jbenson2 says:

#31 said: …especially since we see it coming at us like a freight train and are standing like a deer caught in its headlights.

You sound like Al “The Debate Is Over” Gore.

So we would all like to hear what is your solution to Global Warming?

* Switch over to compact fluorescents?
* Continue to ban oil exploration in ANWR?
* Drive lightweight autos (increased fatalities)?

You’ve got a lot of words on your posts, but I don’t see any constructive solutions.

I’m sure we would all like to hear some illuminating words of wisdom about how you will eliminate Global Warming. (Be specific in your reply.)

John Paradox says:

Reminds me of when we get floods here in the Sonoran Desert, and have to be reminded that we are, and have been for over a decade, in a drought.
Short term vs long term.

J/P=?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#37 – bobbo,

Any religious ideology will only cause so much damage. At most, it will take our species out of the picture. Scientific incompetence is threatening a Permian/Triassic level extinction, complete with anoxic oceans and toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide gas. I think that latter will do more damage.

The genius backpacker and the rest of the scientifically incompetent aren’t even smart enough to look in the mirror and notice that I’ve asked a real question about CO2 levels. They’ve just ignored it, despite the fact that I put it in bold to avoid anyone missing the point.

Yeah. Global warming is good for us. Keep chanting that mantra as the ocean supports less and less life because oxygen dissolves in higher quantities in colder water. So, the fertile portions of the oceans shrink closer and closer to the poles where the world is not as wide.

Global warming is good for us, as it shifts rain patterns such that our once fertile areas no longer get rain and other areas get so much rain it washes away the top soil.

Global warming is good for us as droughts and el nino events increase in frequency thus shrinking our food supply further.

Global warming is good for us as a billion climate refugees must be cared for by 2050. That’s going to be a huge win for the global economy.

No, MrBloedumpSpladderschittHead, global warming will not be a good thing. And, posting a link to a single person’s non-peer reviewed blog isn’t going to make it so.

Nor will the op ed piece cited above make global warming disappear. If one is incapable of reading the peer reviewed pubs, might I at least suggest sticking to relatively high quality journalistic sources that cite the peer reviewed pubs. The information in them is likely to be watered down enough for us non-climate-scientists to be able to read and still maintain some validity.

jbenson2 says:

#41 said: Texan oil companies are already beginning to move toward wind. Renewable energy is a whole new booming industry waiting to be tapped,

Wind energy is fine, if you have the land and the wind. A single wind farm that produces as much energy as a 100 MW power plant would have turbine towers spread out over an area of 20 square kilometres (5,000 acres).

Example in California:
http://tinyurl.com/2enn72

But energy supply needs to be consistently reliable. During the long hot spells throughout the south when the wind just dies, how will the folks run their air conditioning?

And in the north, how will you get the huge wind towers constructed with the NIMBY aholes like Ted Kennedy and the environmentalists?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#42 – jbenson2,

Do you have any statistics for land use on other 100 MW plants? How much oil is spilled, too regular an occurrence to ignore? How much land is drilled for oil or gas? How many mountains are removed for coal? How many acres are used by the power plant itself? How much land is destroyed mining for nuclear? How much land is destroyed by nuclear waste, especially the stuff that never even goes into the plant, the depleted uranium that we’re so careless with? What about damage to the oceans from drilling? Damage to the entire planet from mercury from coal plants?

None of these other options for power are confined to the limits of the area of the power plant itself. In fact, if global warming is considered, one must effectively assume the entire planet is consumed.

J says:

# 35 MrBloedumpSpladderschitt

“All I know is I exhale evil CO2 a few times every minute and I don’t feel guilty at all.”

That is just a dumb statement. It shows how much you don’t understand about the issue.

Do any of you denier morons understand what a balanced system is? Have any of you ever over or under watered you grass? Water it too much and you will kill it. Water it not enough and you will kill it. There is a buffer zone. If any of you are or know a diabetic. If there is too much or too little insulin in the system it could lead to complete system failure. If you allow it to stay too high or too low for extended periods the body will eventually collapse and cause the death of the person. This is like our atmosphere. Too much or too little of anything will destroy the system and everything that depends on it. It is called balance.

