 |
What you have now is the tyranny of the minority, we don't have democracy any more but the one who shouts the loudest gets heard. Since those here like to look back and stay close to the roots of things let us consider the roots of democracy, which surprise, surprise, didn't start in the USA and how the greeks would have handled this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
They would have said this is interesting we will hear you again, Not, we will immediately do what you say
Don't forget it is who can be photographed the best, it is often said that if Franklin D. Roosevelt was shown in his wheel chair then he probably wouldn't have been voted into officeQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Too bad there wasn't a willing photgrapher nearby .
No... I happen to think that CO2 is NOT pollution. But the GOVERNMENT DOES... which is the point I was making and the point that you missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
In other words, I was saying that government is REGULATING THE WRONG THING.
I think that the "fact" that there is pollution being caused by the use of lightbulbs or automobiles is questionable.Quote:
You also think that pollution is acceptable in any form if it can be justified - questionable!
Actually, I don't "think" anything of the sort. I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE. I just saw a documentary special called "Who Killed the Electric Car" (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006) that specifically said that electric cars go 100 miles on a single charge. They also talked about the wonderful speed of the vehicles, which seemed to top out at 80 MPH. My 2002 Ford does over 100 easily, so I'm not that impressed with the electric cars. They were specifically talking about the GM EV1 and EV+ vehicles. If you have better information, please let me know.Quote:
You think electric cars only go for 100 miles - interesting, besides I was using them as an example, I could quite have easily stated Hydrogen Fuel Cars
As for hydrogen-powered vehicles, they aren't safe yet. The fuel cells are still subject to damage from bumps in the road or car accidents. Furthermore, the cells themselves are expensive. Finally, the water vapor in the fuel cells can freeze during the winter causing the vehicle to be unable to start.
And there is this interesting point made by Technology Today in their April 2007 issue:
In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would probably produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs--which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars.Technology Review: Hell and Hydrogen
Sure, the government COULD mandate the use of hydrogen-powered cars. And sure, that would mean that we had to use them. Yes, the government could jump-start the industry... they certainly have the power to do so.
But SHOULD they?
If the technology is sound, safe, effective and efficient, people will buy it on their own. If it is not, the government has no business demanding that we do it.
And so far, there have been very few cases where the new technology is both equally effective in doing the job it is supposed to do as the older technology AND more fuel efficient, resulting in a lower cost. That's why the government has had to FORCE the situation. If these technologies really were just as good and more energy efficient/less polluting, people would be buying them on their own. Lightbulbs are just one case where that is true... the flourescents fail to do the job as well as the incandescents. Electric cars are another example... they are less capable of handling long trips and don't have real speed. And hydrogen technology is far from perfected, as I have said.Quote:
You try to make argument based on pinpointing or nit picking a specific section, using energy saving light bulbs is just one way where we can reduce the energy cost
Bottom line, the reason the government needs to get involved with these projects and create regulations that push them onto the public is because the public doesn't really want them because they aren't as good as what we have now. When the technology catches up, people will be happy to buy them without needing to be forced by the government to do it.
Actually, with all the oil shoal in the midwest and all the oil off the gulf coast and in Alaska and elsewhere, we actually do have all the energy we need for the next 150 years or so. Problem is, our government isn't letting us dig for it due to... you guessed it... "environmental concerns".Quote:
Or has America got all the energy it needs and doesn't rely on foreign markets for most of its use - have I got this wrong??
Define "pollutants". According to the US Government, CO2 is a pollutant... and all of us live with CO2 every day. The US Government also calls methane a pollutant... which would mean that cow farmers are at particular risk for pollution. Not to mention that "natural gas", which is one of the main sources of alternative "clean" fuels is actually methane.Quote:
Tell you what Elliot, you go and live right next door to an industrial area that is pumping out pollutants all day - I am sure you and your son will be more than happy to do that
The problem isn't regulating pollution. The problem is how they are defining pollution. They are doing so with a political agenda in mind, not an environmental agenda. That is why the government needs to stop being involved. They just screw it up.
