Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by tommyturtle

So it has been decided that the Time and Newsweek articles from 1975 that were telling us that an ice age is on the way are lies? My high school science teachers fell for a hoax? I don't know who to believe any more.

Believe what you see and feel. Winters keep getting milder, and summers keep getting harsher.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Believe what you see and feel. Winters keep getting milder, and summers keep getting harsher.

No no no. Bad advice. First of all, humans relying on our own senses are a terrible judge on most things, let alone the climate. Secondly, mild winters ? are you crazy, we have had some of the worst on record in the last few years. Harsh summers? Britain for instance hasn't had a decent summer since 2006, and this year has been particularly miserable, cold and wet.

No. believe the evidence, not what you feel. Global temperatures measured by satellites, not localised areas, as there are huge fluctuations of temperatures and weather patterns that don't tell anything like the full picture.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Cars make up less than 10% of global CO2 emissions. Many of the worlds cars are in places like China and India, where electric cars are simply out of range of most people for the foreseeable future. So even if everyone in Europe and the USA were to switch completely to electric vehicles, we are still only talking just a few percent of global CO2 emissions, not to mention that most electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels.

The reality is also that most people in Europe and America will not switch to battery powered cars. Battery powered cars take an eternity to charge, severely limiting the range of the vehicles. Even the fast charge electric cars takes hours to 'refuel', and doing so seriously damages the life of the batteries. They just aren't practical, and they wont be for a number of decades because batteries have serious limitations in their design. There will be better batteries in the future, but mining the lithium and constructing them is not exactly environmentally friendly and they still wont offer a significant performance increase.

The future of vehicles is not battery powered. It is hydrogen fuel cells. You fill up like you would at a gas station, with hydrogen instead of petroleum. And the car runs on electricity generated from the Hydrogen. There are problems, storing hydrogen is not as simple as storing gas. Also despite Hydrogen being the most abundant element in the entire universe, by quite a margin, it is not that cheap to produce. However once we have nuclear fusion, we can generate the clean electricity needed to make hydrogen.

If you think hybrid cars are having any effect on the environment, you are living in a fantasy land. Firstly just look at the carbon footprint required to build the vehicle and getting it shipped to you, then there is the fact that they only do about 50mpg on average. You can buy diesel cars that do better mileage than that. A hybrid car is nothing more than a smugness badge for people that think they are making a difference but are doing nothing of the sort.

I said before that overpopulation is the problem. And it clearly is by far. No other aspect comes remotely close. Just to produce the food to feed another mouth, that has a bigger carbon footprint than a fleet of 4x4 vehicles.

DeviousDave,

You don't seem to understand the the difference between a hybrid car and a plug-in hybrid electric car. A plug-in electric vehicle will drive without gasoline up to it's battery design range. A PHEV-40 (en example is the GM Volt) will drive up to 40 mile before it will be required to burn gasoline. If your daily commute is less than 20 miles, you probably won't be using any gas if you own a PHEV car.

You are correct that carbon footprints are much more than our vehicles alone. The furnaces, airconditioners, aircraft flights, coal generated electricity, all the goods we purchase, and the food we eat has a carbon foot print. Reducing the footprint of automobiles is just one step.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

DeviousDave,

You don't seem to understand the the difference between a hybrid car and a plug-in hybrid electric car. A plug-in electric vehicle will drive without gasoline up to it's battery design range. A PHEV-40 (en example is the GM Volt) will drive up to 40 mile before it will be required to burn gasoline. If your daily commute is less than 20 miles, you probably won't be using any gas if you own a PHEV car.

You are correct that carbon footprints are much more than our vehicles alone. The furnaces, airconditioners, aircraft flights, coal generated electricity, all the goods we purchase, and the food we eat has a carbon foot print. Reducing the footprint of automobiles is just one step.

It's not even a step though. I don't think you are grasping the scale of the issue. While burning fossil fuels to create electricity is more energy efficient than burning gas to power a combustion engine, it is still unclean energy. Providing everyone with electric powered cars is only going to increase the energy consumption coming from the grid, which is powered predominantly from burning fossil fuels. If everyone in the world switched to driving an electric car (something that wont and cannot happen for many decades) the savings in CO2 will simply be negated by population growth many times over.

There are only 2 things that can be done to tackle the problem that will have any effect. Create a clean energy source capable of meeting the worlds energy needs (then things like electric cars can become more viable). Nuclear fusion is the ONLY game in town. The other is stopping population growth and that is out of our control.

