 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / July 2007Semi OT: Wacko Environmentalist Now Wants Sports Cars Banned in Europe
I knew it was just a mater of time before some nut job(s) made this suggestion. What's next? We will be executed on the spot for farting green houses gases? Here's the article: "Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari? By Doron Levin July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin. Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality. Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard. Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.'' The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.'' His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones. Focused on Cars The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing the earth's temperature to rise. But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive. ``Automobiles always seem to be the focus, even though they only consume 15 percent or 20 percent of energy,'' said Csaba Csere, editor of Car & Driver magazine. If politicians really cared about the atmosphere they might concentrate first on power plants or factories, he said. The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use. Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards. Planet in Peril? Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal. Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth? The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return. But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading climatologist, says that even if nothing is done to limit CO2, the world will heat up by 1 degree Celsius, or a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, in the next 50 to 100 years. Move Inland We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be more practical than trying to change the weather? The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said. A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries. One Little Bite The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen. Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners. Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, water purification and transportation. What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards? I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth." >I knew it was just a mater of time before some nut job(s) made this >suggestion. What's next? We will be executed on the spot for farting [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting >economic inequality. SNIP >What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents >of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as >guardians of the Earth." They can scrap the idea. Al Gore just wasted far more to produce Live Aid or whatever it was called (reports indicated ir was not watched by a lot of even his supporters). It's pretty much all Hype for Dollars. Parts of the globe are getting warmer. They fail to report that other parts are getting colder. They also fail to report that the sun is getting hotter (and leaving the planet with only about 5 Billion years before it is incinerated). These so called experts keep leaving things out of the equation. Clearly, man has an impact, but man isn't the only cause. For example, another major volcano just erupted in Indonesia, spewing what? GREENHOUSE GASES! Oops! I just became a "traitor" because I don't toe the party line on "global warming"! Damn! Ruined my day! >> I knew it was just a mater of time before some nut job(s) made this >> suggestion. What's next? We will be executed on the spot for farting [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Aid or whatever it was called (reports indicated ir was not watched by > a lot of even his supporters). It's pretty much all Hype for Dollars. You just hit on the overwhelming reason global warming is being hyped to gargantuan proportions. It is a money grab by scientists to get idiotic studies funded year after year after year, politicians who are salivating at the thought of taxing the hell out of us and dictating nearly every waking action we take and most of all it is the cash cow AlGore (yes it is one word) could have never envisioned in his wildest dreams. The rock stars that have any minute amount of self respect know this and steered clear of the so called "benefit" last weekend. The only thing it was meant to benefit was the pocket books of liberal politicians, environmental alarmist scientists and the wacko liberal musician's egos. I predict we witnessed the beginning of the end for the whole global warming movement this weekend. It is quite literally running out of steam (pun intended). :) > Parts of the globe are getting warmer. They fail to report that other > parts are getting colder. They also fail to report that the sun is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only cause. For example, another major volcano just erupted in > Indonesia, spewing what? GREENHOUSE GASES! You know I always hear that it hasn't been this hot or there hasn't been this much CO2 in the atmosphere for (fill in the blank) thousands of years. Not one person can answer the question "Why were the CO2 levels that high and exactly what made the temperatures so high?" It certainly wasn't SUVs, power plants etc. burning fossil fuels or millions of cows farting green house gases. They can't even predict the weather tomorrow with 100% accuracy or the severity of the 2008 hurricane season but somehow they know, without a doubt, that we are going to be roasting on a spit in 100 years, all of Florida will be under five feet of water and the new summer vacation hot spot will be Antarctica. Look at the fluctuation of the oceans just in a short span of human history. It has risen around 400 feet in just the last 18,000 years!!! This is the equivalent of 1" every 3.75 years! You really want to know how to screw up the planet? Try and keep the climate at a constant level year after year. Mother Earth has controlled the thermostat for 4.6 BILLION YEARS and now WE think WE can do a better job? Talk about arrogance in the extreme. Let these wackos have their way and the results very likely will be worse than letting Mother Nature make the adjustments. I won't even get into the Sun's impact on global climate. You know Mars has been mirroring the Earth's temperature rise? Now what does that tell you? It isn't that the Martians are driving too many SUVs. ;) > Oops! I just became a "traitor" because I don't toe the party line on > "global warming"! Damn! Ruined my day! You should be ashamed of yourself. AlGore has spoken and who are you to question his statements or motives? > You should be ashamed of yourself. AlGore has spoken and who are you to > question his statements or motives? Is this the same AlGore whose electricity bill is 20 times higher than the average household, who has a heated olympic-sized swimming pool and dozens of gas burning yard lights around his mansion, and has many gas-guzzling limos at his disposal? Oh wait, I forgot. He gets all of his electricity from "clean" sources. Me bad. >> You should be ashamed of yourself. AlGore has spoken and who are you to >> question his statements or motives? