Which ocean temp is rising? Not the North Sea, not the Antarctic ocean. Saying the oceans are warming is kind of nebulous. Warmer Atlantic ocean means more plankton and therefore more fish. Warmer Arctic Sea might mean more food sources for Polar Bears, as in more fish and more seals. But, there is no evidence it is warmer at the equator. If the hurricane season ramps up to 10-12 hurricanes this year, it might indicate this, but, nobody knows for sure. Remember, the oceans are a humongous heat sink.
Moreover all the doom and gloom about low lying countries and cities being inundated just hasn't proved to be real.
From July 1 to 15, Arctic sea ice extent declined an average of 60,500 square kilometers (23,400 square miles) per day, 22,500 square kilometers (8,690 square miles) per day slower than the 1979 to 2000 average and substantially slower than the rate of decline in May and June. Remember it is summer up there and it melts every year.
Antarctic ocean temperatures are actually falling relative year to year
In short, we are in a solar minimum and the world is getting colder, not warmer.
Arn
Conditions in context
As of July 15, total extent was 8.37 million square kilometers (3.23 million square miles), which is 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the same date, but 360,000 square kilometers (139,000 square miles) above July 15, 2007, the lowest extent for that date in the satellite record.
It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-03-2010).]
Originally posted by newf: Well it depends on what term you choose I suppose I consider it Climate Change as Global Warming is a bit of a misnomer, in that the thought is the ocean temps are rising causing Global Weather Change as you put it.
Bullshit. They screamed "global warming" because they said that the additional CO2 would cause a "runaway greenhouse effect", driving up temperatures all over the planet in an runaway reaction. When that failed to happen, they changed to a "cover your ass", catch-all term "climate change", then preceded to label anything and everything happening in the climate system to be attributed to human-caused "climate change" or AGW. Got hotter? AGW. Got colder? AGW. Got wetter? AGW. Got drier? AGW. More rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more hurricanes, less hurricanes..."climate change", it's our fault, SEE! WE TOLD YOU! We HAVE to pass cap and tax NOW NOW NOW!
As of July 15, total extent was 8.37 million square kilometers (3.23 million square miles), which is 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the same date, but 360,000 square kilometers (139,000 square miles) above July 15, 2007, the lowest extent for that date in the satellite record.
It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
If my reading is correct, both the land and water located ice is increasing. There is one shelf that is not due to a change in ocean currents allowing it to warm up. That is the shelf on which the AGW arguements are based. Everywhere else in Antarctica the ice is deepening. The Gorites have taken to claiming the growth of the Antarctic ice field is due to Global Warming. Yeah. That's right. They claim the North Pole is melting therefore the South Pole is growing. Whew! Now that is stretching the bounds of reason.
In the arctic you'll find commentary about there being open water on the edges which Gorites claim is the opening of the Northwest Passage for commercial traffic, and the slow and sure demise of the Polar bear who can't find food. But look at it as of 15 July 2010
The open water can be caused by Cyclones from Asia, changes in ocean currents, and winds pushing the ice.
Looking at it objectively, you can't really see any evidence of global warming from the satellite images of the North Pole in summer. These areas of open water are relied upon by Inuit hunters who hunt for whales and seals during the summer months. This is all absolutely normal.
While the ice has not recovered to the 1979 level, it is, nonetheless recovering. The promised open water for commercial traffic is just not happening.
You will notice how the ice has thinned out over the summer over Greenland. The visual is actually a bit misleading. The mountain snows have not melted but are continuous for many millenia.
This circumstance in Greenland makes the visually measured ice cover reduction look disproportionately big. It is actually caused by something entirely different. Subterranean activity.
Global TC Activity remains at 30-year lows at least -- The last 24-months of ACE at 1090 represents a decrease from the previous months and a return to the levels of September 2009...Since Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) and the publication of high-profile papers in Nature and Science, global tropical cyclone ACE has collapsed in half. This continues the now 4-consecutive years global crash in tropical cyclone activity. While the Atlantic on average makes up about 10% of the global, yearly hurricane activity, the other 90% deserves attention and has been significantly depressed since 2007. See Figure below.
Northern Hemisphere year-to-date ACE is nearing 50% below normal. The Western North Pacific is at 17% of normal (or the past 30-year average).
August 8: Current 7-10 day forecast models see little if any tropical activity on the horizon. Colin and Bonnie both go into the books as a couple of the weakest tropical cyclones on record. No storms were recorded in the Eastern Pacific during July!