If someone has a child and and think by owning electric car they are doing the environment a favour. They are a hypocrite.

One important thing to remember, CO2 is only a small portion of the greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. Water vapour, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Tetrafluoromethane, the list goes on.

[Empress Lainie]

114 here today in Sunny Las Vegas, 116 in Laughlin but we all stay cool in our air conditioned comfort.

And yes, the energy answer is staring them in the face but they cant see it.
Reversible non-organic chemical reactions that produce heat, they recycle at least on of the common sources....exhaust....salt water.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Empress Lainie

114 here today in Sunny Las Vegas, 116 in Laughlin but we all stay cool in our air conditioned comfort.

And yes, the energy answer is staring them in the face but they cant see it.
Reversible non-organic chemical reactions that produce heat, they recycle at least on of the common sources....exhaust....salt water.

In order to reverse the reaction, you need to put at least the same energy back in.

[tommyturtle]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Believe what you see and feel. Winters keep getting milder, and summers keep getting harsher.

It's been several years since we hit 100F here. (We have had 4 consecutive days of 100F this month but even that has happened before.) Last winter was pretty mild but the winter before...we had a LOT of snow.

Seems like things are averaging out to me, based on my last couple of years.

I am convinced that the weather is a lot like the stock market...past experience is not an indicator of future results.

[spetasal]

Climate change is real... Like it or not. It has been happening for millions of years, and will continue to happen. But it is no fault of humans. The weather of some regions is off due to the shift in the earth's magnetic field. The seasons are beginning to vary due to that. Again, that changes constantly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that us polluting the earth is very good either, but we are not significant enough on this planet to alter it to such a magnitude.

The glaciers melted LONG before cars, Blast Furnaces, oil rigs, and airplanes. Soon, they will be back. Just the natural order of things.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by spetasal

Climate change is real... Like it or not. It has been happening for millions of years, and will continue to happen. But it is no fault of humans. The weather of some regions is off due to the shift in the earth's magnetic field. The seasons are beginning to vary due to that. Again, that changes constantly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that us polluting the earth is very good either, but we are not significant enough on this planet to alter it to such a magnitude.

The glaciers melted LONG before cars, Blast Furnaces, oil rigs, and airplanes. Soon, they will be back. Just the natural order of things.

Nope not the natural order of things at all. Its actually believing brainwashed propaganda in the face of the findings of thousands of scientists all over the world who have been studying human caused global warming/climate change for more than 30 years.

[Orson2]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Nope not the natural order of things at all. Its actually believing brainwashed propaganda in the face of the findings of thousands of scientists all over the world who have been studying human caused global warming/climate change for more than 30 years.

I am an environmental scientist (MSc only), and recently I confronted the prof who teaches climate change science at the University of Colorado at Boulder in the environmental studies department. (Oddly enough, he's a social scientist, not a natural scientist - so his speaking topic at the Denver Cafe Scientifique was media coverage of the science, not the science itself.)

Later in the Q & A, I stated that James Hansen - in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" - says the evidence for man-made global warming (or Anthropogenic or AGW) is easy to see, but in his book I could not find it. It might be there, but even this scientist could not easily find it.

I said that recently, the UKs answer to VP Al Gore, biologist James Lovelock climbed down from AGW, saying that we got it wrong - it ought to have warmed since the 1990s if we (ie, AGW scientists) were correct because we've added 10% more CO2 to the atmosphere and it's not warmer.

So, as a scientist, I'm a professional skeptic, and I'm always looking to be guided by the data, not theory.

Next, I stated, almost everyone agrees that the climate during the last century warmed about 1 to 1.5C degrees (no more than 2) - and that 33 years of super-precise global satellite temperature measurements only find a linear trend of less than 1.4C degrees for the next 10 decades.

That is, the past without AGW will look nothing like the catastrophic projections of 5-7C degrees, but exactly like that past century, to which we've adapted very well.

"So what are we worried about AGW?" I asked him.

Well, after raising a few minor points, he said, "But it's still warming," not telling us why. In short, he could not contradict my empirical observations.

In other words, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, our nation spent about $70 billion on climate science research in recent years, and we're left nothing better to show for it than the future century will be much like the past century?

So it seems.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by Orson2

I am an environmental scientist (MSc only), and recently I confronted the prof who teaches climate change science at the University of Colorado at Boulder in the environmental studies department. (Oddly enough, he's a social scientist, not a natural scientist - so his speaking topic at the Denver Cafe Scientifique was media coverage of the science, not the science itself.)

