PDA

View Full Version : "We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change"


KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 08:25 AM
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.


Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line









by *government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

Close

Listed below are the names and credentials of the 100 scientists who signed the letter, again dispelling the myth that the man-made explanation behind global warming is an overwhelming"consensus" view.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa


Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand


David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma


Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.


Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University


Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia


Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands


Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University


Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario


David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia


William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame


Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia


R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa


Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey


Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany


Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay


Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden


Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand


William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project


Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut


Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia


Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona


Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA


Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis


Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland


Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia


Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden


Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia


Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia


David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand


Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007


William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology


Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands


Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands


Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands


Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands


The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.


Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary


David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware


Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS


Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand


William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.


Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors


Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia


Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia


Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany


John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand


Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.


Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph


John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia


Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand


Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University


Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University


Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway


Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia


Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden


Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic


John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia


David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa


James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University


Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia


Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia


R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University


Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota


Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia


Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan


Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences


Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force


R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology


Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands


Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.


Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway


Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA


S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service


L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario


Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville


Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden


Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute


Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands


Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC


Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand


Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia


Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia


Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany


Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland


David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia


Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia


A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

banyon
12-14-2007, 08:38 AM
Ha, I love these Petroleum shills. First Global Warming is fake and recent temperature rises are just cyclical and now it's inevitable and we are powerless to stop it so we should just continue to consume our resources at an unsustainable rate.


I guess ExxonMobil et al. stuck their finger in the air and did some focus grouping and figured out that people weren't going to buy GW is fake anymore so they changed their tact.

What a bunch of :o) s

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 08:44 AM
Ha, I love these Petroleum shills. First Global Warming is fake and recent temperature rises are just cyclical and now it's inevitable and we are powerless to stop it so we should just continue to consume our resources at an unsustainable rate.


I guess ExxonMobil et al. stuck their finger in the air and did some focus grouping and figured out that people weren't going to buy GW is fake anymore so they changed their tact.

What a bunch of :o) s

Oh i see you didn't read any of it eh? 90% of those scientists have nothing to do with "Petroleum shills", I guess volunteered ignorance rules eh?

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis.

what part of this is hard to understand?

banyon
12-14-2007, 08:54 AM
Oh i see you didn't read any of it eh? 90% of those scientists have nothing to do with "Petroleum shills", I guess volunteered ignorance rules eh?

Please, I see Lindzen's name on your esteemed list. I'm sure if I look up the others, many will be the same story.



what part of this is hard to understand?

The part I guess that someone could have such an oversimpified view of the subject. Just because these energy industry hacks say jump, you say how high? Again, just a few months ago they were saying almost the opposite of what they are saying now. How credible is that?

While it's true that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, that doesn't mean it is not a possible pollutant. Almost any substance can be toxic in quantities too great. Ever hear of those frat kids who die in the water-chugging events? Anyway, we regulate those pollutants whose effects are seen to have potentially reached toxic levels. In C02's case- detrimental to our survival.

Also, I'm not sure where these clowns got their Ouija board to determine that "there is nothing we can do about it". I'm sure in 1940 they would've said we can't go to the moon, etc. Technology is developing at perhaps the fastest rate in recorded history. What we can do 20-30 years from now might be very different than what we can do today.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 09:11 AM
Please, I see Lindzen's name on your esteemed list. I'm sure if I look up the others, many will be the same story.





The part I guess that someone could have such an oversimpified view of the subject. Just because these energy industry hacks say jump, you say how high? Again, just a few months ago they were saying almost the opposite of what they are saying now. How credible is that?

While it's true that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, that doesn't mean it is not a possible pollutant. Almost any substance can be toxic in quantities too great. Ever hear of those frat kids who die in the water-chugging events? Anyway, we regulate those pollutants whose effects are seen to have potentially reached toxic levels. In C02's case- detrimental to our survival.

Also, I'm not sure where these clowns got their Ouija board to determine that "there is nothing we can do about it". I'm sure in 1940 they would've said we can't go to the moon, etc. Technology is developing at perhaps the fastest rate in recorded history. What we can do 20-30 years from now might be very different than what we can do today.

Sorry 7th grade science should have taught you all that is needed to debunk this, plants and humans coexist together, get it? 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values but i guess that should be ignored eh?
I know you feel the need to defend your daddy Algore, but he is undefendable to those who value common sense.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 09:13 AM
Even the Pope is speaking out about this needing to be based on real science.
Personally, I think it's great the ice caps are melting in the NP....just think how much easier it will be to drill, drill, drill up there now! :)

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 09:13 AM
What has me concerned is all this Global Warming science has an underlying purpose of global wealth redistribution under a global socialist style governing body. I don't see these UN conferences with the pure intention of reducing polition.