Ryan Maue adds some perspective to the hurricane season to date: is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy through August 5th a useful indicator of the total season activity? Not quite yet: for 1950-2009 historical Atlantic activity, the correlation is still low (r = 0.47) between the ACE through August 5th and the entire season. During the past 30-years (1980-2009) the correlation is (somewhat) better (r=0.63) but there are many seasons that have zero or very little activity at this point in August.
A reference bar graph whipped up from the HURDAT best-track archive of ACE shows the on average, only about 10% of the ACE is seen through August 5 (from 1950-2009).
Just in case the point is missed about what causes cyclones, it is warm ocean temperatures feeding water vapour up into the upper atmosphere, combined with the natural air movement. This mixing of warm moist ocean air with drier upper cooler air gets the cyclones and hurricanes going. It is truly remarkable the extent of the decline of cyclonic activity. On the other hand, more rain, and more snow.
Newf you missed the point of the graph above. It is not confined to one month per year. It shows a steep decline over several years.
Arn
Just because every year doesn't show a rise in cyclone/hurricane activity doesn't indicate much IMO.
The graph data only goes back as far as 1979 for one so who's to say what is average or extreme?
Also contrary to some I don't think the weather or climate is going to change over night, in fact most reading I've done suggest the temp will rise slightly in the next 100 years.
The trend has been upward since the last iceage. That is how we got out of the iceage in the first place. However, there are cycles of cooling, such as 2001 to the present. During the current cooling process, there was fraudulent "fixing" of data to falsely report "global warming". It was that falsified data that forms the basis of all the Al Gore driven propaganda.
Over the next 100 years we may indeed warm slightly, however, there are many factors that could cause us to cool more than warm. Not the least of which is the Sun's activity. Today, 11 August 2010, there are 4 sunspots facing earth. That ain't much. If the solar minimum continues we will find cooling trends to continue. Also, what if the poles reverse? There is some scientific theory which indicates they could be about to do just that. What will the climate implications be? No one knows for certain. There were no scientists around the last time it happened, and no scientific record.
I'll give you that there well could be a slight warming over the next 100 years, but, there could just as easily be a slight cooling, and maybe even a substantial cooling. BTW the cooling may be the cause of the catastrophic rain in Pakistan and China. The global climate change is so far beyond our control you may not believe, but, it is true nonetheless.
Just because every year doesn't show a rise in cyclone/hurricane activity doesn't indicate much IMO.
The Gorites were claiming an increase in hurricane activity due to Global Warming. If there was Global Warming as they claim, there would naturally be more hurricane activity. If you read the cause of hurricanes you see that it is generated by warm ocean water sending warm water vapour into the upper atmosphere. This is an annual occurrence. If we have 2 seasons in a row with lower hurricane activity, it is because the ocean waters are not as warm in each of those 2 years. It was lower last year, and it may well be lower this year. The phenomenon of hurricanes and cyclones is in fact a clear measurement of the level of warmth around the equator.
The Gorites were claiming an increase in hurricane activity due to Global Warming. If there was Global Warming as they claim, there would naturally be more hurricane activity. If you read the cause of hurricanes you see that it is generated by warm ocean water sending warm water vapour into the upper atmosphere. This is an annual occurrence. If we have 2 seasons in a row with lower hurricane activity, it is because the ocean waters are not as warm in each of those 2 years. It was lower last year, and it may well be lower this year. The phenomenon of hurricanes and cyclones is in fact a clear measurement of the level of warmth around the equator.
Arn
Not to mention that the warmists have said that global warming was *accelerating*, that if we didn't do something RIGHT NOW it would be too late, that we have 5 years or less (repeated continuously over the last 20 years) before it's too late...and none of it has been occurring, including increasing hurricanes.
Their theories aren't true because they aren't happening in the real world.
Not to mention that the warmists have said that global warming was *accelerating*, that if we didn't do something RIGHT NOW it would be too late, that we have 5 years or less (repeated continuously over the last 20 years) before it's too late...and none of it has been occurring, including increasing hurricanes.
Their theories aren't true because they aren't happening in the real world.
Please show me where they are saying 5 years or less.
Goes back to my smoking and cancer analogy. Sounds like a person saying well I've smoked for 20 years and nothing is wrong with me.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-11-2010).]
