Page 35 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2530313233343536373839404585 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 700 of 2209
  1. #681  
    and before I set sail this weekend here is something to lighten up the mood .....

    GORE COULD CAUSE GLOBAL BORING

    Hillary Produces Cautionary Documentary About Former Veep
    The election of former vice president Al Gore to the White House could result in a disastrous phenomenon called “global boring” in which millions of people around the world would fall asleep in an unprecedented narcoleptic pandemic.

    That is the message of a new documentary about the 2000 Democratic Party standard-bearer that has been produced and narrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and is being released in selected cities today.

    The documentary, entitled “An Incoherent Truth,” collects moments from some of Mr. Gore’s most mind-numbing speeches to make a persuasive case that a Gore presidency would set off a doomsday scenario of global tedium.

    Speaking at the film’s premiere in New York, Sen. Clinton said that while the film “is not for the squeamish,” it is a cautionary tale “that every American should see, if they can stand to sit through it.”

    Insisting that global boring is not a made-up phenomenon but one that is based in scientific fact, Sen. Clinton said that a Gore presidency “would unleash a force of boredom equal to a thousand ‘Da Vinci Codes.’”

    In his home state of Tennessee, Mr. Gore attempted to discredit the concept of global boring by giving a three-hour speech on the subject.

    But at the conclusion of Mr. Gore’s address, which was complete with slides, video, and PowerPoint demonstrations, there were mixed reviews for his performance.

    “I would like to say that Al made his case,” one Gore aide said, “but after ten minutes I found myself losing consciousness.”

    Elsewhere, NASA launched a new weather satellite in order to give the White House earlier and more accurate hurricane warnings to ignore.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  2. #682  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    so who's painting a gloom and doom scenario now?? What models do you have to support that? How accurate is the data in those models?
    I phrased it so safely that it didn't occur to me that you even would question that figure. The US alone has been quoted in the hundred billion dollar range; so it seemed safe to figure the global cost to be in the hundreds of billions despite the possibility of various models.

    And it's a pretty small number relative to the world economy, so I'd hardly call it "gloom and doom."

    Here's a 1998 US Dept of Energy report on Kyoto showing annual costs in the hundred billion dollar plus range for the US. See Figure ES15 on page 23, showing several scenarios.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/pdf/execsum.pdf


    so now you're saying emission controls was a bad idea? That we should have continued unabated pollution to save a few union auto worker jobs? What about the economic impact of the health care costs if we had not controlled pollution?
    No. You've got a serious reading comprehension problem. I never said that. I just said your argument was silly.

    Go back and look at how much huffing you did in this thread over things you imagined I said.

    And what makes you say that the auto industry on the whole has suffered? What about the fact there has been robust growth in productivity - there are five times as many automobiles on the road today than 35 years ago. That the price of a new automobile is lower than before, when adjusted for inflation? Have you considered that pehaps the real reason the US auto industry is suffering is because they were not competetive enough in the global free-market economy - that they continued making inferior over-priced products and did not innovate fast enough and so American consumers chose other manufacturers instead?
    The analysis is simple. If you make a company pay $10, the cost to the company is $10. Regardless of how the company does 30 years later, the cost to the company is $10. Regulations impose a real cost to businesses. That a business survives is not evidence that the regulations were cost-free.

    As for your "analysis," you blithely claimed that the auto industry is now thriving, ignoring the turmoil over the last 30 years. You could hardly pick a worse example of an industry that has thrived, except maybe for the airline industry.


    yes there is scientific consensus that buildup of greenhouse gases causes global warming. The only argument you have is based on unreasonable doubt. You do not have single scientific cite that disputes this consensus.
    1. Scientific consensus is not equivalent to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
    2. I'm not "disputing" anything. I just made a statement that began, "if we're missing something..."


    you seem like an expert on solar radiative forcing of climate change - perhaps you could cite some sources to back up your arguments, instead of just throwing out unreasonable doubts?
    No, I don't claim expertise. I only claim what I say.

    Here's what your source had to say about the science of solar irradiance:
    IPCC Report on Climate Change 2001
    However, because of the large uncertainty in the absolute value of TSI [Total Solar Irradiance] and the reconstruction methods, our assessment of the “level of scientific understanding” is “very low”.
    A couple of my sources:
    The first link is to an abstract, not to the paper itself. Did you even read the actual paper you cited??

    Here's the actual paper:
    http://www.palmod.uni-bremen.de/~ger...ar-climate.pdf

    I just read both papers, and they say absolutely nothing to support your claims about using ice cores to determine solar irradiance from 650,000 years ago. Why are you wasting my time?? They both focus on the last few hundred years. If these papers are your sources, then you don't understand what you read, and you're making things up.