Global Warming is Wealth Redistribution (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=)

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference

BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Diminish future prosperity'


However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."


The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)


Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. (LINK)


In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK)


'A bureaucrat's dream'


MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)


In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.


Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." (LINK)

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 09:20 AM
What has me concerned is all this Global Warming science has an underlying purpose of global wealth redistribution under a global socialist style governing body. I don't see these UN conferences with the pure intention of reducing polition.

Global Warming is Wealth Redistribution (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=)

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference

BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Diminish future prosperity'


However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."


The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)


Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. (LINK)


In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK)


'A bureaucrat's dream'


MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)


In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.


Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." (LINK)

Thank you for posting this, nothing more than a life tax for the elites.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 09:31 AM
What has me concerned is all this Global Warming science has an underlying purpose of global wealth redistribution under a global socialist style governing body. I don't see these UN conferences with the pure intention of reducing polition.
Yup! That's why it raises a red flag ( literally) for me.
Capitalism haters. This is where the international socialists went after the end of the Cold War. Gorby heads this. Watermelons.

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 10:56 AM
Even the Pope is speaking out about this needing to be based on real science.
Personally, I think it's great the ice caps are melting in the NP....just think how much easier it will be to drill, drill, drill up there now! :)


Especially once the Methane Clathrate beds in the Arctic and under the tundra collapse and dump all that crap right into the atmosphere! Won't that be fun! After all, massive amounts of Methane are nothing to worry about, right? It comes from pigs and cows in trivial amounts, so it can't be bad.

Never mind there's a substantial body of work that supporting the argument that was a significant tipping point in the Permian–Triassic extinction.

Oh well, It's been fun. Nothing we can do about it, so why bother trying. :shrug:

I do wonder what kind of economy the next species will cook up in a few million years after the Earth shakes us off like a bad case of fleas?

I'll take some comfort in the fact that if my suspicions are correct, at least I haven't left any children or grandchildren who will have to suffer through the bottleneck. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hard time seeing the species make it through the next 100 years or so with civilization, or anything much approaching it, "intact". Paranoia? Perhaps. It just looks like we're headed towards a dramatic die-back, AFAICS.

If anyone needs me, I'll be enjoying Brandy and a Cigar by the Grand Staircase. :)

banyon
12-14-2007, 11:31 AM
What has me concerned is all this Global Warming science has an underlying purpose of global wealth redistribution under a global socialist style governing body. I don't see these UN conferences with the pure intention of reducing polition.

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

10-40 Billion? OH NOES ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON!11!!! ROFL



MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)

LOL. You can't keep this clown's name out of the anti-GW oil shill propaganda.
Anyway, to the point, we've been "taxing pollution" for decades in this country with relatively good results. In general we don't divert much general tax revenue to do so, nor would your above tax follow such a plan either. Ordinarily the revenues are sought from those companies who do the polluting. This gives them incentives to develop cleaner methods for their by-products of the refining process. We could easily direct a portion of fines generated in this manner to pay the above tax (especially in such a tiny amount).

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 12:07 PM
Yup! That's why it raises a red flag ( literally) for me.
Capitalism haters. This is where the international socialists went after the end of the Cold War. Gorby heads this. Watermelons.

One of the things I have appreciated about the current administration is they have not caved in to this type global nonsense. But, with all these recent Presidential debates I have not heard questions to the candidates addressing this kind of nonsense. We need leaders in Washington that are not going to let the UN use the environment to do a big money grab from the US. The UN has already proposed a direct tax on individuals in the US that would not filter through the federal government.

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 12:11 PM
I'll take some comfort in the fact that if my suspicions are correct, at least I haven't left any children or grandchildren who will have to suffer through the bottleneck. :)

For my children I say, thank you for not leaving any offspring on this earth. :)

banyon
12-14-2007, 12:13 PM
One of the things I have appreciated about the current administration is they have not caved in to this type global nonsense. But, with all these recent Presidential debates I have not heard questions to the candidates addressing this kind of nonsense. We need leaders in Washington that are not going to let the UN use the environment to do a big money grab from the US. The UN has already proposed a direct tax on individuals in the US that would not filter through the federal government.


I call :BS: on this.

