quote Originally posted by cliffw: I will if you will answer these questions. So what if it is true ? Will mankind end ? No. The poor dummies (millions) who built next to an ocean will be inconvenienced ? A fix for that is to inconvenience everybody else in the world ? Including all the people who depend on jobs from the coal industry ? Including the people's productivity due to cheap oil and gas motorization and heating ? Including all the spin off economy generated from fossil fuels ? Including all the tax revenues generated. So what if man made Global Warming is happening ?

quote Originally posted by newf: http://iopscience.iop.org/1...6/8/2/024024/article Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

That's because, despite false claims that the "big oil" is spending huge money against AGW, the VAST MAJORITY (you like that phrase) of the money being spent is on supporting AGW.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: That's because, despite false claims that the "big oil" is spending huge money against AGW, the VAST MAJORITY (you like that phrase) of the money being spent is on supporting AGW.

You actually believe such things don't you?

I'm not saying there aren't people out there on both sides looking to profit from Climate Change but to suggest that all the science is tainted because there is a effort to support AGW is baseless IMO.

Remind us again who has the most to lose, Big oil or the researchers? Who holds the power? what benefit is it to researches to lie?

There is ample evidence that "big oil" are using similar techniques as the tobacco industry to delay and hold on to their power however.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I will if you will answer these questions. So what if it is true ? Will mankind end ? No. The poor dummies (millions) who built next to an ocean will be inconvenienced ? A fix for that is to inconvenience everybody else in the world ? Including all the people who depend on jobs from the coal industry ? Including the people's productivity due to cheap oil and gas motorization and heating ? Including all the spin off economy generated from fossil fuels ? Including all the tax revenues generated. So what if man made Global Warming is happening ?

quote Originally posted by newf:

I thought so. No wonder I at the global warming hype. What is it that you guys want ?

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm not saying there aren't people out there on both sides looking to profit from Climate Change but to suggest that all the science is tainted because there is a effort to support AGW is baseless IMO. Remind us again who has the most to lose, Big oil or the researchers? Who holds the power? what benefit is it to researches to lie?

Again, what if it is real science ? So what if it is happening ? I don't see no dire repercussions. None.
The one with the most to lose would be the consumers of energy, any energy.

You are forgetting that many governments are spending Trillions to get "alternative" energy.

There is a huge involvement, particularly by Democrats in the "alternative energy sector" They are heavily invested based on them believing the scare tactics foisted on us 10 - 13 years ago. These guys stand to lose millions of dollars if the truth comes out.

The truth is almost out now.

NASA has finally admitted it to a point.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

NASA's press release

CO2 is not a heat agent, it is both a heat and cooling agent. It moderates the earth's temperature.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: CO2 is not a heat agent, it is both a heat and cooling agent. It moderates the earth's temperature.

More CO² is whats needed, .
The thing is, the Global Warming zealots will discount anything which disagrees with their beliefs. How can you trust people like that, ?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: You are forgetting that many governments are spending Trillions to get "alternative" energy. There is a huge involvement, particularly by Democrats in the "alternative energy sector" They are heavily invested based on them believing the scare tactics foisted on us 10 - 13 years ago. These guys stand to lose millions of dollars if the truth comes out. The truth is almost out now. NASA has finally admitted it to a point. “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” NASA's press release CO2 is not a heat agent, it is both a heat and cooling agent. It moderates the earth's temperature. Arn

from your link
''In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years. ''

BUT as footnoted

''Footnote: (1) No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.” ''

so the CO2 removed 1/100,000 of the normal heat from the very top of the atmosphere

also from your link

'' “We’re just emerging from a deep solar minimum,” says Russell. “The solar cycle is gaining strength with a maximum expected in 2013.” ''

Does this look like a sun that is ramping up activity in 2013? This is today's image.



The solar minimum was in 2009. However, the sun has not become particularly active in 2013

The earth absorbs the heat, true, especially the oceans. Water is an excellent conductor and storage medium for heat. (ask Thomas Watt) The center of the earth is molten, true. The further you dig the hotter it gets.

This in no way detracts from the NASA statement I have quoted. CO2 functions very differently than what the Global Warming alarmists and lobbyists would have you believe.

Arn

PS ask youself, "if mines get hotter the lower they go, then would the ocean also get hotter the lower you dove down?" Both means of travelling toward the center of the earth get you closer to the molten core. Think about it.

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-06-2013).]

Until all of you go to school, and become expert scientists in this field i really don't see the point of your arguing your internet found "facts" about this subject.. Because in reality, not a one of you really knows crap about any of this, and are unqualified to answer anything..