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh wait, I forgot. He gets all of his electricity from "clean" > sources. Me bad. Didn't you get the memo? He is too important and wealthy (thanks to revenue from global warming lectures and books) to adhere to his own advice. Sacrificing for the "cause" is the responsibility of us common folk living paycheck to paycheck in our $1,500 sf ramblers that has utility bills, totaling for the year, that are a fraction of his MONTHLY bills. The hypocrisy of people like him, Madonna, Barbara Boxer etc. is mind numbing. You know just the performers in last weekend's concert collectively flew more than 220,000 air miles relating to the event? Hell, that one event is probably responsible for raising global temperatures 0.1 degrees Celsius all on its own! Don't worry though, they all bought energy credits to offset their indulgences made possible by massive burning/use of fossil fuels. I guess sometimes the end justifies the means? >>> You should be ashamed of yourself. AlGore has spoken and who are you to >>> question his statements or motives? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >by massive burning/use of fossil fuels. I guess sometimes the end >justifies the means? For those who are sick of the staus quo, Sam Waterson (yes, the same Same Waterson who stars on Law and Order with Fred Thompson)is sick of it, too, and has begun a grass roots, independent, 100% online third party movement called UNITY08. His views are centrist. He wants no funding from buisness or other special interests. He wants the people to submit who they want for a candidate and have the convention online. For more information, go to www.unity08.com. PS: It was suggested that perhaps Angie Harmon should run :0) > Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing > one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes > faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything > from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as > ``boys' toys.'' > The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian > newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built > to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier > than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.'' They'd just have to start making sports cars like this. And why they haven't is beyond me! http://youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA > The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles > in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, > corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, > overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth > and energy use. > Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or > because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon > dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising > living standards. We are a very wasteful nation though. (And the reason we're billions of dollars into Iraq.) If every country used as much energy as we do, gas prices would be about 100 bucks a gallon. > The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate > reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that > the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his > own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're > approaching a point of no return. > But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? They have increasingly become a smaller and smaller minority. > We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a > notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be > more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it > heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be > more practical than trying to change the weather? I'd like to see how that would go. 'My home is now under water so I'm going to want to live on your property. You won't mind, right?' > The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not > going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell > Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told > the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has > grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said. How about fish stocks? We're cleaning out the oceans. Or native birds? They're being decimated. Due to lse of habitat they numbers have fallen sharply. > A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental > movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide > DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use > of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of > more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries. > The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health > agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa > and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, > when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen. Malaria probably has fallen off. But the trade off is DDT getting into our food sources. Would you feel comfortable eating fish that has toxic levels of DDT? > Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are > likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air > conditioners, and jets than government planners. I agree this plan to ban sports cars is wacky. But don't lump all environmentalist together in one group and label them all wackos. Environmentalist have done many great things over the years -- saved endangered species, cleaned up river and lakes, started energy conservation, cleaned up the air, fixed the ozone layer, started pick up litter campaigns, to name just a few. > Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on > the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating > more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, > water purification and transportation. > What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents > of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards? The problem is human population. Our numbers have grown too large and at some point the things we need to live will become scarcer and scarcer. > I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in > Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the > British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be > the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as > guardians of the Earth." Like any group, not all their plans are sound. But like the list I have above, many of their ideas have been good. And the good ideas are the ones that get accepted/implemented. Don't worry, Mike this plan won't go any where... Patrick On Jul 12, 7:38 pm, NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: > > Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing > > one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Patrick I think you give too much credit to the Greenies, both on the results level and the reasonableness level. Greenism is a state religion. It serves all the purposes and fits all the criteria of a religion: It explains why bad things happen to good people (Katrina, drought, floods, even the genocide in the Sudan have been blamed on man-made causes). It gives people a simple set of yardsticks to apply to nearly every decision-making situation. And it gives the power of life and death, literally, to its high priests. Most significantly, and most dangerously: like all religions, results in the material world do not matter. Costs vs. benefits