Page 59 of 111 FirstFirst ... 949545556575859606162636469109 ... LastLast
Results 1,161 to 1,180 of 2209
  1. #1161  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Its obvious to anyone who looks back at the early parts of the global warming thread how dramatically the arguments have changed.
    I think if you invited the same people back from the early days of this thread, you'd get the same arguments again.


    Those who know me, realize that I have contributed a large number of objective citations to this thread - as many as anyone.
    I was referring to your repeated dodging of my questions over the last couple days. You talked about a smear campaign, and when I asked you who was doing that, you didn't answer. Then later you referred to TCPR's "campaign," and when I asked you what they did that justified calling it a campaign, you didn't answer. And then you said that people were "coming around," but when I asked who, you refused to answer. (See how I support my statement with examples?)

    And the fact that people are now recognizing that global warming is a problem we need to deal with makes me optimistic now in a way I was not before.
    I trust the scientists, but I continue to believe that activists and journalists are exaggerating the threats of climate change and overstating the confidence in the models. I think reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a more pressing concern, and if by doing that we reduce our output of CO2, then that's not a bad thing.


    And btw, I suggest you make use of the Preview Post button so you can check it before you commit to it. Every time you post and erase, I get another email showing the latest draft.
  2. #1162  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I disagree, I think there is a strong connection in the public mind between Al Gore and the science of global warming.
    I think this statement is very true.....that in the public's mind there is a strong connection between Al Gore's claims and the scientific community.....I am still one to doubt the length of some of his claims (i.e. I feel he has taken liberty to exaggerate some of the facts). In turn, when some claims are exaggerated, it becomes a point of debate to determine the validity of the others (which there are plenty of valid ones too).

    But people (this is not directed at you cell) always say why is Al Gore so picked on....well, mainly because he created and promoted himself to a position as herald, denouncer, and crusader for a topic that he feels strongly about. As a result when he asks other to sacrifice and make life style changes, I feel it is acceptable to see and discuss his example to following his own requests. Al Gore's personal actions has nothing to do with the effects the rest of world may have on global warming or not. But it is a valid point of discussion concerning his position on his own dedication to the topic.

    But again, whether you feel Global Warming is going to take over our world within the next 20 years or if you feel our own national security is at risk due to our economy hanging at the whim of oil prices that are controlled by enemies and potential enemies.....I want to hear what solutions we have available now and what we need to do with longer term goals.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/29/2007 at 04:13 AM.
  3. #1163  
    Here is one solution I see no more than a guilty conscience being resolved fad, personally. It is one thing to donate money to a worthy cause doing good work in any field of interest one may wish to support. But it is quite another to donate to one to help compensate for one's own actions that the cause is trying to fight against. I personally do not feel that one can claim to be of a status of the new hip status of "Carbon Free" while driving an Suburban, flying in private jets, heating a 20,000 sq ft house, etc.... (not these are bad only stating many of the reasons that people want to buy carbon credits) simply because they paid someone to help with an enviromental project. If they are really serious about this, they need to look at ways of reducing of their own carbon creating actions, and then still donate to projects that may help the world deal with it too. And granted that some maybe doing just that, but I would be personally surprised if they were the majority.

    Here is an article from The New York Times (I could just see what some would say if this article was from Fox News):


    Global Coolness: Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?

    THE rush to go on a carbon diet, even if by proxy, is in overdrive.

    ------------

    In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.

    But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?

    On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree.

    ------------------

    As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.

    At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.

    “The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”

    “This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.

    Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.


    --------------------

    Michael R. Solomon, the author of “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being” and a professor at Auburn University, said he was not surprised by the allure of the carbon-offsetting market.

    “Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change,” he said. “We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don’t require us to alter our routines very much.”

    But he said there was danger ahead, “if we become trained to substitute dollars for deeds — kind of an ‘I gave at the office’ prescription for the environment.”