And I agree. But it ain't the job of your government or mine to fix it. It's OUR job to fix it by coming up with alternative industrial methods that are cleaner that people will want to use. And getting rich off the new product, method or system is our reward/incentive for doing so.Quote:
Problem is pollutants don't just stay around an area, they tend to travel downwind, so what happens in another country can effect me and my family - that's why I have said several times -
True. But having the government limit freedom of choice doesn't help anybody.Quote:
Freedom Choice does not give anyone the right to take away anothers freedom of choice
Pollution from man is inevitable. Pollution is a product of life. Every time a pre-industrial man cooked his food on an open flame he produced pollution. Every time a man breaths, he gives off CO2, which the government defines as pollution. Every time he goes to the bathroom, he produces pollution. Every time he sweats, he is giving off pollution. Pollution is a byproduct of life.Quote:
Pollution from man is just stupid, especially as we can all work to providing cleaner air
Should we limit the amount of pollution we produce wherever possible? Yes. But "wherever possible" needs to be determined by us, not by the governments of the world who have no idea what "wherever possible" means in our individual cases.
The majority ALWAYS will choose the best product at the cheapest price. If you allow the market forces to solve the issue, the majority will ALWAYS follow. But that takes perfecting the product to a level that makes the people want it. A free market always does what the majority wants. It's a regulated market that causes the minority to have control over the majority.Quote:
None of what I have said is referring to global warming - I am still not convinced either, I am referring to what man can do to clean up his act
And whether you think the market should chose or not it is not as simple as allowing the minority to ruin what the majority want, or has the basis of democracy completely been thrown out of the window in favour for marketing trends?
Elliot
Hello p:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
The Wolverine lives in theory - not the real world.. He thinks polluters will stop polluting just because it's the right thing to do. Then, when somebody actually questions that idiocy, he'll just argue that CO2 ISN'T a pollutant...
I guess he's saying that we can just dump as much CO2 into our atmosphere as we want because you breath it out, and plants love it... It's like saying, don't listen to those people who tell you that water can kill you... Water ISN'T a pollutant... It can't kill you either... Unless, of course, you breathe too much of it.
His argument is specious on its face. He doesn't understand that we shouldn't keep throwing our trash into the air.
excon
Salvo Ex
As we both know Co2 is good for the plants, just not us
But regardless of if whys science etc, how can anybody argue that pumping out these gases from desiel engine is good for you, when it has been proven to cause really bad health conditions
* carbon (soot);
* carbon monoxide;
* aldehydes;
* nitrogen dioxide;
* sulphur dioxide;
* polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
How can anybody argue against the notion that Pollution is bad, Clean Energy is good, is just beyond me, it just sounds simple maths, and regardless of what ever is imposed on us to achieve this goal is just fine by me!
For us here the effects of pollution will stay with us for the rest of our lives we are that covered in the stuff, but future generations should not have to put up with what will only get worst if left unchecked
And maybe if Elliot understod anything about epigenetics, he would also understand that the effect will not leave the human DNA for a long time if ever, something that can be stopped so easily
Hello again, p:
I'm sure the owners of rust belt industries had the same arguments when they're time was over... What I don't understand, though, is his thinking that we don't have the entrepreneurial skills to come out of these times even stronger. That's kind of anti-right wing thinking as far as I can tell.
But, he's not alone with his head in the sand mentality... While we were sleeping, the Chinese jumped on green technology, and they're selling it to US. There's a HUGE wind farm being proposed in Texas. The Chinese have the turbines AND they'll finance it for us. Schumer Seeks to Block Stimulus Money for Chinese-Backed Texas Wind Farm - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com
I thought he was pro AMERICAN business..
excon
I'd be more concerned with being beholden to the Chinese neodymium,terbium, and dysprosium ,lanthanum cartels . Each Toyota Prius uses about 11 kg of rare earth elements, but will need almost twice as much under the automaker's plans to boost the hybrid's fuel efficiency. The turbines in the windmills also use these minerals.
Funny thing is all these fancy clean energy ideas requires the equivalent of strip mining of rare minerals [many of which are found in Chinese controlled land]once we begin a mass conversion of our energy supply to "clean energy" .
I guess there is no environmental concerns there or concerns over the fact that we will be dependent on a foreign source for our energy .
The Schmuckster is of course an idiot. But he's an idiot who thinks he can add buy American provisions into law without international consequences.