Easy. They're just repeating the same bullshit they have been, continuing the push to get cap and tax passed. There's a lot of money invested in this - millions for climate scientists to keep employed, billions of dollars in potential tax revenue and funds to be redistributed from the United States to other countries, and trillions from a new market for carbon trading. These folks aren't going to give up their cash cow.
Please show me where they are saying 5 years or less.
Goes back to my smoking and cancer analogy. Sounds like a person saying well I've smoked for 20 years and nothing is wrong with me.
Al Gore and James Hansen (from NASA, a major arm-waver) have been saying that for the last 20 years. I'm pretty sure I've posted those links somewhere in this thread before.
Easy. They're just repeating the same bullshit they have been, continuing the push to get cap and tax passed. There's a lot of money invested in this - millions for climate scientists to keep employed, billions of dollars in potential tax revenue and funds to be redistributed from the United States to other countries, and trillions from a new market for carbon trading. These folks aren't going to give up their cash cow.
You got one part right people aren't going to give up their cash cow. You say that there are billions in POTENTIAL dollars yet you don't seem to recognize who might be actually feeding the bullshit to you, namely the Oil companies and the industries whose products use Fossil fuels and pollute.
Who do you think has the power?
Sure it would be great if we could burn all the oil/coal etc. in the earth and not have to worry about the effects but it's pretty clear that using it does damage, time to change and not hold back the technology.
The recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that surface temperatures have increased in the past decade. In fact, the NOAA report, “State of the Climate in 2009,” says 2000-2009 was 0.2 Fahrenheit (0.11 Celsius) warmer than the decade previous. The press release was so splashy it made the front page of Toronto’s Globe and Mail with the headline: “Signs of warming earth ‘unmistakable’”.
Of course, given that the planet is in an interglacial period, we would expect “unmistakable” signs of warming, including melting glaciers and Arctic ice, rising temperatures, and rising sea levels. That’s what the planet does during an interglacial.
Furthermore, we’re nowhere near the peak reached by the interglacial of 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were 1-3C higher than today and sea levels up to 20 feet higher, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself. In other words, the Globe might as well have had a headline reading “Signs of changing weather ‘unmistakable’.”
Similarly, the NOAA report laments: “People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created - one that’s warmer and more extreme.” The implication is that we can somehow freeze-dry the climate we’ve got to last forever, which is absurd.
Sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 15,000 years, causing all kinds of inconvenience for humanity in the process-and all quite naturally. As the interglacial continues, sea levels will rise and temperatures will increase-until the interglacial reaches its peak, at which point the planet will again move toward glacial conditions. To think that we can somehow stop this process is insane.
Even die-hard alarmists admitted 2000-2009 cooling But what about the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .11C during 2000-2009? Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was no warming and even some cooling.
One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasn’t warming as expected by the models (that is, about 0.2C per decade). For example, as early as 2005 the then head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, wrote in an email: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Fellow Climategate emailer and IPCC contributor Kevin Trenberth wrote to hockey-stick creator Michael Mann in 2009: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Note the date: 2009, the last year of the decade. As far as Trenberth knew-and he should have known as a leading IPCC author-the planet hadn’t warmed for several years up to that time.
Even Tim Flannery, author of the arch-alarmist The Weather Makers, acknowledged in November 2009: “In the last few years, where there hasn’t been a continuation of that warming trend, we don’t understand all of the factors that creates Earth’s climate, so there are some things we don’t understand, that’s what the scientists were emailing about. These people [the scientists] work with models, computer modeling. When the computer modeling and the real world data disagree you have a problem.”
Jones tries for climate honesty Yes, you do have a problem, to the point where, in February 2010, after he’d been suspended as head of the CRU following the Climategate scandal, and in an attempt to restore his reputation as an honest scientist, Jones came a bit clean in an interview with the BBC. For example, Jones agreed with the BBC interviewer that there had been “no statistically significant warming” since 1995 (although he asserted that the warming was close to significant), whereas in his 2005 email he was at pains to hide the lack of warming from the public and even fellow researchers.
Jones admitted that from 2002-2009 the planet had been cooling slightly (-0.12C per decade), although he contended that “this trend is not statistically significant.” In short, as far as Jones knew in February 2010-and as the keeper of the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record he was surely in a very good position to know-the planet hadn’t warmed on average over the decade.
