More than 700 scientists now against Global Warming

[Gaazy]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 38ed4f85e3


I still, and always have, think global warming is the biggest scam ever came up with.

I am still looking for this other great article I read the other day that talked about how much people were intimidated and threatened that were trying to go against these guys, the UN IPCC, or people inside it that wanted to publish otherwise or whatever. such a joke


Thoughts?

[Gaazy]

of course, this will be shut down by everyone by saying it comes from a biased source or whatever, but its a good article either way

http://www.coalnews.net/images/pdf/CoalNews_0309.pdf

[Tossica]

700 against and like 400K in agreement.

[ClakarEQ]

IMO even if it is the biggest scam, are the overlying objectives or direction "right"? What I mean by that is regardless of the fear tactics or whatever you'd like to call them, is the direction being set the right long term direction. IMO it is, move away from fossil fuels, move to newer techs, renewable energies, etc.

I find it crazy that we are using fossil fuels and technology to "move us around" that is literally a century or more in age. When I see what technology has done in the "computer industries" in a blink (e.g. 20years) and then to look around at what the auto industry has NOT done in over 100 years, frankly it disgusts me.

My question typically stumps folks because you can call me a tree hugger, a believer in global warming (man or not man made), crazy, etc but at the end of the day, is the direction the right direction. In a lot of ways what's being used to set the direction doesn't matter as much as the direction itself and I think moving away from 100 year old technology IS the right direction.

Also this isn't to say zero advancements have been made in auto's, coal mining, etc. but to know we're still burning coal after several decades to power ourselves, don't you think that is a bit, antiquated?

/ramble off

[Nusk]

once again if the west were to put rules into place to prevent "global climate change" both China and India have already said they would ignore any rules implemented and since china is already the biggest world polluter all this would do is increase the wholesale shifting of industrial production to the east shifting even more economic power to a communist country and not even putting a dent in the production of carbon gasses

[Narrock]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3


I still, and always have, think global warming is the biggest scam ever came up with.

I am still looking for this other great article I read the other day that talked about how much people were intimidated and threatened that were trying to go against these guys, the UN IPCC, or people inside it that wanted to publish otherwise or whatever. such a joke


Thoughts?

Careful Gaazy, some people around here get very uncomfortable when the truth is exposed.

[Narrock]

700 against and like 400K in agreement.

NO. If by "400k in agreement" you actually mean "400 blind ignorant sheep in agreement" then I'd agree with you.

[Tikker]

700 against and like 400K in agreement.

NO. If by "400k in agreement" you actually mean "400 blind ignorant sheep in agreement" then I'd agree with you.

we're not talking religion here

[ClakarEQ]

O snap for you anti-global-warming fans

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/

[Harrison]

IMO even if it is the biggest scam, are the overlying objectives or direction "right"? What I mean by that is regardless of the fear tactics or whatever you'd like to call them, is the direction being set the right long term direction. IMO it is, move away from fossil fuels, move to newer techs, renewable energies, etc.

I find it crazy that we are using fossil fuels and technology to "move us around" that is literally a century or more in age. When I see what technology has done in the "computer industries" in a blink (e.g. 20years) and then to look around at what the auto industry has NOT done in over 100 years, frankly it disgusts me.

My question typically stumps folks because you can call me a tree hugger, a believer in global warming (man or not man made), crazy, etc but at the end of the day, is the direction the right direction. In a lot of ways what's being used to set the direction doesn't matter as much as the direction itself and I think moving away from 100 year old technology IS the right direction.

Also this isn't to say zero advancements have been made in auto's, coal mining, etc. but to know we're still burning coal after several decades to power ourselves, don't you think that is a bit, antiquated?

/ramble off

By that reasoning, using electricity is equally as foolish. We should totally find something new...

[Gaazy]

Gah, maybe posting this thread was bad luck. 15 minutes after I posted it, I got a call that I had a miner I built down, and Ive been underground since then up until about an hour ago working on it. So what, about 24 hours straight? Godamn what a workout. To make matters funner, it was in a mine with a height of about 40 inches.


As far as the UN scientists go, which is what the article is referring to, not just any random scientist, 'when the IPCC thing was published it was by 52 scientists, now the size of the onces going against it is 700. It just shows more and more of the experts on the subject are starting to see more and more doubt in this shit. And I think in the future, we will be seeing tons and tons more coming out with their doubts now that these have.