Reading websites on the interwebs does not make any of you experts.. But i will admit it is entertaining to watch you all argue, belittle, and insult one another about a subject, that in reality, you know little to nothing about..

Have any of you ever thought about a middle ground? Of course not, because none of you will admit that when it comes to the question, "Are humans causing global warming".. To just admit that... YOU DON'T KNOW! Gasp! OMG! You might have to actually admit you... Actually.. Don't know!

Then again, look at the group im talking to..

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 07-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: There is a huge involvement, particularly by Democrats in the "alternative energy sector" ....

Rational energy policy should not be a partisan issue. I supported reasonable diversification of energy sources ... including "alternative energy" ... when I was a Republican (more than a decade), until there was no place left for social moderates in the Republican Party. I supported it when I was a Democrat. I have continued to support it as an Independent.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-07-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Does this look like a sun that is ramping up activity in 2013? This is today's image. The solar minimum was in 2009. However, the sun has not become particularly active in 2013 The earth absorbs the heat, true, especially the oceans. Water is an excellent conductor and storage medium for heat. (ask Thomas Watt) The center of the earth is molten, true. The further you dig the hotter it gets. This in no way detracts from the NASA statement I have quoted. CO2 functions very differently than what the Global Warming alarmists and lobbyists would have you believe. Arn PS ask youself, "if mines get hotter the lower they go, then would the ocean also get hotter the lower you dove down?" Both means of travelling toward the center of the earth get you closer to the molten core. Think about it.

the far upper atmosphere is a far different place then where we live
the little amount of gas at very very low pressure is very very cold
and really has no effect on how CO2 acts at normal pressures and temperatures
at or near sea level

no the deep ocean is very cold and very far from the core

btw core heat comes from radioactive decay not solar heat

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: btw core heat comes from radioactive decay not solar heat

Don't forget friction.. There is LOTS of it down at the core.. Makes alot of heat..

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Until all of you go to school, and become expert scientists in this field i really don't see the point of your arguing your internet found "facts" about this subject.. Because in reality, not a one of you really knows crap about any of this, and are unqualified to answer anything.. Reading websites on the interwebs does not make any of you experts.. But i will admit it is entertaining to watch you all argue, belittle, and insult one another about a subject, that in reality, you know little to nothing about.. Have any of you ever thought about a middle ground? Of course not, because none of you will admit that when it comes to the question, "Are humans causing global warming".. To just admit that... YOU DON'T KNOW! Gasp! OMG! You might have to actually admit you... Actually.. Don't know! Then again, look at the group im talking to..

I've admitted plenty of times I don't know and I'm no expert in the area of Climate Change, it's merely my opinion that agrees with what I consider good science and reputable sources. I often have compared it to a doctors assessment, sure if I go to the hospital the doctors can be wrong but I'll trust them more than I do the janitor when it comes to my health.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I will if you will answer these questions. So what if it is true ? Will mankind end ? No. The poor dummies (millions) who built next to an ocean will be inconvenienced ? A fix for that is to inconvenience everybody else in the world ? Including all the people who depend on jobs from the coal industry ? Including the people's productivity due to cheap oil and gas motorization and heating ? Including all the spin off economy generated from fossil fuels ? Including all the tax revenues generated. So what if man made Global Warming is happening ?

There is more at risk than just rising sea levels. Agriculture will probably be the first and the most affected. Droughts are one thing. Cultivatable land will have to be available in different locations.

quote Originally posted by dratts: There is more at risk than just rising sea levels. Agriculture will probably be the first and the most affected. Droughts are one thing. Cultivatable land will have to be available in different locations.

Droughts which affected agriculture like the 1930's Dust Bowl ? When man made CO² was at now historic lows. Different cultivatable lands should not be hard to find and it would give others a chance to cash in on farming.
The thing is, there is no scientific evidence linking Global Warming to droughts, floods, hurricanes, or even heat/cold waves. All that bunk is pure "the sky is falling" speculation.
EDIT
The only logical conclusion of global warming which makes sense is that the ice cap can melt. They have melted before.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 07-07-2013).]

My completely accurate measuring device is just stepping out the front door. Ive seen nothing in recent years any different from any other year of my life. I know there are 4 seasons but for my purposes lets assume its just 2. Its warmer in summer, its colder in winter. Days are longer in summer and shorter in winter. It usually rains in summer and snows in winter. Some years it does both more or less than others. No change here, move along.

I don't have the certainty that you guys have. I would love to believe that you are right and that there is absolutely no reason for any of us to change our lifestyle, but I'm not sure and if science is right there will be a catastrophic result. Time will tell. I don't have the ability to estimate the affect on our lifestyle if the scientists are wrong and we just waste a crap load of money for no reason. There is no shortage of government waste, but I'm not advocating that we just blow more of our taxpayers money. In short, I'm not informed or intelligent to have certainty, so I remain concerned.

quote Originally posted by dratts: ... I'm not informed or intelligent enough to have certainty, so I remain concerned.

