Global warming ????

[John Kirk]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the measured response.  I'd rather not enter into a detailed defense of my commentary for reasons stated previously.  I just don't want to delve deeply into it.  I do want to mention was that my intent was not to say that you want to stifle freedom; I thought you were saying that global warming believers were trying to stifle freedom, and I was asking 'why would they do that?'.

Hi Craig,

I wish people would drive more efficient cars before gas hits $5 a gallon.  I am still driving a car that gets 23-24 miles a gallon on the highway, but am committed to 40-50 mpg for the next car, which will be a year or two from now.  People do actually make decisions for the greater good, though that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I guess I would respond that the 1970s seemed to be a time when the opinion of scientists was held in higher regard.  Didn't Richard Nixon establish the EPA?

Actually, you are right that I wish people thought the same way I do.  At least about this issue.  Here's one of many links that calculates that 97% of climatologists studying global warming believe man is making an impact:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

I'm sure somebody will find fault with the list I've provided.  Compare that to the survey (51% in 2007, down from 75%) in 2001 of the American public:

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/04/just-51-of-americans-believe-in-global-warming-down-from-71-in-2007/

I would suggest the reason for this discrepancy is a calculated campaign by moneyed interests to discredit and ridicule the science behind the theory.

Sorry again, Jeff, Craig and others.  This is a golf forum.  I shouldn't have shot my mouth off, and I feel uncomfortable discussing this issue publicly.  You know where I stand.  But here are my final thoughts, without attempting to justify them.  The world is overpopulated at the expense of the other living beings on the planet.  And there's less of that precious sweet crude oil than you think there is.  If you are under 30, maybe 40 years old, you will live to see the effects.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Craig,

I 'umbly submit nuclear energy will be the method of choice by the end of the century. "Legitimate, clean"? depends how you want to define it but nuclear will be top dog.

Cheers Colin

Colin,

   You are correct sir! It is the only legitimate replacement at this time. Solar, wind and hydro are limited/regional/marginal options at this time.


The scientists are going to have to figure out a way to save us from ourselves., I have faith they will, but there will be pain.  Meanwhile I'm buying property in Canada!

[Matt Kardash]

Matt

Would you say there is any truth in the following statements or are they also just bullshit

“One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.”

“………. regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.

When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park  and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.”

Bullshit or possible?

Melvyn

About the medium-sized volcano....well, that is utter bullshit. That type of momentary effect does not have any sort of long term impact. The particles usually only linger for a few years in the stratopshere. Initially a cooling effect can even be observed in the troposhere.

In regards to a supervolcano, such as the one at yellowstone....yes, it can do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. What is your point?

Climate variation is mainly driven by Milankovitch cycles; meaning the axial tilt of the planet, axial precession, and orbital eccentricity. When the periods of these cycles line up it can cause the Earth to be warmer, or cooler, depending on where we are in the cycles. There are other effects for global climate, but this is the major reason behind it. That is why ice ages are so periodic. We can basically predict when the next ice age will be, it wil come and we can't avoid it....unless we heat this planet ourselves to counteract it.

Here is some food for thought. For the last 800 000 years of climate record, the last 10 000 years, from the last ice age to the industrial revolution was the most stable period EVER in terms of global temperature. Since then there has be an exponential increase in temperature. Please tell me it is just a coincidence that the moment we started pumping toxic fumes into the atmosphere that the planet started heating up....after 10 000 years of stability.

[Matt Kardash]

The lack of understanding of science and the peer-review process on this messageboard is scary to me.
Grabbing one source that backs up your bullshit doesn't validate your point of view.

Watch how I can do the same thing. This is my theory: The Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and the grand canyon was caused by a global flood. My source, Kent Hovind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXtXUcXw2U&feature=related
You can't prove me wrong because Kent Hovind says so.

And yet you still offer no solutions.

How'd the peer review process work out for the guy that connected autism and vaccinations?

Don't you have any faith in your fellow scientists to come up with solutions?

Do you want me to list all the discoveries that science has made that you use in your everyday life? Why do you not questions a scientists ability in most every field of research except for climate?

About autism and vaccinations. Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
ONE person made this paper and the PEER-REVIEW process destroyed it and showed all the flaws. The media reported on the INITIAL paper, before research was done to be able to test his "research".

[DMoriarty]

That is why ice ages are so periodic. We can basically predict when the next ice age will be, it wil come and we can't avoid it....unless we heat this planet ourselves to counteract it.

Better be careful what you say or the next talking point might be: 'We need to heat the planet to prepare for the next ice age!'

[Craig Van Egmond]

Matt,

    It took over 10 years for the PEER-REVIEW process to work.

    Science is not now or ever has been infallible.

    However I at least have faith that some scientists will quit griping and actually come up with some solutions. 

[Doug Siebert]

Doug it is estimated that "phantom power" amounts to a little over 10% of your total home energy use....over the course of a year the savings would be a free month of energy!

This includes things like leaving your computer on all the time, leaving your cable box on, etc.  Everyone knows that they can save power by turning off their computer, but they choose not to do so for reasons of convenience.  I was specifically talking about the really silly stuff like leaving your cell phone charger plugged in, or leaving the microwave plugged in, which may add up to a kwh or two per month.

[Matt Kardash]

Matt,

    It took over 10 years for the PEER-REVIEW process to work.

    Science is not now or ever has been infallible.

    However I at least have faith that some scientists will quit griping and actually come up with some solutions. 