And on the technology being old subject. Who says just because we arent changing every few years to something else thats its bad? Theyve spent the past dozens of years building the infrastructure and power grids and all that for coal, why start over and spend another trillions of dollars setting up the infrastructure for a new one when we've got one in front of us? And dont say "because of global warming", thats just the arguement people use when they dont know anything else to say in the debate. Gore and his media have done such an amazing job with scaring the living fuck out of everyone that thats all they know to say, when global warming, in my eyes and now it seems a lot of more qualified people too, are seeing it as questionable at best. Its also more efficient than anything else, so why would they have wanted to find a new way to power the country, when an easy solution is sitting right under their noses? They wont even spend a few million here and there and help the existing plants change to better scrubbers and improved technologies thats sitting there rusting away,

I also love the fact that even if the wonderful government out a few trillion more dollars of our nonexistant money to moving to wind or solar or whatever, coal still wouldnt go anywhere for many years, probably not even in our lifetime. And even if you move away from coal for power, its still going to have to be mined and used for metals and other things, if society still wants to grow that is, so really none of this global warming shit worries me anyways, neither does it most people in the industry. Doesnt matter either way because Obama and his idiots are too busy worrying about other soo much more important stuff, like bowing down and pleasing and making friends in the Middle East and around the world, worrying about childhood obesity and making restraunts post calorie menus on the walls because these braindead soccer moms didnt have the common fucking sense that a bid mac, fries, and a coke had more calories than a chicken sandwich and a bottle of water, or finding new ways to spend trillions of dollars we dont have on shit and raise our taxes on everything in sight.

[Gaazy]

IMO even if it is the biggest scam, are the overlying objectives or direction "right"? What I mean by that is regardless of the fear tactics or whatever you'd like to call them, is the direction being set the right long term direction. IMO it is, move away from fossil fuels, move to newer techs, renewable energies, etc.

I find it crazy that we are using fossil fuels and technology to "move us around" that is literally a century or more in age. When I see what technology has done in the "computer industries" in a blink (e.g. 20years) and then to look around at what the auto industry has NOT done in over 100 years, frankly it disgusts me.

My question typically stumps folks because you can call me a tree hugger, a believer in global warming (man or not man made), crazy, etc but at the end of the day, is the direction the right direction. In a lot of ways what's being used to set the direction doesn't matter as much as the direction itself and I think moving away from 100 year old technology IS the right direction.

Also this isn't to say zero advancements have been made in auto's, coal mining, etc. but to know we're still burning coal after several decades to power ourselves, don't you think that is a bit, antiquated?

/ramble off

By that reasoning, using electricity is equally as foolish. We should totally find something new...

Yeah thats the point I was trying to make. You said it a lot easier in one sentence. I love it when people make that argument

[Gidan]

I don't for an instant see the coal industry going anywhere, though there is certainly nothing wrong with looking for ways to improve upon it. Finding ways to make it more efficient and cleaner is not a bad thing at all. As far as global warming goes, it could be completely wrong. We could have absolutely no impact on the weather and changing environment, however there is always the chance we can and do. If the case is that we do have an impact, then it would be in everyone's best interest to ensure we do not cause more damage and look into ways to improve what we have done. If on the other hand we have no impact on it, is cleaning the environment actually a bad thing? I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather side on caution and find out I was wrong then say fuck it and found it that its real and too late to fix. Right now, the human race has only one planet we can survive on, not destroying that one planet would definitely be in our best interest.

A major portion of the human race has become completely dependent on electricity. For the most part, the electricity for the world is carried on the back of a resource that can and will run out at some point. We may not be in danger of that now, however it is certainly prudent to address the issue before you are in danger of it. This is a problem that we has a species will some day need to face assuming we havn't killed ourselves before then. In no means do I think we need to be converted over to renewable resources tomorrow, however the sooner the better. As was mentioned, technology can in many instances grow in leaps rather then gradually. The processes we use for harvesting renewable resources can and will improve, however for this to happen, we actually need to be using them and have incentive for people to really put the time and money into them.

