

Look at the adds.

I have personally been through so many of these its quite sad.
People trying to make money off of our personal politics.
IN the name of science. Both groups.

My initial claim is still sound from the overall sources without political
bents that I went through about 6 months ago: The earth is
in a warming period. It is not clear what is causing it... then
conjecture from humans to the sun cycles and on and on.

The paragraph directly above has not changed.
Any other articles would be appreciated though.
I have seen a bunch of them.

give up.

you're fighting a brain that evolved to be cognizant of immediate threats. saber toothed tiger's leaping from underbrush. not things that take decades or centuries.

i'm impressed that denial is now a minority position. i think it says a lot about our social evolution.

but you'll never convince everyone. one 70 degree day in august is all the proof needed you're wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Here is what this thread tells us.
1. There is a lot of conflicting data on climate change
2. The Pro global warming crowd is absolutely right and any questions raised against their closely held but seemingly diminished theory is obviously either wrong, politically motivated or grandstanding scientists.
3. The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals
4. Farmers should have forseen a drought coming in order to prevent the dust bowl from coming.
5. China is suddenly on the cutting edge of pollution technology

Anything i missed?

[hi_im_god]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...Community.aspx

this is bad.

the delusion of climate change even invaded the bush era defense department.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You know what I love? When you begin to argue with yourself. Then try to equate being Conservative with cancer research.

Again totally disingenious.
The point of the article basic research funds
are not going into projects that will yield signficant results.
I then quipped that the way this funding works might
be a conservative way of thinking.


And of course I argue with myself all the time.
Because I hope to look at everything in order
to find 'the truth'. This is a difficult subject area,
but not as much if you limit your questions. I purposely
look (as odd as it may seem to you) for sources that
go against my initial reactions to events and such.

And I fail to see how I argued with myself in the post,
but I definitely argue and question my own leanings.
I happen to think its healthy to be honest in trying
to find out how things work.

But if you prefer not to take any self examination of
your views that is your choice. Dont be dissappointed
when the world does not work like you want it to.

This is really a basic philisophical difference between
people. Some people question, others seek comfortable
views and seek affirmation of those views. Cover
those eyes.

I am not and never have been an environmental freak.
I do like a good kayak trip in quiet water. I am a water
hugger.

Guilty.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here is what this thread tells us.
1. There is a lot of conflicting data on climate change
2. The Pro global warming crowd is absolutely right and any questions raised against their closely held but seemingly diminished theory is obviously either wrong, politically motivated or grandstanding scientists.
3. The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals
4. Farmers should have forseen a drought coming in order to prevent the dust bowl from coming.
5. China is suddenly on the cutting edge of pollution technology

Anything i missed?

1. Yes there is. But the majority points to the warming of the
Earth for at least the last 50 years.

2. Yes it always comes down to politics.

3. PLEASE send me the info. I have found some good stuff
for your argument (the Earth is not in a warming period).
But the majority is clearly the OTHER side.

4. pass

5. They are in Coal plants that give off less CO2. They are experimental
and expensive. The point was that they are going to be in a lot
of trouble with their air and water. ANd will have to do something innovative.
But to hell with that. We dont need to see how any other country
handles a problem and try to learn from it.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

give up.

you're fighting a brain that evolved to be cognizant of immediate threats. saber toothed tiger's leaping from underbrush. not things that take decades or centuries.

i'm impressed that denial is now a minority position. i think it says a lot about our social evolution

but you'll never convince everyone. one 70 degree day in august is all the proof needed you're wrong.

Its easy and comfortable.

Perhaps you are right.
By the retorts that have been distorted
I am wasting my time.

I will again invoke Jonathan Swift:
Do not try to reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into.

As I stated in another post, it may just be
basic philisophical differences of trying to
figure out how the world works and our place
in it.

[Danzig]

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but tilling wasn't the sole cause. drought caused the seeds not to sprout, which meant no growth to hold the soil, which caused it to blow away. there was no reason, after years of farming that region, to think farming there was a bad thing. it certainly wasn't the farmers fault that the jet stream shifted, taking the rain with it.

"In 1857, a bill was brought forth to the Ohio State Legislature seeking protection for the passenger pigeon."

"A Select Committee of the Senate filed a report stating, 'The passenger pigeon needs no protection. Wonderfully prolific, having the vast forests of the North as its breeding grounds, traveling hundreds of miles in search of food, it is here today and elsewhere tomorrow, and no ordinary destruction can lessen them, or be missed from the myriads that are yearly produced.' "

"Fifty-seven years later, on September 1, 1914, Martha, the last known passenger pigeon, died in the Cincinnati Zoo, Cincinnati, Ohio."

If I believed that man was a victim in the dust bowl, rather than the main contributory cause, then I would also have to blame the Colorado River no longer reaching the sea on, not because of man in the US literally sucking it dry and empty, but on weather (rain and snow melt) not providing man enough water to ensure our excessive drain and abuse could not suck it dry.

I don't believe that

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here is what this thread tells us.

The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals

I can't help but think of CannonShell as an ignorant, religious radical.