usual suspect wrote:
> Slow Bob wrote:
>
>>>>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc.
New York Times Leads in Global Warming Nonsense
By Brian Carnell
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
The New York Times ran an editorial today praising the California
legislature for passing a bill that sets strict CO2 emissions standards
for automakers. Typically, while it slams the Bush administration for
ignoring global warming science, it repeats an outright falsehood about
temperature increases in Alaska. According to The Times,
Then came a more narrowly focused but equally disturbing report by
The Times's Timothy Egan about Alaska, where an astonishing seven-degree
increase in average temperatures over 30 years has led to melting
permafrost, sagging roads, dying forests, unexpected forest fires and
disruption of marine life. Even Ted Stevens, the influential Republican
senator from Alaska who usually has little patience with
environmentalists, is openly alarmed about global warming's potential
cost to his home state, which could run into the billions of dollars,
and is privately even more alarmed by Washington's indifference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas
>>>>>> of water during the summer.
>>
>>
>> i clearly wrote recorded history. We all know about the ice ages this
>> is another problem ages.
>
>
> Ipse dixit. The span of time from the most recent Ice Age to now has
> been one of global warming. It is not a strange human-related phenomenon.
>
>>>>> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round.
>>>>> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that
>>>>> day, moron?
>>>
>>>
>>> HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO?
>
>
> HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO?
>
>>>>>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous.
We are not talking about long term climatic change. We are tallking
about human caused global warming.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and
>>>>> immediate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even if I were stupid,
>>>
>>>
>>> You are. You really are.
>>
Your opinon doesn't change facts.
>>
>> which doesn't change my statement
>
>
> Of course it doesn't. You'll stick to your lies even after they've been
> shattered by overwhelming evidence.
>
>>>> which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with,
>>>
>>>
>>> Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that!
>>
>>
>> It is a vegan group.
>
>
> Irrelevant. You're still appealing to popularity among a group of
> self-marginals.
>
Not at all. It is a vegan community. Not one objected to my posting of
Dr. Greger's newsletter. You are not the king. Other's thanked me for
posting it.
>>>> just you trolls.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you.
>>
>>
>> It for vegans.
>
>
> Why can't you write in clear, complete sentences?
>
>>>> And if I were stupid,
>>>
>>>
>>> Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid.
>>
>>
>> No
>
>
> Yes. You really, really *are* stupid, Boob.
>
>>>> and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real,
>>>
>>>
>>> Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown
>>> you polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject.
>>
>>
>> The vast majority of global warming is from man made activities,
>
>
> Ipse dixit and unproven.
>
>> Show me a number of non republican scientists that disagree.
>
>
> That's a strange way of proving your own claim. I've already given you a
> link to a poll of scientists who disagree. They're not all Republicans,
> Boob, they just happen to see either a lack of evidence or too much
> conflicting evidence to accept the global warming theory as mindlessly
> as you have.
>
>>>> we are talking about flooding of coastal cities,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why the hell did you move to Tampa then?
>>
I've already told you I don't live in Tampa. Road Runner services a
wide area.
>>
>> I don't lie in Tampa. I am looking at alternate.
>
Yes, over the long run I am looking at alternative places in the world
to survive climatic or economic change. When you farm all your
manufacturing to China (and will soon demand more oil than the US) and
much technical work to India (we've all called tech wupport and not
understood a word), I question the US's economic future. Soon China
will have much more influence in the middle east than the US as they
will be a much larger consumer, not to mention a much larger army.
>
Also, the US is no longer the leader in R&D. For example the future
versions of Microsoft and Oracle are being made in Israel. Similarly,
much medical innovation is being done overseas, and little Israel,
surrounded by hostile Arab nations is outproducing the US in many areas
of R&D. For example, that is why Christopher Reves gave huge money to
their Stem Cell research projects, where the US is way behind. Israel
for example recently released "Photography" in a pill which can examine
the gastro track. The largest generic pharmacutical company in Israel,
just purchased the largest in the US. All while being surrounded by
hostile nations and having a tiny percertage of the world's population
and taking in refugees from other nations and subsidizing them.
I question the US as a future leader when we do not lead in science,
R&D, will lose influence in the Middle East and are no longer the
manufacturing capital of the world.
> You're posting from the Tampa area. Why did you move to a coastal area
> where overpopulation is adversely affecting the environment?
>
>>>> famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually making it
>>>> colder,
>>>
Let me in on ONE projected model of accellerated global warming, which
you question but by no means have disproven.
Melting of polar caps will alter the Carribian currents that warm Great
Britain. Thus Great Britain's climate will no longer be moderated and
warmed by currents from the Carribian and their termperature will drop
to the latitude expected at that location. This is a model, it is not
proven but it is based on solid science.
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/corpora...20040430a.html
Is an official publication by the British government.
Since you are so limited, here's another reference
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LOG3.php
>>>
>>> Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the summer.
>>
>>
>> Actually a simple look at the map show Great Britain for example near
>> Nova Scotia. It is a scientific projection by scientists.
>
>
> WTF is your point? All the global warming projections I've read about
> suggest the UK will be so warm that it'll become a prime wine region.
That's another possibility. Less of a possibility according NON
politically associated climatologists. Perhaps you don't understand the
greenhouse effect? You're blathering against it suggests that.
>
>>>> homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms.
There are already homes collapsing in Alaska, read the freaking news as
the permafrost is melting. And we already are having more violent storms.
>>>
>>>
>>> You left out alien abductions and increases in bigfoot sightings.
>>
>>
>> That is stupid.
>
>
> That is sarcasm, you twit.
>
>> The .
>
>
> The what?
>
>>>> Many reputable scientists
>>>
>>>
>>> Ipse dixit. Reputable scientists don't make outlandish claims about
>>> the future. Activists do.