In the BBC interview, Jones calculated the overall surface temperature trend for 1975 to 2009 to be +0.16C per decade. Since that includes the warming years 1975-1998, it seems incredible that NOAA could manufacture a warming of 0.11C for 2000-2009, as shown in this graph from the 2009 NOAA report, page 5.
To show this level of warming, NOAA must have included lead-up to the January-March 2010 El Nino. A surge in warming at the end of the decade would tend to pull the 2000-2009 average up, but this doesn’t negate the fact that for almost all of the last decade, the planet did not warm.
(Note that the temperature is in Fahrenheit degrees. This caused much confusion in Canadian newspapers, including the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and most newspapers on the National Post’s Postmedia news network. All reported the increase as 0.2 Celsius rather than Fahrenheit, thereby doubling the already dubious warming claimed by NOAA. On Monday, Aug. 1, I sent letters to the Globe, National Post and Victoria Times Colonist pointing out this factual error. None of these newspapers has printed either the letter or a correction.)
NOAA’s U.S. temperatures contradict 2009 report
Curiously, another part of the NOAA website directly contradicts the NOAA report. On its site, NOAA offers a gadget that lets browsers check the temperature trend in the continental United States for any two years between 1895 and 2010. Here’s what the graph shows for the years 2000-2009 in the United States: This graph shows a temperature decline of 0.73Fahrenheit (-0.4C) for 2000-2009 in the U.S. To get a perspective on how large a decline this is: the IPCC estimates that the temperature increase for the whole of the 20th century was 1.1F, or 0.6C. In other words, at least in the United States, the past decade’s cooling wiped out two-thirds of the temperature gain of the last century.
While the U.S. isn’t, of course, the whole world, it has the world’s best temperature records, and a review of the NOAA data since 1895 shows that in the 20th century the U.S. temperature trends mirrored, quite closely, the global temperature trends. So, for example, between 1940-1975, a global cooling period, the NOAA chart showed a temperature decline of 0.14F (-0.07C).
In other words, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that the global temperature trend from 2000-2009 could be a full 0.51C - half a degree Celsius - higher than the temperature trend for the United States (that is, -.4C + .11C).
Until NOAA issues a correction (which isn’t likely), the cooling of the past decade - which has been such an embarrassment to the hypothesis that human-caused carbon emissions will cause runaway warming - is gone, conjured away by a wave of the NOAA climate fairy’s magic wand.
See compilation of scientist responses to NOAA’s report by SPPI here.
Icecap Note: the warm spring and hot summer for a lot of places is characteristic of a La Nina summer post an El Nino winter. Best example may be 1988. This was used by many forecasters to warn of a hot summer. The same hypocritical alarmists touting the extreme summer heat in places (one of the coldest summers in a century in the west), told us to ignore the coldest winters in decades and in places ever in the Northern Hemisphere last winter as that was weather not climate.
See a collection of respponses back to NOAA’s recent claims on SPPI here.
You got one part right people aren't going to give up their cash cow. You say that there are billions in POTENTIAL dollars yet you don't seem to recognize who might be actually feeding the bullshit to you, namely the Oil companies and the industries whose products use Fossil fuels and pollute.
OK, let's go with that idea for the moment. Do you think that passing cap and tax and other such measures will get us to stop using petroleum any time soon? What will replace it?
There is ample evidence that pro-warming data has been manipulated or even made up. The oil companies had nothing to do with it.
quote
Who do you think has the power?
If it's the oil companies, could you present your evidence?
quote
Sure it would be great if we could burn all the oil/coal etc. in the earth and not have to worry about the effects but it's pretty clear that using it does damage, time to change and not hold back the technology.
Oil companies aren't "holding back the technology". If there were an alternative, the free market would be all over it.
Never said that particular site was run by oil, just saying that their asking for money gives them little credibility, it's like reading a blog about anything , I'd rather get news from proven sources. Not saying they are infallable but there's a better chance of the truth.
I don't think I need to prove oil companies have more power than almost anyone, you have to concede that. How big is the oil lobby in Washington I wonder?
Yes, it's in oil companies best interest to hold back the switch green technology, if the commitment was made like so many of your presidents declared it would be done by now. The change over would be expensive so it's much cheaper to stay with fossil fuels and try and disregard the fact that it is effecting the environment negatively.