Currently, not enough people have the incentive to put forth the time and money into the project and as a result its a back burner project that in the end will end up costing more money and more time then it would have if we simply embraced it as something we need. As I said, the global warming issue may be nothing, but it could also be the incentive people need to actually start really looking into our future. It could be wrong, it could be write but over exsadurated , it could be 100% correct or it could even be under exsadurated. The simple fact is we do not know, nor do we have enough knowledge of the planets climate to really intelligently forecast it. Better safe then sorry is probably the way to go on this one.

[Gaazy]

And speaking of spending money, something else I saw this week came to mind that I found funny, that Id never really thought about. All these companies are laying off left and right, cutting back, shutting down, ya know, all that, and soooooo many Americans are out of work because of all this economy stuff...but how many politicians have you seen laid off? Hell, they even gave themselves a raise there a while back I read. Such a joke. Such a motherfuckin joke. And people still think these fucks are looking out for you? Even that new president. You honestly, really truly, think they give a SHIT about what happens to ANY one person? Its like we're all blacks in a ghetto in the movies, they dont give a fuck about us! Wake up! Its time for a revolution or something yo!

[Gidan]

The people in power will always take care of themselves first. Whether it be politicians or the senior level management of those same companies who laid people off so they could still get their bonuses rather then put any thought into how they could cut costs in ways to retain their employees.

[Harrison]

You know, I think the President does care about the people moreso than most politicians.

I even think Bush cared about the people. Plenty of loudmouthed annoying hippies will scream otherwise, but I don't think he is a bad person.

[Gaazy]

I don't for an instant see the coal industry going anywhere, though there is certainly nothing wrong with looking for ways to improve upon it. Finding ways to make it more efficient and cleaner is not a bad thing at all. As far as global warming goes, it could be completely wrong. We could have absolutely no impact on the weather and changing environment, however there is always the chance we can and do. If the case is that we do have an impact, then it would be in everyone's best interest to ensure we do not cause more damage and look into ways to improve what we have done. If on the other hand we have no impact on it, is cleaning the environment actually a bad thing? I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather side on caution and find out I was wrong then say fuck it and found it that its real and too late to fix. Right now, the human race has only one planet we can survive on, not destroying that one planet would definitely be in our best interest.

A major portion of the human race has become completely dependent on electricity. For the most part, the electricity for the world is carried on the back of a resource that can and will run out at some point. We may not be in danger of that now, however it is certainly prudent to address the issue before you are in danger of it. This is a problem that we has a species will some day need to face assuming we havn't killed ourselves before then. In no means do I think we need to be converted over to renewable resources tomorrow, however the sooner the better. As was mentioned, technology can in many instances grow in leaps rather then gradually. The processes we use for harvesting renewable resources can and will improve, however for this to happen, we actually need to be using them and have incentive for people to really put the time and money into them.

Currently, not enough people have the incentive to put forth the time and money into the project and as a result its a back burner project that in the end will end up costing more money and more time then it would have if we simply embraced it as something we need. As I said, the global warming issue may be nothing, but it could also be the incentive people need to actually start really looking into our future. It could be wrong, it could be write but over exsadurated , it could be 100% correct or it could even be under exsadurated. The simple fact is we do not know, nor do we have enough knowledge of the planets climate to really intelligently forecast it. Better safe then sorry is probably the way to go on this one.

Yeah even your first paragraph even backs up what I was saying, partly. Why not put the money into making the burning of coal cleaner and more efficient? The technology is there, the government just wont help these power companies pay for it (enter here someone saying oh god theyre made of money let them do it theirselves! No, no company is made of unlimited fucking made now. They need help). And they sure as hell arent putting money into alternative means either like they talk about either, thats whats hilarious to me, bitch nonstop about the problems and whine whine whine, but just sit there and dont do ANYTHING to fix the shit you think it wrong. Yeah, that makes sense. Like I said, theyre too busy spending money on getting calorie posters up and stupid shit like that


Bleh, im going to bed now for a while

[Gaazy]

You know, I think the President does care about the people moreso than most politicians.

I even think Bush cared about the people. Plenty of loudmouthed annoying hippies will scream otherwise, but I don't think he is a bad person.

Eh, I think theyre all just overpaid, powerhungry people that will do whatevey they can and say whatever they can to get the votes, then once their in, its whatever they want

[Gidan]

You know, I think the President does care about the people moreso than most politicians.