I am a high school drop out. My institute of higher learning was life. It became apparent to me early on that salesmen would do whatever it took to make a sale. Appeal to vanity, sorrow, conscience, compassion, fear, ... the list is endless. Not just appeal, they would float a scenario which some might call a lie. It did not take me long to figure out that politicians were salesmen.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: My beef is not with the scientists. It's with the falsifying of the data for an agenda. Which immediately tells me I am getting conned.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The skunk in the room was that the scammers already had a climate change stock market set up to cash in on the scare mongering before it was an agreed problem. They invested heavily in it, set up companies, and bought scientists.

dratts, that's what you should educate yourself on. The climate stock exchange. Follow the money. The people who have invested in it (public information), reads like a "who's who" of the Progressive 'elite'. The Clintons, the Obamas, George Soros, Big Union, all the Dumbocratic "champions of the people" (sales speak), . The players are not exclusive to the USA.
The climate stock exchange, is a mandatory system, capping CO² output. If you exceed it, you have to buy credits from somebody who does not. Buy it off of the Climate Exchange. They have a system already capitalized upon before the need is accepted. There is an agenda.
Call me a cynic. Care to guess where this Climate Exchange is located ? Chicago, land of hard ball politics.

I get why the fossil fuel industry would propagandize if that is what they are doing. It's called protecting profits. I'm not so sure about the other side. Maybe you're right, but it's a little harder to see.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I get why the fossil fuel industry would propagandize if that is what they are doing.

Do you have an example ?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do you have an example ?

Ever watch a BP commercial? Just off the top of my head.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I get why the fossil fuel industry would propagandize if that is what they are doing. It's called protecting profits. I'm not so sure about the other side. Maybe you're right, but it's a little harder to see.

Ultimately, what difference would it make whether oil companies "propagandize" against global warming? There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels any time in the foreseeable future? Electric cars are slowly gaining steam, and battery technology is improving, but the internal combustion engine won't be replaced any time soon.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Interesting that this should come up as a topic today: "Carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere" ]http://www.naturalnews.com...debunked.html

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: And CO2 is our friend, not our problem, as per NASA . . . CO2 is not a heat agent, it is both a heat and cooling agent. It moderates the earth's temperature . . . This in no way detracts from the NASA statement I have quoted. CO2 functions very differently than what the Global Warming alarmists and lobbyists would have you believe . . .

This is part of what was posted by NASA on March 22, 2012:

quote “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

This was picked up and massively distorted on the Natural News web page that Taijiguy posted near the beginning of this thread:

quote "Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space." Almost all heating radiation generated by the sun is blocked from entering the lower atmosphere by CO2. According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet. "The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

Even Anthony Watts, who is an ardent skeptic of Anthropogenic Global Warming (and has a website that is frequently brought into our climate related discussions by our esteemed colleague "fierobear") characterizes the Natural News posting that was introduced by Taijiguy as "the worst form of science misinterpretation ... in a long time" and not at all consistent with any conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the original NASA posting. Here is the link to what Anthony Watts has to say about this:

A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds

Yes, a certain threshold concentration of CO2 in the lower and upper atmospheres is definitely "our friend". But we have already surpassed that threshold concentration, and are well into a regime of constantly increasing CO2 that is definitely not our friend.

There is nothing in that post from NASA to suggest that anyone would benefit from any more CO2 in the upper atmosphere than we already have. And the footnote below the NASA posting (brought to my attention by "ray b") should not be overlooked. When I put that footnote together with the evidence from paleoclimatology, which correlates prehistoric warming episodes with higher CO2 levels, it tells me that the heating effects from higher CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere are massively more significant than any cooling effect from any known levels of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Paleoclimatology provides the evidence that nullifies the validity of the "thermostat" effect. If carbon dioxide actually worked like that--as a thermostat for the earth's climate--there just could not have been the prehistoric warming episodes that are known through the evidence of paleoclimatology--the science that reconstructs the prehistoric climate by analyzing all kinds of fossil evidence, rock layer compositions and temperature sensitive isotope ratios.

The thermostat effect that James Russell described in the NASA posting--an effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere-- is a transient effect that comes into play during brief solar storms, but has no significant effect on the earth's persistent climate from year to year--an observation that is confirmed (to me) by the evidence of paleoclimatology.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-08-2013).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Ultimately, what difference would it make whether oil companies "propagandize" against global warming? There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels any time in the foreseeable future? Electric cars are slowly gaining steam, and battery technology is improving, but the internal combustion engine won't be replaced any time soon.