Later in the Q & A, I stated that James Hansen - in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" - says the evidence for man-made global warming (or Anthropogenic or AGW) is easy to see, but in his book I could not find it. It might be there, but even this scientist could not easily find it.

I said that recently, the UKs answer to VP Al Gore, biologist James Lovelock climbed down from AGW, saying that we got it wrong - it ought to have warmed since the 1990s if we (ie, AGW scientists) were correct because we've added 10% more CO2 to the atmosphere and it's not warmer.

So, as a scientist, I'm a professional skeptic, and I'm always looking to be guided by the data, not theory.

Next, I stated, almost everyone agrees that the climate during the last century warmed about 1 to 1.5C degrees (no more than 2) - and that 33 years of super-precise global satellite temperature measurements only find a linear trend of less than 1.4C degrees for the next 10 decades.

That is, the past without AGW will look nothing like the catastrophic projections of 5-7C degrees, but exactly like that past century, to which we've adapted very well.

"So what are we worried about AGW?" I asked him.

Well, after raising a few minor points, he said, "But it's still warming," not telling us why. In short, he could not contradict my empirical observations.

In other words, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, our nation spent about $70 billion on climate science research in recent years, and we're left nothing better to show for it than the future century will be much like the past century?

So it seems.

Without wanting to sound like a chump *oops, too late* - are the icecaps not melting after all, then, and the water (sea) levels rising?

[ace's n 8's]

TICK TOCK,,TICK TOCK.

[clarise]

Now, until someone shows me compelling data, and not just politically motivated hot air, as far as I am concerned AGW is a tax collection ploy, and nothing more.

And no, SMC, the seas are not rising, and the poles are not melting (though polar bears do occasionally die, as they always have done and always will).

That said, I have found my next car, and it is coal powered.




The Tesla Model SP sedan.

(I have italicized sedan, because this baby seats seven! No kidding!)

Range: 300 miles.
Time to recharge: 4 hrs. (approx.)
Motor: rear-mounted 416hp/443fp three-phase AC (all-electric)
0 to 60: 5.5 seconds
top speed: 130mph (electronically limited)
powered: 240 volt electric (i.e., anthracite coal almost everywhere in U.S.)
Seating: 7, when the rear jumper seat is up! (same as a Mercedes E-series wagon)
Storage: 50 cubic feet with the jumper seat down (comparable to the Mercedes wagon)
Batteries: 7,000, attached to the bed of the chassis
Battery Lifespan: warrantied for life of car (under the luxury configuration)
Drag Coefficient: 0.24, lowest in the world for a production car
Body: monocoque aluminum, like a Mercedes SL550
Suspension: self-leveling
Control: 17 inch dash-mounted flat touch-panel
Jetsonesque touch: Door handles are flush with the body until proximity to the key activates them.
Retail Price: $98,000

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Without wanting to sound like a chump *oops, too late* - are the icecaps not melting after all, then, and the water (sea) levels rising?

Well, not really.
Arctic Ice Extent Shatters More Records

By Robert On April 5, 2012 · 20 Comments








“Arctic ice extent is the highest in nearly a decade, and has again set the record for both the latest peak and the longest winter,” says this article on RealScience.com.
Normally, the ice would have been melting for almost a month already.
ssmi1_ice_ext.png (1667×1250)

“After reading the article from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD), ” says reader Chris Vella, “I find it amusing that they admit the ice extent is increasing, multi-year ice is increasing, start of the spring melting is happening later, and yet they cannot explain why? (even though they do their best to try to convince you that that the ice in reality is still decreasing.)
“I am no rocket scientist,” says Vella, “but it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain to know that this could only be caused by COOLING conditions. I hope for mankind’s sake that this trend doesn’t continue!
“Lets see how the media will either totally ignore this story, or somehow blame global WARMING for the increased ice.”

