The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

1: What do you consider the likelihood the globe is warming?

99%

2: What do you consider the likelihood man is the primary cause of this warming?

95%

3: What do you consider the likelihood this warming will create a world less friendly to man?

This is a tricky question because some places will be less friendly while others will be more friendly. Overall I would give this an 80% chance of being slighly less friendly, but this is misleading. My concern about the effects of global warming on man is how much is it going to cost us to stave off nature in the areas becoming less friendly or move our cities to more friendly places. I am 90% confident that this cost will be enormous.

4: What policies do you support to reduce our contribution to warming?

I would support a carbon credits system provided governments do not profit from it. I'd like to see more efficient machines but I don't want that accomplished through taxes or mandates like the CAFE standards. I don't like subsidies either, especially of ethanol. Nuclear power is going to make a strong comeback and government needs to get out of its way.

5: What policies do you support to mitigate the impact of a warmer climate?

Other than making sure FIMA is ready for the next disaster, none. I don't think it's the government's job.

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by bkelly

However The National Registry of Environmental Professionals did a poll of its members on the topic of global warming in November of 2006. The participants were not scientists but "accredited environmental professionals". What effect this would have on the results, I do not know.

Significantly, that poll was conducted in 2006, which is before the landmark 2007 IPCC assessment.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...n-impacts.html

[GlobalWarmin]

http://action.foe.org/content.jsp?co...man_Warner.dwt

Tell Senators that any global warming legislation should do two simple things:

1. Support a 100 percent auction of carbon permits and get rid of the obscene giveaways to polluters -- polluters must pay.
2. Ensure that global warming pollution is reduced to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as called for by leading scientists.

While these criteria may seem obvious, the current Senate legislation doesn't meet them. Let’s change that.

In unrelated global warming news today:

http://www.newsdaily.com/Science/UPI...tica-crabs.xml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/...e_change_china

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

2. Ensure that global warming pollution is reduced to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as called for by leading scientists.

While these criteria may seem obvious, the current Senate legislation doesn't meet them. Let’s change that.

Damn thats scary. And you wonder why we're reluctant to follow your apocalyptic predictions -- the cure is worse than the disease!

Incidentally, it has now been exactly 1000 days since I joined TG, and this is my 2000th post!

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Damn thats scary. And you wonder why we're reluctant to follow your apocalyptic predictions -- the cure is worse than the disease!

The Kyoto pact calls for a reduction by at least 50% by 2050.

And I made absolutely no endorsement of the statements made by FoE, nor have I made any statements about end of the world or predictions. If I do though, I'll let you know

[LuckyStrike]

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Canada's former environmental minister, Christine Stewart.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Incidentally, it has now been exactly 1000 days since I joined TG, and this is my 2000th post!

Woo! Kudos Kerostasis. We're lucky to have you around.

bkelly

[TurkishDelight]

Originally Posted by AMosely

1

Domestically:
Far more aggressive emissions and efficiency standards (current standards amount to an industry subsidy) - these standards have been kept down to 'save' the automobile and that was a failure.

I am sorry, but I disagree, alot. Don't believe the crap people spew on the web. Manufacturers are making some clean cars today. New cars that are running well, should not prouduce anything but water and CO2. And no, you can't eliminate CO2 emmisions, it is part of combustion.

Have you ever worked with emissions testing equipment?

I have

Have you ever worked on and are familar with Emission reducing devices on automobiles?

I have

Have you researched the work done to improve emmisions by manufacturers?

Guess what, I have.

The internal combustion engine is basically as clean is it can get, while still being an internal combustion engine.

Enough of this "exchange of money" BS, it is so annoying...


I did not go to school so that people could be this mis-informed


My factual C02Cents

Nothing against you personally

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by TurkishDelight

I am sorry, but I disagree, alot. Don't believe the crap people spew on the web. Manufacturers are making some clean cars today. New cars that are running well, should not prouduce anything but water and CO2. And no, you can't eliminate CO2 emmisions, it is part of combustion.

Have you ever worked with emissions testing equipment?

I have

Have you ever worked on and are familar with Emission reducing devices on automobiles?

I have

Have you researched the work done to improve emmisions by manufacturers?

Guess what, I have.

The internal combustion engine is basically as clean is it can get, while still being an internal combustion engine.

Enough of this "exchange of money" BS, it is so annoying...


I did not go to school so that people could be this mis-informed


My factual C02Cents

Nothing against you personally

So you are saying that the emissions coming out of cars tail pipe cannot be any cleaner and that it is impossible to increase the MPG of current cars?

[TurkishDelight]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

So you are saying that the emissions coming out of cars tail pipe cannot be any cleaner and that it is impossible to increase the MPG of current cars?

I can tell you it's going to be hard to be "Cleaner". When I say "cleaner", I reffer to CO and HC emissions. There is such a small amount of this, it will be hard for them to reduce it any significant amount more IMO. Sure they can increase MPG, but by how much?

I am not going to expect miracles

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Damn thats scary. And you wonder why we're reluctant to follow your apocalyptic predictions -- the cure is worse than the disease!

Stabilizing Climate Requires Near-zero Carbon Emissions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0215103252.htm

New Materials Can Selectively Capture Carbon Dioxide, Chemists Report
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0214144344.htm

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by TurkishDelight

The internal combustion engine is basically as clean is it can get, while still being an internal combustion engine.

I would advocate government playing a stronger role in bringing about the end of the internal combustion engine, at least in lightweight domestic automobiles. That's what I mean by tighter standards. Right now you have the opposite occuring - subsidies to a near-perfected technology and a dying industry.

[ScratchMonkey]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I would advocate government playing a stronger role in bringing about the end of the internal combustion engine, at least in lightweight domestic automobiles.

To be replaced by what? Without seeing the replacement, we can't say that things will be any cleaner.

[TurkishDelight]

We need a suitable replacement. Hydrogen power for automobiles is dumb, and electric cars are limited by battery technology. If we can have an electric car that can go 300+ miles, recharge at stations across the country in 5 minutes, and cost no more than a normal car, I will switch.

This does not exist ATM however, and that is the problem. ICE is hear to stay, until a "real" solution presents itself.

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by bkelly

I don't see why you say there is a difference to Lindzen. The second sentence in his publication that I referenced says:

Weather and climate catastrophes of all sorts are claimed to be what one expects from global warming, and global warming is uniquely associated with man’s activities.

How can global warming be associated with man's activities if it doesn't refer to anthropogenic global warming?

bkelly

I missed this reply from way back, but thought I would respond: yes, the second sentence clearly says that those things are claimed. But I promise you that if you read the sentence again, you will realize he is certainly not making those claims...he's telling you what claims he takes issue with, so you know what he's about to dispute.

Lindzen writes a lot about these two issues, and repeatedly and specifically rebuts the idea that hurricanes would be more frequent and more devastating during warming periods, and also disputes again and again the idea that there is sufficient evidence to believe that man's carbon dioxide emissions account for any perceptable warming trend.