I don't underestand how you think some people came up with a "great" plan to make money by selling Governments some big lie by taking on the biggest corporations in the world with the backing of made up science. It doesn't make any sense to me, you can dispute the data by saying you think we aren't having that big of an impact but to just disbelieve so much science because you think it's some kind of elaborate trick by liberals is mind boggling.
Never said that particular site was run by oil, just saying that their asking for money gives them little credibility, it's like reading a blog about anything , I'd rather get news from proven sources. Not saying they are infallable but there's a better chance of the truth.
Given that the peer review process has been compromised, you probably won't find published anti-warming info.
I don't think I need to prove oil companies have more power than almost anyone, you have to concede that. How big is the oil lobby in Washington I wonder?
quote
Yes, it's in oil companies best interest to hold back the switch green technology, if the commitment was made like so many of your presidents declared it would be done by now. The change over would be expensive so it's much cheaper to stay with fossil fuels and try and disregard the fact that it is effecting the environment negatively.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. What green technologies are available right now to power cars? Electricity? Battery technology is the main problem. Can you show that oil companies are holding back more advanced batteries?
quote
I don't underestand how you think some people came up with a "great" plan to make money by selling Governments some big lie by taking on the biggest corporations in the world with the backing of made up science. It doesn't make any sense to me, you can dispute the data by saying you think we aren't having that big of an impact but to just disbelieve so much science because you think it's some kind of elaborate trick by liberals is mind boggling.
WOAH! Wait a sec. I didn't say it was only a big trick by liberals. And I've spent the last 2+ years posting contrary SCIENCE in this very thread. I do NOT "disbelieve" just because of liberals or any such thing. My skepticism started with Al Gore and his arm waving. I decided that before I was going to buy this disaster scenario, I'd better check into this. I don't often believe what I'm told, I like to check it out for myself. The more I checked, the fishier it got.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. What green technologies are available right now to power cars? Electricity? Battery technology is the main problem.
Problems like that are for the short sighted.
"So, how will the system work? The computer in the car will tell you when your battery is about to run out and where you should get it charged. In a time that takes less than pumping gas, you can get your battery replaced; the charge goes automatically to your credit card. The charge is according to usage, similar to cell phone charges.
Also, when you park your cars, you can hook it on to cables that will charge your car while you are shopping or at work or just sleeping at home.
Ninety-two Israeli companies have agreed to convert a portion of their fleets to electric vehicles once they become commercially available. It is a revolutionary project, which has been lapped up by Denmark, Australia and Japan."
I hate to once again pour cold water on an idea. In Ontario, they've just jacked hydro rates by 17% overnite. I am now paying more for hydro than I am for natural gas. The Province claims they need the extra revenue to build new electrical generation capacity ($3Billion to Korea to supply windmills BTW). This is without switching to electric cars. To run a fleet of electric cars you would have to build hundreds of new generating facilities, and likely nuclear. There is no free ride. Switch to alcohol, and you take food production off stream to do it. Switch to any other form of power and there is a cost. And, for those of us who believe CO2 is a threat, try the increased production of corn for instance, or processing bovine excrement, or burning garbage. All of these things have an environmental impact. I repeat, there is no free ride.
Right now we have the technology to clean up 200+ years worth of coal sitting waiting to be used. We can clean up gas emissions. We have Propane. There are lots of answers and lots of questions, however, to get back to the basic point of this thread, there is no man-made global warming. We do have pollution problems though. And that is another and worthy discussion IMHO.
For now, the poles are not melting. The glaciers are a mixed bag of growing ones and shrinking ones, and the winters are downright cold. And, the polar bears are healthy and well.
Originally posted by newf: Problems like that are for the short sighted.
I think you're being hopelessly optimistic.
quote
"So, how will the system work? The computer in the car will tell you when your battery is about to run out and where you should get it charged. In a time that takes less than pumping gas, you can get your battery replaced; the charge goes automatically to your credit card. The charge is according to usage, similar to cell phone charges.
I'd need to see the diagram of the current electric cars, but I don't think the battery systems are that easily replaced, even if you tried to design it that way. They are big, heavy and complicated (I read there's a heat issue, meaning they have a battery cooling system).
quote
Also, when you park your cars, you can hook it on to cables that will charge your car while you are shopping or at work or just sleeping at home.
You're talking about the creation of a VAST infrastructure. That's not something you can do overnight, even if it were simply a matter of "political will."
quote
Ninety-two Israeli companies have agreed to convert a portion of their fleets to electric vehicles once they become commercially available. It is a revolutionary project, which has been lapped up by Denmark, Australia and Japan."