Although it must have pained them to admit it, according to the NSICD, “ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. “
“Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, north of Russia.”
“Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk.”
“Overall, the Arctic gained 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) of ice during March. Typically, March has been a month of net ice loss (an average of 260,000 square kilometers [100,000 square miles] for 1979 to 2000), but the last three Marches have had net ice growth.”

http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/arctic...tters-records/

[Distant Lover]

Thursday, July 12, 2012


July 11 (Bloomberg) -- More than 1,000 counties in 26 states are being named natural-disaster areas, the biggest such declaration ever by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as drought grips the Midwest.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...rs-3702243.php

[clarise]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Well, not really.
Arctic Ice Extent Shatters More Records

By Robert On April 5, 2012 · 20 Comments








“Arctic ice extent is the highest in nearly a decade, and has again set the record for both the latest peak and the longest winter,” says this article on RealScience.com.
Normally, the ice would have been melting for almost a month already.
ssmi1_ice_ext.png (1667×1250)

“After reading the article from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD), ” says reader Chris Vella, “I find it amusing that they admit the ice extent is increasing, multi-year ice is increasing, start of the spring melting is happening later, and yet they cannot explain why? (even though they do their best to try to convince you that that the ice in reality is still decreasing.)
“I am no rocket scientist,” says Vella, “but it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain to know that this could only be caused by COOLING conditions. I hope for mankind’s sake that this trend doesn’t continue!
“Lets see how the media will either totally ignore this story, or somehow blame global WARMING for the increased ice.”

Although it must have pained them to admit it, according to the NSICD, “ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. “
“Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, north of Russia.”
“Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk.”
“Overall, the Arctic gained 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) of ice during March. Typically, March has been a month of net ice loss (an average of 260,000 square kilometers [100,000 square miles] for 1979 to 2000), but the last three Marches have had net ice growth.”

http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/arctic...tters-records/

Natureboy, you brainwashed parrot! What about that poor dead polar bear?

Don't polar bears thrive on freezing their asses off on solid ice?

Aren't polar bears essentially immortal as long as the cold puts them in suspended animation?

Are you anti-polar bear or something? Sheesh!

Hey, skip up and check out my new car! Coal-powered, dude!

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Thursday, July 12, 2012


July 11 (Bloomberg) -- More than 1,000 counties in 26 states are being named natural-disaster areas, the biggest such declaration ever by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as drought grips the Midwest.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...rs-3702243.php

LET'EM FRY.

Fuck!

They asked for it, okay?

53% of the people in this country gave Obama a sweeping mandate to give the planet-friendly Environmental Protection Agency carte-blanche to jack up Freon prices by 300%!

GOOD, I say! GOOD!!!!! Let'em eat cake in a hot oven!

Air conditioning sure is nice in the summer, isn't it?

By the four balls of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Donkey, I am sick and tired of all this twisted crap!

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by clarise

Natureboy, you brainwashed parrot! What about that poor dead polar bear?

Don't polar bears thrive on freezing their asses off on solid ice?

Aren't polar bears essentially immortal as long as the cold puts them in suspended animation?

Are you anti-polar bear or something? Sheesh!

Hey, skip up and check out my new car! Coal-powered, dude!

LOL

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Although it must have pained them to admit it, according to the NSICD, “ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. “

http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/arctic...tters-records/

That website, which seems to have an ideological agenda, nevertheless had a link to this:

---------

July 5, 2012

Arctic sea ice extent declined quickly in June, setting record daily lows for a brief period in the middle of the month. Strong ice loss in the Kara, Bering, and Beaufort seas, and Hudson and Baffin bays, led the overall retreat. Northern Hemisphere snow extent was unusually low in May and June, continuing a pattern of rapid spring snow melt seen in the past six years.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2012 averaged 10.97 million square kilometers (4.24 million square miles). This was 1.18 million square kilometers (456,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent. The last three Junes (2010-2012) are the three lowest in the satellite record. June 2012 ice extent was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) above the 2010 record low. Ice losses were notable in the Kara Sea, and in the Beaufort Sea, where a large polynya has formed. Retreat of ice in the Hudson and Baffin bays also contributed to the low June 2012 extent. The only area of the Arctic where sea ice extent is currently above average is along the eastern Greenland coast....

In June, the Arctic lost a total of 2.86 million square kilometers (1.10 million square miles) of ice. This is the largest June ice loss in the satellite record. Similar to May, the month was characterized by a period of especially rapid ice loss (discussed in the mid-month entry, June 19th) followed by a period of slower loss. Warm conditions prevailed over most of the Arctic.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

There will always be some places that get more ice. You need to look at the big picture.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

...
There will always be some places that get more ice. You need to look at the big picture.

But that's the point, isn't it?

The web is useless. News is useless. There is no news anymore. There is only propaganda.

Like your quote earlier about the drought in the central states. It looks appalling. It looks like the end of days are nigh. Until one soberly reflects and realizes that droughts in the central states are nothing new. I mean, the central states are called THE DUSTBOWL for a reason! Read Grapes of Wrath, for Chrissakes!