>>>
>>>> say this is the future, and man made greenhouse gasses are the
>>>> greatest cause of this.
>>>
>>>
>>> What have you done to reduce your own greenhouse gases, Slow Bob?
>
Personally. I use a bike when possible. Avoid unnecessary car trips.
Telecommute. Use energy rated appliances. And eat a vegan diet which
requires less fossile fuels. I avoid disposable products and recycle.
AS the Union of Concerned Scientists say, a vegan lifestyle reduces
greenhouse immissions.
OK, for some "wacky scientific projections" let's start with MIT's
American Meterological Society, composed of the best climatologists.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/6/R02 British Scientists
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1412 (The meterological
society of the University of Washington
http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/...e=071&page=288
http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2...le-vkt-hgf-t4c
FEATURES
Global Warming: A Perspective from Earth History
University of Leicester geologist Jan Zalasiewicz heads a group of
eminent geologists which has just published a paper in The Guardian
outlining its belief that the world is under serious threat of
environmental destruction.
Global warming: A Perspective from Earth History [A position paper of
the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, first
published in The Guardian]
> HELLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO?
>
>>>>>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than
>>>>> standard gasoline vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon.
>>>> Check the stats. Prove me wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased
>>> fuel efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g.,
>>> greenhouse gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein.
>
>
> Established. Shit, you even make David Harrison appear reasonable. Do
> you know how difficult that is?
>
>>>>>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply
>>>>>> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher
>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think
>>>>> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto
>>>>>
>>>>> MPG (city)
>>>>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22
>>>>> MPG (hwy)
>>>>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25
>>>>> MPG (combined)
>>>>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23
>>>>> Annual Fuel Cost*
>>>>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494
>>>>>
>>>>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very
>>>>> significant.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy:
>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a few facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual.
>>>
>>>
>>> Established.
>
>
> FIRMLY established.
To be fair, something you're not, I decided to also search global
warming nonsense. Here's typical of the findings.
August 2, 2002, 8:45 a.m.
Global-Warming Nonsense
An economics journal publishes junk.
By Paul Georgia
tephen Schneider, the Stanford biologist turned climate scientist, has
apparently become an economist too. According to his calculations,
saving the planet from global warming will cost virtually nothing. The
Bush administration's statements to the contrary are "fallacious" and
nothing more than "wild rhetoric."
Schneider, a veteran of the climate-change wars (he predicted in the
1970s that industrial emissions would usher in the next ice age), claims
in an analysis that appears in the August issue of Ecological Economics,
that in a hundred years the world will be ten times richer than it is
now and that people on average will be five times richer. Putting the
estimated costs of global warming policies in "proper context," says
Schneider, leads to a stunning conclusion: the trillions of dollars that
would be spent to stop global warming would only delay such a wonderful
state of affairs by a mere two years.
Schneider's argument leaves one gasping at its sheer audacity. Not only
does it miss the point entirely, its callousness exceeds even the
coldest cost-benefit analysis. It isn't the vastly wealthier generations
of people living 100 years from now that opponents of energy suppression
policies are concerned about, but those who are living now and
especially the poor.
As noted by Oxford Economist Wilfred Beckerman in 1997, just after the
Kyoto Protocol was born, "it makes no sense to impose heavy burdens on
today's generation in order to raise the welfare of people alive in 100
years" who will be significantly wealthier, and far less likely to be
affected by the vicissitudes of climate than we are today. Indeed, it is
downright immoral to ask today's poor to distribute wealth to the
relatively more well-off people of the future.
Not only is the argument morally bankrupt, but the underlying economic
analysis is completely invalid. What distinguishes good economic
analysis from junk is the comparison of marginal costs to marginal
benefits — the cost of reducing one more unit of greenhouse gas versus
the benefits — rather than total costs to benefits. As noted by Ross
McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, "The
problem with Kyoto-type emission reduction plans is that the marginal
costs rise exponentially and the benefits, if there even are any, rise
linearly. So no matter which angle you look at it carbon dioxide
restrictions on even a modest scale use up more social resources than
any benefits they generate."
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, makes the same
argument in simpler terms. He notes that the worldwide cost of
implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be about $350 billion per year
beginning in 2010. Beginning in 2050, the cost rises to $900 billion per
year. The cost of predicted global warming, if climate models are to be
believed, would be about $900 billion in 2100. But even if fully
implemented, Kyoto would only delay the predicted amount of warming by a
mere six years.
So what does this mean? It means that the world will spend thousands of
billions of dollars over the next 100 years to prevent global warming,
at the end of which it would have to pay the costs of global warming
anyway, if it materializes. Kyoto is like trading dollars for pennies
and would have about as much affect on the climate.
An economic analysis by the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration makes this calculus even starker. It estimates that the
cost of Kyoto to the U.S. alone would be about $300 billion per year.
The resulting loss of GDP over the next ten years, about 28 percent,
would be nearly triple the loss to GDP experienced during the Great
Depression, which saw a drop in GDP of about 10 percent. There is little
doubt that the Kyoto Protocol, or the domestic equivalents being
considered in Congress, would cause deep and broad based economic harm
in the U.S. and the world as a whole.
One has to wonder how such dreadful economic reasoning as Schneider's
made its way into a so-called economics journal. It turns out that
Schneider's co-author, Christian Azar, professor of sustainable
industrial metabolism at Goteberg University, is on the editorial board
of Ecological Economics, a bottom-rung economics journal. If Schneider
and Azar had tried to publish this paper in a real journal, it would
have never seen the light of day. Instead, it will become yet another
weapon in the environmentalist arsenal to hoodwink Americans into
thinking that energy rationing is good for them. But like most of their
claims, this one is also based on smoke and mirrors.
— Paul Georgia is an environmental-policy analyst at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.