    ------------------------

    SOURCE:
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/29/2007 at 05:10 AM.
  4. #1164  
    There is a big difference between an emperor that has no clothes and a sales man exaggerating selling points to make the close - frankly I cannot believe how much Al Gore is even being discussed here. If he does nothing else but gets people talking about renewable energy sources then I am a happy man. Let's not pretend that politicians are deities because we all know differently - they suck...both sides of the aisle.....but you can pick the lesser of the evils and the ones that hit close to home if you can see beyond the rhetoric. And I know that Al Gore spews far less rhetoric - or at the least far less DANGEROUS rhetoric - than anyone in the current administration.

    Removing the global warming science (and in some cases hyperbole) from the equation still leaves us with the fact that we have been arming our own enemies for decades now. They are no longer uneducated camel jockey's in a desert across the globe - they are very very rich and calculating economic terrorists that literally hold our family jewels in the palm of their hand. It is outrageous to me - and has been for years - that we are beholden to these bastards and that we've sent our boys to die over there because of our "national interest" in oil (read: record setting oil profits).

    Coupled with my frustration that we do billions of dollars in business with the ENEMY is the fact that I am optimistic about human ingenuity. We could have found alternative fuels for a very long time now - we just don't want to. I wonder what a half-trillion dollars in tax payer money could have done for us to incentivize the car companies to speed up development of hydrogen cars? How many gas pumps could have been replaced at your local 7-Eleven? The American people are in dire need of another revolution and this time around we should demand a radical new course toward energy independence. And when we finally do that it seems to me we will have simultaneously addressed the scientific community's concerns about global warming - which seems to be at least a nice bonus if nothing else.
  5. #1165  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I was referring to your repeated dodging of my questions over the last couple days. You talked about a smear campaign, and when I asked you who was doing that, you didn't answer. Then later you referred to TCPR's "campaign," and when I asked you what they did that justified calling it a campaign, you didn't answer.
    my response (the very next day) to your questions seemed clear enough to me, but I will post it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    The TCRP's report is being used in a two month long campaign by conservative activists to discredit Gore and I suspect the motivation behind it is not just to discredit Gore, but to discredit the science behind global warming in the eyes of the American public. I stand by this statement 100%.
    and as far as your other claim:
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    And then you said that people were "coming around," but when I asked who, you refused to answer. (See how I support my statement with examples?)
    here's why:
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    What good will it do to name names and castigate others except to stir up trouble? I will not do it, sorry.
    BTW: thanks for the tip about preview post, its a bad habit I have of editing after posting and I did not realize people got the deleted drafts by email.
  6. #1166  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    my response (the very next day) to your questions seemed clear enough to me, but I will post it again.
    You just repeated your claim that there was a campaign without any support. And now by reposting it, you've repeated the claim again. Again without support. The word "campaign" implies a coordinated operation.
  7. #1167  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You just repeated your claim that there was a campaign without any support. And now by reposting it, you've repeated the claim again. Again without support. The word "campaign" implies a coordinated operation.
    I think you are right about the requirement for coordination, at least in some of the definitions I have seen. Thanks for helping me to learn a little more about the word campaign. At any rate I am happy to substitute "widespread effort" for "campaign" - it makes no difference to me or the point I was making.

    The TCRP's report is being used in a two month long widespread effort by conservative activists to discredit Gore..........
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 04/29/2007 at 12:25 PM.
  8. #1168  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I think you are right about the requirement for coordination, at least in some of the definitions I have seen. Thanks for helping me to learn a little more about the word campaign. At any rate I am happy to substitute "widespread effort" for "campaign" - it makes no difference to me or the point I was making.