The perils of civilization are twofold:

1. Critical journalism is dead.
2. People don't know anything about anything anymore!

The result? Charismatic talking-heads can say anything, absolutely anything they damned well please, and the adoring multitudes eat it up. The mantra for the 21st century: Thank you, Nancy Pelosi! May I please have another!

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

But that's the point, isn't it?

The web is useless. News is useless. There is no news anymore. There is only propaganda.

Like your quote earlier about the drought in the central states. It looks appalling. It looks like the end of days are nigh. Until one soberly reflects and realizes that droughts in the central states are nothing new. I mean, the central states are called THE DUSTBOWL for a reason! Read Grapes of Wrath, for Chrissakes!

The perils of civilization are twofold:

1. Critical journalism is dead.
2. People don't know anything about anything anymore!

The result? Charismatic talking-heads can say anything, absolutely anything they damned well please, and the adoring multitudes eat it up. The mantra for the 21st century: Thank you, Nancy Pelosi! May I please have another!

This is what my website says:

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Thursday, July 12, 2012


July 11 (Bloomberg) -- More than 1,000 counties in 26 states are being named natural-disaster areas, the biggest such declaration ever by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as drought grips the Midwest.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...rs-3702243.php

I trust the U.S. Department of Agriculture on this.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

The perils of civilization are twofold:

1. Critical journalism is dead.
2. People don't know anything about anything anymore!

The result? Charismatic talking-heads can say anything, absolutely anything they damned well please, and the adoring multitudes eat it up.

I think the problem is that a lot of people believe whatever they want to believe, and reject credible sources that tell them anything else.

The right is delusional about climate change. The left is delusional about the importance of genetic differences between individuals and average genetic differences between racial groups. The difference is that the right does not try to suppress a discussion of climate change. The left does try to suppress a discussion of the importance of genetics to human affairs.

[seeminglysatisfied]

Not to worry. We will survive the excessive heat and lack of water that the political pundits want us to be fearful of.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weathe...o-handle/67877

Human Body Equipped to Handle Temperature Extremes
By Samantha Kramer, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
Jul 12, 2012; 7:38 PM ET

Getting used to the heat outdoors allows us to sweat more, which helps our bodies cool down faster. (Photo courtesy of Photos.com)

When temperatures reach unbearable levels, we get by with a little help from our metabolism.

When intense heat blasts our bodies with temperatures we're not used to, spending all day in the air conditioning may seem like an obvious way to cool down.

But Dr. G. Edgar Folk, a physiology professor in the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, said it prohibits the body from adjusting to the heat.

According to Folk's research, a healthy body can adjust to an extreme climate in two weeks by becoming "outdoor acclimatized."

Studies show that going outside and getting used to the heat can promote physiological changes to lower heat strain, the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health reported.

By going out in the heat, the body's salt concentration of sweat progressively decreases, while the volume of sweat increases. Blood vessels dilate, which brings heat from the core body areas to the surface so it can be dissipated and our bodies can cool down more quickly.

This explains why there is a larger amount of heat-related deaths in early summer months - people don't have the chance to adjust. But by August and September, we have already become physiologically acclimatized to extreme heat, according to the NCCEH.

The same concept applies to cold weather. Athletes and hikers will often train for weeks in the cold to acclimate their bodies to the different conditions.

Acclimatization isn't just short-term. It also explains the difference in body structure and chemical make-up of people around the world, said John Blangero, a Department of Genetics scientist at Texas Biomedical Research Institute.

The June and July heat waves that scorched the Northeast to unusually high temperatures may have some wondering how people living in southern tropical climates could ever put up with such temperatures on a regular basis.

Blangero said acclimatization also plays a role in genetic environmental adjustment.

"Temperature is an important environmental force," Blangero said. "There's lots of different human physiological stems that will play a role in your response to heat."

It explains why populations in Africa are better equipped to deal with the heat because of their skin color and body form, he said.

Long, slender bodies tolerate heat better because a greater surface area exposes more skin to perspire. More body fat means less skin surface in relation to that person's weight, which is why the Inuit peoples in Arctic regions tend to have thicker bodies to adjust to the cold.

But, as Blangero points out, at some point on the thermometer, everyone will suffice to the heat.