How retarded do you have to be to not understand even this simple concept.

mastmar221 says:

To all,

I’m really shocked at the tone and content of the comments above. From the people railing against global warming there is the clear undertone of seething anger and hatred. From the believers there is a mightier than though attitude that dismisses people who disagree as ignorant, inept, or stupid.

Global warming is not a consistent warming of the planet. It is the increasing amount of infrared energy trapped in the atmosphere and ocean. That will cause a slight rise in global temperature, but that is not even a truly significant part of what climate change is. We’re still trapped by a the poor nomenclature of this phenomenon. Any system when more energy is added will behave more extremely. Just watch a pot of water on the stove and as you increase the energy a puddle of water starts to jump around. Leave a lid on to long and too tightly and it will explode.

The condition we’re creating isn’t a consistently warmer planet. It is one with a slight increase in temperature, but devastating increases in energy. That means winter storms are crippling with more snow. Summer storms more destructive with more wind and rain. When it rains, it will happen less often, but far more intensely and usually somewhere were it hadn’t before.

Global warming isn’t much warming. That makes a tempting line for those who disagree, but consider this. If the energy it takes to warm the pot of water on your stove only a little bit would burn the flesh from your hand, what if you increased the oceans by only 1 or 2 degrees. How much added energy is that? Isn’t it reasonable that all this increased energy in our atmosphere and oceans is a little risky?

The Bush administration now accept that global warming is likely caused by humans, with a probability of greater than 98%. But for the sake of argument let us say it’s only 50%. If I handed you a revolver half loaded, would you point it at your family and pull the trigger once? Because if that’s what you’re doing by not accepting the risk to your family in this lifetime. If we lose access to the volume and quality of food the world produces, your family will never have the same quality of life you do. If you aren’t willing to change, you will be telling your family they are not worth protecting against the even the risk.

Disagreeing on this issue doesn’t make someone stupid. There are rarely scientific absolutes, but I’m not taking the risk of not dealing with a likely outcome. My family is important enough.

The concerned

Ah_Yea says:

I would like to thank most of you for proving my point, which was:

We as a people are going to debate this forever, and we can see in this blog that some people have intractable positions. It is also disconcerting to note that the average contributor to this blog is smarter than the average person.

And look how the conversation turned, acrimonious and intractable.

Post #41 understands this point when he said “The things we must do to fight global warming will spark a new economy”. Right!

Companies and individuals can make/save money by investing and purchasing environmentally friendly technologies irregardless of your position on climate change. I recommend this being the new talking point for the environmental group. It’s like having your cake and eating it too!

Misanthropic Scott says:

#48 – mastmar221,

Your post is very well written and is more likely than mine to sway the other side.

However, I cannot help but agree with J in post #49 as well that this is indeed willful ignorance. This is not a group that denies all science, as some religious extremists do. This is a group that for some reason, probably because they fear a negative impact on their lives this week, deny this single branch of science while taking advantage of all that science has to offer on other subjects. This does make the group a very difficult group with whom to have a discussion. I’m not sure how to change this dynamic.

What’s almost comical in all of this is that even if one does not “believe” in global warming, all of the changes necessary to combat it will improve all of our day to day lives immensely.

Renewables offer a new industry for a country desperately in need of one. We’re talking about reduction of asthma and reduction in the number of deaths from air pollution each year, currently at 70-130,000. We’re talking about taking away funding for terrorists. We’re talking about improving the lighting in people’s homes by allowing better color choices than dingy yellow, not to mention decreased costs. We’re talking about improved public transportation and reduction of time sitting in traffic. We’re talking about reduced traffic fatalities. We’re talking about phasing out mountain top removal and oil spills.

The idea of fighting all of these things with such vehemence is something I just can’t even begin to comprehend. How can one who opposes all of these things really be said to be intelligent? It really does get difficult to have such discussions on respectful terms.

Good for you for being able to do so. But, please don’t berate those of us with less ability to see the other side when there clearly just isn’t one.

Misanthropic Scott says:

MrBloedumpSpladderschitt,

Show me a way save and I’m on it.

I’ve reduced my electric bill over 16% year over year.

Here are just a few money saving tips:

1. CFLs will definitely save you money over the life of the bulb. They no longer cost $5/bulb at Home Despot. The math is on the package. And, since they last longer, the bulbs are not even more expensive over the life of the bulb.