For more on this read
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20090...-cars-minerals
By the way . The Nobel Prize in Economics this year was won by Elinor Ostrom, who showed that self governance of the "commons".. or the common-pool resource (CPR), is more efficient than ham-handed outside dictates .
Streamline Training & Documentation: Elinor Ostrom's Research on Management of Common ResourcesQuote:
Academics, aid donors, international nongovernmental organizations, central governments, and local citizens need to learn and relearn that no government can develop the full array of knowledge, institutions and social capital needed to govern development efficiently and sustainably. The sheer variety of cultural and biological adaptations to diverse ecological conditions is so great that I am willing to make the following assertion: Any single, comprehensive set of formal laws intended to govern a large expanse of territory containing diverse ecological niches is bound to fail in many of the areas where it is applied.
You should be much more concerned about being beholden to the chinese financially. The GFC was caused by the west borrowing money from China and investing it in worthless real estate in the USA. If your fancy cars don't work you can always go back to old technology but if they foreclose and want to take possession. Fortunately because it was capitalism in action you can say it was the banks, the big bad banks who took your money. Like the big bad wolf they huffed and they puffed and they blew you house down. Remember that china gets these minerals from poor African nationsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The answer to green or clean energy probably doesn't lie in some of the fields being tried at the moment
Whereas Solar Power and Wind Power are ideal for small rural communities, and biomass for small villages and towns, it will probably be nuclear that wins the day
When there are incentives for industries it handles some of the financial burden placed on trying to devolop a new product, but non if what I have seen iks wrong, all working towards what most people see as must do act
I can appreciate that interferace and ultimatly running of institutions shouldn't be done by governments, it doesn't stop them providing such incentives, particular when this can attract foreign investment into a country which produces jobs and that is one of the responsbilities of any government
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No one is arguing that we can " dump as much C02 into the atmosphere.." that is a strawman. Saying that one does not believe in human caused global warming is NOT the same as saying one is for pollution; in fact one can believe in conservation, and recycling, and efficient use of energy resources AND not believe in the religion of human caused global warming. Anyway, it is a biologically fact, any 5th grader can tell you, that C02 is necessary for plant life. Show me the studies suggesting that reducing C02 is good for plant life? What if we had less plants? Wouldn't we have less 02? In a world of ever increasing human population, how are you going to feed these people if we reduce the C02, if that were possible, that plants and agriculture need?
Speaking of water, you do know water vapor is more of a green house gas than c02 is, right? Would you suggest reducing water? I'm not sure who in their right mind would try to breathe water? That is unless they were being waterboarded ;)
G&P
You again just proved that you missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't think anyone will stop polluting because it's the right thing to do.
I don't think that the government will stop polluters either. Any attempts to do so will screw the situation up worse, as they have every time they have tried it until now.
What I think is that people will stop polluting when it is in their best interest to do so. Their best interest will be when there is a cheaper, easier, more efficient alternative that is just as effective as what they do now.
This isn't theory, it is fact.
So let's USE that fact by letting someone come up with an effective alternative, sell that alternative on the open market, satisfy the public's demand for such an alternative, and get rich in the process.
But trying to get government to force people to go along with an alternative that DOESN'T work is a disaster in the making. People will rebel against it, government representatives who want to get re-elected will get rid of it, and we'll be right back at square one. Or worse. People might remember their "bad experience" with a product that didn't work and will never want to take a chance on ANY alternative ever again, even if it's an effective one that really does meet their needs.
Government can only make the situtation worse. It cannot make the situation better. But the free market CAN make the situation better... if we allow time for alternatives to be properly developed to the point that it can really compete with what we've got now.
Elliot
Again, you put forth the false argument that if I don't support YOUR way of making change, I must be in favor of the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No matter how many times I point out that I support change, just change that doesn't involve the government, you try to claim that I am against change. You argue that I am against change EVEN AS I PUT FORTH THE TYPE OF CHANGE THAT I SUPPORT.
You're wrong. Again. Talk about specious arguments.
Elliot
Perhaps you are right, however few of us would live in a garbage tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
First you have to be convinced that what you are doing is actually polluting. It is easy when you are surrounded by smog to see pollution but when you have clear skies how can you be convinced that that power station is polluting.
People need a financial incentive, but not a negative incentive of rising costs or a tax which is a thinly veiled revenue raising.