do not matter. Doing god's (Gaia's) work is all that matters. Virtue is its own reward. Did you hear the "Seven Point Pledge" (apparently "The Seven Commandments" didn't test well) that Al Bore bellowed from the stage at the Meadowlands last Saturday? And the audience cheered as mindlessly as any jihadi at a death-to-America rally. Number one was an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions by NINETY PERCENT! There is no technology, no scenario that the most fevered Greenie brain can conjure, that could come close to such a number, without simply shutting down modern technology. Imagine, nine-tenths of the cars, ships, and airplanes scrapped. Nine tenths of coal and gas-based electricity generation switched off. Nine-tenths of all the industrial activity which relies on that electricity, shut down. Actually, death camps for about three quarters of the world's population would be the only way to make this work, since the shutdown of the power, gas, and transportation industries would only drive people to the pre-industrial technologies of horse-based transportation and wood fires for heating and cooking. One would expect anyone who advocates such nonsense to be laughed off the stage. Al Gore was not. Rather, the audience roared its approval. I heard a podcast radio show on Monday, on the left-wing Pacifica network (it's on the web), where the host and her guest agreed heartily with the Seven Points. Here's the full list: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19502465/ These people are, quite simply, out of their minds. (Interesting slip-up in that show: the guest stated that the "scientific consensus," holding that human activity is causing global warming, and that the amount of that warming will soon hit a "tipping point" of no return, is so well-settled that no one can truthfully disagree. Then he mentioned evolution, and said the scientific consensus on that science is even stronger than the scientific consensus on global warming. How can a proposition be more true than true? If all dissent is false, that is as strong as any consensus could possibly be.) Maybe I feel it more where I live, Greenie Central, Berkeley CA. It's scary. This thing has the potential to shut down life as we know it. Greenhouse gas (GHG) production is synonymous with modern life. California just passed a GHG statute, calling for a 25% reduction in GHG production by 2020. It gave CARB primary authority to implement it. The regulations are to be in place by 2012. Three measures are already on the fast track for implementation by 2010: more gasohol for cars, less methane emissions from landfills, and no more retail sales of R134a. No serious scientist (not even a "consensus" one) would contend that any of this will make one one-millionth of a degree difference in this fictitious thing, the "global temperature." But get this: three CARB board members resigned, and so did the executive director of CARB. Why? Because the other six board members followed CARB's professional staff's recommendation that only these three measures be fast tracked for 2010 implementation at this point. The sticking point? That the three dissenters wanted to add "reflective" auto paint to the initial list. The absurd rationale for California state regulation of new car paint colors is, that darker colors cause hotter interiors, which requires more air conditioning activity, which burns more gas, which produces more CO2. Like I said, these people are out of their minds. Staff, and Gov. Schwarzenegger, agreed that this regulation would have neglible benefits, and wanted to leave it off this initial fast-track list. But cost/benefit does not matter to a religious zealot. Doing good works is all that matters. Our rewards are not of this earth. They await us in the afterlife, that imaginary world of Green technology, where no one pays any price, we all simply live in a clean modern world exactly like the one we have now, just cooler. 180 Out >On Jul 12, 7:38 pm, NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: SNIP >Maybe I feel it more where I live, Greenie Central, Berkeley CA. It's >scary. This thing has the potential to shut down life as we know it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >contend that any of this will make one one-millionth of a degree >difference in this fictitious thing, the "global temperature." Berkley! You have my condolences! :0) It's a beautiful place, or was the last time I was there. A friend of mine is the ONLY conservative professor at Humbolt State. Like Christ on the Cross, or Gen Custer at the Little Big Horn. As for the zealots. I take exception and umbrage with Al Bore and his stooges (particularly RFK Jr). They keep telling us there is no questioning "their" 2500 scientists who reached a concensus. BUT, those scientists didn't. Several of them sued to have their names REMOVED from the "concensus". Most of them upheld the part they wrote (each being on a different aspect of the problem) but disagreed with the results other members postulated. And RFK jr, with his, "if you don't agree with us, you're a toadie of Big Oil, or you are a traitor". What the ????. Is Al the new Adolf or Stalin? Is he going to burn all the books of those who don't agree with his view? Will the ones who don't belong to the "party" be shipped off to the camps? These people are more nuts than the nuts. They're absolutely rabid. And why is it that so many of them are the affluent ones with the BIG homes, and all the toys? When was the last time a person on a fixed income could afford to buy a hybrid auto? Convert their home to solar power, etc? It's bad enough that the government wants to force everyone to switch to HDTV which the masses can't really afford. What will happen when they government mandates the rules Gore wants instituted? They can't afford to scrap their present transports and buy new, and there is no infrastructure for mass transport to cover the entire nation. The gap between the "haves" and the" have nots" will be so immense that I would expect to see a revolt.... in which case we'll be rid of 1/10th of the problem. :0) >But cost/benefit does not matter to a religious zealot. Doing good >works is all that matters. Our rewards are not of this earth. They [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >180 Out > <snip> > Is Al the new Adolf or Stalin? Is he going to burn all the books of > those who don't agree with his view? Will the ones who don't belong to > the "party" be shipped off to the camps? These people are more nuts > than the nuts. They're absolutely rabid. And why is it that so many of > them are the affluent ones with the BIG homes, and all the toys? How do you think AlGore bought all the sh.t he has and can pay a $20,000 per month electric bill? It's by wacko environmental book royalties and giving paid lectures about how we are all going to flash fry like ants under a magnifying glass unless we do EXACTLY as he says. ><snip> > On Jul 12, 7:38 pm, NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > where no one pays any price, we all simply live in a clean modern > world exactly like the one we have now, just cooler. To put this whole global warming abatement scheme is layman's language... "The cure is worse than the disease." >I think you give too much credit to the Greenies, both on