finally some sense about global warming

[spyder]

Funny, the "GW"s What's a GW? here never address my question. I guess if it hits the heart of their theory, it should be convieniently ignored.

We haven't had global weather data collecting abilities since the existence of wide scale weather satellites. Actually, we have, called thermometers, we have had them since the 1700's. Also, people used to write things down on parchment long before then. Less than 40 years of data. You need to catch up on what is actually been happening in the real world before you start to argue. By pure pysics and real science, it's impossible to guess the temperature of anything before recorded measurements beyond a margin of error of many degrees. I agree with you here. Unfortunately the arguement isn't over a few degrees here and there and just the fact that the temp is going up right now. It is a little more in depth than that. We can see major climate changes in the past and the fact that from even the data that we have collected in just the recent past, we can see our impact on the climate as it is now. Yes, we can see that there have been major climate changes in the past, the arguement is that we are speeding the changes up, which, they do have data to support.
We have no data on any level of historical refraction, cloud cover, water vapor concentrations, solar activity, snow cover, etc.
Most of the written data that main stream science has followed has showed the major difference in what has happened in the recorded past to the present. By that, I mean that people have written down the major storms and what the weather was like in the past. We can take that into account. Then there is the scientific data taken since there have been thermometers way back in the 1700's. Now before that everything is based upon "Theory's" which even as a science guy, I don't put too much faith in because a scientific theory is just like believing in a god. It is a faith of sorts and not provable, otherwise it would be known as a fact.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 0.1% (1/1000) to 0.3% (3/1000) of the global climate model. That is it's net effect on our weather. Even if you were right about the ammount in the air, your idea that it will only have a very small effect because of its tiny ammount is complete ignorance. It only takes 300 mg of cyanide to kill a full grown man quickly. So, lets say the unfortunate mand weighs 180 lbs, that is 81646626.6 milligrams compared to just the 300 it would take to kill him. Get how that relates? Small ammount, big consequences? This isn't disputed, though its conveniently ignored now.
I really wish you would list your resources on everything you have to say. Untill then, seriously, it is just your opinion. You want to talk shit to the rest of us who argue against what you believe and want us to list our sources, but you apparently don't have to? No offence, but if you can't debate with the big boys, maybe you should just stay out of it. Or, I guess you can delete all of my stuff like a little child, your call.
Please explain how you can come to a valid scientific conclusion using reasonable scientific method and factual basis that carbon dioxide is the source of "climate change". Been doing that this entire time.http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mperature.html I'm all ears. You are only proving that you are in fact, not all ears. Fact of the matter is, if you don't address it, I'll delete the rest of the BS responses. How do you call the responses that have valid evidence BS? Especially when you yourself have not given one shred of evidence? If you ignore the hard question, you have no standing whatsoever. Also please elaborate on why the US needs to expend trillions of dollars in the next coming decade to address this, and how the money will help. With climate change being a real factor, we need to come up with ways to figure it out to bring our influence on the eco system down. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't real. Also, please address why "global warming" is an overall negative change from the status quo. If you are asking that question hypothetically as in, if global warming is real, how is it bad? I would have to ask if you were joking and my second question would be if you actually know anything about what it is that the actual arguement of global waming/climate change is really about.

Also, just so you know, some "big oil" people also believe in the "hype" such as Rex Tillerson, CEO of EXXON Mobile, he has been quoted many times standing behind efforts to reduce carbon emmissions because of global warming and what their product does to further it along. He has been quoted saying:
"We recognize that climate change is a serious issue," Mr. Tillerson said during a 50-minute interview last week, pointing to a recent company report that acknowledged the link between the consumption of fossil fuels and rising global temperatures. "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change."
Why don't you find real evidence that supports your claims?

[spyder]

Regardless of what you or I believe, I don't have the right to tell you how to live and what you can or can't buy. God help us when the government makes those choices for us because I hope we all can agree, those choices will almost universally be bad.

What they were originally trying to do was putting out the information of what one choice over the other's impact will have in the long run. Since no one believes what science actually has to say, not too many people have listened to them. The easiest way is this, if you knew that what your neighbor was doing was going to harmfully affect your family, would you say something to him? Do anything about it? Or just let it go? The people that believe in climate change and have the power to go about a change, are trying to "do something about it". However some people believe it is some kind of conspiracy and that all of the crap we pump into the air has absolutely no effect. Science is a lie! A lie I tell you!

[rockhound]

i think everyone can agree that we should be good steward of our planet. the point to all this is that bankrupting society to do so is just dumb.

if our govt really wanted to get us off the oil teet they would have switched our vehicle to alcohol years ago when countries like brazil decided to ween themselves from oil dependency.

it is all about the dollar it always has been. the oil companies have too much influence politically

i for one am not willing to trade the oil companies for some new wave of carbon footprint centered agenda from our govt.


as i understand what i have read most of the cars built after 1981 could be easily converted to run on alcohol which would burn cleaner

the big 3 gm, cm. and fm, already produce the alcohol tuned motors for use in other countries. why not here.

[Hoosier]

if our govt really wanted to get us off the oil teet they would have switched our vehicle to alcohol years ago when countries like brazil decided to ween themselves from oil dependency.

it is all about the dollar it always has been. the oil companies have too much influence politically

i for one am not willing to trade the oil companies for some new wave of carbon footprint centered agenda from our govt.

as i understand what i have read most of the cars built after 1981 could be easily converted to run on alcohol which would burn cleaner

the big 3 gm, cm. and fm, already produce the alcohol tuned motors for use in other countries. why not here.