Agreed. And the free market is the best place to create that incentive without also creating a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Elliot
You are surely not relying on a cap and trade scheme to produce results?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If that were going to produce results it would have done so already in the places it has been tried. Licenses to pollute are not the answer, that is just business as usual, and inevietablely the population pays just like a tax it is just politically convenient to pass the buck to someoneelse.
The free market will only act in its own interest that is why it is called the "free" market. Thus far it has done squat
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
In theory, I guess the meat packers wouldn't sell bad meat because it's not in their interest to do so... But, in fact, in the REAL WORLD, they sell bad meat because they make more money when they do. THAT is their interest - not the safety of their customers... I don't know how you miss this stuff.
You think the USDA who inspects your meat for wholesomeness is really a government plot...
You don't understand how the real world works - not even close.
excon
That could be because he doesn't eat that meat anyway. Elliot is a self confessed economist, of course he doesn't know how the real world works, he relies on models and scenarios to tell him what is happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I especially like the government plot to eradiate food to preserve it. What are we preserving it for? So we can have bigger land fills that produce methane gas for green power. I suggest we short circuit the process and send all food to the waste dump as soon as it is produced, we solve both the energy problem and the consumption problem at the same time, a win-win and we do away with those nasty green house gas producing humans, a bonus
As you say SALVO!! When people drop their silly paranoia about the industry everyone will be better off.Quote:
Whereas Solar Power and Wind Power are ideal for small rural communities, and biomass for small villages and towns, it will probably be nuclear that wins the day
Salvo Tom
When a biomass power station was installed down the road from me, being a friend of the person who builds them I saw the plans, and there is not a drop of emission that can come out of it
However at the local planning office, we heard objections because it was going to cause cancer, smog every morning and night, congestion because of all the tractors (its a rural village already) and so on
Talk about paranoia based on stupidty!
I am not in favour of nuclear as it still has a small percentage of failure - its is small but still there
However, I will be more than happy to except it once all avenues have been exhausted, and or used
Eitherway, everyone in the world needs power, and building gas and coal stations is just bonkers!
That is not the facts. The Chinese are mining these rare minerals mostly from Mongolia.Quote:
Remember that china gets these minerals from poor African nations
What caused the GFC is of course the making of another op . I would argue that gvt interventions caused bubbles.Quote:
The GFC was caused by the west borrowing money from China and investing it in worthless real estate in the USA.
I have no inherent opposition to Chinese investments in the US . I think it is good for the country . I am critical of the US Treasury's and Federal Reserve for the last decade's decision to not promote a strong US currency. But if the Chinese invested in US real estate during the bubble and the bubble collapsed then Booo hooo . The Japanese when they were the "economic dynamo "to be emulated once invested $2 billion in Rockefeller Center .Ask them how that worked out !
Agreed ;turning an energy source into another energy source is frankly a waste of energy. It would be more efficient to just use the natural gas in fueling autos and mass transit. It is a much cleaner alternative to petroleum.Quote:
Eitherway, everyone in the world needs power, and building gas and coal stations is just bonkers!
I think some people have got so used to receiving good service due to regulations and rules that they have forgotten what businesses do at times to make a profitQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I sell cars - and my trade is full of people who con customers
When I needed cash years ago, I would sell some really dodgy cars, I never lied if asked directly, but I never offered info if I wasn't - I needed to sell cars to make the money - nowadays I am all above board, however there are plenty of people who need to make money and will do whatever it takes to achieve this
That is why the regs and rules are in place, because even with them it continues, but without them I would be the first one to profit from the situation
To address the methane, unfortunately the oceans will produce more methane than man can, cows produce more methane than the oceans and man combined, so unless we are already to give up steak I suggest we find another way :D
And if I was the owner of the car lot next to yours I would've made it a point to tell customers that the lot next to mine sold lemons and not autos.Quote:
When I needed cash years ago, I would sell some really dodgy cars, I never lied if asked directly, but I never offered info if I wasn't - I needed to sell cars to make the money
Intersting you thought I was selling from a lot (pitch) - very interesting!
Oh hell no. What would be free-market about a cap & trade program? That's pure government interventionalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I'm talking about private individuals or businesses coming up with alternative fuels and tools that work just as well as or better than what we currently have, and that save money and energy. I'm talking about those businesses then selling these products to the public. And I'm talking about keeping the government out of it.