    The TCRP's report is being used in a two month long widespread effort by conservative activists to discredit Gore..........
    "The TCPR report was picked up and reported on by conservative activists and the mainstream media. Two months later, people are still talking about it."
  9. #1169  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Here is one solution I see no more than a guilty conscience being resolved fad, personally. It is one thing to donate money to a worthy cause doing good work in any field of interest one may wish to support. But it is quite another to donate to one to help compensate for one's own actions that the cause is trying to fight against. I personally do not feel that one can claim to be of a status of the new hip status of "Carbon Free" while driving an Suburban, flying in private jets, heating a 20,000 sq ft house, etc.... (not these are bad only stating many of the reasons that people want to buy carbon credits) simply because they paid someone to help with an enviromental project. If they are really serious about this, they need to look at ways of reducing of their own carbon creating actions, and then still donate to projects that may help the world deal with it too. And granted that some maybe doing just that, but I would be personally surprised if they were the majority.

    Here is an article from The New York Times (I could just see what some would say if this article was from Fox News):


    Global Coolness: Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
    From the article you quoted: "“There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures,” he said."

    That may be true for American households, but not necessarily for everybody. The question about compensating CO2 emission by reducing somebody elses CO2 emission is mainly about cost-effectiveness. If I am already quite good regarding CO2 emissions (e.g. as a nation, because most houses have good insulation, few people drive gaz-guzzling cars, and a lot of the energy comes from nuclear power generation), then reducing CO2 emission even further will cost a lot - far more than e.g. replacing a coal-burning power plants in another country by something with less C02 emissions.

    This is why there is a "stock market" for CO2 emission certificates. The more these certificates are used, the higher the price will be, the more it will become attractive to not buy emission certificates but to reduce your own emissions. Everything based on market economy.

    Unfortunately the US are so far behind regarding greenhouse gas reductions, cost-effective measures to achieve that, and the whole discussion around it, that you don't know about emission trading, otherwise you wouldn't focus on attacking Al Gore, but finally start to do something about it: http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/a...=64291&lang=en
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_trading
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...Trading_Scheme

    It's really rather childish to attack somebody who compensates his CO2 emission with emission certificates as long as you don't so something better yourself.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #1170  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    From the article you quoted: "“There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures,” he said."

    That may be true for American households, but not necessarily for everybody. The question about compensating CO2 emission by reducing somebody elses CO2 emission is mainly about cost-effectiveness. If I am already quite good regarding CO2 emissions (e.g. as a nation, because most houses have good insulation, few people drive gaz-guzzling cars, and a lot of the energy comes from nuclear power generation), then reducing CO2 emission even further will cost a lot - far more than e.g. replacing a coal-burning power plants in another country by something with less C02 emissions.

    This is why there is a "stock market" for CO2 emission certificates. The more these certificates are used, the higher the price will be, the more it will become attractive to not buy emission certificates but to reduce your own emissions. Everything based on market economy.

    Unfortunately the US are so far behind regarding greenhouse gas reductions, cost-effective measures to achieve that, and the whole discussion around it, that you don't know about emission trading, otherwise you wouldn't focus on attacking Al Gore, but finally start to do something about it: http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/a...=64291&lang=en
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_trading
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...Trading_Scheme

    It's really rather childish to attack somebody who compensates his CO2 emission with emission certificates as long as you don't so something better yourself.
    I see you never tire of the insults and the US-bashing. I wouldn't mind them much if you were actually right for once.


    Trading of carbon credits simply puts a price on pollution, creating an incentive to reduce. Having that incentive system in place is a good thing, but as long as carbon credits are given to companies for doing what they'd already do, the actual purchase of carbon offsets will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. In other words, the benefit of having polluters pay is that some day they may decide that it's worth it to reduce their emissions. Carbon credits won't make polluters carbon neutral.


    So how well has carbon trading been working?
    hint:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17435875/site/newsweek/
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html
  11. #1171  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I see you never tire of the insults and the US-bashing. I wouldn't mind them much if you were actually right for once.


    Trading of carbon credits simply puts a price on pollution, creating an incentive to reduce. Having that incentive system in place is a good thing, but as long as carbon credits are given to companies for doing what they'd already do, the actual purchase of carbon offsets will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. In other words, the benefit of having polluters pay is that some day they may decide that it's worth it to reduce their emissions. Carbon credits won't make polluters carbon neutral.


