Just so you know a little about the "scientists" they mention in the article: Wildlife Promise: Heartland Institute: Following the Money Trail I believe they also argued that second hand smoke causing cancer had no basis in science, which is an idea that's conclusively proven and closed for discussion by the scientific community today.
Hi jayman! Yeah, been busy over here.... So, Where does these Global Warming scientists get there money from?
Government agencies, agricultural institutes, marine safety groups, air safety groups, universities, private companies planning for the future, and a diverse range of sources. Mostly from people who want to know how it will be not those trying to convince the population nothing is changing. There is more money in selling oil than in preparing for the inevitable.
Ok guys remember where you heard this 10 years from now. Global warming and/or cooling is mainly do to things outside of our control. What I mean is blame it on the Sun. Solar cycle 23 which ended a few years ago was a very active cycle. But on that note even though I think man made global warming is a crock, polluting our planet just because is just plain dumb and buying our oil from people that hate us is even dumber. That's why I am selling my big honking V8 and on the wait list for a tootie fruity Prius. I just wish it had room for my gun rack.:boink: edit: Holy cow I just read the article and they said the same thing. I just wanted to let ya know I wasn't regurgitating what the article said, it is something I have been saying for many years.
Well, that's not backed by facts. The solar cycle, trough to peak, is worth about 5 years of GHG emissions, based on what I read on realclimate.org. We can directly measure insolation via satellites above the atmosphere. It's one of the factors that can be exactly quantified, and no, it's nearly enough to cause the recent warming. And it's ending just now -- the first sunspots of the new solar cycle were observed this spring. My real point, though, is about the debate this week, in the US Senate, on a global warming bill -- mainly a cap-and-trade system for C02 emissions, but a lot of other stuff as well. No, the bill didn't get as far as actual debate over the details. I'm proud to say that Warner (my Senator, whom I admire) was the Republican sponsor. What was noteworthy, though, is that, unlike past years, there was no debate over the reality of manmade global warming. There was only discussion of ways and means for abatement.
And that gives me some hope. Once the current administration is banished to the center of the sun, or whatever we decide to do with them, I think we'll se a lot more action on the subject. We may have picked a bad time to put a lobotomized ape in the hot seat, but at least that time has almost passed. It's been a long 8 years.
Do you mean the Bush administration tripp? I voted for him twice. I think the first 4 years was steady but the last 4 have been hideous. Now as far as I stand, I really find a hard time believing that man is the cause of climate changes. I know thet the theory is trying to prove that man is the cause but there is really no direct link. I know that everything with the weather works in cycles. Some periods of time are warmer and some are cooler.
Congrats on trading in for a Prius. I traded an SUV for one about 3 years ago and don't miss it at all. I am in agreement that global warming is a "crock" by the way. One of the few on this forum that feels this way, so it's a bit lonely. Actually, not a crock, my stated position is basically (and briefly) that man-made global warming, while real, is not very significant and very unlikely to be catastrophic. That said, I'm completely in favor of using less energy and polluting less.
My thoughts exactly! Im all for keeping things clean but the weather is something we don't have control of and never will. We will always have destructive Hurricanes and Tornadoes. We will always see snow. Here in Mn we have only had one eighty degree day this spring and thats it. It's been rather cool through the whole upper midwest. Some people will say that it's just a small area thats effected but it's not true. I looked up the live web cam this eveing of old Faithful at Yellowstone Park. They are still getting snow there and it was 32 degrees today. Average is 66.
Well, at least you agree it's pretty dumb to use so much fuel - the US consumes approx 40% of *total* global gasoline production - that you must import 60-65% of total oil needs For example, the US has a demand of about 9.4 million barrels per day of gasoline This Week In Petroleum Gasoline Section Analysis: Nano Hypocrisy? | Worldwatch Institute It's ironic that, as you stated, the US will buy oil from countries that hate it, and will make those countries very wealthy in the process So even if you think global whatever is a crock of s***, it makes sense to cut down on smog emissions and imported oil
Glad we can all agree on that point anyway. It is unbelievable - we are now spending around $600 BILLION / year on imported oil. Truly crazy.
Denialist handwaving and obfuscation such as that can get printed only in the opinion sections of newspapers because it has little to do with current science.
Yeah, And who better to thank than our own government which will NOT allow us to depend on ourselves therefore we have to rely on foreign oil. We are supposed to be the government. The PEOPLE. As easily we voted these stupid people into office why can't we vote them out? Granted it's time we find other resources to power things but damn, We should be able to drill here in the US and be self dependent right?
Generations of Democrat and Republican politicians created that Jimmie, on the advice of the oil industry. You know that, right? Blaming the EPA is an easy scapegoat. When billions of dollars are involved, the EPA is castrated. Witness the lowering of CAFE standards Oh sure. The "people" are far more versed in Idol than engineering, and certainly geopolitical events Oh I agree it's pretty dumb to buy oil from countries that hate us, but consider a lot of the proven oil reserves in North America are so expensive they only break-even with oil priced north of $70 a barrel Think shale is the answer? By the time you factor in the enormous energy and water consumption for that process, oil has to be above $100 a barrel. Consider how long the Tar Sands of Alberta were an expensive taxpayer-funded boondoggle. Offshore oil is probably plentiful, but factor in deep water and "tight" geological formations, forget about it offering any sort of price advantage I'm really shocked how so many folks out there have short-term memory problems. Remember in the early 1990's when oil dramatically went down in price? Oil companies had to receive taxpayer-funded drilling, extraction, and production assistance or they would have drowned in red ink
I remember being in High school. I drove a 1986 Toyota Camry and gas was like $1.05 late 1999 into early 2000. I had no clue as to what mileage I got with the darn thing. I paid $1300 for it and it great. The transmission needed work and it was going to be very expensive. Traded her in. Anyways, back on topic. We are stuck in this weird weather pattern. We have yet to hit our 2nd 80 degree day this summer. This time last year we had 14 days at 80 or above.