I agree that there won't be a replacement for the internal combustion soon. At least on a massive scale. I am invested in our present technology as a practical situation and I am also bidding on tesla roadsters on eBay. A lot of that is just because I like the tesla, not because I believe I'm saving the planet. Anyway, I'm a small part. We can't just shut off the gasoline engine and switch over. I think that this is the first time I have been in agreement with you and I'm glad that we can finally see something in the same light. I remember calling you a flat earther and then having to apologize for it. You obviously have a passion for the subject and I should respect that. The oil companies, not so much. I believe that they are profit oriented, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes. I'm open to changing my mind, but right now I see their tactics as similar to the tobacco companies. Not quite the same. We definitely need oil more than tobacco and we can't just shut off the spigot. This is an area where Cliff and I can't come to an agreement either, but I have big respect for him and his views on government especially. Sure would be nice if we could discuss these issues respectfully and with open minds instead of assuming the other side are bad people. After all we all have a common appreciation of GMs little mid engine car.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Ultimately, what difference would it make whether oil companies "propagandize" against global warming? There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels any time in the foreseeable future? Electric cars are slowly gaining steam, and battery technology is improving, but the internal combustion engine won't be replaced any time soon.

There are plenty of viable alternatives but with a cheap supply of oil and those who control the oil doing everything in their vast power to delay and keep other means from entering the marketplace we will still have dinosaur technology for a good while yet.

quote Originally posted by newf: There are plenty of viable alternatives but with a cheap supply of oil and those who control the oil doing everything in their vast power to delay and keep other means from entering the marketplace we will still have dinosaur technology for a good while yet.

What viable alternatives ? Electric cars are dinosaur technology. They have been around since the internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine has made great leaps and strides in technology/efficiency/cleanliness.
Did you mean dinosaur fuel ? What electric power plant doesn't use that (besides nuclear) ? Build a better/cheaper mousetrap and Big Oil can not stop people from buying it.
The whole green agenda is a scam. It is government trying to move money to other people, and in the scam's case, the people behind the government are propped up to get the bulk of the money. Government is using public money and the bully pulpit to put green in their pockets.

As it stands right now electric cars are not a viable alternative on a mass scale for the reasons that you state. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue solar as one possible solution. No need to put all of our eggs in one basket though. I'm guardedly optimistic about nano technology and it's uses in both solar cells and batteries. Although I often sound like a pessimist, just give me a chance to be optimistic and I kind of leap at it.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: What electric power plant doesn't use [fossil fuels] (besides nuclear) ?

Hydroelectric. Geothermal. Wind. Solar voltaic. Solar concentrator/steam. Tidal. And why do we need a central "power plant" anyway?

I've said many times: We don't need one "silver bullet" energy technology that's going to supply 100% of our needs; we need 50 diverse technologies that each can supply 2% of our needs.

quote The whole green agenda is a scam.

No. There will be failures, and even some scams, to be sure. But at its best, the "green agenda" (if there is such a thing) is slowly to replace our current short-term-oriented, non-renewable energy infrastructure with long-term, sustainable solutions, without substantially altering our standard of living or quality of life.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-08-2013).]

Have you seen the ads for Earth Justice on YouTube?

Let's sue our way to clean energy!

quote Originally posted by newf: I'll trust the vast majority of scientists and experts in the Climate research field on this one thanks.

quote Originally posted by newf: http://iopscience.iop.org/1...6/8/2/024024/article Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW.

From your own post, the majority (66.4%) expressed no position on AGW - just curious where does this "vast majority" fit in?

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 07-08-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: From your own post, the majority (66.4%) expressed no position on AGW - just curious where does this "vast majority" fit in?

Correct in many studies I would guess the authors did not take a position on the cause.

quote Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-08-2013).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Correct in many studies I would guess the authors did not take a position of the cause.

...so, basically what you are saying is that you are not taking sides (as that is what the majority are doing)...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: What electric power plant doesn't use [fossil fuels] (besides nuclear) ?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Hydroelectric. Geothermal. Wind. Solar voltaic. Solar concentrator/steam. Tidal. And why do we need a central "power plant" anyway?