    So how well has carbon trading been working?
    hint:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17435875/site/newsweek/
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html
    The system can be improved for sure, it is work in progress. You have voted for somebody who up until recently falsely claimed there wasn't even global warming, let alone a link to greenhouse gas emissions, and who pretends it is without consequences for the world as a whole that the US with 4.6 % of the world population emit 25% of greenhouse gases, and twice as much per capita than people in countries like in France, Germany, or Switzerland.

    Emission trading is not the only measure Europe has taken against global warming, but even emission trading alone would be far more than the US did so far. If you have any better ideas, let us know. If you even actually DO something, instead of playing stupid and pretending there is no problem (as a government), even better.
    Last edited by clulup; 04/29/2007 at 04:33 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #1172  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    You have voted for somebody who up until recently falsely claimed there wasn't even global warming, let alone a link to greenhouse gas emissions, and who pretends it is without consequences for the world as a whole that the US with 4.6 % of the world population emit 25% of greenhouse gases, and twice as much per capita than people in countries like in France, Germany, or Switzerland.
    Again wrong.

    Bush speech. June 11, 2001.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010611-2.html
    The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.

    The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways. But the process used to bring nations together to discuss our joint response to climate change is an important one. That is why I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming.

    ...

    First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

    There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

    Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

    ...

    Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.

    This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

    India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth.

    Kyoto also failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards. Reducing both would not only address climate change, but also dramatically improve people's health.

    Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.

    That's why 95 members of the United States Senate expressed a reluctance to endorse such an approach. Yet, America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.

    We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions.

    I also call on Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technologies proposed in our energy plan. Our working group study has made it clear that we need to know a lot more....
  13. #1173  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Again wrong.

    Bush speech. June 11, 2001.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010611-2.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Bush
    We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions.
    "Advancing the science on climate change"? Is this what led to the well documented attempts to censor US climate scientists (see this thread for quotes)? Very hypocritical speech indeed, just what the world expects from Bush.

    "Reduce greenhouse gases"? Apart from censorship, what else came from the Bush government in terms of concrete action since these Bush promises in 2001?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #1174  
    You just skipped past the fact that you made a series of false claims without even apologizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    "Advancing the science on climate change"? Is this what led to the well documented attempts to censor US climate scientists (see this thread for quotes)? Very hypocritical speech indeed, just what the world expects from Bush.
    I suppose he's talking about all the technology and funding the US provides that enables a lot of this research to take place. Is Switzerland paying the salaries of all these US climate scientists? How many satellites has Switzerland launched?

    "Reduce greenhouse gases"? Apart from censorship, what else came from the Bush government in terms of concrete action since these Bush promises in 2001?
    In addition to all the research and technology, the US has launched the Asia Pacific Partnership, which unlike Kyoto, involves the active cooperation of China and India. It is also working with the G8+5 in developing a viable replacement for Kyoto.

    http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/
  15. #1175  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    ............The word "campaign" implies a coordinated operation.
    Perhaps. Perhaps a quibble. "Planned, resourceful, and continuing" would qualify as a definition of campaign.
  16. #1176  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Perhaps. Perhaps a quibble. "Planned, resourceful, and continuing" would qualify as a definition of campaign.
    In this context, planned is synonymous with coordinated.
  17. #1177  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    In this context, planned is synonymous with coordinated.
    Then surely, by definition, Mr. Gore is engaged in a campaign. If on the other hand, coordination always involves another, then he may not be. How would you have it?
    Last edited by whmurray; 04/29/2007 at 11:07 PM.
  18. #1178  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Then surely Mr. Gore is engaged in a campaign.
    How so?
  19. #1179  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    How so?
    I suppose that it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
  20. #1180  
    Bad news today, at least for those who are concernced for the environment. It seems we still have an administration that, despite its rhetoric, wants to delay action on global warming, teaming up with the other major polluter in the world, China, in trying to water down the scientific reports.


    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 04/30/2007 at 07:57 AM.

Posting Permissions