the results >level and the reasonableness level. Greenism is a state religion And before long, count on a Greenism tax for not being more like Al Gore says to... -- lab~rat >:-) Stupid humans... >>I think you give too much credit to the Greenies, both on the results >>level and the reasonableness level. Greenism is a state religion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lab~rat >:-) > Stupid humans... I wonder why Gore's jet isn't powered by an electric motor or at least burn some of the alcohol he drinks. >>>I think you give too much credit to the Greenies, both on the results >>>level and the reasonableness level. Greenism is a state religion [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I wonder why Gore's jet isn't powered by an electric motor or at least burn >some of the alcohol he drinks. With all the hot air he blows out, he could fly by a balloon of Hindenburg proportions... -- lab~rat >:-) Stupid humans... >>>I think you give too much credit to the Greenies, both on the results >>>level and the reasonableness level. Greenism is a state religion [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I wonder why Gore's jet isn't powered by an electric motor or at least burn >some of the alcohol he drinks. As porky as he is looking (reminds me of Ted Kennedy) it should be manually powered, and he should ride the bicycle that powers it. >> Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing >> one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA That thing is a motorcycle with two extra wheels. I've watched that before. High fun quotient but more restrictions on when you can pull it out of the garage than a Cobra. >> The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles >> in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of dollars into Iraq.) If every country used as much energy as we do, > gas prices would be about 100 bucks a gallon. Comes with a high standard of living to which I've become quite attached. :) >> The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate >> reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They have increasingly become a smaller and smaller minority. Not really. There is more and more data accumulating that says the doomsday predictions aren't viable. Why is Mars warming up along with the Earth? You know the ocean has risen almost 400 feet in the last 18,000 years? That is the equivalent of 1" every 3.75 years. For the last 100 years it has risen only 0.058" every year. Climate change is the norm not the exception and it has changed far more rapidly in the recent past than it is at present. This whole global warming rant is a money and vote grab of biblical proportions. >> We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a >> notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd like to see how that would go. 'My home is now under water so I'm > going to want to live on your property. You won't mind, right?' Everything I have is for sale at the right price. There's plenty of land for all those displaced. Plus for every property that gets a bath someone else gains water front property. ;) >> The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not >> going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > birds? They're being decimated. Due to lse of habitat they numbers > have fallen sharply. There is more forest in the USA today than in well over 100 years. Not that good stewardship of our natural resources isn't important. If we rock the boat too much then Mother Nature will sneeze and we will be a memory. Then in a few million years its business as usual. There have been several mass extinctions that have decimated life all over the global far worse than any human has managed to achieve or mankind as a whole ever could achieve. Life bounced back from each one with more variety than before. In fact, this is the reason we are here today. Why deny the next group of new species their day in the sun? >> A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental >> movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > into our food sources. Would you feel comfortable eating fish that > has toxic levels of DDT? It depends on whether I would feel more uncomfortable dying from malaria. ;) >> Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are >> likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > conservation, cleaned up the air, fixed the ozone layer, started pick > up litter campaigns, to name just a few. The problem is that the wacko environmentalists are the ones getting all the press. Sensible environmentalists are labeled too conservative and thrown overboard by the Democrats, liberals and media. ;) >> Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on >> the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at some point the things we need to live will become scarcer and > scarcer. That will happen if we keep screwing without using birth control. Wait until science figures out how to stop aging. You think we have problems now?!?! >> I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in >> Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't worry, Mike this plan won't go any where... I don't expect it to get traction. There are too many limousine liberals that won't give up THEIR toys and posh lifestyle for the cause. Add them to the conservatives and, at least in this country, this idea is DOA. > NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: <snip> > > Don't worry, Mike this plan won't go any where... > > I don't expect it to get traction. There are too many limousine > liberals that won't give up THEIR toys and posh lifestyle for the cause. > Add them to the conservatives and, at least in this country, this idea > is DOA.- NEVER say never, not where the Church of Green is involved. In addition to the ethanol, landfill methane sequestration, and R134a retail sales ban that CARB has already fast-tracked for regulations with an effective date of January 1, 2010, here is the list of additional targets that remain under consideration for inclusion in that same fast-track list: Manure management (methane digester protocol) Electrification of stationary agricultural engines Specifications for commercial refrigeration Reduction of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from the semiconductor industry Reduction of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from foam production/ installation including extruded polystyrene and block foam Guidance/protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG emission reductions Guidance/protocols for businesses to facilitate GHG reductions Detection, repair, and recycling equipment for sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Light-covered paving, cool roofs and shade trees Replacement of high global warming potential (GWP) gases used in fire protection systems with alternate chemical(s) Forestry protocol Reduce venting/leaks from oil and gas systems Strengthen light-duty vehicle standards Heavy-duty vehicle emission reductions, efficiency improvements Cool automobile paints Port Electrification Transportation refrigeration, electric standbyEnforce federal ban on HFC release during service/dismantling of MVACs Truck stop electrification with incentives for truckers Tire inflation program Promote telework policies/incentives