But if you can prove me wrong, I would be opposed to such a measure.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-14-2007, 12:14 PM
One of the things I have appreciated about the current administration is they have not caved in to this type global nonsense.

And I'm assuming that you would support this administration just the same had you been born in...I don't know...Southern Romania?

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 12:20 PM
For my children I say, thank you for not leaving any offspring on this earth. :)

Why would I want to subject progeny to yammerheads like you? They are better off not exisiting, IMO.

Oh, and GFY. Thanks. ;)

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 12:24 PM
10-40 Billion? OH NOES ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON!11!!! ROFL



LOL. You can't keep this clown's name out of the anti-GW oil shill propaganda.
Anyway, to the point, we've been "taxing pollution" for decades in this country with relatively good results. In general we don't divert much general tax revenue to do so, nor would your above tax follow such a plan either. Ordinarily the revenues are sought from those companies who do the polluting. This gives them incentives to develop cleaner methods for their by-products of the refining process. We could easily direct a portion of fines generated in this manner to pay the above tax (especially in such a tiny amount).


So you don't mind that you will participate in paying a $40B tab to the UN while the biggest air polluting nation on earth, China, pays zip? And it also doesn't seem to bother you that these Global Warming conferences really are not motivated by reducing pollution, but about wealth redistribution? You don't mind that 80% of the UN membership is anti-US and their real motivation is reducing the US wealth?

Instead, how about keeping this tax within the US to create these cleaner methods you speak of instead of sending it to a third world country for whatever the UN wants to do? Remember, this tax the UN wants to institute is not about setting a target for reductions and pentalizing abusers it is about taxing the US citizenry to fund a global bureaucracy where you have no say or influence. Is that the vision of world government you have in mind?

I say no taxation without representation.

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 12:29 PM
And I'm assuming that you would support this administration just the same had you been born in...I don't know...Southern Romania?

Sarbatori Vesele!

banyon
12-14-2007, 12:29 PM
So you don't mind that you will participate in paying a $40B tab to the UN while the biggest air polluting nation on earth, China, pays zip? And it also doesn't seem to bother you that these Global Warming conferences really are not motivated by reducing pollution, but about wealth redistribution? You don't mind that 80% of the UN membership is anti-US and their real motivation is reducing the US wealth?

Instead, how about keeping this tax within the US to create these cleaner methods you speak of instead of sending it to a third world country for whatever the UN wants to do? Remember, this tax the UN wants to institute is not about setting a target for reductions and pentalizing abusers it is about taxing the US citizenry to fund a global bureaucracy where you have no say or influence. Is that the vision of world government you have in mind?

I say no taxation without representation.

I take this to mean you can't back up your claim that the UN imposed a direct tax on US Citizens that wouldn't go through our government.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 12:36 PM
One of the things I have appreciated about the current administration is they have not caved in to this type global nonsense. But, with all these recent Presidential debates I have not heard questions to the candidates addressing this kind of nonsense. We need leaders in Washington that are not going to let the UN use the environment to do a big money grab from the US. The UN has already proposed a direct tax on individuals in the US that would not filter through the federal government.
True. However, Bush does support the junk science even if he won't support the anti-capitalist solutions.

Ron Paul, to his credit, just says enforcement of property rights ( aka more free-market capitalism is the answer.) Geezuz! Even Rolling Stone had a fabulous 3 page article on how markets can help; that major industry leaders are getting together to find renewable energy faster, since the price is so high on oil right now the incentive is now there. There are some great things already in the works ( posted them to earlier)...no need for a global bureaucracy anyways. More govt, UN or otherwise, is NOT the answer. It is the problem. Look at how dirty China is.

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 12:46 PM
I call :BS: on this.

But if you can prove me wrong, I would be opposed to such a measure.

Easy to find information through Google. CNN first reported it July 26, 2006. The US Congress strongly refused. The Heritage Foundation reported on it in December 2003.

Radical UN Tax Plan (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed121803b.cfm)

The UN wants to create the ITO (International Tax Organization) with the power to interfere with national tax policies. Through Kofi Annan they even created a commission call the Global Tax Commission. They want the power to effect tax policies across the world and even penalize countries who do not follow their guidelines. They also want the power to levy their own taxes.

I don't know why any of this surprises you?

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 12:49 PM
I take this to mean you can't back up your claim that the UN imposed a direct tax on US Citizens that wouldn't go through our government.

