leejo

Yeah but superfund sites need to receive public funds because the waste can exist long after the company has folded its tent but the People still have the mess to clean up. If everyone decides not to buy Hummers, then hummers just sit there doing nothing and harming no-one.

The EPA and FDA monitor and enforce quality issues. These global warming initiatives seem to want to do basically the same thing that's being discussed in the NY food bill that would prohibit restaurants from serving an ingredient that a lot of people seem to want.

To me, it's another example of wanting to spend other people's money and being bossy.

Steeler

Quality issues monitored by the EPA (when it is funded and run properly) are not limited to the point of purchase. There are many by-products of the market that are functionally seperate from the mechanics of supply and demand. Nobody wants to buy smog, for example, but they get it anyway. That doesn't effect buying habits and therefore doesn't interact with the market. Hence, we regulate factory emissions to cut down on a public health hazard. That becomes the new standard by which a company can enter the market.

The very concept of self-regulation of non-market elements is flawed at the core. Ask Adam Smith.

This is really basic stuff - I'm not sure what there is to argue about here.

__________________

leejo

Oh well then by all means have your way smart guy. Thanks for condescending to post a sentence or two about it.

Just out of curiosity, could you bother to post some of Adam's Smith's thoughts on government regulation of economic activities? What, for example, would he think of taxes imposed on goods or services to affect some state goal?

Dick Blonov

This is what they said about last year's season...


DB

__________________
|TG-6th|Blonov

Steeler

Here's the CYA statement from the article to prevent threads like this one:

__________________

Lucky Shot

Right right...

Last year's hurricane season was due to global warming. This year, there were other factors involved. I get it. When it's bad, it's my fault because I drive a car which gives off noxious fumes sending the earth into the equivalent of venus. And it's merely a cyclical trend that prevented mass hurricanes from swamping the east coast. I would hedge my bet if I were them so I could have it both ways and still prevent a compelling reason to fund my studies.

Doesn't change the fact that there are glaciers growing, or even that there is a 3 years cooling impact on the world's oceans. They call it a speed bump, until it's time to call for global cooling again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138

Oh wait... Here it is...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...5-091321-7556r

Gotta get my parka's now before there's a run on them!

Lucky Shot

Dick Blonov

Fuel that fire !


DB

__________________
|TG-6th|Blonov

Lucky Shot

I liked the Fun Facts about CARBON DIOXIDE that was in that link.

Still blaming global warming though for eating my homework.

Lucky Shot

dfg872

Where to start. First off, I've long been a skeptic of global warming and still think that a lot of the methods used to show it's existence are sketchy. Why? Because statistics are easily manipulated. You take 10,000 samples of anything and you can use them to prove just about anything you want. Skeptical, I took a class from someone who is involved heavily with the climatological reasearch going on.

What is proven, CO2 amounts have increased since the Industrial revolution, these statistics are sound, as they are direct observations. What is also clear is that these levels are higher then they have been in several thousand years. There was a 'little ice age' that ended around 1800, there was a warm period around 1200. The best argument for proving this is the agricultural records that date back to nearly 1000ad.

As for global warming, it is estimated that temperature has risen globally around 2 degrees celcius since 1800. Some of this can be explained by natural phenomonon, but science is pretty sure that some of it is caused by CO2. This is because it makes sense. CO2 absorbs light in the infrared, and the greenhouse effect has been an accepted scientific principle since 1900. The reason Global warming wasn't a concern then was that it was thought the oceans could absorb the aditional carbon being put into the system. It was not until the 60s when atmospheric Co2 was accurately measured for the first time was there concern that this could have climatological effects.

It has had climate effects, harvests are later, most tropical, high altitude glaciers are all but gone. This is because the warming is more pronounced at higher altitudes. It is more pronounced there because, well, trust me, there's science to prove it... moist adiabats, convection, blah blah blah... don't feel like getting to sciencey. Anyways, it is known to exist, even if statistical methods cast doubt on how much more it will warm, or if the systems can work themselves out. While certain isolated areas may be a little cooler, the global trend is towards warming.

That said, what should be done, if anything? Well, the extreme people would say that CO2 emissions should be eliminated... that's unrealistic. Reductions, given through incentive-based government plans would actually be best. The free market is great, but tends to react in awful jolts, by using forsight and moving toward less dependence on CO2 producing energy, we will soften the economic blow for when a day comes that we A)hit an oil price that sucks a lot more then right now B)find out that the problem is worse. It is possible that there won't be much more warming, but it is also possible that there will.

The prudent measure, therefore is to try to decrease dependence on CO2 emissions. We should reduce our energy usage regardless of global warming, since the US happens to Use 25% of the worlds energy currently, and that level is unsustainable given economic preassures.

To the idea that global warming has anything to do with atlantic cyclones, it seems it may, but there is no consensus. What they think is that it simply makes storms stronger, on average. It does not make them more numourous. The light hurricane season was do the the reversal of trade winds in the pacific. This is known as ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), and this summer, it returned, which should mean more winter storms in Southern California, and a cooler winter in the northeast.