I even think Bush cared about the people. Plenty of loudmouthed annoying hippies will scream otherwise, but I don't think he is a bad person.

Eh, I think theyre all just overpaid, powerhungry people that will do whatevey they can and say whatever they can to get the votes, then once their in, its whatever they want

With a few exceptions, I tend to agree with that sentiment about most politicians.

[Gypsiyee]

You know, I think the President does care about the people moreso than most politicians.

I even think Bush cared about the people. Plenty of loudmouthed annoying hippies will scream otherwise, but I don't think he is a bad person.

I actually agree with you on this - I think that he truly believed what he was doing was right and that he had good intentions.. he was just incredibly misguided and had no idea how to prioritize and made one mistake after another.

Cheney on the other hand - I believe with every fiber in my being that he is an awful, awful person.

[Tikker]

I think it would be foolish to NOT pursue wind and solar energy as a long term strategy

renewable, and non-invasive, compared to coal mining(or oil drilling)

I'm not a huge fan of mining at all. Or rather, I'm not a fan of the huge scars in the earth that mining leaves. I wouldn't mind it so much if the mining companies had to fill in the holes they left behind.

[ClakarEQ]

By that reasoning, using electricity is equally as foolish. We should totally find something new...

You're exactly right and if there was something out there that we could invest into that would still power all the things we need powered, I'd be all for it.
That isn't the case, is it?

There isn't a replacement to my knowledge for electricity, however there IS, TODAY, RIGHT NOW, something available to replace how we create electricity. You fail by comparing an orange to an apple. Your statement isn't in the same ballpark as mine, yours is more like, "even though we have the ability to make bullets and bullet proof vests, lets still use muzzle loaders and cotton shirts for our military because there isn't enough profit to be had with bullets and body armor".

Do you recognize your mistake?

As for Bush, I actually agree with you as well, I don't think he actually meant to do anything too wrong. I think any crazy person typically can't see the insanity because they are "IN" it. However any sane person looking in, well that is a different story. As for Cheney, that guy is a war criminal thru and thru as far as I'm concerned.

[Harrison]

You should lay off the drugs.

Your analogy further proves the stupidity behind your original statement involving length of use. It does nothing to take the bite out of mine.

[Arlos]

Right now, many forms of "Green" energy are slightly more expensive per unit of power produced than traditional forms such as Coal. There are 3 questions that arise here, however:

1) Is stuff like coal still cheaper when costs to clean it up are implemented? (and does the idea to "permanently" store CO2 within the earth's crust", which is the core of the "Clean Coal" concept actually work?)

2) How much cheaper will stuff like Solar, Wind, Geothermal, etc. get when plants start getting produced in large quantities, thus generating the savings of economies of scale? How much will this improve as technology improves? What about things like offshore windmills or wave motion turbines?

3) Even if traditional sources remain cheaper in a strict monetary sense, what about all the non-monetary costs, or more exactly, monetary costs that are simply moved elsewhere in the system? Is it STILL cheaper?


Right now, with legacy-era coal technology, the answer to #3 is certainly no, given the amount of pollution created from coal power plants, not to mention other idiocies like that coal ash disaster that even Gaazy agreed was utterly retarded.

Ultimately, fossil fuels *ARE* a finite resource. Also, there's so many other uses we have for them (especially the creation of most of our plastics), that it seems incredibly short-sighted to simply burn it all. Therefore, in the long run, there is no question whatsoever but that we MUST move away from fossil fuels to newer, renewable energy sources, regardless of what you think about global warming. There simply is no other choice, as when those finite sources are gone, they are GONE.

As a result, we have to start SOMETIME down that road, so why not now, when there's a desperate need for jobs, and the industry will create a ton, across all sorts of fields? (Construction, scientific, maintenance, support staff, etc.) Sure, continue development of clean coal and other options, because as I said, we're not at the point of being able to fully depend on renewables yet, and if we're gonna burn coal, it behooves us to make it as clean as possible. But we need to start that paradigm shift sometime, and there's no time like the present.

-Arlos

[Drem]

You should lay off the drugs.

Your analogy further proves the stupidity behind your original statement involving length of use. It does nothing to take the bite out of mine.

yeah but he's not talking about replacing electricity he's talking about rethinking how we create it