TBD Require low GWP refrigerants for new MVACs Add AC leak tightness test and repair to Smog Check This list is from CARB's professional staff report that was issued prior to the June 21 CARB meeting. See it for yourself at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/042307workshop/early_action_report.pdf Also, here's a list of regulatory packages that were already underway at CARB prior to the passage of the GHG statutory scheme. Staff included these in its report because these packages also will have GHG- reducing effects. The dates indicate each regulatory package's projected effective date: Diesel - Commercial harbor craft rule 2007 Diesel - Privately owned on-road trucks 2008 Diesel - Vessel speed reductions 2007 or 2008 Diesel - Offroad equipment (non-agricultural) 2009 Diesel - Port trucks 2007 Diesel - Vessel main engine fuel specifications 2008 Standards for off-cycle driving conditions 2007 Gasoline dispenser hose replacement 2008 Portable outboard marine tanks 2007 or 2008 Evaporative standards for aboveground tanks Remember, these two lists of targets are merely the opening wedge of GHG regulation in America. There is already a group of me-to states ready to adopt anything that CARB comes up with. There are independent efforts underway in every statehouse, as well, with Greenie "stakeholders" proposing similar regulatory packages to fellow- traveler assemblymen and governors. They provide complete turn-key packages, with all the "consensus" science, all the glowing studies showing no pain, all gain regulatory schemes, and enlisting the aid of private business dupes to help to reach the not so Green members of the state government. If you think the utilities and the financial industry are not salivating over the prospect of an all-new shadow economy of GHG credits applicable to every facet of economic activity, I have a couple of bridges to sell you. In any event, if you can look at CARB's staff's lists and still believe that there is any area of modern life that the global warming alarmists would consider off limits to state command and control, you are, I am sorry to say it, you are NUTS! Also, if you read Al Gore's Pledge Number 1 -- about the 90% reduction in man-made GHG emissions -- (I linked to it already in my previous post) you'll notice he's framed it in terms of an international treaty. In other words, it won't even be our state Legislatures, our Congress, our EPA, our President, or our courts who decide what and who is in the gunsights. It will be the politically appointed representatives of our own international economic competitors!!! Insane actually does not begin to cover it. 180 Out >> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > representatives of our own international economic competitors!!! > Insane actually does not begin to cover it. The majority of the stuff on that list will never materialize, IMO. If they do the majority of people there will revolt and vote the idiots out. The pendulum has just about swung as far toward the environazis as it is able and will change direction soon. They are like a fat man at a buffet restaurant. They can't get enough stupid legislation passed so they just keep ginning it up until they piss nearly everyone off. Enough is never enough for them. One other thing that will occur is all these doomsday predictions are seen as over hyped and done to get money. The polls are out there to verify this. The Save the Planet concert last weekend was a bust all over the world. IMO, it is the beginning of the end for this latest environmental disaster de jur. The people like AlGore are milking the last drops from the global warming tit. They know the end is near which is why their are ratcheting up the rhetoric. As for Schwarzenegger, he has transformed from being a republican to a full blown Kennedy molded liberal. Wait until the people of California see the fruits of his second term labor. He is busy turning California into a third world country. I guess he has decided he wants to be more popular at the Kennedy family reunions. >>> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: >> >> <snip> SNIP >The majority of the stuff on that list will never materialize, IMO. If >they do the majority of people there will revolt and vote the idiots [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >into a third world country. I guess he has decided he wants to be more >popular at the Kennedy family reunions. Watch Al Gore.... He'll go quiet at some point, pick a new disaster and take off again raking in the grants to pay his light bill. >>>> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Watch Al Gore.... He'll go quiet at some point, pick a new disaster > and take off again raking in the grants to pay his light bill. Yeah, like acid rain. Oh wait, that's been used already.  SignatureTropic Green Y2K Mustang GT W/bits & pieces http://tinyurl.com/yjdb66 >>>>> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> and take off again raking in the grants to pay his light bill. > Yeah, like acid rain. Oh wait, that's been used already. The next environmental disaster will be the human population's rampant consumption of the Earth's crust to provide all the goods we will need to bring China, India, Africa and the Taliban into the modern world. They will say that if we don't stop immediately the crust will be consumed and we will have to park our a.ses on the Earth's red hot mantle. I already have my counter argument ready. Just think of all the potential electricity we can generate from geothermal sources when that happens. Then we can run all the air conditioners we need to stay cool and comfortable. >>>>>> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > that happens. Then we can run all the air conditioners we need to stay > cool and comfortable. We wouldn't have to water our lawns, that would save much water. SignatureTropic Green Y2K Mustang GT 5spd ATI P-1SC @10lbs MM Suspension http://tinyurl.com/yjdb66 >>>>>>> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> stay cool and comfortable. > We wouldn't have to water our lawns, that would save much water. ..... or get gas for the grill, trash would be incinerated in the back yard etc. I guess it would still keep the whole global warming money machine in play because it would give new meaning, and life, to the phrase. > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> > > Watch Al Gore.... He'll go quiet at some point, pick a new disaster > and take off again raking in the grants to pay his light bill. You guys really need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the others and start thinking for yourselves, and doing your own research. Signature"A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves." - German proverb "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts." -- Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797) "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, British philosopher >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You guys really need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and >the others and start thinking for yourselves, and doing your own research. Now there is an Al Gore deciple! I have done my own research, and I have read both sides of the scientific communities reports. The only concensus is in the minds