Luckily it has not been imposed because Congress and the President have stood opposed. But, it reveals the mindset of the current UN leadership and it shows through big time in the Kyoto Treaty and the UN Conference on Global Warming in Bali.

banyon
12-14-2007, 12:57 PM
Easy to find information through Google. CNN first reported it July 26, 2006. The US Congress strongly refused. The Heritage Foundation reported on it in December 2003.

Radical UN Tax Plan (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed121803b.cfm)

The UN wants to create the ITO (International Tax Organization) with the power to interfere with national tax policies. Through Kofi Annan they even created a commission call the Global Tax Commission. They want the power to effect tax policies across the world and even penalize countries who do not follow their guidelines. They also want the power to levy their own taxes.

I don't know why any of this surprises you?

That link doesn't say anything like what you are alleging. At most it says that a panel was convened to look intothe idea. Do you know how many kooky things our government has convened a panel to look into? I'd probably be embarassed to see a list of the worst. There was no vote on the Security Council, nor would they have any legal authority to carry the idea out. We would have to sign a treaty (which we won't and shouldn't do). For you to claim that the UN made a decision about this is just false.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 12:59 PM
Luckily it has not been imposed because Congress and the President have stood opposed. But, it reveals the mindset of the current UN leadership and it shows through big time in the Kyoto Treaty and the UN Conference on Global Warming in Bali.
You're right. I've heard of the UN trying to do this. They also want to impose a tax on currency exchanges too.

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 01:02 PM
True. However, Bush does support the junk science even if he won't support the anti-capitalist solutions.

Ron Paul, to his credit, just says enforcement of property rights ( aka more free-market capitalism is the answer.) Geezuz! Even Rolling Stone had a fabulous 3 page article on how markets can help; that major industry leaders are getting together to find renewable energy faster, since the price is so high on oil right now the incentive is now there. There are some great things already in the works ( posted them to earlier)...no need for a global bureaucracy anyways. More govt, UN or otherwise, is NOT the answer. It is the problem. Look at how dirty China is.

You and I stand on the same side of the isle on big governement and a global bureaucracy. It is easy to pick on Bush, but there are some things he has done I appreciate. I especially dislike his stance with Mexico and immigration, but his stance against anti-capitalist solutions is applaudable. His stance on renewable energy and drilling make sense too me (drill and develop) too bad Congress has stood so opposed to working with him on anything.

banyon
12-14-2007, 01:07 PM
You and I stand on the same side of the isle on big governement and a global bureaucracy. It is easy to pick on Bush, but there are some things he has done I appreciate. I especially dislike his stance with Mexico and immigration, but his stance against anti-capitalist solutions is applaudable. His stance on renewable energy and drilling make sense too me (drill and develop) too bad Congress has stood so opposed to working with him on anything.


Yes it's a shame that 3/4 of his presidency he was saddled with his own party in control of Congress and accomplished so little that was positive.

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 01:10 PM
That link doesn't say anything like what you are alleging. At most it says that a panel was convened to look intothe idea. Do you know how many kooky things our government has convened a panel to look into? I'd probably be embarassed to see a list of the worst. There was no vote on the Security Council, nor would they have any legal authority to carry the idea out. We would have to sign a treaty (which we won't and shouldn't do). For you to claim that the UN made a decision about this is just false.

Nice, I provided evidence of what I was saying after you called BS. So now you are trying a different route by putting words in my mouth.

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 01:14 PM
Yes it's a shame that 3/4 of his presidency he was saddled with his own party in control of Congress and accomplished so little that was positive.

Nobody is defending the previous GOP controlled Congress. It was the GOP base that didn't show in the last election cycle because of their dissatisfaction. That doesn't change the fact that the current Congress stands so opposed to Bush that they can't get anything done. You can't blame the GOP on the current behavior of Congress.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 01:15 PM
You and I stand on the same side of the isle on big governement and a global bureaucracy. It is easy to pick on Bush, but there are some things he has done I appreciate. I especially dislike his stance with Mexico and immigration, but his stance against anti-capitalist solutions is applaudable. His stance on renewable energy and drilling make sense too me (drill and develop) too bad Congress has stood so opposed to working with him on anything.
I have openly expressed here on this board, where I have supported Bush or at least have not condemned him: the children's health care legislation veto, tax cuts, traditional values and I did not pin all the blame on him for Katrina ( there was enough to go around but was mainly a local issue). There's a one or two other issues that I can't recall off-hand. It's just that the war stuff has dominated current events.

banyon
12-14-2007, 01:22 PM
Nice, I provided evidence of what I was saying after you called BS. So now you are trying a different route by putting words in my mouth.