"The ability to maintain water reserves, the ability to keep electrolyte balance... it differs from person to person. Except at some point, heat stress will ultimately affect everybody," he said.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

It's not even a step though. I don't think you are grasping the scale of the issue. While burning fossil fuels to create electricity is more energy efficient than burning gas to power a combustion engine, it is still unclean energy. Providing everyone with electric powered cars is only going to increase the energy consumption coming from the grid, which is powered predominantly from burning fossil fuels. If everyone in the world switched to driving an electric car (something that wont and cannot happen for many decades) the savings in CO2 will simply be negated by population growth many times over.

There are only 2 things that can be done to tackle the problem that will have any effect. Create a clean energy source capable of meeting the worlds energy needs (then things like electric cars can become more viable). Nuclear fusion is the ONLY game in town. The other is stopping population growth and that is out of our control.

If someone has a child and and think by owning electric car they are doing the environment a favour. They are a hypocrite.

One important thing to remember, CO2 is only a small portion of the greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. Water vapour, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Tetrafluoromethane, the list goes on.

You ought to sudy the electric power industry in the USA. Only 60% of energy in the USA is from coal. The majority of the rest is from methane and nuclear. Wind and solar are also used, but to a lesser extent. It varies by region. Even if coal is used the emissions of coal plants are easier to regulate than each indivudual gas powered car.

Waiting for a perfectly clean energy source before perfecting batteries for electric vehicles will only prolong progress. Now is the time to develop electric car batteries and PHEVs are indeed a step in that direction.

You can diss electric cars, but they will probably be the norm when oil becomes scarce within the next century after we are dead.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I think the problem is that a lot of people believe whatever they want to believe, and reject credible sources that tell them anything else.

The right is delusional about climate change. The left is delusional about the importance of genetic differences between individuals and average genetic differences between racial groups. The difference is that the right does not try to suppress a discussion of climate change. The left does try to suppress a discussion of the importance of genetics to human affairs.

DL, you know, as well as anyone, that I am here principally to post poetry (and occasionally also short stories). I am also elsewhere - more reputable places, that is - where my work is, at the least, tolerated.

You, on the other hand are here-- and not in more reputable places-- because you are a very poor adjudicator of what is and is not delusional.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

You ought to sudy the electric power industry in the USA. Only 60% of energy in the USA is from coal. The majority of the rest is from methane and nuclear. Wind and solar are also used, but to a lesser extent. It varies by region. Even if coal is used the emissions of coal plants are easier to regulate than each indivudual gas powered car.

Waiting for a perfectly clean energy source before perfecting batteries for electric vehicles will only prolong progress. Now is the time to develop electric car batteries and PHEVs are indeed a step in that direction.

You can diss electric cars, but they will probably be the norm when oil becomes scarce within the next century after we are dead.

I can almost guarantee electric cars are the future. Just not battery powered.

[stumbler]

The Deniers appear to be a dying breed.

Poll: Majority Believe In Climate Change, Want U.S. To Address It

|

A new Washington Post/Stanford University poll finds that 6 in 10 Americans believe that the climate is warming and undergoing harmful changes, during the hottest year the U.S. has experienced on record. Two-thirds of Americans think the United States should lead efforts to address global warming and would support tax breaks designed to limit greenhouse emissions. Americans also don’t see a downside to addressing the problem: only 12 percent said taking steps to address global warming would decrease the quality of their own lives.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...to-address-it/

[CS natureboy]

Majority Of Britons No Longer Believe In Man Made Climate Change

Jun 25

Posted by Tory Aardvark

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Majority Of Britons No Longer Believe In Man Made Climate Change

Jun 25

Posted by Tory Aardvark

Well let's see here 43% believe we are causing global warming/climate change and only 20% disagree which makes you a 100% idiot.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Well let's see here 43% believe we are causing global warming/climate change and only 20% disagree which makes you a 100% idiot.

Latest You Gov poll for the Sunday Times shows that only 43% of Britons believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, this figure is down from 55% in 2008

Learn to read you fucking dolt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[deviousdave]

In Britain in recent years we have had some of the coldest winters on record (although this year was quite mild). And in the last 5 years we haven't had decent summer, with this year being a very cold summer, with huge amounts of rainfall, and virtually no days in June going above 20C.

It would make sense for most people in Britain to not believe in climate change, as the Mediterranean climate predicted for the South of England has simply not remotely materialised.

That is why you should not go off every day experience for gauging global warming. Such as declaring the heat wave in North America as being proof of climate change. It is all about the big picture, not localised events.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

In Britain in recent years we have had some of the coldest winters on record (although this year was quite mild). And in the last 5 years we haven't had decent summer, with this year being a very cold summer, with huge amounts of rainfall, and virtually no days in June going above 20C.