    Again - cite before you say things like "there is no consensus model".
    And you're being quite tiresome - all you can do is to point out the lack of data or question the validity of proxies - but you have yet to offer a single scientific cite that seriously undermines these data or to come up with a viable alternative scientific hyopthesis that explains the currently available data.
    I imagine it can be quite tiring repeatedly getting offended by your own imagination and trying to defend an untenable position. Next time, do the research before you stake out a position.

    All you can do is sit back and say that all the data is not available or is not accurate enough so any hypothesis or model must be wrong or can't be taken seriously. Good thing most intelligent people do not think that way, otherwise we'd still be living in the stone age!
    Every time you try to describe what I said, you're wrong. Stop it.
  3. #683  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The cost of meeting Kyoto requirements would be hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Do you think that kind of ongoing burden would have no negative effect on people's lives?
    Oh, I am so sorry for the terrible burden you would have to carry. Only 163 nations have ratified the Kyoto protocol so far, among them almost all developed countries, but of course your frail little economy could not cope with such a tremendous challenge, in contrast to almost all other developed countries. We understand of course, it would really be too much...
    The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. ... a total of 163 countries have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries) . Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
    Last edited by clulup; 05/29/2006 at 07:13 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #684  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Oh, I am so sorry for the terrible burden you woule have to carry. Only 163 nations have ratified the Kyoto protocol so far, among them almost all developed countries, but of course your frail little economy could not cope with such a tremendous challenge, in contrast to almost all other developed countries. We understand of course, it would really be too much...
    Besides it is allways best to just look at the short term results, damn the long term effect, that is the responsibility of the next prez..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5. #685  
    Water as an alternative fuel source, thats what i like to see! I dont mind paying high prices for petrol etc if they money was put into research into alternative fuels.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CMovXzVOzc4
    Nokia 3210 > Nokia 3310 >Palm Vx > Palm M105 >Treo 180g and Nokia 8850 > Treo 270 > Treo 600 > Sony TH55 > Tapwave Zodiac 2 > Treo 650 GSM > Imate KJam > Treo 750v

    Formerly Known As PRANKSTAR
  6. #686  
    Quote Originally Posted by PRANKSTAR
    Water as an alternative fuel source, thats what i like to see! I dont mind paying high prices for petrol etc if they money was put into research into alternative fuels.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CMovXzVOzc4
    The next time you stop for gas, compare the cost per gallon of potable water to that of gasoline. Perhaps if we raised the price of gasoline to that of water, we use less of it.
  7. #687  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Besides it is allways best to just look at the short term results, damn the long term effect, that is the responsibility of the next prez..
    The short-term focus of our political system is a persistent, nay, long-term, problem.

    For example, the solution to our immigration problem is dramatically increased trade to equalize the standards of living on both sides of the border. Politicians reject this solution out of hand, perhaps because it will not show results on their watch, perhaps because it is politically unpopular in the short run. Instead they elect to erect a wall to resist the flow of the only thing the Mexicans have to trade. History suggests that this must ultimately lead to armed conflict.
  8. #688  
    Quote Originally Posted by PRANKSTAR
    Water as an alternative fuel source, thats what i like to see! I dont mind paying high prices for petrol etc if they money was put into research into alternative fuels.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CMovXzVOzc4
    The water isn't really the fuel in the case above, it's only the source of the H2 (hydrogen), which is the fuel.

    What is still needed (but not mentioned) is the crucial part, the source of the engery needed to split H20 (water) into H2 (hydrogen) and O2 (oxygen). It could be nuclear power, solar power, wind, hydropower or any other source of energy. It could also be fossil fuel but then the whole story would not make much sense.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #689  
    Truthfully, I haven't read it yet, but I thought those on this thread would be interested in this article I found from the Washington Times on the Drudge Report:

    Gore's 'Truth' splits hurricane scientists
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    May 29, 2006

    Al Gore's new movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," opens with scenes from Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. The former vice president says unequivocally that because of global warming, it is all but certain that future hurricanes will be more violent and destructive than those in the past.

    Inconvenient or not, the nation's top hurricane scientists are divided on whether it's the truth........

    FULL STORY: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060...4851-7254r.htm
  10. #690  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The water isn't really the fuel in the case above, it's only the source of the H2 (hydrogen), which is the fuel.