The alternative being put forth is for the government to mandate that we buy these products NOW before they have been perfected, and can't do the job as well as what we currently have. I'm talking about the government forcing us, in the name of social responsibility, to buy products that we really don't want because they aren't any good. Cap & Trade is a good example of that, but is not the only method by which the government forces people to buy stuff they don't really want.
Those are the two alternatives put forth. Phlanx SEEMS to prefer the second method... the government intervention approach. I prefer the first... the free-market approach.
Elliot
Elliot, businesses tell the market which product to choose - don't you get that, the choices you make are based on what businesses provide youQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If left up to industry to change over to low energy products they would be reluctant to do so due to high cost R&D and difficulty introducing new products to the market
Why would anyone want to wait a generation (!) for something that can be done very quickly
If the product at the moment is not good enough then guess what, the companies selling the products now have the cashflow to redevolop and improve
This is how the markets work, this is how markets have always worked, and you think being pushed in one direction is against your rights - laughable considering it effects all humans and not just one nation
You do realise elliot, the rest of the world look at the US and ask how come 5 percent of the world's population, consume 25 per-cent of the worlds oil production, mostly in the form of vehicle fuel
You have to start to take responsiblilty for a system that has an end! You have to start to create ways of getting this dependency down, because if you don't the US your son will know will not be the one you know
It is an interesting statistic, an even more interesting one is how 5% of the world's population produce 90% of the world's problems. Now if they just turned their mind to producing 90% of the world's solutions...Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
STEVE suggested that in the interest of reducing methane production we might consider a non beef diet. Might I ask what percentage of the world's beef is consumed in the USA? They are also responsible for 30% of the methane produced by those livestock. How could 5% of the world's population consume 30% of the world's beef? Incredible
Actually I prefer a rack of New Zealand lamb ribs over a beef steak . But from what I hear that has an even larger methane footprint.
No the kiwi tax animal emissions so you get your lamb methane emission free, but you should try Australian salt bush raised lamb a much better product and as the grass isn't as rich there are less emissions. Better still switch to kangaroo and be emission freeQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I will try kangaroo one of these days.
Yes and eat the crocodiles before they eat youQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do you realize that we refine the largest amount of the world's oil? Russia, which has the second largest oil refinery capacity in the world produced less than 1/3 the amount of refined oil that we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Oil can't be used until it is refined into various forsm... heating oil, fuel oil, lubricants, etc. And the only country in the world with the capacity to make refined oil in large enough quantities to service worldwide demand is... you guessed it... the good ol' USA.
We are the world's largest consumers of energy by far. We are also the largest PRODUCER of oil in a usable form for the world market.
So I'd say that the world is getting a fair trade.
If you'd like to know the exact figures:
According to the Energy Information Administration's June 25, 2009 Refinery Capacity Report, total USA refinery capaccity is 18,681,308 barrels per day.
By comparison, Australia's (the continent, not the country) total capacity is 973,000 barrels per day.
Asia's (excluding Russian owned refineries) total capacity is 17,807,210 barrels per day.
Africa's total capacity is 3,506,950 barrels per day.
The Middle East's total capacity is 7,475,300 barrels per day.
Latin America's capacity is 6,626,270 barrels per day.
The Carribean's capacity is 1,622,500 barrels per day.
Canada and Mexico together produce 3,813,600 barrels per day.
Europe, with the exception of Russia, has a capacity of 17,953,200 barrels per day.
Russia, which has refineries in both Asia and Europe, has a total capacity of 4,572,800.
Taken as a whole, the world produces 83,032,138 barrels of refined oil per day. The USA produces 1/5th of that.
One more point: as a per-capita figure, the USA is actually the 10th largest user of energy in the world. Ahead of the USA is:
Qatar - 21,395.8 kg of Oil Equivalents/annum/person
Iceland - 11,718.1
UAE - 10,538.7
Bahrain - 10,250.5
Luxembourg - 9,408.8
Netherlands Antilles - 9,198.5
Kuwait - 9,076.0
Trinidad & Tobago - 8,555.1
Canada - 8,300.7
And then comes the USA with 7,794.8 KGOE/annum/person.