Yeah, GM's "FlexFuel" is one, I've seen the badges around here and there. Apparently the ethanol setup has a small gasoline tank (2-3 gallon) under the hood, that's used to start the engine on very cold days, then once it's warm kicks over to ethanol. You can run the engine on Ethanol or Petrol, apparently you can even blend in the tank, ie: refill with either one.

It really is all about the money. I'd really like to see a move towards smart new nuclear technologies. Pickens plan for displacing energy use is also clever.

H.

[spyder]

There is a lot of different technology out there that most of the public doesn't know about. For example, a car that runs off of water: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

[cstone]

What they were originally trying to do was putting out the information of what one choice over the other's impact will have in the long run. Since no one believes what science actually has to say, not too many people have listened to them. The easiest way is this, if you knew that what your neighbor was doing was going to harmfully affect your family, would you say something to him? Do anything about it? Or just let it go? The people that believe in climate change and have the power to go about a change, are trying to "do something about it". However some people believe it is some kind of conspiracy and that all of the crap we pump into the air has absolutely no effect. Science is a lie! A lie I tell you!

I don't have any problem with people trying to convince me of what they believe. Sometimes I am swayed and I change my mind and other times I am unconvinced. Best arguments do not always win.

When people begin using the coercive power of government to affect my ability to choose, I can get a little touchy. When you move from providing information to affecting my ability to make my own choices, you have moved from science to politics.

If I believed my neighbor was doing something that would harm my family? A bit too vague for me. Is he sitting in his window with a .308 and a good scope putting a bead on my kids? Is he smoking a cigarette in his garage (second hand smoke). Is he buying Chinese made products from Wal-mart?

Give me information. I will make my own choices.

I believe in science for what it is: A best possible explanation of the material world by observation and experimentation. I also believe that science has limitations and cannot explain all things and that some things in life can only be understood by faith.

[spyder]

Yeah, GM's "FlexFuel" is one, I've seen the badges around here and there. Apparently the ethanol setup has a small gasoline tank (2-3 gallon) under the hood, that's used to start the engine on very cold days, then once it's warm kicks over to ethanol. You can run the engine on Ethanol or Petrol, apparently you can even blend in the tank, ie: refill with either one.

It really is all about the money. I'd really like to see a move towards smart new nuclear technologies. Pickens plan for displacing energy use is also clever.

H.

The FlexFuel is nice to have, you can buy a kit that replaces some of the hoses, rings, bushing, ect and change over the vehicle you have now to run ethanol. I am not completely sure on what all is needed, I just know that my dealership offered it.

[spyder]

I don't have any problem with people trying to convince me of what they believe. Sometimes I am swayed and I change my mind and other times I am unconvinced. Best arguments do not always win.

When people begin using the coercive power of government to affect my ability to choose, I can get a little touchy. When you move from providing information to affecting my ability to make my own choices, you have moved from science to politics.

If I believed my neighbor was doing something that would harm my family? A bit too vague for me. Is he sitting in his window with a .308 and a good scope putting a bead on my kids? Is he smoking a cigarette in his garage (second hand smoke). Is he buying Chinese made products from Wal-mart?
You are right, that was a little vague.
Give me information. I will make my own choices.
Say he was still using old methods and washing his back patio, big patio with amonia, and bleach (for some reason, just a "for instance") and your house was down wind.
I believe in science for what it is: A best possible explanation of the material world by observation and experimentation. I also believe that science has limitations and cannot explain all things and that some things in life can only be understood by faith.

[cstone]

There is a lot of different technology out there that most of the public doesn't know about. For example, a car that runs off of water: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

I would love a water powered car. When will they be available? Last I heard, commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells are at least 10 years off.

The link from Reuters is from 2008. In 2009, the Japanese company Genepax closed their web site. Here is what they posted:

Thank you for visiting our website.

We at GENEPAX have strived to develop new technologies to enable environment friendly energy systems, to mitigate environmental risks such as those posed by global warming.　The systems that we have proposed have received warm words of support from many people. However, we have yet to overcome the many obstacles we face in the current world, to bring our systems to market. Moreover, the costs of development have become very large. As our resources are very limited, we need to retrench and reassess our resources and our development plans at this time, and we are accordingly closing our website.

We express our deep gratitude for the supportive messages we have received. We hope that you will continue to be supportive of efforts to develop cleaner and more environment friendly energies, and we will continue to strive to develop systems to preserve our environment.


February 10th, 2009
Yasuyuki Takahashi
Representative Director
GENEPAX

[cstone]

I get what you are saying:

"Say he was still using old methods and washing his back patio, big patio with amonia, and bleach (for some reason, just a "for instance") and your house was down wind."

Fortunately for me in that case, if he was dumb enough to make some chlorine gas along with some other very toxic gases, and I'm assuming he is not wearing any type of gas mask, he won't be my neighbor for very long.

This would be a great teaching point for the rest of the neighborhood not to repeat this dive into the shallow end of the pool.

To your point, what would prevent one of my current neighbors from doing this now? If they talked to me about their idea before, I would tell them that it was not a good idea and if they were going to do it anyway, please let me know first so that I can buy some life insurance for his family and then get my family to a safe place before hand.

I could tell the local code enforcement officers or the police, but I wouldn't count on them arriving before he starts as they would probably be more involved in arresting children with airsoft guns.