It would make sense for most people in Britain to not believe in climate change, as the Mediterranean climate predicted for the South of England has simply not remotely materialised.

That is why you should not go off every day experience for gauging global warming. Such as declaring the heat wave in North America as being proof of climate change. It is all about the big picture, not localised events.

You are correct. However the man made global warming crowd only wants to look at the last 20 years.... Hence, they are very shortsighted.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

You are correct. However the man made global warming crowd only wants to look at the last 20 years.... Hence, they are very shortsighted.

d

You are the most ridiculous ignorant liar this forum Natural Boy. The study of human caused global warming/climate change goes back more than 600,000 years you pitiful fool.

[Earthboundhero]

Anyone else notice that more than half of the USA is experiencing drought conditions? Cause over 1000 counties in 26 states are in states of emergency right now. But no, lets just write off this rather obvious warning sign as "eh it happens."

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

You, on the other hand are here-- and not in more reputable places-- because you are a very poor adjudicator of what is and is not delusional.

You do not prove that by asserting it.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

d

You are the most ridiculous ignorant liar this forum Natural Boy. The study of human caused global warming/climate change goes back more than 600,000 years you pitiful fool.

More than 600,000 years huh? Bahahahahahahahahahahahah

You prove how stupid you are with every post you make!

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by stumbler

d

You are the most ridiculous ignorant liar this forum Natural Boy. The study of human caused global warming/climate change goes back more than 600,000 years you pitiful fool.

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

More than 600,000 years huh? Bahahahahahahahahahahahah

You prove how stupid you are with every post you make!

What stumbler means is that scientists have a reasonably good idea of that the climate has been like for the past 600,000 years. Indeed, we have a reasonably good idea of what the climate was like over a hundred millions years ago when the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was higher, and the temperature was hotter.

If you were nearly as intelligent as stumbler, I would not have needed to explain that to you.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What stumbler means is that scientists have a reasonably good idea of that the climate has been like for the past 600,000 years. Indeed, we have a reasonably good idea of what the climate was like over a hundred millions years ago when the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was higher, and the temperature was hotter.

If you were nearly as intelligent as stumbler, I would not have needed to explain that to you.

Hey child molester. You should be more concerned with the FBI investigating your pedophile ass for child porn.

Global Warming will be the least of your worries once you get to prison (where you belong).

But you know what DL? No one here really cares what a pedophile like you thinks about Global Warming anyway.

Only another pedophile would be interested in what you say or think...

[Distant Lover]

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

One of the things I dislike about the word "pedophile" is that it does not distinguish between attraction and behavior. David Hamilton, whose photographs I enjoy, is one of the most popular photographers in the world.

-------

As much of Hamilton's work depicts early-teen girls, often nude, he has been the subject of some controversy and even child pornography allegations, similar to that which the work of Sally Mann and Jock Sturges have attracted. In the late 1990s, some people protested against bookstores that stocked Hamilton's photography books but their efforts came to nothing. This negative attention originated mostly from North America and Britain. As The Guardian wrote, "Hamilton's photographs have long been at the forefront of the "is it art or pornography?" debate.[3]

Glenn Holland, spokesman for the 78-year-old photographer, who lives in St. Tropez, said: "We are deeply saddened and disappointed by this, as David is one of the most successful art photographers the world has ever known. His books have sold millions".[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H..._(photographer)

A true pedophile you are. People like you always try to rationalize their criminal behavior.

And now I see you are posting links to your favorite pedo....

Oh and your edit wasn't fast enough

[richief]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

A true pedophile you are. People like you always try to rationalize their criminal behavior.

And now I see you are posting links to your favorite pedo....

Oh and your edit wasn't fast enough

I notice he tried to edit away his response, well done for quoting him.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You do not prove that by asserting it.

I do not have to assert it. You did. Last year. In a rare moment of transparency, during one of the many debates on Murray and Herrnstein, you had divulged that you had joined a political forum and had tried to enjoin members on the topic of genetic superiority among certain Jewish ethnic/tribal groups, and they ran you out on a rail.

Can you admit having asserted this, or do I have to go and find it for you?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

I do not have to assert it. You did. Last year. In a rare moment of transparency, during one of the many debates on Murray and Herrnstein, you had divulged that you had joined a political forum and had tried to enjoin members on the topic of genetic superiority among certain Jewish ethnic/tribal groups, and they ran you out on a rail.

Can you admit having asserted this, or do I have to go and find it for you?

I remember that.