Trust me, they are. However, it isn't a sexy problem, because as you see far too many people don't think it is a problem because they think there is so invisible man in the sky who is telling them that this planet is here for us and we can't be doing anything wrong. Honestly, one of the areas that could help us the most would not be cutting NASA's budget so much. The number of things that NASA scientists have created for space endeveavours that the eventually found pratical applications in day-to-day life is staggering.

[Craig Van Egmond]

How could saving the planet not be a sexy problem?

The invisible guy you refer to wants everyone to be a good steward of the planet.

I agree the neutering of NASA was a huge blow to everyone.

If I was trying to solve the  problem I would make my assumptions that the masses are not part of the solution.

[Bill_McBride]

How could saving the planet not be a sexy problem?

The invisible guy you refer to wants everyone to be a good steward of the planet.

I agree the neutering of NASA was a huge blow to everyone.

If I was trying to solve the  problem I would make my assumptions that the masses are not part of the solution.

Because the masses are unwashed and stupid?

[Anton]

The globe is %&*#ing freezing here in Jersey!!! 

[DMoriarty]

Because the masses are unwashed and stupid?

Cleanliness is next to unstoopidliness.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Bill McBride,

      No because the masses have other things on their mind, like eating, providing for their families, health care etc.  As the polls show 51% of Americans don't believe its a problem.  And surely India and and China aren't going to shutter their growing economies because of some climate stuff.  Besides, I am part of those masses.

     Now when gas prices hit $5 again people will change their behaviors.  Of course our whole economy is built on cheap energy so that's other problem.

How about some George Carlin....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[Craig Van Egmond]

Holland slashes carbon targets, shuns wind for nuclear

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/holland_energy_switch/

Are these guys legit?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/no_tipping_point_for_arctic_sea_ice/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

The future of Grey Britain

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/carbon_budget_2030/

[John Kirk]

No, Harold Lewis is not legit.  He did not study climatology as a physicist.  Furthermore, that is old news; it happened eighteen months ago.  Why would the Register report the story today without informing the reader that this is old news?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill McBride,

      No because the masses have other things on their mind, like eating, providing for their families, health care etc.  As the polls show 51% of Americans don't believe its a problem.  And surely India and and China aren't going to shutter their growing economies because of some climate stuff.  Besides, I am part of those masses.

     Now when gas prices hit $5 again people will change their behaviors.  Of course our whole economy is built on cheap energy so that's other problem.

How about some George Carlin....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

I'm part of those masses myself, and more concerned about what life will be like for my grandkids more than for me.

I have no doubt that a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline starting in 1973 would have resulted in energy independence, no Middle East wars and a modern infrastructure.  A real opportunity was missed then.

The new governor of Florida's proposed budget calls for huge cuts in education spending, mostly offset by property tax cuts that make it all budget neutral.  On a national level this could help out with the uneducated masses concept.

[John Kirk]

Shit.  Lured back in.  My bad.

Peace and love brother.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Bill,

    I hear ya, I have 3 grandkids now and a 4th on the way!

[Craig Van Egmond]

Obama to try and eliminate tax breaks for oil/gas/coal companies...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-Seeks-to-End-462-bloomberg-1908888500.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

[Lou_Duran]

Reagan once commented: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

CA got the ball rolling on the housing meltdown when gasoline prices approached $5/gal and homeowners had to make a decision on whether to make mortgage payments or fill the tank so they could go to work.  Unlike the govt., they made the right choice.

Here we a very small segment of this country made up in part by hard-core socialists turned "envrionmentalists" savagely attacking an industy which provides a myriad of hugely necessary products at relatively low prices, high-paying jobs to thousands of Americans in America, and tremendous amounts of all types of taxes.  And what do they offer as solutions?  More taxes, regulations, costs.  Range Fuels?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132453701004530.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

In this or another thread, a poster ridiculed those who believe that this whole "climate change" thing is little more than an episodic charade- e.g. all sorts of Malthusian catastrophies, new ice age, chimps and robots idling workers, nuclear winter, etc.  He went on to lament about having to live with these non-believers and the consequences of their actions.  Boy, do I share his frustrations but from a quite different perspective!   

[Craig Van Egmond]

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

[Tom_Doak]

Craig:

We can agree on that, at least.  I've felt for a long time that the weather only seems to be getting more severe, because there is so much more reporting on the weather nowadays.  Forty years ago, Walter Cronkite might not have mentioned the typhoon in Australia; even the tsunami several years ago would have only been reported on days or weeks afterward.  It's the same with sports reporting -- you see some kid make a half-court basketball shot every night, because every game everywhere is being filmed, and highlight shows are just begging for material.

At the same time, I wish we would be more like the Europeans, and tax the oil & gas industry enough that we could become less dependent on them.  I am tired of watching us send kids off to war under false pretenses so that large Western corporations can continue to dominate the world -- not to mention being told we can no longer afford Social Security because we have spent too much on those same wars.

[Carl Nichols]

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

This is precisely why I asked Matt earlier if there's actually evidence that warming is actually causing extreme weather -- not whether there's a theory to support the proposition. 

[Pete_Pittock]

Wall Street Journal is owned by Newscorp. Is everything peer reviewed?

[Chris DeNigris]

It's hard to imagine that anyone could still believe the settled "science" related to AGW after actually reading the emails from Climategate. They are easily viewable.


Take 15 minutes and read the below.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

How many physicists dispute this?