Company fleets are in situations where the logistics are easier to deal with. You're talking about *everyone, everywhere* switching to electric, and primarily to solve a problem that doesn't exist. That would be a HORRENDOUS waste of money to force this change.
Company fleets are in situations where the logistics are easier to deal with. You're talking about *everyone, everywhere* switching to electric, and primarily to solve a problem that doesn't exist. That would be a HORRENDOUS waste of money to force this change.
It's being done!! I never said anything about it being done overnight but it's time to start IMO. A problem that doesn't exist? Even if you ignore climate change the pollution alone is a major problem, reliance on foreign oil is another.
Funny you don't mind supporting the oil companies and their record profits (hmmmm let's see BP have a major environmental disaster and it's blip to them, just the risk of drilling) yet if someone proposes an energy that can be produced locally and has less impact on the environment you don't like the idea. Even an American that made his money in Oil supports the change but nah it's easier this way, right? Besides your contention that you don't want to pay extra (who ever does) what other reasons do you have for not supporting changes to greener technologies?
It's being done!! I never said anything about it being done overnight but it's time to start IMO.
You might not, but the warmists are pushing pretty hard.
quote
A problem that doesn't exist? Even if you ignore climate change the pollution alone is a major problem, reliance on foreign oil is another.
Air pollution is virtually gone in this country. Automobiles and stationary sources have gotten very clean. The pollution isn't much of an issue.
As far as reliance on foreign oil, the leftists are doing everything they can to make sure we aren't expanding our own resources, whether it's Obama killing offshore drilling, or George Soros killing oil from shale.
quote
Funny you don't mind supporting the oil companies and their record profits (hmmmm let's see BP have a major environmental disaster and it's blip to them, just the risk of drilling) yet if someone proposes an energy that can be produced locally and has less impact on the environment you don't like the idea. Even an American that made his money in Oil supports the change but nah it's easier this way, right? Besides your contention that you don't want to pay extra (who ever does) what other reasons do you have for not supporting changes to greener technologies?
I'll skip over the hyperbole, and address the real issues. Wishing for reasonably priced alternative energy to be here is just that - wishing. As for not wanting to pay more for energy, you brush over that like it shouldn't matter. You're damn right I don't want to pay more for gasoline (or the equivalent for my car), electricity, natural gas, and by the way EVERYTHING else you buy including food because it take energy to make it, grow it, ship it, refrigerate it , and so on. That you are will to either means you haven't really thought this through completely or are not practical with your money.
I'll skip over the hyperbole, and address the real issues. Wishing for reasonably priced alternative energy to be here is just that - wishing. As for not wanting to pay more for energy, you brush over that like it shouldn't matter. You're damn right I don't want to pay more for gasoline (or the equivalent for my car), electricity, natural gas, and by the way EVERYTHING else you buy including food because it take energy to make it, grow it, ship it, refrigerate it , and so on. That you are will to either means you haven't really thought this through completely or are not practical with your money.
Not at all but you are assuming oil prices are going to stay stabalized, they can change overnight. It was only 2 years ago analysts were predicting $200 a barrell oil, and what happened, people started to look towards alternate sources and funny enough the oil prices dropped slightly then the economy takes a dive and so does rthe price of oil. hmmmmmm...
I've got news for you, if we continue relying on Fossils we are subject to the world economy and it's oil prices for the price of everything you just mentioned.
We're you alive during the moon shot? Man you must have been so against that!! :P
Not at all but you are assuming oil prices are going to stay stabalized, they can change overnight. It was only 2 years ago analysts were predicting $200 a barrell oil, and what happened, people started to look towards alternate sources and funny enough the oil prices dropped slightly then the economy takes a dive and so does rthe price of oil. hmmmmmm...
You make a good point about potential oil price spikes. We've already seen that. I disagree that efforts at alternative energy are driving down oil prices. I think it is falling demand with the recession.
quote
I've got news for you, if we continue relying on Fossils we are subject to the world economy and it's oil prices for the price of everything you just mentioned.
Well, if we artificially limit supply like Obama and Soros are doing, the price *will* go up eventually.
quote
We're you alive during the moon shot? Man you must have been so against that!! :P
Yeah. I was 5. But now that I'm middle aged, I can say that one of the best uses for government spending and my tax money is NASA and it's manned and unmanned space exploration.