of those who feed off the fears of others and the mindless ones who feed them. Is there a problem? No doubt. Is it man made? There is the problem. In part it probably is. However, through billions of years of time, there have been many periods of increaed temperatures and periods of intense cold. What caused them? Man wasn't around. So, was it Dinos grilling in their back yards and driving fossil fuel vehicles produced by factories? Or was it volcanos spewing greenhouse gases? A shift in the output of the sun? A shift in the axis of the earth? A reversal of the magnetic poles? Records do not go back far enough to say. You can cite the records in the polar caps, but that does not indicate the causes of changes. Why is it that Mastadons, which lived in reputed cold climates, died in bunches and were preserved instantly frozen WITH fresh prarie type flowers in their systems? Al Gore and his cronies would have you ignore any possibility except their explanation(s). You bite into it without question and then accuse others of not questioning their own sources. In Al Gore's reality, there is no room for debate. There is no room for other opinions. There is only His opinion. How many world dictators have ruled the masses in the same way? If you really want to save the environment, get rid of the masses of people which are consuming the resources. You could start with yourself. :0) >>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > climates, died in bunches and were preserved instantly frozen WITH > fresh prarie type flowers in their systems? Something that really bothers me with many of the scientists that think the science of global climate is "settled" is their ability to take a slice of detailed, emperical climate data from a 10-15 year period and claim they can extrapolate ACCURATE climate models out to 50, 100, 500 or thousands of years. Just think about the arrogance and/or absurdity in that claim considering the time scales involved in establishing long term climate trends. They can't tell us how many hurricanes we will see this season or once one forms what track it will take. They can't say why the Earth is warming when pushed for a detailed answer as to the cause. The only thing they hang their hats on is rising CO2 levels with recent (10-20 years) temperature increases. They can't tell if this is the cause of the of the warming or not. They are guessing that it is the cause. If CO2 does have an impact they can't say how big a component it is compared to other factors. They also can't tell us why temperatures have been relatively stable and for some decades actually declined while CO2 levels from man's activity have slowly risen since 1800. Climate is affected by many, many factors and they are only keying on the one that fits their political agenda. If the warming is being caused by the Sun then what do we do? We mitigate the impacts and not prevent them. That doesn't fit people like AlGore's agenda. If mankind is causing temperatures to increase then I would be looking at other causes like livestock farts/burps, landfill emissions, land cover changes etc. CO2 might be a minor effect overall and our efforts are better spent feeding cows Beanos and Tums than killing 90% of CO2 emissions. It is this smug attitude that they have warming figured out and the science is "settled" that makes me so skeptical. Strip away their hype and noise and there really is little to their "settled science" that is settled. The envirowackos have been targeting oil consumption for decades and, IMO, this whole global warming emergency they have created is just the most recent tactic they have employed to stop fossil fuel consumption. >>>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now there is an Al Gore deciple! Uhhh ... Sorry, not an Al Gore disciple, just a well-read individualist. You're spouting off a lot of Limbaugh talking points in your posts. All I said was do your own research > I have done my own research, and I have read both sides of the > scientific communities reports. Please cite one or more papers in a peer-reviewed journal that questions whether or not human activity is causing the increase in greenhouse gasses. Also, please tell me the sources of Al Gore's grants. I would love to read about them. > Is there a problem? No doubt. Is it man made? There is the problem. In > part it probably is. At least you admit to that much. Don't we owe it to future generations to lessen our impact? > Al Gore and his cronies would have you ignore any possibility except > their explanation(s). You bite into it without question Not so. I have done extensive research, using peer-reviewed journal articles in the climatology, physics, chemistry, and politics of global warming. > If you really want to save the environment, get rid of the masses of > people which are consuming the resources. You could start with > yourself. :0) Gee, thanks for the personal attack. I really appreciate it. Just what I want to do: Commit suicide. I would rather see the hordes of SUV drivers trade them in for Mustangs. (See, I brought the thread back on topic. lol) Signature"A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves." - German proverb "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts." -- Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797) "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, British philosopher <snip> > Please cite one or more papers in a peer-reviewed journal that questions > whether or not human activity is causing the increase in greenhouse > gasses. This statement betrays either a lack of information or a lack of candor, or both. "The greenhouse gasses" includes many things, first and foremost water vapor and clouds. If you mean man-made, aka anthropegenic, greenhouse gases, it is tautological that human activity is responsible for them. If you mean the increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280 ppm at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to about 380 ppm today, some of that increase is due to human activity. However, CO2 levels have varied widely over the eons, without any human contribution. A primary source of these increases is the CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans and which evaporates when the ocean temperature increases. That source of atmospheric CO2 is far more potent than man's comparatively puny contributions. The historic record is uncontradicted, that increases in atmospheric CO2 always trail increases in global temperatures. This suggests that increases in CO2 are an effect of global warming, not a cause. That being the case, the burden is on the alarmists to prove their case. The burden is not on those who continue to maintain an open mind, that the 1 degree Celsius of global warming during the past 100 years, that is at the core of the alarmist's position, is due to an unprecedented cause. > > Is there a problem? No doubt. Is it man made? There is the problem. In > > part it probably is. > > At least you admit to that much. Don't we owe it to future generations > to lessen our impact? Conservation is always a good thing. But so are a quintupling of productivity, a doubling of life expectancy, an effective transportation system, warm homes and workplaces, clean and safe lighting, refrigerated food, etc., etc., etc. These are the things we