No you didn't provided evidence of what you were saying. You provided evidence that your claims were wildly exaggerated as I suspected.

Here is your claim, to refresh your memory:

The UN has already proposed a direct tax on individuals in the US that would not filter through the federal government.

First off, your link is only the characterization of the actual report, presented by a guy from the most biased anti-tax source possible (The Heritage Foundation). Secondly, no where in the link does it say that they did anything other than comission a report on it, they certainly didnt "propose it" as an institutional reccomendation. Lastly, no where in your account does it impose any kind of directly apportioned tax for individuals residing within the U.S.

Again, if it was as you said it was, I'd be against the idea. But it doesn't appear that way from the link you provided. the fact that the "credibility calvary" showed up to bolster your claim in the form of BEP tells me all I need to know about where this kooky stuff came from.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 01:37 PM
Yes it's a shame that 3/4 of his presidency he was saddled with his own party in control of Congress and accomplished so little that was positive.

I know that you know that a majority is not equal to control in the senate.

IMO he was very successful at getting the Congress to go along with positive foreign policy initiatives during that 3/4 of his Presidency. In fact, he's been fairly successful at getting them to go along with them in the remaining 1/4 even though the opposition party is in the majority in both houses. One example that comes to mind is the authorization of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program last fall (or late last summer, I forget which).

Chief Faithful
12-14-2007, 01:57 PM
First off, your link is only the characterization of the actual report, presented by a guy from the most biased anti-tax source possible (The Heritage Foundation). Secondly, no where in the link does it say that they did anything other than comission a report on it, they certainly didnt "propose it" as an institutional reccomendation. Lastly, no where in your account does it impose any kind of directly apportioned tax for individuals residing within the U.S.

Again, if it was as you said it was, I'd be against the idea. But it doesn't appear that way from the link you provided. the fact that the "credibility calvary" showed up to bolster your claim in the form of BEP tells me all I need to know about where this kooky stuff came from.

I get it you didn't like my use of the word "propose". I used the word as to form an intention not as they asked for a vote. Plus, when it is pushed forward for study by the head of the UN it is worth taking serious.

If you had kept my statement in context of what I was saying you would have understood it. As Hillary said recently about one of her proposals, "I meant it as an idea not a policy position". The UN was serious enough to commission a study and discuss the formation of the CTO to carry out tax policies. I guarantee we have not heard the last of the UN intention to grab tax money from the US one way or another.

Second, the UN Conference in Bali was clear about their position on direct taxation of nations and their desire to have a say in the taxing policies of nations. The quotes on the article where not about UN discussion penalties it was about the UN talking about taxation.

alnorth
12-14-2007, 10:51 PM
Sadly, I have to agree mostly with banyon on this topic, and I am not surprised to see the major GOP candidates moving begrudgingly from "its not real!" to "ok, its real, but Kyoto was crap, we need to find a fair solution that the US will be able to live with."

The science is really overwhelming at this point. In popular articles, the media tries to strike a fairly balanced portrayal of the issue, but in peer-reviewed Scientific journals, I've read that there are hundreds of articles supporting human-influenced global warming the last few years, and zero opposing the idea. They arent exactly a hive mentality either, acceptance of new ideas comes reluctantly, and anyone who can convincingly attack the theory with data and strong evidence can make their whole career.

I work for a mega-huge evil insurance company who employs a small group of in-house meteorologists (mostly to study hurricane damage and give us advice on what to do over the long-term regarding storms). I was able to attend a few very interesting presentations they gave on Global Warming, and I was shocked at how pessimistic they, and so many others were. We are talking Florida Keys and several miles of gulf coast gone by 2060.

One of my favorite articles on the subject can be found here: Phaeton's Reins (http://e-courses.cerritos.edu/tstolze/Kerry%20Emanuel_%20Phaeton's%20Reins.pdf)

Its written very well by a guy who started out as deeply skeptical and was slowly convinced over the years, but its not one-sided. He also points out that many of the more hysterical alarmists are exaggerating, but its a very huge problem.

Personally, I believe the solution is to aggressively go full-blown nuclear all over the world. The environmentalists are just going to have to accept that its the only way, we arent going to be able to convince humans to give up on their way of life, so we have to make nuclear power work, perhaps using it to create power for cars when battery technology improves enough.