[stumbler]

2012 Drought Rivals Dust Bowl

The National Climatic Data Center is expected to announce on Monday that 2012’s drought is one of the top ten worst droughts in U.S. history—and ranks up there with some years of the infamous Dust Bowl during the Great Depression. The center’s State of the Climate report, to be released Monday, is expected to show that since 1895, only the droughts of the 1930s and the 1950s covered more land area than the current drought. Also, the current drought covers more area by a slim margin than the 1936 drought—although the current dry spell is still not as severe as other years in the Dust Bowl. What’s more, 2012 is not over yet—and July is usually one of the driest months of the year.



Read it at The Weather Channel
July 15, 2012 11:31 PM


http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...dust-bowl.html

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

You, on the other hand are here-- and not in more reputable places-- because you are a very poor adjudicator of what is and is not delusional.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You do not prove that by asserting it.

Originally Posted by clarise

I do not have to assert it. You did. Last year. In a rare moment of transparency, during one of the many debates on Murray and Herrnstein, you had divulged that you had joined a political forum and had tried to enjoin members on the topic of genetic superiority among certain Jewish ethnic/tribal groups, and they ran you out on a rail.

Can you admit having asserted this, or do I have to go and find it for you?

What is delusional about pointing out that the Ashkenazim are biologically superior? They have an average IQ of 112 to 115. Although they are less than one percent of the world's population they have won one out of five Nobel Prizes.

Genes matter. IQ matters. Racial differences matter. A number of bullies think that when they gang up and flame me they have somehow disproved my arguments. They only demonstrate that they cannot disprove those arguments, because they are obviously true. People do not get angry when beliefs they are sure of are challenged.

The very obvious and very graphic failure of No Child Left Behind provides fresh evidence that Charles Murray was right all along, not only in The Bell Curve, but in Real Education: Four Simple Truths to Bring America's Schools back to Reality.

These four simple truths are:

"Ability varies."
"Half of the children are below average."
"Too many people are going to college."
"America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted."

Instead of wasting money trying to turn the illegitimate children of unmarried welfare mothers and violent street criminals into brilliant scholars we should be devoting attention and tax money to those who have the genes to become brilliant scholars.

The idea that the race gap in academic performance, which has always existed everywhere in the world where it could be measured, was going to be ended in twelve years by a government spending program was a preposterous delusion. I am only glad that George W. Bush promoted NCLB, and that it was passed with broad bi partisan support. Consequently the Republicans cannot blame the Democrats for this waste of time and money. The Democrats and the Republicans share the blame for this.

[stumbler]

U.S. Drought 2012: Current Drought Covers Widest Area Since 1956, According To New Data

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1676936.html

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

U.S. Drought 2012: Current Drought Covers Widest Area Since 1956, According To New Data

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1676936.html

So? I guess considering it was worse back in 1956, it must be natural. Or was it man made global warming back in 1956 as well?

[stumbler]

Yeah sure.

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by clarise

But that's the point, isn't it?

The web is useless. News is useless. There is no news anymore. There is only propaganda.

Like your quote earlier about the drought in the central states. It looks appalling. It looks like the end of days are nigh. Until one soberly reflects and realizes that droughts in the central states are nothing new. I mean, the central states are called THE DUSTBOWL for a reason! Read Grapes of Wrath, for Chrissakes!

The perils of civilization are twofold:

1. Critical journalism is dead.
2. People don't know anything about anything anymore!

The result? Charismatic talking-heads can say anything, absolutely anything they damned well please, and the adoring multitudes eat it up. The mantra for the 21st century: Thank you, Nancy Pelosi! May I please have another!

The dustbowl was an event that happened in the midwest. It's no longer the dustbowl and hasn't been for quite some time. Not only that, but drought wasn't even the main reason for the dustbowl. The main factor was poor farming practices.


Maybe it's time you updated your information, as per usual.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

The dustbowl was an event that happened in the midwest. It's no longer the dustbowl and hasn't been for quite some time. Not only that, but drought wasn't even the main reason for the dustbowl. The main factor was poor farming practices.


Maybe it's time you updated your information, as per usual.

You're right about the farming practices but don't underestimate the drought. Back then they didn't have irrigation. The farmers depended on rain. And when it didn't come there was no longer anything to hold the top soil and that's when it began to pick up and move.

Ironically, perhaps miraculously, the dust storm finally reached Washington DC itself. Otherwise they (as they are doing now) might not have listened to the scientists and experts of the time that something had to be done called soil conservation.