have purchased with whatever the human contribution may have been, to the 1 degree of warming that has taken place during the past 100 years of anthropogenic GHG production. No one with an open mind could deny that this was a very good investment. No one with an open mind would suggest that, if another two or three degrees of global warming is the price of continuing this record of progress for another 100 years, that this would also not be a very good investment. The alternative, to shut down modern life as the 90% reduction that Al Gore's Seven Commandments call for, would be a very bad investment. Please cite to me a peer-reviewed study which shows that such a program would reduce atmospheric CO2 by even 10-20 ppm over a 50 year period. Put another way: CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere two main ways: plant photosynthesis and going into solution in the ocean. These are very slow-acting processes. The alarmists' own models assume that it would take about 100 years of stasis between annual CO2 production from ALL sources, and CO2 removal by means of photosynthesis and oceanic absorption, for the current 380 ppm to return to whatever the "natural" level should be. In other words, it would take 100 years without any manmade contribution, to return to "normal." The alarmists' own models also predict that the currrent 380 ppm concentration is sufficient to keep global temperatures on rising. So even if we stop all industrial activity tomorrow, global temperatures are going to continue to rise -- according to the alarmists' own models. In light of these premises, again the ball is in the alarmists' court to justify any regulation, on a sound cost/benefit basis. None of these effeminate appeals to "future generations"; none of the Greenists' "virtue is its own reward" secular theology. Because I believe that if you give "the future generations" a choice between expensive, productivity-stifling, life-span-shortening, ineffectual regulations with no concrete effects, combined with global warming of 2 or 3 degrees Celsius minus some tiny regulation-caused fraction, or none of the harmful regulation plus global warming of 2 or 3 degrees, these "future generations" will choose the latter." > "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by > parts." > -- Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797) This is an amazing quote for a pro-regulation alarmist. Time to drop it from your sig. > "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are > conservative." > -John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, British philosopher Same here. In case it has never been pointed out to you in your travels in cyber-space -- which I doubt -- the "conservatives" to whom Mill was referring were the advocates of state (Crown) control of economic and civil life. It was the liberals who advocated deregulation and personal liberty. In other words, the exact opposite of the past 80 years. 180 Out >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You guys really need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and > the others and start thinking for yourselves, and doing your own research. This is just it. I read much more than most Americans regarding this issue. The press is only promoting the pro warming alarmists. Funny how the liberals attack anyone holding opposing views and hard science in their hands that disputes or refutes their claims of doom and gloom. Plus, IMO, any scientist worth his salt doesn't get maniacal regarding his work or make their work political. They also don't say the science on what they are studying is "settled" when a large percentage of scientists, and the public at large, don't agree it is settled. Do you know how many scientists of high standing have doubts regarding the hysterical claims being made? Do you know how many wanted their names removed from the UN study because they, and their work, were being misrepresented and the UN refused to grant their request? I have a background in science being an engineer and I just smell something very fishy with these alarmist's rants. They are trying way too hard to convince us to take radical action. Makes me wonder if they actually believe their own noise or they know the gig is up and the gravy train is stopping. Here are few questions I think need answered, or at least studied further, before we embark on a massive upheaval of society in the name of saving humanity from itself: 1) Why is Mars warming along with the Earth? 2) What other natural processes besides CO2 levels effect global temperatures? 3) What is the individual, and collective, impact of these other natural processes on global warming and cooling? 4) Is the overall volume of ice on the planet increasing, decreasing or static and, if changing, at what comparative rate, historically? 5) What EXACTLY caused the last ice age and why has the Earth been warming ever since? 6) From the various known cycles the Sun experiences, what is its current output level/state and EXACTLY how does its output fluctuations effect Earth's climate? 7) How does the level of cosmic radiation effect global climate? Note that this is closely tied to question #6. 8) What would be the impact to global political stability from enforcing a 90% reduction of CO2 emissions as AlGore demanded last weekend? 9) If extensive global warming occurs, what areas will reap benefits and what areas will suffer? What is the net effect on mankind and is money better spent on mitigation or prevention? 9a) Can we actually prevent warming even with practical reductions of CO2 emissions? 10) How much money has AlGore pocketed from global warming lectures, books and movies? If that number is large, then why is he willing to take huge profits from something he considers to be the potential exterminator of mankind? Also, why is he personally responsible for generating CO2 emissions in a quantity for beyond the average American? Why is he not a hypocrite for being such a huge CO2 generator? How many other anti global warming fanatics are just like him? >>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >actually believe their own noise or they know the gig is up and the >gravy train is stopping. Reminds me of some religious zealots who claim that theirs is the only way to believe. For example, the new Pope now says that only Catholics are on the right path to salvation. A number of years ago, he is the same one who wrote the edict that there are many ways to salvation so long as the basic belief is in Christ. Now, which is it? Al Gore claimed we were headed for neuclear winter 30 years ago, and now he claims we are headed for global warming. He had science back then to back up his position. Which Al Gore should we believe? >Here are few questions I think need answered, or at least studied >further, before we embark on a massive upheaval of society in the name >of saving humanity from itself: > >1) Why is Mars warming along with the Earth? Because the sun is actually growing warmer. That can be measured, although they are not sure why. It may simply be a heretofore unrecognized solar cycle.... or not. >2) What other natural processes besides CO2 levels effect global > temperatures? The ash particles blown into the atmosphere from volcanos, and which drifts back to earth, laying a blanket of dark