For now, if some pain and cut-backs absolutely have to be made, then it cant be one-sidedly unfair on the USA, if we are going to feel economic pain, then so must our competitors in China, India, etc or we have no deal.

tiptap
12-14-2007, 11:37 PM
The reason for this posting about the IPCC, which at this point is a political discussion for solutions and not a discussion of the science and reality of human induced Global Warming, that already having been rendered and handed off to this political forum, is not the IPCC meeting but that none of these signees are at the San Francisco meeting of GeoPhysics. That is were all the good science, not just in climate, (for example planetary studies, remote ocean investigations, etc) is being discussed and these guys didn't make the cut.

The big news related to climate is the extension of the ice CO 2 studies from Antarctica shows the strong correlation of high CO 2 levels with high planetary temperatures back 750,000 years. (And yes at around 600 thousand years ago temperature rises came first and then CO 2 increase that boosted the initial temperature rise has been validated). But most of the higher CO 2 levels at other times preceded the temperature rise.

The discussion about loss of the ice cap is part of the discussion. At one time in this site I also thought this might be a positive. And this is going to happen along with part of Greenland Glaciers melting. But that is from what already is in the pipe. If we don't radically reduce our CO 2 discharge things will get very radically hot to the detriment of humans.

I don't oppose Atomic plants anymore. And I got my instruction against such plants from my Uncle's opposition to Kansas' Wolfcreek plan when he headed the KCK's power utility.

KCJohnny
12-14-2007, 11:38 PM
Sadly, I have to agree mostly with banyon on this topic, and I am not surprised to see the major GOP candidates moving begrudgingly from "its not real!" to "ok, its real, but Kyoto was crap, we need to find a fair solution that the US will be able to live with."



It takes more faith to embrace this new age religion than it does to believe Christ rose from the dead. It is not real, and even if it was, there is nothing man can do about it.

Global warming environmentalism = the new paganism.

tiptap
12-14-2007, 11:50 PM
If Christians start rising from the dead will discuss that then. And yes there is nothing we can do to stop the Arctic from being ice free in the summer at this point. The amount of CO 2 already added to the atmosphere assures this will take place. (By the way where in the Bible prophecies is the catastrophe of glacial ice melting mentioned?)

But we can be more destructive by continuing to exponentially increase the CO 2 (and other Greenhouse gases) to lead to worse outcomes.

alnorth
12-14-2007, 11:59 PM
It takes more faith to embrace this new age religion than it does to believe Christ rose from the dead. It is not real, and even if it was, there is nothing man can do about it.

Global warming environmentalism = the new paganism.

It takes a hell of a lot less faith today than it did a few years ago. Forget about arguing that global warming is not happening, that arguement is lost, dead, and buried long ago. Thats not even worth refuting anymore, we can all see the shockingly fast retreat of glacier ice for ourselves.

Your only refuge now is that we arent causing it. There is basically no evidence at all to support your theory, and that wasnt from a lack of trying. Dozens of models were built in an attempt to show how our temperature increase could be explained only by natural forces, and they do pretty well up untill maybe the 1970's, at which point they have all miserably failed to predict our current spike. The only models that are able to replicate what has already happened are those that include the impact of our increase in burning fossil fuels in the last half of the century.

We've always taken it for granted that global warming was a "Liberal" issue, but I am confused why it happened that way. Conservatives have generally supported nuclear power and less reliance on oil from Middle-Eastern governments, and thats really the only way out of this mess. The environmentalists share a lot of blame for this problem, because without their opposition to nuclear power decades ago, we may be in a better position now.

alnorth
12-15-2007, 12:19 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-12-11-nuclear-plant-safety_N.htm

Interesting recent article that I had remembered seeing. Nuclear power currently supplies 20% of our power from 104 reactors, but we hadnt built a new reactor or even had anyone willing to file an application to build a nuclear plant since the 1979 incident.

Thats quietly changing now, power companies have recently filed applications to build 32 plants over the next 20 years. If that keeps up, we could probably start to phase out coal and/or require coal plants to trap CO2 emissions without much of a hiccup to the economy.

Just converting to nuclear would be a huge step, buying us plenty of time to keep on researching alternative fuels for cars.

As far as safety goes, the 3 mile island scare sparked such an outcry and mass paranoia, that we upgraded our equipment and safety measures on the existing nuke plants to the point where the US now has some of the safest nuclear reactors in the world.

tiptap
12-15-2007, 10:04 AM
It has never been safety of plants but what to do with the nuclear waste. But I am all for buying out Nevada, paying top price to move people, and dropping it there. Invoke imminent domain and be truly diligent in setting up safeguards.