(Source: http://pdf.wri.org/wrr05_full_hires.pdf page 216.)
How come nobody complains about Qatar's use of energy being out of whack? Qatar uses 3 times the amount of energy per person that the USA does? Why is the USA the bad guy?
So this argument about us being the largest consumer of energy is somewhat silly when you consider all the facts about how much we produce and how much we consume on a per-capita basis.
This is the first time I have heard someone try to separate the Australian people from the land on which they stand. I wasn't aware of another nation occupying the Australian continent, unless you are referring to aboriginal Australia which is a figment of the imagination. Just demonstrates US ignorance of anything outside their bordersQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
As far as Qatar is concerned two pennith of nothing is still nothing. How much of that is contributed by the US presence there. The same old lame a**ed excuse, we are not as bad as that guy over there. The truth, yes, you are and worse. Compare yourself with China, the nation that produces a lot of your consumer goods, you are wasteful, just as wasteful as we are in fact on that scale, but then we are digging the minerals out of the ground and sending then to China so they can sell them to you, so your numbers don't stack up. You are among the worse emitters on Earth and the source of the problem. Much of your emissions are contained in other nations figures
I have no idea where these figures have come from but as far as I can tell they are a statistical lie - they must be if you are trying to tell me that Trindad and Tobago CONSUME more oil than america does!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Luxembourg has a population of 500,000 - america 300m - so you can see straightaway with your stats, luxembourg uses less oil than you do!
My stat still stands, 5% population vs 25% oil CONSUMPTION
The reason why you guys refine more oil than anybody else is because you guys use more oil than anybody else - seems like a straiught forward equation for me
If anything we need to refine more ;not less. We have not increased capacity since the 1970s .
These observations about Copenhagen ;the US Senate upcoming debate about passing economy killing cap and trade legislation ,and the Al Gore scam... possible the biggest potential swindle since Bernie Madoff and the biggest scam since Y2K... is in the Newark Star Ledger today by libertarian commentator Paul Mulshine .
Clouds hang over the global-warming alarmists | Paul Mulshine - NJ.comQuote:
President Obama's headed to Copenhagen next month to talk climate change. Al Gore's headed toward profits that could make him the world's first "carbon billionaire." But where's global temperature headed?
Nowhere, it seems. The most reliable readings of the Earth's temperature show that it peaked back in 1998. This was not widely reported in America, where the state of science reporting is dismal. But over in England, where they take that sort of thing more seriously, the British Broadcasting Corp. created quite a stir with an article headlined "What Happened to Global Warming?" In it, BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson gave a summary of the problems facing the alarmists: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."
Hudson went on to cite numerous scientists skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. But perhaps the most damning observation came from a scientist who supports the theory. Mojib Latif is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group that set the panic off with its 1996 report on global warming. According to Hudson, Latif concedes "that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."
Hmmm. Ten to 20 years is what I would call "the near future." Didn't a certain former vice president of the United States win a Nobel Prize by pushing a movie that told us that the melting of the polar ice would cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet "in the near future?"
Perhaps Al Gore was talking about a different future, one in which he gets rich off the panic he helped create. If the Senate passes that cap-and-trade bill that's now before it, Gore stands to make a fortune through his stake in the investment firm he set up with former Goldman-Sachs exec David Blood to deal in carbon credits. So there's a lot at stake in that Senate decision for the firm known to Wall Street wags as "Blood and Gore." There's even more at stake for consumers whose bills would go up by billions.
As for those senators, they'll look pretty foolish if they pass a bill to curb global warming just as we enter a cooling trend. AndDonald Easterbrookwarns that is a distinct possibility. Easterbrook is a professor at Western Washington University who was quoted in that BBC article. When I called him at his home outside Seattle, Easterbrook informed me that we have just experienced the third coldest October in the past 115 years. There's probably more cold to come, he said, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the climate will have little effect on it one way or the other. The reason? Contrary to popular belief, there just isn't that much of it in the atmosphere.
"For every 100,000 molecules of air, only 38 are carbon dioxide," Easterbrook said. The global-warming crowd likes to say that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent in the industrial era. "But 35 percent of nothing is still nothing," says Easterbrook, and the increase in CO2 has virtually no effect.