matter across the snow and ice fields which previously reflected sunlight. >3) What is the individual, and collective, impact of these other > natural processes on global warming and cooling? > >4) Is the overall volume of ice on the planet increasing, decreasing or > static and, if changing, at what comparative rate, historically? While melting trends are visible in many areas, there are other areas experiencing more cold and snow than in previous recorded times. >5) What EXACTLY caused the last ice age and why has the Earth been > warming ever since? God dropped a quarter in the ice machine? >6) From the various known cycles the Sun experiences, what is its > current output level/state and EXACTLY how does its output > fluctuations effect Earth's climate? When the sun warms, the solar winds carry higher temps to the planets. When it cools, the solar winds are cooler. >7) How does the level of cosmic radiation effect global climate? Note > that this is closely tied to question #6. The amount of cosmic radiation which reaches the surface of the earth is directly tied to the strength of the magnetosphere which protects the planet from radiation. When the magnetosphere weakens, more solar radiation geths through those weakened areas. Present weakening has been recorded in the South Atlantic and numerous other areas, and, at the same time, strengthing has been recorded in areas which were previously weak. >8) What would be the impact to global political stability from > enforcing a 90% reduction of CO2 emissions as AlGore demanded last > weekend? War. Only by force could the global community force some copuntries to change their ways. For example, mandate that N Korea or China must reduce the use of fossil fuels by 90%. Korea may just decide that it's nuke time. >9) If extensive global warming occurs, what areas will reap benefits > and what areas will suffer? What is the net effect on mankind and > is money better spent on mitigation or prevention? An unknown. Any place still capable of producing food, while preventing the population from growing larger than the food can support would be in good shape. However, this in itself would likely lead to conflicts and mass deaths. >9a) Can we actually prevent warming even with practical reductions of > CO2 emissions? It's unknown, but doubtful. For one thing, we'd have to physically stop ever volcano from ever erupting. We'd have to nullify all sulfur springs. Every forest fire would have to be stopped in it's tracks. All cattle, sheep and similar live stock would have to be eliminated (it's a fact that methane levels are higher above NZ and Argentina than in many other parts of the globe). All refuse would have to be eliminated to halt decomposition. The list goes on and on. >10) How much money has AlGore pocketed from global warming lectures, > books and movies? If that number is large, then why is he willing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > generator? How many other anti global warming fanatics are just > like him? A lot more than Michael Moore has made, but Moore is trying.... and using much the same tactics. >>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:54:48 -0400, Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > now he claims we are headed for global warming. He had science back > then to back up his position. Which Al Gore should we believe? None of them. He has as much authority on scientific issues as I do on brain surgery. ANYONE who is massively profiting from a cause is not to be trusted. >> Here are few questions I think need answered, or at least studied >> further, before we embark on a massive upheaval of society in the name [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > although they are not sure why. It may simply be a heretofore > unrecognized solar cycle.... or not. The Sun has numerous known cycles that overlap due to them having differing frequencies. Depending on these cycles our global climate fluctuates a great deal. Throw in the irregularities in the Earth's orbit and these conditions can cause everything from ice ages to tropic conditions at the poles. >> 2) What other natural processes besides CO2 levels effect global >> temperatures? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > While melting trends are visible in many areas, there are other areas > experiencing more cold and snow than in previous recorded times. Since sea levels have risen approximately 400 feet in the last 18,000 years (a brief snip of time, geologically) that equates to an AVERAGE raise of nearly 27" every 100 years. Over the last 100 years it has risen 5.8". I don't think mankind has been affecting global climate (and therefore sea levels) for the last 18,000 years. Seems to me the rate of sea level rise is historically low and/or maybe this last warming cycle is coming to an end. >> 5) What EXACTLY caused the last ice age and why has the Earth been >> warming ever since? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the same time, strengthing has been recorded in areas which were > previously weak. It has been found that when the solar wind is high it keeps cosmic radiation at bay. When it is low it allows more to hit the Earth. This in turn causes the formation of various compounds that can affect the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere. This is new science that many scientist believe can effect global climate. >> 8) What would be the impact to global political stability from >> enforcing a 90% reduction of CO2 emissions as AlGore demanded last [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > support would be in good shape. However, this in itself would likely > lead to conflicts and mass deaths. Much of Siberia will become productive as will much of Canada. Growing seasons will extend thus letting more than one crop cycle per year be possible. Some areas will be dryer and less habitable but this has been the way of things since mankind has existed. Just look at how much climate in the Middle East has changed in recorded history. It wasn't due to burning fossil fuels. Man made adjustments and is still inhabiting the area today. The same will happen in the future. >> 9a) Can we actually prevent warming even with practical reductions of >> CO2 emissions? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than in many other parts of the globe). All refuse would have to be > eliminated to halt decomposition. The list goes on and on. The reality is we can't stop it if it is happening. Instead of spending all these resources trying to stop the unstoppable we should spend them on mitigation. For every resource we lose another will be created elsewhere. The vast waste land of Siberia just might become more productive than the Midwest of North America. >> 10) How much money has AlGore pocketed from global warming lectures, >> books and movies? If that number is large, then why is he willing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A lot more than Michael Moore has made, but Moore is trying.... and > using much the same tactics. Like I said before, this global warming movement is nothing more than a money grab of biblical proportions. It stop being reputable, believable science when the alarmist hype took hold of it for collecting profits and votes. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.