    What is still needed (but not mentioned) is the crucial part, the source of the engery needed to split H20 (water) into H2 (hydrogen) and O2 (oxygen). It could be nuclear power, solar power, wind, hydropower or any other source of energy. It could also be fossil fuel but then the whole story would not make much sense.
    Iceland has a surplus of geo-thermal energy, most of it simply lost. They are storing the energy by electrolysis of water and capturing the hydrogen. They use the hydrogen to power their public transit, their fishing fleet, and to export energy to Europe. They are building a hydrogen infra-structure to make them a net exporter of energy. They have the advantage of being an island nation with political leadership. However, we will all profit by their investment.
  11. #691  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Oh, I am so sorry for the terrible burden you would have to carry. Only 163 nations have ratified the Kyoto protocol so far, among them almost all developed countries, but of course your frail little economy could not cope with such a tremendous challenge, in contrast to almost all other developed countries. We understand of course, it would really be too much...
    1. We weren't even talking about the US or its adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

    2. I was responding to, and disagreeing with, his statement that the "worst that could happen" was that we breathe cleaner air. He was ignoring the impact on the world's economy and the lives of millions of people.

    Since that was the subject of our discussion, please tell me if you disagree with what I actually said.

    3. I've never said that economic considerations must take priority over environmental ones. But we should be honest about the costs.

    4. My main point throughout this thread is not that we should ignore global warming, but that we should be honest about the science, the risks, and the costs. Those who understand the science have a duty to the public to present a fair view of the facts. Unfortunately, there is a tendency by many to overstate the confidence in the research and to squelch any discussion of costs or uncertainty.

    5. In your unprompted attack on the US, you imply that the "burden" to the 163 other nations is equivalent to the burden to the US. That's false. Most nations get off far easier, and some nations would even get paid cash under Kyoto. In a way, it's a worldwide wealth redistribution plan.
  12. #692  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Besides it is allways best to just look at the short term results, damn the long term effect, that is the responsibility of the next prez..
    Who do you believe says we should focus on the short-term results?
  13. #693  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I phrased it so safely that it didn't occur to me that you even would question that figure. The US alone has been quoted in the hundred billion dollar range; so it seemed safe to figure the global cost to be in the hundreds of billions despite the possibility of various models.

    Here's a 1998 US Dept of Energy report on Kyoto showing annual costs in the hundred billion dollar plus range for the US. See Figure ES15 on page 23, showing several scenarios.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/pdf/execsum.pdf
    LOL. Talk about voodoo science - you actually believe economists projections into the future???


    As for your "analysis," you blithely claimed that the auto industry is now thriving, ignoring the turmoil over the last 30 years. You could hardly pick a worse example of an industry that has thrived, except maybe for the airline industry.
    What turmoil? Are you talking about the turmoil at Toyota? As a consumer all I see is better, safer and more cost-effictive cars coming out. Who cares if the auto makers are not making as obscene profits as they used to, or if they have to shut down dilapated assembly lines and lay off workers? Yes, many of the auto makers are getting squeezed - but that's because of competetion, not regulation. As for your "cost of regulation" analysis you have conveniently ignored the costs of not having regulation (e.g. health costs due to pollution).

    I work in one of the most regulated industries (pharmaceuticals) - and yes, the cost of regulation does have a huge impact on the bottom line. But the alternative - to have little or no regulation - would be far worse - both from a public health perspective and financially.

    1. Scientific consensus is not equivalent to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
    as usual you're evading the issue by not citing any scientifically valid "reasonable doubt"
    2. I'm not "disputing" anything. I just made a statement that began, "if we're missing something..."
    ...and therefore the entire climate models are questionable. Isn't that what you're really trying to say? And all you're doing is cherry-picking your arguments to support a one-sided notion that the science is questionable? You still haven't cited a scientific basis for your "doubts". I too can pick a million other "questions" that can appear to be valid arguments (how about the fact that the cloud cover plays a large part in reflecting solar radiation and trapping heat - what data do we have going back the past million years to have accurate estimates of the cloud cover?)

    No, I don't claim expertise. I only claim what I say.
    or more accurately you can only claim what your opinion is - which is not based on science.

    Here's what your source had to say about the science of solar irradiance:
    IPCC Report on Climate Change 2001
    and here's why I said earlier that variation of solar radiation is a minor variable compared to greehouse gases - from the same report:
    ....this reflects an underlying trend in solar irradiance it would represent a radiative forcing2 of 0.09 Wm-2 over that decade compared with about 0.4 Wm-2 due to well-mixed greenhouse gases.
    the solar radiation accounts for only a fraction of the energy compared to greenhouse gases.

    The first link is to an abstract, not to the paper itself. Did you even read the actual paper you cited??
    Yes - I automatically get the html or pdf downloads of the papers since I'm connected to the science databases. I forgot that others do not get such access.

    I just read both papers, and they say absolutely nothing to support your claims about using ice cores to determine solar irradiance from 650,000 years ago. Why are you wasting my time?? They both focus on the last few hundred years. If these papers are your sources, then you don't understand what you read, and you're making things up.
    First of all before you waste your time blowing hot air go back and read what you asked for and what I said. You asked for:
    The problem with this type of proxy is the imprecision of the data on multiple measures. The obvious ones are time and scale. But more important in this context is the volatility. We're talking about variations on the order of magnitude of 0.5%; ozone isn't tied tightly enough to solar radiation to allow you to derive that kind of variation of one from the other.