The alarmists harp on that infinitesimal increase, he says, while they ignore the most prevalent greenhouse gas of them all — water vapor. Clouds reflect sunlight back into the sky. And that is at the center of a developing dispute among scientists. Easterbrook is on the side of a Danish scientist namedHenrik Svensmark. In the 1990s, Svensmark developed a theory that links cloud formation to sunspots. When the number of sunspots is low, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere. And these rays, Svensmark theorizes, are the primary cause of cloud formation. The clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. Earth gets colder.
This fits in nicely with Easterbrook's specialty, which is how ocean currents affect climate. "It turns out there is a correlation between ocean cycles and sunspots," he told me. And the historical record shows many climate shifts that correspond to sunspot activity.
"There were 6,000 feet of ice here that all melted very suddenly 15,000 years ago," Easterbrook said of his neck of the woods in the Pacific Northwest. "There have been big ups and downs throughout history. How do you explain them?"
Well, if you want to control people's lives and/or make a lot of money, you explain them the way a lot of politicians do. As for the scientists, they're divided. Most agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for man not to alter the atmosphere at all. But that's an entirely separate question from just what effect that alteration will have on the climate.
And the answer to that question is: Nobody's quite certain.
Except, of course, Al Gore.
Steve, that's a per capita figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Oh... I see... you consider New Zealand and Paupa New Guinnea (both of which are part of the Australian Continent, but not part of Australia) to be the same country as you...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And you think that I have a problem with geography and people in the USA are ignorant.
I was very careful in my nomenclature because there's always some idiot that makes a comment. You win the prize...
Oh... I see... the roughly 3,300 Americans who happen to be in Qatar are the reason that Qatar is using 3 times the energy per person that we are at home. It has nothing to do with the roughly 1.5 million Qataris.Quote:
As far as Qatar is concerned two pennith of nothing is still nothing. How much of that is contributed by the US presence there.
Uh huh... China, the largest producer of toxins in the entire world, and the one country that has consistently violated every eco-agreement it has ever signed... we're worse than they are.Quote:
The same old lame a**ed excuse, we are not as bad as that guy over there. The truth, yes, you are and worse. Compare yourself with China, the nation that produces a lot of your consumer goods, you are wasteful, just as wasteful as we are in fact on that scale, but then we are digging the minerals out of the ground and sending then to China so they can sell them to you, so your numbers don't stack up. You are among the worse emitters on Earth and the source of the problem. Much of your emissions are contained in other nations figures
Got it.
The really sick part is that you believe this sh!t as if it were true.
Elliot
I cited the sources in my post. You can check them for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
And these are PER CAPITA figures, not totals for the country as a whole. Of course a large country with 307 million people is going to use more energy than a small country with a population of 1.2 million. However, on a PER CAPITA BASIS (usage PER PERSON) the USA uses approximately 10% LESS energy than T&T does
Again, you are not looking at the PER PERSON usage. On a per-capita basis, the USA does pretty well compared to Luxembourg, T&T or Qatar.Quote:
Luxembourg has a population of 500,000 - america 300m - so you can see straightaway with your stats, luxembourg uses less oil than you do!
My stat still stands, 5% population vs 25% oil CONSUMPTION
I was very careful in my post to state that these figures are PER CAPITA, not total usage.
Not everything we refine is used by us. Much of it is put back into the world market. The argument being used is that the USA consumes more than it contributes and is therefore an evil country. My argument is that we contribute as much as we consume or more... but that contribution is in the REFINING of oil to a usable form as well as the drilling process. And in refining, we contribute more to the world energy market than any other country and even more than any other CONTINENT. If we combine our DRILLING activities and our REFINING activities, we are actually the world's largest contributors to the energy markets. In other words, we contribute as much as or more than we consume and are not the evil, greedy country that we are portrayed as.Quote:
The reason why you guys refine more oil than anybody else is because you guys use more oil than anybody else - seems like a straiught forward equation for me
Naturally this argument is one that those who are proponents of the "evil American Empire" idea will find hard to counter. And for that reason, they will resort to insulting the guy who puts the argument forward. I understand that: it's hard to have your worldview turned end-over-end. But insults can't change the facts. We aren't the ogres you would like to make us out to be.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 PM. |