But don't blame enviromentalists for flogging the Nuclear Industry. That is like saying Republicans are all for Immigration reform. The enviromentalists have been looking to limit footprint of man industrial output. That is always prudent. Instead we have gobbled energy like there is no tomorrow. We may earn that effort.

Just get those grapes in the game. As a liberal I am always willing to to have industry and government moving on this. But when it means less coal, oil and natural gas being burned there is no financial incentives from that group to seek real solutions to reduced absolute CO 2 production.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-15-2007, 10:05 AM
Those that believe GLobal warming is man made should be carbon taxed, those that see the truth should not be subject to the same BOVINE SCATOLOGY laws and taxes.

tiptap
12-15-2007, 10:10 AM
It hurts not to be able to follow the science doesn't it. That is why you use your potty mouth.

banyon
12-15-2007, 10:11 AM
Those that believe GLobal warming is man made should be carbon taxed, those that see the truth should not be subject to the same BOVINE SCATOLOGY laws and taxes.

Ooh, Good one! :rolleyes:

From your recent postings, it appears you are the Ron Paul counterweight to MarcBulger and BoyceofSummer. Good luck with that. :thumb:

JohnnyV13
12-15-2007, 11:21 AM
GE claims there is enough wind power to supply all of the united states' current electricity needs. GE also says that wind power turbines do not cost any more than current methods of energy production.

Of course, GE is somewhat biased, because they have perfected the current wind turbine technology.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-15-2007, 11:44 AM
It hurts not to be able to follow the science doesn't it. That is why you use your potty mouth.

I used a nice word to describe the algorism, you wanna follow a fake and phony do so at your own peril. If you really feel that strongly about it stop breathing.

Adept Havelock
12-15-2007, 11:52 AM
Ooh, Good one! :rolleyes:

From your recent postings, it appears you are the Ron Paul counterweight to MarcBulger and BoyceofSummer. Good luck with that. :thumb:


Pretty close, though K_C seems to have a better command of the language than those two.

StcChief
12-15-2007, 06:12 PM
GE claims there is enough wind power to supply all of the united states' current electricity needs. GE also says that wind power turbines do not cost any more than current methods of energy production.

Of course, GE is somewhat biased, because they have perfected the current wind turbine technology.
Areas with favorable wind conditions start putting them up.

Special a few weeks ago on PBS about a 'wind farm' up in Texas

So GE developed/refined the technology. If it works who cares?

tiptap
12-15-2007, 06:28 PM
The infrastructure for running the country off wind and solar isn't right. You need a highly distributive, fluid electrical grid. As opposed to the highly hierarchical distributive electrical grid.

JohnnyV13
12-15-2007, 06:33 PM
The infrastructure for running the country off wind and solar isn't right. You need a highly distributive, fluid electrical grid. As opposed to the highly hierarchical distributive electrical grid.


i'm not an electrical engineer, so I don't know about the implementation problems. I do know that many small towns through Kansas/Oklahoma and Texas have voted to install wind turbines for their energy needs, financed by tax dollars.

I presume the costs wouldn't be too bad, because they could simply construct a local grid. TRANSFERRING that power on a national basis is where the cost will be, if a new energy grid needs to be constructed to transmit that power

Iowanian
12-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Arctic Seals for Obama!

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x22/maxyro/humans1.jpg

tiptap
12-15-2007, 10:11 PM
In the up coming January issue of Scientific American, there is an article outlining how to provide 70% of Americas electrical needs and 30% of total energy needs therefore, by using existing solar technology by 2050. The investment of 400 billion over 15 years by the government is in line with Food Subsidies and information technology investments by the government. From then on the technology should be competitive. The SW America would be the location of solar panels and DC long distance lines would be needed to distribute energy needs.

The propose that wind, geothermal and Nuclear energy could make us completely energy independent and CO 2 free by 2100.

This doesn't include the more localized efforts of using urban rooftops and such for solar generation on uncloudy days.

whoman69
12-16-2007, 11:14 PM
Climate change historically has been a natural phenomenon. However the natural phenomenon associated with these changes have been silent. There has been no increase in volcanic activity, no meteorite collisions, nor any plate tetonics that can explain away what is happening now. It is not a natural phenomenon that has eaten away our ozone layer. Its not a natural phenomenon that is melting the polar icecaps. Man is disrupting his environment, and the environment is lashing back. Should we act only when glaciers once again threaten to crush New York city?

patteeu
12-17-2007, 10:04 AM
Should we act only when glaciers once again threaten to crush New York city?