    Cite a source please.
    All I tried to do was point out review papers that summarized ALL the relevant data (past and present) for solar radiation measurement - and the conclusion that there is neglible variation in solar output from both direct measurements and indirect estimates. Both papers do cite references to indirect estimates of past solar radiance using Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotope measurements (e.g. Beer,J.:2000,SpaceSci.Rev.,94).


    I imagine it can be quite tiring repeatedly getting offended by your own imagination and trying to defend an untenable position. Next time, do the research before you stake out a position.
    LOL. Of course you would never dream of doing any research yourself or providing any cites that would actually help defend your position.

    Every time you try to describe what I said, you're wrong. Stop it.
    ok - here is what you've said in your own words:

    Models are built on historical data, some of it accurate, some of it made up. "Experts" try to identify all the relevant factors and tweak their models until they adequately match historical data. That part is easy. Then they cross their fingers and hope that their models can extrapolate outside the base data. When the models fail to match actual results, they tweak the variables and try again.

    ....My standard for comparison are models used in finance, physics, and even weather forecasting.

    ..Testing (aka experimenting) in the real world, not limiting yourself to historical or guesstimated data, is a critical part of building a quantitative model. It's what gives a field the right to call itself a science.
    here it appeared that you were questioning the entire basis of climate science and modeling - but yet you say later ...
    Climate science and climate modeling are significantly broader than what I discussed.
    When you talk about climate models, I assume you are referring to the various Global Circulation Models (GCMs). Am I also correct in assuming that you do question these models and their current projections? My interpretation of your comments and my subsequent rebuttals have been based on this assumption - that you question the "science" behind the climate science both in terms of the data and models. If so, then my comments on your half-baked view of science still stand - you're simply taking a partisan stand by trying to point out trivial deficiences but avoiding the real scientific issues. If you do not question the IPCC -accepted climate models - then I haven't the faintest clue about which models or "science" that you have been referring to.

    I've been saying that the variation of solar output is a relatively minor variable in the global climate models and you first say that ...
    And neither the radiation of the Sun nor the thermal output of the Earth are "minor variables."
    and yet later you say that....
    We're talking about variations on the order of magnitude of 0.5%; ozone isn't tied tightly enough to solar radiation to allow you to derive that kind of variation of one from the other.
    To me a 0.5% variation is a minor variable.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  14. #694  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    For example, the solution to our immigration problem is dramatically increased trade to equalize the standards of living on both sides of the border. Politicians reject this solution out of hand, perhaps because it will not show results on their watch, perhaps because it is politically unpopular in the short run.

    I'm confused. We have NAFTA... Exactly what "solution" are you talking about, and when did politicians reject it?
  15. #695  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Truthfully, I haven't read it yet, but I thought those on this thread would be interested in this article I found from the Washington Times on the Drudge Report:

    Gore's 'Truth' splits hurricane scientists
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    May 29, 2006
    agree - there is no scientific basis, let alone consensus, that short-range weather pattterns can be attributed to global warming. The IPCC report clearly says that there is "insufficient data for assessment" regarding increasing tropical cyclone activity.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  16. #696  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim

    I'm confused. We have NAFTA... Exactly what "solution" are you talking about, and when did politicians reject it?
    NAFTA does not allow for free trade in labor, the only thing the Mexicans have to trade. Congress is now considering a bill to erect a wall between the two countries, not to restrict the flow of goods, but to restrict the flow of labor. This structure will rival the Berlin Wall for obscenity.
  17.    #697  
    huh, I didn't know Mexicans were allowed to cross the border to the US and work without a visa.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    NAFTA does not allow for free trade in labor, the only thing the Mexicans have to trade. Congress is now considering a bill to erect a wall between the two countries, not to restrict the flow of goods, but to restrict the flow of labor. This structure will rival the Berlin Wall for obscenity.
  18.    #698  
    Why does the law only matter to liberals sometimes?
  19. #699  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    huh, I didn't know Mexicans were allowed to cross the border to the US and work without a visa.
    They are not. They cannot ge them. NAFTA is a sham. Unless we fix it, within two generations there will be war with Mexico.
  20. #700  
    It actually appears that the earth got cooler during the industrial revolution, so it seems that the effects of humans do not drive the cycles at all. Sometimes we help, sometimes we hurt, but to assume we cause these things, and worse, understand them-particularly enough to improve the situation, is IMO very arrogant.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnclim06.xml
    http://www.globalwarmingissues.com/v...ange%20science

    B

Posting Permissions