A central power plant is more economical for the masses. What with Big Brother and all, a central power plant is also easier to regulate with out another Big Brother army of enforcers, fine collectors, and tree huggers.
I would be all for a power plant of my own, if it were affordable, reliable, economical, and within my realm of maintenance/repair. Durable, long lasting, not prone to untimely failures.
Ah, yes. The Hoover Dam is a hydroelectric power plant. How much now does it's electricity cost ? It should have paid for itself by now. Geothermal, wind, solar, solar concentrator/steam, voltaic, tidal, I guess the technology exists. There is a reason why it is not used on a grand scale.
(I wonder how many hydroelectric power generating dams could get built with the Sierra Club worrying about any cricket, salamander, or two freckled newt which might be inconvenienced by "man made" climate change ?)

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: There will be failures, and even some scams, to be sure.

I am not talking about individual scams and failures. I am talking about the grand scam on governmental levels (including more than just the USA). Please explain the Carbon TradeXchange. As close as it can get to taxing the air we breath. Me thinks it exists to make new billionaires of which the winners have already been picked. (Perusing the site I notice this term ... "European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme ". Scheme indeed.) Why would the exchange be located in Chicago Illinois ?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: But at its best, the "green agenda" (if there is such a thing) is slowly to replace our current short-term-oriented, non-renewable energy infrastructure with long-term, sustainable solutions, without substantially altering our standard of living or quality of life.

At it's "best", perhaps. I don't see it. I see a cramming of a policy down our throats complete with monetary discomfort. Government should have an all inclusive energy policy. When was the last time we had an energy policy, if ever ? The green agenda goes beyond just providing power (pun not intended). We are now being told what kind of light bulbs to use, paper was out now plastic bags/containers are, the old freon wasn't so bad after all, etc. Cigarettes were ok before they were bad. How did that happen ? Corporate interest. Deja vu.
Marvin, I appreciate your thoughts. I have no doubt you are much more intelligent than I. Though I am a simple mind, I can see/smell a scam. There are good ideas with renewable energy and living green. Usually, good ideas do not require forced participation. Government does not know best. Government is of the people.
I still do not see the sky falling because of CO².

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...so, basically what you are saying is that you are not taking sides (as that is what the majority are doing)...

Not at all. I think you need to take a closer look at the link I provided.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You can be a kook like rayb, and get your climate bullshit from Rolling Stone, or you can believe the latest of THREE PUBLISHED PAPERS showing sea level rise is low, and NOT accelerating. Links at this site: New paper finds global sea levels rising less than 7 inches per century http://hockeyschtick.blogsp...-sea-levels.html?m=1

I bet the rollingstone is correct more often then foxnews on most major science news
and the astroturf tea party was paid for by the koch bro's major coal barons money
following the money is always a good idea

yes the sun's output dropped
the sea ice did not grow
the glaciers did not grow
the temperatures did not drop
there is a clue

sea levels are rising that is a given
how fast is unknown
how high is the real stickie bit
for sure they ain't dropping
there is a clue

CO2 just passed 400ppm

nobody knows the points where it runs away
BUT FINDING OUT WILL BE A CLASS B-WITCH

quote Originally posted by newf: There are plenty of viable alternatives but with a cheap supply of oil and those who control the oil doing everything in their vast power to delay and keep other means from entering the marketplace we will still have dinosaur technology for a good while yet.

Plenty of viable alternatives that are relatively abundant and comparable in price? Name them.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Plenty of viable alternatives that are relatively abundant and comparable in price? Name them.

That isn't what I stated, in fact I specifically said oil was cheap. Cheap for a reason.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-09-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Yes, a certain threshold concentration of CO2 in the lower and upper atmospheres is definitely "our friend". But we have already surpassed that threshold concentration, and are well into a regime of constantly increasing CO2 that is definitely not our friend. The thermostat effect that James Russell described in the NASA posting--an effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere-- is a transient effect that comes into play during brief solar storms, but has no significant effect on the earth's persistent climate from year to year--an observation that is confirmed (to me) by the evidence of paleoclimatology.

Surely you can't believe what you've written. CO2 is a chemical with consistent chemical properties. It does not "switch on" when it senses a solar storm. It is the same all the time

The opinion expressed that the increase in CO2 amounts make it "definitely not our friend" is a biassed opinion. It is not scientifically proven.

The increased CO2 in by gone millenia did not cause the irradication of the dinosaurs. It possibly caused,if anything, increased plant growth.

Not only does CO2 moderate the climate, but so does water vapor. Remember that CO2 forms a very tiny percentage of our atmosphere in any event. The lion's share of the climate moderating is happening from other elements.

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: That isn't what I stated, in fact I specifically said oil was cheap. Cheap for a reason.

In order to be viable, they must be plentiful and affordable, which is a big part of their potential viability. So tell us about all those sources.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: In order to be viable, they must be plentiful and affordable, which is a big part of their potential viability. So tell us about all those sources.

They are well documented, feel free to do some research of your own. My position is clear.