How about just after. ;)

Iowanian
12-17-2007, 10:13 AM
Some say tomato.....

In the thread starter....methane is being touted as Satan's fart on the earth, yet in another article I read this week, China and India are looking at potential Boons in Energy from Frozen methane.

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 10:41 AM
Arctic Seals for Obama!

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x22/maxyro/humans1.jpg
These 'where is bucket' interrogations are going too far.

Adept Havelock
12-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Some say tomato.....

In the thread starter....methane is being touted as Satan's fart on the earth, yet in another article I read this week, China and India are looking at potential Boons in Energy from Frozen methane.

That's the difference between a controlled release for energy production, and a massive "burp" from collapsing Clathrate beds due to melting permafrost. To learn more about this and other fun bottlenecks, check your local library for information on the Permian extinction.

These 'were is bucket' interrogations are going too far.

LMAO

Cochise
12-17-2007, 10:47 AM
LMA @ bukit

Iowanian
12-17-2007, 11:15 AM
I have a minor in Geology, I've got at least a basic understanding of the concept.

We'd better hurry up and exploit those dangerous Arctic reserves before they collapse and END MANKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND!!!!


That's the difference between a controlled release for energy production, and a massive "burp" from collapsing Clathrate beds due to melting permafrost. To learn more about this and other fun bottlenecks, check your local library for information on the Permian extinction.



LMAO

Adept Havelock
12-17-2007, 11:22 AM
I have a minor in Geology, I've got at least a basic understanding of the concept.

Good, then I don't have to explain any further why it's a cause for concern.

We'd better hurry up and exploit those dangerous Arctic reserves before they collapse and END MANKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND!!!!

I doubt a massive methane release from Clathrate collapse would "end" mankind by itself. Homo Spaien is a fairly resilient animal. I don't doubt it would be a massive addition to the Charlie-Foxtrot of issues already on our plate that we've shown little to no ability to resolve. It's that combination that has us headed for a "die-back". JMO.

And yes, controlled exploitation would be vastly preferable to a massive uncontrolled release. Whether sufficient exploitation is possible before a "tipping point" from the melting tundra is reached remains to be seen, AFAICT.

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 03:19 PM
Personally I am more concerned that we will all get wiped out by the super volcano that is growing under Yellowstone.

Nightfyre
12-17-2007, 03:20 PM
Personally I am more concerned that we will all get wiped out by the super volcano that is growing under Yellowstone.
QFT. I mean, its just 90 miles away, I would be incinerated. =(

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 03:43 PM
QFT. I mean, its just 90 miles away, I would be incinerated. =(


That could make you one of the lucky ones. The rest of us can slowly freeze/starve to death in the ensuing nuclear winter.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Wouldn't it be wild, if we did fix global warming only to have earth smashed by a humongous asteroid just afterwards.

Nightfyre
12-17-2007, 03:48 PM
That could make you one of the lucky ones. The rest of us can slowly freeze/starve to death in the ensuing nuclear winter.
Hypothetically, if I recall correctly, the world would be coated in inches of ash. Most of you would prolly suffocate. :shrug:

Nightfyre
12-17-2007, 03:48 PM
Wouldn't it be wild, if we did fix global warming only to have earth smashed by a humongous asteroid just afterwards.
That would be the epitome of irony. Also, asteroids are no threat to earth, we have Bruce Willis!

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 03:54 PM
That would be the epitome of irony. Also, asteroids are no threat to earth, we have Bruce Willis!
Well, your talk of the volcano reminded me of that joke where a bunch of oil covered baby seals get cleaned up to the tune of millions of dollars. When the project is complete, a pompus Environmental ceremony takes place complete with media present, where the seals get released back to their natural habitat.Everyone claps and is excited only for the now clean baby seals to be gobbled up a few minutes later by some killer whales. That's one expensive meal. ROFL

Adept Havelock
12-17-2007, 04:08 PM
That could make you one of the lucky ones. The rest of us can slowly freeze/starve to death in the ensuing nuclear winter.


You can if you want. I'm grabbing a dune buggy, a crossbow, and a mask.

.

Adept Havelock
12-17-2007, 04:51 PM
That would be the epitome of irony. Also, asteroids are no threat to earth, we have Bruce Willis!

And Robert Duvall can handle any Comets!