2. Buy some $5 power strips. Plug in your TV, DVD, Cable box, and stereo to one. Plug in your cable modem and wifi transmitter to another. Turn off the power strips when the devices are not in use. Do not leave cell phone chargers and the like plugged in when not charging. Vampire power accounts for about 5% of the nation’s power usage.

3. Turn off the water while lathering. Hot water is expensive. Take Navy style showers. Wet yourself. Turn off water. Lather. Turn on water.

4. Except in the case of extreme fuel guzzlers, drive your car into the ground. Buying a car every 15 years instead of every 5 years or less will save thousands of dollars. When the time comes, buy the most fuel efficient well made vehicle that meets your needs. This will save you a fortune. For the environmentalists (like myself) who would otherwise choke at not replacing an inefficient vehicle at the first opportunity, consider the huge amount of resources that went into building your car and the fact that selling it before it’s dead will just mean that someone else is driving it. Of course in the case of a Naggravator, Humper, Land Bruiser, Expectorade, etc., please drive it into a wall at the first opportunity. 😉

5. Don’t mash the gas pedal.

6. Minimize unnecessary driving. Bicycles can help you stay healthy and save money if you at some appropriate level of fitness. Walking is great (and pleasant) too.

7. Insulate your home.

8. Keep your home comfortable. In winter, you are likely already wearing a sweater, no need to heat above 68, if so. In summer, you are likely in shorts and T-shirt. No need to cool below 78 or 80 or so. Typically, in this country, we heat to 78 in winter and cool to 68 in summer. This is silly.

Do the math. A lot of conservation really does make sense and cents and dollars.

MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

#52 – “What’s almost comical in all of this is that even if one does not “believe” in global warming, all of the changes necessary to combat it will improve all of our day to day lives immensely.”

It’s not an improvement if we have no money left from paying for it all or we have to give up the freedom to live where we want or drive what we want.

Show me a solution that allows me to continue living where I do now, drive a vehicle essentially the same as I do now and have at least as much money left over as i do now and I’ll change. A “solution” that requires all kinds of sacrifice is not acceptable.

I have a family too and I’m honestly not that worried. What I am worried about is the reduced lifestyle the GW crowd wants to ram down my throat to “save us all”.

MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

#54-55 we cross posted. Sad thing is I’m doing most of what you listed. #3 however is a reduction of my lifestyle and just not right for a member of the 1st world in the 21st century. I’ll save that for camping.

As far as vehicles goes we need to concentrate on creating more efficient vehicles that don’t cost more and are not smaller or less powerful.

This is all minor stuff that most everyone does to save money. I have no problem withh it and do most of it.

You’re not mentioning the social engineering crap the hysterics are proposing. Something like imposing a 2.00/gal gas tax to discourage consumption. That’s the flaming dogshit that pisses me off. It’s not only immoral, but grounds for summary execution.

mastmar221 says:

#49

Glad to hear that people stopped the acrimony almost as soon as it was pointed out. And while I think that all of what was said about green tech being a boon to the economy not a drag, that efficiency is easy and a cost saver are unarguable truths, it’s too true that if we don’t reduce our CO2 emissions below 1990 levels before 2015 we’re completely f@*ked anyway. The energy cycles accelerate to a new equilibrium too fast after that to turn back.

(I know 80-100 years doesn’t seem fast, but the rest of existence isn’t so fascinated by our species individual longevity).

I have zero faith that the people who know the simple truths about green tech can make a difference in seven years. The economy is much bigger than you think it is, and it’s doesn’t have power steering. I think we have already been forced down a path that will mean a major realignment of the worlds resource of water and food. Personally, I’m preparing by being educated on what the outcome will be of massive displacement, and food shortages.

When you see those predicted maps about where water will be as climate change continues take great note of where it increases. If the population displacement happens the first thing that those millions of refugees will need is water. I’d be there first if I were planning ahead.

Hey it’s not all doom and gloom. I’m changing my light bulbs and lifestyle too incase the world surprises me (they certainly have by rejecting Clinton), but I’m not counting on it.

MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

#59 – you’re 20.00 orange juice is the direct cause of ethanol, gas taxes etc. causing production costs to go up.