The professor of our class was pretty good at balenceing skeptiscism with the science, and noting that nothing in this field can ever be said with 100 percent certainty. There are plenty of doubts, but a lot has been found just in the past few years that shows evidence of warming. And many people who once called it a hoax have come around to the realization that there is a problem. All of the disagreement is on what to do, not whether it exists.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

dfg872

Oh, and to the FUN facts on C02... yes, it only make up 368 ppm, but, it has a strong radiative forcing value. not as high as methane, but methane is much more scarce. The anthropogenic CO2 (that 6 billion tons we make) throws thing off balence enough for it to accumulate. All of the natural CO2 roughly cancels itself out. The percentage of the atmosphere is irrelevant since it is the energy absorbed and emitted that is key to temperature.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

dfg872

http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/LiveData/FDataccg.htm

Don't take my word for it though.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

leejo

So why wouldn't it be cheaper, better, and more attractive to plant more CO2 chomping trees?

dfg872

Well, yes, that would be great if trees were a CO2 sink... unfortunately, over time they release just as much CO2 as they suck in. When a tree dies, it decays, just like anything else, and it releases gas when it does so. Now it does sink it somewhat, but it isn't a perfect solution... what i think I'm saying, Is I don't know if that would work or not, but hopefully some guy is studying it. In theory plants will get bigger, and start absorbing more CO2, like they did in prehistoric times. *shrug* I just don't know enough to know if we could plant enough trees to cancel it out.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

El_Gringo_Grande

Redneck racist? Nah, I am redneck sometimes especially when I go home for a visit. It has more to do with where you where raised and less to do with your race. It's one of those words that, depending on context, can either be a compliment or a slam.

El Gringo Grande means "The Big White Guy". (Yes, I am a big white guy.) Gringo is slightly derogatory but my wife calls me a gringo now and then (she is latina). Gringo is just a clueless white person.

The quote I heard one day on the sports radio station I listen to. They where talking about how some team was nothing but liberal pansies. In the banter one of the guys said that line.

Now if you sit and think about it, that is a very funny statement. It makes no sense unless you apply the stereo types of both racists and republicans. And it can be interpreted so many ways. I NEVER thought about it the way you put it, that is FUNNY. Imagine Dave Chapell saying that while made up like the new reporter. LOL


So any pattern you see is simply a fabrication of your weak little republican redneck mind. Loco Gringo.

Whether oil is a fossil fuel or not doesn't change the basic premise. That burning it releases things that help heat the world we live in.

And the second link doesn't change the fact that oil, no matter it's origin, is not a renewable resource. It will run out someday.

I guess the problem I have is I feel we, the current living, should be working at making the world a better place. If there is a chance that our activities would make the lives of future generations miserable or difficult we should try and change our activities.

I am not one that believes we should give it all up and start free range grazing.

But come on, our dependence on something that will run out one day is simply absurd. Blindly hoping it all will work out is also absurd.

Leejo also says "Why don't you think market forces and technology can't handle the problem."

I think science and technology can solve the problem. But they must be directed at solving the problem. It wont just happen. The scientists and technologists must feed their families so the work they do must be supported or they won't do that particular research and development.

Right now there are really only two things that can provide the support science needs to work on the problem. Government and the market.

Government responds to one thing (ideally), the people and their voting habits.

The market responds to one thing, the people and their spending habits.

So there is a effort to get the people to convince the government and the market that they should support those that can solve the problem. Since people MUST buy fuel in today's world it seems that the government is the best option. And hopefully the government can also persuade the market to also do some supporting.

So the thing that frustrates me is that there is a chance that it could happen. That relying on oil, no matter the creation method, does not seem to have an upside. That being energy independent would be nothing but good, especially if that energy source had little to no pollution.

But the effort being put forth to achieve energy independence and reduce the risk our children will face is small compared to what we could do.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Kerostasis

You forgot the primary upside of Oil: It is available more cheaply, and in greater supply, then any other energy source available today. Ergo, attempting to meet today's energy need without resorting to oil is absurd.

Before we can switch over to another energy source, we need to identify one that can be obtained as cheaply and in as great supply. So I have no opposition to using money for technological research into potential future energy sources. But simply decreeing that we can't use as much oil, today, when no suitable alternative yet exists, is counterproductive.

The interesting thing is that most alternatives today aren't even CLOSE to being as efficient as oil. For example, Ethanol costs around $3.00 a gallon to manufacture. Oil sometimes reaches that price for sale on the market, but the actual production cost is only around $2 to $4 per 50-gallon Barrel. Most of the rest is pure profit.

Nuclear power can be made fairly cheaply...but only in limited quantity. We have a very limited supply of Uranium to run nuclear plants, which is more than enough today only because we haven't actually built a nuclear power plant in decades.

And the list goes on. The simple result is that nothing else even comes close to the raw power of oil. So its going to be the "gold standard" for years to come yet, and there's just no getting around that.

__________________